Untitled

3 AD-A 267 641
oDTIC
SELECTr
fi A"
Environmental Impact
* Analysis Process
I Final Environmental Impact Statement
*I Volume I
Proposed
High Frequency Active Auroral
II Research Program
II July 1 993
I
This document has'been approved
Lead Agency: t, public release
Idistributiou is unlim•ited.
and sae. its Cooperating Agency:
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

E Air Force Materiel Command Office of Naval Research
Phillips Laboratory 93 8 3 23 9
I
4w
Form Ap:proved
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No o,704-0188
00ý S~".ze5 rerý W'-"~- C, ~ ~ 0-~
1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2" REPORT DATE 1. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED
4. TILE AND SUBTITLE 5 FUNDING NUMBERS
6. AUTHOR(S)
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

REPORT NUMBER
Us qFf
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING tMONITORING

,AGENCY REPORT NUMBER
091e• r , • i¢
&tA P1A-o~d- 309,otq
11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
12a. DISTRIBUTION, AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE
13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)
6/jS 1s. j.-$ o0 r ?7bo W/(~~e. * V L

R>eCt W, 4.J- ,pscd vnspes^-ý o,€e-' #
V0 e, ý22*" pCIXf ;1-k fe--S &
P..,,oI, s orc e,,..,s .,,.57 C4 &-.,d ,,.,.. t -- rue- Raoweeseiý

qeqs
7-.41&SAccl depscoeik-ei pcc;4 o e-
14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES
16. PRICE CODE
17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18 SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT
CF REPORT OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT
LM'CSL$, (50,,/d. i,•Z L•/- 2
,NS -28' 'rt,
75,0.(".f_'15 rca'cd ;- '"" .9B • 2.89
I
I COVER SHEET
(a) Lead Agency: U.S. Air Force.
3 Cooperating Agency: U.S. Navy.
(b) Proposed Action: Construction and operation of the High-frequency Active Auroral Research
I Program (HAARP) facility in Alaska.
(c) Further information may be obtained by contacting:

3 Mr. John Heckscher
PL/GPIA
Hanscom AFB, MA 01731-5000
1 (617)377-5121
(d) Designation: Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).
(e) Abstract: This FEIS consists of two volumes. Volume I represents a corrected version of the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and Volume II presents the results of public
1 comment on the DEIS. The FEIS describes the potential environmental impacts of
constructing and operating a proposed ionospheric research facility in interior Alaska. The
system is referred to as HAARP (High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program), and
would be used primarily for conducting pioneering studies of ionospheric properties. This
proposed facility would be the most technologically advanced in the world. The program
could lead to a better understanding of the ionosphere and enable researchers to develop
methods for enhanced communications for both civilian and defense applications. The
HAARP system consists of a powerful high frequency radio transmitter, referred to as the
ionospheric research instrument, and a number of scientific data gathering (diagnostic)
instruments.
Through the application of both research and siting constraints, two potential candidate sites
were identified in Alaska; Clear and Gakona. This document addresses three alternatives
associated with the construction of the HAARP facility; namely, construction at either Clear
or Gakona, and the no action alternative. Issues and resources that were examined for both
of the sites include land and minerals, vegetation and wetlands, mammals, birds, aquatics,
hydrology and water quality, air quality, socioeconomics, cultural resources, subsistence,
recreation, aesthetics, possible bioeffects of radio frequency radiation, electromagnetic
environment and radio frequency interference, atmosphere, threatened and endangered
species, hazardous materials and wastes, and irretrievable commitment of resources. Based
on comments received on the DEIS, an additional analysis relating to acoustical noise was
added to this document. Key concerns for the Gakona site include radio frequency
interference, cost of construction, permafrost degradation and subsidence issues, impacts on
migrating birds, and the availability of and access to gravel sources. Key concerns for the
Clear site include land ownership and wetlands issues, disturbance of cultural resources, radio
frequency interference, aesthetic impacts, and the near-term reclamation of the Gakona site. ---........
_,1993 . , I..
f) Released to the public on July
'AA 2odes
ý'06::rt
ID 3, A•,/,II ji. ior

I I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
SI5
I
SUMMARY
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (FEIS)

CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF AN IONOSPHERIC RESEARCH
FACILITY FOR THE HIGH FREQUENCY
ACTIVE AURORAL RESEARCH PROGRAM
Purpose and Need for Action
The High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) is a scientific endeavor aimed
at studying basic properties and behavior of the ionosphere, with particular emphasis placed on
being able to better understand and use it to enhance communications and surveillance systems
for both civil and defense purposes. The HAARP system, if constructed, would allow a
significant advance in man's ability to investigate the upper atmosphere.
The environmental analysis and impact study for this action focuses on the following resources
and issues: land and minerals; vegetation and wetlands; mammals; birds; aquatics; hydrology
and water quality; air quality; cultural resources; subsistence; bioeffects of radio frequency
radiation; electromagnetic environment and radio frequency interference; atmosphere; threatened
and endangered species; hazardous materials and wastes; and, irretrievable commitment of
resources. In addressing these subject areas, the FEIS is divided into three main sections:
proposed action and alternatives; affected environment; and environmental consequences and
mitigation.
Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives
The government proposes to construct the HAARP facility in Alaska. At the HAARP facility
research that cannot be accomplished within traditional ground-based laboratories would be
conducted on the earth's upper atmosphere and within the ionosphere. The main element of the
research facility would be a large radio wave transmitter. Similar, though less capable, research
facilities exist at many locations throughout the world and are operated routinely for the purpose
of scientific investigation of the ionosphere. In the U.S. its territories such systems are located
at Arecibo, Puerto Rico and Fairbanks, Alaska. Other installations are at Tromso, Norway;
Moscow, Nizhny Novgorod and Apatity, Russia; Kharkov, Ukraine and Dushanbe, Tadzhikistan.
None of these existing systems, however, are effective enough to perform the experiments
planned for HAARP. Users of the HAARP research facility would include universities, the U.S.
Air Force, the U.S. Navy, and other government agencies such as the National Science
Foundation and Advanced Research Projects Agency.
iii
I
HAARP site selection criteria were developed from both research requirements and siting
constraints. Research constraints stipulated that the selected site must fall in the range of
3
latitudes between 61 and 65 degrees, either north or south. This latitude provides the proper
mix of active and inactive auroral states. Siting constraints included that the site must be: on
U.S. soil, on Department of Defense (DOD) land to the maximum extent practical, near a major
I
highway, away from densely settled areas, of sufficient acreage to allow for equipment siting
and separation space, on relatively flat terrain, and of realistic and reasonable environmental
impacts and construction and operation costs.
K'
Numerous alternatives were initially considered for location of the HAARP facility, including I
upgrading of existing ionospheric research facilities or a totally new construction effort.
Upgrading an existing facility near Fairbanks was initially considered, but it was determined that
the upgraded system would cause large numbers of interference problems in this relatively
developed area. At that point, new areas were examined for the siting of HAARP. Of the sites
considered, only three made it through the application of the selection criteria. The three sites
were: Clear AFS, Gakona [at a partially constructed Over-the-Horizon Backscatter (OTH-B)
radar site], and Fort Greely, Alaska. Siting HAARP at the Clear site could be accomplished
only by locating some of the diagnostic equipment on a separate parcel due to interference
between the Clear AFS Ballistic Missile Early Warning System (BMEWS) and a critical HAARP
instrument. Conflict with military operations at Fort Greely was determined irreconcilable, and
Fort Greely was dropped from further consideration. As a result, the Gakona and Clear sites
were deemed the only two sites meeting the criteria of the program.
In addition to examining geographical siting alternatives, two design alternatives were also
considered; a dual array and a stacked array ionospheric research instrument. The dual array
3
would consist of a high-frequency and a low-frequency antenna mast system located adjacent to
one another. In the stacked array system, the two arrays would be mounted on the same antenna
masts. The result is that the stacked array system would involve roughly half the level of
disturbance to the environment and lower construction costs. Since the stacked array was
obviously preferable, the dual array was dropped from further consideration.
The HAARP equipment would consist of the following major items: an Ionospheric Research
Instrument (IRI); an Incoherent Scatter Radar (ISR); a Vertical Incidence Sounder (VIS); an l
Optical Imager and Magnetometer; and a Light Detection And Ranging (LIDAR) unit. Each of
these separate items would have support buildings, equipment and facilities associated with them.
The IRI would be the main component of the HAARP system and would consist of 180 antenna I
masts approximately 70 feet above the ground, laid out in a 12 by 15 grid format, with each
mast set 80 feet on center. The ISR would be the most critical diagnostic equipment and would
consist of a large parabolic dish antenna measuring 115 feet in diameter and mounted on an I
approximately 35-foot high pedestal. The VIS would consist of both a transmit and a receive
unit. The transmitter would consist of five antenna masts; four 50-foot high masts arranged in
a square configuration, with a 100-foot high mast in the center. The optical imager and
magnetometer instruments would be enclosed in a three-foot by three-foot by one and half-foot
high box surrounded by a restriction fence. The receiver would consist of four elements each
iv 3
£
£
* four to five feet high and mounted in a triangular configuration with one unit in the center. A
LIDAR is an optical instrument which would be located in an enclosed module with a
transparent dome on the roof. The physical appearance and layout of these instruments would
be similar at each of the sites, with the exception of the ISR and VIS units at the Clear site.
These would be located 10 miles south of Clear AFS to avoid interference with the BM.EWS.
I Construction at the Gakona site would involve the importation of substantial quantities of gravel
(approximately 160,000 cubic yards) to minimize the melting of the ice-rich permafrost. The
I Clear site is underlain by a large glacio-fluvial outwash plain consisting of well drained sand and
gravel allowing for simplistic construction approaches. Construction at the Clear site would be
somewhat simpler, less expensive, and less risky than at the Gakona site due to the better
subsurface conditions. Total quantity of gravel required for construction at the Clear site is
estimated at 32,000 cubic yards.
5 The preferred alternative is to construct and operate the HAARP facility at a site in Gakona,
Alaska.
Public Concerns
The program has solicited input from the local communities on several occasions. Early in the
environmental impact analysis process two scoping meetings were held, one in Glennallen and
areas analyzed in the environmental impact statement. After publishing the DEIS, the program
held public hearings in Glennallen and Anderson to solicit further input from the public and
Sanswer any questions they might have about the DEIS. Additionally, citizens and state and
federal agencies were asked to submit written comments on the DEIS. Comments received and
responses to comments are published in the FEIS.
3 Below is a brief synopsis of the areas of concern raised during the public review process:
0 Electromagnetic interference with various electronic systems, especially with
3 communications and aviation systems
0 Bioeffects from radio frequency radiation on both humans and wildlife
1 Utilization of local labor for HAARP construction and operation
0 Level of detail in the DEIS, public review period, and notification of DEIS publication
and public hearings
0 Impacts on fish and wildlife associated with gravel mining activities near the Copper
River and Tulsona Creek
v
"* Bird collisions with the IRI and VIS antenna masts 3
"* Noise impacts associated with construction and operation
"* Impacts on the upper atmosphere, and particularly the ozone layer
Other issues raised less frequently have also been discussed and answered within this FEIS. i
Comparison of Environmental Consecuences of Alternatives 3
The Gakona site's primary positive attributes are lower aesthetic impacts to tourists and area
residents, less wetlands to be filled, less disruption of homesteaders, and no land acquisition.
The Clear site's primary positive attributes relate to a lower increment in air pollution
generation, base utilities systems available for HAARP use, easier construction techniques and
the Gakona site reclamation. The no action alternative would be environmentally preferred as
it would result in the existing Gakona site being reclaimed, with a net positive environmental
effect.
Identification of the Preferred Alternative
The preferred alternative is to construct the HAARP facility at the Gakona site. Utilization of
the Gakona site allows for the entire HAARP system to be constructed on one parcel of land
currently owned by the Air Force, with minimal disruption to existing residents of the area. Re-
use of the Gakona site and its facilities would preclude the near-term and costly reclamation
effort associated with the demolition of the large powerplant building and the removal of
I
drainage culverts from the access road. Impacts to wetlands would be minimized by siting
HAARP at Gakona rather than Clear.
Affected Enviroment
Information on the affected environment was obtained from local, state and federal government
agencies, as well as from local individuals and private businesses in the region and site visits.
In the case of Gakona, much of the information was obtained from the OTH-B program studies.
The Gakona site is near mile 11.2 of the Tok Cut-Off Highway in the Copper River Basin. All
of the land to be used at the Gakona site is owned by the Air Force. A one-mile access road
and a large building exists at Gakona for use by HAARP. The Clear site is in the Tanana-
Kuskokwim Lowland region in the Nenana River drainage. The majority of the land to be used
at the Clear site is owned by the Air Force, although some property on a separate parcel would
have to be acquired from the state of Alaska or private individuals for siting of the ISR and VIS
instruments.
The Gakona site is primarily open conifer forests and wetlands. The installation would use a
total of about 51 acres at the Gakona site. The Clear site is primarily black spruce forest and
wetlands, with some young mixed deciduous/conifer areas. The installation would use a total
vi £
tI
of about 78 acres at the Clear site. Each of the sites provides habitat for moose, bears (black
and brown), wolves, and other furbearers. The Gakona site is used by the Nelchina caribou
herd, while the Clear site is in an area not considered prime caribou range. Birds at each of the
sites include waterfowl, song birds, and raptors. Although arctic and american peregrine falcons
(listed as threatened and endangered species respectively) migrate through the Clear site region,
no evidence of falcon breeding in the immediate areas has been documented. Neither of the sites
contain any significant aquatic resources. River systems in the areas of the sites do have both
resident and migratory fish.
Both sites are located near major rivers: the Gakona site near the Copper River; and, the Clear
Site near the Nenana River. The potential for flooding at both of the sites is minimal. The
Gakona site is characterized by a low yield poor quality aquifer while the Clear site has a high
yield high quality aquifer. The climate at each of the sites is typical for interior Alaska; warm
pleasant summers and long cold winters with light winds being the norm. 1'ypical precipitation
I for the sites range from 10 to 15 inches per annum. Both airsheds are classified as Class 1 by
state standards. A diesel powerplant would be completed at the Gakona site to supply HAARP
with the majority of the required power. At the Clear site electrical power would either be
I provided by the existing (possibly modified or expanded) Clear AFS coal-fired plant, and/or by
the commercial power source in the area.
I Both the Clear and Gakona sites are located in regions that would be classified as rural by most
standards. The largest t,,wn in the Gakona region is Glennallen (450 residents), while the largest
towns in the Clear region are Anderson and Healy at 628 and 487 residents, respectively. Both
II areas provide excellent room and board services for communities their size. The Clear region
is very rich in archeological sites, while the Gakona site is less important from an archeological
perspective. Ongoing subsistence activities are important within each of the site's region of
influence. Recreational issues are of concern in the Clear region because of the nearby Nenana
River and Denali National Park. Recreational issues at the Gakona site are possibly of less
I concern, although a U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) hunting and fishing trail extends
through the area :nd Wrangell - St. Elias National Park is within one mile of the site. Aesthetic
concerns at the Clear site may be significant because the ISR/VIS site could be visible from the
3 highway, river and train tracks. Views of the Gakona site are obscured by thick vegetation.
Both the Gakona and the Ciear regions contain electruziagnetic equipment that could be affected
I by the operation of the HAARP facilities.
Minimal amounts of hazardous materials are used and generated at the Gakona site through the
existing caretaking acti.;ities of the powerplant building. This would include petroleum based
products and paints, solvents, and janitorial-type supplies. There are no known hazardous
materials at the Clear site in the areas being proposed for HAARP equipment. Clear AFS has
numerous hazardous substances associated with operation and maintenance of a installation of
its type.
"vii
I
Environmental Conseojnces ani Mitigation 3
The consequences of constructing the HAARP facility at each of the sites is summarized here,
along with suggested mitigative measures. Three alternatives are considered here, including
Clear, Gakona, and no action. The consequences of selecting either the Clear site or the no
aeti-,, alternative include having to conduct the reclamation effort at the Gakona site.
Constructing the facility at the Clear site would require the acquisition of land from either the
state or private individuals for the siting of the VIS and the ISR. Impacts would be minimized
by final siting modifications at the location to limit the disturbance to private landowners, and
the use of aesthetic engineering to minimize visual impacts. The major consequence to land and
minerals from constructing at the Gakona site include the mining of large amounts of gravel, and
the thermal disturbance of surrounding terrain. Mitigation of these consequences can be
achieved by sound planning of the gravel mining operation and possible winter construction to
minimize damage to the vegetative mat. The impact to land and minerals of the no action
alternative (reclamation at Gakona) includes the transfer or sale of the government property at
the Gakona site.
Vegetation loss at the Clear and Gakona site would be biologically and socially insignificant.
About 51 acres of black spruce would be affected at the Gakona site and approximately 78 acres
of black spruce and mixed deciduous conifer forest would be affected at the Clear site. About n
18 acres of wetlands would be impacted at the Gakona site, while at the Clear site about 36
acres of wetlands would be impacted. The wetlands that would be filled at the Clear site are
considered more important than those at the Gakona site because they produce more and better
forage. Mitigation at both of the sites could be accomplished by modifying siting of equipment
I
such that wetlands are avoided and by revegetating areas that are impacted. The impacts on
vegetation of the no action alternative (reclamation at the Gakona site) include a slight positive
impact at Gakona by the revegetation on the previously disturbed areas by native species.
I
No significant impact to mammals would result from the construction of the HAARP facility atn
either of the sites. Some loss of moose browse would result from the construction of HAARP
at either the Gakona or Clear sites. However, at neither of the sites is moose browse a limiting
factor. Impacts on mammal populations as a result of direct human caused mortality is
considered insignificant. The selection of the no action alternative would result in a long-term
creation of a small moose browse area as the gravel areas revegetate as uplands. 3
No significant impacts to birds would result from the construction of the HAARP facility at
either of the sites. Habitat loss would be insignificant. Collision potential between the birds and
the HAARP equipment is considered minimal regarding geese, ducks, raptors, shorebirds, and
passerines, with the potential for swan collisions being low to moderate. Mitigation could
include curtailing activities away from nesting and brood raising periods. Visibility of guy wires
could be enhanced to minimize bird collisions. The no action alternative would have a slight
positive impact. The large powerplant building would be removed, thereby eliminating the
potential of collisions.
viii3
I
I Aquatic impacts would be insignificant at either sites. The low potential impact on aquatics
would come from erosion and siltation associated with the mining of gravel at the Gakona site.
Other impacts could result from the accidental discharge of petroleum based products during
construction or operation of HAARP facilities. Mitigation of the possible adverse consequences
could include mining gravel from an area that will not cause erosion and siltation problems,
construction of berms to contain runoff from overburden and g.'avel stockpiles, and through the
use of contingency plans and spill prevention and detection systems. The no action alternative
would have no significant impact on aquatics. There would be a slight potential for small
3 petroleum spills during the reclamation effort outlined above.
Hydrological impacts at the Clear and Gakona sites would be insignificant and local water
supplies would not be affected. Degradation of permafrost at Gakona could cause subsidence
of the ground and alter the surface flow patterns. This could cause accelerated erosion in some
areas. Disposal of waste products and accidental releage of petroleum based products at either
of the sites could cause a degradation of surface and sub-surface water quality. Mitigation could
include limiting disturbance of vegetation during construction and operation, implementing a
petroleum spill prevention and detection program during construction and operation, and the
I limiting of on-site disposal of waste products. The hydrologic impact of the no action alternative
could include the further disruption of the permafrost at the Gakona site, thereby creating
emerging drainage channels. Mitigation in this regard could include careful reclamation
construction efforts, and the insertion of numerous drainage channels across the existing roadway
to allow for more natural site drainage.
Air quality impacts at each site would result from construction activities and powerplant
operations. At the Clear site, power would be provided by modifying or expanding an existing
powerplant to increase output, and/or by purchasing power from a commercial grid. Either of
these options would result in a nominal increase in air pollution. Use of the Gakona site would
require the construction of a powerplant with an output capacity of about 15 megawatts.
Depending upon the duration of powerplant operation, the PSD threshold for air quality
potentially could be exceeded. Internal combustion engine emissions during construction and
generation of fugitive dust is also a concern. Air quality impacts associated with the reclamation
effort at Gakona for the no action alternative includes those limited to construction activities
described above.
Socioeconomic impacts of the HAARP construction at either of the sites would result in short-
term positive impacts to the region associated with construction. Local area labor would be used
as much as possible to limit the number of imported workers to the areas. The required number
of imported workers for the Gakona site would be larger than at the Clear site, since there is
no nearby large populous areas, such as Fairbanks, from which to draw construction expertise.
About 80 imported workers would be required for the Gakona site, and about 10 would be
I required for the Clear site. There is enough housing in each of the areas to easily accommodate
the influx of construction workers. Mitigation could incl'de maximum possible use of local
labor at each of the sites. The no action alternative would result in a small positive economic
Simpact in the Gakona area associated with the Gakona site reclamation effort, but the level of
3mac inteaoaefot
Iae
impact would be much less than with the full construction alternative due to the scope of the
activity. Mitigation of negative impacts could include use of local area labor to the greatest
3
extent possible. Impacts to aircraft following nearby air traffic routes would be avoided through
the incorporation of an aircraft detection system (included in the design). The system would turn
off the appropriate emitters if an aircraft approaches the site.
I
Potential impacts on cultural resources associated with the construction of HAARP at the Clear I
site are much greater than at the Gakona site. Neither of the two National Register of Historic
Places (NRHP) sites in the Clear area would be impacted. It is highly likely that archeological
sites would be uncovered during construction at the Clear site, while the probability of discovery
at the Gakona site is negligible. The Section 106 process of the National Historic Preservation
I
Act (NHPA) would be complied with to minimize any potential impacts to cultural resources.
The no action alternative would have no impact on cultural resources since construction
reclamation efforts at the Gakona site would be limited to recent gravel fill areas.
Impacts on subsistence at both the sites include some short-term game redistribution as a result i
of construction activities, and minimal loss of habitat for subsistence species such as moose.
The projected larger construction crew at the Gakona site could increase recreational hunting and
fishing pressure in the area which could have an indirect impact on subsistence harvest rates.
Mitigation would include the use of local area labor to minimize an increase in recreational
pressure, and minimization of construction disturbance through management practices. Impacts
on subsistence brought about by the no action alternative would be similar to those described
above for the construction action.
Recreational impacts at the Gakona site would be relatively minor, being limited to aesthetic
impacts as viewed from aircraft and the possible displacement of the BLM trail which runs
through the site. Recreational impacts at the Clear site would result from conflicts with tourism
and traveling on the highway, railroad, or floating on the Nenana River. Mitigation at the
I
Gakona site would include maintaining access to lands north of the site either by allowing
continued use of the BLM trail or by finishing the alternate access pathway previously started I
by the OTH-B program. Mitigation at the Clear site could include minimizing aesthetic impacts
as described below. The no action alternative would have very little short-term impact on
recreation, and the long-term impact would be positive in that the site clearing could be used to I
access areas previously difficult to reach for recreational purposes.
Aesthetic impacts of the proposed action at the Gakona site would be insignificant. Aesthetic n
impacts at the Clear site are more of an issue due to the scenic appeal of the proposed location
of the ISR and VIS and their impacts on the natural vista as viewed from the Parks Highway,
Alaska Railroad tracks and the Nenana River floating corridor. Mitigation at the site could
include the use of trees or vegetation to minimize visual impact.
The bioeffects of radio frequency radiation (RFR) are expected to be non-existent, regardless i
of the site selected. Humans and animals are not expected to be affected outside of the exclusion
fence being placed around the facilities. There would also b,. no expected effects to birds that
x
I
I fly over or roost on top of the array. Bird migratory navigational systems are not anticipated
to be affected by the operation of HAARP. There would be no RFR bioeffects from the no
action alternative.
Electromagnetic systems that could be affected by HAARP operations at either of the sites could
include high-frequency communications, mobile VHF radios, wildlife trackers, citizen band
radios, hand held transceivers, UHF communications equipment, and television. Mitigation
could include design modifications to minimize low angle radio emissions and out-of-band radio
frequency energy, hardware modifications to the affected user system, avoidance of interfered
frequencies and shutdown of appropriate HAARP emitters.
Atmospheric impacts include temporary (a few seconds to a few hours) changes in the density,
temperature, and structure of the ionosphere. Those impacts would be negligible in comparison
3 to those produced by the sun. The ozone layer would not be affected, and ozone would not be
depleted. No mitigation would be necessary in regard to atmospheric impacts.
3 Hazardous materials required for HAARP operation at the Gakona site would include numerous
petroleum based products, solvents, cleaners, paints, and janitorial-type supplies. Approximately
200,000 gallons of diesel fuel would be stored on-site for consumption by the power generation
system. Hazardous materials at the Clear site would be similar to those mentioned above for
the Gakona site, but the large quantities of diesel fuel would not be required since power would
be obtained from the existing Clear AFS coal-fired powerplant and/or from a commercial source.
Mitigation at each of the sites would include compliance with all applicable regulations, permits,
and standards relating to the handling, transport, storage, and use of hazardous materials and
wastes.
3 Irretrievable commitment of resources for the construction of the HAARP facility include fuel
(primarily diesel fuel at the Gakona site and probably coal at the Clear site) for construction and
operation, and construction products such as gravel, aggregate, sand, cement, metal, and wood.
In addition, about 51 acres of land (18 acres of wetlands) at the Gakona site and 78 acres of land
(37 acres of wetlands) at the Clear site would be occupied. The use of any of these resources
is insignificant in comparison to the regional or national consumption. No mitigation in this
subject area is appropriate.
Noise analysis performed on the construction and operation of the HAARP facility indicates that
only minimal impacts would result from the operation of the six diesel engines and from the
development of the borrow pit(s). Minimal impacts would result from haul truck noise or from
site proper construction activities. Noise impacts from the operation of the six diesel engines
would be mitigated by design modifications such as high volume, low pressure drop mufflers,
or noise shields on the exhaust stacks. Borrow pit noise impacts on eagles would be mitigated
through scheduling modifications to avoid critical periods and through the use of buffer zones
around nests.
I I xi
i
Conclusion 3
After the publication of the FEIS, the Air Force will decide which alternative identified in the
FEIS should be selected. This decision follows a required minimum 30 day waiting period as
specified in the regulations governing the environmental impact analysis process. At the end of
that period, the Air Force will prepare a Record of Decision (ROD) to document its choice of
the alternative. As an addendum to the ROD, the Air Force will prepare a mitigation planI
which outlines the mitigation action to be taken to minimize any significant environmental
impacts. An extensive study of the impacts has been completed and is incorporated in Volume
I of this FEIS. This study covered a wide range of operational scenarios and concluded that
some mitigation may be warranted.
It is anticipated that the Record of Decision will be signed in early August, 1993. Notification
of the ROD will be made in the Federal Register and the local Alaska media similar to past
program announcements. Copies of the ROD will be mailed to all individuals included on the
FEIS distribution list. Additional copies of the ROD can be obtained by contacting the program
office.
xUi
!
I TABLE OF CONTENTS
Subject Page
Cover Sheet ...................................................... i

TSummary... ...................................................
Table of Contents............................................... xii
List of Figures ................................................ xxi
I List of Tables............................................... xxiii
List of Abbreviations ........................................... xxv
I1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ........................... 1-1

1.1 Introduction .......................................... 1-1
1.2 Purpose .... ........................................ 1-2
5 1.3 Scope of Environmental Analysis ............................ 1-4
1.4 Organization of the DEIS ... ............................. 1-6
1 1.5 Decision to be Made ... ................................ 1-7
1.6 Permits .... ........................................ 1-7
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ...... 2-1

3 2.1 Criteria Used to Identify Feasible Alternative Sites .............. 2-1
2.1.1 Research Criterion ... ............................... 2-1
5 2.1.2 Initial Siting Effort and Background ....................... 2-1
I 2.1.3 Final Siting Criteria ... .............................. 2-2
2.2 Alternatives Initially Considered .. ......................... 2-7

2.2.1 Alternative Sites .................................... 2-7
2.2.2 Comparison of the Second Level Criteria
3 and Alternative Sites ... .............................. 2-7
2.2.3 Alternative Designs ................................. 2-11
I
xii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
Subject Page
2.3 Alternatives Identified for Further Analysis .................... 2-22 3
2.3.1 Preferred Alternative - Gakona .......................... 2-22
2.3.2 Alternative Site - Clear .. ............................ 2-37 3
2.3.3 No Action ... .................................... 2-44
2.4 Comparison of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives ........ 2-46 I

2.5 Identification of the Preferred Alternative .................... 2-52
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ................................. 3-1 1

3.1 Land and Minerals ... ................................. 3-3
3.1.1 Gakona Site ................................... 3-3
3.1.2 Clear Site ..................................... 3-5
3.2 Vegetation and Wetlands ................................ 3-10

3.2.1 Gakona Site ...................................... 3-10
3.2.2 Clear Site ........................................ 3-14 1
3.3 Mammals ........................................... 3-18 3
3.3.1 Gakona Site ... ................................... 3-18
3.3.2 Clear Site ........................................ 3-24 3
3.4 Birds .......................................... 3-27
3.4.1 Gakona Site ... ................................... 3-31
3.4.2 Clear Site ........................................ 3-44 3
3.5 Aquatics ........................................... 3-52 3
3.5.1 Gakona Site ...................................... 3-52
3.5.2 Clear Site ........................................ 3-55 3
xiv
I
Subject Page
3.6 Hydrology and Water Quality ............................. 3-58
3.6.1 Gakona Site ...................................... 3-58
3.6.2 Clear Site ........................................ 3-61
3.7 Air Quality .......................................... 3-64

3.7.1 Gakona Site ....................................... 3-64
3.7.2 Clear Site ........................................ 3-69
3.8 Socioeconomics ... ................................... 3-76

3.8.1 Gakona Site ...................................... 3-76
3.8.2 Clear Site ........................................ 3-83
3.9 Cultural Resources ... ................................. 3-90

3.9.1 Gakona Site ...................................... 3-91
3.9.2 Clear Site ....................................... 3-104
1 3.10 Subsistence ........................................ 3-111

S3.10.1 Historical Perspective of Subsistence . ................... 3-112
3.10.2 Regulatory Management of Subsistence ................... 3-112
5 3.10.3 Gakona Site ..................................... 3-114
3.10.4 Clear Site ...................................... 3-117
I
5 3.11 Recreation ........................................
3.11.1 Gakona Site.....................3-121
3-121
3.11.2 Clear Site ...................................... 3-125
xv
U
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) U
Subject Page
3.12 Aesthetics ...................................... 3-134 3
3.12.1 Aesthetic Criteria and Measures ....................... 3-134
3.12.2 Gakona Site ..................................... 3-136 1
3.12.3 Clear Site ....................................... 3-141
I
3.13 Bioeffects of Radio Frequency Radiation (RFR) ................ 3-146
3.13.1 RFR ....................................... 3-146 I
3.13.2 RFR Exposure Safety Standards ....................... 3-147
3.13.3 Biological Effects of RFR ............................ 3-149
3.14 Electromagnetic Environment and Radio Frequency Interference ..... 3-151

3.14.1 Global Electromagnetic Environment .................... 3-151
3.14.2 Electromagnetic Environment at the Gakona Site ............. 3-153
3.14.3 Electromagnetic Environment at the Clear Site .............. 3-153 3
3.14.4 Potentially Affected Systems ......................... 3-154
3.15 Atmosphere ....................................... 3-158

3.15.1 Ozone Layer .................................... 3-158 3
3.15.2 Ionosphere ..................................... 3-160
I
3.16 Threatened and Endangered Species ........................ 3-164
I
3.17 Hazardous Materials and Wastes .......................... 3-165
3.17.1 Gakona Site ..................................... 3-165 1
3.17.2 Clear Site ...................................... 3-165
I
U
xvi I
I
I
I TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
Subject Page
4.0 CONSEQUENCES
4.1 Land and Minerals ... ................................. 4-1
4.1.1 Gakona Site ... ................................... 4-1
4.1.2 Clear Site ......................................... 4-3
4.1.3 No Action Alternative ................................. 4-7
1 4.2 Vegetation and Wetlands ................................. 4-8

4.2.1 Gakona Site ... ................................... 4-8
4.2.2 Clear Site ........................................ 4-12
4.2.3 No Action Alternative ................................ 4-14
1 4.3 Mammals .......................................... 4-15

4.3.1 Gakona Site .. ................................... 4-15
4.3.2 Clear Site ........................................ 4-18
4.4 Birds .......................................... 4-21

3 4.4.1 Gakona Site .. ................................... 4-21
4.4.2 Clear Site ........................................ 4-26
3 4.4.3 No Action Alternative .............................. 4-27
S4.5 Aquatics ........................................ 4-28

4.5.1 Gakona Site .. ................................... 4-28
4.5.2 Clear Site ...................................... 4-29
xvii
U
Subject Page
4.6 Hydrology and Water ................................... 4-31 3
4.6.1 Gakona Site ...................................... 4-31
4.6.2 Clear Site ........................................ 4-32 3
4.7 Air Quality.......................................... 4-37

4
4.7.1 Gakona Site ................................... 4-37I
4.7.2 Clear Site ........................................ 4-42
4.7.3 No Action Alternative ................................ 4-45 1

4.8 Socioeconomics ...................................... 4-47 I
4.8.1 Gakona Site ...................................... 4-47 5
4.8.2 Clear Site ........................................ 4-51
4.8.3 No Action Alternative ................................ 4-55 3
4.9 Cultural Resources .. ................................. 4-57
4.9.1 Gakona Site ...................................... 4-57
4.9.2 Clear Site ........................................ 4-59 3
4.10 Subsistence ........................................ 4-62

4.10.1 Gakona Site ...................................... 4-63
4.10.2 Clear Site ....................................... 4-66
4.10.3 No Action Alternative .. ............................ 4-69
I
U
xvm
U
I
I TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
i Subject Page
4.11 Recreation ......................................... 4-71

4.11.1 Gakona Site ...................................... 4-71
4.11.2 Clear Site ....................................... 4-73
I4.12 Aesthetics ......................................... 4-77

4.12.1 Gakona Site ...................................... 4-77
4.12.2 Clear Site ....................................... 4-79
S4.13 Bioeffects of RFR .................................... 4-85

4.13.1 Near Ground Field Strengths ......................... 4-87
4.13.2 Above Ground Field Strengths ........................ 4-89
I 4.13.3 No Action Alternative .. ............................ 4-92
4.14 Electromagnetic and Radio Frequency Interference ............. 4-93

S4.14.1 HAARP Transmitters ............................... 4-94
4.14.2 Effects of the HAARP Emitters on User Systems ............ 4-96
S4.14.3 No Action Alternative . ............................ 4-111
S4.15 Atmosphere .. .................................... 4-112

4.15.1 Ozone Layer .................................... 4-112
S4.15.2 Ionosphere .. ................................... 4-113
I 4.15.3 No Action Alternative . ............................ 4-116
4.16 Threatened and Endangered Species ....................... 4-117
Ixix
U
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) 3
Subject Page
U
4.17 Hazardous Materials and Wastes .......................... 4-118
4.17.1 Gakona Site ..................................... 4-119 5
4.17.2 Clear Site ...................................... 4-119
4.17.3 No Action Alternative .............................. 4-120 3
4.18 Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ..................... 4-121 I
5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ..................................... 5-1 3
6.0 REFERENCES .. L.ST....................................... 6-1
7.0 DEIS DISTRIBUTION LIST..................................... 7-1
8.0 INDEX ................................................. 8-1
APPENDICES
Appendix A - Scientific Names for Species Mentioned in Text .............. A-1i
Appendix B - Permitting . ........................
Appendix C - Endangered Species Coordination .........................
B-1
C-1 3
Volume II
(Bound Separately) I
Public Comments and HAARP Responses 3
I
I
I
xxI
___ I
I
I LIST OF FIGURES
N. ...........................................
2.1-1 HAARP Latitudinal Research Band in Alaska ..................... 2-4
I 2.2-1 Topography in the Clear Region ............................ 2-10
2.2-2 Gakona and Clear, Alaska Sites ............................. 2-12
2.2-3 Stacked IRI Antenna Field Layout ............................ 2-13
U 2.2-4 Stacked Array Support Masts ............................... 2-14
2.2-5 Side View of Proposed Stacked [RI Antenna Element ............... 2-15
2.2-6 Dual Array Field Layout .................................. 2-17
I 2.2-7 High Frequency Dual Array Element ......................... 2-18
2.2-8 Low Frequency Dual Array Element ......................... 2-20
2.3-1 Proposed Facility Layout at Gakona Site ....................... 2-23
U 2.3-2
2.3-3
Proposed Power Line Upgrade ..............................
Side View of Transmitter for Proposed VIS .....................
2-26
2-29
2.3-4 Potential Gakona Gravel Sources ............................ 2-33
S2.3-5 Clear Site Conceptual Layout: Including Clear AFS
Property and Bear Creek Location ........................... 2-38
2.3-6 Bear Creek Location ................................... 2-41
2.3-7 Gravel Sources in the Clear AFS Area ....................... 2-43
3.0-1 Physiographic Provinces of Alaska ........................... 3-2
3.1-1 Homesteading Claims at the Bear Creek Location ................. 3-7
3.2-1 Proposed Facility Layout and Wetland and Upland
Habitats at Gakona Site ................................... 3-13
i 3.2-2 Bear Creek Location Vegetation Cover Map ..................... 3-16
3.4-1 Distribution of Nighttime and Twilight Flight Altitudes
of Targets Detected by Vertical Radar (Corrected for
Sampling Area) at the Gulkana Site, Alaska, During Spring
and Fall, 1989 ........................................ 3-30
3.4-2 Breeding Ranges and Possible Migration Routes of
Tundra and Trumpeter Swans in Alaska ........................ 3-36
S3.4-3 Locations of Swans and Birds of Prey Nests in the
Vicinity of the Gakona Site, Alaska, 1987 - 1989 ................ 3-42
3.4-4 Bird of Prey and Swan Nest Site Locations and
Trumpeter Swan Brood-Rearing Areas Near the Gakona Site ........ 3-43
3.4-5 Aerial Survey Segmcnts 52 and 53 ........................... 3-50
S3.8-1 Major Commercial Air Traffic Routes ......................... 3-82
3.9-1 Upper Copper River Drainage Aream.......................... 3-92
3.9-2 Proposed HAARP Facility and Potential Borrow
Areas P-1 & P-2 Cultural Resources Survey Areas, 1988 - 1990 ....... 3-97
3.9-3 Potential Borrow Area A-1 Cultural Resou Survey Areas 1988 ..... 3-99
3.9-4 Potential Borrow Area A-4 Cultural Resource Survey Areas 1988 ...... 3-101
3.9-5 Potential Borrow Area A-5 Cultural Resources Survey Areas 1988 ..... 3-103
Ixxi
I
LIST OF FIGURES (cont.)
NQL UIii .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .5
3.9-6 Known Cultural Resource Sites, Glacial Outwashes,

and tý : Location of the HAARP in the Nenana River Valley ......... 3-105
3.9-7 Cleat AFS Property with Historical Information
and Siting Info on HAARP Facilities ......................... 3-107
3.11-1 Recreation Resources in the Vicinity of the Gakona Site ............ 3-123
3.11-2 Major Land Ownership and Use Plan for the Nenana
River Valley Around the Bear Creek Location (ADNR, 1991) ........ 3-127
3.11-3 Federal and State Recreation Sites in Clear Region . ............ 3-128
3.12-1 Key Observation Point of Gakona Site ........................ 3-138
3.12-2 Photograph of Existing Powerplant and Access Road at
Gakona Site ......................................... 3-140
3.12-3 Clear AFS Property Key Observation Points .................... 3-142
3.12-4 Clear Site Key Observation Points at Bear Creek Location ........... 3-143
3.12-5 Photograph Taken fro,. Highway Key Observation Point
at Bear Creek Location .................................. 3-145
3-159
3.15-1
3.15-2
3.15-3
Atmosphere ..........................................
Ionospheric Physical Properties .............................
Daytime Ionospheric Density .............................
3-161
3-162
5
4.13-1 Electrical Field Contours Around the IRI Antenna Array ............ 4-88
II
I
I
I
I
I
S~I
U
LIST OF TABLES
S. ..........................................
2.2-1 Comparison of Second Level Siting Criteria
and Alternative Sites .................................... 2-8
2.4-1 Comparison of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives .......... 2-47
3.2-1 Percentage of Cover Types at Potential Borrow Locations
for the Gakona Site as Compared to Total Borrow Area ............ 3-12
3.2-2 Percentages of Wetlands at Potential Borrow Locations
for the Gakona Site as Compared with Total Borrow Area ............ 3-15
S3.4-1 Daytime Flight Altitudes at the Gakona Site, 1987 - 1989 ........... 3-28
3.4-2 Bird Species Observed at the Gakona Site and
Surrounding Area, 1987 - 1989 ............................. 3-33
S3.4-3 Number of Birds Observed from an Observation
Point Adjacent to the Gakona Site, 1987 - 1989 ................... 3-34
3.4-4 Breeding Bird Census Results, Spring 1987 ...................... 3-40
3.4-5 Counts of Trumpeter Swans During Breeding and Brood-
Rearing Periods within the Gulkana B-3 Quadrangle, 1969 - 1989 ...... 3-41
3.4-6 Species Observed at the Clear Site ........................... 3-46
3.4-7 Number of Breeding Individuals Observed During May Along
Survey Segments 52 and 53 from 1957 to 1992 ................... 3-48
3.7-1 Climate Summary for Gakona, Alaska Elevation 1460 ft ........... 3-66
3.7-2 Snow Survey Data Summary for Sanford River, AK Elevation 2280 ft 3-66
3.7-3 Assumed Air Quality Pollutant Concentrations for
Remote Areas of Alaska ............................... 3-69
3.7-4 HCCP Ambient Air Quality Data - 9/90 Through 8/91 .............. 3-70
3.7-5 Climate Summary for Clear, AK Elevation 580 ft ................. 3-72
3.7-6 Snow Fall Data for Clear, AK Elevation 580 ft .................. 3-73
3.8-1 Population Trends for Communities in the Gakona Region ............ 3-78
3.8-2 Housing Data for Communities in the Gakona Region ............... 3-78
S3.8-3 Employment Data for Communities in the Gakona Region ........... 3-80
3.8-4 Population Trends for Communities in the Clear Rc.,on ............ 3-83
3.8-5 Employment Data for Communities in the Clear Region ............. 3-86
S3.8-6 Housing Data for Communities in the Clear Region ............... 3-88
3.9-1 Archeological Sites Associated with Borrow Area P-1 ............... 3-98
3.10-1 Commonly Used Subsistence Resources ....................... 3-116
S3.10-2 Principal Subsistence Resources for Villages in Gakona Region ....... 3-117
3.11-1 Hunting Regulation Summary for GMU 13 Gakona Site ............ 3-125
3.12-1 Visual Resources Management (VRM) System Procedure ........... 3-135
S3.12-2 VRM Classes for BLM Lands ............................. 3-137
I
I
LIST OF TABLES (cont.)
No. Bi ........................................... • •i
3.13-1 Maximum Permissible Exposure For The HARP IRI Frequency

Range According to the IEEE C95.1 - 1991 Standards ............. 3-149
3.14-1 Potential Off-site Systems ................................ 3-156 i
4.2-1 Areas of Vegetation Cover Types (in Acres) Affected
by the HAARP Facilities at the Gakona Site ...................... 4-9
4.2-2 Areas of Wetland Cover Types (in Acres) Impacted i
by the HAARP Facilities at the Gakona Site ..................... 4-10
4.2-3 Areas of Upland and Wetland Cover Types (in Acres)
Affected by the HAARP Facilities at the Clear Site ................ 4-13
4.4-1 Factors Which Influence Collision Risk Potential
by Species Group at the Gakona Site .......................... 4-24
4.7-1 Alaska and National Ambient Air Quality Standards
for SO, (Measured by SO2) and NO .......................... 4-42
4.13-1 Calculated Electric (E) and Magnetic (H) Fields
With Distance From The Edge of IRI ......................... 4-86
4.13-2 Maximum Electric (E) and Magnetic (H) Fields Above the IRI ........ 4-86
4.14-1 Distress, Calling, and Guarded Frequencies ................... 4-101
4.14-2 Theoretical Maximum Radiofrequency Interference to Receiving
Systems by HAARP Transmissions in the Gakona Area .............
4.14-3 Theoretical Maximum Radiofrequency Interference to Receiving
Systems by HAARP Transmissions in the Clear AFS
4-104
3
Property and Bear Creek Location Areas ...................... 4-106
II
I
I
I
I
xxiv
•mmm m mm •I
m |
I
I
I LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
I
I AAAQS Alaska Ambient Air Quality Standards
AAC Alaska Administrative Code
I ABR Alaska Biological Research
ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
ADEC Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
ADF Automatic Direction Finder
E ADFG Alaska Department of Fish and Game
ADG&GS Alaska Division of Geologic and Geophysical Surveys
I ADL Alaska Department of Labor
ADNR Alaska Department of Natural Resources
I ADOT Alaska Department of Transportation
AEIDC Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center (now ENRI)
U AFR Air Force Regulation
AFS Air Force Station
AGL Above Ground Level
AHRS Alaska Heritage Resource Survey
I ANCSA Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
ANILCA Alaska National Interests Lands Conservation Act
i ANSI American National Standards Institute
APTI ARCO Power Technologies, Inc.
EARS Alaskan Radar System
BACT Best Available Control Technologies
BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs
BLM Bureau of Land Management
i BMP Best Management Practices
* xxv
I
I
BP Before Present 3
CB Citizen Band
CEQ Council of Environmental Quality
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations I
CFS Cubic Feet per Second
CO Carbon Monoxide m
CVEA Copper Valley Electric Association
CW Continuous Wave I
DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement
dB Decibel
DOD Department of Defense
DOE Department of Energy
E Electric Field
EA Environmental Assessment
EED Electro-Explosive Device 3
EFR Effective Radiated Power
EIS Environmental Impact Statement 3
ELF Extremely Low Frequency
EMD Electro-Motor Division 3
ENRI Environmental and Natural Resources Institute
EPA Environmental Protection Agency 5
ETAC Environmental Technical Applications Center
FAA Federal Aviation Administration 3
FCC Federal Communications Commission
FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement 3
FM Frequency Modulation
FSI FELEC Services Inc.
GMU Game Management Unit
GPS Global Positioning System
xxviI
I
I
I GSA General Services Administration
GVEA Golden Valley Electric Association
H Magnetic Field
HAM Amateur Radio Operator
HAARP High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program
i HCCP Healy Clean Coal Project
HF High Frequency
U HP Horsepower
IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
I IRAC Interdepartmental Radio Advisory Committee
IRI Ionospheric Research Instrument
ISR Incoherent Scatter Radar
ITr International Telephone and Telegraph
KOP Key Observation Point
kV Kilovolts
I LIDAR Light Detection and Ranging
LORAN Long Range Navigation
M&E/H&N Metcalf & Eddy, Inc/Holmes & Narver, Inc
MGCI Master Ground Control Intercept
MHz Megahertz
MW Megawatt
U MOA Military Operations Area
MRC Mission Research Corporation
MSL Mean Sea Level
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
I NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NCDC National Climatic Data Center
U NEC Numeric Electromagnetics Code
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
I NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
I
I
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 5
NO Nitric Oxide
NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide I
NO, Nitrogen Oxides
NPS National Park Service I
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRHP National Register of Historic Places I
NRL Naval Research Laboratory
NSPS New Source Performance Standards I
NTIA National Telecommunications and Information Administration
NWS National Weather Service I
OTH-B Over-The-Horizon Backscatter
PEL Permissible Exposure Limit
PL Phillips Laboratory I
PM10 Particulate Matter less than 10 microns in diameter
PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RFR Radio Frequency Radiation
RPM Revolutions Per Minute
RV Recreational Vehicle
SAR Specific Absorption Rate
SHPO State Historic Preservation Office 5
SO2 Sulphur Dioxide
SO. Sulphur Oxides
SPCC Spill Prevention, Containment and Counter-measure
SWDA Solid Waste Disposal Act 3
TLV Threshold Limit Value
TMOA Temporary Military Operations Area
TSP Total Suspended Particulates
UAA University of Alaska Anchorage
xxvii I
I
I UAF University of Alaska Fairbanks
UHF Ultra-High Frequency
US United States
USACOE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USDOC U.S. Department of Commerce
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geologic Survey
USSCS U.S. Soil Conservation Service
USSR Union of Soviet Socialists Republic
I VHF Very High Frequency
VIS Vertical Incidence Sounder
I VOR VHF Omni-Range
VRM Visual Resource Management
I WACS White Alice Communication System
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
,I I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
S~I
I
1 1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
I 1.1 Introduction
I The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is the basic national charter for protection of
the environment (CEQ, 1978). It states policy and goals and provides the process for carrying
out the policy. NEPA procedures were established to ensure that environmental information is
available to public officials and citizens before decisions are made and before actions are taken.
To implement NEPA the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Navy have also passed internal regulations
I that contain policies, responsibilities and procedures (USAF, 1982; USN, 1990). This
document, called a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), is part of the NEPA process
and addresses the consequences of an action on both the natural and man-made environments.
The document identifies potential impacts and possible mitigation measures. Based on comments
received from agencies, public officials and citizens the document will be revised as necessary
to become the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). The contents of the FEIS will be
used by the decision maker to better understand the consequences of the decisions. NEPA
regulations direct the document to concentrate on the issues that are truly significant to the action
in question, rather than amassing needless detail. Furthermore, it is to be written in a standard
format, in plain language and verbose descriptions are to be avoided. Detailed studies and
documentation are incorporated by reference rather than in full text. The impact statement is
not intended to be a scientific document, the level and extent of detail and analysis in the
document should be commensurate with the importance of the environmental issues involved and
I with the information needs of both decision makers and the general public.
The action proposed in this document would implement a congressionally-initiated program of

researching the layer of the earth's atmosphere known as the ionosphere. The proposed research
would require the construction of an ionospheric research facility in Alaska. The main part of
the research facility would be a large radio wave transmitter. NEPA requires the government
I to analyze alternativies for their environmental consequences, encourage public input and publish
I 1-1
I
I
a Record of Decision. The following schedule gives the approximate dates for the environmental
process:
I
"* March 1993, Public Hearing on Environmental Issues
"* April 1993, End of Public Comment Period I
"* July 1993, FEIS Completed
"* August 1993, Record of Decision Published
If at the culmination of the NEPA process, the -lecisi, is made (as documented in the Record I
of Decision) to proceed with the project, the IL ative schedule is to begin construction in the
summer of 1993 and end in the winter of 1996. Once constructed, there would be 4 to 8 full-
time jobs available to the local residents for maintenance, technical and security positions.
The remainder of this chapter will discuss the purpose and need for the action, an overview of
the planned action, the scope of environmental issues analyzed, and a brief guide to the DEIS.
Additional facts on the construction and operation of the facility are discussed in the remainder
of the document.
1.2 Purpose I
I
The High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) is a congressionally initiated
program jointly managed by the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Navy. The program's goal is to
provide a state-of-the-art U.S. owned ionospheric research facility readily accessible to U.S.
scientists from universities, the private sector and government. This facility would be the most
advanced in the world and would attract international scientists and foster cooperative research
efforts. The program's purpose is to provide a research facility to conduct pioneering 3
experiments in ionospheric phenomena. The data obtained from the proposed research would
be used to analyze basic ionospheric properties and to assess the potential for developing 3
ionospheric enhancement technology for communications and surveillance purposes.
1-2I
I
I
I
I The layer of the earth's atmosphere called the ionosphere begins approximately 30 miles above
the surface and extends upward to approximately 620 miles. In contrast to the layers of the
I atmosphere closer to the earth, which are composed of neutral atoms and molecules, the
ionosphere contains both positively and negatively charged particles known as ions and electrons.
I These ions and electrons are created naturally by radiation from our sun.
I This ionized gas in the ionosphere behaves much differently from the neutral atmosphere closer
to the earth. A major difference is that although radio signals pass through the lower
atmosphere undistorted, the signals directed through the ionosphere may be distorted, totally
reflected or absorbed. For example, communication links from the ground to earth-orbiting
satellites can experience fading due to ionospheric distortion; an AM radio signal sometimes can
reflect, or "skip", off the ionosphere and be heard at locations hundreds of miles distant from
the broadcasting radio station; the characteristic fading on the high-frequency (HF) or
3 "shortwave" band is due to ionospheric interference. Because of its strong interaction with radio
waves, the ionosphere also interferes with U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) communications
and radar surveillance systems, which depend on sending radio waves from one location to
another.
Ionospheric disturbances at high latitudes also can act to induce large currents in electric power
5 grids; these are thought to cause power outages. Understanding of these and other phenomena
is important to maintain reliable communication and power services. HAARP is needed to
1 continue and expand basic research efforts on the properties and potential uses of the ionosphere
for enhanced communications and surveillance. To meet the project's research objectives, the
I HAARP facility would utilize powerful, high frequency (HF) transmissions and a variety of
associated observational instruments to investigate naturally occurring and artificially induced
ionospheric processes that support, enhance or degrade the propagation of radio waves.
5' Investigations conducted at the HAARP facility are expected to provide significant scientific
advancements in understanding the ionosphere. The research facility would be used to
I understand, simulate and control ionospheric processes that might alter the performance of
1-3
I
I
communications and surveillance systems. This research would enhance present civilian and
DOD capabilities because it would facilitate the development of techniques to mitigate or control
ionospheric processes. I
Civilian applications from the program's research could lead to improved local and world-wide I
communication such as satellite communication. Furthermore, and possibly more significant,
is the potential for new technology that could be developed from a better understanding of I
ionospheric processes.
A potential DOD application of the research is to provide communications to submerged

submarines. These and many other research applications are expected to greatly enhance present I
DOD technology.
There are several HF transmitters located throughout the world which conduct research similar
to that proposed by HAARP. However, no facility, located either in the U.S. or elsewhere, has
the transmitting capability needed to address the broad range of research goals which HAARP 3
proposes to study. The most capable HF transmitters currently operating are located in Russia
and Norway and have effective radiated powers (ERP) of roughly one billion watts (1 gigawatt).
One gigawatt of ERP represents an important threshold power level, allowing significant radio
wave generation and analysis of key ionospheric phenomena. The HAARP facility is designed 3
to have an ERP above one gigawatt. This would elevate the United States to owning and
operating the world's most capable ionospheric research instrument. 3
1.3 Scope of Environmental Analysis 3
The environmental analysis was conducted and this DEIS was written in accordance with Air
Force Regulation 19-2, "Environmental Impact Analysis Process," and the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations, 40 CFR 1500-1508. The scope of the environmental
analysis that was conducted and the corresponding scope of this DEIS was limited to the
significant issues that were relevant to the decision to be made. Furthermore, scoping meetings
1-4 1
I
I
U were held in August 1992 to identify major areas of public concern. The concerns of the public
as expressed at the scoping meetings are summarizcd below:
* upgrade of HIPAS (e.g. upgrade vs new facility)

1 0 power requirements (e.g. capability' of local power sources)
* gravel (e.g. sources, size of pits, timing and duration, haul routes)
1 0 impact to birds (e.g. collisions with antennas)
emissions of power generating plant (e.g. coal vs diesel, amounts)
Uimpact on the local economy (e.g. types and numbers of jobs)
0 impact to air space (e.g. restricted zones)
0 impact to local recreation (e.g. access, light pollution)
* health effects to humans from radio waves (e.g. cancer, birds flying through the
beam, timing of research campaigns)
* interference with communications (e.g. television, local two-way communications,
process for handling complaints, notification of operational periods, wildlife
I telemetry)
I Based on the scoping process, these issues and others were consolidated into the following
U sections:
* Land and Minerals

3 0 Vegetation and Wetlands
* Mammals
* eBirds
* Aquatics
S0 Hydrology and Water Quality
* Air Quality
3 0 Socioeconomics
* Cultural Resources
3 eSubsistence
1 1-5
i
I
0 Recreation
* Aesthetics
"*Bioeffects of Radio Frequency Radiation (RFR)
"*Electromagnetic and Radio Frequency Interference
"* Atmosphere 3
"* Threatened and Endangered Species
"* Hazardous Materials and Wastes n
"*Irretrievable Commitment of Resources
The above listed issues were identified based on (1) public comments received through the DEIS
scoping process, and (2) topics which would be affected by the construction and operation of the
HAARP facility. In this manner, the DEIS was narrowed to only important issues and avoided
discussion of issues which were either not of public concern, or would not be affected by
HAARP. 3
1.4 Organization of the DEIS
This DEIS is organized according to the following format: 3

Summary i
1.0 Purpose and Need for Action
2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives
3.0 Affected Environment
4.0 Environmental Consequences and Mitigation
5.0 References
6.0 List of Preparers
7.0 DEIS Distribution List
8.0 Index 3
1-6I
1
I
I
I The Summary provides a synopsis of the information that is in the DEIS: proposod action and
alternatives, relevant environmental issues and a synopsis of the environmental consequences.
I Section 1is the introduction to the DEIS and describes the purpose of HAARP and the need for
the program, the scope of environmental issues addressed in the DEIS, the organization of the
DEIS, and the decision to be made. Section 2 details the proposed action, discusses the
possible alternatives to the proposed action, and compares the environmental consequences of
the alternatives. Sections 3 and 4, respectively, describe the affected environment and the
potential environmental consequences of the proposed action and its alternatives. Section 5
provides a list of references cited within the document. Section 6 lists the individuals that
contributed to the preparation of the DEIS. Section 7 provides a list of agencies, organizations
and persons to whom copies of the DEIS were sent. Section 8 is the subject index for the DEIS.
I 1.5 Decision to be Made
The decision to be made is whether to build and operate HAARP facilities at the Gakona or the
£ Clear site, or to take no action.
1.6 Permits
IIThe project will require a number of permits and obligations. These are listed and described
in Appendix B.
1
I
I
I
I
1 1-7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(This page intentionally left blank) '
I
I
I
1
I
I
1-8 1
I
3 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
I This section details the proposed action and alternatives to build the HAARP system. Discussion
includes background on program work, criteria considered to develop siting alternatives, design
alternatives, comparison of environmental consequences of siting alternative, and identification
of the preferred alternative.
I 2.1 CRITERIA USED TO IDENTIFY FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVE SITES
I 2.1.1 Research Criterion
E The goal of HAARP is to provide sufficient energy densities in the polar ionosphere to enable
investigations to be conducted on a variety of phenomena triggered by the interactions of high-
3 power radio waves. This goal resulted in the identification of the following criterion for the
I HAARP facility:
Latitudinal Research Band. Desired polar ionospheric phenomena for investigation occurs
3 under a variety of ambient conditions. These conditions can range from a quiet state with little
auroral activity, low magnetic activity index and no polar electrojet to a highly disturbed, rapidly
3 changing aurora, high magnetic index and strong electrojet currents. Such an optimal mix of
quiet and disturbed conditions can only be found between approximately 61 and 65 degrees
I geographic latitude North and South (Dandekar, 1979; Whalen, 1970).
I 2.1.2 Initial Siting Effort and Background
3 At the inception of the HAARP program, efforts were made to locate the HAARP facilities in
the Fairbanks area to take advantage of the University t,. Alaska's Poker Flat Rocket Range
3 research facilities. At the time, the University of Alaska was attempting to acquire an expensive
piece of scientific equipment (approximately $20 million) which is also required by HAARP.
A cooperative agreement between the government and the University of Alaska for this scientific
i 2-1
I
II
program was envisioned. The University of Alaska would provide the land on which HAARP3
would be located, eliminating the need for government land purchase. In an attempt to locate
HAARP in the area, the University of Alaska commissioned a study to investigate potential sites 3
in the Poker Flat region (within 33 miles). The study ultimately identified 17 potential sites,
with 4 of these sites best meeting land criteria (Roen, 1991). 1
Since Fairbanks is a large metropolitan area and the region is relatively populated, experiments I
were conducted in June of 1991 (NRL, 1992a) to determine the potential for electromagnetic
interference at the 17 identified sites (Roen, 1991). This study was necessary because significant
interference in a large metropolitan area could lead to a prohibitively large and difficult
mitigation effort. The study concluded that all of the 17 sites would have a large number of
potential radio frequency interference problems (NRL, 1992a). Therefore, all 17 sites were i
eliminated from further consideration because of the anticipated prohibitively large mitigation
effort. 3
In addition to the 17 sites discussed above, an upgrade of the HF transmitting facility near
Fairbanks, Alaska, known as High Power Auroral Stimulation (HIPAS), was considered. The
u
existing HF transmitter at HIPAS has produced some radio frequency interference problems to 3
nearby residences. These interference occurrences for the -.xisting transmitter were resolved
with appropriate mitigation techniques. The increased power of the HAARP transmitter located
at HI-PAS would result in radio frequency interference at considerably greater numbers of
residences than currently occurs. This would have required a prohibitively large and difficult 5
mitigation effort. Moreover, the HIPAS site is presently too small to accommodate HAARP
facilities. Expansion is not a viable option because the land surrounding HIPAS is privately
owned. Consequently, upgrading HIPAS would not provide a suitable alternative.
I
2.1.3 Final Siting Criteria
I
After the initial siting efforts at HIPAS and in the region surrounding the Poker Flat Research
Range failed to produce a viable site, the search area was expanded. Final siting criteria were 3
2-2
I
established to aid a search for alternative sites. These siting criteria were developed by
considering the requirements for the research facility. The proposed research facility would be
composed of several structures of varying sizes each with specific requirements on separation
from the MRI. The criteria, listed below, are briefly explained in the sections which follow.
Fu'st Level
I Within U.S. borders
* Using DOD owned land to the greatest extent practical
I Second Level
* Near a primary highway
* Away from urban areas
* * Suitable land area and collocation ability
* Relatively flat terrain
1 0 Realistic and reasonable
Within U.S. Borders. The HAARP research facility must be located on U.S. soil which
provides access to the polar ionosphere. The state of Alaska is the only United States property
which offers access to the polar ionosphere which HAARP proposes to study (Figure 2.1.1).
I Using DOD Owned Land to the Greatest Extent Practical. The HAARP facility should be
located on land currently owned by the DOD to the greatest extent practical for a number of
3 reasons. First, it is good management practice to use resources currently available when
possible. This saves both time and money. Second, using DOD owned land would be
3 compatible with current Air Force Policy. Air Force Regulation (AFR) 87-1 provides guidance
on acquiring property for Air Force use and requires that the Air Force lease or purchase land
Sonly as a last resort after all other methods of fulfilling the need have been deemed unfeasible.
Third, it is desirable to locate the HAARP facility on DOD owned land to preclude further DOD
i acquisition of land in Alaska since the DOD already owns a substantial amount of Alaskan real
estate. Finally, the DOD has issued a moratorium on major land acquisitions which states that
i
2
2-3
ARCTIC OCEANLI
- --- - - - -
650
.......~~ ........
Bg............
er in
...
.............
.....
.....
....
...
Sea....
*-',.......
......
......
.
.....
....
...
PACIFIC...
.... OCEAN..... 0200.
.... S AL IN MI.L....S.
D Search Region.
II
FIGURE 2.1-1. HAARP LATITUDINAL RESEARCH BAND IN ALASKA3
2-4
2811
I
I the DOD should "propose the acquisition of land only where there is a clearly demonstrated
need" (DOD, 1990a; DOD, 1990b). The DOD has defined major land acquisitions as "those
involving more than 1,000 acres, or land whose estimated purchase price or annual lease price
exceeds $1 million". Although the land needed for HAARP might not qualify as a "major land
acquisition", it is clear that HAARP should comply with the spirit of the moratorium and attempt
I to locate the facility on DOD land before acquiring private land for the program (USAF, 1992a).
i Near a Primary Highway. The HAARP facility should be located within a reasonable distance
(about 10 miles) of a primary highway for logistical reasons and to limit construction, operation
I and environmental costs. For the purposes of this discussion, a primary highway is defined as
a paved state or federal highway which remains open and functioning throughout the year.
Avoiding Densely Settled Areas. The HAARP facility would include active and passive optical
I and radio wave sensors. The HAARP facility should be located so as to avoid densely settled
areas in order to ensure the proper operations of the research facility. The diagnostic
3 instrumentation requires fairly stringent ambient conditions to function properly. First, the
passive radio wave diagnostics should be located away from diverse man-made radio wave noise
3 sources that could interfere with the functioning of sensitive receivers. Second, optical
diagnostics must be located away from artificial light sources. Nearby urban illumination of
5 middle and cirrus clouds, lower altitude atmospheric dust and/or particulate pollutants could
I obscure atmospheric and/or ionospheric emissions.
Densely settled areas would also contain numerous radio frequency receivers that would
3 experience interference from the ionospheric research instrument (IRI). Mitigation for such a
large number of problems would be prohibitively difficult. Avoidance of such areas would
I eliminate the need for prohibitively extensive mitigation.
I Collocation and Sufficient Land Area. The proper collocation of the IRI and the associated
diagnostic equipment is critical to the operation of the program. Most of the diagnostic
I equipment need certain separation distances from the IRI and other facilities. For example, the
1 2-5
I
I
incoherent scatter radar (ISR) must be located between about 2 to 10 miles from the IRI. The
vertical incidence sounder (VIS), optical imager and magnetometer, and light detection and
ranging (LIDAR) also have inter-related separation requirements. I
The HAARP facility would require a "footprint" area of approximately 50 acres of land to I
accommodate the IRI and the diagnostic equipment. However, considerably more land would
be required to accommodate the necessary separation distances between the IRI and diagnostic I
equipment. These separation distances are essential for the proper operation of the HAARP
equipment. The actual amount of total acreage would vary depending upon the parcel shape. I
While use of one parcel for the entire facility would be the most desirable, if necessary, some
of the equipment requiring large separation distances from the IRI could be located on a different
parcel. In such a situation, the parcels collectively would constitute one HAARP site.
Relatively Flat Terrain. The HAARP facility should be located on land which does not exceed
a slope of approximately two percent (vertical/horizontal). The antenna array requires a
reasonably level plain in order to function properly. From a construction and engineering I
perspective, the HAARP facility would become unreasonably and prohibitively expensive to
construct on a slope exceeding about two percent.
Realistic and Reasonable. The CEQ requires that only realistic and reasonable alternatives be
considered in detail.
II
I
I
2-6 £
!
I
U 2.2 ALTERNATIVES INITIALLY CONSIDERED
E 2.2.1 Alternative Sites
U Alternative sites initially considered for the HAARP program were evaluated against the first
level criteria of within the U.S. borders and on DOD owned land. These sites included 7
military installations or reservations, 8 sites identified by the Corps of Engineers, and 5
i previously identified sites considered in the Over-the-Horizon Backscatter (OTH-B)
Environmental Impact Assessment Process for the Alaska Radar System. Of these, the only sites
I meeting the first level criteria were 7 military reservations and one of the OTH-B sites. They
are:
U S Elmendorf Air Force Base

3 0 Fort Richardson
0 Eielson Air Force Base
3 S Clear Air Force Station
0 Fort Greely
3 0 Fort Wainwright
* Fort Wainwright Military Reservation
5 Gulkana
I 2.2.2 Comparison Of The Second Level Criteria and Alternative Sites
I The comparison of the alternative sites with the siting criteria is presented in Table 2.2-1.
Elmendorf Air Force Base (AFB), Fort Richardson, Eielson AFB and Fort Wainwright were
3 eliminated from consideration because they would be too close to densely settled areas and the
associated large numbers of radio frequency receivers. Elmendorf AFB and Fort Richardson
are in Anchorage, Alaska; Fort Wainwright is just outside of Fairbanks, Alaska; and Eielson
AFB is approximately 20 miles south of Fairbanks and just outside of North Pole, Alaska which
2
3 2-7
I
I
TABLE 2.2-1. COMPARISON OF SECOND LEVEL SITING CRITERIA
AND ALTERNATIVE SITES
Sites Near Avoid Collocation Relatively Realistic

Primary Densely and Flat Terrain &
Highway Settled Sufficient Reasonable
Areas Space
Elmendorf AFB 0 x 0 0 0
Fort Richardson x 0 0 0
Eielson AFB 0 z0 0 3
ClearAFS 0
Fort Greely 10 0
Fort Wainwright 0 x 0 a 0
Ft. Wainwright Military Reser. 0 0 0 x
Gakona,(Gulkana) 1
LEGEND 3
* Site Complies with Criterion
x Site Does Not Comply with Criterion
Site Complies with All Criteria
is a suburb of Fairbanks. Reliable surface access to Fort Wainwright Military Reservation would
require a long-span bridge (roughly 2,500 feet long), at a projected cost of tens of millions
dollars, to span the Tanana River. Consequently, use of Fort Wainwright Military Reservation
was deemed unrealistic and unreasonable and it was dropped from further consideration. 3
The remaining military reservations, Clear Air Force Station (AFS) and Fort Greely, meet all 3
the criteria established for the HAARP Program. Gulkana, originally selected for siting the
OTH-B transmitter facility also meets all the criteria. To circumvent possible confusion between 3
the OTH-B Program and the HAARP Program, it was decided to rename the Gulkana site after
the nearest settlement Gakona. From this point forward in the document, this site will be 3
referred to as Gakona.
2-8
U
I
I
Subsequent to the identification of the 3 potential alternatives, discussions were held with
responsible officials of each site to consider any overlying issue that could lead to conflicts and
i unreasonable delays. The Ballistic Missile Early Warning System (BMEWS) radar operating
at Clear AFS was identified as a possible conflict with the most critical HAARP diagnostic
I equipment. The BMEWS radar system employs powerful radars that operate within the 400 -
450 MHz band which includes the 430 - 450 MHz band, one of the bands proposed for the on-
site diagnostics for the HAARP facility. The government commissioned an electromagnetic
compatibility study to determine if a feasible option was available to allow the co-existence of
i the BMEWS radars and the HAARP facility (MITRE, 1992a). This study concluded that the
more powerful BMEWS radars would conflict with the ISR diagnostic operation since the two
g operate on adjacent frequencies. It was determined, however, the Clear APS could be used if
the ISR was located in an area where a major lard form (i.e. mountain, hill, ridge, etc) exists
I between it and the BMEWS radar thereby providing an electromagnetic barrier. A site (called
the Bear Creek location) in the foothills of the Alaska Range in the Nenana River Valley slightly
I north of Bear Creek was identified as a suitable location for the ISR. This location was selected
because it is within the maximum allowable separation distance from the IRI, and because a 400-
I foot high ridge exists between this location and the BMEWS radar which provides a natural
electromagnetic barrier that would be effective in isolating the ISR from the BMEWS (Figure
I 2.2-1). This siting approach is consistent with the criterion of using DOD owned land to the
greatest extent practical since the majority of the facility would be located on DOD owned land.
I
Fort Greely is an U.S. Army post and training area located in the Delta Junction Area of Alaska.
The U.S. Army felt that HAARP would constitute a non-compatible land use with current U.S.
Army operations (US Army, 1992). To avoid unnecessary delay due to non-compatible
activities, Fort Greely was dropped from consideration as an alternative.
I*
2-9
I
COWY AVAILABLE TO DTIC DOES NOT PERMIT FULL' LEG~IBL FPR%2?CDUc7-O0 3
Tanana-Kuskokwim -p
Lowlands
- ANDESON . Tanana-Kuskokwim
c Lowlands
,iS1
(USAF, ,.
3 Clear AFS
6K Piroperty
ý,h
IN. 40 1 2
8
A '9'
''LL,.,Alaska Range
Bear Creek 7~ Fohls~ .
Locatin -T ~'-
- U7
Jun Cr-.
)v
I-.- 3
e Creek
J1
Aakaag
SCALINFET7 47_1^'ý L'*"

Domed
SCALE INTAL FEET~

I The Gakona site became available when OTH-B Alaskan Radar System was terminated. If no
alternate use of the existing OTH-B structures is identified then the structures at the site will be
U demolished. No conflicting issue at Gakona was identified that could lead to undue delays.
Thus, Clear AFS and Gakona will be evaluated in detail as reasonable alternative sites (Figure
2.2-2).
E 2.2.3 Alternative Designs
I In addition to upgrading existing facilities and searching for alternative siting areas, alternative
designs were also considered that could achieve HAARP program goals. A request for proposals
(RFP) was issued for the design of the Ionospheric Research Instrument (IR1), the central
component of the HAARP program. Two alternative designs for the IRI, a stacked array and
a dual array, were proposed (APTI, 1992). Both designs meet the criterion for providing the
I transmitting capability necessary for the HAARP Program. Both designs require the same
operations center, power to operate, and on-site and off-site diagnostic equipment.
Stacked Array. The MRI would consist of 180 crossed dipole antenna elements arranged in a
I grid pattern of 12 rows and 15 columns (Figure 2.2-3). The proposed design for the stacked
IRI calls for the low frequency antenna to be stacked above the high frequency antennas (Figure
3 2.2-4). The elements would be supported on 66-foot masts mounted on steel base piles
I extending 4 feet above the ground and spaced at 80-foot intervals.
The low frequency element is approximately 69 feet long and 52 feet above the ground (Figure
I 2.2-5), and transmits 3.2 MW of energy in a frequency range of 2.8 - 7.6 MHz. The high
frequency element is approximately 55 feet long and 45 feet above the ground and transmits 3.2
I MW of energy in a frequency range of 7.3 - 10.0 MHz.
I The masts would be guyed at the top and midpoints and anchored to the base piles of the
adjacent masts. A suspended ground screen would run throughout the antenna grid area at a
3 height 15 feet above the ground and would extend 40 feet beyond the perimeter antenna masts.
£ 2-11
ARTCOCEANI
- - ARCTIC CIRCLE_
CLEAR.
Bering
Sea .......
6101
PACIFIC OCEAN 200 0 200 1

SCALE IN MILES3
FIGURE 2.2-2. GAKONA AND CLEAR, ALASKA SITES3
2-12 21~16
I
I
I
1280'-
....- 40' Clear,

4 ... , Perimeter
:*:Anchor Piles
............. L to Exclusion
'Fence
104 ' CA ... .....
6
7 X-.X .- .-... ..
....... ...~ 120
..... -,-,.. T I
3~1 12 13a 51
136
*LEGEND
* Base Piles/Antenna Masts (180 Units)
A Anchor Piles (58 Units)

* Transmitter Modules (30 Units)
Ground screen
U NOT TO SCALE
3 ~FIGURE 2.2-3. STACKED 1111 ANTENNA FIELD LAYOUT
2-13
I € dV2MIl7.2 L
Top Phillystran Guys
-70 Feet I
" ---- Antenna Element
Low Frequency
~52 Feet
_ _ o • High Frequency
Antenna Element
•""-- • Guy ldb,=b
• ,1---- Mid-Point
Phillystran Guys
I
______Center Support I
Typically 12' Diameter
- 45 Feet
I
4 - Ground Screen
Support Tabs j
I
15 Feet
4 -11 Adjacent Guys
Piling go J 4 Feet
Ground Level
FIGURE 2.2-4. STACKED ARRAY SUPPORT MASTS
2-14
21
LQ)t
CY z
C)
00
CD
LLU
* 0)
2-15
The mesh of the screen would be not greater than 3 feet square. Fifty-eight additional piles
would be required around the perimeter of the antenna grid to support the groundscreen
extension and to act as antenna mast tie-down anchors. This entire array system would occupy i
a foot print approximately 1040 feet x 1280 feet. The IRI antenna field would be enclosed by
a fence restricting access to a total area of 1,120 feet by 1,360 feet, or 35 acres. i
Thirty shelter modules would be distributed evenly along 5 of the mast support columns within i
the antenna grid. These modules would house transmitting equipment used to power the
individual antenna elements. All shelter modules would be approximately 38 feet long by 8 feet
wide by 10 feet high supported by a skid frame set on a post-and-pad or pile foundation.
Dual Array. In contrast to the stacked array in which the high and low frequency antennas are
stacked upon each other, the dual array design would be comprised of two adjacent antenna
arrays fields. One antenna field would consist of the high-frequency antennas and the adjacent
array would be comprised of the low-frequency antennas (Figure 2.2-6).
U
The high frequency array would consist of 210 crossed dipole antenna elements arranged in a
grid pattern of 14 rows and 15 columns. The elements would be supported on 60-foot high
masts mounted on steel base piles extending 4 feet above ground and spaced at 77 feet intervals.
Each mast would support a high frequency element approximately 42 feet in length, supported
on masts at a height approximately 46 feet above the ground (Figure 2.2-7) and would transmit
3.3 MW of energy at a frequency range of 6.0 - 10.0 MIHz.
The masts will be guyed at the top and midpoints and anchored to the base piles of four adjacent I
antennas. A suspended groundscreen (mesh size 3 feet square) would run throughout the high
frequency antenna grid area at a height 15 feet above the ground and would extend 38.5 feet
beyond the perimeter antenna masts. Sixty-two additional base piles would be required around
the perimeter of the antenna grid to support the groundscreen extension and to act as antenna I
mast tie-down anchors. The entire high frequency array system would occupy a footprint
approximately 1078 feet x 1232 feet (Figure 2.2-6). 1
2-16 1
I
I
1 1680'
1600'
I ;O
U 1400'..•
I iiiiiiiii LOW =
100 FREQUENCY
.1407•8
14 4C
2Pe63me8e..An.hor
8Piles:to0Exclusion
: I0 1T 1 11T T I "
I~T T Exclusion
,,,HIG,--•
Fence
1232'
3 1078' UE
1312' I/ 4 S10E
* LEGEND
* Base Piles/Antenna Masts (420 Units) NOT TO SCALE
3 A Anchor Piles (124 Units)

I Transmitter Shelters (35 Units)
3 F7IGURE 2.2-6. DUAL ARRAY FIELD LAYOUT
2-172870
4 5G
.GU
0)Q
4) U
0 LU
'E
0~
2-18
I
I The low frequency array is very similar to the high frequency array and is illustrated in Figure
2.2-8. The major differences evident in the low frequency array are that the low frequency
I array has larger overall dimensions and has longer and higher individual antenna elements than
the high frequency array (Figure 2.2-6). This array system also would consist of a 14 row by
15 column grid arrangement of crossed dipole antenna elements as before however the support
masts are 80 feet high and are spaced at 100-foot intervals. Each mast would support a low
frequency element approximately 87 feet in length, supported on masts at a height approximately
61 feet above the ground (Figure 2.2-8) and would transmit 3.2 MW of energy at a frequency
range of 2.8-6.0 MHz.
I The masts would be guyed at the top and midpoints and anchored to the base piles of four
adjacent antenna as illustrated in Figure 2.2-8. A suspended groundscreen would run throughout
the low frequency antenna grid area at a height 15 feet above the ground and would extend 50
I feet beyond the perimeter antenna masts. Sixty-two additional base piles would be required
around the perimeter of the antenna grid to support the groundscreen extension and to act as
3 antenna mast tie-down anchors. The entire low frequency array system would occupy a footprint
approximately 1600 feet x 1400 feet (Figure 2.2-6). Thirty-five shelter modules would be
3 distributed evenly along the site access road between the two array fields. These modules would
house transmitting equipment used to power the individual antenna elements. In addition, a
"master control module" would be located at the middle of the group. All shelter modules
would be approximately 38 feet long by 8 feet wide by 10 feet high supported by a skid frame
3 set on a post-and-pad or pile foundation. The dual array would be enclosed by a fence providing
a 40-foot clear zone from the perimeter anchor piles, around each of the arrays (Figure 2.2-6).
3 The total enclosed area is approximately 90 acres.
Comparison of Stacked and Dual Designs. When comparing the stacked array and the dual
array, it is readily apparent that the dual array would require more than twice the area and twice
3 the number of masts and associated equipment to support the IRI antenna elements. The dual
array would require approximately twice the gravel to be excavated and placed at the site as
I i 2-19
I
cot
MI
I
EI
________________G ____________ >
co
0O
CL
02 cc
0~ X I
00
0 1
4i
2-20I
I
I compared to the stacked array, for a given site. Furthermore, the dual array would disturb
about twice the amount of vegetation as would the stacked array. The dual array will not be
considered further because of its obvious, considerably greater environmental and financial costs
as compared to the stacked array. Thus, only the stacked array will be considered in the
I remainder of this EIS.
I
I
I
I
U
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
uuimunnmm~n
nnl m
nmlan
i N l2-2i1
I
2.3 ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS
Three categories of alternatives were considered toward achieving HAARP Program goals: I
upgrade of an existing facility; consideration of alternative sites; and, considering alternative IRI
designs. Each category was considered in detail, based on set criteria, to determine reasonable I
alternatives for further analysis. From the many alternatives considered, three alternatives were
identified for further analysis: construct the stacked array HAARP facility at the Gakona site; I
construct the stacked array HAARP facility at the Clear site; and, the no action alternative.
Both the Clear site alternative and the no action alternative would include the reclamation of the I
Gakona site. The government recognizes that they are obliged to implement a near-term
reclamation effort at either the Gakona or Clear site at the termination of the program or when
no other use of the proposed HAARP facility has been identified.
2.3.1 Preferred Alternative - Gakona
The proposed Gakona, Alaska, site (Figure 2.2-1) was previously designated by the Air Force I
as the location for the OTH-B ARS transmit site. Facilities at the Gakona site, constructed as
part of the OTH-B Program, include an approximately one mile long access road leading from
the Tok Cut-Off Highway, and a large previously constructed metal building once needed to
house the OTH-B powerplant. This building covers an area approximately 21,000 square feet 3
in size and is erected on a mechanically refrigerated foundation slab, placed in a large gravel
pad adjacent to the existing site access road. The ARS portion of the OTH-B Program was
terminated in 1991 by the Air Force and the Gakona site has remained under the ownership of
the Air Force. The facilities are now available for other appropriate government use such as
HAARP.
U
MlI and Support Facilities. The IRI would be located at the end of the existing site access road
along the southern edge (Figure 2.3-1). This location for the IRI was chosen based on the goal
of minimizing wetland fill, using existing assets and minimizing financial costs. The installation
of the IRI would require the placement of approximately 95,000 cubic yards of fill material. 3
2-22
I
3 -.-.- ~Site Boundary
Section Lines
-* *j
I Observational
Instrument Sites
p '
...................
Existing BLM Trail
Opic Imaer
Infae Imgrn
incoherent Rod
IPi
PowePlanta
IR
Existing
BLM Trai~l
I-'- -------- ------

of Existing BLM Trail 2000 0 20o0
I
*Upgrade
SCALE IN
FEET
I FIGURE 2.3-1. PROPOSED FACILITY LAYOUT AT GAKONA SITE
2 -2 3
2 817CC. Ia641GE
I
The fill would be placed in 17 parallel strips (corresponding to the number of columns described
in the description of the stacked array above) extending south from the existing access road.
Twelve of the strips of fill would be approximately 1000-foot long, 20 feet wide, 5 feet in depth I
and have nominally 3 to 1 side slopes. Five, so called center strips, would be intermixed with
the other 12 and would be similar in design, except they would have a 50-foot top-width. These I
5 strips of extra width would accommodate the 30 transmitter modules (6/strip). The 17
graveled strips would be spaced on 80 feet centers and would allow for the protection of the I
marginal permafrost during year-round construction and operation of the IRI. Each strip would
have base and/or anchor piles installed in it and a minimally sized service road along the top.
Additionally, 2 closing roads would be constructed (approximately 1300 feet each) at the ends
of, and perpendicular to, the parallel strips. The closing roads would be similar in design to the
20-foot wide road. 3
Operations Center. The operations center would be located in an enclosed area 54 feet wide
by 165 feet long which is a portion of the existing OTH-B powerplant building. The operations
center would include the following: a site entry control point, an office and shop for site 3
maintenance, supply and storage areas for site support, the IRI control room, a conference area,
a break room, restrooms (including showers), an instrument control room for the diagnostic
equipment, mechanical and electrical utility rooms, three offices for research scientists, rest
quarters for eight people, water storage for fire protection and domestic uses, a wastewater 3
holding tank, and a communications system.
I
Site Power Requirements and Sources. The HAARP facility would utilize two primary power
sources. Electrical power for the actual operation of the IRI and the main diagnostic equipment 3
would be provided by a large, on-site diesel generator facility discussed below. Electrical power
for maintenance of on-site facilities and the operation of on-site diagnostic equipment would be 3
provided from a commercial off-site source. The necessary commercial power requirements
would be met through an upgrade of the existing Copper Valley Electric Association (CVEA) 3
power line which runs by the Gakona site, as discussed below. Two small on-site backup diesel
generators would provide emergency power for the needs of the generator/operations building 3
2-24
I
I
in the event of the loss of commercial power. There would be no emergency backup power
I source for the IRI, ISR and on-site diagnostics.
On-Site Power Generation. The large on-site diesel generators would be located in a 95-foot
I by 126-foot portion of the existing OTH-B powerplant building (Figure 2.3-1). The six
generators are to be driven by Electro-Motor Division (EMD) diesel engines. The diesel engines
I are rated at 3600 horsepower (HP) at 900 revolutions per minute (RPM). The generators are
three-phase synchronous generators that would be capable of providing a maximum of 15 MW
(6 @ 2.5 MW each) of operational power to the IRI and ISR. Terminal output voltage is 12.47
kilovolts (kv). External radiators, mounted on the roof, would be installed to cool the engines.
Final exhaust stack heights will be determined during the future design phase of this facility and
i would be in compliance with all applicable state and federal regulations.
i Off-Site Power, Commercial Line Upgrade. The CVEA would upgrade the existing "North
Line" from single phase to three phases (Figure 2.3-2). The line to be upgraded would begin
IEat milepost 126 on the Richardson Highway, proceed along the highway heading north, cross
the Gulkana River, pass by the Gulkana Village, and continue to mile post 130.5 where the
I section leading to the Gakona community branches off to the east. The three-phase upgrade
would continue on the Gakona community line through Gakona and would follow the Tok Cutoff
to the site. The upgraded section would be above ground to the site access point. At the site
I a buried line would connect the main line to a substation.
Substation. A two part substation would be located within the existing powerplant building.
I One part would handle the on-site produced 12.47 kv power from the diesel generators. The
second part would handle the stepdown of commercial 24.9 kv power to the required 12.47 kv.
Dual, three phase, distribution feeders would leave the substation and follow the site access and
trail roads to provide electrical power to the various HAARP equipment items and supporting
I facilities.
I i~2 -25
I
,
I, I
Gakona Site
HAARP Facility -"I
End of Proposed
Upgrade
I!I I
S'l
Milepost 130.5 --.. .............. '",1 , , •I
""-Gakona Line
"""--Gakona
River
-- - Existing Single Phase Power Line
................. Proposed Three Phase Power Line

To be Upgraded from Single Phase
Gulkana Village Line

\"F----Gulkana Ri;'er
-Beginning of Proposed
Upgrade
Milepost 126
FIGURE 2.3-2. PROPOSED POWER LINE UPGRADE
2-26 dM•,7 3
Fuel Storage & Delivery. A fuel delivery and storage system would be located adjacent to the
operations/generator building. Fuel consumption for an average research campaign would be
I approximately 200,000 gallons. This assumes an average research campaign of 10 preparation
days, 14 experiment days, and 4 shutdown days. Four to five campaigns per year are
I anticipated, although additional campaigns could be accommodated if necessary. An additional
2900 gallons of fuel would be consumed each year for system checks. The diesel plant's fuel
storage facilities are estimated to be capable of storing 200,000 gallons of fuel. Four 50,000-
gallon above-ground fuel storage tanks would be located at the site to accomplish this. A fuel
unloading area would also be provided to enable the safe off-loading of fuel oil delivered. The
- delivery and storage system will be constructed in compliance with all applicable safety and
environmental standards.
I On-Site Diagnostic Equipment. The following diagnostics would be collocated on the Gakona
I site: Incoherent Scatter Radar (ISR), high frequency (HF) sounder, infrared imager, optical
imager, magnetometer and LIDAR. A description of each, including site specific details, are
I provided below. Access to these diagnostics at Gakona would require extending the present 40-
foot wide site access road approximately 300 feet to the point where it intersects an existing trail
I and cutline running north/south through the site. This trail would be improved with gravel,
becoming 12 to 16 feet in width and extending north from the intersection some 9,500 feet to
I the furthest diagnostic (Figure 2.3-1). Data, power and communication lines would be buried
or run above surface along the existing access road and the new north/south trail road. Each
of the diagnostic areas would be enclosed in a fence for security and safety reasons.
Incoherent Scatter Radar (ISR). The purpose of the ISR is to study ionospheric electron
density variations with altitude, temperatures, and motions, as well as other parameters of
the ionosphere. The ISR is considered a principal diagnostic because it can provide detailed
data on background ionospheric conditions and changes. The ISR would consist of a large
radar dish approximately 115 feet in diameter. The dish antenna would be supported by a
25-foot diameter support structure, approximately 35 feet above the ground. In addition,
I i 2-27
I
a trailer module wou4d be located adjacent to the support structure to house the control
equipment.
The ISR would be located 4000 feet north of the IRI, along the north/south trail road on a
presently uncleared portion of the site. The cleared area required for the construction of
this diagnostic is approximately 200 feet by 200 feet containing a gravel pad 160 feet by 160
feet in size.
Vertical Incidence Sounder (VIS). The VIS would be used to determine the location and
movement of large scale ionospheric structures. The data from the VIS would also be used
to determine the operating modes for the IRI. The diagnostic would include both a
transmitter and receiver. The transmitter would consist of two dipole antenna elements
supported by five masts (Figures 2.3-3). The center masts wou!d be approximately 100 feet
tall and the four perimeter masts would be approximately 50 feet in height. The total pad
size for the transmitter array is approximately 250 feet square. All of the masts and antenna
elements would be guyed to the ground as indicated in Figure 2.3-3. The receiver array
would consist of three elements arranged in a triangular configuration with a fourth element
in the center of the triangle. Each of the elements would be approximately 4 to 5 feet high
and mounted on steel plates. The total pad size for the receiver array is approximately 210
feet square.
At the Gakona site, the VIS transmitter and receiver would be located approximately 7000
feet north of the IRI along the north/south trail road. For the transmitter, the center masts
would be installed in the middle of an 8-foot by 8-foot gravel base pad. The four perimeter
masts would each be installed on a 32-foot diameter gravel base pad.
Each of the elements for the receiver would be situated on an 8-foot by 8-foot gravel pad
and connected to the other elements by narrow gravel pad walkways. A single trailer
module would be required at the site, to house the associated electronic components for both
the transmitter and receiver.
2-28
I
I
3 Not to Scale
99 Feet
I
II / 49.5 Feet
Poles will be 122 Feet

center-to-center
Side View (East-West) Magnetic

I
I
99 Feet
I "149.5 Feet
Poles will be 82.5 Feet

center- to-center
Side View (North - South) Magnetic
I
FIGURE 2.3-3. SIDE VIEW OF TRANSMITTER FOR PROPOSED VIS
I 2-29
26170-17
Optical Imager. An optical imager photographs background ionospheric and auroral
structures. The optical imager would be located in the same trailer module as the Infrared
Imager. At the Gakona Site, the optical imager would be located 9500 feet north of the IRI
along the north/south trail road. The optical imager would be located in the other half of
the trailer module as the infrared imager.
Infrared Imager. The infrared imager would be used to define the latitudinal position,
structures, and changes within the aurora. An infrared imager is an optical instrument
housed in a trailer module with a clear dome on the roof.
At the Gakona site the infrared imager would be located 9500 feet north of the IRI along
the north/south trail road in a trailer module with the optical imager. The trailer module
would be situated on a 50-foot by 50-foot gravel pad.
Magnetometer. A magnetometer measures the variations in the earth's magnetic field

associated with the aurora. A magnetometer is a magnetic loop antenna and associated
electronic equipment housed in a 3-foot by 3-foot by 1.5-foot box. At the Gakona site, the
magnetometer would be located 9500 feet north of the IRI along the north/south trail road,
on the same gravel pad as the imaging instruments discussed above. The magnetometer
would be surrounded by an 8-foot high wooden fence.
Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR). A LIDAR is used to investigate the atmospheric
chemistry associated with the aurora. It is an optical instrument which would be located in
a trailer module, with a clear dome on the roof.
At the Gakona site, the LIDAR would be located 4000 feet north of IRI along the
north/south trail road and approximately 1000 feet east of the ISR on a presently uncleared
portion of the site. The LIDAR site would require a 50-foot x 50-foot gravel pad and a 12-
foot wide gravel access road 1,000-foot long, east of the trail road.
2-30
I
I Off-Site Diagnostics. The following off-site diagnostics have currently been identified for
possible utilization with the IRI: imaging riometer; HF/VIHF radar; VLF receiver; scintillation
receiver; and, an ELF/VLF receiver. The actual composition of off-site diagnostics is likely to
change depending upon experimental requirements and technical evaluation of the program. The
use of these off-site diagnostics are not evaluated in detail in this EIS because their locations are
generally dependent upon experiment requirements, and because the off-site diagnostics are not
required for basic HAARP operation. Subsequent appropriate environmental analysis will be
I completed for the off-site diagnostics prior to any decision to add them to the facility.
A riometer monitors background radiation from the galaxy and enables a photographic-like
image to be formed of the lower ionosphere. The riometer would consist of 256 antenna masts,
I 8 feet in height, and arranged in a 16 by 16 grid. The riometer would require an area about 270
by 270 feet. Most of this area would be covered by a 250 by 250 foot groundscreen.
A HF/VHF radar is used to detect the presence of smaller scale ionospheric structures within
the lower ionosphere. The HF/VHF radar would consist of a transmitting radar and a receiver
site. The HF/VHF radar transmitter would consist of a 260 by 525 foot antenna array. The
I receiver would require an area of about 165 by 165 feet.
3 A VLF receiver is used to determine changes in the lower ionosphere. The VLF receiver
I would likely be mounted on the roof of an existing building.
A scintillation receiver is used to monitor the characteristics of satellite radio wave transmissions
3that pass through the ionosphere. The scintillation receiver system would require an area of
I about 656 by 1312 feet.
An ELF/VLF receiver is used to monitor the propagation of ELF/VLF radio waves. The
I ELF/VLF receiver would require one or more sites about 330 by 330 feet in size.
i
2
2-31
I
I
Gravel Sources. Although final designs are not available, preliminary estimates indicate that
the construction of the HAARP IRI and on-site diagnostics would require approximately
160,000 cubic yards of non-frost susceptible gravel. This would require approximately 7,300
haul trips, assuming a haul unit capacity of 22 cubic yards. Depending on pit run quality,
crushing and or screening equipment might be required to process the gravel. I
It is anticipated that gravel would be obtained from a nearby source. Five potential gravel i
sources, all within 24 miles of the Gakona site, have been evaluated. The locations of the gravel
I
sources, identified as P1, P2, Al, A4, and A5 are shown in Figure 2.3-4. These sources were
previously selected as part of the OTH-B program at Gakona. The previously used number
convention has been retained to aid the reader. The HAARP project would require less than
one-tenth of the 2.5 million cubic yards of fill previously required for the OTH-B project.
All the OTH-B gravel sources would be available to the construction contractor. Other borrow
sites not mentioned in this document could be identified and used by the construction contractor.
The following discussion is based largely on the Borrow Removal Technical Study (M&EIH&N, I
1989a) which was prepared for the OTH-B program.
'I
Gravel Source P1. The center of this area is approximately 2.5 miles east-southeast of the
HAARP site and is a former stream-bed of the Copper River that was formed when the
river was at a higher elevation. The approximate 9,000-foot long, 1,400-foot wide area is
bounded on the south and west by the Copper River channel and on the north by a steep
bluff eroded by the Copper River. The eastern boundary is formed by the existing Alaska
Department of Transportation (ADOT) pit 46-1-018-5 and the Copper River. It is approx-
imately 5 feet above the present Copper River channel. Tulsona Creek enters the area from
the north near the ADOT borrow pit, partially crosses the area twice, and then follows the j
old flow channel along the toe of the bluff to its confluence with the Copper River. The
material in this area is stratified, river-deposited cobbly sand and gravel with discontinuous j
permafrost. Groundwater was present at some boring locations at depths ranging from 3
2-32
I~~ - ~~~~
- ---- ~---~------ -.- ---
7- PIP,
1P'1
IP 2
GAKONA SIT AAi5
Gakona Junction.
Gulkana 1
-'
I IV
Q . 0 6
I I ~SCALE IN MILES
Source: USGS Topographic Map
Gulkana, Alaska (1959)
FIGURE 2.3-4. POTENTIAL GAKONA GRAVEL SOURCES
12-33 MrTCALF CD
to 8 ft, with an average depth of 5 feet indicating stockpiling and draining would likely be
required. Tests performed on materials at the adjacent ADOT pit indicate that the gravel
is suitable for all fill requirements and for processing as sub-base, base, and surface courses
for roads (M&E/H&N, 1989a). Based on an assumed excavation depth of 15 feet in usable
soil and a 100-yard buffer next to the Copper River, this source could provide 2.5 million
cubic yards of gravel, over 10 times the amount required for the construction of the HAARP i
research facility.
The haul distance from the antenna site along the Glenn Highway and existing haul road to
the center of the borrow area is approximately 4 to 5 miles. A more direct route could be
achieved by constructing a new haul road along an existing drainage swale, from the Glenn
Highway across Tulsona Creek to the western end of the site. The new road would reduce
the haul distance to the center of the area to about 2.3 miles, but would require constructing
about 1.3 miles of new haul road (possibly over wetlands) and a crossing over Tulsona 3
Creek.
Gravel Source P-2. This source is located approximately 1.5 miles southeast of the
research site and 2,000 feet west of source P-1. The 5,000-foot long and 1,000-foot wide, 3
gravel source is bounded on the south and east by the Copper River and on the north and
west by steep slopes that separate it from the upland plain. The area consists of four 5
terraces and a section of the Copper River floodplain. It is generally well-drained, and a
drainage swale traverses the area from north to south. Subsurface investigations indicated
that the usable sand and gravel strata are discontinuous and shallow in spots, and ice was
common in both the overburden and the sand and gravel strata. Overburden layers are
approximately 7-foot thick. Although P-2 is the shortest haul distance to the proposed site,
about 2 miles of haul road would have to be constructed.
Based on an assumed pit depth of 9 feet and development of 30 acres within the pit, I
approximately 400,000 cubic yards of gravel could be obtained from this site. The presence
of frozen strata in both the overburden and the sand/gravel layers would require stockpiling
2-34
I
I and draining of any removed material. Containment dikes would be required to stockpile
stripped overburden.
This borrow area has the advantages of being the shortest haul distance of any of the areas
investigated and of having relatively good drainage. However, despite its close proximity
to the site, the extent and makeup of the overburden material make this source less desirable
(M&E/H&N, 1989a).
U
u Gravel Source A-1. This area, about 11 to 12 miles northeast of the antenna site, consists
of an upper, flat-topped terrace of the Copper River (in the eastern third of the source) and
a lower terrace in the western portion of the source. The terraces are associated with the
5 Copper River and are divided by a drainage channel that runs northeast-southeast from the
Glenn Highway to the Copper River. The drainage channel is bordered by wetlands. An
3 existing ADOT pit encroaches on the eastern portion of the upper terrace. Ponds are
located on both the upper and lower terraces. A 500,000-square-foot pond abuts the
3 northwest portion of the site. The area has a 3.5-foot to 5-foot layer of peat/silt
overburden; the underlying sand and gravel strata contain permafrost at 2.5 feet - 4.0 feet
3 and ice lenses in most areas, as well as a base layer of clay (at 16-foot to 29-foot depths)
I (M&E/H&N, 1989a).
Based on an assumed overall excavation depth of 15 feet and development of 76 acres

within this area, the total usable volume is approximately 1.6 million cubic yards
(M&E/H&N, 1989a). The presence of several shallow ponds indicates that soils may vary
5 widely through the site, requiring more detailed subsurface testing before use. The
estimated quantity of usable gravel in the upper terrace of gravel source A-1 is estimated
I to be 320,000 cubic yards based on an average thickness of 15 ft, excluding the pond area.
This quantity of gravel is enough to be relied upon as a sole source. The estimated quantity
I of usable soil in the lower terrace excluding the drainage swales and assuming an average
thickness of 18 feet is 1.5 nullion cubic yards, which is more than enough for the HAARP
3 project.
1 2-35
I
The gravel from this source could be transported to the Tok Cutoff over an existing haul I
road or by constructing a new haul road, 1/4 mile in length, along the drainage swale and
into the center of the borrow area. This new road would be required for efficient
development of the tower terrace. Area A-I can be easily accessed and has suitable
material.
Gravel Source A-4. This area is located in a broad, glacial outwash plain approximately
24 miles northeast of the antenna site. It extends from the Glenn Highway on the north
about 4,500 feet to the Copper River on the south. The eastern boundary consists of
lowlands adjacent to the Copper River. ADOT and private pits are located on both the east
and west sides of the area. Results from two borings indicate that an acceptable sand and
gravel layer extends to depths of at least 14 to 22 feet beneath a 2-foot to 2.5-foot layer of
organic silt/sand overburden. Some permafrost was encountered at 5 ft; no groundwater
was encountered (M&E/H&N, 1989a). 3
The lack of subsurface information for this site precludes making a well-reasoned estimate
of total fill availability. However, the results of two borings and the experience with
existing ADOT pits in the area indicate that borrow area A-4 has the potential to yield much 3
larger quantities than any other Gakona source evaluated.
I
An existing road, requiring only minimal repair, would provide access to the gravel source
from the Tok Cutoff. The haul distance would be approximately 25 miles. 3
Gravel Source A-5. This source is located approximately 6.5 miles southwest of the
antenna site. It is bounded on the west, south, and east by the Copper River, and on the
north by the Glenn Highway. It consists of a generally flat to gently sloping former channel 3
of the Copper River, and it lies mostly within the present inactive floodplain (except for the
western portion, which is crossed by Copper River overflow channels). The site is an 3
extension of an existing ADOT pit. Results of six borings indicate the presence of a deep
stratum (at least 19 ft) of cobble, sand, and gravel overlain by a 0.5-foot to 1.0-foot peat 3
2-36 1
I
and silty sand layer of unusable overburden. Groundwater was generally observed at 1.5-
foot to 6-foot depths; permafrost was not observed (M&E/H&N, 1989a).
Based on an assumed excavation depth of 9 feet and a 225-foot buffer along the Copper
River, the area that could potentially be developed is about 113 acres and would yield about
1.5 million cubic yards of material. Groundwater level near the surface and the expected
presence of oversize cobbles within the sand and gravel layer could increase the excavation
effort and reduce the amount of usable material.
An existing haul road could be used for hauling gravel from the source to the Tok Cutoff.
The eastern half of the area could be more efficiently developed by constructing a new haul
road along an existing trail west of the erosion bluff that forms the northeastern bc indary
of the area.
I 2.3.2 Alternative Site - Clear
The proposed alternative site would include land both at Clear AFS (Figure 2.3-5) and at a
location 10 miles south of Clear AFS, between the Nenana River and the Parks Highway, north
of Bear Creek, approximately at milepost 269. The portion of the Clear AFS for use by
HAARP will hereafter be referred to as the Clear AFS property. The siting area near Bear
Creek will be referred to hereafter as the Bear Creek location. The Clear AFS property and the
Bear Creek location will be collectively referred to as the Clear site. This non-contiguous site
would be required to prevent mutual interference problems between the operation of the essential
on-site diagnostic equipment, ISR, and the operation of the existing Ballistic Missile Early
Warning System (BMEWS), which is currently the sole mission of Clear AFS. The Bear Creek
location is the only location within the maximum separation distance from the proposed IRI site
that provides electromagnetic screening from the BMEWS.
2-37
I
J
Copy AVAILABLE TO DTIC DOES NOT PEIU&IT FULLY LEGIBLE REPRPODUCTIM
69
-\ ~ ~~1278
- -~ "f - ,. " -\
-
NEW MILITARY BOUNDARY \

£•3 £8 £7 : LL
... - CLEAR
-------
-- - -
/ - 4 1
•.- dI
. I. ... .-:--. .,, ..
) AND MAGNETOMETER m"

4Q5,
NEW MILITARY BOUNDARY

--------- -- - I-
11 12 I
-20 - 2 2I I9 2 I 28 4 " _ 7 IR.I 2 .
-• Z" 4..,.
i
1, 16 261 "2 :'36 369
318 -
. - -Z_•_ "• _: em .. . ..
20 - 21 224 19 203 ' 0
-- O --- ----- ----------

--- - .
20 21 22. 23 24 920 2? -2-
29 -2- -•-'--2. ,-
" - "- -'-I,------
S"•
".._
2927 ',;> ,I
36
"
25 32
--
Z7
-
3
26~-
-
2'
"
32 •II - " 4 34 -" ------.....--- 3'
BEAR CREEK ,. --- : ........ :. . =.. ;

- -~ LOCATION ' " ' 13...
-I ~ SR&VIS-
SOURCE: USGS Fairbanks 6000 0 6000

Scale in
Feet
FIGURE 2.3-5. CLEAR SITE CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT:

INCLUDING CLEAR AFS PROPERTY AND BEAR CREEK LOCATION 3
2-38 MIA6AfO
IRI and Support Facilities. The IRI at the Clear AFS property would be configured in the
same manner as described in the Gakona site in Section 2.3.1. The IRI would be located on the
Clear AFS property, east of the existing Alaska Railroad right-of-way and south of the roadway
leading to Clear AFS and the town of Anderson (Figure 2.3-5). Approximately 1000 feet of
access road would be constructed connecting the currently uncleared IRI site to the existing
roadway.
Operations Center. The operations center would occupy an area 65 feet wide by 150 feet long.
The operations center would be located in a new structure, at the end of the proposed access
road, near the IRI on Clear AFS property. The operations center would include the following:
a site entry control point, an office and shop for site maintenance, minimal supply and storage
areas for site support, the IRI control room, a conference area, a break room, rest rooms, an
instrument control room for the ISR and other on- and off-site diagnostics, mechanical and
electrical utility rooms, three offices for research scientists, a fire protection system, a
wastewater system, and a communication system.
Power Sources. The HAARP facility would utilize two primary power sources. All power
requirements of the IRI and the other diagnostics located on Clear AFS property would be
provided by the existing powerplant at Clear AFS, and/or a commercial power grid. The
existing Clear AFS powerplant is a coal fired, steam turbine driven generator facility with the
rated capacity of 22.5 MW (3 boilers at 7.5 MW each). Some modification or expansion of the
existing powerplant may be necessary to meet the anticipated loading of HAARP.
The power for the Bear Creek location would be obtained commercially from the high voltage
transmission lines which follow the Parks Highway. This would require construction of a
relatively small power substation. The power would be used for all functions at the location.
Backup diesel generators would provide emergency power for the heat and lighting should the
commercial power fail. There would be no backup power source for the actual operation of the
ISR and the VIS.
2-39
I
On-Site Diagnostic Equipment. On-site diagnostic equipment would be the same as discussed i
in Section 2.3.1 for the Gakona site. Of the diagnosdc instruments, the ISR and the VIS would
be placed at the Bear Creek location (Figure 2.3-6). Access to the Bear Creek location would i
be via an approximately 1000 foot access road connecting to the Parks Highway. Power lines
would be buried along the access road to the instruments and connected to the high voltage tie- i
line that runs parallel to the Parks Highway. A large earthen mound (110 feet high) would be
constructed north of the ISR to improve electromagnetic shielding from the BMEWS radar i
located on Clear AFS. This mound would be constructed using the near-surface material scraped
from the instrument site areas. The land at the Bear Creek location is currently owned by the I
state of Alaska, with some personal homesteading activities in the area. Descriptions of the ISR
and VIS were provided in Section 2.3.1 under the Gakona site.
The other diagnostic instruments, the infrared imager; optical imager; magnetometer; and,
LIDAR will be located on the Clear AFS property (Figure 2.3-7). Access to these diagnostics 3
will require the construction of two gravel access roads (a total of 3000 feet in length). Data,
power and communication lines would be buried along both the access roads to the various 3
instruments and along the edge of the Alaska Railroad right-of-way. Instrument configurations
would essentially be the same as at the Gakona site (See Section 2.3.1 Gakona Site). Each of
the diagnostic areas would be enclosed in a fence for security and safety reasons.
I
Off-Site Diagnostics. Off-site diagnostics were previously discussed for the Gakona site and
are the same for this alternative. They are not required for basic HAARP operation. As was 3
stated previously, subsequent tiered NEPA documents will be prepared for these diagnostics as
better information on their nature and location becomes available. I
Gravel Sources. Construction of the HAARP facilities at Clear AFS would require 3
approximately 16,000 cubic yards of gravel at the Clear AFS property. and about 15,000 cubic
yards at the Bear Creek location. This corresponds to about 700 haul trips at each of the two 3
locations and assumes a 22 cubic yard haul capacity. Most of the gravel required for
2..40i
2
I
Earthen Mound
NoMgnetic
Nhrth
Mile 270*... 2./
/ Browne
Train Stop
I ISR
\-VIS Units
I Access Road
I...... ...
-I
Mile 269.3 Ba re
Turnout
Mile 269
.. June Creek
Rest Area
I FEET
~SCALE IN 10
3 FIGURE 2.3-6. BEAR CREEK LOCATION
2I4 17-i WSGE

DFI2S
construction would be used for the access roads and parking areas and should be of similar
quality.
Clear AFS property is underlain by a broad glaciofluvial outwash plane that is comprised mostly
of sands and gravels deposited during the pleistocene series, over-lain by river sediments and
loessial silt deposited during the recent age. The top layer of material ranges from 1 to 6 feet
thick, and the gravel outwash below is in excess of 400 feet thick in many places (Shannon &
Wilson, 1958). This condition sets the stage for an area rich in sand and gravel material. There
are currently numerous gravel borrow areas at the Clear AFS where material has been mined
for past construction projects (Figure 2.3-7).
Due to the abundance of gravel and sand material in the area, it is anticipated that gravel would
be mined from a nearby source, probably less than 2 miles away. This is the case for all of the
16,000 cubic yards required at Clear AFS property.
The Bear Creek location is locattd in the foothills of the Alaska Range, approximately 10 miles
south of Clear AFS. It is anticipated that this site would exhibit similar subsurface
characteristics as the Clear AFS property with a silty loessian mantle underlain by sand and
gravel. Although no sand and gravel borrow areas are known to exist in the immediate area,
obtaining 15,000 cub:i yards for the construction of the Bear Creek location is not foreseen to
be a major obstacle. As a worst case scenario, gravel material would be hauled from the Clear
AFS borrow areas discussed above. This would involve a round trip haul distance of about 24
miles.
The construction contractor would be able to choose from which site the borrow material would
come for construction of the facilities. This decision would be based on both cost and
construction requirements. Gravel obtained from the Clear AFS borrow areas would be
provided at no cost to the contractor as part of government furnished equipment and supplies.
If the contractor were to acquire gravel from off-site sources, they would be responsible for the
2-42
ANDERSON
Z Fairbanks
Clear.o
Anch ra e
'* ~ . f CLEAR AFS

% PROPERTY
.U LIA
IC
I1
Magnetometert
SPoSetalGvel Qource
IaIR
FIGURE2.37. OURCES
GRAVEL SitHe
CERAAE
3 2-43
zo Iager Optcal
cost of the gravel and any necessary permitting or impact studies associated with mining gravel
at alternate sites.
2.3.3 No Action
The no action alternative is to not construct a HAARP facility. This alternative would preclude
pioneering ionospheric research which cannot be accomplished at any existing facility, and
therefore would inhibit potential applications of HAARP research for advancing communications
and surveillance technology. Technology for improved local and world-wide communication,
clearer television and satellite communications, and enhanced radiotelescope research of the
universe would be delayed. Furthermore, and possibly more important, is the loss of the
potential for a new era of unknown technology that could be developed from a better
understanding of ionospheric processes.
The no action alternative would have none of the impacts associated with the construction and
operation of a HAARP research facility and would mean that the Gakona and Clear sites would
not be used for HAARP. If no alternate use is identified for the Gakona site, then the USAF
must promptly proceed with the reclamation of the site in accordance with the ARS Temuination
Plan approved by the Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch as a modification to the OTH-B
ARS, Clean Water Act Section 404 permit for wetland fill. The major points of the site
reclamation outlined in the ARS Termination Plan (USAF, 1991) are the following:
"* Remove the powerplant building and all associated structures and equipment
"* Excavate and properly dispose of approximately 3-4 feet of the uppermost gravel from
the powerplant pad (roughly 400 feet by 490 feet in area)
"* Remove the thermosyphons which comprise the gravel pad refrigeration system
"* Scarify the remaining gravel of the powerplant pad and access road
2-44
"" Remove the seven drainage culverts along the access road
" Construct gravel bars along the road to permit cross-drainage and to prevent ponding
and erosion
Currently, the only alternate use identified for the Gakona site is the proposed HAARP research
facility. The no action alternative would therefore result in the near-term initiation of the
reclamation for the Gakona site.
2-45
2.4 COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES
The major environmental consequences of the alternatives are compared in Table 2.4-1. The
comparisons are based on the information and analyses presented in sections 3.0 Affected
Environment, and 4.0 Environmental Consequences. The alternatives under consideration
include the two action alternatives that involve the construction and operation of the HAARP
facility at either the Gakona site or the Clear site and the no-action alternative of not to build.
Some limited programatic comparisons between the potential impacts associated with off-site
diagnostics for the Gakona site and the potential impacts associated with off-site diagnostics for
the Clear site can be made. More detailed comparisons are not possible because little is known
about their siting requirements. Equipment siting would vary depending upon scientific
requirements and final IRI design. In general, the Gakona and Clear sites and the surrounding
regions offer similar siting concerns. Both are about equal distances to a major river, a national
park, and mountains. Both sites are located in flat, uniformly vegetated areas. Due to the
consideration that must be given the BMEWS at Clear AFS, the Gakona site could offer slightly
more land available for use for locating future on-site equipment. The Gakona region receives
less use by tourists, suggLsting that impacts to tourism might be less if the Gakona site were
chosen. The Clear region, however, might provide slightly better wildlife habitat. The Clear
region also probably has a greater density of archaeological sites. The Clear region generally
has better soil conditions for construction and less privately owned land than the Gakona region.
However, these general differences may not be realized when siting diagnostic equipment since
local conditions would vary in both regions.
2-46
>E
U E 43 ll
IL-,.
E CSa]j Q .
I0 . E
4-u
Ui E
c E
I g -' 'o I .- . -
22 o
4
I' 4 Z~ E0
.
A H.
zU
ia~
MM
1 0 a.
0
Ih~ ~ - ~ .2-47a
a c
ýTm Cz
-ZU) zZ 60
Z 4
..- Sas&.
- .0
-
E 's
EE ~ as~
'g, Sjg N
U- o~
T-r - C Ju*
0c0
a
.c[
o
gas ~ 0 l' 0
B~ 60i a M
0- .0 ". 9 0 :q.
v I _
EI.
42 0
zo 'l) ,-S- ýo4
u2-4
U __ ____ ___ __ _ _____I_
5
ISJ
a
*, s
*0 c
z 030
'o Z IP5 1011ý

C a 0.0
C, c
I~ A.. I
-S E
~ * a~ Ca saL~
0 1 0 Z.0~2aum ~T 0t
S - 0 u~. .-
.2 -a !
0 Li*0~O
0 ~
* 0 ~ a .. S
U) o !.
.- 2-49
____U____1
IL
O.s
10 5. z B*9El z '
~-0
EEg
8 F. E
00 c000 0 0
IN2
.0 S2 ~ *I
r- to cc 4
0 ~ '0
A zx Em0zz 0 4 Zoz n c.-
0 - ova-.
A 3so
- .~ I ~ 2-50
- III-
ii
U
i
I .
I i I
U
2.5 IDENTIFICATION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
I
The preferred alternative is to construct the HAARP facility at the Gakona site.
i
I
I
I
i
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2-52
I
U
3 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
I This section describes the existing environment in the two areas of Alaska identified for potential
construction of the HAARP facility. Environmental resources are typically described at three
levels of detail including region, site, and conceptual layout. The Gakona Site and Clear Site
have been defined and are referred to earlier in Section 2 of this document. Gakona Region
refers to the Copper River Lowland as delineated on Figure 3.0-1 unless otherwise stated.
Clear Region refers to the Tanana-Kuskokwim Lowland as delineated on Figure 3.0-1 unless
otherwise stated. The conceptual layout is the proposed location of the HAARP facility and
associated structures on the Gakona and Clear sites.
3 Primary sources of information, especially for the Gakona site, were studies conducted as part
of the Air Force's Over-the-Horizon Backscatter (OTH-B) and include USAF (1986a), USAF
I (1987), USAF (1989a), and M&E/H&N (1989b). The information in these references was
updated or supplemented, where necessary, for use in this document.
Information for the Clear site was collected via interaction with various federal and state of
3 Alaska government agencies, as well as with the Air Force and the Army Corps of Engineers
and their agents. The Clear AFS Site Comprehensive Plan provided particularly valuable
I information in assembling this DEIS.
I
I
I
I
I
i 3-1
I
ARCTIC OCEAN3
ORpl411I
ROCKY MOUNTAIN SYSTEM C
AqcR~cTI CIRal. TANANA-I
Bearing Sea5
RIVER
PACIFIC
M OUN TAI N SY S
, - - -,"
PACIFIC OCEANI
SCALE INPILES
SOURCE: Waharhaftig, 1965I

Major Physiographic Division Boundary
-- Physiographic Province Boundary3
o Gakona Site
o Clear Site 3J
FIGURE 3.0-1. PHYSIOGRAPHIC PROVINCES OF ALASKAI
3-2
GM
U
U
3.1 LAND AND MINERALS
U 3.1.1 Gakona Site
Physiography and Topography. The Gakona Site lies within the Copper River Lowlands (also
known as the Copper River Basin) subdivision of the Pacific Mountain System (Figure 3.0-1).
The Copper River Lowlands consist of an inter-mountain basin flanked on all sides by
mountainous uplands. The eastern portion of this basin, which contains the Gakona site, is a
plain with elevations ranging from 1,000 to 3,000 feet above mean sea level (MSL). This plain
is dominated by glacial moraines and bedrock ridges that ris'- above the relatively flat glacial
U outwash surface (Emery et al., 1985). The lowland plain is bisected by the valleys of the
Copper River and its tributaries, whicfl have steep walls of up to 500 feet (USACOE, 1987a).
Most of the rivers that traverse the lowlands are fed by glaciers. Large lakes occupy deep
basins in the mountain fronts and thaw lakes are abundant on the eastern plain (Wahrhaftig,
U 1965).
3 The Gakona region is a gently southwest-sloping plain with numerous small lakes. Prominent
features within this area include the Gulkana, Gakona, Sanford, and Copper Rivers and Tulsona
3 Creek. On the Gakona site, elevations range from 1,940 feet in the northwest portion of the site
to 1,830 feet in the southeast portion near the Glenn Highway. The site has relatively low
3 topographic relief. It slopes downward to the southeast at a rate of 20 feet per mile in the lower
portion and is nearly flat in the upper portion. Maximum slopes are about 4 percent
I (M&E/H&N, 1989c). The site is well-drained of surface water relative to the surrounding area.
Although it does not contain lakes or defined stream channels, a number of poorly defined
5 drainage channels cross the site. In addition, a few isolated ponds exist on the northern portion
of the site.
I
Land Status and Existing Structures. The Gakona site is owned by the Air Force. Existing
3 structures on-site include an incompletely constructed, 21,000 square foot, 73 foot tall
1 3-3
I
I
powerplant building and a gravel access road approximately 5,300 feet in length. The
approximately 300-foot-tall Alascom microwave tower is located just outside of the eastern site
boundary. 3
Geology and Permafrost Conditions. Soils in this general area are typically poorly drained, I
clayey loarns with a peat surface layer and a shallow permafrost table (Selkregg, 1974). The
fine-grained soils are susceptible to frost and moderately thick or thin permafrost may exist I
throughout the area. Alluvial sand and gravel in the area is generally limited to the river areas
to the south and west of the site proper.
Several studies have been undertaken to define the specific subsurface conditions of the Gakona I
site. Site-specific explorations to date include 7 boreholes drilled by the Army Corps of
Engineers in 1987 (5 holes) and 1988 (2 holes) (USACOE, 1987a; 1988), and a series of
additional borings conducted in 1989 (Moolin and Associates, 1989). These test borings indicate
that the site is overlain by a relatively thin mantle of peat and organic soils approximately 1 to
2 feet thick. The moisture content of these organic soils was found to generally vary from 50 3
to 100 percent (USACOE, 1987a). These surficial organics are underlain by lacustrine deposits
predominantly composed of clays, clayey silts, and clayey sands. The clayey soils below the
surficial organics occurred at depths generally ranging from about 15 to 20 feet and contain
random gravel, cobble, and boulder-sized particles. Natural moisture contents (including ice 3
formations) in this layer varied from 15 to 40 percent. The surficial clays were underlain by
sandier and less plastic soils. Random gravel, cobble, and boulder-sized particles were
encountered throughout this lower layer. Natural moisture contents (including ice formations)
varied from 15 to 35 percent.
Permafrost temperatures on the Gulkana site are relatively warm, ranging from about 31 °F to 3
320F, making the area very sensitive to thermal disturbance at the surface (USACOE, 1988).
The permafrost table occurred between 2 and 5 feet below the surface and may extend to a depth 3
of 100 to 250 feet (USACOE, 1987a; Emery et al., 1985). Ice lenses up to 4 inches in thickness
were observed throughout the deposit. 3
3-4 1
I
I
I The Gakona site is on the margin between seismic probability zone 3 (major damage) and 4
(great damage) according to Army TM-5-809-10 (1982), "Seismic Design for Buildings". The
corresponding seismic coefficients (Z) for these probability zones are 0.75 to 1.00, respectively.
I Borrow Material. The Gakona and Gulkana Rivers, west of the Gakona site, meander within
fairly well-defined drainage channels which may contain deposits of sand and gravel. The
Copper River is braided with numerous channels, sand bars, and inflowing streams, creeks, and
rivers. The Copper River Basin Area Plan (ADNR, 1986) has identified at least three material
sites as critical for ADOT highway maintenance and construction along the Glenn Highway.
i The plan also identifies at least 10 privately owned material sites along both the Richardson and
Glenn Highways in the Gulkana-Gakona region. These material sites have been characterized
as thin terrace deposits and contain limited borrow materials. Seven potential borrow locations
along the Copper River were also identified as part of OTH-B studies (M&E/H&N, 1989a).
I Three of these locations (P-i, A-i, and A-5) contain active Alaska Department of Transportation
(ADOT) pits, two (P-2 and A-4) are currently unexploited. These five pits are currently the
I only sources being considered for use by the HAARP project. The remaining two OTH-B pits
(A-2 and A-3) were removed from consideration due to the potential for disturbance of intact
3 cultural resources (M&EIH&N, 1989a). The abundance of gravel resources on the Gakona site
is expected to be low.
I
I 3.1.2 Clear Site
Physiography and Topography. The Clear Site lies near the Nenana River in the interior of
I Alaska about 10 miles north of the Alaska Mountain Range (See Figure 3.0-1). This
physiographic region is known as the Tanana-Kuskokwim Lowland (Wahrhaftig, 1965). The
Nenana basin slopes generally to the north away from the Alaska Range, where the Nenana
River flows into the Tanana River, which is a major tributary to the Yukon River. The Yukon
3 River drains much of interior Alaska. Although the Nenana River flows swiftly out of the
Alaska Range, it slows through the foothills in the region near the Clear AFS and is
I characterized as a braided, slow flowing river.
i 3-5
i
I
The Clear AFS property is about 600 feet above mean sea level and the terrain is generally low 3
in topographic relief in the immediate area, although within 10 miles the foothills of the Alaska
Range rises to over 4000 feet. The general slope of the Clear AFS property is downward 3
toward the north at a rate of about 2.5 feet per mile.
The Clear site (including the Bear Creek location) is located on a broad glaciofluvial outwash
plain that is comprised of sandy gravel (UAF, 1987). This material is irregularly stratified with I
both well and poorly graded coarse sand (Shannon and Wilson, 1958). Because of the draining
ability of this material, there are relatively few naturally occurring lakes or ponds in the region. I
Land Status and Existing Structures. The majority of the proposed Clear site would be I
located on the existing Clear Air Force Station and is owned by the U.S. Air Force. The Bear
Creek location is currently owned by the state of Alaska. The area has been designated to have
a primary use of settlement (ADNR, 1991a). Several homesteads have been filed and the
"proving up" process is on-going in the general area of the proposed diagnostics, although no
deeding to private individuals has taken place at the time of this writing (ADNR, 1992b). 3
Figure 3.1-1 shows the extent of homesteading claims at the Bear Creek location.
Clear AFS is a Ballistic Missile Early Warning System (BMEWS) site that is comprised of
11,438 acres of land located 78 miles south of Fairbanks on the Parks Highway (Mile 283.5). 3
A short spur road to the west provides access to Clear AFS and the town of Anderson located
several miles to the north. The Parks Highway forms the eastern boundary of Clear AFS and
the Nenana River borders the installation to the west. The station consists of 144 buildings and
structures, as well as 8.5 miles of paved and gravel roads, 2.9 miles of railroad trackage, and
associated utilities to support the BMEWS program (FSI, 1991). The station employs
approximately 370 persons, 120 of which are military personnel and the remainder are civilians. 3
The facility is self-sufficient, providing all necessary living facilities for the personnel, including
berthing, dining, recreation, and administrative space. Clear AFS has its own powerplant, water 3
and wastewater systems, and solid waste disposal areas.
3-6
I
U
Earthen
M ound...... -----
I North
Parking Lot IBon

Train Stop
ISR
II nt
I Access Road
'A
Parks Highway R.O.W.
Mile 269.3 ... Ba r0

. .... Tunou
Rest Area
LEGEND
c ox. Homestead
1000~~? 00 C)im Areas
SCALE IN FEET
3 ~SOURCE: ADNR, 1W92
FIGURE 3.1-1. HOMESTEADING CLAIMS AT THE BEAR CREEK LOCATION
*3-7 DF/2817 la65/GE

I
Geology and Permafrost Conditions. The Clear site is located on a broad glaciofluvial 3
outwash plain consisting of Pleistocene sediments and Tertiary gravels from the Nenana River.
This outwash is composed of coarse, well-drained material such as sandy gravel, overlain by a 3
thin organic mantle (3 to 12 inches thick) and about 4 feet of sandy silt (USACOE, 1982). The
thickness of the sandy glaciofluvial deposit is reported to be several hundred feet. Below the I
gravel outwash is bedrock of the Birch Creek Schist variety, formed during the Precambrian era.
The Clear site is in a region of discontinuous or sporadic permafrost. The coarse-grained soils I
at this site are well drained and, thus, frost and permafrost related problems are not seen to be
significant in this area. Subsurface investigations (Shannon and Wilson, 1958) indicate that
irregular patches of permafrost have been encountered at Clear AFS at depths between 10 and
20 feet. This permafrost is described as "dry frozen" with water contents between 1.5 and 2.2
percent. The water table is between 75 and 90 feet below the surface (Shannon and Wilson,
1958).
Clear AFS is in seismic probability zone 4 according to Army TM-5-809-10 (1982), "Seismic 3
Design for Buildings". It has been assigned a seismic coefficient (Z) of 1.00. This is a great
damage zone and buildings and facilities should be designed accordingly. The area has
experienced several major seismic shocks in the past, particularly the 1947 earthquake which
measured 8+ on the modified Merchalli scale. 5
Because there has been little construction near the Bear Creek location, very little is known 3
about specific subsurface conditions in this region. In a general sense the subsurface conditions
are similar to that in Clear AFS as described above (USSCS, 1973). These soils are classified 3
as being well-drained and formed in a shallow mantle of micaceous loess (wind-blown mica)
over very gravelly and sandy alluvial deposits. Micro-geographic variations in this regime 3
include areas of moderately well drained soils formed in a thick mantle of loess. This is
common in areas such as Bear Creek where an outwash plane exists (USSCS, 1973). 3
3-8
3
I
3 Borrow Material. Subsurface information for the area surrounding the Clear site suggest an
abundance of gravel and sand in this area due to the glaciofluvial nature of the deposit in this
I near-mountain area. Gravel for Clear AFS construction activities has been extracted from
numerous locations over the years (FSI, 1991). Many of these borrow areas are located on Air
I Force property (M&E/H&N, 1992a). Gravel for the construction of the HAARP facility should
be plentiful and easily obtainable at this site. Borrow material for the construction of the Bear
Creek location facilities would be obtained either from sources on Clear AFS (approximately 24
miles away), or from a closer private or state-owned borrow pit.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I 3-9
I
I
3.2 VEGETATION AND WETLANDS 3
3.2.1 Gakona Site
This section discusses general habitat characteristics, vegetative associations and wetlands and 3
documents the relative amounts of each identified cover type present at the Gakona site. The
description of the existing vegetation and wetlands is based on vegetation maps previously I
prepared by AEIDC (1987a; 1988a) for a 59 mi2 area, which included the Gakona site and
several potential borrow locations along the Copper River and analyses of vegetation and wetland I
data conducted by M&E/H&N (1989b) from the same area. The methodology used during these
previous studies is summarized below.
Vegetation and wetlands present on the 59 mi2 area surrounding the Gakona site, as well as on I
potential borrow locations along the Copper River, were mapped from aerial photographs. The
vegetation maps were then field verified by a qualified botanist (AEIDC, 1987a). Vegetation
was classified on the maps according to the currently accepted Alaska classification system I
described in Viereck et al. (1986). Wetland determinations were completed according to the
guidelines set forth in Cowardin et al. (1979) and USACOE (1984). The wetlands have not been 3
reclassified according to the currently used guidelines in the Corps of Engineers Delineation
Manual (USACOE, 1987b) guidelines, however there would be little if any difference in total 3
amount and types of wetlands. The areal extent of each cover type present was determined from
the maps for the entire 59 mi2 area and for the potential borrow locations (M&EIH&N, 1989b). 3
Vegetation. The Gakona site is dominated by open conifer forest (53%), wet herbaceous 3
(23%), woodland conifer forest (8%) and open low shrub (6%). An open conifer forest is
primarily composed of conifers (evergreens with needles) that have a canopy coverage of 25 to
60%. A wet herbaceous vegetation association occurs in wet areas with grasses and sedges and
is analogous to Cowardin et al.'s (1979) classification of palustrine emergent and the USACOE's
(1984) emergent. A woodland conifer forest is primarily composed of conifers that have a
3-10 I
I
I
I
I canopy coverage of 10 to 25 %. An open low shrub vegetation association includes areas with
I low shrubs, devoid of trees, and a canopy coverage of 25 to 60% dry areas.
Potential borrow areas along the Copper River are generally dominated by open conifer and
closed deciduous (trees that lose their foliage at the end of a growing season) forests (Table 3.2-
1). The primary composition of the soils is well-drained gravel that usually, but not always,
lacks permafrost. Van Cleve and Viereck (1981) discuss succession on glacial river outwash.
The dominant vegetation at mature sites is white spruce. Earlier seral stages are dominated by
willow, alder, and poplar. Much of the floodplain exists perpetually in early successional
stages due to frequent disturbance by river flooding and scouring (Van Cleve and Viereck,
1981).
I Wetlands. Wetlands are defined as areas having one or more of the following attributes: (1)
3 periodic or permanent inundation or saturation with water (hydrology), (2) presence of plant
species adapted for life in water or saturated soils (hydrophytic vegetation), and (3) presence of
soils that are saturated or flooded for a long enough period during the growing season so that
the upper layer becomes devoid of oxygen (hydric soils) (Cowardin et al., 1979). A substantial
3 proportion of the Gakona site (70 percent) meets this definition and is classified as wetland
(Figure 3.2-1). Classification of wetland cover types will follow Cowardin et al. (1979) in this
3 document.
3 The majority of the wetlands on the Gakona site are palustrine forested wetlands dominated by
conifers followed by palustrine emergent wetlands dominated by sedges and rushes. Minimal
amounts of palustrine aquatic bed are present. Forested wetlands (equivalent to palustrine
forested wetlands [Cowardin et al., 1979]) occupy 47 percent of the Gakona site. Forested
wetlands are characterized by woody vegetation that is more than 20 feet in height. Common
dominant species in this region of Alaska are white and black spruce, alder, willow, poplar, and
l
I 3-11
I
I
I
I
'mC0
= -I-
0 0 'n0N 0 0 0 (4
- C0
.0 C C)
A.2.
3-12-I
KEY
3. .- Site Boundary 7 ý- - 7
Observational
3 ~D WUplands
PoerPlan
I
Opic SCALErINuFEET
3 F~~~~~~IGUrred 3mager PRPSDFAIIYLYOTADdELN

UantmtrPLaNDHBTTdTAOAST
N
% 3-1
7cc-
NIe eý,
I
tamarack. Sedges, bog blueberry, and Sphagnum moss ire frequently present in the understory
or ground layers.
There are no vegetated wetland habitats present on the borrow removal areas P-1, P-2, and A-4
and about 4 to 22 percent of the other alternate borrow removal areas are wetlands (Table 3.2- 3
2). Barren stream bed occupies about 21 percent of alternative borrow removal area P-i.
3.2.2 Clear Site
The classification and description of the vegetation at the Clear Site (Clear AFS proper'y and
Bear Creek location) was based on analyses of aerial stereographic photos taken by the Alaska
Railroad in 1989 (Alaska Railroad, 1989), aerial infrared photos taken by NASA in July of 1980
(NASA, 1980), a walk through of the proposed area for the HAARP facility on the Clear site
(M&E/H&N, 1992a,b), and communications with the Alaska Department of Natural Resources
(ADNR, 1992). Wetlands were described and mapped using state wetlands maps (UAF, 1987),
National Wetland Inventory Maps (USFWS, 1992a,b) and a walk through of the areas.
Clear AFS Property. The Clear AFS property is dominated by open conifer forests and with
occasional scattered woodland conifer forests (M&E/H&N, 1992b). The forests are a secondary
or early successional growth forest, estirnm.d to be 40 to 50 years old, and a result of fire
(M&E/H&N, 1992b; ADNR, 1992a). Wetlands at the Clear AFS property comprise a
negligible proportion of the area, only occurring in a few previously used gravel pits (USFWS,
1992a). No wetlands exist near the proposed project areas on the Clear AFS property (USFWS,
1992a).
Bear Creek Location. The Bear Creek location is more heterogeneously vegetated than the
Clear AFS property (Figure 3.2-1). About equal proportions of shrubs (48 percent) and conifer
forest (48 percent) occur on the site. Herbaceous cover types account for the remaining area. 3
3-14 I
I
I
IU
I1
I - *= - - - =t
1:.0 V 0 0 (
I z
0<
_ _
LT.'
U.0 0 0 0 0
00. Go0
I <a 03000
CL-
00 C
EE
.... .... .. 0
.... ....
~E >
m 00 cc-
.
...
.......
... ~o0......... 0 0>
........ ..... .....

I... ... U
..... .... . O U
. .....
. ......
0O
a-
. . . . . . . . . .
0-
CcI 0I
...... ......
..... ....
...... ..
.........
..-
.. .....
w
.. ..
......
0 Im
0 I
.... 316..
...
LUI I.
I
I Primary trees include black spruce, white spruce, birch and aspen. Dominant shrubs include
alder, willow, and labrador tea. Sedges comprised r .h of the ground cover.
Contrary to the Clear AFS property which is nearly devoid of wetlands, the majority (58
percent) of the Bear Creek location is wetlands (USFWS, 1992b). These wetlands include
palustrine scrub/shrub (48 percent), palustrine forested (6 percent), and palustrine emergent (4
I percent).
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I 3-17
I
I
I
3.3 MAMMAIS
This section describes the mammals and their habitats present within the alternative sites. I
Selected species of large and small mammals, mostly game animals or furbearers, are
emphasized due to their ecological, regulatory, or recreational importance. For these species, I
general life history characteristics are summarized, their relative abundances are described, and
the value of the habitats present on sites is evaluated. I
3.3.1 Gakona Site I
Mammalian information on the Gakona site was primarily obtained from the work conducted I
previously for the OTH-B project. Since the habitats on site and other conditions have changed
little since that effort, the information obtained is still valid for use in this assessment.
3.3.1.1 General Habitat Description. The Gakona site is situated on a plateau located north
of the Copper River. The Copper River Basin supports the taiga forest ecosystem described by I
Van Cleve et al. (1983). The site and surrounding area are dominated by open conifer forest
(Section 3.2). Significant amounts of shrub habitat occur west of the site, in the vicinity of the
numerous ponds and marshes, and to the northeast, in the vicinity of a large 45-year old burned
area.
3.3.1.2 Species Descriptions.
Moose. Moose live throughout the boreal forests of North America. In interior Alaska, moose
undergo regular seasonal migrations. Climatic conditions, particularly snow depth, strongly
influence moose migration because of their effect on forage availability (Coady, 1982; LeResche
et al., 1974). As winter progresses, moose gradually move from more open stands to denser
cover (Krefting, 1974). Moose are likely to move into the area surrounding the Gakona site,
particularly the burned area north of the site, during winter to take advantage of the available
3-18
I
I
I
browse. With the arrival of spring, most of these moose will disperse to summer areas located
throughout the Gakona region.
Major habitat types important to moose in Alaska include areas with significant shrub growth.
Early seral (intermediate) stages of plant succession, especially areas dominated by aspen, birch
and willow, are preferred by moose (LeResche et al., 1974; Cushwa and Coady, 1976; Kelsall
et al., 1977). These habitat types, including those created by fire, are key wintering areas in
much of Alaska (Coady, 1982). As the vegetation becomes more mature, the quality of the
habitat for moose decreases.
W The Gakona site provides relatively poor winter moose habitat as compared to the 45-year old
I burned area, northeast of the site (ADFG, 1987a; 1987b). Small, shallow lakes west of the site
provide suitable habitat and forage (aquatic vegetation) for moose in the spring and summer
(ADFG, 1987a). These areas have a greater abundance of willow than does the Gakona site.
Willow is a preferred food of moose (Peek, 1974; Hjeljord et al., 1982). A majority of the
moose counted during the ADFG 1987 aerial surveys were located within the lake and pond
system west of the site (ADFG, 1987a). During the ADFG surveys, 16 moose (0.23 moose/mi2 )
were observed in the entire search area during the first survey and 28 moose (0.4 moose/min)
were observed during the second survey. These are minimum population estimates due to sub-
I optimum census conditions and are only applicable for the late winter (February-March) period.
IIn 1987, the Gakona site produced an estimated 1,300 to 2,600 lb/mi2 of annual winter forage
dry weight (AEIDC, 1988b). The non-burned portions of the surrounding area are likely to
3provide similar levels of available browse. Assuming a utilization rate of about 50 percent,
Hubbert's (1987) carrying capacity model estimates winter moose densities of 1.3 to 2.6
E moose/mi2 (AEIDC, 1988b), which exceeds the density observed during the ADFG surveys.
Carrying capacity can also be estimated using information on average consumption rates
S(M&E/H&N, 1989b). This approach yielded winter moose densities of 0.6 to 1.2 moose/mi,
which are lower than the values obtained from the model.
1 3
3-19
I
I
Caribou. Caribou are gregarious, migratory animals of the northern taiga and tundra. In 3
Alaska, there are 22 relatively discrete caribou herds which utilize specific wintering ranges,
summering ranges, and migration routes. Only two of these caribou herds, the Nelchina and I
Mentasta, are likely to frequent the Gakona site and surrounding area.
In general, food availability is primarily responsible for the movements and migrations of
caribou (Miller, 1982). Caribou eat a variety of plants but prefer lichens, mushrooms, woody
browse, and leaves. The area surrounding the Gakona site, but generally not the site itself, has
an abundance of cover types that contain such forage plants, and therefore, could potentially be I
used by Nelchina and Mentasta caribou. 3
ADFG (1987c) has documented infrequent use of the Gakona site by the Nelchina herd. In a
study entailing 2,651 relocations of 85 radio-collared Nelchina caribou, only six radio-collared
caribou ranged into the general vicinity of the Gakona site during the 1984 spring migration. 3
No caribou were relocated near the project site during the summer or winter periods. Some
animals from the Mentasta caribou herd may also cross the project area during migration, but I
this has not been confirmed (ADFG, 1987d). Several caribou were also observed on the site
during May 1991 (M&E/H&N, 1991a). 3
Black Bear. Black bears are found throughout much of Alaska (Jonkel, 1978). Principal foods
are berries, nuts, tubers, insects and their larvae, small mammals, eggs, carrion, fish, and
garbage (Pelton, 1982). Individual and seasonal diets depend greatly upon availability of 3
particular food items. Black bears prefer dense cover and use downed trees, escarpments under
tree roots, and hollow logs for denning (Jonkel, 1978). Black bears hibernate in dens from 3
October through April. One black bear was observed east of the property along the Tok Cut-Off
Highway during the summer of 1991 (M&E/H&N, 1991b). 3
The Gakona site and surrounding area, although providing sufficient food, provides marginal n
black bear habitat because of the lack of cover and denning sites (ADFG, 1987a). Black bear
densities on the site and surrounding area appear to be low (ADFG, 1987a). ADFG (1981)
3-20
I
estimated black bear densities on the Kenai Peninsula at 1 to 2 mi 2 /bear and ADFG (1987a) cited
a bear density of 4.5 mi2/bear for the upper Susitna River area. These densities probably exceed
that on the Gakona site and surrounding area because of the relatively poor habitat in the project
vicinity. Only 5 black bears have been legally harvested in the ADFG Uniform Coding Units
(encompassing over 1,800 mi) surrounding the Gakona site during 1961-1987, which is low
compared with some other areas (ADFG, 1987e).
Brown Bear. Brown bears are found throughout northwestern Canada and Alaska (Jonkel,
1978; Craighead and Mitchell, 1982). Principal foods are fish, carrion, berries, grubs, and
forbs. Brown bears prefer dense cover and generally excavate their dens in areas with steep
slopes and porous soils (Craighead and Mitchell, 1982). Brown bears, like black bears,
hibernate for about 7 months. Brown bears have home ranges of 10-50 mi2 . Brown bear
densities in interior Alaska generally range between 15 mi 2/bear to 63 mi 2/bear (Miller and
Ballard, 1982; ADFG, 1976; 1980).
The sparse cover of the Gakona site provides relatively poor brown bear habitat. The Gakona
and Copper Rivers support salmon populations, but few bears have been observed fishing in the
I vicinity of the site. Fall use of the site and surrounding area is probably limited to resident
bears in the areas west of the site and transient bears (ADFG, 1987a). Some spring use may
occur around the lakes and muskeg west of the site as bears seek early-sprouting vegetation and
a berries which have persisted through the winter. No known den sites are present on the site or
surrounding area. Black spruce stands, such as those present on the site, generally provide poor
habitat for brown bears (ADFG, 1987e). Brown bear densities in and around the Gakona site
are probably lower than: the 13.7 mi?/bear observed in the Susitna River study area (cited by
ADFG, 1987b); Gasaway et al.'s (1983) estimate of about 25 mi2/bear for the eastern foothills
near Tok; or Miller and Ballard's (1982) reported density of 16 mi2/bear for the Nelchina Basin
caribou calving area. The poorer habitat of the Gakona site, as compared to the areas cited
above (AEIDC, 1987a), is thought to be the reason for the lower densities. ADFG reports that
only 7 brown bears have been legally harvested in the ADFG Uniform Coding Units surrounding
the Gakona site during 1961-1987 (ADFG, 1987e).
3-21
1
Gray Wolf. Gray wolves were once distributed throughout North America but are presently I
limited to a few northern states in the contiguous United States, and Alaska and Canada.
Wolves are probably not dependent upon a particular habitat type but rather are limited by the i
distribution of their prey species and by man (Paradiso and Nowak, 1982). Wolves typically
use well-drained areas near the center of their territories as den sites from April to June.
Rendezvous sites, in similar habitats, are the center of activity from July to August. None of
the packs known to use the Gakona region have den or rendezvous sites located within the I
Gakona site or surrounding area (ADFG, 1987b). 3
Wolves hunt in packs and primarily prey upon moose and caribou. Seventy percent of the wolf
kills observed in the Nelchina Basin were moose and 21 percent of the kills were caribou
(Ballard et al., 1987). Gasaway et al. (1983) reported a wolf density of about 24 mi2/wolf in 3
the Tanana Flats, 30 min/wolf in the eastern foothills near Tok, and 23 mi2/wolf in the western
foothills near Denali during 1975. Wolves seldom exceed densities higher than 16 mi2/wolf 3
(Mech, 1974). Densities are probably lower now because of the extensive wolf control
programs which have been implemented in the area (Gasaway et al., 1983; Van Ballenberghe, 5
1985; Ballard et al., 1987; Bergerud and Ballard, 1988).
I
Three wolf packs, each consisting of between 5 and 8 members, have territories which overlap
the Gakona site (Ballard et al., 1987; ADFG, 1987b). There are also several other packs which 3
have territories that abut, but do not overlap, the area surrounding the Gakona site (ADFG,
1987b). Wolf use of the Gakona site is probably greatest during winter when moose are most
likely to frequent the area (AEIDC, 1987b). The tracks of a 4 to 6 member pack were observed
during the ADFG Winter 1987 aerial surveys. 3
Small Furbearers. The site and surrounding area provide suitable habitat for red fox, coyote, 5
lynx, marten, muskrat, and ermine. Beaver, river otter, wolverine, and mink may also
occasionally orc'jr in the area. Aquatic species (river otter, muskrat, and beaver) are probably
limited to areas west of the site, where ponds and emergent wetlands are abundant. No
empirical data on furbearer abundance or distribution on the Gakona site are available. Densities 3
3-22
I
of all furbearers are expected to be low (ADFG, 1987e) because of the generally poor
productivity of the available habitat. During the aerial surveys (ADFG, 1987a), tracks of lynx
and marten were observed, as was muskrat sign and a single coyote.
Other Species. In addition to the large mammals and furbearers described above, other
mammalian species would be expected to utilize the Gakona site. These include shrews (e.g.,
arctic shrew), ground squirrels (e.g., arctic ground squirrel), lemmings, voles, and snowshoe
hare. Quantitative data on the densities of these species on the Gakona site are unavailable.
3.3.1.3 Borrow Areas. Potential borrow areas along the Copper River are dominated by open
conifer and closed deciduous forests with moderate proportions of shrub habitats (Section 3.2.1).
The shrub habitats, particularly the riparian willow stands, present on the borrow areas provide
high quality winter moose forage. Such riparian habitats often exist in a semi-permanent early
successional stage because they are frequently disturbed by river action (Van Cleve and Viereck,
1981) and therefore provide long-term, quality winter moose habitat. Other species that may
use these areas are black bear (cover), brown bear (cover), beaver (food), and snowshoe hare
(food, cover). The proximity to the river, with its associated fish populations, predisposes these
areas to use by bears.
The borrow area A-1 is also likely to be a relatively important source of browse for moose and
snowshoe hare because it has larger quantities of shrubs as compared to the other alternate sites.
In addition, all of the alternates except A-1 have a high proportion of deciduous trees which
provide both cover and forage for moose, snowshoe hare, and beaver, cover for black and
brown bear, and nesting sites for raptors. Alternatives A-1 and A-4 have high proportions of
open conifer forests which are generally of less value to most wildlife. Alternative A-1 may be
used by waterfowl more than the others because of the greater proportion of wetlands in these
areas.
3-23
U
3.3.2 Clear Site I
The following section discusses potential uses by mammals that could occur in the vicinity of I
the Clear AFS property and the Bear Creek location. State of Alaska Game Management Unit
(GMU) areas 20A and 20C incorporate the sites. GMU area 20A extends east of the Nenana
River and includes the Clear AFS property. GMU area 20C extends west of the Nenana River
and includes the Bear Creek location (Figure 2.3-5). Much of the information below was U
obtained from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG, 1992a,b,c). The following
discussion begins with a general description of the habitats on the Clear AFS property and the
Bear Creek location followed by descriptions of selected species of large and small mammals,
mostly game animals or furbearers, that are emphasized due to their ecological, regulatory,
financial, or recreational importance. 5
3.3.2.1 General Habitat Description. The potential locations for the HAARP facilities on the m
Clear AFS property are almost entirely uplands (see Section 3.2 Vegetation and Wetlands).
These uplands are dominated by a young mixed conifer deciduous forest. The potential location
for the ISR at the Bear Creek location is almost entirely composed of a palustrine scrub/shrub
wetland dominated by labrador tea, willow, and sedge. The areas surrounding the Bear Creek 3
location contain varied amounts of deciduous and conifer forests.
I
3.3.2.2 Species Descriptions
Ii
Moose. The young mixed deciduous conifer forest of the Clear AFS property and the Bear
Creek location (see Section 3.2) provides good quality habitat for moose which spend both 3
winter and summer in the area (ADFG, 1992a). Evidence of moose (tracks, browsing and
droppings) was seen during a walk through the potential area for the IRI on the Clear AFS
property and the Bear Creek location (M&EIH&N, 1992a,b). Moose densities in the area
reportedly range from low to relatively high, 0.5 to 2 moose per square mile (ADFG, 1992b). I
3 -24
3
I
i• Caribou. The caribou living nearest the sites are the Delta and Denali herds. The Delta
caribou herd is primarily located approximately 40 to 50 miles to the southeast in the Alaska
Range between the Nenana River and the Delta River in GMU 20A (ADFG, 1992a and b). In
recent years, however, the herd has spent portions of the winter in the Tanana Flats to the
distance east of the Clear AFS property (ADFG, 1992a). The Delta caribou herd population has
I declined from a historic high of about 11,000 caribou in 1989 to a currently estimated population
of 6,000. A combination of predation and weather, resulting in higher adult mortality and lower
survival of calves, is thought to be responsible for the decrease in the caribou population
(ADFG, 1992a). Due to the decline in the population, there was no 1992 caribou hunting
R season. The Denali caribou herd primarily ranges south and west of the Clear AFS property and
the Bear Creek location in Denali National Park. Hunting of the Denali caribou herd has not
I been allowed in over 10 years (ADFG,1992b).
I Caribou do not typically reside in the vicinity of the Clear AFS property and Bear Creek
location areas (ADFG, 1992a) although caribou tracks were observed at the June Creek rest area
l (located approximately one-half miles south of the Bear Creek location). The tracks headed
toward the Nenana River and the railroad tracks north of the Browne stop (Figure 2.3-6)
I (M&E/H&N, 1992b). According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS, 1992b)
potential caribou habitat exists in area surrounding the sites, but the animals generally remain
I in the foothills north of the Alaska Range in the Ferry and Healy area and do not typically
I venture as far north as Clear AFS (ADFG, 1992c).
Black Bear. Black bears are common in the vicinity of the Clear AFS property and the Bear
I Creek location where moderately good habitat exists. A potential black bear den in the location
of the proposed IRI was observed to be vacant during a walk through in October, 1992
I(M&EIH&N, 1992b). Black bear densities probably range from 1 bear per 3 to 5 square miles
I (ADFG, 1992a).
Brown Bear. The Clear AFS property and the Bear Creek location provide moderately good
habitat for brown bears. Brown bears are less common than black bears in the vicinity of the
1 3-25
I
I
Clear AFS property and the Bear Creek locations (ADFG, 1992b). The estimated density of 3
brown bears in the vicinity of the Clear AFS property and the Bear Creek location is about 1
bear per 75 square miles (ADFG, 1992b). This density is less than the reported brown bear 3
densities in interior Alaska that generally range between 1 brown bear per 15 to 63 square miles
(Miller and Ballard, 1982; ADFG, 1976; 1980). Higher densities, I brown bear per 35 squarem
miles, are found in the Alaska Range to the south (ADFG, 1992b).
Gray Wolf. Gray wolves likely use the Clear AFS property and Bear Creek location for
hunting. The amount of use each received, would likely be dependent upon the numbers of m
moose using the sites. Gray wolf densities were estimated to be about 1 wolf per 25 square
miles in GMU 20A in the Fall of 1991 (ADFG, 1992b).
Small Furbearers. Furbearers found in the vicinity of the Clear AFS property and Bear Creek I
location include: red fox, coyote, wolverine, mink, lynx, marten, beaver, muskrat, river otter,
snowshoe hare, red squirrels, short-tail weasels, least weasels (ADFG, 1992a, b). Evidence of
snowshoe hare was observed during a walk through of a potential area for the lRI on the Clear
AFS property (M&E/H&N, 1992a). According to ADFG, there is no data available on
abundances of these furbearers in the area (ADFG, 1992a, b). 3
Other Species. In addition to the large mammals and furbearers described above, numerous
other mammalian species typical of taiga ecosystems would be expected to utilize the Clear AFS
property and the Bear Creek location. Some of these likely include shrews (e.g., arctic shrew), 3
ground squirrels (e.g., arctic ground squirrel), lemmings, and voles. The densities of these
species are unknown (ADFG, 1992a, b). I
I!
3-26 1
I
I
I 3.4 BIRDS
This section describes the birds potentially affected by the HAARP facility. Bird migration
patterns and flight behavior were extensively studied during 1987-1989 for the OTH-B ARS
project (M&EIH&N, 1989b; ABR, 1991). The results of these studies were used extensively
in this document. Additional sources of information included the U.S. Fish and Wildife Service
(USFWS), Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) and site visits.
Much of the flight behavior recorded in the 1987-1989 studies (M&E/H&N, 1989b; ABR, 1991)
can be considered to be largely non-site specific. These behaviors include altitude of flight and
the effects of weather on flight behavior.
Flight Altitude. The maximum height of the HAARP IRI antenna elements would not exceed
about 80 feet above ground level (agl) and the VIS would not exceed about 100 feet agl. The
percentage of daytime birds observed, by species group, flying above 100 feet agl were
calculated to characterize the bird flight altitudes relative to the proposed facility structures.
During nighttime hours, radar and night-vision scope observations were used to characterize
flight altitudes. The radar unit was incapable of measuring the flight altitude of bird flocks
flying at altitudes less than 100 feet agl, due to the effects of ground clutter. Thus, night-vision
scope observations were utilized to document the number of nighttime flights that occurred
below 100 feet agl.
Daytime flight altitudes were generally similar between spring and fall migrations for all species
groups (Table 3.4-1). During daytime, passerines (song birds) and shore birds flew above 100
feet agl about 59 percent of the time. This percentage might be considered conservative since
concurrent radar observations suggest that the proportion of birds (especially smaller birds)
flying at lower altitudes is probably overestimated relative to those flying at higher altitudes by
the visual observation techniques used during daylight hours.
I
3
3-27
0
ON
--w ON wi w- 0
l-W)W
@0 00
~ 00
Cr 00 00 0 )
00~ 9 O*i t
o00 00
0% % -A I
M - -nW)c
InI
0000 w 00N000
w (- in~
it@ w t- C4 0%n'
O 0 m 0% C
co 0, a,' 00 ' '
433
00 0% 0w 0\ aI - fl0
- _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2
29
V2
a5C
3-28
U Of the ducks observed during daylight hours, 90.1 percent flew above 100 feet agl while 98.1
percent of the geese flew above this altitude (Table 3.4-1). The majority of swans (86.6 percent)
flew above 100 feet agl. Tundra swans flew slightly higher than trumpeter swans, with 87.6
percent of tundra swans flying above 100 feet agl versus 84.8 percent for trumpeter swans. This
I difference in flight altitude between these two species of swans is due to a higher proportion of
local movements by trumpeter swans, common breeders in the Gakona region, which tend to be
at lower altitudes than migratory movements. Raptors (birds of prey) as a group were observed
I flying over 100 feet agl about 76.4 percent of the time.
i Nighttime flight altitude distributions, obtained from vertical rack'x observations in 1989, are
shown on Figure 3.4-1. Altitude distributions were generally similar between spring and fall,
i with the largest number of targets observed in the 300 to 499 foot altitude category during both
seasons.
I Night-vision scope observations were conducted during the spring of 1989 and in the fall of 1988
g and 1989. Observations ranged from 0.08 birds per hour to 0.3 birds per hour.
3 Using data from both radar and night-vision scope sampling (1989 only), the proportion of
nighttime flights occurring below 100 feet agl was estimated at 0.5 percent for Spring 1989 and
I 6.8 percent for Fall 1989 (ABR, 1991).
3Weather Effects. Birds generally migrate more during fair weather than during ---or weather
conditions (Richardson, 1978). Migration rates during daylight hours for swans were generally
I much lower during periods of precipitation than during periods wifiout precipitation. The
pattern for birds of prey was similar, with rates lower during poor weather. Songbirds showed
3 the exact opposite trend, with migration rates generally highest during poor weather periods.
Weather conditions are known to affect the flight altitude of birds. In general, daytime migrants
will fly lower when there is poor visibility, dense cloud cover accompanied by low cloud
ceilings, or precipitation, and also when flying into strong headwinds (Gauthreaux, 1978).
3-29
0 <D cp3
OD0
< , cjci
C w)
CD,
CV- C . C D C )ý wmc
Q C)6 C) Cl C .0
C~l cm
C>I
0
O)O)O~Oa:
C~ N'--
NN N ~ - <
CL
U))
DI
LO
Z I
U)U , m r- L
3-30
I
I During daylight hours, swans, birds of prey, and songbirds flew higher during periods of high
S(> 3000 feet agl) cloud ceilings than during periods of low (< 3000 feet agl) cloud ceilings.
During the period from 1968-1987, cloud ceilings in the Gakona region dropped below 3000 feet
agl 9.4 percent of the time in spring (April and May), and 21 percent of the time in the fall
(September and October) (AEIDC, 1988c). Cloud ceiling heights were particularly low during
October (< 3000 feet agl, nearly 28 percent of the time) when large numbers of swans migrate
I- through the Gakona region.
I Precipitation had little effect on pushing daytime flight altitudes below 100 feet agl for songbirds
I (spring and fall) and swans (fall only). Birds of prey flew lower during periods of precipitation
in both spring and fall, as did swans in spring. During the period from 1968 to 1987 in the
Gakona region, precipitation (fog, rain, snow, or hail) occurred about 8 percent of the time in
spring (April and May) and nearly 19 percent of the time in the fall (September and October),
I with the highest levels occurring during October (23 percent) (AEIDC, 1988c).
3 Daytime flight altitudes for swans were generally highest when winds (as measured from ground
level) exceeded 10 miles per hour (mph), regardless if they were headwinds, tailwinds, or
3 crosswinds, except in fall when flight altitudes were lowest when headwinds exceeded 10 mph.
It should be noted that winds aloft could have differed from those measured at ground level.
I Birds of prey generally flew highest during tailwind or calm periods; the lowest altitudes
occurred when headwinds or crosswinds exceeded 10 mph. Songbirds generally flew highest
I during calm or tailwind conditions and lowest during headwind conditions or when crosswinds
I exceeded 10 miles per hour.
I 3.4.1 Gakona Site
Bird migration patterns at the Gakona site were quantified using data from the extensive site-
3 specific studies of 1987-1989 spring and fall migrations for the OTH-B ARS project
(M&E/H&N, 1989b; ABR, 1991). Information such as species composition, breeding birds
numbers, and migratory rates are generally specific to the Gakona site.
3-31
3.4.1.1 Species Composition. A total of 119 species of birds were identified at the Gakona
site during 1987-1989 avian studies (Table 3.4-2). The number of birds observed during
daylight hours was generally higher in spring than in fall for all species groups (Table 3.4-3).
Swans were most abundant during all seasons, followed by ducks and passerines. Shorebirds
were least observed, but this was probably due to their nighttime migratory behavior
(M&EIH&N, 1989c).
3.4.1.2 Migration Patterns. Birds migrating into and out of Alaska tend to follow coastlines
or major river drainages through mountainous areas. The Gakona site lies within the Copper
River Basin, which is one of Alaska's more important migration corridors (Gabrielson and
Lincoln, 1959; King and Lensink, 1971). The Copper River Basin corridor is used primarily
by birds of the Pacific Flyway. Many birds using the Copper River corridor in spring follow
the Pacific Flyway north from points along the coast until reaching the Copper River Delta, an
important staging area for birds migrating through the Gulf of Alaska region (Isleib and Kessel,
1973). From this area, only a small proportion of birds that stage at the delta fly north up the
Copper River through the Chugach Mountains to reach the Nelchina Basin. Most of the
migration up the Copper River Basin is probably of birds nesting in the Nelchina Basin and
migration beyond this area is probably minimal. Kessel et al. (1982) reported that the nearby
Upper Susitna Basin was not a major migratory pathway for waterbirds, probably because water
bodies in the area are typically frozen at the time of spring migration.
Migratory movements between the Copper River Basin and the Upper Tanana River Valley are 3
not well documented although at least some birds move from the Upper Tanana River Valley
into the Upper Copper River Basin and the Nelchina and Susitna Basins through passes in the 3
eastern Alaska Range. Some species, such as the tundra swan, may continue past these basins
to breeding areas in western Alaska (ABR, 1988).
Swans migrating through the Gakona-Glennallen region of Alaska generally follow a minor
migration route oriented approximately southwest to northeast and stretching from the Tanana
River Valley to the Nelchina Basin and beyond. A second minor migration route runs north and
3-32
I
I~ I ~V. to~
@0 0 -
0 4
**6 LO to.
* -- 1.4001-
- g% .
as w
w . WU2
cc~
Io
3-3
If '. ~- ~ tI r 0 i e 00 qt
0 -4.
en C1 en en e 00 It
Or.
ei4 e 00 - 0 (t- -4C~0% --t m% 0
t-w % -4-4
en c) en en 00 V-0-
V) 00 % -n
C14 000 00
00~( 000o
00
W.- C4C I1
Inn
- .0
2 V V 0~V
3-341
south from the Gulf of Alaska to the Nelchina Basin, generally paralleling the Copper River
(Figure 3.4-2) (ABR, 1991). Other species groups probably follow similar migration corridors.
Bird movements observed during 1987-1989 avian studies conformed well to these patterns.
Ducks, geese, songbirds, and shorebirds are primarily nighttime migrants while birds of prey
are mostly daytime migrants. Swans, especially tundra swans, often fly nonstop regardless of
uight conditions (AEIDC, 1987c). During spring migration, birds of prey were generally the
first migrants observed, followed by geese and swans, ducks, songbirds, then shorebirds.
Dabbling ducks generally arrived earlier than diving ducks. In the fall, shorebirds were the first
migrants leaving Alaska, generally followed by songbirds, birds ofprey, geese, ducks, and then
swans. Dabbling ducks generally left earlier than diving ducks.
Nighttime migration was sampled with a mobile radar unit capable of a long range setting which
sampled large birds or flocks at a distance or a short range setting which sampled all sized birds
and flocks at close range. Nighttime spring migration rates, measured by long-range radar,
increased in late April and were generally highest in mid-May. There were approximately 100
targets (a bird or flock of birds appearing on the radar screen) per hour in 1988 and 50 targets
per hour in 1989. Fall migration, measured using long-range radar, was more pulse-like than
in the spring. Distinct peaks occurred in early, mid, and late September and in early October.
Fall peaks were in the range of 30 to 80 targets per hour.
Migration rates, based upon the results of short range radar, were generally low until the first
week in May, when they peaked sharply at nearly 900 targets per hour, during the spring of
1988. Peak rates during daylight hours for songbirds occurred during this same general period.
In 1989, the number of targets per hour increased gradually beginning in late April and peaked
at approximately 400 targets per hour in mid-May. Nighttime peaks in 1989 corresponded with
daytime songbird and shorebird movements.
Ducks. Daytime duck migration in spring generally occurred during the last week of April
through the first week of May, with peak rates occurring around the first of May (15, 67, and
3-35
BROOKS RANGE I
ARTCCIRCLE
~BERING .. *
SEA
?fI
PA CFIC
OCEAN
KEY
* -~-Migration Routes
200 20 Tundra Swan
SCALE IN MILES Trumpeter SwanI

o Gakona Siteg
0 Clear Site
SOURCE: ABR. 1991
FIGURE 3.4.2 BREEDING RANGES AND POSSIBLE MIGRATION ROUTES OFI

TUNDRA AND TRUMPETER SWANS IN ALASKA
3-3621
1
U 16 birds per hour in 1989, 1988, and 1987, respectively). The number of ducks observed during
aerial surveys gradually increased from the third week in April, as ducks began to arrive, until
early to middle May, when they peaked. Peak numbers exceeded 5,000 birds in 1987 and 1988
and exceeded 4,000 birds in 1989. Numbers generally began to decline by 15 May.
Fall daytime duck migration was characterized by numerous peaks throughout September and
October. Peak fall rates were 1 bird per hour in 1987, 7 birds per hour in 1988, and 4 birds
per hour in 1989. Numbers of ducks observed during 1987 and 1988 aerial surveys were
relatively constant at about 3,000 birds in September, as birds staged for migration, but rapidly
declined in early October as open water became unavailable. In 1989, initial numbers were
higher (approximately 5,000 birds through mid-September) and began decreasing in mid-
September. This decrease was more gradual than in the two previous years and significant
numbers (more than 1,500 birds) remained until mid-October. This was due to unusually mild
5 weather which allowed open water to persist.
5 Geese. Spring migration of geese was mainly confined to the last two weeks of April during
daylight hours. Peak rates were 4 birds per hour in 1987, 18 birds per hour in 1988, and 11
1 birds per hour in 1989. Fall migration was difficult to categorize as few geese were observed;
I daytime migration rates were much higher during spring.
Swans. In spring, daytime migration rates were highest for swans during late April, peaking
5 sharply during this period at 34 birds per hour in 1987, 293 birds per hour in 1988, and 228
birds per hour in 1989. Numbers of swans, as observed during aerial surveys, also peaked
Ssharply in late April at 400 to 1,000 birds before dropping off in early May to a relatively
constant level of 100 to 150 birds. This decline probably represented locally breeding trumpeter
swans.
Fall migration rates were low until early October and rose steadily to a sharp peak in mid-
October (72 birds per hour in 1987, 93 birds per hour in 1988, and 65 birds per hour in 1989).
Aerial surveys during fall showed a similar trend, with numbers of swans remaining relatively
3-37
I
constant at about 250 birds per hour during September and rising rapidly in early October to 3
peak at 600 to 1,000 birds per hour. Numbers dropped off sharply by mid-October as freeze-up
progressed and open water became unavailable. 3
Overall daytime rates of swan migration were considerably higher in spring than in fall. Peak I
daytime migration rates were about three times higher in Spring 1988 and 1989 than in the
corresponding fall season; peak rates in Spring 1987 were difficult to compare with the other I
seasons because a number of days during the peak migration period were not sampled. Peak
migration rates were similar between years during the fall season. I
Shorebirds. Relatively few shorebirds were observed during day~ight hours at the Gakona site, I
especially during the fall. Most of the shorebirds observed during sprinv, migration were seen
near the end of the study periods, in early to mid-May. Most shorebirds had probably already
departed Alaska by the time fall observations commenced at the beginning of September. Those
that remained after this date may have migrated at night.
Birds of prey. Birds of prey are early spring migrants and migration was already underway I
when observations began in mid-April. Daytime migration rates were relatively stable at 1 to
2 birds per hour during the spring studies. Fall migration was characterized by a constant low
rate of migration, with peaks in late September/early October of between 2 and 3 birds per hour.
Fall migration was more uniform in 1989 than during the other two fall seasons, with more
constant migration rates and fewer and smaller peaks. Spring migration rates were about double 3
fall rates during daylight hours.
I
Songbirds. Daytime songbird migration (within 110 yards of the observation station) in the
spring was characterized by multiple peaks, with rates generally highest during late April and 5
early May (peak rates of 9 birds per hour in 1987, 7 birds per hour in 1988, and 11 birds per
hour in 1989). Fall migration also occurred in multiple peaks and rates during this season were 3
generally highest in early to mid-September (9 birds per hour in 1987, 5 birds per hour in 1988,
and 5 birds per hour in 1989) with smaller peaks in mid-October. The multiple peaks observed 3
3-38
I
during both seasons were largely due to different species within this group migrating at different
times. Overall rates of daytime migration were higher in the spring (2.2 to 3.8 birds per hour)
than in the fall (1.3 to 2.0 birds per hour). Peak rates were similar among seasons.
U During the Fall 1988 migration, four distinct peaks were apparent during short-range radar
observations. Two peaks were apparent in mid-September (310 and 370 targets per hour), one
in late September (170 targets per hour), and one in mid-October (220 birds per hour).
Migration rates were more consistent in 1989 but four periods of peak movement were also
apparent. These occurred in late August (450 targets per hour), mid-September (325 targets per
hour), late September (250 targets per hour), and early October (100 targets per hour). As with
long-range radar, peak nighttime migration rates were higher in spring than during fall in 1988
3 but higher in fall than during spring in 1989.
3.4.1.3 Concentration Areas and Breeding Populations. Waterfowl concentration areas,

swan and birds of prey nest sites, and trumpeter swan brood-rearing areas were located during
3 periodic aerial surveys. Breeding songbird populations, which utilize forested upland and
wetland habitats on the Gakona site, were determined by breeding bird censuses using the
3 territory mapping method (Williams, 1936; IBCC, 1970).
3 Large concentrations of waterfowl resting, feeding, or staging on the Gakona site, or in the
immediate vicinity of it, were generally uncommon. Only one area, a large lakejust 1,000 feet
3 northwest of the site boundary, was consistently used by high concentrations of waterfowl. The
lake was heavily used by ducks and swans during all seasons except the Fall of 1989. Another
3 smaller pond, within the northeast edge of the site boundary, was used by high concentrations
I of ducks and swans in Spring 1987 and Spring 1989.
Songbirds. Densities of breeding songbirds were highest in mixed forest, intermediate in low
3 shrub, and lowest in black spruce forest habitats (Table 3.4-4). Mixed forests also had the
highest number of breeding species (11), while low shrub habitats had the fewest (4). The
1 3-39
I
I
TABLE 3.4-4. BREEDING BIRD CENSUS RESULTS, SPRING 1987
Number of Breeding Species

Habitat Type Breeding Species Density' Diversity 3
Black Spruce Forest I 8 11.2 1.89
Black Spruce Forest H 9 12.6 1.97
Mixed Forest 11 16.1 2.18 3

Low Shrub 4 15.3 1.23
1 Number of territories per 25 acres.
Source: ABR (1987).

I
Gakona site consists mostly of an open black spruce forest habitat. The songbird breeding 3
densities and species composition on the Gakona site were, respectively, generally lower than,
and similar to, those reported in other interior Alaska studies (Theberge, 1976; Spindler and
Kessel, 1978; Kessel et al., 1982).
Ducks. Estimates of breeding ducks in the immediate vicinity of the Gakona site were 91 ducks
per square mile in 1987, 82 ducks per square mile in 1988, and 91 ducks per square mile in 3
1989. These figures are two to three times higher than United States Fish and Wildlife Service
estimates for the regional stratum containing the site (Conant and Roetker, 1987; Conant and
Hodges, 1988; Conant and Dau, 1989), suggesting that the area in the immediate vicinity of the
Gakona site contains an above average waterfowl habitat. However, the Gakona site, which is
mostly covered with an open black spruce forest, is of low value to ducks relative to the area
to the north and west, which contains numerous small lakes, ponds, and emergent wetlands. 3
3-40g
I
I
Trumpeter Swans. The Gakona-Glennallen region is a major breeding area for trumpeter swans
(ABR, 1991). During aerial swan censuses of the Gulkana B-3 Quadrangle (Figure 3.4-3),
which contains the Gakona site, a total of 25 nests and 97 swans were observed in 1987; 27
nests and 105 swans were observed in 1988; and 22 nests and 112 swans were observed in 1989
(Table 3.4-5). These data suggest that the well documented increase in the breeding trumpeter
swan population in the Gakona-Glennallen region (King and Conant, 1981; Conant et al., 1985;
Hodges et al., 1986; Hodges et al., 1987; ABR, 1991) may be leveling off.
Although the number of nesting trumpeter swans was higher west of the Gakona site (Figure 3.4-
3), several nests were observed within or adjacent to the site boundary (Figure 3.4-4). Wetlands
and ponds in the extreme northern and western portion of the site also received substantial uise
by trumpeter swan broods (Figure 3.4-4).
TABLE 3.4-5. COUNTS OF TRUMPETER SWANS DURING BREEDING AND

BROOD-REARING PERIODS WITHIN THE GULKANA B-3 QUADRANGLE,
1969- 1989
1969 1975 1980 1985 1987 1988 1989

Nests - - - - 25 27 22
Total Swans -. .. 97 105 112
(breeding survey)
Broods 1 2 2 14 19 17 18
Juvenile Swans (brood- 4 5 6 37 72 43 60
rearing survey)
Total Swans 16 20 39 109 168 174 176
(brood-rearing survey)
Mean brood size - - 2.6 3.8 2.5 3.3
- No data
Source: ABR (1991)
3-41
A
;It-
GAKNA/
*SIT
11 • LEGEND
Aeria Suve Seto
, Trumpeter Swan (active)

*~A Bald Eagle (active)
ABald Eagle (inactive)
* Birds o Prey (active)
0 Birds of Prey (inactive)
GAOA1X Common Raven (active)3
4 Common Raven (inactive)
III Great Horned Owl (active)
•K :. [3p• Great Horned Owl (inactive)
j-IBundary of fthGulkana
uadrangle Swan Census Area
QB-3
SOURCE: ABR, 1991 4 0 4
SCALE INMILES
U
I
FIGURE 3.4-3. L OCATIONS OF SWAN AND BIRDS OF PREY NESTS IN THE
VCINITY OF THE GAKONA SITE, ALASKA, 1987-1989
I
3-42 1
27111JLI
I ~~~
~ ~ Copy 4VA1aiL~i~o D13
mw OV.9 NOT P&iiMe %LLy LEGYBEFDV'O~
*2 23 23 24
3(8
488 LTO.E
187
- 30
(87) 3488 28 GA O
SIT
3 4(9 2 4. 329 0- OU D R
Tr mp te Swa 198 illllh~~1 1 8 1(8 9)8

0~~~~~~~ Trmptr wn 99 SodSihins
4-4
I MFTA~r VON
I
Birds of Prey. Nesting birds of prey were also quantified during aerial surveys. In 1987, a
total of 20 bald eagle nests (4 active) were found, 25 were discovered (17 active) in 1988, and
28 (16 active) were discovered in 1989, although there was more extensive coverage during the I
1988 and 1989 surveys (Figure 3.4-3). Most of these eagle nests were located along the Copper
and Gakona Rivers; few were in upland locations. Active nests of great homed owls, great gray i
owls and red-tailed hawks were also discovered during aerial surveys. Only one bird of prey
nest (great gray owl) was observed near the facility location. n
3.4.1.4 Borrow Areas n
A total of five borrow pit locations have been identified for possible use by the project (Figure I
2.3-4). Five (one active) bald eagle nests were located on the edge of the P-1 borrow area.
Two additional bald eagle nestw (one active) were located within a mile of the east side of this
pit. A trumpeter swan nest site, used during both 1987 and 1988, occurs less than one mile 3
south of pit P-1. Additional swan brood-rearing areas exist about 1.5 miles northeast and 2
miles south of this location. Swan and duck concentrations were observed just south of pit P-2 3
during 1988 and at two locations approximately two miles south of pit P-2 in 1989. One
inactive bird of prey nest and no swan nests were discovered in the immediate vicinity of pit A- n
i. A bald eagle nest, active in both 1987 and 1988, was found just to the south of pit A-5. One
active bald eagle nest was located on the border of pit A-4 in the spring of 1989.
3.4.2 Clear Site
The use of the area by listed endangered or threatened bird species, bird migration patterns and
flight behavior, and breeding waterfowl populations at the Clear site were assessed based on
information obtained from communications with Clear AFS personnel (ADFG, 1992d; ABR,
1992), and government agencies (ADFG and USFWS), and through the use of existing
information in currently available literature. No site specific bird field studies have been
completed for the Clear site.
3-44I
I
I
U
3 3.4.2.1 Species Composition. Most of the species documented above for the Gakona site
would occur at the Clear site with varying abundances. Thirty-three species of migratory birds,
14 species of year-round residents, and 28 species of spring and fall transients have been
observed at the nearby ADFG fish hatchery (ADFG, 1992d) (Table 3.4-6). In addition the
U USFWS has identified that two subspecies of peregrine falcon could occur on the site (USFWS,
1992d,e). These birds are addressed below under Section 3.4.2.4 Threatened and Endangered
Birds.
I 3.4.2.2 Migration Patterns. The Clear AFS property and the Bear Creek location lie in the
Nenana River valley, which is an important migratory route for waterfowl and other birds
through the mountains of the Alaska Range (USFWS, 1992c). In addition, the Nenana River
valley lies within the Tanana River Basin, one of Alaska's most important migration corridors
(Gabrielson and Lincoln, 1959; King and Lensink, 1971).
I The Clear site is located within the major migration route of sandhill cranes (Kessel, 1984).
Large numbers of sandhill cranes could migrate through the project area, since thousands
migrate through Ferry about 3 miles to the south (ABR, 1992). Open areas and alluvial islands
3 of wide, braided riverbeds, such as found on the nearby Nenana River, are preferred as roosting
sites by sandhill cranes (Kessel, 1984).
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Migratory Management Survey has no data on the use of the Clear
I site area by waterfowl during the migration periods (USFWS, 19920. However, a number of
migratory species have been observed on Clear AFS (ADFG, 1992d). Large numbers of Canada
3 geese have been observed to rest on the Clear AFS radar clearance zone during the fall and
spring migration periods (FSI, 1992a).
3.4.2.3 Breeding Bird Populations. Information on breeding birds was obtained from the
I USFWS and ADFG. Information on breeding waterfowl was obtained from the results of aerial
surveys conducted by the USFWS (USFWS, 19920 during the month of May for over 35 years
I
1 3-45
I
I
TABLE 3.4-6. SPECIES OBSERVED AT THE CLEAR SITE
MIGRATORY SPECIES 3
Canada goose Bonaparte's gull Glaucous-winged gull
Mew gull Arctic gull American golden plover 3
Black-bellied plover Tundra swan Trumpeter swan
Mallard Northern pintail Green-winged teal 3
Northern shoveler American widgeon Canvasback
Bufflehead Golden eagle Bald eagle 3
Marsh hawk Merlin Northern phallarope
Horned grebe Greater scaup Lesser scaup 3
Rusty blackbird Pine grosbeak American tree sparrow
Bohemian waxing Surf scoter Ring-necked duck n
Oldsquaw Red phallarope
YEAR ROUND RESIDENTS 3

Common raven Gray jay Black-capped chickadee
Boreal chickadee Common redpoll Hoary redpoll
Great horned owl Hawk owl Great grey owl

Boreal owl Spruce grouse Ruffed grouse
Willow Ptarmigan Sharp-tailed grouse
SPRING, SUMMER, AND FALL RESIDENTS

American robin Northern flicker Hairy woodpecker
Downy woodpecker American kestrel Gyrfalcon
Sandhill Crane American golden plover Common loon

Arctic loon Red-necked grebe Horned grebe
Sharp-skinned hawk Red-tailed hawk Rough-legged hawk I
Violet green swallows Bank swallows Tree swallows
Varied thrush Fox sparrow Slate grey junco ,
White-crowned sparrow
Lesser yellow-legs
urce: ADFG, 1992d
Yellow-rumped warbler Dipper
3
3-46I
I
I
Un II mmmmmm InI~lnll!m l
U
3 (fable 3.4-7). The nearest of these surveys are two east-west, 16 by 1/4 mile, segments
(segments 52 and 53), located due north of the Clear site (Figure 3.4-5).
Trumpeter Swans. The Clear site is located within the breeding range of trumpeter swans
SI (Figure 3.4-2). Nests and breeding trumpeter swans have been observed along segments 52 and
53 (Table3.4-7). Evidently there is no swan use of the areas nearby the Clear and Bear Creek
site during the summer (USFWS, 1992g).
I Ducks. A variety of breeding ducks have been observed along aerial segments 52 and 53 (Table
I 3.4-7). The yearly average of ducks, observed during the latter part of May, along segments
52 and 53 was 29.2 and 24.5, respectively. The ducks listed in Table 3.4-2 occasionally breed
in the area but were not observed in survey segments 52 and 53. The most common breeding
ducks observed along the segments were mallard and northern pintail, northern shoveler, greater
I scaup, American widgeon, green-winged teal, and bufflehead.
I Birds of Prey. A few bald eagle nests exist near Clear AFS property, but there are no known
nests near the Bear Creek location (USFWS, 1992g). Bald eagle nests have not been observed
I along survey segments 52 and 53 (Table 3.4-7) since aerial surveying was begun along those
segments in 1957 (USFWS, 1992g). An average of .03 breeding bald eagles have been observed
during late May of each year along segment 52. Bald eagles have not been observed along
segment 53. Breeding ospreys were not seen during any of the aerial surveys of segments 52
I and 53, although they may make occasional use of the areas near the Nenana River (USFWS,
I 1992g).
3.4.2.4 Threatened and Endangered Birds. Two listed species, one endangered and one
I threatened, occur in the Clear site area (USFWS, 1992d). The endangered American peregrine
falcon and the threatened arctic peregrine falcon migrate through the Clear site area during
E spring and fall migration. Timing of spring migration is from about mid-April to mid-May and,
in fall, from about mid-August and mid-October (Roseneau et al., 1981).
3
I 3-47
I
I
TABLE 3.4-7. NUMBER OF BREEDING INDIVIDUALS OBSERVED DURING MAY
ALONG SURVEY SEGMENTS 52 AND 53 FROM 1957 TO 1992
SPECIES YEARLY AVERAGE'

(Segment 52)
YEARLY AVERAGE
(Segment 53)
U
Mallard 7.17 1.89
Gadwall 0 0
American widgeon 2.81 1.61
Green-winged teal 1.61 0.97 3
Blue-winged teal 0 0
Northern shoveler 3.28 1.28
Northern pintail 6.61 3.94
Redhead 0 0 1
Canvasback 0.11 0.72
Greater scaup 2 2.28 2.92 1
Ring-necked duck2 0.11 0.17
Goldeneye 0.33 0.28
Bufflehead 1.31 1.44 1
Old squaw 0.06 .25
Scoter 0.28 1.61 i
Merganser 0.06 0.11
White-fronted goose2 0 0
Canada goose 2 0.58 0.33
Trumpeter swan2 0.94 0.64 1
Trumpeter swan nest 0.14 0.11
Arctic loon 0 0 1
Red-throated loon 0 0
Common loon 0 0.03
continued.
3-48
I
I
I TABLE 3.4-7 (Continued). NUMBER OF BREEDING INDIVIDUALS
OBSERVED DURING MAY ALONG SURVEY SEGMENTS 52 AND 53 FROM
13 1957 TO 1992
YEARLY AVERAGE 1 YEARLY AVERAGE 1

SPECIES
(Segment 52) (Segment 53)
3 Bald eagle 0.03 0
Bald eagle nest 0 0
Osprey 0 0
Sandhill crane 0.25 0.14
3 Grebe 0.03 0.03
Ptarmigan2 0.11 0.11
3 Total Ducks Observed 3 29.23 24.47
I ource: USFWS, 1992f.
Breeding individuals averaged over 35 years from 1957 until 1992. The following criteria
3 was used for counting breeding individuals:
"* each individual of a pair

* lone hens were not counted
"* drakes were multiplied by 2
3 2 All observed scaups, ring-necked ducks, swans, geese and ptarmigan were counted as
breeding individuals.
3 Total Ducks = total breeding ducks counted according to the above given criteria.
I
I
U
I
i 3-49
I
O0PY AVAILABLE TO Xrtc DOZ3 NOT PErMET FUILLY LEýGIBLE %,,.EpRCýUCTO I
L53-
52-
.4 "-. II
e ~~ANDERSIt4,- -
68
3 IIr
Lam.
SCL INMIE
NOES Semns5 n-3aeec-1 y14mlsi ra era uvydt fbedn
SOURCE
USGS5
FaibansAla 1977E SEMNSS2AD5
S NMI
AFCALE
I
I The nesting areas of the American peregrine falcon and the arctic peregrine falcon are,
respectively, the forested areas of interior Alaska and the tundra areas of northern and western
I Alaska (USFWS, 1992d). Although the American peregrine falcon nests in the forested areas
of interior Alaska, it is unlikely that they nest on the Clear site (ABR, 1992). There are no
known nests sites within 10 miles of the Clear site (Clear AFS property or Bear Creek location)
(USFWS, 1992e).
The breeding population of American peregrine falcons in interior Alaska has generally been
increasing over the past 10 years. The arctic peregrine falcon population has also been steadily
increasing over the past 10 years, and this subspecies was recently reclassified from endangered
to threatened (M&E/H&N, 1989a).
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i 3-51
I
U
3.5 AQUATICS
3.5.1 Gakona Site U

No aquatic resources are located within the Gakona site (M&E/H&N, 1989b). However, I
potential borrow sources (Figure 2.3-4) identified for possible use during construction of the
facility are in close proximity to the Copper River. One of the potential sources, P-1, is also I
near Tulsona Creek. Therefore, existing aquatic resources for these two aquatic systems are
described in this section.
Copper River. Biological productivity in the Copper River Basin appears to be highest within I
clearwater streams and the numerous surface lakes which feed into the Copper River
(M&E/H&N, 1989b). The river itself is characterized by seasonally-elevated levels of
suspended sediments (Emery et al., 1985), with glacial melting from May through August
yielding the highest sediment loads. Although chemical water quality is good (Section 3.6), the
high suspended sediment levels and associated turbidity limit biological productivity. Floating 3
and attached plant forms are limited due to ice scouring effects and because of reduced light
levels which inhibit photosynthesis. Bottom-dwelling animals do not proliferate because siltation
tends to smother aquatic insects and other forms that live in the river bottom.
I
While biological productivity within the river may be limited, the river serves as the major
migratory route for anadromous fish species (fish which spend most of their life in the sea, but
migrate into freshwater to spawn). Sockeye salmon is the most abundant anadromous species in
the basin, followed by coho salmon, chinook salmon and steelhead trout. Migrations upriver
generally occur during warmer months. For example, chinook salmon migrate past Gakona
during early June through mid-August, while sockeyes enter fresh water from late May through 3
July. Coho salmon depart from this general trend in that they are found in fresh water from
mid-August until late January (USAF, 1987). 3
3-52
I
I
I
I The Upper Copper River (upstream of the Gakona River) provides habitat for two anadromous
fish species, sockeye and chinook salmon. There are at least 11 drainages that serve as
I anadromous salmon spawning areas (M&E/H&N, 1989b). The major spawning areas are found
in the Slana and Tanada drainages, although sizable numbers also utilize other lakes, sloughs,
springs, and clearwater creeks throughout the drainage. After one or three years of residence,
I juveniles migrate out of the system after spring break-up.
Chinook salmon are found in several clearwater creeks throughout the Upper Copper River. The
most extensively used area for spawning is the East Fork of the Chistochina River (M&E/H&N,
I 1989a). Chinook fry in the Copper River drainage normally spend one year in freshwater before
migrating to sea. They can be found in almost any clearwater tributary during the summer.
The Upper Copper River also provides habitat for several resident fresh water fish species.
3 These include arctic grayling, burbot, and lake trout (USAF, 1987). Other species known to
occur include Dolly Varden char, round whitefish, longnose sucker, slimy sculpin, and Pacific
I lamprey (M&E/H&N, 1989b). Species such as grayling, whitefish, longnose sucker, burbot,
and sculpin may use certain areas of the mainstem Copper River for overwintering and as a
I migratory corridor in the spring and fall to access spawning or rearing habitat (clearwater lakes
I and streams).
Tulsona Creek. Tulsona Creek is a meandering riffle/pool stream originating in the muskeg
3 and spruce vegetated hills west of the Copper River and east of the Gakona River. It has a
drainage basin of approximately 91 square miles. The moisture-retaining qualities of the
vegetated ground cover in the drainage basin apparently control seepage into the stream from
snowmelt, resulting in a relatively constant flow of water through the stream channel during the
3 summer months. Generally during the spring, rapid snowmelt results in a higher discharge.
Winter flows appear to be quite low, with portions of the stream bed dewatered (AEIDC,
I 1989a).
I 3-53
I
Monthly aquatic surveys were conducted in Tulsona Creek from May through October, 1988,
to develop baseline conditions for the environmental assessment of impacts associated with the
OTH-B program (AEJDC, 1988d). These studies indicated that Tulsona Creek is a moderately l
productive stream providing rearing and possibly spawning habitat for both resident and
anadromous fish species. Substrates were found to be varied, but generally consisted of medium I
gravel to cobble with occasional boulders in some stream segments. Sandy mud deposits were
noted throughout the creek reach, but gravel substrates were continuous within the channel
thalweg area (area of channel which remains flowing during low flow conditions). At the mouth
of the creek where the gradient and velocities were low, extensive sand and mud deposits existed I
along the banks. Substrates considered suitable for salmonid spawning were documented in
various segments of lower Tulsona Creek.
The 1988 AEIDC studies reported that aquatic vegetation in Tulsona Creek was dominated by
a filamentous chlorophyte growing on gravel and cobbles (AEIDC, 1988d). This algal growth l
was found to be common along the course of the creek, but by late summer and fall algal growth
declined. Periphyton were also reported to be present on many exposed surfaces. 3
The benthic community in Tulsona Creek was characterized during the 1988 surveys to be of
moderate abundance but low diversity (AEIDC, 1988d). Species densities from pooled samples
ranged from 46 organisms/square foot in May to 184 organisms/square foot in October. A total
of 12 orders/families were identified. Caddisfly and chironomid larvae were relatively abundant
throughout the study period as were mayfly nymphs. Chironomid and simulid larvae were al:so
abundant during the October survey.
I
Slimy sculpin, arctic grayling and chinook salmon were the most common fish species upstream
of the mouth during the 1988 surveys (AEIDC, 1988d). Other species collected included long-
nosed sucker and Pacific lamprey. Tulsona Creek is considered within the range for char,
burbot, and possibly steelhead trout (USAF, 1987). No direct evidence of spawning was noted
during the 1988 surveys, but observations of very small (young-of-the-year) round whitefish,
sculpin and arctic grayling indicated that they may spawn in the area. Several adult chinook
3-54 I
1
I
I salmon were observed milling and porpoising in the mouth of the creek during the June survey,
possibly indicative of spawning. Juvenile chinook salmon were collected from June through
1 October at all study sites, including the mouth.
I Gravel Source Areas. Gravel source P-i is located at the confluence of lower Tulsona Creek
Hand the Copper River (Figu.. 2.3-4). This site is closely associated with aquatic resources from
both waterbodies. Three gravel pit lakes associated with the area occur near the mouth of
I Tulsona Creek. The 1988 surveys of Tulsona Creek included limited sampling of the large and
small lakes (AEIDC, 1988d). The lakes do not appear to have year round inlet or outlet
streams. The small gravel pit lake connects to Tulsona Creek through a small outlet stream
which in the 1988 survey flowed from May to August. No fish were collected from the small
gravel pit lake during the 1988 surveys. Burbot and longnose sucker were found in the large
gravel pit lake.
The remaining potential material sources are close to the Copper River and thus exhibit similar
aquatic environments. Area P-2 is located just west of area P-1. Two small intermittent streams
cross this site. Because of the size of these streams and their intermittent nature, it is unlikely
that they support significant benthic or fish populations. Site A-1 consists of an upper flat-
topped terrace and a lower terrace separated by a small drainage swale. A pond approximately
500,000 square feet in area is located on the upper terrace area of the site. Although no aquatic
resources are located within areas A-4 and A-5 (M&E/H&N, 1989b), both sites are located
3 adjacent to the Copper River. The western portion of site A-5 contains overflow channels from
I the Copper River which may be temporarily used by aquatic species during high-water periods.
3.5.2 Clear Site
No aquatic resources are located on the proposed Clear site. However, the aquatic resources
_U of the Nenana River and some of its tributaries, Lake Sansing and scattered ponds will be
discussed due to their proximity to the proposed facility footprints on the Clear site. Bear Creek
-- (Figure 2.3-6) will also be discussed because it passes through the southern portion of the Bear
I 3-55
I
I
Creek location. No quantitative analyses of fish populations in the Nenana River Basin are
known to exist (ADFG, 1992e).
Nenana River. The Nenana River is a glacial-fed, silty, turbid river. The river and its
tributaries serve as a migratory route and spawning area for some anadromous fish species and U
provide a habitat for a number of resident nonariadromous fish species as well (ADFG, 1992e).
The proposed project sites are not close to the Nenana River and, therefore, it would not be I
affected.
Lake Sansing. Lake Sansing, a man-made lake, is located in a rectangular pit that was probably
created as a result of excavations for gravel during the construction of the base. The lake is
a groundwater infiltration area for powerplant and radar operations cooling waters. Lake waters
are supplemented with groundwater when needed. The groundwater is pumped on demand from
4 wells located at the fish hatchery (ADFG, 19920. A fish hatchery was started in Lake Sansing
when rainbow trout were introduced in 1972 and 1973 (ADFG, 19920. The rainbow trout are
now self sustaining (maintenance of population by natural reproduction). Rainbow trout make 3
up 60 to 75 percent of the fish in Lake Sansing. Arctic char make up most of the remaining 40
to 25 percent of the fish along with a few arctic grayling (ADFG, 19920. The arctic char are
not self sustaining and are stocked each year during the fall and spring. Arctic grayling are also
not self sustaining and have not been stocked in a number of years. Subsequently, only a few 3
arctic grayling exist in Lake Sansing (ADFG, 19920.
I
Small Man-made Ponds. A number of small man-made ponds, located within the Clear AFS
property and near the proposed location for the IRI, formed in abandoned gravel pits. Some of
these ponds have been stocked with arctic grayling and sheefish (ADFG, 19920.
I
Bear Creek. Bear Creek is a small stream which becomes choked with ice during the winter.
It reportedly does not thaw until June or July (ADFG, 1992e,f). Although Kmited numbers of
arctic grayling probably inhabit the stream, it supports no significant sport fisheries (ADFG,
3-56
I
I
im
I l992e,f). June Creek, located just south of the Bear Creek location was stocked with surplus
_ coho salmon until 1988 (ADFG, 19920, and therefore, probably provides some sport fishing.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i 3-57
I
Ii I
3.6 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
This section describes the existing hydrologic environment in the vicinity of the candidate sites I
for the HAARP transmitter facility and, in the case of Gakona, at potential gravel source areas.
The section includes a discussion of morphology, hydrology, and water quality. Primary sourcesm
of data for the evaluation of existing conditions include existing documents, topographic and
vegetation mapping, aerial photographs, and, in the case of Gakona, technical studies which I
supported the OTH-B Environmental Assessment (M&E/H&N, 1989b).
3.6.1 Gakona Site
Morphology. The Copper River Lowland is a relatively smooth plain between 1000 and 3000
feet above mean sea level. The candidate site is at an altitude of approximately 1900 feet above
mean sea level and is fairly flat. The area is characterized as rolling terrain with morainal and
stagnant ice topography (Emery et al., 1985). The valleys of the nearby Copper River and its
tributaries have steep walls up to 500 feet in height (USACOE, 1987a). The nearby section of
the Copper River occupies a broad flood plain, and in several areas the flow is directed into one
or more smaller branches which are reunited a short distance downriver. Tulsona Creek, located
to the east of the site, originates in muskeg and spruce vegetated hills and flows south to the
Copper River. The confluence is located approximately two miles east of the site. At the 3
mouth, where the gradient and water velocities are low, mud and sand deposits are extensive
(AEIDC, 1988d).
Surface Water Hydrology. The site generally receives about 15 inches of precipitation
annually, most of which is snow. At the site location, about five inches of the 15 inches of
annual precipitation runs off as stream flow (McDonald, 1988). Stream discharges in the region 3
are typically low from September through March, and near zero in late winter. Approximately
75 percent of the annual runoff occurs during the open-water season with the annual maximum
discharge occurring in May or June as a result of snowmelt (Emery et al., 1985; McDonald,
1988).
3-58
LI
I
The site is relatively well drained by poorly defined drainage pathways. The area does not
contain lakes, large wetland areas, or defined streams. Individual drainage areas are probably
-- less than one square mile (McDonald, 1988). Site runoff flows southeast toward the Copper
River, and is intercepted by the Tok Cut-Off. Culverts allow drainage to flow under the
I highway and continue down the steep gradient to the Copper River. The estimated average flow
-- for the Copper River at the project site is approximately 5,800 cubic feet per second (cfs).
There is no potentid for flooding at the site from the Copper River.
I- Tulsona Creek, located east of the site, has an estimated drainage area of 92 square miles.
Emery et al. (1985) estimated the average discharge for Tulsona Creek to be 60 cfs, however,
I
discharges as low as 38 cfs on 30 March and 28 July, 1982 were observed. Seepage is probably
controlled by the moisture-retaining vegetation in the drainage basin which provides a relatively
constant flow during summer months (AEIDC, 1988d).
There is no potential for flooding at the site from Tulsona Creek (M&EIH&N, 1989b). There
is evidence of occasional flooding in the lower Tulsona Creek basin, south of the Tok Cut-Off.
Evidence includes fine sediments deposited in the forests adjacent to the stream from apparent
recurrent flooding, and woody debris deposited by high water found lodged in low tree branches
some distance from the river edge throughout the lower mainstream. High water may create
seasonal ponds in low depressions near the stream. These ponds remain filled with water
I throughout the summer and gradually dry out by fall.
Three gravel pit lakes occur in the vicinity of lower Tulsona Creek and are associated with
gravel source area P-1. These lakes were created by past gravel mining activity. The lakes
intercept the groundwater table and do not appear to have year round inlet or outlet streams.
Overflow into Tulsona Creek occurs primarily from May through August (AEIDC, 1988d). A
500,000 square-foot pond abuts the northwest portion of gravel area A-i, and drains into the
Copper River through a drainage channel which crosses the potential borrow site.
II 3-59
I
Groundwater Hydrology. Low permeability, as well as prevalent permafrost, restricts the
water transmitting properties of the lacustrine deposits in the region, resulting in low yield
aquifers. It is expected however, that viable aquifers may be located in the floodplain deposits
and underlying gravel of streams near the proposed site, such as Tulsona Creek and the Copper
River (McDonald, 1988). 1
No known springs are located on the site. A spring was located in a slough of Tulsona Creek, I
west of the abandoned borrow pit in the Copper River terrace. A number of 10 to 40 foot wells
have been developed in the area, which derive good quality water from unconsolidated deposits I
above the permafrost or unfrozen terrace deposits at a maximum rate of 20 gallons per minute
(Emery et al., 1985). A 400 foot deep well drilled on the Gakona site yielded about 400 gallons
per minute of very poor quality water. Wells in the relatively impermeable frozen lake bed
sediments usually do not yield water supplies sufficient for any purpose.
Surface Water Quality. There is little development within the Copper River Basin, thus no
anthropogenic influences are known which significantly affect water quality. United States
Geological Survey (USGS) water quality data indicate the streams of the Copper River Basin are
of good to excellent chemical quality. Based on USGS water quality data, the only properties
that exceed the recommended EPA limits for drinking water are color, iron, and manganese
(Emery et al., 1985). Many streams and rivers, particularly those that are glacially fed, are
subject to seasonal increases in suspended sediment.
I
Water quality in the surface water features of the gravel source areas is considered to be of
similar quality as other surface waters. However, summer-time evaporation can increase the
concentration of dissolved solids (AEIDC, 1988d).
I
Groundwater Quality. Groundwater quality in the Copper River Basin Lowlands is generally
poor as compared to EPA recommended limits for drinking water, and usually decreases with
increasing depth. Groundwater is characterized by high concentrations of dissolved solids,
sodium, chloride, iron, and manganese (Emery et al., 1985). Shallow wells (10 to 40 feet) that
3-60
I
I
I take water from above or within the permafrost provide a good quality water source at rates up
I to 20 gallons per minute. The majority of deep wells which penetrate the permafrost yield water
that is unacceptable for human consumption (McDonald, 1988). The water obtained from the
400 foot deep well drilled on the site was of such poor quality, it was deemed completely
unusable for most domestic purposes.
rn 3.6.2 Clear Site
I Morphology. The Clear region is located on the margin between the Alaska Range and the
Tanana-Kuskokwim Lowlands which is a relatively level plain ranging from 300 to 700 feet
above mean sea level. The Clear site is located at an elevation of about 600 feet above mean
sea level, with the Bear Creek location about 800 feet above mean sea level. The area around
the Clear Region is characterized as relatively flat sloping terrain, although the northern foothills
U to the Alaska Range start abruptly only 10 miles to the south. The Bear Creek location is within
the foothills region. The Nenana River flows rather rapidly out of the Alaska range and through
the foothills with frequent whitewater sections and deep cuts into the surrounding terrain
resulting in some river banks that are several hundred feet in height. The river gradient, and
thus the velocity of the river, decreases just south (up-river) of Clear AFS, and from here to its
confluence with the Tanana River it is characterized by broad slow water and braided channels,
I flowing over glacio-fluvial gravels (FSI, 1991).
3 Surface Water Hydrology. The site generally receives between 11 and 13 inches of
precipitation annually, most of which is snow. Stream and river discharges in the region are
Scharacterized by very low winter flow rates, with May being the period of ice break-up with
flow increasing dramatically over the month and peaking in early June. The flow then dwindles
3 off throughout the summer and fall, and settles into the low winter flow rate by early November.
The Nenana River has an average peak flow rate of 10,000 cfs, and occurs sometime during the
3 month of June. The average minimum flow rate is about 500 cfs, occurring during the month
of March (NOAA, 1982).
1 3-61
I
I
The 100 year flood plain for the Nenana River near Clear AFS property is well below the 3
elevation of the proposed Clear footprint. A record high water elevation of 574 feet above mean
sea level was recorded at Clear AFS as a result of an ice-jam on Julius Creek during spring i
break-up (FSI, 1991). There is no potential for flooding at the Bear Creek location as the site
is well above the 100 year flood plain.
The site area is well drained as a result of the sandy and gravelly alluvial soil deposits.
Drainage into the Nenana River is via small open tributaries, particularly where the river flows
out of the Alaska Range through the northern foothills. In the flat portion of the basin, there I
are relatively few tributary streams, since the surface water tends to flow down through the
granular soils and into the aquifer.
The Clear AFS property contains no natural streams, ponds or lakes, and is only occasionally u
marshy in small surface area deposits of sandy silt. There are two man-made powerplant ponds
on site; oneof which is a fish hatchery pond referred to as Lake Sansing.
I
The Bear Creek location is bordered to the south by Bear Creek and June Creek, and to the east
by the Nenana River. The flow in the two creeks is seasonal in nature with no flow during the i
winter period (ADFG, 1992e,f). Other than these two creeks, there is no known permanent
surface water at the Bear Creek location. Inspection of stereoscopic aerial photographs verifies
the presence of some marshy areas that are classified as wetland areas (NASA, 1980; Alaska
Railroad, 1989).
Groundwater Hydrology. Aquifers in the Clear region are typically high-yield due to the high 3
permeability of the underlying granular soil deposits. The water for the existing Clear AFS is
obtained via 15 deep wells with yields of up to 1200 gallons per minute (FSI, 1991). The water 3
table at the site is about 70 feet below the surface (Shannon and Wilson, 1958). There are no
known springs at the site. i
3-62 1
I
Water at the Clear AFS is of very good quality with only a limited amount of softening required
prior to human use and consumption (FSI, 1991). Chlorine disinfection is also conducted as a
precautionary measure to destroy viruses, protozoans, and bacteria picked up within the
distribution system (FSI, 1991).
Surface Water Quality. The Nenana River Basin has limited development by contiguous U.S.
standards, although by Alaskan standards it has a rather moderate amount of development.
Communities and developments in the area includes the Denali Park entrance complex and the
communities of Healy and Ferry upstream of the proposed Clear site, and the communities of
Clear, Anderson, and Nenana located downstream. In addition to these major areas, there are
several other small settlements and homesteads along the banks of the Nenana River that could
contribute to water quality degradation in the area.
It is anticipated that the Nenana River would exceed recommended EPA limits for drinking
water in several subject areas, including color, and possibly several other chemical constituents.
Because the Nenana River is glacially fed and the flow rates change dramatically, it is subject
to seasonal variations in suspended sediments.
Information on the water quality of the tributary streams (i.e. Bear Creek and June Creek) to
the Nenana River are not available. Because they are fed primarily by snowmelt from the
foothills of the Alaska Range, it is anticipated that these waters would be of excellent quality.
Groundwater Quality. Groundwater quality in the region is generally good, with minimal
treatment required to make it potable. Clear AFS uses deep wells to acquire the water for the
station use, and treatment is limited to selected softening and chlorination procedures (FSI,
1991).
3-63
I
3.7 AIR QUALITY 3
This section describes the existing air quality for both the Gakona and Clear sites. The
discussion is broken into several sections including air quality setting, climatology and
meteorology, and ambient air quality.
3.7.1 Gakona Site 3

Due to its remote location, the ambient air quality of the Gakona region has not been extensively U
studied in the past, although some limited meteorological and air quality monitoring data have
been collected near the Gakona site. Air quality at the Gakona site is expected to be nearly
pristine, according to ADEC (USAF, 1989a). 3
Air Quality Setting. The topography and physiographic nature of a site can be important to the
air quality characteristics. The Gakona site is located in the Copper River Basin, an
intermountain lowland flanked on all sides by mountainous uplands. These lowlands are
generally flat with numerous small thaw lakes which have resulted from warming and subsidence
of the permafrost soil. The basin is bordered on the south by the Chugach Mountains, which
contain several peaks over 10,000 feet, on the west by the Talkeetna Mountains, and on the
north and east by the Alaska Range and Wrangell Mountains. The nearest population center, 3
the village of Gakona, is located approximately 9 miles southwest of the Gakona site (population
25 (1990)). The town of Gulkana is a larger community located approximately 15 miles
southwest (population 103 (1990)). The largest community in the area is Glennallen (population
451 (1990)) located about 20 miles southwest (USDOC, 1992). U
Climatology and Meteorology. The Gakona site, at a maximum elevation of 1,940 feet above I
mean sea level, is located within a continental climate zone which is characterized by cold, dry
winters and comparatively warm summers (McDonald, 1988). Mean summer temperatures at 3
the site range from a minimum of 41 OF to a maximum of 63 OF. Mean winter temperatures
range from a minimum of -12 OF to a maximum of 6 OF. Temperature extremes have been 3
3-64
I
reported as -60 *F and 91 *F (USAF, 1986b). More detailed climate data have been recorded
at Gakona townsite, elevation 1,460 feet above MSL, and show very similar values to those
from Gulkana (Table 3.7-1). The average freeze-free period is approximately 114 days in the
Copper River Basin (USAF, 1986b).
Mean annual precipitation at the Gakona site and at Gakona townsite has been reported at 10.9
and 13.3 inches, respectively (McDonald, 1988). However, standard rain gauges, which were
used to obtain these measurements, are inefficient for determining snow deposition, resulting in
inaccurate measurements of annual levels of total precipitation. Mean annual measurements of
regional snowfall are best represented by data from the Soil Conservation Service Snow Course,
located approximately 15 miles south of the Gakona site, on the Sanford River, at an elevation
of 2,280 feet above MSL (Table 3.7-2). When converted to water equivalent, these snow data,
in combination with on-site data for annual rainfall, yield an annual precipitation estimate of
approximately 15 inches (McDonald, 1988). Maximum snow accumulation in nearby Gulkana
is 55 inches. July and August tend to be the wettest months, while April tends to be the driest
(USAF, 1986b; Table 3.7-1). The average relative humidity is reported to be 79 percent in the
winter and 64 percent in the summer (USAF, 1987).
Prevailing winds in eastern interior Alaska, including the Gakona site, are relatively gentle,
generally ranging between 5 and 13 miles per hour (mph). Winds during the summer are most
frequently from a southerly direction with average speeds of 5 to 6 mph. During the winter,
prevailing winds are most frequenuy out of the north at an aveage speed of 3 to 4 mph (USAF,
1987). Spring and fall are characterized by prevailing southeasterly winds with crosswinds from
the northeast, particularly during the fall (AEIDC, 1988c). Winds seldom exceed 6 mph, and
storm winds exceeding 20 mph are historically rare. Maximum sustained wind velocities at the
town of Gulkana are 51 mph out of the east-southeast during the winter, and 34 mph out of the
south-southeast during the summer (USAF, 1987).
Weather patterns are relatively consistent in the Copper River Basin. Topography within the
basin results in a local uniformity in wind patterns. The mountain ranges surrounding the basin
3-65
TABLE 3.7-1. CLIMATE SUMMARY FOR GAKONA, ALASKA
ELEVATION 1460 FT'
1
Temperature (Degrees F) Precipitation (in.)
Month Average Average Mean Record Record Mean Max.
_High Low High Low Day I
January 3.5 -14.9 -5.7 44 -62 0.56 0.45
February 12.9 -14.2 -0.6 43 -54 0.71 0.30
March 30.5 0.2 15.4 49 -43 0.51 0.73
April 44.8 18.7 31.8 68 -19 0.41 0.60 5
May 58.8 30.2 44.5 78 10 0.71 0.99
June 68.1 40.5 54.3 83 27 1.64 0.65
July 72.2 44.9 58.6 89 32 2.45 0.90
August 69.0 41.0 55.0 91 20 1.92 1.05
September 56.7 31.9 44.3 77 5 1.28 1.55
October 37.2 18.6 27.9 55 -23 1.29 0.75
November 13.4 -4.2 4.6 45 -38 0.92 1.39 1
December 4.7 -12.5 -3.9 44 -40 0.94 0.78
Year 39.9 15.0 27.2 91 -62 13.32 1.55 1
gource: McDonald (1988) Based on 13 years of observation throu i 1984
TABLE 3.7-2. SNOW SURVEY DATA SUMMARY FOR SANFORD RIVER, AK U

ELEVATION 2280 YE'
Month
Snow Fall (inches) I
Month February I March I April I May 1
Average depth 21 24 25 11
Maximum depth 34 36 42 38 3
Average Water Equivalent 3.7 4.6 5.3 2.9
Maximum Water Equivalent 6.1 7.6 8.4 9.3 3
Source: McDonald (1988) ' Based on 16 years of observation between 1967 and 1982
I
3-66
I
block or mitigate the severity of many of the storm systems coming from the west, southwest,
and south. These conditions can also produce funneling effects through canyons and passes,
producing a locally stronger wind (AEIDC, 1988c).
In the spring, local heating in the Copper River Basin produces rising air around the Gakona
region. Cool air from the Wrangell Mountains to the southeast sinks and flows at surface level
into the basin, causing a locally convective wind (AEIDC, 1988c). It is under these conditions
that dispersion most readily occurs. In the winter, temperature inversions are common.
Inversions with minimal winds produce the least favorable conditions for dispersion.
Ambient Air Quality. The State Air Quality Classification for Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) for the Gakona site is Class II (USAF, 1986a). The Wrangell-St. Elias
National Park, located 1.5 miles south of the Gakona site, is also a Class II area (Alaska
Administrative Code, Title 18, Chapter 50). At the Gakona site, the concentrations of
contaminants in the ambient air are less than state standards, and therefore, must be kept below
these standards.
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) considers the ambient air
quality of the region to be very pristine (USAF, 1987). Currently, the only important point
source to background pollutant levels in the region is the Copper Valley Electric Association's
powerplant located in Glennallen, approximately 24 miles southwest of the Gakona site. The
emissions from this diesel-fueled powerplant do not exceed the standards set forth in the ADEC
Air Quality Control Regulations, and therefore the plant does not require ambient air quality
monitoring or a PSD permit (M&E/H&N, 1989c).
Minor air pollutant emissions from automobiles and local residents are the only other known
sources of man-made air pollution in the Gakona region. ADEC has indicated that ambient air
pollutant concentrations at the project site for nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and carbon
monoxide are expected to be below instrument detection levels (M&E/H&N, 1989c).
3-67
bI
Based upon a Class 11 status and assumed pristine conditions, the ADEC normally suggests that
ambient air quality be characterized through the use of assumed background pollutant
concentrations. The assumptions for such a characterization should be based upon air quality I
documents from other projects, in remote regions, that were previously approved by ADEC
(M&E/H&N, 1989c). The ADEC has approved the use of the assumed background values listed 3
in Table 3.7-3 to characterize the air quality of remote regions of Alaska (M&E/H&N, 1989c).
These values were used in permitting the proposed OTH-B powerplant on the Gakona site. I
Table 3.7-3 also lists PSD significance levels as identified in 18 AAC 50. For projects subject
to PSD review, background pollutant concentrations that are less than these significance levels l
are not subject to preconstruction monitoring programs as part of the PSD review process.
Based on the assumed ambient concentrations, existing SO2, NO2 and CO concentrations may
be considered insignificant and will not require preconstruction monitoring.
ADEC has stated that existing concentrations of total suspended particulates (TSP) in the
Gulkana region are likely to exceed the PSD significance level (10 Itg/m 3) during spring and fall
due to increases in glacial particulates resulting from short periods of dry weather and relatively
high winds (M&E/H&N, 1989c). ADEC required monitoring of TSP and particulate matter less
than 10 microns in diameter (PMI0) as part of the PSD review process for the proposed OTH-B
powerplant on the Gakona site.
I
Particulate matter monitoring for TSP and PM1 owas performed adjacent to the Alascom tower,
located just outside of the site's eastern boundary. Monitoring was conducted from April 1989
through April 1990. The average value of TSP during the snow-free period (April through
September) was 11.8 ,g/m 3 , with values occasionally exceeding 20 Ig/m 3 . PM1 olevels averaged 3
3 during this period and never exceeded 20 •Ig/m 3 .
4.5 usg/m
I
Table 3.7-3 lists the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for the parameters for
which standards have been established. A proposed source of air emissions is not permitted to 5
exceed these concentrations.
3-68
3
I
I
TABLE 3.7-3. ASSUMED AIR QUALITY POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS

FOR REMOTE AREAS OF ALASKA
Pollutant Assumed Ambient PSD Significance NAAQS
3Ug/m
Concentration
3)
Level
(jzg/r 3) 3)
(jg/m
SO2 , 24-hr average 2- 3 13 365
NO2, annual 2-10 14 100
average
CO, 8-hr average 500 575 10000
TSP, 24-hr average NA1 10 150
1 PMI0 , annual NA NA 50
average
Source: M&E/H&N (1989c).
'NA = Not Applicable.
3.7.2 Clear Site
Ambient air quality in the Clear region has not been thoroughly studied in the past due to the
rather remote location of the site. Ambient air quality on the Clear site is expected to be very
good throughout most of the year. An exception to this might be during the winter months when
temperature inversions occur and tend to trap combustion gases from home heating systems and
vehicles and deteriorate air quality (ADEC,1992a,b). The most applicable quantitative data on
air quality in the Clear region comes from a recently conducted monitoring program carried out
as part of the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Healy Clean Coal Project (HCCP).
Concentrations of SO2 and NO2 and PM, 0 were recorded for a period of 12 months at a location
in Healy (approximately 20 miles from the Bear Creek location and about 30 miles from Clear
AFS) and near the border of Denali National Park and Preserve (DOE, 1992). That data is
summarized in Table 3.7-4. Note that all ambient values are well below the NAAQS.
3-69
I
TABLE 3.7-4. HCCP AMBIENT AIR QUALITY DATA - 9/90 THROUGH 8/91
Pollutant Measured NAAQS Percent
Concentration of
jg/m3) (J•g/rn 3) Standard
so 2, 3-hr average 45a 1300 4 1
SO 2 , 24-hr average 26& 365 7
S02, annual average 5 80 6
NO2 , annual average 6 100 6
PM10, 24-hr average 86__b 150 57 1
PM10 , annual average 5 50 10
Source: DOE, 1992
' Maximum measured concentration.
1
bExtreme event (forest fire smoke). Maximum value excluding this event was 31 jug/mr3.
Clear Air Force Station currently has a coal-fired powerplant capable of generating 22.5
megawatts (3 boilers at 7.5 MW each). An emergency generation system uses a 1400 hp diesel
powered generator capable of 1 MW output. This power generation system is about 30 years
old and no significant upgrades have been employed. This facility currently operat4-s at t i
fraction of capacity (roughly 30 %) and might be able to accommodate any increased loading
required by the HAARP program. Clear AFS is currently operating within all applicable
borough, state, and federal guidelines for air emissions (FSI, 1991). ADEC requires that Clear
AFS operate each coal boiler at no more than 81% of capacity, so two 7.5 MW units operate I
at a fraction of capacity to meet the 7 MW loading (FSI, 1992b). The operating permit for the
powerplant at Clear AFS includes no background monitoring data, but is limited to source
testing at the stacks every five years and occasional visual inspections by the state. g
Air Quality Setting. The Clear site is located in the Nenana River basin area in the
physiographic province referred to as the Tanana-Kuskokwim Lowlands. The site is at the
margin between this lowland region and the Alaska Range which juts up ap,,roximately 10 miles
to the south.
3-70
1
I
n Denali National Park and Preserve's northern border is located approximately 20 miles south of
the Clear AFS property and 10 miles south of the Bear Creek location. The nearest population
I center to the site is the town of Anderson (population 646 (1989)) located only 2 miles north of
Clear AFS. Other population clusters include Ferry (25 miles south), Healy (40 miles south),
and Nenana (20 miles north).
I Climatology and Meteorology. The Clear site is at an elevation of 580 feet above mean sea
level. The site is in a region that is classified as a "continental" climate zone and is cut off from
II the maritime influence by the natural blockade of the Alaska Range to the south. Winters tend
to be cold and dry while summers are warm and sunny. Mean temperatures for the month of
July include a maximum, minimum, and average of 70.5 "F, 50.7 IF, and 60.6 tF, respectively.
I January means are 0.1 IF, -22.00F, and -11.6 OF for the maximum, minimum, and monthly
average. The average yearly temperature is 25.2 'F (ENRI, 1992). The average freeze-free
3 period at the Clear site is about 101 days, with the first killing frost averaging on August 30 and
I the last on May 21 (FSI, 1991).
Mean annual precipitation at the Clear site is 12.72 inches, with annual precipitation at the town
I of Healy (approximately 20 miles south) being slightly greater than 15 inches (ENRI, 1992).
Table 3.7-5 contains a summary of the temperature and precipitation data for Clear AFS.
3 Because of the large percentage of the precipitation that occurs as snowfall, the accurate
determination of precipitation amount depends on accurate snow catch rates, regardless of wind
3 conditions. It is generally accepted that standard gauges tend to under-estimate the snowfall, so
the actual precipitation amount could be up to 20% more than the amounts presented above.
I
The mean total snowfall at the site is about 45.6 inches, with a record snow depth on the ground
Iof44 inches. Measurable amounts of snow occur during the months of September through May,
with an average of 181 days with 1 inch oi snow or more on the ground (ENRI, 1992). See
3 Table 3.7-6 for a summary of snowfall data.
I i 3-71
I
i
TABLE 3.7-5. CLIMATE SUMMARY FOR CLEAR, AK
ELEVATION 580 FTr
Month Temperature (Degrees F) Precipitation (in.)

Month
Average Average Mean Record Record Mean Max.
High Low High Low Day
January 0.1 -22.0 -11.6 51 -63 0.59 0.70

February 6.1 -14.9 -4.4 55 -57 0.39 0.90
March 21.3 -3.7 8.9 52 -49 0.31 1.30
April 38.7 17.1 28.0 71 -26 0.26 0.28
May 56.7 35.9 46.3 80 19 0.67 0.82
June 68.6 47.3 58.0 96 30 1.72 1.50
July 70.5 50.7 60.6 90 33 2.71 1.62 1
August 66.0 45.2 55.6 85 22 2.48 4.58
September 52.7 32.3 42.5 73 3 1.10 1.30
October 29.4 13.5 21.5 59 -29 0.93 0.92
November 11.4 -7.2 2.1 53 -42 0.84 0.63
December 5.0 -15.3 -5.0 49 -57 0.72 0.86
Year 35.5 14.9 25.2 96 -63 12.72 4.58
Source: ENRI (1992)
'Based on 22 years of observation (1965-1987).
Wind information at the Clear site is not recorded or available through University of Alaska
Anchorage - Environmental and Natural Resources Institute (ENRI), National Weather Service - I
National Climatic Data Center (NWS-NCDC), or the USAF Environmental Technical
Applications Center (ETAC). Wind data is taken at Healy, AK (about 30 miles south of Clear) I
for 16 hours out of the day, and at Nenana, AK (20 miles north of Clear AFS) on a continual
basis. The NCDC collects the data from these sites and files it, but does not analyze or I
I
3 -72 1
I
I
I TABLE 3.7-6. SNOW FALL DATA FOR CLEAR, AK
ELEVATION 58K FT'
Snow Fall
Month
Average Total Maximum Year Average Days
(inches) Depth w/ more than 1
(inches) inch of snow
cover
January 6.7 44.0 85 29.4
February 5.2 31.0 67 28.0
March 4.1 30.0 72 29.2
April 2.4 31.0 66 19.9
May 0.2 11.0 72 1.4
June 0.0 0.0 ND2 0.0
July 0.0 0.0 ND 0.0
August 0.0 0.0 ND 0.0
September 0.4 4.0 72 0.5
October 8.1 14.0 74 15.5
November 11.2 26.0 70 28.1
December 7.3 44.0 84 29.0
Year 45.6 44.0 ND 180.9
Source: ENRI (1992)

'Based on 22 years of record between 1965 and 1987.
2 ND = No Data.
3-73
summarize the data. The nearest "first order stations" at which data are continuously collected
and analyzed are Fairbanks and McGrath, both of which are a substantial distance away from
Clear. Projecting weather data and information from these sites to the Clear site would not be
appropriate.
Wind data for a one year period was recorded at two Healy locations in association with the
proposed HCCP. This information was recorded at a 100-foot height above ground level. The
prevailing winds are from the south-southeast, with a secondary prevalence from the northwest
(DOE, 1992). These directions are roughly the orientation of the Nenana River Valley and
demonstrate the funneling effect of the local mountain topography. Although Healy is near the
Clear site (approximately 20 miles from Bear Creek and 30 miles from Clear AFS) it would not
be appropriate to project wind information from one location to the other due to the difference
in terrain. However, the data are probably indicative of wind directions at the Clear site and
particularly the Bear Creek location.
As previously stated in Section 3.7.1, the winds in interior Alaska are relatively gentle. Design
wind speeds for interior Alaska, as given by American National Standards Institute (ANSI,
A58. 1), are 70 mph, which is the lowest design wind speed allowed by the applicable building
codes. Wind speeds at the Bear Creek location are expected to be higher than at Clear AFS
property as a result of funneling through the Nenana River Valley and other localized mountain
effects.
Ambient Air Quality. The State Air Quality Classification for Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) for the Clear site is Class U (ADEC, 1992a). Denali National Park and
Preserve located 20 miles souL of Clear AFS Property is classified as Class I (Alaska
Administrative Code, Title 18, Chapter 50).
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation considers the ambient air quality of the
region to be very good (ADEC, 1992b). The major sources of pollution in the area would be
3-74
I
U the Clear AFS powerplant, home heating systems and motor vehicles. According to ADEC, no
E published information or data exists on ambient air quality in the region (ADEC, 1992b).
I Table 3.7-3 and 3.7-4 lists the NAAQS for the parameters for which standards have been
established. A proposed source of air emissions is not permitted to exceed these concentrations.
I
I
I
I|
I
I
I
£
U
I
I
I
1 3-75
i
i
3.8 SOCIOECONOMICS i
The following sections discuss the socioeconomic conditions which exist for the communities in U
the vicinity of the Gakona and Clear sites. The most comprehensive information base available
for the communities surrounding the Gakona site was obtained during household surveys
conducted during 1988 by the University of Alaska, Arctic Environmental Information and Data
Center (AEIDC, 1988e). The surveys collected demographic and employment information from
approximately 38 percent of households in the Copper River Basin. Additional information for
the communities surrounding the Gakona site and almost all of the information for those -
surrounding the Clear site was derived from United States census data procured from the U. S.
Bureau of the Census (USDOC, 1981; 1992).
A discussion of aircraft operational and airspace concerns is included in this section since the
use of aircraft plays such a large role in rural Alaskan transportation and is directly related to
the socioeconomics of the regions. Alaska air traffic routes, for both commercial and private
aircraft, are directed by the mountainous terrain common to Alaska. The lower flying private
aircraft utilize the sparse highway system as reference points for visual navigation. It is very
common to see private aircraft following highways to and from their destinations. Private
aircraft in Alaska are a common mode of transportation due to the size of the state and available
landing sites along flat stream beds, lakes, ponds, glaciers and frozen rivers. In addition to I
commercial and private flights, Alaska airspace is used by the military for training missions.
i
3.8.1 Gakona Site
The closest communities to the site are Gakona, Glennallen, Chistochina, and Gulkana (Figure
2.3-4). The following sections discuss land ownership, population, economy, housing, i
community services, and aircraft operations in and around the Gakona region.
I
U
3-76i
I
3 Land Ownership Issues. The HAARP facilities at the Gakona site would be located completely
on Air Force property. Thus, no land purchases from state or local governments, Native
3 groups, or private individuals will be necessary for the construction of the HAARP facilities.
I Population. Most communities in the Copper River Basin consist of small villages, with
populations ranging from around 13 to 500 (AEIDC, 1988e). Many of these villages
experienced a moderate degree of growth during the 1970's associated with construction of the
Trans-Alaska Pipeline. Census data for the period of 1970 to 1990 from the communities
nearest the candidate site (Chistochina, Gakona, Glennallen and Gulkana) are presented in Table
3.8-1. The community of Glennallen is included in the table as it is one of the larger population
centers in the region.
U The 1990 census data indicate that since 1980 the number of residents in Chistochina and
3 Gulkana has remained fairly stable and the numbers of residents in Glennallen and Gakona has
decreased. The relative stability in population exhibited by Chistochina and Gulkana may be
3 attributed to the high number of Alaska Native residents, who represent about 60 percent of
residents in both census areas. In contrast, no Alaska Natives were in residence in Gakona, and
3 only 7 percent of the Glennallen population were native. In the absence of a significant increase
in employment opportunity, population levels are likely to continue the relatively flat trends
I evident in the 1990 census.
I Housing. Housing information for the four communities described for population statistics is
summarized in Table 3.8-2. Housing units consist mostly of single-unit detached structures and
3 mobile homes or trailers. The highest number of multi-unit dwellings occur in Gulkana and
Glennallen. Vacancies for all dwellings ranged from 21 to 42 percent, with the highest rates
3 reported in Gakona and Chistochina. Gakona and Glennallen had the lowest proportion (20 and
12 percent, respectively) of seasonal, recreational, or occasional use dwelling vacancies
3 compared with the other two census areas.
3
1 3-77
I
U
I
TABLE 3.8-1 POPULATION TRENDS FOR COMMUNITIES IN THE
GAKONA REGION
U.S. CENSUS YEARS 1970 1980 1990
Chistochina 33 55 60
Gakona 88 87 25
Gulkana 53 104 103 i
Glennallen 363 511 451

ource: USDOC, 1992.
U
I
TABLE 3.8-2 HOUSING DATA FOR COMMUNITIES IN THE GAKONA REGION
I
HOUSING # UNITS OCCUPIED PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT
DATA VACANT SEASONAL RENTAL
VACANCY VACANCY
Chistochina 34 20 41 36 0
Gakona 12 7 42 20 67 1
Gulkana 60 42 30 56 22
Glennallen 206 163 21 12 1 1
Source: USDOC, 19•2. 1
I
U
U
3-78
U
For the most part, residences in these communities are owner-occupied. With the exception of
Glennallen, rentals represented from 10 to 23 percent of the housing units. Approximately 50
percent of the housing in the community of Glennallen is rental property, and at the time of the
census few of these units were vacant. Overall, a limited number of rental units were available
throughout the area at the time of the census.
Economy. Subsistence, discussed in Section 3.10 Subsistence, represents the historic basis for
survival of the Native inhabitants prior to contact with outsiders, and remains an integral part
of present Native and non-Native lifestyles and economy. The introduction of a cash economy
in the early 1800's associated with fur trading, and later with mining and construction, resulted
in an evolution in the subsistence-based economy. The term frequently applied is a "mixed,
subsistence market economy", indicative of the integral relationship which has developed
between subsistence practices and disposable income.
Historically, the availability of wage employment has been sporadic and associated with such
events as the gold rush at the turn of the century, mining for copper and other minerals, highway
construction, and construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. Comprehensive information from
the 1988 survey is indicative of current employment opportunities, and is summarized in Table
3.8-3.
The surveys indicated that wage employment in the communities adjacent to the candidate site
was dominated by professional, technical, managerial positions, structural occupations, sales and
services. Employers include retailers, services, and local, state, and federal government
agencies. About 67 percent of Gulkana residents who responded to the survey worked for the
Ahtna/Copper River Native Association, the regional Native corporation. Average annual
incomes for respondents who divulged salary information ranged from $18,200 for Gulkana
residents to $35,400 for Glennallen residents. Glennallen had the highest percentage of full-time
employment among employed adults (76 percent), which may be responsible for the higher
average annual income. Glennallen adults were employed an average of 10.8 months per year,
3-79
I
I
TABLE 3.8-3. EMPLOYMENT DATA FOR COMMUNITIES IN THE
GAKONA REGION
Community Percent Percent Full Average Occupational
Employed Time Income Hierarchy o)
Adults I
Chistochina 80 35 $23,600 1,6,3&5,7,2,4
Gakona 82 59 $28,100 1,6,3,2,5,7,4 £
Gulkana 60 44 $18,158 3,1,2&6,7
Glennallen 77 76 $35,000 1,2,7,3,6,4 1
source: AEIDC, 1 88e.
(1) Codes listed in order of decreasing frequency.
Codes: 1-
3-
Professional, Technical, Managerial
Services
2 - Clerical and Sales
4 - Agriculture, Fisheries, Forestry
3
5- Machine trades 6 - Structural trades
7- Other (Armed Forces, Recreation, Transportation, Mining, Arts & Crafts)
I
as compared with 7.6 and 7.8 months per year for Gulkana and Chistochina adults, respectively.
Many adults not engaged in year-round employment are engaged in seasonal endeavors such as
tourism and guide services.
I
Community Services. The nearest organized firefighting capability to the Gakona site is at
Glennallen, about 25 miles to the south. The town has a volunteer fire department, however, 3
their response area does not include Gakona and the HAARP project site (M&E/H&N, 1992c).
ADNR has seasonal firefighting capability, but only to protect woodlands and not to respond to
structure fires. Ambulance and emergency medical services are available to the Gakona area.
Emergency response time to the site is estimated at 6 to 10 minutes. Emergency medical 3
response service is considered sufficient (M&E/H&N, 1992c).
I
I
Aircraft Operational and Airspace Concerns. The Gakona Site is within a major commercial
air traffic corridor that links Anchorage with the eastern and mid-western United States. It also
is within the path of flights to and from the Orient and Canada (Figure 3.8-1). Twelve to twenty
commercial flights per day utilize the airspace above the Gakona Site (FAA, 1992). Typically,
there are more flights during the summer tourist season.
Private aircraft can originate from, and travel in, almost any direction at the site since Alaskan
private pilots utilize lakes, ponds, gravel bars, air strips and generally anything flat for runways.
Since the site is adjacent to a major roadway, pilots use the airspace above the site as a flight
corridor. Also, summer flights of private aircraft from the lower-48 United States to Alaska
utilize the airspace as they fly around the Wrangell-St. Elias Mountains on their way to
Anchorage. The nearest airport is at Gulkana approximately 20 miles to the south-west of the
site. It is classified as a civil airport open to the general public. The airport has high intensity
approach lights and asphalt runways. The longest runway is approximately 2000 feet. There is
also a ski strip which is maintained in the winter.
In addition to commercial and private aircraft, military aircraft utilize the airspace north and east
of the site for training (FAA, 1992). Cope Thunder and other major military aircraft operations
are conducted in the area several times each year. These exercises increase air traffic in the
vicinity. Military operations areas (MOA's) and temporary military operations areas (TMOA's)
are designated in the area to warn non-military pilots of heavier than normal aircraft activity and
unusual flight operations in the areas north of Glennallen to beyond Fairbanks and from
approximately Clear AFS east to Tok. During these military exercises instrument flights are
condensed and rerouted around or through the training airspace to avoid conflict. The need to
keep Gakona airspace open becomes important during those exercises. The MOA's and
TMOA's have less effect on private aircraft flying under visual flight rules, since they simply
3-81
EUROPE/RUSSIAI
ARCTIC OCEAN
BA .CANADA
iI nvCANADA
-FAIRBANKS _jm COAST &I

CLEAR V, MID WEST
AFS I '0.
ORET4
-GEN .0 wo -ow
If ALLEN S' 4iI
ORETANCHORAGE 1i '00 o --
Gulf of WASHINGTON
Alaska U.S.A.
PACIFIC OCEAN3
SOURCE. FAA, 1992 200 0 200
SCALE IN MILES
FIGURE 3.8-1. MAJOR COMMERCIAL AIR TRAFFIC ROUTES
3-82a
l
I
U warn pilots of the heavier than normal air traffic in the region at that time. Military air traffic
I is anticipated to increase in the coming years as Cope Thunder's mission expands.
I 3.8.2 Clear Site
The closest communities to the Clear site are Anderson, Ferry, Healy, and Nenana (Figure 3.4-
5). The 1990 populations of the towns range from a low of 56 at Ferry to a high of 628 at
I Anderson (Table 3.8-4) (USDOC, 1992). The economies and the availability of accommodations
vary substantially between the four surrounding communities and will be discussed in the
g following subsections.
TABLE 3.8-4 POPULATION TRENDS FOR COMMUNITIES IN THE

CLEAR REGION
5 U.S. CENSUS YEARS 1970 1980 1990

Anderson 362 517 628
I Ferry < 25* < 25* 56
Healy 79 334 487
Nenana1981; 1992.
Source: USDOC, 362 470 393
Was not recognized as an unincorporated population center (community), census designated

place, with at least 25 people (ADL, 1992)
I Land Ownership Issues. The HAARP facilities at the Clear site would be located primarily
on Air Force property, but due to operational conflicts between the HAARP ISR and the existing
I BMEWS system, the ISR would be be located approximately 10 miles away at the Bear Creek
location. The Bear Creek location site was selected based on operational concerns only, and is
on land that is currently owned by the state of Alaska, but is planned for settlement as part of
the Tanana Basin Area Plan (ADNR, 199 1a). In fact, in the one square mile section that
3-83
I
surrounds the Bear Creek location, there are currently nine homesteaders (Figure 3.1-1) (ADNR, 3
1992b).
!
Homesteading in Alaska and acquiring of land through the homesteading process can be achieved
in one of three ways (ADNR, 1992b). The first method is called "proving up", where the I
homesteader must meet the following three requirements:
0 Have the land surveyed within two years from date of filing
Construct at minimum a 500 square feet dwelling on the land within 3 years I
* Live for 24 months (not necessarily consecutive) on the property by the end of five years
The other two methods of acquiring the land involve a purchase of the land for fair market
value. This action is typically taken if one of the above mentioned requirements is not met by
the milestone dates.
The nine separate homesteaders in the Bear Creek area are in various stages of meeting their
proving up requirements. At the time of this writing, there is only one known dwelling in the
one square mile section around the Bear Creek location. Several pieces of property appear to 3
be at various stages in the surveying process. Additional homesteading activities could
commence at any time. 3
Economy. The economy of Healy is based primarily on coal mining and secondarily on railroad 3
operations, electrical power generation and tourism (Table 3.8-5) (Stalter and Shreve, 1992;
Schutt, 1992). The largest employer of residents (approximately 33 percent) in Healy is the 3
Usibelli Coal Mine (Stalter and Shreve, 1992; Schutt, 1992). The coal mine is located less than
3 miles across the Nenana River from Healy (Figure 3.4-5). The Usibelli Coal Mine is Alaska's 3
largest and only commercial coal mining operation. Coal mining began in the area in 1918
(Alaska Northwest Books, 1992). The largest coal-fired, steam, electrical generating 5
powerplant in Alaska is located in Healy. The plant is a part of the Golden Valley Electric
Association (GVEA) that provides electric power for Fairbanks and vicinity (Alaska Northwest 3
3-84
I
Books, 1992). The proposed Healy Clean Coal Project represents an expansion of coal-fired
power generation in the area. Additional employment would result from the construction and
operation of this facility. Tourism makes up a portion of Healy's economy by providing a
number of services to tourists travelling between Fairbanks, Denali National Park and
Anchorage. According to census data (USDOC, 1992) 96.1 percent of the adult labor force is
employed and the per capita income ($18,160) is the second largest of the four surrounding
towns (Table 3.8-5).
The economy of Ferry is totally based on outside industries. Most of the residents work for the
National Park Service at Denali, the Usibelli Coal Mine or the GVEA powerplant in Healy. The
town was originally a railroad stop. However, the trains no longer stop in the summer and will
only stop in the winter if flagged down (Valcq, 1992). According to the employment data the
per capita income is $14,112 and 60.1 percent of the adult labor force is employed (Table 3.8-
5).
The economy of Anderson is based primarily on the Clear AFS located approximately 6 miles
to the south of the town (Figure 2.3-5). The majority of the employed adult labor force (58.6
percent) are military personnel that work on Clear AFS (Table 3.8-5). The remainder of the
employed population work for the local, state and federal government and private enterprises.
The primary function of the station is the operation and maintenance of a system that would
detect an intercontinental ballistic missile attack on North America. Of the four surrounding
towns, Anderson has the highest employment rate, 96.8 percent of the adult labor force, and the
highest per capita income, $18,360 (Table 3.8-5). Anderson has two bars, a fire station, one
high school, and one doctor.
Education, transportation, shipping and commerce provide the basis for Nenana's economy
(Stalter and Shreve, 1992; Fission and Associates, 1987). Nenana is a major shipping port
within the Yukon River drainage (Stalter and Shreve, 1992). The greatest percentage of the
adult employed labor force, 33.8 percent (USDOC, 1992), work in ýhe educational services
3-85
TABLE 3.8-5. EMPLOYMENT DATA FOR COMMUNITIES
IN THE CLEAR REGION
Town Percent Percent Percent Percent Avg.Per Industrial Economic

Employed Private Govern- Armed Capita Hier- Foundation
Adult went 2 Forces 3 Income archy'
Labor (S)
Force
Nenana 82.5 44.9 55.1 0 12,852 9,11,5,4, Transportation,
10,3,6, Shipping, and
7&15,1 Commerce
Anderson 94.9 17.5 23.9 58.6 18,360 13,11,9,12 Clear Air Force
3,5,6,1,10 Station,
7&9&14, Federal
15 Government
Ferry 60.1 57.1 42.8 14,112 11,2, Coal Mining,
12&9&10, Power Plant,
5 Denali National
Park
Healy 96.1 71.6 28.4 0 18,160 2,9,5,12,3, Coal Mining,
4,11,7,10, Power Plant,
I 1 1,6&8 Tourism
Source USDOC, 1992
t percent of employed adult labor force that works for wage and salary paying private companies and that is self
employed.
2 percent of employed adult labor force that works for local, state, and federal government.
3 percent of employed adult labor force that works for the armed forces.
"Industrial Class Codes in order of decreasing frequency.
CodeI
I - Agriculture, forestry,
fisheries
2 - Mining
3 - Construction
4 - Transportation i
5 - Retail trade
6 - Business and repair services
7 - Personal services
8 - Health services
9 - Educational services
10- Other professional and related services
11- Public administration
12- Communications, other public utilities
13- Armed Forces
14- Entertainment
15- Finance, Insurance and Real Estate
3-86 1
I
3
I industry (Table 3.8-5). The local, state and federal governments employ most (55.1 percent)
of the employed adult labor force. Most of the employed government personnel work for the
I Nenana Public Schools and the Yukon-Koyukuk School District based on the community profile
I information (Fission & Associates, 1987) and Bureau of Census data (USDOC, 1992).
Transportation services are the mainstay of Nenana's private sector economy (Fission &
Associates, 1987). The per capita income ($12,852) is the lowest of the four communities.
I Barge shipping services operate from May 15 to October 15 depending on weather, ice and
flooding conditions. Fuel oil and gasoline, along with lesser amounts of building materials,
g make up most of the transported freight (Fission & Associates, 1987).
The local economy could be effected by a proposed U.S. Department of Energy's advanced
combustion and air cleaning technologies demonstration project. The proposed project, referred
3 to as the Healy Clean Coal Project (HCCP), is to build a new 50-MW coal-fired power-
generating facility. The proposed and alternative HCCP sites are located near Healy.
3 Construction is scheduled to begin in early 1993 and completed in late 1995. The average labor
force of construction personnel is anticipated to be about 200 workers, with a maximum of 300
woixcers, during the later part of 1994 and early 1995. The majority of the temporary
construction jobs are envisioned to be filled by in-migrants. A construction camp is planned to
I house up to 90% of the peak work force. Approximately 13 permanent jobs could result from
the long-term operation of the proposed HCCP facility. The overall economic affect to the local
Seconomy from the project is identified as minor (DOE, 1992).
SHousing. Housing information for the four near-by communities is summarized in Table 3.8-6.
Housing units consist mostly of single-unit detached structures and mobile homes or trailers.
3 Single unit detached structures are those with open space on all four sides and detached from
any other structure. The highest number of multi-unit dwellings occur in Healy. Vacant
3 dwellings, not including those used on a seasonal basis, for recreational, or for occasional use,
ranged from 5 (15 percent) in Ferry to 45 (26 percent) in Healy. Vacant housing units used on
5 a seasonal basis, for recreational or occasional use, ranged from 5 in Ferry to 14 in Healy.
3 3-87
I
Other than Ferry with three vacant rental units, vacant rental units ranged from 16 in Nenana £
to 18 in Anderson. For the most part, residences in these communities are owner-occupied.
With the exception of Ferry, rented housing units represented from 16 percent in Nenana to 19 3
percent in Healy of the total available housing units. Only 3 percent of the total housing units
in Ferry were rented at the time of the 1992 census. I
I
TABLE 3.8-6. HOUSING DATA FOR COMMUNITIES IN THE CLEAR REGION
HOUSING
DATA
UNITS
(I)
OCCUPIED
UNITS
RENTED
UNITS
VACANT
UNITS
VACANT
UNITS
VACANT
SEASONAL
VACANT
RENTAL
1
(0) (percent) (0) ((prcent) UNITS UNITS
(#) (1)
Anderson 179 135 17 44 26 10 18
Ferry 33 23 3 5 15 5 3
Healy 220 161 19 45 20 14 17 3

Ne=an 190 140 16 38 20 12 16
1992.
Source: USDOCI, I
Community Services. Clear AFS has both firefighting and emergency medical response
I
services. Their equipment includes 2 trucks, a rescue vehicle, and an ambulance. Clear AFS
has mutual agreements with the near-by town of Anderson to provide back-up fire and
emergency medical services. Response times to the proposed HAARP site areas by the fire and
emergency medical personnel is estimated at 5 minutes. Both fire and ambulance service is 5
considered sufficient (M&E/H&N, 1992e).
I
Aircraft Operational and Airspace Concerns. There is a special operational restricted area
in place for the BMEWS radar. This restricted area is bounded on the east by the existing
railroad tracks, and on the west by the Nenana River. The airspace above the proposed location
for the IRI is outside of this restrict area. -
3-88
UI
There is a gravel airfield located about 1/2 mile northeast of the IRI site with the landing and
take off path south of the air strip extending directly over the proposed IRI site. The airstrip
is reportedly used on the average of several times per week throughout the year, with more use
in the summer and fall. Although it is used primarily for private aircraft, infrequent
"distinguished visitor" tours of Clear AFS have utilized the strip for access to the site. The
airstrip is approximately 4,000 feet long and is equipped with medium intensity runway lighting
and one aviation beacon. There are no approach lights or other navigational aids (ADOT,
I 1992). Operational information for this and other remote Alaskan airstrips is covered in the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Airport Facility Directory, Alaska
U Supplement. Geometric design and restrictions would be identified in the Federal Aviation
Administration's Advisory Circular AC 150/5300-13, Airport Design Criteria (ADOT, 1992).
The Clear region is below one of the busiest commercial and private air routes in Alaska.
U Commercial flights to and from the North Slope (Deadhorse/Prudhoe Bay) and Anchorage,
Europe/Russia and Anchorage, the Orient and Canada, and Fairbanks and Anchorage utilize the
I airspace above the Clear region (Figure 3.8-1). The rate of airspace use near Clear AFS ranges
from 15 to 25 flights per day (FAA, 1992). Private use of the airspace above the Clear region
also occurs as aircraft use the Parks Highway that leads between Anchorage and Fairbanks as
a visual navigation aid. Most private aircraft stay east of Clear AFS to avoid the 8800-foot high
I ceiling of the restricted airspace over BMEWS.
3 Military aircraft exercises, such as Cope Thunder, take place in airspace to the east of the Clear
region. During the military exercises, commercial and private air traffic may increase in the
3 Clear region as a result of being routed away from airspace to the east.
3-89
I
3.9 CULTURAL RESOURCES 3
Cultural resources include properties with physical manifestations that are considered important U
to a culture, subculture, or community for scientific or sociological reasons. In the project
region they consist of prehistoric, Native Athabaskan, and historic districts, structures, buildings, I
sites, objects, and other physical evidence of past human activity. In addition, cultural resources
in interior Alaska include locations, structures, biota, objects, and natural features which are of I
value to Native Athabaskans for traditional, cultural, religious, or ceremonial purposes. Many
such sites which have been discovered or are believed to exist as a result of ethnohistorical I
research are listed in the Alaska Heritage Resource Survey (AHRS). These resources include
burial sites, contemporary sacred sites and areas, materials for the production of sacred objects
and traditional implements, and zoological, botanical, and geological resources of ritual cultural
importance, as well as the areas in which they are found.
The distribution of cultural resources within and adjacent to the candidate sites for the HAARP
facilities is largely a result of the subsistence lifestyle (discussed in more detail in Section 3.10) 3
which characterized both prehistorical as well as more recent inhabitants of the area. The
pursuit of available natural resources led to seasonal occupation of sites near hunting and fishing 3
areas, which were revisited from year to year. The following sections present a historical
summary of the area surrounding the HAARP candidate sites and existing documentation of 5
cultural resources.
I
The review of historical periods with which cultural resources may be associated includes
prehistorical, ethnohistorical, and recent historical periods. The prehistorical era is defined as 3
that which occurred prior to the last 200 years. The recent history of Native groups is termed
ethnohistorical, while that of non-Native cultures is termed historical. 3
I
I
3-90
I
3.9.1 Gakona Site
Prehistorical Period. The earliest known cultural sites near the Copper River drainage are
found to the northwest of the candidate site in the Tangle Lakes area west of Paxson, near the
-- divide between the MacLaren, Gulkana, and Delta rivers (Figure 3.9-1). Termed the Denali
Complex, these occupations were characterized by core and blade technology (West, 1975) with
I an apparent big game hunting focus. Radiocarbon dates indicate occupation between 10,200 and
8,200 years before the present (Dixon, 1985).
I The candidate site for the HAARP transmitter facility is located in the eastern part of the Copper
River Basin lowlands. During the late Pleistocene, a preglacial lake filled much of the basin.
The lake drained about 9,000 years ago, but may have partially refilled during later climatic
cycles (West and Workman, 1970). The lake bed in its present form was fully exposed by 5,000
years B.P. (before present). Only one site in the eastern Copper River Basin, located on the
Gulkana River at Hogan Hill (Figure 3.9-1), is indicative of an early prehistoric human presence
(Workman, 1977). The other recorded archeological sites in the eastern Copper River Basin are
believed to be associated with the late prehistoric period from 200 to 2,000 years ago (Dixon,
1985; West, 1975; Workman, 1976; Spartz, 1985). These sites are near large lakes and major
drainages. The majority of these sites are undated; dated sites range between approximately 200
and 700 years B.P.
Ethnohistorical and Historical Periods. The Ahtna, the primary Athabaskan group in the
Gakona region, culture is characterized by a subsistence-related settlement pattern. The Ahtna
were organized into independent bands consisting of a few nuclear families. Each band occupied
a specific hunting territory that extended up a river drainage into the mountains (de Laguna,
1969). The diverse environment, rich in wild game and raw materials, provided the necessary
resources for existence. Food resources were worked by their seasonality, and the Ahtna
developed an annual cycle of activities that took advantage of seasonal scarcity and abundance
(Cohen, 1980).
3-91
Tanao'oss Tetlin
ALLASK Aiaska Nghway To Jct.
4 *Tetin
Teiti
Summit Lk
8 LakeI
Tangle
Lakes
Area
Pxo
Lake I
Hogan HIll"
4 ChitaDchna
Fish
Lake Sourniou QT
Lak
nd
Ewen
Lae
Croswind NaesI
Lake
akoI
GulkaI
SCALE~~~AC INMLECOCTONPA
0 GAKONA SITE
FIGUE
UPER
39-1 OPPE RIER RAIAGEARE
BsqI
3-92 je
I
I Summer activities, associated with small camps along the main rivers, primarily focused on
harvesting salmon and other fish. Summer fish camps were often located on favored fishing
U streams, many near winter villages. These sites were characterized by temporary shelters, often
double-sided brush and bark lean-to, unattached sweat baths, and drying racks. Families
returned to the winter villages before the first snows. Village locations were typically
determined by proximity to the mouths of clear water tributary streams, by the availability of
timber for construction and fuel, and by accessibility to well-drained areas for constructing food
storage caches. Winter villages consisted of one to nine multifamily houses and perhaps a few
huts. Ancillary facilities were located adjacent to large and small residential structures.
Underground pit or tree platform food caches were located up to a mile away.
Hunting camps were usually located at higher elevations or on larger lakes and served as a base
for other activities. Sometimes these camps would have small permanent structures. Less
3 permanent camps often consisted of simple brush shelters with associated drying racks.
Temporary shelter camps were also constructed at convenient locations along trails and traplines.
I Well-defined trails were found on both banks of major drainages and across virtually all passes.
Most of these trails were later used by Euroamerican travelers (Reckord, 1983).
Prior to contact with non-Native groups the Ahtna did not have discrete cemetery sites, though
3 their treatment of the dead could result in areas similar to such sites. Generally, because of fear
of contamination and ghosts, a dying person was removed from his or her home to a small
I shelter if possible. If an adult died within a house, the structure was burned with all its
contents. The person's body and personal possessions were cremated. The ashes might be left
Eat the spot, but they were usually buried in a bark box. A chief's grave might be marked by
wooden poles or by several stone slabs. By the mid-nineteenth century, the influence of Russian
Scontacts had led to the introduction of burial in a plank-lined grave marked by a cross and
surrounded by a fence. A little house was erected above the grave, and personal belongings
I were placed inside.
3-93
I
Post-contact with outside cultures may be divided into five periods: early Russian 1783-1806; 1
Late Russian 1807-1867; early American, 1876-1900; twentieth century to World War H (1900-
1941); and recent (1941-1975) (de Laguna and McClellan, 1981). Although early Russian 3
contacts with Copper River people sometimes ended in violence, they established productive
trading relationships that persisted until the Alaska Purchase by the United States in 1867. 1
American explorations up the Copper River did not begin until 1884.
A number of prospectors and trappers drifted into and through the Copper River drainage during
the late 1880's and early 1890's (Reckord, 1983). The gold rush of 1898-1899 brought I
thousands o' prospectors into Ahtna territory. Two military trails were constructed through the
area, along which a series of roadhouses developed and provided accommodations for travelers,
dog teams, and horses. These locations became the nuclei for small settlements that achieved
economic diversification through employment with government agencies such as schools,
highway maintenance groups, and the United States Postal Service. Between 1910 and 1940 the
two military trails were upgraded to automobile road standards, now known as the Richardson
and Glenn Highways. 3
Before World War II, mining and transportation in the region stimulated limited economic 3
development. World War II brought renewed activity through the construction of roads,
airstrips, and communications systems. The war also brought an influx of servicemen to the 3
area who temporarily increased the population of towns along the main roads. The postwar road
connection with Anchorage provided a source of jobs for valley residents, but also created a new 3
influx of settlers. The most recent development in the history of the region was the construction
of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline in the 1970's.
Known Cultural Resources - HAARP Area. The only known site considered eligible for 3
inclusion in the NRHP at the Gakona site is the section of the WAMCATS trail which crosses
the site in the vicinity of the existing access road. The WAMCATS trail, also historically 3
known as the Valdez-Eagle trail, is a telegraph line and trail constructed in 1901-1903 and
I
3 -94 I
I
I abandoned by the military in 1910. This trail is considered eligible for NRHP listing due to its
historic significance (AEIDC, 1990).
U
Cultural resource surveys conducted at the site for the OTH-B program included visual and
I subsurface examinations of a large percentage of the estimated 1100 acre impact area identified
for the OTH-B transmitter site (AEIDC, 1990), a portion of which would be occupied by the
proposed HAARP facility (Figure 3.9-1). The investigations concentrated on proposed OTH-B
construction areas as well as areas with a greater probability of containing cultural resources
(e.g. lake shores and trails). No prehistoric or ethnohistorical period Ahtna sites were
discovered during the archeological reconnaissance. A number of small trails that transect the
proposed HAARP site were examined during archeological reconnaissance, most notably along
the eastern boundary. These were considered to be associated with subsistence activities during
the past century, and possibly contain only ephemeral hunting sites (Ahtna, 1988). The
possibility of locating undetected cultural resources during construction at the OTH-B transmit
site was considered unlikely, therefore no archeological monitoring was recommended at the site
i by the Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) (AEIDC, 1990). The results of these
studies and the determination by the SHPO for the OTH-B project will be considered in the
I analysis of potential impacts associated with the proposed HAARP facility.
5 Known Cultural Resources - Material Source Areas. Two potential primary material source
locations (P-1 and P-2) were designated for the OTH-B project, and three alternative material
I sources (A-l, A-4, and A-5) were identified at more distant locations (Figure 2.3-4). These
locations are under consideration for use as borrow sites for the HAARP project. The proximity
5 of these sites to the Copper River and their suitability for subsistence activity suggests an
I increased potential for the presence of cultural resources.
Area P-1. An existing archeological site listed in the AHRS is located east of the gravel
extraction area, identified in the AHRS as GUL-219. This site is a burial mound and is
considered eligible for listing on the NRHP. Another site, listed by the AHRS as GUL-015 and
I based on ethnographic research, is believed to have been a settlement near the mouth of the
I 3-95
I
Tulsona Creek. It is possible that this site was destroyed by gravel removal for highway
construction in the 1930's.
I
Archeological investigations were conducted at P-1 in 1990 which investigated several sites
previously identified by surface reconnaissance in 1988 and 1989. The 1990 studies included I
subsurface investigations of the gravel site and the access corridor to the Tok Cut-off (Glenn
Highway). A total of nine sites were investigated at P-1 (Figure 3.9-2), which are summarized I
in Table 3.9-1.
Of the documented sites, it was concluded that sites GSA-12 and GSA-14 may be eligible for
u
NRHP listing due to their historical and cultural significance (AEIDC, 1991). GSA-12 consists
of a spruce-covered landform which is a relic island in the Copper River floodplain. Evidence
of Native and non-Native use of the site was found, and Ahtna elders indicated that the site was
used by Chief Nicholai, who was Chief of the settlement at GUL-015. The site produced log
and pit food caches and numerous artifacts despite periodic flooding of the site which may have
removed many artifacts once present. GSA-14, located on the edge of the terrace above the
floodplain, was a seasonal fish camp which was occupied in the early 1900's.
U
Area P-2. No archeological surveys were known to have been conducted at the P-2 area prior
to those conducted in 1988 associated with the OTH-B project. The AHRS lists one site within 1
this material source, an ethnohistorical settlement listed as GUL-133. A section of the
protohistoric Ahtna and historical Chistochina mining trail crosses the survey area. Also,
trapping trails and associated features were noted along the river terrace and following the base
of the bluff. 3
Approximately 5 percent of P-2 was examined during the 1988 archeological survey. Subsurface
investigations were conducted on slightly more than 3 percent of the area. Four sites were
located during the archeological investigations. Though evidence of post-contact utilization of
the sites exists, artifacts and other evidence found during archeological studies were indicative
that the sites may be late-prehistoric in origin. It is considered highly likely that additional sites
3-96
I
It " "4 4g444 (4
;4444444
44444 4 4 4 4 44
4 4
3c N
NS 4 444444444444444 "Cn
44444444444444444
19 444
4444444 , 14
t
4
40"
4. 75 S
4 4 4 4 4
0
UiLuI
44444444..
44 4 44
C6
JL44 m>1
44 4
44 4 44 -C) 4%
4444CY
44444 .91 . --
416494 4 4,cqq go n
44 4 c4
c4 44g4 -
1 4C 4 4 4 "04 0 0 0
g4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 44. I
444n
44444 4 444444444 1 44
-
44
44 4 4 44 4444
3
44 44 4 4 4 4 4444
444444444 W4
444 4 44
4 4 4 44
44444444.4
44 4 4 4
4 ~44444~ ~ ~44 4 44
4
44
4
4 4 4
4
44 4 4c44 t :4 4 4 .
4 44 4 4 4.... U,4
4 4444
44 444
~44444444444444444
&44 44 4
4444
4 444
4
4
4444444
-4
4 44 44 44 4 44 4 44 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 44 4 44 4 44 4444 44444q , 4, 4
444 4 4 4 4C44
44444444 44 4 4 444 44444444C44444-
- - - e . .. 44.
4
44 4 4 4 4 44444114444 4 44
4444444 44 4 4 4 4
4 4
3-97
I
TABLE 3.9-1 ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES ASSOCIATED) WITH BORROW AREA P-1
Ssr DESCRIION
GSA-11 Early historic or late pre-historic hearth
GSA-12 Historic and recent site with several loci; fish camp, food caches
and large number of relics
GSA-14 Seasonal Native fish camp
GSA-15 Trapping site, may be equivalent to GSA-28
GSA-19 Food cache built in 1943
GSA-28 Native and non-Native trapping site, 1900's 1

G-16 Historic to modem camp and woodcutting site
GUL-219 Burial mound east of P-1 I

GUL-015 Historic settlement at mouth of Tolsona Creek J
Source: AEIDC, 1991

I
relating to the prehistoric and protohistoric Ahtna period exist within the area's confines. The
areas of greatest potential for such sites are along river margins and prominent overlooks.
Area A-I. The AHRS lists one site within this proposed material source on the basis of
ethnohistorical information collected by de Laguna (1969). This site, GUL-018, is listed as an
Ahtna settlement, but its reported location has not been verified in field surveys. Archeological
field investigations undertaken in 1988 resulted in coverage of approximately 7 percent of the
study area. Much of A-1 was previously burned over; as a result, visual reconnaissance of this 3
area is more effective than it is in the other material source areas. Approximately 4 percent of
this area was subjected to subsurface reconnaissance. Survey area boundaries are depicted in U
Figure 3.9-3.
3-98
I
II
I I/
/
/
I /
i ,
00
1 90 7 100
I, 0i
198 ,EDC /
I,
I'
USOURCE: U.S.G.S. Gulkana (B-2). 1964

AEIDC. 1988
.5 0
II
.5
3 SCALE IN
MILES
J Proposed Borrow Area
3 ** Existing Borrow Pit
,, Cultural Resource Survey Areas
Highest Potential for Discovery of

Additional Prehistoric Habitation Sites
FIGURE 3.9-3. POTENTIAL BORROW AREA A-I

CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY AREAS 1988
I 3-99 2817-
I
One possible prehistoric site was located during the survey, listed as GSA-023. This site
consists of a level rectangular space bounded by low earthen berms, and is situated near the
Copper River terrace edge. The features are suggestive of a house structure with possible I
attached rooms. Current information suggests that the potential for additional prehistoric
habitation sites is greatest along the Copper River terrace (Figure 3.9-3). Such sites would have
been associated with the spring hunting of waterfowl or small aquatic mammals.
Ethnohistorical sites may be expected in association with an early Ahtna trail crossing the area
(Ahtna, 1988). Sites relating to the non-Native historical use of the area may be found which
are associated with the historical Chistochina mining trail, portions of which were found during
site surveillance.
Area A.4. The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) conducted an archeological survey in the area
in 1983, which was confined to a Native allotment surrounding the central gravel pit. The
survey revealed evidence of extensive Native occupancy, including house depressions, cache
pits, a smokehouse, hidden deposits, and graves. Other settlements are believed to exist in this I
area (ae Laguna, 1969). Three sites are listed by the AHRS as GUL-023, GUL-024, and GUL-
026. 3
Archeological investigations conducted in 1988 for the OTH-B program examined approximately
4 percent of the area. Slightly less than 2 percent of the area was subjected to subsurface
investigation. Survey area boundaries are depicted in Figure 3.9-4. No prehistoric sites were I
identified during the 1988 field investigations, though a high potential for sites located within
the area is suggested by its proximity to the confluence of the Chistochina and Copper rivers. 3
No additional ethnohistorical sites were discovered during the survey, but others may exist in
association with a prominent Ahtna trail through the survey area (Ahtna, 1988). I
Historical resources identified during the 1988 investigations include a continuation of the
Chistochina mining trail along the river terrace and a scattering of historical debris. The
3-100I
I
I
0~ 00
"oX0
tzitn yie
KG
I'10
SO
REI.
...G
la a(-)16 50.
IED,18
SCLIN IE
Poeta Boro\Ae
SeodryRa
AbnoeIilg
Driae
U.S.GRCS. GSURana
SOURCE:A 1962 AREAS
2$17".
A3-101
I
WAMCATS trail reportedly crossed the survey area, and two cabins associated with its use are
said to be located within the Native allotment (Poston, 1988). The area's proximity to the
Chistochina and Nabesna mining districts and their trail networks and the presence of a military I
"settlement" suggest a high potential for the discovery of additional historical sites. Areas
considered to have the highest potential for the existence of cultural resources are illustrated in I
Figure 3.9-4.
Area A-S. No previous archeological surveys are known within the A-5 area survey boundaries.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) conducted investigations within the adjacent Native allotment
and recorded two cemetery areas containing a total of six graves, which are listed as GUL-057
on the AHRS.
Field investigations undertaken in 1988 resulted in overall coverage of slightly more than 2
percent of the area, with both surface and subsurface examinations conducted (Figure 3.9-5).
No prehistoric sites were uncovered in the 1988 survey, but the intensity of use of this area by
modem Native fishermen may indicate significant potential for prehistoric fishing camps or other
sites to exist (Figure 3.9-5). One ethnohistoric site was identified, located along the Copper
River in the central part of the borrow area. Cultural remains consisted of a rectangular log
foundation, presumably a base for erection of a canvas-walled tent. The two previously
identified cemetery areas within the Native allotment suggest the potential for additional
ethnohistorical resources.
SI
No non-Native historical sites were previously reported within the survey boundaries, and none
were located during the 1988 archeological investigation. The historical WAMCATS trail noted
in P-l, P-2, and A-I probably extends through this area, thus there is some potential for the
occurrence of Euroamerican historical campsites.
I
I
3-102
I
0
0 CC?
00
1I0
I C,0
Id
I4
IJDdy
00I5
ISOURCE:
U.S.G.S. Gulkana (B-3), 1977
AEIDC, 1988
.5
1
0 .5
IPotential Borrow Area

SAEI IE
Existing Borrow Pit
~ Higher Cultural Resource Site Potential

Significant Potential for the Existence of
Prehistoric Fishing Camps or Other SitesI
I FIGURE 3.9-5. POTENTIAL BORROW AREA A-S

CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY AREAS 1988
3-103 ng17p4
I
3.9.2 Clear Site
Prehistorical Period. The Nenana River basin area is considered archeologically significant.
Over 100 pre-historic and historic sites have been discovered along the length of the Nenana
River which runs essentially northward out of the Alaska Range from the town of Cantwell and
flows into the Tanana River near the town of Nenana (Approximately 140 miles). The sites
discovered to date range from a recent 100 year old site to an ancient 12,000 year old site. I
Sor-..e of the sites are reported to be among the oldest cultural remains found on the continent
(Goebel et al., 1991, Powers and Hoffecker, 1989, Powers et al., 1990). Earlier sites in the I
Nenana River basin are Paleodian in nature and have many similarities to those found on the
high plains of the western U.S. (Goebel et al., 1991). Additional findings in the region include:
Denali Complex microblade sites (10,000 to 7,000 years old); Northern Archaic sites (6,000 to
3,000 years old); and, Late Denali sites (3,000 to 1,000 years old). In addition, many late pre-
historic and historic sites have been found in this region (Braid et al., 1991).
Of all the archeological sites found in this region, very few are located on the section of the
Nenana River between the Rex Bridge and the town of Nenana (Figure 3.9-6). This is
particularly true for the older pre-historic sites. This observation stems from research in the
area being concentrated in the foothills south of Walker Dome (Goebel et al., 1991, Powers and
Hoffecker, 1989, Powers et al., 1983, 1990). Figure 3.9-6 shows the locations of the
archeological discoveries in the region.
Ethnohistorical and Historical Periods. Use of the Nenana River region by Native Alaskans
has been well documented by ethnohistorians. The Athabaskan "Nenana Band" used the Nenana
River Valley as a transportation route from the summer salmon fishing areas to the autumn
catibou and Dall sheep hunting grounds in the foothills north of the Alaska Range. This use of
the area is documented in the late 1800's, but probably goes back into late pre-historic times
(Kari, 1983). This extensive use of the area suggests that numerous campsites should be present
on Clear AFS and at the Bear Creek location.
3-104
I
I
7k LEEN
Cultural Resource
Discovery Sites
I D 0_
Healy Outwash
Al 1, Q Riley Creek Outwash
I Property
Glo V od*
Bear Creek '1 -4
June Creek -1
- S
I Ono ~ 5V-~-
-~
5f 310 C L ft f0
I
Linguists have also traced Nenana River place-names to the current Clear region, including:
Ana'notoxtadh'onh equating to Lost Slough (Thompson, 1979); Ninano' equating to Nenana
River (Thompson, 1979); and, Totthaghi'odenh equating to Rex Dome (Kari, 1983; Thompson,
1979). This suggests native familiarity with the region.
Euroamerican use of the Clear area appears to be limited mainly to the construction of the
Alaska Railroad circa 1910, followed by the construction of the BMEWS site by the Air Force I
in the 1950's. The Alaska Railroad tracks run northward from Healy to Nenana parallel to the
Nenana River near Clear AFS. This section of the tracks was constructed between 1917 and U
1919. A section of the tracks was destroyed during construction in 1918 when the Nenana River
main channel suddenly moved eastward through what is now Lost Slough. This channel change I
destroyed about 20 miles of tracks, prompting the rebuilding of the tracks to the east, further
from the Nenana River (Figure 3.9-7).
Associated with the rebuilding of the tracks, Clear Railroad Station was constructed in 1918.
A replacement to this house was constructed in the early 1930's, with a small village growing
up around it (Orth, 1971). The Clear Railroad Station Townsite is located adjacent to the
existing railroad tracks about 1.5 miles north of the northern boundary of Clear AFS. This site
has been determined eligible for inclusion on the NRHP.
A roadhouse is also reported to have existed in the area, although the exact location is not
known (Braid et al., 1991). The "Old Jap Roadhouse" reportedly provided room and board
services to railroad construction workers in the area (Braid et al., 1991). The 1991 cultural
resources survey of the area turned up no evidence of its existence.
The railroad tracks in the immediate area were once again moved eastward in 1960-61 to make
room for the BMEWS installation. Both the 1918 location and the newly relocated track section
now curving around the high-intensity radar installation are evident from the air. 3
3-106 1
ANDERSON
Fairbanks
Clear.o
(3 Clear Townslte
A. CLEAR AFS
PROPERTY
LakeR .1
(A 342
Magnetometer
To Bea CreekLoAtio
... .. mCam
/ IR
SCALEINSMILE
SOURCE:..raid.199
39-7 CLER AS POpERTYl

FIGUE TH HITRCLI&O
Wma TO
3-0
2817MdI-3a
I
The Clear area was first utilized by the military after World War H when a large airstrip was
constructed to support B-36 bombers (Jacobs and Woodman, 1976). Through an evolutionary
process with the build-up of the Cold War, this site became a Master Ground Control Intercept
(MGCI) as pa't of the Air Force Alaskan Interim Air Defense System (Cloe and Monaghan,
1984). This system was replaced by BMEWS in 1961. The Clear BMEWS site is designed to
detect the launching of intercontinental ballistic missiles from the asian continent headed toward
the U.S. via the north polar route. The BMEWS program consists of three major installations, I
one of which is Clear AFS, Alaska. The other two are located in Greenland and the United
Kingdom. They collectively cover the northern region of North America and provide a 15 1
minute launch warning to the U.S. The site is a product of the Cold War between the U.S. and
the former U.S.S.R.
The small microwave relay station located in the northeast comer of Clear AFS property was I
part of the White Alice Communication System and has been determined to be eligible for
placement on the National Register of Historic Places (Braid et al, 1991). Clear AFS and the
BMEWS Program are also products of the Cold War and could receive similar historical
treatment in the future.
Known Cultural Resources in the Clear Region. There are two known sites in the Clear
region that are currently eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places 3
(SHPO, 1992). They include the White Alice Communication Sycem k(WACS) tower (FA 342)
located in the northeast portion of the Clear AFS property and the Clear Railroad Station
Townsite (FAI 010), located adjacent to the railroad tracks and about 1.5 miles north of the
northern military property boundary (SHPO, 1992) (see Figure 3.9-7). Neither the Clear
Townsite nor the WACS tower is on military property, although the WACS site is surrounded
by Clear AFS property. The WACS tower was sold to ALASCOM in 1983 to support their 3
communication system throughout the state of Alaska. Both sites are eligible for NRHP
inclusion due to their role in the State of Alaska's history. 3
I
I
I
I A cultural resources survey of the Clear AFS was conducted in 1992 by the Oak Ridge National
Laboratory and the University of Alaska Fairbanks (Braid et al., 1992). The survey was not
conducted expressly for the HAARP program, but was intended to provide the Air Force with
an indication of the level of pre-historic, ethnohistoric and historic cultural resources at the site.
I The result of the survey concluded that the Clear AFS site has a high probability of containing
cultural resources, particularly that area between the existing railroad trackage and the Parks
Highway on what is referred to as the Healy Terrace (Figure 3.9-7). This area of the station
I is relatively undisturbed and many archeological finds may have been preserved. In contrast,
many of the other areas of the station have been disturbed during the construction of Clear AFS
I which included stripping the top layer of loess mantle from the site to access the underlying
gravel and sand material. Discoveries in this previously disturbed region are considered
3 unlikely.
3. The Bear Creek site currently has no known existing or eligible NRHP property in the area
(SHPO, 1992), although cultural resources surveys of the Bear Creek location have not been
3 conducted. However, general information from the area suggests an abundance of cultural
resources sites in the Nenana River Valley (Braid et al., 1991). Figure 3.9-6 shows the extent
3 of cultural resource discoveries in the area. Based on this information and the fact that the
valley was historically used by the Nenana Band as a transportation route, it is highly likely that
5 discoveries would be made in this region during construction of HAARP facilities (Braid et al.,
1991).
I
Known Cultural Resources in the Borrow Material Areas. Existing borrow pits on Clear
3 AFS would be utilized as material source areas for the construction of HAARP facilities on
Clear AFS property. A discussion of known cultural resources in this area is presented above.
The location of borrow material areas for use in constructing the facility at the Bear Creek
location is not known. Two options for obtaining gravel for this site seem probable. The first
would be to use the borrow areas at Clear AFS and haul the required material to the Bear Creek
location (approximately 24 miles, round trip). Known cultural resource sites at Clear AFS are
3-109
I mm| I
I
discussed above. The second, and possihly more probabe, option would be to use an off-site
private or State of Alaska borrow pit closer to the Bear Creek location to obtain the required
quantity. For this second option there L no known cultural resources as the site has not been 3
established.
3
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3-110l
U
3.10 SUBSISTENCE
Subsistence consists of the non-commercial use of wild resources for a variety of purposes. In
many sections of Alaska, it represents the means by which residents support their livelihood in
whole or part, and enables Alaska Natives to continue engaging in traditional cultural and
religious activities. The level of subsistence activity varies with cultural, traditional, and
I economic factors, as well as the availability of the resources.
I An assessment of the potential impacts to subsistence which may result from construction and
I operation of the HAARP facility is being undertaken as part of the EIS. This analysis employs
a total resource approach, and centers on the potential direct effects on resource species. It also
considers the potential indirect effects on resource species associated with alteration or loss of
habitat. Economic considerations are addressed in the analysis.
The region associated with the Gakona site that is considered in this analysis includes the site
and surrounding areas of the Copper River Basin adjacent to the site where subsistence resources
and their harvest might be influenced by the facility's construction or operation. This includes
locations identified as potential sources of gravel and the associated haul road to the site. The
Clear site under consideration includes the Clear AFS property, the Bear Creek location, and
surrounding areas in the Nenana River Basin.
The review of existing conditions includes a historical perspective on subsistence, its relationship
to regional and local economies, regulatory considerations, and a description of current
subsistence practices and resources in the area. The review utilizes information generated during
1988 by the University of Alaska's Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center (AEIDC,
1988c), in cooperation with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and the United States
National Park Service. The comprehensive household surveys which were conducted during the
study are still considered to be the premier information base on subsistence activities in the
region (ADFG, 1992g). Additional information from recent years was obtained from ADFG
to assess the current status of subsistence resources.
3-111
I
I
3.10.1 Historical Perspective on Subsistence 3
The harvest of wild resources has been an integral part of the history of the region's Native as 3
well as non-Native residents. It formed the basis for the social, cultural, and economic systems
of early societies, whose survival was dependent upon these resources. Their activities closely U
followed the seasonal migration and availability of game and plant species. This close
association resulted in the incorporation of the harvesting of wildlife and the giving and sharing
of vildlife products into religious practices and cultural traditions which remain today.
Non-Native groups which began entering the area in the 1800's to pursue furs and minerals were
also dependent on the natural resources for their existence, thus their culture embraced a
subsistence lifestyle as well. The influx of these people resulted in new pressures on both the
natural resource base as well , the Native culture, resulting in new trade practices and an
evolution in subsistence lifestyles. i
During the 1980's, an estimated 110,000 people annually participated in subsistence activities 3
statewide (ADFG, 1990). Of these, approximately 50,000 were Alaska Natives, and 60,000
non-Natives. While not all of these people actively harvested resources, most rural residents I
participated in the traditional sharing of an estimated 45 million pounds per year of wildlife
products. Relative to the total harvest of natural resources statewide by all categories, i
subsistence accounted for 4 percent of total harvest compared with 95 percent commercial and
1 percent by sportsmen. 3
3.10.2 Regulatory Management of Subsistence
The increasing pressure on Native culture and wildlife resources exerted by the influx of 3
population, commercial endeavors, and other external forces resulted in attempts to protect the
traditional role of subsistence. In 1960, amendments to the Alaska Fish and Game Code 3
included provisions for "subsistence fishing" (Brelsford, 1990). During the 1970's, the state of
Alaska established policies which gave priority to subsistence uses of fish and game, and in 19783
3-112
I
statutes were passed by the legislature which established criteria to define such uses. A
subsistence research program was established within the Department of Fish and Game.
In 1980 the United States Congress passed the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act
(ANILCA), which established the federal policy on subsistence. Under Title VIII of ANILCA
(16 United States C. 3111-3126), rural residents of Alaska were granted a priority for
subsistence use of fish and wildlife resources on federal lands. This priority over non-
subsistence uses (i.e. sport or commercial harvests) was afforded whenever it is necessary to
restrict the taking of fish and wildlife to protect the viability of natural populations or their
continued use. Subsistence use is defined under ANILCA as "the customary and traditional uses
by rural Alaska residents of wild, renewable resources for direct personal or family consumption
as food, shelter, fuel, clothing, tools, or transportation..." Other uses include arts and crafts,
barter, and customary sharing and exchange of goods.
The subsistence program in Alaska is currently regulated by a dual system. Subsistence

activities on federal public lands are regulated by the federal subsistence program pursuant to
Title 8 of ANILCA. Federal lands account for approximately 65 percent of the total area of
Alaska. The federal subsistence program is jointly administered by the U.S. Forest Service (36
CFR 242) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (50 CFR 100). The state subsistence program
is not in compliance with Title 8 of ANILCA.
The state program continues to be the subject of ongoing legal and legislative debate. The
outcome of this debate over the next couple of years will result in further changes to the state
system (ADFG, 1992c).
3.10.3 Gakona Site
Current Subsistence Practices. Communities in the Copper River Basin are included in the
state's Southcentral Region category for subsistence harvest data. This region had the smallest
subsistence harvest during the 1980's relative to other regions in the state, with the total annual
3-113
harvest of 0.9 million pounds representing only 2 percent of the statewide total (ADFG, 1990). 3
This was largely attributable to the low population density in the area and the tendency for users
under the rural resident program to harvest in traditional, readily accessible areas surrounding I
their communities.
More than 90 percent of all households within the Copper River Basin who responded in surveys
conducted in 1988 indicated that they regularly engage in the harvest of subsistence resources U
(AEIDC, 1988e). These surveys interviewed approximately 38 percent of the estimated total
I
number of households in the Basin, and reached an average of 89 percent in communities smaller
than 30 households. Residents of a number of these communities indicated that they pursued
subsistence activities within a 5-mile radius of the candidate site for the HAARP facility.
The Copper River Basin communities are presently classified as rural under the federal
subsistence program. Rural residents that comply with federal customary and traditional use
determinations are eligible to participate in subsistence activities on federal public lands. In
addition, National Park Service regulations govern which communities or individual residents 3
qualify for subsistence uses within national parks and preserves.
I
Economic Considerations. The economy of communities in this region (Section 3.8) has
experienced cyclic peaks in activity associated with mining and construction activities (such as
the construction of the Glenn Highway and Trans-Alaska Pipeline), but for the most part wage
employment opportunities are limited and are usually of a seasonal nature. For example, 3
approximately 60 percent of applicants for subsistence permits in 1985 (moose and caribou
permits) from the 23 villages which comprise the Copper River Basin reported having
insufficient income to purchase alternative foods (AEIDC, 1988e). For moose permit applicants
from the three closest villages to the site (Chistochina, Gakona, and Gulkana), 75 percent 3
reported having insufficient funds for such purchases. More than half considered the availability
of such goods only slightly available or not available at all. Subsistence thus continues to I
represent a primary basis for support of the livelihood of area residents.
3
3-114m
I
!
I Where wage employment opportunities are available to one or more members of a family, the
resulting condition is termed a "mixed, subsistence market economy" (ADFG, 1990). In many
I cases, a portion of disposable income is invested in the means to more efficiently pursue
subsistence resources. These "subsistence technologies" include such hardware as fish wheels,
I gill nets, boat motors, and snowmobiles.
I Caribou and moose, the most sought after big game species in the Gakona region, can be hunted
I by Alaskan residents. Furthermore, caribou hunting is only open to hunting by the so called
Tier I[ Subsistence Permit. Tier H permits for an area are required for hunting when the state
determines that game populations are not sufficient to satisfy the entire subsistence demand.
Permits are issued to individuals based on dependence on game for ones livelihood, local
residency, and on alternative resources. Hunting under a Tier II permit would not classify as
a recreational activity.
l Subsistence Resources. Table 3.10-1 lists common subsistence resources, which include a
3 number of game and non-game species animals as well as various plants harvested for food and
fuel. A description of the vegetation types that are found at the sites and surrounding area was
3 included in Section 3.2. Animal populations found in these areas were described in Sections 3.3
(mammals) and 3.4 (birds). In general, the Gakona site provides relatively poor quality habitat
Ufor most the species listed in Table 3.10-1.
3 The principal subsistence resources harvested in the Copper River Basin are fish, moose, and
caribou (AEIDC, 1988e). Harvest data for households in the adjacent villages of Chistochina,
5 Gakona, and Gulkana are presented in Table 3.10-2. The data indicate that these categories
represented 85, 88, and 91 percent, respectively, of the total subsistence harvest of food
3 resources for these villages.
3 Fish species represented the largest percentage by weight, predominately consisting of sockeye
and king salmon. Freshwater fish harvested for subsistence uses included grayling, trout, and
3 whitefish. Bird species do not contribute significantly to local harvests, and notable use of
3-115
I
U
TABLE 3.10-1 COMMONLY USED SUBSISTENCE RESOURCES 3
Laree Mammals Berries i
Moo"e Blueberry
Caribou Highbush cranberry
Black bear Lowbush cranberry
Brown bear Crowberry
Dali sheep Red currants
Mountain goat
Small Mammal
Black currants
Raspberry
Nagoon berry
I
Porcupine Cloudberry
Arctic ground squirrel
Lynx Mushrooms
Snowshoe hare Orange delicious
Beaver
Coyote
Red fox
Shaggy mane
Orange boletus
Meadow mushroom
I
Marten
Marmot
Mink
Morel
Puff ball 3
Muskrat Wild Vefetables
Weasel Sourdock
Wolverine Fireweed
Gray Wolf Watercress
Lambsquarter
Fish Chickweed
Sockeye (red) salmon Wild chive
King (chinook) salmon Indian potato
Silver (coho) salmon
Arctic grayling
Whitefish
Sweet vetch
Rose hips U
Northern Pike Trees
Sucker Spruce
lake trout Balsam poplar
Rainbow trout Birch
Burbot
Birds Alder
Ptarmigan Green willow shoots
Ruffed grouse Willow catkin
Spruce grouse
Canada goose
White-fronted goose
Mallard
Northern pintail
American widgeon
Scaup
ource: ADFG, 1986
3
3-116
I1
TABLE 3.10-2 PRINCIPAL SUBSISTENCE RESOURCES
FOR VILLAGES IN GAKONA REGION
Mean Household Harvest

(Edible Weight(lbs)/Percent of Total Harvest)
VILLAGE SALMON CARIBOU MOOSE FRESH- TOTAL

WATER
FISH
Chistochina 353/50 65/9 147/20 40/6 603/85
Gakona 92/32 63/22 69/24 28/10 253/88
Gulkana 262/56 46/10 90/19 26/6 423/91
Source: AEIDC, 1988e
waterfowl is limited to areas with large Native populations (USAF, 1989b). The most important
bird species are grouse and ptarmigan. Harvest of fur-bearing species is also somewhat limited,
with coyote, red fox, beaver, gray wolf, and marten the most sought after species.
3.10.4 Clear Site
Current Subsistence Practices. Communities in the Nenana River Basin that utilize area
subsistence resources include Anderson-Clear, Healy, and McKinley Park, as well as other small
settlements. This region falls under the State's Yukon River Drainage area, which is a massive
area including most of interior Alaska. The average annual subsistence harvest for interior
Alaska during the 1980's included about 4.7 million pounds, which represents about 12 percent
of the statewide total harvest(ADFG, 1990). This relatively low interior Alaska harvest is a
reflection of the sparseness of the areas's human population. Of this total take, approximately
70 percent was from fish, and 25 percent from game, with sea mammals, berries, and other
resources making up the remainder.
3-117
I
A survey of three communities in the Nenana River Basin (Healy, Anderson-Clear, and 3
McKinley Park) by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (January, 1988) indicated that both
the Clear AFS property and the Bear Creek location are used for the harvesting of subsistence I
resources (ADFG, J992h). At the Clear AFS property bear and moose hunting is conducted by
locals, along with wood and berry gathering and trapping activities. No sheep or caribou
hunting, or salmon or non-salmon fishing was reportedly conducted on the Nenana River in the
immediate area of Clear AFS, although all three activities were identified within the region.I
Salmon and non-salmon fishing is carried out on the lower reaches of the Nenana River near its
confluence with the Tanana River at the community of Nenana. This activity extends back
upstream approximately 14 miles almost to the town of Anderson. Caribou hunting is confined
to the foothills of the Alaska Range located about 15 miles south of Clear AFS, while sheep
hunting is carried out in the steep mountainous regions of the Alaska Range located further to
the south.
The Bear Creek location is situated in a region that is somewhat more important than Clear AFS
from a sub sitence perspective. This area is located in the foothills of the Alaska Range and
according to the ADFG survey (1990) it is used by locals for subsistence activities relating to
bear, moose, and caribou hunting, as well as trapping and wood and berry gathering, and fishing
for non-salmon species (ADFG, 1992h).
I
Although information is available on the areas used for subsistence activities as presented above,
there is no information available on the level of use or the relative importance of subsistence in 3
the areas (ADFG, 1992h). However, from a general standpoint, areas receiving the highest
levels of use, and therefore being the most important to the users, are near highways or airstrips,
on river corridors, or near trails or logging roads (ADFG, 1992c). Using this criteria, it follows
that the areas under consideration for siting of the HAARP equipment will be in areas of high
subsistence use and elevated importance.
I
Economic Considerations. Like much of Alaska, the economy of this region has also
experienced a boom and bust cyclical pattern, with the boom periods typically being centered 3
3-118
I
around major construction projects such as roads, railroads, or defense or industry installations.
However, unlike some areas, the Nenana River Basin or Parks Highway corridor does have an
employment base. The Usibelli Coal Mine in Healy, Clear Air Force Station in Clear/Anderson,
the barge and tug operations on the Tanana River in Nenana, and tourist related services for the
i community of McKinley Park provide a cash-type economy base for many of the local residents
employed by these enterprises (ADFG, 1992c). ADFG refers to this system as a "mixed
U subsistence-market economy".
The importance of the subsistence economy to the local residents varies greatly due to the
influence of the local industries on certain individuals and micro-communities. For instance,
individuals that are employed at Clear AFS or the Usibelli Coal Mine might have a high
monetary income with subsistence playing a relatively minor or non-existent role in their
economic well-being. Conversely, other individuals might have a low monetary income and
5 therefore, subsistence would play a major role in their family economic picture (ADFG, 1992c).
Subsistence Resources. Table 3.10-1 lists common subsistence resources, which include a
number of game and non-game species animals as well as various plants harvested for food and
3 fuel. A description of the vegetation types that are found at the sites and surrounding area was
included in Section 3.2. Animal populations found in these areas were described in Sections 3.3
3 (mammals) and 3.4 (birds). The quality of habitat at the Clear site for subsistence harvested
I resources listed in Table 3.10-1 is, in a general sense, good.
Fish are a minor component of the local subsistence resource. The Nenana River has natural
3 runs of chum and coho (silver) salmon, plus an enhancement program for king salmon was
started in some tributary creeks in the lower Nenana River. The enhancement program was
discontinued in 1988 (see Section 3.5.1). There is also an enhanced run of coho (silver) salmon
in June Creek located near the Bear Creek site as a result of a surplus stocking program, which
was discontinued in 1988 (see Section 3.5.1).
3-119
I
Thus, the reliance of local subsistence users on game is probably higher than on fish in this
region of Alaska. This would include, in the large game category, moose, caribou, black and
brown bear, and to a lesser extent sheep. An abundance of small game is present at the site (see 3
Section 3.5. 1) that would certainly provide additional sources of subsistence. Birds are also a
possible significant contributor to subsistence harvests (USAF, 1989a).I
II
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3-120I
i
U 3.11 RECREATION
This section describes the existing recreational resources and activities in the Gakona and Clear
regions. Both of the sites are located close to major national parks, and recreational activities
are of the outdoor and wilderness variety. Because of the sub-arctic climate of both these
regions, it is understandable that recreation is largely, although not exclusively, seasonal in
SI nature.
I 3.11.1 Gakona Site
I The natural and scenic resources in the Gakona region offer a variety of recreational experiences
I including sight-seeing, photography, camping, backpacking, mountain climbing, rafting, fishing,
and hunting. This variety of recreational opportunities attracts both Alaskan residents and non-
resident visitors. The vast majority of visitors to the Gakona region are sightseers who pass
through on their way to other destinations (USAF, 1989a). These would include visitors from
i Canada heading for destinations in the vicinity of Anchorage and visitors off-loaded from the
state ferry system in Valdez heading for points north. Other visitors to the Gakona region are
3 Alaskan residents and non-residents who come to the area for some specific outdoor activity,
particularly fishing and hunting.
Recreational resources in the Gakona region are managed by both federal and state agencies.
I The federal agencies are the National Park Service (NPS), the United States Bureau of Land
Management (BLM), and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The principal
3 state agencies are the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR) Division of Parks and
Outdoor Recreation and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG). Principal federal
3 and state recreation lands in the vicinity of the site are shown on Figure 3.11-1.
SThe NPS manages the Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve, an area of 13.2 million
acres that ranges from the Copper River on the north and west to the Canadian border on the
I i 3-121
I
I
east. Access to the interior of the park is provided by the Nabesna Road off the Tok Cut-Off I
near Slana, and by the McCarthy Road off the Old Edgarton Highway near Chitina.
The BLM oversees the Gulkana National Wild and Scenic River (extending from Paxson to
Sourdough) as well as several campgrounds in the vicinity of the Gakona site (Figure 3.11-1). 1
Along the Richardson highway and at Tangle Lakes are five BLM facilities with a total of 65
camp sites. In addition, a BLM trail that runs northward from the Tok Cut-off to Fox Lake I
crosses directly through the Gakona site. Accurate counts of trail usage are not available; hikers
and fishermen travel on the trail in summer and trappers use this trail in winter (USAF, 1989a).
The Alaska Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation manages state recreation sites in the I
Copper River Basin. Figure 3.11-1 shows four state recreation sites having developed.
campsites. Several additional recreation sites with undeveloped camping areas also occur in the
general vicinity.
Visitor count data provide a basis for understanding the extent of recreational activity in the 3
Copper River Basin. In July, the peak month of the tourist season, visitor-days at state
recreation sites are approximately 150,000 in the Copper River Basin (USAF, 1989a). In
general, non-residents outnumber Alaska residents by two to one. The Gulkana National Wild
and Scenic River was used by about 3,000 fishermen and rafters each year in 1987 and 1988.
Total visitor- days were approximately 19,000 in 1987 and 22,000 in 1988 (USAF, 1989a).
I
Use of the regional fishery resource is substantial according to surveys conducted by ADFG.
Statewide, about 70 percent of all sport fisherman were Alaska residents and 30 percent were
non- residents (USAF, 1989a). Most Alaska residents were from the Anchorage area while less
than one percent (or 1,500 sport fishermen) were from communities in the Copper River Basin.
In 1986, use of the Glennallen area (including Lake Louise) totaled an estimated 51,000 angler-
days (USAF, 1989a).
3-122
3
I
I
ALASKA JJ44%
-- 2 Tanarm
F~*Dh.ay ToJC
4 T ~ 0 Teflin
summit Lk
Ion 8 .ILake
Tagl Hoa Sln F EV BUDR
II
I4 .P~k
. ... . .
oLaken Sit SAL I MLE

0..BLM. Campsites .. .
A Sat RcratonSieswih evloedCapste
3 ~ Ote.Rcet.nl.ra.wt.Ud.loe.Cmig.ra
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~. .
3 NWSR (N~Eational WidandSeicRvr

e..t.E.a.atoalPr.ad rsev
~ ~~~~~~~~~ .l...
I~ ~ ~~Ctwn 3.11 RERATO
FIUR REORE .N SITE..
OF T. GAON...
.H .IINT
3 3-123U1Lake
U
I
The contribution of sport fishing to the local economy can be estimated from the findings of a
1986 survey of sport fishing activity in south-central Alaska (USAF, 1989a). Total expenditures
associated with spy,,rt fishing for all anglers in the Glennallen area were estimated at $2.1 million
in 1986. Alaska residents fishing in the Gulkana River spent as much as $55 per day. Non- I
Alaskan anglers who fished in the Glennallen area reported spending an average of $130 per
household per fishing day. Of that total, it is likely that only $90 to $100 was spent in the local I
area (USAF, 1989a).
Recreational hunting in the Copper River Basin is fairly common, particularly for caribou and
moose. This area of Alaska is in game management unit 13, with the GMU sub-unit being 13C I
for the actual Gakona HAARP site. Some areas of GMU 13 are managed through special
restrictive regulations, but GMU 13C i:; not among them. Table 3.11-1 is a summary of hunt-ng
regulations for the Prea for the more commonly hunted species, as taken from ADFG 1992-93
Hunting Regulations.
Moose, and to a lesser extent bear, hunting are common recreational activities. However, the
short open season for moose hunting (see Table 3. 11 -1) and the requirement on the sex and size
of the animal is an indication of both the level of hunting pressure and the overall importance
of it from a recreational standpoint. Other furbearers and small game species such as gray wolf,
coyote, wolverine, lynx, squirrel, and snowshoe hare can be hunted in the region, along with
ptarmigan and grouse. 3
The level of hunting activity in the Gakona region is estimated to be rather substantial. For 3
instance, hunting activity in 1984 by urban Alaskans was estimated to have been 370 to 1,120
households in the Copper River-Wrangell-Valdez area and 700 to 1,640 households in the Lake 3
Louise area (USAF, 1986a).
I
I
3-124
I
- m •- N --N NNIHI
,,,n,,In
n u
I TABLE 3.11-1 HUNTING REGULATION SUMMARY FOR GMU 13
GAKONA SITE
3 Species Bag Limit Resident Non-Resident
Open Season Open Season
3 Black Bear 3 NCS NCS
Grizzly Bear 1 per 4 years 9/10-5/31 9/10-5/31
3 Caribou 11 8/10-9/20 8/10-9/20
Moose 1 bull2 9/5-9/11 9/5-9/11
I NCS = No Closed Season: NOS = No Open Season

Tier H subsistence permit required
3 236 inch antlers required, harvest ticket required
Table represents state regulations for recreational hunting, although these regulations may apply
in part to subsistence hunters. Harvest regulations stated are for 1992 and are subject to change
from year-to-year.
I
Available data indicate that recreational activity in the Copper River Basin has been steadily
U increasing over recent years (USAF, 1989a). Overall, recreational activity is expected to
continue to increase, with local residents the most intensive users.
I
I 3.11.2 Clear Site
The Clear region, including the Bear Creek location and the Nenana River Valley provides a
wide variety of recreational experiences to both the Alaska resident and non-resident visitor to
the state. Recreational activities in the region include sightseeing, camping, rafting,
I backpacking, mountain climbing, photography and wildlife viewing, berry picking, hunting, and
fishing. There are some potential management conflicts between subsistence use and recreational
i uses which make these two issues interdependent (see Section 3.10 Subsistence).
I Recreational resources in the Clear region are managed by both federal and state agencies. The
federal agencies are the NPS, BLM, and USFWS. The principal state agencies are the ADNR,
3-125
3
and ADFG. Principal federal and state recreation lands in the vicinity of the site are shown on
Figure 3.11-2.
The NPS manages the Denali National Park and Preserve, an area of about 6 million acres.
Road access to the interior of the park is controlled by the NPS. Use of the Denali Park Road
is restricted to NPS concessionaire buses and one tour company (Tundra Wildlife Tours) which
provides all day (in-and-out) tours of Denali National Park. Passes to ride the buses must be
purchased at the park entrance on a first come - first serve basis. A very limited number of
special vehicle passes are provided to residents of Kantishna (a small community at the west end
of the park road) which allows them to use the road with their private vehicles to access their
homes.
The Alaska Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation manages state recreation sites in the
Nenana River Basin (Figure 3.11-3). Several recreation sites with undeveloped camping areas
also exist in the general vicinity. Private campsites and RV parks are located in communities
throughout the Parks Highway region.
The Parks Highway runs through the Clear region and is a major Alaskan thoroughfare linking I
the two major population centers of the state; Anchorage and Fairbanks. The Parks Highway
also runs by the entrance to Denali National Park and Preserve; one of the most visited sites in
the state of Alaska. Clear AFS lies 47 road miles north of the park entrance, and the Bear
Creek location lies 32 road miles north of the park entrance. The highway is used extensively I
during the summer months by tourists in cars, campers and recreational vehicles, and in tour
buses. During winter the traffic load is reduced.
The Alaska Railroad tracks runs parallel to the Parks Highway through oic Nenana River valley
and across the lowlands of the Nenana River basin. The Alaska Railroad provides daily service
in the summer between Fairbanks and Anchorage (and vice versa) with scheduled stops at the
Denali Park entrance. During the winter the passenger train service operates only on the
weekends. The route is popular in the summer with tourists who ride the cruise ships to j
3-126 1
U ~~~COPY 10AVA[BLE TO DTIC DOWS NOT FEMUAT FULLY LEGIBLE REPROD=C'lO
U LEGEND
State Owned
I Native Owned
Private
- ----- National Park
Primary use:
K- Bear Creek
Nenana River
-- ------ ------ - ------
3, j
- DenaliNativea
Lark
SOURC
USGS Farans Alask 1984
FIG 3.12 AO AN WESI N UEPA O H

RIE
NENANA~~~~~~~~~~-.
H ERCEE
NALJAON OAIN(DR 91
1 312 Mr~ALF%
7,ey ,, a -J3I
CHENARIVE
HOT
p~tN;I
(5 CampwSites)
Al N
alIo~hP Scyw"
4) 1o
CLEARL A FDS
I
3 southcentral Alaska ports and then travel the interior on trains, with stop-overs at Denali Park,
Fairbanks, and Anchorage.
The Nenana River runs swiftly out of the Alaska Range with sections of Class mI and IV rapids.
I The river is used extensively in the summer for rafting trips that originate in the McKinley Park
area and take out at the Healy Bridge before passing the Bear Creek location (NPS, 1992b).
I Several companies in the area offer these whitewater river rafting adventures and advertise them
as scenic and wilderness experiences. Rafting trips typically range from 2 to 6 hours, with the
longer trips originating further up the drainage toward Cantwell (NPS, 1992a, 1992b). There
are six NPS licensed rafting companies in the McKinley Village area, with several other non-
licensed companies also operating on the Nenana River. This section of the river is also used
for commercial powerboat trips.
Downstream of this the Nenana River is used relatively infrequently for float trips or
powerboating (ADNR, 1992c, NPS, 1992b). Approximately 50 floats per year are undertaken,
I with about half of them being recreational/sightseeing and the other half being for hunting
access. It is estimated that only one or two commercial "tour-type" float trips per year would
I utilize this section of the river (NPS, 1992b).
I The state of Alaska's Tanana Basin Area Plan recognizes the Nenana River Corridor as
recreationally important, and plans to manage the river and surrounding area to "protect its
I scenic, recreational, and fish and wildlife values" (ADNR, 1991b).
3 Recreational and sport fishing in this region is generally considered to be fair compared to other
areas of Alaska and therefore receives modest use. Non-salmon fishing opportunities include
3 Dolly Varden, burbot and arctic grayling in the Nenana River and its tributaries (ADNR,
199 lb). Several species of salmon (chinook, coho, and chum) run up the Nenana River and into
3 spring-fed tributaries to spawn. This produces some recreational fishing opportunities in the area
(ADNR, 1991b).
I I 3-129
I
A fish hatchery on Clear AFS property provides enhanced fishing opportunities for rainbow trout 3
and arctic char in man-made Lake Sansing. Fishing at Lake Sansing is open to the general
public according to DOD policy, although due to the small size of the water body, use may be 3
restricted (FSI, 1991). ADFG fishing regulations apply on Lake Sansing. Because the lake is
man-made and is a cooling pond for the power generation station, it remains ice-free throughout I
the year. It is one of the only year-round fresh water fisheries in the state (ADFG, 1992f).
Hunting and trapping are also important recreational opportunities in the Clear region. I
The foothills of the Alaska Range are in the Clear Region and provide opportunities for hiking, I
backpacking, and sightseeing and photography, along with berry picking and other outdoor
activities. Motorized recreational opportunities such as off-road vehicle (ORV) use and
snowmobiling are also popular in the area (ADNR, 1991b).
Clear AFS offers recreational facilities and opportunities to station personnel, including softball,
basketball, tennis, picnic grounds, nordic skiing, and snowmobiling. Hunting and fishing are
also allowed within Clear AFS in designated locations that do not interfere with the Air Force
mission (FSI, 1991).
Due to proximity of the Clear site, and particularly the Bear Creek location to Denali National
Park and Preserve, it follows that this region is among the most important in the state from a
recreational and tourism standpoint. Visitor count data from Denali National Park indicate a
total visitation of 204,000 persons entering the park on the shuttle and tour buses in 1992 (NPS,
1992a). Total visitation to the park entrance is probably about three to four times this number,
and has been increasing rapidly over the last couple of decades. Total recreational visitation to
Denali National Park was about 600,000 as of the late 1980's (ADNR, 1991b), with a about 25
percent of that number using the park bus system. Campground use in Denali included about 3
20,000 campsite nights as of 1989, down from a 1978 high of 33,000 campsite nights (ADNR,
1991b). Backcountry use in Denali has stayed rather steady over the last decade at about 30,000 3
user nights (ADNR, 1991b).
3-130
I
I
I
3 Although the Nenana River supports fish life and has modest runs of salmon, the level of
recreational fishing on the Nenana and its tributaries is very slight (NPS, 1992b). This is
I particularly true in the upper reaches near the proposed HAARP site.
I Lake Sansing located on Clear AFS is a state run fish hatchery and permits fishing for rainbow
trout, Dolly Varden, and to a limited degree arctic grayling. Because it is one of the only fresh
waters in the state (certainly the region) that is able to be open water fished year round, Lake
Sansing receives a fair amount of fishing pressure. Approximately 1000 people per year use the
lake, particularly during the off-season, such as the early spring (ADFG, 19920. Of the total
I fishing pressure, about half of it is the result of on-site personnel, with the other half coming
from surrounding communities or further away (ADFG, 19920. Fishing at Lake Sansing is
U open to the public. A free permit to fish on the base can be obtained at the main AFS gate.
i Although no data were available on the exact hunting pressure that these areas received during
hunting days, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game does have information on the densities
I of certain game animals in the area. Since high game densities often attract hunters, game
density generally serves as a reasonable qualitative indication of hunting pressure. Moose
3 densities in the Clear area are around 0.5 to 2.0 moose per square mile. Open season on moose
is in early to mid-September, depending on the specific Game Management Unit (the Clear
I region includes both GMU 20A and 20C). Moose hunting is reportedly heaviest along the
I transportation corridors such as the Parks Highway and the Nenana River (ADFG, 1992a).
Black bear densities in the region are about I bear per 3 to 5 square miles. The hunting season
I extends throughout the year, but the bears are in their dens from about October though April.
Bag limit for black bears is 3 per season (ADFG, 1992b). Grizzly bears are also present in the
E Clear area, with a reported density of l bear per 75 square miles and going up to about 1 bear
every 35 square miles further to the south in the Alaska Range. Bag limits for grizzly bears in
I the region is limited to one bear every four years (ADFG, 1992b).
I i 3-131
U
I
Even though there are two caribou herds in the region, hunting of caribou in this region is 3
limited. The Delta caribou herd spends some time in the region, and some hunting around the
town of Ferry has been done by residents not qualifying for subsistence use. However, due to I
declining populations of the herd, no hunting was permitted during the 1992 seasons. Hunting
of the Denali caribou herd has been prohibited for the last decade or so (ADFG, 1992b). I
Sheep hunting in the region is uncommon. Wolves in the area are both hunted and trapped. I
Wolf densities are about 1 wolf per 25 square miles. Annual harvest records indicate that 67
gray wolves were harvested in GMU 20A (east of the Nenana River), while 21 were taken in I
GMU 20C (west of the Nenana River). Hunting season for wolves extends from August 10
through April 30. Trapping season is from November 1 through March 31. Wolves are highly
valued by hunters and trappers (ADFG, 1992b). Additional harvest records for the two game
management units in which the Clear region falls indicate that beaver, lynx, river otter, and
wolverines are commonly sought game. 5
There are no established public campsites in the immediate area of Clear AFS or Bear Creek. 5
The nearest such areas are at the towns of Healy or Nenana, and are privately operated. The
nearest publicly owned campsites are at the Denali Park entrance. They include Riley Creek and
Savage River, as well as others located further in on the Denali park road. All of these
campgrounds are extensively used and getting a site is difficult, at best. 3
The Tanana Basin Area Plan, as formulated by the ADNR, recommends that a state recreation
area with a campground be established at June Creek located less than one mile from the Bear
Creek location (ADNR, 1991a). However, other than the initial recommendation, there has been 3
no follow-up activities to initiate the construction of such a facility (ADNR, 1992d).
I
The potential for recreation growth in the Nenana River Valley is fairly high due to its proximity
to Denali National Park and Preserve and due to its location on a major Alaskan highway. The i
area south of Healy near the park entrance is probably the most susceptible to development, with
possible encroachment down the valley toward Bear Creek. The state of Alaska plans to manage 3
3-132
I
I,
I the Nenana River Corridor based on its recreational significance which will probably limit and
I control development, but not exclude it.
The potential for recreational growth in the Clear AFS area is anticipated to be low due to the
flat nature of the terrain, the relative lack of fishing opportunities, and the slow braided nature
of the Nenana River in this region. Recreational use of the area is not anticipated to increase
significantly in the coming years.
3
I
I
I
U
I
i
I
i
i
I
I
S•• • • . ,3-133
I
3.12 AESTHETICS
3.12.1 Aesthetic Criteria and Measures
Two factors play a key role in characterizing the visual resources of an area, scenic quality and
viewer sensitivity. Scenic quality is perhaps best described as the overall impression retained
after driving through, walking through, or flying over an area. Scenic quality reflects the I
physical features of the landscape, including bott the natural features (such as landform,
vegetation, water, and soils) and human modif. tons (such as roads, buildings, and utility lines) I
that have been made to the landscape. These features create the distinguishable line, form,
color, and texture of the landscape composition, which i turn is judged for scenic quality using I
criteria such as distinctiveness, variety, harmony, balance, and uniqueness.
Because a landscape may have high scenic qualities but be remotely located, viewer sensitivity
is a factor used to represent the value of the landscape to the viewing public, including the extent
to which the landscape is viewed. Sensitivity includes a characterization of the range of viewers
exposed to the landscape scene, when and from where they would see the resources, the angle
and distance of the view, and the frequency of view. Scenic quality and sensitivity together are
used as a basis for assessing impacts to visual resources.
I
The primary reference and method for defining visual resources is a standardized procedure
developed by the BLM for identifying, evaluating, and classifying visual resources for land
management purposes. The BLM Visual Resource Management (VRM) System is described in
BLM (1986) and is outlined in Table 3.12-1. The VRM system inventories and evaluates both
the scenic quality and the sensitivity of a landscape.
I
When inventoried for scenic quality, an area is first divided into subunits that appear
homogeneous, generally in terms of landform and vegetation. Each area is then rated by seven
key factors: (1) landform, (2) vegetation, (3) water, (4) color, (5) influence of adjacent scenery,
3-134
I
I
i
3 TABLE 3.12-1. VISUALRESOURCES MANAGEMENT (VRM) SYSTEM PROCEDURE
STEP DESCRIPTION
Landscape Character The landscape character is considered to be a product of the
Inventory form, line, color, and texture of the land and water forms,
vegetation, and structures. The specific nature and
combination of these conditions determine the variety,
i_ _ harmony, and distinctiveness of the landscape. *
Scenic Quality Rating The scenic quality part of the inventory documents the
character of the landscape through consideration of the
condition of seven rating criteria: landform, vegetation,
water, color, man-made modifications, scarcity, and influence
of adjacent scenery. From this assessment, an overall level of
scenic quality is determined on a rating unit basis.
Visual Sensitivity Visual sensitivity is an inventory component that is used to
determine viewer exposure to the landscape.
Distance Zone Distance zones are delineated from key viewing areas or
routes. These zones establish a distance relationship between
the viewer and the landscape.
Management Class VRM classes are determined through the combination of the
scenic quality, visual sensitivity, and distance zone inventory
results. These classes serve as an index to the level of visual
3 resource values and identify acceptable levels of visual
modification. VRM classes are guidelines that are used for
3 _environmental
multiple-use land planning, land management, and
assessments.
Contrast Rating The contrast rating process is used to determine whether a
specific project proposal would be within the VRM class
II objectives for that area. It compares the degree of contrast or

visual change between the form, line, color, and texture of the
existing landform, vegetation, and structures and those
proposed. This detail identifies, beforehand, specific sources
3 of the anticipated landscape contrast and therefore provides a
basis for effective and appropriate mitigation measures.
I ource: BLM, 1986.
I i 3-135
I
I
(6) scarcity, and (7) cultural modification. A standardized point system assigns great, some, or
little importance to each factor. The values for each category are calculated and, according to
total points, the landscape unit is assigned to one of the following Scenic Quality Classes:
"* Class A areas: landscapes that combine the most outstanding characteristics of each I
rating factor.
"* Class B areas: landscapes that exhibit a combination of some outstanding features and
some that are fairly common to the physiographic region. I
"* Class C areas: landscapes that have features fairly common to the physiographic I
region.
Scenic quality ratings are then combined with a determination of viewer sensitivity to arrive at
a VRM class. VRM classes range from I through IV and reflect the management priorities for
preserving existing visual qualities, with VRM I having the highest priority for preservation
(Table 3.12-2).
3.12.2 Gakona Site U

I
Visual Resource Characterization. Interim VRM ratings were assigned by the Air Force as
part of the OTH-B environmental assessment, because no portion of the Gakona site had been
officially assigned a VRM rating by the BLM (USAF, 1989a). These interim ratings are still
valid and used in this document with the exception of the presently constructed OTH-B
powerplant building and access road (Figure 3.2-1).
I
Figure 3.12-1 shows the location of the Key Observation Point (KOP) of the site as used in the
OTH-B study (USAF, 1989a). This point remains the primary viewing location because it is
assumed that the HAARP facility will occupy a similar area and is of similar enough physical
I
3-136I
I
I
I TABLE 3.12-2. VRM CLASSES FOR BLM LANDS
CLASS DESCRIPTON
I The objective of this class is to preserve the existing character of the landscape.
This class provides for natural ecological changes, however, it does not
preclude very limited management activity. The level of change to the
characteristic landscape should be very low and must not attract attention.
I[ The objective of this class is to retain the existing character of the landscape.
The level of change to the characteristic landscape should be low.
Management activities may be seen but should not attract the attention of the
casual observer. Any changes must repeat the basic elements of form, line,
color, and texture found in the predominant features of the characteristic
landscape.
n IHI The objective of this class is to partially retain the existing character of the
landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape should be
moderate. Management activities may attract attention but should not dominate
the view of the casual observer. Changes should repeat the basic elements
found in the predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape.
IV The objective of this class is to provide for management activities that require
major modification of the existing character of the landscape. The level of
change to the characteristic landscape can be high. These management
activities may dominate the view and be the major focus of viewer attention.
However, every attempt should be made to minimize the impact of these
activities through careful location, minimal disturbance, and repeating the basic
I elements.
noure: BLM," 1986.
I
3 3-137
I
(II
Gakona
a m
CmU
-33 I
___OI
_
SOURCE: USGS Gulkana, Alaska 1977

---
aL ..i....i :.
U.S. Air Force Property Boundary @.-WKOP
SITEI
FIGURE 3.12-1. KEY OBSERVATION POINT OF GAKONA
Copy AVAILABL*E TO lDrIC DOES NOT PERLdIT FULLY 'LEG, V ODIJCT

B11- P'
3-138 #A T LF0 OO V
nature that resulting visual differences from the OTH-B would be minimal. This viewing
location is at milepost 9.2 of the Tok Cut-Off, approximately 1.5 miles from the assumed facility
location. The potential sources of borrow material for the construction of the HAARP facility
are the same as those evaluated under the OTH-B study. Since the mining operation and amount
of borrow required would be similar to those previously evaluated, the VRM classes assigned
to the potential borrow sites will be used here. In that study, borrow site P-1 received a Class
H ranking, sites P-2, A-i, and A-5 received a Class MIranking, and site A-4 received a Class
E l YIV ranking (USAF, 1989a).
Based on an assessment from the KOP, the Gakona site was rated as B/C for scenic quality and
low for viewer sensitivity. The overall VRM Class ranking was Class H/IV. From this
viewing location, the existing Alascom microwave tower is visible 300 feet above the treetops
and the existing powerplant building is slightly visible at the treetops, there is dense tree cover
(20 to 30 foot tall spruce) in the middle ground, and there is a pond in the foreground.
Travelling west, the powerplant building is slightly more visible from milepost 11.5 and fairly
visible for a short period of time as one passes the access road at milepost 11.1 (Figure 3.12-2).
As viewed from above, at relatively low altitudes, the scenic quality rating was B and the viewer
sensitivity was moderate to high. The overall VRM Class ranking was Class hI/IV. From the
air, the site is mostly uniform, dense tree cover spotted with meadows and ponds. The site
access road, powerplant building and Alascom tower, operations building, and access road are
visible.
A general characterization of visual features in the Gakona study area includes the strong
dominant form of the Wrangell Mountains in the distant background to the southeast, and the
broad meandering line and brownish color of the Copper River in the middle ground. Views
of those features from the Richardson Highway and the Glenn Highway (same as Tok Cut-off)
are limited by dense tree cover along the two major roadways in the area. Vegetation is
predominantly black spruce (averaging 20-30 feet high) interspersed with willow and poplar,
3-139
I
I
I
i
i
S~I
FIGURE 3.12-2 PHOTOGRAPH OF EXISTING POWERPLANT BUILDING AND

ACCESS ROAD AT GAKONA SITE
3-140
I
I creating a uniform texture and color (dark green) in the foreground and middle ground of views
from the road. Human modifications to the otherwise natural landscape include small buildings
I in the town of Gakona, the OTH-B white powerplant building and access road, the 300 foot red-
and-white lattice Alascom communication tower, and several existing gravel borrow sites
I operated by the Alaska Department of Transportation.
I 3.12.3 Clear Site
I Visual Resource Characterization. A general characterization of the visual features in the

I Clear area include the Alaska Mountain Range which starts with the rolling foothills only ten
miles south of Clear AFS near the Bear Creek location. The grayish-blue silt laden Nenana
River flows rather rapidly northward out of the Alaska Range past the Bear Creek location, but
then broadens and slows as it meanders across the gently sloping lowlands toward its confluence
I with the Tanana River. Views along the Parks Highway and the Alaska Railroad of these
features are relatively unobstructed through the mountains and foothills, but vegetation in the
I form of aspen, birch and spruce become more common in the lowlands area. This vegetation
tends to restrict the visual field from both the highway and the railroad, and therefore lessens
I the visual sensitivity to anthropogenic facilities near Clear AFS. Human modifications to the
otherwise natural landscape include small towns and clusters of structures along the highway and
I railway, and of course, the large BMEWS facility at Clear AFS. The level of man induced
disturbance is fairly low at the Bear Creek location, with the exception of the railroad tracks,
E the highway, and the above surface power line that all run through the valley. Clear AFS
property is a relatively developed area with rumerous signs of man-made changes. This includes
roads, trails, railroad tracks, cut-lines, antennas, communication towers, airstrips, gravel borrow
areas, refuse disposal sites, and cleared areas for recreational and other purposes.
I
Interim VRM ratings were assigned for the Clear site as part of this study since no previous
I ratings existed for the areas of interest. As part of the VRM analysis, several Key Observation
Points (KOPs) were selected for the Clear Site. The locations of the KOPs are shown on Figure
I 3.12-3 and 3.12-4. The selection of these locations were based on selecting the most critical
3-141
I
ANDERSON
Z ~FairbanksI
4) *:xClear.9
Anch rae'
CI
q ~PROPERTYI
-*I LIDAI
/4'
..I..
..
Magnetomeemposite
To~ octo~ ~BerCre ~ a

(I (-1Ome
SCAL
IN ILE
FIGURE3.12-3
CLEARAS PRPERTY EY OBSRVAIONPIT
3-Camp
Sited?
Earthen Mound
110' High N Magnetic

North
Mile 270
AN Browne
I ISR
Train Stop
VIS Units
Access Road
.I
Iie26. 69.3
Mile Bee Creek
Turnout
*.
..
Mile 269
Rest Area
IooooLEGEND........
SKOPs
SCALE INFEET
3 FI1GURE 3.12-4. CLEAR SITE KEY OBSERVATION POINTS AT BEAR CREEK LOCATION
I 3-143
fl8 ?-I~ 65dGE
I
view points for each of the areas from commonly traveled routes such as the Parks Highway, I
the Alaska railroad tracks, and the Nenana River.
I
For the Clear AFS property location, two KOPs were used for the IRI site including mile 284
Parks Highway, and mile 391 of the Alaska Railroad trackage. No KOP's were selected for the
magnetometer and optics equipment or the LIDAR diagnostics, as this equipment is small and
is seen to be aesthetically insignificant compared to the IRI towers. I
For the Bear Creek location, three KOPs were selected, mile 269.5 of the Parks Highway I
(Figure 3.12-5), mile 381 of the Alaska Railroad (formerly called the Browne train-stop), and
from a point on the river near the confluence of Bear Creek and the Nenana River. Refer to I
Figure 3.12-4 for the location of the KOPs relative to the ISR siting.
Based on an assessment from the KOPs, the Clear AFS property location is given a scenic
quality rating of C and a viewer sensitivity rating which is low to moderate. The overall interim
visual resource management (VRM) rating is considered to be Class IV. I
Based on an assessment of the Bear Creek location from the selected KOPs, the site is given a
scenic quality rating of B and a viewer sensitivity rating which is moderate to high. The overall
VRM is considered to be Class II. This interim rating is supported by a visual resource !
inventory of the Nenana River Corridor which was performed by the National Park Service as
part of 1991 recreational study of the area (ADNR, 1991b). I
I
I
I
I
3-144 1
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I FIGURE 3.12-5 PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN FROM HIGHWAY KEY OBSERVATION

POINT AT BEAR CREEK LOCATION
I 3-145
i
I
I
3.13 BIOEFFECTS OF RADIO FREQUENCY RADIATION (RFR) U
RFR would be generated during the operation of the HAARP facility at either the Gakona or I
Clear site. RFR (also referred to as radio waves) is electromagnetic waves at frequencies
between approximately 3 kilohertz (kHz) and 300 gigahertz (GHz). People in these areas are I
continually exposed to RFR from many currently existing natural and man-made sources. The
existing radio frequency radiation environment for the Gakona and Clear sites is similar. Hence i
this section focuses on the overall bioeffects of RFR. To support this section, the government
commissioned a special study by experts in the field of RFR bioeffects to review the current I
information available on the topic. The conclusions of this evaluation were provided in 3 reports
to the Air Force (AUSA, 1992a,b,c) and are incorporated into this document by reference.
3.13.1 RFR
The news media often do not distinguish between RFR and ionizing radiation. This sometimes
raises concerns, with no scientific basis, that RFR can give rise to the hazardous effects known
to be caused by ionizing radiation.
Ionizing radiation, such as ultraviolet light, x-rays and gamma rays and emissions from
radioactive materials, have frequencies millions and trillions of times higher than those of RFR. 3
A "quantum" of any of those radiations has enough intrinsic energy to ionize (eject an electron
from) an atom or molecule. The ejection of an electron from a molecule leaves the molecule
positively charged, thereby greatly altering its own properties and enhancing its interactions with
its neighboring molecules. The resulting effects can be cumulative and irreversible, and thus
can profoundly effect the health of living organisms. For this reason, devices such as film
badges, are commonly used for monitoring cumulative exposure over time (total doses) of
ionizing radiation.
I
In contrast to ionizing radiation, quanta of nonionizing radiation (such as RFR) have intrinsic
energies far too small to ionize molecules within a body because their frequencies are vastly I
3-146
I
I
I lower. Rather than evoking changes in molecules (as in ionizing radiation), nonionizing
radiation simply agitates molecules making them vibrate and rotate faster (note that all molecules
I naturally vibrate and rotate), the equivalent of adding heat to the body. The additional molecular
agitation produced by the RFR ceases when exposure to RFR ends. The heat induced in an
warm-blooded animal by exposure to RFR at relatively low incident power densities normally
can be compensated for its thermoregulatory capabilities. However, depending on the species,
the heat produced at relatively high intensities may exceed the thermoregulatory capabilities of
the animal, so compensation for such effects may be inadequate. Thus, exposure at high
intensities could cause gross heating and subsequent thermal distress or irreversible thermal
I damage. Some researchers have reported bioeffects at RFR levels below those giving rise to
gross heating. However, such reports are not universally accepted by the large majority of the
I research community.
I Examples of commonly used RFR-generating devices include:
5 * Public TV
* Radio broadcasting stations
3 S Citizen-band radios
* Ham radio transmitters
1 0 Cellular telephones
I The federal government regulates the use of these devices primarily through the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC). These agencies restrict the operation of RFR devices to
j specific frequency bands and emission power levels.
I 3.13.2 RFR Exposure Safety Standards
3 Terms such as "safety standards" and "exposure standards" generally refer to, and are frequently
used interchangeably with, specifications or guidelines on maximum exposure levels to RFR by
U the general public or workers. Such levels are usually expressed as maximum permissible
1 3-147
I
I
exposure (MPE) limits, threshold limit values (TLVs), or maximum power densities or field 3
intensities in specific frequency ranges for stated exposure durations.
Several groups, listed below, have established standards and guidelines for human exposure to
"* American National Standards Institute (ANSI) I

"* American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists
" Air Force Occupational Safety and Health I
"* International Non-Ionizing Radiation Committee of the International Radiation
Protection Association
"* Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 3
These standards and guidelines were based on maximum values of "specific absorption rate" 3
(SAR) that were found to be not harmful in experimental animal studies. SAR is the rate at
which RFR energy is absorbed in any small region of an animal's body. A conservative I
additional safety margin (either 10 or 50 times) is factored into the standard.
In 1988, the function of ANSI subcommittee C95.VI were transferred to Subcommittee IV of

Standards Coordinating Committee (SCC) 28, a new body under jurisdiction of the IEEE. In 3
1991, SCC issued new guidelines covering the frequency range from 3 kHz to 300 GHz. Unlike
previous guidelines, the SCC guidelines separately specified the maximum allowable RFR 3
exposure in "uncontrolled environments" (accessible by the general population) and "controlled
environments" (such as occupational exposure). Among the differences between the 1982 ANSI
and the 1991 SCC standards are the newer limits for "uncontrolled environments" have a safety
reduction factor of 50 instead of 10, but are averaged over any 30-minute period instead of 6 3
minutes. The corresponding limits for "controlled environments" remained at a safety reduction
factor of 10 averaged over 6 minutes. The most up-to-date standard is the IEEE C95.1 - 1991 3
standard (IEEE, 1991). The maximum permissible exposures (MPEs) at the HAARP IRI
frequencies according to the IEEE C95.1 - 1991 are listed in Table 3.13-1. 3
3-148
U
I
STABLE 3.13-1. MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE EXPOSURES FOR THE
HAARP IRI FREQUENCY RANGE ACCORDING TO THE
IEEE C95.1 -1991 STANDARDS.
ENVIRONMENT FIELD FREQUENCY AVERAGING
I TYPE TIME
3MHz 10 MHz
Uncontrolled Electric (E) 275 Vim 82 Vim 30 minutes
Environment Magnetic (H) 5.4 A/m 1.6 Aim 6 minutes
Controlled Electric (E) 614 Vim 184 V/m 6 minutes
Environment Magnetic (H) 5.4 A/m 1.6 A/m 6 minutes
I
The uncontrolled environment figures are appropriate for areas accessible to the general
population. Controlled environment values are for occupational exposure guidelines.
I 3.13.3 Biological Effects of RFR
I The frequencies HAARP would use fall within the 3 kHz to 300 GHz range covered by the
I exposure standards. Therefore, the potential biological effects of RFR discussed below will be
those solely due to nonionizing radiation. Findings of various peer reviewed, scientific,
I epidemiological studies on the effects of RFR, including those of studies with human volunteers,
were analyzed. The results of such epidemiologic studies are regarded as indirect or inferential
3 because the RFR-exposure levels and their durations most often are not known with any degree
of accuracy (AUSA, 1992a). Although some results were conflicting, the preponderance of the
3 studies found that chronic exposure to RFR at levels within the WEE C95.1 - 1991 standard
exposure guidelines did not result in demonstratable, detrimental health effects (AUSA, 1992a).
3 Therefore, taken collectively, the epidemiologic studies indicate that chronic exposure to RFR
at levels within any of the U.S. exposure guidelines is not hazardous to humans.
I
It is necessary to distinguish between an effect and a hazard. For example, a person's
3 metabolism can be increased harmlessly by mild exercise. Analogously, an effect produced at
3 3-149
U
RFR intensities that yield heat that can be easily accommodated within the thermoregulatory 3
capabilities of an individual may not necessarily be harmful. Also, the effects produced thereby
are generally reversible. However, the thermoregulatory capabilities of any given species may 3
be exceeded at high RFR intensities, so compensation for such effects may be inadequate. Thus
exposure at such intensities can cause thermal distress or even irreversible thermal damage and 3
represent an hazard (Ausa, 1992b).
Considerable research has been conducted on the potential for biological effects from RFR.
Most of the knowledge concerning the biological effects of RFR has been obtained through I
experiments in which various mammals (including human volunteers) and non-mammals (such
as birds, insects and bacteria or other microorganisms) were exposed to RFR. The subjects I
were closely monitored and tested for various biological effects. In addition to whole organisms,
tissues, blood, single cells, cultures of cells, and subcellular components also have been studied.
The comprehensive independent critical review (AUSA, 1992a) on biological effects of RFR I
concluded that there is no credible scientific evidence that exposures to levels below the
maximum levels specified in IEEE exposure standard (IEEE, 1991) will in any way be hazardous
to health. 3
3
I
I
I
I
I
3-150
I
I
E 3.14 ELECTROMAGNETIC ENVIRONMENT AND RADIO FREQUENCY
INTERFERENCE
This section describes the existing electromagnetic environment and sources of noise and
interference present around the earth, at the Gakona and Clear sites. In addition to
electromagnetic receiving systems that could experience interference, other systems are discussed
U that are not intended to receive radio transmissions but may be affected by HAARP
transmissions. The information presented in the following section was largely obtained from
3 MITRE (1992b,c,d,e) and a previous description of the electromagnetic environment in the
U Gakona site area that was prepared by the OTH-B program (USAF, 1986a).
The electromagnetic environment is comprised of a large range or spectrum of man-made and

natural sources of wave energy. Wave energy is a renewable resource having variable
dimensions of amplitude, time, frequency, and space. For humans to make use of some portion
5 of the electromagnetic environment for communication, radio-location, radio-navigation, or other
such purposes, the power of the transmitted signal must exceed the power of "background" noise
and interference in that portion of the electromagnetic spectrum at the receiving station (USAF,
1987). Background noise and interference to radio receiving systems can be caused by man
3 made and natural sources. Interference generally occurs when two or more radio waves are
iransmitted, by humans or natural processes, using the same frequency. A receiver could
experience interference because of the masking of a desired weaker signal by a more powerful
I transmission at the same frequency (USAF, 1987).
3.14.1 Global Electromagnetic Environment
Man-made contributions. Man-made contributions to the existing global electromagnetic

environment include both intentional transmitted wave signals and unintentional contributions,
noise or interference, which are a result of electronic devices and powerful transmitted wave
signals.
I i 3-151
I
I
Intentional man-made contributions to the existing electromagnetic environment include a wide
array of wave signals from sources such as various international and local broadcast radio and
TV stations, satellite communications, local and long distance amateur (HAM) and Citizens' 3
Band (CB) operators, air navigation aids, radars, and passing aircraft. High altitude ionospheric
reflection of some radio signals, known as the sky wave transmission, allows transmissions from I
one point on the earth's surface to potentially any other location on the earth's surface.
Unintentional man-made contributions to the electromagnetic environment are referred to as

man-made electronic noise or interference. Noise is typically radiated by sources such as power U
lines, fluorescent lights, household lighting dimmer switches, household appliance motors,
computers and hand-held calculators. A major contributor is the automobile ignition system, I
which radiates a pulse of energy over all of the communication bands with each spark-plug
firing. Since noise sources are associated with human activity, noise generally increases with
increasing population. Thus, the noise environment is much greater in an urban region as I
compared to a rural region (USAF, 1987). As mentioned above, interference can occur as a
result of the masking of a weaker signal by a more powerful one. Often the masking signal is
an unintended signal (harmonic or spurious) that is produced as a result of the intended
transmission of another signal at a different frequency. Since harmonic and spurious signals are
inherently weaker than the intended signal and lose strength with distance from a transmitter they
are usually not a significant source of interference. 3
Natural Contributors. Thunderstorms, solar flares, auroras, and galactic noise are the most
important contributors to the electromagnetic environment. Galactic noise originates from the
sun and stai- and does not propagate from other areas of the earth by sky wave. Thunderstorms
generate waves at frequencies up to about 20 MHz. Lightening strikes from storm centers
located half way around the globe from a given location can cause interference (static) to radio
reception. Each lightning stroke acts as a power transmitter covering a wide frequency band and
produces a "signal* that reflects off the ionosphere to regions thousands of miles away (USAF,
1987).
3-152
I
I
3 3.14.2 Electromagnetic Environment at the Gakona Site
I The existing electromagnetic environment at the Gakona site is affected by all of the above man-
made and natural contributions discussed above. Galactic noise from natural features of the
electromagnetic environment is expected to be the predominant existing contributor at the
Gakona site since the site is in a rural area where man-made contributions are expected to be
minimal (USAF, 1987). The primary man-made contributors of noise at the Gakona site are
probably microwave transmissions from the Alascom tower located just north of the site and
automobile ignition systems of vehicles that are driven past the site on the Tok Cut-Off highway
(USAF, 1987). Other sources of man-made noise are not expected to contribute significantly
to the existing electromagnetic environment in the region including the Gakona site.
i=3.14.3 Electromagnetic Environment at the Clear Site
The Clear site is compared to the Gakona site in a qualitative manner to obtain a relative
3 understanding of the existing electromagnetic environment at the Clear site. The electromagnetic
environment at the Clear site is affected by all of the man-made and natural contributions
3 discussed above but is mostly impacted by the BMEWS on Clear AFS. The existing man-made
noise and interference on the Clear AFS property is probably higher than surrounding areas and
at the Gakona site because of the BMEWS radar transmissions and other base operations
involving communications and surveillance. The existing man-made noise levels at the Bear
3 Creek location are most likely low and more similar to those of the Gakona site due to its
location about 15 miles south of the Clear APS property. Noise from natural features of the
3 electromagnetic environment is expected to be minimal compared to man made sources on the
Clear AFS property. Natural contributions to the electromagnetic environment at the Bear Creek
3 location are expected to be proportionally greater than those at the Clear AFS property.
However, man-made noise is still expected to be the predominant feature characterizing the
I electromagnetic environment at the Bear Creek location as well.
I i 3-153
I
3.14.4 Potentially Affected Systems
The proposed HAARP facility at either the Gakona or Clear sites could potentially increase
background noise and interference to local and global receiving systems due to the power of the
proposed IRI and the frequency range in which it would operate. The HAARP facility at the
Gakona and Clear sites would consist of the three primary transmitters: the IRI, the vertical
incidence sounder (VIS), and the ISR. The IRI and the VIS will transmit in the High
Frequency (HF), 3 to 30 megahertz, range of the spectrum (Sams, 1975). The HAARP IRI
transmitter would emit a signal in the HF range of the spectrum between roughly 2.8 and 10
M-z and the VIS would operate in the 1.0- to 15.0-MHz range. The ISR .:.. transmit in the
440 to 450 MHz portion of the ultra high frequency band.
The most common types of systems that operate in the IRI and VIS 1- to 15-MHz range are high
frequency communications that include Fixed, Broadcast, Mobile Communications, Amateur
Radio (i.e., the Hams) and the Standard Frequencies systems. The Fixed Service is intended
for point-to-point transfer of information between two cooperating fixed (i.e. not mobile)
stations. Various types of modulation may be used, such as voice or teletype. The use of fixed
service frequencies has been decreasing since the introduction of satellite systems, which have
numerous advantages over HF systems (USAF, 1987).
The Broadcast Service uses transmitters located throughout the world which are operated by
private industry, governments, religious organizations, and other groups. Those stations
operating in the HF band are most often used for international or topical broadcasting.
Hundreds of these stations, including Voice of America, Radio Moscow and Radio
Havana,broadcast news, music, and other features generally intended for listeners beyond the
country of origin (USAF, 1987).
Mobile Communication services are used for communication between and among land vehicles,
ships, aircraft, and shore or base stations. The Hams are dedicated hobbyists who communicate
with other Hams throughout the world using the HF, VHF and UHF bands. The Standard
3-154
-Frequency bands support transmission of precise time and frequency information, as well as
propagation predictions, solar and geophysical data, and similar information. They we operated
by national government agencies and include radio stations WWV in Colorado, CHU in Ontario,
and JJY near Tokyo (USAF, 1987).
EED's could be carried and used in the areas surrounding the HAARP facilities. Given that the
government property boundary is not fenced and/or patrolled to prevent access to the site, EED's
could be carried by the fences that surround the HAARP emitters. In addition, aircraft could
fly over the HAARP emitters carrying EED'S.
I A summary of potentially affected offsite systems and their closest proximity to the Gakona and
I Clear sites are identified in Table 3.14-1. In addition to reviewing documented information on
existing systems, interviews were conducted with local users to confirm systems, frequencies and
5 distances. Potentially affected receiver systems include those used for international broadcasts,
communications, radionavigation, radar (BMEWS at Clear), citizen band radios, and others.
I Potentially affected systems that are not intended to receive radio transmissions include cardiac
pacemakers, electro-explosive devices, and fuel handling systems.
I
I
I
I
I
I
m 3-155
m
3.14-1. POTENTIAL OFF-SITE SYSTEMS
RECEIVING FREQUENCY RANGE GAKONA CLEAR SITE:

SYSTEMS (MHz) SITE: Distance to closest
Distance to receiver (miles)
closest receiver
(miles)
MIR ISR IR at ISR &
& Clear VIS At
VIS AFS Bear
Property Creek
Location
Cellular 870 - 890 .9 1.5 .9 .2
Telephone
Satellite 5925 - 6875 6.9 6.9 .6 1.1
Television 12,500 - 12,750
HF 2.1-10 2.3 2.3 .6 1.1
Communications 10 - 30
Television 60- 216 2.3 2.3 .6 1.1
Broadcast
AM Radio 0.535 - 1.7 2.3 2.3 .6 .2
Broadcast
FM Radio 92.9 - 106.7 2.3 2.3 .6 .2
Broadcast
Avionics GPS 1227, 1575 Over- Over- Over- Over-
VHF Radio 118 - 137 flight flight flight flight
UHF Radio 960 - 1125
VOR 115 - 116
ADF 0.25 - 0.40
Mobile VHF 38-45 .9 1.7 .9 .2
Radio 45 - 161
Wildlife Trackers 30 - 45 .9 1.7 .9 .2
45 - 222
Citizen Band 26.9 - 27.4 .9 1.7 .9 .2
Radio
continued.
3-156
I
3 TABLE 3.14-1 continued. POTENTIAL OFF-SITE SYSTEMS
SRECEIVING FREQUENCY RANGE GAKONA CLEAR SITE:

SYSTEMS (MHz) SITE: Distance to closest
Distance to receiver (miles)
closest receiver
(miles)
IRI ISR IRIat ISR&
& Clear VIS At
VIS AFS Bear
3 Property Creek
Location
Hand Held VHF 118 - 174 .9 1.7 .9 .2
Transceivers UHF 403 - 470
Radio Telephone VHF 152-158 10.3 10.3 -
UHF 454-460 1
Pipeline Systems Control 157, 162 11.5 11.5 69.1 74.8
5 Maintenance VHF
Communications 150-162 11.5 11.5 69.1 74.8
Maintenance UHF
Communications 450-460 33.4 33.4 69.1 74.8
3 Terrestrial
Microwave
Electro-Explosive
2127-2177
5945-6094
Exposed In Metal
1.9
.9
1.9
1.7
.5
.8
12.7
.2
3 Devices Container
Cardiac Incident Pulsed .9 1.7 .9 .9
Pacemakers Incident CW
Source: MITRE, 1992D.

i: Information not available
Abbreviations Defined: HF - high frequency
AM = amplitude modulation
FM = frequency modulation
GPS = global positioning system
VHF = very high frequency
UHF = ultra high frequency
VOR = very high frequency omni-range
ADF = automatic direction finder
I i 3-157
I
3.15 ATMOSPHERE
The atmosphere could be potentially affected in the same manner as the electromagnetic
environment by transmissions at either the Gakona site or the Clear site. Hence the following
section applies to both the Gakona and the Clear AFS property. The ionosphere and the ozone
layer, at approximately 9-31 miles above the earth (Figure 3.15-1) shield the earth's surface
from extreme ultraviolet (uv) light and x-rays. The following section discusses the ozone layer
and the ionosphere.
3.15.1 Ozone Layer
Ozone is formed as a result of collisions between single oxygen atoms (0) and oxygen molecules
composed of two oxygen atoms. The single oxygen atoms are formed as a result of the break
up of oxygen molecules by solar radiation in the stratosphere and mesosphere (Brown and
LeMay, 1977; Whitten and Prasad, 1985). Nitrogen oxides (NO2), produced by both man and
natural processes, and man-made chloro-fluorocarbons can destroy ozone molecules in the ozone
layer. Processes and events which produce NO, include solar flares, auroras, galactic cosmic
rays, meteors, lightning and photochemical reactions in the upper atmosphere (MRC, 1992a).
NO. and chloro-fluorocarbons come into contact with the ozone layer primarily as a result of
atmospheric circulation and diffusion. NO, produced above the ozone layer can diffuse (gradual
mixing of molecules) down into the ozone layer. The only loss of NO. during downward
transport occurs as a result of solar radiation and the recombination of N and NO, (MRC,
1992a). In the polar atmosphere the likelihood of NO, reaching the ozone layer increases during
the winter because of a lack of solar radiation and prevailing (winter) downward circulation in
the upper atmosphere (MRC, 1992a). Hence auroral activity (a significant source of polar NOQ)
could have an appreciable effect on NO, and ozone concentrations in the polar regions during
the winter months (MRC, 1992a). During the summer months, in the polar latitudes, the NO.
depletion of ozone is minimized due to the destruction of NO., by solar radiation and reactions
with nitrogen, as it is transported downward into the ozone layer.
3-158
Iu .....
In
-- i
CC
V0
U
* 2 lu
.. ........ C.
...... .....
..
..................
....
........
....
ILI ......
_ _ 1 4F...
z
....
...
. ..
...
..-
.~~~_
...... ._ .... _
I. ..
.
.....
..........
1........
...
.
I
3.15.2 Ionosphere I
The ionosphere is formed in the sunlit portion of the earth's atmosphere as a result of ionization I
of the lower density upper atmosphere by solar radiation. The ionosphere serves as a buffer
between the neutral atmosphere (gravity waves, tidal winds) and the ozone layer located I
immediately below the ionosphere (Figure 3.15-1) and the magnetosphere (energetic particles,
electric fields, field-aligned currents, magnetic storms, etc.) located above it. The physicalI
properties (Figure 3.15-2) and dynamics of the ionosphere vary widely over its ful altitudinal
extent because of complex interactions of electric and magnetic fields and gradients in I
temperature and density. Due to these variations the ionosphere was classified into three layers
or ranges D, E, and F. I
D Layer (Lowest Layer of the Ionosphere). The D layer of the ionosphere extends from I
approximately 31 miles to 56 miles (Figure 3.15-1). The D layer marks the beginning of the
transition from the neutral lower atmosphere to the upper ionized atmosphere. The temperature
in this region decreases with altitude to approximately -80 "F to -99 OF (Figure 3.15-2). The I
density of ionized particles increases with altitude (Figure 3.15-3). The ionized particles
disappear completely after sunset where this layer overlies the Earth's mid to low latitude areas. I
The ionized particles disappear due to the absence of solar radiation, the source of ionization.
The aurora zone, within the D Layer (Figure 3.15-1), is where the northern lights or auroral 1
borealis light displays are generated. The auroral borealis is a result of increased solar radiation
(solar wind pressure) usually enhanced by a solar flare. The increased solar radiation causes the
magnetosphere, the layer of the atmosphere immediately above the ionosphere, to accelerate
ionized particles down into the aurora zone. The accelerated ionized particles cause the auroral
borealis light displays.
3-160
I
I DENSITY p (Ibs/Ft3 ) MOLECULAR MASS
M (a.m.u.)
55X 1'-1 3
5 X 10-1 1 5 X 10-9 5 X 10- 7 5 X 10- 5 23 26 29
175-:4 175
I 150- 150
125 F .Layer 125
I,
o75
... Eae
-50"
S100
D aer5
100
5
25 25
I
0 0
-400 0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400 2800
TEMPERATURE T (oF)
IIII I I I
7 5
1.5X 10-11 1.5 X 10-9 1.5X 10- 1.5X 10- 1.5X 10-3 1.5X 10-' 1.5X 10
3 PRESSURE P (PSI)
U
SOURCE: Rishbeth and Garriot, 1969
M = Mass
T Temperature
p = Density
P = Pressure
OF = Fahrenheit
a.m.u. = Atomic Mass Unit. The Measure of Atomic Mass, Defined as Equal to 1/12 the
Mass of a Carbon Atom of Mass 12.
U
I FIGURE 3.15-2. IONOSPHERIC PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
I
3-161
I 2817d, 1168lGE
I
600 1
540
I
480
420 1
-. 360
o•
300
"w 240
180 1
120 3
60
0
0 7.5 15 22.5 30
ELECTRON CONCENTRATION ( 10 g FT-3) I

U
SOURCE: RATCLIFFE, 1972 1
I
I
I
FIGURE 3.15-3. DAYTIME IONOSPHERIC DENSITY
3-162 1
2SI7Gl-13
I
I E Layer (Middle Layer of the Ionosphere). The E layer extends from about 56 miles to 93
miles above the Earth's surface (Figure 3.15-1). Like the D layer, the E layer is also a
I transitional layer between the lower atmosphere and the upper ionized atmosphere. Average
temperatures begin to increase rapidly, with altitude, from about - 100 TF to 1350 TF at the top
of the layer. The high temperatures are a result of the absorbtion of large amounts of ultraviolet
radiation. The ultraviolet radiation also causes the ionized particle density to increase rapidly
with increasing altitude up to about 150 miles above the earth (Figure 3.15-3). As in the D
layer, however, the ionized particles produced during the day in layer E largely disappear after
sunset.
I F Layer (Upper Layer of the Ionosphere). The F layer, the highest layer of the ionosphere,
begins at about 93 miles and extends to 620 miles above the surface of the Earth (Figure 3.15-
1). The highest density of ionized particles occurs between 155 miles and 186 miles within this
I layer (Figure 3.15-3). Unlike the D and E layers, a substantial amount of particles remain
ionized throughout the night in the F layer.
I
I
I
I
I
I
U
I
i 3-163
I
I
3.16 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
There are no known threatened or endangered species at the Gakona site (USFWS, 1992h). i
One threatened species, arctic peregrine falcon, and one endangered species, American
peregrine falcon, could occur at the Clear site (USFWS, 1992d). See Section 3.4 Birds for a 3
full discussion of these threatened and endangered species at the Clear sites.
I
I ,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3-164i
I
I
I 3.17 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTES
I Hazardous materials and wastes are substances that, because of their quantity, concentration, or
physical, chemical or infectious characteristics, may present a danger to public health or the
U environment. In this document, the term hazardous waste or hazardous material will mean the
substances defined as hazardous by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
I and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA), as amended by the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Some of the more commonly used
hazardous materials are pesticides, herbicides, fossil fuels, oils, solvents, and paints.
Minor amounts of hazardous materials are presently used and generated at the Gakona site and
are stored in the existing buildings. These materials are a result of the facilities maintenance
and include fuel oil, motor oil, solvents, paint, glycol, hydraulic fluid and pesticides. The
materials are presently used and stored in accordance with the appropriate state, federal and Air
Force regulations.
3.17.2 Clear Site
There are no known hazardous materials or contamination at the locations proposed for the
facilities at the Clear site. An Environmental Compliance Assessment and Management Program
evaluation of Clear AFS was conducted in 1991 (FSI, 1991b). Clear AFS has an Oil and
Hazardous Substance Contingency Plan which conforms to federal, state and DOD requirements.
In addition, a storage area for hazardous materials conforms to all applicable standards. Clear
AFS disposes of waste oil and asphalt by burning it in its power plant boiler with the approval
of the ADEC. Clear AFS has a proposed program for upgrading underground fuel storage tanks
3 where appropriate. The program is scheduled to begin during 1993. Clear AFS uses and
maintains a permitted landfill on its property. An Installation Restoration Program for 2
contaminated sites at Clear AFS is nearly completed (FSI, 1991b).
3-165
I
I Ii Ii I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3-166 3
I
I
I
3 4.0 CONSEQUENCES
I This section details the consequences of selecting one of the following alternatives: build the
HAARP facilities at the Gakona site; build the HAARP facilities at the Clear site; or, take no
I action. There are varying degrees of environmental impacts associated with each of the
alternatives within the subject topics presented below. To minimize these potential impacts
associated with the construction and operation of the HAARP facility, the government would
assure compliance with all state and federal laws and regulations, standards and permits. This
includes, but is not limited to such laws as the Clean Water Act, and particularly Section 404
I (Wetlands); the Clean Air Act; the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and particularly
the Section 106 Review Process; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
revarding the treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous wastes; and, the Endangered Species
Act. For a more thorough discussion and listing of the federal and state permits to be obtained
I as part of the HAARP project, see Appendix B of this DEIS.
E 4.1 LAND AND MIINERAIS
I 4.1.1 Gakona Site
Potential adverse effects on land and minerals are related to development of borrow pits and soil
diposal sites, land use, and permafrost degradation. With the implementation of sound planning,
design, and construction practices, all such effects are expected to be minimal and limited during
U the construction period. No adverse effects are expected during facility operations.
Development of Borrow Sources and Spoil Disposal Sites. The construction of a stacked array
3 design for the IRI and the associated equipment would require an estimated 160,000 cubic yards
I of gravel at the Gakona site.
Five potential borrow sources, all within 24 miles of the proposed research site, have been
evaluated. The location of the borrow sites, identified as P1, P2, Al, A4, and AS, are shown
1 4-1
I
in Figure 2.3-4. Although poential borrow site alternatives have been identified, the
construction contractor(s) would not be limited to those sources. Feasibility studies of each new
potential source would involve additional subsurface investigations and facility design efforts,
and detailed pit mining and rehabilitation plans prepared by the contractors. In the event that
the contractor(s) proposes a borrow source not addressed within this DEIS, appropriate
subsequent environmental analyses will be performed.
Impacts to land and minerals associated with the use of the potential borrow sites are as follows:
"* degradation of roads by heavy trucks

"* clearing of land associated with the construction of new access roads
"* higher rates of erosion due to the removal of trees and ground cover during the
excavation of the borrow material.
"* possible stream or creek diversion
Based on the estimated large volumes of usable borrow at the five potential sites the impact on
available resources is thought to be minimal. Gravel used for the development and maintenance
of the HAARP facility is not expected to limit the quantities available for general road
maintenance and other uses in the vicinity.
Land Use. New facilities would require about 51 acres of land. The entire site at Gakona,
Alaska is owned by the U.S. Air Force. Existing structures on site include a partially
constructed 21,000-square-foot, 73-foot-tall pre-engineered powerplant building and a gravel
access road approximately one mile in length. Both of these currently unused facilities would
be used by HAARP. A 300-foot-tall Alascom microwave tower is located just outside of the
eastern site boundary. There are no existing rights-of-way and leases that would be significantly
affected by construction at this site. Access to lands to the north of the Gakona site will be
maintained. No change in the existing use of the Gakona site is anticipated.
4-2
I
Permafrost Degradation. Removing or disturbing vegetation over frost-susceptible soils could
alter the thermal regime, which in turn could increase erosion, frost-heaving, and subsidence due
i to melting. Alteration of the thermal regime is certain to occur at the Gakona site. The site
contains widespread permafrost conditions. Permafrost temperatures are very warm, ranging
I from about 31 to 32 degrees F, making the site sensitive to small changes in the thermal regime
(USACOE, 1988).
Mitigation. Post-construction impacts would be mitigated by reclamation through recontouring

and revegetation of disturbed areas. Personnel at the University of Alaska Plant Materials
Center in Palmer, Alaska, recognized experts in Alaskan revegetation, would be contacted for
site-specific information on revegetation techniques.
I Design and construction techniques would be employed to minimize disturbance to the

permafrost. The placement of piles for the support of antennae towers would, schedule
permitting, take place during the winter months when the surface is frozen. Roads constructed
of ice and compacted snow could be constructed, if necessary and practical, to ensure that the
equipment used for pile installation can be supported by the frozen ground and does not disturb
3 the permafrost. As appropriate, gravel roads would be constructed with geotechnical
stabilization fabric and closed-cell insulation overlying the permafrost. The geotechnical fabric
and insulation retards heat transfer from the gravel surface to the permafrost and therefore
provides for long term stabilization of the permafrost in the vicinity of the roads. Use of
insulation could also be used to limit the amount of sand and gravel required to construct at the
I Gakona site.
4.1.2 Clear Site

I
Below is a discussion of the consequences of selecting the Clear site, and possible mitigation
efforts that could be implemented. In addition to the obvious impacts and mitigation measures
at the Clear site itself, consideration must also be given to the impacts and mitigation associated
with the Gakona site reclamation effort. That is, one of the consequences of selecting the Clear
U 4-3
I
site is the near-term reclamation effort that must be implemented at the Gakona site. A
discussion of the reclamation effort and its consequences and mitigation as it relates to land and
minerals is included under Section 4.1.3 No Action Alternative, Gakona site.
Development of Borrow Sources and Spoil Disposal Sites. The amount of gravel necessary
for construction of the HAARP facility at the Clear Site is estimated to be 31,000 cubic yards,
of which 16,000 would be for roads at the Clear AFS property, and 15,000 would be for the
Bear Creek location site development. This relatively small quantity of gravel is a reflection of
the good quality substrate and the low ice content of the permafrost.
There are numerous borrow sites at Clear AFS that have been used for past and current
construction projects (Figure 2.3-7). It is anticipated that one of these existing sources could
be used to supply gravel for HAARP construction. In the event that the construction contractor
proposes a borrow source which does not already exist at Clear AFS, the appropriate subsequent
environmental analysis will be performed.
Impacts to land and minerals associated with the mining of gravel at the established and active
borrow areas are:
"* degradation of roads by heavy haul trucks

"* destruction of trees and ground cover when excavating borrow
"* general increased road traffic
Based on the small quantity of gravel required to construct the HAARP facility at Clear, the
impact on the available resource is thought to be minimal.
Construction practices at Clear AFS and the surrounding area include the stripping away of a
top vegetative mat and silty loess which ranges from 1 to 6 feet thick, exposing the higher
quality gravels and sands which lie below. The construction of the HRU and the other equipment
at the Clear AFS property would employ this technique as well. This stripped off material could
4-4
I
encompass a rather large volume, depending on its thickness in the region in question. This
material would be hauled by heavy truck to an on-site disposal location or to an abandoned
gravel excavation site. This action would possibly have a net positive impact from an aesthetic
I and animal habitat perspective by facilitating plant re-growth.
At the Bear Creek location, the top layer of material that is stripped away would be used to
I construct an earthen berm in front of the ISR dish, between it and the BMEWS antennas at
Clear. This earthen berm is intended to afford electromagnetic protection from the BMEWS
equipment. Estimates suggest that the amount of material generated from stripping at Bear
Creek would be equal to the amount required to construct the mound.
I Land Use. Construction of the HAARP facility at the Clear site would include the occupation
of about 78 acres of cleared land, with 41 at the Clear AFS property, and 36 at the Bear Creek
location. The 41 acres at the site proper is located exclusively on Air Force property, and no
change in land ownership would be required. Current siting of the major scientific equipment
I involves no known physical conflicts with existing station activities. The Clear airstrip is located
to the north of the IRI siting, but according to Federal Aviation Administration requirements for
airport design and layout, there are no physical conflicts.
I The land at the Bear Creek location is owned by the State of Alaska. The land that the
equipment would be situated on is planned to be used for settlement or other developmental-type
I endeavors. Several homesteads have been filed in the Bear Creek area. If the homesteading
requirements are met by the individuals, then some of the land may be deeded over to private
I ownership. Land within several hundred yards of the Bear Creek location is part of the Nenana
River Corridor and is considered prime recreation land and has been recommended for
designation as a State Recreation River as part of the Tanana Basin Area Plan for State Lands
(ADNR, 1991a,b).
I
There are no known dwellings in the immediate area of the Bear Creek location footprint,
I although houses are present within one mile of the proposed location of the ISR and VIS. Man-
I 4-5
I
made disturbances in the immediate area are limited to surveying stakes and ribbons, and
temporary benchmarks (M&E/H&N, 1992a).
Permafrost Degradation. Permafrost is discontinuously present at the Clear AFS property and
the Bear Creek location. The ice-poor nature of this non-frost susceptible soil makes the issue
of thermal disturbance inconsequential.
Mitigation. Post-construction mitigative measures would include a revegetation program.

Personnel at the University of Alaska Plant Materials Center should be consulted regarding the
revegetation effort.
The construction scheduling could influence the degree of impact upon the area. In a general
sense, impacts would, when feasible, be reduced by conducting major construction in the winter
when the ground is frozen and snow covered, and less susceptible to damage. Other mitigation
measures include using geotextile fabrics to stabilize the soil matrix.
The mantle material stripped from the ground to expose the underlying gravel could be used as
a fill material for areas that have been previously mined for gravel. The relocation of this
mantle material would be confined to a limited area rather than being spread out over existing
vegetation in the area of construction.
Siting of the ISR and VIS units at the Bear Creek location would be conducted such that both
direct and indirect impact to private individuals is minimized. Facilities would be located, when
possible, to minimize visual contact between private and potentially private tracts of land and
the HAARP facilities. Impacts to the recreational corridor would be mitigated by utilizing
proper visual architecture techniques to minimize visual contact with the river.
4-6
I
4.1.3 No Action Alternative
i Gakona Site. The impact of selecting the no action alternative at Gakona would result in the
near-term reclamation of the Gakona OTH-B site as outlined in Section 2.4. Reclamation of the
I site would include the removal of culverts (replaced with ditches extending across the road), the
scarifying of the gravel road to induce revegetation, and the demolition and complete removal
of the 21,000 square foot powerplant building and all associated equipment and materials.
i The no action alternative would require no additional gravel at the site. In fact, it could be
necessary to remove approximately 29,000 cubic yards of gravel.
Upon completion of the reclamation effort, the Air Force owned land at the Gakona site would
be turned over to General Services Administration (GSA) who would oversee the land disposal
process if no other DOD use is planned. The land would then be sold or transferred in
accordance with applicable regulations.
I Clear Site. There would be no impact on land and minerals associated with the no action
I alternative at the Clear Site.
I
I
I
I
I
1 4-7
I
4.2 VEGETATION AND WETLANDS
Project activities would affect vegetation and wetlands by the removal, alteration or disruption
of the existing vegetation during construction. General types of potential impacts to the
vegetation include (1) placement of gravel fill, which would completely destroy the existing
vegetation; (2) clearing of standing trees, leaving the understory mostly intact; (3) disruption of
buffer areas around the facilities during construction; and (4) mining of borrow. For descriptive
purposes, filled areas were categorized as: (1) roads providing access to specific facilities, (2)
roads allowing access to individual antenna elements within the IRI facility, and (3) gravel pads
for buildings and miscellaneous structures.
4.2.1 Gakona Site
Vegetation. The project would have no significant impact to vegetation. Loss of conifer forests
would not detract from their relative regional abundance, because they are so common
(M&EIH&N, 1989b). These conifer forests, comprised of closed, open, or woodland stands,
can be considered the least sensitive and most expendable of the existing cover types because
they are abundant and are of limited value as wildlife habitat and timber (M&E/H&N, 1989b).
Shrub and herbaceous cover types are more valuable to wildlife than conifer forest and are also
less common on the site (see Section 3.2). However, the unavoidable loss of relatively small
acreage of herbaceous and shrub cover types would not noticeably reduce their regional
abundance or alter ecosystem diversity.
The 1RI facility would affect a total of approximately 37 acres, including 32 acres of woodland
conifer forest and 5 acres of open conifer forest (Table 4.2-1). Of this acreage, approximately
27 acres would be filled. The remaining 10 acres would include areas that would be cleared,
piled with slash, trampled or similarly disturbed.
4-8
I
5 TABLE 4.2-1. AREAS OF VEGETATION COVER TYPES (IN ACRES)
AFFECTED BY THE HAARP FACILITIES AT THE GAKONA SITE
Cover Types, IRI Diagnostics and Roads TOTAL
ISR VIS Optics and LIDAR Access TOTAL

Magnet- Roads
ometer
Open Conifer 5 1 2 <1 0 7 11 16
Woodland Conifer 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 32
Closed Low Shrub 0 0 0 0 <I <1 <I <I

Open Low Shrub 0 0 <1 0 0 <1 1 1
Wet Herbaceous 0 0 0 <I <1 0 1 1
P TOTAL 372 1 3 1 <1 8 132 512
Cover types follow Viereck eat. (1986).

2Since the values have all been rounded to the nearest whole number for presentation purposes but
the actual fractions were used in sums, the totals of the IRI, diagnostics and roads and overall total
I do not sum.
The diagnostics and access roads would impact approximately 13 acres (Table 4.2-1). Open
conifer forest (I1 acres) would be the most affected followed by about equal amounts of closed
low shrub, open low shrub, and wet herbaceous vegetation groups. Most of the impacted area
would be filled and would be associated with the construction of approximately 11,450 feet of
J access road (Table 4.2-1).
Most of the proposed borrow areas are dominated by closed deciduous, closed conifer, or closed
mixed forests (see Section 3.2). Borrow areas A-1 and A-5 have more shrub and herbaceous
3 cover types than do the other areas. Impacts would result from clearing, complete removal of
vegetation, and excavation. Exact acreages of impacts would be dependent upon the borrow
1 source, site geological characteristics, and mining techniques.
3 Wetlands. The loss of 18 acres of wetlands from all facilities would not constitute significant
impacts to wetlands in the region (Table 4.2-2). The vast majority of these wetlands would be
4
1 4-9
I
TABLE 4.2-2. AREAS OF WETLAND COVER TYPES (IN ACRES) IMPACTED
BY THE HAARP FACILITIES AT THE GAKONA SITE
Cover T'ypet RI Diagnostics and Roads
ISR VIS Optics and LIDAR Access TOTAL TOTAL

Magnet- Roads
PALUSTRINE 6 1 2 <1 <1 7 11 17

FORESTED
Wet Open Conifer
PALUSTRINE 0 0 0 <1 <I 0 1 1

EMERGENT
Wet Herbaceous
TOTAL 6 1 2 1 <1 7 12 18
1 Cover types (capitalized) follow Cowardin et al. (1979) and (tabbed) Viereck et al. (1986).
I
palustrine forested wetlands (17 acres) which are common in the area. The IRI would affect I
about 6 acres of wetland. Due to its design calling for roads, rather than a complete pad, only
about 4 acres of the wetlands affected by the IRI would be filled. The remaining 2 acres would
be cleared, piled with slash or otherwise disturbed.
The majority of the acreage for the roads and diagnostics represents filled areas. Wetland g
impacts from locating the on-site diagnostics and their access roads would impact approximately
12 acres of wetlands, including 11 acres of palustrine forested wetlands and I acre of palustrine
emergent wetlands (Table 4.2-2). Nearly all this acreage would also be filled and would be
associated with the approximately 11,450 feet of access roads. I
Proposed borrow areas P-l, A-1 and A-5 (21 percent, 14 percent, 22 percent respectively)
contain the most wetlands. These wetlands are largely riverine fresh water, riverine emergent
(dominated by herbaceous cover type) and riverine scrub-shrub (dominated by open low shrub). I
Areas P-2 and A-4 are essentially devoid of wetlands. These wetlands could be impacted by the
4-101
4
I
I
I removal of vegetation, excavation, or fill. The exact nature and extent of impacts will depend
upon the source selected and the mining tecaniques used.
Mitigation. Although there would be no significant impact from the project to vegetation or
wetlands, there are a number of mitigative steps that have already been taken in the siting
process of facilities and there are additional measures that could be undertaken to further
minimize impacts or to offset impacts. These measures largely involve the avoidance of
important habitats and wetlands and minimization of impacts when avoidance would not be
possible.
I Vegetation. Loss of the ecologically more valuable and less common herbaceous and
I shrub cover types was avoided during facility siting at the expense of the ubiquitous
open/woodland conifer forested cover types (see Section 3.2). The Gakona site was
3I previously chosen by the Air Force for the ARS to avoid the Tulsona Creek Bum area
and pond systems to the west where greater amounts of shrub and herbaceous cover types
3 are present (USAF, 1989a).
5 Within the site boundaries, HAARP facilities were located to avoid the shrub and
herbaceous cover types when consistent with logistical and operational constraints. This
3 effort was largely successful as evidenced by the proportionally low acreage of
I herbaceous and shrub cover types in the facility footprints.
In areas where trees are cleared but no fill is placed, habitat impacts could be minimized
Sby leaving the cuttings in place on the ground surface. Such a practice would provide
I shelter and short-term forage for a variety of wildlife species.
After completion of borrow removal, the pits would be reclaimed and revegetated by the
contractor. When possible, gravel would be extracted to avoid sensitive vegetative
communities and wetlands.
i
4
4-Il
I
Wetlands. Complete avoidance of all wetlands is virtually impossible in this region for
a project of this size, since the region supports such a high proportion of wetlands.
Despite this, an effort was made to avoid wetlands when locating the project facilities.
This effort was extremely successful as evidenced by the disproportionately low
percentage of total wetlands affected by the project (38 percent) as compared to the entire
site (70 percent). In addition, the more valuable open water and emergent (herbaceous)
wetlands were successfully avoided as evidenced by the lower percentage to be
potentially impacted (2 percent) as opposed to their abundance on the entire Gakona site
(23 percent).
Minimization of wetland fill was required as part of the request for proposal for the
design and construction of the IRI. Prospective contractors (bidders) were required to
I
develop approaches and designs that would minimize wetland fill. This was an
evaluation criterion for fihe proposals. As a result, the selected facility design
incorporated a sensitivity for wetland fill and minimized the amount of fill.
4.2.2 Clear Site
Vegetation. The project would have no significant impact to vegetation if constructed at the
Clear site. Nearly equal amounts of vegetation would be affected at the Clear AFS property (41
acres) and the Bear Creek location (about 36 acres) (Table 4.2-3). The consequences to
vegetation and wetlands from the required reclamation of the Gakona site if the Clear site is
chosen are discussed below in Section 4.2.3 No Action Alternative.
The construction of the IRI on the Clear AFS property would solely affect closed conifer forest
(37 acres) (Table 4.2-3). Construction of the diagnostics and access roads on the Clear AFS
property would solely affect open conifer forests (4 acres). The loss of these relatively small
amounts of forests would not detract from their regional abundance or importance. Such open
and closed conifer forests have limited value for-most wildlife and also have minimal value as
timber resources. The forests at the Clear AFS property are more valuable than those at the
4-12
3 TABLE 4.2-3. AREAS OF UPLAND AND WETLAND COVER TYPES (IN ACRES)
AFFECTED BY THE HAARP FACIITIES AT THE CLEAR SITE
Cover Typesl IRI Diagr 3stics and Roads on Clear AFS Bear Creek TOTAL
Location2
Optics LIDAR Access TOTAL
and Roads
Magnet-
ometer
Closed Conifer 37 0 0 0 0 0 37
Open Deciduous 0 0 0 0 0 <1 <1
3 Open Conifer 0 1 <1 3 4 0 4
Wet Open Low Shrub 0 0 0 0 0 36 36

PALUSTRINE SCRUB/SHRUB
TOTAL 373 1 <1 3 4' 36' 78'

Cover types (capitalized) foll Cowardin et .(1979),all others follow Viereck et al. (1986).
2 Bear Creek Location includes the ISR, VIS and access road.
3Since the values have all been rounded to the nearest whole number for presentation purposes but
the actual fractions were used in sums, the totals of the IRI, diagnostics and roads, Bear Creek
3• location and overall total do not sum.
Gakona site because there are more shrubs. Impacts to vegetation at the Bear Creek location
5 will be more important than at the Clear AFS property because of the shrub (about 36 acres) and
deciduous habitats (< 1 acres) that will be affected. Shrub and deciduous cover types are more
I valuable to wildlife than conifer forest (see Section 3.3) (M&E/H&N, 1992a) and are less
I common in the region than the conifer forests (ADNR, 1992a).
Wetlands. The construction of the HAARP facilities at the Clear site could substantially affect
3 wetlands. No wetlands would be affected at the Clear AFS property, but the majority of the
affected area at the Bear Creek location is wetland (Table 4.2-3). All of the wetlands affected
3 at the Bear Creek location would be palustrine scrub/shrub (36 acres), dominated by alder,
willow, and labrador tea. These wetlands, although locally common along the terraces above
I the Nenana River (USFWS, 1992b), are important to wildlife and are less common than
palustrine forested wetlands.
4-13
I
I
Mitigation. Although there would be no significant impact from the project to vegetation, there
are a few mitigative steps that could be undertaken to further minimize impacts or to offset
impacts. The design of the IRI facilities minimized impacts to vegetation as discussed above for I
the Gakona site.
I
Vegetation. The berm constructed for the ISR would be vegetated according to
recommended Alaskan practices. No other mitigation is necessary. I
Wetlands. The wetland impacts associated with the Bear Creek location would be I
minimized where possible by slight changes in the location of the lRI and VIS. Such
slight adjustments would reduce the amount of palustrine scrub/shrub wetlands affected,
at the expense of palustrine forested wetlands.
4.2.3 No Action Alternative I
The no action alternative would result in no impacts at the Clear site, but would have a positive
impact at the Gakona site due to its near-term reclamation. The positive impact would involve
the revegetation of the graveled surfaces over time. i
4
I
I
I
I
4-14 I
I
I
I 4.MA3 MALS
5 The construction and operation of the HAARP facility at either the Gakona or Clear sites would
not cause significant impacts to mammals. A significant impact is defined as one that would
I cause a noticeable effect on mammal populations.
I Potential impacts of the project on mammal populations include: (1) removing, or preventing the
use of, important habitat, (2) interfering with movement patterns, and (3) Žrect human-caused
mortality. Lost mammal habitat includes all areas which would be filled, cleared of vegetation,
and/or fenced. Different aspects of the HAARP facility were evaluated to determine those which
would potentially impact the mammalian species of concern. The physical barrier created by
fences around the IRI facilities has the potential to interfere with migrating moose and caribou,
causing them to slightly alter their course. Increases in human-caused mortality, through off-site
3 hunting, poaching, and collisions with motorized vehicles, could direcly result from construction
and operational activities. This potential impact would be greatest during construction, when
3 personnel and -'ehicular traffic would be at a maximum, and would be lowest during the periods
between experiments, when minimal personnel would be present.
Impacts were evaluated for the species of concern identified in Section 3.3. These species
1 include moose, black bear, brown bear, furbearers and other small mammals and were selected
based on their possible occurrence at the Gakona and Clear sites, and their economic importance
* as a subsistence resource.
3 4.3.1 Gakona Site
5 There would be no significant impacts to mammals associated with construction of the HAARP
U facility at the Gakona site. Minor impacts are discussed below.
Moose. Potential impacts to moose at the Gakona site include loss of habitat, interference with
5 migration patterns, and increased human-caused mortality. The HAARP project would directly
4-15
I
remove, through clearing, filling or fencing, approximately 51 acres of habitat, mostly conifer
forests. Fences around the on-site diagnostic facilities would limit access to several additional
acres of habitat.
The amount of lost annual browse can be calculated using the data for the OTH-B southwest
transmit sector (USAF, 1991). The 51 acres required by the project will remove about 104
pounds of browse per year, representing about 26 percent of the winter requirement of one adult
moose. Loss of this amount of browse would not result in a significant impact to moose,
because forage is presently under-utilized and common in the region (AEIDC, 1988b).
Therefore, moose would be able to off-set these losses by eadng elsewhere.
During migration, the physical barrier from the restriction fences around the facilities could
force moose to travel up to an extra mile to go around. Such increases could possibly decrease
survivorship in animals that are nutritionally stressed (starving) and if forage were to be limiting.
This situation is not likely the case in this region, and therefore, additional energy expenditures
from travelling around fenced areas should not result in noticeable impacts to the moose
population.
There is a potential that moose may enter an oper. gate, go over, or break through fences and
become trapped inside the enclosures. A moose trapped inside the enclosure could harm itself
or the facility and therefore would need to be removed. It is expected however, that this would
occur very infrequently.
An increase in the amount of potential human-caused mortality (additional collisions with

automobiles, hunting, and poaching) could result from the constructior and operation of HAARP
facilities. This impact would be at a maximum during the construction of the facility when the
greatest number of people will be involved in the project.
Caribou. Possible impacts on caribou involve interference with migration and increased human-
caused mortality. Some caribou have been documented to migrate through the project area, but
4-16
impacts are expected to be minimal because the major migration routes do not traverse the
project location and caribou spend limited time in the Gakona region. Habitat loss is not
expected to be significant because available information indicates that caribou do not summer
or winter in the project area or utilize it as a major foraging location during migration.
Black Bear. Black bear would potentially be affected through habitat loss. However, the
conifer forest cover types, which comprise the majority of the impacted habitat, are not high
quality black bear habitat. Another potential impact is increased human-caused mortality, but
this would be inconsequential.
Brown Bear. As indicated in Section 3.3, the Gakona site provides little habitat for this species
and use is correspondingly limited. Thus, project impacts are not expected to be significant.
Gray Wolf. Potential impacts to this species include habitat loss, reduction in food supplies,
and direct mortality. Habitat loss is not expected to be significant since the lost habitat would
be a relatively small proportion of the large home range of a wolf pack. Since the project would
not significantly affect prey species such as moose or caribou, it would also not significantly
affect wolves.
Small Furbearers. Potential impacts upon furbearers at the Gakona site include loss of habitat
and increased human-caused mortality. For aquatic species (e.g., beaver and muskrat), impacts
3I are not expected to occur since wetland and aquatic habitats were largely avoided during facility
siting. For more terrestrially-oriented species, impacts are not expected to be significant because
of the generally poor productivity of the habitat types lost (conifer forests). Human-caused
mortality would not be significant.
Other Species. There would be no significant impacts to other mammalian species because of
the relatively small amount of habitat that would be lost as compared to the region and because
the habitat that would be affected contains no highly sensitive habitat for mammals.
4-17
Borrow Areas. The potential borrow sources associated with the Gakona site all provide winter
moose range and black bear cover. Borrow area A-i has the potential for use by aquatic
furbearers because of the presence of open water. All of the proposed borrow removal areas,
except A-I, are potentially used by beavers because of the high proportion of deciduous trees
(preferred food) and their proximity to fresh water.
Mitigation. Impacts from lost habitat were minimized by avoiding high quality habitats in the
region during the delineation of the site boundaries for the OTH-B project and the subsequent
siting of the HAARP facilities within the property. Based upon an evaluation of habitat values,
the original delineation of the site boundary for the OTH-B project purposely avoided the aquatic
areas to the west and the 40-year old burned area to the northeast (USAF, 1989a). These areas
support vegetation that provides a relatively high quality and quantity of moose forage. Within
the property boundary, locating the HAARP facilities mostly in conifer forest habitat types, with
their relatively poor standing crop of available forage, further minimizes the loss of forage.
A contingency plan to remove any large animal that might get inside the fences would be
prepared. The design of the fence would minimize the possibility of animals breaching it. The
contract specifications for the fence around the IRI calls for gates to be installed in the comers
which would facilitate removal of any animal that might venture inside the enclosure.
4.3.2 Clear Site
Construction of the HAARP facilities at the Clear site would affect mammals in much the same
manner as discussed above for the Gakona site. These impacts, however, would be minimal and
not significant. Implementation of this alternative would also be accompanied by the near-term
reclamation of the Gakona site and its associated positive impacts to mammals. These impacts
are discussed in Section 4.3.3 No Action Alternative.
Moose. The construction and operation of the HAARP facility would not adversely effect moose
migration due the facilities limited areal extent. Minimal increases in direct, human-caused
4-18
3 mortality, through hunting, poaching, and collisions with motorized vehicles, would result from
construction and operational activities.
The construction of the proposed HAA1RP facilities at the Clear site would remove, through
I clearing, filling or fencing, approximately 41 acres of primarily upland, young mixed conifer
I deciduous habitat at the Clear AFS property and 37 acres of conifer and shrub habitat at the Bear
Creek location. Assuming that habitats such as these are more productive than those at the
I Gakona site and provide about 4 pounds of browse per acre per year (AEIDC, 1988b), the total
amount of lost browse would equal about 312 pounds per year. The loss of some browse as
result of the construction of the HAARP facility at the Clear site would have no significant
impact on moose due to the abundant available browse in the areas surrounding the Clear AFS
I property and around the Bear Creek location. Because this area is only infrequently visited by
caribou and the region is not considered prime range, the lost browse impacts to caribou are not
I significant.
g The reclamation of the Gakona site calls for scarification of the gravel surfaces to facilitate
establishment by browse plant species. Moose would benefit from this increase in available
3 browse.
I Black Bear. Black bear would not be affected by the HAARP facility because the loss of
habitat acreage would be minimal compared to the home range of the bear. The potential den
3 would be lost, but observations indicate it is inactive.
5 Brown Bear. The brown bear, like the black bear, would not be affected 1by the HAARP
facility. T7he potentially affected 77 acres of habitat would be insignificant to the home range
I of the bear, which is 10 to 50 square miles.
I Gray Wolf. No significant impact to wolves would be expected. The loss of available habitat
would be minimal compared to the large home range of a wolf pack. Furthermore, sources of
4-19
food, such as moose, would not be reduced by the construction and operation of the proposed
project.
Small Furbearers. There would be no impact on aquatic species (e.g., mink, beaver and
muskrat), since the Bear Creek location is situated approximately 2000 feet north of Bear Creek
and 1500 feet west of the Nenana River. There would also be negligible impact to terrestrial
furbearers because the amount of lost habitat would be minimal.
Other Species. There would be no significant impacts to other mammalian species because of
the relatively small amount of habitat that would be lost as compared to the region and because
the habitat that would be affected contains no highly sensitive habitat for mammals. A slight
positive impact would result from the near-term reclamation of the Gakona site.
Mitigation. Impacts to mammals could be mitigated using some of the same approach discussed
above for the Gakona site.
The selection of the no action alternative, and the selection of the Clear site alternative, would
result in the near-term reclamation of the Gakona site and would therefore result in a positive
impact to mammals. The reclamation would result in the revegetation of the graveled areas
which would provide food for browsing mammals such as moose and snowshoe hare and food
and cover for smaller mammals.
Increases in human-caused mortality, through hunting, poaching, and collisions with motorized
vehicles, could directly result from construction and operational activities associated with the
reclamation effort. Mitigation of human caused mortality during reclamation would be similar
to that described in Section 4.3. 1.
4-20
3 ~4.4 BIRDS
I This section addresses the potential impacts of the HAARP project on bird:; at the Gakona and
Clear sites and discusses potential mitigation measures. Potential impacts to avian species have
been characterized as follows: (1) habitat loss, (2) disturbance to nesting trumpeter swans and
raptors, and (3) collisions with project structures.
4.4.1 Gakona Site
Habitat Loss. Approximately 51 acres of habitat, the majority of which (94 percent) is black
spruce forest (Section 4.2), would be impacted by the construction and operation of the HAARP
facility at the Gakona site. This habitat type had the lowest density of breeding passerines of
the habitat types sampled, averaging about 12 territories per 25 acres (Section 3.4). This
translates into a potential loss of approximately 20 breeding territories, a level expected to have
a negligible effect on passerine populations.
The HAARP facility would have negligible impact on palustrine emergent wetlands (1.0 acres)
3 and no impact on open water areas. Thus, impacts to breeding waterfowl would be minimal.
Few raptor nests were located near the facility locations (Section 3.4). With the exception of
3 small areas of tall deciduous or mixed forest habitat located on small hummocks within the
largely black spruce wetland habitat of the area, the facility sites provide poor quality breeding
3 habitat for woodland raptors. Loss of this habitat would have a negligible effect ort nesting
I raptors.
In summary, little or no high quality avian habitat would be destroyed that is not common in the
3 immediate surrounding region. Thus, the effects on avian resources due to habitat loss are
expected to be minimal. Habitat loss at borrow locations would not be considered significant,
unless the bald eagle nesting trees at sources P-1 and A-5 were destroyed.
4-21
I
Disturbance. The proposed locations of the IRI and diagnostic equipment would be within one
mile of four trumpeter swan nests and five swan brood-rearing areas. Since the USFWS
recommends a one mile buffer from human activity, there is some potential for negative impacts
to trumpeter swans. However, this level of disturbance would potentially affect only a small
number of nests and broods and should not have a serious effect on the population as a whole.
Only one raptor nest (great gray owl) was located within one mile of the facility locations. As
with trumpeter swans, the number of raptors which would be disturbed during construction and
operation of the facility is expected to be insignificant as compared with regional population
levels.
Active bald eagle nests were found within one mile of borrow sources A-4, A-5, and P-1 and
a trumpeter nest was located within one mile of source P-1 during avian studies. Thus, while
some potential disturbance to these species may potentially occur during gravel removal, the
level of disturbance would probably be minimal and temporary and the effects on the breeding
population of these species would not be significant.
Bird Collisions With Structures. A number of factors influence the potential for birds
colliding with the HAARP facilities. Only those birds flying within flight paths which intersect
the antenna structures and which fly below the maximum height of the antenna masts are at risk
of collision. Factors which influence the potential severity of collision mortality on bird
populations include the number of birds flying through the site, the population status of these
species (abundant species can sustain higher levels of mortality without severe impacts to the
population), flock size, and the time of day when species are active (nocturnal migrants a more
prone to collisions due to decreased visibility). It is not possible to determine the probability
of collisions or to precisely predict the number and species of birds which would collide with
the project structures because quantitative techniques to precisely predict the number of collisions
are not available (USFWS, 1989).
4-22
I
3 Bird collisions with the HAARP facilities would likely be limited to the TRI antenna structures
and the VIS. The other facilities and instruments would pose a negligible risk to flying birds
i because of their minimal size and height. As discussed in Section 2.2.3, the IRI design consists
of 180 guyed antenna elements extending about 70 feet above the ground; the majority of the
I obstructed airspace is in the range of 30 to 50 feet agl. The VIS antenna consists of a
transmitter, with one 100-foot and four 50-foot guyed towers, and a receiver comprised of four
I 5 foot high antenna masts. The potential risk of species groups colliding with the HAARP
facility, as a function of factors that influence collision, are summarized in Table 4.4-1.
Based upon this analysis, the collision potential for geese, raptors, and shorebirds is considered
to be low at the Gakona site. The risk of collision is considered higher for ducks, swans, and
passerines. It is expected that collisions of geese, eagles, hawks, and falcons with the antenna
structures would be rare events. Significant numbers of geese are not expected to collide with
the antenna structures since most movements over this site appear to be high altitude migratory
movements and because the number of geese migrating through the site appears to be small.
g Eagles, hawks, and falcons are extremely maneuverable in flight, possess excellent vision, and
are mainly active during daylight hours. Collision mortality with man-made objects is generally
5 considered uncommon for these raptor groups (Olendorff et al., 1981).
i Owl and shorebird collisions may occur more frequently but should still be relatively
uncommon. Among raptors, the risk of collision is considered highest for owls because of their
I nocturnal foraging habits, the lower visibility of the guy wires during reduced light levels, and
the non-migratory tendencies of these species. Because of their in-flight maneuverability during
I the day, their propensity to migrate at high altitudes at night (Drury and Keith, 1962; Nisbet,
1963), and because of the low number of birds which apparently migrate through the site, high
3 numbers of shorebird collisions are not expected to occur.
Ducks and passerines may have higher probabilities of colliding with the structures, and small
numbers of collisions may occur throughout the life of the project. Such collisions are expected
3 to be mainly confined to poor visibility periods and/or inclement weather events. Ducks are
4-23
I
o0 a0 0 a a a+ + +
C)-
0.4.11-
54 .0 I+ 0
2D
0+
ouc
4-2
*largely nocturnal migrants and are known to frequently collide with man-made objects, especially
power lines (Thompson, 1978; Anderson, 1978). Passerines also frequently collide with man-
Umade objects (e.g., Avery et al., 1978), and the severity of collision mortality is probably
proportional to the height of the structure. The relatively short height of the antenna elements
would probably limit the number of collisions, although some collisions are probable due to the
g size of the facility.
Swans, especially trumpeter swans, are probably the group most at risk of colliding with the
antenna structures at this site because of the pulse-like nature of swan migration, when large
numbers pass through the site in a short period of time, the propensity of this group to migrate
in October when weather conditions are often poor, and the tendency of this group to fly lower
3 during low cloud ceiling periods. In addition, local movements by trumpeter swans, especially
juveniles, are also expected to contribute to this collision mortality. Since swans generally fly
3 above the 70 foot antenna heights, there would be no significant impact to the swan population.
S"Threatened and Endangered Species. There are no known threatened and endangered bird
species at the Gakona site (USFWS, 1992h).
1ftiphon. Mitigatio for in-idb

e habitat loss would not be aisblem no citic or scar
Ihabitat is being removed by the project. Mitigation of habitat loss and collision mortalitywa
considered in the selection of the preferred design. As discussed in Section 2.0, two designs
3 were initially considered. The dual array would require approximately twice the antenna masts,
support cables, and filled area compared to the stacked array alternative. Habitat loss and
collision mortality was substantially reduced by selecting the stacked array as the preferred
I design alternative.
Bird collisions with the IORI array and sounder would be minimized by increasing the visibility
I of the structures' guy wires. The usual approach involves attaching yellow aviation marker balls
at regular intervals on all guy wires at heights greater than or equal to 50 feet above ground
i 4-25
U
level. Aviation marker balls have been used successfully to reduce bird collisions with power
lines during daylight hours (Beaulaurier, 1981; Faanes, 1987).
Concern over the potential effect of RFR on bird migration and health is discussed in Section
4.13. It was concluded in Section 4.13 that there is an insignificant affect from RFR on bird
migration and health.
4.4.2 Clear Site
Impacts to birds at the Clear site would be similar to those expected at the Gakona site.
Constrcon of the HAARP facility at the Clear site would be accompanied by the slight positive
impact association with the eventual revegetation of the Gakona site, creating nesting habitat for
passerine birds.
Habitat Lass. Approximately 78 acres of habitat, including 41 acres on the Clear AFS property
and 36 acres on the Bear Creek location would be impacted by the construction and operation
of the HAARP facility at the Clear site, The majority of the habitat at the Clear AFS property
would be conifer forest, whereas, the majority of the habitat at the Bear Creek location would
be palustrine scrub/shrub wetland. Negative impacts to habitat would be greater than that at the
Gakona site because of the better quality habitat at the Clear site. There would be no impact
to waterfowl breeding because no open water exists at either the Clear AFS property or the Bear
Creek location. In general, effects on avian resources due to habitat lost to the project are
expected to be minimal.
Disturbance. The potential disturbance to breeding trumpeter swans is expected to be minimal

because there are no bodies of open water large enough within a mile of the Clear site to be used
by swans for breeding or rearing. Disturbance to raptor or eagles is expected to be negligible
because no nests were documented at the Clear site.
4-26
3 Bird Collisions With Structures. As would be the case at the Gakona site, there is a potential
that flying birds could collide with the IRI and VIS structures. This potential negative impact
i is likely to be greater than that at the Gakona site due to the greater numbers of sandhill cranes
that migrate through the area and the positioning of the VIS in the river valley at the Bear Creek
I location. Sandhill cranes, although typically high altitude migrants (ABR, 1992), have increased
collision potential due to the great numbers of birds going through the area. The relatively
narrow river valley at the Bear Creek location could cause a funneling of shore birds and
waterfowl, particularly for local movement as the birds course the river. As stated above for
the Gakona site, the actual number of collisions is not possible to predict.
U Threatened and Endangered Species. There will be no affect to the critical habitat of the
3 threatened arctic peregrine falcon or the endangered American pergrine falcon, or their nests.
Both the arctic and American peregrine falcon are known to migrate through the Clear region
3 (USFWS, 1992d) and therfore could potentially collide with the HAARP antenna structures.
However, this potenital would be minimal as the antenna structures are 100 feet or less in
3 height. Therefore, construction and operation of the HAARP facility at Clear would not likely
affect the populations of either the arctic or American peregrine falcon.
Mitigation. Minimization of bird collision with the project structues would be conducted as
3 described above for the Gakona site.
3 4.4.3 No Action Alternative.
I The no action alternative would have none of the negative impacts on birds associated with the
selection of either the Gakona or Clear sites. Furthermore, selection of the Clear site or the no
U action alternative would result in the near-term reclamation of the GaknaM site. The revegetation
of the graveled areas at the Gakona site would provide nesting and foraging habitat for birds,
3 resulting in a slight positive impact.
I m 4-27
I
4.5 AQUATICS
This section discusses the potential impacts to aquatic resources which could occur as a result
of construction or operation of the HAARP facility, and the mitigation steps that could be taken
to offset these impacts. As explained below, construction and operation of the HAARP facility
would not result in significant impacts to aquatic resources.
4.5.1 Gakona Site
Site Construction and Operation. Aquatic resources of concern are not located within the
immediate area identified for construction of the transmitter, structures, or access roads. Thus,
there would be no direct impacts to aquatic resources. Potential indirect impacts from
construction site runoff reaching Tulsona Creek or the Copper River would be associated with
sediments from site runoff or those which could arise from erosion of the watershed due to
changes in hydraulic characteristics (Section 4.6.1).
Few, if any, impacts to aquatic resources are anticipated under normal operation of the facility.
Service water demand, met by the 400 foot deep on-site well, would be much too low to have
any effect on aquifers or the recharge of Tulsona Creek. In addition the well's depth and
separation from surface waters by the permafrost would preclude significant impact to surface
waters or Tulsona Creek. Impacts to aquatic resources could arise from accidents such as
introduction of diesel fuel to the environment during fuel delivery or transfer. However such
incidents would seldom, if ever, occur.
The greatest potential for impact to aquatic resources would be associated with gravel removal
from areas bordering Tulsona Creek or the Copper River. Impacts would be primarily
associated with runoff, erosion and siltation. A number of potential gravel source areas exist
along the Copper River, for which descriptions are included in Section 2.3.1. However, the
Copper River is very turbid from glacial sediments and the minimal additional sediments from
mining activities would not be noticeable.
4-28
I
I Some borrow removal scenarios for area P-1 include diversion of the section of Tulsona Creek
in the Copper River floodplain west of the existing Alaska Department of Transportation
(ADOT) borrow pit. Such a diversion would have direct impacts to habitat and water quality
in both water bodies, and have the potential to affect spawning and migration of important fish
resources. Areas P-1 and A-i also contain small ponds which may also be impacted.
I Mitigation. Impacts associated with gravel removal would be mitigated by construction of

berms to contain runoff from overburden and gravel stockpiles, maintenance of 100-yard bufi -s
between borrow areas and water resources, and rehabilitation of excavated areas to productive
m habitat, as required.
3 4.5.2 Clear Site
3 The following section discusses the potential impacts to aquatic resources which could occur as
a result of construction or operation of the HAARP facility, and the mitigation steps that could
m be taker. to offset these impacts. As explained below, construction and operation of the HAARP
facility at the Clear site would result in few if any impacts to aquatic resources. The selection
m of the Clear site would be accompanied with the reclamation of the Gakona site. Impacts
m associated with this reclamation are discussed below under in Section 4.5.3
Site Construction. No significant aquatic resources are located within the area identified for
1 construction of the transmitter, structures, or access roads. Thus, direct impacts would not
occur as a result of the construction of HAARP facilities at either the Clear AFS property or the
3 Bear Creek location. There could be limited runoff of sediments to Bear Creek and the Nenana
River during construction activities at the Bear Creek location. If there is runoff, the potential
3 exists for the introduction of low concentrations of construction related pollutants such as fuel
or lubricants to Bear Creek and the Nenana River. The gentle slope of the terrain around the
I Bear Creek site would reduce the likelihood of erosion during runoff periods.
1 4-29
U ,I i l|I
Suspended sediments could impact Bear Creek water column resources by increasing turbidity
levels, which could reduce light penetration affecting productivity of algae or aquatic plants, and
reduce the success of sight-feeding organisms. Any sediment runoff into the Nenana River as i
a result of construction activities would be insignificant because of the high existing levels of
turbidity in the Nenana River. Increased deposition in Bear Creek could result in changes in I
stream hydrology and habitat alteration, affecting species that use the bottom habitat to feed,
spawn, or live. Impacts associated with introduction of pollutants from site runoff could consist I
of chronic toxicity effects to sensitive life stages such as larvae or juveniles.
Facility Operation. No impacts to aquatic resources are anticipated during the operation of the
Clear AFS property and the Bear Creek location. Impacts to aquatic resources in Bear Creek
and the Nenana River nearby the Bear Creek location could arise from an accidental fuel spill
during delivery. The likelihood of such an incident is negligible.
Mitigation. Impacts associated with gravel removal would be mitigated by construction of

berms to contain runoff from overburden and gravel stockpiles, maintenance of 100-yard buffers I
between borrow areas and water resources, and rehabilitation of excavated areas to productive
habitat, as required.
4.5.3 No Action Alternative 3

None of the limited impacts to aquatic resources associated with the construction of the HAARP 3
facility at either the Gakona or Clear sites would occur. The required near-term reclamation of
the Gakona site would result in temporary, limited runoff and siltation during gravel removal. I
However, this would not affect aquatic resources on the Gakona site.
I
I
I
4-30I
I
U
I 4.6 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
I This section evaluates the potential impacts of construction and operation of the HAARP facility
which may affect surface and groundwater resource quality. Mitigation measures intended to
I offset these impacts are discussed. No significant impacts to surface and groundwater resources
a'e anticipated from the construction and operation of the facility.
U 4.6.1 Gakona Site
Potential Construction Impacts. Potential impacts associated with site construction include
degradation of the permafrost layer, alteration of drainage patterns affecting surface runoff
characteristics, and impacts to surface and groundwater quantity and quality. Thermal
characteristics of the soil might be altered by removal of vegetation and organic matter, since
they insulate permafrost soils. Road and building construction, pile installation, or alteration
of drainage patterns could also alter thermal properties of the soil surface. Permafrost alteration
3 might result in increased erosion, subsidence (settling) of soils, and problems relating to slope
stability.
Gravel removal could cause erosion, stream siltation, and water quality degradation. Increased
3 turbidity levels may result from both gravel extraction as well as construction and maintenance
of access roads. All potential gravel source areas identified (P-l, P-2, A-l, A-4, and A-5) are
3 near the Copper River. Area P-1 is also crossed by Tulsona Creek, while the western edge of
A-4 borders the floodplain of the Chistochina River. Site-specific impacts associated with
3 excavation schemes may further induce hydrological and water quality impacts. For example,
several scenarios developed for gravel removal from area P-1 involve either temporary or
3 permanent diversion of Tulsona Creek, that could result in bank erosion and associated water
I quality impacts (M&E/H&N, 1989a).
Potential Operational Impacts. Potential impacts to hydrology and water quality from the
5 operation of the facility would be associated with disposal of water and wastewater, solid waste,
4-31
I
I
hazardous waste (solvents and cleaners, contaminated lubricants, antifreeze, paints, etc.), fuel 3
transfer and storage, and will be managed in accordance with applicable state and federal laws
and permitting requirements. 3
Mitigation. In addition to avoiding large-scale alteration of the soil surface through use of the i
elevated ground screen, utilization of thermosyphons for antenna arrays and suitable insulation
for road and pad construction could be used to limit disturbance of the permafrost within the grid 3
area.
A Spill Prevention, Containment, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan will be developed to

minimize the potential of impacts due to accidental fuel spills during facility operations and fuel
transfer from delivery trucks. Provisions could be required to periodically remove snowmelt
and storm water from the containment areas so that capacity for emergency storage is not
dimnimshed.3
To minimize the potential for permafrost degradation and possible resulting hydrology and water
quality impacts, areas on the proposed site subject to effects from heated buildings or fuel
storage tanks could be protected by either board insulation, gravel pads, or active refrigeration,
or some combination thereof.
4.6.2 Clear Site I I

efforts that could be implemented. A discussion of the reclamation effort required at Gakona i
and its consequences and mitigation as it relates to hydrology and water quality is included under
Section 4.6.3 No Action Alternative, Gakona site. 3
Potential Construction Impacts. Potential construction impacts to the hydrology of the Clear i
site include alteration of drainage patterns and effects on impacts to surface and groundwater
4-32I
I
I
quality. Disturbance of the thermal balance at the ground-air interface is inconsequential as the
soil is well drained and typically low in ice content.
Because of the high permeability of the substrate material at the Clear site, the implications of
changing the surface water drainage patterns are not particularly significant. Removal of the
surface layer in the area of construction will increase the rate of infiltration of water into the
ground.
i Large obstructions such as buildings, parabolic antennas, and earthen dikes could accumulate
large volumes of drift snow. When melted in the spring, this localized increase in run-off and
could potentially increase erosion and/or result in localized ponding of water.
Gravel removal from borrow areas could cause erosion, stream siltation, and water quality
degradation. Increased turbidity levels in surface water could negatively impact aquatics and
mammals alike.
Potential Operational Impacts. Operation of the HAARP facility at Clear would include the
use/generation of products that could negatively affect water quality in the region. This includes
water and wastewater, solid waste, hazardous waste products (paints, solvents, anti-freeze),
petroleum products (diesel fuel, coal, motor oil, fluids), and other similar materials.
I Mitigation. Proper arctic construction practices could be employed to minimize hydrological

impact during construction. This includes such measures as obtaining gravel from locations well
Saway (more than 100 yards) from surface water sources and limiting the level of disturbance to
the site through construction scheduling and on-site engineering and environmental monitoring.
In addition, locations that serve as borrow areas could be returned to productive habitat through
a vegetation restoration program.
Snowmelt and storm water drainage could be managed through proper site gradiiig and perimeter
interceptor ditches at both the Clear AFS property and the Bear Creek location. Vegetation
I 4-33
I
restoration projects could be implemented to secure the soil matrix and limit erosional and
siltation problems after construction.
Snowdrift control could be conducted by using accepted engineering practices around the site,
or if more severe drifting problems are predicted, a wind tunnel modeling effort could be 3
conducted for the sites and equipment. This effort may be particularly appropriate at the Bear
Creek location where topographic funneling effects may induce locally strong winds and 3
significant snow drifting problems.
Operation of the HAARP facility should utilize the existing Clear AFS utilities to the greatest
extent possible. This includes use of the water supply, wastewater treatment systems, and I
hazardous material and petroleum products handling and storage facilities. This action would
mitigate potential water quality problems by utilizing in-place and accepted Air Force systems,
thereby eliminating the need for constructing the water supply, wastewater treatment systems,
hazardous materials handling and storage facilities, and fuel systems.
SI
4.6.3 No Action Alternative 3

There would be no hydrology and water quality impacts associated with the no action alternative 3
at the Clear site. There would, however, be some impacts associated with the no action
alternative at the Gakona site due its required near-term reclamation. These impacts can be
divided into construction and post-construction activities. The construction impacts relate to the
efforts associated with the reclamation activity at the site. The post construction impacts relate 3
to persisting conditions that would exist after the reclamation effort is implemented.
!I
During the reclamation "construction effort", it is anticipated that the most significant damage
would be the further disturbance of the thermal regime which could lead to subsidence of the 3
soil and the formations of ponds and streams. Loss of vegetation and changes in ground
permeability could alter drainage patterns, thereby affecting run-off rate and potentially 3
4-34 1
U
I producing concentrated flow patterns. Erosion and siltation patterns could develop as a result,
leading to potential impacts to surface water quality, such as increased turbidity and decreased
ponding and flood control. Decreased permeability of the ground could also alter infiltration
I rates, which could affect groundwater supply (Section 3.6.1).
Environmental consequences after reclamation construction activities would include further

deterioration of the permafrost layer while the thermal and energy exchange is re-balanced. This
may result in increased subsidence and deterioration during the re-adjustment process.
Preliminary estimates indicate that the final subsided level of the gravel pad and roadway would
be at normal grade (total settlement of 4 to 6 feet).
Mitigation of the environmental consequences associated with site reclamation would be strictly
limited to the existing gravel pad, and an effort could be made to extract the culverts from the
roadway in a season other than the spring when surface water flow is at a maximum. Ditches
should be frequently cut across the road to eliminate the possibility of the roadway damming
3 water behind it.
On-site disposal of human and domestic wastes could be prohibited during construction to
eliminate pollution of the surface or ground water sources. All domestic and process wastes
(wastewater, washdown water, solid wastes, and hazardous wastes) could be stored on-site in
I approved holding tanks which would be periodically removed and disposed of off-site.
Fuel and other petroleum product spills would be avoided by following a SPCC plan. At a
minimum, this SPCC plan would require that fuel transfers and other such activities occur in a
designated containment basin, that fuel storage areas be surrounded by a lined containment dike,
and that oil spill containment equipment be available at the site.
i Further hydrological degradation could be prevented by discouraging access to the site by off-
road vehicles. This could be accomplished by cutting a deep water bar at the beginning of the
I
I 4-35
U
I
access road (near the Tok Cut-Off), and possibly concealing the access clearing to the site byi
using downed trees and other natural products to seal off the clearing.I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
U
I
I
I
I
I
4-36i
I
4.7 AIR QUALITY
This section discusses the potential impacts to air quality associated with construction and
U operation of the HAARP facility. Mitigation measures for the impacts are also identified. No
significant impacts to air quality would result from selecting the Clear site or the no action
alternative. With proper mitigation efforts, the Gakona alternative could also be selected without
I significant impact.
_i 4.7.1 Gakona Site
I The construction and operation phases of the project would have different impacts to air quality
because of the differences in activities and emissions generators. The primary generators during
construction would be construction vehicles which would produce both emissions from
combustion engines and fugitive dust. Other less important sources of pollutants during
construction would include temporary electricity generators and open burning. The limited and
temporary HAARP construction activities would not significantly impact the local air quality.
The most important source of air pollutants during the operation of the IRI would be the 15-
megawatt (MW) powerplant with its 6 diesel generators. The air quality could be significantly
impacted by the operation of the 6 diesel generators necessary to power the IRI, depending upon
the amount of their use.
Construction Activities. During construction, potential short-term impacts to local air quality
could result from the emissions of internal combustion engines and the dust created by
construction activities. An estimated 7,300 haul unit round trips, assuming a haul unit capacity
of 22 cubic yards, would be necessary to supply the estimated 160,000 cubic yards of gravel
required for construction of the IRI and diagnostic facilities. The borrow sources would likely
be located within 24 miles of the IRI site in the Copper River Valley. The actual rate of
emissions on any one day would depend upon a number of factors, including vehicle type, hours
of operation, and number of vehicles. This information will not be known until contractual
arrangements are completed with subcontractors.
4-37
I
During construction, pollutants from other mobile sources potentially include commuting vehicles
and fuel transport trucks. All of the anticipated work force would likely commute from areas
within 30 miles of the project site. A construction camp is not planned; therefore, there would
be no emissions from on-site living facilities. Air impacts from these sources would be
comparatively minimal as compared to the large construction vehicles. I
Clearing activities could involve burning of slash material under the provisions of an ADEC I
Open Burn Permit. In addition, the concept of on-site burning of combustible construction
wastes is being considered as an option for solid waste disposal. If open burning is to be I
conducted, the Air Force or its contractor(s) will obtain all required permits.
The Air Force concluded that there would be no significant impact to air quality from anticipated
construction activities of the considerably larger OTH-B facilities (USAF, 1989a). Therefore,
it can be concluded that air quality impacts from the limited and temporary HAARP construction
activities would also not be significant.
Operation Activities. During operation of the IRI and diagnostic facilities air pollutants weould |
be generated from haul trucks, worker vehicles, maintenance vehicles and the diesel-fueled
generator plant. The long-term projected increase in daily vehicle miles traveled in the Gakona
region is expected to be minimal due to the short-term intermittent use of the facility (4 or 5
times per year) by teams of up to 15 scientists and technicians and the limited number of year-
round full-time on-site maintenance and security staff.
The permanent site staff, expected to consist of approximately 4 to 8 people, would likely
commute daily from the surrounding area. Whether the visiting scientists would be lodged at
the research site or in the surrounding communities depends upon the site chosen for the IRI.
It is known that if the Gakona site were to be chosen, the scientists would be lodged primarily
in the surrounding communities. Current use of the Tok Cut-Off averages between 325 and 700
vehicles per day (M&EIH&N, 1989b). The additional vehicles (up to 8) that would be used on
a continual daily basis by permanent employees and a maximum of 15 vehicles that would be
4-38
nI
used by visiting scientists and technicians, about 4 to 5 times a year, would be insignificant as
compared to the average daily use of the Tok Cut-Off. Therefore, any added pollutants from
these vehicles would be negligible.
The greatest air quality impacts associated with the IRI site are expected from the operation of
the 6, 2.5 MW, diesel generators necessary to power the IRI and facilities. The Federal Clean
I Air Act and the Alaska Air Quality Control Regulations provide standards by which the
significance of air quality impacts must be judged. These standards are the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the Alaska Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAAQS).
I The Federal Clean Air Act was significantly amended in 1990. However, how these
amendments will affect HAARP is uncertain, because the EPA has not yet issued many of the
necessary regulations implementing the amendments. Title V of the amendments establishes a
new permitting structure that requires all major sources of air pollution to obtain a permit
pursuant to the new requirements of the title. Title V requires the EPA to develop regulations
II that define the requirements for state programs to implement the title. Each state will then have
3 years to develop and submit to the EPA for approval a new operating permit program. ADEC
has submitted to their legislature proposed changes to address Title V permitting requirements,
but these changes are still pending (ADEC, 1993). Therefore, at the present time, and until
the State of Alaska adopts new permitting requirements, the previous regulations apply.
Titles I, Il, and IV of the 1990 amendments to the Federal Clean Air Act may also ultimately
affect the project. Title I addresses the attainment and mainterance of NAAQS, especially for
geographic areas that are not presently in attainment. Title III, which addresses hazardous air
pollutants, mandates specific studies to establish whether public health criteria warrant further
control of utility emissions of SO2 and NO. to alleviate acid precipitation. Since the proposed
facility would emit such low levels of SO 2 and is of relatively small size, restriction of S%
emissions would not impact the proposed facility. However, the required reduction of NO, by
2 million tons less than the 1980 levels by the year 2000 could affect the proposed power
generating system. This effect will be determined during the permitting process.
4-39
iI
I
The present NAAQS establish minimum federal requirements for 6 pollutants for the purpose
of protection of human health. The AAAQS established by ADEC set allowable ambient
concentrations for the same 6 pollutants, but vary according to the classification of the airshed.
The ADEC requires new sources to obtain a permit to operate. In addition, the project might
be subject to new source requirements which include Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) review, New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and completion of an ambient air
quality assessment. PSD review involves review of Best Available Control Technologies m
(BACT) and air quality impacts to demonstrate compliance with NAAQS/AAAQS and PSD
increments. NSPS are set at mean allowable emission rates for new combustion sources. I
These standards are used by ADEC in evaluation of potential PSD review. PSD review is I
necessary if the Dowerplant emissions exceed 250 tons per year of any one EPA regulated
pollutant. In addition, the plant will be required ,o meet applicable Class II PSD increments as
specified in the ADEC regulations.
The USAF will submit an application for a Permit to Operate if the decision is made to proceed m
with the HAARP at the Gakona site. 1ihis decision will be documented in the Record of
Decision at the culmination of this NEPA process. The application for the Permit to Operate
will follow the regulations in place at that time, whether they are the current ones or new
standards implementing the 1990 amendments. Through this process the Air Force will ensure
that all applicable federal and state air qrality standards and permit requirements are me-.
I
The predicted S0, and NQ, emission rates repored in the air quality permit for the diesel portion
of the proposed OTH-B powerplant (ADEC, 1990) can be used to estimate emission rates for
the proposed HAARP powerplant since the same generator sets are proposed for use. As
documented in that permit, particulate emissions from these generators would be negligible and
are therefore not addressed here.
I
Current estimates indicate that the powerplant (6 generator sets operating) would consume about
191,800 pounds of diesel fuel per 24 hours of operation. This results in an estimated production
4-40
4,0 II
of about 1,870 pounds uf SO, and 13,300 pounds of NO. per 24 hours of operation. At these
emission rates, the plant could operate at full power for about 38 days before exceeding the 250
tons per year threshold of NO. for PSD analysis. Only NO. reeds to be calculated because NO.
emissions would exceed the 250 tons per year standard before the considerably lesser emitted
SOx. The number of campaigns, during which the powerplant would be operated without
exceeding the annual PSD threshold, can be calFulated. It is estimated, conridering that the
powerplant would not operate continuously from the beginning to the end of a campaign, that
about 740 tons of fuel would be used in one campaign Based upon this furl consumption, about
51 tons of NO1 would be produced during one campaign. Such a rate of emission would allow
approximately 5 campaigns per year before exceeding the PSD threshold. This approaches the
currently anticipated 4 to 5 campaigns per year. Future additions to the number of campaigns
to be held per year could lead to the PSD thresholds being exceeded. In this case, the
government could be required to go through the PSD review process. This might require that
additional emission control devices be used at the HA h'RP site.
Predicted maximum concentrations were calculated for a location, approximately 1 mile north-
northeast of the site, that is expected to be exposed to the highest levels of air pollutants (refer
to Table 4.7-1). The predicted maximum concentrations were calculated based on the screening
and modeling of the emissions expected for the OTH-B diesel-fueled powerplant (SEI, 1989;
ADEC, 1990). As seen in Table 4.7-1, the predicted maximum concentrations are not expected
to exceed any of the SO,, or NO . standards for any of the averaging periods. However, as
shown in Table 4.7-1, the estimated emissions of NO, are nearly 90 percent of the allowable
annual Class II increment. Use of more detailed plant design and fuel information in an updated
screening modeling and further PSD review (if warranted) in support of the air quality permit
process should further refine these potential impacts.
The impacts of the expected emissions from the currently proposed generators would be modeled
and evaluated during the ADEC and PSD (if necessary) permitting process. This modeling
would include the potential to degrade the Class fi airshed and aesthetic values associated with
the numerous scenic vistas at the Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve as well as the
4-41
I
II
effects on ice fog formation. The planned intermittent use of generators lessens the potential for f
problems associated with ice fog.
TABLE 4.7-1. ALASKA AND NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS

FOR SOx (MEASURED BY SO) AND NOx 3
Pollutant Averaging AAAQS AK PSD Class II PSD
Period NAAQS Increment Increment Predicted
Conc. (pg/m3) (Ug/m 3) Maximum2
(g/m3) (pg/m3)
S02 3-hr 1300 512 512 512
S02 24-hr 365 91 68 14.6
IS%_ Annual 80 20 5.0 1.34
NO, Annual Ion NA3 6.2 5.44
AAAQS and bAQS are equal. I
2 Estimated from SEI, 1989. Represents the concentration at the maximum receptor which was
estimated to be about 1 mile north-northeast of the site.
3 NA = Not Applicable.
I
Mitigation. The government would ensure that the powerplant facility emissions would not
significantly degrade the air quality of the Gakona region by requiring that the powerplant meet I
all required federal and state regulations (including PSD requirements, if necessary) on air
emissions. I
4.7.2 Clear Site I
Below is a discussion of the impacts to air quality as a result of selecting the Clear site, and I
possible mitigation efforts that could be implemented. A discussion of the reclamation effort
required at Gakona and its consequences and mitigation as it relates to air quality is included I
under Section 4.7.3 No Action Alternative.
4-42I
I
-- " I
I
3 Impacts on air quality at the site can be divided into two sub-sets, construction and operation.
These two subject areas are addressed below. Construction impacts would include emissions
from heavy and light equipment associated with constructing the HAARP facility and fugitive
dust that could be generated from earthmoving activities. In addition, some open burning of
I trees and other vegetation may be necessary.
U IOperational impacts would be associated with the increased loading on the existing coal-fired
powerplant at Clear AFS or from increased loading on the local power utility's generation
stations if the commercial grid were to be used. Additionally, there would be an increase in
emissions from vehicles and small equipment associated with day-to-day operations.
U The relatively small and temporary construction effort required to build the HAARP facility
would have an insignificant impact on air quality in the region. The episodic nature of the
HAARP operation and the small amount of increased emissions of the existing powerplant to
meet these needs would also be considered negligible.
Construction Activities. Short term impacts associated with construction of the HAARP facility
at Clear could result from the emissions of internal combustion engines, as well as the dust
created by heavy construction and earth-moving activities. An estimated 31,000 cubic yards of
I gravel is required for construction of the HAARP facility at Clear, equating to about 1500 haul
unit round trips (assuming a 22 cubic yard capacity truck). There are numerous borrow material
3 sources within the Clear AFS area, and haul distances are projected to be short (less than I
mile). At the Bear Creek location, the distances may be somewhat longer since gravel sources
do not appear to be as numerous. However, as an improbable worst case scenario, gravel would
need to be hauled about 10 miles to Bear Creek. Development of Bear Creek requires roughly
half of the total gravel required at the Clear site, or 15,000 cy. The actual amount and rate of
emissions would depend on the type of equipment being used, the number of vehicles being
Sused, and their relative mechanical condition.
I
I 4-43
I
I
In addition to heavy equipment pollution, commuting cars and utility vehicles would also be used
in the construction process. It is anticipated that the majority of the construction work force
(about 30 people) would come from the local economy (Healy, Nenana, Anderson), with only 3
several specialists being imported for specific construction tasks. Thus, commuting distances
are short and total emissions from this source would not be significant. In addition, there is no
construction camp planned, so there would be no additional emissions for on-site living facilities.
I
Some burning of vegetation may be conducted in association with the construction clearing
activities. Open burning permits would be required from the Alaska Department ofI
Environmental Conservation. Additionally, combustible construction debris and crating material
may be disposed of by burning. Again, the proper permitting would be required from ADEC
for open burning activities. Due to the temporary nature of the burning, and the projected small
amount of material to be burned, these activities would not significantly affect air quality.
Operation Activities. Operation of the HAARP facility at Clear would require the services of
4 to 8 full time staff from the immediate area. In addition, there would be 4 to 5 yearly 3
campaigns which include teams of about 15 scientists and technicians. Pollutants would be
generated from commuter vehicles, work vehicles and utility trucks. Due to the limited number
of on-site staff and the short duration, episodic nature of the scientific campaigns, the daily
increase in vehicle traffic and air pollution would be minimal. Estimates of vehicle use 3
associated with HAARP operation include 3 to 5 vehicles used on a permanent basis, and a
maximum 15 additional used for about 28 days during the 4 or 5 yearly scientific campaigns. 3
Power to operate the HAARP facility will be obtained from the existing (possibly modified or 3
expanded) coal-fired powerplant at Clear AFS and/or the local commercial utility. An
evaluation of the approaches for obtaining power would be completed if it was determined to 3
build the HAARP at Clear AFS. The Clear AFS existing plant may currently have the ability
to absorb some increased loading from the HAARP facility. Likewise, it is assumed that the
local commercial source currently has the ability to provide for the HAARP needs during IRI
operation. The small amount of energy required for the day-to-day operations at the HAARP I
operation 4-44
S|I
I
I facility would probably pose no problem to either the Clear AFS powerplant or local commercial
utility. Small amounts of power would be required at the Bear Creek location to operate the ISR
and VIS units. Most likely, this power would be obtained from the local commercial source.
Because both the plant at Clear AFS and commercial power utilility's generation stations are
already in operation, there would be little increased pollutants released into the air as a result
of the small long-term maintenance loading, or the large short-term experimental loading. The
existing Clear AFS powerplant is operating within all applicable air quality standards and
I guidelines, and would continue to do so with the HAARP facility in place. Increased pollution
associated with using commercial power at the Bear Creek location would be undetectable.
IMitigation. Air pollution from operational activities would be mitigated by using thermally
1 efficient building envelopes, energy efficient lighting systems, and promoting intelligent use of
energy resources. The air pollution generated by the powerplant meets all applicable criteria
Band regulations, and it is believed that the increased loading from HAARP will not change this.
The government will continue to ensure that appropriate regulatory standards are met at Clear
I AFS.
3 There would be no air quality impact associated with the no action alternative at the Clear Site.
The impacts of the no action alternative on air quality at the Gakona site would be limited to
fl construction operations associated with the required near-term reclamation effort. This source
of pollution during construction would be internal combustion engines in construction vehicles
and equipment and fugitive dust associated with site reclamation. Other less substantive sources
I would be temporary electricity generators and open burning.
The exact level of activity associated with the reclamation plan at the Gakona site is not yet
I known, but in a qualitative sense the level of activity for demolition would be less than for
construction. No gravel would be removed from the site, and thus there would be no haul trips
or other associated pollution generating activities associated with mining and importing gravel.
1 4-45
I
The extent of pollution from the construction activities would be not only dependent on the scope
of the effort, but also on the type of equipment being used and its re!ative mechanical condition.
Information at this level of detail would not be known until a contractor is selected for the work
and a construction reclamation plan is submitted.
Fugitive dust could be generated during removal of the culverts from the road and the demolition
of building superstructure and extraction of the concrete footings and sub-floor cooling system
from the gravel pad. However, due to the rather limited amount of earthwork that would be
conducted as part of the reclamation effort, fugitive dust would not be a significant problem. I
Pollutants from other mobil sources during construction could include commuting vehicles used
by the construction workers. It is anticipated that all of the workers participating in the
reclamation effort would commute to the site from areas within 30 miles of the site. No
construction camp is envisioned to achieve the reclamation effort, as surrounding commumties
would be drawn on to supply the required workers.
On-site burning of combustible construction wastes is being considered as an option for solid
waste disposal. If on-site open burning is conducted, the Air Force or its contractors will obtain 3
all required permits.
I
U
I
I
I
4-46I
I
4.8 SOCIOECONOMICS
4.8.1 Gakona Site
IThe implementation of plans to build and operate the HAARP facility at the candidate site in
Gakona would result in a modest positive impact to the economy in the Copper River region.
The opportunities created by the two-year construction period would be temporary, but would
both directly and indirectly benefit a number of local residents. The operational phase would
have a more modest impact, but would provide an influx of funds for the 20-year project life
span. The following section evaluates projected labor requirements and the effect of construction
and operation of the HAARP facility as it relates to land ownership, population, economy,
housing, community services, and aircraft operations in the adjacent Copper Valley region.
II As described in Section 3.8, the local economy has experienced sporadic increases in wage
income opportunities associated with activities such as mining and construction (e.g., highways
3 and the Trans-Alaska Pipeline). Hence, construction of the HAARP facility would not represent
a new or unique impact to the local population and economy, but another in a series of short-
term increases in the economic base.
I Land Ownership Issues. There is no requirement for purchasing or otherwise acquiring private
or public land at the Gakona site. Therefore, no consequences or mitigation is required in this
I regard at the Gakona site.
3 Projected Labor Requirements. The construction of the proposed facility is anticipated to

occur between 1993 and 1995. Three construction phases are envisioned. During the first phase
of construction, between the fall of 1993 and the spring of 1994, an estimated 60 to 65 workers
would be involved in site preparation and gravel operations. Estimates of gravel requirements
indicate that up to 7300 haul trips would be required, thus a majority of these positions would
consist of truck drivers. Additional requirements could include equipment operators for gravel
mining and placement, surveyors, and supervisors.
4-47
During the second phase, between the spring of 1994 and early 1995, an estimated 50 workers 3
would be engaged in the remaining gravel operations, placement of piles, building construction,
and electrical work. The third phase, extending from the middle to late 1995, would consist of 3
the installation and testing of electronics and communications systems. This phase would
employ between 30 and 35 workers. m
During the operation of the facility, a full time staff of 4 to 8 people would be required to fill I
technical support, maintenance, and security positions. During the estimated 28 day long
research campaigns, an influx of about 15 scientists and technicians would occur. An estimated I
4 to 5 campaigns would occur each year.
Population. Local or regional labor could comprise up to 90 percent of the 60 to 65 positions

during the first year, about 50 percent during the second construction phase, and 33 percent I
during the final installation phase. Given these projections, an estimated maximum of 40
temporary workers would be expected to come from outside the region. Although the temporary
nature of the work may limit the number of dependents who might accompany these workers 3
into the area; the peak total number of immigrants during construction should be less than 80
people. m
A human resources and services inventory, conducted by Copper River Native Association- I
Tanacross Impact Services in 1988 for the OTH-B project, indicated that over 400 Copper River
Region respondents were interested in employment by the OTH-B program (CRNA-TIS, 1989).
The breakdown by employment category indicated approximately 20 percent interest in each of
the following categories: construction, operations, maintenance, and security. The status of the
interested labor pool has likely remained the same since the survey due to the lack of significant
new employment opportunities in the region. Although the hiring practices of the project's
contractors would determine the distribution of available jobs, it is expected that the HAARP
project would make use of this labor pool. 3
4-48m
4
I!
3 Housing. The increased demand on housing is expected to be modest since a large percentage
of the projected work force would be local or regional residents. Any increased demand for
I housing would be a result of the potential relocation of regional workers closer to the project
and a temporary labor force brought in to meet technical requirements. Some of the potential
U demand for housing would be satisfied by vacant rental properties, the potential rental of
seasonally vacant properties and hotel accommodations.
Housing data from the 1990 census indicated that 80 units were vacant in the surrounding
communities of Chistochina, Gakona, Gulkana, and Glennallen at the time of the census. Of
i the vacancies included in the 1990 census, roughly 10 percent were rental properties and 25
percent seasonal vacancies. The additional availability of hotel accommodations in Glennallen
and Gakona Junction, which could accommodate the influx of personnel during research
campaigns, indicates that available housing should satisfy housing demands associated with
3 construction and operation of the facility.
i Economy. Significant positive economic impacts resulting from the project would be associated
with the construction phase. As stated earlier, the distribution of project funds would be
3 determined by the selection of individual contractors and their individual hiring practices. Local
and regional businesses would benefit from the purchase of materials as well as the personal
3 expenditures of resident and non-resident workers for a variety of needs.
3 Economic benefits during the operational phase would be of a lesser magnitude but nonetheless
significant given the limited opportunities in the region. The greatest extent of this benefit
I would be to the individuals who comprise the operational and maintenance staff, as well as those
in existing service industries who may be contracted for operational support. These include
disposal operations for wastewater and solid waste, fuel supply and delivery, food services and
grocery supplies, and other such services. Lodging services would benefit from the influx of
I personnel during the research campaigns.
4
i 4-49
I
Other considerations of economic impacts include the potential impact of increased disposable 3
income on subsistence practices in the region. These considerations are discussed in Section
4.10.
Community Services. Fire suppression response from the surrounding communities is not
available to the site. Emergency medical service is available to the proposed HAARP site. The
addition of the proposed facility is considered to have a negligible affect to emergency medicali
service (M&E/H&N, 1992c).
Aircraft Operational and Airspace Issues. There are two areas where possible interference
may occur to commercial, private or military aircraft. First is a possible physical obstruction
and second is interference to aircraft communication or navigation instruments (referred to as
avionics). Since the maximum height of the proposed facilities would be about 100 feet, aircraft
use would not be affected. The potential interference to aircraft avionics include the following
instruments: a global positioning system, VHF radio, UHF radio, VHF omni-range (VOR)
receiver, LORAN, and automatic directional finder (ADF). Operation of the IRI and ISR, either
separately or simultaneously, could result in some potential hazards to aircraft avionics. This
potential impact is due to the separate emissions of each. The VIS would not have an impact
to aircraft avionics due to its low operational power. A detailed discussions about these
u
instruments and potential interference can be found in Section 4.14 Electromagnetic and Radio 3
Frequency Interference. In coordination with the FAA, pilots will be warned to avoid flying
within 9,000 feet of the IRI and ISR and below an altitude of 16,000 feet (MITRE, 19920. This
suggests a single warning area could be established that would protect against potential HAARP
hazards to flight. HAARP will employ an aircraft detection and tracking radar. When this radar !
detects aircraft on a track that would carry them through the warning area, the radar will
automatically turn off the appropriate HAARP emitters.
Because there are no airfields or airstrips close, to the site aircraft take-offs and landings would 3
not be affected. Although the Gakona site is located on the edge of a Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) designated instrument flight corridor, the IRI system would be designed 3
4-50
U
I
to detect approaching aircraft and automatically turn the appropriate emitters off. The direct
impact to commercial, private and military aircraft would not be significant.
Mitigation. Utilization of the local labor pool could minimize any increase in the permanent
regional population and benefit the regional economy at the same time. Fire supression response
from the area communities is not available. Fire prevention, protection, detection and
I suppression systems for the HAARP facility would be designed accordingly. Properly trained
full-time facility employees on fire supression techniques could help address emergencies. On-
site vehicles could be equiped with firefighting equipment and emergency medical kits. The town
of Glennallen could be approached by the government to discusss the possibility of extending
coverage to the site. Appropriate warnings to pilots, in coordination with the FAA, will be
I provided to avoid potential HAARP hazards to flight. The IRI system is designed to detect
approaching aircraft and shut itself off in such instances. No other mitigation would be
I necessary for location of the HAARP facility at the Gakona site.
I 4.8.2 Clear Site
I Below is a discussion of the consequences of selecting the Clear site, and possible mitigation
efforts that could be implemented. A discussion of the reclamation effort is required at Gakona
and its consequences and mitigation as it relates to socioeconomics is included under Section
I 4.8.3 No Action Alternative.
The construction of the proposed HAARP facility at the Clear Site would result in a small
I positive impact to the economies in the surrounding area. The opportunities created by the
three-year construction period would be temporary, but would both directly and indirectly benefit
a number of local residents. The operational phase would have a more modest impact, but
would provide an influx of funds for the 20-year project life span. A consequence of building
I the HAARP facility at the Clear site would be the required reclamation of the existing
powerplant building and gravel pad, as well as extraction of drainage culverts and scarifying of
3 the gravel access road.
1 4-51
I
!
The following section evaluates projected labor requirements and the effect of construction and
operation of the HAARP facility as it relates to land ownership, population, economy, housing,
community services, and aircraft operations in the Clear Region. 3
Land Ownership Issues. Land at the Clear AFS property is owned by the Air Force and I
additional land acquisition in this area is not necessary at this time. There is a requirement to
purchase land for the Bear Creek location of the ISR and VIS units. The impacts of locating
these diagnostics at this location include disrupting existing homesteading activities and
precluding further homesteading in the area. Disruption of existing activities could include I
selling the homesteading parcels, or portions of parcels, to the Air Force to provide enough land
to construct the ISR and VIS facilities. Additional impacts could include aesthetic impacts on
adjacent landowners as a result of the constructed facility and increased noise and traffic in the
area, thereby detracting from the rural homesteading environment.
The final impact could be displaced homesteaders that purchase or homestead land in a different
area, as a result of a buy-out by the Air Force. Land of similar quality to the land at Bear
Creek and with the same population density could be difficult to find in the Nenana River
Valley. The Bear Creek location is accessible from major Alaskan Highway and has commercial
electrical power readily accessible by overhead power lines.
The primary impact of using state land for HAARP that is designated as a primary use of
"settlement" would be the preclusion of further homesteading in the immediate area. Although 3
Alaska is a large state, road accessible homesteading land is not plentiful. Homesteaders not
wishing to leave the Nenana River Valley area may have difficulty finding land of similar quality 3
as that at Bear Creek (ADNR, 1991a). In addition, the large dish antenna and several antenna
arrays that comprise the Bear Creek location site may add a "developed" look to the valley that 3
is not appealing to the homesteaders visual ideals. This could further preclude homesteading in
the area by affecting a much larger area than the actual Bear Creek location. Again, 3
homesteaders displaced from the Bear Creek location may have difficulty finding the same
quality property at another location, resulting in possible "over-crowding" in other areas..
4-52
I
I
j Population. The labor force from the surrounding communities of Anderson, Ferry, Nenana,
and Healy would be used for the construction work with the exception of some specialized labor
I needs toward the end of the construction effort. These specialized laborers would represent 8
to 10 of the 30 to 35 people working on the construction effort at that time.
Housing. The demand on housing would be almost nonexistent since the majority of the
projected work force would be from the surrounding communities. Any increased demand for
housing would be a result of the temporary 8 to 10 specialists brought toward the end of the
construction effort. Any potential demand for housing could be satisfied by accommodations
U at Clear AFS, by vacant rental properties (Table 3.8-6), or the rental of seasonally vacant
properties, hotels, and bed and breakfast accommodations.
U Economy. Significant positive economic impacts resulting from the project would be associated
I with the construction phase. As stated earlier, the distribution of project funds would be
determined by the selection of individual contractors and their individual hiring practices.
3 Businesses in the four surrounding communities would benefit from the purchase of materials
as well as the personal expenditures of the small contingent of non-resident workers and research
I personnel for a variety of needs. Economic benefits during the operational phase would be
negligible. The greatest extent of this benefit would be to the individuals who comprise the
I operational and maintenance staff. Lodging services would benefit from the influx of personnel
I during the research campaigns.
Community Services. Emergency medical services and firefighting capability could be provided
3 to the HAARP facilities by Clear AFS emergency response services. There would be negligible
affect to the surrounding towns emergency services. Clear AFS envisions minimal impact to
their existing emergency response operations (M&E/H&M, 1992e).
Aircraft Operational and Airspace Concerns. Impacts on aircraft operations at the

Clear/Anderson airstrip should not be affected by the construction or operation of the HAARP
3 facility. The existence of the proposed 75 foot high IPI antenna masts located approximately
1- 4-53
I
3300 feet from the end of the runway does not interfere with the FAA geometric criteria as laid3
I
out in Advisory Circular 150/5300-131
Restrictions on the use of the Clear/Anderson airstrip are already in place, due to the airstrips
proximity to the high powervl BMEWS system at Clear AFS. NOAA's Airport Facility I
Directory, Alaska Supplemc-nt, states that the runway is unattended, and visual inspection is
recommended prior to use. Restricted airspace and special traffic patterns are in-place for I
landing and take-offs. Additional restrictions on aircraft operations at the airstrip would not be
necessary as a result of the HAARP facilities being located at the Clear site. The lRI system n
is designed to detect approaching aircraft and sh.ut itself off when this occurs. Departing
aircraft's navigational instruments would not be affected because pilots would not be using them I
until after take-off and when they were out of the IRI beam. The potential for interference to
aircraft avionics at the Clear site is similar to those at the Gakona site. Operation of the IRI and
ISR, either separately or simultaneously, could fzsult in some potential hazards to aircraft
avionics. This potential impact is due to the separate emmissions of each. The continuouz
transmission of the BMEWS radar does not change this conclusion. The VIS would not have
an impact to aircraft avionics due to its low operational power. A detailed discussions about
these instruments and potential interference can be found in Section 4.14 Electromagnetic and 3
Radio Frequency Interference. In coordination with the FAA, pilots will be warned to avoid
flying within 9,000 feet of the IRI and below an altitude of 16,000 feet above the IRI (MITRE, I
19920. In addition, pilots will be warned to avoid flying within 2,500 feet of the ISR and below
an altitude of 4,000 feet above the ISR (MITRE, 1993a). This suggests two warning areas (one 3
for the IRI and uzie for the ISR) could be established that would protect against potential
HAARP hazards to flight. 1
Military exercises in MOA's and TMOA's may increase traffic in the Clear area as aircraft are 3
routed through airways between the Nenana and Talkeetna VOR's. The HAARP facilities would
nct affect air traffic because the IRI system is designed to detect encroaching aircraft and shut
itself off in such instances.
4
4-54 I
I,
Mitigation. The layout of the ISR and VIS units at the Bear Creek location is based solely on
HAARP operational concerns. As currently shown, the Bear Creek equipment directly affects
3 about four homesteaders (Figure 3.1-1). Through relocation of the equipment and the access
road, the site layout would be modified to minimize overlap with any of the current claims.
i Appropriate warnings to pilots, in coordination with the FAA, will be provided to avoid potential
HAARP hazards to flight. The IRI system is designed to detect approaching aircraft and shut
I itself off in such instances.
I 4.8.3 No Action Alternative
i There would be no impact at the Clear site associated with the no action alternative. No action
would require the near-term reclamation of the Gakona site. Reclamation of the site would take
approximately one year.
The no action alternative would have a small, brief, positive impact on the Gakona area
3- economies. The reclamation effort at the Gakona site would include the demolition of the
powerplant and the excavation and extraction of the concrete foundation and sub-floor
3 refrigeration. Upon removal of the building system, the top 3-4 feet of the building's gravel pad
would be stripped away, leaving the remaining gravel pad approximately the same thickness as
the existing gravel road. Reclamation efforts on the road would include scarifying the surface
to induce natural revegetation, and excavation and removal of the existing culverts. It is
3 estimated that this work would require a construction crew of approximately 10 to 12 work'ng
for one summer season. Among the workers involved in the reclamation effort would be truck
3 and heavy equipment operators, iron workers, construction supervisors, and environmental
monitors. The socioeconomic impact on the region of this relatively small construction project
3- would be minimal. Many of the workers used for the reclamation effort would most likely be
hired from the local labor pool, thus further minimizing suý,Ioeconomic effects. Any small
3 impact in this regard could be further mitigated by encouraging the reclamation contractor to
utilize local area labor.
I 4-55
I. . . . .
I
Without the construction and operation of the IRI and diagnostics there would be no
consequences to aircraft operations or air-space concerns at the Gakona site. Mitigating
measures would not be required for aircraft for the no action alternative. I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4-56
I
I ,4.9 CULTURAL RESOURCES
I This section discusses the potential impacts on cultural resources associated with the construction
and operation of the HAARP facility at either site and the no action alternative. Mitigation
associated with these potential impacts is also presented. The impacts of constructing at the
i Gakona site and the no action alternative would be negligible. The likelihood of uncovering
cultural resources at the Clear site would be high, and significant impacts could occur.
I 4.9.1 Gakona Site
I This section evaluates the potential impacts to cultural resources that may result from
construction and operation of the HAARP facility at the Gakona site. The following impact
assessment is based in part upon studies identified in Section 3.9.2 which were previously
3 conducted at the Gakona site (Ahtna Tanacross Association 1989; AELDC, 1989b; AEIDC,
1991; Gerlach et al., 1990), and in part on the potential for cultural resources to exist, based
on land use patterns.
3 Potential Impacts from Site Construction. The areas in which cultural resources could be
affected by construction of the HAARP facility include the transmitter area, operational
3 buildings, diagnostic equipment sites, access roads and the area selected for gravel mining,
including the corridor that might be used for hauling of material to the site. Based on the
3 previous archeological investigations conducted in association with the OTH-B program,
indicated above, which encompassed the area considered for HAARP transmitter construction,
no impacts to existing cultural resources would likely result from construction of the IRI and on-
site diagnostic equipment. This conclusion takes into consideration the recommendation for
3 OTH-B from the Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) that archeological
monitoring would not be necessary for OTH-B construction due to the low probability of
I encountering cultural resources (Section 3.9.2.1).
4
3 4-57
I
Portions of the proposed access road to be constructed north of the transmitter array to access
the diagnostics (see Figure 2.1-1) are outside of the OTH-B cultural resource surveys. Based
on the similarity in landscape and habitat type to areas encompassed by the prior surveys, it is
expected that significant cultural resources would not be encountered during construction of the
access road extension.
Gravel removal from the any of the identified resource areas has greater potential for impact to I
cultural resources due to the proximity of the gravel areas to the Copper River. This proximity
increases the possibility that cultural resources exist due to subsistence activities traditionally
practiced near the river (refer to Sections 3.9 and 3.10). Numerous cultural sites were
uncovered during intensive archeological investigations of area P-1 (Section 3.9.2.2). These i
were predominately found associated with trails along the river terrace and in areas adjacent to
present and historic river banks. Although the other gravel areas were not subjected to the same
degree of investigation as P-1, the probability of encountering cultural resources in the other
gravel area would be similar to area P-1.
Mitigation. Due to the fact that some proposed construction areas at the HAARP site would i
be outside of previous cultural resource survey areas, the government would enter into a
programmatic agreement with the Alaska SHPO to prevent loss of cultural resources. The
programmatic agreement would document the process by which the Air Force would comply
with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800.4).
I
The gravel removal plans developed for utilization of area P-1 for gravel requirements of the
OTH-B program (Moolin & Associates, 1990a) were determined by archeologists to be 3
sufficiently protective of the known cultural resources in the river floodplain and adjacent terrace
(AEIDC, 1991). Monitoring of certain sections of the area which were close to mining and m
transportation areas was recommended by the SHPO. The relatively low gravel requirements
of the HAARP design alternatives compared to that of the OTH-B program would permit a 3
greater degree of protection to known cultural sites through utilization of sufficient buffer area
4-58
I1
I
i between operations and known resources. Inadvertant discoveries would result in temporary
work stoppage until the site could be evaluated.
i 4.9.2 Clear Site
I efforts that could be implemented. A discussion of the required near-term reclamation effort
3 required at Gakona and its consequences and mitigation as it relates to cultural resources is
included under section 4.9.3 No Action Alternative.
This section evaluates and describes the potential impacts that construction of the HAARP
I facility would have on cultural resources in the Clear area. Moreover, possible mitigative action
is described to limit impact on area cultural resources by the proposed action.
Potential Impacts from Site Construction. Construction of the HAARP facility would affect
1 about 78 total acres of land, with about 37 being the Bear Creek location, and about 41 being
at the Clear AFS property. Construction on this land would involve stripping away top layers
3 of rootmat and silty loess materials, to expose the gravel and sand outwash below. The depth
of this top layer to be removed will be between I and 6 feet thick. It is during this construction
3 activity that the major disruption to the ground would occur and thus, there is the greatest
I possibility for archeological finds.
At the Clear AFS property, the siting of the IRI, the LIDAR, and the optics and magnetometer
3 would be located in an archaeologically rich region known as the Healy Outwash Terrace.
According to a cultural resources survey of Clear AFS (Braid, 1991), there is a high probability
3 of cultural resource sites being located in this region. This conclusion is based on a site survey
and historical finds in the region throughout the Nenana River Valley.
Due to the proximity of the Bear Creek location to the Nenana River and other past cultural
I resource sites, there would be a high probability of discovery in this region as well. Therefore,
I 4-59
I
I
during construction in each of these two areas (Bear Creek location and Clear AFS property) 3
there is the potential for disrupting archeological and cultural resource sites.
I
It is anticipated that the small quantity of gravel required to build the HAARP facility at the
Clear site will be obtained from existing borrow pit locations. Thus, the disruption to the soil
layer that would contain the archeological sites has largely already occurred. However, some
bank sloughing associated with gravel mining could occur, and therefore there would be a I
potential for discovery of cultural resource sites in connection with obtaining gravel material.
Impacts on the two NRHP sites (FAI 010 Clear Townsite and FAI 342 White Alice
Communication System) in the Clear Area would be minimal. In fact, for FAI 010 there would I
be no impact, and for FAI 342 the impact from the construction of the HAARP facility would
be limited to visual effects from the top of the antenna tower. Note that these effects would I
be limited to observations from up on the tower assembly, which is currently the property of
Alascom. General access to this tower is not permitted and is limited to Alascom employees that
are servicing the relay station. Furthermore, the viewer sensitivity to the relatively small
HAARP equipment when compared to the massive existing BMEWS antennas would be
insignificant. 3
Mitigation. To avoid significant impacts to cultural resources during construction of the 3
HAARP facility several measures could be taken. Prior to construction the government would
coordinate with the Alaska SHPO. A detailed cultural resources survey of the specific areas to
be impacted by the construction of the HAARP facility could be conducted. This survey could
include subsurface investigations to better be able to predict the potential for cultural resource 3
sites in the area. Other mitigative measures would include archeological monitoring during
construction of the facility. If an inadvertent discovery is made, construction would stop and 3
the SHPO will be contacted to avoid risk of further disturbance.
4
I
4-60I
I
-• mmmall~il
IN
I
I There would be no impact on cultural resources at the Clear site associated with the no action
alternative. This section discusses the impacts at the Gakona site on cultural resources
associated with the no action alternative. The required near-term reclamation plan for the
Gakona site calls for excavations to be limited to areas containing gravel fill that have been
established within the last two years. All construction efforts, including the demolition of the
powerplant building and the extraction of the culverts from the recently constructed roadway,
would involve only the disturbance of fill gravels. There would be negligible disturbance to
soils, and therefore the likelihood of disturbing cultural resource sites would be non-existent.
I4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3 4-61
I
I
4.10 SUBSISTENCE
No significant long-term impacts to subsistence, terrestrial animals, fish, and vegetation would
occur as a result of the construction and operation of the HAARP facility. However, short term
impacts to salmon and other aquatic species may result at borrow pit P-1 at the Gakona site, if I
this borrow pit was to be used.
The following section discusses potential impacts on subsistence which may result from
construction and operation of the two alternative sites for the proposed facility. Subsistence I
activities may be affected by direct or indirect impacts to subsistence species. Subsistence
species distribution can be affected by loss of access to areas traditionally used for subsistence I
activities. The abundance of subsistence species can be affected by factors such as shifts in
population or economics which may alter competition for subsistence resources or the pursuit
of subsistence activities.
The assessment of potential impacts to subsistence is consistent with the requirements of Section
810(a) of ANILCA (16 U.S.C. §3120), which calls for a determination of whether the proposed
action will result in a significant restriction of subsistence uses. A significant restriction is
defined as: 1) a reduction in harvestable resources due to effects on the resources, habitat, or
increased competition for the resources, 2) a reduction in the availability of resources caused by
an alteration in their distribution, migration, or location, or 3) a limitation on the access of
subsistence users to harvestable resources as a result of physical or legal barriers. Large or
substantial effects in one or more of these categories would result in a Section 810(a) finding of
significant restriction of subsistence uses and needs. As supported below, there would be no 3
significant restriction to any of the Section 810 subsistence categories for either of the three
alternatives; the Gakona site, the Clear site, or No Action. 3
I
I
4-62
U
i 4.10.1 Gakona Site
i Direct and Indirect Impacts to Subsistence Species. Based on the information presented in
Section 3.10 regarding subsistence use patterns in the area, potential impacts to moose, caribou,
and salmon are considered critical to the evaluation of the proposed project's impacts on
subsistence. Additional subsistence considerations include game birds such as grouse and
ptarmigan, small game and furbearers, freshwater fish species, and vegetation such as berries,
g mushrooms, wild vegetables, and trees used for firewood.
The potential impacts to mammals and birds which may occur during construction and operation
of the facility are discussed in Sections 4.3 and 4.4, respectively. Both short-term and long-term
i impacts to populations are considered. These include pre-operational impacts associated with
clearing, gravel mining and hauling, and facility construction, as well as impacts associated with
3
loperation and servicing of the facility. Potential impacts to fish and other aquatic resources are
discussed in Section 4.5. These are primarily associated with gravel removal in areas adjacent
to aquatic resources such as Tulsona Creek and the Copper River. Operational impacts would
be negligible due to the lack of aquatic resources in proximity to the facility and the absence of
3 any surface discharge from the facility. Impacts to vegetation are discussed in Section 4-2.
3 The conclusions reached in Sections 4.3 and 4.4 indicate no significant long-term impacts to
population abundance of important subsistence species would occur due to the implementation
3 of the design scheme. No significant long-term departure from normal distributional patterns
would be anticipated. Only limited loss of habitat will occur due to exclusion by the fencing the
Sperimeters of the nUU and on-site diagnotic equipment. Some short-term avoidance behavior may
occur during construction which may result in reduced hunting success in the immediate area
3 of the facility. This short-term effect on distribution will not be of a sufficient magnitude to
I result in significant impacts to successful subsistence harvests.
The discussion of impacts to salmon and other aquatic species in Section 4.5 concluded that
I short-term impacts may result at Area P-1 under scenarios where gravel removal requires
3 4-63
I
I
diversion of Tulsona Creek. No long-term impacts are foreseen under either design alternative. 3
The proposed creation of aquatic habitat during restoration of gravel resource areas will be a
positive impact. 3
Based on these determinations, potential direct or indirect impacts to subsistence species would I
not significantly impact subsistence activities related to terrestrial animals and fish species.
Although, assessments of impacts to vegetation in Section 4.2 indicated no significant impact to I
plant populations would result from construction or operation of the facility, loss of access to
limited plant resources within the facility boundaries w, 4 oc,.c. I
Loss of Access for Subsistence Activities. Construction of the HAARP facility at the Gakona
would result in the loss of access to land. The maximum amount of land precluded from
subsistence access would be about 50 acres. The government does not anticipate any change in
current use of the site outside of the fenced-in areas. While this acreage may include some areas
of preference for individual subsistence users, the habitat type is typical of the area and contains
no exceptional characteristics which would offer unique subsistence opportunities. No aquatic U
habitats supporting subsistence species are found within the facility area. The restricted access
thus does not represent loss of prime habitat areas which would significantly affect subsistence 3
activities for important species such as moose, caribou, and salmon. Access to resident
populations of small game, birds, and vegetation within this area would be insignificant relative 3
to the large acreage of similar habitat surrounding the facility.
Other Factors Influencing Subsistence Practices. Other factors which could affect subsistence U
practices in the region include an influx in population which might result from job opportunities 3
created by construction and operation of the facility, and an increase in disposable income
resulting from the additional wage employment. Hiring practices would likely include the hiring 3
of local Natives, which would tend to minimize the influx of workers and dependents. This in
turn would minimize any short-term increase in competition for subsistence resources during the 3
construction phase of the project. Avoidance of significant numbers of in-migrants pursuing
game would minimize an increase in hunting practices perceived by Natives as offensive to the 3
4-64
U
I animals, preserving the traditional respect extended to these animals and ensuring their return
the following season.
Staffing requirements during the operational period would be minimal, consisting of security
personnel and facilities maintenance staff. In all likelihood, the majority of these positions
I•would be filled by local residents, thus little impact from population influx is foreseen. The
transient nature of research personnel utilizing the facility would preclude additional demand on
subsistence resources from this group.
I•The increase in disposable income realized by local residents who become employed by the
HAARP project could affect subsistence activities in diverse ways. Individuals employed by the
project, either on a full-time or part-time basis, would have less time available to pursue the
harvest of subsistence resources. On the other hand, a portion of the increased disposable
3 Iincome frequently is used to purchase "subsistence technologies" such as hunting gear (Section
3.10.4). These items offer increased efficiency in harvest activities, which may offset the
3 reduced time available to individuals to pursue subsistence resources. Those employees with
dependents capable of hunting would benefit from the increased harvest efficiency of their
3 dependents. Increased income could also lessen the need for dependency on subsistence
resources because the individual may be able to afford to purchase goods.
Mitigation. Based on these conclusions of no large or substantial effects in any of the categories
3 of Section 810, a finding of no significant restriction on subsistence uses and needs is
I anticipated. Thus, no mitigation would be required for impacts to subsistence.
If gravel were to be obtained from source P-1 during construction, containment berms would
Sbe used to minimize water quality impacts to Tulsona Creek and the Copper River from turbidity
due to erosion. Maintenance of a 100-yard buffer area would further minimize any potential
water quality impacts which might be detrimental to subsistence fishing success. The
construction and operation of the HAARP facility would utilize local labor resources to the
4-65
I
I
greatest extent possible to limit the importation of labor and the competition it brings for 3
subsistence and recreational resources.
I
4.10.2 Clear Site
efforts that could be implemented. A discussion of the required near-term reclamation effort I
required at Gakona and its consequences and mitigation as it relates to subsistence is included
under section 4.10.3 No Action Alternative. I
Direct and Indirect Impacts to Subsistence Species. Based on the discussion of subsistence,
use patterns in the Clear area (see Section 3.10), impacts to moose and caribou harvesting are
among the most important. Other subsistence harvesting carried out in the region include fish
(salmon and non-salmon species), birds, other large and small game, and wild vegetation and
wood gathering.
The consequences to mammals and birds associated with constructing HAARP are discussed in I
section 4.3 and 4.4, respectively. Short- and long-term impacts on species populations are
considered, relating to both construction and operation of the facility at the Clear site. Impacts
to fish and aquatic life are discussed in section 4.5. 3
The conclusions developed in the aforementioned sections are that there would be no significant
long-term impact to mammals, birds, or fish population abundance in the Clear region. In
addition, it was concluded that no departure from normal behavior or population distribution 3
patterns would be brought about by the construction or operation of the HAARP facility. Long
term minor impacts on mammals and birds may include increased mortality brought about by 3
sport hunting, poaching, and road kill, but these contributions would be minimal considering the
relatively small amount of personnel and activity associated with the operation of HAARP. 3
I
4-66|
3
I Limited loss of habitat and browse would not affect wildlife populations. Since few caribou use
these areas minimal impact to this species is anticipated. Due to the large range of wolves and
bears there is no direct impact on these species. Some short-term mammalian and bird
avoidance behavior would result from the construction and operation of the HAARP facility.
This could result in reduced hunting success in the very immediate HAARP equipment areas.
However, this very localized effect would not be sufficient to significantly change subsistence
harvests in the region.
U
lSection 4.5, Aquatics, concludes that the impacts on the salmon and non-salmon fisheries in the
region would be minimal to non-existent. This would primarily be due to the positioning of the
construction sites relative to surface water sources, and the absence of a large salmon or non-
salmon fisheries in the immediate region. Any short term impacts would be associated with
increased sport fishing activity brought about by an influx of construction workers.
iIImpacts on vegetation are discussed in Section 4.2. The assessment in this section concludes
that there would not be a significant impact on vegetation at the site, and that the specific siting
would be done to limit, to the greatest extent practical, the destruction of herbaceous plants
commonly used for subsistence purposes.
3 Based on the determinations outlined above, it is concluded that the potential direct and indirect
impact of HAARP construction and operation on subsistence species and resources would be
insignificant. No mitigation in this regard is required or is seen to be helpful.
Loss of Access for Subsistence Activities. The HAARP site at Clear would occupy an area of
about 78 acres. While the Clear AFS property and the Bear Creek location contain some areas
3 that have been used for subsistence activities in the past, the areas are not unique from a habitat
or subsistence opportunity perspective. No subsistence fishery is known to exist in the facility
I area, either at the Bear Creek location or the Clear AFS property. The restricted access areas
thus would not result in the loss of prime habitat for important subsistence resources such as
I moose and caribou. Access to other subsistence resources such as game birds, other large and
4-67
I
small mammals, and subsistence vegetation is virtually unlimiited in this massive region, and the
loss of about 78 acres would not be a significant impact to subsistence.
I
Other Factors Influencing Subsistence Practices. Othomr factors which might impact on the
subsistence quality of the region include an influx of population to the area associated with the
construction and operation of the HAARP facility. A large population change for the immediate
area could increase the number of local subsistence users, and also yield more recreational
hunting and fishing activities which would compete for resources with subsistence activities.
Another potential concern is that the disposable income of some individuals employed by the
HAARP project could increase, thereby increasing their ability to purchase weapons, vehicles,
and tools which increase the efficiency of subsistence harvesting. i
The policy of the construction contractor is to utilize local labor resources to the greatest extent I
possible, thereby eliminating a large influx of construction workers and their families and
dependents. This policy would minimize any short-term increase in competition for subsistence
resources. It would also help avoid significant numbers of workers from outside the region
taking fish and game in the area in L manner that is considered disrespectful and offensi'. e to
nature in the eyes of Alaskan Natives.
Full-time staffing requirements of the HAARP facility would require 4 to 8 people. These
positions would likely be filled from the local labor pool. Again, this would limit the amount
of worker influx that could impact the availability of subsistence resources.
The increase in local income by some individuals as a result of the addition of the HAARP
facility to this region could impact subsistence activities in diverse ways. Individuals working
at the HAARP facility on a full-time basis may have less time to pursue a subsistence lifestyle.
However, it can be argued that the increase in income would allow these individuals to purchase
"subsistence technologies" (i.e. vehicles, firearms, and tools) that increase their efficiency of 3
harvesting fish and game, which may help offset the decreased time available. Family members
and dependents of HAARP employed personnel may benefit from the "subsistence technologies" 3
4-68
I
I I I I I I II IU
I
I which would increase their efficiency without the decrease in time associated with working at
the HAARP facility. Increased income could also lessen the need for dependency on subsistence
I resources because the individual may be able to afford to purchase goods.
I Mitigation. Based on the discussion above, it is concluded that no large or substantial effects
in any of the categories in Section 810 would occur. Therefore, no significant restriction on
I subsistence uses and needs would occur and no mitigation would be required.
U As discussed above, the construction and operation of the HAARP facility could utilize local
labor resources to the greatest extent possible to limit the importation of labor and the
competition it brings for subsistence and iecreational resources. Mitigation associated with the
preservation of subsistence species and resources is described in detail in Sections 4.2
Vegetation, 4.3 Mammals, 4.4 Birds, and 4.5 Aquatics.
U 4.10.3 No Action Alternative
There would be no impact on subsistence at the Clear site associated with the no action
alternative. The no action alternative would result in slight impacts at the Gakona site due to
the .quired near-term reclamation. The potential impacts to vegetation, mammals, fish and
U birds at the Gakona site as a result the reclamation is presented in Sections 4.2 through 4.5.
Short-term impacts associated with the reclamation effort could include some avoidance behavior
of mammals and birds as a result of the increased level of man's activity in the immediate area.
However, the short-term affect on the population distribution of the birds and mammals would
U not be significant to subsistence harvesting.
Impacts to salmon and other aquatic species as a result of the reclamation effort would be non-
existent. Similarly, there would be no impact on existing vegetation as a result of the no action/
reclamation effort at the Gakona site.
I i 4-69
I
Loss of access for subsistence activities in the immediate area may occur in the short-term as
a result of the no action and associated reclamation effort at the Gakona site. Although no
detailed plan has been presented on the construction of the reclamation activity, it is estimated
that this effort would last on the order of one year, at which time the site would be formerly
abandoned. Note that the area around the existing Gakona site is typical of the habitat type in
the area, and no exceptional characteristics are present at the site which would offer unique
subsistence opportunities.
The long term effects of the no action alternative at the Gakona site could include an actual
enhancement of the site for subsistence harvesting of large game. Eventually, the gravel pad
and roadway would return to uplands vegetation growth; well suited for moose browse areas.
The roadway, even in its reclaimed state (culverts removed and gravel scarified) could provide
improved access to the area via off-road-vehicles. Additional affects could include the increased
harvesting ability caused by using the cleared areas at the site for hunting corridors, thus
permitting greater hunter surveillance of the area and increased harvest rates.
Other factors brought about by the no action and associated reclamation effort involve the
potential influx of construction workers who might compete for subsistence resources and
temporary increases in disposable income for locals which might increase their ability to harvest
game. The construction effort associated with the reclamation effort would be relatively small
in scope, and would not bring about an influx in construction workers realized on larger
projects. Additionally, it is typically cheaper to utilize existing local labor pools as opposed to
importing labor. Thus, impacts relating to increased competition for subsistence resources
would not be significant. Similarly, the temporary increase in disposable income for locals who
might use this money to purchase *subsistence technologies" would not be significant.
4-70
I
I 4.11 RECREATION
I Construction and operation of the HAARP facility would not significantly reduce recreational
opportunities for Alaska residents or visitors. Mitigation is suggested for each of the alternatives
I to limit the small amount of impact anticipated.
I Potential Impacts. A BLM trail currently extends through the Gakona site north from the Tok
I ICut-Off Highway. The trail provides access to BLM lands located north of the site. The
government will ensure that access to the these BLM lands north of the site is provided.
I The quality of recreational experiences would decline in areas that have direct views of the
I chosen and utilized borrow site (see Section 4.12 Aesthetics) and would temporarily decline
during the construction period due to increased traffic and noise. The approximately 40 non-
I regional workers at the peak of construction would add to the general increase in resource use
that occurs during the winter and summer. However, these nonresident construction employees
I would be a small fraction of the total visitor count, which is estimated to be 600,000 in the
Copper River Valley (USAF, 1989a).
Construction workers hired from outside the local communities may affect recreational visitors
in the rural areas. For example, construction workers may choose to occupy public campsites
for temporary stays in rural areas. Although they would compete with recreational users, their
periods of residence would be limited by restrictions that prevent long-term use of campgrounds.
3 Construction workers could also compete with local residents and visitors for use of recreational
resources, such as trails, fish and game, and wild berries. In the spring, bear and snowshoe
hare are hunted; in summer, fishing, berry picking, and target shooting are popular; in the fall,
bear, moose, caribou, and grouse are hunted; and in the winter, snowmobilers and trappers are
I active.
4-71
I
Some fraction of the teams of scientists that would be using the IRI facilities, about 4 to 5 times
a year for about 28 days at a time, may hunt and fish in the regions of the Copper River Valley
and Tanana Valley. The impact of this activity would be minimal because only roughly 15
scientists would visit the site during each campaign and not all of these would choose to hunt
and fish. Impacts to recreational resources during the operation of the MI would be
insignificant.
I
The preferred site would be located in an expansive black-spruce taiga forest that has no unique
features in terms of wildlife habitat and probably only received limited use by hunters. Access
to remote public areas to the north via the BLM trail traversing the site would be maintained or
an alternate means would be provided. Since, as discussed in Section 4.3, there would not be m
significant impacts to wildlife, there would be no significant impact on the availability of game
to the region's hunters. The lost habitat would be minimal as compared with the total spruce I
habitat in the area. Therefore, impacts on recreational hunting activity in the immediate area
of the site would be minimal.
As discussed in Section 4.12.2, the completed IRI and diagnostic facilities would be a major I
landscape feature visible from small aircraft. Therefore, there would be an impact on I
recreational visitors who use small aircraft for transport to backcountry sites and for sightseeing
tours from Tok and Gulkana. Those aerial views of the IRI and diagnostic facilities would not
detract significantly from the pleasure or value of recreational activity while flying.
I
Mitigation. Area labor would be used both for the construction of the HAARP facility, as well
as for the anticipated 4 to 8 person operations and maintenance crew. Utilization of area labor
to the greatest extent possible would mitigate the effects of increased competition for recreational
resources that would result from an imported construction force. I
Mitigation of the aesthetic effects associated with recreational concerns is discussed in section
4.12. Visual impact and viewer sensitivity would be mitigated through the use of re-vegetation
programs and selection of structure color.
4-72
I 4.11.2 Clear Site
I Below is a discussion of the consequences of selecting the Clear site, and possible mitigation
efforts that could be implemented. The consequences to recreation of the required near-term
I reclamation effort at the Gakona site is provided in Section 4.11.3 No Action Alternative.
I Potential impacts on recreation at the Clear site would include detractions from the natural
vistas, particularly at the Bear Creek location. Impacts on recreation at the Clear AFS property
is considered to be minimal, while impacts at the Bear Creek location are potentially moderate.
I Potential Impacts. Access to 78 acres of land would be lost as a result of the HAARP
construction at the Clear site. The Clear AFS property could be considered low in recreational
value, while the Bear Creek location could be considered moderately valuable. To hikers, river
floaters, sightseers, railroad passengers, and highway motorists the ISR and VIS facilities at Bear
Creek could detract from the natural vistas that many come to Alaska to experience. For more
on the aesthetics issue, see Section 4.12. Since most of the proposed HAARP facilities would
be located on the Clear AFS property, which has controlled access and is relatively low in
3 topographic relief, aesthetic detraction from recreational enjoyment would not be significant.
To protect the ISR unit at the Bear Creek tocation from radio frequency interference from the
BMEWS system at Clear, a large earthen mound (110 feet high) would be constructed to the
I north of the ISR and VIS equipment (Figure 2.3-6). The Bear Creek location would also have
two antenna clusters which comprise the VIS. Naturally occurring trees and vegetation in the
area would not be tall enough to provide visual screening. The large antenna and earthen mound
at the ISR site would be rather tall and would be visible from the surrounding hills and
prominent mountain domes ascended by hikers, but more commonly viewed by train passengers,
motorists and river rafters in the area. The presence of this facility in a region that appears
otherwise untouched would detract from the 'wilderness' setting.
I
I 4-73
I
I
It is anticipated that very few construction workers would need to be imported to the region to
complete the construction of HAARP facilities. This also applies to the operation of HAARP
facilities. The use of area labor would reduce the recreational impact that could be realized if
a large transient construction team were to be used. Recreational impacts that would be avoided
by using the local residents include prolonged campsite occupation, and overuse of hiking trails, n
fishing and hunting resources, and wild vegetation harvesting.
The scientific campaigns would result in the influx of about 15 scientists and technicians to the
area for a period of about 28 days, occurring 4 to 5 times per year. Some of the individuals I
involved in the program may stay on to recreate in the area. However, due to the small number
I
of scientists, and recognizing that not all would participate in recreational activities, the impact
from this source would be minimal.
The HAARP facility would be easily visible from small aircraft and could detract from the visual
setting. Again, this is particularly true at the Bear Creek location. At the Clear AFS property,
the BMEWS antennas and facilities tend to dominate the landscape and would overshadow any
visual detraction that the HAARP equipment would provide. Visitors, tourists, and vacationing
Alaskan residents often use small aircraft for sightseeing activities and to provide drop-off I
services to backcountry destinations. Although the HAARP facilities would not detract
significantly from the pleasure or value of the recreational experience, there would be some
recreational impact associated with aesthetics.
I
In conclusion, although there would some impacts relating to quality of the experience and visual
degradation, these issues could be mitigated. The use of the land for HAARP construction J
would be within the BLM visual resource management guidelines for Class 1I/1I land.
Mitigation. Mitigation measures identified for the Gakona site would be used at the Clear site.
Refer to the above section 4.11. 1, Mitigation, for a detailed discussion.
4-74
I
i There would be no impact to recreation at the Clear site from no action alternative. The
required near-term reclamation effort at the Gakona site would result in both short and long-term
effects. Short-term effects could include increased pressure on recreational resources such as
hunting grounds, fisheries, campgrounds, and tourist hotels due to an influx of construction
workers. However, it is anticipated that the construction contractor performing the reclamation
project would utilize local labor resources to the maximum extent possible.
II Additional impacts on recreation could include noise and increased traffic in the area due to the
construction effort. The construction effort, however, is anticipated to be relatively small in
scope to the point where noise will not be a problem. In turn, because limited hauling of
earthen material off-site would be required, the amount of increased traffic on the road would
be limited to commuting activities by the construction workers from their homes in the area to
the site. This increased traffic load would be small relative to the overall traffic on the
i highways.
Hunters and fishermen using the BLM trail to access recreational locations in the area would be
impacted in the short term due to visual and acoustic detraction as a result of the construction
3 activities. However, these activities would be short-term and would impact a minimum of users.
There would be several long-term impacts associated with the required near-term reclamation
at the Gakona site. The reclaimed roadway could provide access to the BLM trail and adjacent
Sproperty by ORV's and other equipment. Similarly, the reclaimed site could grow into prime
moose and other large game habitat, thereby increasing the site's hunting value. The cleared
3 areas could provide opportunities to the hunter to see game in an otherwise densely vegetated
area that yields little hunting success, thereby increasing success rates and its value as a hunting
I area.
4
U 4 -75
I , i I I
The area would also receive a positive recreational benefit associated with the demolition and
removal of the large powerplant building in the long-term, and with the total regrowth of the site
to its near natural condition in the long term. This would decrease the aesthetic impact on both I
the highway traveler, and particularly the small aircraft pilot and passenger.
In short, there would be both positive and negative recreational impacts associated with the no
action alternative at the Gakona site. Some small negative impacts associated with the I
construction effort would be expected, but larger impacts associated with access for recreational
users and increased recreational aesthetics would also be realized.
Mitigation of the negative recreation impacts associated with the no action and associated I
reclamation effort would include encouraging the construction contractor to utilize local labor.
This would prevent a major short-term taxing of local recreational resources.
II
I
I
I
I
4-76
I
I 4.12 AESTHETICS
I The assessment of visual impacts is based on a determination of where changes to existing

landscape features would occur as a result of construction or operation of the HAARP facility
and an evaluation of the significance of these changes. For the Gakona site, the visual impacts
E of the proposed facility are based on the USAF's 1989 ELAP discussions of visual impacts that
could have been caused by the OTH-B radar facility, previously proposed for the same site. For
the Clear site, the visual impacts of the proposed facility are based on a site visit and
photographs. The photographs included recent ground-based and aerial (oblique and stereo-
scopic) photographs. The method used for conducting the assessments is part of the standardized
Visual Resource Management (VRM) system developed by the BLM, and is referred to as a
Contrast Rating System. This system is described in BLM Manual 8431-1 (BLM, 1986).
5l Impacts on Visual Resources. Visual impacts which would result from site development
include clearing of vegetation, construction of gravel roads and transmitter shelters, and
I installation of antenna element piles, power cables, elevated groundscreen and a restriction
fence. However, the HAARP facility would not be visible from the Glenn Highway or
3 Richardson Highway because of intervening dense tree cover surrounding the sites. A brief view
of the access road and staging area would be possible at the intersection with Highway I (Glenn
I Highway); however, visual contrasts from this vantage point would be weak and would not result
in significant impacts. The visual contrasts of the IRI design (70-foot above ground) antennae
I would be less than the projected contrasts that would have been caused by the tallest portions
of the formerly proposed OTH-B facility antenna backscreen (135 feet) and sounder antenna
(150-feet) (USAF, 1989a). The visual contrasts of the IRI diagnostic facilities, including the
VIS consisting of one 98-foot high and four 49-foot high towers, would also be less than the
i projected contrasts that would have been caused by the tallest portions of the formerly proposed
OTH-B facility. Since only the tops of the 135-foot and 150-foot tall OTH-B antenna
backscreen and sounder antenna, respectively, would have been visible, it can be concluded that
4-77
I
the 70 foot high IRI masts would not be visible from the highway. From the air the IRI and
diagnostics would be highly visible at lower altitudes although to a lesser extent than the OTH-B
facility would have been. It was concluded that the OTH-B would not detract from the highly I
scenic landscape features, such as the Wrangle Mountains, in the background setting, despite the
fact that the OTH-B would have contrasted with the surrounding natural landscape elements in I
color, texture and line and that these visual contrasts would have attracted attention and begin
to dominate the landscape scene (USAF, 1989a). It can therefore be also concluded that the I
smaller IRI would also not significantly detract from the visual setting. Visual contrasts for the
preferred IRI site would be within VRM objectives for the Class Ell landscape. Visual impacts
would not be significant.
All of the HAARP borrow area alternatives, previously discussed for the construction of an
OTH-B radar facility (M&E/H&N 1989a; USAF 1989a), would involve clearing of vegetation
and excavation, resulting in the modification of the existing landscape's color, texture and form.
The conclusions of the USAF (1989a) for the OTH-B may be applied to the HAARP project.
These conclusions were:
"* Visual impacts to a private residence located at milepost 14.3 along the Tok Cut-Off and 3
to adjacent ponds used for fishing would result from use of source P-I.
I
"* Visual impacts to a 0.25 mile segment of the Tok Cut-Off while traveling northeast from
Gakona would result from use of sources A-1 or A-5. 5
Visual contrasts range from moderate to strong and would result in short-term (less than 5 years)
impacts to landscape character, until revegetation occurs. Neither short nor long term impacts
associated with borrow mining would be significant. 3
I
I
4-78 1
U
I Mitigation. The following mitigation measures would reduce or eliminate significant visual
contrasts:
* Retain a 50- to 100-foot buffer of mature trees between public viewing points wherever
I possible.
I . Selectively clear trees and brush only where necessary for safety and visibility along
roads or for operational requirements such as security.
I Construct the diagnostic gravel service road to minimize the amount of land that would
have to be cleared.
1 0 Use access road right-of-way for utility lines to facilities.
E 4.12.2 Clear Site
3 efforts that could be implemented. A discussion of the required near-term reclamation of the
Gakona site, its consequences, and proposed mitigation as it relates to recreation is included
under section 4.12.3 No Action Alternative.
I Impacts on Visual Resources. Because the Clear site would include two separate locations that
are somewhat different in aesthetic regards, it is necessary to assess and discuss these locations
I separately.
Visual contrasts resulting from site development at Clear AFS property, clearing of vegetation,
construction of gravel roads and transmitter shelters, and installation of antenna element piles,
power cables, elevated groundscreen and the exclusion fence, would not be visible from the
Parks Highway because of intervening dense tree cover surrounding the sites. A brief view of
I the access road to the MIfsite and the LIDAR site would be possible from the Clear/Anderson
1 4-79
I
1
spur road; however, visual contrasts from this vantage point would be weak and would not result
in significant impacts. Visual impacts resulting from the optics and magnetometer site would
be limited to viewing the gravel access road departing from the Parks Highway. Similar 5
restrictive viewing conditions and viewer sensitivity would be encountered from the train tracks.
The HAARP facilities at Clear AFS property would not be visible from the Nenana River. I
Views of the IRI, LIDAR, and Optics and Magnetometer sites would be possible from a small
aircraft at low altitude. However, considering the amount of buildings, roads, airfields, railroad
trackage, and other man-made disturbances at the site, the construction of the IRI and the
diagnostics would have a limited visual impact on the already disturbed Clear AFS property.
Obtaining small quantities of gravel from the existing borrow areas would not be significant
from an aesthetic or visual perspective. In fact, filling in some of the many previously used old I
borrow locations with vegetation and loess material stripped from the construction sites could
have a net positive aesthetic effect.
Visual contrasts for the proposed HAARP facility at the Clear AFS property would be within
the BLM's Visual Resource Management (VRM) objectives for a Class IV site, which calls for 3
minimal retainment of the existing character of the landscape. Thus, overall visual impacts of
the HAARP facility at the Clear AFS property would not be significant. 3
Although the overall level of construction activity at the Bear Creek location is less than at Clear 3
AFS, the visual impacts of the ISR and the VIS would be of much greater concern. As
explained in the previous sections, the ISR consists of a large 115 foot diameter parabolic 3
antenna which would be mounted on a pedestal and would swing an arc from aiming completely
vertical (toward the zenith) to 30" from the vertical. It would be situated behind an earthen 1
mound 110 feet tall. The 100-foot high guyed VIS would also be situated at the Bear Creek
location. There are three main surface transportation corridors in the Nenana River Valley, I
including the Parks Highway, the Nenana River, and the Alaska Railroad. Each of these
4-801
I
I
I transportation routes carries, to varying degrees, both resident and tourist observers. Other
considerations are views of the site from homes and dwellings in the area.
Visual contact with the Bear Creek location equipment from the Nenana River would be very
limited due to the dense conifer and deciduous tree cover along the banks and generally around
the site, and the fact that the river level is approximately 30 feet below the surface elevation at
the site, and almos., nalf a mile away. In addition, this section of the river is floated rather
infrequently as was reported in section 3.12, which further limits the visual impacts and viewer
sensitivity.
The train tracks are located across the river from the ISR site and are roughly between 0.50 and
0.75 miles from the closest point of the ISR site. The train tracks are at a higher elevation than
the river, but are also slightly further away. However, passenger trains run frequently in the
summer, allowing passengers to view the area. The view of the ISR site from the tracks would
not be imposing due to the distance it is away from the site, and the relatively short period of
time that the ISR unit would be in view. Although there would be some visual detraction when
I viewed from the railroad tracks, it would be minimal due to the low viewer sensitivity.
The Parks Highway runs by the Bear Creek location at an elevation that is roughly 100 feet
higher than the ground surface at the site. This provides a superior vantage point for viewing
the valley, and thus, the impacts of the Bear Creek development from the highway would be
significant. The 110 foot high earthen mound and the large parabolic dish antenna would be
easily visible from highway for much of an approximately 2 mile stretch of highway northbound,
and to a lesser extent for southbound traffic. The deciduous trees and the short conifers would
I afford little visual screening for this site.
There is currently one house in the Bear Creek area, located approximately 1 mile from the ISR
i and VIS location. Preliminary site investigation information suggest that there may not be direct
visual contact between the dwelling and the ISR location (M&E/H&N, 1992a). In addition, the
I orientation of the site with the house provides a situation where the ISR and VIS units would be
4-81
I
I
partially obscured from view, even if all the vegetation were removed. Visual and aesthetic
impacts insofar as the existing dwelling is concerned would be minimal. --he impact on
additional homes that could be constructed in the area cannot be projected, but could be
substantial.
Views of the ISR site and the VIS equipment would be possible from small aircraft. Although
there is a fair amount of man-made objects within the area hy Alaskan standards, the ISR site i
would probably demand at least as much attention as the Parks Highway, the railroad tracks, and
the over-head power lines. Although the construction at the Bear Creek location would have an I
impact on the visual resources from the air, the impact would be short in duration and not
significant.
Visual contrasts for the proposed HAARP facility at the Bear Creek location would be within
the BLM's Visual Resource Management (VRM) objectives for a Class II/II1 site, which calls
for partial to substantial retainment of the existing character of the landscape. Whether the
partial or substantial retainment would be necessary requires that the viewer sensitivity be either 5
being medium or high. Viewer sensitivity is dependent on type of users, amount of use, public
interest, and adjacent land uses. 3
Depending on whether the Bear Creek location is considered Class II or IE[ for scenic quality 3
rating, the proposed action may be within VRM objectives. The overall aesthetic impact of this
site on the surrounding landscape would be low to moderate. £
Mitigation. To reduce the effects of the visual impacts at the Clear Site, the following actions 3
would be conducted:
I
0 Retain a 50- to 100-foot buffer of mature trees between public viewing points wherever
possible. 3
4-82i
I
1'
"* Construction of the protective berm in front of the ISR should be done in a manner that
suggests natural deposition of the material. This could be accomplished by making the
mound asymmetric and irregular in plan and profile, as well as introducing native
vegetation to the side-slopes.
"" Access roads to HAARP equipment should be curved to prevent direct viewing of the site
from major thoroughfares. The curved nature of the roads will also present a more
natural and visually appealing site. At the Bear Creek location the access road should
be configured to follow the existing grades.
"" Access road clearings will be used to carry both overhead and subsurface power lines and
communications cables. If overhead lines are used, timber poles as compared with open
lattice steel frames could reduce the visual contrast.
"* Buildings could be constructed of treated or self-weathering wood to blend with the
natural rustic setting.
"" Building and structure colors could be earth-tones, such as soft greens, blues, tans, and
browns. Low reflectivity paint could also be used (flat and semi-gloss).
There would be no project impacts on aesthetics at the Clear site associated with the no action
alternative. The no action alternative would result in both short- and long-term impacts at the
Gakona site due to required near-term reclamation of the site. Short-term negative impacts on
aesthetics would result from the increased level of construction at the site. However, these
short-term negative impacts would be insignificant. The long-term positive aesthetic would
result from the removal of the powerplant building and the return of the site to a near natural
condition.
4-83
With the removal of the large powerplant building and the scarifying of the access roadway, it
is possible that the highway traveler would not notice the access roadway. From the air, the site
would appear disturbed for many years, but the with the powerplant building removed and
vegetation starting to reestablish itself on the gravel surfaces, the visual impact will be greatly
diminished.
Mitigation for this site could include using downed trees and other natural objects to clog the
cut-line where the road intersects the Tok Cut-Off Highway. This simple action would provide
a relatively natural looking visual barrier that would not call the motorist's attent;,in to this
clearing. In the long-term, natural succession of the area would ultimately reforest the disturbed
area.
4-84
4.13 BIOEFFECTS OF RFR
RFR would be produced by the operation of the HAARP facility. RFR has quantum energies
much lower than that associated with ionizing radiation, and is therefore classified as nonionizing
radiation. Nonionizing radiation, such as RFR, adds heat energy to the body. Numerous studies
indicate that biological effects occur when exposure levels are of sufficient intensity and
duration. An exclusion fence will be built to prevent entry into areas where energies may be
above exposure standards. Therefore, there would be no effects to humans and other animals
remaining outside the exclusion fence. The placement of the exclusion fence is based upon
li calculations conducted by NRL (1992b). The upward directed IRI and ISR beams would pose
no hazard to humans in aircraft passing through, because the aircraft would not remain in the
I1 main beam for any significant period of time. The power of the VIS is too low to be of
concern. One of the design features discussed at the end of this section would be used to further
31 minimize exposure to people in this case. Birds that roost on top of, or fly over, the antenna
array would not be affected (AUSA, 1992b).
The placement of the exclusion fence and the conclusions that the lRI will not harm humans or
3 animals beyond the fence were based upon:
I • calculations of expected IRI operational near-ground level electric and magnetic fields
(Table 4.13-1) (NRL, 1992b).
0 calculations of expected variations in the electric and magnetic fields with altitude above
3! the IRI during its operation (Table 4.13-2) (NRL,1993).
1 0 maximum permissible RFR exposure limits for the general public established by the IEEE
C95.1 - 1991 standard (Figure 4.13-1).
I4
4-8
IaI l
TABLE 4.13-1. CALCULATED ELECTRIC (E) AND MAGNETIC (H) FIELDS
WITH DISTANCE FROM THE EDGE OF IRI
3 MHz TRANSM I C ND MAG NETIC (il) FIELDS

Distances From 33 68 99 132 > 132 IEEE C95.1 - 1991
Edge of IRI Exposure Limits To
(feet) The General Public'
E (Volts/meter) 330 174 111 78 <78 275 (Volts/meter)

H (Amps/meter) 0.7 .4 .3 0.2 <0.2 5.4 (Amps/meter)
0 HZ TRION ELECTRIC E)ANDMAGNETIC fHl FIELDS

Distances From 33 68 99 132 > 132 IEEE C95.1 - 1991 Exposre
Edge of II (feet) Limits
I To The General Publice
E (Volts/meter) 370 93 69 57 <57 82 (Volts/meter)
H (Amps/meter) 0.86 0.34 0.24 0.20 <0.2 1.6 (Amps/meter)
Source: NRL, 1992b.
TABLE 4.13-2. MAXIMUM ELECTRIC (E) AND MAGNETIC (H) FIELDS ABOVE
THE IRI.
FREQUENCIES E FIELD IEEE C95.1 - 1991 H FIELD IEMU C95.1 - 1991 H Alfiwdea of Mxizmum
(Megahertz) (Voltmeter) E FIELD (Amps/meter) FIELD (Amps/meter) FNed Surenghs
(Voltsmeter) EXPO0SURE LIMITS (I~ed abov pSnjmj)
EPOSURE
L&MITS
2.8 191 294 .5 5.2 1,148
8.0 193 103 .5 2.0 3.193
10.0 193 82 .5 1.6 4,067
Source: NRL, 1993.
1 1991 guidelines for maximum exposure limits to the general public issued by the Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers C95.1 - 1991 standard. These limits are based on average
durations of exposure of any 6 minute interval for magnetic field exposures and any 30 minute
interval for electric field exposures.
4-86
""the Analysis of the PotentialFor Radio Frequency Radiation Bioeffects To Result From
Operation Of The ProposedONR And Air ForceHigh-FrequencyActive AuroralResearch
Program Ionospheric Research Instrument (HAARP IRI): General Analysis (Not System
Specific) (AUSA, 1992a)
"* the analysis of the vast amount of literature regarding the bioeffects of RFR exposure to
humans as it relates specifically to the HAARP IRI (AUSA, 1992b).
The following environmental analysis applies to both the Gakona and Clear sites since the effect
of HAARP generated non-ionizing RFR on biological organisms would be similar at both sites.
Effects are evaluated for both humans and other biological organisms that could be affected by
the operation of the IRI. The no action alternative would have no potential effects, since no
RFR would be produced.
4.13.1 Near Ground Field Strengths
Calculations were made of the expected near ground level electric (E) and magnetic (H) fields
based on the computer modeling of the stacked IRI design configuration, including the ground
screen (NRL, 1992b). The geometric and spatial parameters of the antenna elements, including
the ground screen, were modeled and various frequencies and combinations of elements were
evaluated. Electric and magnetic field strengths were found for various distances out from the
modeled elements and plotted (Figure 4.13-1). The field strengths were calculated at the edge
of the proposed ground screen (33 feet away from the perimeter of the array) and other variable
distances from it (Table 4.13-1).
Figure 4.13-1 conceptually illustrates the distribution of the electric field strength around the IRI
array at a 2 meter height. Only one end of the 12 X 15 array is shown since the fields would
be symmetrical around the array. In this figure the array is operating at a frequency of 3 MHz
and at maximum power level.
4-87
U)
4o
0 .LJ .z
wL
( Uj
w C
co
(D CD
>~ > C N
It 0~ 0. ... 0...
__
CD M
>0 Cml
C D
0 0
0 0A
00
joej OL
LLO3 s~nb3UOISAQ
4-88
I
E None of the NRL (1992b) calculated H field strengths exceeded the E C95.1 - 1991
guidelines for allowable exposure to the general public (Table 4.13-1). The E field strength
generated by 3 MHz transmissions fell below the TEE C95.1 - 1991 exposure limits
approximately 50 feet away from the edge of the IRI, 17 feet outside the edge of the ground
screen (Table 4.13-1). The E field strength generated by the 10 MHz transmissions fell below
the E C95.1 - 1991 exposure limits approximately 83 feet away from the perimeter of the
IRI, 50 feet outside the edge of the ground screen.
I The ISR operates at less power than the IRI and the VIS operates at much less power than both
the ISR and the IRI. The ground level field strengths adjacent to these diagnostics instruments
are all within the allowable exposure limits to the general public at both the Gakona and Clear
sites (MITRE, 1993a). No exclusion fence in necessary for either the ISR or VIS.
The field strength outside the IRI exclusion fence is within safety exposure limits. The field
strengths at the ISR and VIS are within safety exposure limits (no fence required). Since the
3 field strength of each emitter decreases rapidly with distance, safety exposure concerns become
less significant with distance. Because of the rapid loss of field strength with respect to distance,
the highest value of the combined field strengths would be found at the edge of the emitting
antennas. At no point, outside the exclusion fence of the IRI, is the safety threshold exceeded
I for the combined field strengths of all the emitters at both the Gakona and Clear sites (MITRE,
1993a). Additionally, the simultaneously operation of BEMWS at the Clear site does not change
I this conclusion (UMTRE, 1993b).
3 4.13.2 Above Ground Field Strengths
3 The altitudes of the maximum E and H fields above the proposed MRI were calculated (NRL,
1993) as a function of 3 expected operational frequencies: 2.8 MHz (lowest operational
frequency), 8.0 MHz, and 10.0 MHz (highest operational frequency). The maximum fields
were calculated to assess the potential consequences to occupants of aircraft flying over or birds
3 that may roost on or fly over the array (Table 4.13-2). The IEEE C95.1 - 1991 exposure limits
4-89
I
for the general public ("uncontrolled environment," Table 3.13-1) allows E field exposures to
be averaged over any 30 - minute period for the frequency band 3 MHz to 10 MHz.
Exposure to Humans. The IEEE C95.1 - 1991 exposure limits for the general public would
not be exceeded for either electric or magnetic fields at any altitude when the IRI is operated at
2.8 MIz. However, at higher frequencies such as 8.0 and 10.0 MHz the E field strengths could
exceed the IEEE C95.1 - 1991 E field exposure limits for 30 minute exposures within different
altitude ranges, indicating that the IRI could potentially pose a hazard to occupants of aircraft
flying nearby and over the IRI in the unlikely event they remain in the main beam for an
extended period of time. Because aircraft would be in the beam for only a very short period,
the permitted E field exposures may be increased in inverse proportion to the time in the beam.
The IEEE C95.1 - 1991 exposure limits for the general public would not be exceeded from the
operation of the VIS. The exposure standards could be exceeded above the ISR during its
operation (MITRE, 1993a). The location where the exposure standard would be exceeded above
the ISR resembles an acute angle inverted cone with the apex at the ISR. The cone extends
upward and outward to 30,000 feet above the ground where it has a diameter of 36,000 feet.
The cone is formed by rotating the narrow ISR beam through its possible research angle (about
300) from the zenith. It would be unlikely that a person would occur in the cone. In the
unlikely event someone where to occur in the cone, the probability that they would encounter
the narrow beam would be less than 1 percent. Even in the extremely unlikely event someone
would encounter the beam, they would have to remain in the beam long enough to exceed
exposure limits (MITRE, 1993a). Based upon this necessary sequency of improbable events,
it is, therefore, concluded that potential health hazards from the emitters would be negligible.
Simultaneous operation of the MI, ISR, and VIS at either site does not change this conclusion.
The safety exposure limit would be exceeded from the individual MRI and ISR emissions, rather
than the combined operation of all the emitters (MITRE, 1993a). Similarly, the simultaneous
operation of the BMEWS radar (at Clear AFS), IRI, ISR, and VIS does not change this
conclusion (MITRE, 1993b).
4-90
I
m To prevent aircraft occupants from being exposed to levels of RFR higher than the IEEE C95. I -
1991 exposure standard, the IRI is being designed with an aircraft detection system and all
U appropriate emitters will be shut off automatically if any aircraft approaches. On this basis, the
IEEE C95.1 - 1991 maximum permissible exposures would not be exceeded by aircraft
I occupants passing over the antenna.
I Exposure to Birds. The 0.4 watt per kilogram RFR exposure basis for the IEEE C95.1 - 1991
I exposure limits for humans was used to calculate the specific absorption rate (SAR) for birds
(AUSA, 1992b). According to the calculations, a bird up to the size of about 3 pounds in
I weight and 16 inches in body length would not exceed the SAR of 0.4 watts per kilogram at E
field strengths less than 1228 volts per meter at 10 MHz. Hence there is no significant risk to
I birds flying over or roosting on the IRI because (AUSA, 1992a,b,c):
1 0 at 10 MHz the maximum E field strength above the IRI was calculated to be 193 volts per
meter (Table 4.13-2), well below the 1228 volts per meter exposure threshold for birds.
0 the calculated maximum E field strengths at operational frequencies less than 10 MHz will
5 all be almost an order of magnitude lower than the exposure limits.
Mitigation. An exclusion fence would be built around the IRI to prevent the general public and
mammals from being exposed to any near ground RFR that exceeds the IEEE C95.1 - 1991
3 maximum exposure limits. The fenc~e would be built at least 50 feet away from the edge of the
ground screen, 83 feet or more from the edge of the IRI array, where the expected RFR
I exposure would drop below permissible levels. Since the design specification for the
construction of the IRI already includes an aircraft detection system to turn off the appropriate
emitters when an aircraft approaches, there is no need to suggest a mitigating measure for the
potential impacts to aircraft occupants. Furthermore it is doubtful that aircraft would remain in
3I a beam for a length of time that would be sufficient to exceed the time averaged exposure limits.
i
4
4-91
I
I
4.13.3 No Action Alternative i
Selection of the no action alternative would result in no RFR being generated. Thus, there
would be no adverse impacts to humans and animals from RFR at either of the sites.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4-92
4.14 ELECTROMAGNETIC AND RADIO FREQUENCY INTERFERENCE
I Transmissions from the HAARP transmitters, [RI, ISR, and VIS, would change portions of the
electromagnetic environment in the vicinity of the HAARP facility and, to a lesser extent, at
I locations distant from HAARP (MT , 1992b,c,d,e). The changed portions of the
electromagnetic environment would consist of the operational frequency ranges of the IRI, ISR,
I and VIS and associated secondary frequency ranges (harmonic and spurious emissions). HF
communications, FM radio, mobile VHF and UHF radios, wildlife trackers, citizen band radios,
I and VHF and UHF radio telephone systems, cellular telephone and Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline
maintenance communications could be impacted by HAARP transmissions. However, real
world conditions such as variable topography, vegetation, structures, condition and age of the
receiving system technology, and atmospheric conditions on sky wave propagation make it very
I difficult to reliably predict specific interference effects to receiver systems. One of the world's
most powerful IRI's is currently operating in Tromso, Norway. It is roughly one-quarter as
Ipowerful as the proposed HAARP IRI. However, it is nonetheless encouraging to note that
broadcast radio, television, and telecommunications successfully operate within close proximity
to the facility (MITRE, 1992c). Furthermore, satellite television signals are successfully
received, without interference, from a satellite dish mounted on the roof of a building within 300
feet of the facility. In addition, during more than a decade of development, testing, and
i II
operation of large, powerful high-frequency over-the-horizon backscatter radars, in a mode
similar to that proposed for the HAARP IRI, there has been but one confirmed report of
5 interference and none within the International Broadcast Bands.
3 The effect of the HAARP project on surrounding receivers was studied and modeled in separate
technical reports (MITRE, 1992b,c,d,e). These reports are summarized in the remainder of
3 Section 4.14.
4
I
I 4-93
I
I
4.14.1 HAARP Transmitters
Operation of the three primary HAARP emitters (IRI, ISR and VIS) would change the
electromagnetic environment over the frequency bands of their operation (and their harmonic
frequencies and spurious emissions) within the physical space reached by their energy. I
Civilian use of the radio spectrum is under control of the Federal Communications Commission I
(FCC) while government use is under the control of the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA). Because HAARP is a Department of Defense research and i
development program, an application for experimental spectrum support has been submitted by
the Air Force to the Interdepartmental Radio Advisory Committee (IRAC) of the NTIA, which I
will consider and authorize, as appropriate, the operation of the HAARP emitters.
The HAARP IRI would transmit in the HF portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, from 2.78
to 10.0 megahertz (MHz). An important characteristic of radio signals within this frequency
band is that they can be refracted by layers of naturally occurring ionization at heights above
approximately 31 miles. The refraction results in these radio signals returning to earth over a
broad area. This is referred to as sky-wave propagation. Lesser amounts of the radio signal g
are transmitted by direct line-of-sight wave propagation and ground wave propagation. The
ground wave signal is attenuated relatively rapidly as it propagates away from the emitter
sources. The HF band at the IRI frequencies is shared with radars (operational and
experimental), radio systems for air-to-ground and ship-to-shore communications, systems for
standard time and frequency broadcasts, the Amateur Radio Service, Citizens Band radio and
others. I
The IRI would have the capability to illuminate the ionosphere within a maximum cone angle
of 60 degrees, centered on the zenith. The IRI may or may not change frequency each time it
switches its beam to illuminate a different portion of the ionosphere within the 60 degree cone
angle. Ionospheric conditions, which change with solar activity, time-of-day, and season of the
4-94
3
lyear dictate the particular range of frequencies that would be used to investigate ionospheric
processes and their interaction with radio wave energy.
The HAARP VIS would transmit in the 1.0 to 15.0 MHz portion of the high frequency band.
The VIS operates at much lower power than the IRI and is used to aid in selecting frequencies
for operating the IRI and as a diagnostic instrument to assess the background ionosphere and
I• changes induced by the IRI. A VIS is a common instrument used to monitor the ionosphere at
many world locations.
I• The HAARP ISR would transmit in the 440 to 450 MHz portion of the ultra high frequency
(UHF) band. This band is shared with radars such as the BMEWS. The ISR is a diagnostic
instrument used primarily for detailed assessments of the background ionosphere and the changes
induced by the IR. The majority of the radio frequency energy from the ISR travels through
3lthe ionosphere and escapes into space.
3• Not all of the radio frequency energy transmitted by the HAARP emitters is concentrated in the
main beams. The peak power in the side-lobes is approximately 1/20th of the peak power in
the main beams. Much smaller concentrations of power appear in the sidelobes of the emitter
antennas.
The HAARP emitters would produce signals on frequencies other than the intended ones, but
3 at much lower power levels. This is a characteristic of all radio frequency emitters. Some
of the emitted frequencies are integer multiples of the intended, or fundamental, frequency and
are termed harmonics. Others are less clearly related to the fundamental frequency, and are
called spurious emissions. Care would be taken in the HAARP system designs to minimize such
signals because they both are a waste of transmitter power and a potential source of interference
to other user systems.
When a radio wave transmitter emits a modulated signal in its desired frequency band, it also
emits some energy in the directly adjacent portions of the spectrum, which propagates along
4-95
I , . il II I
I
with the desired signal and creaws the possibility of adjacent-channel interference. The 3
possibility of adjacent channel interference is why television channels, such as 9 and 10, are
not used in the same community. The modulation of the HAARP emitters will be designed to I
minimize the out-of-band radio frequency energy; the transmitted signals will have good spectral
purity.
In addition to the three primary aforementioned HAARP emitters, HAARP would employ I
several auxiliary transmitting systems. These systems include:
a. VHF or UHF land mobile radio systems to support intra-site maintenance and se=urity
activities. These would be standard, commercially available transceivers such as those
used by police, fire departments, and the Forest Service. These vehicle-mounted or 3
hand-carried systems would operate on frequencies assigned by the N..donal
Telecommunications and Information Admin'stration (NTIA) through the 3
Interdepartmental Radio Advisory Committee so as to avoid interference to other users
of the land mobile frequency bands. Emissions from theie HAARP auxiliary ei,-itters 3
will not be discussed further as they are commonly used, of low power, and would
operate on frequency bands assigned for this purpose. 3
b. Data links for the operation and control of off-site diagnostic instrumentation and for 3
transmission of diagnostic data to the main HAARP site where it would be collated,
analyzed, and displayed for use by all experime'ters. Commerciai telephione lines and/or 3
a microwave radio system wnuld be employed as data links. These commercial systems
are used throughout Alaska and are licensed and administered by Federal and State 3
agencies.
I
4.14.2 Effects of the HAARP Emitters on User Systems
U
The addition of the three primary HAARP enitters to the electromagnetic environment of the
HAARP study areas could affect systems that use the same environment as well as systems that 3
4-96
U
I
3 are not intended to receive electromagnetic energy. Other users of the electromagnetic spectrum
include for example: IHF communications, radio, television and radionavigation systems (aircraft
U avionics, e.g., LORAN). Systems or processes not intended to receive electromagnetic energy
that could be affected include cardiac pacemakers, electroexplosive devices (EEDs) and fuel
I handling.
I The objective of this section is to identify user systems that potentially could be impacted by the
HAARP emitters. Reliable predictions of HAARP emitter impacts on user systems in real-
world, specific environments is difficult. Rather the reader is encouraged to evaluate the
approach being employed and to look at the assessments made as an indicator of potential
interference scenarios. The details of actual interference occurrences would depend on many
factors not considered in this assessment. These factors include topography, vegetation,
structures, condition and age (technology employed) of the receiving systems, and atmospheric
3 conditions.
3 In general, the ] ftential impacts (interference) to users and potential users of the electromagnetic
spectrum would increase with closer proximity to the site. Of the two primary types of waves
3 associated with the HAARP emitters, sky waves and ground waves, the sky waves would cause
the greatest potential impact to global and HAARP vicinity receivers because of the refractive
3 and reflective long distance propagation effect of the ionosphere and the earth's surface. The
I basis for these conclusions are presented in MITRE (1992c) and are summarized below.
HAARP IRI Signals Propagated by Sky Wave. The HAARP IRI would transmit a significant
3 fraction of its radio frequency energy skyward into a beam that varies between a six and twenty
degree cone angle. The IRI, from 2.8 to 8.0 MHz, would be able to steer this relatively narrow
3 beam within a 60 degree cone angle centered on the zenith. Above 8.0 MHz, the beam steering
U capability would decrease from a 60 degree cone angle to a 20 degree cone angle at 10.0 MHz.
Experience with similar facilities (e.g., Arecibo and Tromso) suggest that 80-90% of the
I experiments would employ the IRI in modes that refract fundamental radio frequency energy
I 4-97
I
earthward from the ionosphere. This refracted radio frequency energy illuminates a broad area
on the ground and in turn is reflected and scattered skyward. The process repeats until the radio
wave escapes into space or is attenuated below background noise levels. In daytime or beneath
an active morning sector (approximately midnight to 6:00 AM local time) aurora, the ionosphere
is absorptive and the radial distance to which the sky wave can illuminate the earth is reduced.
In addition to the fundamental and adjacent frequencies, it is possible for some of the lowest
harmonics and spurious signals also to propagate by sky wave and be reflected back to earth,
depending on the ionospheric conditions. However, only those frequencies below approximately
40 MHz would ever propagate by sky wave, and in general they propagate with a "skip zone"
that precludes the energy being returned to earth within a circular area, with a radius of 100s
of miles about the IRI site. Signals above approximately 40 MHz are lost to space and would
not propagate to distant regions.
The specific portions of the HF band within which the HAARP flR would transmit are those
bands also employed by transmitters of the Fixed Service and the Broadcast Service. The users
of the Fixed Service operate fixed (i.e., not mobile), point-to-point links for the transmission of
data or information from one part of the globe to another. Before the advent of communication
satellites, the U.S. Armed Forces were major users of the Fixed Service bands, operating large
transmitting and receiving systems in Hawaii, California, and other locations worldwide. The
Broadcast Service transmitters are also located throughout the world, broadcasting news, music,
religious and other programs. The Broadcast Services use the HF bands because the sky wave
allows them to propagate their programming to areas at great distances from the transmitter,
reaching audiences they could not otherwise reach. Among these transmitters are Radio
Moscow, the Voice of America, and the British Broadcasting Corporation. The listeners to the
Broadcast Services are located throughout the world.
HAARP IRI Signals Propagated by Ground Wave. Some of the radio frequency energy
radiated by the IRI antenna system is expected to remain near the earth's surface where it
propagates by ground wave, becoming attenuated as a function of distance from the IRI more
4-98
3 rapidly than the sky wave or line-of-sight wave. Several first-order factors govern the efficiency
of ground wave propagation. The 1RI antenna is designed to suppress the launching of
i groundwaves. Hilly and mountainous terrain as well as ground conductivity attenuate ground
waves. In addition, frozen soil or permafrost are relatively poor conductors and therefore affect
I the efficiency of ground wave radiation.
I The strength of the ground wave is of most interest close to the site. However, as discussed in
I MITRE's report (1992c), the strength of the line-of-sight signal is greater than the ground wave
at distances beyond approximately 1000 feet. Research objectives may dictate the choice of
operating frequencies such that sky waves could potentially affect systems in areas adjacent to
the HAARP site and extend radially hundreds of miles. Reception of the IRI ground wave signal
beyond distances of approximately 31 - 62 miles is of reduced interest because the sky wave
received signal tends to dominate. Areas shadowed from line-of-sight IRI signals, and within
3 approximately 31 miles radial distance, may experience ground wave signals of greater strength
than the sky wave.
Available Frequencies. The NTIA is expected to authorize the HAARP IRI to operate on a
*clear channel, noninterference basis" within specific bands of the high frequency (HF) portion
of the radio spectrum. The expected specific bands are those shared with users of the Fixed and
Broadcast Services. As stated earlier, the Fixed Service is intended for point-to-point transfer
of information between two cooperating fixed (i.e., not mobile) stations. The Broadcast Service
uses transmitters located throughout the world and is operated by private industry, governments,
I religious organizations and other groups.
All other portions of the HF band, including the bands occupied by the Aeronautical Mobile and
3 Marine Mobile Services, Amateur Radio Service (i.e., the Hams) and the standard frequencies
will be forbidden to the HAARP IRI. The first two services are used for communication
3 between and among aircraft, ships and shore or ground stations. The Hams are hobbyists who
communicate with other Hams throughout the world using the HF bands. The Standard
3 Frequency bands support, for example, the transmission of precise time and frequency
U 4-99
I
information as well as propagation predictions, solar and geophysical data. The Standard
Frequency stations are operated by national government agencies and include WWV in
Colorado, CHU in Ontario, and JJY near Tokyo. Table 4.14-1 is a summary listing of the
distress, calling and guarded frequencies that the IRI must not operate on.
Selection of the HAARP IRI Operating Frequency. From the list of frequency bands
authorized for HAARP use on a clear channel, noninterference basis, a specific, narrow (up to
200 kHz) frequency band would be identified that would be compatible with observed
ionospheric and auroral conditions, research objectives, would not be occupied by another radio
spectrum user, and would not be one of the forbidden frequencies. Ionospheric conditions would
be determined from the VIS which provides information on the electron density variation with
altitude. Auroral conditions would be determined from a variety of instruments, including the
optical and the infrared imagers, the magnetometer, the imaging riometer and from other space
environmental diagnostics that may be available from, for example, the University of Alaska
and/or the National Space Environmental Support Center cooperatively operated by the USAF
and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. A spectrum monitor would
scan the frequency bands (outside the forbidden frequencies) that would meet the research
objectives and would determine the noise floor level and the channel width. From the results
of the spectrum monitor scan, the operator selects (or confirms an automated frequency
selection) a frequency(ies) and begins/continues the IRI operation. The IRI would have the
capability to operate simultaneously on any two distinct frequencies within its operating range.
Assessment of Potential Interference. The following information was used to access whether
the proposed HAARP transmissions would impact an existing or proposed system:
"* Existing or proposed location of the receiving system

"* The intended frequencies of operation
"*The nature of the receiving antennas
"* The sensitivity of the receiving system
4-100
TABLE 4.14-1 DISTRESS, CALLING, AND GUARDED FREQUENCIES
FREQUENCY ALLOCATED SERVICES

(M&__)
2.706 ± 0.002 Emergency Net - Atlantic and Pacific
3.023 ± 0.002 Search and Rescue (SAR) Control -
4.050 ± 0.002 Emergency Net - Atlantic and Pacific

5.000 ± 0.005 Standard Frequency
5.320 ± 0.005 International Ice Patrol
5.680 ± 0.020 SAR Control - Atlantic and Pacific
3 6.273 ±0.010 Aircraft Comm. to Maritime Mobile Stations
7.5084 ± 0.020 Hurricane Warning Net
7.530 0.020 Emergency Net - Atlantic and Pacific
8.502 ±0.005 International Ice Patrol
8.7564 ± 0.005 International Ice Patrol
10.000 ± 0.005 Standard Frequency
ote: Bandwid are representative
Since the impacts to users of the electromagnetic environment would increase with closer
proximity to the HAARP emitters a conservative approach was taken and theoretical upper
bounds of the potential effects to the receiving systems closest to the IRI, under ideal
transmitting and receiving conditions were examined (MITRE, 1992b,c,d,e). The results of the
analysis are summarized below.
4-101
The characteristics (antenna, and receiver sensitivity) of the user receiving system population,
even though from a single family (e.g., AM or VHF mobile radios) may differ markedly by
manufacturer, age (technology employed) and condition of the system. However, an approach
has been taken to model representative characteristics of user receiving system families. The
model is described in MITRE (1992d) and the result of this model is the definition of a
"receiving system sensitivity" (expressed in power per unit area i.e., watts per square meter) for
each family of user systems. This receiving system sensitivity (for users of the electromagnetic
spectrum) is the predicted incident, plane-wave power density equivalent to the noise level
(referred to the input terminals of an equivalent lossless receiving antenna) that the receiving
system would experience in the absence of the HAARP emitters. For systems that could be
affected by the electromagnetic environment, such as EEDs or pacemakers, the receiving system
sensitivity, is the threshold below which safe operation occurs. The HAARP emitters' addition
to the electromagnetic environment has been estimated at the frequency and location of the user
systems analyzed. The approach and techniques used to estimate the HAARP emitter power
densities are described in MITRE (1992c).
For the user systems that operate above 10 MHz (the top frequency of the Ionospheric Research
Instrument) and remote from the HAARP study areas, potential interference from the IRI could
occur only through harmonic and spurious or by fundamental overload. It is quite likely that
any IRI interference experienced by such users above 10 MHz would be via line-of-sight,
propagation. Sky wave propagation, of IM harmonic and spurious emissions, is less likely
because the energy may be lost into space; may require lossy, "multi-hop" propagation between
the ionosphere and the ground; and would originate from the IRI antenna that disperses the out-
of-band radio frequency energy over the upper hemisphere, rather than into a focused beam.
A worst case estimate of whether a user system could be potentially affected was obtained using
the results from MITRE (1992b,c) which estimrnted the impact on user systems through the ratio
of the HAARP emitter estimated power densities to the receiving system sensitivities. The
estimates were based largely on worst-case, line-of-sight propagation. Such propagation to
ground-based users is limited in range by the Earth's curvature, and the strength of the received
4-102
I
signal is impacted by intervening topography, structures and vegetation. Tables 4.14-2 and
4.14-3, for the Gakona and the Clear regions respectively, summarize the receiving system
I sensitivities, HAARP emitter incident power densities, and the predicted level of impact for each
family of systems that may be employed or inadvertently affected in the HAARP study areas.
In cases where the theoretical maximum interference indicates the potential for an impact the
actual impact would depend upon site specific and physiographic conditions. To determine
whether or not such an impact would really occur, a site specific interference monitoring
program would be required. From Tables 4.14-2 and 4.14-3, it is concluded that the systems
potentially affected by IRI interference could include HF Communications, mobile VHF radios,
TV, wildlife trackers, hand held transceivers, citizen band radios, and cellular telephones.
LORAN (100 kHZ) is another commonly used aircraft navigation system. The HAARP IRI,
ISR, and VIS would not emit at any subharmonic frequency that would impact a LORAN
3 aircraft navigation system.
The HAARP ISR would potentially affect the performance of UHF hand-held transceivers and
UHF radio telephone systems. The HAARP VIS would potentially affect similar systems to
those affected by the IRI, as both systems operate in the lower one half of the high frequency
band. Mitigation of these potential affects are discussed later in the following section. The
radiated power of the VIS is 60,000 times less than the IRI; the VIS high frequency antenna
pattern has approximately 400 times less gain than the IRI antenna; the VIS antenna as an out-
3 of-band emitter distributes the power over 10-15 elements into an inefficient spikey pattern; the
VIS sweeps in frequency which means that if interference episodes do occur, they will be short-
3 lived and when converted to audio frequencies there will be a short buzz or click. Such
sounders are operated on a non-interference basis throughout the world and in general are
3 compatible with the shared use of the radio frequency spectrum. These considerations suggest
that the VIS will not be a significant source of interference.
I
I
1 4-103
I
TABLE 4.14-2. THEORETICAL MAXIMUM RADIO FREQUENCY INTERFERENCE
TO RECEIVING SYSTEMS BY HAARP TRANSMISSIONS
IN THE GAKONA AREA
RECEIVING SYSTEMS FREQUENCY RANGE 'THEORETICAL MAXIMUM INTERFERENCE

(NMz)
IR1 ISR VIS
Cellular Telephone £70 - 890 impact inconclusive inconclusive
Satellite Television 5925 - 6875 no impact no impact no impact

12,500 - 12,750 no impact no impact no impact
HF Communications 2.1 - 10 impact no impact impact

10- 30 impact no impact impact
Television Broadcast 60- 88 inconclusive no impact impact

88 - 200 no impact no impact impact
200 - 216 inconclusive no impact impact
AM Radio Broadcast 0.535 - 1.7 no impact no impact impact
FM Radio Broadcast 92.9- 106.7 no impact no impact no impact
2Avionics UPS 1227, 1575 95 feet 500 feet < <3300 feet
VHF Radio 118 - 137 1.6 miles in main beam 32 miles
UHF Radio 960 - 1125 6.1 miles 2.5 miles 3.0 miles
VOR 115 - 116 0.6 miles in main beam 20 miles
ADF 0.25 - 0.40 in main beam in main beam in main beam
Mobile VHF Radio 38 - 88 impact no impact impact

Wildlife Trackers 30 - 88 impact no impact impact

88 - 200 inclusive no impact impact
200 - 222 impact no impact impact
Citizen Band Radio 26.9 - 27.4 impact no impact no impact
Hand Held Transceivers VHF 118 - 174 inconclusive no impact impact

UHF 403 - 470 impact impact impact
Radio Telephone VHF 152-158 no impact no impact impact

UHF 454-460 no impact impact no impact
Pipeline Systems Control 157, 162 no impact no impact impact

Maintenance VHF
Communications 150-162 no impact no impact impact
Maintenance UHF
Communications 450-460 no impact impact impact
Microwave On Ground 5945-6094 no impact no impact no impact
Cardiac Pacemakers Incident Pulsed no impact no impact no impact

Incident CW no impact no impact no impact
'EED's On Ground Exposed impact impact no impact

In Metal Container no impact no impact no impact
continued.
4-104
I TABLJE 4.14-2 continued. THERETICAL MIAXIMUM RADIO FREQUENCY
INTERFERENCE TO RECEIVING SYSTEMS BY HAARP TRANSMIISSIONS
IN THE GAKONA AREA
RECEIVING SYSTEMIS FREQUENCY RANGE 'THEORETICAL MAXIMUM INTERFERENCE

(MR) m ISR VIS
'EED's In Aircraft Exposed impact impact no impact
'Aircraft Flight Control FAA Electric Field 9,000 ft radial 2,500 ft radial not required
Systems Standard 16,000 ft altitude 1 4,000 ft altitude
eve:' MIR, 1992b; 1992d: 1992e; 1992f; 1993a; 1993c.
.no impact* - ratio lots than 1; 'inconcluaive* - ratio approximately equal to 1; "impact" - ratio greater than 1.
2Theoretical maiu nefrnefraincssesi ie steradial diatance from the reapective tranamitter at which the interference
' Reomne E afseparation diatances and the corresponding power denaitiea are given by forrm-las contained in Air Force Regulation
127-100.
4 Based upon UieStesCertification Environment provided to aircraft manufacturers by the FAA.
Abbreviationa Defined: HP high frequency AM - amplitude modulation VHF - very high freqluency
FM =frequency modulation UHF ultra high frequency VOR -VHF omnnidirectional range
ADF - automatic Direction Finder GPS - global poaitioning system
I Assumptions used in the estimation of theoretcal maximumt for interferene:
JMIFE, l992
a. IR1 transmitter harmonica lie 80 dB below the carrier for frequencies below 45 MHz and lie 120 dB below the carrer for frequencies above
b. ISR tranamitter harmonica lie 80 dB below the carrier for femquencies below 1 0Hz and lie 100 dB below the carrier for fr-equenciea above
I10Hz.
c. 11.1 and ISR tranamitter aubhairmonica are negligible.
d.Propagation loss is that of free space for line-of-aight paths.
e. A diffraction loss of 30 dB ia applied to non-line-of-sight paths.
f. An absorption 1o. of I dB is applied to sky-wave (HF path..
X. The MI waveformn is CW.
*h. The lRI waveform is pulaed, with a 0.5 MHz bandwidth.
i. The pattern of the DRI antenna well outside the HF band is random with no main beam or grating lobes, and the directivity is that of an
iaotropic radiator in the upper hemiaphere (3 dB).
j.The ISR pattern is that of a parabolic dish of 1000 & aperture, as specified by a aemi-empirical model.
k.IRI antenna element efficiency above the HF band is - 10 d~l.
MITRE. 1992d
a.Receiving system sensitivities are for the apace wave only Moit of tight wave plus the aky wave) and does not include the groundwave.
The HAARP emitters are in the far field of the receiving antennaa. However, the receiving systema may be in the near field of the HAARP
c. Th min eprtrso the receive antenna circuit, matching network, and tranamisaion line are equal to the noise factor reference
a 280 K 590F).
tempratre
d. The signalnoise processing factors of the receiving systema are equal to unity.
e. The external system noiae is equal to quiet-rural-noise.
3~MITRE
ft The receive santen directivitiea are equal to the peak directivitiea of the antennas for a worse case senaitivity to electromagnetic interference.
(1992c) modifiea these antenna directivities to account for the receive directivity in the direction of the HAARP emittera.
MITREI22
a. The closest ranges of the HAARP emitters to the user receiving systems ame utilized to assets the worst cases of electromagnetic interference.
4-105
TABLE 4.14-3. THEORETICAL MAXIMUM RADIO FREQUENCY INTERFERENCE
TO RECEIVING SYSTEMS BY HAARP TRANSMISSIONS
IN THE CLEAR AFS PROPERTY AND BEAR CREEK LOCATION AREAS

(Mlz)
IRI ISR VIS
Cellular Telephone 870- 890 impact impact impact
Satellite Television 5925 - 6875 no impact no impact no impact

12,500 - 12,750 no impact no impact no impact
HF Communications 2.1 - 10 impact no impact impact

Television Broadcast 60- 88 inconclusive no impact impact

88 - 200 no impact no impact impact
200 -216 inconclusive no impact impact
AM Radio Broadcast 0.535 - 1.7 no impact no impact impact
FM Radio Broadcast 92.9- 106.7 no impact no impact impact
'Avionics GPS 1227, 1575 95 feet 500 feet < <3300 feet
VHF Radio 118 - 137 1.6 miles in main beam 32 miles
UHF Radio 960- 1125 6.1 miles 2.5 miles 3 miles
VOR 115 - 116 0.6 miles in main beam 20 miles
ADF 0.25 - 0.40 in main beam in main beam in main beam
Mobile VHF Radio 38 - 88 impact no impact impact

Wildlife Trackers 30- 88 impact no impact impact

Citizen Band Radio 26.9 - 27.4 impac, no impact impact
Hand Held Transceivers VHF 118 - 174 inconclusive no impact impact

UHF 403 - 470 impact impact impact
'Radio Telephone VHF 152-151

UHF 454-460
Pipeline Systems Control 157, 162 no impact no impact no impact

Maintenance VHF
Communications 150-162 no impact no impact no impact
Maintenance UHF
Communications 450-460 no impact impact no impact
Microwave on Ground 2127-2177 no impact no impact no impact
Cardiac Pacemakers Incident Pulsed no impact no impact no impact

Incident CW no impact no impact no impact
'EED's On Ground Exposed impact impact no impact

In Metal Container no impact no impact no impact
continued.
4-106
TABLE 4.14-3 continued. THEORETICAL MAXIMUM RADIO FREQUENCY
INTERFERENCE TO RECEIVING SYSTEMS BY HAARP TRANSMISSIONS
IN THE CLEAR AFS PROPERTY AND BEAR CREEK LOCATION AREAS

i o HZ) nu ISR VIS
'EED' In Aircraf Exposed impact impact no impact

Aircraft Flight Control FAA Electric Fiel 9,000 ft radial 2,500 ft radial not required
Systems Standard 16,000 ft altitude 4,000 ft altitude

ome: MITRE, 1992b; 1992d: 1992e; 1992f; 1993a; 1993b; and -993€.
'"heoretical maximum for interference based upon a ratio of HAARP signal power density to the receiving system's sensitivity, where:
"no impact' - ratio less than 1; "inconclusive* - ratio approximately equal to 1; 'impact' - ratio greater than 1.
Theoretical
n maximum for interference for avionic systems is given as the distance from the respective transmitter at which the interference
potential becomes minimal. At further distances no potential exists. At closer distances a potential for interference exists.
' No radio telephone user was found within the Clear AFS area.
4 Recommended EED safe separation distances and the corresponding power densities are given by formulas contained in Air Force Regulation
127-100.
1 Based upon United States Certification Environment provided to aircraft manufactures by the FAA.
Abbreviations Defined: HF -high frequency AM - amplitude modulation FM - frequency modulation

UHF - ultra high frequency ADF - automatic direction finder HIF - very high frequency
GPS = global positioning system VOR - very high frequency omnidirectional range
Assmuptions used in the estimation of theoretical maximum for interfermce:
MITRE. 1992b
a. IRI transmitter harmonica lie 80 dB below the carrier for frequencies below 45 MHz and lie 120 dB below the carrier for frequencies above
45 bMz.
b. ISR transmitter harmonies lie 80 dB below the carrier for frequencies below 1 0Hz and lie 100 dB below the carrier for frequencies above
I GHz.
c. IRI and ISR transmitter subharmonics are negligible.
d. Propagation loss is that of free space for line-of-sight paths.
e. A diffraction loss of 30 dB is applied to non-line-of-sight paths.
f. An absorption loss of 5 dB is applied to sky-wave (HF) paths.
g. The MI waveform is CW.
h. The MI waveform is pulsed, with a 0.5 MHz bandwidth.
i. The pattern of the MI antenna well outside the HF band is random with no main beam or grating lobes, and the directivity is that of an
isotropic radiator in the upper hemisphere (3 dB).
j. The ISR pattern is that of a parabolic dish of 1000 nd aperture, as specified by a semi-empirical model.
k. 3.1 antenna element efficiency above the HF band is - 10 dB.
MITRE. 1992d
a. Receiving system sensitivities are for the space wave only (line of sight wave plus the sky wave) and does not include the groundwave.
b. The HAARP emitters are in the far field of the receiving antennas. However, the receiving systems may be in the near field of the HAARP
emitters.
c. Ile ambient tepeores of the receive antenna circuit, matching network, and transmission line are equal to the noise factor reference
temperature at 2880 K (590 F).
d. The signal/noise processing factor of the receiving systems are equal to unity.
e. 7he external system noise is equal to quiet-fundl-noist.
L The receive antenna directivities are equal to the peak directivities of the antennas for a worse case sensitivity to electromagnetic interference.
MITRE (1992c) modifies these antenna directivities to account for the receive directivity in the direction of the HAARP emitters.
I WCRE. IM
a. The closest ranges of the HAARP emitters to the user receiving systems are utilized to assess the worst cases of electromagnetic interference.
i
44-107
I
The HAARP emitters do not operate continuously. In the case of the IRI, a maximum of five
campaigns per year, each of four week duration with operations of eight hours per day are
projected. On a long term basis, the IRI may operate less than 13% of the time. The
incoherent scatter radar may operate up to 12 hours per day for the same periods (approximately
19% on a long term basis), and the vertical incidence sounder may collect data routinely for
several minutes every half hour for periods when the IRI is not operating as well as operating
12 hours per day during the campaigns (approximately 25 % on a long term basis).
Mitigation. The maximum theoretical impact analyses suggest interference could occur for
receiver systems that operate in the areas surrounding Gakona or Clear. However, similar IRI
and radar systems have achieved an operations compatibility with other users of the radio
frequency environment. The government is committed to achieve compatibility with the users
surrounding Gakona and Clear. To reduce the opportunities for HAARP radio frequency
emitters to interfere with other users of the electromagnetic environment, the government will
take the following actions:
1. Minimize the potential for negative impacts by acquiring a HAARP system with low
harmonic and spurious emissions. These design specifications have been set purposely to lower
values than would be incorporated into commercially available transmitting equipment. This will
help to ensure that the MRI harmonic and spurious emissions will be low. Specifications will be
developed for the ISR and VIS to minimize the potential for out-of-band harmonic and spurious
emissions.
2. Quantify with measurements the predicted HAARP impact on systems that share the
electromagnetic environment. During the development testing of the HAARP emitters, the
government will measure the emissions at the frequencies of receiver systems likely to be
operated in the Gakona and Clear regions. An on-site radio emissions measurement program
will be established to determine the local frequency usage. This measurement program will
provide additional insight for cost-effectively incorporating mitigation hardware into the IRI
equipment development. As HAARP is installed and tested, measurements will be made to
4-108
I
determine how HAARP changes the electromagnetic environment. The measurement data will
be the basis for the government to initiate additional mitigative actions to help ensure that
I HAARP will be compatible with user receiver systems.
I 3. Adopt procedures to ensure that HAARP does not operate on a licensed frequency (co-
channel) currently in use. The licensing requirements for radio frequency emitters dictate
I operations to be on specific frequencies or to employ procedures to ensure that interference does
not occur to other systems that share the electromagnetic spectrum.
4. Provide a convenient, real-time method for the reporting and confirmation of interference
occurrences. By request, HAARP will provide proposed research campaign details to
individuals, agencies, and organizations at least two weeks prior to operation of the IRI.
HAARP will have a telephone at the operations center available to report any interference or
emergency conditions. HAARP personnel receiving the telephone call will work with the
individual to confirm the interference and to isolate the source of the interference.
5. Achieve through mitigation a satisfactory resolution of confirmed interference occurrences.

The first step toward mitigation will be to suggest and implement procedural steps for HAARP
and the complainant to take to achieve interference-free operations. If these steps are not
successful, hardware and procedural modifications to HAARP and/or user systems (tailored for
specific interference occurrences) would be suggested and implemented. Example modifications
* include:
* Placement of IRI antenna nulls (reducing the power emitted in a specific

direction) in the direction of affected users.
I
* Amplitude tapering of the IRI emissions to reduce (in all directions) the power
in the antenna sidelobes.
I i 4-109
I
* Use of a preselection filter for an affected user receiving system. This approach
would be useful for those situations where a nearby user experiences
interference caused by fundamental overload.
* Use of a low sidelobe directional user receive antenna. Such user antennas
could be employed to increase the desired signal strength (as received in the
mainbeam of the antenna) and reduce the unwanted HAARP emitter sigWals.
It is expected that the adoption of appropriate hardware and procedural modifications will result
in interference-free operations. The mitigation steps will need the cooperation of affected users
to understand the interference situation and to confirm a satisfactory fix is achieved.
6. Within approximately 1,300 feet of the IRI and 655 feet of the ISR, ground based use of
exposed EED's will require coordination to ensure safe conditions. By request, HAARP widi
provide proposed research campaign details to individuals, agencies, and organizations at least
two weeks prior to operation of the IRI. Appropriate warning signs will be placed along public
roads and trails within 1,300 feet of the IRI and 655 feet of the ISR to advise the public not to
use exposed EED's without first coordinating their usage with the HAARP site. The appropriate
telephone number will be posted on the signs.
7. HAARP will employ an aircraft detection and tracking radar. If this radar detects aircraft
on a track that would carry them through the warning area, the radar will automatically cue the
appropriate HAARP emitters and shut them down. In coordination with the FAA, approprizA
warnings will be provided for pilots to avoid flying widiin the radius of 9,000 feet and 16,000
feet altitude of the IRI. In addition, appropriate warnings will be provided for pilots to avoid
flying within a radius of 2,500 feet and below an altitude of 4,000 feet of the ISR.
4-110
I
E 4.14.3 No Action Alternative
U If the no action alternative is chosen no IRI radio waves would be transmitted, hence, there
would be no impacts to the surrounding electromagnetic environment.
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
m 4-111
m
4.15 ATMOSPHERE
IRI transmissions would have an insignificant effect on the earth's ozone layer and would no
affect the appearence of the aurora (MRC, 1992a,b,c). The proposed IMI would transmit radi
waves of sufficient intensity to cause measurable changes in the ionosphere's electron density
temperature and structure. However these changes would be insignificant both in magnitude an
duration when compared to changes induced by naturally occurring processes such as the auron
(Section 3.15).
The potential impacts of fRI transmissions on the ionosphere and ozone layer would be the sami
regardless of which of the two action alternatives are chosen. The following section discusse
the research findings concerning potential impacts on the ozone layer and the ionosphere in mon
detail.
4.15.1 Ozone Layer
The possible effects of the HAARP emitters on the ozone layer (Figure 3.15-1) were studie(
using a detailed model of the thermal and chemical effects of the high frequency IR
transmissions (MRC, 1992a,b). HAARP facility transmissions would raise the temperature o
free electrons in the earth's ionosphere above an altitude of 50 miles, which is above the ozon
layer (Figure 3.15-1). The total energy that would be emitted by HAARP transmitters in a yea
would be about 200,000 times less than the energy deposited in the upper atmosphere b
auroras. The raised electron temperatures would result in the production of an insignificaj
amount of NO,. As mentioned in Section 3.15, NO. are one of the primary agents that can reai
with and destroy ozone. The amount of NO, produced by HAARP facilities would t
approximately the same as that produced by starlight (MRC, 1992a), which is insignifica
compared to NO, production by other natural sources such as the aurora (MRC, 1992a).
conclusion, a comparison of the modeled thermal and chemical effects of the HAAI
transmissions on the production of NO. with natural processes indicates that there would be I
measurable effects to the earth's ozone layer (MRC, 1992a).
4-112
I In addition to the research identified above, the government commissioned an independent
/ assessment on the potential effect of the HAARP IRI on upper atmosphere chemistry. The
assessment involved two models. One model contains a state-of-the-art scientific understanding
of the important chemistry and energy processes in the upper atmosphere. The second model
is a complete three-dimensional global model of the upper atmosphere. Both models were used
to examine energy deposition, electron temperatures and composition changes during the
proposed HAARP radar experiments. The results showed weak local response and negligible
i global response in the atmosphere when compared with natural variability (Roble, 1992). The
results of the independent models confirmed the previously discussed assessment that concluded
there would be no measurable effects to the earth's ozone layer.
Mitigation. There would be no impacts to the ozone layer. Hence no mitigation measures
would be necessary.
4.15.2 Ionosphere
The HAARP transmissions would interact with charged particles in the ionosphere. The
I interaction of the IRI transmissions with the ions would cause temporary increases in
temperatures and decreases in electron densities within the ionosphere (Figure 3.15-2) lasting
3 from a few seconds to several hours and possibly continuing through a polar winter night (MRC,
1992b). The temporary changes in ionospheric properties, caused by the M transmitted radio
Swaves, would be many orders of magnitude less than those changes caused by variations in the
! sun's energy output.
The IRI would transmit radio waves over the frequency range of 2.8 to 10 megahertz. The
transmitted radio wave beam would occupy a conical volume roughly 30 miles in diameter at
an altitude of 300 miles. The transmitted radio waves would have up to 3.3 MW of power, only
I' slightly higher in power than waves transmitted by radio and television stations.
1
3 4-113
I
Even if all the transmitted power from the IRI was absorbed by the ionosphere it would take
more than 33,000 HAARP-scale IRIs, transmitting simultaneously to account for just 1 percent
of the auroral ionosphere's energy budget. Another way of showing the vast difference between
the amount of energy that would be dissipated in the atmosphere by the HAARP transmissions
and natural processes is through a comparison of the local dissipation power in terms of power
densities. The maximum power density of the IRI transmitted waves would be about 30
milliwatts per square meter (mW/m2 ) at 50 miles altitude decreasing to 1 mW/nrr at 186 miles
altitude in the F region. In comparison, the densities of power dissipated by an aurora could
exceed 2 W/m 2 , or roughly 2000 times greater than the expected maximum dissipation due to
the absorbtion of the HAARP high frequency transmissions in the F region. Even the daily
absorption of solar radiation easily exceeds the most intense, low altitude HAARP-induced
energy deposition rate by a factor of ten.
Temperature Effects. The ionosphere's temperature would be detectably affected within a few
milliseconds of initiating IRI transmissions. Within seconds of initiating IRI transmissions the
temperature in the affected conical volume of the ionosphere would begin to rise. The
magnitude of the temperature rise would be a function of transmitted wave power and duration,
transmission characteristics such as frequency, and perhaps most importantly, ionospheric
conditions.
Existing facilities, such as the IRI in operation at Tromso, Norway, typically can enhance F
region (Figure 3.15-2) electron temperatures over a small range of altitudes by up to about 80
OF, relative to natural ambient temperatures of 1340 *F to 1727 TF. Elevated temperatures due
to the IRI would rapidly return to ambient levels once transmissions are ended. The rapid returr
to ambient conditions would be a result of the dissipation of the extra heat energy by collision!
of heated electrons with ambient ions and neutral particles. In the F region the temperatur
would return to ambient levels in a few tens of seconds. The return time to ambient temperaturv
levels decreases with decreasing altitude through the F and E layers and down into the D laye
where the neutral gas density is about one million times greater than in the F layer. In the I
4-114
I layer the temperatures would return to background levels within less than a millisecond of
terminating transmissions.
I Electron Density. Changes in electron density would be associated with high frequency induced
temperature increases. IRI transmission induced temperature increases would cause increases
t in electron densities in the D, E, and F layers below approximately 124 miles above the ground
and decreases in electron densities in the F layer above approximately 124 miles above ground.
Two primary temperature dependent processes would affect electron densities due to IRI
transmissions. One process involves the recombination of ions and electrons into neutral
molecules (two or more bonded atoms), which make up the troposphere and stratosphere (Figure
3.15-1). Higher temperatures slow down the recombination rate resulting in higher electron
5 densities. The second process involves the expansion of the ionospheric atmosphere due to
heating. The expansion causes the ionospheric electron density to decrease.
Thermal expansion would be inhibited and electron recombination rates would decrease in the
3 D, E and F layers below approximately 124 miles above ground. As a result, electron densities
within the conical volume of the MRI beam could increase on the order of 20 percent. Above
approximately 124 miles above ground, in the F layer, thermal expansion would prevail over
reduced recombination rate effects and the electron density within the effected conical volume
3 of the F layer would decrease. The magnitude of the decrease could range up to 10 - 15 percent
over an altitude range of a few tens of miles.
I
Ionospheric electron densities would return to background levels over time scales similar to,
Ithough somewhat longer than, those associated with high frequency induced electron temperature
effects. In the D and E layers the electron densities would immediately return to background
I conditions once the MIR is turned off. The decreased electron densities induced within the
effected conical volume of the F layer could last -aywhere from a few hours to an entire polar
£ night. However, IRI transmission induced temporal changes to ionospheric electron densities
would be insignificant to naturally induced changes.
3 4-115
I
Mitigation. There would be no significant impacts to the ionosphere. Hence no mitigation
measures would be necessary.
If the no action alternative is chosen, no MlI radio waves would be transmitted up into the
atmosphere. Hence there would be no impacts to the ionosphere or the ozone layer associated
with the no action alternative.
4-116
I
4.16 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
No threatened or endangered species occur at the Gakona site, although one endangered and
one threatened subspecies of the peregrine falcon could occur at the Clear site. Therefore,
there would be no impacts to threatened or endangered species at the Gakona site, and it is
unlikely that there would be impacts to threatened or endangered species at the Clear site.
Consequently, formal consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act with the
USFWS would not be required. For a discussion of potential impacts to peregrine falcons
3 see Section 4.4 Birds.
4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
g
i 4-117
I'
4.17 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTES
Hazardous materials and wastes would be stored in areas which meet the regulatory
requirements. Hazardous wastes would be collected, stored, transported, and disposed of in
accordance with all appropriate state, federal, and DOD regulations.
The use of pesticides, herbicides and other chemicals to aid in the control of insects, rodents,
and vegetation is a normal practice to promote human health and safety. Such materials will be
used and stored in accordance with the appropriate state, federal, and DOD regulations.
To minimize the potential for impacts due to accidental fuel spills during the HAARP operation,
fuel transfer from delivery trucks would be conducted in a safe manner. The above ground fuel
tanks would have secondary containment that would hold the contents of the largest tank plus
sufficient free board to allow for precipitation. Periodic removal of water from precipitation
would be required to ensure that the capacity of the secondary containment would not be
diminished. The government would prepare a Spill Prevention, Containment and
Countermeasure Plan before fuel tanks are filled.
Petroleum products are required for the operation of HAARP facilities, regardless of the site
selected. The quantity of petroleum products stored would vary from site to site (approximately
200,000 gallons at the Gakona site, and only several thousand gallons at the Clear site). The
delivery and storage points at both sites would be at least 2500 feet from the nearest HAARP
emitter. Typical concerns relating to petroleum products and radio frequency produced electric
fields relate to the generation .of an electric spark that can cause explosions or fires. USAF
Technical Order 31Z-10-4, Section II states that an area with a power density in excess of
50,000 watts per square meter is considered hazardous to fuel handling and storage operations.
This value is large compared to human health and safety standards and would not be exceeded.
It can therefore be concluded that fuel handling and electric field safety concerns are not an issue
at the either of the proposed HAARP sites.
4-118
I• 4.17.1 Gakona Site
i Use of the Gakona site would require construction of new hazardous material storage areas for
typical facility operation and maintenance. Storage areas would be designed and constructed in
accordance with the appropriate state, federal and Air Force regulations. Disposal plans would
be developed in accordance with the appropriate state, federal, and Air Force regulations.
The hazardous material most used at the Gakona site would be diesel fuel used for power
. generation. The quantity of fuel stored on site would be approximately 200,000 gallons (4 -
50,000 gallons above surface cylindrical steel tanks). Other hazardous materials would be
typical petroleum based products used in the operation and maintenance of mechanical engines
(engine oil, hydraulic oil, grease, ethylene glycol, engine cleaner, etc.). Other hazardous
materials would be paints, solvents, cleaners, and other such janitorial-type supplies used for
building and facility maintenance.
5t 4.17.2 Clear Site
31 Use of the Clear site would require either construction of new hazardous material storage areas
dedicated to the HAARP facility or use of existing storage areas on Clear AFS. Disposal of
S wastes would be integrated with the disposal programs in place at Clear AFS.
Much less hazardous materials would be used, stored, and generated at the Clear site in
comparison to the Gakona site. This is because there would be no need for a diesel-fired
powerplant at the Clear site. Since it is anticipated that electrical power would be obtainable
from the existing Clear AFS coal-fired powerplant or the commercial power grid, the quantity
of fuel required at the Clear site would be only several thousand gallons. Other hazardous
materials include paints, solvents, cleaners, and other such janitorial-type supplies used for
3 building and facility maintenance.
I4
!3 4-119
No hazardous materials or wastes would be stored or generated as a result of the no action

alternative, with the exception of those associated with the reclamation of the Gakona site.
During reclamation of the Gakona site small quantities of fuel would likely be stored on site and
small quantities of waste oil would be generated. Procedures for storage and disposal of these
wastes would follow the appropriate regulations.
4-120
I 4.18 IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES
£ Construction and operation of HAARP would require the use of nonrenewable resources such
as fuels, construction materials, and land. Heavy equipment and haul trucks would use diesel
fuel and gasoline during construction. During operation, scientists, technicians, and employees
would use small amounts of gasoline. The power generator at the Gakona site would consume
3, "about 200,000 gallons of diesel fuel per campaign. At the Clear site an increment over the
amount of coal already being consumed at the Clear AFS or by the commercial source would
be used. The amount of fuel consumed at either site would represent a small fraction of the fuel
g used in the Clear or Gakona regions.
Construction materials used to build the HAARP facilities include gravel, aggregate, sand,
cement, metal, and wood. Except for wood, all these materials are considered to be
nonrenewable. Therefore, the project would contribute, in a minor measure, to depletion of
local resources of those materials. The amount consumed, however, would be inconsequential
i when compared to the regional or national consumption.
i The facilities would physically occupy about 51 acres of land at the Gakona site and about 78
acres of land at the Clear site. Of this land, 18 acres and 36 acres of wetlands would be lost
£ at the Gakona and Clear sites, respectively. Loss of land or wetlands would be insignificant as
compared to the surrounding similar land and wetlands and would represent a minor commitment
3 of those resources.
The no action alternative would require small quantities of fuel for the reclamation of the
Gakona site. No othex commitment of irretrievable resources would be associated with the no
£ action alternative.
4
I
i 4-121
I
(This page intentionally left blank)
4-122
I'
1 5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
Si'The following persons were primarily responsible for preparing the environmental impact
statement:
Ri Russel A. Armstrong, Mission Research Corporation, Ph.D. (1979) in Physical Chemistry, 22

years experience in atmospheric chemical dynamics, radiance and propagation. Dr. Armstrong
contributed the section on atmosphere.
Dan H. Berler, Metcalf and Eddy, Inc., M.S. (1988) in Marine Geology and Geophysics, 9
years experience in coastal geology and environmental remediation studies. Mr. Berler
i1 contributed to and reviewed many sections of the FEIS.
g Steve J. Cibik, Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., M.S. (1980) in Marine Science, 14 years of experience
with environmental assessments and water quality issues. Mr. Cibik contributed to the sections
on socioeconomics, subsistence, cultural resources, hydrology and water quality.
Leo F. Collins, The MITRE Corporation, M.S. (1963) in Electrical Engineering, 26 years of
experience in design of Air Force systems. Mr. Collins contributed to the section on
3 electromagnetic and radio frequency interference.
I1 Jennifer A. Doyle, Holmes & Narver, Inc., B.A. (1989) in Biology, 3 years experience in
conducting environmental research and preparing technical reports. Ms. Doyle contributed to
the sections on identifying alternatives, mammals, birds, vegetation and wetlands.
! J. Vincent Eccles, Mission Research Corporation, Ph.D. (1988) in Physics, 4 years experience
in upper atmospheric and ionospheric modeling. Dr. Eccles contributed to the section on the
3I atmosphere.
5-1
II
Keith M. Groves, AF Phillips Lab, Ph.D. (1991) in Space Physics, 4 years experience in
ionospheric wave propagation. Dr. Groves contributed to the section on the atmosphere and on
electromagnetic and radio frequency interference.
Louis N. Heynick, consultant, M.S. (1948) in Physics, 19 years of experience in biological

effects of nonionizing electromagnetic fields. Mr. Heynick contributed to the referenced studies
used in the section on bioeffects of RFR.
William B. Kappleman, Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., M.S. (1990) in Wildlife Biology, 7 years
experience in environmental monitoring and assessment of avian resources. Mr. Kapplemen
contributed to the sections related to biology.
Robert J. Marshall, Holmes & Narver, Inc., M.S. (1986) Engineering Management, 18 years
experience in the planning, programming, engineering, construction, real estate management and
operation and maintenance of real property facility world wide. Mr. Marshall contributed on
all real property, utility, and facility items.
Stewart G. Osgood, Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., M.S. (1992) in Arctic Engineering, Registered
Professional Engineer in Alaska, 5 years experience in civil engineering design and construction
in cold regions. Mr. Osgood contributed to the sections on land and minerals, air quality,
hydrology, socioeconomics, cultural resources, subsistence, recreation, and aesthetics. He also
contributed to sections and those subject areas dealing with engineering and design in cold
regions.
Stephen E. Petron, Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., Ph.D. (1987) in zoology, 10 years experience in
environmental study and evaluation of ecological terrestrial resources. As Environmental Project
Manager for HAARP, Dr. Petron was responsible for the overall content and quality of the
FEIS. Dr. Petron also contributed to sections related to biology.
5-2
3 Peter Poison, AUSA Research and Consuiting, Ph.D. (1973), in Brain Research, 20 years
experience in biological effects of nonionizing electromagnetic idiation. Dr. Polson contributed
I to the referenced studies for the section on the bioeffects from RFR.
I Gregory A. Robertshaw, The MITRE Corporation, Ph.D. (1980) in Physics, 12 years of

experience in antennas for military radar and surveillance systems. Dr. Roberishaw contributed
to the section on electromagnetic and radio frequency interference.
I Arnold L. Snyder, The MITRE Corpoidtion, Ph.D. (1972) in Geophysics. 26 years of

experience in Air Force radio wave propagation programs. Dr. Snyder contributed to the
section on electromagnetic and radio frequency interfe-ence.
I Paul J. Valihura, Holmes & Narver, Inc., Ph.D. (1995) in Urban and Environmental Studies;
16 years of experience in environmental stidies and assessments and project coordination. As
Environmental Coordinator of the HAARP, Dr. Valihura has contributed to all section of the
S FEIS.
I Melvin M. Weiner, The Mitre Corporation, M.S. (1956) in Electrical Engineering, 36 years
experience in electromagnetics. Mr. Weiner contributed to die section on electromagnet~c and
5 radio frequency interference.
I
I
i
I
1 5-3
I
I
II
(This page intentionally left blank) I

1
I
,I
I
I
I
I
6.0 REFERENCES
ABR, 1988. Alaska Biological Research, Inc. OTH-B Avian Field Survey Program, Spring
1988. Unpublished Draft Report for Metcalf & Eddy, Inc./Holmes and Narver, Inc.,
Wakefield, MA. 279 pages.
ABR, 1991. Alaska Biological Resources, Inc. Alaska Over-the-Horizon Backscatter Radar
System: A Synthesis of the Avian Research Program, 1987-1990. Unpublished Report for
Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center and the Department of the Air Force. 309
pages.
ABR, 1992. Alaska Biological Research, Inc. Personal communication between Bob
Ritchie (ABR) and Dan Berler (Metcalf and Eddy, Inc.). September 3, 1992.
"ADEC, 1990. Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. Air Quality Control Permit
to Operate a Fossil Fuel-Fired Steam Electric Plant Granted to Slana Energy, Inc. ADEC
File Number 9033-AA002.
ADEC, 1992a. Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. Personal communication

(and telefax transmission) between Scott Lytle (ADEC) and Stewart Osgood (Metcalf & Eddy,
Inc.). October 28, 1992.
ADEC, 1992b. Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. Personal communication

between Jack Coutt (ADEC) and Stewart Osgood (Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.). September 14,
1992.
6-1
I
ADEC, 1993. Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. Personal communication 3
between Jack Coutts (ADEC) and Kevin McManus (Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.). February 9,
1993. 5
ADFG, 1976. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. North Slope Grizzly Bear Studies. I
Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Project W-17-6. 20 pages.
ADFG, 1980. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. North Slope Grizzly Bear Studies.
Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Project W-17-11. 65 pp.5
ADFG, 1981. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Black Bear Predation on Moose.
Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Project W-17-2. 43 pp. £
ADFG, 1986. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Alaska Habitat Management Guide,
SouthcentralRegion (Draft). Maps. ADFG, Juneau, AK.
ADFG, 1987a. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Memorandum from J. Whitman
(ADFG) to K. Schneider (ADFG). March 12. 5
ADFG, 1987b. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Memorandum from D. G. Kelleyhouse 5
(ADFG) to K. B. Schneider (ADFG) and L. Van Daele (ADFG). March 6.
ADFG, 1987c. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Final
Report - Big Game Studies Vol. IV.
ADFG, 1987d. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Memorandum from K. Pitcher (ADFG) i
to K. Schneider (ADFG). March 11.
I
I
6-2
. I I. I ,lI i i
ADFG, 1987e. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Memorandum from L. Van Daele
(ADFG) to K. Schneider (ADFG). April 7.
ADFG, 1990. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Subsistence in Alaska: A Summary.
Alaska Department of Fish & Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, AK.
ADFG, 1991. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Subsistence Managementin Alaska: 1991
Update. Alaska Department of Fish & Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, AK.
ADFG, 1992a. AlaskIa Department of Fish and Game. Personal communication between Robin
Eagen (ADFG) Division of Wildlife Conservation and Dan Berler (Metcalf and Eddy, Inc).
September 2, 1992.
ADFG, 1992b. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Letter from Robin Eagen (ADFG -
Division of Wildlife Conservation) to Dan Berler (Metcalf and Eddy, Inc.). September 1,
1992.
ADFG, 1992c. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Personal communication between Terry
Haynes (ADFG) Subsistence Division and Stewart Osgood (Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.).
September 21, 1992.
ADFG, 1992d. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Clear Fish Hatchery. Letter from Don
Bee (ADFG) to Dan Berler (Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.). October 8, 1992
ADFG, 1992e. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Personal communication between Jerry
Halberg (ADFG) and Dan Berler (Metcalf and Eddy, Inc.). September 9, 1992.
ADFG, 1992f. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Personal communication between Dave
Parks (ADFG - Clear Fish Hatchery Manager) and Dan Berler (Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.).
October 9, 1992.
6-3
ADFG, 1992g. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Personal communication between Jim
Fall (ADFG - Division of Subsistence) and Steve Cibik (Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.).
I
ADFG, 1992h. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Personal communication between Terry
Haynes (ADFG - Division of Subsistence) and Dan Berler (Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.).m
September 2, 1992.
ADL, 1992. Alaska Department of Labor. Data regarding selected social characteristics,
income and poverty status, selected housing characteristics, and selected labor force and
commuting characteristics for the towns of Nenana, Clear, Ferry, and Healy. Telefax data
from Bob Elliot (ADL) to Dan Berler (Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.). September 30, 1992.
ADNR, 1986. Alaska Department of Natural Resources. Copper River Basin Area Plan. I
ADNR, 1991a. Alaska Department of Natural Resources. Tanana Basin Area Plan.
ADNR, 1991b. Alaska Department of Natural Resources. Nenana River CorridorRecreation

Study. Report prepared in conjunction with the National Park Service, Memorandum of 1
Understanding No. 9700-0-9024. July, 1991.
ADNR, 1992a. Alaska Department of Natural Resources. Personal communication between U

Steve Clautieu (ADNR) and Dan Berler (Metcalf and Eddy, Inc.). September 18, 1992. i
ADNR, 1992b. Alaska Department of Natural Resources. Personal communication between 3

Andy Hutzel (ADNR) and Stewart Osgood (Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.). October 20, 1992.
I!
ADNR, 1992c. Alaska Department of Natural Resources. Personal communication between
Ed Fogels (ADNR) and Stewart Osgood (Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.). October 6, 1992.
6
6-4
• i •iI I I a I I i
ADNR, 1992d. Alaska Department of Natural Resources. Personal communication between
Anna Plager (ADNR) and Stewart Osgood (Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.). October 6, 1992.
ADOT, 1992. Alaska Department of Transportation. Personal communication between Dean

Owen (ADOT- Rural Airport Manager) and Stewart Osgood (Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.).
September 16, 1992.
AEIDC, 1987a. Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center. Vegetation Analysis:
Alaska Over-the-Horizon Radar Project. Final Report. Prepared for Metcalf & Eddy,
Inc./Holmes and Narver, Inc., Wakefield, MA.
AEIDC, 1987b. Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center. A Wildlife Survey In
Relation To Locations For Siting Proposed Radar Facilities. Final Report. Prepared for
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc./Holmes & Narver, Inc., Wakefield, Massachusetts. 17 pp.
AEIDC, 1987c. Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center. Avian Flight Behaviors
During Migration in Relation to Environmental Factors: A LiteratureReview. Unpublished
Report for Metcalf & Eddy, Inc./Holmes and Narver, Inc., Wakefield, MA. 71 pages.
AEIDC, 1988a. Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center. Alaska Over-the-Horizon
Radar System: Vegetation Cover 7ype Maps of the Five Alternate Gravel Mine Sites Near
Gulkana, Alaska. Draft Report. Prepared for Metcalf & Eddy, Inc./Holmes and Narver,
Inc. Wakefield, MA.
AEIDC, 1988b. Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center. Alaska Over-the-Horizon
BackscatterRadar System: ForageAvailability and Site Nominationsfor Browse Mitigation.
Final Report. Prepared for Metcalf & Eddy, Inc./Holmes & Narver, Inc., Wakefield,
Massachusetts.
6-5
I
AEIDC, 1988c. Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center. Alaska Over-The-Horizon
Backscatter Radar System: Climate Factors Analysis: A Search for a Gauge of Bird
Collision Potential, Final Report. 3
AEIDC, 1988d. Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center. Fish and Aquatic Habitat I
Surveys Lower Tulsona Creek, May - October 1988. University of Alaska Anchorage. 19
PP.
AEIDC, 1988e. Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center. Alaska Over-the-Horizon I
Backscatter Radar System: Characteristicsof Contemporary Subsistence Use Patterns in the
Copper River Basin and Upper TananaArea. Volume 1. Synthesis. Volume 11. Appendices.
Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center, University of Alaska, Anchorage. 3
AEIDC, 1989a. Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center. Tulsona Creek Drainage 3
Aquatic Survey Trip Report, 7-10 March, 1989. Prepared for Metcalf & Eddy, Inc./Holmes
& Narver, Inc. 3
AEIDC, 1989b. Arctic Environmental Information Distribution Center. Alaska RadarSystem I
Over-the Horizon Backscatter: Report of Investigations, 1988 Cultural Resources
Investigations. Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center, University of Alaska 3
Anchorage. Prepared for Hart Crowser, Inc., Anchorage, AK.
AEIDC, 1990. Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center. Alaskan Radar System
Over-the-Horizon Backscatter, Cultural Resources Management Plan (CRMP). Arctic I
Environmental Information and Data Center, University of Alaska, Anchorage. Prepared for
United States Air Force Electronic Systems Division. 3
6
a
6-6 1
1
IM
I AEIDC, 1991. Arctic Environmental Information Distribution Center. Alaska Radar System
Over-the Horizon Backscatter Radar Project. Final Report of the 1990 Archeological
I Investigations in the Gulkana Study Area. Arctic Environmental Information and Data
Center, University of Alaska Anchorage. Prepared for United States Air Force Electronic
I Systems Division.
I Ahtna Tanacross Association, 1989. Alaska Over-the-HorizonBackscatterRadarSystem: Draft

Technical Reports for the Research Conducted by the Ahtna-Tanacross Association. 1988
Field Season, Gulkana Study Area. Results of Archaeologic Research. Prepared for Hart
i Crowser, Inc.
Ahtna, 1988. Report of Investigation:Over the Horizon BackscatterRadar System at Gulkana,

Alaska, Oral/EthnohistoricCulturalStudies Program. Report Submitted to Metcalf & Eddy,
Inc./Holmes & Narver, Inc. Joint Venture. Ahtna, Inc., Anchorage, Alaska.
Alaska Northwest Books, 1992. Milepost. GTE Discovery Corporation, Inc. S.E. Bothell,
WA. 640 pages.
Alaska Railroad, 1989. Aerial photographs (1 inch = 1000 feet) obtained from Aeromap, Inc.,
Anchorage, AK.
Anderson, W. L., 1978. Waterfowl Collisions With Power Lines At A Coal-Fired Power Plant.
Wildlife Society Bulletin. 6(2):77-83.
APTI, 1992. ARCO Power Technologies, Inc. HAARP Proposal submitted to Office of Naval
Research (ONR) in response to Solicitation No. N00014-92-R-002.
6-7
AUSA, 1992a. Analysis of the Potentialfor Radiofrequency Radiation Bioeffects to Resultfrom I
Operation of the Proposed ONR and Air Force High-Frequency Active Auroral Research
Program Ionospheric Research Instrument (HAARP F1J):General Analysis (Not System- 3
Specific)-Technical Report. Cupertino, CA. May, 1992. 222 pages.
AUSA, 1992b. RFR Human Health Effects Section of HAARP EIS - FirstDraft. Cupertino,
CA. August 17, 1992. 89 pages. 1
AUSA, 1992c. PotentialEffects of HAARP on Birds. Cupertino, California. October 9, 1992. 1
5 pages.I
Avery, M. L., P. F. Springer, and J. F. Cassel, 1978. The Composition and Seasonal
Variation of Bird Losses at a Tall Tower in Southeastern North Dakota. American Birds.
32(6):1 114-1121. 3
Ballard, W. B., J. S. Whitman, and C. L. Gardner, 1987. Ecology of an Exploited Wolf 3
Population in South-central Alaska. Wildlife Monographs. No. 98. 54 pp.
Beaulaurier, D. L., 1981. Mitigation of Bird Collisions With Transmission Lines. Bonneville U
Power Administration, Portland, OR. 83 pp. 1
Bergerud, A. T. and W. B. Ballard, 1988. Wolf Predation on Caribou: The Nelchina Herd 3
Case History, a Different Interpretation. Journalof Wildlife Management. 52:344-357.
I
BLM, 1986. U. S. Bureau of Land Management. Visual Resource Management Program.
Bureau of Land Management Manual Series 8400. Department of the Interior, Washington, 3
D.C.
I
I
6-8
1
Braid, R. B., T. Goebel, N. Bigelow, and W. R. Powers, 1991. Cultural Resources Survey of
the Clear Air Force Station, Clear, Alaska (Draft). Oak Ridge National Laboratory and
University of Alaska Fairbanks.
Brelsford, T., 1990. Subsistence Policy in Alaska: A Brief History. In. University of Alaska
Sea Grant Marine Advisory Program Alaska Marine Resource Quarterly. 5 (1):3.
Brown, Theodore L. and LeMay, H. Eugene, Jr., 1977. Chemistry: The Central Science.
Prentice-Hall, Inc.: New Jersey. pages 287-290.
CEQ, 1978. Council on Economic Quality. Regulations for Implementing the Procedural
Provissionsof the National EnvironmentalPolicy Act. 40 CFR Parts 1500-1'98. November
29,1992.
I
Cloe, J. H. and M. F. Monaghan, 1984. Top Cover for America: The Air Force in Alaska
1920-1983. Anchorage: Pictorial Histories Publishing Co.
I Coady, J. W., 1982. Moose (Alces alces). Pages 902-922 in Wild Mammals of North America:
Biology, Management and Economics, J. A. Chapman and G. A. Feldhamer, eds. Johns
Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. 1147 pp.
SCohen, K. K., 1980. A History of the Gulkana River. Edited by G.C. Stein, Alaska
I Department of Natural Resourccs, Division of Research and Development, Anchorage, AK.
Ce."ant, B., and J. I. Hodges, J. G. King, and S. L. Cain, 1985. Alaska Trumpeter Swan Status
I Report. Unpublished Report, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Juneau, AK. 12
I pages.
t
66-9
Conant, B., and F. Roetki.;, 1987. Alaska-Yukon Waterfowl Breeding Survey (14 May to 14 3
June). Unpublished Annual Report, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Juneau, AK.
25 pages. 5
Conant, B., and J. I. Hodges, 1988. Alaska-Yukon Waterfowl Breeding Survey (15 May to 15 3
25 pag,-s. 3
Conant, B., and C. P. Dau, 1989. Alaska-Yukon Waterfowl Breeding Survey (15 May to 16I
25 pages.
CRNA-TIS, 1989. Copper River Native Association - Tanacross Impat Services. Human I
Resources and Services Inventory Final Report. March 30, 1989.
Cowardin, L. M, V. Carter, F. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe, 1979. Classification of Wetlands and 3

Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-79/31.
Craighead, J. J. and J. A. Mitchell, 1982. Grizzly Bear. Pages 515-556 in Wild Mammals of
North America: Biology, Management and Economics, J. A. Chapman and G. A. Feldhamer, I
eds. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. 1147 pp.
Cushwa, C. T. and J. Co-dy, 1976. Food Habits of Moose (Alces alces) in Alaska: A
Preliminary Study Using Rumen Contents Analysis. Canada Field Naturalist. 90:11-16. 3
Dandekar, B. S., 1979. Magnetic Disturbance Statistics From a Single Station Q Index Applied
to an Actual OTH-B Radar Situation. EnvironmentalResearch Papers, No. 687. Geophysics
Laboratory, Project 4643. Space Physics Division, Air Force Systems Command, U.S. Air
Force.
6-10
3
I
lalliim~mmiuiI
i de Laguna, F., 1969. The Amna [Ahtna] of the Copper River, Alaska: The World of Men and
Animals. Folk 11/12:17-26.
de Laguna, F. and C. McClellan, 1981. Ahtna. In: Handbook of North American Indians, Vol.
1 6. Edited by J. Helm, pp. 641-663. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.
I Dixon, E. J., 1985. Cultural Chronology of Central Interior Alaska. Arctic Anthropology
i 221:47-66.
DOD, 1990a. U. S. Department of Defense. Letter from Assistant Secretary of Defense.

Major Land Acquisition Moratorium. October 24, 1990.
DOD, 1990b. U. S. Department of Defense. Land Acquisition in the United States.
I
DOE, 1992. U. S. Department of Energy. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the
I Proposed Healy Clean Coal Project. DOE/EIS-0186. November, 1992.
I Drury, W. H. and J. A. Keith, 1962. Radar Studies of Songbird Migration in Coastal New
England. Ibis. 104(4):449-489.
I
Emery, Philip A., Stanley H. Jones, and Roy L. Glass, 1985. Water Resources of the Copper
I River Basin, Alaska. Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA-686. United States Geological
Survey.
ENRI, 1992. Environmental and Natural Resources Institute. ClimatologicalSummary - Clear

AFS, Alaska. University of Alaska Anchorage - Environmental and Natural Resources
Institute, Anchorage, Alaska. (formerly AEIDC)
i
1 6-I11
I
I
FAA, 1992. Federal Aviation Administration. Personal communication between David Behrens 3
(FAA Airspace, Procedures Specialist) and Paul Valihura (Holmes & Narver, Inc.)
concerning aircraft traffic and airspace issues. October 14, 1992. 5
Faanes, C. A., 1987. Bird Behavior and Mortality in Relation to Power Lines in Prairie 3
Habitats. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fish and Wildlife Technical Report 7. 24 pp.
Fission & Associates, 1987. Nenana Community Profile. Anchorage, Alaska. 39 pages.
FSI, 1991. FELEC Services, Inc. ClearAFS Site Comprehensive Plan. 117 FELEC Services,
Inc.
FSI, 1992a. FELEC Services, Inc. (Clear Air Force Station, AK). Personal communication I
between Jim Stalter (FSI) and Dan Berler (Metcalf and Eddy, Inc).
FSI, 1992b. FELEC Services, Inc. Personal communication between Harley Love (FSI), Clear
1992.
AFS Facilities Engineer, and Stewart Osgood (Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.). September 16,
Gabrielson, S. A. and F. C. Lincoln, 1959. Birds of Alaska. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg,

PA. 922 pages. 3
Gasaway, W. C., R. 0. Stephenson, J. L. Davis, P. E. Shepherd, and 0. E. Burris, 1983.
Interrelationships of Wolves, Prey, and Man in Interior Alaska. Wildlife Monographs. No.
84. 50 pp. 3
Gauthreaux, S. A., 1978. Migratory Behavior and Flight Patterns. Pages 12 - 26 in M. Avery 3
(editor) Impacts of Transmission Lines on Birds in Flight. Office of Biological Services,
USFWS, Washington, DC. FWS/OBS-78/48. 3
6-12
I
I
Gerlach, S. C., et al., 1990. Over-the-Horizon Backscatter, Alaska Radar System: Report of
1989 Investigations of the Tok and Gulkana Study Areas, Alaska. University of Alaska
Museum, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK. Occasional Papers in Archaeology 1.
Prepared for Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center, University of Alaska
Anchorage.
Goebel, T., and R. Powers, 1990. The Nenana Complex: Early Paleoindians in Beringia.
Chrononstratigraphyof North, Central, and East Asia and America. Novosibirsk: Nauka.
Goebel, T., R. Powers and N. Bigelow, 1991. The Nenana Complex of Alaska and Clovis
Origins. Clovis Origins and Adaptations. Orono: Center for the Study of the First
Americans.
Hansen, R. C., Ed., Microwave Scanning Antennas, Vol. I, Apertures, pages 35-37. Academic
Press, New York, 1964.
Hjeljord, 0., F. Sundstol, and H. Haagenrud, 1982. The Nutritional Value of Browse to
Moose. Journalof Wildlife Management. 46:333-343.
Hodges, J. I., B. Conant, and S. L. Cain, 1986. Alaska Trumpeter Swan Status Report.
Unpublished Report, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Juneau, AK. 8 pp.
Hodges, J. I., B. Conant, and S. L. Cain, 1987. A Summary of Alaska Trumpeter Swan
Surveys. Unpublished Report, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Juneau, AK. 11 pp.
Hubbert, M. E., 1987. The Effect of Diet on Energy Partitioningin Moose. Ph.D. Thesis,
University of Alaska, Fairbanks.
6-13
IBCC, 1970. International Bird Census Committee. An International Standard for a Mapping
Method in Bird Census Work Recommended by the IBCC. Audubon Field-Notes. 24:722-
726. 5
ITEE, 1991. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. IEEE Standardfor Safety Levels I
With Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency ElectromagneticFields, 30 khz to 300
ghz. (IEEE c95.1 - 1991). IEEE, New York. I
Isleib, M. E. and B. Kessel, 1973. Birds of the North Gulf Coast - Prince William Sound
Region, Alaska. Biol. Pap., Univ. Alaska No. 14, Fairbanks, Ak. 149 pp.
Jacobs, W. A., and L. L. Woodman, 1976. History of the Alaska District of the Corps of
Engineers 1946-1974. Anchorage: Elmendorf Air Force Base.
Jonkel, C., 1978. Black, Brown (Grizzly) and Polar Bears. Pages 227-248 in Big Game of
North America: Ecology and Management, J. L. Schmidt and D. L. Gilbert, eds. Stackpole
Books. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. 494 pp.
£
Kari, 1., 1983. Paul George interview at Nenana, Alaska, 5/29/83. Unpublished manuscript
on file at Alaska Native Language Center Library, University of Alaska Fairbanks. 3
Kelsall, J. P., E. S. Telfer, and T. 0. Wright, 1977. The Effects of Fire on the Ecology of the 3
Boreal Forest with ParticularReference to the Canadian North: A Review and Selected
Bibliography. Canada Wildlife Service Occasional Paper No. 32. 58 pp. 5
Kessel B., S. 0. MacDonald, D. D. Gibson, B. A. Cooper, and B. A. Anderson, 1982. Birds
and Nongame Mammals. Phase I report. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environmental
Studies. 150 pp. 3
6-14
6
U
Kessel, B., 1984. Migration of SandhiUl Cranes, Grus canadensis, in East-central Alaska, with
Routes through Alaska and Western Canada. The CanadianField-Naturalist,No. 3. 98:279-
292.
King, J. G. and C. J. Lensink, 1971. An Evaluation of Alaskan Habitat For Migratory Birds.
Unpublished Report, Bureau of Sport Fish. and Wildl., Washington, D.C. 45 pp.
King, J. G. and B. Conant, 1981. The 1980 Census of Trumpeter Swans on Alaskan Nesting
Habitats. American Birds. 35: 789-793.
Krefting, L. W., 1974. Moose Distribution and Habitat Selection in Northcentral North
America. Naturaliste Canada. 101:81-100.
LeResche, R. E., R. H. Bishop, and J. W. Coady, 1974. Distributionand Habitats of Moose

in Alaska. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Fairbanks, Alaska.
McDonald, G. N., 1988. OTH-B Alaska Radar System, Culkana Transmit Site, Hydrology
Study Task II. G.N. McDonald & Associates, Anchorage. 11 pp.
Mech, L. D., 1974. A New Profile for the Wolf. Natural History. 83:26-31.
M&E/H&N, 1989a. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc./Holmes & Narver, Inc. Technical Studies: Over-
the-Horizon BackscatterRadarProgramAlaska Radar System. Technical Study 10: Borrow
Removal Plan. 87 pp.
M&E/H&N, 1989b. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc./Holmes & Narver, Inc. Technical Studies: Over-
the-Horizon Backscatter Radar Program, Alaskan Radar System. Prepared for the United
States Air Force, Electronic Systems Division.
6-15
M&E/H&N, 1989c. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc./Holmes & Narver, Inc. Technical Studies: Over- 3
the-Horizon BackscatterRadarProgramAlaska Radar System. TechnicalStudy 2: Facilities.
Over-the-Horizon Backscatter Alaska Radar System. 85 pp. 5
M&E/H&N, 1989d. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc./Holmes & Narver, Inc. Technical Studies: Over- I
the-Horizon Backscatter Radar Program Alaska Radar System. Technical Study 3: Air
Quality. Over-the-Horizon Backscatter Alaska Radar System. 28 pp. 1
M&E/H&N, 1992a. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc./Holmes & Narver, Inc. Site Investigation Report. I
Paul Valihura (Holmes & Narver, Inc.) to Phillips Laboratory, U.S. Air Force. October 16,
1992.
M&E/H&N, 1992b. Metcalf and Eddy, Inc./ Holmes and Narver, Inc. Site Investigation/Trip
Report. Memorandum from S.E. Petron (Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.) to Phillips Laboratory, U.S.
Air Force. June 9, 1992.
M&E/H&N, 1992c. Metcalf and Eddy, Inc./ Holmes and Narver, Inc. Personal
communication between Paul Valihura (Holmes and Narver, Inc.) and Chief Rocky Ansell I
(Glennallen Fire Department) concerning emergency fire and ambulance response. December
8, 1992.
M&E/H&N, 1992d. Metcalf and Eddy, Inc./ Holmes and Narver, Inc. Personal 3
communication between Paul Valihura (Holmes and Narver, Inc.) and Luisa Brooks (ADNR -
Division of Forestry) concerning emergency fire response. December 10, 1992. 5
M&E/H&N, 1992e. Metcalf and Eddy, Inc./ Holmes and Narver, Inc. Personal I
communication between Paul Valihura (Holmes and Narver, Inc.) and Sgt Spitler (USAF -
Clear AFS) concerning emergency fire and ambulance response. December 8, 1992. 1
6-16
I1
I
3
I Miller, F. L., 1982. Caribou. Pages 923-959 in Wild Mammals of North America: Biology,
Management and Economics, J. A. Chapman and G. A. Feldhamer, eds. Johns Hopkins
S University Press, Baltimore. 1147 pp.
I Miller, S. M. and W. B. Ballard, 1982. Estimates of Density, Structure and Biomass of an

Interior Alaskan Brown Bear Population. CanadaField Naturalist. 96:448-454.
I MITRE, 1992a. The MITRE Corporation. Letter to U. S. Air Force, Phillips Lab, Hanscom
AFB, Bedford, Massachusetts. File #D081-L-187, 27 August 1992.
I MITRE, 1992b. The MITRE Corporation Power Densities For HAARP Emitters. 23 pages.
S MITRE, 1992c. The MITRE Corporation. ElectromagneticEnvironment. 29 pages.
iU MITRE, 1992d. The MITRE Corporation. Recieving System Sensitivities. 29 pages.
MITRE, 1992e. The MITRE Corporation. Identification of User Systems and Their
Representative Locations Relative To The HAARP Emitters. 3 pages.
I MITRE, 1992f. The MITRE Corporation. Addendum to Trip report by A. Snyder (The
MITRE Corporation) concerning meeting with Jerry Markey (FAA) on EEDs, avionics, and
3 fuel systems. December 23, 1992.
I MITRE, 1993a. The MITRE Corporation. Revised technical memorandum from G. A.

Robertshaw to N. M. Tomljanovich regarding field strength and power density estimates for
3 HAARP emitters. February 11, 1993.
I
I
i 6-17
I
U
M=RE, 1993b. The MITRE Corporation. Revised technical memorandum from G. A. 3
Robertshaw to N. M. Tomljanovich regarding radiation hazard for combined operation of
BMEWS, ISR, and IRI in the Clear AFS area. February 5, 1993. 1
MITRE, 1993c. The MITRE Corporation. Electromagnetic Interference Impact of the
Proposed Emitters for the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP),
Revision A. July, 1993.
Moolin & Associates, 1989. Geotechnical Conditions Report. Over-the-Horizon Backscatter I

Alaska Radar System.
Moolin & Associates, 1990a. ARS OTH-B Transmit Site Borrow Plan. Anchorage, AK.
Prepared for EBASCO Constructors, Inc./AHTNA, Inc. Joint Venture. U
I
Moolin & Associates, 1990b. Scope of Work, OTH-B ARS P-1 Haul Road. Anchorage, AK.
Prepared for EBASCO Constructors, Inc./AHTNA, Inc. Joint Venture. u
MRC, 1992a. Mission Research Corporation. Upper Atmospheric Effects Of The HF Active
AuroralResearch ProgramIonosphericResearch Instrument (HAARP IRI), DraftAssessment -
- 20 November 1992. 13 pages. 3
MRC, 1992b. Mission Research Corporation. Personal communications between Vince Eccles 3
(MRC) and Dan Berler (Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.).
I
NASA, 1980. National Aeronautical and Space Administration. Infrared satellite photographs
obtained from Aeromap, Inc., Anchorage, Alaska. 5
Nisbet, I. C., 1963. Measurement With Radar of the Height of Nocturnal Migration Over Cape 3
Cod, Massachusetts. Bird-Banding. 34(2):57-67.
6
6-18
I
U NOAA, 1982. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association. Daily Flow Characteristicsfor
Alaskan Streams. NOAA Technical Memorandum NWS AR-35. United States Department
of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, National Weather Seivice.
NPS, 1992a. National Park Service. Personal communication between Hollis Twitchell (Denali
National Park - Resource Management) and Stewart Osgood (Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.).
September 29, 1992.
NPS, 1992b. National Park Service. Personal communication between Doug Whittaker
(National Park Service - Recreation Planning) and Stewart Osgood (Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.).
October 6, 1992.
1i NRL, 1992a. U. S. Department of the Navy, Naval Research Laboratory. An Electromagnetic

Interference Study of PotentialTransmittersitesfor the HFActive Auroral Research Program
(HAARP). Washington, D.C. August 3, 1992. 34 pp.
I
NRL, 1992b. U. S. Department of the Navy, Naval Research Laboratory. Preliminary
i Evaluation of Radiation Hazardfrom the HAARP Antenna Array: Description of E and H
I Field Calculations. July 6, 1992. l 4 pp.
NRL, 1993. U.S. Department of the Navy, Naval Research Laboratory. Personal
3 communication from Ed Kennedy (ONR) to John Hecksher (Phillips Laboratory) concerning
I field strength calculation above the IRL. January 1, 1993.
Olendorff, R. R., A. D. Miller, and R. N. Lehman, 1981. Suggested Practicesfor Raptor

3 Protection on Power Lines: The State of the Art in 1981. Raptor Research Report No. 4,
Raptor Research Foundation, Inc. 11I pp.
Orth, D. J., 1971. Dictionary of Alaska Placenames. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey.
3 6-19
U
Paradiso, J. L. and R. M. Nowak, 1982. Wolves (Canis lupus and Allies). Pages 460-474 in 3
Wild Mammals of North America: Biology, Management and Economics, J. A. Chapman and
G. A. Feldhamer, eds. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. 1147 pp. 5
Peek, J. M., 1974. A Review of Moose Food Habits Studies in North America. Naturaliste I
Canada. 101:(1 and 2)195-215. 1
Pelton, M. R., 1982. Pages 504-514 in Wild Mammals of North America:
Black Bear.
Biology, Management and Economics, J. A. Chapman and G. A. Feldhamer, eds. Johns I
Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. 1147 pp.
Poston, 1988, Personal communication to Bruce Reem, Hart-Crowser, Inc. 3

Powers, W. R., R. D. Guthrie and Hoffecker, 1983. Dry Creek: Archeology and Paleoecology
of a Latt Plezi~ocene Alaskan Hunting Camp. Submitted to the National Park Service,
Washington, D.C. 3
Powers, W. R., and Hoffecker, 1989. Late Pleistocene Settlement in the Nenana Valley, 3
Central Alaska. American Antiquity. 54(2):263-269
Powers, W. R., T. Goebel and N. Bigelow, 1990. Late Pleistocene Occupation of Walker
Road: New Data on the Central Alaskan Nenana Complex. Current Research in the 3
Pleistocene. 7:40-42.
Ramsey, G., 1991. Personal communication on the subject of the "Old Jap Roadhouse", by T.
Goebel and N. Bigelow. 3
Ratcliffe, J. A. An Introduction to the Ionosphere and the Magnetosphere. Cambridge 3
University Press, Cambridge.
6
6-20
I
Reckord, H., 1983. Where Raven Stood: Cultural Resources of the Ahtna Region.
Anthropology and Historic Preservation, Cooperative Park Studies Unit, University of
Alaska, Fairbanks.
Richardson, W.J., 1978. Timing and Amount of Bird Migration in Relation to Weather: A
Review. Oikos. 30:224-272.
Rishbeth, H. and 0. K. Garriot, 1969. Introduction to IonosphericPhysics. Academic Press,

New York.
Roble, R. 1992. Independent Assessment of HAARP Effects on the Upper Atmosphere.

Received from Mission Research Corporation summary of R. Roble's assessment using the
National Center for Atmospheric Research models. December 18, 1992. lp.
Roen Design Associates, 1991. HF Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) FinalReport
PhaseI - PreliminarySite Selection. Prepared for Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska
Fairbanks. February, 1991. 53 pp.
Roseneau, D. G., C. E. Tull, and R. W. Nelson, 1981. Protection Strategiesfor Peregrine

Falconsand OtherRaptors Along the PlannedNorthwest Alaskan Gas PipelineRoute, Volume
L Report prepared for Northwest Alaskan Pipeline Company by LGL Alaskz- Research
Associates, Inc. 218 pp.
Sams, Howard W. & Co., Inc. 1975. Reference Datafor Radio Engineers. ITT.
SEI, 1989. Slana Energy, Inc. Application for Permit to Operate to Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation.
6-21
I
Selkregg, L. L., 1974. Alaska Regional Profiles: Southcentral Region. State of Alaska 3
Department of Geological and Geophysical Surveys.
Shannon and Wilson, 1958. Subsurface Investigation, Technical Facility - Clear, Alaska.
I
I
SHPO, 1992. State Historic Preservation Office. Personal and Telefax communication between
Russ Sackett (SHPO) and Stewart Osgood (Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.). September 18, 1992. 1
Schutt, W., 1992. President, Healy Seniors Group. Personal communication with Dan Berler I
(Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.). September 30, 1992.
Spartz, R. A., 1985. CulturalResources Report: CopperRiver Resources ManagementMapping

Project. Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Department of Geological and
Geophysical Surveys, Anchorage, AK. g
Spindler, M. A. and B. Kessel, 1978. TerrestrialAvian Habitatsand Their Utilization, Upper 3
Tanana River, Alaska, 1977. Final Report Prepared for Northwest Alaska Pipeline Co. 118
pp.
Stalter, J., and R. Shreve, 1992. Personal communication with Dan Berler (Metcalf & Eddy, 3
Inc.). August 27, 1992.
I
Theberge, J. B., 1976. Bird Populations in the Kluane Mountains, Southwest Yukon, With
Special Reference to Vegetation and Fire. Can. J. Zool. 54:1346-1356. 3
Thompson, L. S., 1978. Transmission Line Wire Strikes: Mitigation Through Engineering 5
Design and Habitat Modification. Pages 27-52 in M. Avery (ed). Impacts of Transmission
Lines on Birds in Flight. Office of Biological Services, USFWS. FWS/OBS-78/48.
6-22
I
I
Thompson, C. L., 1979. Tanana River, Wood River, and Chena Names from Matthew Titus,
5/18/79. Unpublished manuscript on file, Alaska Native Language Center Library,
University of Alaska Fairbanks.
UAF, 1987. University of Alaska Fairbanks. Preliminary Photointerpretive Maps of the

Geology, Geologic Materials, Permafrost, and Wetlands Classification, Fairbanks B-5
Quadrangle, Alaska. Stuart E. Rawlinson, Alaska Division of Geologic and Geophysical
Surveys, University of Alaska Fairbanks. Public-data File 87-17.
US Army, 1992. Letter to U. S. Air Force, Phillips Lab, Hanscom AFB, Bedford,
Massachusetts, concerning the use of Ft. Greely as an alternative HAARP site.
USACOE, 1982. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. Subsurface Investigationfor Clear AFS

BOQIUEPH. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Alaska Division.
USACOE, 1984. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. Preliminary Guide to the On-Site

Delineation of the Wetlands of Alaska. Technical Report Y-78-9.
USACOE, 1987a. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. Foundation Report for the Over-the-
Horizon Backscatter Radar Support Facility Gakona Site. Alaska District.
USACOE, 1987b. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation

Manual. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
Mississippi.
USACOE, 1988. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. GeotechnicalExplorationReportfor Over-

the-Horizon Backscatter Radar Gulkana Site Borrow Sources, Alaska.
6-23
I
USACOE, 1992. U. S. Army Corps of ELgineers. Eight Possible Alternate HAARP Siting
Areas. Report prepared for the U. S. Air Force, Phillips Laboratory, Hanscom AFB, MA.
6 pp. 1
USAF, 1982. U. S. Air Force. Environmental Impact Analysis Process. Air Force Regulation U
19-2. August 10, 1982.
USAF, 1986a. U. S. Air Force. Draft Environmental Impact Statement: ProposedAlaskan

Radar System, Over-the-HorizonBackscatter Radar Program. Air Force Systems Command, I
Electronic Systems Division.
USAF, 1986b. U. S. Air Force. Environmental Technical Applications Center (ETAC) Air
Weather Service, Scott AFB, IL.
USAF, 1987. U. S. Air Force. Final Environmental Impact Statement: Proposed Alaskan U
Radar System, Over-the-HorizonBackscatterRadarProgram. Air Force Systems Command,
I
USAF, 1989a. U. S. Air Force. Environmental Assessment: Proposed Sites, Alaskan Radar
System, Over-the-Horizon Backscatter Radar Program. Air Force Systems Command,
I
USAF, 1989b. U. S. Air Force. Summary Documents for Transmit Site. Alaskan Air
Command, Anchorage, AK. February 16, 1989. 3
USAF, 1991. U. S. Air Force. Termination Planfor the Over-the-HorizonBackscatter (0Th. 3
B), Alaskan Radar System (ARS).
6
U
6-24 1
U
I
1 USAF, 1992a. U. S. Air Force. Headquarters, Air Force Environmental Planning Division,
AF/CEVP. Personal communication to Charles Forsberg, U. S. Air Force Phillips Lab,
I PL/GPIA. June 2, 1992.
USAF, 1992b. U. S. Air Force. Personal communication between John Heckscher (Phillips
Lab) and Dan Berler (Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.) on maximum electric (E) and magnetic (H)
I fields above the IRI. September, 1992.
I USDOC, 1981. U. S. Department of Commerce. 1980 Census of Population, Number of

Inhabitants,Alaska. PC80-1-A3, Washington, DC.
USDOC, 1992. U. S. Department of Commerce. Summary tape File 1-A (STF 1-A) data for
Chistochina, Gakona, Gulkana, and Glennallen.
USFWS, 1989. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Memorandum from USFWS Nebraska State
3n Supervisor to USFWS Field Supervisor, Western Alaska Ecological Services, Anchorage,
AK. March 6, 1989. 7 pp.
USFWS, 1992a. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetland Inventory Map. Fairbanks
3 (A-5), Alaska.
3 USFWS, 1992b. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetland Inventory Map. Fairbanks
(B-5), Alaska.
I
USFWS, 1992c. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Letter fnrm Patrick Sousa (USFWS,
3 Northern Alaska Ecological Services) to Dan Berler (Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.).
3 USFWS, 1992d. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Ecological Services, Endangered Species
(Fairbanks, AK.). Skip Ambrose (USFWS) letter to John L. Heckscher (Phillips
I Laboratory). September 18, 1992.
6-25
I= • a III I a
I
USFWS, 1992e. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Ecological Services, Endangered Species
(Fairbanks, AK.). Personal communication between Skip Ambrose (USFWS) and Dan Berler
(Metcalf and Eddy, Inc.). 3
USFWS, 1992f. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Migratory Management Survey (Juneau, I
AK). Aerial survey data of water fowl breeding individuals for segments 52 and 53.
USFWS, 1992g. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Migratory Management Survey (Juneau,
AK). Personal communication between Jack Hodges (USFWS) and Dan Berler (Metcalf and I
Eddy, Inc.). 3
USFWS, 1992h. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Ecological Services, Endangered Species
(Anchorage, AK.). Sonce de Vries (USFWS Acting Field Supervisor) letter to R. Earl Good
(Phillips Laboratory). June 1, 1992. 3
USN, 1990. U. S. Department of the Navy. Procedures for Implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). OPNAVINST 5090. IA. Chapter 5.
USSCS, 1973. U. S. Soil Conservation Service. ErploratorySoil Survey of Alaska. pp 135-

136.
Valcq, W., 1992. Proprietor, Rock Creek Country Inn. Personal communication with Dan i
Berler (Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.). October 8, 1992.
I
Van Ballenberghe, V., 1985. Wolf Predation on Caribou: The Nelchina Herd Case History.
Journalof Wildlife Management. 49:711-720. I
6--26
I1
I
Van Cleve, K., and L. A. Viereck, 1981. Forest Succession in Relation to Nutrient Recycling
in the Boreal Forest of Alaska. Pages 182-210 in Forest Succession, Concepts and
Application, D. C. West, and H. H. Shugart and D. B. Botkin, editors. Springer-Verlag,
New York.
Van Cleve, K., C. T. Dyrness, L. A. Viereck, J. Fox, F. S. Chapin, MiT, and W. Oechel, 1983.
Taiga Ecosystems in Interior Alaska. Bioscience. 33:39-44.
Viereck, L. A., C. T. Dyrness, and A. Batten, 1986. The 1986 Revision Of The Alaska
Vegetation Classification. Institute of Northern Forestry, U.S. Forest Service. Fairbanks,
Alaska. 29 pp.
Wahrhaftig, C., 1965. Quaternary and Engineering Geology in the Central Parnof the Alaska
Range. United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 293.
West, F. H. and W. B. Workman, 1970. A Preliminary Archeological Evaluation of the

Southern Part of the Route of the Proposed Trans-Alaska PipelineSystem: Valdez to Hogan's
Hill. MS 72 pp.
West, F. H., 1975. Dating the Denali Complex. Arctic Anthropology 121:76-81.
Whalen, J. A, 1970. Auroral Oval Plotter and Nomograph for Determining Corrected
Geomagnetic Local Time, Latitude, and Longitude for High Latitudes in the Northern
Hemisphere. EnvironmentalResearch Papers, No. 327. United States Air Force, Air Force
Cambridge Research Laboratories.
Whitten, R. C. and Prasad, S. S., 1985. Ozone In The Free Atmosphere. Van Nostrand
Reinhold Company: New York. 91-92 pp.
6-27
I
Williams, A. B., 1936. The Composition and Dynamics of a Beech-Maple Climax Community. 3
Ecological Monographs. 6:317-408.
I
Workman, W. B., 1976. Archeological Investigations at GUL-077, A PrehistoricSite Near
Gulkana, Alaska. Unpublished Report, Alaska Methodist University, Anchorage, AK.
Workman, W. B., 1977. Ahtna Archeology: A PreliminaryStatement. Paper presented at the 3

Ninth Annual Conference of the University of Calgary Archeology Association, Calgary.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6-28 I
________ I|
7.0 DEIS DISTRIBUTION LIST
Mr. Larry Ethelban, Environmental AAL

Specialist Federal Aviation Administration
Bureau of Indian Affairs Airports Division
Box 3-8000 600, 701 C Street
Juneau, Alaska 99802 P.O. Box 14
Anchorage, Alaska 99513
Mr. Michael J. Stancampiano
Bureau of Indian Affairs Ms. Donna Tracy
Federal Building and Courthouse Military Operations Specialist
101 12th Avenue, Box 16 Federal Aviation Administration
Fairbanks, AK 99701 5400 Davis Highway
Anchorage, Alaska 99506-1697
Bureau of Land Management
Division of Land & Renewable Resources Mr. David Behrens
Branch of Biological Resources Airspace/Procedures Specialist
710 C Street Federal Aviation Administration,
Box 13 Branch 530
Anchorage, Alaska 99513 222 West 7th Street
Mr. Jack Harris
Bureau of Land Management Mr. Carl Henley
222 West Seventh Avenue, Number 13 Military Operations Officer
Anchorage, AK 99513 Federal Aviation Administration
5400 Davis Highway
Defense Mapping Agency Anchorage, Alaska 99506-1697
Code NVS
Hydro/Topographic Center Mr. Charles L. Steele, Chief
6500 Brooks Lane Federal Emergency Management Agency
Washington, D.C. 20315 Region X
National and Technical Hazards Division
Department of Interior Federal Regional Center
Mineral Management Services Bothell, Washington 98021-9796
OCS Survey GP.
MD #625 Federal Hiqhway Administration
P. 0. Box 25165 P. 0. Box 1648
Denver, Colorado 80225-0165 Juneau, Alaska 99802-1648
7-1
Commanding Officer
Military Sealift Command Office
NOAA/NOS
Nautical Data
3
Elmendorf AFB, Alaska 99506
Ms. Barbara Johnson
CG222
Rockville, Maryland 20852 3
National Audubon Society Mr. John Leeds
308 G Street, Suite 219
U.S. Army Engineer District, Alaska
Regulatory Branch
I
Pouch 898
Mr. Ronald J. Morris Anchorage, AK 99506I
National Marine Fisheries Service
Federal Building Mr. Paul Gates
Habitat Conservation Division U.S. Department of Interior
222 W. 7th Avenue, No. 43 1689 C Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7588 Anchorage, AK 99501 3
National Park Service Dr. Dan Robinson
Alaska Region U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Division of Environmental Compliance 222 West Seventh Avenue, Box 19 I
2525 Gambell Street Anchorage, AK 99501
U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service
Mr. Gary Vequist 605 W. 4th Avenue, Room G-62
National Park Service Anchorage, Alaska 99501-2231
Subsistence Division
2525 Gambell Street Assistant Area Director
Anchorage, AK 99503 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Area Office Ecological Services
Mr. Larry Wright 1011 E. Tudor Road
National Park Service
2525 Gambell Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99503-6119 3
Anchorage, AK 99503 Mr. Larry Bright
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Mr. Kenneth S. Kamlet (Counsel) 1412 Airport Way
National Wildlife Federation Fairbanks, AK 99701
1412 16th Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20036 Mr. Chuck E. Diters
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Ms. Ann Rothe
National Wildlife Federation
Cultural Resources Division
1011 E. Tudor Road
3
750 W. 2nd Avenue, Suite 200 Anchorage, AK 99507
7-2
I
I
U
I Water Resources Library Mr. Tim Rumfelt
U.S. Geological Survey Alaska Department of Environmental
I 4230 University Drive, Suite 201 Conservation
Anchorage, AK 99508-4664 3601 C Street, Suite 1350
Capt. John E. Buse
Chief Civil Engineering Flight Mr. Jim Fall
US Air Force Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Clear Air Force Station, Alaska 99704 333 Raspberry Road
Anchorage, AK 99502
AHTNA, Inc.
I Post Office Box 649 Mr. Terry Haynes
Glennallen, Alaska 99588 Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Subsistence
I Planning & Training Section 1300 College Road
Alaska Area Native Health Services Fairbanks, AK 99701
Environmental Health Branch
3 701 C Street Mr. Don McKay
Box 65 Alaska Department of Fish and Game
I• Anchorage, Alaska 99513-0073 333 Raspberry
Anchorage, AKRoad
99502
Environment
Alaska Center for the
519 W. Eigth Avenue, #201 Mr. Jim Sampson, Commissioner
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-2343 Alaska Department of Labor
P. O. Box 21149
Mr. Cliff Ames Juneau, Alaska 99802
Alaska Center for the Environment
700 H Street, Suite 4 Alaska Department of Natural Resources
Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Copper River Area Office
Box 185
Alaska Department of Community & Glennallen, Alaska 99588
Regional Affairs
P.O. Box B Division of Oil & Gas
Juneau, Alaska 99811 Alaska Department of Natural Resources
P. 0. Box 7034
Mr. Bill Lamoreaux Anchorage, Alaska 99510-7034
Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation SHPO
3601 C Street, Suite 1350 Alaska Department of Natural Resources
3 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Box 7001
I 7-3
I
I
Regional Director Alaska Petroleum Engineering
Alaska Department of Transportation and P. 0. Box 10-2278 I
Public Facilities Anchorage, Alaska 99510
P. O. Box 507
Valdez, Alaska 99686-0507 Chief Engineer
Mr. Ricardo T. Quiroz

Alaska Department of Transportation and
Alaska Railroad Corporation
Pouch 7-2111
3
Public Facilities
P. O. Box 196900 Alaska Resources Library i
Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6900 222 W. Seventh Ave.
Box 36
Mr. Bruce Wells Anchorage, Alaska 99513-0089
Alaska Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities Alaska Sierra Club
Standards & Tech Services
P.O. Box 3-1000
241 E. Fifth Ave., #205
I
Juneau, Alaska 99802 •
Alaska State LibraryI
Alaska Federation of Natives 650 International Airport Road
1577 C Street, #100 Anchorage, Alaska 99502
Documents Section
Alaska Historical Library Alaska State Library (5-19)
Pouch G P.O. Box 110571
Juneau, AK 99811 Juneau, AK 99811-0571
Alaska Native Foundation Newsroom

Post Office Box 10-0278 Anchorage Daily News
Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Box 14-9001 3
Alaska Native Land Managers Assoc.
528 N Street Anchorage Municipal Libraries
Pouch 6699 3600 Denali
Anchorage, Alaska 99502 Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Mr. C. V. Chatterton Mr. John Downes, President

Alaska Oil & Gas Conservation Chamber of Commerce
Commission P.O. Box 309 $
3001 Porcupine Drive Copper Center, AK 99573
Chugiak-Eagle River Libraryi
11901 Business Blvd.
Eagle River, Alaska 99577 3
7-4
I
i I I I I III IU
Mayor Ms. Judy Bittner, State Historic
City of Delta Junction Preservation Officer
Post Office Box 229 Department of Natural Resources
Delta Junction, Alaska 99737 Office of History and Archeology
Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation
News Room P.O. Box 7001
Copper River Journal Anchorage, AK 99501
P.O. Box 336
Glennallen, AK 99588 Dot Lake Native Coorporation
Post Office Box 276
Mr. Gordon Tope, Superintendent Dot Lake, Alaska 99737
Copper River School District
Glennallen, AK 99588 Environment and Natural Resources
Institute
Copper Valley Community Library University of Alaska
P.O. Box 173 707 A Street
Glennallen, AK 99588 Anchorage, AK 99501-3625
Ms. Donna Tollman Fairbanks News-Miner

Copper Valley Economic Council 200 N. Cushman
P.O. Box 9 Fairbanks, Alaska 99707
Glennallen, AK 99588
Fairbanks North Star Borough Library
Ms. Joyce Beelman 1250 Cowles Street
Department of Environmental Fairbanks, AK 99701
Conservation
State of Alaska Institute for Social and Economic Research
Northern Regional Office University of Alaska
1001 Noble Street, Suite 350 3211 Providence Drive
Fairbanks, AK 99701 Anchorage, AK 99508
Mr. Ken Bowring Assignmant Desk

Department of Housing & Urban KTUU Channel 2 News
Development P.O. Box 102880
701 C Street Anchorage, Alaska 99510
Box 64
Anchorage, Alaska 99513-0064 Regional Supervisor
Minerals Management Service
Mr. Jerry Brossia Alaska OCS Region
Department of Natural Resources Field Operations
Northern Regional Office 949 E. 36th, Room 110
4420 Airport Way Anchorage, Alaska 99508-4302
Fairbanks, AK 99701
7-5
Mr. Rex Blazer Document Collection
Northern Alaska Environmental Center University of Alaska, Fairbanks
218 Driveway Elmer Rasmussen Library
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Fairbanks, Alaska 99775-1007
Northway Natives, Incorporated

Post Office Box 401
School of Engineering
University of Alaska, Fairbanks I
Northway, Alaska 99764 College, AK 99701
Palmer City Library Institute of Water ResourcesI

725 S. Cobb University of Alaska, Fairbanks
Box 706 College, AK 99701-1044
Palmer, Alaska 99645
Government Documents Collection
Honorable Dick Schultz University of Alaska Library
State Senator 3211 erovidence Drive
P.O. Box 511 Anchorage, AK 99504-4616
Valdez lublic Library
Box 609
Tanana Chiefs Conference, Inc.
Doyon Building Valdez, Alaska 99686 3
201 First Avenue
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Ms. Nancy Hemming
6740 Roundtree Drive 3
The Frontiersman Anchorage, Alaska 99516
Pouch M
Wasilla, Alaska 99687 Mr. Fred Schmidt
Colorado State University Library
Fort Collins, CO 80523
Trustees for Alaska
725 Christensen Drive, Suite 4
Alaska Business Newsletter
3
School of Engineering
3326 W. 30th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99517 3
University of Alaska, Anchorage
3211 Providence Drive Alaska Journal of Commerce
Anchorage, AK 99504 P. 0. Box 99007
Government Documents
University of Alaska, Fairbanks All-Alaska Weekly
Elmer E. Rasmuson Library
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701-1044
P. 0. Box 970
Fairbanks, Alaska 99707-0970 3
I
7-6I
I
I
I Mr. James L. Yeager
ARCO Alaska, Inc.
Land and Resources
Cook Inlet Region, Incorporated
pP. 0. Box 100360 P. 0. Box 93330
Anchorage, Alaska 99510-0360 Anchorage, Alaska 99509-3330
IAssociated Press
750 W. Second Avenue
Mr. Phillip S. Barnett
Sierra Club Legal Defense Club, Inc.
Anchorage, Alaska 99501 325 Fourth Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Commerce
Daily Journal of
Box 11050 Trustees for Alaska
Seattle, Washington 98m 725 Christensen Drive, Suite 4
Mr. Al Talcott
Division of Land & Water Management Mr. Jim Mack (Executive Director)
Cadastral/Coastal Survey United States Canoe Association, Inc.
O . Box 107028
P. 606 Ross Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Middleton, Ohio 45044
Ms. Elizabeth Shea Mr. John C. Hecht (Editor)

3 Envirosphere Company Valdez Vanguard
P.O. Box 157
550 W. 7th Avenue, Suite 830
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-3563 Valdez, Alaska 99686
IBEW Yukon Sentinel

2702 Denali Street Fort Wainwright, Alaska 99703
Mr. James R. Stalter
Ms. Peg Tileston Chief Engineer
INFORMALASKA MIT FELEC Services, Inc.
4780 Cambridge Way P.O. Box 500
E Anchorage, Alaska 99503-7012 Clear, Alaska 99704
Mr. Don Bee

Box 40061
Clear, Alaska 99704
7-7
Teresa Ryther and John Goates Marian Lightwood and Sam Lightwood 3
P.O. Box 266 HC Box 229
Gakona, AK 99506 Copper Center, AK 99573
Collen Granger Larry Kajden

Box 671 Mile 14 Tok Cut Off
Glennallen, AK 99588 Gakona, AK 99586
Ckafter Gurkebb Terry Speacklin

Box 358 Box 174
Glennallen, AK 99588 Glennallen, AK 99588
Loreen Kramer Steve Deming U

Box 374 1642 E. Dowling Rd.
Copper Center, AK 99573 Anchorage, AK 99507
Russell Galipeau Carol Nceley

Box 29 P.O. Box 88
Glennallen, AK 99588 Glennallen, AK 99588
Gary Kofims K. J. Mushone

P.O. 81002 Box 147
Fairbanks, AK 99708 Glennallen, AK 99588
April Crosby Al Reed

380 Styx River Rd. Box 192
Fairbanks, AK 99709 Gakona, AK 99586
Merritt Helfferich David Ongley

Geophysical Institute of AK 9.1 Tok Cutoff
Fairbanks, AK 99775-080 P.O. Box 457
Glennallen, Ak 99588
Jim Gifford
P.O. Box 337 Dana Becker
Valdez, AK 99686 P.O. Box 494
Glennallen, AK 99588
Mark Stemp
P.O. 206 N. Roy Goodman
Copper Center, AK 99573 Box 2883
Palmer, AK
G. Glende Ewan and Roy S. Ewan
P.O. 215 Shep Dale
Gakona, AK 99506 3601 C Street #1350
Anchorage, AK 99503 I
7-8
I
,,.=.,..
amie
lnui im
• •--• .mn
aI II
I Carl Hild Honorable Mike Miller
1238 F Street State Senator
Anchorage, AK 99517 119 N. Cushman St.
Suite 101
Pam Miker, c/o The Wilderness Society Fairbanks, AK 99701
I 430 W. 7th Ave. Suite 210
Anchorage, AK 99510 Sharon Clark
Legislative Assistant
I Nenana Public Library Route 2
P.O. Box 40 Nenana, AK 99760
Nenana, AK 99760
Honorable Jeannette James
Mayor Robert Knight State Representative
City of Nenana c/o Sharon Clark
I P.O. Box 70 Route 2
Nenana, AK 99760 Nenana, AK 99760
I Postmaster Mr. and Mrs. P.S. Rinaldo

Nenana, AK 99760-9998 P.O. Box 6026.0
Fairbanks, AK 99706
Tri-Valley Community Library
P.O. Box 400 KIAM - AM
Healy, AK 99743 ~Nenana, 474 99760
P.O. BoxAK
Center
Tri-Valley Community
Usibelli Spur Road Assignment Desk
Healy, AK 99743 KIMO Channel 13 News
2700 East Tudor Road
Postmaster Anchorage, AK 99507
Healy, AK 99743-9998
Assignment Desk
Postmaster KTVA Channel 11 News
Clear, AK 99760-9998 P.O. Box 102200
Anchorage, AK 99510
Postmaster
Denali National Park, AK 99743-9998 Assignment Desk
KTVF Channel 11 News
Mayor Tom Behrend P.O. Box 950
City of Anderson Fairbanks, AK 99707
P.O. Box 3100
Anderson, AK 99744 Assignment Desk
KATN Channel 2 News
516 2nd Avenue
Fairbanks, AK 99707
U 7-9
I
I
KUAC - FM
312 Tanana Drive
University of Alaska
Fairbanks, AK 99775
Mr. Jerry Markey, Manager

Spectrum Engineering Division
Federal Aviation Administration
ASM-500/Room 714
800 Independence Avenue
Washington, DC 20591
I
I
U
U
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7-10
I
8.0 INDEX
SI Aesthetics: i, vi, ix, 2-50, 3-134 thru 3-145, 4-5, 4-53, 4-73, 4-76, 4-77 thru 4-84
AFR 19-2: 1-4
I AFR 87-1: 2-3
Ahtna: 3-90 thru 3-103
Airspace/aircraft: viii, ix, 1-5, 3-76, 3-81 thru 3-83, 3-88, 3-89, 4-46, 4-50 thru 4-54, 4-72, 4-
76, 4-80, 4-82, 4-89, 4-90, 4-110
Air quality: i, iii, vi, viii, 2-48, 3-64 thru 3-75, 4-37 thru 4-46
Alascom: 3-4, 3-108, 3-139, 3-141, 3-153, 4-2, 4-60
I Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation (ADEC): 3-67, 3-68, 3-74, 4-43
Alaska Dept. of Fish & Game (ADF&G): 3-27, 3-44, 3-45, 3-121, 3-126, 3-131
Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources (ADNR): 3-14, 3-121, 3-126
I Alaska Dept. of Transportation (ADOT): 2-33, 2-35, 2-36, 3-5, 3-141, 4-29
Alaska Railroad: ix, 2-37, 2-41, 3-14, 3-62, 3-129, 3-141 thru 3-145, 4-80
Alaska Range: 2-9, 2-43, 3-5, 3-6, 3-25, 3-61 thru 3-63, 3-64, 3-70, 3-71, 3-118, 3-129, 3-130,
3-141
Anchorage: 2-4, 2-7, 2-12, 3-81, 3-85, 3-121, 3-122, 3-126, 3-129
Anderson: vi, 2-37, 3-6, 3-63, 3-71, 3-83 thru 3-89, 3-117, 4-43, 4-54, 4-79
Antennas: iv, 1-5, 2-6, 2-11, 2-13, 2-14, 2-15, 2-16, 2-19, 2-27, 2-28, 2-30, 2-31, 4-3, 4-22,
4-23, 4-27, 4-32, 4-33, 4-53, 4-73, 4-74, 4-77, 4-79 thru 4-81, 4-99, 4-102, 4-109, 4-
110
Apatity: iii
Aquatics: i, mi, v, vii, viii, 2-48, 3-52 thru 3-57, 3-116, 3-119, 4-17, 4-18, 4-28 thru 4-30, 4-
62, 4-64 thru 4-67
salmon: 3-52, 3-53, 3-55, 3-115, 3-117, 3-119, 3-130, 4-62, thru 4-64, 4-66, 4-67
Archeological: vi, ix, 3-90 thru 3-110, 4-57, 4-59, 4-60
Arecibo: iii
Array: iv, ix, 2-6, 2-11, 2-14, 2-15, 2-16, 2-17, 2-18, 2-19, 2-20, 2-21, 2-22, 4-1, 4-32, 4-58
ARS Termination Plan: 2-44
Atmosphere: i, iii, x, 1-1, 1-3, 2-5, 2-30, 2-50, 3-158 thru 3-163, 4-91, 4-95, 4-112 thru 4-116
Aurora: iv, 2-1, 2-28, 2-30, 3-152, 3-158 thru 3-160, 4-98, 4-100, 4-112, 4-114
Ballistic Missile Early Warning System (BMEWS): iv, v, 2-9, 2-37, 2-39, 2-40, 2.46, 3-6, 3-
83, 3-88, 3-106, 3-108, 3-141, 3-153, 3-155, 4-5, 4-44, 4-60, 4-73, 4-74, 4-121
Bear Creek: vii, ix, 2-9, 2-37 thru 2-43, 3-6, 3-7, 3-8, 3-14 thru 3-17, 3-24 thru 3-26, 3-45,
3-47, 3-51, 3-55 thru 3-57, 3-61 thru 3-63, 3-69, 3-71, 3-83 thru 3-89, 3-104 thru 3-110,
3-118, 3-119, 3-125 thru 3-133, 3-141 thru 3-145, 3-153 thru 3-157, 4-4 thru 4-6, 4-12
thru 4-14, 4-19, 4-20, 4-26, 4-27, 4-29, 4-30, 4-33, 4-34, 4-42, 4-43, 4-53 thru 4-55,
4-59, 4-60, 4-67, 4-73, 4-74, 4-80 thrn 4-83, 4-106, 4-107
Bioeffects: i, iii, ix, 2-50, 3-146 thru 3-150, 4-85 thru 4-92
Birds: i, iii, v, vii, ix, 1-5, 2-48, 3-27 thru 3-51, 3-116, 3-120, 3-164, 4-21 thru 4-27, 4-63, 4-
3 64, 4-66, 4-89, 4-90, 4-117
Birds of Prey: 3-38, 3-42, 3-43, 3-44, 3-47, 3-164
8-1
I
Ducks: 3-35, 3-37, 3-40, 3-47
Eagles: 3-33, 3-34, 3-44, 3-47, 3-49, 4-21, 4-22, 4-23, 4-26
Falcons: v, 3-34, 3-47, 3-51, 3-164, 4-23, 4-27, 4-117
Geese: 3-37
Song Birds: 3-38, 3-39, 3-40
Swans: 3-28, 3-29, 3-30, 3-33, 3-34, 3-36, 3-37, 3-38, 3-41, 3-42, 3-43, 3-44, 3-47, 4-
21, 4-22, 4-23, 4-25, 4-26
Borrow: 2-31 thru 2-37, 2-41 thru 2-43, 3-5, 3-9, 3-10, 3-12, 3-14, 3-15, 3-23, 3-44, 3-52, 3-
55, 3-95 thru 3-103, 3-109, 3-110, 3-141, 4-1 thru 4-6, 4-8, 4-9, 4-11, 4-18, 4-21, 4-22,
4-29, 4-30, 4-33, 4-37, 4-42, 4-71, 4-80
Buildings: v
Bureau of Land Management (BLM): vi, ix, 3-121, 3-122, 3-126, 3-134
CEQ: 1-1, 1-4, 2-6
Chistochina: 3-76 thru 3-83, 3-115, 3-116, 4-31, 4-48
Chugach Mountains: 3-32, 3-64
Clear: 2-12, 3-63, 3-69, 3-117, 4-60, 4-79
Clear Air Forne Station: iv, v, 2-7, 2-8, 2-9, 2-11, 2-37 thru 2-43, 3-5 thru 3-9, 3-14 thru 3-17,
3-24 thru 3-26, 3-44 thru 3-51, 3-55 thru 3-57, 3-61 thru 3-63, 3-69 thru 3-71, 3-74, 3-
75, 3-81, 3-83 thru 3-89, 3-104 thru 3-110, 3-118, 3-119, 3-126, 3-130 thru 3-133, 3-
141 thru 3-145, 3-153 thru 3-157, 3-165, 4-3 thru 4-7, 4-12, 4-13, 4-19, 4-26, 4-27, 4-
29, 4-30, 4-33, 4-34, 4-42, 4-44, 4-53 thru 4-55, 4-59, 4-60, 4-67, 4-73, 4-74, 4-79, 4-
80, 4-106, 4-107, 4-119
Clear AFS Site Comprehensive Plan: 3-1
Clear site: i, iii, v thru x, 1-7, 2-22, 2-37 thru 2-50, 3-1, 3-2, 3-5 thru 3-9, 3-14 thru 3-17, 3-
24 thru 3-26, 3-44 thru 3-51, 3-55 thru 3-57, 3-61 thru 3-63, 3-69 thru 3-75, 3-83 thru
3-89, 3-104 thru 3-110, 3-117 thru 3-120, 3-125 thru 3-133, 3-141 thru 3-145, 3-153
thru 3-157, 3-164, 3-165, 4-3 thru 4-7, 4-12 thru 4-14, 4-15, 4-18 thru 4-20, 4-26, 4-27,
4-29, 4-30, 4-32 thru 4-34, 4-42 thru 4-45, 4-51 thru 4-55, 4-59 thru 4-61, 4-62, 4-66
thru 4-70, 4-73 thru 4-76, 4-79 thru 4-83, 4-103, 4-106 thru 4-108, 4-117, 4-118, 4-119,
4-121
Clear zone: 2-19
Climatology: v, 3-29, 3-64 thru 3-67, 3-71 thru 3-74
Communications: i, iii, ix, 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 1-5, 2-27, 2-41, 3-154 thru 3-157, 4-47, 4-83, 4-91
thru 4-111
Community Services: 3-80, 3-88, 4-49, 4-53
Construction: i, iii thru ix, 1-1, 1-2, 1-6, 2-5, 2-6, 2-24, 2-35, 2-39, 2-41, 2-43, 3-9, 3-52, 3-
77, 3-79, 4-1 thru 4-6, 4-8, 4-9, 4-12, 4-15, 4-16, 4-19, 4-20, 4-21, 4-26, 4-28 thru 4-
30, 4-31 thru 4-34, 4-37, 4-38, 4-42 thru 4-81, 4-121
Cope Thunder: 3-81, 3-89
Copper River: v, 2-33, 2-34, 2-35, 2-36, 3-1, 3-2, 3-3, 3-5, 3-10, 3-18, 3-21, 3-23, 3-32, 3-35,
3-44, 3-52, 3-53, 3-55, 3-58, 3-59, 3-60, 3-64, 3-65, 3-77, 3-91, 3-92, 3-94, 3-96, 3-
111, 3-114, 3-115, 3-121, 3-122, 3-124, 3-139, 4-28, 4-29, 4-31, 4-46, 4-47, 4-58, 4-63,
4-65, 4-71, 4-72
Copper Valley Electric Association (CVEA): 2-24, 3-67
8-2
I
1E Costs: iv, vi, 2-3, 2-5, 2-6, 2-8, 2-21, 2-22, 2-43
Criteria: iv, 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, 2-7, 2-8, 2-22
Cultural Resources: i, iii, vi, viii, ix, 2-49, 3-90 thru 3-110, 4-57 thru 4-61
Defense Advanced Research Programs Agency: iii
Delta Junction: 2-9
i Delta River: 3-25
Denali National Park: vi, 3-25, 3-63, 3-69, 3-71, 3-74, 3-85, 3-126, 3-129 thru 3-133
Design: 2-11
Diagnostics: i, iv, 2-5, 2-6, 2-9, 2-11, 2-24, 2-27, 2-30, 2-31, 2-37, 2-40, 2-41, 4-9, 4-10, 4-
22, 4-37, 4-56, 4-57, 4-58, 4-72, 4-77, 4-78 thru 4-81, 4-94, 4-iO0,
Dushanbe: iii
Economy: viii, 1-5, 3-79, 3-80, 3-85 thru 3-87, 3-111, 3-114, 3-115, 3-118, 3-119, 3-124, 4-
15, 4-46 thru 4-56, 4-62 thru 4-70
EBelson Air Force Base: 2-7, 2-8
IElectromagnetic: i, iii, vi, ix, 2-2, 2-9, 2-37, 2-39, 2-50,
3-146, 3-151 thru 3-157, 3-158 thru 3-163, 4-85 thru 4-92, 4-93 thru 4-111
Electrical Power: 1-3, 1-4, 2-24, 2-25, 2-26, 2-27, 2-39, 2-41, 4-44, 4-53, 4-77, 4-79, 4-81,
4-83
Electrical Power Plant: v, vi, viii, 1-5, 2-22, 2-23, 2-24, 2-25, 2-26, 2-39, 2-44, 3-3, 3-4, 3-6,
3-67, 3-68, 3-70, 3-75, 3-84, 3-139, 3-140, 3-141, 4-2, 4-7, 4-37, 4-39 thru 4-41, 4-44,
4-56, 4-61, 4-83, 4-84, 4-119, 4-121
ELF/VLF Receiver: 2-30, 2-31
Elmendorf Air Force Base: 2-7, 2-8
Endangered species: i, iii, v, 2-50, 3-44, 3-45, 3-47, 3-51, 3-164, 4-25, 4-117
Facilities: 1-4, iv, 2-11, 2-16, 2-19, 2-22, 2-23, 2-24, 2-25, 2-26, 2-27, 2-28, 2-37, 2-38, 2-44,
3-6, 3-138, 3-140, 3-141, 4-2, 4-8, 4-23, 4-31, 4-33, 4-43, 4-57, 4-80
Fairbanks: iii, viii, 2-1, 2-2, 2-4, 2-7, 2-12, 3-6, 3-84, 3-85, 3-126, 3-129
Fence: ix, 2-13, 2-16, 2-17, 4-15, 4-16, 4-18, 4-19, 4-63, 4-64, 4-77, 4-79, 4-85
in Ferry: 3-25, 3-71, 3-83 thru 3-89, 4-54
Forest: v, 3-10, 3-11, 4-8 thru 4-10, 4-12 thru 4-14, 4-16, 4-17, 4-21, 4-72
Fort Greely: iv, 2-7, 2-8, 2-9
I Fort Richardson: 2-7, 2-8
Fort Wainwrigl.: 2-7, 2-8
Fuel: 2-25, 2-27, 4-32, 4-34, 4-35, 4-118, 4-119, 4-121
I Gakona: 3-64, 3-65, 3-76 thru 3-83, 3-115, 3-117, 4-48
Gakona site: i, iii, iv thru x, 1-7, 2-8, 2-9, 2-11, 2-12, 2-22 thru 2-37, 2-43 thni 2-50, 3-1 thru
3-5, 3-10 thru 3-14, 3-18 thru 3-23, 3-29 thru 3-44, 3-52 thru 3-55, 3-58 thru 3-61, 3-64
thru 3-69, 3-76 thru 3-83, 3-91 thru 3-103, 3-113 thru 3-117, 3-121 thru 3-125, 3-136
thru 3-141, 3-153 thru 3-157, 3-164, 3-165, 4-1 thru 4-3, 4-7, 4-8 thru 4-12, 4-15 thru
4-18, 4-20, 4-21 thru 4-27, 4-28, 4-29, 4-31, 4-32, 4-36, 4-37 thru 4-42 thru 4-52, 4-57
thru 4-61, 4-62 thru 4-66, 4-69, 4-70, 4-71, 4-72, 4-7.,, 4-77 thru 4-79, 4-83, 4-100 thru
4-108, 4-117 thru 4-121
I Gakona River: 3-5, 3-44, 3-53
Geology: 3-4, 3-5, 3-8
I 8-3
I
Glenn Highway: 2-33, 2-35, 2-36, 3-5, 3-114, 3-139, 4-77
Glennallen: vi, 2-12, 3-32, 3-41, 3-64, 3-67, 3-76 thru 3-83, 3-122, 3-124, 4-48
3
Golden Valley Electric Association: 3-84
Gravel: i, v, vii, ix, 1-5, 2-19, 2-22, 2-24, 2-27, 2-28, 2-30 thru 2-37, 2-40 thru 2-44, 3-4 thru
3-9, 3-55, 3-56, 3-58, 3-59, 3-60, 3-141, 4-1 thru 4-7, 4-8, 4-11, 4-14, 4-20, 4-27, 4-29,
I
4-30, 4-31, 4-33, 4-35, 4-37, 4-42, 4-43, 4-45, 4-46, 4-47, 4-56, 4-57, 4-58, 4-60, 4-61,
4-63, 4-64, 4-70, 4-77, 4-79, 4-80, 4-121 i
Ground screen: 2-11, 2-14, 2-15, 2-16, 2-18, 2-19, 2-20, 4-32, 4-77, 4-79
Gulf of Alaska: 3-32, 3-35
Gulkana: 2-7, 2-8, 2-25, 3-3, 3-30, 3-64, 3-65, 3-76 thru 3-83, 3-115, 3-117, 3-124, 4-48, 4-77
Gulkana River: 2-25, 3-5
I
HAM (Amateur Radio): 3-147, 3-152, 3-154, 4-94, 4-99
Hazardous materials: i, iii, viii, 2-50, 3-165, 4-32, 4-33, 4-34, 4-118 thru 4-120 1
Health effects: 1-5
Healy: vi, 3-25, 3-69, 3-71, 3-83 thru 3-89, 3-117, 3-129, 3-132, 4-43, 4-54 1
Healy Outwash Terrace: 4-59
High Frequency (HP) Sounder: 2-27
HF/VHF Radar: 2-30, 2-31
High Power Auroral Stimulation (HIPAS): 1-5, 2-2
Homesteaders: vi, 2-39, 3-6, 3-7, 3-63, 3-84, 4-5, 4-53, 4-54
Housing: 3-77 thru 3-79, 3-87, 3-88, 4-46, 4-49, 4-54
Hunting: 3-124, 3-125, 3-130 thru 3-133, 4-15, 4-16, 4-68, 4-71, 4-72, 4-75
Hydrology: i, iii, v, viii, 2-36, 2-48, 3-7, 3-58 thru 3-63, 4-31 thru 4-36
Imaging Riometer: 2-30
Incoherent Scatter Radar (ISR): iv, v, vi, vii, 2-5, 2-9, 2-23, 2-24, 2-27, 2-37, 2-38, 2-39, 2-
40, 3-154, 4-5, 4-6, 4-14, 4-44, 4-53, 4-73, 4-80, 4-82, 4-83, 4-91 thru 4-93, 4-108
Infrared Imager: 2-27, 2-28, 2-30, 2-41, 4-1003
Ionosphere: i, ii, x, 1-1 thru 1-4, 2-1, 2-3, 2-5, 2-27, 2-28, 2-31, 3-152, 3-158 thru 3-163, 4-
92 thru 4-99, 4-112 thru 4-116
Ionospheric Research Instrument ([RI): i, iv, viii, 1-4, 2-3, 2-5, 2-6, 2-11, 2-13, 2-15, 2-16, 2-
22, 2-23, 2-24, 2-27, 2-28, 2-30, 2-37, 2-38, 2-39, 3-108, 3-154, 4-1, 4-4, 4-5, 4-8, 4-
10, 4-12, 4-14, 4-15, 4-18, 4-22, 4-23, 4-27, 4-37 thru 4-39, 4-55, 4-56, 4-59, 4-72, 4-
77 thru 4-80, 4-85 thru 4-90, 4-91 thru 4-111, 4-112 thru 4-116
Jobs: viii, ix, 1-2, 1-5, 3-6, 3-86, 3-115, 4-47, 4-48, 4-64, 4-65, 4-68, 4-69
Julius Creek: 3-62
June Creek: 3-57, 3-62, 3-63, 3-119, 3-132
Kenai Peninsula: 3-21
I
Kharkov: iii
Lake Louise: 3-122
Lake Sansing: 3-56, 3-62, 3-130
Land: i, iii, iv, vi, vii, 2-2, 2-3, 2-5, 2-7, 2-9, 2-47, 3-3 thru 3-9, 3-6, 3-77, 3-83, 3-84, 3-127,
4-1 thru 4-7, 4-47, 4-53, 4-54, 4-121 I
LIDAR: iv, v, 2-6, 2-23, 2-27, 2-30, 2-38, 2-41, 3-108, 4-59, 4-79, 4-80
Magnetometer: iv, 2-6, 2-23, 2-27, 2-30, 2-38, 2-41, 3-108, 4-59, 4-80, 4-100, I
8-4
I
• im • |I
Mammals: i, iii, v, vii, 2-47, 3-18 thru 3-26, 3-116, 4-15 thru 4-20, 4-63 thru 4-70, 4-90
Bear: 3-20, 3-21, 3-25, 3-26, 3-120, 3-124, 3-125, 3-132, 4-15, 4-17, 4-19, 4-67, 4-71
Caribou: v, 3-20, 3-25, 3-114, 3-115, 3-117, 3-120, 3-124, 3-125, 3-132, 4-15, 4-16,
4-17, 4-63, 4-64, 4-66, 4-67, 4-71
Moose: v, vii, ix, 3-18, 3-19, 3-24, 3-114, 3-115, 3-117, 3-120, 3-124, 3-125, 3-131,
4-15, 4-16, 4-18, 4-19, 4-63, 4-64, 4-66, 4-67, 4-71
Small Furbearers: 3-22, 3-23, 3-26, 3-124, 4-15, 4-17, 4-20
Wolf: 3-22, 3-26, 3-124, 3-132, 4-17, 4-19, 4-67
McKinley Park: 3-117, 3-119, 3-129
Meteorology: 3-64 thru 3-67, 3-71 thru 3-74
Minerals: i, iii, vii, 2-47, 3-3 thru 3-9, 4-1 thru 4-7
Mitigation: vi thru x, 2-2, 2-5, 4-3, 4-6, 4-11, 4-12, 4-14, 4-18, 4-20, 4-21, 4-25, 4-27, 4-29,
4-30, 4-32, 4-33, 4-35, 4-41, 4-45, 4-46, 4-50, 4-53 thru 4-60, 4-65, 4-69, 4-71, 4-72,
4-74, 4-76, 4-79, 4-82 thru 4-84, 4-90, 4-108 thru 4-110, 4-113, 4-116
Morphology: 3-58, 3-61
Moscow: iii
Nabesna Road: 3-121
National Park Service (NPS): 3-121, 3-126, 3-144
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP): viii, ix
National Science Foundation: iii
Native: vii, 3-77, 3-79, 3-90 thru 3-103, 3-111, 4-47, 4-64, 4-65, 4-68
Nelchina Basin: 3-32, 3-35
Nenana: 3-63, 3-71, 3-83 thru 3-89, 3-132, 4-43, 4-52
Nenana River: v, vi, ix, 2-9, 2-37, 2-40, 3-5, 3-6, 3-8, 3-24, 3-25, 3-45, 3-47, 3-55, 3-56, 3-61
thru 3-63, 3-70, 3-88, 3-105, 3-117, 3-118, 3-119, 3-125 thru 3-133, 3-141 thru 3-145,
4-5, 4-29, 4-30, 4-53, 4-59, 4-80, 4-81
NEPA: 1-1, 1-2
Nizhny Novgorod: iii
North Pole: 2-7
Norway: iii, 1-4, 4-93, 4-114
Operation: i, iii, ix, 1-6, 2-5, 2-24, 2-39, 4-15, 4-16, 4-19, 4-20, 4-21, 4-26, 4-28, 4-30, 4-33,
4-37, 4-42, 4-43, 4-45 thru 4-49, 4-57, 4-63, 4-67, 4-71, 4-91, 4-92, 4-118, 4-119, 4-
121
Operations Center: 2-24, 2-25, 2-37, 2-39, 3-138
Optical Imager: iv, 2-6, 2-23, 2-27, 2-28, 2-30, 2-38, 2-41, 3-108, 4-59, 4-80, 4-100
OTH-B: iv, v, ix, 2-7, 2-8, 2-11, 2-22, 2-24, 2-31, 2-33, 2-44, 3-1, 3-5, 3-18, 3-27, 3-31, 3-
54, 3-58, 3-68, 3-95, 3-136, 3-139, 3-141, 3-151, 4-7, 4-16, 4-18, 4-38, 4-40, 4-47, 4-
55, 4-57, 4-77, 4-78, 4-91
Ozone: x, 3-158 thru 3-160, 4-112, 4-113, 4-116
Pacific Flyway: 3-32
Pacific Mountain System: 3-2, 3-3
Parks Highway: ix, 2-37, 2-39, 3-6, 3-119, 3-126, 3-129, 3-131, 3-141 thru 3-145, 4-79 thru
4-82
Permafrost: i, v, viii, 2-24, 2-33, 2-36, 3-4, 3-5, 3-8, 3-60, 4-1 thru 4-6, 4-31, 4-32, 4-35
8-5
I
Physiography: 3-2, 3-5, 3-6
Piles: 2-11, 2-13, 2-16, 2-17, 2-18, 2-19, 2-20, 2-24, 4-31, 4-32, 4-47, 4-77, 4-79
1
Poker Flats: 2-1, 2-2
Population: 3-77, 3-78, 4-47, 4-54, 4-62, 4-64, 4-68
Puerto Rico: iii
Radio: i, iii, ix, 1-3, 1-5, 2-5n
Radio Frequency Interference (RFI): i, iii, iv, 2-2, 2-50, 3-151 thru 3-157, 4-91 thru 4-111
Radio Frequency Radiation (RFR): i, iii, ix, 2-50, 3-146 thru 3-150, 4-26, 4-85 thru 4-90
3
Reclamation: i, vi thru ix, 2-22, 4-3, 4-4, 4-7, 4-12, 4-14, 4-19, 4-20, 4-30, 4-35, 4-42, 4-44,
4-45, 4-56, 4-59, 4-61, 4-69, 4-70, 4-75
Record of Decision: 1-2
I
Recreation: i, vi, ix, 1-5, 2-49, 3-77, 3-121 thru 3-133, 4-5, 4-6, 4-68, 4-71 thru 4-76
Residents: vi, 1-2, 2-2, 3-77, 3-121, 3-125, 4-71, 4-74, 4-81
Richardson Highway: 2-25, 3-5, 3-122, 3-138, 4-77
I
Riley Creek: 3-132
Riometer: 2-30, 2-31, 4-100 •
Roads: v, 2-5, 2-22, 2-23, 2-24, 2-27, 2-30, 2-33, 2-34, 2-35, 2-36, 2-37, 2-39, 2-40, 2-41, 2-
44, 3-4, 3-139, 3-140, 3-141, 4-2 thru 4-4, 4-8 thru 4-10, 4-31, 4-32, 4-35, 4-52, 4-56,
4-57, 4-58, 4-61, 4-77, 4-79 thru 4-84
Russia: iii, 1-4
Sanford: 3-3
Satellites: 1-3, 1-4
Savage River: 3-132
Scintillation Receiver: 2-30, 2-31
Seismic: 3-5, 3-7
Siting: iv, 2-1, 2-3, 2-7, 2-11, 2-23, 2-26, 2-38, 3-139
Socioeconomics: i, viii, 2-49, 3-76 thru 3-89, 4-47 thru 4-56
Subsistence: i, iii, vi, ix, 2-49, 3-79, 3-91, 3-111 thru 3-120, 4-15, 4-62 thru 4-70
3
Surveillance: iii, 1-2, 1-3
Susitna River: 3-21, 3-32 i
Tadzhikistan: iii
Talkeetna Mountains: 3-64
Tanana Basin Area Plan: 3-129, 3-132, 4-5
Tanana River: v, 3-1, 3-2, 3-32, 3-45, 3-61, 3-70, 3-119, 3-141, 4-72
3
Threatened species: i, iii, v, 2-50, 3-44, 3-45, 3-47, 3-51, 3-164, 4-25, 4-117
Tok: 3-21, 3-81, 4-72
Tok Cut-Off Highway: v, 2-22, 2-25, 2-35, 2-36, 2-37, 3-20, 3-59, 3-121, 3-122, 3-139, 4-38,
I
4-71, 4-84
Topography: 3-5, 3-6, 3-58, 3-65
Tourism: vi, 3-85, 3-121 thru 3-133, 4-71, 4-74, 4-75, 4-81
I
Tulsona Creek: 2-33, 2-34, 3-3, 3-52, 3-53, 3-54, 3-55, 3-58,
3-59, 3-60, 3-96, 4-11, 4-28, 4-29, 4-31, 4-63 thru 4-65 I
Trans-Alaska Pipeline: 3-77, 3-79, 3-114, 4-46, 4-91, 4-104, 4-106
Transmissions: 1-3, 2-2, 2-19, 3-151 thru 3-156, 3-158, 4-85 thru 4-90, 4-91 thru 4-111, 4-112
8-6
I
S.
| ! .Hii .| I. I | | ie |I
thlm 4-116
Transmitter: i, iii, 1-1, 1-4, 2-2, 2-11, 2-13, 2-16, 2-19, 2-28, 3-154 thru 3-157, 4-57, 4-58,
4-77, 4-79, 4-91 thru 4-111, 4-112
Tromso: iii, 4-89, 4-114
Ukraine: iii
University of Alaska: 2-1, 2-2
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS): 3-27, 3-44, 3-45, 3-121, 3-126
Usibelli Coal Mine: 3-84, 3-85, 3-119
Utilities: vi
Valdez: 3-121
Valdez-Eagle Trail: 3-94
Vegetation: i, iii, vii, viii, 2-19, 2-47, 3-10 thru 3-17, 3-58, 3-116, 3-139, 3-141, 4-8 thru 4-14,
4-15, 4-31, 4-34, 4-43, 4-62, 4-64, 4-67, 4-69, 4-70, 4-77, 4-80, 4-82, 4-84
Vertical Incidence Sounder (VIS): iv thru vii, 2-6, 2-23, 2-27, 2-28, 2-29, 2-38, 2-39, 2-40, 3-
143, 3-144, 3-154, 4-5, 4-6, 4-14, 4-23, 4-27, 4-44, 4-53, 4-73, 4-80, 4-82, 4-91 thru
4-93, 4-100, 4-103, 4-108
VLF Receiver: 2-30, 2-31
White Alice Communication System (WACS): 3-108, 4-60
WAMCATS: 3-94, 3-102
Waste: i, iii, viii, 2-50, 3-6, 3-165, 4-33, 4-35, 4-45, 4-118 thru 4-120
Water Quality: i, iii, 2-48, 3-58 thru 3-63, 4-31 thru 4-36
Weather: 3-29, 3-30
Wetlands: i, iii, v, vi, vii, 2-22, 2-35, 2-44, 2-47, 3-10 thru 3-17, 4-8 thru 4-14, 4-21, 4-26
Wrangell Mountains: 3-64, 3-139, 4-78
Wrangell-St. Elias National Park: vi, 3-67, 3-81, 3-121, 4-41
Yukon River: 3-5, 3-85, 3-117
8-7
I I I iI
__
In
at
i
(Thilft pae
bank inentonaly
8-8 1
I
I
I
APPENDIX A
SCIENTIFIC NAMES FOR SPECIES MENTIONED IN TEXT
A-i
1
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME
BIRDS: 3
American dipper Cinclus mexicanus
American golden-plover Pluvialis dominica
American kestrel Falco sparverius I
American pipit Anthus rubescens
American robin
American tree sparrow
Turdus migratornus
Spizella arborea U
American wigeon Anas americana
Arctic loon Gavia arctica
Arctic tern Sterna paradisaea
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Bank swallow Riparia riparia
Black scoter Melanitta nigra
Black-bellied plover Pluvialissquatarola
Black-capped chickadee Parus atricapillus
Blue-winged teal Anas discors
Bohemian waxwing Bombycilla garrdlus
Bonaparte's gull Larus philadephia
Parus hudsonicus
3
Boreal chickadee
Boreal owl Aegolius funereus
Bufflehead Bucephala albeola
Canada goose Branta canadensis
Aythya valisineria
Canvasback
Common goldeneye Bucephala clangula
Gavia immer
U
Common loon
Common merganser Mergus merganser
Common raven Corvus corax
Common redpoll Carduelisflammea
Common snipe Gallinago gallinago
Dark-eyed junco Junco,hyemalis
Downy woodpecker Picoidespubescens
Fox sparrow Passerella iliaca
Gadwall Anas strepera I
Glaucous-winged gull Larus glaucescens
Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos
Gray jay Perisoreuscanadensis
Great gray owl Strix nebulosa
Great horned owl Bubo virginianus
I
A-2i
i
S.
II I. mlI. mI.m Im
BIRDS (Continued):
Greater scaup Aythya marila nearctica
Grebe Podiceps sp.
Green-winged teal Anas crecca
Gyrfalcon Falco rusficolus
Halry woodpecker Picoides villosus
Hoary redpoll Carduelishornemanni
Homed grebe Podiceps auritus
Lapland longspur Calcanius lapponicus
Lesser scaup Aythya affinis
Lesser yellow legs Tringaflavipes
Long-billed dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus
Mallard Anas platyrhynchos
Merlin Falco columbarius
Mew gull Larus canus
Northern flicker Colaptes auratus
Northern harrier Circus cyaneus
Northern hawk owl Surnia ulula
Northern pintail Anas acuta
Northern shoveler Anas clypeata
Old duck squaw Clangula hyemalis
Osprey Pandionhaliaetus
Pine grosbeak Pinicola enucleator
Red phalarope Phalaropusfulicaria
Red-breasted merganser Mergus serrator
Red-necked grebe Podiceps grisegena
Red-necked phalarope Phalaropuslobatus
Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis
Red-throated loon Gavia stellata
Redhead Aythya americana
Redpoll spp. Carduelis spp.
Ring-necked duck Aythya collaris
Rough-legged hawk Buteo lagopus
Ruffed grouse Bonasa umbellus
Rusty blackbird Euphagus carolinus
Sandhill crane Grus canadensis
Scaup Aythya spp.
Sharp-shinned hawk Accipter striatus
Sharp-tailed grouse 7ympanuchus phasianellus
A-3
I
BIRDS (Continued):
Short-eared owl Asio flaammeus
Snow bunting
Spruce grouse
Plectrophenax nivalis
Dendragapuscanadensis I
Surf scoter Melanittaperspicillata
Tree swallow Tachycineta bicolor
Trumpeter swan Cygnus buccinator
Tundra swan Cygnus columbianus
Varied thrush Ixoreus naevius
Violet-green swallow Tachycineta thalassina
White-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys
White-fronted goose Anser albifrons
White-winged crossbill Loxia leucoptera
Willow ptarmigan Lagopus lagopus
Yellow-rumped warbler Dendroica coronata
MAMMALS:
Arctic ground squirrel Citellus parryi
Arctic shrew Sorex arcticus
Castor canadensis
Beaver
Black bear Ursus americanus 3
Brown bear Ursus arctos
Rangifer tarandus
Caribou
Coyote Canis latrans
Mustela erminea
3
Ermine
Fox Vulpes sp.
Gray wolf Canis lupus
Lemmings Synaptomys borealis
Lynx Felis lynx
Marten Marnes americana
Mink Mustela vison
Moose Alces alces
Muskrat Odantrazibethicus
Otter Lutra canadersis
Red fox Vulpes vulpes
Red squirrels Tamiasciurus hudsonicus
Short-tail weasels Mustela erminea
Snowshoe hare Lepus americansI
Wolverine Gulo gulo
I
A-4
U
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED:

American peregrine falcon Falcoperegrinus anatum
Arctic peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus tundrius
FISH:
Arctic char Salvellinus alpinus
Arctic grayling Thymallus arctcus
Burbot Lota Iota
Chinook sa ion Oncorhynchus tschawytscha
Chum salmon Oncorhynchus keta
Coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch
Dolly Varden char Salvelinus malma
King salmon Oncorhynchus tschawytscha
Lake trout Salvelinus namaycush
Longnose sucker Catostomus catostomus
Pacific lamprey Entosphenus tridenatus
Rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss
Round whitefish Prosopium cylindraceum
Slimy sculpin Cowus cognatus
Sockeye salmon Oncorhynchus nerka
Steelhead trout Oncorhynchus mykiss
FLORA:
Alder Alnus sp.
Aspen Populus tremuloides
Balsam popular Populus balsamifera
Birch Betula sp.
Black spruce Picea mariana
Bog blueberry Vaccinium
Labrador tea Ledwn groenlandicum
Sedges Cyperaceae
Sphagnum moss Sphagnum sp.
Tamarack Larix laricina
White spruce Picea glauca
Willow Salix sp.
A-5
I
Sources:
Chapman and Feldhamer. 1982. Wild Mammals of North America. Johns Hopkins
University Press, Baltimore, MD. 1147 pages. I
Gleason & Cronquist. 1963. Manual of Vascular Plants. D. Van Nostrand Company, NY.
810 pages.
McClane. 1978. McClane's Field Guide to Freshwater Fishes of North America. Henry Holt
and Co., NY. 212 pages.
American Ornithologists' Union. 1983. Check-list of North American Birds, 6th edition &
supplements.
I I
I
I
,I
U
I
I
I
I
I
A-6I
I
I
APPENDIX B
PERMITING
B-1
A. Federal Regulations
1. National Historic Preservation Act (NUPA)
a. Section 106 Review Process
The NHPA establishes the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) to ensure that
significant archaeological and/or historical properties are not lost due to federal construction
projects. Section 106 of the NHPA establishes an archaeological survey and testing process to
determine the eligibility of sites for potential listing in the National Register of Historic Places.
2. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory
a. Discharge of Dredged or Fill Material Into U.S. Waters (Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act)
This permit regulates proposals to dredge or fill U.S. waters and adjacent wetlands, pursuant
to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). The proposal is evaluated by the Corps
District Engineer based upon conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental
concerns, historic values, fish and wildlife values, navigation, recreation, water quality and the
general needs and best interests of the public.
The issuance of this permit will also require the applicant to obtain a Section 401 Water Quality
Certification from the State of Alaska. The Section 404 Application jointly serves as an
application for a 401 Water Quality Certification.
To facilitate parallel reviews, the 404 application can be submitted at the same time the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) is released for public review. Wetland fill for the
project cannot commence until the Section 404 permit is issued.
B-2
3. Environmental Protection Agency
a. Oil Storage Facilities Spill Prevention, Containment and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plans
These plans are required by the EPA for oil storage facilities which (a) store over 660 gallons
in a single above-ground container; (b) store over 1320 gallons in multiple tanks above ground;
or (c) store over 4,200 gallons below ground. It is likely that plans will be needed both for
temporary oil storage facilities (during construction) and for the permanent powerplant fuel
storage facility (assuming a direct-drive diesel powerplant).
The SPCC plans require detailed information on quantities and type of oil stored, oil containment
facility, spill contingency plans, and preventative maintenance procedures. Plans must be
reviewed every 3 years to assure the use of the best available spill prevention and cleanup
technology. The plans must be developed within 6 months of beginning operation; mobile or
temporary facilities must have a plan developed prior to beginning operations.
b. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit
This permit regulates the discharges allowed from point sources (e.g. pipes, ditches, conduits)
into U.S. Waters. Several different types of NPDES permits may be required for HAARP
facilities, depending upon final site design considerations. Permits may be required for sewage
treatment plants, powerplant facilities, gravel pit dewatering, cement batching, and any discharge
of wastewater and storm water. Information to be submitted includes proposed treatment,
techniques for the removal of solids, quantity and quality of the receiving waters, and content
of discharge. Upon review of the applications, EPA may issue a minor letter, or an NPDES
permit. A NEPA review is required for all new sources. To the extent possible, any sources
will be covered in HAARP's initial NEPA document.
B-3
c. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Permit
This permit is required for the treatment, storage or disposal of hazardous waste materials. Fuel
oils, lubrication oils, and solvents are examples of hazardous waste which may be generated by
the HAARP facilities. Detailed design reviews of the permanent power and operations facilities
will be required to determine whether RCRA permits are necessary.
The application has two parts. Part A requires information on the purpose of the facility,
engineering plans and specifications for the facility, proposed treatment, storage, and handling
processes for hazardous wastes at the facility, state and Federal permits applied for or received,
and a topographic map (if applicable) indicating the location of facility intake and discharge
structures. Part B requires information on chemical analysis of expected wastes, security
procedures, contingency plans and (depending upon location) the facility's seismic and floodplain
zoning.
4. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS)
a. Endangered Species Act
Consultation, either informal or formal, with the USFWS is required for any action which may
affect endangered or threatened wildlife or result in the destruction or modification of their
critical habitats (e.g. rearing, nesting, spawning, or feeding areas). Formal consultation is not
required if it is determined through a biological assessment or informal consultation that the
project is not likely to adversely affect any listed species or habitat.
5. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
a. Notice of Structures which may Interfere with Flight Paths
A "Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration" must be submitted to the FAA Regional
B-4
II Office at least 30 days before beginning construction of any structure which may interfere with
airplane flight paths. The notices will be needed for construction of the HAARP transmitter.
The FAA requires detailed information on the location, height, ground elevation, work schedule,
I and proposed lighting for the proposed facility.
[I Note: It is advisable for the government to consult with the FAA and the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) on potential interference between HAARP operations and
commercial aircraft communications and ground-based communications and the possible
establlrshment of warning areas or restricted airspace.
B. STATE REGULATIONS
1. Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC)
a. Water Quality Certification
This certificate is required to assure that Federal permits issued for a facility do not result in a
violation of Alaska's Water Quality Standards. The Dredge and Fill Permit (Section 404) issued
by the COE and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) review by EPA
3 will automatically trigger a request for issuance of this certificate from the DEC. The DEC will
be particularly interested in the proposed methods of gravel extraction from permafrost regions,
the effects of dredge, fill, and leveling operations on water draining, the potential for erosion,
the proposed methods of clearing, and the proposed means of overburden stockpiling and
3 disposal. The state Water Quality Certification can be scheduled concurrent with submission of
Section 404 and NPDES Federal Permits.
b. Air Quality Permit to Operate
Any facility producing air contaminant emissions in the state must secure this permit. This
I permit will be required for the generators providing permanent power for the HAARP
3 B-5
I
transmitting antenna. In addition, this permit will be required for any additional generators
required for on-site diagnostics or for any generators which the contractor requires for site
construction activities. The state permit implements the requirements of the Federal Clean Air
Act.
I
The application requires (at a minimum) (a) set of plans and specifications of the proposed
facility; (b) maps and/or photos showing the proposed location; (c) an engineering report I
outlining the proposed method of operation; (d) a description of air quality control devices (e)
an evaluation of the facility's effects on ambient air quality; and (f) a schedule for construction. I
If the facility is subject to Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) review (see PSD I
standards below), additional information is required on (a) air quality and meteorological data
for the facility location; and (b) the impact of maximum emissions on visibility, vegetation, and I
soils. Demonstration will be required to document the use of best available air quality control
technology and the facility's maximum emissions' effects on ambient air standards. PSD
reviews may also require a public hearing, if necessary. Application preparation can begin
immediately. Air Quality Permits to Operate must be filed at least 30 days prior to construction
or installation of a facility. I
c. Prevention of Significant Deterioration I

As mentioned above, certain emission sources will require this permit to prevent significant I
deterioration of air quality in areas cleaner than required by the Clean Air Act's National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Certain designated sources of air emissions which
emit more than 100 tons per year of air pollutant, and all other sources emitting over 250 tons
per year of any air pollutant will require a PSD permit. I
The facility must (a) not violate the PSD Standards; (b) not violate the NAAQS; and (c) use the
Best Available Control Technology. The application will be reviewed within 30 days. A 30-day
public comment period and opportunity for public hearings must also be provided. Construction I
B-6
I II II l iii I i l
I
must begin within 18 months of permit issuance. Permits are valid for the life of the facility.
d. Air Quality Permit to Open Burn
This permit regulates open burning of all waste products in the state. It may be required for
burning of slash and vegetation during land clearing activities. Although ADEC prefers wood
chipping or alternate methods, the contractor may prefer burning which would require a burning
permit.
e. Plan Review for Sewerage Systems or Water and Wastewater Treatment Works
This plan review provides a minimum standard for construction of facilities which collect, treat
and dispose of wastewater and obtain, treat and distribute potable water. The state may require
that the designs for sewer systems and treatment works used in remote areas have a successful
history of operation in similar environments.
If the designs might affect the spawning or migration of salmon or violate State Water Quality
Standards, additional information on construction schedules and proposed mitigation measures
will also be required. A package plant may be installed only if the ADEC determines that the
plant can treat domestic wastewater for at least one year under expected conditions or that the
plant meets or exceeds National Sanitation Foundation certification criteria.
The ADEC will normally provide an approval of the plant design within 30 days of plan receipt.
The State Water Quality Certification and NPDES review may be required prior to beginning
operations of facilities for wastewater disposal. In addition, a wastewater disposal permit from
ADEC is required prior to disposing the wastewater.
B-7
f. Solid Waste Disposal Permit
This permit is required to eliminate the potential for improper solid waste disposal practices.
If HAARP elects to establish on-site solid waste disposal areas rather than utilizing existing local
landfills, then these HAARP solid waste disposal sites must be permitted by ADEC. On-site
batching of asphalt and concrete would require wastewater or solid waste permits. The local
landfill at Glennallen should be consulted to determine if the anticipated construction and
operation wastes are already approved for this facility. The Glennallen landfill is approved for
sewage sludge disposal. Disposal in existing landfills is the preferred approach.
If a permit is necessary, the permit application must contain, at a minimum, (a) detailed plans
and specifications for the site; (b) maps and/or aerial photographs of the proposed site; (c) a
description of the expected operation of the site (including appropriate mitigation measures); and
(d) an evaluation of the site's water pollution potential.
g. Wastewater Disposal Permit
This permit is required to prevent water pollution resulting from improper wastewater disposal
systems and practices. If a completed and approved NPDES permit from EPA is in place,
ADEC will waive the requirement for this permit and adopt the NPDES permit as the state
approved permit for wastewater disposal. Pre-application meetings with ADEC and EPA
Regional Officials will clarify the expedited procedures for issuance of waiver of this permit.
2. Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR)
a. Burning Permit
This permit is required for the burning of material in areas of the state designated by the
Commissioner of DNR. They are normally required during the fire season (May 1 - September
30). This permit will be required in lieu of the DEC open burning permit for areas falling under
B-8
DNR jurisdiction.
b. Water Rights Permit
This permit is required for appropriation of waters of the State. If state waters are used for
construction or operation of the HAARP facilities then this permit would be required.
The permit application must include detailed information on (a) the location of the source of
water, (b) the proposed means of appropriation (e.g. dam, well) (c) the quantity of water
appropriated (d) the purpose and location of the facilities to be using the water. The application
will initiate a 15-day public comment period. A permit will be issued to develop the water
source.
B-9
I I I II i i _
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
B-IO j
I
APPENDIX C
ENDANGERED SPECIES COORDINATION
C-1
United States Department of the Interior ____
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICEI

..Anchorage Fid •Off-e
Ecological Services and Endangered SpeciesU
- W.YWu1I -- 605 West 4th Avenue. Rom 62
•AE Anhrae Alsk M
• ' I
R. Earl Good, SES
Director of Geophysics
Department of the Air Force
Phillips Laboratory (AFSC)
Hanscom Air Force Base, Massachusetts 01731-5000
U
Dear Mr. Good:
This responds to your letter dated April 24, 1992, requesting information on
threatened or endangered species on the proposed area of the. High Frequency
Active Auroral Research Program illustrated on the enclosed map. Based on a
in
review of our office files there are no threatened or endangered species
Section 7 of the Endangered
these areas. No further consultation pursuant
Species Act of 1973, as amended, is required.
to
3
at
If you have any questions regarding this, please contact Nancy Zapotocki
(907) 271-2888. S
Sincerely.
Sonce de Vries
Acting Field Supervisor n
I
Enclosed
I
I
I
1
C-2I
I
I - .
I -
- - ___7-
Olt
U.S Air. Foc Pre.Bondr
-rKN
FIGUREI2.. 7 OENILST
aC-3
I
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
SN REPLY REFER TO: Ecological Services, Fairbanks
Endangered Species
1412 Airport Way
Fairbanks, AK 99701
September 18, 1992
John L. Heckscher
Ionospheric Physics Division
Department of the Air Force
Phillips Laboratory (AFSC)
Hanscom Air Force Base, MA 01731-5000
Dear Mr. Heckscher:
This responds to your September 2, 1992, letter requesting a list of endangered and threatened
species and critical habitats pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended. This information is being provided for the Alternative Site for the HF Active
Auroral Research Program (HAARP) near Clear, Alaska and Browne, Alaska.
Two listed species occur in the Clear and Browne area. The endangered American peregrine I
falcon (Falcoperegrinusananun) nests in the forested areas of interior Alaska, and migraes
through the area during spring and fall migration. The threatened arctic peregrine falcon
(Falcoperegrinus rundrius) nests in the tundra areas of northern and western Alaska and also
migrates through the area during spring and fall migration. There is no designated critical
habitat in Alaska.
There are no known nest sites of American peregrine falcons within 10 miles of Clear or
Browne. As mentioned above, some arctic and American peregrine falcons likely migrate
through the area each spring and f4ll and the Fish and Wildlife Service will be concerned\
with the potential for migrating peregrine falcons and other migrant bird species colliding
with the antenna and associated support wires.
Thank you for your concern for endangered species. Please contact me if you need additional
information.
Sincerely,
Skip Ambrose 3
Branch Chief
I
I

Untitled

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Untitled

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Untitled

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3 AD-A 267 641

I Final Environmental Impact Statement

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No o,704-0188

00ý S~".ze5 rerý W'-"~- C, ~ ~ 0-~

4. TILE AND SUBTITLE 5 FUNDING NUMBERS

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING tMONITORING

&tA P1A-o~d- 309,otq

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

12a. DISTRIBUTION, AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)

6/jS 1s. j.-$ o0 r ?7bo W/(~~e. * V L

P..,,oI, s orc e,,..,s .,,.57 C4 &-.,d ,,.,.. t -- rue- Raoweeseiý

14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES

16. PRICE CODE

(c) Further information may be obtained by contacting:

ID 3, A•,/,II ji. ior

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (FEIS)

Purpose and Need for Action

Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

0 Bioeffects from radio frequency radiation on both humans and wildlife

1 Utilization of local labor for HAARP construction and operation

Identification of the Preferred Alternative

Cover Sheet ...................................................... i

I1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ........................... 1-1

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ...... 2-1

I 2.1.3 Final Siting Criteria ... .............................. 2-2

2.2 Alternatives Initially Considered .. ......................... 2-7

2.4 Comparison of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives ........ 2-46 I

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ................................. 3-1 1

3.2 Vegetation and Wetlands ................................ 3-10

3.7 Air Quality .......................................... 3-64

3.8 Socioeconomics ... ................................... 3-76

3.9 Cultural Resources ... ................................. 3-90

1 3.10 Subsistence ........................................ 3-111

3.11.2 Clear Site ...................................... 3-125

3.14 Electromagnetic Environment and Radio Frequency Interference ..... 3-151

3.15 Atmosphere ....................................... 3-158

1 4.2 Vegetation and Wetlands ................................. 4-8

1 4.3 Mammals .......................................... 4-15

4.4 Birds .......................................... 4-21

S4.5 Aquatics ........................................ 4-28

4.7 Air Quality.......................................... 4-37

4.7.3 No Action Alternative ................................ 4-45 1

4.10 Subsistence ........................................ 4-62

4.11 Recreation ......................................... 4-71

I4.12 Aesthetics ......................................... 4-77

S4.13 Bioeffects of RFR .................................... 4-85

I 4.13.3 No Action Alternative .. ............................ 4-92

4.14 Electromagnetic and Radio Frequency Interference ............. 4-93

S4.15 Atmosphere .. .................................... 4-112

I 4.15.3 No Action Alternative . ............................ 4-116

4.16 Threatened and Endangered Species ....................... 4-117

7.0 DEIS DISTRIBUTION LIST..................................... 7-1

8.0 INDEX ................................................. 8-1

3.9-6 Known Cultural Resource Sites, Glacial Outwashes,

3.13-1 Maximum Permissible Exposure For The HARP IRI Frequency

The action proposed in this document would implement a congressionally-initiated program of