Direct Effects. The APE for direct effects, or Direct APE, is the vertical and horizontal area within which historic properties may sustain physical alteration, damage, or destruction as a result of the construction of the Undertaking. The APE for direct effects includes all areas where the ground will be disturbed such as staging areas, cut and fill areas, material sources/gravel quarries, overburden disposal areas, associated buildings/structures (e.g., sidings, bridges etc.) and associated infrastructure (e.g., communication towers, power lines etc.). The vertical lower limits of the APE for direct effects includes the depth of natural ground disturbance plus the depth of soil compaction that could affect the integrity of deeply buried archaeological or tribal resources, but does not exceed the depth beyond which such resources are reasonably expected to occur. The horizontal Direct APE includes up to 200 feet on either side (up to a total of 400 feet) of the authorized construction right-of-way (ROW), to include a twenty-foot buffer on either side of the fenced construction ROW along the entire route, with the exception of the Wolf Mountains Battlefield NHL site. However, the final horizontal Direct APE will not be established until final engineering of a built alternative is completed. If the Xxxxxx Alternative is approved by STB, the NPS would be consulted about possibly expanding the APE for consideration of moving the alignment in order to avoid or minimize, to the extent feasible, adverse impacts on identified historic properties within the NHL.
Direct Effects. Changes in Cruise Ship Operations The various ferry alternatives and the high bridge alternatives C3a and C4 are not anticipated to have any effect on cruise ship operations. F3, the Xxxxxxx Island crossing will require cruise ships to use the west channel which they use infrequently at present because of the additional maneuvers required and need for tug boat assistance, which can reduce the time in port. The low bridge options C3(b) and D1 provide less than 200 feet of air draft (clearance) and will prevent the passage of large cruise ships in Tongass Narrows, necessitating routing changes, additional maneuvers, tug boat assistance, reduced port time, and higher cruising speeds (and fuel costs) to regain time lost entering or leaving the Ketchikan dock area. Because cruise ships receive substantial revenues from commissions on the on-board sale of shore excursions and attractions, the potential loss of port time may reduce opportunities for shore excursions, and their operators may choose to reduce port calls in Ketchikan as a result. The Cruise Ship Operations Technical Memorandum provides a detailed explanation of the additional cost of tug assistance and fuel costs that cruise ships might incur with the various alternatives, and the manner in which the alternatives may result in reduced spending by cruise passengers. Table 3-6 summarizes the information presented for the base case in that technical memorandum. The estimates are based on the potential effects of the alternatives on cruise activity that occurred in 2001. Table 3-6. Effects on Cruise Ships and Cruise-related Spending and Employment Base Case Estimates for 2001 Cruise Season C3(a) 0 0 0 0 230 C3(b) 0.8 1.1 10.6 12.4 2,950 D1 0.8 1.1 10.6 12.4 2,950 F3 Ferry Alternatives 0.8 0.9 4.9 6.6 1,200 Alternatives ($Millions) Bridge Alternatives Tug Costs Fuel Costs Reduced Spending Total Decreased Employment
Direct Effects
