Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
FERC_1984_DEIS V1 Main Text_DOC_1653
TKiqasFERC/DEIS-O038rio.US3FEDERALENERGYREGULATORYCOMMISSIONOFFICEOFELECTRICPOWERREGULATIONDRAFTENVtRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTSUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTFERCNO,.7144-ALASKAVolume1.MainTextApplicant:AlaskaPow6rAuthority333Wes<(4thAvenueSui/th31An~horage,Alaska99501~dditionalcopiesoftheDraft-EISmaybeorderedfrom:DivisionofPublicInformationFederalEnergyRegulatoryCommission825NorthCapitolSt.,NE.Washington,D.C.20426May1984Alas’ResourcesAEWt9rag~rn~ees,';1rKP-\d.s-FERC/DEIS-0038·,::>"6'Fl1'lZliDlkS~•FEDERALENERGYREGULATORYCOMMISSIONOFFICEOFELECTRICPOWERREGULATIONDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTSUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTFERCNO.7114-ALASKAVolume1.MainTextApp1icant:AlaskaP~rAuthority333\jes'(4thAvenueSuiXe31AnChorage,Alaska99501~dditionalcopiesoftheDraft-EISmaybeorderedfrom:DivisionofPublicInformationFederalEnergyRegulatoryCommission825NorthCapitolSt.,NE.Washington,D.C.20426May1984ARLIS.AIaskaRLIbrary&1esources~~at1011Serv:t-'''''''''<tge,~kaces COVERSHEETa.LeadAgency:FederalEnergyRegulatoryCommission(FERC)b.CooperatingAgencies:United StatesArmyCorpsofEngineers(Corps)andtheRuralElectrificationAdministrationc.Title:SusitnaHydroelectricProject,FERCProjectNo.7114-AlaskaApplicationforFERClicensetoconstruct,operate,andmaintaintheproposedSusitnaHydroelectricProjectd.Contact:Mr.J.MarkRobinsonFederalEnergyRegulatoryCommissionTelephone:(202)376—9Q60e.DraftEnvironmentalImpactStatementf.Abstract:AlaskaPowerAuthority(Applicant)ofAnchorage,Alaska,proposestoconstructahydroelectricprojectwithaninstalledcapacityof1620megawatts(MW)ontheSusitnaRiverapproximately140milesnorth—northeastofAnchorage.TheactionproposedbytheApplicantwouldrequire(1)anearth-filldarn(Watana),withacrestlevelof2205feetabovemeansealevelandaheightabovefoundationof885feet,locatedatSusitnaRiverMile184(approximately2.5milesupstreamoftheconfluencewithTsusenaCreek);(2)aconcretearchdam(DevilCanyon),withacrestlevelof1463feetabovemeansealevelandaheightabovefoundationof646feet,locatedatSusitnaRiverMile152(about32milesdownstreamoftheproposedWatanadam),andanearth-fillsaddledamwithaheight245feetaboveitsbaseonthesouthabutmentoftheDevilCanyondam;(3)undergroundpowerhousesattheproposedWatanaandDevilCanyondams;(4) approximately370milesofoverheadand4milesofsubmarinetransmissionline;(5)62milesofaccessroadsand13milesofrailroadaccess;(6)apermanenttownhousing130operationsworkersattheWatanadamsite;and(7)otherappurtenantfacilities.Constructionwouldcommencesubsequenttoissuanceofalicense.g.Transmittal:Thisdraftenvironmentalimpactstatement,preparedbytheCommission’sStaffinconnectionwithanapplicationfiledbytheAlaskaPowerAuthorityforproposedProjectNo.7114,isbeingtransmittedforyourinformationpursuanttotherequirementsoftheNationalEnvironmentalPolicyActof1969andCommissionOrderNo.415-C,issuedDecember18,1972(seeSec.8,AttachmentI).h.CopiesofthedraftenvironmentalimpactstatementareavailableforpublicreviewattheSanFranciscoRegionalOffice—FERC.Co~i.Thedraftenvironmentalimpactstatementwassenttothe EnvironmentaloProtectionAgencyandmadeavailabletothepubliconoraboutMay25,o1984.LU‘IC,iiiLjbr~~5kResourcesIflforma~joAflcliorageMa~a~”~COVERSHEETa.LeadAgency:FederalEnergyRegulatoryCommission(FERC)b.CooperatingAgencies:UnitedStatesArmyCorpsofEngineers(Corps)andtheRuralElectrificationAdministrationc.Title:SusitnaHydroelectricProject,FERCProjectNo.7114-AlaskaApp1icationforFERC1icensetoconstruct,operate,andmaintaintheproposedSusitnaHydroelectricProjectd.Contact:Mr.J.MarkRobinsonFederalEnergyRegulatoryCommissionTelephone:(202)376-9060e.DraftEnvironmentalImpactStatementf.Abstract:AlaskaPowerAuthority(Applicant)ofAnchorage,Alaska,proposestoconstructahydroelectricprojectwithaninstalledcapacityof1620megawatts(MW)ontheSusitnaRiverapproximately140milesnorth-northeastofAnchorage.TheactionproposedbytheApplicantwouldrequire(1)anearth-filldam(Watana),withacrestlevelof2205feetabovemeansealevelandaheightabovefoun~ationof885feet,locatedatSusitnaRiverMile184(approximately2.5milesupstreamoftheconf-luencewithTsusenaCreek);(2)aconcretearchdam(DevilCanyon),withacrest1eve1of1463feetabovemeansea1eve1andaheightabovefoundationof646feet,locatedatSusitnaRiverMile152(about32milesdownstreamoftheproposedWatanadam),andanearth-fillsaddledamwithaheight245feetaboveitsbaseonthesouthabutmentoftheDevilCanyondam;(3)undergroundpowerhousesattheproposedWatanaandDevilCanyondams;(4)approximately370milesofoverheadand4milesofsubmarinetransmissionline;(5)62milesofaccessroadsand13milesofrailroadaccess;(6)apermanenttownhousing130operationsworkersattheWatanadamsite;and(7)otherappurtenantfacilities.Constructionwouldcommencesubsequenttoissuanceofalicense.g.Transmittal:Thisdraftenvironmentalimpactstatement,preparedbytheCommission'sStaffinconnectionwithanapplicationfiledbytheAlaskaPowerAuthorityforproposedProjectNo.7114,isbeingtransmittedforyourinformationpursuanttotherequirementsoftheNationalEnviron-menta1PolicyActof1969 andCommissionOrderNo.415-C,issuedDecember18,1972(seeSec.8,AttachmentI).CopiesofthedraftenvironmentalimpactstatementareavailableforpublicreviewattheSanFranciscoRegionalOffice-FERC.ThedraftenvironmentalimpactstatementwassenttotheEnvironmentalProtectionAgencyandmadeavailabletothepUbliconoraboutMay25,1984.CDNC"lr--CDC"loooLnLnr--C"lC"lh.i.iiiARLISAlaskaRLibrary&IesourcesnformatlonSAnc.liOT;l[JeA.ervices""t>·....aska FOREWORDTheFederalEnergyRegulatoryCommission(FERC),pursuanttotheFederalPowerAct(FPAct)*andtheDepartmentofEnergy(DOE)OrganizationAct,~’c*isauthorizedtoissuelicensesfortermsupto50yearsfortheconstructionandoperationofnon-federalhydroelectricdevelopmentssubjecttoitsjurisdiction,onthenecessarycondition:~(T)hattheprojectadopted...shallbesuchasinthejudgmentoftheCommissionwillbebestadaptedtoacomprehensiveplanforimprovingor developingawaterwayorwaterwaysfortheuseorbenefitofinterstateorforeigncommerce,fortheimprovementandutilizationofwaterpower development,andforotherbeneficialpublicuses,including recreationalpurposes. . .TheCommissionmayrequiresuchother conditionsnotinconsistentwiththeprovisionsoftheFPActasmaybefoundnecessarytoprovideforthevariouspublicintereststobeservedbytheProject.tCompliancewithsuchconditionsduringthelicenseperiodisrequired.Section1.6oftheCommission’sRulesofPracticeandProcedureallowsanypersonobjectingtoalicensee’scompliancewithsuchconditionstofileacomplaintnotingthebasisforsuchobjectionfortheCommission’sconsideration.tt*16U.S.C.§791(6)—825(r)~PublicLaw95—91,91Stat.556~16U.S.C.Sec.803(a)t16U.S.C.Sec.803(g)if18C.F.R.Sec.1.6vFOREWORDTheFederalEnergyRegulatoryCommission(FERC),pursuanttotheFederalPowerAct(FPAct)*andtheDepartmentofEnergy(DOE)OrganizationAct,**isauthorizedtoissuelicensesfortermsupto50yearsfortheconstructionandoperationofnon-federalhydroelectricdevelopmentssubjecttoitsjurisdic-tion,onthenecessarycondition:(T)hattheprojectadopted...shallbesuchasinthejudgmentoftheCommissionwi11bebestadaptedtoacomprehensiveplanforimprovingordevelopingawaterwayorwaterwaysfortheuseorbenefitofinterstateorforeigncommerce,fortheimprovementandutilizationofwaterpowerdevelopment,andforotherbeneficialpublicuses,includingrecreationalpurposes...***TheCommissionmayrequiresuchotherconditionsnotinconsistentwiththeprovisionsoftheFPActasmaybefoundnecessarytoprovideforthevariouspublicintereststobeservedbytheProject.tCompliancewithsuchcondi-tionsduringthelicenseperiodisrequired.Section1.6oftheCommission'sRulesofPracticeandProcedureallowsanypersonobjectingtoalicensee'scompliancewithsuchconditionstofileacomplaintnotingthebasisforsuchobjectionfortheCommission'sconsideration.tt*16U.S.C.§791(~)-825(r)**PublicLaw95-91,91Stat.556***16U.S.C.Sec.803(a)t16U.S.C.Sec.803(g)tt18C.F.R.Sec.1.6v PREFACETheDraftEnvironmentalImpactStatement(DEIS)fortheSusitnaHydroelectricProject iscomposedofsevenvolumes.Volume1containsthemaintextoftheDEIS,consistingofeightsections.Section1dealswiththepurposeandneedfortheaction,includingpast, present,andfutureneedforpower,discussionofApplicant’sandStaff’sloadgrowthforecasts,rangeofalternativesexamined,economicanalysisofalternatives,andStaff’sdevelopmentofvariouspowergenerationscenariosthatrepresenttherangeofavailableandfeasibleoptionsformeetingthefutureelectricenergydemandintheRailbeltregionofAlaska.Section2containsadetaileddescriptionoftheproposedprojectandthevariousalternativepowergenerationscenariosconsideredintheDEIS.Section3containsdescriptionsoftheregionalandproject—specificenvironmentsthatcouldpotentiallybeaffectedbydevelopmentoftheproposedprojectoranyofthearray ofalternativesanalyzed. Thissectioncoverslandfeaturesanduses,climateandairquality,waterresourcesandaquaticcommunities,plantandanimalpopulationsandassociations,socioeconomicfactors,recreationalandvisualresources,andarcheologicalandhistoricsites.Section4describesanddiscusses the probable environmentalimpactsthatwouldbelikelytooccurintheenvironmentsdescribedinSection3iftheSusitnaHydroelectric ProjectoranyofthevariousalternativeswereconstructedandoperatedasdescribedinSection2.Inadditiontodiscussionofenvironmentalimpactsofeachproposedoralternativescenario,thissectionalsocoversimpactsoftheno—actionalternative,acomparisonoftheprojectedimpactsofthevariousalternatives,relationshipofimpactstoknownresourceplansandutilization,impactsthatcannotbeavoidedormitigated,resourcesthatwouldbepermanentlylost,andshort—termvs.long—termusesoftheenvironment.AcompanionsectiontothatdetailingimpactsisSection5,whichpresentstheStaff’sconclusionsregardingimpactsoftheproposedandalternativeprojects,theStaff’srecommendationsregardingtheproposedprojectoralternatives,andanynecessarymitigationoradditionalstudiesthattheStaffbelievesarenecessarytominimizeimpactsorclarifyissues.Sections6and7containalistofpreparersandalistofprimaryrecipients,respectively.Section8containstwostandardattachmentsincludedinallFERCEnvironmentalImpactStatements.InanefforttoreducethelengthandimprovethereadabilityofthemainDEIStext,Sections1through5ofVolume1arepresentedmoreorlessassummariesoftheStaff’sstudiesandproject—relateddescriptions,analyses,andenvironmentalimpactdiscussions.Thesefivesectionscontainrelativelybriefandconcisesupportingtechnicaldiscussions,fewreferencecitations,andcomparativelyfewtechnicaltablesandfigures.Summarydescriptions,analyses,anddiscussionsinVolume1arecomprehensively discussedandsupported,asappropriate,withsubstantialtechnicaldetailinaparallelsetofappendicesgroupedbydisciplinesinVolumes2through7.Theseappendixvolumesareavailableforpublicinspectionatvariouspublic locationsthroughouttheRailbelt,ormaybeorderedindividuallyfromtheFERCPublicInformationOfficeinWashington,D.C.viiPREFACETheDraftEnvironmentalImpactStatement(DEIS)fortheSusitnaHydroelectricProjectiscomposedofsevenvolumes.Volume1containsthemaintextoftheDEIS,consistingofeightsections.Section1dealswiththepurposeandneedfortheaction,includingpast,present,andfutureneedforpower,discussionofApp1icantIsandStaff'sloadgrowthforecasts,rangeofalternativesexamined,economicanalysisofalternatives,andStaff'sdevelopmentofvariouspowergenerationscenariosthatrepresenttherangeofavailableandfeasibleoptionsformeetingthefutureelectricenergydemandintheRailbeltregionofAlaska.Section2containsadetaileddescriptionoftheproposedprojectandthevariousalternativepowergenerationscenariosconsideredintheDEIS.Section3containsdescriptionsoftheregionalandproject-specificenviron-mentsthatcouldpotentiallybeaffectedbydevelopmentoftheproposedprojectoranyofthearrayofalternativesanalyzed.Thissectioncoverslandfeaturesanduses,climateandairquality,waterresourcesandaquaticcom-munities,plantandanimalpopulationsandassociations,socioeconomicfactors,recreationa1andvisualresources,andarcheo1ogica1andhistoricsites.Section4describesanddiscussestheprobab1eenvironmenta1impactsthatwouldbelikelytooccurintheenvironmentsdescribedinSection3iftheSusitnaHydroelectricProjectoranyofthevariousalternativeswerecon-structedandoperatedasdescribedinSection2.Inadditiontodiscussionofenvironmentalimpactsofeachproposedoralternativescenario,thissectionalsocoversimpactsoftheno-actionalternative,acomparisonoftheprojectedimpactsofthevariousalternatives,relationshipofimpactstoknownresourceplansandutilization,impactsthatcannotbeavoidedormitigated,resourcesthatwouldbepermanentlylost,andshort-termvs.long-termusesoftheenvironment.Acompanionsectiontothatdetailing impactsisSection5,whichpresentstheStaff'sconclusionsregardingimpactsoftheproposedandalternativeprojects,theStaff'srecommendationsregardingtheproposedprojectoralternatives,andanynecessarymitigation oradditionalstudiesthattheStaffbelievesarenecessarytominimizeimpactsorclarifyissues.Sections6and7containalistofpreparersandalistofprimaryrecipients,respectively.Section8containstwostandardattachmentsinc1udedinallFERCEnvironmentalImpactStatements.InanefforttoreducethelengthandimprovethereadabilityofthemainDEIStext,Sections1through5ofVolume1arepresentedmoreorlessassummariesoftheStaff'sstudiesandproject-relateddescriptions,analyses,andenviron-menta1impactdiscussions.Thesefivesectionscontainre1ativelybriefandconcisesupportingtechnicaldiscussions,fewreferencecitations,andcom-parativelyfewtechnicaltablesandfigures.Summarydescriptions,analyses,anddiscussionsinVolume1arecomprehensivelydiscussedandsupported,asappropriate,withsubstantialtechnicaldetailinaparallelsetofappendicesgroupedbydiscip1inesinVolumes2through7.TheseappendixvolumesareavailableforpublicinspectionatvariouspubliclocationsthroughouttheRailbelt,ormaybeorderedindividuallyfromtheFERCPublicInformationOfficeinWashington,D.C.vii TITLEPAGETABLEOFCONTENTSPageCOVERSHEETFOREWORD. .-PREFACECONTENTSLISTOFFIGURESLISTOFTABLES-IllVviiixxviixixSUMMARYxxi 1.PURPOSEOFAND NEEDFORACTION1-11.1PURPOSEOFACTION111.2NEEDFORPOWER1—11.2.1HistoricalEnergyRequirements111.2.1.1PerspectiveonGeographyandEconomyoftheRegion1—11.2.1.2EnergyUseintheRegion1—31.2.2PresentEnergyScenario1—41.2.3FutureEnergyResources181.2.4LoadGrowthForecast1—81.2.4.1AlaskaPowerAuthorityForecasts1—81.2.4.1.1Methodologyi_s1.2.4.1.2LoadProjection1—91.2.4.1.3WorldOilPrice1-91.2.4.2FERCStaffProjections1-91.2.5Generation—LoadRelationships ofExistingandPlannedRailbeltSystem1—151.3ALTERNATIVEACTIONS1-191.3.1AlternativeProjectDesigns1—191.3.1.1PreviousStudies1—191.3.1.2 Applicant’sStudies1—191.3.1.3StaffStudies1—221.3.2OtherHydroelectricAlternatives1—221.3.3Non—HydroelectricAlternatives1—301.3.3.1PetroleumFuels1—301.3.3.2NaturalGas1-301.3.3.3Coal1-331.3.3.4Peat1-331.3.3.5GeothermalEnergy1-331.3.3.6TidalPower1-341.3.3.7SolarEnergy1—341.3.4Non—StructuralAlternatives1—341.3.4.1EffectsofConservationonDemand1—341.3.4.2EffectsofRateRevisiononDemand1—351.4SCENARIODEVELOPMENT1—351.4.1SusitnaBasinDevelopment1351.4.2Non—SusitnaRiverHydroelectricDevelopmentPlans1—361.4.3Natural-Gas—FiredGenerationScenario1—361.4.3.1ScenarioEvaluation1—371.4.3.2DataAssumptionsforGasScenario1-391.4.4Coal—FiredGenerationScenario1-391.4.4.1ScenarioEvaluation1-421.4.4.2DataAssumptionsforCoalScenario1-421.4.5ScenarioComparisonandCombinedScenarios1-431.4.5.1HydroelectricScenarios1-43ixTABLEOFCONTENTSTITLEPAGE.COVERSHEETiiiFOREWOROvxixviiixxviixxi1-11-11-11-11-11-31-41-81-81-81-81-91-91-91-151-191-191-191-191-221-221-301-301-301-331-331-331-341-341-341-341-351-351-351-361-361-371-391-391-421-421-431-43PURPOSEOFANONEEDFORACTION1.1PURPOSEOFACTION..1.2NEEDFORPOWER. . . . .1.2.1HistoricalEnergyRequirements1.2.1.1PerspectiveonGeographyandEconomyoftheRegion1.2.1.2EnergyUseintheRegion1.2.2PresentEnergyScenario.1.2.3FutureEnergyResources.1.2.4LoadGrowthForecast.1.2.4.1AlaskaPowerAuthorityForecasts1.2.4.1.1Methodology.1.2.4.1.2LoadProjection.1.2.4.1.3WorldOilPrice.1.2.4.2FERCStaffProjections1.2.5Generation-LoadRelationshipsofExistingandPlannedRailbeltSystem1.3ALTERNATIVEACTIONS. . . . . .1.3.1AlternativeProjectDesigns1.3.1.1PreviousStudies1.3.1.2Applicant'sStudies..1.3.1.3StaffStudies. . . . .1.3.2OtherHydroelectricAlternatives1.3.3Non-HydroelectricAlternatives•.1.3.3.1PetroleumFuels1.3.3.2NaturalGas.1.3.3.3Coal.1.3.3.4Peat.1.3.3.5GeothermalEnergy1.3.3.6TidalPower...1.3.3.7SolarEnergy1.3.4Non-StructuralAlternatives1.3.4.1EffectsofConservationonDemand1.3.4.2EffectsofRateRevisiononDemand1.4SCENARIODEVELOPMENT. . . . . . . . . . .1.4.1SusitnaBasinOeve1opment. . . . . . .1.4.2Non-SusitnaRiverHydroelectricDevelopmentPlans1.4.3Natural-Gas-FiredGenerationScenario1.4.3.1ScenarioEvaluation.1.4.3.2DataAssumptionsforGasScenario.1.4.4Coal-FiredGenerationScenario.1.4.4.1ScenarioEvaluation.1.4.4.2DataAssumptionsforCoalScenario1.4.5ScenarioComparisonandCombinedScenarios1.4.5.1HydroelectricScenarios.PREFACECONTENTSLISTOFFIGURESLISTOFTABLESSUMMARY1.ix xCONTENTS(Cont’d)Page1.4.5.2ThermalScenarios1—431.4.5.3CombinedScenarios1—43REFERENCES1—452.PROPOSEDACTIONANDALTERNATIVES2.1PROPOSEDPROJECT2.1.1Location2.1.2Facilities2.1.2.1WatanaDevelopment2.1.2.2DevilCanyonDevelopment2.1.2.3ConstructionandPermanentSiteFacilities2.1.2.3.1Watana2.1.2.3.2DevilCanyon2.1.2.3.3ProjectTransmission2.1.3ConstructionSchedule2.1.3.1Watana2.1.3.2DevilCanyon2.1.4ConstructionWorkforceRequirements2.1.5OperationandMaintenance2.1.5.1Operation2.1.5.1.1OperationwithintheRailbeltSystem2.1.5.1.2SusitnaProjectOperation2.1.5.2Maintenance2.1.5.2.1MonitoringProgram2.1.5.2.2PeriodicMaintenance2.1.6SafetyInspections2.1.7AccessPlan2.1.8TransmissionLineElectricalEffects2.1.9CompliancewithApplicableLaws2.1.10FuturePlans2.1.11RecreationPlan2.1.11.2.1PhaseOne2. 1.11.2.2PhaseTwo2.1.11.2.3PhaseThree2.1.11.2.4PhaseFour2.1.11.2.5PhaseFive2.1.11.3RecreationMonitoringProgram2.1.12MitigativeMeasuresProposedbythe2.1.12.1LandResources2.1.12.1.1GeologyandSoils.2.1.12.1.2LandUseandOwnership2.1.12.2WaterQuantityandQuality2.1.12.3 Fisheries2.1.12.4TerrestrialCommunities2.1.12.4.1PlantCommunities.2.1.12.4.2Wildlife2.1.12:5ThreatenedandEndangeredSpeci2.1.12.6RecreationResources2.1.12.7SocioeconomicFactors.2.1.12.8VisualResources2.1.12.9CulturalResources2.2SUSITMADEVELOPMENTALTERNATIVES2.2.1AlternativeFacilityDesigns2.2.1.1Applicant’sStudies2.2.1.2AlternativeWatanaFacilities2.1.11.1InventoryandEvaluationofPotentialRecreatio2.1.11.2ImplementationandDescriptionoftheProposednDevelopmentAreasRecreationPlan2—12—12—12-12-12-22-22-22-32-32-52-52-52-62—62—62—62—62-82-82-82-112-112-112—132—132-142-142-142—162-172-182-192-192-202-212-212-212-212—222—232—252—252—272-272-282-282-292-292-292-292-292—292—302—302—302—302—322—322—322-332—332-332-332-33App]icantes2.2.1.3AlternativeDevilCanyonFacilities2.2.2AlternativeAccessCorridors2.2.2.1ApplicantStudies2.2.2.2CorridorsStudied2.2.2.3DevelopmentofPlans2.2.2.4DescriptionofMostResponsiveAccessPlans.2.2.3AlternativeTransmissionLineCorridors2.2.4AlternativeSusitnaDevelopmentSchemes2.2.4.1General2.2.4.2WatanaI—DevilCanyonDevelopment2.2.4.3WatanaI—ModifiedHighDevilCanyonDevelopment2.2.4.4Watana1—ReregulatingDamDevelopment2.PROPOSEDACTIONANDALTERNATIVES2-12.1PROPOSEDPROJECT. . . . .2-12.1.1Location. . . . . . .2-12.1.2Facilities. . . . . .2-12.1.2.1WatanaDevelopment2-12.1.2.2DevilCanyonDevelopment. .2-22.1.2.3ConstructionandPermanentSiteFacilities2-22.1.2.3.1Watana. . . . . . .2-22.1.2.3.2DevilCanyon. . . .2-32.1.2.3.3ProjectTransmission2-32.1.3ConstructionSchedule.. . .2-52.1.3.1Watana. . . . . . . . .2-52.1.3.2DevilCanyon. . . . . .2-52.1.4ConstructionWorkforceRequirements2-62.1.5OperationandMaintenance.. . . .2-62.1.5.1Operation.. . . . . . . . . .2-62.1.5.1.1OperationwithintheRailbeltSystem2-62.1.5.1.2SusitnaProjectOperation2-62.1.5.2Maintenance.. . . . . .2-82.1.5.2.1MonitoringProgram2-82.1.5.2.2PeriodicMaintenance2-82.1.6SafetyInspections. . . . .2-112.1.7AccessPlan.. . . . . . . .2-112.1.8TransmissionLineElectricalEffects2-112.1.9CompliancewithApplicableLaws.. .2-132.1.10FuturePlans. . . . . . . . . . . .2-132.1.11RecreationPlan.. . . . . . . ....2-142.1.11.1InventoryandEvaluationofPotentialRecreationDevelopmentAreas2-142.1.11.2ImplementationandDescriptionoftheProposedRecreationPlan2-142.1.11.2.1PhaseOne2-162.1.11.2.2PhaseTwo2-172.1.11.2.3PhaseThree2-182.1.11.2.4PhaseFour.2-192.1.11.2.5PhaseFive.2-192.1.11.3RecreationMonitoringProgram.2-202.1.12MitigativeMeasuresProposedbytheApplicant2-212.1.12.1LandResources. . . . . .2-212.1.12.1.1GeologyandSoils2-212.1.12.1.2LandUseandOwnership2-212.1.12.2WaterQuantityandQuality2-222.1.12.3Fisheries. . . . . . .2-232.1.12.4TerrestrialCommunities2-252.1.12.4.1PlantCommunities.2-252.1.12.4.2Wildlife.. . . . . . . . .2-272.1.12;5ThreatenedandEndangeredSpecies2-272.1.12.6RecreationResources.2-282.1.12.7SocioeconomicFactors2-282.1.12.8VisualResources.. . .2-292.1.12.9CulturalResources. . .2-292.2SUSITNADEVELOPMENTALTERNATIVES2-292.2.1AlternativeFacilityDesigns2-292.2.1.1Applicant'sStudies....2-292.2.1.2AlternativeWatanaFacilities.. .2-292.2.1.3AlternativeDevilCanyonFacilities2-302.2.2AlternativeAccessCorridors. .. ..2-302.2.2.1ApplicantStudies.. . . . . . . .2-302.2.2.2CorridorsStudied.. . . . . . . .2-302.2.2.3DevelopmentofPlans. . . . . . . .2-322.2.2.4DescriptionofMostResponsiveAccessPlans2-322.2.3AlternativeTransmissionLineCorridors2-322.2.4Alternativ~SusitnaDevelopmentSchemes2-332.2.4.1General.. . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-332.2.4.2WatanaI-DevilCanyonDevelopment..2-332.2.4.3WatanaI-ModifiedHighDevilCanyonDevelopment2-332.2.4.4WatanaI-ReregulatingDamDevelopment. . . . .2-331.4.5.21.4.5.3REFERENCES.ThermalScenarios.CombinedScenariosCONTENTS(Cont'd)1-431-431-45 xiCONTENTS(Cont’d)Page2.3NATURAL-GAS—FIREDGENERATION SCENARIO2-372.3.1AlternativeFacilities2-372.3.2Location2—372.3.3ConstructionRequirements2—392.3.4OperationandMaintenance2—392.4COAL-FIREDGENERATION SCENARIO2—392.4.1AlternativeFacilities2—392.4.2Location2—392.4.3ConstructionRequirements2—392.4.4OperationandMaintenance2—402.5COMBINEDHYDRO—THERMALGENERATION SCENARIO2—412.5.1HydroUnits2-412.5.1.1Browne2-412.5.1.2Chakachamna2-412.5.1.3Johnson2-412.5.1.4Keetna2-412.5.1.5Snow2-412.5.2ThermalUnits2-412.5.2.1Facilities2—412.5.2.2Location2—452.5.2.3ConstructionRequirements2—452.5.2.4OperationandMaintenance2—452.5.3Transmission2—452.6NO-ACTIONALTERNATIVE2—462.7MITIGATIVEMEASURESFORALTERNATIVESCENARIOS2—462.7.1LandResources2—462.7.1.1GeologyandSoils2—462.7.1.2LandUseandOwnership2-462.7.2Climate,AirQuality,Noise2-462.7.3WaterQuantityandQuality2-472.7.4 Fisheries2-472.7.5TerrestrialCommunities2-472.7.5.1PlantCommunities2-472.7.5.2Wildlife2-482.7.6ThreatenedandEndangeredSpecies2—482.7.7SocioeconomicFactors2—482.7.8VisualResources2-482.7.9CulturalResources2-48REFERENCES2—493.AFFECTEDENVIRONMENT3—13.1PROPOSEDPROJECT3—13.1.1LandResources3—13.1.1.1GeologyandSoils3—13.1.1.2LandUsesandOwnership313.1.1.2.1ExistingandFutureUses313.1.1.2.2ExistingandFutureOwnershipStatusandManagement3—43.1.1.2.3ExistingandFutureLandValues343.1.2Climate,AirQuality,Noise3-43.1.2.1Climate3-43.1.2.2AirQualityandNoise3-43.1.3WaterQualityandQuantity3-63.1.3.1SurfaceWaterResources3-63.1.3.2SurfaceWaterQuality3-93.1.3.3Groundwater3-153.1.4FishCommunities3—173.1.4.1WatershedAboveDevilCanyon3—173.1.4.2DevilCanyontoTalkeetna3—173.1.4.3BelowTalkeetna3—243.1.4.4AccessRoadsandTransmissionLineCorridors3—243.1.4.5FisheryResources3—243.1.5TerrestrialCommunities3—253.1.5.1PlantCommunities3—253.1.5.2AnimalCommunities3—313.1.6ThreatenedandEndangeredSpecies3-343.1.7RecreationResources3-343.1.8SocioeconomicFactors3—383.1.8.1Population3-38LineCorridors3.xiCONTENTS(Cont'd)2.3NATURAL-GAS-FIREOGENERATIONSCENARIO2.3.1AlternativeFacilities2.3.2Location.2.3.3ConstructionRequirements.2.3.4OperationandMaintenance.2.4COAL-FIREDGENERATIONSCENARIO2.4.1AlternativeFacilities2.4.2Location.2.4.3ConstructionRequirements.2.4.4OperationandMaintenance.2.5COMBINEDHYDRO-THERMALGENERATIONSCENARIO2.5.1HydroUnits..2.5.1.1Browne2.5.1.2Chakachamna2.5.1.3Johnson.2.5.1.4Keetna..2.5.1.5Snow...2.5.2ThermalUnits.2.5.2.1Facilities2.5.2.2Location2.5.2.3ConstructionRequirements2.5.2.4OperationandMaintenance2.5.3Transmission.2.6NO-ACTIONALTERNATIVE.2.7MITIGATIVEMEASURESFORALTERNATIVESCENARIOS2.7.1LandResources. . . . . .2.7.1.1GeologyandSoils...2.7.1.2LandUseandOwnership2.7.2Climate,AirQuality,Noise2.7.3WaterQuantityandQuality2.7.4Fisheries.2.7.5TerrestrialCommunities.2.7.5.1PlantCommunities..2.7.5.2Wildlife.2.7.6ThreatenedandEndangeredSpecies2.7.7SocioeconomicFactors2.7.8VisualResources2.7.9CulturalResourcesREFERENCES. . . . . .AFFECTEDENVIRONMENT. .3.1PROPOSEDPROJECT.3.1.1LandResources3.1.1.1GeologyandSoils3.1.1.2LandUsesandOwnership3.1.1.2.1ExistingandFutureUses3.1.1.2.2ExistingandFutureOwnershipStatusandManagement3.1.1.2.3ExistingandFutureLandValues3.1.2Climate,AirQuality,Noise3.1.2.1Climate.3.1.2.2AirQualityandNoise.3.1.3WaterQualityandQuantity3.1.3.1SurfaceWaterResources3.1.3.2SurfaceWaterQuality3.1.3.3Groundwater.3.1.4FishCommunities3.1.4.1WatershedAboveDevilCanyon3.1.4.2DevilCanyontoTalkeetna..3.1.4.3BelowTalkeetna.3.1.4.4AccessRoadsandTransmission3.1.4.5FisheryResources.3.1.5TerrestrialCommunities.3.1.5.1PlantCommunities.3.1.5.2AnimalCommunities3.1.6ThreatenedandEndangeredSpecies3.1.7RecreationResources3.1.8SocioeconomicFactors3.1.8.1Population2-372-372-372-392-392-392-392-392-392-402-412-412-412-412-412-412-412-412-412-452-452-452-452-462-462-462-462-462-462-472-472-472-472-482-482-482-482-482-493-13-13-13-13-13-13-43-43-43-43-43-63-63-93-153-173-173-173-243-243-243-253-253-313-343-343-383-38 xiiCONTENTS(Cont’d)Page3.1.8.2InstitutionalIssuesandQualityofLife3-413.1.8.3EconomyandEmployment3-413.1.8.4Housing3-433.1.8.5CommunityServicesandFiscalStatus3-443.1.8.6Transportation3-443.1.8.7HumanUseandManagementofWildlifeResources3-443.1.9VisualResources3-493.1.9.1LandscapeCharacterTypes3.493.1.9.2ProminentNaturalFeatures3—523.1.9.3SignificantViewsheds,VistaPoints,andTravelRoutes3—523.1.10CulturalResources3—523.2SUSITNADEVELOPMENTALTERNATIVES3—533.2.1LandResources3—533.2.2Climate,AirQuality,Noise3—533.2.3WaterQuantityandQuality3—533.2.4AquaticCommunities3—533.2.5TerrestrialCommunities3—553.2.5.1PlantCommunities3553.2.5.2Animal Communities3—553.2.6ThreatenedandEndangeredSpecies3553.2.7RecreationResources3553.2.8SocioeconomicFactor~3-563.2.9VisualResources3-563.2.10CulturalResources3-563.3NATURAL—GAS-FIREDGENERATION SCENARIO3-573.3.1LandResources3-573.3.1.1GeologyandSoils3-573.3.1.2LandUseandOwnership3573.3.2Climate,AirQuality,Noise3-573.3.2.1Climate3-573.3.2.2AirQualityandNoise3573.3.3WaterQuantityandQuality3—583.3.4AquaticCommunities3—583.3.5TerrestrialCommunities3593.3.5.1PlantCommunities3—593.3.5.2Animal Communities3—593.3.6ThreatenedandEndangeredSpecies3—593.3.7RecreationResources3-593.3.8SocioeconomicFactors3-593.3.9VisualResources3-623.3.10CulturalResources3-623.4COAL-FIREDGENERATION SCENARIO3-623.4.1LandResources3-623.4.1.1GeologyandSoils3-623.4.1.2LandUseandOwnership3-623.4.2Climate,AirQuality,Noise3-623.4.2.1Climate3—623.4.2.2AirQualityandNoise3—633.4.3WaterQuantityandQuality3—633.4.4AquaticCommunities3—633.4.5TerrestrialCommunities3—633.4.5.1PlantCommunities3—633.4.5.2AnimalCommunities3-633.4.6ThreatenedandEndangeredSpecies3-643.4.7RecreationResources3-643.4.8SocioeconomicFactors3-643.4.9VisualResources3—643.4.10CulturalResources3—643.5COMBINEDHYDRO-THERNAL GENERATION SCENARIO3—643.5.1LandResources3—653.5.1.1GeologyandSoils3—653.5.1.2LandUseandOwnership3—653.5.2Climate,AirQuality,Noise3-653.5.3WaterQuantityandQuality3-663.5.4AquaticCommunities3-663.5.5TerrestrialCommuirities3-683.5.5.1PlantCommunities3-683.5.5.2Animal Communities3-69xiiCONTENTS(Cont'd)3.1.8.2InstitutionalIssuesandQualityofLife3.1.8.3EconomyandEmployment. . . .3.1.8.4Housing.3.1.8.5CommunityServicesandFiscalStatus3.1.8.6Transportation.3.1.8.7HumanUseandManagementofWildlifeResources3.1.9VisualResources.3.1.9.1LandscapeCharacterTypes.3.1.9.2ProminentNaturalFeatures.3.1.9.3SignificantViewsheds,VistaPoints,andTravelRoutes3.1.10CulturalResources.....3.2SUSITNAOEVELOPMENTALTERNATIVES3.2.1LandResources.3.2.2Climate,AirQuality,Noise3.2.3WaterQuantityandQuality3.2.4AquaticCommunities..3.2.5TerrestrialCommunities.3.2.5.1PlantCommunities..3.2.5.2AnimalCommunities3.2.6ThreatenedandEndangeredSpecies3.2.7RecreationResources..3.2.8SocioeconomicFactors.3.2.9VisualResources.3.2.10CulturalResources.3.3NATURAL-GAS-FIREDGENERATIONSCENARIO3. 3.1LandResources. .. . . .3.3.1.1GeologyandSoils...3.3.1.2LandUseandOwnership3.3.2Climate,AirQuality,Noise3.3.2.1Climate.3.3.2.2AirQualityandNoise.3.3.3WaterQuantityandQuality3.3.4AquaticCommunities...3.3.5TerrestrialCommunities.3.3.5.1PlantCommunities..3.3.5.2AnimalCommunities3.3.6ThreatenedandEndangeredSpecies3.3.7RecreationResources..3.3.8SocioeconomicFactors..3.3.9VisualResources....3.3.10CulturalResources3.4COAL-FIREDGENERATIONSCENARIO3.4.1LandResources.3.4.1.1GeologyandSoils.3.4.1.2LandUseandOwnership3.4.2Climate,AirQuality,Noise3.4.2.1Climate.3.4.2.2AirQualityandNoise.3.4.3WaterQuantityandQuality3.4.4AquaticCommunities...3.4.5TerrestrialCommunities.3.4.5.1PlantCommunities..3.4.5.2AnimalCommunities3.4.6ThreatenedandEndangeredSpecies3.4.7RecreationResources..3.4.8SocioeconomicFactors..3.4.9VisualResources3.4.10CulturalResources3.5COMBINEDHYDRO-THERMALGENERATIONSCENARIO3.5.1LandResources.3.5.1.1GeologyandSoils.3.5.1.2LandUseandOwnership3.5.2Climate,AirQuality,Noise3.5.3WaterQuantityandQuality3.5.4AquaticCommunities..3.5.5TerrestrialCommunities3.5.5.1PlantCommunities.3.5.5.2AnimalCommunities3-413-413-433-443-443-443-493-493-523-523-523-533-533-533-533-533-553-553-553-553-553-563-563-563-573-573-573-573-573-573-573-583-583-593-593-593-593-593-593-623-623-623-623-623-623-623-623-633-633-633-633-633-633-643-643-643-643-643-643-653-653-653-653-663-663-683-683-69 xiiiCONTENTS(Cont’d)3.5.6ThreatenedandEndangeredSpecies3.5.7RecreationResources3.5.8SocioeconomicFactors3.5.9VisualResources3.5.10CulturalResourcesREFERENCES4.1.3.3Temperature4.1.4.2.2AccessRoutesandPowerTransmi4.1.5TerrestrialCommunities4.1.5.1PlantCommunities4.1.5.2AnimalCommunities4.1.6ThreatenedandEndangeredSpecies4.1.7RecreationResources4.1.8SocioeconomicImpacts4.1.9VisualResources4.1.10CulturalResources4.2SUSITNADEVELOPMENTALTERNATIVES4.2.1LandResources4.2.1.1GeologyandSoils4.2.1.2LandUseandOwnership4.2.2Climate,AirQuality,Noise4.2.3WaterQuantityandQuality4.2.4AquaticCommunities4.2.5TerrestrialCommunities4.2.5.1PlantCommunities4.2.5.2AnimalCommunities4.2.6ThreatenedandEndangeredSpecies4.2.7RecreationResources4.2.8SocioeconomicFactors4.2.9VisualResources4.2.10CulturalResources4.3NATURAL-GAS-FIREDGENERATION SCENARIO4.3.1LandResources4.3.1.1GeologyandSoils4.3.1.2LandUseandOwnership4.3.2Climate,AirQuality,Noise4.3.3WaterQuantityandQuality4.3.4AquaticCommunities4.3.5TerrestrialCommunities4.3.5.1PlantCommunities4.3.5.2AnimalCommunities4.3.6ThreatenedandEndangeredSpecies4.3.7RecreationResources4.3.8SocioeconomicFactors4-14-14-14-14-24-44-64-64-64-94-134-164-164-204-214-214-214-234-234-254-254-254-254-25 ssionFacilities4—334-334-334-374-454-454-494-644-684-694-694-694-704-704-704-724-724-724-734-754-754-754-764-764-774-774-774-774-774-784-784-784-784-794—794-794-79 3—693—703-703-713-713-724.ENVIRONMENTALIMPACT4.1PROPOSEDPROJECT4.1.1LandResources4.1.1.1GeologyandSoils4.1.1.2LandUseandOwnership4.1.2Climate,AirQuality,Noise4.1.3WaterQuantityandQuality4.1.3.1SurfaceWater Resources4.1.3.1.1FlowRegime4.1.3.1.2PhysicalHabitatAvailability4.1.3.1.3ChannelStabilityandSedimentTransport4.1.3.2WaterQuality4.1.3.2.1DamDevelopment4.1.3.2.2AccessRoutesandTransmissionFacilities4.1.3.3.1Reservoirs4.1.3.3.2NainstemSusitnaRiver. .4.1.3.3.3Sloughs4.1.3.4IceProcesses4.1.3.5Groundwater4.1.4AquaticCommunities4.1.4.1PlantandInvertebrateCommunities4.1.4.2FishCommunities4.1.4.2.1DamDevelopment4.xii iCONTENTS(Cont'd)3.5.6ThreatenedandEndangeredSpecies3.5.7RecreationResources3.5.8SocioeconomicFactors3.5.9VisualResources3.5.10CulturalResourcesREFERENCES. . . . . .ENVIRONMENTALIMPACT.4.1PROPOSEDPROJECT4.1.1LandResources4.1.1.1GeologyandSoils4.1.1.2LandUseandOwnership4.1.2Climate,AirQuality,Noise4.1.3WaterQuantityandQuality4.1.3.1SurfaceWaterResources4.1.3.1.1FlowRegime....4.1.3.1.2PhysicalHabitatAvailability4.1.3.1.3ChannelStabilityandSedimentTransport4.1.3.2WaterQuality.4.1.3.2.1DamDevelopment.4.1.3.2.2AccessRoutesandTransmissionFacilities4.1.3.3Temperature.4.1.3.3.1Reservoirs.4.1.3.3.2MainstemSusitnaRiver4.1.3.3.3Sloughs..4.1.3.4IceProcesses.4.1.3.5Groundwater.4.1.4AquaticCommunities. . . . . .4.1.4.1PlantandInvertebrateCommunities4.1.4.2FishCommunities.4.1.4.2.1DamDevelopment.4.1.4.2.2AccessRoutesandPowerTransmissionFacilities4.1.5TerrestrialCommunities.....4.1.5.1PlantCommunities..4.1.5.2AnimalCommunities4.1.6ThreatenedandEndangeredSpecies4.1.7RecreationResources4.1.8SocioeconomicImpacts..4.1.9VisualResources....4.1.10CulturalResources4.2SUSITNADEVELOPMENTALTERNATIVES4.2.1LandResources.. . . . .4.2.1.1GeologyandSoils...4.2.1.2LandUseandOwnership4.2.2Climate,AirQuality,Noise4.2.3WaterQuantityandQuality4.2.4AquaticCommunities..4.2.5TerrestrialCommunities.4.2.5.1PlantCommunities..4.2.5.2AnimalCommunities4.2.6ThreatenedandEndangeredSpecies4.2.7RecreationResources4.2.8SocioeconomicFactors.4.2.9VisualResources.4.2.10CulturalResources.4.3NATURAL-GAS-FIREDGENERATIONSCENARIO4.3.1LandResources.4.3.1.1GeologyandSoils.4.3.1.2LandUseandOwnership4.3.2Climate,AirQuality,Noise4.3.3WaterQuantityandQuality4.3.4AquaticCommunities..4.3.5TerrestrialCommunities.4.3.5.1PlantCommunities..4.3.5.2AnimalCommunities4.3.6ThreatenedandEndangeredSpecies4.3.7RecreationResources4.3.8SocioeconomicFactors. . . . . .3-693-703-703-713-713-724-14-14-14-14-24-44-64-64-64-94-134-164-164-204-214-214-214-234-234-254-254-254-254-254-334-334-334-374-454-454-494-644-684-694-694-694-704-704-704-724-724-724-734-754-754-754-764-764-774-774-774-774-774-784-784-784-784-794-794-794-79 xivCONTENTS(Cont’d)4.5.1LandResources4.3.9VisualResources4.3.10CulturalResources4.4COAL—FIREDGENERATION SCENARIO4.4.1LandResources4.4.1.1GeologyandSoils4.4.1.2LandUseandOwnership4.4.2Climate,AirQuality,Noise4.4.3WaterQuantityandQuality4.4.4AquaticCommunities4.4.5TerrestrialCommunities4.4.5.1PlantCommunities4.4.5.2AnimalCommunities4.4.6ThreatenedandEndangeredSpecies4.4.7RecreationResources4.4.8SocioeconomicFactors4.4.9VisualResources4.4.10CulturalResources4.5COMBINEDHYORO-THERMALGENERATION SCENARIO4.8RELATIONSHIPTORESOURCEPLANSANDUTILIZATION:4.9UNAVOIDABLEADVERSEIMPACTS4.9.1ProposedProject4.9.2Alternatives4.10IRREVERSIBLEANDIRRETRIEVABLECOMMITMENTOFRESOURCES4.10.1ProposedProject4.10.2Alternatives4.11SHORT—TERM USESANDLONGTERM—PRODUCTIVITY4.11.1ProposedProject4.11.2AlternativesREFERENCES4.5.1.1GeologyandSoils4.5.1.2LandUseandOwnership4.5.2Climate,AirQuality,Noise4.5.3WaterQuantityandQuality4.5.4AquaticCommunities4.5.5TerrestrialCommunities4.5.5.1PlantCommunities4.5.5.2AnimalCommunities4.5.6ThreatenedandEndangeredSpecies4.5.7RecreationResources4.5.8SocioeconomicFactors4.5.9VisualResources4.5.10CulturalResources4.6NO-ACTIONALTERNATIVE4.7COMPARISONOFALTERNATIVES4.7.1LandResources4.7.1.1GeologyandSoils4.7.1.2LandUseandOwnership4.7.2Climate,AirQuality,Noise4.7.3WaterQuantityandQuality4.7.4AquaticCommunities4.7.5TerrestrialCommunities4.7.5.1PlantCommunities4.7.5.2AnimalCommunities4.7.6ThreatenedandEndangeredSpecies4.7.7RecreationResources4.7.8SocioeconomicFactors4.7.9VisualResources4.7.10CulturalResources.5.STAFFCONCLUSIONS5.1SIGNIFICANTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTS5.1.1ProposedProject5.1.1.1LandResources5.1.1.1.1GeologyandSoils5.1.1.1.2LandUseandOwnership.5.1.1.2Climate,AirQuality,Noise.5.1.1.3WaterQuantityandQuality.5-1 4-804-804-804-804-804-804-814-824-824-834-834-834-844-844-844-854-864-864-864-864-864-864-874-884-884-884-884-884-884-894-904-904-904-914-914-914-914-924-924-934-934-934-944-944-944-974-984-994-994—1004—1004—1004—1014-1014-1014-1014-1014-1024-1025—15-15—15—15—1s-i5-1xivCONTENTS(Cont'd)4.3.9VisualResources.4.3.10CulturalResources.4.4COAL-FIREDGENERATIONSCENARIO4.4.1LandResources. . . . . .4.4.1.1GeologyandSoils . . .4.4.1.2LandUseandOwnership4.4.2Climate,AirQuality,Noise4.4.3WaterQuantityandQuality4.4.4AquaticCommunities..4.4.5TerrestrialCommunities.4.4.5.1PlantCommunities..4.4.5.2AnimalCommunities4.4.6ThreatenedandEndangeredSpecies4.4.7RecreationResources.4.4.8SocioeconomicFactors..4.4.9VisualResources4.4.10CulturalResources..4.5COMBINEDHYDRO-THERMALGENERATIONSCENARIO4.5.1LandResources.4.5.1.1GeologyandSoils.4.5.1.2LandUseandOwnership4.5.2Climate,AirQuality,Noise4.5.3WaterQuantityandQuality4.5.4AquaticCommunities..4.5.5TerrestrialCommunities.4.5.5.1PlantCommunities..4.5.5.2AnimalCommunities4.5.6ThreatenedandEndangeredSpecies4.5.7RecreationResources4.5.8SocioeconomicFactors4.5.9VisualResources4.5.10CulturalResources.4.6NO-ACTIONALTERNATIVE..4.7COMPARISONOFALTERNATIVES4.7.1LandResources4.7.1.1GeologyandSoils.4.7.1.2LandUseandOwnership4.7.2Climate,AirQuality,Noise4.7.3WaterQuantityandQuality4.7.4AquaticCommunities...4.7.5TerrestrialCommunities.4.7.5.1PlantCommunities..4.7.5.2AnimalCommunities4.7.6ThreatenedandEndangeredSpecies4.7.7RecreationResources..4.7.8SocioeconomicFactors.4.7.9VisualResources.4.7.10CulturalResources.4.8RELATIONSHIPTORESOURCEPLANSANDUTILIZATION4.9UNAVOIDABLEADVERSEIMPACTS.4.9.1ProposedProject.4.9.2Alternatives.4.10IRREVERSIBLEANDIRRETRIEVABLECOMMITMENTOFRESOURCES4.10.1ProposedProject.4.10.2Alternatives.4.11SHORT-TERMUSESANDLONGTERM-PRODUCTIVITY4.11.1ProposedProject4.11.2Alternatives....REFERENCES. . . . . . . . . .5.STAFFCONCLUSIONS.5.1SIGNIFICANTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTS5.1.1ProposedProject.5.1.1.1LandResources.5.1.1.1.1GeologyandSoils..5.1.1.1.2LandUseandOwnership5.1.1.2Climate,AirQuality,Noise5.1.1.3WaterQuantityandQuality4-804-804-804-804-804-804-814-824-824-834-834-834-844-844-844-854-864-864-864-864-864-864-874-884-884-884-884-884-884-894-904-904-904-914-914-914-914-924-924-934-934-934-944-944-944-974-984-994-994-1004-1004-1004-1014-1014-1014-1014-1014-1024-1025-15-15-15-15-15-15-15-1 XVCONTENTS(Cont’d)5.1.1.4AquaticCommunities5.1.1.5TerrestrialCommunities5.1.1.5.1PlantCommunities5.1.1.5.2Wildlife5.1.1.6RecreationResources5.1.1.7SocioeconomicFactors5.1.1.8VisualResources5.1.2Alternatives5.1.2.1LandResources5.1.2.1.1GeologyandSoils5.1.2.1.2LandUseandOwnership5.1.2.2Climate,AirQuality,Noise5.1.2.3WaterQuantityandQuality5.1.2.4AquaticCommunities.5.1.2.5TerrestrialCommunities5.1.2.5.1PlantCommunities5.1.2.5.2Wildlife5.1.2.6RecreationResources5.1.2.7SocioeconomicFactors5.1.2.8VisualResources5.1.3No—ActionAlternative5.2RECOMMENDATIONS5.2.1PowerGeneration-5.2.2FlowRegulation5.2.3AccessPlan5.3MITIGATIVEMEASURES5.3.1LandResources5.3.1.1GeologyandSoils5.3.1.2LandUseandOwnership5.3.2Climate,AirQuality,Noise5.3.3WaterQuantityandQuality5.3.4AquaticCommunities5.3.5TerrestrialCommunities.5.3.6RecreationResources5.3.7SocioeconomicFactors5.3.8VisualResources5.3.9CulturalResources5.4RECOMMENDED ANDONGOINGSTUDIES5.4.1LandResources5.4.1.1GeologyandSoils5.4.1.2LandUseandOwnership5.4.2AquaticCommunities5.4.3TerrestrialCommunities.5.4.4RecreationResources5.4.5SocioeconomicFactors5.4.6VisualResourcesREFERENCES5—25—25-25—25-35-35-45-45-45-45-45—55—55—55—55—55—55—55—65-65—65-75—75-85-85-85-85-85-85-95-95-105-115-125-125-135-145-145-145-145-145—155—155—155-155-165-16 6.LISTOFPREPARERS6-1ATTACHMENTII.FORML—2.FEDERALENERGYCOMMISSIONTERMSANDCONDITIONSOFLICENSEFORUNCONSTRUCTEDMAJORPROJECTAFFECTINGLANDSOFTHEUNITEDSTATES8—4APPENDICES:APPENDIXA.LOADGROWTHFORECAST:THEALASKAPOWERAUTHORITYFORECASTSVolume2APPENDIXB.FUTUREENERGYRESOURCESVolume2APPENDIXC.ENERGYCONSERVATIONVolume2APPENDIX0.345—kVTRANSMISSIONLINEELECTRICALENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTSVolume27.LISTOFRECIPIENTS.7-18.ATTACHMENTSATTACHMENTI.COMMISSIONORDER415—D8-18-1 APPENDIXE.GEOLOGYANDSOILSVolume3xvCONTENTS(Cont'd)5.1.1.4AquaticCommunities..5.1.1.5TerrestrialCommunities5.1.1.5.1PlantCommunities5.1.1.5.2Wildlife....5.1.1.6RecreationResources5.1.1.7SocioeconomicFactors5.1.1.8VisualResources5.1.2Alternatives.5.1.2.1LandResources5.1.2.1.1GeologyandSoils5.1.2.1.2LandUseandOwnership5.1.2.2Climate,AirQuality,Noise5.1.2.3WaterQuantityandQuality5.1.2.4AquaticCommunities..5.1.2.5TerrestrialCommunities5.1.2.5.1PlantCommunities5.1.2.5.2Wildlife....5.1.2.6RecreationResources5.1.2.7SocioeconomicFactors5.1.2.8VisualResources5.1.3No-ActionAlternative5.2RECOMMENDATIONS...5.2.1PowerGeneration·5.2.2FlowRegulation5.2.3AccessPlan..5.3MITIGATIVEMEASURES5.3.1LandResources5.3.1.1GeologyandSoils5.3.1.2LandUseandOwnership5.3.2Climate,AirQuality,Noise5.3.3WaterQuantityandQuality5.3.4AquaticCommunities..5.3.5TerrestrialCommunities5.3.6RecreationResources5.3.7SocioeconomicFactors.5.3.8VisualResources5.3.9CulturalResources5.4RECOMMENDEDANDONGOINGSTUDIES5.4.1LandResources.5.4.1.1GeologyandSoils.5.4.1.2LandUseandOwnership5.4.2AquaticCommunities..5.4.3TerrestrialCommunities5.4.4RecreationResources5.4.5SocioeconomicFactors5.4.6VisualResourcesREFERENCES. . . .6.LlSTOFPREPARERS7.LlSTOFRECIPIENTS8.ATTACHMENTS. .ATTACHMENTI.COMMISSIONORDER415-0...ATTACHMENTII.FORML-2.FEDERALENERGYCOMMISSIONTERMSANDCONDITIONSOFLICENSEFORUNCONSTRUCTEDMAJORPROJECTAFFECTINGLANDSOFTHEUNITEDSTATESAPPENDICES:APPENDIXA.LOADGROWTHFORECAST:THEALASKAPOWERAUTHORITYFORECASTSAPPENDIXB.FUTUREENERGYRESOURCESAPPENDIXC.ENERGYCONSERVATIONAPPENDIXO.345-kVTRANSMISSIONLINEELECTRICALENVIRONMENTALEFFECTS5-25-25-25-25-35-35-45-45-45-45-45-55-55-55-55-55-55-55-65-65-65-75-75-85-85-85-85-85-85-95-95-105-115-125-125-135-145-145-145-145-145-155-155-155-155-165-166-17-18-18-18-4Volume2Volume2Volume2Volume2APPENDIXE.GEOLOGYANDSOILS.Volume3 xviCONTENTS(Cont’d)APPENDIXF.LANDUSEANDOWNERSHIPVolume3APPENDIXC.CLIMATE,AIRQUALITY,NOISEVolume3APPENDIXH.WATERRESOURCESVolume4APPENDIXI.FISHERIESANDAQUATICRESOURCESVolume4APPENDIXJ.TERRESTRIALBOTANICALRESOURCESVolume5APPENDIXK.TER1?ESTRIALWILDLIFERESOURCESVolume5APPENDIXL.RECREATIONRESOURCESVolume6APPENDIXN.VISUALRESOURCESVolume6APPENDIXN.SOCIOECONOMICSVolume7APPENDIX0.CULTURALRESOURCESVolume7xviCONTENTS(Cont'd)PageAPPENDIXF.LANDUSEANDDWNERSHIPVolume3APPENDIXG.CLIMATE,AIRQUALITY,NOISEVolume3APPENDIXH.WATERRESOURCES. .Volume4APPENDIXI.FISHERIESANDAQUATICRESOURCESVolume.4APPENDIXJ.TERRESTRIALBOTANICALRESOURCESVolume5APPENDIXK.TERRESTRIALWILDLIFERESDURCESVolume5APPENDIXL.RECREATIDNRESOURCESVolume6APPENDIXM.VISUALRESOURCESVolume6APPENDIXN.SOCIOECONOMICSVolume7APPENDIXO.CULTURALRESOURCESVolume7 FigureCOVERPHOTO:Artist’sRenditionoftheProposedWatanaDamandReservoir1—1TheAlaskaRailwayfromSewardtoEielsonAirForceBase1—2ElectricalTransmissionSystemoftheRailbelt1-3AlternativeAPALoadProjectionsfor1985-2010Comparing DataResources,Inc.,Reference, AlaskaDepartmentofRevenueMean, andAlaskaDepartmentofRevenue30%Cases1-4ProjectedWorldOilPricesin1983DollarsPerBarrel,IncludingPossibleSupplyDisruption1-5PriceofOilUsingVariousForecasts,IncludingDepartmentofEnergy,ShermanH.ClarkAssociates,andAlaskaDepartmentofRevenue1—6FERCStaffLoadProjectionsandSelectedAPALoadProjectionsfor1983—2010,IncludingAPAReference,DepartmentofRevenueMean,FERCHigh,FERCMedium,andDepartmentofRevenue30%Cases1—7MutuallyExclusiveDevelopments1—8SchematicRepresentationofTunnelAlternatives1—9Profile:Watana-DevilCanyonDevelopment1—10Profile:Vee—HighDevilCanyonDevelopment1-11Profile:Susitna111—HighDevilCanyonDevelopment1—12Profile:Watana-Tunnel3Development1-13Profile:Watana—ModifiedHighDevilCanyonDevelopment1-14NaturalGasandPetroleumResourcesoftheRailbeltArea,IncludingNaturalGas,PetroleumProducts,andCrudePipelines1—15MajorCoalResourcesoftheRailbeltArea2-12-12—22-12—32-22—42-22—52-22-62-22—7.. ..2-42—8. . . .2—52-92-52-102-102-112—112-122-152-132—312-142-342—152—332—162—352—172—362—182—382—192—422—20. . ..2-432-212-442—222-413—1LandUsePatternswithintheUpperandMiddleSusitnaRiverBasin. .3-23—2LandOwnershipandManagementPatternsintheUpperandMiddleSusitnaRiverBasin3-43—3MapoftheSusitnaRiverDrainageBasinShowingtheLocationsofU.S.GeologicalSurveyGagingStations3—4Generalized AquaticHabitatTypesImportanttoSalmonintheSusitnaRiver.3—5AnnualHydrographsforMeanDailyFlowsandEstimated10%and90%DailyExceedenceFlowsatFourUSGSGagingStationsontheSusitna River3—6SeasonalPatternsintheMeanAlkalinityandMeanCalciumConcentrationsinSolutionintheSusitnaRiveratVeeCanyon,GoldCreek,andTalkeetnaLISTOFFIGURES1—21-71-111-131-141-171-211-231-251-261—271-281—291-381-41VicinityMap—-SusitnaDevelopmentWatanaReservoirPlanandGeneralizedLocationofBorrowAreas. .WatanaFacilities—-PlanWatanaFacilities——SectionsSiteLayout—-DevilCanyonDevelopmentDevilCanyonReservoirPlanandGeneralized LocationofBorrowAreasSusitnaProject345—kVTransmissionSystemConstructionSchedule-—WatanaConstructionSchedule-—DevilCanyonReservoirRuleCurves-—WatanaandDevilCanyonPlanofProposedAccess RoutesMapShowingRecreationResourceAreasIncludedinApplicant’sProposedRecreationPlanAlternativeAccessCorridorsAlternativeTrarfsmissionLineCorridors--CentralStudyAreaAlternativeTransmissionLineCorridors-—NorthernStudyAreaAlternativeTransmissionLineCorridors-—SouthernStudyAreaLocationsofAlternativeSusitna RiverDevelopmentsLocationofThermalandHydroelectricAlternativesSiteLayout--BrowneDevelopmentSiteLayout-—ChakachamnaDevelopmentSiteLayout-—Keetna DevelopmentSiteLayout-—SnowDevelopment3—63-73-83—11xviiLISTOFFIGURESFigureCOVERPHOTO:Artist'sRenditionoftheProposedWatanaOamandReservoir]-]]-2]-3]-4]-5]-6]-7]-8]-9]-]0]-ll]-]2]-13]-]4]-]52-]2-22-32-42-52-62-72-82-92-]02-112-]22-132-]42-]52-]62-]72-]82-]92-202-2]2-223-]3-23-33-43-53-6TheAlaskaRailwayfromSewardtoEielsonAirForceBase.ElectricalTransmissionSystemoftheRailbelt. . . . .. .AlternativeAPALoadProjectionsfor1985-2010ComparingDataResources,Inc.,Reference,AlaskaDepartmentofRevenueMean,andAlaskaDepartmentofRevenue30%Cases.ProjectedWorldOilPricesin]983OollarsPerBarrel,IncludingPossibleSupplyOisruption.PriceofOilUsingVariousForecasts,IncludingDepartmentofEnergy,ShermanH.ClarkAssociates,andAlaskaDepartmentofRevenue....FERCStaffLoadProjectionsandSelectedAPALoadProjectionsfor]983-20]0,IncludingAPAReference,OepartmentofRevenueMean,FERCHigh,FERCMedium,andDepartmentofRevenue30%Cases. . . . . .MutuallyExc1usiveDeve1opments. .. . . . . .SchematicRepresentationofTunnelAlternatives..Profile:Watana-OevilCanyonDevelopment.Profile:Vee-HighDevilCanyonDevelopment.Profile:SusitnaIII-HighOevilCanyonOevelopmentProfile:Watana-Tunnel3Development.Profile:Watana-ModifiedHighDevilCanyonDevelopmentNaturalGasandPetroleumResourcesoftheRailbeltArea,IncludingNaturalGas,PetroleumProducts,andCrudePipelinesMajorCoalResourcesoftheRailbeltArea....VicinityMap--SusitnaDevelopment.WatanaReservoirPlanandGeneralizedLocationofBorrowAreasWatanaFacilities--Plan.WatanaFacilities--Sections.SiteLayout--OevilCanyonDevelopmentDevilCanyonReservoirPlanandGeneralizedLocationofBorrowAreasSusitnaProject345-kVTransmissionSystemConstructionSchedule--Watana.ConstructionSchedule--DevilCanyon.ReservoirRuleCurves--WatanaandDevilCanyonPlanofProposedAccessRoutes.....MapShowingRecreationResourceAreasIncludedinApplicant1sProposedRecreationPlan.AlternativeAccessCorridors.AlternativeTrartsmissionLineCorridors--CentralStudyArea.AlternativeTransmissionLineCorridors--NorthernStudyAreaAlternativeTransmissionLineCorridors--SouthernStudyAreaLocationsofAlternativeSusitnaRiverDevelopmentsLocationofThermalandHydroelectricAlternativesSiteLayout--BrowneDevelopment...SiteLayout--ChakachamnaDevelopmentSiteLayout--KeetnaDevelopment.SiteLayout--SnowDevelopment.LandUsePatternswithintheUpperandMiddleSusitnaRiverBasinLandOwnershipandManagementPatternsintheUpperandMiddleSusitnaRiverBasin.. . . . . . . . . ...MapoftheSusitnaRiverOrainageBasinShowingtheLocationsofU.S.GeologicalSurveyGagingStations. . . . . . .....GeneralizedAquaticHabitatTypesImportanttoSalmonintheSusitnaRiverAnnualHydrographsforMeanOailyFlowsandEstimated]0%and90%DailyExceedenceFlowsatFourUSGSGagingStationsontheSusitnaRiverSeasonalPatternsintheMeanAlkalinityandMeanCalciumConcentrationsinSolutionintheSusitnaRiveratVeeCanyon,GoldCreek,andTalkeetnaxvii]-2]-7]-ll]-13]-]4]-17]-2]]-23]-25]-26]-27]-28]-29]-38]-4]2-]2-]2-22-22-22-22-42-52-52-]02-112-]52-3]2-342-332-352-362-382-422-432-442-4]3-23-43-63-73-83-11 xviiiFIGURES(Cont’d)3—7SeasonalPatternsintheMeanDissolvedOxygenConcentrationsintheSusitnaRiveratVeeCanyon,GoldCreek,andTalkeetna3-123—8RelationshipintheSusitnaRiveratDevilCanyonBetweenTotal DissolvedGas,ExpressedasPercentSaturation,andDischarge3-133—9SeasonalPatternsintheMeanConcentrationsofDissolvedSolidsandSuspendedSolids intheSusitnaRiveratVeeCanyon,GoldCreek,andTalkeetna3-143—10ComparisonofAveragedDiurnalTemperatureFluctuationsintheMainstemandSlough21DuringSeptember19813—163-11UpperCookInletandtheSusitnaDrainage,ShowingPercentofSalmonMigratingPastSunshineStationthatPassTalkeetnaandCurryStations,andtheRelativeSizesofRunsPasttheYentnaandSunshineStations3—183—12GeneralizedLifeCyclesofthe FivePacificSalmonintheSusitna RiverDrainage3-193—13GeneralizedLifeCyclesofAnadromousEulachonandBeringCiscointheSusitnaRiverDrainage3—223—14TimingofStagesofSalmonintheSusitna RiverfromTalkeetnatoDevilCanyon3—233—15CommercialCatchofSalmonintheUpperCookInlet,bySpecies,1954—19823—263—16GeneralVegetationDistributioninSouthcentralAlaskaandLocationsofProposedDamSites,Non-SusitnaAlternativeHydropowerSites,andAlternativeThermalUnitSites3-273-17LocationsofCreeksandWaterBodiesintheUpperandMiddleSusitnaBasinAroundWhichWetlandsHave BeenIdentified3—323-18SchematicRepresentationofRecreationFeaturesintheSusitnaProjectArea. .3—363-19LegendforFigure3—183—373-20MapoftheLocationofSusitnaHydropowerProjectStructuresandFeaturesoftheSocioeconomicEnvironment3393-21ViewsofSelectedLandscapeCharacterTypesandProminentNaturalFeaturesoftheUpperanØMiddleSusitnaBasin3—503-22SelectedLandscapeCharacterTypesandProminentNaturalFeaturesAlongtheProposedTransmissionLineCorridor3—513-23MajorCulturalResourceSiteGroupsintheMiddleandUpperSusitnaBasin3543—24LocationsofSusitnaHydropowerAlternativesandFeaturesoftheSocioeconomicEnvironment3—604—1ComparisonofMedianMonthlyStreamflowatGold CreekbeforeandduringtheFillingofWatanaReservoir4—84—2ComparisonofMaximum,Nean, andMinimumMonthlyFlowsatGoldCreekunderPreprojectConditions,WatanaOperation,andCombinedWatana/DevilCanyonOperation4—104—3AnnualFloodFrequencyCurvesatGoldCreekforPreprojectConditions,OperationofWatanaReservoir,andCombinedWatana/DevilCanyonOperation4—114—4ChangesinWettedSurfaceAreaofSelectedSloughsduringProjectFillingandOperation4—124—5FrequencyofOccurrenceofAcuteAccessLimitationsforSalmontoNineSideSloughsaboveTalkeetna4—144-6SchematicDiagramofIntakeFlowFieldunderIsothermalConditions,StrongStratificationandaDeepThermocline,StrongStratificationandaShallowThermocline,andaWeakVerticalTemperatureGradient4—224-7PredictedDownstreamWaterTemperatureResultingfromCombinedDamOperationunderLateFall/EarlyWinterConditions4—244-8PredictedEarlyEmergenceofPinkandChumSalmon4—284—9IncubationRatesforChumSalmon EmbryosSpawnedonAugust15underDifferentTemperatureScenarios4-294—10TemperatureandCumulativeGrowthforJuvenileSockeyeSalmonintheSusitnaRiverbetweenDevilCanyonandTalkeetna,beforeandaftertheProject4-314—11GeneralRangesforMooseOverwintering inUpperandMiddleSusitnaBasin,1977—19824-394-12GeneralRangesforMooseCalvinginUpperandMiddleSusitnaBasin,1977-1982.4-404-13GeneralPathwaysforSeasonalMovementoftheNenana—UpperSusitnaSubherdofCaribou4-424-14GeneralExtentof SuitableBlackBearHabitatinUpperandMiddleSusitnaBasin 4-444-15GeneralLocationofPrimePeregrineHabitatwithintheProposedTransmissionLineCorridor4—464-16ArtistsRenditionoftheProposedWatanaDamandReservoir4-654-17ArtistsRenditionoftheProposedDevilCanyonDamandReservoir4—673-73-83-93-103-113-123-143-153-163-173-183-193-203-213-223-233-244-14-24-34-44-54-64-74-84-94-104-114-124-134-144-154-164-17xviiiFIGURES(Cont'd)SeasonalPatternsintheMeanDissolvedOxygenConcentrationsintheSusitnaRiveratVeeCanyon,GoldCreek,andTalkeetna.........RelationshipintheSusitnaRiveratDevilCanyonBetweenTotalDissolvedGas,ExpressedasPercentSaturation.andDischarge. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .SeasonalPatternsintheMeanConcentrationsofDissolvedSolidsandSuspendedSolidsintheSusitnaRiveratVeeCanyon,GoldCreek,andTalkeetnaComparisonofAveragedDiurnalTemperatureFluctuationsintheMainstemandSlough21OuringSeptember1981. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .UpperCookInletandtheSusitnaDrainage,ShowingPercentofSalmonMigratingPastSunshineStationthatPassTalkeetnaandCurryStations,andtheRelativeSizesofRunsPasttheYentnaandSunshineStations.....GeneralizedLifeCyclesoftheFivePacificSalmonintheSusitnaRiverDrainage.GeneralizedLifeCyclesofAnadromousEulachonandBeringCiscointheSusitnaRiverDrainage.TimingofStagesofSalmonintheSusitnaRiverfromTalkeetnatoDevilCanyonCommercialCatchofSalmonintheUpperCookInlet,bySpecies,1954-1982...GeneralVegetationDistributioninSouthcentralAlaskaandLocationsofProposedDamSites,Non-SusitnaAlternativeHydropowerSites,andAlternativeThermalUnitSites. . . . . . . . . ...LocationsofCreeksandWaterBodiesintheUpperandMiddleSusitnaBasinAroundWhichWetlandsHaveBeenIdentified.SchematicRepresentationofRecreationFeaturesintheSusitnaProjectArea...LegendforFigure3-18.MapoftheLocationofSusitnaHydropowerProjectStructuresandFeaturesoftheSocioeconomicEnvironment. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ViewsofSelectedLandscapeCharacterTypesandProminentNaturalFeaturesoftheUpperandMiddleSusitnaBasin.Se1ected'LandscapeCharacterTypesandProminentNaturalFeaturesAlongtheProposedTransmissionLineCorridor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .MajorCulturalResourceSiteGroupsintheMiddleandUpperSusitnaBasin.LocationsofSusitnaHydropowerAlternativesandFeaturesoftheSocioeconomicEnvironment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ComparisonofMedianMonthlyStreamflowatGoldCreekbeforeandduringtheFilling0fWatanaReservoir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ComparisonofMaximum,Mean,andMinimumMonthlyFlowsatGoldCreekunderPreprojectConditions,WatanaOperation,andCombinedWatana/DevilCanyonOperation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .AnnualFloodFrequencyCurvesatGoldCreekforPreprojectConditions,OperationofWatanaReservoir,andCombinedWatana/DevilCanyonOperation.....ChangesinWettedSurfaceAreaofSelectedSloughsduringProjectFillingandOperation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....FrequencyofOccurrenceofAcuteAccessLimitationsforSalmontoNineSideSloughsaboveTalkeetna.SchematicDiagramofIntakeFlowFieldunderIsothermalConditions,StrongStratificationandaDeepThermocline,StrongStratificationandaShallowThermocline,andaWeakVertica1TemperatureGradient. . . . . . . . . . .PredictedDownstreamWaterTemperatureResultingfromCombinedDamOperationunderLateFall/EarlyWinterConditions'. . . . . . .PredictedEarlyEmergenceofPinkandChumSalmon.. . . . . . .IncubationRatesforChumSalmonEmbryosSpawnedonAugust15underDifferentTemperatureScenarios.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....TemperatureandCumulativeGrowthforJuvenileSockeyeSalmonintheSusitnaRiverbetweenDevilCanyonandTalkeetna,beforeandaftertheProjectGeneralRangesforMooseOverwinteringinUpperandMiddleSusitnaBasin,1977-1982. . . . . . . . . . . . . .....GeneralRangesforMooseCalvinginUpperandMiddleSusitnaBasin,1977-1982GeneralPathwaysforSeasonalMovementoftheNenana-UpperSusitnaSubherdofCaribou.GeneralExtentofSuitableBlackBearHabitatinUpperandMiddleSusitnaBasinGeneralLocationofPrimePeregrineHabitatwithintheProposedTransmissionLineCorridor......ArtistISRenditionoftheProposedWatanaDamandReservoir . . .ArtistISRenditionoftheProposedOevi1CanyonDamandReservoir . . . . . .3-123-133-143-163-183-193-223-233-263-273-323-363-373-393-503-513-543-604-84-104-114-124-144-224-244-284-294-314-394-404-424-444-464-654-67 LISTOFTABLESTable1-11981AlaskanFuelConsumption1-41-2ComparativeCostforHeatingFuelsintheRailbeltfor19811-51-3CapacityandGenerationforRailbeltUtilityGeneratingStations,19821-61-4HydroelectricPlantsintheRailbelt1-81-5ScheduleofPlannedUtilityAdditions1-81—6APAReferenceCase,WorldOil PriceScenario1-101-7APAReferenceCase,RailbeltLoadProjection,1983—20101-101—8APALoadProjections RelativetotheReferenceCaseForecast1-121—9AnnualLoadGrowthImpliedbyAPAForecasts1-121—10RailbeltLoadForecast,FERCStaffMediumWorldOilPriceScenario,1983-2022..1—161—11RailbeltLoadForecast,FERCStaffHighWorldOil PriceScenario,1983-2022.. .1—161—12SystemGenerationCapability--SelectedYears1—181—13SusitnaScheduleofRetirements1—181—14PotentialSusitnaBasinHydroelectricDevelopments1—201—15DataonStaffSusitnaBasinAlternatives1—241—16SummaryofResultsofScreeningProcess1—311-17ShortlistedSites1-321-18DataonStaffNon—SusitriaBasinAlternatives1—321-19SummaryofOPCOSTDataonSusitnaBasinAlternatives,ProposedProjectandPreferredAlternatives1—361-20SummaryofOPCOSTDataonPreferredNon—SusitnaBasinDevelopment Plans1—371-21CookInletGasScenarioCost ComparisonwithProposedSusitnaProject;PresentWorthandLevelizedTotalAnnualCost—-$1061—391-22LoadForecastUsedforThermalAlternativesEvaluation1—401—23FuelPriceProjections1—401-24NenanaCoalScenarioCostComparisonwithSusitna;PresentWorthandLevelizedTotalAnnualCost—-$1061-421—25Comparisonof SusitnaBasinandNon—SusitnaBasinHydroelectricDevelopmentPlans1-441—26ComparisonofThermalDevelopmentPlans1-442—1OnsiteConstructionandOperationsWorkforceRequirements—-1985to20022-72—2MonthlyFlowRequirementsatGoldCreek2-92—3ImpactsIssuesandtheApplicant’sProposedMitigationFeaturesforAnticipatedFillingandOperationalImpactstoAquaticHabitats,SusitnaHydroelectricProject2—262—4PlantAdditionTechnicalParametersandEconomicAssumptions--Combined-CycleandCombustion—TurbineUnits2—372—5PlantAdditionTechnicalParametersandEconomicAssumptions—-Coal-FiredandCombustion—TurbineUnits2—402—6RequiredThermalResources-—MediumLoadGrowth2—452-7MinimumFlowsfortheAlternativeHydroSites2—473-1Descriptions ofGeneralizedVegetationClassesUsedforMappinginFigure3—163—283—2ViereckandDyrnessVegetationTypesMostLikelytoOccurwithintheVegetationClassesDelineatedinFigure3—163—303—3ExistingTrailsintheSusitnaProjectRecreationStudyArea3—353-4BaselinePopulationProjections,1970-20103—403—5Mat—SuBoroughPlanningDepartmentBaselinePopulationProjections3—423-6TotalLaborForceandUnemployment RatesforProposedProjectAreaandTransmissionLineRoute,1976through19813433—7BaselineProjectionsofNumberofHouseholds,1970-20103—453-8ExistingorPlannedCapacityofCommunityServicesofProject-Area-Communities3—463-9YearsWhenCommunityServiceNeedsWillEqualExistingorPlannedCapacityinProject-AreaCommunitiesUsingISERPopulationProjections3473—10YearsWhenCommunityServiceNeedsWillEqualExistingorPlannedCapacityUsingMat-SuBoroughPopulationProjections3—48xixTable1-11-21-31-41-51-61-71-81-91-101-111-121-131-141-151-161-171-181-191-201-211-221-231-241-251-262-12-22-32-42-52-62-73-13-23-33-43-53-63-73-83-93-10LISTOFTABLES1981AlaskanFuelConsumption.ComparativeCostforHeatingFuelsintheRailbeltfor1981.CapacityandGenerationforRailbeltUtilityGeneratingStations,1982HydroelectricPlantsintheRailbelt.ScheduleofPlannedUtilityAdditions.APAReferenceCase,WorldOilPriceScenario.APAReferenceCase,RailbeltLoadProjection,1983-2010APALoadProjectionsRelativetotheReferenceCaseForecastAnnualLoadGrowthImpliedbyAPAForecasts.RailbeltLoadForecast,FERCStaffMediumWorldOilPriceScenario,1983-2022RailbeltLoadForecast,FERCStaffHighWorldOilPriceScenario,1983-2022SystemGenerationCapability--SelectedYearsSusitnaScheduleofRetirements.Potential5usitnaBasinHydroelectricDevelopmentsDataonStaffSusitnaBasinAlternativesSummaryofResultsofScreeningProcess.ShortlistedSites.DataonStaffNon-SusitnaBasinAlternativesSummaryofOPCOSTDataonSusitnaBasinAlternatives,ProposedProjectandPreferredAlternatives.SummaryofOPCOSTDataonPreferredNon-SusitnaBasinDevelopmentPlans..CookInletGasScenarioCostComparisonwithProposedSusitnaProject;PresentWorthandLevelizedTotalAnnualCost--$106.....LoadForecastUsedforThermalAlternativesEvaluationFuelPriceProjections.NenanaCoalScenarioCostComparisonwithSusitna;PresentWorthandLevelizedTotalAnnualCost-_$106. . . . . ..ComparisonofSusitnaBasinandNon-SusitnaBasinHydroelectricDevelopmentPlans. . . . . .. . . . . . . .ComparisonofThermalDevelopmentPlans..OnsiteConstructionandOperationsWorkforceRequirements--1985to2002MonthlyFlowRequirementsatGoldCreek.ImpactsIssuesandtheApplicant'sProposedMitigationFeaturesforAnticipatedFillingandOperationalImpactstoAquaticHabitats,SusitnaHydroelectricProject.. . . . . . . . . . .....PlantAdditionTechnicalParametersandEconomicAssumptions--Combined-CycleandCombustion-TurbineUnits.. ....PlantAdditionTechnicalParametersandEconomicAssumptions--Coal-FiredandCombustion-TurbineUnits.....RequiredThermalResources--MediumLoadGrowthMinimumFlowsfortheAlternativeHydroSites.DescriptionsofGeneralizedVegetationClassesUsedforMappinginFigure3-16.ViereckandOyrnessVegetationTypesMostLikelytoOccurwithintheVegetationClassesDelineatedinFigure3-16.ExistingTrailsintheSusitnaProjectRecreationStUdyAreaBaselinePopulationProjections,1970-2010.Mat-SuBoroughPlanningDepartmentBaselinePopulationProjectionsTotalLaborForceandUnemploymentRatesforProposedProjectAreaandTransmissionLineRoute,1976through1981.BaselineProjectionsofNumberofHouseholds,1970-2010.ExistingorPlannedCapacityofCommunityServicesofProject-AreaCommunities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .YearsWhenCommunityServiceNeedsWillEqualExistingorPlannedCapacityinProject-AreaCommunitiesUsingISERPopulationProjectionsYearsWhenCommunityServiceNeedsWillEqualExistingorPlannedCapacityUsingMat-SuBoroughPopulationProjections.xixPage1-41-51-61-81-81-101-101-121-121-161-161-181-181-201-241-311-321-321-361-371-391-401-401-421-441-442-72-92-262-372-402-452-473-283-303-353-403-423-433-453-463-473-48 xxTABLES(Contd)Page3—11WatershedandStream FlowCharacteristicsofAlternative,Out—of-BasinHydroelectricProjects3-663-12SummaryofFive—YearAverageSportFishHarvestsinRiverBasinsthatIncludeAlternativeHydropowerSites3—673-13EstimatedSalmonEscapementfromtheChakachamnaRegion,19823—684-1MinimumFlowsatGoldCreekfromtheProposedProjectandaComparisontoNaturalFlowRegimeStatistics494—2ChangeinPotentialSummerGrowthofJuvenileSalmonintheTalkeetna—to—MouthReachDuetoFillingofWatanaReservoirandOperationofWatanaandDevilCanyonDams4-274—3AcreagesofPermanentandTemporaryVegetationandWetlandRemovalDuetotheProposedSusitnaProjectandAcreagesofVegetationandWetlandDisturbedbyProposedPowerTransmissionCorridors4344—4CumulativeDistributionofProjectedProjectPopulationtoImpact—AreaCommunitiesforAlternateYears,1990,and20024-514—5CumulativeDistributionofAnnualProject—InducedPopulationtoMat-SuBoroughCommunitiesasProjectedbyApplicantandMat-SuBoroughPlanningDepartment.4—524—6CumulativeProjectionsofTotal PopulationIncludingSusitnaProject—InducedPopulation,asMadebyApplicantandMat-SuBoroughforAlternateYears,1990,and20024—534-7PercentageoverBaselineISERProjectionsofPopulationGrowthProjectedwithSusitnaProject4—544-8CumulativeProjectedNumberofHouseholdsinImpactAreaCommunitiesforAlternateYears,1990,and20024574-9AdditionalCommunityServicesRequirementsoverBaselineforProject-InducedPopulationin19904—594—10YearsWhenExistingorPlannedCommunityServicesCapacityofProjectAreaCommunitiesWouldBeExceeded4-614—11ComparisonofStorageVolume,ReservoirArea,andMilesofStreamInundatedforIn—BasinHydroAlternatives4-714—12ComparisonofEstimatedQuantifiableandUnquantifiableDisturbancetoVegetationAmongthePowerGenerationScenarios4954—13RelativePotentialforImpactstoWildlifeasaResultofAlternativeGenerationScenarios4-963-663-673-684-714-274-344-94-534-524-514-614-544-574-594-954-96TA8LES(Cont'd)WatershedandStreamFlowCharacteristicsofAlternative,Out-of-BasinHydroelectricProjects.SummaryofFive-YearAverageSportFishHarvestsinRiverBasinsthatIncludeAlternativeHydropowerSites.EstimatedSalmonEscapementfromtheChakachamnaRegion,1982....MinimumFlowsatGoldCreekfromtheProposedProjectandaComparisontoNaturalFlowRegimeStatistics.ChangeinPotentialSummerGrowthofJuvenileSalmonintheTalkeetna-to-MouthReachDuetoFillingofWatanaReservoirandOperationofWatanaandDevilCanyonDams. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .AcreagesofPermanentandTemporaryVegetationandWetlandRemovalDuetotheProposedSusitnaProjectandAcreagesofVegetationandWetlandDisturbedbyProposedPowerTransmissionCorridors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .CumulativeDistributionofProjectedProjectPopulationtoImpact-AreaCommunitiesforAlternateYears,1990,and2002.CumulativeDistributionofAnnualProject-InducedPopulationtoMat-SuBoroughCommunitiesasProjectedbyApplicantandMat-SuBoroughPlanningDepartmentCumulativeProjectionsofTotalPopulationIncludingSusitnaProject-InducedPopulation,asMadebyApplicantandMat-SuBoroughforAlternateYears,1990,and2002. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .PercentageoverBaselineISERProjectionsofPopulationGrowthProjectedwithSusitnaProject.CumulativeProjectedNumberofHouseholdsinImpactAreaCommunitiesforAHernateYears,1990,and2002. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .AdditionalCommunityServicesRequirementsoverBaselineforProject-InducedPopulationin1990.YearsWhenExistingorPlannedCommunityServicesCapacityofProjectAreaCommunitiesWouldBeExceeded.. . . ...ComparisonofStorageVolume,ReservoirArea,andMilesofStreamInundatedforIn-BasinHydroAlternatives.. . . . . . . . . . ......ComparisonofEstimatedQuantifiableandUnquantifiableDisturbancetoVegetationAmongthePowerGenerationScenarios. ....RelativePotentialforImpactstoWildlifeasaResultofAlternativeGenerationScenarios. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xx3-113-123-134-14-24-34-44-5ill4-64-74-84-94-104-114-124-13 SUMMARYTheactionbeforetheFederalEnergyRegulatoryCommission(FERC)isanapplicationforalicensetoconstructandoperatetheproposedSusitnaHydroelectricProject,FERCNo.7114.TheApplicant,AlaskaPowerAuthority,seeksauthorizationtoconstructandoperateahydroelectricgeneratingsystemlocatedontheSusitnaRiver,approximately140milesCmi)[220kilometers(km)]north-northeastofAnchorage,Alaska.Thesystemwouldbecomprisedoftwodams(WatanaandDevilCanyon),reservoirs,andpowerhouseswithaninstalledcapacity ofapproximately1,620megawatts(MW)producinganaverageofapproximately6,570gigawatthours(GWh)annually.TheApplicantproposestoutilizethepowerandenergydevelopedbytheSusitnaprojecttoservetheneedsofcustomerswithintheRailbeltregionofAlaska. ThisregionincludesAnchorageandFairbanks,thetwolargestcitiesinAlaska,aswellasmostofthepopulation ofthestate.TheSusitnaHydroelectricProjectwouldutilizewatersoftheSusitnaRiverforpowerproduction.TheSusitnaprojectwouldnotinvolveaconsumptiveuseofwater,becauseallwaterwouldbereturnedtotheriverviathepowerplanttailraceorspillways.WatanadamwouldbelocatedatRiver Mile(RM)184approximately2.5mi(4km)upstreamoftheconfluencewithTsusenaCreek.Thisearth-rockfilldamwouldhaveaimperviouscentralcoreprotectedbyfineandcoarsefilters.Thenominalcrestelevationofthedamwouldbe2,205feet(ft)[672meters(m)]MSL,withamaximumheightof885ft(270m)abovethefoundationandacrestlengthof4,100ft(1,250m).Thetotalvolumeofthestructurewouldbeapproximately62millionyd3(47millionm3)offill.TheWatanadamwouldcreateareservoirapproximately48mi(77km)long,withasurfaceareadf38,000acres[15,400hectares(ha)],andagrossstoragecapacity of9millionacre-feet(ac-ft)[1.2x1010cubicmeters(m3)]withthewatersurfaceatelevation2185ft(666m)MSL,thenormalmaximumoperatinglevel.Themaximumwatersurfaceelevationofthereservoirwouldbe2201ft(678m)MSL,andtheminimumoperatinglevelofthereservoirwouldbe2,065ft(629m)MSL,providingalivestorageof3millionac-ft(4.6xio~m3).TheDevilCanyondamwouldbelocatedattheupstreamentranceoftheDevilCanyongorgeatRN152approximately32mi(51km)downstreamfromWatanadam.TheDevilCanyondamwouldbeathinarchconcretestructure646ft(197m)highwithacrestlength—to—heightratioofapproximatelytwo.Thedamwouldhaveacrestelevationof1,463ft(446m)MSLandbesupportedbymassconcretethrustblocksoneachabutment.Onthesouthabutment,the lowerbedrocksurfacewouldrequiretheconstructionofalargethrustblockandadjacenttothisthrustblock,a245—ft(75-m)highearthandrockfillsaddledamtoprovideclosuretothesouthbank.ThesaddledamwouldbeacentralcoretypesimilarincrosssectiontotheWatanadam.TheDevilCanyondamwouldformareservoirapproximately26mi(42km)longwithawatersurfaceareaof7,800acres(3,200ha)andagrossstoragecapacity of1millionac—ft(1.4xiO~m3)atelevation1,455ft(443m)MSL,thenormalmaximumoperatinglevel.Themaximumwatersurfaceelevationofthereservoirwouldbe1,466ft(447m)MSL,andtheminimumoperatinglevelwouldbe1,405ft(428m)MSL,providingalivestorageof0.35millionac-ft(4.3x1O~m3).TheconstructionandoperationoftheSusitnadevelopmentwouldrequirefacilitiesto supporttheconstructionactivitiesthroughouttheentireconstructionperiod.ThemostsignificantfacilitywouldbeacombinationtemporarycampandvillageconstructedandmaintainedattheWatanaprojectsite.Thecamp/villagewouldbealargely self—sufficientcommunityhousingupto3,300 peopleduringconstructionoftheproject.Uponcompletionofconstruction,mostofthisfacilitywouldbedismantledandthearearehabilitated.Thedismantledbuildingsandotheritemsfromthecampwouldbeused,totheextentpossible,duringconstructionoftheDevilCanyondevelopment.TheDevilCanyoncamp/villagewouldprovidehousingandlivingfacilitiesfor1,800peopleduringconstruction.TheDevilCanyoncamp/villagewouldbecompletelydismantledandthesiterehabilitatedafterconstruction.Other tempo*arysitefacilitieswouldincludecontractors’workareasandroadsandonsitefacilitiestoprovidepower,services,andcommunications.Permanentfacilitieswouldincludeatownorsmallcommunityforapproximately130staffmembersandtheirfamilieslocatedattheWatanasite.Otherpermanentfacilitieswouldincludeamaintenancebuildingandairstripforuseduringoperationofthepowerplant.Transmissionandsubstationadditionswouldbeconstructed instageskeyedtothedifferingdatesforWatanaandDevilCanyongeneration.TransmissionfacilitiestobeconstructedforWatanawouldinclude:(1)two37—mi(59-kin),single—circuit,345—ky(kilovolt)outlettransmissionlinestoconnectthepowerhousesubstation withanewsubstationlocatedatGold CreekxxiSUMMARYTheactionbeforetheFederalEnergyRegulatoryCommission(FERC)isanapplicationforalicensetoconstructandoperatetheproposedSusitnaHydroelectricProject,FERCNo.7114.TheApplicant,AlaskaPowerAuthority,seeksauthorizationtoconstructandoperateahydroelectricgeneratingsystemlocatedontheSusitnaRiver,approximately140miles(mi)[220kilometers(km)]north-northeastofAnchorage,Alaska.Thesystemwouldbecomprisedoftwodams(WatanaandDevilCanyon),reservoirs,andpowerhouseswithaninstalledcapacityofapproximately1,620megawatts(MW)producinganaverageofapproximately6,570gigawatthours(GWh)annually.TheApplicantproposestoutilizethepowerandenergydevelopedbytheSusitnaprojecttoservetheneedsofcustomerswithintheRailbeltregionofAlaska.ThisregionincludesAnchorageandFairbanks,thetwolargestcitiesinAlaska,aswellasmostofthepopulationofthestate.TheSusitnaHydroelectricProjectwouldutilizewatersoftheSusitnaRiverforpowerproduction.TheSusitnaprojectwouldnotinvolveaconsumptiveuseofwater,becauseallwaterwouldbereturnedtotheriverviathepowerplanttailraceorspillways.WatanadamwouldbelocatedatRiverMile(RM)184approximately2.5mi(4km)upstreamoftheconfluencewithTsusenaCreek.Thisearth-rockfilldamwouldhaveaimperviouscentralcoreprotectedbyfineandcoarsefilters.Thenominalcrestelevationofthedamwouldbe2,205feet(ft)[672meters(m)]MSL,withamaximumheightof885ft(270m)abovethefoundationandacrestlengthof4,100ft(1,250m).Thetotalvolumeofthestructurewouldbeapproximately62mi11ionyd3(47mi11ionm3)offill.TheWatanadamwouldcreateareservoirapproximately48,mi(77km)long,withasurfaceareacif38,000acres[15,400hectares(ha)],andagrossstoragecapacityof9millionacre-feet(ac-ft)[1.2x10'0cubicmeters(mS)]withthewatersurfaceatelevation2185ft(666m)MSL,thenormalmaximumoperatinglevel.Themaximumwatersurfaceelevationofthereservoirwouldbe2201ft(678m)MSL,andtheminimumoperatinglevelofthereservoirwouldbe2,065ft(629m)MSL,providingalivestorageof3millionac-ft(4.6x109m3).TheDevilCanyondamwouldbelocatedattheupstreamentranceoftheDevilCanyongorgeatRM152approximately32mi(51km)downstreamfromWatanadam.TheDevilCanyondamwouldbeathinarchconcretestructure646ft(197m)highwithacrestlength-to-heightratioofapproxi-matelytwo.Thedamwouldhaveacreste1,evationof1,463ft(446m)MSLandbesupportedbymassconcretethrustblocksoneachabutment.Onthesouthabutment,thelowerbedrocksurfacewouldrequiretheconstructionofalargethrustblockandadjacenttothisthrustblock,a245-ft(75-m)highearthandrockfillsaddledamtoprovideclosuretothesouthbank.ThesaddledamwouldbeacentralcoretypesimilarincrosssectiontotheWatanadam.TheDevilCanyondamwouldformareservoirapproximately26mi(42km)longwithawatersurfaceareaof7,800acres(3,200halandagrossstoragecapacityof1millionac-ft(1.4x109m3)ateleva-tion1,455ft(443m)MSL,thenormalmaximumoperatinglevel.Themaximumwatersurfaceeleva-tionofthereservoirwouldbe1,466ft(447m)MSL,andtheminimumoperatinglevelwouldbe1,405ft(428m)MSL,providingalivestorageof0.35millionac-ft(4.3x108m3).TheconstructionandoperationoftheSusitnadevelopmentwouldrequirefacilitiestosupporttheconstructionactivitiesthroughouttheentireconstructiOnperiad.ThemostsignificantfacilitywouldbeacombinationtemporarycampandvillageconstructedandmaintainedattheWatanaprojectsite.Thecamp/villagewouldbealargelyself-sufficientcommunityhousingupto3,300peopleduringconstructionoftheproject.Uponcompletionofconstruction,mostofthisfacilitywou1dbedismant1edandthearearehabi1itated.Thedismant1edbuildingsandotheritemsfromthecampwouldbeused,totheextentpossible,duringconstructionoftheDevilCanyondevelopment.TheDevilCanyoncamp/villagewouldprovidehousingandlivingfacili-tiesfor1,800peopleduringconstruction.TheDevi1Canyoncamp/vi11agewouldbecompletelydismantledandthesiterehabilitatedafterconstruction.OthertemporarysitefacilitieswouldincludecontractorsIworkareasandroadsandonsitefacilitiestoprovidepower,services,andcommunications.Permanentfacilitieswouldincludeatownorsmallcommunityforapproximately130staffmembersandtheirfamilieslocatedattheWatanasite.Otherpermanentfaci1itieswouldincludeamaintenancebuildingandairstripforuseduringoperationofthepowerplant.TransmissionandsubstationadditionswouldbeconstructedinstageskeyedtothedifferingdatesforWatanaandDevilCanyongeneration.TransmissionfacilitiestobeconstructedforWatanawouldinclude:(1)two37-mi(59-km),single-circuit,345-kV(kilovolt)outlettrans-missionlinestoconnectthepowerhousesubstationwithanewsubstationlocatedat.GoldCreekxxi xxiiontheexistingHealy-to—Willowline(whichwouldthenbeupgradedto345kV),(2)asecond345-kyline,170mi(270km)long,fromHealytoWillowparallelingtheexistingline,(3)apairofsingle-circuit,345-kylines,63mi(101km)long, extendingfromWillowtothenewKnikArmandUniversitysubstations intheAnchoragearea,and(4)apairofsingle—circuit345-kylines,100mi(160km)long, extendingfromHealytothenewEstersubstationwestofFairbanks.TransmissionfacilitiestobeconstructedforDevilCanyonwouldinclude: (1)8ml(13km)of345-ky,double—circuitoutlettransmissionfromthepowerhousesubstation totheGoldCreeksubstation,and(2)anadditional345-kycircuit,123mi(197km)long,fromGoldCreektoKnikArm,parallelingthepreviouslyconstructedtwosingle-circuitlines.TheApplicant’sproposedaccessplanwouldprovideforrailandroadtransportofthenecessarymaterials,equipment,andpersonneltotheWatana—DevilCanyonconstructionsites.Arailheadandstoragefacilitycoveringapproximately40acres(16 ha)wouldbeconstructedatCantwellalong theexistingAlaskaRailroad.Fromthisfacility,accesstotheWatanasitewouldbealonganexistingroad,2mi(3km)totheintersectionoftheGeorgeParksandDenaliHighways,theneasterlyalong theDenaliHighw~yfor21.3mi(34.1km)toanewroad.ThenewroadwouldbeconstructedtotheWatanacampsiteapproximately42mi(67km)duesouthfromtheDenaliHighway.AccesstotheDevilCanyonsitewouldbealonganewroad,approximately20mi(30km)inlength,constructedfromtheWatanaaccessroad.Ahigh—level suspensionbridgewouldberequiredwheretheaccessroadwouldcrosstheSusitnaRiverdownstreamoftheDevilCanyondam.RailaccesstotheDevilCanyonsitewouldrequireconstruction ofaspurbetweentheexistingAlaskaRailroadatGoldCreekandthecampsite.TheApplicant’sproposedconstructionschedulespansaperiodfromApril1985,beginningwithaccessroadconstructionatWatana,toOctober2002,whencommercialoperationofDevilCanyonunitswouldbegin.ThisscheduleispredicatedontheawardingofaFERClicenseby December31,1984.Twoconstraintswereconsideredinthedevelopmentofthisschedule:theissuancedateoftheFERClicenseandtheneedtohavefour unitsonlinebyJanuary1994inordertomeetRailbeltloadgrowthasprojectedbytheApplicant.Thecriticalpathofactivitiestomeettheseconstraintswouldbethroughsiteaccess,sitefacilities,diversion,andmaindamconstruction.Theproposedschedulewouldrequirethatextensiveplanning,bidselection,andcommitmentsbemadebeforetheendof1984topermitworktoprogressonscheduleduring1985and1986.Year-roundroad accesstothesitewouldberequiredbyOctober1,1985;equipmentwouldbetransportedoverlandviawintertrailduringthewinterof1984inorderforanairfieldtobeconstructedbyJuly1985.Thiswouldallowsitefacilitiestobedevelopedinaveryshorttimetosupport themainconstructionactivities.Acamptohouseapproximately1,000peoplewouldbeconstructedduringthefirst18months.Onsitepowergeneratingequipmentwouldhavetobeinstalledin1985tosupplypowerforcampandconstructionactivities,andanaggregateprocessingplantandconcretebatchingplantwouldhavetobeoperational tostartdiversiontunnel concreteworkbyApril1986.Excavationoftheaccesstunnelintothepowerhousecomplexwouldstartinlate1987.StageIconcretewouldbeginin1989,andinstallationofmajormechanicalandelectricalworkwouldstartin1991.Constructionofthetransmissionlinesandswitchyardshasbeenscheduledtobeginin1989andtobecompletedbeforecommissioningofthefirstunit.Thefirstfour unitsare scheduledtobe onlinebythebeginning of1994andtheremainingtwounitsinearly1994.ThescheduleforDevilCanyonw~sdevelopedtomeettheon-linepowerrequirementofallfourunitsin2002.Thecriticalpathofactivitieswasdeterminedtofollowthroughsitefacilities,diversion,andmaindamconstruction.ThedevelopmentofsitefacilitiesatDevilCanyonwouldbeginslowlyin1994,witharapidaccelerationin1995through1997.IthasbeenassumedthatsiteaccessbuilttoWatanawouldexistatthestartofconstruction.Aroad wouldbeconstructedconnectingtheDevilCanyonsitetotheWatanaaccessroad,includingahigh-levelbridgeovertheSusitnaRiverdownstreamoftheDevilCanyonDam.Atthesametime,arailroadspurwouldbeconstructedtopermitrailaccesstothesouthernbankoftheSusitnanearDevilCanyon.Theseactivitieswouldbecompletedbymid—1994.Withinashortperiodoftimethereafter,constructionwouldbeginonmostmajorstructures.Excavationandconcretingofthesinglediversiontunnelwouldbeginin1995.Riverclosureandcofferdamconstructionwouldtakeplaceto permitstartofdamconstructionin1996.Theconstructionofthearchdamwouldbethemostcriticalconstructionactivityfromstartofexcavationin1996untiltoppingoutin2001.Excavationofaccessintothepowerhousecavernwouldbeginin1996.StageIconcretewouldbeginin1998,andinstallationofmajormechanicalandelectricalworkwouldstartin2000.Thespillwayandintakewouldbescheduledforcompletionbytheendof2000topermitreservoirfillingthenextyear.TheadditionaltransmissionfacilitiesneededforDevilCanyonwouldbescheduledforcompletionbythetimethefinalunitwasreadyforcommissioninginlate2001.WorkforcerequirementsforconstructionoftheWatanadevelopmentwouldvaryfromapproximately1,100peopleatthestartofaccessroadconstructionin1985toapeakofabout3,500in1990.Arapiddropinworkforceneedswouldoccurbetween1990and1995whenconstructionwouldbexxiiontheexistingHealy-to-Wi11ow1ine(whichwouldthenbeupgradedto345kV),(2)asecond345-kVline,170mi(270km)long,fromHealytoWillowparallelingtheexistingline,(3)apairofsingle-circuit,345-kVlines,63mi(101km)long,extendingfromWillowtothenewKnikArmandUniversitysubstationsintheAnchoragearea,and(4)apairofsingle-circuit345-kVlines,100mi(160km)long,extendingfromHealytothenewEstersubstationwestofFairbanks.TransmissionfacilitiestobeconstructedforDevilCanyonwouldinclude:(1)8mi(13km)of345-kV,double-circuitoutlettransmissionfromthepowerhousesubstationtotheGoldCreeksubstation,and(2)anadditional345-kVcircuit,123mi(197km)long,fromGoldCreektoKnikArm,parallelingthepreviouslyconstructedtwosingle-circuitlines.TheApplicant'sproposedaccessplanwouldprovideforrailandroadtransportofthenecessarymaterials,equipment,andpersonneltotheWatana-DevilCanyonconstructionsites.Arailheadandstoragefacilitycoveringapproximately40acres(16halwouldbeconstructedatCantwellalongtheexistingAlaskaRailroad.Fromthisfacility,accesstotheWatanasitewouldbealonganexistingroad,2mi(3km)totheintersectionoftheGeorgeParksandDenaliHighways,theneasterlyalongtheDenaliHighwayfor21.3mi(34.1km)toanewroad.ThenewroadwouldbeconstructedtotheWatanacampsiteapproximately42mi(67km)duesouthfromtheDenaliHighway.AccesstotheDevilCanyonsitewouldbealonganewroad,approximately20mi(30km)inlength,constructedfromtheWatanaaccessroad.Ahigh-levelsuspensionbridgewouldberequiredwherethe'accessroadwouldcrosstheSusitnaRiverdownstreamoftheDevilCanyondam.RailaccesstotheDevilCanyonsitewouldrequireconstructionofaspurbetweentheexistingAlaskaRailroadatGoldCreekandthecampsite.TheApplicant'sproposedconstructionschedulespansaperiodfromApril1985,beginningwithaccessroadconstructionatWatana,toOctober2002,whencommercialoperationofDevilCanyonunitswouldbegin.ThisscheduleispredicatedontheawardingofaFERClicensebyDecember31,1984.Twoconstraintswereconsideredinthedevelopmentofthisschedule:theissuancedateoftheFERC1icenseandtheneedtohavefourunitson1inebyJanuary1994inordertomeetRailbeltloadgrowthasprojectedbytheApplicant.Thecriticalpathofactivitiestomeettheseconstraintswouldbethroughsiteaccess,sitefacilities,diversion,andmaindamconstruction.Theproposedschedulewouldrequirethatextensiveplanning,bidselection,andcommitmentsbemadebeforetheendof1984topermitworktoprogressonscheduleduring1985and1986.Year-roundroadaccesstothesitewouldberequiredbyOctober1,1985;equipmentwouldbetransportedoverlandviawintertrailduringthewinterof1984inorderforanairfieldtobeconstructedbyJuly1985.Thiswouldallowsitefacilitiestobedevelopedinaveryshorttimetosupportthemainconstructionactivities.Acamptohouseapproximately1,000peoplewouldbeconstructedduringthefirst18months.Onsitepowergeneratingequipmentwouldhavetobeinstalledin1985tosupplypowerforcampandconstructionactivities,andanaggregateprocessingplantandconcretebatchingplantwouldhavetobeoperationaltostartdiversiontunnelconcreteworkbyApril1986.ExcavationoftheaCcesstunnelintothepowerhousecomplexwouldstartinlate1987.StageIconcretewouldbeginin1989,andinstallationofmajormechanicalandelectricalworkwouldstartin1991.Constructionofthetransmissionlinesandswitchyardshasbeenscheduledtobeginin1989andtobecompletedbeforecommissioningofthefirstunit.Thefirstfourunitsarescheduledtobeonlinebythebeginningof1994andtheremainingtwounitsinearly1994.ThescheduleforDevilCanyonwasdevelopedtomeettheon-linepowerrequirementofallfourunitsin2002.Thecriticalpathofactivitieswasdeterminedtofollowthroughsitefacilities,diversion,andmaindamconstruction.ThedevelopmentofsitefacilitiesatDevilCanyonwouldbeginslowlyin1994,witharapidaccelerationin1995through1997.IthasbeenassumedthatsiteaccessbuilttoWatanawouldexistatthestartofconstruction.AroadwouldbeconstructedconnectingtheDevilCanyonsitetotheWatanaaccessroad,includingahigh-levelbridgeovertheSusitnaRiverdownstreamoftheDevilCanyonDam.Atthesametime,arailroadspurwouldbeconstructedtopermitrailaccesstothesouthernbankoftheSusitnanearDevilCanyon.Theseactivitieswouldbecompletedbymid-1994.Withinashortperiodoftimethereafter,constructionwouldbeginonmostmajorstructures.Excavationandconcretingofthesinglediversiontunnelwouldbeginin1995.Riverclosureandcofferdamconstructionwouldtakeplacetopermitstartofdamconstructionin1996.Thecon-structionofthearchdamwouldbethemostcriticalconstructionactivityfromstartofexcava-tionin1996untiltoppingoutin2001.Excavationofaccessintothepowerhousecavernwouldbeginin1996.StageIconcretewouldbeginin1998,andinstallationofmajormechanicalandelectricalworkwouldstartin2000.Thespillwayandintakewouldbescheduledforcompletionbytheendof2000topermitreservoirfillingthenextyear.TheadditionaltransmissionfacilitiesneededforDevilCanyonwouldbescheduledforcompletionbythetimethefinalunitwasreadyforcommissioninginlate2001.WorkforcerequirementsforconstructionoftheWatanadevelopmentwouldvaryfromapproximately1,100peopleatthestartofaccessroadconstructionin1985toapeakofabout3,500in1990.Arapiddropinworkforceneedswouldoccurbetween1990and1995whenconstructionwouldbe xxiiicompleteandtheoperationstaffof105wouldoccupythepermanenttown.WorkforcerequirementsforconstructionoftheDevilCanyondevelopmentwouldvaryfromabout100in1994toapeakof1,700in1998,reducingtoapermanentstaffofapproximately25in2002.TheStaffanalyzedthepotentialenvironmentalconsequencesoftheproposedjwojectinrelationtoseveralalternatives. Alternativedevelopmentalong themiddleSusitnaRiverincludedalternativedamdesignsandconfigurations,flowregimes,accessroutes,andtransmissionlineroutes.Inaddition,Staffconsideredalternativepowergenerationscenariosthatwouldnotinvolvedevelopmentalong theSusitnaRiver.Thesescenariosincluded:natural—gasgenerationofpoweratsitesaroundCookInlet;generationofpoweratNenana andWillowusingcoal fromtheNenanacoalfield;andacombinedhydropower-thermalgenerationofpoweratseveralsitesinSouth—centralandInteriorAlaska.Eachalternativescenariothatwasaddressedwasconsideredcapableofmeetingloadgrowthneedsin Alaska’sRailbeltregionandofproviding equivalentenergygeneration.Thearrayofalternativescenarioswaschosentoberepresentativeofthefeasibleextremesofdevelopmentthatwouldmeetprojectedloadgrowth.TheStaffconsideredthreealternativedevelopmentschemeswithintheSusitnaRiverBasin;WatanaIwithDevilCanyon;WatanaIwithModifiedHighDevilCanyon,andWatanaIwithareregulatingdam.WatanaI—DevilCanyondevelopmentwouldbeidenticaltotheproposedproject,withtheexceptionthatWatanadamwouldbescaleddowntohaveacrestelevationof2,125ft(646m)MSLandanormalreservoirlevelof2,100ft(637m)MSL[versus2,210ft(671m)and2,185ft(663m)MSL,respectively,fortheproposeddam].Thisprojectwouldoperateinthesamemannerastheproposedproject,i.e.,WatanaI wouldoperateasabaseloadplantuntilcompletionofDevilCanyon.AftercompletionofDevilCanyon,WatanaI wouldoperateasapeakingplantandDevilCanyonwouldbeoperatedtoregulateWatanaIdischargestomeetdownstreamfisheryrequirements.WatanaI-ModifiedHighDevilCanyondevelopmentwouldbeasdescribedaboveexceptamodifiedHighDevilCanyondevelopmentwouldbelocatedatapproximatelyRN157,orabout5mi(8km)upstreamfromtheproposedDevilCanyonsite.Thedamwouldbeofearthandrockfillconstructionwithanimperviouscore;itwouldhaveacrestelevationof1,495ft(454m)MSL.Itwouldhaveanormalmaximumwatersurfaceelevationof1,470ft(447m)MSLandamaximumheightofapproximately595ft(181m).ThisdevelopmentwouldbeoperatedinthesamemannerastheWatanaI—DevilCanyonproject.Watana1—Reregulatingdamdevelopmentwouldutilizeareregulatingdamlocatedapproximately16mi(25km)downstreamofWatanaI.Thereregulatingdamwouldbeofearthandrockfillconstruction,withacrestelevationof1,500ft(456m)MSLandamaximumheightofapproximately250ft(76m).Aspillwaywouldbelocatedonthenorthernabutment,anda200—MWpowerhousewouldbedownstreamofthedamonthe southernbank.AtunnelandapowerhouseatDevilCanyoncouldbeaddedinthefuture.However,iffurtherstudyindicatesthatthetunnelisaneconomicallyfeasiblealternative,theReregulatingdampowerhouseconstructioncouldbestagedtoavoidinstallingcapacitythatcouldnotbeusedifwaterwasdivertedtothetunnelpowerhouse.Theprojectwouldbeoperatedinthesamemannerasthetwopreviouslydiscusseddevelopments.Thegas—firedgenerationscenarioanalyzedbytheStaffassumedthephasedinstallationofeight200-Mw,gas—fired,baseload,combined-cycleunitsandtwo70—MWgas—firedcombustion-turbinepeakingunits.Thecombined-cycleunitseachwouldincludetwocombustion-turbinegeneratorunits,aheatrecoveryboilerusingthe exhaustgasesofthecombustionturbinestoproducesuperheatedsteam,andasteamturbinegenerator.Thecombinedcyclesubstantiallyimprovespowergenerationefficiency.Aplantwithtwocombustionturbinescanbeoperatedatpartialloadwithoneofthegasturbinesoutofservice.Initsanalysis,theStaffassumedthatthecombined—cycleandcombustion-turbineunitswouldbesitedinproximitytonatural-gasdistributionpipelines.Becauseofthegreatervolumeofgasrequiredbythecombined-cycleunits,itisexpectedthattheywouldbeconcentratedinthewesternCookInletareaandontheKenaiPeninsula.Specificsitesconsideredwerealong theChuitnaandBelugarivers,nearKenai,andnearAnchorage.Foritscoal-firedgenerationscenario,theStaffassumedthephasedinstallationoffive200-Mw,coal-fired,baseloadunitsandten70-MWcombustion-turbinepeakingunitstomeettheprojectedRailbeltpowerrequirements.Thecoalunitswereassumedtobeofconventionaldesignandtousedryfluegasdesulfurizationscrubbersfortheremovalofsulfuroxides,baghouseparticulateremoval,wet/drymechanicaldraftcoolingtowersforheatrejection,andpulverizedcoalforcombustion.Theassumedcapitalcostwasdeemedtoreflectthestate-of-the-artwithregardtoenvironmentalsafeguardsandanabilitytomeetestablishedperformancestandards.Thecombustion-turbinepeakingunitswereassumedtobesimple—cyclemachinesusingnatural—gasfuel.xxiiicompleteandtheoperationstaffof105wouldoccupythepermanenttown.WorkforcerequirementsforconstructionoftheDevilCanyondevelopmentwouldvaryfromabout100in1994toapeakof1,700in1998,reducingtoapermanentstaffofapproximately25in2002.TheStaffanalyzedthepotentialenvironmentalconsequencesoftheproposedprojectinrelationtoseveralalternatives.AlternativedevelopmentalongthemiddleSusitnaRiverincludedalterna-tivedamdesignsandconfigurations,flowregimes,accessroutes,andtransmissionlineroutes.Inaddition,StaffconsideredalternativepowergenerationscenariosthatwouldnotinvolvedevelopmentalongtheSusitnaRiver.Thesescenariosincluded:natural-gasgenerationofpoweratsitesaroundCookInlet;generationofpoweratNenanaandWillowusingcoalfromtheNenanacoalfield;andacombinedhydropower-thermalgenerationofpoweratseveralsitesinSouth-centralandInteriorAlaska.EachalternativescenariothatwasaddressedwasconsideredcapableofmeetingloadgrowthneedsinAlaska'sRailbeltregionandofprovidingequivalentenergygeneration.Thearrayofalternativescenarioswaschosentoberepresentativeofthefeasibleextremesofdevelopmentthatwouldmeetprojectedloadgrowth.TheStaffconsideredthreealternativedevelopmentschemeswithintheSusitnaRiverBasin:WatanaIwithDevilCanyon;WatanaIwithModifiedHighOevilCanyon,andWatanaIwithareregulatingdam.WatanaI-DevilCanyondevelopmentwouldbeidenticaltotheproposedproject,withtheexceptionthatWatanadamwouldbescaleddowntohaveacrestelevationof2,125ft(646m)MSLandanormalreservoirlevelof2,100ft(637m)MSL[versus2,210ft(671m)and2,185ft(663m)MSL,respectively,fortheproposeddam].Thisprojectwouldoperateinthesamemannerastheproposedproject,i.e.,WatanaIwouldoperateasabaseloadplantuntilcompletionofDevilCanyon.AftercompletionofDevilCanyon,WatanaIwouldoperateasapeakingplantandDevilCanyonwouldbeoperatedtoregulateWatanaIdischargestomeetdownstreamfisheryrequirements.WatanaI-ModifiedHighDevilCanyondevelopmentwouldbeasdescribedaboveexceptamodifiedHighDevilCanyondevelopmentwouldbelocatedatapproximatelyRM157,orabout5mi(8km)upstreamfromtheproposedOevilCanyonsite.Thedamwouldbeofearthandrockfillconstruc-tionwithanimperviouscore;itwouldhaveacrestelevationof1,495ft(454m)MSL.Itwouldhaveanormalmaximumwatersurfaceelevationof1,470ft(447m)MSLandamaximumheightofapproximately595ft(181m).ThisdevelopmentwouldbeoperatedinthesamemannerastheWatanaI-DevilCanyonproject.WatanaI-Reregulatingdamdevelopmentwouldutilizeareregulatingdamlocatedapproximately16mi(25km)downstreamofWatanaI.Thereregulatingdamwouldbeofearthandrockfillconstruction,withacrestelevationof1,500ft(456m)MSLandamaximumheightofapproxi-mately250ft(76m).Aspillwaywouldbelocatedonthenorthernabutment,anda200-MWpower-housewouldbedownstreamofthedamonthesouthernbank.AtunnelandapowerhouseatDevilCanyoncouldbeaddedinthefuture.However,iffurtherstudyindicatesthatthetunnelisaneconomicallyfeasiblealternative,theReregulatingdampowerhouseconstructioncouldbestagedtoavoidinstallingcapacitythatcouldnotbeusedifwaterwasdivertedtothetunnelpower-house.Theprojectwouldbeoperatedinthesamemannerasthetwopreviouslydiscusseddevelop-ments.Thegas-firedgenerationscenarioanalyzedbytheStaffassumedthephasedinstallationofeight200-MW,gas-fired,baseload,combined-cycleunitsandtwo70-MWgas-firedcombustion-turbinepeakingunits.Thecombined-cycleunitseachwould inc1udetwocombustion-turbinegeneratorunits,aheatrecoveryboilerusingtheexhaustgasesofthecombustionturbinestoproducesuperheatedsteam,andasteamturbinegenerator.Thecombinedcyclesubstantiallyimprovespowergenerationefficiency.Aplantwithtwocombustionturbinescanbeoperatedatpartialloadwithoneofthegasturbinesoutofservice.Initsanalysis,theStaffassumedthatthecombined-cycleandcombustion-turbineunitswouldbesitedinproximitytonatural-gasdistributionpipelines.Becauseofthegreatervolumeofgasrequiredbythecombined-cycleunits,itisexpectedthattheywouldbeconcentratedinthewesternCookInletareaandontheKenaiPeninsula.SpecificsitesconsideredwerealongtheChuitnaandBelugarivers,nearKenai,andnearAnchorage.Foritscoal-firedgenerationscenario,theStaffassumedthephasedinstallationoffive200-MW,coal-fired,baseloadunitsandten70-MWcombustion-turbinepeakingunitstomeettheprojectedRailbeltpowerrequirements.Thecoalunitswereassumedtobeofconventionaldesignandtousedryfluegasdesulfurizationscrubbersfortheremovalofsulfuroxides,baghouseparticulateremoval,wet/drymechanicaldraftcoolingtowersforheatrejection,andpulverizedcoalforcombustion.Theassumedcapitalcostwasdeemedtoreflectthestate-of-the-artwithregardtoenvironmenta1safeguardsandanabilitytomeetestab1ishedperformancestandards.Thecombustion-turbinepeakingunitswereassumedtobesimple-cyclemachinesusingnatural-gasfuel. xxivInthecoalscenario,theStaffassumedthatthree200-MWcoalgenerationunitswouldbelocatedintheNenanaareaandtwo200-MWunitsintheWillowarea.Combustion-turbinefacilitieswouldbedispersedthroughoutCookInletarea.CoaldeliverytotheNenanaandWillowstationswasassumedtobebyunittrainfromthevicinityoftheUsibelliMineintheNenanacoalfield.Fuelforthecombustion-turbineinstallationswasassumedtobeavailablefromgasdistributionpipelines.Thefinalscenarioconsideredbythestaffwasacombinedhydro-thermalgeneratingscenarioconsistingofhydropowerfacilitiesatsitesoutsidetheSusitnaBasinplusvariousthermal(coal—andgas-fired)units.Thehydroelectricsitesconsideredinthisscenariowere Browne,Chakachamna,Johnson,Keetna,andSnow.TheBrownesiteislocatedontheNenanaRivernear[lealy,approximately75mi(120km)southwestofFairbanks.TheBrownedamwouldbeeitheraconcretegravityoraconcrete-facedrock-fillstructure.Itwouldhaveacrest elevationof995ft(302in)MSLandamaximumheightofapproximately235ft(71m).Adiversiontunnelandflip—bucketspillwaywouldbeconstructedonthenorthernabutmentandapowertunnelandsurfacepowerhouseonthesouthernabutment.ChakachamnaLakeislocated intheAlaskarangeapproximately80mi(130km)westofAnchorage.ThelakedischargesintotheChakachatnaRiver,whichrunssoutheasterlyoutofthelakeandeventuallydischargesintoCookInlet.Thealternativedevelopmentherewouldbealake tapofChakachamnaLake,withadiversiontunnel[approximately23ft(7m)in diameter]totheMacArthurRiverBasin.AnundergroundpowerhousewouldbelocatedontheMacArthurRivernearthebaseoftheBlockadeGlacier.TheJohnsonsiteislocatedontheTananaRiver,approximately120mi(190km)southeastofFairbanks,and hasadrainageareaof10,450squaremiles(mi2)[27,060squarekilometers(km2)].TheJohnsondamwouldbeaconcretegravitystructurewithearthendikes,andwouldhaveamaximumheight ofabout140ft(40m).Thereservoirwouldhaveamaximumwatersurfaceelevationof1470ft(447m)MSLandwouldhaveanactivestorageofabout5millionac—ft(6.5xi0~m3).TheKeetnasiteislocatedontheTalkeetnaRiver,approximately70mi(110km)northofAnchorage.TheTalkeetnaRiver,withheadwatersintheTalkeetnaMountains,flowssouthwesterlytoitsconfluencewiththeSusitna River.Thedamsitehasadrainageareaof1,260mi2(3,260km2).Streamflow recordsindicatetheyearlyaveragedischargeatthesitetobe1millionac-ft(2.09xio~in3).Powerdevelopmentwouldincludeadamwithadiversiontunnel.Thedamwouldbeofearthandrockfillconstructionandwouldhaveacrest elevationof965ft(293in)MSL,withamaximumheightofapproximately365ft(111in).Thespillwayandpowerfacilitieswouldbelocatedsouthofthedam.TheSnowsiteislocatedontheSnowRiverintheKenaiPeninsula.Powerdevelopmentwouldincludeadamwithdiversionthroughatunnelapproximately7,500to10,000ft(2,300to3,600m)long.Anearthandrockfilldamwithacrestelevationof1,210ft(367m)MSLandamaximumheightofapproximately310ft(90m)wouldbeconstructed.Thediversionandpowertunnelwouldbelocatedonthesouthernabutment,andaspillwaywouldbeconstructedatthesouthernendofthereservoirapproximately1mi(2km)fromthedam.Theaverageannualstreamflowatthedamsiteisestimatedat510,000to535,000ac-ft(6.3xio8to6.6x10~m3).Thedamsitewouldbefedby 105mi2(272km2)oftheriver’s166—mi2(430—km2)drainagearea.Thethermalportionofacombinedhydro-thermal scenariowouldconsistofthesametypesofthermalgeneratingunitsconsideredinthecoalandgasscenariosdiscussedpreviously.Thesewouldincludeone200-MWconventional coal—firedunitofthetype discussedinthecoalscenario,threeorfour200-MWcombined-cyclegasunitsasdiscussedinthegasscenario,andthree70-MWgas—firedcombustion-turbineunitsasdiscussedinbothofthe thermalscenarios.Useofthelower-costhydropowerresourcesinthecombinedscenariowould reducethenumberofthermalunitsneededtomeetpowerrequirementsthroughthe30yearsofoperation,ascomparedtothetwoall—thermalscenarios.Thesinglecoal—firedunitinthecombinedhydro-thermalscenariowasagainassumedtobeintheNenanaareaoftheRailbelt,takingadvantageoftheexpansioncapabilityoftheUsibelliMine.Gas-firedcombined—cycleunitswereagainlocatedintheKenaiPeninsulaandonthe westernsideoftheCookInlet(theBelugaarea)closetonatural—gasfuelsupplies.Requiredgas-firedcombustion-turbineuilitsforpeakingwereagainassumedtobelocatednearnatural-gasdistributionpipelines.TheStaffhascompletedadetailedanalysisoftheenvironmentalconsequencesofimplementingtheproposedSusitnahydropowerdevelopmentoranyofthealternativesthatwereconsidered.xxivInthecoalscenario,theStaffassumedthatthree200-MWcoalgenerationunitswouldbelocatedintheNenanaareaandtwo200-MWunitsintheWillowarea.Combustion-turbinefacilitieswouldbedispersedthroughoutCookInletarea.CoaldeliverytotheNenanaandWillowstationswasassumedtobebyunittrainfromthevicinityoftheUsibelliMineintheNenanacoalfield.Fuelforthecombustion-turbineinstallationswasassumedtobeavailablefromgasdistributionpipelines.Thefinalscenarioconsideredbythestaffwasacombinedhydro-thermalgeneratingscenarioconsistingofhydropowerfacilitiesatsitesoutsidetheSusitnaBasinplusvariousthermal(coal-andgas-fired)units.ThehydroelectricsitesconsideredinthisscenariowereBrowne,Chakachamna,Johnson,Keetna,andSnow.TheBrownesiteislocatedontheNenanaRivernearHealy,approximately75mi(120km)south-westofFairbanks.TheBrownedamwouldbeeitheraconcretegravityoraconcrete-facedrock-fillstructure.Itwouldhaveacrestelevationof995ft(302m)MSLandamaximumheightofapproximately235ft(71m).Adiversiontunnelandflip-bucketspillwaywouldbeconstructedonthenorthernabutmentandapowertunnelandsurfacepowerhouseonthesouthernabutment.ChakachamnaLakeislocatedintheAlaskarangeapproximately80mi(130km)westofAnchorage.ThelakedischargesintotheChakachatnaRiver,whichrunssoutheasterlyoutof thelakeandeventuallydischargesintoCookInlet.ThealternativedevelopmentherewouldbealaketapofChakachamnaLake,withadiversiontunnel[approximately23ft(7m)indiameter]totheMacArthurRiverBasin.AnundergroundpowerhousewouldbelocatedontheMacArthurRivernearthebaseoftheBlockadeGlacier.TheJohnsonsiteislocatedontheTananaRiver,approximately120mi(190km)southeastofFairbanks,andhasadrainageareaof10,450squaremi1es(mi2)[27,060squarekilometers(km2)].TheJohnsondamwouldbeaconcretegravitystructurewithearthendikes,andwouldhaveamaximumheightofabout140ft(40m).Thereservoirwouldhaveamaximumwatersurfaceelevationof1470ft(447m)MSLandwouldhaveanactivestorageofabout5millionac-ft(6.5x109m3).TheKeetnasiteislocatedontheTalkeetnaRiver,approximately70mi(110km)northofAnchorage.TheTalkeetnaRiver,withheadwatersintheTalkeetnaMountains,flowssouthwesterlytoitsconfluencewiththeSusitnaRiver.Thedamsitehasadrainageareaof1,260mi2(3,260km2).StreamflowrecordsindicatetheyearlyaveragedischargeatthesitetobeImi11ionac-ft(2.09x109m3).Powerdevelopmentwouldincludeadamwithadiversiontunnel.Thedamwouldbeofearthandrockfillconstructionandwouldhaveacrestelevationof965ft(293m)MSL,withamaximumheightofapproximately365ft(Illm).Thespillwayandpowerfacilitieswouldbelocatedsouthofthedam.TheSnowsiteislocatedontheSnowRiverintheKenaiPeninsula.Powerdevelopmentwouldincludeadamwithdiversionthroughatunnelapproximately7,500to10,000ft(2,300to3,600m)long.Anearthandrockfilldamwithacrestelevationof1,210ft(367m)MSLandamaximumheightofapproximately310ft(90m)wouldbeconstructed.Thediversionandpowertunnelwouldbelocatedonthesouthernabutment,andaspillwaywouldbeconstructedatthesouthernendof thereservoirapproximatelyImi(2km)fromthedam.Theaverageannualstreamflowatthedamsiteisestimatedat510,000to535,000ac-ft(6.3x108to6.6X108m3).Thedamsitewouldbefedby105mi2(272km2)of theriver's166-mi2(430-km2)drainagearea.Thethermalportionofacombinedhydro-thermalscenariowouldconsistof thesametypesofthermalgeneratingunitsconsideredinthecoalandgasscenariosdiscussedpreviously.Thesewouldincludeone200-MWconventionalcoal-firedunitofthetypediscussedinthecoalscenario,threeorfour200-MWcombined-cyclegasunitsasdiscussedinthegasscenario,andthree70-MWgas-firedcombustion-turbineunitsasdiscussedinbothofthethermalscenarios.Useofthelower-costhydropowerresourcesinthecombinedscenariowouldreducethenumberofthermalunitsneededtomeetpowerrequirementsthroughthe30yearsofoperation,ascomparedtothetwoall-thermalscenarios.Thesinglecoal-firedunitinthecombinedhydro-thermalscenariowasagainassumedtobeintheNenanaareaof theRailbelt,takingadvantageoftheexpansioncapabilityof theUsibelliMine.Gas-firedcombined-cycleunitswereagainlocatedintheKenaiPeninsulaandonthewesternsideoftheCookInlet(theBelugaarea)closetonatural-gasfuelsupplies.Requiredgas-firedcombustion-turbineunitsforpeakingwereagainassumedtobelocatednearnatural-gasdistribu-tionpipelines.TheStaffhascompletedadetailedanalysisoftheenvironmentalconsequencesofimplementingtheproposedSusitnahydropowerdevelopmentoranyof thealternativesthatwereconsidered. xxvTheStaffhasfoundthatsignificantenvironmentalimpactswouldoccurasaconsequenceoftheproposedaction:1.GeologyandSoils—Acceleratedslopeerosionandfailurealong theshorelines ofthereservoirs;—Acceleratedsoilerosionandpermafrostthawasaresultofvegetationclearingforreservoirs,constructionfacilities,andrights-of-way.2.LandUseandOwnership—Conversionoftheremote,poorlyaccessibleupperandmiddleSusitnaRiverBasinintoanareaofgreaterhumanactivityanddevelopment.3.WaterQualityandQuantity—NitrogensupersaturationduetoreleaseofexcessflowsbetweenJulyandSeptemberinalmosteveryyearofoperation;—Reducedmeansummerflowsandincreasedmeanwinterflows;—60%reductioninmeanannualflood;stabilizationandnarrowingofriverchannelaboveTalkeetna;—Decreasedsummerturbidityandincreasedwinterturbidity.4.Fisheries—Restrictedaccesstospawningsloughsusedbychumandsockeyesalmon;—50%reductioninannualjuvenilegrowthforsalmon;growthreductionby60%to70%forearlyemigratingchumandpinksalmon;—IncreasedfishingpressureonspeciesthroughoutthemiddleandupperSusitnaBasinduetoimprovedaccess.5.TerrestrialCommunities-Inundationandcompleteorselectiveclearingofmorethan56,000acres(22,700ha)ofvegetation;-ReductioninthemoosepopulationintheupperandmiddleSusitnaBasinasaconsequenceof losingabout60mi2(150km2)ofoverwinteringandcalvinghabitat;—Reductionintheblackbearpopulationinthe basinasaconsequenceofinundationofalreadylimitedhabitatandof50%oftheavailabledenningsites;—Doublingofthehuntingpressureonbiggameinthe basinandconsequentincreasesinwildlifemortality;—Lossordisturbanceof4baldeagleand16to18golden eaglenestinglocations.6.RecreationResources—Disruptionofwilderness—typerecreationexperiencesintheupperandmiddleSusitnaBasin,includinghuntingandfishing;—Increasedcompetitionforuseofrecreationresourcesandthepotentialfordegradationofrecreationresourceareas,particularlyduringpeakconstructionperiods;-InundationoftheVeeCanyonandDevilCanyonrapids,-whicharenoteablewhite—waterrecreationresources;7.SocioeconomicFactors-Largepopulationincreasesfollowedbydecreases(“boom—and-bust”conditions)inTrapperCreek,Talkeetna,Cantwell,andothercommunitiesintheprojectarea;—Shortagesinhousingandcommunityservices;-Potentialculturalconflictsbetweeninmigrantsandcurrentresidents;—AlterationinpatternsofhumanuseoffishandwildlifeintheupperandmiddleSusitnaBasin;—Needtoaltercurrentfishandwildlifemanagementgoalsandpracticesinresponsetochangesinresourceusepatternsinthebasin.IxxvTheStaffhasfoundthatsignificantenvironmentalimpactswouldoccurasaconsequenceoftheproposedaction:1.GeologyandSoilsAcceleratedslopeerosionandfailurealongtheshorelinesofthereservoirs;Acceleratedsoilerosionandpermafrostthawasaresultofvegetationclearingforreservoirs,constructionfacilities,andrights-of-way.2.LandUseandOwnershipConversionoftheremote,poorlyaccessibleupperandmiddleSusitnaRiverBasinintoanareaofgreaterhumanactivityanddevelopment.3.WaterQualityandQuantityNitrogensupersaturationduetoreleaseofexcessflowsbetweenJulyandSeptemberinalmosteveryyearofoperation;Reducedmeansummerflowsandincreasedmeanwinterflows;60%reductioninmeanannualflood;stabilizationandnarrowingofriverchannelaboveTalkeetna;Decreasedsummerturbidityandincreasedwinterturbidity.4.FisheriesRestrictedaccesstospawningsloughsusedbychumandsockeyesalmon;50%reductioninannualjuvenilegrowthforsalmon;growthreductionby60%to70%forearlyemigratingchumandpinksalmon;IncreasedfishingpressureonspeciesthroughoutthemiddleandupperSusitnaBasinduetoimprovedaccess.5.TerrestrialCommunitiesInundationandcompleteorselectiveclearingofmorethan56,000acres(22,700halofvegetation;ReductioninthemoosepopulationintheupperandmiddleSusitnaBasinasaconsequenceoflosingabout60mi2(150km2)ofoverwinteringandcalvinghabitat;Reductionintheblackbearpopulationinthebasinasaconsequenceofinundationofalreadylimitedhabitatandof50%oftheavailabledenningsites;Doublingofthehuntingpressureonbiggameinthebasinandconsequentincreasesinwildlifemortality;Lossordisturbanceof4baldeagleand16to18goldeneaglenestinglocations.6.RecreationResourcesDisruptionofwilderness-typerecreationexperiencesintheupperandmiddleSusitnaBasin,includinghuntingandfishing;Increasedcompetitionforuseofrecreationresourcesandthepotentialfordegradationofrecreationresourceareas,particularlyduringpeakconstructionperiods;InundationoftheVeeCanyonandDevilCanyonrapids,'whicharenoteab1ewhite-waterrecreationresources;7.SocioeconomicFactorsLargepopulationincreasesfollowedbydecreases("boom-and-bust"conditions)inTrapperCreek,Talkeetna,Cantwell,andothercommunitiesintheprojectarea;Shortagesinhousingandcommunityservices;Potentialculturalconflictsbetweeninmigrantsandcurrentresidents;AlterationinpatternsofhumanuseoffishandwildlifeintheupperandmiddleSusitnaBasin;Needtoaltercurrentfishandwildlifemanagementgoalsandpracticesinresponsetochangesinresourceusepatternsinthebasin. xxvi8.VisualResources-SignificantvisualcontrastbetweentheprojectfeaturesandthenaturalsettingoftheSusitna RiverValleylandscapes;-Exposureofmudflatsduringspringandsummeralong theshoresoftheWatanareservoir;-Vegetationclearingandtransmissionlinestructuresvisibleatanumberofpointsalong theParks Highway,AlaskaRailroad,andDenaliHighway;fromvariouslocationsinRailbeltcommunities, DenaliNationalParkandPreserve,andDenaliStatePark;andfromtheair.TheStaffalsoidentifiedanumberofothersignificantimpactsofimplementingalternativestotheproposedprojects,including:—Significantconsumptiveuseofregionalcoaland gasreservesforthermalalternativestotheproposedproject;-InundationofportionsoftheParksandAlaskahighwayswithfillingofthereservoirsthatwouldbeassociatedwiththeBrowneandJohnsonhydropoweralternatives;-PotentialforimpairedvisibilityintheClassIareaatDenaliNationalParkasaresultofemissionsfromthreetofive200-MWcoal—firedunitsatNenana(oneortwounitsshouldnotresultinsignificantimpairmentofvisibility);—PotentialviolationofPSDClassTIincrementfor502(24-hraverage)atelevatedterrainnortheastofNenanaduetothreetofive200—MWcoal-firedunitsatNenana(oneortwounitswouldnotresultinviolations);-PotentialviolationofPSDClass Iincrementfor502(24-hraverage)atDenaliNationalParkduetofourorfive200-MWcoal-firedunitsatNenana(onetothreeunitswouldnotresultinviolations);—Potentiallossofmajorsockeyesalmonpopulation atLakeChakachamnaduetoriverrerouting;-PotentiallossofsalmonhabitatattheKeetnahydropowersite;-PotentiallossofsalmonhabitatattheJohnsonhydropowersite;—Increasedpressureonfisheriesduetoimprovedaccessforallhydropowerandthermalalternatives;—Dedicationofmorethan 115,000acres(46,000ha)oflandandvegetation toprojectuseinthecombinedhydro-thermalalternative;-Disruptionofamajorrivertouringroutealong theNenanaRiverasaresultoftheBrownehydropoweralternative;—Alternatingincreasesanddecreasesinpopulationsofcommunitiesnearalternativesitesresultingintheboomtownsyndrome;-Alterationofaestheticqualityinareaofalternativedevelopments.Inreviewingthevariousalternativepowergenerationscenarios(includingtheproposedproject),theStaffconcludedthat,fromanenvironmentalstandpointonly,the thermalalternatives(natural-gasandcoal-firedgeneratingfacilities)wouldhavetheleastsevereconsequences.Additionally,basedonconsiderations ofengineeringfeasibility,economiccharacteristics,andenvironmentalimpacts,theStaffconcludedthatamixedthermal-basedgenerationscenario,withselectednon—Susitnahydropowerprojectsaddedasneeded,appearstobethemosteffectiveapproachtomeetingtheprojectedgenerationrequirementsoftheRailbeltarea.TheStafffurtherrecommendedthatifanyhydropower developmentisauthorizedfortheSusitnaBasin,itshouldbelicensedandconstructed instages,withthefirststagebeingWatanaI.TheStaffconcludedthattheproposedprojectaccessroutefromDenaliHighwaytotheWatanadamsitewouldresultinsubstantialadverseimpactstofishandwildlifepopulations,andthereforerecommendedthataccesstotheDevilCanyonandWatanaprojectareasberestrictedbydevelopmentanduseofonlytheproposedGoldCreek-to-DevilCanyonandDevilCanyon—to-Watanaaccessroutes.TheStaffSrecommendedthatiftheproposedprojectisauthorized,theminimumreleasesfromprojectdamsproposedbytheApplicant[12,000cubicfeetpersecond(cfs)or340cubicmeterspersecond(m3/s)]beaugmentedwithperiodicspikingflowsuptoacombinedtotalreleaseof20,000cfs.(566m3/s)duringthesalmonspawningseason(August1toSeptember15).Thesespikereleasesshouldoccurforatleastthreecontinuousdays,andshouldoccurduringatleastthreedifferentperiodsduringtheindicatedspawningseason.xxvi8.Visua1ResourcesSignificantvisualcontrastbetweentheprojectfeaturesandthenaturalsettingoftheSusitnaRiverValleylandscapes;ExposureofmudflatsduringspringandsummeralongtheshoresoftheWatanareservoir;VegetationclearingandtransmissionlinestructuresvisibleatanumberofpointsalongtheParksHighway,AlaskaRailroad,andDenaliHighway;fromvariouslocationsinRailbeltcommunities,DenaliNationalParkandPreserve,andDenaliStatePark;andfromtheair.TheStaffalsoidentifiedanumberofothersignificantimpactsofimplementingalternativestotheproposedprojects,including:Significantconsumptiveuseofregionalcoalandgasreservesforthermalalternativestotheproposedproject;InundationofportionsoftheParksandAlaskahighwayswithfillingofthereservoirsthatwouldbeassociatedwiththeBrowneandJohnsonhydropoweralternatives;PotentialforimpairedvisibilityintheClassIareaatDenaliNationalParkasaresultofemissionsfromthreetofive2DD-MWcoal-firedunitsatNenana(oneortwounitsshouldnotresultinsignificantimpairmentofvisibility);PotentialviolationofPSDClassIIincrementfor502(24-hraverage)atelevatedterrainnortheastofNenanaduetothreetofive2DO-MWcoal-firedunitsatNenana(oneortwounitswouldnotresultinviolations);PotentialviolationofPSDClassIincrementfor502(24-hraverage)atDenaliNationalParkduetofourorfive2DD-MWcoal-firedunitsatNenana(onetothreeunitswouldnotresultinviolations);PotentiallossofmajorsockeyesalmonpopulationatLakeChakachamnaduetoriverrerouting;PotentiallossofsalmonhabitatattheKeetnahydropowersite;PotentiallossofsalmonhabitatattheJohnsonhydropowersite;Increasedpressureonfisheriesduetoimprovedaccessforallhydropowerandthermalalternatives;Dedicationofmorethan115,000acres(46,000haloflandandvegetationtoprojectuseinthecombinedhydro-thermalalternative;DisruptionofamajorrivertouringroutealongtheNenanaRiverasaresultoftheBrownehydropoweralternative;Alternatingincreasesanddecreasesinpopulationsofcommunitiesnearalternativesitesresultingintheboomtownsyndrome;Alterationofaestheticqualityinareaofalternativedevelopments.Inreviewingthevariousalternativepowergenerationscenarios(includingtheproposedproject),theStaffconcludedthat,fromanenvironmentalstandpointonly,thethermalalternatives(natural-gasandcoal-firedgeneratingfacilities)wouldhavetheleastsevereconsequences.Additionally,basedonconsiderationsofengineeringfeasibility,economiccharacteristics,andenvironmentalimpacts,theStaffconcludedthatamixedthermal-basedgenerationscenario,withselectednon-Susitnahydropowerprojectsaddedasneeded,appearstobethemosteffectiveapproachtomeetingtheprojectedgenerationrequirementsoftheRailbeltarea.TheStafffurtherrecommendedthatifanyhydropowerdevelopmentisauthorizedfortheSusitnaBasin,itshouldbelicensedandconstructedinstages,withthefirststagebeingWatanaI.TheStaffconcludedthattheproposedprojectaccessroutefromDenaliHighwaytotheWatanadamsitewouldresultinsubstantialadverseimpactstofishandwildlifepopulations,andthereforerecommendedthataccesstotheDevilCanyonandWatanaprojectareasberestrictedbydevelop-mentanduseofonlytheproposedGoldCreek-to-DevilCanyonandDevilCanyon-to-Watanaaccessroutes.TheStaff·recommendedthatiftheproposedprojectisauthorized·,theminimumreleasesfromprojectdamsproposedbytheApplicant[12,000cubicfeetpersecond(cfs)or340cubicmeterspersecond(m3/s)]beaugmontedwithperiodicspikingflowsuptoacombinedtotalreleaseof20,000cf&(566m3/s)duringthesalmonspawningseason(August1toSeptember15).Thesespikereleasesshouldoccurforatleastthreecontinuousdays,andshouldoccurduringatleastthreedifferentperiodsduringtheindicatedspawningseason. 1.PURPOSEOFANDNEEDFORACTION1.1PURPOSEOFACTIONTheproposedactionbeforetheFederalEnergyRegulatoryCommission(FERC)involvesanapplicationforlicensefortheSusitnaHydroelectricProject,FERCNo.7114,bytheAlaskaPowerAuthority(APA)*seekingauthorizationtoconstructpowerfacilitieswithatotalinstalledcapacity ofapproximately1,620megawatts(MW)producinganaverageofapproximately6,574gigawatt—hours(GWh)ofelectricityannually.TheApplicantproposestousethepowerandenergydevelopedbytheSusitnaprojecttoservetheneedsofcustomerswithinthe“Railbelt”regionofAlaska. ThisregionincludesthetwolargestcitiesinAlaska-—AnchorageandFairbanks—-aswellasmostofthepopulationofthestate.TheSusitnaHydroelectricProjectwouldutilizewatersoftheSusitna Riverforpowerproduction.TheSusitnaprojectwouldnotinvolveaconsumptiveuseofwater,sinceallwaterwouldbereturnedtotheriverthrough thepowerplanttailraceorspillways.1.2NEEDFORPOWER1.2.1HistoricalEnergyRequirements1.2.1.1PerspectiveonGeographyandEconomyoftheRegionTheAlaskanRailbeltencompassesmorethan150,000squaremiles(mi2)[385,000squarekilometers(km2)]ofterritory,stretchingfromtheKenaiPeninsulaontheGulfofAlaskaandCookInletinthesouthtoFairbanksandthesurroundingmilitaryinstallationsinthenorth.Theso—calledSouthcentralportionoftheRailbeltrunsfromtheMatanuskaandSusitnavalleysnorthofAnchoragetothe southernterminusoftheAlaskaRailroadatSewardontheKenaiPeninsula(seeFig.1-1).Alaska’sagriculturalproduction,aminorfactorinthestateeconomy,historicallyhasbeendevelopedmostthoroughlyintheMantanuskaandSusitnavalleys.Thegrowingseasonis120dayslongwithupto19hoursofsunlightdaily.Theannualprecipitationofapproximately17inches(in)[43centimeters(cm)]often isbarelyadequateforcultivation,andsupplementalirrigationiscommon.TheTananaValleysection,100milesCmi)[160kilometers(km)]eastof Fairbanks,istheexpandingagriculturalareaofthestate,withmedium-scalegrainfarming.Anchorageistheprimarybusinesscenter ofthestateandisamajorportandrailstation.FairbanksisthetransportationandbusinesscenteroftheinteriorsectionoftheRailbeltandthetakeoffandsupplypointfortheArcticandtheTrans-AlaskaPipelinemaintenanceactivity.CoalisminedatHealyforthelocalgenerationofelectricpower,aswellasforexporttoKorea.Alaskaneconomicdevelopmentduringthe20thCentury,includingthatoftheRailbeltarea,canbecharacterizedasasequenceofboomperiodsandstagnations.Sincethepaucityof region-specificdatapreventsexclusivetreatmentoftheRailbelt,itisnecessarytodiscusstheeconomyofthestateasawhole,ratherthanconfinethedescriptiontojusttheRailbelt.However,thedominanceofthestate’seconomybytheRailbeltregionmeansthatthedataavailableatthestatelevelare,inlargepart,indicativeofthedevelopmentswithintheRailbelt.EversinceAlaska achievedstatehoodin1959,theprimaryfactorsshapingtheeconomyhave beenthegovernmentandpetroleum.Indeed,priortothepipelineboomofthemid-1970s,themajoreconomicforceoperatingwithinthestateappearstohave beengovernmentpayrolls.ThemilitarywasresponsibleforthemajorbuildupofFederalgovernmentworkers.SubsequenttoWorldWarIIandtheKoreanWar,duringwhichAlaskaexperiencedamassiveinfusionofmilitaryrelatedinvestment,theDefenseDepartmentcontinuedtobuildapresenceinAlaskaduetothestate’sstrategiclocationaspartofthenation’searlywarningsystem.Federalgovernment*Throughoutthisdocument,theAlaskaPowerAuthorityisalsoreferredtoasAPAandtheApplicant.1—11.PURPOSEOFANDNEEDFORACTION1.1PURPOSEOFACTIONTheproposedactionbeforetheFederalEnergyRegulatoryCommission(FERC)involvesanapplica-tionforlicensefortheSusitnaHydroelectricProject,FERCNo.7114,bytheAlaskaPowerAuthority(APA)*seekingauthorizationtoconstructpowerfaci1itieswithatotalinsta11edcapacityofapproximately1,620megawatts(MW)producinganaverageofapproximately6,574gigawatt-hours(GWh)ofelectricityannually.TheApplicantproposestousethepowerandenergydevelopedbytheSusitnaprojecttoservetheneedsofcustomerswithintheIIRailbelt"regionofAlaska.ThisregionincludesthetwolargestcitiesinAlaska--AnchorageandFairbanks--aswellasmostofthepopulationofthestate.The.SusitnaHydroelectricProjectwouldutilizewatersoftheSusitnaRiverforpowerproduction.TheSusitnaprojectwouldnotinvolveaconsumptiveuseofwater,sinceallwaterwouldbereturnedtotheriverthroughthepowerplanttailraceorspillways.1.2NEEDFORPOWER1.2.1HistoricalEnergyRequirements1.2.1.1PerspectiveonGeographyandEconomyoftheRegionTheAlaskanRailbeltencompassesmorethan150,000squaremiles(mi2)[385,000squarekilometers(km2)]ofterritory,stretchingfromtheKenaiPeninsulaontheGulfofAlaskaandCookInletinthesouthtoFairbanksandthesurroundingmilitaryinstallationsinthenorth.Theso-called.SouthcentralportionoftheRailbeltrunsfromtheMatanuskaandSusitnavalleysnorthofAnchoragetothesouthernterminusoftheAlaskaRailroadatSewardontheKenaiPeninsula(seeFig.1-1).Alaska'sagriculturalproduction,aminorfactorinthestateeconomy,historicallyhasbeendevelopedmostthoroughlyintheMantanuskaandSusitnavalleys.Thegrowingseasonis120dayslongwithupto19hoursofsunlightdaily.Theannualprecipitationofapproximately17inches(in)[43centimeters(em)]oftenisbarelyadequateforcultivation,andsupplementalirrigationiscommon.TheTananaValleysection,100miles(mi).[160kilometers(km)]eastofFairbanks,istheexpandingagriculturalareaofthestate,withmedium-scalegrainfarming.Anchorageistheprimarybusinesscenterofthestateandisamajorportandrailstation.FairbanksisthetransportationandbusinesscenteroftheinteriorsectionoftheRailbeltandthetakeoffandsupplypointfortheArcticandtheTrans-AlaskaPipelinemaintenanceactivity.CoalisminedatHealyforthelocalgenerationofelectricpower,aswellasforexporttoKorea.Alaskaneconomicdevelopmentduringthe20thCentury,includingthatoftheRailbeltarea,canbecharacterizedasasequenceofboomperiodsandstagnations.Sincethepaucityofregion-specificdatapreventsexclusivetreatmentoftheRailbelt,itisnecessarytodiscusstheeconomyofthestateasawhole,ratherthanconfinethedescriptiontojusttheRailbelt.However,thedominanceofthestate'seconomybytheRailbeltregionmeansthatthedataavail-ableatthestatelevelare,inlargepart,indicativeofthedevelopmentswithintheRailbelt.EversinceAlaskaachievedstatehoodin1959,theprimaryfactorsshapingtheeconomyhavebeenthegovernmentandpetroleum.Indeed,priortothepipelineboomofthemid-1970s,themajoreconomicforceoperatingwithinthestateappearstohavebeengovernmentpayrolls.Themilitary.wasresponsibleforthemajorbuildupofFederalgovernmentworkers.SubsequenttoWorldWarIIandtheKoreanWar,duringwhichAlaskaexperiencedamassiveinfusionofmilitary-relatedinvestment,theDefenseDepartmentcontinuedtobuildapresenceinAlaskaduetothestate'sstrategiclocationaspartofthenation'searlywarningsystem.Federalgovernment*Throughoutthisdocument,theAlaskaPowerAuthorityisalsoreferredtoasAPAandtheApp1icant.1-1 1—2Figure1-1.TheAlaska RailwayfromSewardtoElelsonAirForceBase.[Source:TransportationandMarketAnalysisofAlaskaCoal—DepartmentofEnergyStudy—1980]EielsonA.F.B.Talkeetna1-2Mt.McKinleyaEntargedAreaFigure1-1.TheAlaskaRailwayfromSewardtoEielsonAirForceBase.[Source:TransportationandMarketAnalysisofAlaskaCoal-DepartmentofEnergyStudy-1980] 1-3employmentreachedapeakof51,000in1967anddeclinedto36,000in1981.MostofthefluctuationsinFederalemploymentwereattributabletothechangesinthenumberofmilitarypersonnelstationedinAlaska.Incontrasttothemilitary,civilianFederalemploymenthasremainedessentiallyconstantataround15,000sincethelate1960s.DespitethedropinthetotalnumberofFederalemployees,thenominaldollarwagesandsalariespaidbythegovernmenthaverisendramaticallyasaresultofincreasesinwagerates.WhileoverallFederalemploymentwasdeclining,stateandlocalemploymentwereincreasingrapidly.In1981,36,000personswere employedbystateandlocalgovernments,comparedwith18,000in1970and8,000adecadebeforethat.Wagesandsalariestothesegovernmentemployeesincreasedatevenafasterratethan thenumberofpersonnel.Infact,governmentwageratesincreasedmorerapidlythanthewageratesinotherAlaskanindustries.Between1970and1981,stateandlocalgovernmentemploymentdoubled,buttheirpayrollsrosefivefold.Asof1981,combinedFederal,state,andlocalgovernmentpayrollsaccountedformorethan$2billion,ornearly40%ofthestate’stotalpersonalincomeof$5.8billion.Theconstructionboombroughtaboutbythebuildingoftheoilpipelinetransportationsystemfromthe NorthSlopealteredthestateandRailbelteconomiesappreciably.Thepipeline,whichcostmorethan$8billion,extends800ml(1,300km)fromPrudhoeBayonthenortherncoastofAlaskatothenorthernmostice-freeharborintheUnitedStatesatPortValdezintheSouthcenttalregionofAlaskaontheGulfofAlaska.Constructionbeganin1974andwascompletedin1977.Asaconsequence,constructionemploymentofalltypeswentfromlessthan5,000individualsin1970toapeakofmorethan26,000personsin1976.Asof1981,constructionemploymentinAlaskawasback.to7,000persons.Othercategoriesofemploymentwhichbenefitedfromthepipelineconstructionphase,butwhichdidnotsufferthedeclineafteritscompletion,includeoiland gasextractionemployment,pipelinetransportationemployment,andfoodproductseinployment.Regionally,theRailbeltbenefitedmostfromthepipeline.AmajorreasonforthisisthatAnchoragealoneofallAlaskancitieshasattaineda“criticalmass”intermsofamarketforbothgoodsandservices.Thephysicalremoteness, smallsize,andfragmentationofcommunitiesoutsidetheRailbelthistoricallyhaveresultedinveryhighcostsofdoingbusinessthere.IthasbeencheapertoproducegoodsoutsidethestateandthenshipthemintoAlaska,ratherthanproducethemin small,high—costplants.withinthestate.Transportationcosts,asaconsequence,areasignificantcomponentofthedeliveredprice ofnearlyeverythinginAlaska.Thesmallerthesizeofthedestinationmarket,thegreatertheper-unittransportationcoststypicallyassociatedwiththeproductbeingsold.Theservice sectorisalsosubjecttoeconomiesofscale,andhereaswellthesizeoftheAnchoragemarkethasgiventhatlocaleacomparativeadvantageoverotherAlaskancommunities.Whenemploymentonthe NorthSlope,hundredsofmilesbeyondtheRailbelt,expandedinthemid—1970s,the marketswithinthestatethatabsorbedmostoftheexpendituresbythatlabor forcewereinAnchorage,andtoalesserextent,Fairbanks.Anchoragewasandis,byawidemargin,thelargesteconomicregioninthestate;by1978morethan48%ofallnon—militaryjobsinAlaskawerelocated intheAnchoragearea.AsstatedbyKresgeetal.(1978):Anchoragealsohadthelargestregionalshareofemploymentwithinmostindividualindustrygroups.Asthestate’stradeandcommercialcenter,Anchorage’sdominanceofthesupportsectorisparticularlystriking.Thisisespeciallysignificantsincethesupportsectoristhe majorareaofgrowthin Alaska’seconomy.Inadditiontogrowingveryrapidly,thesupportsectorhasalsobecomeincreasinglyconcentratedintheAnchoragearea.Between1970and1978,servicesectoremployment(includinggovernment,butexludingthemilitary)roseby41%forthestateasawhole.ForAnchorage,theincreasewasinexcessof55%.Civilianemploymentfortheregionasawholegrewbyslightlymorethan50%between1970and1981.Overthesameperiod,civilianearningsgrewbynearly300%,and,afteradjustingforinflation,thoseearningsroseby69%inrealterms.Fouryearsafterthecompletionofthepipeline,theRailbeltcouldclaimarealper-capitaincreaseinpersonalincomesof25%duringthe1970—1981period.Duringthisperiod,theregionalinflationrateactuallylaggedwellbackoftherateoftheUnitedStatesasawhole.Thus,intermsofthelocalprices,realincomespercapitagrewevenmore.1.2.1.2EnergyUseintheRegionTheuseofenergywithinthestate,aswellastheRailbelt,mirroredthepacesetbytheeconomy.Forthestate,energyconsumptiontotalled180.6trillionBtuin1970and316.0trillionBtuin1978-—anincreaseof75%.Residentialenergyusedoubledoverthesameperiod.Electricalenergygenerationforthestatewent from1,044GWhin1970to2,609GWhin1978——anincreaseof150%.1-3employmentreachedapeakof51,000in1967anddeclinedto36,000in1981.Mostofthefluc-tuationsinFederalemploymentwereattributabletothechangesinthenumberofmilitaryper-sonnelstationedinAlaska.Incontrasttothemilitary,civilianFederalemploymenthasremainedessentiallyconstantataround15,000sincethelate1960s.DespitethedropinthetotalnumberofFederalemployees,thenominaldollarwagesandsalariespaidbythegovernmenthaverisendramaticallyasaresultofincreasesinwagerates.Whi1eavera11Federalemploymentwasdeclining)stateand1oca1employmentwereincreasingrapidly.In1981,36,000personswereemployedbystateandlocalgovernments,comparedwith18,000in1970and8,000adecadebeforethat.Wagesandsalariestothesegovernmentemployeesincreasedatevenafasterratethanthenumberofpersonnel.Infact,governmentwageratesincreasedmorerapidlythanthewageratesinotherAlaskanindustries.Between1970and1981,stateand1oca1governmentemploymentdoubled,buttheirpayrollsrosefivefo1d.Asof1981,combinedFederal,state,andlocalgovernmentpayrollsaccountedformorethan$2billion,ornearly40%ofthestate'stotalpersonalincomeof$5.8billion.TheconstructionboombroughtaboutbythebuildingoftheoilpipelinetransportationsystemfromtheNorthSlopealteredthestateandRailbelteconomiesappreciably.Thepipeline,whichcostmorethan$8billion,extends800mi(1,300km)fromPrudhoeBayonthenortherncoastofAlaskatothenorthernmostice-freeharborintheUnitedStatesatPortValdezintheSouth-centralregionofAlaskaontheGulfofAlaska.Constructionbeganin1974andwascompletedin1977.Asaconsequence,constructionemploymentofalltypeswentfrom1essthan5,000indi-vidua1sin1970toapeakofmorethan26,000personsin1976.Asof1981,constructionemploy-mentinAlaskawasbackto7,000persons.Othercategoriesofemploymentwhichbenefitedfromthepipelineconstructionphase,butwhichdidnotsufferthedeclineafteritscompletion,includeoilandgasextractionemployment,pipelinetransportationemployment,andfoodproductsemp1oyment.Regionally,theRailbeltbenefitedmostfromthepipeline.AmajorreasonforthisisthatAnchoragealoneofallAlaskancitieshasattainedaIlcriticalmasslJintermsofamarketforbothgoodsandservices.Thephysicalremoteness,smallsize,andfragmentationofcommunitiesoutsidetheRailbe1thistoricallyhaveresultedinveryhighcostsofdoingbusinessthere.Ithasbeencheapertoproducegoods.outsidethestateandthenshipthemintoAlaska,ratherthanproducetheminsmall,high-costplants.withinthestate.Transportationcosts,asaconse-quence,areasignificantcomponentofthedeliveredpriceofnearlyeverythinginAlaska.Thesmallerthesizeofthedestinationmarket,thegreatertheper-unittransportationcoststypicallyassociatedwiththeproductbeingsold.Theservicesectorisalsosubjecttoecon-omiesofscale,andhereaswellthesizeoftheAnchoragemarkethasgiventhatlocaleacompara-tiveadvantageoverotherAlaskancommunities.WhenemploymentontheNorthSlope,hundredsofmilesbeyondtheRailbelt,expandedinthemid-1970s,themarketswithinthestatethatabsorbedmostoftheexpendituresbythatlaborforcewereinAnchorage,andtoalesserextent,Fairbanks.Anchoragewasandis,byawidemargin,thelargesteconomicregioninthestate;by1978morethan48%ofallnon-militaryjobsinAlaskawerelocatedintheAnchoragearea.AsstatedbyKresgeetal.(1978):Anchoragealsohadthelargestregionalshareofemploymentwithinmostindividualindustrygroups.Asthestate'stradeandcommercialc~nter,Anchorage1sdominanceofthesupportsectorisparticularlystriking.ThisisespeciallysignificantsincethesupportsectoristhemajorareaofgrowthinAlaska'seconomy.Inadditiontogrowingveryrapidly,thesupportsectorhasalsobecomeincreasinglyconcentratedintheAnchoragearea.Between1970and1978,servicesectoremployment(includinggovernment,butexludingthemilitary)roseby41%forthestateasawhole.ForAnchorage,theincreasewasinexcessof55%.Civilianemploymentfortheregionasawholegrewbyslightlymorethan50%between1970and1981.Overthesameperiod,civilianearningsgrewbynearly300%,and,afteradjustingforinflation,thoseearningsroseby69%inrealterms.Fouryearsafterthecompletionofthepipeline,theRailbeltcouldclaimarealper-capitaincreaseinpersonalincomesof25%duringthe1970-1981period.Duringthisperiod,theregionalinflationrateactuallylaggedwellbackoftherateoftheUnitedStatesasawhole.Thus,intermsofthelocalprices,realincomespercapitagrewevenmore.1.2.1.2EnergyUseintheRegionTheuseofenergywithinthestate,aswellastheRailbelt,mirroredthepacesetbytheeconomy.Forthestate,energyconsumptiontotalled180.6trillionBtuin1970and316.0trillionBtuin1978--anincreaseof75%.Residentialenergyusedoubledoverthesameperiod.Electricalenergygenerationforthestatewentfrom1,044GWhin1970to2,609GWhin1978--anincreaseof150%. 1-4Expendituresforenergyincreasedatafasterratethanusagebecauseenergypricesincreasedduringthe1970s.However,thosepriceincreaseswerefarlessthanwereexperiencedintherestoftheUnitedStates.Residentialelectricityexpenditures,forinstance,increasedfrom$14millionto$56millionbetween1970and1980.Adjustingforinflationandputtingthoseexpendituresonaper-capitabasis,however,meansthatannualAlaskanresidentialelectricityexpenditureswentfrom $45.43to$65.03inconstant1970dollars(anincreaseofslightlylessthan45%).Energypricesintheaggregate[i.e.,sales-weightedaveragepriceofnaturalgas,distillatefueloil,LPG(bottledgas)andelectricity]fortheresidentialsectorincreasedbyslightlyinexcessof30%between1970and1980.Inthecontext ofstatewideincreasesinrealper-capitaincomesof38%duringtheperiod,energycostsaspercentageofincomesdeclinedinabsolutetermsforAlaskans.WithintheRailbelt,theenergypicture isevenmorestrikingthanthatforthestate.Naturalgasconsumptiontotheresidentialsector,forinstance,went from6.4trillionBtuto12.4trillionBtubetween1970and1978.Expendituresforthegasdecreasedinrealterms,however,goingfrom$9.7millionto$6.3milliononaconstant1970dollarbasis.Duringthatperiod,therealpriceofAlaskannaturalgasdeliveredtotheresidentialsectordecreasedby48%.AnnualelectricityexpendituresbyresidentialconsumersintheRailbeltwentfrom$56.59percapitain1970to$79.25in1980(figuredinconstant1970dollars).Thisrepresentsa40%realincreaseinper—capitaexpenditures.Theaverageincreaseintherealpriceofenergyofalltypestotheresidentialsectorduring1970-1980wasslightlyinexcessof10%intheRail—belt.Duringthesametimeperiod,theincreaseinrealper-capitaincomeswithintheRailbeltwasapproximately35%.Hereagain,the percentageofper-capitaincomesthatwasspentonenergydeclinedduringtheperiod,despiteanincreaseinper-capitaStuconsumptionontheorderof100%.1.2.2PresentEnergyScenarioDatacollectedbytheAlaskaDepartmentofCommerceandEconomicDevelopmentprovidesafairlycompletepictureofthe1981energysituationforboththestateandtheRailbeltregion.Inthatyear,Alaskansused543trillionBtuofprimaryenergy.Ofthis,approximately184trillionBtuofrefinedproducts,ammonia/urea,andliquefiednaturalgas(LNG)wereexportedfromAlaska.Some86trillionBtuwerelostinrefiningoperations,electricitygeneration,andtheprocessingofnaturalgasforammonia/ureaandLNG.Approximatelyhalfthetotal,or273trillionStu,wereconsumedintheformofdeliveredenergytotheresidential,commercial,industrial,transportationandnationaldefensesectorswithinthestate.Oil,naturalgas,coal,andhydroelectricitywerethefourmainsourcesoftheenergyconsumedinthefinaldemandsectors.Oilandnaturalgaspredominate,supplying approximately93%ofthedeliveredBtu.Aregionalbreakdownofthatenergy consumptionisshowninTable1-1.Table‘-l.1981AlaskanFuelConsumptiont1(trillionBtu)FuelTypeRegionNaturalAll(Population)PetroleumGasCoalHydroWoodFuelst2Railbeltt3137.181.012.62.91.6235.2(313,767)Southeast19.9——-—3.31.224.4(51,689)NorthSlope11.91.7—- —-—-13.6(3,282)Bush29.8--—- -—0.330.1(53,449)TotalState198.782.712.66.23.1303.2(422,187)t1Includes30trillionBtulostinconversiontoelectricpower.t2OoesnotincludeLNGorammonia/urea.t3Railbeltfiguresincludethe Valdez/Cordovaarea,withapopulationof9,301.Source:Computed byFERCStafffromdatain1983LongTermEnergyPlan—-StateofAlaska.1-4Expendituresforenergyincreasedatafasterratethanusagebecauseenergypricesincreasedduringthe1970s.However,thosepriceincreaseswerefarlessthanwereexperiencedintherestoftheUnitedStates.Residentiale1ectricityexpenditures,forinstance,increasedfrom$14mi11ionto$56mi11ionbetween1970and1980.Adjustingforinflationandputtingthoseexpendituresonaper-capitabasis,however,meansthatannualAlaskanresidentialelectricityexpenditureswentfrom$45.43to$65.03inconstant1970dollars(anincreaseofs1ightly1essthan45%).Energypricesintheaggregate[i.e.,sales-weightedaveragepriceofnaturalgas,distillatefueloil,LPG(bottledgas)andelectricity]fortheresidentialsectorincreasedbyslightlyinexcessof30%between1970and1980.Inthecontextofstatewideincreasesinrealper-capitaincomesof38%duringtheperiod,energycostsaspercentageofincomesdeclinedinabsolutetermsforAlaskans.WithintheRailbelt,theenergypictureisevenmorestrikingthanthatforthestate.Naturalgasconsumptiontotheresidentialsector,forinstance,wentfrom6.4trillionBtuto12.4trillionBtubetween1970and1978.Expendituresforthegasdecreasedinrealterms,however,goingfrom$9.7millionto$6.3milliononaconstant1970dollarbasis.Duringthat'period,therealpriceofAlaskannaturalgasdeliveredtotheresidentialsectordecreasedby48%.AnnualelectricityexpendituresbyresidentialconsumersintheRailbeltwentfrom$56.59percapitain1970to$79.25in1980(figuredinconstant1970dollars).Thisrepresentsa40%realincreaseinper-capitaexpenditures.Theaverageincreaseintherealpriceofenergyofalltypestotheresidentialsectorduring1970-1980wasslightlyinexcessof10%intheRail-belt.Duringthesametimeperiod,theincreaseinrealper-capitaincomeswithintheRailbeltwasapproximately35%.Hereagain,thepercentageofper-capitaincomesthatwasspentonenergydeclinedduringtheperiod,despiteanincreaseinper-capitaBtuconsumptionontheorderof100%.1.2.2PresentEnergyScenarioDatacollectedbytheAlaskaDepartmentofCommerceandEconomicDevelopmentprovidesafairlycamp1etepictureofthe1981energysituationforboththestateandtheRai1beItregion.Inthatyear,Alaskansused543trillionBtuofprimaryenergy.Ofthis,approximately184trillionBtuofrefinedproducts,ammonia/urea,and1iquefiednaturalgas(LNG)wereexportedfromAlaska.Some86trillionBtuwerelostinrefiningoperations,electricitygeneration,andtheprocessingofnaturalgasforammonia/ureaandLNG.Approximatelyhalfthetotal,or273trillionBtu,wereconsumedintheformofdeliveredenergytotheresidential,commercial,industrial,transportationandnationaldefensesectorswithinthestate.Oil,naturalgas,coal,andhydroelectricitywerethefourmainsourcesoftheenergyconsumedinthefinaldemandsectors.Oilandnaturalgaspredominate,supplyingapproximately93%ofthedeliveredBtu.AregionalbreakdownofthatenergyconsumptionisshowninTable1-1.Table~-1.1981AlaskanFuelConsumptiont'(trillionBtu)FuelTypeRegion(Population)Railbeltt3(313,767)Southeast(51,689)NorthSlope(3,282)Bush(53,449)TotalState(422,187)NaturalPetro1eumGasCoa1137.181.012.619.9n.91.729.8198.782.712.6AllHydroWoodFue1st22.91.6235.23.31.224.413.60.330.16.23.1303.2t'Includes30trillionBtulostinconversiontoelectricpower.t2DoesnotincludeLNGorammonia/urea.t3RailbeltfiguresincludetheValdez/Cordovaarea,withapopula-tionof9,301.Source:ComputedbyFERCStafffromdatain1983LongTermEnergyPlan--StateofAlaska. 1-5TheRailbeltregionaccountsformorethan75%ofthetotalenergydeliveredtothesixbasicconsumptionsectorsinAlaska.Of,totalenergydeliveredtotheRailbelt,11%isfornationaldefense,41%(exclusivelypetroleum)goestothetransportationsector,andtheremaining48%isdelivered totheresidential,commercial,industrial,andelectricutilitysectors.Naturalgasprovidesmostoftheenergyforspaceheatingandelectricgeneration.TherelativemixoffuelsusedwithintheRailbeltreflectsthepricesatwhichthosesourcesofenergyareavailable.Naturalgas,forinstance, presentlyispriced atlessthan:$2.00~perthousandcubicfeet(Mcf)[$7.06per100cubicmeters(m3)]to-the-residentialsector(-thelowestpriceinanystate).Whereagasdistributionpipeline-systemmakesnaturalgasavailabletoconsumers;thisfuelclearlyismorecosteffectivetouse(ona•costperBtubasis)thanthealternatives-—electricity,distillateoilorliquidpropane-—asshowninTable1—2.Table1-2.ComparativeCostofHeatingFuelsintheRailbeltfor1981t1(1981s/MMBtu)FuelAnchorageFairbanksMatanuskaElectricity11.4925.8312.58FuelOil9.459.9410.24NaturalGas1.65-——-Wood6.365.234.87Propane13.8213.8517.86t’Doesnot accountforefficienciesofequipmentusedtoproduceheatfromspecificfuel.Source:ComputedbyFERCStafffromdatain1983LongTermEnergyPlan-—StateofAlaska.TheRailbeltpricesoffossilfuelsreflectlocalmarketconditions,whichinturnareaffectedbyconditionsinternationally.Naturalgas,forinstance,isexceptionallyinexpensiveduetothebountifulsuppliesassociatedwithpetroleumproductionintheCookInletarea,coupledwiththelackofanextensiveexportmarket(despitesignificanteffortstodevelopone).Conversely,thecostofcoalwithintheRailbeltiscurrentlygreaterthanitperhapsmightotherwisebebecauseproductioneconomiesofscalecannotbeobtainedwithouttheexpandedproductionwhichtheexportmarketswouldpermit.Fueloil,bycomparison,iscompetitivewith pricesobservedelsewhereintheUnitedStates, inpart,becausetheactiveexportmarkethasenabledthelocalmarkettobenefitfromtheeconomiesoflarge—scaleproductionandtransportationofcrudepetroleum.Thehighproductioncostsofthesmall-scalerefineriesinAlaskaaremorethanoffsetbyavoidingthetransportationcostsoffuelrefinedoutsidethestate.Amoredetaileddiscussionoftheinter—relationshipbetweenthepricesofenergyintheRailbeltandthepriceofcrudeoilinworldmarketsispresenthdinAppendix8.AnappraisalofthecurrentenergyinfrastructureoftheRailbeltrequires,amongotherthings,aninventoryofcrudeoilreserves,petroleumrefineries,naturalgasreserves,naturalgasprocessingcapabilities,coalreserves,andelectricpowerproductionanddistributioncapabilities.Oil.WhilelyingbeyondtheRailbeltproper,theNorthSlopeoildepositsareinsomewaysanimportantenergysourceoftheregionbyvirtueofthesingletransportationlinktothoseresources.TheTrans-AlaskapipelinerunsthroughtheinteriorsectionoftheRailbeltandfeedsthesecondlargestrefineryinthestatejustoutsideFairbanks.Further,theValdezpipelinesuppliescrudeoiltoasecondrefinerywithintheRailbelt,ontheKenaiPenin~ula.ProvenreservesofcrudeoilinthestatethatimpactdirectlyontheRailbeltareestimatedatnearly9billionbarrels[1,200metrictons(MT)],includingsome600millionbarrels(80millionMT)ofoilintheCookInlet.Theaggregatereserve-to-productionratioinAlaskaisnearly14yearsat currentproductionlevels.Forspecificfields,theratecanvaryfromaslittleastwoyearsforcertainreservoirsintheCookInlet,toashighas15yearsforfieldsontheNorthSlope.PetroleumRefineries.ThethreelargestrefineriesintheStateofAlaskaarelocatedwithintheRailbeltterritory.TheChevronrefineryatKenaiisratedatacapacityof22,000barrels(3,000MT)perdayandissupp-liedbytankerfrom Valdez.TheTesororefinery,alsoatKenai,1-5TheRailbeltregionaccountsformorethan75%ofthetotalenergydeliveredtothesixbasicconsumptionsectorsinAlaska.OftotalenergydeliveredtotheRailbelt,11%isfornationaldefense,41%(exclusivelypetroleum)goestothetransportationsector,andtheremaining48%isdeliveredtotheresidentialIcommercial,industrial,andelectricutilitysectors.Naturalgasprovidesmostoftheenergyforspaceheatingandelectricgeneration.TherelativemixoffuelsusedwithintheRailbeltreflectsthepricesatwhichthosesourcesofenergyareavailable.Naturalgas,forinstance,presentlyispricedatlessthanC$2.00perthousandcubicfeet(Mcf)[$7.06per100cubicmeters(m3)]to-theresidentialsector(-th"lowestpriceinanystate).-Whereagasdistributionpipeline-systemmakesnaturalgasavailabletoconsumers;thisfuelclearlyismorecosteffectivetouse(ona·costper.8tubasis)thanthealternatives--electricity,distillateoilorliquidpropane--asshowninTable1-2.Table1-2.ComparativeCostofHeatingFuelsintheRailbeltfor1981t'(1981$/MMBtu)FuelElectricityFue1OilNaturalGasWoodPropaneAnchorage11.499.451.656.3613.82Fairbanks26.839.945.2313.85Matanuska12.5810.244.8717.86t'Doesnotaccountforefficienciesofequipmentusedtoproduceheatfromspecificfuel.Source:ComputedbyFERCStafffromdatain1983LongTermEnergyPlan--StateofAlaska.TheRailbeltpricesoffossilfuelsreflectlocalmarketconditions,whichinturnareaffectedbyconditionsinternationally.Naturalgas,forinstance,isexceptionallyinexpensiveduetothebountifulsuppliesassociatedwithpetroleumproductionintheCookInletarea,coupledwiththelackofanextensiveexportmarket(despitesignificanteffortstodevelopone).Conversely,thecostofcoalwithintheRailbeltiscurrentlygreaterthanitperhapsmightotherwisebebecauseproductioneconomiesofscalecannotbeobtainedwithouttheexpandedproductionwhichtheexportmarketswouldpermit.Fueloil,bycomparison,iscompetitivewithpricesobservedelsewhereintheUnitedStates,inpart,becausetheactiveexportmarkethasenabledthelocalmarkettobenefitfromtheeconomiesoflarge-scaleproductionandtransportationofcrudepetroleum.Thehighproductioncostsofthesmall-scalerefineriesinAlaskaaremorethanoffsetbyavoidingthetransportationcostsoffuelrefinedoutsidethestate.Amoredetaileddiscussionoftheinter-relationshipbetweenthepricesofenergyintheRailbeltandthepriceofcrudeoilinworldmarketsispresent'edinAppendix8.AnappraisalofthecurrentenergyinfrastructureoftheRailbeltrequires,amongotherthings,aninventoryofcrudeoilreserves,petroleumrefineries,naturalgasreserves,naturalgasprocessingcapabilities,coalreserves,andelectricpowerproductionanddistributioncapabilities.Qil.WhilelyingbeyondtheRailbeltproper,theNorthSlopeoildepositsareinsomewaysanimportantenergysourceoftheregionbyvirtueofthesingletransportationlinktothoseresources.TheTrans-AlaskapipelinerunsthroughtheinteriorsectionoftheRailbeltandfeedsthesecondlargestrefineryinthestatejustoutsideFairbanks.Further,theValdezpipelinesuppliescrudeoiltoasecondrefinerywithintheRailbelt,ontheKenaiPeninsula.ProvenreservesofcrudeoilinthestatethatimpactdirectlyontheRailbeltareestimatedatnearly9billionbarrels[1,200metrictons(MT)],inclUdingsome600millionbarrels(80millionMT)ofoilintheCookInlet.Theaggregatereserve-to-productionratioinAlaskaisnearly14yearsatcurrentproductionlevels.Forspecificfields,theratecanvaryfromaslittleastwoyearsforcertainreservoirsintheCookInlet,toashighas15yearsforfieldsontheNorthSlope.PetroleumRefineries.ThethreelargestrefineriesintheStateofAlaskaarelocatedwithintheRailbeltterritory.TheChevronrefineryatKenaiisratedatacapacityof22,000barrels(3,000MT)perdayandissuppliedby'tankerfromValdez.TheTesororefinery,alsoatKenai, 1-6isratedat48,500barrels(6,600MT)perdayandissuppliedfromtheCookInletforsome90%ofitsthroughput.TheNapcorefineryatNorthPole,outsideofFairbanks,hasacapacity of46,000barrels(6,300NT)perdayandprocesses NorthSlopecrude.TheChevronrefineryandtheMapcorefineryproducejetfuelanddistillatefueloilforlocalconsumption.Inadditiontotheseproducts,theTesororefineryproducesmotorgasolineandLPGforconsumptionwithintheRailbeltNaturalGas.TheonlynaturalgasreservescurrentlyofimportancetotheRailbeltarethoselocated intheCookInlet.ThisgasisusedprimarilytoserveheatingandelectricdemandofRailbeltresidential,commercial,andindustrialsectors.Productionfromthesegasfieldswasslightlymorethan200billioncubicfeet(Bcf)(5.7billionm3)in1982.Ofthisamount,nearlyhalfisprocessedforexport,eitherasliquefiednaturalgasorasammoniaandurea.TheLNGprocessingfacilitylocatedatKenaiexportstoJapanunderacontractwhichhasjustbeen renewedforfiveyears.TheammoniaandureaproductionismostlyexportedtothecontinentalUnitedStates.Naturalgastakesarealmost evenlysplit,at50Bcf(1.4billionm3)peryeareach,betweentheselattertwouses.Coal.TherearetwomajorcoalfieldslocatedwithintheRailbelt.TheBelugacoalfieldlocatednearAnchoragehasprovenreservesof275milliontons(250millionNT) andindicatedreservesofmorethantentimesthatamount.TheNenanafield,locatedsouthofFairbanks,hasprovenreservesof861milliontons(781millionNT)withindicatedreservesof6billiontons(5.4billionMT).TheNenanafieldcontainstheonlycurrentlyproducingmine,atHealy,with1982productionofbetterthan800,000tons(725,000NT).Thiscoalisusedforelectricgenerationinthe Fairbanksareaandpotentiallymay beusedforexporttoaSouthKoreanelectricutilitycompany.ElectricPower.The1982installedcapacity(nameplaterating)forutilitieswithintheRailbeltisreportedbytheAlaskaPowerAdministrationtototal1,063megawatts(NW).OthergeneratingcapacitywithintheRailbeltincludes18MWownedbytheUniversityofAlaskaatFairbanksand,basedonasurveydonebyBattellePacificNorthwestLaboratories,some96MWofcapacityownedbythemilitaryatvariousinstallationwithintheregion.Thatsamesurveyindicatedthatapproximately28MWof additionalcapacitywasownedbyindustrialconcernswithintheRailbeltasof1981.Asummarybreakdownofthecapacitybytype,andgenerationbyfuelcategory, in1982ispresentedinTable1—3fortheutilitygeneratingstationsintheRailbelt.Table1-3.Capacity(byprimemover)andGeneration(byfuel)forRailbeltUtilityGeneratingStations,1982GasSteamHydroDieselTurbine TurbineTotalCapacity(NW)45408201531,063HyciroOilGasCoalTotalNetGeneration(GWh)1921212,2543592,926TheexistingelectrictransmissionsystemwithintheRailbeltiscomposedofisolatednetworksintheAnchorageandFairbanks areas.AninterconnectioncurrentlyunderconstructionbetweenWillowandMealywilllinkthetwoareasby1984.ThetransmissionsystemisshowninFigure1—2.DetailsofhydroelectricplantsareshowninTable1-4.OtherResources.Whileanumberofso—called“renewable”sourcesofenergyarediscussedinasubsequentsectionaddressingnon-hydroelectricalternatives,aswellasinAppendixB, onesuchfueldeservesmentionasasignificantcomponentofthepresentenergypicturewithintheRail-belt.Thatresourceiswood.Currently,firewoodfindswidespreaduseasasecondaryfuelforspaceheatinginresidences. IntheNatanuskaValleyareaoftheRailbelt,15%ofthehomesusedwoodastheprimarymeansofheating.EvenintheAnchoragearea,whereenergycostsareamongthelowestinthestate,asurveyconductedin1981foundthat23%ofthehomesusedwoodasasecondaryheatingfuel.Claimsthattheexpandeduseofwoodforspace,heating inindividualhomesisconstrainedbyresourceavailability~seemmisplacedastheforestresourcesofAlaskaareimmense.Therearetwodistinctforestecosystems:thecoastalrainforestandtheinteriorforest.Theinteriorforestcovers106millionacres [43millionhectares(ha)],over22millionacres(9millionha)ofwhichisclassifiedascommercialforestland.These22millionacrescompareinbothsize1-6isratedat48,500barrels(6,600MT)perdayandissuppliedfromtheCookInletforsome90%ofitsthroughput.TheMapcorefineryatNorthPole,outsideofFairbanks,hasacapacityof46,000barrels(6,300MT)perdayandprocessesNorthSlopecrude.TheChevronrefineryandtheMapcorefineryproducejetfuelanddistillatefueloilforlocalconsumption.Inadditiontotheseproducts,theTesororefineryproducesmotorgasolineandLPGforconsumptionwithintheRai1beltNaturalGas.TheonlynaturalgasreservescurrentlyofimportancetotheRailbeltarethoselocated·intheCookInlet.ThisgasisusedprimarilytoserveheatingandelectricdemandofRailbeltresidential,commercial.andindustrialsectors.Productionfromthesegasfieldswasslightlymorethan200billion.cubicfeet(Bcf)(5.7billionm3)in1982.Ofthisamount,nearlyhalfisprocessedforexport,eitherasliquefiednaturalgasorasammoniaandurea.TheLNGprocessingfacilitylocatedatKenaiexportstoJapanunderacontractwhichhasjustbeenrenewedforfiveyears.Theammoniaandureaproductionismostlyexportedtotheconti-nentalUnitedStates.Naturalgastakesarealmostevenlysplit,at50Bcf(1.4billionm3)peryeareach,betweentheselattertwouses.Coal.TherearetwomajorcoalfieldslocatedwithintheRai1be1t.TheBelugacoalfieldlocatednearAnchoragehasprovenreservesof275milliontons(250millionMT)andindicatedreservesofmorethantentimesthatamount.TheNenanafield.locatedsouthofFairbanks,hasprovenreservesof861milliontons(781millionMT)withindicatedreservesof6billiontons(5.4billionMT).TheNenanafieldcontainstheonlycurrentlyproducingmine,atHealy,with1982productionofbetterthan800,000tons(725,000MT).Thiscoalisusedforelectricgenera-tionintheFairbanksareaandpotentiallymaybeusedforexporttoaSouthKoreanelectricutilitycompany.ElectricPower.The1982installedcapacity(nameplaterating)forutilitieswithintheRailbeltisreportedbytheAlaskaPowerAdministrationtototal1,063megawatts(MW).OthergeneratingcapacitywithintheRai1beltincludes18MWownedbytheUniversityofAlaskaatFairbanksand,basedonasurveydonebyBattellePacificNorthwestLaboratories,some96MWofcapacityownedbythemilitaryatvariousinstallationwithintheregion.Thatsamesurveyindicatedthatapproximately28MWofadditionalcapacitywasownedbyindustrialconcernswithintheRai1be1tasof1981.Asummarybreakdownofthecapacitybytype,andgenerationbyfuelcategory,in1982ispresentedinTable1-3fortheutilitygeneratingstationsintheRai1be1t.Table1-3.Capacity(byprimemover)andGeneration(byfuel)forRailbeltUtilityGeneratingStations,1982GasSteamHydroDieselTurbineTurbineTotalCapacity(MW)45 408201531,063HydroOilGasCoalTotalNetGeneration(GWh)1921212,2543592,926TheexistingelectrictransmissionsystemwithintheRailbe1tiscomposedofisolatednetworksintheAnchorageandFairbanksareas.AninterconnectioncurrentlyunderconstructionbetweenWillowandHealywilllinkthetwoareasby1984.ThetransmissionsystemisshowninFigure1-2.DetailsofhydroelectricplantsareshowninTable1-4.OtherResources.Whileanumberofso-calledIIrenewable"sourcesofenergyarediscussedinasubsequentsectionaddressingnon-hydroelectricalternatives,aswellasinAppendixB,onesuchfueldeservesmentionasasignificantcomponentofthepresentenergypicturewithintheRai1-belt.Thatresourceiswood.Currently,firewoodfindswidespreaduseasasecondaryfuelforspaceheatinginresidences.IntheMatanuskaValleyareaoftheRailbelt,15%ofthehomesusedwoodastheprimarymeansofheating.EvenintheAnchoragearea,whereenergycostsareamongthelowestinthestate,asurveyconductedin1981foundthat23%ofthehomesusedwoodasasecondaryheatingfuel.Claimsthattheexpandeduseofwoodforspaceheatinginindividualhomesisconstrainedbyresourceavailability~seemmisplac~dastheforestresourcesofAlaskaareimmense.Therearetwodistinctforestecosystems:thecoastalrainforestandtheinteriorforest.Theinteriorforestcovers106millionacres[43millionhectares(ha)],over22millionacres(9millionhalofwhichisclassifiedascommercialforestland.These22millionacrescompareinbothsize 1-7Figure1—2.ElectricalTransmissionSystemoftheRailbelt.[Source:AlaskaPowerAuthority,asModifiedbyFERCStaff]LOCATIONOFMAP69KVQsowardjt1-7GVEA_69/34.5KVLOCATIONOFMAPFigure1-2.ElectricalTransmissionSystemoftheRailbelt.[Source:AlaskaPowerAuthority,asModifiedbyFERCStaff] 1-8Table1—4.HydroelectricPlantsintheRailbeltNameplateEnergyCapacityNameDate(GWh)(MW)UtilityEklutna195514830.0AlaskaPowerAdmin.CooperLakeUnits1 & 219614215.0ChugachElectricAssn.19045.0andgrowthproductivitytothecombinedforestsofMinnesota,Michigan,andWisconsin.OneofthestatesfourlargestinteriorforestsislocatedwithintheRailbeltareaintheMatanuskaDistrict.Thecoastalrain forestscontainnearly6millionacres(2.4millionha)ofcommercialforests,andagain,someofthelargestoftheseforestsarelocatedwithintheRailbeltnearAnchorage.Ahouseholdusingapproximately1000gallons(3NT)offueloilperseasoncouldmeetitsthermalneedswithlessthan10cords(4Ma)ofwood.Ittakes about2acres(0.8ha)to supportasustainedannualharvestof1cord(4ma),sothehouseholdwouldneedaccessto18to20acres(7.3to8.1ha)oftimberland.However,accordingtothestate’sDivisionofEnergyandPowerDevelopment,recentenergyefficienthousedesignsreducetheannualwoodconsumptiontotheleveloftwotothreecords(7—10ma)insteadoftencords(36m3)peryear.Currentpricesforwoodareinthevicinityof$90to$120percord($25to$33perm3)intheurbanareasofthestate;thiscomparesfavorably withoilcostsof$1.30pergallon($400permetricton).1.2.3FutureEnergyResourcesAscheduleofknownplannedutilityadditionsisshowninTable1-5.Table1.5.ScheduleofPlannedUtilityAdditionsAverageEnergyUnitTypeMWYear(GWh)BradleyLakeHydro90.01988347GrantLakeHydro7.0198833Total97.03801.2.4LoadGrowthForecast1.2.4.1AlaskaPowerAuthorityForecasts1.2.4.1.1MethodologyTheApplicanthassubmittedanumberofalternativeloadforecastsfortheRailbelt,baseduponvaryingworldoilpricescenarios.Alloftheseforecastsweregeneratedbymeansofthesamemodelingstructure.Thatstructureemploysthreecomputer—operatedmodelsthatprovide,respectively,projectionsof(1)regionaldemographic,andstateeconomicandfiscalvariables;(2)regionalelectricitydemandsgivenspecificenergypriceassumptions;and(3)least-costgenerationexpansionprogramsgivenademandforecast.Thelasttwomodelsareiteratedtodetermineaconsistentelectricitydemandforecastgiven thecostofpowerprojectedbythegenerationexpansionprogramappropriate tothatdemandforecast.:I1-8Table1-4.HydroelectricPlantsintheRailbeltNameplateEnergyCapacityNameDate(GWh)(MW)UtilityEklutna195514830.0AlaskaPowerAdmin.CooperLakeUnits1&219614215.0ChugachElectricAssn.19045.0andgrowthproductivitytothecombinedforestsofMinnesota,Michigan,andWisconsin.Oneofthestate'sfourlargestinteriorforestsislocatedwithintheRailbeltareaintheMatanuskaDistrict.Thecoastalrainforestscontainnearly6millionacres(2.4millionhalofcommercialforests,andagain,someofthelargestoftheseforestsarelocatedwithintheRailbeltnearAnchorage.Ahouseholdusingapproximately1000gallons(3MT)offueloilperseasoncouldmeetitsthermalneedswithlessthan10cords(4m3)ofwood.Ittakesabout2acres(0.8haltosupportasustainedannualharvestof1cord(4m3),sothehouseholdwouldneedaccessto18to20acres(7.3to8.1haloftimberland.However,accordingtothestate'sDivisionofEnergyandPowerDevelopment,recentenergyefficienthousedesignsreducetheannualwoodconsumptiontotheleveloftwotothreecords(7-10m3)insteadoftencords(36m3)peryear.Currentpricesforwoodareinthevicinityof$90to$120percord($25to$33perm3)intheurbanareasofthestate;thiscomparesfavorablywithoilcostsof$1.30pergallon($400permetricton).1.2.3FutureEnergyResourcesAscheduleofknownplannedutilityadditionsisshowninTable1-5.Table1.5.ScheduleofPlannedUtilityAdditionsAverageEnergyUnitTypeMWYear(GWh)Brad1eyLakeHydro90.01988347GrantLakeHydro7.0198833Total97.03801.2.4LoadGrowthForecast1.2.4.1AlaskaPowerAuthorityForecasts1.2.4.1.1MethodologyTheApplicanthassubmittedanumberofalternativeloadforecastsfortheRailbelt,baseduponvaryingworldoilpricescenarios.Alloftheseforecastsweregeneratedbymeansofthesamemodelingstructure.Thatstructureemploysthreecomputer-operatedmodelsthatprovide,respec-tively,projectionsof(1)regiana1demographic,andstateeconomicandfisea1variab1es;(2)regionalelectricitydemandsgivenspecificenergypriceassumptions;and(3)least-costgenerationexpansionprogramsgivenademandforecast.Thelasttwomodelsareiteratedtodetermineaconsistentelectricitydemandforecastgiventhecostofpowerprojectedbythegenerationexpansionprogramappropriatetothatdemandforecast. 1—91.2.4.1.2LoadProjectionTheApplicanthaspreparedloadprojectionsforthetimeperiod1983-2010 underawiderangeofalternativescenariosicEachforecastscenarioischaracterizedbyaspecifictrajectoryforthepricethatcrudeoilwillcommandinworldmarketsovertheforecasthorizon.Thereareatleastthreereasonsthattheworldoilpriceischosenasthesingleexogenousvariablethat istobealteredinattemptingtobrackettheloadgrowthintheRailbelt.First,worldoilpricesaffectthelevelofpetroleumrevenuestotheStateofAlaska,mainlythroughseverancetaxesandroyaltypayments.Theserevenuesaccountformorethan80%oftotalstaterevenues,andthestateisthesinglelargesteconomicforceactingontheRailbelteconomy.Second,worldoilpricesaffectdirectlythecostsofelectricitygeneratedintheRailbeltbecauseofthelinkagebetweencrudepricesandpricesofotherfossilfuels.TheRailbeltis,asdemonstratedinSection1.2.2,heavilydependentonfossil—firedelectricgeneration.Third,worldoilpricesthroughtheirinfluenceonotherfuelpricesaffectthesubstitutionpossibilitiesthatexistforelectricityintheRailbelt.1.2.4.1.3WorldOil PriceAPAOILPRICEAND LOADPROJECTIONTheAPAtakesasitsreferencecasefortheworldoilpricescenarioaprojectionmadebyShermanH.ClarkAssociates(SHCA),aCalifornia-basedenergyconsultingfirm.Theforecastersresponsibleforthisoilpriceprojectionhaveassigneda35%probabilityofoccurrencetothisparticularscenario.Amongotherthings,thisforecast,according totheAPA,assumes“thatOPECwillcontinueoperatingasaviableentityandwillnotlimitproductionduringtheforecastedperiod.RecenttrendsineconomicgrowthintheUnitedStatesandthefreeworldwillcontinueatreasonablerates.”TheparticularpricesforworldcrudeassociatedwiththisreferencecaseareshowninTable1-6.Statepetroleumrevenuesconsistent withthisworldoilpricetrajectoryarecomputedandareinputtotheManintheArcticProgram(MAP)modeltobegin theloadforecastingsequence.TheresultsofthatforecastprocedureareshowninTable1—7.TheApplicantpresentedotheralternativeloadprojections,describedinAppendixA.Forpurposesofcomparison,four ofthesealternativeloadprojectionsaredepictedgraphicallyinFigure1-3.UsingAPA’s“reference”caseasastandardforcomparison,itshouldbenotedthatthereislittletodistinguishtheseprojectionsinthenear—term.Variationaroundthatreferencecaseloadprojectionislessthan3.5%in1985,asseeninTable1-8.By1990,however,significantdifferencesareseentoexistintheforecasts.ImpliedannualgrowthrateinkWhloadsduringthatperiodareshowninTable1-9.1.2.4.2FERCStaffProjectionsTheFERCStaffhasindependently evaluatedthevariouspossibilitiesforfutureoilpricesandidentifiedthefollowingmid—rangeprojectionshownin1983dollars:Year19831985 199019952000 2010Oilprice($/barrel)292420 2224 29($/metricton)213176147162 176 213TherangeofstaffsprojectionsareshowninFigure1-4.Variousforecasts ofothersareshowninFigure1—5.TheStaffjudgedtheworldoilpricetrajectoriesdescribedinAppendixAtobemoreplausiblethantheoilpricescenariosrecommendedbytheApplicant.TheStaffprojectionisbasedon anassumptionthatthestrengthofeconomicforcesnowactinginthedirectionofreducingoilprices(fuelswitching,conservation,andthegrowthofnon-OPECoilproduction)willcontinuethroughoutthe1980stoexceedthestrengthofeconomicforcestendingtoincreaseoilprices(renewedworldeconomicgrowth).SeveraloilpriceprojectionsbyAlaska’sDepartmentofRevenue,consultantstothe AlaskanPowerAuthority(SHCA),andDOEareshowninFigure1—5.TheSIICAandDOEprojectionsareallpostulatedon anassumptionthatthecombinationofeconomicforceswillcauseasufficientgrowthindemandforoilto allowOPECto increaseitsoutput,andhencemaintainitsmarketpower.~ForecastsproducedbytheREDmodelwereextendedbytheApplicantfrom2010to2020usingtheaverageannualgrowthfortheperiod2000-2010.1-91.2.4.1.2LoadProjectionTheApplicanthaspreparedloadprojectionsforthetimeperiod1983-2010underawiderangeofalternativescenarios.*Eachforecastscenarioischaracterizedbyaspecifictrajectoryforthepricethatcrudeoilwillcommandinworldmarketsovertheforecasthorizon.ThereareatleastthreereasonsthattheworldoilpriceischosenasthesingleexogenousvariablethatistobealteredinattemptingtobrackettheloadgrowthintheRailbelt.First,worldoilpricesaffectthelevelofpetroleumrevenuestotheStateofAlaska,mainlythroughseverancetaxes-androyaltypayments.Theserevenuesaccountformorethan80%oftotalstaterevenues,andthestateisthesinglelargesteconomicforceactingontheRailbelteconomy.Second,worldoilpricesaffectdirectlythecostsofelectricitygeneratedintheRailbeltbecauseof thelinkagebetweencrudepricesandpricesofotherfossilfuels.TheRailbeltis,asdemonstratedinSection1.2.2,heavilydependentonfossil-firedelectricgeneration.Third,worldoilpricesthroughtheirinfluenceonotherfuelpricesaffectthesubstitutionpossibil-itiesthatexistforelectricityintheRailbelt.1.2.4.1.3WorldOilPriceAPAOILPRICEANOLOAOPROJECTIONTheAPAtakesasitsreferencecasefortheworldoilpricescenarioaprojectionmadebyShermanH.ClarkAssociates(SHCA),aCalifornia-basedenergyconsultingfirm.Theforecastersresponsibleforthisoilpriceprojectionhaveassigneda35%probabilityofoccurrencetothisparticularscenario.AmongotherthingsIthi5forecast,accordingtotheAPA,assumesIIthatOPECwillcontinueoperatingasaviableentityandwillnotlimitproductionduringthefore-castedperiod.RecenttrendsineconomicgrowthintheUnitedStatesandthefreeworldwillcontinueatreasonablerates.IITheparticularpricesforworldcrudeassociatedwiththisreferencecaseareshowninTable1-6.StatepetroleumrevenuesconsistentwiththisworldoilpricetrajectoryarecomputedandareinputtotheManintheArcticProgram(MAP)modeltobegintheloadforecastingsequence.TheresultsofthatforecastprocedureareshowninTable1-7.TheApplicantpresentedotheralter-nativeloadprojections,describedinAppendixA.Forpurposesofcomparison,fourofthesealternativeloadprojectionsaredepictedgraphicallyinFigure1-3.UsingAPA1sIlreference"caseasastandardforcomparison,itshouldbenotedthatthereislittletodistinguishtheseprojectionsinthenear-term.Variationaroundthatreferencecaseloadprojectionislessthan3.5%in1985,as seeninTable1-8.By1990,however,significantdifferencesareseentoexistintheforecasts.ImpliedannualgrowthrateinkWhloadsduringthatperiodareshowninTable1-9.1.2.4.2FERCStaffProjectionsTheFERCStaffhasindependentlyevaluatedthevariouspossibilitiesforfutureoilpricesandidentifiedthefollowingmid-rangeprojectionshownin1983dollars:Year198319851990199520002010Oilprice($/barre1)292420 222429($/metricton)213176147162 176213Therangeofstaff'sprojectionsareshowninFigure1-4.VariousforecastsofothersareshowninFigure1-5.TheStaffjudgedtheworldoilpricetrajectoriesdescribedinAppendixAtobemoreplausiblethantheoilpricescenariosrecommendedbytheApplicant.TheStaffprojectionisbasedonanassumptionthatthestrengthofeconomicforcesnowactinginthedirectionofreducingoilprices(fuelswitching,conservation,andthegrowthofnon-OPECoilproduction)willcontinuethroughoutthe1980stoexceedthestrengthofeconomicforcestendingtoincreaseoilprices(renewedworldeconomicgrowth).SeveraloilpriceprojectionsbyAlaska'sOepartmentofRevenue,consultantstotheAlaskanPowerAuthority(SHCA),andDOEareshowninFigure1-5.TheSHCAandOOEprojectionsareallpostulatedonanassumptionthatthecombinationofeconomicforceswillcauseasufficientgrowthindemandforoiltoallowOPECtoincreaseitsoutput,andhencemaintainitsmarketpower.*ForecastsproducedbytheREDmodelwereextendedbytheApplicantfrom2010to2020usingtheaverageannualgrowthfortheperiod2000-2010. 1-10Table1—6.APAReferenceCase,WorldOilPriceScenarioPriceinAnnualRateFinalYearofChangeofPeriodinPriceYears(1983$/bbl)(%)198328.95—14.9198427.61—4.71985—198826.30—1.21989-201050.392.6Conversion:Thepriceof$1/barrel=$7.35/metricton.Source: CompiledbyFERCStafffromdatapresentedinSusitnaHydroelectric Project,Vol.2A,AlaskaPowerAuthority,1983.Table1—7.APAReferenceCase,RailbeltLoadProjection,1983—2010PeakEnergyDemandYear(GWh)(MW)19832,80357919853,09663919903,73777719954,17186820004,54294520055,0931,05920105,8581,217Source:CompiledbyFERCStafffromdatapresentedinSusitnaHydroelectric Project,Vol.2C,AlaskaPowerAuthority,1983.1-10Table1-6.APAReferenceCase,WorldOilPriceScenarioPrice;nAnnualRateFinalVearofChangeofPeriodinPriceYears(1983$/bb1)(%)198328.95-14.9I,ll198427.61-4.71985-198826.30-1.21989-201050.392.6II':I!I ,Conversion:Thepriceof$l/barrel=$7.35/metricton.Source:CompiledbyFERCStafffromdatapresentedinSusitnaHydroelectricProject,Vol.2A,AlaskaPowerAuthority,1983.Table1-7.APAReferenceCase,RailbeltLoadProjection,1983-2010PeakEnergyDemandVear(GWh)(MW)19832,80357919853,09663919903,73777719954,17186820004,54294520055,0931,05920105,8581,217Source:CompiledbyFERCStafffromdatapresentedinSusitnaHydroelectricProject,Vol.2C,AlaskaPowerAuthority,1983. 1-11OWI170006000500040002800Figure1-3.AlternativeAPALoadProjectionsfor1985—2010ComparingDataResources,Inc.,Reference,AlaskaDepartmentofRevenueMean, andAlaskaDepartmentofRevenue30%Cases.DRIReference0011meanDOR30%1985199019952000200520101-11GWh70006000500040002800DRIReferenceDDRmeanDDR30%19851990199520002005 2010Figure1-3.AlternativeAPALoadProjectionsfor1985-2010ComparingDataResources,Inc.,Reference,AlaskaDepartmentofRevenueMean,andAlaskaDepartmentofRevenue30%Cases. IITable1—8.APALoadProjectionsRelativetotheReferenceCaseForecastYearForecast___________________________________________________________Scenario1985 1990 199520002010DRIt11.00 0.99 1.04 1.21 1.19Referencei.oo1.001.001.001.00fORMeant20.990.94 0.92 0.93 0.92DOR30%t30.97 0.90 0.85 0.860.85t’DataResources,Inc.t2AlaskaDepartmentofRevenuemeancase.t3AlaskaDepartmentofRevenue30%case.Table1—9.AnnualLoadGrowth(%)ImpliedbyAPAForecastsForecastYearsScenario1985—19901990—19951995-2000 2000-2010DRI1-’3.643.153.043.29Reference3.84DORMeant22.841.873.802.47DOR30%t32.221.141.792.44t1DataResources,Inc.t2AlaskaDepartmentofRevenuemeancase.t3AlaskaDepartmentofRevenue30%case.1—12I!.2.221.722.601-12Table1-8.APALoadProjectionsRelativetotheReferenceCaseForecastForecastYearScenario19851990199520002010ORlt'1.000.991.041.111.19Reference1.001.001.001.001.00OORMeant20.990.940.920.93 0.92OOR30%t30.97 0.90 0.850.860.85t'DataResources,Inc.t2AlaskaDepartmentofRevenuemeancase.t3AlaskaDepartmentofRevenue30%case.Table1-9.AnnualLoadGrowth(%)ImpliedbyAPAForecastsForecastYearsScenario1985-1990 1990-19951995-20002000-2010DRIt'3.643.153.043.29Reference3.842.221.722.60DORMeant22.841.873.802.47DOR30'£t32.221.141.792.44t'DataResources.Inc.t2AlaskaDepartmentofRevenuemeancase.t3AlaskaDepartmentofRevenue30%case. 100 80 60 40 20 a, cv .0 ‘a Lu.cv 0 •0 0, a, t3 I. 0~ C Possible Supply Disruption N; —a a ——a a —_——/Competitive Pricing Potential (price collapse) I I I I w 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 Year Possible Decline Due to Photovoltaics,Fusion,etc. I I 2050 Figure 1-4.Projected World Oil Prices in 1983 Dollars per barrel,Including Possible Supply Disruption. .,100 r--------------------------, 80 "CI),....§:,:~~"...cv ~~~,.CI......."en "...cv 60 "Ci ""C ,,"M Possible Supply Disruption "co \"0) "40 ""f-'II ", CI)"f-'II w(.)"..."""c..,\"... _---------_Minimum-...,'.-0 20 \-----/--------,--1\----P 'bl 0 rOt\I --Competitive Pricing Potential OSSI e .ec me .ue 0..i---(price collapse)Photovoltalcs,Fusion,etc. 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Year 2020 2030 2040 2050 Figure 1-4.Projected World Oil Prices in 1983 Dollars per barrel,Including Possible Supply Disruption. I-.•“-‘J••-_I-~~-••~_~-.....—c-——Ii ~‘—r—~•.--.-. -—~~.•.~.T..~.~v:.-’-’--.‘_--.-—.c~.... Figure 1—5. ,(2)1.DOE NNEP-83 Scenario C 2.Sherman H.Clark Associates-Supply Disruption 3.DOE NNEP-83 Scenario A (low case) 4.Sherman H.Clark Associates-No Supply Disruption (1) 100 — 80— / /. 60 ~(3) 40 4% 20 — ~0 cv 0 c4J 0) C 0 a,C., 0~ ., S 5.Alaska Department of 6.Alaska Department of 7.Alaska Department of 0•~ Revenue-Mean Revenue-50% Revenue-30% (5) a ~— “a “a (6) ~—(7) T I I I I 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 Year Price of Oil Using Various Forecasts,Including U.S.Department of Energy, Sherman H.Clark Associates,and Alaska Department of Revenue. 100 80 en... ~cs 'C 60Ncoen,... c 40-c m Co)0;:: I:l.. 20 (1 ) ,(2) o / 0/' /•/ ./. .//(3) /'//~.o(4).~.-~,..0.'~... ."/00..""!/_.__(5).......,..;-----..-,,'<:.- illltlrr..-..••__ ~__··_··_••_(6) ---(7) 1.DOE NNEP-83 Scenario C 2.Sherman H.Clark Associates-Supply Disruption 3.DOE NNEP-83 Scenario A (low case) 4.Sherman H,Clark Associates-No Supply Disruption 5.Alaska Department of Revenue-Mean 6.Alaska Department of Revenue-50% 7.Alaska Department of Revenue-30% 1970 1980 1990 2000 Year 2010 2020 Figure 1-5.Price of Oil Using Various Forecasts,Including U.S.Oepartment of Energy, Sherman H.Clark Associates,and Alaska Department of Revenue. 1-15Ifoilpricesdecline,thenthemagnitudeoffuelswitchingandconservationshoulddiminish,lessexplorationanddevelopmentshouldoccurinnon—OPECcountries,andtheworld’seconomicgrowthshouldbestimulated.Inshort,areductioninoilpriceswillreducethemagnitudeofforcestendingtofurtherreduceoilpricesandwillincreasethemagnitudeofforcestendingtocausepricestorise.Asaconsequence,evenifoilprices declineinthenearterm,theyeventuallywillstarttoriseagain.Almostallanalystsprojectincreasingpricesafteraboutadecade,orless.Conversely,ifoilpricesrise,thentheeconomicforcestendingtocauseoilprices tofallwillbestrengthened,whereasthedegreeoftheworld’seconomicrecoverywilltendtobereduced.AseriesofloadprojectionshavebeenmadeutilizingStaffworldoilpriceforecasts.TheprojectionsusethesamemodelingapparatusconstructedbytheAPAandrequiredconversionoftheworldoilpriceforecasttoaforecastofstatepetroleumrevenuesforuseintheMAPmodel.ThisconversionwascarriedoutinamannerconsistentwiththeoneusedbyAPA.Further,theRailbeltElectricityDemand(RED)modelinputrequirementsforend—userfuel pricesweremadeconsistentwithStaffworldoilpricetrajectories.TheloadprojectionsthatresultedforthemediumandhighworldoilpriceassumptionsareshowninTables1-10and1~112kAgraphicalcomparisonofAPAandFERCStaffprojectionsofelectricdemandisshowninFigure1-6.ItshouldbenotedthatinadditiontothechangesinworldoilpricescenariosthatStaffchosetomake,alterationstotheMAPmodelwerealsopursued.TheobjectiveinmakingthosealterationswastoimprovewhatStaffjudgedtobetheeconomicconsistencyofwhatappearstobeasophisticatedforecastingtool.Nevertheless,wherethespecificationofanequationcouldbealteredtoaddeconomiccontent,aswellasimprove boththestatisticalfitandsignificanceofcoefficientsintheequation,thensuchamodificationwasmade.Inthoseinstanceswhenanequationwassuccessfullyaltered,itwasalsothecasethatsubstitutionofthenewequationintothemodelcausedthesystemtobecomeunstable.ThiswasthecasebecausecriticallinkageswithinthesystemofequationswerebrokenasaconsequenceofthechangesmadebyStaff.Thiscanoccurdespitethechangeshavingimprovedtheparticularequationviewedinisolation.Thisisnotanunreasonablecircumstance givenamodelwiththecomplexityoftheMAPsystem.Forthisreason,StaffhasjudgedthattheforecastingmodelsemployedbytheApplicantcould notbeimproveduponinthetimeallotted,andthesesamemodelshave beenadoptedforpurposesofgeneratingtheStaffRailbeltforecasts.1.2.5Generation-LoadRelationshipsofExistingandPlannedRailbeltSystemTheexistingandpresentlyplannedadditionstogeneratingresourcesoftheRailbeltsystem(withoutSusitna)aresummarizedinTable1—12inrelationtotheStaff’smediumoilpriceloadgrowthprojections.Thepeakloadsarethepoint-of-use figuresgiveninTable1—10increasedbyanaverage9%transmissionloss torepresentloadsatthegeneratorbusbars. Table1—12showsreservemarginsabove20%untilthemid 1990swithoutfurtheradditions.TheexistingcapacityretirementscheduleconsideredinTable1-12isshowninTable1—13.However,areservemarginfigureisnotperseasufficientindicatorofpowersupplyadequacy.Theprobableavailabilityforserviceofindividualgeneratingunits,especiallyatpeakloadperiods,istheprincipaldeterminantofreserve requirement.Probableavailabilityvarieswithgeneratingunittype, sizeandage.Inthecaseofhydropowergeneration,energylimitations(watersupply)maynotpermitaunittodevelopitsfullpowercapabilityforeachsuccessivedailypeakinthepeakloadperiod,thusrestrictingtheload-carryingabilityofaunittolessthanitsrating.Theload-carryingcharacteristicsofthevariousformsofexistingandplannedRailbeltgenerationwere examinedintermsoftheshapeoftheRailbeltloaddurationcurvetodetermine thepoint atwhichfurthergenerationadditionswillbeneeded.ThisanalysisshowedthatadditionalRailbeltgenerationwillbeneededin1994tolimitthe probableunservedsystemenergyrequirement.AlthoughTable1—12showsa36%reservemarginin1993,basedoninstalledcapacityratings,theanalysisshowedthatgeneratingresourcesareonlymarginallyadequateinthatyear.*Noprojectionsconsistentwiththelowworldoilpricetrajectorycouldbegenerated.ThestateeconomicmodelcomponentofMAPwasunabletocomputeasolutiongiventhedrasticreductionsinstaterevenuesimpliedbythelowoilpricein1985.ThisshouldnotbeviewedasafailureoftheMAPmodel.TheresultisindicativeoftheveryseriouseconomicproblemstheworldandAlaska,inparticular,arelikelytofaceifthepriceofoilcollapsestothe$10barrelrangein1985.r1-15Ifoilpricesdecline,thenthemagnitudeoffuelswitchingandconservationshoulddiminish,1essexpIorationanddevelopmentshouldoccurinnon-OPECcountries,andtheworld'seconomicgrowthshouldbestimulated.Inshort,areductioninoilpriceswillreducethemagnitudeofforcestendingtofurtherreduceoilpricesandwillincreasethemagnitudeofforcestendingtocausepricestorise.Asaconsequence,evenifoilpricesdeclineinthenearterm,theyeventuallywillstarttoriseagain.Almostallanalystsprojectincreasingpricesafteraboutadecade,orless.Conversely,ifoilpricesrise,thentheeconomicforcestendingtocauseoilpricestofallwillbestrengthened,whereasthedegreeoftheworld'seconomicrecoverywilltendtobereduced.AseriesofloadprojectionshavebeenmadeutilizingStaffworldoilpriceforecasts.TheprojectionsusethesamemodelingapparatusconstructedbytheAPAandrequiredconversionoftheworldoilpriceforecasttoaforecastofstatepetroleumrevenuesforuseintheMAPmodel.ThisconversionwascarriedoutinamannerconsistentwiththeoneusedbyAPA.Further,theRailbeltElectricityDemand(RED)modelinputrequirementsforend-userfuelpricesweremadeconsistentwithStaffworldoilpricetrajectories.TheloadprojectionsthatresultedforthemediumandhighworldoilpriceassumptionsareshowninTables1-10and1-11.*AgraphicalcomparisonofAPAandFERCStaffprojectionsofelectricdemandisshowninFigure1-6.ItshouldbenotedthatinadditiontothechangesinworldoilpricescenariosthatStaffchosetomake,alterationstotheMAPmodelwerealsopursued.Theobjectiveinmakingthosealtera-tionswastoimprovewhatStaffjudgedtobetheeconomicconsistencyofwhatappearstobeasophisticatedforecastingtoo1.Nevertheless,wherethespecificationofanequationcouldbealteredtoaddeconomiccontent,aswellasimproveboththestatisticalfitandsignificanceofcoefficientsintheequation,thensuchamodificationwasmade.Inthoseinstanceswhenanequationwassuccessfullyaltered,itwasalsothecasethatsubstitutionofthenewequationintothemodelcausedthesystemtobecomeunstable.ThiswasthecasebecausecriticallinkageswithinthesystemofequationswerebrokenasaconsequenceofthechangesmadebyStaff.Thiscanoccurdespitethechangeshavingimprovedtheparticularequationviewedinisolation.ThisisnotanunreasonablecircumstancegivenamodelwiththecomplexityoftheMAPsystem.Forthisreason,StaffhasjudgedthattheforecastingmodelsemployedbytheApplicantcouldnotbeimproveduponinthetimeallotted,andthesesamemodelshavebeenadoptedforpurposesofgeneratingtheStaffRai1beltforecasts.1.2.5Generation-LoadRelationshipsofExistingandPlannedRailbeltSystemTheexistingandpresentlyplannedadditionstogeneratingresourcesoftheRai1be1tsystem(withoutSusitna)aresummarizedinTable1-12inrelationtotheStaff'smediumoilpriceloadgrowthprojections.Thepeakloadsarethepoint-of-usefiguresgiveninTable1-10increasedbyanaverage9%transmissionlosstorepresentloadsatthegeneratorbusbars.Table1-12showsreservemarginsabove20%untilthemid1990swithoutfurtheradditions.TheexistingcapacityretirementscheduleconsideredinTable1-12isshowninTable1-13.However,areservemarginfigureisnotperseasufficientindicatorofpowersupplyadequacy.Theprobableavailabilityforserviceofindividualgeneratingunits,especiallyatpeakloadperiods,istheprincipaldeterminantofreserverequirement.Probableavailabilityvarieswithgeneratingunittype,sizeandage.Inthecaseofhydropowergeneration,energylimitations(watersupply)maynotpermitaunittodevelopitsfullpowercapabilityforeachsuccessivedailypeakinthepeakloadperiod,thusrestrictingtheload-carryingabilityofaunittolessthanitsrating.Theload-carryingcharacteristicsofthevariousformsofexistingandplannedRai1be1tgenera-tionwereexaminedintermsoftheshapeoftheRai1be1tloaddurationcurvetodeterminethepointatwhichfurthergenerationadditionswillbeneeded.Thisanalysisshowedthataddi-tionalRai1beltgenerationwillbeneededin1994tolimittheprobableunservedsystemenergyrequirement.AlthoughTable1-12showsa36%reservemarginin1993,basedoninstalledcapacityratings,theanalysisshowedthatgeneratingresourcesareonlymarginallyadequateinthatyear.*Noprojectionsconsistentwiththelowworldoilpricetrajectorycouldbegenerated.ThestateeconomicmodelcomponentofMAPwasunabletocomputeasolutiongiventhedrasticreductionsinstaterevenuesimpliedbythelowoilpricein1985.ThisshouldnotbeviewedasafailureoftheMAPmodel.TheresultisindicativeoftheveryseriouseconomicproblemstheworldandAlaska,inparticular,arelikelytofaceifthepriceofoilcollapsestothe$10barrelrangein1985. ____________-.-•-~-——-••-a -.L~r -I --‘.-.-.~-.~r•-~I fl.flarm ~apJrtr~.—2~_~.~W --I CD 03 C rT, C)Z CD Z~-1 ‘—Co C CD -~ 0 CD~:0~0) ‘—a ~ 0- -10) 0~ CD F-if m F-ato- 00) -3-,. 0_c- CD to -a-Ct Co -a (4 r I -~0 Na -,03 °a. Na n Na CD n 0 (1)-, flW CDfl Zn’ 03W -,C— 0 -Ti m C, U-,c-f 0’ -h n m C)0 ‘—Co C fl CD -o ~CD ~o,0’ ‘--a S 0. —103 0~ CD CD I—’ 0-0 C 3 0-a. 0-CD CD-a. Ca)a r 0 Na -c 0~o -s 0-Na-’. Na 0 -fl (DO -3(MIDfin(DO) S CM 03 c-f -3- -n -.rn C, CMc-f 0) Na Na Na Na Na F-J —F--a —o o 0 0 0 to to to to Na Na —0 0 to to Co CD Na o 0 01 0 01 0 C.fl Ca) CD 01 C,)-.J -~to 01 —Coa, to -.j to .p Na a,-~— 0’‘~F-a In ~-.J ~J —.3 0’-p -P (0 fr.1 tO to Co ~J a~01 Na a,—to Na F-~-p -p CO P —3 C~fl a~i UI -J Na .p — Na Na Na Na Na F—’— —I~-< 0 0 0 0 0 tO to to to CD Na Na fr)0 0 to to Co Co 0) Na 0 0 01 0 01 0 01 (4 -, tn 4~Na0’~-.J 0 Co to Na 0)Na 0 Co -J to 0(,)-P -P tO CO Co -p -p Na U)Ca)0 to Co —3 —J 0 01 Co Ca)Co 0 0 Co Na Ca)J! Co Na 0 0 0 Co Na to CO 1-16Table1-10.RailbeltLoadForecast,FERCStaffMediumWorldOilPriceScenario,1983-2022Table1-11.RailbeltLoadForecast,FERCStaffHighWorldOilPriceScenario,1983-2022PeakEnergyDemandYear(GWh)(MW)19832,80257919853,09463919903,47472219953,78878820004,16886620054,62396020105,2341,08620206,4241,33220226,6931,388Ij!I'!I'I",I:I'"·"1II,!I'IIiI,I1::,lilII!IYear198319851990199520002005201020202022PeakEnergyDemand(GWh)(MW)2,8145813,1166443,5677423,9278174,4479254,7939965,3711,1156,5911,3676,8661,424 1-17GWh60005500—DORmeanFERChighFERCmedium5000—DOR30%4500—4000—3500—30001985 19901995200020052010Figure1-6.FERCStaffLoadProjectionsandSelectedAPALoadProjectionfor1983—2010,IncludingAPAReference,DepartmentofRevenueMean,FERCHigh,FERCMedium,andDepartmentofRevenue30%Cases.APAreferenceIIIIII1-17APAreference5500DDRmeanFERChighFERCmedium5000DDR3D%3000400035004500GWh60001985 1990199520002005 2010Figure1-6.FERCStaffLoadProjectionsandSelectedAPALoadProjectionfor1983-2010,IncludingAPAReference,DepartmentofRevenueMean,FERCHigh,FERCMedium,andDepartmentofRevenue30%Cases. 1-18Table1-12.SystemGenerationCapability--SelectedYears(mediumoilpricelevel)YearParameter19931994199520002010 20202022IJ~JExistinggeneratingcapacity(1992)(MW)1,0341,034 1,034 1,034 1,034 1,0341,034Plannedadditions(1988)(MW)9797 97 97979797Availablecapacity(1992)(MW)1,131 1,1311,1311,1311,1311,1311,131Retirements(MW)_j~•_~j-j~304989989Netavailablecapacity(MW)1,1151,0841,055827594142142Peakload (asgenerated)(MW)818 845859944.7]~]~1,4521L~~Margin(MW)H()=deficit297 239196(117)(590)(1,310) (1,371)I:Table1-13.SusitnaScheduleofRetirementsCapacity(MW)RetiredGasTurbineCombinedAnnualYearCoalGasOilDieselCycleTotalCumulativeH:199397161619943013147199514 8729761996656514119973651692101998505026019992602000251443042001304200251513s~20035353408200440820052158794872006232351020072626536200853620091201053720116139145682H20121161782949762013976201497620151313989Total5945113824317 989,\1-18IIiiTable1-12.SystemGenerationCapability--SelectedYearsII(mediumoilprice1eve1)i'llilllYearI'llParameter1993199419952000201020202022!.Ii'il1':1'11ExistinggeneratingIln,lcapacity(1992)(MW)1,0341,0341,0341,0341,034 1,0341,034."1','1"Plannedadditions]1,li,1(1988)(MW)9797 9797 97 9797'1Ii",IAvailablecapacityI.li'l(1992)(MW)1,1311,1311,1311,1311,1311,1311,131'Iii,I'[il'Retirements(MW)~4776304537989 989I ;Netavailablecapacity111::1:':(MW)1,1151,0841,05582759414214211,1,Peakload(asgenerated)I'(MW)818 845859944.71,1841,452 1,513111,'1I'!,i,Margin(MW)L1)'\() =deficit297239196(117)(590)(1,310) (1,371)',liJI!l'li"!','.;1,'I,I"ITable1-13.SusitnaScheduleofRetirements.jIii,.1,]1111Capacity(MW)Retired11".111'''1GasTurbineCombinedAnnuall'il,lll,YearCoalGasOilDieselCycleTotalCumulativel'ij,I,I'",1993971616,:'ill'l"II19943D13147!~,:i!I,"I'il'll1995148 72976',.jill]19966565141'1"11,1199736516921011:\1,1:119985050260I1,1119992601"12000251814430411['112001304lil,lll20025151355[Iil,:2003535340811',2004408I,T"2005215879487lil,I!'II,2006232351011,1'120072626536,IIIII2008536I"'i,III20091537'II2010537!II,20116139 145682~201211617829497620139762014976I20151313989Total5945113824317989 1-191.3ALTERNATIVEACTIONS1.3.1AlternativeProjectDesignsTheStaff’sanalysisofalternativedevelopmentplansfortheSusitna RiverBasinisbasedonitsstudyoftheprevioussite—selectionstudiesdonebytheApplicant,theStateofAlaska,theU.S.ArmyCorpsofEngineers(Corps),andtheBureauofReclamation(Bureau).1.3.1.1PreviousStudiesThefirstmajor studyoftheSusitnaBasinwasperformedbytheBureauin1953.ThefollowingtendamsiteswereidentifiedabovetherailroadcrossingatGold Creek:(1)GoldCreek(6)Vee(2)Olson(7)ilaclaren(3)DevilCanyon(8)Denali(4)DevilCreek(9)ButteCreek(5)Watana(10)TyoneFieldreconnaissanceeliminatedhalfoftheseupperbasinsites,withfurtherBureauconsiderationcenteredonOlson,DevilCanyon,Watana,Vee,andDenali.AlloftheBureaustudiessince1953haveregardedthesesitesasthemostappropriateforfurtherinvestigation.In1974,theOffice oftheGovernor,StateofAlaska,commissionedastudythatbecameknown astheKaiserProposal.InthisstudyitwasproposedthattheinitialSusitnadevelopmentconsistofasingledamknown asHighDevilCanyon.SubsequentdevelopmentssuggestedinthestudyincludedadownstreamdamattheOlsonsiteandanupstreamdamatasiteknownasSusitnaIII.TheCorpsundertook themostcomprehensivestudyofthepotentialoftheupperSusitnaRiverBasinpriortotheApplicant’sstudies.TheCorpsstudies,performedin1975and1979,involvedanalysis of23alternativedevelopments,includingthoseproposedbytheBureau.TheCorpsstudyinitiallyrecommendedconstructionofanearthfilldamatWatanawithaheightof810ft(247m).Inthelongerterm,developmentofDevilCanyonandDenalisiteswerediscussed.FurtherinvestigationsontheSusitnaBasinbytheCorpsin1979reaffirmedDevilCanyonandWatanaasappropriatesites,andalternativedamtypeswereinvestigated.1.3.1.2 Applicant’sStudiesTheApplicant’sstudies includedreviewofthe12damsitespreviouslyidentifiedintheupperportion ofthe SusitnaBasin.ThesesitesarelistedinTable1—14alongwithrelevantdataconcerningcost,installedcapacity,andenergypotential.Figure1—7illustrateswhichsitesaremutuallyexclusive,i.e.,cannotbedevelopedjointly,sincedevelopmentofthedownstreamsitewouldinundatetheupstreamsite.TheApplicant’sscreeningprocessreducedtheoriginal12sitesbyeliminatingthosethatwouldobviouslynotbeincludedintheinitialstagesoftheSusitnadevelopmentplan,andthatthereforedidnotdeservefurtherstudyatthisstage.Threebasicscreeningcriteriawereusedtoeliminatesites:excessiveenvironmentaldamage,mutuallyexclusivesites,andinsufficientoruneconomicalenergycontribution.TheApplicant’ssc.reeningprocessresultedintheeliminationoftheGoldCreek,Olson,Tyone,DevilCreekandButteCreeksites.TheremainingsitesupstreamfromVee,i.e.,MaclarenandDenali,wereretainedto“insurethatfurtherstudybedirectedtowarddeterminingtheneedandviabilityofprovidingflowregulationintheheadwatersoftheSusitna”(ExhibitB,p.B_1_7].*Initsnextscreening,APAconsideredengineeringlayoutsand morereliablecostestimatesforthesevenremainingdevelopments.TheresultsofthisscreeningindicatedthattheSusitnaBasindevelopmentplanshouldincorporateacombinationofdamsandpowerhouseslocatedatoneormoreofthefollowingsites:(1) DevilCanyon(2)HighDevilCanyon(3)Watana(4)SusitnaIII(5)Vee*Throughoutthisdocument,referencestospecific “Exhibits”aretotheexhibitssubmittedtoFERCaspartofAlaskaPowerAuthority’sSusitnaHydroelectricProjectLicenseApplication.Referencestospecific“Appendices”(App.)aretotheappendicesprovidedinVolumes2through7ofthisDraftEnvironmentalImpactStatement.1-191.3ALTERNATIVEACTIONS1.3.1AlternativeProjectDesignsTheStaff'sanalysisofalternativedevelopmentplansfortheSusitnaRiverBasinisbasedonitsstudyoftheprevioussite-selectionstudiesdonebytheApplicant,theStateofAlaska,theU.S.ArmyCorpsofEngineers(Corps),andtheBureauofReclamation(Bureau).1.3.1.1PreviousStudiesThefirstmajorstudyoftheSusitnaBasinwasperformedbytheBureauin1953.ThefollowingtendamsiteswereidentifiedabovetherailroadcrossingatGoldCreek:(1)GoldCreek(2)Olson(3)DevilCanyon(4)DevilCreek(5)Watana(6)Vee(7)Maclaren(8)Denali(9)ButteCreek(10)TyoneFieldreconnaissanceeliminatedhalfoftheseupperbasinsites,withfurtherBureauconsidera-tioncenteredonOlson,DevilCanyon,Watana,Vee,andDenali.AlloftheBureaustudiessince1953haveregardedthesesitesasthemostappropriateforfurtherinvestigation.In1974,theOfficeoftheGovernor,StateofAlaska,commissionedastudythatbecameknownastheKaiserProposal.InthisstudyitwasproposedthattheinitialSusitnadevelopmentconsistofasingledamknownasHighDevilCanyon.SubsequentdevelopmentssuggestedinthestudyincludedadownstreamdamattheOlsonsiteandanupstreamdamatasiteknownasSusitnaIII.TheCorpsundertookthemostcomprehensivestudyofthepotentialoftheupperSusitnaRiverBasinpriortotheApplicant'sstudies.TheCorpsstudies,performedin1975and1979,involvedanalysisof23alternativedevelopments,includingthoseproposedbytheBureau.TheCorpsstudyinitiallyrecommendedconstructionofanearthfilldamatWatanawithaheightof810ft(247m).Inthelongerterm,developmentofDevilCanyonandDenalisitesweredis-cussed.FurtherinvestigationsontheSusitnaBasinbytheCorpsin1979reaffirmedDevilCanyonandWatanaasappropriatesites,andalternativedamtypeswereinvestigated.1.3.1.2Applicant'sStudiesTheApplicant'sstudiesincludedreviewofthe12damsitespreviouslyidentifiedintheupperportionoftheSusitnaBasin.ThesesitesarelistedinTable1-14alongwithrelevantdataconcerningcost,installedcapacity,andenergypotential.Figure1-7illustrateswhichsitesaremutuallyexclusive,i.e.,cannotbedevelopedjointly,sincedevelopmentofthedownstreamsitewouldinundatetheupstreamsite.TheApplicant'sscreeningprocessreducedtheoriginal12sitesbyeliminatingthosethatwouldobviouslynotbeincludedintheinitialstagesoftheSusitnadevelopmentplan,andthatthere-foredidnotdeservefurtherstudyatthisstage.Threebasicscreeningcriteriawereusedtoeliminatesites:excessiveenvironmentaldamage,mutuallyexclusivesites,andinsufficientoruneconomicalenergycontribution.TheApplicant'sscreeningprocessresultedintheeliminationoftheGoldCreek,Olson,Tyone,DevilCreekandButteCreeksites.TheremainingsitesupstreamfromVee,i.e.,MaclarenandDenali,wereretainedto"insurethatfurtherstudybedirectedtowarddeterminingtheneedandviabilityofprovidingflowregulationintheheadwatersoftheSusitna"(ExhibitB,p.B-1-7].*Initsnextscreening,APAconsideredengineeringlayoutsandmorereliablecostestimatesforthesevenremainingdevelopments.TheresultsofthisscreeningindicatedthattheSusitnaBasindevelopmentplanshouldincorporateacombinationofdamsandpowerhouseslocatedatoneormoreofthefollowingsites:(1)DevilCanyon(2)HighDevilCanyon(3)Watana(4)SusitnaIII(5)Vee*Throughoutthisdocument,referencestospecific"Exhibits"aretotheexhibitssubmittedtoFERCaspartofAlaskaPowerAuthority'sSusitnaHydroelectricProjectLicenseApplication.Referencestospecific"Appendices"(App.)aretotheappendicesprovidedinVolumes2through7ofthisDraftEnvironmentalImpactStatement. _______—-._-z__t’—_~~~..~_:~!~_.---—-.~~e .r ~~~.~...a.-...~z~_s-jir_. Table 1-14.Potential Susitna Basin Hydroelectric Developments t2 No detailed engineering or energy studies undertaken as part of this study. t3 These are approximate estimates and serve only to represent the potential of these two dam sites in per specti ye. t4 Includes estimated costs of power generation facility. Conversion:To convert feet to meters,multiply by 0.305. Economictt D Capital Average Cost ofamCostInstalledAnnualEnergy Proposed Height Upstream ($million Capacity Energy ($/1,000 Source Site Type (ft)Regulation 1980)(MW)(GWh)kWh)of Data Gold Creekt2 Fill 190 Yes 900 260 1,140 37 USBR 1953 Olson (Susitna II)Concrete 160 Yes 600 200 915 31 USBR 1953 KAISER 1974 ~COE 1975 Devil Canyon Concrete 675 No 830 250 1,420 27 This study Yes 1,000 600 2,900 17 This study High Devil Canyon (Susitna I)Fill 855 No 1,500 800 3,540 21 This study Devil Creekt2 Fill Approx.No —--—-——--— 850 Watana Fill 880 No 1,860 800 3,250 20 This study Susitna III Fill 670 No 1,390 350 1,500 41 This study Vee Fill 610 No 1,060 400 1,370 37 This study Maclarent2 Fill 185 No 530t4 55 100 124 This study Denell Fill 230 No 480t4 60 245 81 This study Butte Creekt2 Fill Approx.No -—40 130t3 -—USBR 1953 150 Tyonet2 Fill Approx.No —-6 22t3 ——IJSBR 1953 60 t’-Includes AFDC,insurance,amortization,and operation and maintenance costs. Source:Susitna Application, Exhibit B,Table B.1 Table 1-14.Potential Susitna Basin Hydroelectric Developments Economict' Dam Capita 1 Average Cost of Cost Install ed Annual Energy Proposed Height Upstream ($million Capacity Energy ($/1,000 Source Site Type (tt)Regulation 1980)(MW)(GWh)kWh)of Data Go 1d Cree kt 2 Fi 11 190 Yes 900 260 1,140 37 USBR 1953 Olson (Susitna II)Concrete 160 Yes 600 200 915 31 USBR 1953 KAISER 1974 COE 1975 Devil Canyon Concrete 675 No 830 250 1,420 27 This study Yes 1,000 600 2,900 17 This study High Devil Canyon (Susitna I)Fi 11 B55 No 1,500 BOO 3,540 21 This study Devil Creekt 2 Fi 11 Approx.No 850 ....., Watana Fill 880 No 1,860 BOO 3,250 20 Thi s study '"0 Susitna III Fi 11 670 No 1,390 350 1,500 41 This study Vee Fill 610 No 1,060 400 1,370 37 This study Maclarent 2 Fi 11 185 No 530t 4 55 100 124 This study Denell Fi 11 230 No 4BOt 4 60 245 81 This study Butte Creekt 2 Fill Approx,No 40 BOt3 USBR 1953 150 Tyonet"Fi 11 Approx.No 6 22t 3 USBR 1953 60 t'Includes AFDC,insurance,amortization,and operation and maintenance costs. t 2 No detailed engineering or energy studies undertaken as part of this study. t 3 These are approximate estimates and serve only to represent the potential of these two dam sites in per- spective. t 4 Includes estimated costs of power generation facility. Conversion:To convert feet to meters,multiply by 0.305. Source:Susitna Application,Exhibit B,Table B.1 111011 DEVIl..CAN’t’OFl (3551 SUSITNA fl g~g~.<OLSON á~N ~~WATANA SUSITNAM VEE MACLAREN DENALI TYONE GOLD CREEK a”OLSON J30) DEVIL CANYON DEVIL CREEK 1465 ~445~ 1465 (4c~5) WATANA 10 aS (47’0) VEE (125) 20 t~2O) LEG END COMPATIBLE ALTERNATIVES MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.ALTERNATIVES DAM IN COLUMN IS MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE IF FULL SUPPLY LEVEL OF DAM IN ROW EXCEEDS THIS VALUE-FT. VALUE IN BRACKET REFERS TO APPROXIMATE DAM HEIGHT MACLAREN (405) DENALI BUTTE CREEK TYONE Figure 1-7.Mutually Exclusive Developments.[Source:Application Exhibit B,Fig.B.5] GOto CREEK OLSON DEVIL CANYON HIGW DEVIL CANYON DEVIL CREEK WATANA .SUSITNA VEE MACLAREN DENALI BUTTE CREEK TYONE GOLD CREEK HIGH DEVIL CANYON DEVIL CREEK LEGEND COMPATIBLE ALTERNATIVES D WATANA SUSITNA m VEE MACLAREN MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.ALTERNATIVES •DAM IN COLUMN IS MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE IF FULL SUPPLY LEVEL OF DAM IN ROW EXCEEDS THIS VALUE-FT. VALUE IN BRACKET REFERS TO APPROXIMATE DAM HEIGHT. DENALI BUTTE CREEK TYONE Figure 1-7.Mutually Exclusive Developments.[Source:Application Exhibit 8,Fig.8.5] 1—22Thefollowingconclusionswere drawnbytheAPAfromthescreeningprocess(Exhibit8,p.8—1—12):—Forenergyrequirementsofupto1750GWh,theHighDevilCanyon,DevilCanyonortheWatanasitesindividuallyprovidedthemosteconomicenergy.—Forenergyrequirementsofbetween1750and 3500GWh,thehighDevilCanyonsiteisthemosteconomic.—Forenergyrequirementsofbetween3500and5250GWh,the combinationsofeitherWatanaandDevilCanyonorHighDevilCanyonandVeearemosteconomic.—ThetotalenergyproductioncapabilityoftheWatana—DevilCanyondevelopmentislargerthanthatoftheHighDevilCanyon—Veealternativeandistheonlyplancapableofmeetingenergydemandsinthe6000GWhrange.’TheApplicantstudiedfourtunnelschemesasalternativedevelopmentstotheDevilCanyondamintheWatana—DevilCanyondevelopmentplan.Thetunnelschemescoulddevelopsimilarheadforpowergenerationandprovideenvironmentaladvantagesbyavoiding inundationofDevilCanyon.Theneedforupstreamregulationofflowswouldprecludeatunnelalternativefrombeingotherthanasecond—stagedevelopmentofanupstreamstoragereservoirsuchasWatana.ThefourbasicschemesdevelopedbytheApplicantareshownschematicallyinFigure1—8.Theeconomicanalysisofthefourschemes bytheApplicantindicatedthattunnelscheme3wouldproducethelowestcostenergybyafactoroftwo.TheApplicant’sreviewoftheenvironmentalimpactsassociatedwiththefourtunnelschemesindicatedthatscheme3wouldhavetheleastimpact,primarilybecauseitoffersthebestopportunitiesforregulatingdailyflowsdownstreamfromtheproject.Basedonthisassessmentandbecauseofitssuperioreconomics,tunnelscheme3wastheonlytunnelalternativeselectedforfurtherstudybytheApplicant.1.3.1.3StaffStudiesTheFERCStaff’sstudiesofalternativehydrodevelopmentsintheupperSusitnaRiverBasinmadeuseoftheeconomicandenvironmentalscreeningperformedbytheApplicant.TheStaffconsideredthefivemajordamprojects investigatedbytheApplicantalongwiththetunnelscheme3alternativeaspossiblecandidatesitesformeetingRailbeltenergyrequirements.Fromthesesixbasicalternativedevelopments,19developmentschemeswereformulatedfortheupperSusitnaRiverforfurtherstudy.Table1—15showsthecosts,installedcapacity,andaverageannualehergyassociatedwiththedevelopments,andFigures1—9through1—13showprofilerepresentationswiththerivermileofthedamsitesandnormalpoolelevations.TheCorpsprogramentitledSimulationofFloodControlandConservationSystems(HEC—5)wasusedtodevelopthe energycapabilityofthe19alternatives.TheprogramwasdevelopedbytheCorpstoassistinplanningstudiesforevaluatingproposedreservoirsinasystemandtoassistinsizingthefloodcontrolandconservationstorage requirements.TheHEC—5programwasusedtoevaluatetheenergypotentialoftheSusitnaalternativesbysimulatingthehydrooperationofeachprojectusing33yearsofSusitnaRiverflowrecordsatGoldCreekandrulecurvestosimulatepoweroperations.Theconstraintsmodeledwere:minimumflowrequirementsatGold CreekandtandemoperationconstraintsofcombinedalternativessuchasWatanaandDevilCanyon.Thetandemconstr,aintsincludedhydraulicbalanceoftheturbinesandusablereservoirstorageoftherespectivereservoirs.CaseC(ExhibitB,Table8.54)minimumflowswereusedintheanalysisofprojectoutput.TheoutputoftheHEC—5programwasthemonthlyenergygenerationforall33yearsofsimulation.Fromthewater yearsutilizedinthestudy,theaveragepoweryearselectedwasNovember 1967toOctober1968.1.3.2OtherHydroelectricAlternativesTheStaff’sanalysisofthenon-SusitnaRiverhydroalternativesbeganwithareviewoftheApplicant’sstudiesofAlaskahydropotential.TheApplicantreviewedallearlierstudiesthatinventoriedpotentialsitesthroughoutAlaskaandindexedthevariouseconomicdataintheinventoriestoaconstantbase.TheApplicantthenappliedamultiple—stepscreeningprocesstoreducethevastnumberofpotentialnon—Susitnahydroprojectstothoseconsideredthemosteconomicalandenvironmentallyacceptable.ThetwomaininventoriesusedbytheApplicantinthescreeningprocesswerethosepublishedintheCorps’NationalHydropowerStudyandtheAPA’s“HydroelectricAlternativesforthe AlaskaRailbelt.”Thesecombinedinventoriesidentifiedatotalof91potentialhydroprojectslocatedoutsidethemid—SusitnaRiverthatweretechnicallyfeasible.,IrI!I1-22ThefollowingconclusionsweredrawnbytheAPAfromthescreeningprocess(ExhibitB,p.B-I-12):-"Forenergyrequirementsofupto1750GWh,theHighOevilCanyon,OevilCanyonortheWatanasitesindividuallyprovidedthemosteconomicenergy.-Forenergyrequirementsofbetween1750and3500GWh,thehighDevilCanyonsiteisthemosteconomic.-Forenergyrequirementsofbetween3500and5250GWh,thecombinationsofeitherWatanaandDevilCanyonorHighDevilCanyonandVeearemosteconomic.-ThetotalenergyproductioncapabilityoftheWatana-DevilCanyondevelopmentislargerthanthatoftheHighDevilCanyon-Veealternativeandistheonlyplancapableofmeetingenergydemandsinthe6000GWhrange."TheApplicantstudiedfourtunnelschemesasalternativedevelopmentstotheDevilCanyondamintheWatana-DevilCanyondevelopmentplan.ThetunnelschemescoulddevelopsimilarheadforpowergenerationandprovideenvironmentaladvantagesbyavoidinginundationofDevilCanyon.Theneedforupstreamregulationofflowswouldprecludeatunnelalternativefrombeingotherthanasecond-stagedevelopmentofanupstreamstoragereservoirsuchasWatana.ThefourbasicschemesdevelopedbytheApplicantareshownschematicallyinFigureI-B.TheeconomicanalysisofthefourschemesbytheApplicantindicatedthattunnelscheme3wouldproducethelowestcostenergybyafactoroftwo.TheApplicant'sreviewoftheenvironmentalimpactsassociatedwiththefourtunnelschemesindicatedthatscheme3wouldhavetheleastimpact,primarilybecauseitoffersthebestoppor-tunitiesforregulatingdailyflowsdownstreamfromtheproject.Basedonthisassessmentandbecauseofitssuperioreconomics,tunnelscheme3wastheonlytunnelalternativeselectedforfurtherstudybytheApplicant.1.3.1.3StaffStudiesTheFERCStaff'sstudiesofalternativehydrodevelopmentsintheupperSusitnaRiverBasinmadeuseoftheeconomicandenvironmentalscreeningperformedbytheApplicant.TheStaffcon-sideredthefivemajordamprojectsinvestigatedbytheApplicantalongwiththetunnelscheme3alternativeaspossiblecandidatesitesformeetingRailbeltenergyrequirements.Fromthesesixbasicalternativedevelopments,19developmentschemeswereformulatedfortheupperSusitnaRiverforfurtherstudy.Table1-15showsthecosts,installedcapacity,andaverageannualenergyassociatedwiththedevelopments,andFigures1-9through1-13showprofilerepresenta-tionswiththerivermileofthedamsitesandnormalpoolelevations.TheCorpsprogramentitledSimulationofFloodControlandConservationSystems(HEC-5)wasusedtodeveloptheenergycapabilityofthe19alternatives.TheprogramwasdevelopedbytheCorpstoassistinplanningstudiesforevaluatingproposedreservoirsinasystemandtoassistinsizingthefloodcontrolandconservationstoragerequirements.TheHEC-5programwasusedtoevaluatetheenergypotentialoftheSusitnaalternativesbysimulatingthehydrooperationofeachprojectusing33yearsofSusitnaRiverflowrecordsatGoldCreekandrulecurvestosimulatepoweroperations.Theconstraintsmodeledwere:minimumflowrequirementsatGoldCreekandtandemoperationconstraintsofcombinedalternativessuchasWatanaandDevilCanyon.Thetandemconstr,aintsincludedhydraulicbalanceoftheturbinesandusablereservoirstorageoftherespectivereservoirs.CaseC(ExhibitB,TableB.54)minimumflowswereusedintheanalysisofprojectoutput.TheoutputoftheHEC-5programwasthemonthlyenergygenerationforall33yearsofsimulation.Fromthewateryearsutilizedinthestudy,theaveragepoweryearselectedwasNovember1967toOctober1968.1.3.2OtherHydroelectricAlternativesTheStaff'sanalysisofthenon-SusitnaRiverhydroalternativesbeganwithareviewoftheApplicant'sstudiesofAlaskahydropotential.TheApplicantreviewedallearlierstudiesthatinventoriedpotentialsitesthroughoutAlaskaandindexedthevariouseconomicdataintheinventoriestoaconstantbase.TheApplicantthenappliedamultiple-stepscreeningprocesstoreducethevastnumberofpotentialnon-Susitnahydroprojectstothoseconsideredthemosteconomica1andenvironmentallyacceptable.Thetwomain inventoriesusedbytheApplicantinthescreeningprocesswerethosepublishedintheCorps'NationalHydropowerStudyandtheAPA's"HydroelectricAlternativesfortheAlaskaRailbelt."Thesecombinedinventoriesidentifiedatotalof91potentialhydroprojectslocatedoutsidethemid-SusitnaRiverthatweretechnicallyfeasible. 1-232200FT.WATANA800MW30MWTUNNELSCHEMEI.2.3.4.Figure1—8.SchematicRepresentationofTunnelAlternatives.[Source:ApplicationExhibitB,Fig.B.13]2MILES1475FT.RE-REGULATIONDAMDEVILCANYON38FtDIAMETER550MW800MW—..7OMW38FT.DIAMETER1150MW15.8MILES-..jMW475FT.RE-REGULATIONDAM300MW30FT.DIAMETER800MW24FT.DIAMETER365MW1475ft.--RE-REGULATIONDAM30MWr1-232200fT.WATANA-......._::c-----d9~-800MW:---12MILES._1475ft.RE-REGULATIONDAM2TUNNELS38fT.DlAMETER800MW_70MW2TUNNELS38ft.DIAMETER·800MW-850MW15.8MILES..j230ft.DIAMETERDEVILCANYON550MW1150MW300MWTUNNELSCHEME-#I.2.3.800MW2TUNNELs24ft.DIAMETER365MW4.Figure1-8.SchematicRepresentationofTunnelAlternatives.[Source:ApplicationExhibitB,Fig.B.13] 3%~rr~-~t~:___-2 ~--~:Z~::..-cm — -f -5 0 ~0 0 (I CDa t -5 0t-1. CD C, (A)(23 -~ -~ .03 .03 .03 0’ 0 H H >()~ C C+(Al CD-A ~1 CfSD 0)03 Cf <0)CDUI —SS C CD C’ Cf Cm 0) CfCDa ~~~‘0 —4 m -~-,0 C’—CfCf to S -~0) 0-h-5~o-2o 0) ~—2 —(-2.net ~A.AD0CD o Cl CAl a S Cf Cf >C_) 2Q)— Cft S %CD 0)CAl —1 S -,C~)Cf 0s-ho)Cf ~—~A ~)Cf —~ Cf’<-1-1 CD C 0 0.CD -~ —Cl, Cf S r%CD CD S C 05 1 S CD i ~z cm c -,•5 03’<03 0) ~drt -“0 --2-0 CDC-1~ CD -4 0)0~ CD H 9, 0 0) Cf0) 0 S In Cf 0) -b-h (/, C ‘Al Cl: S 03 0 03 ‘Al S Cf CD -5S 0) Cf C CD In 0)0)03 0)0)0303030303. Cf Cf Cf nCf nCf Cf Cf Cf Cf Cf030)03 030)0)0)0)0’03 0) 0)0 S S S S S S S S S S S S CD 0)03 03 ‘<0) ‘<0)03 0j 03 0)0)C I 0 0 I I I -“ ——~—1 5 —S —S — ——~—f -2 —I C —I 0 —I C C I —IS I S a —IS 5 0 -C 5 5 0 -2.C S 5 0) C S CD 0 a—h C S CD CD S S 5 -2 0--2.-2.5 5 -2 -2 S CD -h h CD SW 0 CD —k ~-~—a CD ~-A (23 (.3 5 CD -~.CD —~I ~-,CD as ff1~CD CD a (.3 -03 (23 C CD 3 CO S (ii C CAl -,CD 5 -On%-0300CDCO-CD ~0).In Cf CO 0 C In 0 5 S S 0 CD -A.~:~0) CD <-2 s ~— -“-2 (~)~%~AA — -2 0)%_2 — S 0 S =~ ~ = -030303 Cf Cf Cf Cf Cf Cfo0)0)03 0 0)03 0) CD S S S CD S S S C 0)03 0)<03 0) 0)- --f—A —f4 0 -2 — —— —I CD — C_)I 0 C 0 0)0 CD _2.0) S CD <5 ‘<C2.1< o -A.—2 flO 5 -2 035 I 0 5 <fl0)’< CD 0)5 0 CD S ~<S ‘<0 —fos— S .03 ~ %J 03 01 IOIn~WIn01toIn~OH~0(2)C~I~)01 01 In H -03 H InC %-J %J toOl In 01 toOl(5)to ~—-3 In 01.03 P3 (A)N.)OH —J In In 01.03 N) —H H\\H H H H~H HH H H~f-A toHN.)H (.1 -03N)WIn(5)N)3WIn01©4toO N.)0 N)I’-)ON NJ COO (Cl (MO NJ C NJ C NJ 0 N) C C C C 0\N0 0 0 C C 0 0 0 0 0 C C C C N) -p In In-P In In In (ClCr In 001 NJ N.)N)(2) H alO~OCr -0)0 WH InC (21 to NJCD.0)In (A)to-P -J -)In N)—J ()C Cr01(A)00010 to CD 000-P-P -i 010 ,I!'~I.II,IITable1-15.1-24DataonStaffSusitnaBasinAlternativeslil!'1I',,,'iiIi'I,!:I:""'1I;.,I:",Iili':1,ii,"Ii,llli!·'11II,i1:1'Iii'IIIII.i':"!i'lI'i::I!,!'I..I::,'II"I,1:,1,,1:1'I",j:I"I,','I!,li·,1"~'I',,Ii"II:EstimatedTotalAverageTotalCostInstalledAnnualofProjectCapacityofEnergyofSusitnaBasin($millionAlternativeAlternativeAlternativeInvestigated1982)(MW)(GWh)Watanat'4,0621,0203,260WatanaI'3,4949002,958WatanaII3,1687202,307H.DevilCanyon2,2558002,034Watana-DevilCanyont'5,5651,6206,574WatanaI-DevilCanyon4,9971,5006,120WatanaII-DevilCanyon4,6711,3205,356H.DevilCanyon-Vee4,5701,2005,076H.DevilCanyon-5usitnaIII5,3021,2505,478Watana-Tunnel3(300MW)5,4531,3505,549Watana-Tunnel3(450MW)5,5121,5005,890WatanaI-Tunnel3(450MW)4,9441,3805,433WatanaII-Tunnel3(450MW)4,6181,2004,658Watana-ModifiedH.DevilCanyon5,3551,4205,640WatanaI-ModifiedH.Devil/Canyon4,7871,,3005,183WatanaII-ModifiedH.Devil/Canyon4,4611,1204,451Watana-TunnelRereg4,8271,2204,341WatanaI-TunnelRereg4,2591,1003,948WatanaII-TunnelRereg3,9339203,246t'Proposedproject. RIVER MILES z 3 3600’ z0 z4C) -J C 3000’ 1’ wU z 254iYQ -j Ui 220 240 II; 1000,~ z0 120 140 160 300 15W 0 WATANA II EL.20~XY WATANA EL.2200’ WATANA I EL.2100’ Figure 1—9.Profile:Watana—Devil Canyon Development. <\, 3600' 3000'_ luw LL ) WATANA EL~' WATANA I EL 2100' WATANA 1\EL 2000' o 200180160 z 2500'0 ~'~i5 2100'/"...J~t===--r~2OOO~'=;:::(~+--t-+--j-+-t--+-t--l2OOO'w ~--o~---!1~<450!lQ:.'____:::;~..,...~f--r---l--:::~-L-_::_--l.--=--L-_:::;_-...l.--:~---.J160lY /;'220 240 200 200 300 ,;'lu 1000'~ 140120 ~t"" __.............~-O-L-D--.dREEK GAGE ~~.,.,.::--+_-+15292000 ----11---+---+----1----1 rol'~ ...J W RIVER MILES • Figure 1-9.Profile:Watana-Devil Canyon Development. -~.-~-~:.c ~ctr~fr~_~~~=E~±.’:-CC ___ RIVER MILES Id r’z 0, z I U) D (0 z 0 >-z 0 -J >IiiC CD r LUMi> 17W 2330’ woo’ I tz ‘Li U z2500’0 220 240 a 120 1o00’~ z0 500j a 140 300 15W 160 180 0 Figure 1—10.Profile:Vee—High Devil Canyon Development. =«)z !: Ul :> !!! z 0>-Z w«wu>....2330' :>w /'"0 J: '"./:;:1750' _--Ii 220 240 200 280 300 V E 1000'wu. ---~Z GOLD CREEK GAGE 0 i= 15292000 500'« Ii; ..J W 0 3600' 3000'_ t:;w !: 2500'~ ~ ..J 2000'W 1500' 120 140 160 180 200 RIVER MILES .. Figure 1-10.Profile:Vee-High Devil Canyon Development. m0z-‘IiiiEl~uawdo1eAagUOAUeDLL~aaq6~~-~JJeu~asn~:aLL4oad ••fl—IednOLJS]1IVIU3AIUooz0ost09LOHMOStc’JrLicot~coOLonW‘costrMOOt.OSLLCoCCo-4z>xC,xUr0z0zU)C(0-lz>~dREEKGAGE~1529~--if--1 I I I =«~ in § ~>-z ~... ~ J: C> :;:1760' v 3500' ~ -:mr~ «wzu.. !:z(/l :>2!iOO'0 (/l 2340'!i _~I I I I I I 12001'~~JIII I I I I I 11~"-', '"-.J 220 240 200 200 300 i=w 1000'~ Z 0 600'!i~w ,• ,,I !,,,!I 0 120 140 160 180 200 RIVER MILES • Figure 1-11.Profile:Susitna III-High Devil Canyon Development, r~--tr~-~~~nr -- RIVER MILES WATANA II EL.2000’ 4z4I- 3500’ 4 C z C I— 4-J D 0 Ui cw) -JLII 2 2 -3 I UIci, 0 r ItU, 00- r0 -JLII 2 2 D 2200’ 15~XV w U z2500’0 -J 2000’UI 220 240 a GOLD CREEK GAGE 1~2~_ 140 160120 I; 1000’~ z 0 —0 200 15O~ 15~ N, WATANA EL.2200’ WATANA I EL.2100’ Figure 1-12.Profile:Watana—Tunnel 3 Development. c-.---~~-~-.-~=~-==-~-~~~-~-~-~~~._..------..·ii.·_:c~__,ii'i;:::c3H.=-===-,--~-=~-~-------- --..-- ~)<0: Cl z Cl <0:w ;::ZUl<0:<0::>...J ....0 :><0: ------ r '"3:II:w 2200' ------ W II:3:w 2100',;'~0 II: 11.l'",2000'"-'"...J --r-('...J WWZZz '\z :>:>....1500'.... 300\~~/220 240 260 ~260 E 1000'w870'__lL..........,-Z 0.----~GOLD CREEK GAGE i= <{15292000 500'iii---..Jw WATANA EL.2200' 0 WATANA I EL.2100' 3500' 3000'_ t; W lL. z 2500'0 ~ ..J 2000'W 1500' >-', N 00 120 140 160 180 200 WATANA II EL.2000' RIVER MILES • Figure 1-12.Profile:Watana-Tunnel 3 Development. RIVER MILES 424 20 2 4 C, -j C Iiiira ox 0~9 UI IL a -J 240 ‘000’~ 2W 140 2 0 1% 0 WATANA II El.2~$ WATANA El.22O0~ WATANA I EL.21w’ Figure 1-13.Profile:Watana-Modified High Devil Canyon Development. 1 WATANA fL.2200' WATANA I fL.2100' WATANA II fL.2000' o 200180180140120 t; 1000'~ Z .--.............r:;LD JREEK GAGE ~ .-.'f""-"-+---tI5292000 --t--t--+---+---I 600'~ .....w RIVER MILES • Fi gure 1-13,Profil e:Watana-Modifi ed Hi gh Devil Canyon Development, 1-30ThescreeningprocesscarriedoutbytheApplicantrequiredtheapplicationofseveraliterationswithprogressivelymorestringentcriteriauntilafieldoftenpotentialnon—Susitnaprojectswerechosen.TheApplicantassumedtheBradleyLakeandGranthydroprojectswouldbeaddedtotheRailbeltsystempriorto1990,andthereforethesetwoprojectswereconsideredplannedadditionsratherthanalternatives.TheStaffconsiderstheApplicant’sgeneralapproachacceptablebutbelievesitappropriatetoconsiderthe18sites thatremainedaftertheApplicant’sfourthiteration.Table1—16summarizestheresultsoftheApplicant’sscreeningprocessbyidentifyingthe91originalsitescompiledfromtwoinventoriesandthesequenceofprogressiveeliminationaftertheapplicationofscreeningcriteria.The18“shortlistedsites”thatsurvivedtheApplicant’sfourthiterationarelistedinTable1—17,alongwiththeenvironmentalratingofthesites.FERCStaffselectedforstudythoseprojectsthathadanenvironmentalratingofgoodoracceptableandthe lowestenergycost.ThefivealternativesselectedbytheStaffalongwiththeirrespectivecosts,installedcapacity,andaverageannualenergy,areshowninTable1—18.ThevalueslistedforaverageannualenergyofthesiteswerederivedwiththeCorps’HEC—5computermodel,usinghistoricstreamflowdataforeachriverbasinalongwithappropriateminimumflowcriteriaforfisheryhabitatmaintenance.1.3.3Non—HydroelectricAlternativesThephysicalavailabilityoffuelsforthermalgenerationintheRailbeltisnotasignificantissue.Therearesufficientreservesofoil,gasandcoal,eachtakenindividually,tomeetthemostoptimisticprojectionsofinternalRailbeltthermalgenerationfromnowuntilwellpastthemid—2lstCentury.Physicalsupplyissimplynotaconstraint.ThecostatwhichanyofthoseresourceswillbemadeavailabletoRailbeltconsumersiswhatisatissue,andtheestimationofnon—hydroelectricfuelcostiscentraltotheevaluationofthermalalternatives.1.3.3.1PetroleumFuelsThesupplyofpetroleumfuel isrelatedtothesupplyofcrudeoil.FromAlaska’spointol’view,itscrudeoilreservesaresolargerelativetoitsinternalneedsthatsupplyshouldnotbeaconstraintontheuseofpetroleumfuelsfortheforeseeablefuture.Priceisanothermatter.Ifoilpricesriserelativeto otherenergyresources,whicharealsoabundantinAlaska,thenthestatemayreceivethegreatesteconomicbenefitfrom“exporting”itspetroleumresourceswhileconsumingitslowercostresources.Petroleumfuelconsumptioncouldbecome“demandconstrained.”1.3.3.2NaturalGasAlaska’sprovengasreservesfarexceeditsinternalneedsfortheforeseeablefutureunde~’eventhemostoptimisticprojectionsofgrowth.Further,itspotentialgasresourcesmaymateriallyexceeditsprovenreserves.Theamountofgasrequired togeneratealloftheRailbelt’selectricpowerneedsforthenexthalfcentury,about3trillioncubicfeet(Tcf)(85billionm3)islikelylessthan10%ofAlaska’sprovengasreservesandperhaps4%ofitspotentialgasresources.However,thebulkofAlaska’sgasmaynotbeaccessibleforusetogeneratepowerintheRailbeltarea,may beaccessible onlyafteritisneeded,ormay beaccessibleonlyatacostthat prohibitsitsuse.Unlessoilpricesincreasematerially,apipelinetotransportPrudhoeBaygasmaynotbeconstructed.IfoilpricesfollowtheStaff’sprojections,forinstance,PrudhoeBaygasmayremainlockedinplacewellintothenextcentury.TheCookInletprovenreserves,whilereadilyaccessibletothelower-Railbeltarea,maynotbesufficienttomeetthearea’spowerneedsformorethanabout20yearsifconsumptioncontinuesatthepresentrate.Inadditiontotheapproximately3.4Tcf(96billionm3)ofprovenreservesintheCookInletarea,theUnitedStatesGeologicalSurvey(USGS)indicatesthatthereislikelyanother1.3to13Tcf(37to370billionm3)ofgasasyetundiscoveredinthe area.Ifso,thentherecouldbemorethan adequategastomeettheRailbelt’spowerneedsforthenexthalfcentury.Butsincesuchpotentialreservesarenotproven,andmaynotmaterialize,itisarguedthatitwouldbeimprudenttoplanontheuseoftheasyetundiscoveredgas.Further,itisargued,thatevenifthegasispresent,gaspriceswillhavetorise materiallytoensurethatitisdiscoveredanddeveloped.IfPrudhoeBaygasreservesremainlockedinplace,andifnonewreservesarediscoveredintheCookInletarea,thenastrategybyAnchorageareaelectricutilitiestorelyuponnaturalgasasafuelforpowergenerationcouldresultintheirunitsrunningoutoffuelearlyinthe21stCentury.However,itispossiblethatcircumstancesmayresultin Alaska’scontinuedreceiptofabundant,low—costgassuppliesthatcouldprovidebyfartheleast—costpowersupplyformanyAlaskansinthefuture,asithasduringrecentyears.Adiscussionofthispotentialisincludedin,1ii,I':I,,I'·.1:,11I1,I;111-30ThescreeningprocesscarriedoutbytheApplicantrequiredtheapplicationofseveralitera-tionswithprogressivelymorestringentcriteriauntilafieldoftenpotentialnon-Susitnaprojectswerechosen.TheApplicantassumedtheBradleyLakeandGranthydroprojectswouldbeaddedtotheRai1be1tsystempriorto1990,andthereforethesetwoprojectswereconsideredplannedadditionsratherthanalternatives.TheStaffconsiderstheApplicant'sgeneralapproachacceptablebutbelievesitappropriatetoconsidertheIBsitesthatremainedaftertheApplicant'sfourthiteration.Table1-16summarizestheresultsoftheApplicant'sscreeningprocessbyidentifyingthe91originalsitescompiledfromtwoinventoriesandthesequenceofprogressiveeliminationaftertheapplicationofscreeningcriteria.The18lIshortlistedsitesJlthatsurvivedtheApplicantlsfourthitera-tionarelistedinTable1-17,alongwiththeenvironmentalratingofthesites.FERCStaffselectedforstudythoseprojectsthathadanenvironmentalratingofgoodoraccept-ableandthelowestenergycost.ThefivealternativesselectedbytheStaffalongwiththeirrespectivecosts,installedcapacity,andaverageannualenergy,areshowninTableI-lB.ThevalueslistedforaverageannualenergyofthesiteswerederivedwiththeCorps'HEC-5computermodel,usinghistoricstreamflowdataforeachriverbasinalongwithappropriateminimumflowcriteriaforfisheryhabitatmaintenance.1.3.3Non-HydroelectricAlternativesThephysicalavailabilityoffuelsforthermalgenerationintheRai1be1tisnotasignificantissue.Therearesufficientreservesofoil,gasandcoal,eachtakenindividually,tomeetthemostoptimisticprojectionsofinternalRailbeltthermalgenerationfromnowuntilwellpastthemid-21stCentury.Physicalsupplyissimplynotaconstraint.Thecostatwhichanyofthose-resourceswillbemadeavailabletoRailbe1tconsumersiswhatisatissue,andtheestimationofnon-hydroelectricfuelcostiscentraltotheevaluationofthermalalternatives.1.3.3.1PetroleumFuelsThesupplyofpetroleumfuelisrelatedtothesupplyofcrudeoil.FromAlaska'spointofview,itscrudeoilreservesaresolargerelativetoitsinternalneedsthatsupplyshouldnotbeaconstraintontheuseofpetroleumfuelsfortheforeseeablefuture.Priceisanothermatter.Ifoilpricesriserelativetootherenergyresources,whicharealsoabundantinAlaska,thenthestatemayreceivethegreatesteconomicbenefitfromllexportingJlitspetroleumresourceswhileconsumingitslowercostresources.Petroleumfuelconsumptioncouldbecomelldemandconstrained.II1.3.3.2NaturalGasAlaska1sprovengasreservesfarexceeditsinternalneedsfortheforeseeablefutureundereventhemostoptimisticprojectionsofgrowth.Further,itspotentialgasresourcesmaymateriallyexceeditsprovenreserves.TheamountofgasrequiredtogeneratealloftheRai1be1t'selectricpowerneedsforthenexthalfcentury,about3trillioncubicfeet(Tcf)(B5billionm3)islikelylessthan10%ofAlaska'sprovengasreservesandperhaps4%ofitspotentialgasresources.However,thebulkofAlaska1sgasmaynotbeaccessibleforusetogeneratepowerintheRailbeltarea,maybeaccessibleonlyafteritisneeded,ormaybeaccessibleonlyatacostthatprohibitsitsuse.Unlessoilpricesincreasematerially,apipelinetotransportPrudhoeBaygasmaynotbeconstructed.IfoilpricesfollowtheStaff'sprojections,forinstance,PrudhoeBaygasmayremainlockedinplacewellintothenextcentury.TheCookInletprovenreserves,whilereadilyaccessibletothe10wer-Railbeltarea,maynotbesufficienttomeetthearea'spowerneedsformorethanabout20yearsifconsumptioncontinuesatthepresentrate.Inadditiontotheapproximately3.4Tcf(96billionm3)ofprovenreservesintheCookInletarea,theUnitedStatesGeologicalSurvey(USGS)indicatesthatthereislikelyanother1.3to13Tcf(37to370billionm3)ofgasasyetundiscoveredinthearea.Ifso,thentherecouldbemorethanadequategastomeettheRai1belt'spowerneedsforthenexthalfcentury.Butsincesuchpotentialreservesarenotproven,andmaynotmaterializ~,itisarguedthatitwouldbeimprudenttoplanontheuseoftheasyetundiscoveredgas.Further,itisargued,thatevenifthegasispresent,gaspriceswillhavetorisemateriallytoensurethatitisdiscoveredanddeveloped.IfPrudhoeBaygasreservesremainlockedinplace,andifnonewreservesarediscoveredintheCookInletarea,thenastrategybyAnchorageareaelectricutilitiestorelyuponnaturalgasasafuelforpowergenerationcouldresultintheirunitsrunningoutoffuelearlyinthe21stCentury.However,itispossiblethatcircumstancesmayresultinAlaska'scontinuedreceiptofabundant,low-costgassuppliesthatcouldprovidebyfartheleast-costpowersupplyformanyAlaskansinthefuture,asithasduringrecentyears.Adiscussionofthispotentialisincludedin Table 1—16.Summary of Results of Screening Process Elimination Elimination Elimination Elimination Iterationt2 Iterationt2 Tterationt2 Iterationt2 Sitet1 1234 Sitet1 1234 Sitett 1234 Sitet1 1234 Allison Creek Fox Lowe *Talachulitna River Beluga Lower *Gakona *Lower Chulitna *Talkeetna R.—Sheep * Beluga Upper ~Gerstle *Lucy *Talkeetna -2 Big Delta *Granite Gorge *Mcclure Bay *Tanana River * Bradley Lake *Grant Lake McKinley River *Tanzlina * Bremmer R.—Salmon C Greenstone *McLaren River *Tebay Lake * Bremmer R.—S.F.Gulkana River Million Dollar *Teklanika * Browne Hanagita Moose Horn Tiekel River * Bruskasna Healy *Nellie Juan River Tokichitna * Cache Hicks Nellie Juan R.-Upper *Totatlanika * Canyon creek Jack River Ohio *Tustumena caribou creek *Johnson *Power Creek *Vachon Island * carlo *Junction Island Power Creek —1 *Whiskers * cathedral Bluffs *Kanhshna River *Ramport *Wood canyon * Chakachamna Kasilof River Sanford *Yanert —2 * Chulitna E.F.*Keetna Sheep Creek *Yentna * Chulitna Hurrican *Kenai Lake *Sheep Creek —1 * Chulitna W.F.*Kenai Lower Silver Lake * Cleave *Killey River *Skwentna * coal *King Mtn *Snow * Coffee *Klutina “Solomon Gulch crescent Lake *Kotsina *Stelters Ranch * crescent Lake -2 *Lake Creek Lower *Strandline Lake Deadman Creek *Lake Creek Upper *Summit Lake * Eagle River Lane *Talachulitna * t’Final site selection underlined. t2 An asterisk (*)denotes site eliminated from further consideration. Source:Exhibit E,Table E.1O.1. Table 1-16.Summary of Results of Screening Process Elimination Elimination Elimination Elimination Iterationt2 Iterationt2 Iterationt2 Iterationt2 Sitet'1 2 3 4 Sitet'1 2 3 4 Sitet'1 2 3 4 Sitet'1 2 3 4 All i son Creek Fox •Lowe •Talachulitna Rlver • Beluga Lower •Gakona •Lower Chulitna •Talkeetna R.-Sheep • Beluga Upper •Gerstle •Lucy •Talkeetna - 2 Big Delta •Granite Gorge •McClure Bay •Tanana River • Bradl ey Lake •Grant Lake •McKinley River •Tanzlina • Bremmer R.-Salmon •Greenstone •McLaren River •Tebay Lake • Bremmer R.-So F.•Gul kana Ri ver •Million Dollar •Teklanika • Browne Hanagita •Moose Horn •Ti eke 1 Ri ver • Bruskasna Healy •Nellie Juan River •Tokichitna • Cache Hicks Nellie Juan R.-Upper *Totatlanika *Canyon Creek •Jack River •Ohio •Tustumena • Caribou Creek *Johnson •Power Creek •Vachon Island *,..., Carlo •Junction Island •Power Creek -1 •Whiskers •w,... Cathedral Bluffs •Kanhshna River •Ramport •Wood Canyon *Chakachamna Kasilof River •Sanford •Yanert -2 *Chulitna E.F.•Keetna Sheep Creek •Yentna *Chulitna Hurrican •Kenai Lake •Sheep Creek - 1 • Chulitna W.F.*Kenai Lower •Silver Lake *Cleave *Killey River •Skwentna • Coal *King Mtn •Snow *Coffee *Klutina •Solomon Gulch • Crescent Lake •Kotsina *Stelters Ranch • Crescent Lake -2 •Lake Creek Lower *Strandl i ne Lake Deadman Creek *Lake Creek Upper *Summit Lake • Eagle River *Lane •Ta 1achul itna * t'Final site selection underl ined. t 2 An asterisk C')denotes site eliminated from further consideration. Source:Exhibit E,Table E.10.1. 1-32Table1—17.ShortlistedSitesEnvironmentalCapacity(MW)Rating0—2525—100100GoodStrandlineLakett Hickst1Brownet1AllisonCreekt1Snowt1JohnsonTustumenaCachet1SilverLakeBruskasnat1AcceptableKeetnat’C[iakachamnat’PoorTa]keetna—2t’LaneLowerChulitnaTokichitnat’Oneoftenselectedsites.Source:ApplicationExhibitE,TableE.1O.11.Table1—18.DataonStaffNon—SusitnaBasinAlternativesEstimatedTotalAverageTotalCostInstalledAnnualofProjectCapacityofEnergyofAlternative($millionAlternative AlternativeInvestigated1982)(MW)(GWh)Johnson319210920Chakachamna9053331,300Snow305100375Keetna519100420Browne6811004181-32Table1-17.ShortlistedSitesEnvironmentalRatingGood0-25StrandlineLaket'AllisonCreekt'TustumenaSilverLakeCapacity(MW)25-100Hickst'Snowt'Cachet'Bruskasnat'100Brownet'Johnson'I,I,II II.1Acceptab1eKeetnat'PoorTalkeetna-2t'LowerChulitnat'Oneoftenselectedsites.Source:ApplicationExhibitE,TableE.10.11.Chakachamnat'LaneTokichitnaIIII.,I'"II'!i.l1'111:,'!.'1I'II,'h':;'i,,IIil,I:,I":i!!I'I(i'['II.1.···.'.'··.·11'1'"I·,III''I.III!.I'llI_IITable1-18.DataonStaffNon-SusitnaBasinAlternativesEstimatedTotalAverageTotalCostInsta11edAnnualof ProjectCapacityofEnergyofAlternative($millionAlternative AlternativeInvestigated1982)(MW)(GWh)Johnson319210920Chakachamna9053331,300Snow305100375Keetna519100420Browne681100418 1-33AppendixB.Thequestionswithregardtofuturepower(afterthenextdecadeorso)arewillgasbeavailable(1)whereitisneeded,(2)whenitisneeded,and(3)atapricethatallowseconomicpowergeneration?FERCStaff’sgaspriceprojectionsarebasedonanassumptionthatsufficientvolumesofgaswillbediscoveredintheCookInlettomeetthefuturepowerrequirementsofthelower—Railbeltarea,andthattheelectricutilitieswillbeabletoobtainseveralcontractsforsuchgas.Thepriceprojectionsarehigherthannet—backpricesshouldbefordecades,butareprojectedeventuallytobesomewhatlower.While thegaspriceprojectionsareconsideredtobereasonableestimatesandshouldbesufficienttoinsureadditional exploration,thereisconsiderableuncertaintyinboththeunderlyingassumptionofCookInletgasavailabilityandthegaspriceprojections.1.3.3.3CoalBecausetheonlysignificantmarketforcoalwithintheRailbeltisasaboilerfuelforproductionofelectricity,itdoesnotcompetewithelectricityasanend—useenergy source.Furthermore,unlikepetroleumfuelsandnaturalgas,coalas anenergysourceisnotlinkedasdirectlytotheprice ofcrudeoil.Thereasonthatthishasbeen,andwilllikelycontinuetobe,thecaseisthatcoalisnotaclosesubstituteforoil.Themajorusestowhichcoalislikelytobeputaretheconventionalones—-asaboilerfuelforproducingindustrialprocessheatandforpoweringsteamturbinesforgeneratingelectricitybytheutilityindustry.ItisthelatterusethatistheinternalmarketforcoalwithintheRailbelt.TheexportmarketfortheRailbeltscoalwilllikelyentailbothusesforthisresource.Thedevelopingexportmarketinthenear termis,however,asafuelforgeneratingelectricpower.Shouldthemarket developfor Railbeltcoalexports,thentheexportpricethatcoalcommandswiflconstitutetherealcostofconsumingthatfuellocally.Theoutlookforsuchexpansionismixed.First,thecompetitionamongcoalsupplierstothePacificRimissubstantialandwillincreaseinthenearfuture.Second,themotivatingfactor forthediversificationawayfrompetroleumandintocoal,amongotherfuels,hasdiminishedmeasurablyduringthelast18monthsastheoutlookforrealescalation inworldpriceshasmoderatedandtheprospectsforfallingcrudepriceshavebecomereality.Thus,thevalueofthecoalavailableforelectricitygenerationwithintheRailbeltislikelytobethecostofextractingandtransportingittothegenerator.GiventheVastsuppliesavailabletoserve boththedomesticaswellasexportmarkets,thereis--nopersuasivereasontoanticipatethatthe-realcostsofsupplyingthecoalwillescalate.-----1.3.3.4PeatAlaskacontainspermafrost-freepeatdepositsthatareestimatedat27to107millionacres(11to43millionha),andrepresentmorethanhalfoftotalU.S.peatreserves.Forty—sevenmillionacres(19millionha)arelocated5ft(1.5m)orlessfromthesurface.Some30millionacres(12millionha)showpromiseas anenergyresource.A1980-surveybytheDepartmentofEnergyinvestigatedlargepeatfieldslocated inthreeseparatelocationswithintheRailbelt(theMatanuska-Susitnavalleys,Fairbanks,andtheKenaiPeninsula)andconcludedthatthosefieldsconstitutedapotentiallyvaluablesourceoffuel,particularlyforremotecommunities.AccordingtotheDivision ofEnergyandPowerDevelopmentofAlaska,-peatforuseinsteamelectricgenerationplantsappearscompetitive withcoalpricedat$2.00permillionBtu,however,developmentalandoperationalissuesassociatedwithprototypeplantswouldhavetobeaddressedbeforecommercialplantscouldbecontemplated.1.3.3.5GeothermalEnergySeveralareasofAlaskahavegeothermalpotential,particularlyareasnearorwithintheRailbelt.Todate,however,onlyafractionofthatpotentialhasactuallybeentapped——intheformofhotspringsusedforspaceheatingandresortspas.SuchspringsarelocatedatManley HotSprings,CheneaHotSprings,andTolovana.Anumberofgeothermalsitesarebeinginvestigatedfortheirthermalenergyandelectricgenerationpotential.Areascontaininghotigneoussystems,inorborderingtheRailbelt,includeMt.Drum,Mt.Wrangell,andDoublePeak.Inmostcases,however,geothermalheatingsystemsarenotcurrentlyeconomicallycompetitivewithconventionalheatingalternatives.Drillingcostsareextremelyhigh,andtheresourcevalueofgeothermalenergyiscriticallydependentupontheproximitytotheenduser.Theheatdistributionsystemforthesewellscanincrease costsbyafactoroffiveorsix.AccordingtotheDivisionofEnergyandPowerDevelopment,estimatesofheatdistributionpipingaverageabout$150/ft($500/m),soevenasmallvillageof50residences,eachabout150ft(46m)apart,wouldpayover$1millionforjustthedistributionsystem.1-33AppendixB.Thequestionswithregardtofuturepower(afterthenextdecadeorso)arewillgasbeavailable(1)whereitisneeded,(2)whenitisneeded,and(3)atapricethatallowseconomicpowergeneration?FERCStaff'sgaspriceprojectionsarebasedonanassumptionthatsUfficientvolumesofgaswillbediscoveredintheCookInlettomeetthefuturepowerrequirementsofthe10wer-Railbeltarea,andthattheelectricutilitieswillbeabletoobtainseveralcontractsforsuchgas.Thepriceprojectionsarehigherthannet-backpricesshouldbefordecades,butareprojectedeventuallytobesomewhatlower.Whilethegaspriceprojectionsareconsideredtobereason-ableestimatesandshouldbesufficienttoinsureadditionalexploration,thereisconsiderableuncertaintyinboththeunderlyingassumptionofCookInletgasavailabilityandthegaspriceprojections.1.3.3.3CoalBecausetheonlysignificantmarketforcoalwithintheRailbeltisasaboilerfuelforproduc-tionofelectricity,itdoesnotcompetewithelectricityasanend-useenergysource.Further-more,unlikepetroleumfuelsandnaturalgas,coalasanenergysourceisnotlinkedasdirectlytothepriceofcrudeoil.Thereasonthatthishasbeen,andwilllikelycontinuetobe,thecaseisthatcoalisnotaclosesubstituteforoil.Themajorusestowhichcoalislikelytobeputaretheconventionalones--asaboilerfuelforproducingindustrialprocessheatandforpoweringsteamturbinesforgeneratingelectricitybytheutilityindustry.ItisthelatterusethatistheinternalmarketforcoalwithintheRailbelt.TheexportmarketfortheRailbelt'scoalwilllikelyentailbothusesforthisresource.Thedevelopingexportmarketintheneartermis,however,asafuelforgeneratingelectricpower.ShouldthemarketdevelopforRailbe1tcoalexports,thentheexportpricethatcoalcommandswillconstitutetherealcostofconsumingthatfuellocally.Theoutlookforsuchexpansionismixed.First,thecompetitionamongcoalsupplierstothePacificRimissubstantialandwillincreaseinthenearfuture.Second,themotivatingfactorforthediversificationawayfrompetroleumandintocoal,amongotherfuels,hasdiminishedmeasurablyduringthelast18monthsastheoutlookforrealescalationinworldpriceshasmoderatedandtheprospectsforfallingcrudepriceshavebecomereality.Thus,thevalueofthecoalavailableforelectricitygenera-tionwithintheRailbeltislikelytobethecostofextractingandtransportingittothegenerator..Giventhevast"suppliesavailabletoserveboththedomesticaswellasexportmarkets,thereisnopersuasivereasontoanticipatethattherealcostsofsupplyingthecoalwi11escalate.1.3.3.4PeatAlaskacontainspermafrost-freepeatdepositsthatareestimatedat27to107millionacres(11to43millionhal,andrepresentmorethanhalfoftotalU.S.peatreserves.Forty-sevenmillionacres(19millionhalarelocated5ft(1.5m)orlessfromthesurface.Some30millionacres(12millionhalshowpromiseasanenergyresource.A1980.surveybytheDepartmentofEnergyinvestigatedlargepeatfieldslocatedinthreeseparatelocationswithintheRailbelt(theMatanuska-Susitnavalleys,Fairbanks,andtheKenaiPeninsula)andconcludedthatthosefieldsconstitutedapotentiallyvaluablesourceoffuel,particularlyforremotecommunities.Accord-ingtotheDivisionofEnergyandPowerDevelopmentofAlaska,.peatforuseinsteamelectricgenerationplantsappearscompetitivewithcoalpricedat$2.00permillionBtu,however,develop-mentalandoperationalissuesassociatedwithprototypeplantswouldhavetobeaddressedbeforecommercialplantscouldbecontemplated.1.3.3.5GeothermalEnergySeveralareasofAlaskahavegeothermalpotential,particularlyareasnearorwithintheRailbelt.Todate,however,onlyafractionofthatpotentialhasactuallybeentapped--intheformofhotspringsusedforspaceheatingandresortspas.SuchspringsarelocatedatManleyHotSprings,CheneaHotSprings,andTolovana.Anumberofgeothermalsitesarebeinginvestigatedfortheirthermalenergyandelectricgenerationpotential.Areascontaininghotigneoussystems,inorborderingtheRailbelt,includeMt.Drum,Mt.Wrangell,andDoublePeak.Inmostcases,how-ever,geothermalheatingsystemsarenotcurrentlyeconomicallycompetitivewithconventionalheatingalternatives.Ori11ingcostsareextremelyhigh,andtheresourcevalueofgeothermalenergyiscriticallydependentupontheproximitytotheenduser.Theheatdistributionsystemforthesewellscanincreasecostsbyafactoroffiveorsix.AccordingtotheDivisionofEnergyandPowerDevelopment,estimatesofheatdistributionpipingaverageabout$150/ft($500/m),soevenasmallvillageof50residences,eachabout150ft(46m)apart,wouldpayover$1millionforjustthedistributionsystem. 1-341.3.3.6TidalPowerTidalenergyispotentiallyavailableinAlaska,primarilyintheCookInletareasoftheRail—belt,wheretheheight oftidalvariationandthevolumeoftidalflowaresufficienttomaketidalpowerprojectspractical.Tidalenergycanbeconvertedintoelectricitybycapturingboth thepotentialenergyassociatedwiththeheight oftidalfluctuationsaswellasthekineticenergyassociatedwiththeflowoftidalwaterinandoutofacontainedarea.IfallthepotentialandkineticenergyofCookInletwerecapturedandmadeavailabletousersintheRailbeltareaofAlaska,itwouldprovideelectricpowerfortheentireregionwellbeyondtheyear2050.AstudypreparedbyAcresAmericanidentified16sitesintheCookInletareawhosetotalenergycapacityexceeded186,000GWh,withatotalpotentialcapacity of73GW.TheDivisionofEnergyandPowerofAlaska concludedearlyin1983thatdevelopmentofcommercialtidalpowerismorethanadecadeaway.1.3.3.7SolarEnergySolarenergyisnotregardedasapotentialsourceofpowerwithintheRailbelt,eitherintheformofphotovoltaicenergyorsolarheat.DespitethelonghoursofdaylightthatcharacterizethesummersintheRailbelt,theperiodsofgreatestenergyneedareduringthewinter,whensolarenergyproductioninAlaskawillbenegligible.Inordertojustifyeventheprojectedlowinvestmentcostsinsolardevices,itwouldbenecessaryforsuchequipmenttomakesubstantialcontributionstothesupplyofenergywhenenergyrequirementsaregreatest.1.3.4Non—StructuralAlternativesNon—structuralalternativestoconstructionofnewelectricgeneratingcapacityarebeingemphasizedinmanystatesbecauseofthehighcapitalcostsofnewgenerationandtheresultingneedforrateincreases.Themostimportantnon—structuralalternativesareconservation(ofenergy),raterevision,andloadmanagement.Inanefforttoadvancethesealternatives,theCongresshaspassedthreerelatedActs:(1)theNationalEnergyConservationActof1978;(2)thePowerplantandIndustrialFuelUseActof1978;and(3)thePublicUtilityRegulatoryPoliciesAct(PURPA)of1978.ProvisionsoftheseActsthatmaybepertinentareincluded inAppendixC. Aseparateactiontoadvancetheeffectsofnon—structuralalternativs(raterevisionandloadmanagement)isastudyproposedbytheNationalAssociation ofRegulatoryUtilityCommissioners(NARUC).Thisstudy,knownastheNARUCResolutionNo.9Study,hasbeeninprogressforsometime,andisdescribedinAppendixC.1.3.4.1EffectsofConservationonDemandConservationofelectricenergyhasbeenadvocatedasonemeansofreducingthedemandforelectricpower,therebyreducing theneedtoinstallnewgeneratingfacilities.Todate,mostconservationmeasureshave beenvoluntaryandhavebeenencouragedthroughpubliceducationorFederalprograms.Thesemeasuresincludeencouragingtheuseofmajorappliancesduringoff—peakhours,loweringthethermostatsettingofheatingunits,andraisingthethermostatsettingonairconditioning units.Conservation couldalsobeencouragedbyprovidingtaxincentivesorlow—costFederal loansforinsulatingresidentialandcommercialestablishments,fordesigningandconstructingenergy—efficienthomesandoffices,andformanufacturingenergy—efficientequipment.TherearethreeprincipaltypesofconservationprogramsthatplayapartinthecurrentenergyscenariooftheRailbelt.Thoseprogramcategoriesare:(1)theStateResidentialEnergyConservationProgram;(2)theMunicipalityofAnchorageLow—IncomeWeatherizationProgram;and(3)variousRailbeltutility—sponsored conservationassistanceprograms.Thestate-sponsoredprogramhasundertaken thefollowing:(1)thetrainingofenergyauditors;(2)theperformanceofresidentialenergyauditsentailingthephysicalinspectionofthepremises;(3)theprovisionofgrantsandloansforconservationimprovementsrecommendedbytheaudit;and(4)provisionofretrofittedinsulationandweatherizationforqualifyinglow—incomehouseholds.TheMunicipalityofAnchorage’sprogramprovides grantsofupto$1,600forenergyconservationmaterialsandrepairs.Theutility-sponsoredconservationprograms,atleastsofarastheyaddressresidentialconsumers,canbestbedescribedaseducationallyoriented.Distributingbrochures,makingpresentationtogroups,andcounselingcustomersregardingconservationtechniquesappeartocharacterizethebulkofthisactivity.Mostassessmentsot.theseconservationprograms(includingtheassessmentsofthesponsoringorganizations)indicatemodestimpacts,particularlyintheAnchoragearea.Thetrendappearstobecurtailment ratherthanexpansionofmostoftheseefforts.Experienceinother statessuggeststhatconsumerconservationmeasuresaregenerallyundertakenwhenelectricratesbecomeburdensomeandthesavingsavailablefromspecificmeasuresarewellidentified.I,I';1hII,I1-341.3.3.6TidalPowerTidalenergyispotentiallyavailableinAlaska,primarilyintheCookInletareasoftheRail-belt,wheretheheightoftidalvariationandthevolumeoftidalflowaresufficienttomaketida1powerprojectspractical.Tida1energycanbeconvertedintoe1ectricitybycapturingboththepotentialenergyassociatedwiththeheightoftidalfluctuationsaswellasthekineticenergyassociatedwiththeflowoftidalwaterinandoutofacontainedarea.IfallthepotentialandkineticenergyofCookInletwerecapturedandmadeavailabletousersintheRailbeltareaofAlaska,itwouldprovideelectricpowerfortheentireregionwellbeyondtheyear2050.AstudypreparedbyAcresAmericanidentified16sitesintheCookInletareawhosetotalenergycapacityexceeded186,000GWh,withatotalpotentialcapacityof73GW.TheDivisionofEnergyandPowerofAlaskaconcludedearlyin1983thatdevelopmentofcommercialtidalpowerismorethanadecadeaway.1.3.3.7SolarEnergySolarenergyisnotregardedasapotentialsourceofpowerwithintheRailbelt,eitherintheformofphotovoltaicenergyorsolarheat.DespitethelonghoursofdaylightthatcharacterizethesummersintheRailbelt,theperiodsofgreatestenergyneedareduringthewinter,whensolarenergyproductioninAlaskawillbenegligible.Inordertojustifyeventheprojectedlowinvestmentcostsinsolardevices,itwouldbenecessaryforsuchequipmenttomakesub-stantialcontributionstothesupplyofenergywhenenergyrequirementsaregreatest.1.3.4Non-StructuralAlternativesNon-structura1alternativestoconstructionofnewelectricgeneratingcapacityarebeingemphasizedinmanystatesbecauseofthehighcapitalcostsofnewgenerationandtheresultingneedforrateincreases.Themostimportantnon-structuralalternativesareconservation(ofenergy),raterevision,andloadmanagement.Inanefforttoadvancethesealternatives,theCongresshaspassedthreerelatedActs:(1)theNationalEnergyConservationActof1978;(2)thePowerplantandIndustrialFuelUseActof1978;and(3)thePublicUtilityRegulatoryPoliciesAct(PURPA)of1978.ProvisionsoftheseActsthatmaybepertinentareincludedinAppendixC.Aseparateactiontoadvancetheeffectsofnon-structuralalternativs(raterevisionandloadmanagement)isastudyproposedbytheNationalAssociationofRegulatoryUtilityCommissioners(NARUC).Thisstudy,knownastheNARUCResolutionNo.9Study,hasbeeninprogressforsometime,andisdescribedinAppendixC.1.3.4.1EffectsofConservationonDemandConservationofelectricenergyhasbeenadvocatedasonemeansofreducingthedemandforelectricpower,therebyreducingtheneedtoinstallnewgeneratingfacilities.Todate,mostconservationmeasureshavebeenvoluntaryandhavebeenencouragedthroughpubliceducationorFederalprograms.Thesemeasuresincludeencouragingtheuseofmajorappliancesduringoff-peakhours,loweringthethermostatsettingofheatingunits,andraisingthethermostatsettingonairconditioningunits.Conservationcouldalsobeencouragedbyprovidingtaxincentivesorlow-costFederalloansforinsulatingresidentialandcommercialestablishments,fordesigningandconstructingenergy-efficienthomesandoffices,andformanufacturingenergy-efficientequipment.TherearethreeprincipaltypesofconservationprogramsthatplayapartinthecurrentenergyscenariooftheRailbelt.Thoseprogramcategoriesare:(1)theStateResidentialEnergyConservationProgram;(2)theMunicipalityofAnchorageLow-IncomeWeatherizationProgram;and(3)variousRailbeltutility-sponsoredconservationassistanceprograms.Thestate-sponsoredprogramhasundertakenthefo11owing:(1)thetrainingofenergyauditors;(2)theperformanceofresidentia1energyauditsentai1ingthephysica1inspectionofthepremises;(3)theprovisionofgrantsandloansforconservationimprovementsrecommendedbytheaudit;and(4)provisionofretrofittedinsulationandweatherizationforqualifyinglow-incomehouseholds..TheMunicipalityofAnchorage'sprogramprovidesgrantsofupto$1,600forenergyconservationmaterialsandrepairs.Theutility-sponsored conservationprograms,at1eastsofarastheyaddressresidentialconsumers,canbestbedescribedaseducationallyoriented.Distributingbrochures,makingpresentationtogroups,andcounselingcustomersregardingconser-vationtechniquesappeartocharacterizethebulkofthisactivity.MostassessmentsOf.theseconservationprograms(includingtheassessmentsofthesponsoringorganizations)indicatemodestimpacts,particularlyintheAnchoragearea.Thetrendappearstobecurtailmentratherthanexpansionofmostoftheseefforts.Experienceinotherstatessuggeststhatconsumerconservationmeasuresaregenerallyundertakenwhenelectricratesbecomeburdensomeandthesavingsavailablefromspecificmeasuresarewellidentified. 1-351.3.4.2EffectsofRateRevisiononDemandRestructuredorredesignedelectrictariffs,developedtoreduceelectricenergyconsumption,shouldattempt tomoreaccuratelyrepresentthetruecostofproducingtheelectricpower.Thecostintermsofeconomicresourcestoproduceaunitofelectricityforthesupplyofutilitysystemloadschangescontinuously.Costdependsonthesizeofthesystemload,whichisconstantlyvaryinginhourly,daily,weekly,andseasonalcycles,andontheavailabilityandefficiencyofgenerationcapacity,whichoftenvariesina12-monthcycle.Totheextentthatratesreflectthesecosts,rates providesignalstocustomersabouttheamountofpowerconsumptionthat isconsistentwiththeefficientuseofenergyresources.Intheory,seasonalratesdesignedtoaccountfortheaverage seasonaldifferenceinthecostofproducingenergymightbeused;or,ifthecostofimplementingthemcanbejustified,time—of—dayrates——ratesthatreflectthe marginalcostofproducingenergy,acostthatfluctuateswitheachchangeinsystemload——shouldbeused.Whiletheeconomictheoryofraterevisionisbasicallysound,theimplementationofraterevisionpresentsavarietyofpracticalproblems.Electricenergyuseappearstoberesponsivetopriceinthelongrun, butislimitedinresponseduringshorterperiods.Forexample,mostconsumersofelectricityhaveasignificantinvestmentinelectricalequipment.Fortheseconsumers,operatingexistingequipmentathighelectriccostsmaybelessexpensivethaninvestinginmoreefficientequipmentthatwouldoperateatarelativelylowercost.Inthissituation,implementationofincreasedrateshasthepotentialtopenalizetheconsumerwhileachievinglittleornoreductioninenergyconsumption.Asaresultofanumberofexperimentsconductedinthe1970s,itappearsthatrevisedratedesignsandloadmanagement,intheabsenceofmajorchangesinthe generalratelevel,willreducebut noteliminatetheneedforsubstantialamountsofnewpeakingcapacity.Itisdoubtfulthatinthenearfuture,ratedesignandloadmanagementwillinvalidatetheneedforadditionalgeneration.1.4SCENARIODEVELOPMENTFERCStaffexaminedseveralalternativepowerresourcedevelopmentscenariosfortheRailbelt.ThesescenariosincludedevelopmentoftheSusitna RiverBasinusing theSusitnaprojectasproposedbytheApplicantandnumerousotheralternativesforSusitnaRiverdevelopment;thedevelopmentofsmallerhydroelectricresourcesoutsideoftheSusitna RiverBasin;theuseofthermalgenerationexpansionpatternsfueledpredominantlybyeithercoalorgas;andtheuseofacombinationofresourcetypes.Allofthescenariosconsideredtechnologiescurrentlyavailable,andthecombinationscenarioconsideredsometechnologiesexpectedtobecommerciallyavailableinthenextdecade.Eachscenarioisdiscussedseparatelyinthefollowingsections.1.4.1SusitnaBasinDevelopmentTheStaffstudiedthe19alternativesforSusitnaBasinhydropower developmentidentifiedinSection1.3.1(Table1—15)todeterminewhichprojectswouldmeetthesystemloadrequirementsfortheRailbeltthroughtheyear2013withtheleasttotalsystemcost.TheRailbeltpowersystemcostsweredeterminedforthealternativeprojectsusingtheOPCOSTprogrammodel.TheApplicant’sdatafortheexistingsystemcharacteristicswithplannedadditionsandretirementsandStaffestimatesoffuel costs, fuelcostescalation,andloadprojectionswereused.Thesystemoperationwassimulatedfrom1993to2042,withloadgrowthandrealfuelcostescalationassumedfrom1993to2013,butconstantloadandconstant realfuelcostassumedfrom2014to2042.OPCOSTwasrunforeachgenerationalternativeusingtheStaff’shigh,low,andmediumloadforecasts.TheOPCOSTprogramsimulatesthehourbyhouroperationofanelectricpowergeneratingsystemsubjecttoconstraintsimposedbythesystemgeneratingunit characteristics, unitloadingcriteria,anduser—specifiedsystemoperatingrules.Inputdataarethehourlysystemloads,individualgeneratingunitdata,and assumedloadandfuelescalationrates.Outputconsists ofatallyoftheenergyproduction, fuelconsumption,andcostsincurredforeachunit.Resultsarealsoaggregatedintomonthlyandyearlysystemtotalcosts,systemtotalenergyproduction,andvariousothersystemoperatingstatistics.TheOPCOSTrunsidentifiedatotalofsixalternativehydropower developmentplansfortheSusitnaRiverthatmeetsystemloadrequirements through theyear2013andprovidelowoverallsystemcostsforallthreeloadforecasts.Table1—19containsasummaryofthelevelizedannualsystempowercosts(inconstant1982dollars)fortheproposedprojectandeachofthesixalternativeplansforboththehighandlowloadforecasts,andforarangeofrealdiscountratesfrom3.5%to7.0%.Thesecostsincludethelevelizedcapital,operation,andmaintenancecostsofthehydroelectricdevelopments.1-351.3.4.2EffectsofRateRevisionon.DemandRestructuredorredesignedelectrictariffs,developedtoreduceelectricenergyconsumption,shouldattempttomoreaccuratelyrepresentthetruecostofproducingtheelectricpower.Thecostintermsofeconomicresourcestoproduceaunitofelectricityforthesupplyofutilitysystemloadschangescontinuously.Costdependsonthesizeofthesystemload,whichiscon-stantlyvaryinginhourly,daily,weekly,andseasonalcycles,andontheavailabilityandefficiencyofgenerationcapacity,whichoftenvariesina12-monthcycle.Totheextentthatratesreflectthesecosts,ratesprovidesignals tocustomersabouttheamountofpowerconsump-tionthatisconsistentwiththeefficientuseofenergyresources.Intheory,seasonalratesdesignedtoaccountfortheaverageseasonaldifferenceinthecostofproducingenergymightbeused;or,ifthecostofimplementingthemcanbejustified,time-of-dayrates--ratesthatreflectthemarginalcostofproducingenergy,acostthatfluctuateswitheachchangeinsystemload--shouldbeused.Whiletheeconomictheoryofraterevisionisbasicallysound,theimplementationofraterevisionpresentsavarietyofpracticalproblems.Electricenergyuseappearstoberesponsivetopriceinthelongrun,butislimitedinresponseduringshorterperiods.Forexample,mostconsumersofelectricityhaveasignificantinvestmentinelectricalequipment.Fortheseconsumers,operatingexistingequipmentathighelectriccostsmaybelessexpensivethaninvest-inginmoreefficientequipmentthatwouldoperateatarelativelylowercost.Inthissitua-tion,implementationofincreasedrateshasthepotentialtopenalizetheconsumerwhileachievinglittleornoreductioninenergyconsumption.Asaresultofanumberofexperimentsconductedinthe1970s,itappearsthatrevisedratedesignsandloadmanagement,intheabsenceofmajorchangesinthegeneralratelevel,willreducebutnoteliminatetheneedforsubstantialamountsofnewpeakingcapacity.Itisdoubt-fulthatinthenearfuture,ratedesignandloadmanagementwillinvalidatetheneedforadditionalgeneration.1.4SCENARIODEVELOPMENTFERCStaffexaminedseveralalternativepowerresourcedevelopmentscenariosfortheRailbelt.ThesescenariosincludedevelopmentoftheSusitnaRiverBasinusingtheSusitnaprojectasproposedbytheApplicantandnumerousotheralternativesforSusitnaRiverdevelopment;thedevelopmentofsmallerhydroelectricresourcesoutsideoftheSusitnaRiverBasin;theuseofthermalgenerationexpansionpatternsfueledpredominantlybyeithercoalorgas;andtheuseofacombinationofresourcetypes.Allofthescenariosconsideredtechnologiescurrentlyavail-able,andthecombinationscenarioconsideredsometechnologiesexpectedtobecommerciallyavailableinthenextdecade.Eachscenarioisdiscussedseparatelyinthefollowingsections.1.4.1SusitnaBasinDevelopmentTheStaffstudiedthe19alternativesforSusitnaBasinhydropowerdevelopmentidentifiedinSection1.3.1(Table1-15)todeterminewhichprojectswouldmeetthesystemloadrequirementsfortheRailbeltthroughtheyear2013withtheleasttotalsystemcost.TheRailbeltpowersystemcostsweredeterminedforthealternativeprojectsusingtheOPCOSTprogrammodel.TheApplicant'sdatafortheexistingsystemcharacteristicswithplannedadditionsandretirementsandStaffestimatesoffuelcosts,fuelcostescalation,andloadprojectionswereused.Thesystemoperationwassimulatedfrom1993to2042,withloadgrowthandrealfuelcostescalationassumedfrom1993to2013,butconstantloadandconstantrealfuelcostassumedfrom2014to2042.OPCOSTwasrunforeachgenerationalternativeusingtheStaff'shigh,low,andmediumloadforecasts.TheOPCOSTprogramsimulatesthehourbyhouroperationofanelectricpowergeneratingsystemsubjecttoconstraintsimposedbythesystemgeneratingunitcharacteristics,unit1oadingcriteria,anduser-specifiedsystemoperatingrules.Inputdataarethehourlysystemloads,individualgeneratingunitdata,andassumedloadandfuelescalationrates.Outputconsistsofatallyoftheenergyproduction,fuelconsumption,andcostsincurredforeachunit.Resultsarealsoaggregatedintomonthlyandyearlysystemtotalcosts,systemtotalenergyproduction,andvariousothersystemoperatingstatistics.TheOPCOSTrunsidentifiedatotalofsixalternativehydropowerdevelopmentplansfortheSusitnaRiverthatmeetsystemloadrequirementsthroughtheyear2013andprovidelowoverallsystemcostsforallthreeloadforecasts.Table1-19containsasummaryofthelevelizedannual systempowercosts(inconstant1982dollars)fortheproposedprojectandeachofthesixalternativeplansforboththehighandlowloadforecasts,andforarangeofrealdiscountratesfrom3.5%to7.0%.Thesecostsincludethelevelizedcapital,operation,andmaintenancecostsofthehydroelectricdevelopments. I'"!I)II,',iiiII,'I,''I,Ir.I1-341.3.3.6TidalPowerTidalenergyispotentiallyavailableinAlaska,primarilyintheCookInletareasoftheRai1-belt,wheretheheightoftidalvariationandthevolumeoftidalflowaresufficienttomaketidalpowerprojectspractical.Tidalenergycanbeconvertedintoelectricitybycapturingboththepotentialenergyassociatedwiththeheightoftidalfluctuationsaswellasthekineticenergyassociatedwiththeflowoftidalwaterinandoutofacontainedarea.IfallthepotentialandkineticenergyofCookInletwerecapturedandmadeavailabletousersintheRai1beltareaofAlaska,itwouldprovideelectricpowerfortheentireregionwellbeyondtheyear2050.AstudypreparedbyAcresAmericanidentified16sitesintheCookInletareawhosetotalenergycapacityexceeded186,000GWh,withatotalpotentialcapacityof73GW.TheDivisionofEnergyandPowerofAlaskaconcludedearlyin1983thatdevelopmentofcommercialtidalpowerismorethanadecadeaway.1.3.3.7SolarEnergySolarenergyisnotregardedasapotentialsourceofpowerwithintheRailbelt,eitherintheformofphotovoltaicenergyorsolarheat.DespitethelonghoursofdaylightthatcharacterizethesummersintheRailbelt,the periodsofgreatestenergyneedareduringthewinter,whensolarenergyproductioninAlaskawillbenegligible.Inordertojustifyeventheprojectedlowinvestmentcostsinsolardevices,itwouldbenecessaryforsuchequipmenttomakesub-stantialcontributionstothesupplyofenergywhenenergyrequirementsaregreatest.1.3.4Non-StructuralAlternativesNon-structuralalternativestoconstructionofnewelectricgeneratingcapacityarebeingemphasizedinmanystatesbecauseofthehighcapitalcostsofnewgenerationandtheresultingneedforrateincreases.Themostimportantnon-structurala1ternativesareconservation(ofenergy),raterevision,andloadmanagement.Inanefforttoadvancethesealternatives,theCongresshaspassedthreerelatedActs:(1)theNationalEnergyConservationActof1978;(2)thePowerp1antandIndustrialFuelUseActof1978;and(3)thePublicUtilityRegulatoryPo1iciesAct(PURPA)of1978.ProvisionsoftheseActsthatmaybepertinentareincludedinAppendixC.Aseparateactiontoadvancetheeffectsofnon-structuralalternativs(raterevisionandloadmanagement)isastudyproposedbytheNationalAssociationofRegulatoryUtilityCommissioners(NARUC).Thisstudy,knownastheNARUCResolutionNo.9Study,hasbeeninprogressforsometime,andisdescribedinAppendixC.1.3.4.1EffectsofConservationonDemandConservationofelectricenergyhasbeenadvocatedasonemeansofreducingthedemandforelectricpower,therebyreducingtheneedtoinstallnewgeneratingfacilities.Todate,mostconservationmeasureshavebeenvoluntaryandhavebeenencouragedthroughpubliceducationorFedera1programs.Thesemeasuresincludeencouragingtheuseofmajorapp1iancesduringoff-peakhours,loweringthethermostatsettingofheatingunits,andraisingthethermostatsettingonairconditioningunits.Conservationcouldalsobeencouragedbyprovidingtaxincentivesorlow-costFederalloansforinsulatingresidentialandcommercialestablishments,fordesigningandconstructingenergy-efficienthomesandoffices,andformanufacturingenergy-efficientequipment.TherearethreeprincipaltypesofconservationprogramsthatplayapartinthecurrentenergyscenariooftheRailbe1t.Thoseprogramcategoriesare:(1)theStateResidentialEnergyConservationProgram;(2)theMunicipalityofAnchorageLow-IncomeWeatherizationProgram;and(3)variousRailbeltutility-sponsoredconservationassistanceprograms.Thestate-sponsoredprogramhasundertakenthefollowing:(1)thetrainingofenergyauditors;(2)theperformanceofresidentia1energyauditsentailingthephysica1inspectionofthepremises;(3)theprovisionofgrantsandloansforconservationimprovementsrecommendedbytheaudit;and(4)provisionofretrofittedinsulationandweatherizationforqualifyinglow-incomehouseholds..TheMunicipalityofAnchorage'sprogramprovidesgrantsofupto$1,600forenergyconservationmateria1sandrepairs.Theutility-sponsoredconservationprograms,at1eastsofarastheyaddressresidentialconsumers,canbestbedescribedaseducationallyoriented.Distributingbrochures,makingpresentationtogroups,andcounselingcustomersregardingconser-vationtechniquesappeartocharacterizethebulkofthisactivity.Mostassessmentsof.theseconservationprograms(inc1udingtheassessmentsofthesponsoringorganizations)indicatemodestimpacts,particularlyintheAnchoragearea.Thetrendappearstobecurtailmentratherthanexpansionofmostoftheseefforts.Experienceinotherstatessuggeststhatconsumerconservationmeasuresaregenerallyundertakenwhenelectricratesbecomeburdensomeandthesavingsavailablefromspecificmeasuresarewellidentified. 1-351.3.4.2EffectsofRateRevisionon.DemandRestructuredorredesignedelectrictariffs,developedtoreduceelectricenergyconsumption,shouldattempttomoreaccuratelyrepresentthetruecostofproducingtheelectricpower.Thecostintermsofeconomicresourcestoproduceaunitofelectricityforthesupplyofutilitysystemloadschangescontinuously.Costdependsonthesizeofthesystemload,whichiscon-stantlyvaryinginhourly,daily,weekly,andseasonalcycles,andontheavailabilityandefficiencyofgenerationcapacity,whichoftenvariesina12-monthcycle.Totheextentthatratesreflectthesecosts,ratesprovidesignalstocustomersabouttheamountofpowerconsump-tionthatisconsistentwiththeefficientuseofenergyresources.Intheory,seasonalratesdesignedtoaccountfortheaverageseasonaldifferenceinthecostofproducingenergymightbeused;or,ifthecostofimplementingthemcanbejustified,time-of-dayrates--ratesthatreflectthemarginalcostofproducingenergy,acostthatfluctuateswitheachchangeinsystemload--shouldbeused.Whiletheeconomictheoryofraterevisionisbasicallysound,theimplementationofraterevisionpresentsavarietyofpracticalproblems.Electricenergyuseappearstoberesponsivetopriceinthelongrun,butislimitedinresponseduringshorterperiods.Forexample,mostconsumersofelectricityhaveasignificantinvestmentinelectricalequipment.Fortheseconsumers,operatingexistingequipmentathighelectriccostsmaybelessexpensivethaninvest-inginmoreefficientequipmentthatwouldoperateatarelativelylowercost.Inthissitua-tion,implementationofincreasedrateshasthepotentialtopenalizetheconsumerwhileachievinglittleornoreductioninenergyconsumption.Asaresultofanumberofexperimentsconductedinthe1970s,itappearsthatrevisedratedesignsandloadmanagement,intheabsenceofmajorchangesinthegeneralratelevel,willreducebutnoteliminatetheneedforsubstantialamountsofnewpeakingcapacity.Itisdoubt-fulthatinthenearfuture,ratedesignandloadmanagementwillinvalidatetheneedforadditionalgeneration.1.4SCENARIODEVELOPMENTFERCStaffexaminedseveralalternativepowerresourcedevelopmentscenariosfortheRailbelt.ThesescenariosincludedevelopmentoftheSusitnaRiverBasinusingtheSusitnaprojectasproposedbytheApplicantandnumerousotheralternativesforSusitnaRiverdevelopment;thedevelopmentofsmallerhydroelectricresourcesoutsideoftheSusitnaRiverBasin;theuseofthermalgenerationexpansionpatternsfueledpredominantlybyeithercoalorgas;andtheuseofacombinationofresourcetypes.Allofthescenariosconsideredtechnologiescurrentlyavai1-ab1e,andthecombinationscenariaconsideredsometechno1ogiesexpectedtobecommerciallyavailableinthenextdecade.Eachscenarioisdiscussedseparatelyinthefollowingsections.1.4.1SusitnaBasinDevelopmentTheStaffstudiedthe19alternativesforSusitnaBasinhydropowerdevelopmentidentifiedinSection1.3.1(Table1-15)todeterminewhichprojectswouldmeetthesystemloadrequirementsfortheRai1beltthroughtheyear2013withtheleasttotalsystemcost.TheRailbeltpowersystemcostsweredeterminedforthealternativeprojectsusingtheOPCOSTprogrammodel.TheApplicant'sdatafortheexistingsystemcharacteristicswithplannedadditionsandretirementsandStaffestimatesoffuelcosts,fuelcostescalation,andloadprojectionswereused.Thesystemoperationwassimulatedfrom1993to2042,withloadgrowthandrealfuelcostescalationassumedfrom1993to2013,butconstantloadandconstantrealfuelcostassumedfrom2014to2042.OPCOSTwasrunforeachgenerationalternativeusingtheStaff'shigh,low,andmediumloadforecasts.TheOPCOSTprogramsimulatesthehourbyhouroperationofanelectricpowergeneratingsystemsubjecttoconstraintsimposedbythesystemgeneratingunitcharacteristics,unitloadingcriteria,anduser-specifiedsystemoperatingrules.Inputdataarethehourlysystemloads,individualgeneratingunitdata,andassumedloadandfuelescalationrates.Outputconsistsofatallyoftheenergyproduction,fuelconsumption,andcostsincurredforeachunit.Resultsarealsoaggregatedintomonthlyandyearlysystemtotalcosts,systemtotalenergyproduction,andvariousothersystemoperatingstatistics.TheOPCOSTrunsidentifiedatotalofsixalternativehydropowerdevelopmentplansfortheSusitnaRiverthatmeetsystemloadrequirementsthroughtheyear2013andprovidelowoverallsystemcostsforallthreeloadforecasts.Table1-19containsasummaryofthelevelizedannual systempowercosts(inconstant1982dollars)fortheproposedprojectandeachofthesixalternativeplansforboththehighandlowloadforecasts,andforarangeofrealdiscountratesfrom3.5%to7.0%.Thesecostsincludetheleve1izedcapital,operation,andmaintenancecostsofthehydroelectricdevelopments. :1IIil,ii,!",,,I!1-36Table1-19.SummaryofOPCOSTDataonSusitnaBasinAlternatives,ProposedProjectandPreferredAlternativesLevelizedTotalPowerCostt1($million19B2)DiscountHighLoadLowLoadSusitnaDevelopmentScenarioRate(%)ForecastForecastWatana-DevilCanyon(Application)3.5192.6IB3.55.2195.7IB8.47.0193.4187.7WatanaI-DevilCanyon3.5186.1172.85.2184.9174.47.0180.9172.7WatanaII-DevilCanyon3.5184.6169.15.2181.2169.07.0175.0166.0HighDevilCanyon-Vee3.5163.6158.35.2159.3154.37.0155.5147.2WatanaI-ModifiedHighDevilCanyon3.5185.2172.45.2187.1172.37.0179.1170.3WatanaII-ModifiedHighDevilCanyon3.5186.9170.95.2182.1169.47.0175.0165.0WatanaI-TunnelRereg3.5192.0172.35.2190.8175.97.0188.4177.4t1PowercostincludesfuelandoperatingcostsofexistingandplannedRailbeltgeneration,lessretirements,plusthecapitalandoperatingcostsofthespecifiedcombinationsofalternativehydropoweradditions.Thesixalternativeswerescreenedonthebasisofrelativecostandenergycapabilityandenvironmentalacceptability.ThisscreeningresultedinthreepreferredalternativedevelopmentscenariosfortheSusitnaRiver.EachincludesWatanaIasthefirst-stagedevelopment,witheitherDevilCanyon,ModifiedHighDevilCanyon,orTunnel3Reregulatingdamasthesecondstage.ThemostenvironmentallyacceptableoftheplansappearstobetheWatanaIdevelopmentwiththeTunnel3Reregu1atingdam.1.4.2Non-SusitnaRiverHydroelectricDevelopmentPlansTheStaffstudiedtheoptimumdevelopmentscheduleforthefivenon-SusitnahydropowerprojectsidentifiedinTable1-18.TheanalysisincludeddevelopmentplansfortheChakachamnasite,aswellasplanswithoutChakachamnabutwithacombinedcycleplantoracoalplantandgasturbineasreplacements.ThevariousscenarioswereanalyzedusingtheStaffIsOPCOSTprogramtodeterminetheRailbeltsystempowercostinthesamemannerasdiscussedinSection1.4.1.Theresultsoftheanalysisforthefourlowest-costscenariosaresummarizedinTable1-20.ThestudiesindicatethatthellwithChakachamnallscenarios1and2andthelIwithoutChakachamnallscenarios3and4havealmostidenticaltotallevelizedcosts.Inallcasesthermalgenerationadditionsareneededtomeetloadrequirementsthroughtheyear2013,asindicatedinTable1-20.1.4.3Natural-Gas-FiredGenerationScenarioTheprovenandestimatednaturalgasresourcesintheCookInletareaoftheRailbelt(seeFig.1-14)andthepossibilitiesfortransportofNorthSlopenaturalgastotheRai1beltjustifyconsiderationofnaturalgasgenerationasanalternativetotheproposedproject.Initsgas 1-37Table1-20.SummaryofOPCOSTDataofPreferredNon-SusitnaBasinDevelopmentPlansLevelizedTotalPowerCostt'($million1982)DevelopmentPlanDiscountRate(%)HighLoadLowLoadForecastForecastWithChakachamna(1)1993-Johnson2003-Chakachamna&Snow2008-Browne&Keetna&CoalPlant(2)1993-Johnson1998-Chakachamna200:i-Snow2008-Browne&Keetna&CoalPlantWithoutChakachamna(3)1993-Johnson2003-Snow&Keetna2008-Browne&CombinedCycle&CoalPlant(4)1993-Johnson1998-Snow&Keetna2008-Browne&CombinedCycle&CoalPlant3.55.27.03.55.27.03.55.27.03.55.27.0139.9120.998.1138.1120.699.2140.0119.196.3140.3120.899.7118.9104.385.2117.9104.987.6117.8101.682.5118.6103.786.4t'Powercostincludesfuelandoperatingcostsofexistingandplannedgeneration,lessretirements,plusthecapitalandoperatingcostsofthe.specifiedcombinationsofalter-nativehydropoweradditions.scenario,theStaffassumedthatadequatesuppliesofnaturalgaswillbeavailableintheCookInletareaattheassumedpricetofuelallgeneratingunitsaddedby2022.Thescenarioalsoincludes theassumptionthatanexemptionfromtheFuelUseActwillallowtheuseofnaturalgasasafuelforbase-loadpowergeneration.1.4.3.1ScenarioEvaluationThegasscenariowasevaluatedbydeterminingtheannualoperatingcostsassociatedwiththescenario,asdevelopedbythePRODCOSTproductioncostingmodeloverthe30-yearperiod1993-2022.Theanalysiswasbasedonanassumedrealescalationoffuelcostsbutnoescalationofothercosts.Fuelcostswereescalatedfrom1982through2022andheldconstantthereafter.Totalpowercostsofeachyearincludetheoperatingandmaintenancecostofthatyearplustheplantinvestmentsmadeinthatyear.Toreflectcostsbeyond2022,thetotaloperatingcostexperiencedin2022wasassumedtoberepeatedforanadditional20years.Thesetotalannualcostswereadjustedto1982presentworthandthenlevelizedoverthe50-yearlifeofahydro-electriclicense,usingdiscountratesof3.5%,5.2%,and7.0%.Thegasscenariorequireseight200-MWcombined-cycleunitsandtwo70~MWcombustion-turbineunitstobeinstalledby2022tomeetmediumloadgrowth.Costswereexaminedforhighandmediumdemandlevels,withbothhighandmediumfuelescalationrates.ResultsoftheanalysisareshownTable1-21. 1-38NATURALGAS&PETROLEUM(\¢¢Q(NATURALGASFIELDS•OILFIELDS•••••PROPOSEDNORTHSLOPENATURALGASPIPELINE_.-NATURALGASPIPELINES---PETROLEUMPRODUCTSPIPELINE--NORTHSLOPECRUDEPIPELINEoSCALE50100Miles'I:"I;1Figure1-14.NaturalGasandPetroleumResourcesoftheRailbeltArea,IncludingNaturalGas,PetroleumProducts,andCrudePipelines.[Source:BattellePacificNorthwestLaboratories,1982b] 1-39Table1-21.CookInletGasScenarioCostComparisonwithProposedSusitnaProject;PresentWorth(PW)andLevelizedTotalAnnualCostt'(LAC)--$106($1982)DiscountRate(%)3.55.27.0ScenarioPWLACPWLACPWLACMidForecastandMidFuelEscalationRateGas3,701157.792,315130.751,484107.53Susitna4,383186.863,368190.222,615189.48MidForecastandHighFuelEscalationRateGas4,046172.502,507141.591,595115.57Susitna4,459190.103,408192.482,638191.15HighForecastandMidFuelEscalationRateGas4,089174.332,554144.251,623178.62Susitna4,566194.673,478196.432,685194.55HighForecastandHighFuelEscalationRateGas4,474190.742,758156.331,760127.53Susitna4,663198.803,531199.422,714196.66t'Presentworthin1982dollarsandcostlevelizedover50years.1.4.3.2DataAssumptionsforGasScenarioThetechnicaldataforprojectedgeneratingfacilitiesusedinthegasscenariowereagainadoptedfromtheApplicant'sdata,afterreview,andasinallotherscenarios,dataforexistingplantsandtheirretirementschedulesarethesameasusedbyApplicant.AsdidtheApplicant,theStaffassumedtheBradleyLakeandGrantLakehydroelectricprojectswereinservicepriorto1993andthatthesitingflexibilityofgas-firedcombustionturbinesandgas-firedcombinedcyclefacilitiesjustifiedanalysiswithoutconsiderationoftransmissionrequirementsforunitadditions.LocationofgeneratingresourcesintheCookInletareawouldprobablyrequirereinforcementofintertietransmissiontoserveloadintheFairbanksarea.StaffassumptionsforelectricpowerdemandandfuelcostareshowninTables1-22and1-23.1.4.4Coal-FiredGenerationScenarioInlightoftheextensivecoalresourcesavailabletotheRailbelt,systemexpansionservedpredominantlybycoal-firedgeneration(butincludingaconsiderab1eamountofgas-firedcombustioncturbineunits)isarealisticalternativetotheSusitnaproject.Amongthemanycoalfieldsinthearea(Fig.1-15),two--theNenanaandBelugafields--showsuperiorpotentialfordevelopment.TheNenanacoalfieldhasprovenreservesof861milliontons(781millionMT)andindicatedreservesofover6billiontons(5.4billionMT).TheBelugafieldhasprovenreservesof275milliontons(250millionMT)andindicatedreservesofmorethantentimesthatamount.Theonlymajor,currentlyproducingmineintheRailbelt,theUsibellimine,islocatedintheNenanafield.TheBelugafieldiscurrentlyinanexploratoryandpredevelopmentstageandhasnotbeenproducingtodate.RequirementsfordevelopmentoftheBelugacoalfieldincludeamajorexportmarketontheorderof5milliontons(4.5millionMT)peryear,amajorlocalmarketwithrapidlyincreasingcoaldemands,oracombinationofexportandlocalmarkets.InlightoftheuncertaintyregardingdevelopmentoftheBelugacoalfield,theexistingexpansioncapabilityoftheUsibellimine,andtheprovenreservesavailableintheNenanacoalfield,theStaffchosetodevelopacoalgenerationscenariothatreflectedthecostsandenvironmenta1impactsofproductionfromtheNenanafieldandelectricpowergenerationintheNenanaarea.TheenvironmentaleffectsoflocatingfivecoalunitsintheNenanaareaweresubsequentlyevaluatedandfoundtobeundesir-able.ThelocationofthreecoalunitsintheNenanaareaandtwosubsequentunitsintheWi11owareawasconsideredmoreacceptableintheStaffreview.ThelatterarrangementwouldincreasethecoalscenariocostslightlybutwouldnotalterthegeneralcostcomparisonwiththeSusitnaproject. 1-40Table1-22.LoadForecastUsedforThermalAlternativesEvaluationLoadForecast1983 1985 1990199520002010 202020302040HighEnergy(GWh)2,7603,0493,6804,1074,4725,7677,4379,59112,368Peak(MW)573629 7658559301,1981,5451,9922,569[I'MidEnergy2,7603,032 3,4873,8214,1975,3596,8448,73911,160I.Peak573626 726 7958731,1141,4241,8182,322LowEnergy2,7603,021 3,3723,5683,8994,9616,3138,03310,222Peak573623701 7428101,028 1,3081,6652,118Ii·:1Table1-23.FuelPriceProjections($1982)IiFuelForecast1983 19851990 19952000201020202030 2040 2050\'Oil($/bbl)High29263129323846566882Medium2924 20 22242936445466.Low291014 16172125303746.!:!Gas($/MMBtu)High2.68 2.51 2.803.033.203.534.024.605.296.10Medium2.682.392.16 2.622.743.03 3.443.904.485.18Low2.681.581.812.25 2.332.542.773.093.494.02Coal($/MMBtu)High1.551.551.551.571.591.641.701.761.821.89Medium1.551.551.551.551.551.551.551.551.551.55LowDiese1Oil($/bb1)High40374240 434957677993Medium403531333540475565 77Low4021 25 272832 3641 4857i:lii,:j!"W.I,I I1-41COALRESOURCES~_FIELDSHAVINGSUPERIORPOTENTIAL~OTHERFIELOSo-SCALE50100Miles(Figure1-15.MajorCoalResourcesoftheRailbeltArea.[Source:BattellePacificNorthwestLaboratories,1982a] i,!'I,'I'.,.1II'III:,;"I1-42AnalysisofaNenanaCoalgenerationscenarioprovidesareasonablecostcomparisonofcoalgenerationversustheSusitnaproject.ItilluminatesenvironmentalissuesandhelpsdeterminewhetherthereisaneedtodisperseNenana-suppliedcoalgenerationalongtheAlaskanRailroad.ItalsoprovidesinformationpertinenttothepossibledevelopmentoftheBelugacoalfield.1.4.4.1ScenarioEvaluationThecoalscenariowasevaluatedbyusingthePROOCOSTproductioncostingmodeltosimulatetheannualRailbeltelectricpowersystemoperationwiththeSusitnaprojectinserviceandalter-natively,withthecoalscenario.Systemoperationoverthe3D-yearperiod1993-2022wassimula-tedindetail.Theanalysisincludedconsiderationofcostescalationaboveageneralinflationratebyincludingrealcostescalationforthermalfuelsandassumedzeroescalationforallothercosts.Fuelcostswereescalatedfrom1982-2022andheldconstantthereafter.Totalcostsineachyearreflectedtheoperatingandmaintenancecostsofthatyearplusanyplantinvestmentmadethatyear.Toreflectcostsbeyondtheyear2022,thetotaloperatingcostexperiencedin2022wasassumedtoberepeatedforanadditional20years.Thesetotalannualcostswereadjustedto1982presentworthandthenlevelizedoverthe50-yearlifeofahydroelectriclicense,usingdiscountratesof3.5%,5.2%,and7.0%.Thecoalscenariorequiresfive200-MWcoalunitsandten70-MWcombustion-turbineunitstoservethemediumloadgrowthforecastthrough2022.SensitivityanalysesincludeddeterminationofsystemcostsassociatedwiththeStaff'smediumandhighelectricpowerdemandforecasts,eachwithmediumandhighfuelescalationrates.Thecostofthehighdemand/highfuelescalationratecasewasalsocalculatedwithtransmissionrequirementsincluded.TheresultsoftheanalysesareshowninTable1-24.1.4.4.2DataAssumptionsforCoalScenarioTheStaffreviewedandadoptedasreasonabletheApplicant'stechnicaldataforexistingandprojectedgeneratingfacilitiesandadoptedtheApplicant'sschedulesfortheretirementofexistinggeneratingfacilities.TheStaffalsoconcurredintheApp1icant'sassumptionthatboththeBradleyLakeandGrantLakehydroelectricdevelopmentswouldbeinoperationpriorto1993.Table1-24.NenanaCoalScenarioCostComparisonwithSusitna;PresentWorth(PW)andLevelizedTotalAnnualCostt'(LAC)--$10"DiscountRate(%)3.55.27.0ScenarioPWLACPWLACPWLACMidForecastandMidFuelEscalationRateCoalScenario3,748159.792,392135.101,558112.89Susitna4,383186.863,368190.222,615189.48MidForecastandHighFuelEscalation'RateCoalScenario3,912166.782,492140.741,620117.38Susitna4,459190.103,408192.482,638191.15HighForecastandMidFuelEscalationRateCoalScenario4,156177.192,644149.331,720124.63Susitna4,566194.673,490197.112,696195.35HighForecastandHighFuelEscalationRateCoalScenario4,351185.502,759155.821,789129.63Susitna4,663198.803,531199.422,714196.66CoalScenarioPlus4,656198.5Transmissiont2t'Presentworthin1982dollarsandcostlevelizedover50years.t2Assumed20%increaseinthefixedcostportion(assumedtobe35%oftotal)ofthetotallevelizedannualcost. 11-43Assumptionswithregardtoelectricpowerdemandandfuelcostwerepreparedseparately(seeSec.1.2.4).TheStaff'selectricpowerdemandprojectionsareshowninTable1-22andfuelcostsinTable1-23.TheforecastdemandsshowninTable1-22arepreliminaryfiguresusedforcomputeranalysisofthevariousscenarios.Theyaresomewhathigherinthelateryearsthanthelateststaffprojec-tionsshowninTable1-6andresultinslightlyhighertotalcostsforthermalgeneration.However,theslightdifferencehasnoimpactontheconclusionsreachedbytheStaffintheiranalyses.1.4.5ScenarioComparisonandCombinedScenarios1.4.5.1HydroelectricScenariosTheStaff'sanalysesinSections1.4.1and1.4.2showthatnon-SusitnaBasinhydropowerdevelop-mentplanscanprovidealower-costmeansofmeetingtheRailbeltsystemelectricloadstilltheyear2013thanthethreepreferredSusitnaBasinhydropoweralternatives,andarealsolesscostlythantheSusitnadevelopmentplanproposedbytheApplicant.ThethreepreferredSusitnaBasinalternativeplansarecomparedwithanon-SusitnahydroelectricscenarioinTable1-25.1.4.5.2ThermalScenariosTheanalysesinSections1.4.3and1.4.4indicatethatthecoalandgasscenarioswouldmeettheRailbeltpowerrequirementsatlowercostthantheproposedSustinaproject.1.4.5.3CombinedScenariosInrecognitionofconcernsregardingsolesourcedependenceongreatlyexpandeddevelopmentoftheNenanacoalfieldsorontheabsenceofothermarketsfortheCookInletgasreserves,theStaffalsoexaminedtheeconomicimplicationsofamixedscenarioconsistingofacombinationofgas-firedcombined-cyclegenerationintheCookInletareaandcoal-firedgenerationintheNenanaarea.Formediumloadgrowth,themixedcoalandgasdevelopmentconsistsofthree200-MWcoal-firedunits,four200-MWgas-firedcombined-cycleunits,andfour70-MWcombustion-turbineunitstobeinstalledbytheyear2022.AcomparisonofthemoreprudentmixedthermalscenariowiththecoalandgasscenariosisshowninTable1-26.Othercombinationsofthermalgeneratingresourceswerealsoconsidered.Theutilizationofgas-basedfuelcellsandrefuse-derivedfuelforsteamgenerationwerebothfoundtobemoreexpensivethanthegas-firedcombined-cycleandcoal-firedalternativeformsofgeneration.TheresultsshowninTables1-25and1-26indicatethatuseofAlaska'scoalandgasresources,eithersinglyorincombination,islikelytoprovideamoreeconomicmeansofmeetingtheRailbeltpowerrequirementsthantheproposedSusitnaprojectoranyofthepreferredSusitnaRiverBasinalternativestotheSusitnaproject.Thetablesalsoshowthat,onthebasisofavailableconstructioncostestimates,anon-SusitnaRiverhydroelectricdevelopmentplanappearstobethelowestcosthydropowerdevelopmentscenario.Aconclusionfromthese·analysesisthat,withthehighconstructioncostsofthelargerhydroelectricprojectsandcurrentuncer-taintiesregardingBelugacoaldevelopment,themostprudentRailbeltgenerationexpansionplanwouldbeamixofnon-Susitnahydroelectricresourceswithacombinationofgas-firedcombinedcyclegenerationintheCookInletareaandcoal-firedgenerationintheNenanaarea.Theuseofsmaller,lowercosthydroelectricresourcesinsuchaplanwouldreducethermalgenerationrequirementsandfueldemandsthrought~estudyperiod. 1-44Table1-25.ComparisonofSusitnaBasinandNon-SusitnaBasinHydroelectricDevelopmentPlansLevelizedTotalPowerCostt1($million1982)DevelopmentScenarioDiscountRate(%)HighLoadLowLoadForecastforecastII'WatanaI-DevilCanyonWatanaI-ModifiedHighDevilCanyonWatanaI-TunnelReregulation3.55.27.03.55.27.03.55.27.0186.1172.8184.9174.4180.9172.7185.2172.3187.1172.3179.2170.3192.0172.3190.8175.9188.4177.4With-ChakachamnaDevelopmentPlan(1)1993--Johnson2003--Chakachamna&Snow2008--Browne&Keetna&CoalPlant3.55.27.0139.9120.998.1118.9104.385.2Table1-26.ComparisonofThermalDevelopmentPlansPresentworthin1982levelizedover50years.HighLoadMidLoadForecastForecast159.79135.10112.89157.79130.75107.53156.12131.76110.14Levelizedt'TotalPowerCostt2($million1982)177.19149.33124.63174.33144.25118.62174.29146.50122.173.55.27.03.55.27.03.55.27.0DiscountRate(%)DevelopmentScenarioCoalandGasMixCoalGast'IIJI,11'I,I!I!I!IIi:JilIIII;IIt'Presentworthin1982dollarslevelizedover50years.t2Midfuelescalationrate. 1-45REFERENCESFORSECTION1BattellePacificNorthwestLaboratories.1982a.Coal-FiredSteam-ElectricPowerPlantAlterna-tivefortheRailbeltRegion.Richland,WA.BattellePacificNorthwestLaboratories.1982b.PreliminaryRailbeltElectricEnergyPlans.Richland,WA.Kresge,D.T.,MorehouseandRogers.1978.IssuesinAlaskaDevelopment,UniversityofWashingtonPress. IIII'Ii:'I!, 1IiII,I'11.I]IIj1'1I, II~1[','I, II,,,,,I,III '1II',IJI'I::':(Ii,'liJ 2.PROPOSEOACTIONANDALTERNATIVES2.1PROPOSEDPROJECT2.1.1LocationTheproposedprojectwouldconsistoftheWatanaandDevilCanyonhydroelectricdevelopmentsontheSusitnaRiverabout180miles(mi)[288kilometers(km)]northandeastofAnchorage,Alaska(seegeneralvicinitymap,Fig.2-1).2.1.2Facilities2.1.2.1WatanaDevelopmentWatana'damwouldbelocatedatRiverMile(RM)184approximately2.5mi(4km)upstreamoftheTsusenaCreekconfluence.Theearth-rockfilldamwouldhaveacentralimperviouscoreprotectedbyfineandcoarsefilters.Adownstreamoutershellofrockfillandalluvialgravelunderlainbyatoedrainandfilter,andanupstreamoutershellofcleanalluvialgravel.Thenominalcrestelevationofthedamwouldbe2,205feet(ft)[672meters(m)]withamaximumheightof885ft(270m)abovethefoundationandacrestlengthof4,100ft(1,250m).Theembankmentcrestwouldinitiallybeconstructedtotheelevationof2,210ft(674m)toallowforpotentialsettlement.Thetotalvolumeofthestructurewouldbeapproximately62millioncubicyards(yd3)[47millioncubicmeters(m3)].Duringconstruction,theriverwouldbedivertedthroughtwoconcrete-lineddiversiontunnels,each38ft(11.6m)indiameterand4,100ft(1,250m)long,tobedriventhroughthenorthbankabutmentofthedam.TheWatanadamwouldcreateareservoirapproximately48mi(77km)long,withasurfaceareaof38,000acres(15,400hectares(ha)],anda.grossstoragecapacityof9.5millionacre-feet(ac-ft)(11.7billionm3)withthewatersurfaceatelevation2,185ft(666m),thenormalmaximumoperat-inglevel.Themaximumwatersurfaceelevationofthereservoirwouldbe2,201ft(671m).Theminimumoperatinglevelofthereservoirwouldbe2,065ft(671m),providingalivestorageof3.7millionac-ft(4.6billionm3).AplanoftheWatanareservoirisshowninFigure2-2.Thepowerintakewouldbelocatedonthenorthernbank,withanapproachchannelexcavatedinrock.Theconcreteintakestructurewouldbecontrolledwithmultilevelgatescapableofoperationoverthefull120-ft(36.6-m)drawdownrange.Fromtheintakestructure,sixconcrete-linedpenstocks,each17ft(5.2m)indiameterwouldleadtoanundergroundpowerhousehousingsix170-megawatt(MW)generatingunits.Accesstothepowerhousewouldbebymeansofanunlinedaccesstunnelandaroadthatwauldpassfromthecrestofthedam,downthesouthernbankoftherivervalleyandacrosstheembankmentnearthedownstreamtoe.Theturbineswoulddischargethroughsixdrafttubetunnelstoasurgechamberdownstreamfromthepowerhouse,thencetotheriverthroughtwo34-ft(10.4-m)diameterconcrete-linedtailracetunnels.Aseparatetransformergalleryjustupstreamfromthepowerhousecavernwouldhouseninesingle-phase15/345-kilovolt(kV)transformers(threetransformerspergroupoftwogenerators).Thetransformerswouldbeconnectedbythree345-kVsingle-phase,oil-filledcablesthroughtwocableshaftstotheswitch-yardatthesurface.Outletfacilitieswouldbelocatedonthenorthernbankandwouldbedesignedtodischargefloodflowsofupto24,000cubicfeetpersecond(cfs)[680cubicmeterspersecond(m3/s)].Combinedwith7,000cfs(200m3/s)passingthroughthepowerhouse,twounitsoperating,theoutletfacili-tieswouldhandletheestimated50-yearfloodwithanincreaseinthepoolelevationfrom2,185ft(666m)to2,193ft(668m)duetofloodsurcharge.Theupstreamgatestructurefortheoutletworkswouldbeadjacenttothepowerintakeandwouldconveyflowsthrougha28-ft(8.5-m)diameterconcrete-linedtunneltosixfixed-conedischargevalvesdownstreamofthedam.Thesevalveswouldbehousedbeneaththespillwayflipbucketandwouldbeusedtodissipateenergyandeliminateundesirablenitrogensupersaturationintheriverdownstreamfromthedamduringspillwayoperations.Themainspillwaywouldbelocatedonthenorthernbankandwouldconsistofanageecontrolstructurewiththreeverticalfixed-wheelgatesandaninclinedconcretechuteandflipbucketdesignedtopassamaximumdischargeof120,000cfs(3,400m3/s).Thisspillway,togetherwith2-1 2-2theoutletfacilitiesandthepowerhouse,wouldbecapableofdischargingtheestimated10,000-yearflood[156,000cfs(4,400m3/s)].AnemergencyspillwayandfuseplugonthenorthernbankwouldprovidesufficientadditionalcapacitytopermitdischargeoftheProbableMaximumFlood(PMF)withoutovertopingthedam.Emergencyreleasefacilitieswouldbelocatedinoneofthediversiontunnelsafterclosuretoallowloweringofthereservoiroveraperiodoftimetopermitemergencyinspectionorrepairofimpoundmentstructures.Alocaldepressiononthenorthernrimofthereservoirupstreamofthedamwouldbeclosedbyalowdikewithacrestelevationof2,210ft(674m).ProvisionwouldbemadeformonitoringpotentialseepagethroughthisareaandplacementofappropriatefilterblanketsatTsusenaCreekdownstream.DiagramsoftheproposedWatanafacilitiesareshowninFigures2-3and2-4.2.1.2.2DevilCanyonDevelopmentTheDevilCanyonarchdamwouldbelocatedattheupstreamentranceoftheDevilCanyongorgeatRM152approximately32rivermiles(51km)downstreamfromWatanadam.TheDevilCanyondamwouldbeathinarchconcretestructure646ft(197m)highwithacrestlength-to-heightratioofapproximatelytwo.Itwouldbedesignedtowithstanddynamicloadingsfromintenseseismicshaking.Thedamwouldhaveacrestelevationof1,463ft(446m)[notincludingaproposed3-ft(l-m)parapet]andbesupportedbymassconcretethrustblocksoneachabutment.Onthesouthernabutment,thelowerbedrocksurfacewouldrequiretheconstructionofalargethrustblockandadjacenttothisthrustblock,a245-ft(74.7-m)highearthandrockfillsaddledamtoprovideclosuretothesouthernbank.ThesaddledamwouldbeacentralcoretypesimilarincrosssectiontotheWatanadam,withanominalcrestelevationof1,469ft(447.7m)plusanadditional3ft(1m)ofoverbuildforpotentialseismicsettlement.TheDevilCanyondamwouldformareservoirapproximately26mi(42km)longwithasurfaceareaof7,800acres(3,200ha)andagrossstoragecapacityof1.1millionac-ft(1.4billionm3)atelevation1,455ft(443.5m),thenormalmaximumoperatinglevel.Themaximumwatersurfaceelevationofthereservoirwouldbe1,466ft(446.8m),andtheminimumoperatinglevelwouldbe1,405ft(428.2m),providingalivestorageof350,000ac-ft(432millionm3).Duringconstruc-tion,theriverwouldbedivertedthroughasingle30-ft(9.1-m)diameterconcrete-linedtunnelonthesouthernbankoftheriver.Apowerintakeonthenorthernbankwouldconsistofanapproachchannelexcavatedinrockleadingtoareinforcedconcretegatestructure.Fromtheintakestructure,four30-ft(9.1-m)diameterconcrete-linedpenstocktunnelswouldleadtoanundergroundpowerhousehousingfour150-MWgeneratingunits.Accesstothepowerhousewouldbebymeansofanunlinedaccesstunnelapproximately3,200ft(975m)longanda950-ft(290-m)deepverticalaccessshaft.Theturbinedischargewouldreturntotheriverthroughasingle38-ft(12-m)diametertailracetunnelextendingfromthesurgechamberdownstreamofthepowerhousecavern.Aseparatetransformergalleryjustupstreamofthepowerhousecavernwouldhouse12single-phase15/345-kVtransformers.Thetransformerswouldbeconnectedby345-kVsingle-phase,oil-filledcablesthroughacableshafttotheswitch-yardatthesurface.Outletfacilitiesconsistingofsevenindividualconduitswouldbelocatedinthelowerpartofthemaindam.Thesewouldbedesignedtodischargeallfloodflowsofupto38,500cfs(1,090m3/s),theestimated50-yearfloodatDevilCanyon.Thisisbasedontheassumptionthatoneofthegeneratingunitswouldbeoperating.Eachoutletconduitwouldhaveafixed-conevalvesimilartothoseprovidedatWatanatodissipateenergyandminimizeundesirablenitrogensupersaturationintheflowsdownstream.Themainspillwaywouldbelocatedonthenorthernbank,andwouldconsistofanupstreamogeecontrolstructurewiththreeverticalfixed-wheelgates,andaninclinedconcretechuteandflipbucketdesignedtopassamaximumdischargeof123,000cfs(3,480m3/s).Thisspillway,togetherwiththeoutletfacilities,wouldbecapableofdischargingtheestimated10,000-yearflood.Anemergencyspi11wayandfuseplugonthesouthernbankwouldbedesignedtopermitdischargeoftheprobablemaximumflood(PMF)withoutovertoppingthedam.AsitelayoutoftheDevilCanyondevelopmentisprovidedinFigure2-5,andareservoirplanisshowninFigure2-6.2.1.2.3ConstructionandPermanentSiteFacilities2.1.2.3.1WatanaSupportfacilitieswouldberequiredthroughouththeconstructionperiodfortheWatanadevelop-ment.Followingconstruction,theoperationoftheWatanahydroelectricprojectwouldrequirepermanentstaffandfacilitiestosupporttheoperationandmaintenanceprogram.Themostsignificantfacilitywouldbeacombinationcampandvillageconstructedandmaintainedatthe ~PRIMARYPAVEDUNDIVIDEDHIGHWAYSECONDARYPAVEDUNDIVIDEDHIGHWAYSECONDARYGRAVELHIGHWAYRAILROADRIVERLEGENDo2040MILESSCALEEI~~~__~:'KEYMAPGULF0r;-r~r--_J--__J J__~~~_-\:\-_58'1l~~!..!e(,<D!<!<!<~!e!!?'".1:><D~<t!2~~ApplicationExhibitF)PlateFIJ[Source:VicinityMap--SusitnaDevelopment.Figure2-1./...~I";.!!···yUKON••.{...,........"'''-..,.65·N----__-..l'T-_rma~-~------~L------_r-~..//. ...z:::;:z:j)..."';)'....QJ((j'r------",>"~(v~y")-----("j.L.t';/\LOCATIONMAPFigure2-2.WatanaReservoirPlanandGeneralizedLocationofBorrowAreas(letters).[Source:ModifiedfromApplicationExhibitF,PlateF2].O~~54_~7MILESSCALE;i=,-------NORMALMAXIMUMOPERATINGLEVELEL.1455-2000__CONTOURINFEETABOVEMSLd$iI!!II/I/II/l/.@BORROWAREAO~~5iiiii_~~MILESDSCALE:'=, AREA-EFILTERaAGGREGATESOURCE~:~2-3411KVTRANSMISSIONLINES10GOLDCREEKO~~~IO~ooiiiiiiiiiiiliiil2qOOFEETSCALEI:,IwNNNNAREA-DI,/IMPERVIOUSI /-!!N~3~a!1Q!;~~:'-__~ffF--I!--#~__~-+_~o_AJ_:_~~_A_L-+-----1-/---I ,-t---.,,---~I1NORMALMAXIMUMJRESERVOIRLEVEL~:2§.QQ!L-_----+-----~--=-::;---+---~~--;7""==E~-~~~-tf(+--~~-~~~7~~~lf~~&~=-i:::::~~=t:::::::s::===r-=--...~/Figure2-3.WatanaFacilities--Plan.[Source:ApplicationExhibitF,PlateF3] AVERAGETAILWATER--~..30+000100200FEETSCALECi0200400FEETSCALEB I05001000FEETSCALEAE!25+0020+00ROCKANCHORSSECTIONTHRUDAMSCAl..E'8NORMAl..MAX.VI.L.EL.2200GROUTCURTAIN\.GATE/SURGESHAFTEXISTINGGROUND10+0015+00STATIONINGINFEETPOWERFACILITIESPROFILESCALE'BApplicationExhibitB,Fig.B.7JSECTIONA-ASCALE'C----------------5+00-----':>.'1""'1==""l'1,,""":A..---_::I:----_ACCESSSHAFT~:::-------<EXiSTINGGROUNDSURFACEI I'I'~ICA8LESHAFTS-______II-~II"II::TRANSFORMERANDDRAFT•i:"TU8EGATEGALLERY~_......'lII_____2-23'DIA.CONCRETELINEDTUNNELS[Source:CONCRETEPLUG0+002300220021002000..Ul1900Ul...:!:1800z01700fi>1600Ul...UlEXISTINGROCKLEVELAVERAGETAILWATEREL.l45018'OIA.CONCRETE-LINEOTUNNELSINTAKE100CONSTRUCTIONMITNORMALMAX.VI.L.EL.2200..-5+0020+0021002000..1900Ul'"...1800~z17000;:1600~'"..J1500'"1400'/,\r:PACCES~15+00WatanaFacilities--Sections.Figure2-4.5+0010+00STATIONINGINFEETSPILLWAYPROFILESCALE'BEL.2140GENERALARRANGEMENTSCAl..E'A0+005-3l!'HX4O'1lIFIXEDWHEEL·GATES--r-~;;;;;;~;;;:.~'~~_EXISTINGGROUNDSURFACE~CONTROL--:::::::::_---.........~ONRIGHTSIDEOFSPlLLViAY~.--..../EXISTINGGROUNDSURFACE•~~.ONRIGHTSIDEOFSPILLWAY.~-----.-~19001300::[::r::;1800III...noo~zteOOo~1500~1400III2300-2100CRESTEL.22254SLOPEIATCENTERLINEISLOPE,OFDAM22OO~=:::::~:::;:::_--_---:---~:::::..----L---------==~~--EXCAVATIONFORCORE~;;:'I.---_",,"~8EDROCKSURFACE//;/----1'..-;../II- -~/JL:.....----0~ORIGINALGROUNDSURFACE~:;::::::-~--:===='-7-""=-":---------'r-----...-........~,--,t................../II'\~___)I\,,//:,../GROUTGALLERIESJ\"//C"iF=-==\"','III'\"/1II"'---------..-//Ii'.........._----------/===::.:::.::.=~.!::==..2000III~1900z;18002·~1700~IeooIII SCALE[~~~2~O;'O_;;;4~~OFEET1500I~ApplicationExhibitF,PlateF41][Source:SiteLayout--DevilCanyonDevelopment.Figure2-5.i0w8,.:0ill0w0uS§illw!IiCDw.~)....a~~~~~I55016001650 A...,..."'"~LOCATIONMAP1.,/Figure2-6.DevilCanyonReservoirPlanandGeneralizedLocationofBorrowAreas(letters).[Source:ModifiedfromApplicationExhibitF,PlateF39]O~~§4iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii8MILESSCALEC-------NORMAlMAXIMUMOPERATINGlEVELEl.1455-2000CONTOURINFEETABOVEMSl@///ff!/ffilll/llJ>BORROWAREAo2MILESSCALEi~!!!!!!!!5iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii! 2-3projectsite.Thecamp/villagewouldbealargelyself-sufficientcommunityhousing3,300peopleduringconstructionoftheproject.Afterconstructionwascompleted,mostofthisfacilitywouldbedismantledandtheareareclaimed.Thedismantledbuildingsandotheritemsfromthecampwouldbeused,asmuchaspossible,duringconstructionoftheDevilCanyondevelopment.Othersitefacilitieswouldincludecontractors'workareas,sitepower,services,andcommunica-tions.Itemssuchaspowerandcommunicationswouldberequiredforconstructionoperationsindependentofcampoperations,aswouldahospitalorfirstaidroom.Permanentfacilitieswouldincludeatownorsmallcommunityforapproximately130staffmembersandtheirfamilies.Otherpermanentfacilitieswouldincludeamaintenancebuildingforuseduringoperationofthepowerplant.2.1.2.3.2DevilCanyonAcampandconstructionvillagewouldbeconstructedandmaintainedattheDevilCanyonprojectsite.Thecamp/villagewouldprovidehousingandlivingfacilitiesfor1,800peopleduringconstruction.Othersitefacilitieswouldincludecontractors'workareas,sitepower,services,andcommunications.Itemssuchaspower,communications,andhospitalserviceswouldberequiredforconstructionoperationsindependentofcampoperations.Ifpossible,buildingsusedattheWatanadevelopmentduringconstructionwouldbeusedatDevilCanyon.Thesebuildingswouldberetrofittedfromfueloiltoelectricheat.Thecampvillagewouldbedismantledandthesitereclaimedafterconstruction.ElectricpowerwouldbeprovidedbytheWatanadevelopment.Followingconstruction,operationandmaintenanceactivitieswouldbecenteredatWatana;therefore,aminimumnumberofpermanentfacilitieswouldberequiredattheDevilCanyonsitetomaintainthepowerfacility.2.1.2.3.3ProjectTransmissionTheprojectasproposedbytheApplicantwouldrequireconstructionofanumberoftransmissionlinesegmentsandassociatedsubstationstocarrytheelectricitygeneratedbytheprojecttotheloadcentersintheAnchorageandFairbanksareas.Someofthetransmissionadditionswouldparallelanexistinglineandusethesameoradjoiningright-of-way.Othersegmentswouldrequirenewroutesandrights-of-way.Notapartoftheproject,butpresentlyplannedfor1984operation,isanew170-mi(274-km)long,single-circuittransmissionlinebetweentheWillowsubstation,about30mi(48km)northofAnchorage,andtheHealysubstation,about100mi(160km)southofFairbanks.This1inewillinterconnectthetwomajorloadcentersandforthefirsttimepermitsynchronousoperationandpowertransfersthroughouttheRailbeltarea.Thelinewilloperateinitiallyat138kVbutisdesignedforeventualoperationat345kV.Itwouldbecomepartofthetransmissionsystemoftheproposedproject.Transmissionandsubstationadditionswouldbeconstructedinstageskeyedtothedifferingdatesforthe\~atanaandDevilCanyongeneration.Transmissionfacilitiesthatwouldbecon-structedforWatanainclude:(1)two37-mi(60-km),single-circuit,345-kVoutlettransmissionlinestoconnectthepowerhousesubstationwithanewGoldCreeksubstationlocatedontheexistingWillow-to-Healyline(whichwouldthenbeoperatedat345kV),(2)asecond345-kVline,170mi(274km)long,fromI'JillowtoHealyparallelingtheexistingline,(3)apairofsingle-circuit,345-kVlines,63mi(101km)long,extendingfromWillowtothenewKnikArmandUniversitysubstationsintheAnchoragearea,and(4)apairofsingle-circuit,345-kVlines,100mi(160km)long,extendingfromHealytothenewEstersubstationintheFairbanksarea.TransmissionfacilitiesthatwouldbeconstructedforDevilCanyoninclude:(1)8mi(13km)of345-kV,double-circuitoutlettransmissionfromthepowerhousesubstationtotheGoldCreeksubstation,and(2)anadditional345-kVcircuit,123mi(198km)long,fromGoldCreektoKnikArm,parallelingthepreviouslyconstructedtwosingle-circuitlines.ThelinesfromWillowtotheAnchorageareamustreachtheeastsideoftheKnikArm,whichextendsnortheastwardfromtheheadofCookInletatAnchorage.TheApplicant'sprimaryproposalistoconstructanoverheadlinefromWillowtotheLakeLorrainearea,oppositeAnchorage,and3to4mi(4.8to6.4km)ofunderwatercablepassingunderKnikArmtoitseastside,aboveAnchorageandSixt~i1eCreek.Alternativelonger,all-overhead1ineroutingsthroughtheMatanuskaValleyalsohavebeenexamined.AttheEstersubstation,138-kVinterconnectionswouldbemadewiththeFairbanksMunicipalandGoldenValleyElectricAssociationsystems.AttheUniversitysubstation,interconnectionswouldbemadewiththeAnchorageMunicipalLightandPower,ChugachElectricAssociation,andMatanuskaElectricAssociationsystems.OtherportionsoftheAnchoragearealoadareservedfromtheWillowandKnikArmsubstations.Figure2-7showstheconfigurationoftheproposedultimatetransmissionsystemfortheproject. \.2-4LEGEND~PRIMARYPAVEDUNDIVIDEDHIGHWAYSECONDARYPAVEDUNDIVIDEDHIGHWAYSECONDARYGRAVELHIGHWAYRAILROADRIVER===PROJECTTRANSMISSIONLINESAPROPOSEDDAMSITE6TRANSMISSIONSUBSTATIONO~"""",,~2~Oiiiiiiiiiiiiiil4PMILESSCALEI:,..~~",...~...~r".~~...\.!!'-f",f/WILLOW~SUBSTATlON--4:-&f~~.rrn~"",..1./.---Figure2-7.SusitnaProject345-kVTransmissionSystem(ultimateconfiguration).[Source:ModifiedfromApplicationExhibitF,PlateFl] 2-52.1.3ConstructionScheduleTheApplicant'sproposedconstructionschedulespansaperiodfromApril1985,beginningwithaccessroadconstructionatWatana,toOctober2002,whencommercialoperationofDevilCanyonunitswouldcommence.ThisscheduleispredicatedontheassumptionthataFERClicensewouldbeawardedbyDecember31,1984.2.1.3.1I'JatanaTheApplicant'sproposedscheduleforconstructionofWatanaisshowninFigure2-8.Twocon-straintswereconsideredinthedevelopmentofthisschedule:theissuancedateoftheFERClicenseandtheneedtohavefourunitson-linebyJanuary1994inordertomeetRailbeltloadgrowthasprojectedbytheApplicant.Thecriticalpathofactivitiestomeettheseconstraintswasdeterminedtobethroughsiteaccess,sitefacilities,diversionandmaindamconstruction.Ingeneral,constructionactivi-tiesleadinguptodiversionin1987areonanacceleratedschedule,whereastheremainingactivitiesareonanormalschedule.Theproposedschedulerequiresthatextensiveplanning,bidselection,andcommitmentsbemadebeforetheendof1984topermitworktoprogressonscheduleduring1985and1986.Therapiddevelopmentofsiteactivitiesisrequiredinorderthatconstructionoperationshavetheneededsupport.Thespillwayandintakestructureshavebeenscheduledforcompletiononeseasoninadvanceoftherequirementtohandleflows.Ingeneral,excavationforthesestructuresdoesnothavetobeginuntilmostoftheexcavationworkhasbeencompletedforthemaindam.Excavationoftheaccesstunnelintothepowerhousecomp1exhasbeenscheduledtostartin1ate1987.StageIconcretewouldbeginin1989,withstartofinstallationofmajormechanicalandelectricalworkin1991.Thefirstfourunitsarescheduledtobeonlinebythebeginningof1994andtheremainingtwounitsinearly1994.Constructionofthetransmissionlinesandswitchyardshasbeenscheduledtobeginin1989andtobecompletedbeforecommissioningofthefirstunit.RoadaccesstothesitewouldberequiredbyOctober1,1985,andequipmentwouldbetransportedoverlandduringthewinterof1984inorderforanairfieldtobeconstructedbyJuly1985.Thiswouldallowsitefacilitiestobedevelopedinaveryshorttimetosupportthemaincon-structionactivities.Acamptohouseapproximately1,000menwouldbeconstructedduringthefirst18months.Onsitepowergeneratingequipmentmustbeinstalledin1985tosupplypowerforcampandconstructionactivitiesand,anaggregateprocessingplantandconcretebatchingplantmustbeoperationaltostartdiversiontunnelconcreteworkbyApril1986.Constructionofdiversionanddewateringfacilities,thefirstmajoractivity,wouldstartbymid-1985.ExcavationoftheportalsandtunnelswouldrequireaconcentratedefforttoallowcompletionofthelowertunnelforriverdiversionbyOctober1986.TheupstreamcofferdammustbeinplacebyOctober1986todivertriverflowandthenthecofferdammustberaisedsuffi-cientlybythefollowingspringtoavoidovertopping.TheuppertunnelmustbecompletebyMay1987tohandlespringrunoff.Theprogressofworkinthemaindamisc.iticalthroughouttheperiod1986through1993.Mobilizationofequipmentandstartofsiteworkmustbeginin1986.Excavationoftherightabutmentandofriveralluviumunderthedamcorewouldbeginin1986.During1987and1988,dewatering,excavation,andfoundationtreatmentmustbecompletedintheriverbedareaandasubstantialstartmadeonplacingfill.Anaveragesix-monthconstructionseasonwasassumedfortheperiodrequiredtoplaceapproximately62millionyd3(47millionm3)offill.2.1.3.2DevilCanyonTheApplicant'sproposedscheduleforconstructionofDevilCanyonisshowninFigure2-9.ThedevelopmentofsitefacilitiesatDevilCanyonwouldbeginslowlyin1994,witharapidaccelera-tionin1995through1997.Withinashortperiodoftime,constructionwouldbeginonmostmajorcivilstructures.Thisschedulewasdevelopedtomeettheon-linepowerrequirementofallfourunitsin2002.Thecriticalpathofactivitieswasdeterminedtofollowthroughsitefacilities,diversionandmaindamconstruction.IthasbeenassumedthatsiteaccessbuilttoI'Jatanawillexistatthestartofconstruction.AroadwouldbeconstructedconnectingtheDevilCanyonsitetotheWatanaaccessroad,includingahigh-leve1bridgeovertheSusitnaRiverdownstreamoftheDevilCanyondam.Atthesametime,arailroadspurwouldbeconstructedtopermitrailaccesstothesouthernbankoftheSusitnanearDevilCanyon.Theseactivitieswouldbecompletedbymid-1994. 2-6Excavationandconcretingofthesinglediversiontunnelwouldbeginin1995.Riverclosureandcofferdamconstructionwouldbescheduledsoastopermitstartofdamconstructionin1996.Theconstructionofthearchdamwouldbethemostcriticalconstructionactivityfromstartofexcavationin1996untiltoppingoutin2001.Theconcreteprogramhasbeenbasedonanaverageeight-monthplacingseasonfor4-1/2years.Thespillwayandintakewouldbescheduledforcompletionbytheendoftheyear2000topermitreservoirfillingthenextyear.Excavationofaccessintothepowerhousecavernwouldbescheduledtobeginin1996.StageIconcretewouldbeginin1998,withstartofinstallationofmajormechanicalandelectricalworkin2000.TheadditionaltransmissionfacilitiesneededforDevilCanyonwouldbescheduledforcompletionbythetimethefinalunitwasreadyforcommissioninginlate2001.2.1.4ConstructionWorkforceRequirementsProjectedworkforcerequirementsforWatanaandDevilCanyonconstructionactivitiesareshowninTable2-1.WorkforcerequirementsforconstructionoftheWatanadevelopmentwouldvaryfromapproximately1,100personsatthestartofaccessroadconstructionin1985toapeakofabout3,500in1990.Workforcelevelswouldalsovaryseasonally.Arapiddropinworkforceneedswouldoccurbetween1990and1995,whenconstructionwouldbecompleteandtheoperationstaffof105wouldoccupythepermanenttown.WorkforcerequirementsforconstructionoftheDevilCanyondevelopmentwouldvaryfromabout100in1994toapeakof1,700in1998,reducingtoapermanentstaffofabout25in2002.2.1.5OperationandMaintenance2.1.5.1OperationBasedontheApplicant'sschedule,thefirstfourWatanaunitswouldbeon-lineinearly1994,fo11owedbytheremainingtwoWatanaunitsinmid-1994.StartupoffourDevi1CanyonunitswouldbeinOctober2002.2.1.5.1.1OperationwithintheRailbeltSystemTheSusitnaprojectwouldbethesinglemostsignificantpowersourceintheRailbeltsystem.Thedispatchanddistributionofpowerfromallsourcesbythemosteconomicalandreliablemeanswouldthereforebeessential.UndercurrentconditionsintheRailbelt,atotalofnineutilitieswithlimitedinterconnectionsshareresponsibilityforgenerationanddistributionofe1ectricpower.TheproposedarrangementforoptimizationandcontrolofthedispatchofSusitnapowertoRailbeltloadcentersisbasedontheexpectationthatasingleentitywouldeventuallybesetupforthispurposeandthatsufficientintertieswouldbedevelopedtoallowfortheeconomicdispatchofSusitnapowertothevariousloadcentersintheRailbelt.ASusitnaAreaControlCenterwouldbelocatedatWatanatocontrolboththeWatanaandtheDevilCanyonpowerplants.ThecontrolcenterwouldbelinkedthroughasupervisorysystemtotheCentralDispatchControlCenteratWillow.Operationwouldbesemiautomatic,withgenerationinstructionsinputfromtheCentralDispatchCenteratWillow,butwithdirectcontroloftheSusitnasystematthecontrolcenteratWatanaandDevilCanyonpowerplantsfortesting/commissioningorduringemergencies.TheSusitnaAreaContro1Centerwouldbecapableofcomp1etelyindependentcontroloftheprojectincaseofsystememergencies.Similarly,itwouldbepossibletooperatetheSusitnaunitsinanemergencysituationfromtheCentralDispatchCenter.2.1.5.1.2SusitnaProjectOperationWatanawouldoperateasabaseloadplantuntilDevilCanyoncommencedoperation.AtthattimetheDevilCanyondevelopmentwouldoperatebaseloadandWatanawouldshifttopeakandreserveoperation.TheoperationsimulationoftheprojectreservoirsandthepowerfacilitiesbytheApplicantwascarriedoutonamonthlybasistoassesstheenergypotentialconsideringminimumflowreleasesandfloodcontrol.TheApplicantconsideredsevenoperationalflowcasescoveringarangeofminimumtargetflowsatGoldCreekasshowninTable2-2.Theflowcasesanalyzedincludetheoperationalflowsthatwouldproducethemaximumamountofusableenergyfromtheproject,neglectingallotherconsid-erations(referredtoasCaseA)andtheoperationalflowsthatwouldhaveresultedinessentiallynoimpactonthedownstreamfisheryduringtheanadromousfishspawningperiod(referredtoasCaseD).TheApplicant'sanalysisoftheseflowcasesresultedintherecommendationofCaseCastheoperationalflow.TheCaseA,AI,andA2minimumflowsoftheproposedprojectovertheproposedCaseCbyallowingagreaterpowerdraftofWatanareservoirduringthewinterpeak-loadp.eri.odCl.~dreducingthea!TI()untofsurplusenergygeneratedduringthesummerrefi11pedod;Cases\Cl,C2,andDwoulddecreaseprojectbenefitsbyrestrictingtheamountofwinter DESCRIPTION19831984198519861987198819891990199119921993199401FERCLICENSEIt0102INITIALACCESSlIIl"88888'"02030304MAINACCESSVI"lv'I--,---_,....04050506SITEFACILITIES'111_11__'...lIII"'l_____'88_8...lIII""I',IIII'II...__1'11111-'"0607NO_~NO.1\~r:.;.RJ~NNELIn\U~RT.....•,D'""07111I111I111I11I11I11jllIIIII08DIVERSIONTUNNELSA1IIllIllllUillIiIIIi1111ll11lll0809*'"~TI09••10COFFERDAMS1II1111111111111U11I~1II1111111111111IIIIIIlilTII10II'RIITN.!'.......!.'"I~"""nJ."TARTGR,VELSTART~e60~101:~~O~130~10\II12MAINDAM'n1l1l1ll~1I1I1II1111IIIIIIII;JIIIlIiIli'li'iii't'illlllllill1I1I1II11I1ll'ili'li'li'ii'li;ll)i'li'li""""','""""""'"-""""",""""""""""",-1213I1314RELICTCHANNEL11111I11I11I1111I11I11I11,"""""---- -.""""",14I15I1511I11I1111I11I1111111I11111111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII!!!111111I1III111IIII!!!IIIIII'III!!Inil11II111II 111II111II1III,16MAINSPILLWAY1617I171FIISEPLUG18EMERGENCYSPILLWAYII!!!1111I111I11111111I111I11I11I0111I1111I11I"".'1819I1920OUTLETFACILITIES11111111111111111I11111111111111I111111I11I11I11111I11I11I11I11IIIIllIE11IiI11II11Ill11II1~11II11II1202112122POWERINTAKE11I111I11I11111111111I1111111111I1'1'1'1'1'1'1111111II1IiI11II11II11III11III11II11III102223I2324PENSTOCKS111111111I111111111I111111I1111I11I1111111111I1111I111I11I11I11I1111I11I112425~!25-ACCESSIVAII'T"TA"E"TAr..026POWERHOUSEI1111I11111111I111111I111I111111111I111111111I11I111181111111I1I2627,11TRANSFORMIRS2726TRANSFORMERGALLERY/CA8LESHAFTSIGALLERY/SHAFTSIIIIUD111II1UDIDD2811I11111111I11I1111I11I11111I11I11I111I11129IIItI2930TAILRACE/SURGECHAM8ER11I1111I1111I11I1111111I1111I11111111I111111I1111I1I30111111I11I11,31ItI3132TUR81NE/GENERATORS.11II1.1&11Ill11II11III11III111III11I111IIIIIllI11II11II11Ill11II11lll'11I111IIII11IiI11III11IlI11111111l11BIDDlIiIII~IBIDD'3233III1II33PHCRANES34MECH./ELECT.SYSTEMSDDIIiIIIlIiD111II111I1II11D11D11iI11D11II1III111III1II1111111D11III1~IIIII~11II11III11IlI11IlI11IlI11II11D11IlI11III1IDIIIIII~3435.,lFOUNDATION"IPM.NTI3536SWITCHYARD/CONTROL8LDG.1111I1111I11111I1111111IIIIIIIIIf""""'""'1'1'11IlI11D11II11III11II11D\!3637I:I...",.""'".,"'N"TOW'·"/"TRIN"IN"I3738TRANSMISSIONLINES"I_IIII.,JIIIIIIIII11I11111111,1,1,',',IID!1IlI111111II111II1IIIlIDIIIlI111\I3839lit~~:'~!L65~50I3940IMPOUNDMENT'----~-_____IIIIIDI_____I4041-1,1--.w1"'2"'3,,!,5..,6ON-LINE41442TESTANDCOMMISSION1m111IIIIIIIlIIIldlllllllllllllllllllldllllIE111II.&.\&111II1.424343\14444LEGEND".III'AACCESS/FACILITIES111111111111I1111EXCAVATION/FOUNDATIONTREATMENT,""""FILL-CONCRETE11II111II111II111IMECHANICAL/ELECTRICAL___IMPOUNDMENTFigure2-8.ConstructionSchedule--Watana.[Source:ApplicationExhibitC,Fig.C.l] DESCRIPTION199219931994199519961997199819992000,200120022003010102MAINACCESSP!lr'.-.-.-.-.-.-..r.:olidI"".-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-..r.:olidI"".-.-..v.-..02030304SITEFACILITIES"'1111::""I"""D'I'DIFIIIAT'IIIIIII""",1,,"".-10405DIVER""''''PLIlr.i0506DIVERSIONTUNNELS1111111111I111111I11"'''11I1106A07*".n"FT0708COFFERDAMS:-..";.....",,..........,.............:II0809,DIVFDrum:0910MAINDAM1II1I11I11Mlf/;WI1N~RIIII1l11111111111111111111iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii10IIIIII12SADDLEDAM111I11111111I111I11I11I111111I11I."..............,............................':..........................,.......,..............,I12131I1314OUTLETFACILITIES1111II111II111I1IIilI11IilI11ill1II11illillillillillilillililliI1415f1516MAINSPILLWAYIIII11I11I11IIII IIIilII11I1111111••11I11I11I.1111111I.11I11I111"""'1'Ii!IIIliiI1III'1illI11IIllill111II11I1617FUSEPLUG117IBEMERGENCYSPILLWAY111I1111111111111I11I1111I111I1111I111111I11111I1111111111I1111--.....""1IB19I1920POWERINTAKE111I1111I11I1111I11111I1111111A""''''Iilllli!lllillilliillliillillilillillI2021...I21I22PENSTOCKS111111111111111111I11111I11I2223AI""'''''SVA"TAGI'1s~23T24POWERHOUSE11111I11I111111I11111111I11I1111I111.11I1111I11I11I1112425IPI"IA"25TRANSFORM26TRANSFORMERGALLERYICABLESHAFTS1111I1111.11I1111I11I11111I11I111I111I1111IIIII1.'1iII111III11II2627II272BTAILRACE/SURGECHAMBER11I11I1111111I1111I1111I11111I11I1111I11111111I111111I11111I111111I11I1111I111111111I2829WI2930TURBINES/GENERATORS,I11I1IillIIilllIill'IillI11II'III111I1III11I111II111II111I111I111II111II11II111II1111II'11'11I111II113031PHCRANES,.1I3132MECH./ELEC~SYSTEMS111I111II111I111II1111111II1/11111II111II'iIIIllIIIlllllIIIllIIIllIIIllII'rjllmm'lII111II111II111I111II13233I33EXCAVATlON/""FSTRlJCTlIRF"134SWITCHYARD/CONTROLBLDG.1II111111111111L""""IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII~I3<35FOUMDAT"'''''.II35TOWERS/STIlIllGIIIG36TRANSMISSIONLINES11I1111I1111I11I11illhiiiiiiiiiii1111II111I111I111II111II3E37WII:iT3BIMPOUNDMENT___I!iIIIIf"_m!lllll1IIIIIIIII1IIIIIIIII.IlIIIIIIIIImm3EI39*1-""1W23",4~3S40TESTaCOMMISSION.1111111IIIIIlIIIIIIII1/IIIIIl'40414142424343444481"1111.-1ACCESSIFACILITIES1111I11I1111I1111EXCAVATION/FOUllDATIOlITREATMENT.,...................................,FlUCOHCIIETE11I111II111111II1MECHANICAL/ELECTRICAL___IMPOUNDMENTFigure2-9.ConstructionSchedule--OevilCanyon.[Source:ApplicationExhibitC,Fig.C.2] Table 2-1.Onsite Construction and Operations Workforce Requirements--1985 to 2002 Phase/ Month 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Construction January 330 405 571 750 840 1050 976 750 390 240 151 239 376 479 510 449 270 45 February 341 419 590 775 868 1085 1008 775 402 248 156 247 388 495 527 464 279 47 March 473 581 818 1075 1205 1504 1398 1075 558 344 217 343 539 686 730 643 387 65 Apri 1 726 891 1255 1650 1849 2309 2146 1650 857 528 333 527 827 1054 1121 988 594 100 May 792 972 1370 1800 2017 2519 2.341 1800 935 576 363 575 902 1149 1223 1077 648 109 June 957 1175 1655 2175 2437 3044 2829 2175 1130 696 439 694 1090 1389 1478 1302 783 131 July 1089 1337 1883 2475 2773 3463 3219 2475 1285 792 499 790 1241 1581 1681 1481 891 149 N I August 1100 1350 1902 2500 2801 3498 3252 2500 1298 800 504 798 1253 1596 1698 1496 900 151 "-l September 990 1215 1712 2250 2521 3149 2927 2250 1169 720 454 718 1128 1437 1529 1347 801 136 October 759 932 1312 1725 1933 2414 2244 1725 896 552 348 551 865 1102 1172 1033 621 104 November 561 689 970 1275 1429 1784 1658 1275 662 408 257 407 639 814 866 763 459 77 December 385 473 666 875 980 1224 1138 875 454 280 177 279 439 559 594 524 315 53 Peak Const./Yr 1100 1350 1902 2500 2802 3498 3251 2500 1299 800 504 798 1253 1596 1698 1496 899 151 Operations/Maintenance Subtotal -Year 70 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 170 Total 1100 1350 1902 2500 2802 3498 3251 2500 1369 945 649 943 1398 1741 1843 1641 1044 321 Source:Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.,as reproduced in Exhibit E,Volume 7,Table E.5.28;annual workforce requirements and trade mixes for peak years provided by Acres American,Inc. 2-8powerdraftofWatanaandincreasingthesurplusenergygeneratedduringthesummerrefillmonths.TheminimumflowrequirementsstudiedbytheApplicantareshowninTable2-2.GrossstoragevolumeoftheWatanareservoiratitsnormalmaximumoperatinglevelof2,185ft(660m)wouldbe9.5millionac-ft(11.7billionm3),about1.6timesthemeanannualflow(MAF)atthedamsite.Livestorageinthereservoirwouldbeabout3.7millionac/ft(4.6billionm3)(75%OfMAF).DevilCanyonreservoit'wouldhavegrossstorageofabout1.1millionac/ft(1.4billionm3)andlivestorageof0.34millionac/ft(419millionm3).TheminimumreservoirlevelatWatanawouldbe2,045ft(623m)duringnormaloperation,resultinginamaximumdraw-downof140ft(42.7m).TheDevilCanyonreservoirwouldbeoperatedtomaintainanormallevelof1,455ft(443m)wheneverpossible.Figure2-10showsthemonthlytargetreservoir1eve1sforbothreservoirs.These1eve1sweredeterminedbytheApp1icantbasedonCaseCoperationalflowsatGoldCreek.2.1.5.2Maintenance2.1.5.2.1MonitoringProgramInstrumentationwouldbeinstalledtopermitmonitoringdesignedtoensurethattheperformanceofthedamsandstructureswaswithinthelimitsassumedinthedesignandtoenableanyvaria-tionsbeyondthoselimitstoberecognizedquicklysothatremedialactioncouldbetakenwithoutdelay.Anessentialpartofthemonitoringprogramwouldbearoutinevisualinspectionofallexposedpartsofthestructuresandtheareadownstreamofthedamsforanyunusualfeatures,suchaslocalsettlementorothermovement,zonesofseepagedischarge,wetareas,andchangesinvegeta-tion.Allexposedconcretesurfaceswouldbeinspectedandrecordskeptofanysignsofdistress,cracking,ordeterioration.Themostimportantaspectsofthemonitoringprogramandareasofpossiblemaintenancerequire-mentsincludefoundationandabutmentporepressurereliefsystemmonitoring.Sincesectionsofthefoundationwouldbefrozen,thegroutedcutoffmightnotbefullyeffective,andleakagemightincreaseastherocktemperatureincreased.Thisconditionwouldbeindicatedbyincreaseddischargefromthedrainagesystemandwouldberemediedbyadditionalgroutingfromthegroutinggallery,possiblycombinedwithadditionaldrainageholes.Anydiscolorationofthedrainagesystemdischargewouldindicatetheleachingoffinematerialeitherfromtherockfoundationorfromthecore.Theproblemareawouldbelocatedandadditionalgroutingcarriedout.Waterqualitywouldalsobemonitoredforanychangeinmineralcontent.Structuraldeformationmonitoringasobservedbysettlementandlateralmovementsinstrumenta-tionwouldbeexpectedtooccursoonafterconstructionandunderinitialfillingofthereservoir.Deformationrecordswouldbecorrelatedwithsuchdataasreservoirlevel,occurrenceofheavystorms,andseismicactivitytodetermineproblemareas.Particularattentionwouldbepaidtomonitoringtheentireareaoftherelictchannel.Thismonitoringwouldincluderegularreaditlgsofpiezometersandthermistors,determinationofsurfaceelevation,surveymonitoring,andinspectionsofthedischargezoneforchangesinseepageflowsandanysignsofpipingfailure.2.1.5.2.2PeriodicMaintenanceThegeneratingplantwouldundergoperiodicmaintenancetoensuresafeandreliableoperationtocorrectdeficiencieswhichmightresultinreducedefficiencyoftheplants.ExperiencerecordsfrommachinessimilartothoseatWatanaandDevilCanyonindicatethataminimummaintenanceperiodoffivetosixdaysisrequiredforeachmachine,resultinginanoutageof150to170MWcapacityforanaverageperiodof50to60daysintheyear.Inexceptionalcases,certainmaChinesmaybedownfOI'greatermaintenanceperiods.Itisthereforereasonabletoallowatotalof2-1/2to3monthsplannedoutageasaconservativeapproachtosystemgenerationandmaintenanceplanningfortheSusitnaunits.Inprinciple,theseoutagesarescheduledduringthemonthsofJunetoAugustwhenthelowersummerloaddemandsmakeitpossibletoreleasetheunitsformaintenance.Theactualoutageswouldbecoordinatedonaweek-to-weekbasiswiththeplannedmaintenanceoftheunitsintherestofthesystem,andwouldtakeintoconsiderationemergencyshutdowns,breakdowns,delaysinconstructionandmaintenance,andotherunforeseencontingencies.TheWatanaandDevilCanyonpowerplantseachwouldbeprovidedwithbelow-groundworkshopstofacilitatethenormalmaintenanceneedsofeachplant.Theseincludeoperationsforfittingandmachining,welding,electrical,andrelayinstrumentation,withadequatestoresfortoolsandspareparts.TheWatanapowerplantwouldalsobeprovidedwithsurfacemaintenanceandcentralstoragefacilitiestomeettheneedsofbothplants.MaintenanceoperationplanningofbothplantswouldbecentralizedatWatana.OperationstaffnormallywouldbelocatedatWatanaandhousedattheoperators'villageatWatana.With 2-9Table2-2.MonthlyFlowRequirements(cfs)atGoldCreekCaseMonthAAlA2CClC2DOct5,0005,0005,0005,000 5,0005,000 5,000Nov5,000 5,000 5,0005,000 5,0005,0005,000Dec5,000 5,000 5,0005,000 5,0005,0005,000Jan5,0005,0005,000 5,000 5,0005,0005,000Feb5,000 5,000 5,0005,000 5,0005,0005,000Mar5,000 5,000 5,000 5,0005,0005,0005,000Apr5,000 5,0005,000 5,0005,0005,0005,000May4,0005,000 5,0006,000 6,0006,000 6,000Jun4,0005,000 5,0006,000 6,0006,0006,000Jultl4,0005,100 5,3206,4806,5306,9207,260Aug6,0008,00010,00012,00014,00016,00019,000Septl5,0006,500 7,6709,30010,450 11,620 13,170tlDerivationoftransitionalflows:DateCaseJulSepAAlA2CClC2025214,0005,000 5,0006,000 6,000 6,000 6,00026204,0005,000 5,0006,0007,0007,0007,50019194,0005,0005,0007,0008,0008,5009,00018184,0005,0006,0008,0009,00010,00010,50017174,0005,0007,0009,00010,000 11,500 12,00016164,0006,0008,00010,000 11,000 13,00014,00015 155,0007,0009,00011,00012,50014,50016,000-- ---- - ------------Conversion:Toconvertcubicfeetpersecond(cfs)tocubicmeterspersecond(m3/s),multiplyby0.0283.Source:ApplicationExhibitE,Vol.5,Chap.2,TableE.2.34. r-2190NORMALMAXIMUM,OPERATINGLEVEL2185I21701218021602150I-2130211J2125I-21)9Jl-I2092IIISSAAJJMMAANORMALMAXIMUMOPERATINGLEVEL1455MMONTHSM2-10FFWATANARESERVOIRJJDDNRESERVOIRISKEPTFULLATALLTIMESIFPOSSIBLE.o1460t1440a:01420>a:lJJ(/)lJJ1410a:140013900N1450..JlJJ>1430lJJ..J22002180I-'lJ..2160..JlJJ>2140lJJ..Ja:02120>a:lJJ(/)lJJ2100a:2080MONTHSDEVILCANYONRESERVOIRFigure2-10.ReservoirRuleCurves--WatanaandDevilCanyon.[Source:ApplicationExhibitB,Fig.B.69] 2-11centralizedcontroloftheSusitnaprojectlocatedatWatana,theDevilCanyonplantwouldnothavearesidentoperatingandmaintenancestaff.ProperroadandtransportfacilitieswouldbemaintainedbetweenWatanaandDevilCanyontofacilitatemovementofpersonneland/orequipmentbetweentheplants.2.1.6SafetyInspectionsTheFERCStaffinspectslicensedprojects,bothduringandafterconstruction,toensuretheirphysicalsafetyandthesafetyofthepublic,includingrecreationalusers,andtoensurethatthelicenseecomplieswithanyspecialconstructionandoperatingrequirementsofthelicense.Projectsunderconstructionareusuallyinspectedatleastonceamonth.Theinspectingengineerreviewsconstructionandtestingproceduresandnotestheprogressandqualityofthevariousstagesofconstruction,suchasfoundationandcut-offtrenchexcavations,abutmenttreatment,diversionandclosure,andinitialfillingofthereservoir.Licensesissuedformajorconstructionincludeaspecialarticlethatrequiresthelicenseetoemployaboardofqualifiedindependentconsultantstoreviewthedesign,specifications,andconstructionoftheproject.Theboardisrequiredtoassesstheconstructioninspectionprogram,theconstructionproceduresandprogress,theplannedinstrumentation,thefillingscheduleforthereservoir,andtheplansforsurveillanceduringinitialfillingofthereservoir.Aftertheprojectisplacedinoperation,itisinspectedbytheFERCStaff,normallyonceayear.Duringtheseannualinspections,staffengineersreviewtheoveralldevelopmentfromasafetystandpoint,andalsoassesswhetherthelicenseeisoperatingandmaintainingthefacili-tiesinaccordancewiththelicenseprovisions.AlicenseeisrequiredtonotifytheCommissionpromptlyofanyconditionsthatcouldjeopardizethesafetyoftheproject,andspecialinspec-tionsaremadetoassesssuchproblems.AdditionalStaffinspectionsarealsomadefollowingnaturaldisasterssuchasfloods,landslides,orearthquakes.Part12oftheCommission'sregulationsrequiresperiodicsafetyinspectionsoflicenseddamsbyqualifiedindependentconsultantsatregularfive-yearintervals.Thisrequirementappliestothosehydroelectricdevelopmentshavingadamexceeding35ft(11m)inheightabovestreambedoragrossreservoirstoragecapacityof2,000ac-ft(2.5millionm3).Inspectionsareper-formedbyordirectedbyqualifiedindependentconsultantsemployedbylicensees.Thebasicpurposeofthisinspectionistodeterminewhethertherearedeficienciesorpotentialdefi-cienciesinthedesign,quality,andadequacyofmaintenance,orinthemethodsofoperationofprojectstructuresthatmightendangerpublicsafety.2.1.7AccessPlanTheApplicant'sproposedaccessplanwouldprovideforrailandroadtransportofthenecessarymaterialsandequipmenttotheWatana-DevilCanyonconstructionsites.Arailheadandstoragefacility,coveringapproximately40acres(16ha)wouldbeconstructedalongtheexistingAlaskaRailroadinCantwell.Fromthefacility,accesstotheWatanasitewouldbealonganexistingroad,2mi(3km)totheintersectionoftheGeorgeParksandDenalihighways,theneasterlyalongtheDenaliHighwayfor21.3mi(34.3km)toanewroad.ThenewroadwouldbeconstructedtoWatanaCampsite41.6mi(66.9km)duesouthoftheDenaliHighway.AccesstotheDevilCanyonsitewouldb&alonganewroad,approximately20mi(32km)long,constructedtotheWatanaaccessroad.Ahigh-levelsuspensionbridgewouldberequiredwheretheaccessroadcrossedtheSusitnaRiverdownstreamoftheDevilCanyondam.RailaccesstotheDevilCanyonsitewouldrequireconstructionofaspurbetweenthecampsiteandtheexist-ingAlaskaRailroad.AplanoftheproposedaccessroutesisshowninFigure2-11.2.1.8TransmissionLineElectricalEffectsTransmissionlinesofpracticaldesigncreatehighelectricfieldgradientsattheconductorsurfacewhichcauseionizationofthesurroundingairlayerswhenthefieldintensityexceedsthebreakdownstrengthofthisair.Theresultingcoronaformationontheconductors,alongwithrandomgapdischargesonotherlinehardware,givesrisetoradionoiseandaudiblenoiseandgeneratesozone(03)andoxidesofnitrogen(NO).Coronaformationisafunctionoflinevoltage,conductorradius,linegeometry,conductorXsurfacecondition(roughness,adherenceofforeignparticles,etc.),relativeairdensity,humidity,wind,andprecipitation.Coronaanditsassociatedaudibleandradionoiselevelsincreasesubstantiallyduringperiodsoffoulweather,especiallyrain.Hence,itisneitherpracticalnoreconomicallyfeasibletodesignEHVlinessuchthattheywillneverbeincorona,asisaccomplishedatlowervoltages,althoughlinesarecommonlydesignedwithsufficientconductorsizeorbundlingtolimitsurfacegradients,withinthenormaloperatingvoltagerange,belowthecriticallevelatwhichcoronabeginstosharplyincrease. 2-12Energized,1oad-carryingtransmission1inesalsogeneratee1ectricandmagneticfie1dsthatpermeatethesurroundingmediumandinducevoltagesandcurrentsinconductingobjectsinthevicinity,includingpersonsandanimals.Thequestionofpotentialhazardsofthesefieldsfromabi01ogica1andenvironmenta1standpointhasbeengivenincreasingattentioninrecentyears,particularlywithregardtolinesdesignedforoperationintheextra-high-voltage(EHV)range(345-1,000kV)andforfuturelinesbeingconsideredforoperationintheultra-high-voltage(UHV)range(above1,000kV).InassessingtheenvironmentalimpactoftheexpectedlevelsoftheseelectricaleffectsfortheSusitnaproject345-kVtransmissionlines,duerecognitionshouldbemadeofthefactthatsuchlineshavebeeninexistenceinotherpartsoftheUnitedStatesforsome30years.Theselinestraversesparselysettledruralregionsaswellasareaswithhighpopulationdensity.Asaresultofthisdevelopment,thedesignwithregardtoknownelectricaleffectsandotherenviron-mentalaspectshasbecomewellestablished.Furthermore,the345-kVoperatingvoltageliesnearthelowerthresholdvoltagelevelatwhichmanyoftheelectricaleffectsassociatedwithhighervoltage1inesbecomeofmargina1significance.Neverthe1ess,theApp1icanthadananalysisconductedtopredictlevelsofelectricaleffectsfromtheSusitnaprojecttransmissionlines,calculatedusingmethodsdevelopedatProjectUHV.AsurveywasalsomadeofexistingradioandtelevisionbroadcastsignalstrengthsandambientradionoiselevelsalongtheAnchorage-to-Fairbankstransmissioncorridor*(Willow-to-Healysection)foruseinevaluatingtheinfluenceofsomeoftheseline-generatedelectricaleffects.Inaddition,asurveywasmadeofsensitivecommunicationfacilitylocationsinthevicinityofthecorridor,suchasmicrowaveinstalla-tionsandairnavigationalradiobeacons.Recommendedminimumseparationdistancesofthosefacilitiesfromthelinesweredeveloped,basedonexistingguidelinesandcriteria.ThisstudywasperformedbyAPA'sconsultant,CommonwealthAssociates,Inc.(CAI).TheresultsofthisstudyarepresentedintheAPAElectricalEnvironmentalEffectsReport,R-2394,datedJune4,1982.ThepresentlyplannedroutesandnumberofcircuitsultimatelytobeinstalledaspartoftheSusitnaproject345-kVtransmissionsystemareindicatedinFigure2-7.ThecalculationsusedtodevelopthepredictedelectricaleffectsinReportR-2394werebasedonthreesingle-circuit,345-kVtransmissionlinesonacommon400-ft(122-m)right-of-way,asshowninAppendix0,Figure0-2,operatingatavoltageof362.5kV.ThiswouldbetypicalofthestructureplacementfortheKnikArm-GoldCreeksectionoftheAnchorage-Fairbankstransmissioncorridor.Electricaleffectsgeneratedbythisparticulartransmissionlinkshouldberepresentativeoftheentire345-kVtransmissionconfigurationultimatelytobeinstalledaspartoftheSusitnaproject,andtheReportR-2394calculationsshouldbeconservativeduetothemultiple-circuitright-of-wayoccupancyrepresentedandtheupperlimitofthenormaloperatingvoltagerange,362.5kV(5%abovenomina1345-kV1eve1).Bothofthesefactorstendtowardincreasedintensityofsucheffectsasaudibleandradionoiseandozoneproduction.AreviewoftheenvironmentalsignificanceoftheelectricaleffectsproducedbytheSusitnaprojecttransmissionlineshasbeenmade.GuidelinesusedinthiseffortconsistedofmaterialcontainedinReportR-2394alongwithreferenceinformationanddataonthissubjectdevelopedbytheElectricPowerResearchInstitute(EPRI)andothers.Handcalculationswerealsoper-formed,basedonformulasanddesigncurves(ElectricPowerResearchInc.,1982),whichverified,toacloseapproximation,theaudibleandradionoiselevelsattheedgeoftheright-of-way,andthemaximumground-levelelectricfieldstrengthsreportedinR-2394,calculatedbycomputermethods.Asaresultofthisreview,thebasicconclusionsreachedbyAPA/CAIareconcurredinbytheStaff,i.e.,noadverseenvironmentalconsequencesofapermanentandirremediablenatureshouldresultwhichcouldbeattributedtotheoperationalperformanceofthe345-kVtransmissionlinestobeconstructedaspartoftheSusitnaproject.Specifically,thefo11owingqualitativeassessmentismade:(1)Noenvironmentallyhazardouslevelsofcorona-generatedozoneoroxidesofnitrogenshouldresultfromoperationofthelines.Infact,theresultingincrementtoambientlevelsduetolineoperationwouldlikelynotevenbemeasurable.(2)Audiblenoisegeneratedbycoronaformationonthelineswouldnotbeobjectionableandwouldnotcontributesignificantlytoambientnoiselevels.(3)Corona-generatedradionoisewouldnotbelikelytointerferewithAMradiobroadcastreceptionatdistancesgreaterthan1,000ft(305m)fromthecenterlineofthetrans-missionlineright-of-wayevenunderworst-caseweatherconditionsfornoisegenera-tion,viz.,rain.NointerferenceatallisexpectedforFMradioreceptiondueto*Hereinafterreferredtoasthe"Anchorage-Fairbankscorridor",orsimply"corridor"wherethemeaningisclearfromthecontext. Figure2-11.PlanofProposedAccessRoutes.[Source:ApplicationExhibitF,PlateF32]o<SCALELEGEND__PROPOSEDROAD..........'PROPOSEORAILROAD---.EXISTINGRAILROADEXISTINGROAOPROPOSEDTRANSMISSIONLINE2 4MILES 2-13itsinherentnoise-rejectioncapability.Televisionreceptionshouldbeunaffectedatlocationswheretelevisionreceptionispresentlygood.Furthermore,problems,ifany,wouldbeexpectedtoariseonlyrarely,andmitigativemeasurescouldgenerallybeemployedtoalleviateanysuchproblemonacase-by-casebasis,suchasbyrelocat-ingreceivingantennas,etc.Theroutingofthelineswouldbeadjustedasnecessarytoallowforindustry-recommendedseparationdistancesfromsensitivemicrowaveandothertypesofcommunicationfacilitiestoavoidpotentialinterferenceproblems.(4)ResultsofstudiesonP?~~iblebiologicalharmfromexposuretoelectricandmagneticfieldsareinconclusiveatbest,andnogeneralacceptanceofsuchacorrelationseemstoeXi~~am?ngthescientificcommunity:Inasmuchastheproposedlinedesignconformstogenerallyacceptedandlong-establisheddesignpracticefor345-kVtransmissionlines,thesamenOI'mallevelsoffieldintensityatgroundlevelwouldresultfromtheselinesasforalltheothernumerousexistinglinesinthisclass.Itis,there-fore,concludedthatnoreasonablebasisforconcernexistsonthisaccount.Likewise,noshockhazardsfrominducedpotentialsduetothesefieldswouldbeexpected.(5)The30-ft(9-m)minimumphase-to-groundclearancesaremorethansufficienttosatisfythepresentrequirementsoftheAmericanNationalStandardsInstitute(1984),includingthe5-milliampereinduced-currentlimitonlargevehiclesshort-circuitedtogroundunderthelines.Again,thisconformstopresentandlong-establisheddesignpracticeforlinesinthe345-kVclass.TheforegoingconclusionsapplyfortheSusitnalinesoperatedwithinthenormal±5%limitsoftheirnominaldesignvoltagelevel--345kV.Initially,thefirsttransmissionlink,currentlybeingconstructedalongtheAnchorage-Fairbankscorridor,wouldbeoperatedat138kV,atwhichvoltagethelevelsoftheforegoingelectricaleffectsshouldbeentirelynegligible.2.1.9CompliancewithApplicableLawsPriortoconstructionandoperationoftheproposedproject,theApplicantwouldreviewtheneedforandobtain,asnecessary,thefollowingFederal,state,andlocalpermitsandauthorizations:FederalHydroelectricLicenseSection404PermitSection10PermitRight-of-WayGrant&TemporaryUsePermitsFLPMASection302Leases,Permits&EasementsFreeUsePermitforGravelNationalPollutionDischargeEliminationSystemPermitPreventionofSignificantDeteriorationofAirQualityDeterminationofEligibilityfortheNationalRegisterDeterminationofEffectonSitesStateNPDESCertificationCertificateofReasonableAssuranceAlaskaCoastalManagementProgramCertificateofConsistencyAnadromousFishProtectionPermitFishwaysforObstructiontoFishPassageLandUsePermitsMaterialSalesWaterRightsPermit&CertificateofAppropriationLandLeasePermittoConstructaDamRight-of-WayPermitforanEasementLocalMatanuska-SusitnaBoroughPermitsandReviews2.1.10FuturePlansTheApplicanthasnocurrentplansforfurtherdevelopmentoftheWatana/DevilCanyonsystemandnoplansforfurtherwaterpowerprojectsintheSusitnaRiverBasinatthistime.DevelopmentoftheproposedprojectswouldprecludefurthermajorhydroelectricdevelopmentintheSusitna 2-14Basin,withtheexceptionofmajorstorageprojectsintheSusitnaBasinheadwaters.Althoughthesetypesofplanshavebeenconsideredinthepast,theyareneitheractivenoranticipatedtobesointheforeseeablefuture.2.1.11RecreationPlanTheApplicanthasidentifiedfourprimaryobjectivestobeaccommodatedbyimplementationoftheproposedprojectrecreationplan(ExhibitE,Vol.8,Chap.7,Sec.1.1)*asfollows:Tooffsetlossesofpublicrecreationresourcesduetotheconstructionoftheproposedproject;Toaccommodateproject-inducedrecreationdemand;Toestimateandprovideforindicatedrecreationuserpotentialwithintheprojectarea;andTofocuspUblicaccessonprojectlandsandwaterwhileprotectingthescenic,recreational,cultural,andotherenvironmentalvaluesoftheprojectarea.Theproposedrecreationplanwouldbasicallyinvolvedevelopmentorenhancementoffacilitiesorfeaturesatselectedrecreationresourceareas,includingbothspecificsitesandcorridors.ThenamesandlocationsofrecreationresourceareasincludedintherecreationplanaredepictedinFigure2-12.2.1.11.1InventoryandEvaluationofPotentialRecreationDevelopmentAreasTheApplicant'sinventoryofresourceareaswithhighintrinsicrecreationpotentialinvolvedreviewingplanimetricinformation,previousinventories,aerialphotographs,andsimilarinforma-tionsources.Allpotentialresourceareaswerefieldchecked,andthequalityandextentofthevariouslandscapefeaturesweredefined(ExhibitE,Vol.8,Chap.7,Sec.5.2.1).Featuresandsettingsindicatingthedistributionsandlocationsoftherecreationresources(includingspecialviewsorvistas)foragivenareaweremapped.Theobjectiveofsiteinventorieswastoidentifylandscapesthatsupportthemostdiverserangeofrecreationopportunities.Accordingly,resourceareasweredefinedintermsofattractiveness(physicalattributes),accessibility,andrecreationpreferencetype,i.e.,pristine,primitive,semiprimitive,anddeveloped.Recreationactivitieswereidentifiedforthevariouspreferencetypes,forexample,mountaineering,kayak-canoeing,naturestudy,andbiggamehuntingarecompatiblewithpristinepreferencetypes.Incontrast,sports,snowmobiling,tours,picnicking,andpleasuredrivingarecompatiblewithdevelopedpreferencetypes.Potentialrecreationdevelopmentsiteswerealsoevaluatedonthebasisofavailablerecreationopportunities.Parametersofevaluationincludednaturalvalue,inherentdurability,visualquality,presentlandstatus,andcarryingcapacity.Considerationsofcarryingcapacityincludedvisitationestimatesandpeakcapacityestimates(ExhibitE,Vol.8,Chap.7,Sec.5.3).2.1.11.2ImplementationandDescriptionoftheProposedRecreationPlanInparallelwiththephasedorstageddevelopmentoftheproposedSusitnaproject,therecrea-tionplanwouldalsobeimplementedinphasedintervals.Forexample,theinitiationofcon-structionatselectedrecreationresourceareas(PhaseOnedevelopment)wouldcorrespondwiththebeginningconstructionattheWatanadamsitein1985(ExhibitC,Vol.1,Fig.C.l).PhaseTwo,Three,andFourrecreationdevelopmentswouldoccuratlaterdatesgenerallycorres-pondingwithinitialoperationofWatanafacilities,beginningconstructionattheDevilCanyonsite,andinitialoperationofDevilCanyonfacilities.PhaseFivedevelopmentwouldoccurtenyearsfollowinginitialoperationofDevilCanyonfacilities,providedsuchdevelopmentwouldbeneededtoaccommodatedemandforpub1icrecreation(ExhibitE,Vo1.8,Chap.7,Sec.6.1.6).Ingeneral,AlaskaDivisionofParksdesignstandardswouldbeusedfordevelopedrecreationfacilities,sincethisorganizationwouldbetheprincipalmanagingagencyfortheproposedrecreationdevelopments(ExhibitE,Vol.8,Chap.7,Sec.5.4.8).Developmentoftherequiredagreements,policies,andregulationsforimplementationoftheproposedrecreationplanisinprogress.CommunityinvolvementwillbeencouragedthroughtheSusitnaPublicParti-cipationProgram(ScheduleB,SupplementalItems,Vol.2,Sec.7,ResponsetoComment14).ThetotaleffortwillculminateinarecreationimplementationreporttobesubmittedtotheFERC.*Throughoutthisdocument,referencestospecific"Exhibits"aretotheeXhibitssubmittedtoFERCaspartofAlaskaPowerAuthority'sSusitnaHydroelectricProjectLicenseApplication.Referencestospecific"Appendices"(App.)aretotheappendicesprovidedinVolumes2through7ofthisDraftEnvironmentalImpactStatement. N, f-I (J"l 4 8 MILES "! i'l 0 v ~_I...~...~....\~~-l \~\;\,,I\,j ... n Ij.I ;-' ,PHASE I ~,.~j;-TYONE RIVER ~"';if~=J "-"-'ir'\\._~.~'-_..~ Figure 2-12.Map Showing Recreation Resource Areas Included in Applicant's Proposed Recreation Plan. [Source:Application Exhibit E,Vol.8,Chap.7,Fig.E.7.6] 2-16Selectedcharacteristicsofproposedrecreationresourceareasandrespectiverecreationfeaturesand/orfacilitiestobeconstructedorprovidedarepresentedbelowforeachdevelop-mentphaseoftherecreationplan(ExhibitE,Vol.8,Chap.7,Sec.5.4andScheduleB,Supple-mentalItems,Vol.2,Sec.7,ResponsetoComment9a).LocationsareshowninFigure2-12.2.1.11.2.1PhaseOne(WatanaConstruction)BRUSHKANACAMPGROUNDThisexistingcampgroundconsistsof33campsitesandincludespicnic,fireplace,andtoiletfacilities.SurroundedbyscenicviewsofdistantglacierswithintheAlaskaRange,thecamp-groundisadjacenttoBrushkanaCreek,andcampsitesareinterspersedamongscatteredconiferousandhardwoodtrees,withastronglydevelopedunderstoryoftallshrubvegetation.ProposedRecreationPlanFeaturesandFacilities:About0.25mi(0.4km)ofroad,25camp-sites,3single-vaultlatrines,1bulletinboard,8trashcans,and1waterwell.RecreationOpportunitySummary:Carcamping,picnicking,fishing,biggamehunting,photo-graphy,andberrypicking.Accessibility:ThesiteisimmediatelyadjacenttotheDenaliHighway(MilePost105),whichintersectstheParksHighwayabout30mi(48km)tothewest.TYONERIVERThesiteislocatedattheconfluenceoftheTyoneandSusitnariversatRiverMile(RM)246,wheretheSusitnaRiverisafixed-channelriver.Theadjacentterrainisarollingopenland-scapeoftheGulkanauplands.ProposedRecreationPlanFeaturesandFacilities:Oneshelter.RecreationOpportunitySummary:Boating,kayaking-canoeing,camping,biggamehunting,andfishing.Accessibility:BoatlaunchareasincludetheSusitnaRiver-DenaliHighwayintersectionandLakeLouise(viaaccessroadfromtheGlennHighway).BUTTECREEKAnoutfallofButteLake,ButteCreekdrainsuplandtundra,meanderingthroughabroadvalleytoaconfluencewiththeSusitnaRiver.Thevalleyencompassessmallponds,lakes,andwetlandsthatareincontrastwiththeruggedTalkeetnaMountainsinthebackgroundtothesouth.Down-streamfromitsconfluencewithButteCreek,theSusitnaRiverisbroad,braided,andshallow.ProposedRecreationPlanFeaturesandFacilities:Oneboat1aunchattheDenaliHighway-SusitnaRiverintersection.RecreationOpportunitySummary:Botanicalinterestsites,fishing,biggamehunting,photo-graphy,boating,skitouring,andsnowshoeing.Accessibi1ity:ButteCreekncross-countryhikingfromDeadmanLake,orbyboatviatheSusitnaRiver.ButteLake--all-terrainvehiclesandaircraft.MIDDLEFORK,CHULITNARIVERFromtheSummitstationontheAlaskaRailroad,thisproposedrecreationcorridorextendseasterlythroughtheSummitLakeschainandsuccessivelyparallelstheMiddleForkoftheChulitnaRiver,thelakesinCaribouPass,theupperreachoftheJackRiver,andamountainpassthatextendsintotheupperlimitsoftheTsusenaCreekwatershed.Theterrainalongthis27-mi(45-km)corridorincludesbroadrivervalleysaswellasnarrowV-shapedvalleysinglaciatedmountainouslandscapes.DramaticviewsoftheAlaskaRangeareobservablefromtheMiddleForkChulitnaRiverbasin.ProposedRecreationPlanFeaturesandFacilities:25mi(40km)ofprimitivetrail,1trail-head,2overnightshelters,6parkingspaces,trashcans,1bulletinboard,andsigns.RecreationOpportunitySummary:Hiking,backpacking,camping,collectionsites,botanicalinterestsites,wildlifeobservation,skitouring(BroadValleyonly),snowshoeing,biggamehunting,fishing,potentialfortraildevelopment. 2-17Accessibility:RailroadstopatSummit,ParksHighway,proposedfoot-trailalongTsusenaCreek,andcross-countryhikingfromtheJackCreekandSouleCreekdrainages.PORTALSIGNThesiteislocatedatthejunctionoftheDenaliHighwayandtheproposedDenaliHighway-Watanadamsiteaccessroad.Developmentwouldincludeaportalsigndisplayingvisitorinformationandpull-offparkingfortwoorthreecars.2.1.11.2.2PhaseTwo(WatanaOperation)WATANADAMSITEThisrecreationsitewouldbelocatedabovetheproposedWatanadamsiteonthesouthernsideoftheSusitnaRiver(RM184)andwithintheFogLakesarea.VantagepointsaffordviewsoftheSusitnaRiver(bothup-anddownstream),andtowardtheChulitnaMountains.ProposedRecreationPlanFeaturesandFacilities:Onevisitorexhibitbuilding,20parkingspaces,2single-vaultlatrines,1interpretivetrail,4picnicsites,and1bulletinboard.RecreationOpportunitySummary:Viewpoint,visitorinformation,photography,picnicking,andhiking.Accessibility:TheproposedDenaliHighway-\oJatanadamsiteaccessroad,includingaccessacrossWatanadam.WATANATO\oJNSITEThetownsitewouldbeaprivatedevelopmentsite.AproposedpublicrecreationcorridorwouldextendfromthetownsitetoTsusenaCreekFalls.Relatedrecreationdevelopmentsinclude2mi(3.2km)ofprimitivetrail,1trailhead,andparking.TSUSENACREEKThisproposedrecreationcorridorcorrespondswiththeTsusenaCreekValley,connectingwiththeMiddleFork,ChulitnaRiverrecreationcorridor(seePhaseOnesites)attheupperlimitoftheTsusenaCreekdrainage.Fromtheheadwatersarea,theTsusenaCreekValleyextendssoutherlytowardtheTsusenaLakes,whichcomprisealmost250acres(l00ha).Thevalleyflooralsoencompassesponds,wetlands,andscatteredstandsofspruceandbrushareas,somewithover-storiesofmixedconiferousandhardwoodtrees.Manyunusualrockformations,waterfalls,anddepositionalfeaturesreflectpastglacialactivity.ProposedRecreationPlanFeaturesandFacilities:20mi(31km)ofprimitivetrail,2shelters,1trailhead,and3parkingspaces.RecreationOpportunitySummary:Hiking,backpacking,botanicalinterestsites,rockhounding,wildlifeobservation,photography,snowshoeing,skitouring,mountaineering,fishing,andpoten-tialfortraildevelopment.Accessibility:ProposedfoottrailfromtheMiddleFork,ChulitnaRivercorridor(seePhaseOnesites),aircraftatTsusenaLakes,andfoottrailfromtheproposedWatana-DevilCanyonaccessroad.TSUSENABUTTEThelowerportionofTsusenaCreekValleydividesaroundTsusenaButte,whichisasolitaryprominentfeatureofthelocallandscape.However,theforkofthevalleytotheeastofTsusenaButteterminates,gradingintoanuplandterraceabovetheSusitnaRiver.TheTsusenaLakes,over1mi(1.6km)inlength,arelocatedbetweenTsusenaButteandthefoothillsoftheChulitnaMountainstothenortheast.ProposedRecreationPlanFeaturesandFacilities:4mi(6.4km)ofprimitivetrail,1primi-tivecampsite(24capacity),1trailhead,and6parkingspaces.RecreationOpportunitySummary:Hiking,backpacking,photography,wildlifeObservation,skitouring,snowshoeing,andfishing.Accessibility:ProposedDenaliHighway-Watanadamsiteaccessroad. 2-18DEADMAN/BIGLAKESMID-CHULITNA/DEADMANMOUNTAIN9mi(15km)ofprimitivetrail,andHiking,backpacking,photography,wildlifeobservation,Hiking,backpacking,photography,wildlifeobservation,Accessibility:TheproposedDenaliHighway-WatanadamsiteaccessroadandhikingfromaproposedtrailintheTsusenaCreekdrainage.RecreationOpportunitySummary:Hiking,backpacking,photography,wildlifeobservation,botanicalinterestsites,andpotentialfortraildevelopment.Accessibility:AircraftonWatanaLakeandaproposedhikingtrailfromKosinaCreek(boataccessonly).ProposedRecreationPlanFeaturesandFaci1ities:3mi(5km)ofprimitivetrai1,1foot-bridge,and1primitivecampsite(2-3capacity).Accessibility:AircraftatClarenceLakeandprimitivetrailfromtheproposedWatanaReservoir.2.1.11.2.3PhaseThree(DevilCanyonConstruction)WATANALAKECLARENCELAKERecreationOpportunitySummary:fishing,andbiggamehunting.Thewesternhalfofthisproposedrecreationcorridorischaracterizedbyacomplexmosaicofdistinctivemulticoloredmountaintops,reflectinganinterminglingofsnow,glacier,andhighwettundralandscapes.TheareaincludesheadwatersofDeadmanCreek,whichmeandersthroughabroad,flattundramuskeg,thenabruptlydescendstowardtheeastnearDeadmanMountain.ProposedRecreationPlanFeaturesandFacilities:signs.ProposedRecreationPlanFeaturesandFacilities:15mi(24km)ofprimitivetrail,1primi-tivecampsite(2-4capacity),1trailhead,and10parkingspaces.ThissiteislocatedonarollinguplandterraceaboveandtothesouthoftheSusitnaRiverandincludesClarenceLake,whichisapopularfly-infishinglake.Outfallfromthelake(GilbertCreek)flowswesterlyintoKosinaCreek,whichflowsnortherlytoitsconfluencewiththeSusitnaRiver.Vegetationoftheterraceconsistsofalpinetundra;mixedconiferous-hardwoodstandsoccuronlyalongKosinaCreek.ThissiteincludesMt.WatanaandWatanaLakelocatedwellaboveandtothesouthoftheSusitnaRiverValleyandrepresentsthenorthernlimitsoftheTalkeetnaMountains.VegetationofthegentlyundulatinguplandssurroundingWatanaLakeconsistsofalpinetundrawhichextendsintotheTalkeetnaMountains.RecreationOpportunitySummary:fishing,andbiggamehunting.ProposedRecreationPlanFeaturesandFacilities:4mi(6.4km)ofprimitivetrail,1primi-tivecampsite(5-6capacity),1trailhead,and6parkingspaces.Accessibility:AircraftatBigLake,andhikingfromtheproposedDenaliHighway-Watanadamsiteaccessroad.DeadmanandBigLakescompriseabout1,800acres(720ha)atthesouthernbaseofDeadmanMountain.Theterrainsurroundingthelakesconsistsofrollinghillswithrockoutcrops.DeadmanCreekmeandersthroughthelakebasinenroutetoitsconfluencewiththeSusitnaRiver.RecreationOpportunitySummary:Hiking,backpacking,photography,wildlifeobservation,andfishing. 2-192.1.11.2.4PhaseFour(DevilCanyonOperation)DEVILCREEKThisproposedrecreationcorridorcorrespondswiththeDevilCreekdrainage,whichisconfluentwiththeSusitnaRiveratRM161.DevilCreekmeandersthroughuplandtundraandthencascadessoutherlythroughsteepcanyonsandnarrow,brushy,andpartiallywoodedvalleys.NeartheSusitnaRiver,flowsofDevilCreekandasmalltributaryplungethroughnarrowslotsinthecliffsoftheSusitnaRivergorge,creatingtwospectacularwaterfalls.Thissettingishighlyscenicandamajorrecreationresource.ProposedRecreationPlanFeaturesandFacilities:9mi(14.5km)ofprimitivetrail,1trail-head,5parkingspaces,1bench,andsigns.RecreationOpportunitySummary:Hiking,natureobservation,andphotography.Accessibility:TheproposedWatana-DevilCanyonaccessroad.DEVILCANYONDAMSITEThisproposedrecreationsiteoccursinopenforesteduplandshighabove,andimmediatelytothesouthoftheSusitnaRiveratRM152.Expansiveviewsareobservabletothewestandnorth,aswellasviewsofthesteepwallsoftheSusitnaRivergorgebelow.ProposedRecreationPlanFeaturesandFacilities:Onevisitorscenter,0.5mi(0.8km)oftrail,1shelter,1single-vaultlatrine,8picnicsites,15parkingspaces,3benches,andsigns.RecreationOpportunitySummary:Visitorinformationservice,hiking,picnicking,natureobservation,photography,skitouring,andsnowshoeing.Accessibility:TheproposedWatana-DevilCanyonaccessroad.MERMAIDLAKELocatedinanundulatinguplandtundralandscape,thisproposedrecreationsiteencompassesmanymedium-to-largelakesinshallowbasins.Thisuplandareaishighlydiverseintopographiccharacter.TheChulitnaMountainsareinthebackgroundtothenorth,andtheDevilCanyonoftheSusitnaRiverparallelsthesouthernboundaryofthesite.ProposedRecreationPlanFeaturesandFacilities:Eightcampsites,1shelter,2singlevaultlatrines,1waterwell,1bulletinboard,5garbagecans,andsigns.RecreationOpportunitySummary:Carcamping,snowshoeing,skitouring,natureobservation,wildlifeobservation,fishing,andbiggamehunting.Accessibility:TheproposedWatana-DevilCanyonaccessroad.2.1.11.2.5PhaseFive(Tobedevelopediftheneedisindicatedbyrecreationdemand.)SOULECREEKTheSouleCreekcorridorextendswestwardfromtheproposedDenaliHighway-WatanadamsiteaccessroadparallelingthenorthernedgeoftheBrushkanaCreekdrainage.VistasoftheAlaskaRangeareobservabletotheeast.Fartherwest,thecorridorextendsintoalargebasinwithinabroadvalleyoftheSouleCreekdrainage.A2-mi(3.2-km)linearlakeoccurswithinthebasin.Thesurroundingterrainisacomplexofoftensnow-coveredmountaintopsandridgescomposedofmulticoloredrock.Thebasinisastrikinglyscenicnaturalarea.ProposedRecreationPlanFeaturesandFacilities:8mi(13km)ofprimitivetrail,1primi-tivecampsite(5-6capacity),1trailhead,and5parkingspaces.RecreationOpportunitySummary:Hiking,backpacking,wildlifeviewing,primitivecamping,photography,fishing,biggamehunting,andpotentialfortraildevelopment.Accessibility:Aircraftonthelakeinthebasin,andtheproposedDenaliHighway-Watanadamsiteaccessroad. 2-20SOUTHERNCHULITNAMOUNTAINSTheproposedrecreationsiteconsistsofasmallvalleyinthesoutheasternfoothillsoftheChulitnaMountainsandissurroundedbyruggedterrain.Vegetationofthevalleyfloorisalpinetundraoverlyingarockybase,causingverywetconditionsinsomeplaces.Asmalllakecreatedbyanoldmoraineislocatedatthelowerendofthevalley,atwhichvantagepointsaffordviewsoftheSusitnaRiverbelow.ProposedRecreationPlanFeaturesandFacilities:3mi(5km)ofprimitivetrail,1primitivecampsite(3-4capacity),1trailhead,and3parkingspaces.RecreationOpportunitySummary:Hiking,backpacking,natureobservation,snowshoeing,andskitouring.Accessibility:TheproposedDenaliHighway-Watanadamsiteaccessroad.FOGLAKESLocatedwithinapartiallywoodeduplandabovetheSusitnaRiver,theproposedFogLakesrecrea-tionsiteencompassesaclusteroflinearlakesingenerallyparallelingorientation,severalofwhichexceed1.5mi(2.5km)inlength.OutfallsfromseveralofthelakescoalesceintoFogCreek,whichmeanderswesterlyandthencascadesthroughsmallcanyonsenroutetotheSusitnaRiveratRM177.TheruggedandscenicTalkeetnaMountainsareinthebackgroundofvistastothesouth.ProposedRecreationPlanFeaturesandFacilities:15mi(24km)ofprimitivetrail,15-unitcampground,1single-vaultlatrine,15parkingspaces,1trailhead,andsigns.RecreationOpportunitySummary:Hiking,carcamping,natureobservation,wildlifeobserva-tion,photography,andfishing.Accessibility:AircraftonFogLakes,andtheaccessroadacrosstheproposedWatanadam.STEPHANLAKETheproposedrecreationsiteiswithinawoodedvalleylocatedinuplandssouthoftheSusitnaRiver.Thevalleyencompassesthe3.5-mi(5.6-km)longStephanLake,whichisapopularfly-inrecreationarea.Thesouthernboundaryofthevalley1andscapeabutstheTa1keetnaMountains.OutfallfromStephanLake(i.e.,PrairieCreek)flowssoutherlyenroutetotheTalkeetnaRiver.ProposedRecreationPlanFeaturesandFacilities:5mi(8km)ofprimitivetrail,5camp-sites(semi-primitive),signs,andacanoeboatramp.RecreationOpportunitySummary:Hiking,backpacking,kayaking-canoeing,wildlifeobservation,photography,fishing,andbiggamehunting.Accessibility:AircraftonStephanLake,andaproposedhikingtrailfromtheSusitnaRiver.2.1.11.3RecreationMonitoringProgramInadditiontophasedrecreationdevelopment,theApplicant'sproposedrecreationplanincludesprovisionsforamonitoringprogramtoparallelthedevelopmentprogram.Thepurposeofthemonitoringprogramwouldbethecollectionofdatarelativetointensityandpatternsofrecrea-t ionuse,aswe11asotherinformationindicativeofrecreationdemand.Suchdatawouldserveasthebasisforadjustmentsintherecreationdevelopmentprogramifrequired.Accordingly,theanalysisofPhaseOnemonitoringcouldresultinmodificationinPhaseTwo,Three,andFourdevelopments,ascurrentlycommittedtobytheApplicant(ExhibitE,Vol.8,Chap.7,Sec.6.2).ItshouldbenotedthattheApplicantisnotcommittedtorecreationdevelopmentPhaseFive,whichwouldbeimplementedonlyifrecreationdemanddataindicateaneed(ExhibitE,Vol.8,Chap.7,Sec.5.4.5).ThemonitoringprogramandthePhaseOnerecreationdevelopmentwouldbeinitiatedconcurrentwithbeginningconstructionattheWatanadamsite.AtthetimeWatanafacilitieswouldbecomeoperationalin1994(ortenyearsaftercompletionofPhaseOnerecreationdevelopment,which-everisearlier),PhaseOnemonitoringdatawouldbeevaluatedandPhaseTwodevelopmentwouldbeverifiedormodified.ConstructionofthePhaseTworecreationdeve1opmentswouldbecompletedwithinthreeyearsofthejointdeterminationofrecreationneedbypartiesinvolved;i.e.,theApplicant,AlaskaDivisionofParks,U.S.BureauofLandManagement,NativeCorpora-tions,and/orotheraffectedlandowners(ExhibitE,Vol.8,Chap.7,Sec.6.2).AsnotedinSection2.1.11.2,communityinvolvementwouldalsobeencouraged. 2-21PhaseThreeoftherecreationplanwouldbeevaluatedconcurrentwithbeginningconstructionatDevi1Canyon,andthePhaseThreeelementswou1dbeverifiedormodifiedbasedonmonito)'ingexperiencere1atedtodeve1opmentofWatanafaci1ities.PhaseThreedeve1opmentswouldbeconstructedwithinthreeyearsofthejointdeterminationofneed.WhenDevilCanyonfacilitiesbecameoperationalin2002(ExhibitC,Vol.1,Fig.C.2)(ortenyearsaftercompletionofPhaseThreeconstruction,whicheverisearlier),PhaseFourdevelopmentwouldbeverifiedormodified,asindicatedbymonitoringinformation.FollowingPhaseFourimplementation,theappropriatepartieswouldjointlyagreeonneedforadditionaldevelopmentand/ormajorrehabili-tationbasedonevaluationsofmonitoringdataatten-yearintervalsthroughoutthedurationoftheprojectlicense.ItiscurrentlyanticipatedthattheAlaskaDivisionofParksandtheApplicantwouldenterintoanagreementwherebytheDivisionwouldagreetoperformthesurvey,evaluation,design,construction,operation,andmaintenanceoftherecreationfacilitiesonpubliclands,withthecoststobebornebytheApplicant(ExhibitE,Vol.8,Chap.7,Sec.6.2.1).Agreementsofsimilarintentwouldbeenteredintowithotheragenciesorindividualsasappropriate.2.1.12MitigativeMeasuresProposedbytheApplicant2.1.12.1LandResources2.1.12.1.1GeologyandSoilsAlthoughnotallgeologic-andsoil-relatedimpactsoftheproposedSusitnaprojectcouldbecontrolled,themitigativemeasuresproposedbytheApplicantwouldbeeffectiveinminimizingtheseverityofsuchimpactstotheextentpossiblegiventheApplicant'sprojectrequirements.Theproposedcombinationofaccessrouteandtransmissioncorridorsortransmissioncorridorsandexistingrights-of-waywouldminimizethetotalareastobeaffectedbyaccessroadconstruc-tionimpacts,suchassoilerosionandcompactionandpermafrostthaw.Proposedgeotechnicalinvestigationsofthesubstratematerialsfortransmissiontowers,accessroads,andconstruc-tionfacilitieswouldallowtheApplicanttoadaptconstructiontechniquesanddesignstoensurestructuralstabilityandreducepossibleimpacts.Useofballoon-tiredequipmentforconstruc-tionandhaulingactivitieswhereverpossiblewouldreducesoilcompactionassociatedwiththoseactivities.Useofappropriateinsulatinggravelpadsorrigidinsulation,aswellasinstalla-tionofsurfacewaterdrainagesystemsforanyfacility,road,ortransmissiontowerstructureconstructedwouldminimizeorpreventthawinareasofpermafrost.Additionally,selectiveremovalofvegetationandavoidanceofthestrippingofsurfaceorganiclitterwouldhelpreduceerosionlossesaswellasimpactsrelatedtopermafrostthaw.Promptrevegetationofdisturbedareasoutsidethereservoirandtheuseofsurfacewaterdiversionsandsediment-trapbasinsforallconstructionactivitiesandborrowareaswouldalsoreduceerosionlosses.Slowandsteadyfi11ingofthereservoirswou1dreducethepotentialforreservoir-inducedseismicactivityandslowtherateofpotentialreservoirslopefailures.Monitoringofseepageratesinhigh-riskareasisproposed,andinstallationofgroutingorcutoffwellsasneededwouldbeeffectiveincontrollingtheselossesandreducingtheriskofrelatedfailures.2.1.12.1.2LandUseandOwnershipLandusemitigativemeasureshavebeenproposedbytheApplicantforeachofthemajorprojectfeatures,includingthedamsandimpoundmentareas,constructioncampsandvillages,plannedrecreationareas,accessroutes,andtransmissionlinecorridors(seeApp.F,Sec.F.4).Insummary,thesemitigativemeasuresproposedbytheApplicantinclude:Developingalandmanagementplanincooperationwiththeappropriateagencies;Confininglanduseactivitiestoprojectconstructionareas;Postingandenforcingconstructioncamprules;Restrictinguseofprivatevehiclesandprovidingtransportationservices;Sitingofsewagetreatmentlagoonsandlandfillsawayfromhousing;Limitingroadandoutdoorrecreationvehicleaccess;Restoringdisturbedsiteareas;Developingafireprotectionplan;Usingexistingtransmissionlinerights-of-waywherefeasible;andSitingright-of-wayawayfromprivateorspecial-useland. 2-222.1.12.2WaterQuantityandQualityTheApplicanthasproposedtodevelopmitigativemeasurestoprotect,maintain,and/orenhancethewaterquantityandqualityoftheSusitnaRiver.Thefirstphaseofthemitigativeprocessinvolvesidentifyingwaterqualityandquantityimpactsfromconstruction,filling,andopera-tion,andincorporatingmitigativemeasuresinthepreconstructionplanning,design,andschedul-ingwherefeasible.Threemitigativemeasureswereincorporatedintotheengineeringdesign:(1)establishingminimumflowrequirementstoprovidethefisheryresourceswithadequateflowsandwaterlevelsforupstreammigration,spavming,rearing,over-wintering,andout-migrationwhilemaintainingtheeconomicviabilityoftheproject;(2)usingfixedconevalvesontheoutletfacilitytoreducethehydraulicmomentum,therebypreventingnitrogensaturationinexcessoftheAlaskaDepartmentofEnvironmentalConservation(ADEC)statuteof110%;and(3)usingmulti-levelintakestoimprovedownstreamtemperaturecontrol.Thesecondphaseofmitigationwouldinvolvetheimplementationofenvironmentallysoundcon-structionpracticesandmonitoringofthosepracticesandtheresultingimpactsinordertoidentifyandcorrectproblems.Waterqualityandwaterquantity-orientedmitigativemeasuresproposedbytheApplicantfortheconstructionphaseoftheSusitnaprojectarediscussedindetailinExhibitE,Chapter2.ThosemitigativemeasuresincludetheschedulingofminingofborrowsitesinandadjacenttosurfacewaterstoavoidperiodswhensuspendedsolidsintheSusitnaRiverareattheirannualminimumconcentration,sitingfacilitiesawayfromstreams,employingerosion-controlmeasures(e.g.,revegetation,bufferstrips),treatinganddisposingofspoilfromgravelwashingandconcreteprocessingplantsinwaystoavoidadverseeffectsonwaterquality,developingandimplementingspill-preventionandcontainmentprocedurestominimizetheimpactonwaterqualityfromaccidentalspillsofpetroleumproducts,andprocessingofwastewatertomeetnecessarystateandFederalwastewaterandwastedisposalpermitsandrequirements.Sustainedhighlevelsofsedimentinasystemcanchangethespeciescompositionandproduc-tivityofthesystem.Siltationcanaffectdevelopmentoffisheggsandbenthicfoodorganisms.TheprimarymitigativemeasuresthatwouldbeusedbytheApplicanttominimizeconstructionerosionare:(1)sitingfacilitiesawayfromtheclearwaterfishstreams;(2)employingerosion-controlmeasuressuchasrunoffcontrol,stillingbasins,andrevegetation;(3)schedulingerosion-producingactivitiesatbiologicallynoncriticalseasons;(4)minimizingthetimenecessarytocompletetheactivitysothaterosionisashort-term,non-reoccurringproblem;and(5)maintainingvegetatedbufferzones.Removaloffloodplaingravelcancauseerosion,siltation,increasedturbidity,increasedicebuildupcausedbygroundwateroverflow,fishentrapment,andalterationoffishhabitat.Theseadverseimpactsonaquatichabitatswouldbeavoidedorminimized.Beforefloodplainmaterial(e.g.,sand,gravel)siteswereused,itwouldbedeterminedthatuplandsourceswereinadequatetosupplytheneededmaterial.Floodplainsiteswouldbethoroughlyexploredtoverifythattheycouldsupplythenecessaryquantitiesofmaterial.Importanthabitatssuchasoverwinteringandspawningareaswouldbeidentifiedandavoided.Bufferswouldberetainedbetweenthesitesandanyactivechannelsexceptwhendragliningintheactivechannel.Materialwouldbestock-piledoutsidethefloodplaintoavoidbackingflowathigherstagesandtoavoidthepossibilityofmaterialbeingerodedintodownstreamreaches.Overburdenwouldbedisposedofinuplandsitesorreturnedtotheareafromwhichitwasremovedandcontouredandplanted.Material-washingoperationswoulduserecycledwaterandwouldnotdischargeintoadjacentstreams.Dredgingintheriverchannelwouldbelimitedtothesummerperiodwhenconcentrationsofsuspendedsolidsareattheirannualmaximum.TheTsusenaCreekmaterialsite(borrowsiteE)wouldberehabilitatedafterminingceased.Thegoalofrehabilitationwouldbetocreateproductiveaquatichabitat.Thesitewouldbeshapedandcontouredtoenhancefishhabitat,andallman-madeitemsremovedfromthesite.Exposedslopeswouldbegradedandseeded.Rehabilitatedareaswouldbemonitoredtoensurethatgrading,revegetation,andothermitigativemeasureswereeffectiveinpreventingerosion.TheCheechakoCreekandSusitnaRiverborrowsiteswouldbeinundatedandwouldnotrequirerehabilitationbeyondthatneededtominimizeerosion.Spi11sofoi1andotherhazardoussubstancesintostreamsaretoxictofishandtheiI'foodorganisms.ASpillPreventionContainmentandCountermeasurePlan(SPCC)wouldbedevelopedasrequiredbytheU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(USEPA).Equipmentrefuelingorrepairwouldnotbeallowedinornearfloodplainswithoutadequateprovisionstopreventtheescapeofpetroleumproducts.WasteoilwouldberemovedfromthesiteandbedisposedofusingADEC/USEPA-approvedprocedures.Fuel-storagetankswouldbelocatedawayfromwaterbodiesandwithinlinedandbermedareascapableofcontaining110%ofthetankvolume.Fueltankswouldbemeteredandalloutflowoffuelaccountedfor;allfuellineswouldbelocatedinabovegroundorground-surfaceutilidorstofacilitatelocationofrupturedorshearedfuellines.Statelawrequiresthatallspi11s,nomatterhowsmall,bereportedtotheADEC.Personnelwouldbe 2-23trainedandassignedtomonitorstorageandtransferofoilandfuelandtoidentifyandcleanupspilledoilandotherhazardousmaterial.Allpersonnelemployedontheproject,especiallyfieldpersonnel,wouldbetrainedtorespondtofuelspillsinaccordancewithanapprovedoilspillcontingencyplan.Vehicleaccidents,althoughdifficulttofullyprotectagainst,canbeminimizedbytheroadswithproperlydesignedcurvestoaccommodatewinterdrivingconditions.wouldbeprovidedwithadequatesigns;duringthewinter,difficultstretcheswouldclearedandsanded.Insummer,dustwouldbecontrolledwithwater.constructingTheroadsberegularlyDischargeofcampeffluentscouldresultinincreasedlevelsofmetalsandnutrientloading.Concretebatchingplantsreleasehighalkalineeffluents.EffluentswouldcomplywithADEC/USEPAeffluentstandards.TheconcretebatchingeffluentwouldbeneutralizedandtreatedpriortodischargetoavoidimpactsrelatedtopHandtoxicity.Adverseimpactsassociatedwithremovingvegetationalongstreamsare:(1)acceleratederosionintothestreams;(2)alteredtemperatureregimes;and(3)operationofequipmentinperennialorephemeralstreambeds.Clearingwouldbescheduledasclosetoreservoirfillingasisfeasible.Controlmethodswouldbeemployedwhereverneededtominimizeerosiontostreams.Totheextentpracticable,clearingwouldtakeplaceduringthewinter.Clearedvegetationwouldbedriedforoneseasonandburnedinplace.TheprimarywaterquantityandwaterqualityissuesduringfillingandoperationoftheWatanaandDevilCanyonwouldbethemaintenanceofminimumdownstreamflowsforfisheryresourcesandotherinstreamflowneeds,maintenanceofanacceptabledownstreamthermalregimethroughouttheyear,andcontrolofdownstreamgassupersaturationbelowthedams.SelectionofappropriateflowregimeforreservoiroperationsconsistentwithpowerneedsisofferedbytheApplicantasameasuretoavoidorminimizeimpacts.TheWatanafillingflowintheperiodOctobertoApri1wou1dreflectinflowtothereservoir;duringoperation,flowsduringthisperiodwouldbe5,000cfs(140m3/s).Becausesloughovertoppingisexpectedinthisperiod,withconsequenttemperaturereductioninsalmonincubationareas,theApplicanthasproposedtoheightenupstreamberms.Fromr~aytothelastweekofJuly,thetargetflowwouldbe6,000cfs(170m3/s)toallowmainstemfishmovement.AbriefflowpeakproposedbytheApplicantforthistimeperiod(ofamagnitudetobespecifiedfollowingadditionalbiologicalstudies)wouldbegeneratedtostimulateoutmigrationofjuvenilesalmon.DuringthelastweekofJuly,flowswouldbeincreasedfrom6,000cfsto12,000cfs(170to340m3/s),inincrementsof1000cfs(28m3/s)andmaintainedthroughmid-SeptembertoprovideaccessbysockeyeandchumsalmontosloughsupstreamofTalkeetna.Torectifyanticipateddifficultywithsloughaccess,evenat12,000cfs(340m3/s),theApp1icantproposestostructurallymodifythestreambedprofi1esofeightsloughs.Torectifydecreasesinintragrave1flowcausedbyloweredriverelevations,theApplicanthassuggestedpipingmainstemwaterthroughthebermandreleasingitbeneaththesubstrate.Compensationforanticipatedlossofsloughspawninghabitatwouldbeaccomplishedbygravelcleaninginsidechannels,mainstemareas,andcurrentlyunusedsloughsinordertodeveiopnewspawningsubstrates.Anestimated432,315ft2(38,902m2)ofspawninghabitatwouldbecreated,whichis187,000ft2(16,830m2)greaterthantheestimatedsloughspawninghabitatusedbysalmonupstreamofTalkeetnain1981and1982.Asalastalternativeforcompensation,theApplicanthasindicatedthatahatcheryforchumsalmoncouldbedeveloped.TheApplicanthasproposedusingmulti-levelwaterintakesonhydropowergeneratingfacilitiesatWatanaandDevilCanyondamsasameasuretomitigatetheunavoidabletemperaturechangesassociatedwithcreationofareservoir.Jhemulti-levelintakestrucutreswouldbeusedtoselecttemperatureswithinthestratifiedreservoirthatmostcloselymatchthepre-projectthermalregime.Thissytemwouldnotbeoperativeduringreservoirfilling.TheApplicant'splanformitigatingnitrogensupersaturationdownstreamofthedamsistoinstallfixedconevalvesontheoutletfacility.Thesefixedconevalveswouldbeusedduringaugmenta-tionandexcessflows.Nitrogensupersaturationofturbineflowswouldbemitigatedbyhavingsubsurfacedischargetominimizeairentrainment.2.1.12.3FisheriesTheApplicanthasprovidedaconceptualplanformitigationofanticipatedimpactstofisheryresources.Detailsoftheplanawaitfurtherresolutionoftheaquaticresourcestobeimpactedbytheproject.Theobjectiveoffisheriesmit igationp1anningfortheprojecthasbeento"providehabitatofsufficientqualityandquantitytomaintainnatura1repr6dllc:ingpopu1ationsIIwhereverthisiscompatiblewiththehydroelectricproject'spowerobjectives.Artificialpropagationiscontem-platedonlyasalastresort. 2-24TheprioritiesofthefisheriesmitigationweredeterminedbyemployingthehierarchicalapproachtomitigationcontainedintheSusitnaHydroelectricProjectApplicationandU.S.FishandWildlifeServiceandAlaskaDepartmentofFishandGamemitigationpolicies.Thefivebasicmitigativeactions,inorderofpriority,are:Avoidingimpactsthroughdesignfeaturesorschedulingactivitiestoavoidlossofresources.Minimizingimpactsbycarefullyschedulingandsitingoperations,timingandcontroll-ingflowreleases,andcontrollingimpactsthroughbestmanagementpractices.Rectifyingimpactsbyrepairingdisturbedareastoprovideoptionalfishhabitatandreestablishingfishinrepairedareas.Reducingoreliminatingimpactsovertimethroughmonitoring,maintenance,andpropertrainingofprojectpersonnel.Compensatingforimpactsbyconductinghabitatconstructionactivitiesthatrehabili-tatealteredhabitatorbymanagingresourcesonprojectornearbypubliclandstoincreasehabitatvalues.TheApplicantselectedfourspeciesofPacificsalmon(chum,chinook,coho,andpink)intheSusitnaRiverdownstreamoftheprojectandtheArcticgraylingintheimpoundmentreachas"evaluationspecies".Thesespeciescurrentlyhavehighregionalvisibilityandtheirpopula-tionsseemedmostsusceptibletoprojectimpacts.AmajorpremiseofmitigationplanningfortheSusitnaRiverdownstreamoftheprojecthasbeenthatimprovedconditionsofflow(stabilized),waterquality(reducedturbidity)andsubstrate(managed)inthemainstemwouldprovidereplace-menthabitattomitigateforthepotentiallossoffishhabitatzonesinpartiallydewateredsloughs.TheApplicant'sproposedmitigativemeasuresforcertainimpactissuesaredescribedbelow.Staffcommentsontheseplans,aswellasadiscussionoftheseplansandotherpotentialmitiga-tivemeasures,areprovidedinSection5.1.1.Mitigationofconstructionimpactswouldbeachievedprimarilybyincorporatingenvironmentalcriteriaintopre-constructionp1anninganddesign,andbygoodconstructionpractices.Adesigncriteriamanualandaconstructionpracticesmanualaretobeprepared.Thecontinuingaquaticstudiesprogramwouldbeusedtodefinesites,designs,andschedulessoastominimizeimpacts.Environmentalstaffswouldmaintainahighdegreeofcommunicationandcooperationwithpersonnelconductingdesignandconstruction.Monitoringofconstructionfacilitiesandactivitiesisplannedtoidentityandcorrectimpacts.Thefollowingisadiscussionoftheimpactissuesandthemitigativemeasuresthatwouldbeappliedduringandafterconstruction.Thoseissuesconsideredtohavethegreatestpotentialforadverseimpacttotheaquaticenvironmentarediscussedfirst.Avoidance,minimization,rectification,andreductionofimpactsarediscussed.Therearepresentlynodirectcostsassociatedwiththesemitigativemeasures.Improperlyconstructedstreamcrossingscanblockfishmovementsandincreasesiltationinthestream.Roadswithinadequatedrainagestructurecanalterrunoffpatternsofnearbywetlandsandstreams.Encroachmentsonstreamcoursescanalterhydrauliccharacteristicsandincreasesiltationofstreams,therebyaffectingfishhabitat.Theobjectiveofconstructingstreamcrossingsistomaintainthenaturalstreamconfigurationandflowsothatpassageoffishisensured.Alaskastatelaw(AS-16.05.840)requiresthemaintenanceoffishpassage.Appropriatecontrolmeasureswouldbeundertakenasapartofroutinemaintenancetoensurethatbeaverdamsdonotinterferewithfishpassageneeds.Fortheprojectarea,theevaluationspeciesusedindevelopingcriteriaforstreamcrossingsisArcticgrayling.Indesigningandconstructingacrossing,considerationwouldbegiventopresenceorabsenceoffishorfishhabitat,locationofcrossing,typeofcrossingstructure,flowregime,andmethodofinstallation.Thesportfishingpressureonthe1oca1streamsand1akeswouldsubstantiallyincrease.Theaccessroadandtransmissionlinerights-of-waywouldallowfishermentoreachareaspreviouslyunexploited.Tominimizethisimpactduringtheconstructionphase,accesstothestreamswouldbelimitedbyclosingroadstounauthorizedprojectpersonnelandtothegeneralpublic.TheAlaskaBoardofFisherieswouldbeprovidedsuchinformationastheyrequiretomanagethefisheries.Somewatersheds,suchastheDeadmanCreek/DeadmanLakesystem,wouldrequiremodifi-cationofpresentseasonsandcatchlimitsifcurrentstocksaretobemaintained.Theseregula-tionsmighttaketheformofreducedseasonsorcatchlimits,impositionofmaximumsizelimits,orcontroloffishingmethods. Fishfryandjuvenilescanbeimpingedonintakescreensorentrainedintohoseswateriswithdrawnfromwaterbodiesformiscellaneoususesduringconstruction.surfacewaterwithdrawalwouldbefromstreamsorlakesthatdonotcontainfish.bewithdrawnfromafish-bearingwaterbody,theAlaskaDepartmentofFishanddesigncriteriawouldbeusedforallintakes.andpumpswhenIfpossible,IfwatermustGameintakeBlastinginornearfishstreamscanrupturefishswimbladdersanddamageincubatingembryos.TheAlaskaDepartmentofFishandGamehasstandardblastingguidelinesthatestablishthedistancefromwaterbodiesatwhichchargescanbedetonatedwithoutharmingfish.Theseguide-lineswouldbeusedforblastingatprojectsites.Fishpassingdownstreamthroughthediversiontunnelsareexpectedtobelostbecauseofthehightunnelvelocities.Duringsummer,relativelyfewfisharepresentinthevicinityofthetunnelentrance.Duringwinter,residentfishareexpectedtobeentrainedintotheintakeandpasseddownstream.Thesegmentofthefishpopulationlostinthediversiontunnelwouldbelostinanycaseduetoreservoirfilling,becauseoflosttributaryhabitatandtheexpectedlowhabitatvalueinthereservoir.Mitigationfortheselosseswouldbeachievedbytheearlyinitiationofgraylingpropagation.Forfillingandoperationimpacts,theApplicanthasproposedmitigativemeasuresforfourspecificimpactissuesthataffectfisheries:(1)flowregimedownstreamoftheproject,(2)temperaturechangesdownstreamoftheproject,(3)inundationimpactsonmainstemandtributaryhabitatsbyreservoirs,and(4)nitrogensupersaturation(Table2-3).ThesetopicsarealsoaddressedaboveinSection2.1.12.2(WaterQuantityandQuality).Becausetherewillbenowaytoavoid,minimize,orrectifyinundationofgraylinghabitatinthereservoirzones,theApplicantproposesfundingresearchongraylingpropagationtechnology,developinghatcheryfacilitiesforgrayling,andintroducingrainbowtroutintoDevilCanyonreservoirascompensationmeasures.2.1.12.4TerrestrialCommunities2.1.12.4.1PlantCommunitiesTheApplicant'sproposedplanformitigationofimpactstobotanicalresourcesincludesimplemen-tationofthefollowingmeasures(listedinorderofpriority):avoidance,minimization,recti-fication,reduction,andcompensation.Thisapproachwasadoptedafterconsultationwithresourceagencies,includingtheAlaskaDepartmentofFishandGameandtheU.S.FishandWildlifeService.Removalofvegetationcannotbetotallyavoidedduringconstructionofmanyproposedprojectfacilities;therefore,theApplicanthasproposedimplementationoftheothermitigativemeasures.MitigativemeasuresproposedbytheApplicanttominimizeimpactstovegetationgenerallyconsistofmeasuresappliedtothedesignorlocationofprojectfacilitiessoastoreduceclearingrequirementsoreffectsonsensitiveareassuchaswetlands.TheApplicanthasalreadyappliedthesemitigativemeasurestotheproposedsitinganddesignofmajorfacilities,suchasconstruc-tioncampsandvillages,theDevilCanyonrailheadfacility,andgeneralaccessandtransmissionlinerouting.However,thesemitigativemeasuresalsowouldbeappliedonamoresite-specificbasisduringdetailedengineeringandalignmentstudiesforprojectfacilities.Proposeduseofflexiblespeeddesignsaswellasapplicationofside-borrowandbalancedcut-and-filltechniquesforaccessroadconstructionshouldreducefillrequirementsandessentiallyeliminatetheneedforlargeborrowsiteslocatedsomedistanceawayfromtheaccesscorridors,therebyminimizingimpactstovegetation.TheApplicantalsohasproposedaplantominimizevegetationlossassociatedwithdisposalofspoilcreatedduringconstructionactivitiesandborrowexcavations.Thisplanincludesdepositingmostofthespoilwithintheimpoundmentareainsuchawaythatfinesdonotbecomeentrainedinwaterflows.Tominimizeimpactstovegeta-tioncrossedbythetransmissionlinecorridors,theApplicanthasplannedonlyselectiveclear-ingoftherights-of-wayandmaximumuseofexistingroadsforaccesstotransmissionlines.ThepotentialforimpactstovegetationasaresultofincreasedaccesstotheupperandmiddleSusitnaBasin(e.g.,off-roadvehicleeffectsandincreasedincidenceoffires)wouldbemini-mizedduringconstructionthroughrestrictionofpublicaccess.Policiesconcerningpublicaccesstotheproposedprojectareaafterprojectconstructionwouldbedevelopedwithconcur-renceoflandandresourcemanagementagenciesandprivatelandownerswhoselandswouldbeaffected.Mitigativemeasurestorectifyimpactstovegetationgenerallywouldbeappliedoncefacilitiesusedonatemporarybasisduringconstructionwerenolongerneeded.Rehabilitationwouldbeinitiatedbythefirstgrowingseasonfollowingremovaloffacilitiesorequipment.Areasdisturbedbyeitherconstructionactivitiesornonessentialactivitieswouldalsorequirerecti-fication.Proposedrehabilitationproceduresincludedismantlingofstructures,rippingland Table 2-3.Impacts Issues and the Applicant's Proposed Mitigation Features for Anticipated Filling and Operational Impacts to Aquatic Habitats,Susitna Hydroelectric Project Occurrence Mitigation Feature Watana Devil Canyon Watana Devil Canyon Impact Development Development Development Issues Fi 11 i ng Operation Filling Operation Filling Operation Filling Operation Passage of X X X -Downstream -Downstream -Downstream adult salmon release release release Adverse impacts X X X to slough habitat -Downstream -Downstream -Downstream release release release Slough modi--Slough modi-Slough modi- fication fication fication -Replacement -Replacement -Replacement habitat habitat habitat through through through modification modification modification of side of side of side N channels channels channels , N 0> Loss of side-X X X -Replacement -Replacement -Replacement channel and habitat habitat habitat mainstem salmon through through through spawning areas modification modification modification of side of side of side channels channels channels Altered thermal X X X -Multiple -Multiple regime outlet outlet Gas supersaturation X X -Fixed cone -Fixed cone valves valves Inundation of X X -Grayling Grayling tributary habitat propagation propagation and Kokanee and Kokanee stocking stocking program program Out-migration of X X X -Downstream Downstream -Downstream juvenile anadromous release release release fish 2-27surfacesandregradingtocontour,replacementofminera1and/ororganic 1ayersoi1ssalvagedduringfacilityconstruction,applicationoffertilizers,scarificationofreplacedsoils,andencouragementofreinvasionbynativespeciesfromsurroundingundisturbedareas.Seedingwouldbeusedonlywherenecessarytoprovideerosioncontrolorimprovevisualimpact.Wilereseedingwasrequired,nativespecies,primarilyfast-growingnativegrasses,wouldbeused.MitigativemeasuresplannedbytheApplicanttoreduceimpactstovegetationwouldreallybeanextensionofrectificationinthatthesemeasureswouldmainlyinvolvemonitoringofprojectfacilitiesandactivitiestoensurethemosteffectiveuseandapplicationofrehabilitationmeasures.Monitoringmeasureswouldbestipulatedinthecomprehensiverestorationplansandwouldbeintendedtohelpfocusandimplementtheplans.Monitoringwouldalsobeusedtomaintainawarenessoftheextentandlocationofdisturbedareas,bothplannedandunplanned,sothatrehabilitationcouldbeginasearlyasfeasibleonceactivitiesinagivenareadiminished.Vegetationlossesassociatedwithdevelopmentoftheproposeddamandimpoundmentsitescouldonlybeoffsetthroughcompensationmeasures.TheApp1icanthasproposedtocompensateforlossesbyrankinglostvegetationtypeswithrespecttotheirvalueaswildlifehabitat,andthenselectivelyalteringvegetationonacquiredlandstoreplaceorexceedlostarealcoveragesofhigh-priorityvegetationtypes.Thiswouldallowcompensationforhigh-priorityvegetation(habitat)typeswhilerequiringacquisitionofrelativelysmallerlandareas.Inidentifyingreplacementlandsforhabitatenhancement,theApplicantwouldplacethehighestpriorityonstateandFederallandsthatcanbeacquiredatminimalornocost.2.1.12.4.2WildlifeTheApplicant'smitigationplanforwildlifewasdevelopedwithintheconstraintsofprojectneedsinconsultationwithFederalandstateresourceagencies.Asnotedabove,muchoftheplaninvolvesrecoveryofplantcommunities.TheplanisinastateofongoingrefinementandfurtherdefinitionandwillbeintegratedwiththeApplicant'smonitoringplan.Avoidanceofimpactswouldbeimplementedprimarilyinprojectdesign,andhenceisconstrainedbytheprojectgoals.TheavoidanceofsomeimpactshasbeenfactoredintotheanalysisofimpactsinSection4.1.AlternativeprojectdesignsthatmightavoidimpactsarediscussedinSections4.2to4.7.Avoidancewouldalsobeachievedbyschedulingandsitingprojectactivi-tiessuchthattheydonotoccurduringperiodsorinlocalesimportantinthelifehistoryofawildlifepopulation.TheApplicantproposestoscheduleactivitiessuchthattheywouldnotinterferewithnestingraptol's,nestingtrumpeterswans,overwinteringbear,orcalvingmoose.Inaddition,theApplicantproposestorelocatesomeactivities(e.g.,overflights)sothattheywouldnotinterferewithraptororswannestingnorwithsheepuseoftheJayCreekminera11ick.Impactsmightbereducedbylesseningthemagnitudeorextent,oralteringthelocation,ofprojectfeatures.Theminimumleveltowhichimpactsmightbereducedwouldbelimitedbyprojectdesigngoals.TheApplicantproposestoreduceimpactsinseveralareas.Forexample,useofborrowmaterialareaswouldbeminimizedtotheextentpossiblewhileexcavatingsufficientfillmaterial.Inaddition,selectiveclearingofrights-of-waywouldbeimplementedtomaintainasmuchvegetationcoveraspossiblewhileallowingsafeoperationoftransmissionfacilities.Restorationwouldbemosteffectiveinrecoveringbrowseproductivityonlandsrequiringtemporarydisturbanceduringprojectconstruction.Asdiscussedabove,theApplicantproposestorevege-tateareasofborrowsites,temporaryvillages,constructionlaydownareas,andsimilarfeatures.Recoveryoftheseareaswouldbefeasible,althoughcompleterecoverycouldrequiremorethan50years.However,for1to20yearsafterinitiationofrevegetation,productivityofbrowsemightbeenhancedtoalevelsimilartothatfoundinearlystagesofplantsuccession.ReplacementactivitiesproposedbytheApplicantwouldprincipallybeusedtoreplaceraptornestinglocationsthatwouldbelosttotheproject.Replacementlandsforlosthabitatmightalsobeused.CompensationthroughhabitatenhancementisthemajoractionbywhichtheApplicantproposestomitigateforlossofhabitatcarryingcapacity.TheApplicantproposestoconvertmaturegrowthforestintoearlysuccessionalvegetationcommunities.Earlysuccessionalvegetationtendstoprovidehigherproductivityofforageformoose,bear,andotherwildlife;TheApplicanthasproposedusingfire,vegetationcrushing,andforestclearingtoachieveitsgoals.2.1.12.5ThreatenedandEndangeredSpeciesTheonlythreatenedorendangeredspeciesthatcouldbeimpactedwouldbetheAmericanperegrinefa1con(Falcoperegrinusanatum)(seeSecs.3.1.6and4.1.6).NorthofNenanatheproposed IIif",I:I,,I'2-28transmissionlinewouldpassnearperegrinenestinghabitatinthehillsoverlookingtheTananaRivertothesouth.Severalhistoricalperegrinenestingsitesarelocatedwithinthesehills.Twooftheselocationsarewithin1m;(1.6km)oftheproposedroute.However,theproposedroutedoesavoidprimehabitat.Becausethenestsare;nact-ive,theonlyapplicablemitigativeactionwouldbetheavoidanceofpermanentorlong-termalterationofhigh-qualityperegrinehabitat.Ifnestinglocationsneartheproposedroutedidbecomeactive,furtherstepswouldbeimplementedtoavoiddisturbance.2.1.12.6RecreationResourcesTheApplicant1srecreationplan(seeSec.2.1.11)constitutesproposedmitigationforlossesofrecreationresourcesandopportunitiesduetothedevelopmentoftheproposedprojectandprovidesmeansforaccommodatingrecreationdemandgeneratedbytheconstructionandoperationofprojectfacilities.Consistentwithphaseddevelopmentoftheentireproject,theApplicantproposestoimplementtherecreationplaninphases(ExhibitE,Vol.8,Chap.7,Sec.6.1),eachphaseintendedtomitigatespecificaspectsoftheoverallprojectasfollows:PhaseOneObjectives(WatanaConstruction)Tomitigateforlossofrecreationopportunitiesbecauseofconstructionactivitiesandassociatedlandclosures;Toproviderecreationopportunitiesforprojectconstructionworkers;ToprovidethepublicwithsomeearlyrecreationbenefitsderivedfromthepublicinvestmentinWatana.PhaseTwoObjectives(WatanaOperation)TomitigateforlossofrecreationopportunitiesduetotheoperationofWatanafacilities;Toprovidefortherecreationusepotentialoftheproject;Toaccommodateproject-inducedrecreationdemand;Toallowpublicaccesstoprojectlandsandwaters;Toprotecttheenvironmentalvaluesoftheprojectarea.PhaseThreeObjectives(DevilCanyonConstruction)TomitigateforlossofrecreationopportunitiesduetoDevilCanyonconstruction;Toproviderecreationopportunitiesforconstructionworkers.PhaseFourObjectives(DevilCanyonOperation)TomitigateforlossofrecreationopportunitiesduetotheoperationofDevilCanyonfacilities;Toprovidefortherecreationusepotentialoftheproject;Toaccommodateproject-inducedrecreationdemand;Toallowpublicaccesstoprojectlandsandwaters;Toprotecttheenvironmentalvaluesoftheprojectarea.Concurrentwithinitialconstruction)theApplicantproposestoinitiateaprogramtomonitorrecreationuseanddemandcontinuouslythroughoutthelifeoftheprojectlicense.2.1.12.7SocioeconomicFactorsTheApplicanthasproposed)ingeneralterms,toreducethespeed)magnitude)anddistributionofproject-inducedpopulationgrowthbyadjustingtimingoflaborneedsandleaveandshiftschedulestoavoidextrememonthly)seasonal,andannualpeaks;andbyprovidingtransportationincentivesandservicestoencourageworkerstoresideinlargepopulationcentersremotefromthesiteanddiscouragesettlementinthesmallcommunitiesnearby.However,nospecificschedulingortransportationplanshavebeendeveloped.TheApp1icanthasalsoproposed,aspartoftheprojectplan,developmentofonsitehousingforsingleworkers;sometemporaryandpermanentsingle-familyhousingforconstructionengineers,managers,andtheirfamilies;andapermanentvillageforhouseholdsofoperationworkers.Theseplansincluderecreationfacili-ties,aschool)communityservices)andahealthfacility. 2-292.1.12.8VisualResourcesTheApp1icantISvisua1resourcemit;gat;onplanisdesignedtoreduceore1iminateadverseimpactsduetoprojectdevelopment.Theemphasisoftheplanison(1)avoidanceofcriticalenvironments,includingongoingsiterefinementsthroughoutthedesignphase,(2)useofbestdevelopmentpracticesandsite-sensitiveengineering,and(3)rehabilitation.TheApplicanthasidentifiedfourmajorcategoriesofmit igation:(1)additiona1studies,(2)bestdevelopmentpractices,(3)creativeengineeringdesign,and(4)theuseofform,line,color,andtexture(ExhibitE,Vol.8,Chap.8,p.E-8-47).AdditionalmitigativemeasuresthatwouldreducevisualresourceimpactsincludevegetationimpactmitigativetechniquesdescribedinSec-tion2.1.12.4.1.DuringthePhaseIIdetaileddesignprocess,additionalstudiestoresolvethevisualimpactswouldbeperformedbyaninterdisciplinarydesignteam.Potentialaestheticimpactswouldbefurtheramelioratedthroughsite-specificdesignanalysis?lnddevelopment.Visua1resourceimpactswouldbemitigatedthroughsitingstudies(e.g.,avoidanceofthaw-susceptibleareas)andalternativesolutions(e.g.,projectdesignchanges).Additionalmeasuresthatwouldbeimplementedwouldincludebestdevelopmentpracticesthroughconstructiontechniques(e.g.,constructionequipmentwouldbeconfinedtogravelroadsandconstructionzoneareas),rehabili-tationtechniques(e.g.,gradingtocontourandreseeding),andoperationpolicies(e.g.,restrict-ingoff-roadvehicleuse).Whereprojectfacilitieswouldnotbecompatiblewiththesurroundinglandscapecharacter,creativeengineeringdesignmeasureswouldbetaken(e.g.,minimizingroadprofileelevationstoblendwithexistingnaturalcontours).Finally,theuseofform,line,color,ortexturecouldreducevisualimpactscausedbyprojectfeatures(e.g.,paintingbuild-ingsanappropriatecolortoblendwiththesurroundingnaturallandscape).2.1.12.9CulturalResourcesTheApplicanthasrecommendedtheinvestigationofallsignificantculturalresourcesites(i.e.,thoseeligibleforinclusionintheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlaces)thatwouldbesubjecttounavoidabledirectorindirectimpactsresultingfromprojectdevelopment.Preserva-tionbyavoidance(combinedwithamonitoringprogram)isrecommendedforsignificantsitesthatwouldbeexposedtopotentialimpactsduringeithertheconstructionoroperationphasesoftheproject.2.2SUSITNADEVELOPMENTALTERNATIVES2.2.1AlternativeFacilityDesigns2.2.1.1Applicant'sStudiesThedesignoftheproposedfacilitiesattheWatanaandDevilCanyondevelopmentsaretheresultofdetailedstudiesduringwhichthedesignofeachmajorcomponentwasevaluatedrelativetoincreasinglyrefinedcriteria.Thecriteriafordesignincludedeconomics,environmentalandgeotechnicalconstraints,loadforecasts,andengineeringconsiderations.AdetaileddiscussionofthevariouscomponentsandmethodologyforthescreeningandreviewofalternativegeneralarrangementsofthecomponentsispresentedintheApplication(ExhibitB,Sec.2).Asummaryofthesestudiesfollows.2.2.1.2AlternativeWatanaFacilitiesMainDam.TheApplicantselectedtheelevationoftheWatanadamcrestbasedonconsiderationofthevalueofthehydroelectricenergyproducedfromtheassociatedreservoir,geotechnicalconstraintsonreservoirlevels,andfreeboardrequirements.ThreecrestelevationswerestUdied,2240,2190,and2140ft(682.8,667.5and652.3m).Thedamtypewasselectedbasedonacom-parisonofembankment,concretearch,andconcrete-facedrockfilldamsforWatana.Comparisoncriteriaconsideredeconomics,availabilityofsuitableconstructionmaterials,andexpectedperformanceofthedambasedontheseismic,climatic,andgeotechnicalconditionsateachsite.DiversionFacilities.Thetopographyofthesitegenerallydictatesthatdiversionoftheriverduringconstructionbeaccomplishedusingdiversiontunnelswithupstreamanddownstreamcoffer-damsprotectingthemainconstructionarea.Adesignfloodwitharecurrencefrequencyofoncein50yearswasselectedforthedesignofthecofferdamsbasedonexperienceandpracticewithothermajorhydroelectricprojects.Concrete-linedandunlinedrocktunnelswerecompared.Thereliabilityofanunlinedtunnelismoredependentonrockconditionsthanisalinedtunnel,particularlygiventheextendedperiodduringwhichthediversionschemeisrequiredtooperate.Basedontheseconsiderations,givenaconsiderablyhighercost,togetherwiththesomewhatquestionablefeasibilityoffourunlinedtunnelswithdiametersapproaching50ft(15m)inthetypeofrockexpectedatthesite,theunlinedtunnelsweree1iminated.The1inedtunnelschemesexaminedwere(1)pressuretunnelwithafreeoutlet,(2)pressuretunnelwithasubmergedoutlet,and(3)afreeflowtunnel."II1II 2-30SpillwayFacilities.Dischargeofthespillwaydesignfloodwouldrequireagatedservicespillwayoneithertheleftorrightbank.Threebasicalternativespillwaytypeswereexamined:chutespillwaywithflipbucket,chutespillwaywithstillingbasin,andcascadespillway.Considerationwasalsogiventocombinationsofthesealternativeswithorwithoutsupplementalfacilities,suchasvalvedtunnelsandanemergencyspillwayfuseplugforhandlingthePMFdischarge.PowerFacilities.Selectionoftheoptimumpowerplantdevelopmentinvolvedconsiderationofthefollowing:Location,typeandsizeofthepowerplant;Geotechnicalconsiderations;Number,type,size,andsettingofgeneratingunits;Arrangementofintakeandwaterpassages;andEnvironmentalconstraints.Studieswerealsomadetocomparetheconstructioncostsofbothsurfaceandundergroundpower-houses.PreliminarystudieswereundertakenduringthedevelopmentofconceptualprojectlayoutsatWatanatoinvestigatebothrightandleftbanklocationsforpowerfacilities.Thelocationonthesouthernbankwasrejectedbecauseofeconomicsandindicationsthattheundergroundfacili-tieswouldbelocatedinrelativelypoorqualityrock.Theundergroundpowerhousewasthereforelocatedonthenorthernbanksuchthatthemajoropeningslaybetweenthetwomajorshearfeatures(liTheFins"andthe"Fingerbuster").GeneralArrangement.PreliminaryalternativearrangementsoftheWatanaprojectweredevelopedandsubjectedtoaseriesofreviewandscreeningprocesses.Thelayoutsselectedfromeachscreeningprocessweredevelopedingreaterdetailpriortothenextreviewand,wherenecessary,additionallayoutswerepreparedcombiningthefeaturesoftwoormoreofthealternatives.Assumptionsandcriteriawereevaluatedateachstageandadditionaldataincorporatedasnecessary.Fourarrangementschemesweredevelopedduringthepreliminaryreviewstage(ExhibitB,Figs.B.27throughB.32),andtwoschemesevolvedoutoftheseforreviewinthefinalstage.Theproposedscheme(schemeWP3A)wasadoptedbasedoneconomicsandfewerpotentialgeo-technicalproblems.2.2.1.3AlternativeDevilCanyonFacilitiesThemethodologyusedbytheApplicanttodevelopthedesignsofthevariouscomponentsoftheDevilCanyondevelopmentweresimilartothoseusedtoevolvetheWatanadesign.2.2.2AlternativeAccessCorridors2.2.2.1ApplicantStudiesTheobjectiveofalternativeaccessstudies·conductedbytheApplicantwastoprovideatranspor-tationsystemthatwouldsupportconstructionactivitiesandallowfortheorderlydevelopmentandmaintenanceofthesitefacilities,whileconsideringtherelativeenvironmentalimpactsofthevariousalternatives.Threegeneralcorridorsleadingfromtheexistingtransportationnetworktotheproposeddamsiteswereidentified(Fig.2-13).AdetaileddiscussionofthesecorridorsisprovidedintheApplication(ExhibitE,Chap.10,Sec.2.3)andasummaryofthestudiesfollows.2.2.2.2CorridorsStudiedThethreecorridorsidentifiedwere:Corridor1 -FromtheParksHighwaytotheWatanadamsiteviathenorthernsideoftheSusitnaRiver.Corridor2 -FromtheParksHighwaytotheWatanadamsiteviathesouthernsideoftheSusitnaRiver.Corridor3-FromtheDenaliHighwaytotheWatanadamsite.Withinthesecorridors,atotalof18plansweredevelopedbylayingoutroutesontopographicalmapsinaccordancewithacceptedroadandraildesigncriteria. ~4.''.. Figure 2-13.Alternative Access Corridors.[Source: SCALE Application Exhibit B,Fig.B.42J o 4 8 MILESII N I W f-' 2-322.2.2.3DevelopmentofPlansOncethebasiccorridorsweredefined,alternativeroutesthatmettheselecteddesignparam-eterswereestablishedandevaluatedagainsttechnical,economic,andenvironmentalcriteria.Withineachcorridor,themostfavorablealternativerouteintermsoflength,alignment,andgradewasidentified.Theserouteswerethencombinedwitheachotherand/orwithexistingroadsorrailroadstoformthevariousaccessplans.Theseplanswerescreenedusingthefollowingcriteria:Minimizingimpactstotheenvironment;Minimizingtotalprojectcosts;Providingtransportationflexibilitytominimizeconstructionrisks;Providingeaseofoperationandmaintenance;andPre-constructionofapioneerroad.Thisledtothedevelopmentofeightalternativeaccessplans.ThreeadditionalplanswereaddedatthesuggestionoftheSusitnaHydroelectricSteeringCommittee.Studiesofthese11accessplansculminatedintherecommendationofPlan5astheroutethatmostcloselysatisfiedtheselectioncriteria.Plan5startsfromtheGeorgeParksHighwaynearHurricaneandtraversesalongtheIndianRivertoGoldCreek.FromGoldCreektheroadcontinueseastonthesouthernsideoftheSusitnaRivertotheDevilCanyondamsite,crossesalow-levelbridgeandcontinueseastonthenorthernsideoftheSusitnaRivertotheWatanadamsite.Fortheprojecttoremainonschedule,itwouldhavebeennecessarytoconstructapioneerroadalongthisroutepriortotheFERClicensebeingissued.Thisplanwas,however,eventuallyeliminatedduetocommentsreceivedfromthepublic,agencies,andorganizations.Sevenadditionalaccessalternativesthenweredevelopedusingrefinedevaluationcriteria.All18planswereevaluatedusingtherefinedcriteriatodeterminethemostresponsiveaccessplanineachofthethreebasiccorridors.2.2.2.4DescriptionofMostResponsiveAccessPlansTheproposedplan,Plan18"Denali-North",isdescribedinSection2.1.7.Themostresponsiveplanforthetwoothercorridorsaredescribedbelow.Plan13"North".ThisplanwouldutilizearoadwayfromarailheadfacilityadjacenttotheGeorgeParksHighwayatHurricanetotheWatanadamsitefollowingthenorthernsideoftheSusitnaRiver.Aspurroad7mi(11km)longwouldbeconstructedatalaterdatetoservicetheDevilCanyondevelopment.TravellingsoutheastfromHurricane,theroutewouldpassthroughChulitnaPass,avoidtheIndianRiverandGoldCreekareas,thenparallelPortageCreekatahighelevationonthenorthernside.AftercrossingPortageCreektheroadwouldcontinueatahighelevationtotheWatanadamsite.AccesstothesouthernsideoftheSusitnaRiverattheDevilCanyondamsitewouldbeoverahigh-levelsuspensionbridgeapproximately1mi(1.6km)downstreamfromtheDevilCanyondam.Thisroutewouldcrossmountainousterrainathigheleva-tionsandincludeextensivesidehillcuttingintheregionofPortageCreek.Constructionoftheroad,however,wouldnotbeasdifficultasPlan16,thesouthernroute.Plan16"South".ThisroutewouldgenerallyparalleltheSusitnaRiver,traversingwesttoeastfromarailheadatGoldCreektotheDevilCanyondamsite,andcontinuefollowingasoutherlylooptotheWatanadamsite.ToaChieveinitialaccesswithinoneyear,atemporarylow-levelcrossingtothenorthernsideoftheSusitnaRiverwouldberequiredapproximately12mi(19km)downstreamfromtheWatanadamsite.Thiswouldbeuseduntilcompletionofaperma-nenthigh-levelbridge.Inaddition,aconnectingroadfromtheGeorgeParksHighwaytoDevilCanyon,withamajorhigh-levelbridgeacrosstheSusitnaRiver,wouldbenecessarytoprovidefullroadaccesstoeithersite.ThetopographyfromDeviltoWatanaismountainousandtheroutewouldinvolvethemostdifficultconstructionofthethreeplans,requiringanumberofsidehillcutsandtheconstructionoftwomajorbridges.ToprovideinitialaccesstotheWatanadamsite,thisroutewouldpresentthemostdifficultconstructionproblemsofthethreeroutes,andwouldhavethehighestpotentialforscheduledelaysandrelatedcostincreases.2.2.3AlternativeTransmissionLineCorridorsTheApplicant'sinitialchoiceoftransmissionlinecorridorsforfurtherstudydependeduponcertainenvironmentalselectioncriteria,and,toalesserextent,technicalandeconomicalanalysis.Threeareaswith22corridorsweredefinedandselectedforfina1study.FourcorridorswerechosenforconsiderationinthenorthernareatotransmitprojectpowerfromtheHealysubstationtoFairbanks;threecorridorswerechosenforthesouthernareatotransmitprojectpowerfromtheWillowsubstationtoAnchorage(CookInlet);and15corridorswerechosen 2-33inthecentralareatocarryprojectpowerfromtheWatanaandDevilCanyonsitestotheWillow-HealyIntertie.Onetransmissioncorridorwasthenselectedineacharea,withtheenviron-mentalfactorsandtechnicalandeconomicratingsbeingconsidered.Additionally,thechoiceoftheaccessroutefortheSusitnadevelopmentaffectedthechoiceofthetransmissionlinecorridorinthecentralarea.ThefourcorridorsstudiedbytheApplicantinthenorthernareavariedinlengthfrom85to115mi(136to185km).OnlytworoutesegmentsfromHealyarepracticalbecauseoftopography,withonealonganexistingtransportationroutebeingpreferred.The15corridorsstudiedbytheApplicantinthecentralareawerereducedtosevenbecauseoftechnicaloreconomicunacceptability[i.e.,mountaincrossingsover4,000ft(1,200m)].TheselectionoftheaccessrouteinSeptember1982narrowedthecorridorstofour,allconnectingtheWatanadamsite,theDevilCanyondamsite,andtheproposedGoldCreeksubstationontheIntertie.ThefinalselectionamountedtoachoicebetweentwoparallelcorridorsegmentsconnectingthetwodamsitesandtwoparallelcorridorsegmentsconnectingtheDevilCanyonsitewiththeIntertiesubstation.Thesefourcorridorsareabout40mi(64km)longeach.ThethreecorridorsstudiedbytheApplicantinthesouthernareaincludedtwoconnectingtheWillowsubstationandPointMacKenzieandoneconnectingWillowtoAnchorageviaPalmer.ThecorridorviaPalmeristhelongestat73mi(117km),butthepreferredroutefromWillowtoPointMacKenzieviaRedShirtLakeis38mi(61km)inlength.Figures2-14through2-16showroutesoftheproposedandalternativetransmission-linesegmentsconsideredbytheApplicantwhenselectingapreferredroute.2.2.4AlternativeSusitnaDevelopmentSchemes2.2.4.1GeneralAsindicatedinSection1.4.1,theFERCStaffhasconsideredthreealternativedevelopmentschemesfortheSusitnaRiverBasin:WatanaIwithDevilCanyon;WatanaIwithModifiedHighDevilCanyon,andWatanaIwithareregulatingdam.ThelocationsofthesedevelopmentsareillustratedinFigure2-17.2.2.4.2WatanaI-DevilCanyonDevelopmentFacilities.Thisdevelopmentwouldbeidenticaltotheproposedproject,withtheexceptionthatWatanadamwouldbescaleddowntohaveacrestelevationof2,125ft(648m)andanormalreservoirlevelof2100ft(640m)[versus2,210ft(674m)and2,185ft(666m),respectively,fortheproposeddam].Operation.Thisprojectwouldoperateinthesamemannerastheproposedproject,i.e.,WatanaIwouldoperateasabaseloadplantuntilcompletionofDevilCanyon.AftercompletionofDevilCanyon,WatanaIwouldoperateasapeakingplantandDevilCanyonwouldbeoperatedtomaintainaconstanttailwaterelevationatWatanaIandtoregulateWatanaIdischargestomeetdownstreamfisheryrequirements.2.2.4.3WatanaI-ModifiedHighDevilCanyonDevelopmentFacilities.TheWatanaIdevelopmentwouldbeasdescribedinSection2.2.4.2.TheHighDevilCanyondevelopmentwouldbelocatedapproximatelyatRM157,orabout5mi(8km)upstreamfromtheproposedDevilCanyonsite.ThedamwouldbeconstructedofsimilarmaterialsanddesignsastheHighDevilCanyonDamstudiedbytheApplicant(ExhibitB,Fig.B.9).Itwouldbeofearthandrockfillconstructionwithanimperviouscore,andacrestelevationof1,495ft(456m).Itwouldhaveanormalmaximumwatersurfaceelevationof1,470ft(448m)andamaximumheightofapproximately595ft(181m).ThesouthabutmentspillwayandnorthabutmentundergroundpowerhousewouldbesimilarinconcepttoHighDevilCanyon.Operation.ThisdevelopmentwouldbeoperatedinthesamemannerastheWatanaI-DevilCanyonProject.2.2.4.4WatanaI-ReregulatingDamDevelopmentFacilities.Thisdevelopmentwouldincorporateareregulatingdamlocatedapproximately16mi(24km)downstreamofWatanaI.TheReregulatingdamwouldbeofearthandrockfillconstruc-tion,withacrestelevationof1,500ft(457m)andamaximumheightofapproximately250ft(76m).Aspillwaywouldbelocatedonthenorthernabutmentanda200-MWpowerhousewouldbedownstreamofthedamonthesouthernbank.Thisdevelopmentwouldbesimilarin.designtotheTunnelNo.3ReregulationdamschemeconsideredbytheApplicantindevelopmentplanE3of 2-34LEGEND---STUDYCORRIDOR••••••.....•..INTERTIE(APPROXIMATE)10-!5SCALEINMILES().iAlternativeTransmissionlineCorridors--CentralStudyArea.[Source:ApplicationExhibitB,Fig.B.48JFigure2-14.LOCATIONMAP!PALMERANCHORAJ='-,-r-"=~O--'f'e=---._SCALEINMILES Figure2-15.AlternativeTransmissionLineCorridors--NorthernStudyArea.[Source:ApplicationExhibitB,Fig.B.49]MT.McKINLEY.,,/.....Ia./·2550SCALEINMILESLOCATIONMAPLEGEND_--STUDYCORRIDOR••••••••••••••INTERTIE(APPROXIMATE)o510i!SCALEINMILES 2-35LEGEND---STUDYCORRIDORINTERTIE(APPROXIMATE)LOCATIONMAPFigure2-16.O~i~~~~5.IOSCALEINMILESAlternativeTransmissionLineCorridors--SouthernStudyArea.[Source:ApplicationExhibitB,Fig.B.47J Reregulating Dam / Susitna River Fog Creek Modified High Devil Canyon Dam o~J L I ~/I CD 149°30'W 148°30'W 5 Miles Figure 2-17.Locations of Alternative Susitna River Developments. N I Wen 2-37ExhibitB,exceptthe15-mi(24-km)longpowertunnelbetweentheReregulatingdamandDevilCanyonwouldnotbeconstructed.ThetunnelandapowerhouseatDevilCanyoncouldbeaddedinthefuture.However,iffurtherstudyindicatesthatthetunnelisaneconomicallyfeasiblealternative,theReregulatingdampowerhouseconstructioncouldbestagedtoavoidinstallingcapacitywhichcouldnotbeusedifwaterwasdivertedtothetunnelpowerhouse.Operation.Theprojectwouldbeoperatedinthesamemannerasthetwopreviouslydiscusseddevelopments.2.3NATURAL-GAS-FIREDGENERATIONSCENARIO2.3.1AlternativeFacilitiesForitsnatural-gasgenerationscenario,theStaffassumedthateightstate-of-the-art200-MWgas-firedbaseloadcombined-cycleplantsandtwo70-MWgas-firedcombustion-turbinepeakingunitswouldbeinstalled.Theassumedcombinedcycleplantseachincludetwocombustion-turbinegeneratorunits,aheatrecoveryboilerusingtheexhaustgasesofthatcombustionturbinestoproducesuperheatedsteam,andasteamturbinegenerator.Additionaldetailsregardingtheassumeddesignandoperatingparametersofthecombined-cycleplantsaregiveninAppendixG,TableG.5.Thecombined-cyclesubstantiallyimprovespowergenerationefficiency.Aplantwithtwocombustionturbinescanbeoperatedatpartialloadwithoneofthegasturbinesoutofservice.Thecombustion-turbinepeakingunitsassumedforthisscenario(aswellasallotherthermalscenarios)aresimple-cyclefacilitiesusingnaturalgasasfuel.ThetechnicalparametersandeconomicassumptionsusedforunitsinthegasscenarioarelistedinTable2-4.Table2-4.PlantAdditionTechnicalParametersandEconomicAssumptions--Combined-CycleandCombustion-TurbineUnitsParameterTechnicalUnitSize(MW)HeatRate(Btu/kWh)PlannedOutages(%)ForcedOutages(%)EconomicUnitCapitalCostt1($/kW)O&MCostsFixed($/kW-yr)Variable(mills/kWh)EconomicLife(years)CombinedCycle2008,000781,1077.251.6930CombustionTurbine7012,200328.06362.74.830t1Includinginterestduringconstructionat0%escala-tionand3%interest.Source:AdaptedfromApplicant'sRevisedTableD.18.2.3.2LocationTheStaffassumedthatthecombined-cycleandcombustion-turbineunitswouldbesitedinproxim-itytonaturalgasdistributionpipelinesintheAnchorage-CookInletareas.Becauseofthegreatervolumeofgasrequiredbythecombinedcycleunits,itisexpectedthattheywouldbeconcentratedinthewesternCookInletareaandontheKenaipeninsula.Forpurposesrelatedtoimpactanalysis,Staffassumedthe200-MWcombined-cycleplantswouldbelocatedasfollows:twoonthelowerBelugaRiver,threeonthelowerChuitnaRiver,twoonCookInletnearKenai,andonesoutheastofAnchorage.GeneralsitelocationsareshowninFigure2-18.Thetwo70-MWgasturbineswerenotspecificallysited,butitwasassumedtheywouldbelocatedincloseproximitytotheAnchorageloadcenter. tNALTERNATIVESoHydrooGas<)CoalL::,Susitna2-38Figure2-18.locationofThermalandHYdroelectricAlternatives.2:0tl')<0/2:46MilesI0'<l-I<0I2:----J0I")<02:2:2:oo<02:o~5-!:-300:":'W:---":"-1-51"'O-W--_L--1-4""90--W------1-4-7'='"o-W-----~1:-:4:5~o:W::--- 2-392.3.3ConstructionRequirementsTheStaff'sgasscenarioanalysisindicatedeight200-MWcombined-cycleunitsandtwocombustion-turbineunitswouldberequiredtomeetRailbeltpowerrequirementsthroughtheyear2042.Constructionrequirementsforthecombustionturbinesareidenticaltothoseindicatedinthecoalscenario.Thepersonnelrequiredforconstructionofa200-t~\~combined-cycleplantwouldvaryovera32-monthconstructionperiodandpeakatabout400peopleinthesecondyear.Theservicesneededtosupportconstructionofacombined-cycleplantwouldincludeaccessroads;acompletewatersupply,storage,anddistributionsystem;powerlinestoprovideelec-tricpowerforconstructionactivities;andcampfacilities,includingsewagetreatmentfacili-ties,awasteincineratorandgarbagecompactor,sleepingrecreationanddiningquarters,andanairstripforpersonneltransport,thetransportofperishablegoods,andmedicalemergencies.Installationofcombustion-turbineunitscanrequirefromlessthanoneyeartoabouttwoyears.Onlylimitedconstructionisrequiredbecausemostoftheinstallationconsistsofprefabricatedmodules.Arelativelysmallworkforceofabout30peoplewouldberequired,andsiteserviceswouldvarydependingonsitelocation.Transmissionlineconnectionswouldberequiredtotiethecombinedcycleplantsintoexistingtransmissionnetworks.Itwasassumedthattwo345-kVlineswouldconnecttheBelugaRiverandChuitnaRiverplantstoexistingtransmissionfacilitiesatthenearbyBelugagasplant.UpgradingoftheBelugatoAnchoragelinesmightbenecessary.TheKenaiandAnchorageplantswouldbelocatedadjacenttoexistinglines.2.3.4OperationandMaintenanceAcombined-cycleunitwouldrequire10-15operatingand18maintenancepersonnel.Anoperatingstaffofabout12peoplewouldbeneededforthecombustion-turbinefacilities.Periodicmaintenancewouldbeperformedoncombustion-turbineandcombined-cycleplantsandequipmentinaccordancewithanestablishedmaintenanceprogramthatwouldincludethecompletestripdownandmajorinspectionoftheturbinesatintervalsrequiredorsuggestedbytheequip-mentmanufacturer.Inaddition,themaintenanceprogramswouldincludemonitoringoftherevege-tationanderosion-preventionprogramsinitiatedduringthecleanupphaseofconstruction.Ingeneral,majorequipmentreplacementoroverhaulfunctionswouldbeperformedduringaplant'sannualscheduledoutages.TheoperationandmaintenancecostsassumedintheStaff'sanalysisarelistedinTable2-4.2.4COAL-FIREDGENERATIONSCENARIO2.4.1AlternativeFacilitiesForthecoalscenario,theStaffassumedthatfive200-MWbaseloadcoal-firedunitsandten70-MWcombustion-turbinepeakingunitswouldbeinstalledasneededtomeettheprojectedRail-beltpowerrequirements.Thecoalunitswereassumedtobeofconventionalstate-of-the-artdesignandtobeprovidedwithdryflue-gasdesulfurizationscrubbersfortheremovalofsulfuroxides,baghouseparticulateremoval,wet/drymechanicaldraftcoolingtowersforheatrejection,andpulverizedcoalforcombustion.AmoredetaileddescriptionoftheassumedcoalunitdesignandoperatingparametersisgiveninAppendixG,TableG.8.Theassumedcapitalcostwasdeemedtoreflectthestate-of-the-artwithregardtoenvironmentalsafeguardsandanabilitytomeetestablishedperformancestandards.Thecombustion-turbinepeakingunitswereassumedtobesimple-cyclemachinesusingnaturalgasasfuel.Thetechnicalparametersandeconomicassump-tionsforcapitalcost,operationandmaintenancecosts,andeconomiclifearelistedinTable2-5.2.4.2LocationInitsanalysis,theStaffassumedthatcoal-firedgenerationfacilitieswouldbelocatedintheNenanaandWillowareasoftheRailbelt.StaffassumedsitingofthreeunitsnearNenanaandtwonearWillow(seeFigure2-18).CoaldeliverytothegeneratingstationswasassumedtobebyunittrainfromthevicinityoftheUsibelliMineintheNenanacoalfields.Thetencombus-tionturbineswerenotspecificallysited,butitwasassumedtheywouldbedispersedthroughouttheAnchorage-CookInletareaasnecessarytooptimizedeliveryofelectricpower.Fuelforthecombustionturbineinstallationswasassumedtobeavailablefromgasdistributionpipelines.2.4.3ConstructionRequirementsThecoalscenarioanalysisindicatedthatfive200-MWcoal-firedunitsandtencombustionturbineswouldberequiredtoserveanticipatedloadgrowththroughtheyear2022.Construc-tionofasinglecoalunitwouldrequireaboutfiveyears.Thenumberofconstructionworkers 2-40Table2-5.PlantAdditionTechnicalParametersandEconomicAssumptions--Coal-FiredandCombustion-TurbineUnitsParameterTechnicalUnitSize(MW)HeatRate(Btu/kWh)PlannedOutages(%)ForcedOutage(%)EconomicUnitCapitalCostst1($/MW)O&MCostFixed($/kW-yr)Variable(mills/kWh)EconomicLife(years)Coal-FiredSteam20010,0008.05.72,30916.830.630CombustionTurbine7012,2003.28.06362.74.830t1Includinginterestduringconstructionat0%escalationand3%interest.Source:AdaptedfromApplicant'sRevisedTable0.18.requiredwouldvary,butwouldpeakatabout500bytheendofthesecondyearandfalloffdramaticallyneartheendofthefourthyear.Constructionofacoalunitwouldrequireaccessroads;acompletewatersupply,storageanddistributionsystem;powerlinestoprovideelectricpowerforconstructionactivities;arail-roadspurtoprovidefuelandequipmenttransport;constructioncampfacilities,includingsewagetreatmentfacilities,awasteincineratorandgarbagecompactor;sleeping,recreation,anddiningquarters;andanairstripforthetransportofpersonnelandperishablegoodsandformedicalemergencies.TheultimatetransmissionconstructionrequirementfortransmissionofpowerfromgeneratingunitsintheNenanaareatotheloadcenterswasassumedtobesimilartothatrequiredfortransmissionofthepoweroutputfromtheproposedWatanadevelopment.Thisincludesconstruc-tionofasecond100-mi(160-km)345-kVlinefromHealytoWillow,parallelingtheproposed345-kVIntertie;adouble-circuit,345-kVextensionfromWillowtotheUniversitystationinAnchorage;anda100-mi(160-km)long,doublecircuit,345-kVextensionoftheIntertiefromHealytotheEstersubstationintheFairbanksarea.TheStaffassumedthattwo345-kVoutletsfromtheNenanacoalplantwouldinterconnectwiththeHealy-to-Ester345-kVtransmissionlineataswitchingstationinthevicinityoftheNenanacoalfields,betweenHealyandNenana,andthattransmissionoutletsfromthecoalplantwouldbeshorterthanthe37-mi(59-km)longoutletsfromWatanatotheIntertieright-of-way.ThetransmissionarrangementsfortwocoalunitsintheWillowareawouldprobablyinvolveconnectionoftheWillowareagenerationattheWillowsubstationviaone345-kVline.2.4.4OperationandMaintenanceOperationandmaintenanceofasingle200-MWcoalunithasanestimatedstaffrequirementofabout100personstosupportathree-shift,24-hour-a-dayoperation.Operationandmaintenancestaffingrequirementsforthegasturbineswouldbethesameasdescribedforthegasscenario.Periodicmaintenancewouldbeperformedbythecoalplantstaffonallpipes,valves,rotatingmachinery,heat-sensitiveequipment,andotheritemssubjecttowear,leaks,corrosionorotherdeterioration.Inaddition,themaintenanceprogramswouldprovideformonitoringofthereve-getationanderosionpreventionprogramsinitiatedduringthecleanupphaseofconstruction.Ingeneral,majorequipmentreplacementoroverhaulswouldbeperformedduringtheplant'sannualscheduledoutages,sometimesinvolvingthetemporaryassignmentofspecializedpersonnel.Ontheaverage,scheduledoutagesareestimatedtorequireapproximatelyfourweeksperyearforplantsranginginsizefrom100MWto300MW,correspondingtoascheduledoutagerateof8%.TheoperationandmaintenancecostsassumedintheStaffanalysisarelistedinTable2-5. 2-412.5COMBINEDHYDRO-THERMALGENERATIONSCENARIO2.5.1HydroUnitsThehydroe1ectricsitesconsideredinthecombinedhydro-thermalscenari0areBrowne,Chakachamna,Johnson,Keetna,andSnow(Fig.2-18).TheChakachamnaareahasbeenstudiedpreviouslyforhydroelectricdevelopmentandiscurrentlyunderstudybytheApplicant;there-fore,fairlydetailedsiteinformatonisavailable.Browne,Johnson,Keetna,andSnow,however,havenotbeenintensivelystudied,andinformationonthoseareasislimitedprimarilytonon-specificinventorydataandresourcemaps.2.5.1.1BrowneTheBrownesiteislocatedontheNenanaRivernearHealy,about75mi(120km)southwestofFairbanks.ThesitelayoutfortheBrowneprojectisshowninFigure2-19.TheBrownedamwouldbeeitheraconcretegravityoraconcrete-facedrockfillstructure.Itwouldhaveacrestelevationof995ft(303m)andamaximumheightofapproximately235ft(71.6m).Adiversiontunnelandflip-bucketspillwaywouldbeconstructedonthenorthernabutment,andapowertunnelandsurfacepowerhousewouldbebuiltonthesouthernabutment.2.5.1.2ChakachamnaChakachamnaLakeislocatedintheAlaskaRangeabout80mi(130km)westofAnchorage.ThelakeisdrainedbytheChakachatnaRiver,whichrunssoutheasterlyoutofthelakeandeventuallyintoCookInlet.ThesitelayoutfortheChakachamnadevelopmentisshowninFigure2-20.ThedevelopmentwouldbealaketapofChakachamnaLakewithadiversiontunnel[approximately23ft(7m)indiameter]totheMcArthurRiverbasin.AnundergroundpowerhousewouldbelocatedontheMcArthurRivernearthebaseoftheBlockadeGlacier.2.5.1.3JohnsonTheJohnsonsiteislocatedontheTananaRiver,approximately120mi(190km)southeastofFairbanksandhasadrainageareaof10,450mi2(27,066km2).TheJohnsondamwouldbeaconcretegravitystructurewithearthendikesandwouldhaveamaximumheightofabout140ft(43m).Thereservoirwouldhaveamaximumwatersurfaceelevationof1,470ft(448m)andwouldhaveanactivestorageofabout5,300,000ac-ft(6.5billionm3).2.5.1.4KeetnaTheKeetnasiteislocatedontheTalkeetnaRiver,approximately70mi(llOkm)northofAnchorage.TheTalkeetnaRiver,withheadwatersintheTalkeetnaMountains,flowssouthwesterlytoitsconfluencewiththeSusitnaRiver.Thedamsitehasadrainageareaof1,260mi2(3,263km2).Streamflowrecordsindicatetheyearlyaveragedischargeatthesitetobe1.7millionac-ft(2.1billionm3).Powerdevelopmentwouldincludeadamwithadiversiontunnel(Fig.2-21).Thedamwouldbeofearthandrockfillconstructionandwouldhaveacrestelevationof965.0ft(294.1m)withamaximumheightofapproximately365ft(Illm).Thespillwayandpowerfacilitieswouldbelocatedsouthofthedam.2.5.1.5SnowTheSnowsiteislocatedontheSnowRiverintheKenaiPeninsula.Powerdevelopmentwouldincludeadamwithdiversionthroughatunnelapproximately7,500to10,000ft(2,300to3,000m)long.Anearthandrockfilldamwithacrestelevationof1,210ft(369m)andamaximumheightofapproximately310ft(94m)wouldbeconstructed.Thediversionandpowertunnelwouldbelocatedonthesouthernabutmentandaspillwaywouldbeconstructedatthesouthernendofthereservoir[approximately1mile(0.6km)fromthedam](Fig.2-22).TheSnowRiverattheproposeddamsiteflowsinadeepnarrowgorgecutintobedrockonthefloorofaglacialvalley.Graywackeandslateareexposedandthisoverburdenisevident.TheriverflowswestandnorthintothesouthernendoftheKenaiLake.Theaverageannualstream-flowatthedamsiteisestimatedat510,000to535,000ac-ft(629to660millionm3).Thedamsitewouldbefedby105mi2(222km2)oftheriver's166-mi2(430-km2)drainagearea.2.5.2ThermalUnits2.5.2.1FacilitiesThethermalportionofacombinedhydro-thermalscenariowouldconsistofthesametypesofthermalresourcesconsideredinthecoal,gas,andmixedcoalandgasthermalscenariosdiscussedpreviously.Thesewouldincludethe200-MW,conventionalcoal-firedunitsdiscussedinthecoal DIVERSIONTUNNe.l"r:J:>('FL/POUC"'ET0.1Flgu,e2-19.Site"Yout--B'owneDe'eJopment.[Sou,ce,APPJic'nt,T",6De'ignDe,elopment,Fig.e.6(Decembe,1981)]0.2MiltS N I .j:> W o I '2 MIL.E.:; i ! ~~i ~~'?;C4AV-:-:(/"~ fr.~CON~OVeRFLOWFI....."STRUCTURE-.CREST EL.1l4!I.',~ pOWeR ..........I INT.b.KJ:......I--CON5TRLlCTION ........../AOIT .........../....., ...... ...........~26 lOlA..POINER 'TUNNeL .....IO.e>MI~L.ONG........................................'t _ I -_ r-....--CONSTRuCTION I AOIT ® Figure 2-20.Site Layout--Chakachamna Development.[Source:Applicant,Task 6 Design Development,Fig.C.9 (December 1981)J 2-44...---..------..~.SURFACE.F'OWE,RI-ICXJSE'roOMWCAAIl.C1TYFLIPBUCKEiITAIL.WATC:RE\...GIS.G',-.....--D/SCOFFERDAMPQM;RINTAKiFigure2-21.SiteLayout--KeetnaDevelopment.[Source:Applicant,Task6DesignDevelopment,Fig.C.4(December1981)J SCALE'8PLANOFDEVELOPMENTUNDERGROUNDPOWERHOUSESOMWCAPACITo0.\0.'2M\LESSCALE:AI---;~_~ISCALE:Bi\iMILESooooB10001200---11001000----===::::=:::-1300Figure2-22.SiteLayout--SnowDevelopment.[Source:Applicant,Task6DesignDevelopment,Fig.C.3(December1981)) 2-48causedbyconstructionofthenon-Susitnahydropoweralternativesalsowouldbesimilartothosedescribedfortheproposedproject.Mitigativemeasuresnecessaryfornatural-gas-firedunitswouldinclude(1)sitingoffacilitiessuchasbuildings,transmissionlinestubs,andpipe-linespurstoavoidsensitivevegetationtypesorwetlands,and(2)rehabilitationofareasdisturbedbyconstructionofsuchfacilities.Mitigativemeasuresnecessaryforcoal-firedpowerplantswouldincludethosemeasuresindicatedfornatural-gas-firedunits,plusrehabilita-tionofsolid-wastedisposalsitesandlanddisturbedbysurfacemining.2.7.5.2WildlifeMitigativemeasuresforalternativeactionswouldbesimilartothosedescribedinSec-tion2.1.12.4.2,althoughtheextentofmitigationwouldvarywiththemagnitudeofimpactstowildlife.Specificmeasurescannotbepresentedherewithoutmoresite-specificdataonpoten-tialimpacts.2.7.6ThreatenedandEndangeredSpeciesMitigativemeasuressuchasthoseoutlinedinSection2.1.12.5wouldberequiredforalternativetransmissionlinesthatpassnearNenana.Nootheralternativeswouldlikelyrequire,mitigativemeasuresforthreatenedandendangeredspecies.2.7.7SocioeconomicFactorsTheprimarymitigativemeasuresforallalternativeslocatedfartherthanabout40mi(64km)fromAnchorageorFairbankswouldbethesameasthosefortheproposedproject,including:Provideconstructioncamps(withrecreationfacilities)forsingleworkers;Developleaveandshiftschedules(basedonpastexperiencesinAlaska)todiscourageinmigrationtosmallcommunitiesandruralareas;Providelow-costtransportation(e.g.,airorbustraveltoAnchorageand/orFairbanks,commuterbusestobusortrainstations)forworkerstotraveleasilytopermanentresidencesorforvacationsoutsidetheprojectarea,andtodiscourageconflictsbetweenproject-relatedtrafficandlocalandtouristtraffic;Providetrainingprogramsforlocallaborandhirelocalworkers;Provideadvancefundingorloanstofinanceexpansionofcommunityservices(e.g.,waterandsewersystems,schools)andfordevelopmentofhousingpriortotheinfluxofworkers;andMaintainongoingcommunicationwithstate,borough,andcommunityofficialsoncom-munityandareaplansandimpacts,onproposedandactualconstructionschedules,andonanyschedulechangesandsimilarmatters.2.7.8VisualResourcesIngeneral,manyofthemitigativemeasuresdescribedinSection2.1.12.8andSectionM.4(App.M)thatwouldbeimplementedtolessenimpactsonvisualresourcesfortheproposedprojectalsowouldbeapplicabletothealternativedamfacilitiesandpowergenerationscenarios.Thesemeasuresincludeconductingadditionalstudies;implementationofproperdevelopmentpracticesandcreativeengineeringdesign;andtheuseofform,line,color,andtexturetomakeprojectfacilitiesmorevisuallycompatiblewithsurroundingnaturalfeatures.Inparticular,gas-andcoal-firedgenerationplantsshouldbesitedawayfromhighways,residentialareas,andrecreationareas.Ifthepowerplantsarelocatednearvisuallysensitiveareas,wet-drycoolingtowersordrycoolingtowersshouldbeusedtolimittheamountofvaporplumesemanatingfromtheplants.Additionally,state-of-the-artemissioncontrolsshouldbeusedtolimittheamountofhazethatcoulddevelopdownwindfromthecoal-firedplants.2.7.9CulturalResourcesCulturalresourcemitigativemeasuresfortheSusitnadevelopmentalternativesareessentiallythesameasthoserecommendedfortheproposedproject.Investigationwouldberequiredforsignificantsitesexposedtodirectorindirectimpacts,whilepreservationbyavoidance(withmonitoring)wouldbenecessaryforpotentiallyimpactedsignificantsites.Forthenon-Susitnapowergenerationalternatives,surveyswouldberequiredintheaffectedareasinordertoinventoryandevaluateculturalresources.Forsignificantsitesthatwouldbedirectlyorindirectlyimpactedbytheconstructionofdamsandassociatedfacilitiesorreservoirareas,investigationisrecommended.Significantsitesinareasthatwouldbeimpactedbynon-hydropowergenerationfacilitieswouldprobablybemitigablebyavoidance. 2-49REFERENCESFORSECTION2ElectricPowerResearchInstitute.1982.TransmissionLineReferenceBook,345kVandAbove.2nded.AmericanNationalStandardsInstitute.1984.NationalElectricalSafetyCode.InstituteofElectricalElectronicsEngineers,Inc.NewYork. 3.AFFECTEDENVIRONMENT3.1PROPOSEDPROJECT3.1.1LandResources3.1.1.1GeologyandSoilsTheproposedSusitnaprojectislocatedinthemiddleSusitnaRiverBasinofSouthcentralAlaska(Fig.2-1).ThisareaisborderedonthenorthandwestbytheAlaskaRange,totheeastbytheCopperRiverLowlandsandtothesouthbytheTalkeetnaMountains.Atbothoftheproposeddamsitesthetopographyisdominatedbyscouredbedrockknobsandridges.AttheDevilCanyonsiteathinveneerofglacialdepositscoverstheCretaceousgraywackeandargilliterocksthatformthesteepvalleywalls.UplandfromthebroadV-shapedSusitnaRiverValleyattheWatanadamsite,upto80feet(ft)[24meters(m)]ofglacialtillcovertheunderlyingdioritebedrock.Theconstructioncampsandprojectvillageswouldbelocatedonlevelterrain--northoftheSusitnaRiveratWatanaandsouthoftheriveratDevilCanyon.AllproposedborrowpitswouldbelocatedonrelativelyflatterrainadjacenttotheSusitnaRiverorwithinbroadvalleysoftributariestotheSusitna.FollowingtheDenaliHighway,theproposedaccessroutewouldcrossthethickglacialandalluvialdepositsoftheNenanaRiverValleyfromCantwelltoBrushkanaCreek;fromthereitwouldextendsouthacrosstherelativelyflatterrainoftheBrushkanaandDeadmancreekstotheWatanadamsite,andthenceacrosstheslopinguplandsbetweentheDevilCanyonandWatanadamsites.AraillineconnectingtheDevilCanyoncampareatotheAlaskaRailroadatGoldCreekwouldcrossrelativelylevelterrainsouthoftheSusitnaRiver.TheproposedtransmissionlinecorridorwouldfollowtheaccesscorridorbetweenGoldCreekandtheWatanadamsite.FromGoldCreektoAnchorage,thetransmissionlinewouldcrossthickglacialandalluvialdepositsintheSusitnaRiverValleyalongtheedgeoftheTalkeetnaMountainfoothillstotheswampyCookInletlowlandsatPointMacKenzie.NorthofGoldCreekthelinewauldextendthroughtheAlaskaRangeviatheChulitnaandNenanarivervalleys,crossingtheextensiveandswampyoutwashdepositsnorthoftheAlaskaRangefoothillstothebroadTananaRiverValleyandextendnorthwesttoEsteracrossloess-coveredridgesandhills.Spodsolicsoils,orsoilscontainingathinorganiclayeroverlyingamineralhorizon,arepresentthroughoutthemiddleSusitnaRiverValleyinthevicinityoftheproposedreservoirsites,constructioncamps,andaccessroutes.ThetransmissionlinewouldcrossSpodsolicsoilsthroughoutitslengthnorthtoCantwell.NorthofCantwell,thetransmissionlinewouldcrossInceptisols,oryoung,horizonless,incompletelyformedsoils.PermafrostisabsentsouthofWillowandbecomesdiscontinuoustothenorth.Nomineralresourcesareknowntobepresentinthevicinitiesofthesitesofmostoftheproposedprojectfeatures.ThetransmissionlinewouldpassnearorthroughsubbituminousandlignitecoalfieldsintheHealyarea.SouthcentralAlaskaisidentifiedasaseismicallyactivearea.ThemajorpotentialsourcesofseismicgroundmotionfortheproposedprojectincludetheCastleMountainFaultsystem,theDenaliFaultsystem,andtheBenioffinterplateandintraplateregions.3.1.1.2LandUsesandOwnership3.1.1.2.1ExistingandFutureUsesExistinglandusesanddevelopmentwithintheupperandmiddleSusitnaRiverBasinarescatteredandoflowintensity(seeFig.3-1).Thereareessentiallynomajorareasofagriculture,timbering,orlarge-scalemining,nor:'ofsignificantresidential,commercial,orindustrialdevelopmentwithinthearea.Atpresent,theprimarylandusewithinthebasinisdispersedrecreation(seeSec.3.1.7).Todate,theareahasnotmetthecriteriarequiredforinclusioninanyofthefollowingprograms:NationalPark-PreserveSystem,NationalorHistoricLandmarkStatus,Wi1dernessPreservationSystem,Natiana1ForestSystem,orStateParkSystem.The3-1 ,.'I~N~k ~~~ ~r/''1' 4'1' CREE~ \~! W I N @ SCALE ?3 6 9 MILES LEGEND USE RECREATION RECREATION / RESIDENTIAL MINING MINING/ RESIDENTIAL INTENSITY LOW MEDIUM LO'N MEDIUM I/••••»! rs:ss:I r·::·:.:>,:,::'::1 ~~ Figure 3-1.Land Use Patterns within the Upper and Middle Susitna River Basin. [SDurce:Application Exhibit E,Vol.8,Chap.9,F~g.E.9.8] 3-3SusitnaRiverhasnotbeenstudiedforinclusionintheNationalandWildScenicRiverSystem(ExhibitE,Vol.8,Chap.7,p.E-7-16).*TheU.S.SoilConservationServicehasdeterminedthattherearenoprimeoruniquefarmlandsorrangelandslocatedwithinthemiddleSusitnaRiverBasin(ExhibitE,Vol.8,Chap.9,p.E-9-27).Mineralexploratiopandminingactivitieshavebeenlimited,andonlyscatteredclaimshavebeenoperatedintheareaonanintermittentbasis.FewhighwayormajorutilitycorridorsexistwithintheupperandmiddleSusitnaRiverBasin.Groundaccessintotheareaisextremelylimitedandessentiallyconsistsofanetworkofconnectingtrails.Themajormodeofaccessintothebasinisbyaircraft.Becauseofthislimitedaccess,littledevelopmenthastakenplace,andthatwhichhasoccurredgenerallyconsistsofsingleandsmallclustersofcabins.Nospecialuselands(suchasmilitaryreservations,firingranges,testing,ortrainingareas)havebeenidentifiedwithintheupperandmiddleSusitnaRiverarea.Theproposed330-mile(mi)[530-kilometer(km)]transmissionlinecorridorbetweenFairbanksandAnchoragewouldextendthroughportionsoftheTanana,Nenana,ChulitnaandSusitnarivervalleys.ThecorridorwouldparallelportionsoftheGeorgeParksHighwayandAlaskaRailroad.ThisregioniscommonlyreferredtoastheAlaskaRailbelt.Alongthisproposedcorridor,agriculturallandsarelocatednearFairbanks,alongtheParksHighwayandtheAlaskaRailroadbetweenthecommunitiesofDunbarandNenana,northofHealy,inthevicinityofTalkeetna,attheDeltaIslandagriculturaldisposaltractsouthwestofWillow,attheFishCreekManagementUnitsouthofRedShirtLake,andatthePointMacKenzieagri-culturalsalenorthwestofPointMacKenzie.**ApreliminaryanalysisbythestatehasindicatedthatforestedareasalongbothsidesoftheGeorgeParksHighwayhavehightomoderatevalueasforestrylands(AlaskaDep.ofNaturalResources,1982).CommercialuseofwoodresourceshasbeenlimitedtosmallloggingoperationsalongtheSusitnaRiverfloodplaininthelowerbasinoftheriver.Woodisusedby1oca1residentsasabui1dingmateria1andasaheatingfuel.Onlylimitedmineralexplorationandminingactivitieshaveoccurredwithintheareaofthe-proposedtransmissionlinecorridor.CoalminingareasinthevicinityoftheproposedcorridorarewestofFairbanks,eastofDunbar,inthevicinityofNenana,andanextensiveareaeastofHealy.CoalisalsolocatedintheBroadPassarea(CommonwealthAssociates,1982).Significantnaturalandrecreationareas(includingDenaliNationalParkandPreserve,DenaliStatePark,andtheNancyLakeStateRecreationArea)arelocatedbothtotheeastandwestofthecorridor.Theproposedroutedoesnotextendthroughanationa1park-preservesystem,nationalhistoriclandmarkarea,designatedwildernessarea,ornationalforestsystem.However,thecorridordoesparallelaportionoftheDenaliStateParkformorethan10mi(16km)andextendsthroughabout5mi(8km}oftheSusitnaFlatsStateGameRefugenearAnchorage.PortionsofthetransmissionlinecorridorwouldessentiallyparalleltheGeorgeParksHighwayandtheAlaskaRailroad.ThecorridorwouldbecrossedbytheDenaliHighway(Route8)nearthecommunityofCantwell.Numerouslandingstripsandfloatplanelandingsitesarelocatedalongtheproposedrouteofthetransmissioncorridor.AnexistingGoldenValleyElectricAssociationtransmissionlineextendsfromFairbankstoHealy,andright-of-wayisbeingclearedfortheAnchorage-FairbanksIntertiebetweenHealyandWillow.AnexistingChugachElectricAssociationtransmissionlineextendseastfromtheKnikArmnearAnchorage.BetweenFairbanksandAnchorage,theproposedSusitnatransmissionlinecorridorwouldextendpastanumberofsmallcommunitiesanddevelopedlands.TheU.S.AirForceClearM.E.W.S.MilitaryReserveislocatedinthevicinityofAnderson,andlandsmanagedbytheU.S.Army(FortRichardson)andU.S.AirForce(ElmendorfAirForceBase)arelocatedalongtheproposedtransmissionlinecorridorroutenearAnchorage.Thenumeroussmallsettle-mentareasandspecialuselandsarediscussedindetailinSectionF.l.2.2.1(App.F).Relativetofuturelandusedevelopmentandactivities,nosignificantchangeincurrenttypesorintensityoflanduseisanticipatedfortheupperandmiddleSusitnaRiverBasinunlesstheproposedprojectisdeveloped.Inthefuture,significantchangesinlanduseinthebasin/wouldoccur onlywiththedeve1opmentofaroadsystem.Alongtheproposedrouteofthepowertransmissionlinecorridor,theextentandintensityoflanduseactivitiesanddevelopmentwilllikelycontinuetoincreasealongtheGeorgeParksHighwayandAlaskaRailroadcorridors(evenwithoutprojectdevelopment)asgreaterdemandsareplacedonexistinglandresourcesforplannedrecreational,agricultural,utility,andmineralresourcedevelopmentwithintheRailbeltregion.*Throughoutthisdocument,referencestospecific"Exhibits"aretotheexhibitssubmittedtoFERCaspartofAlaskaPowerAuthority'sSusitnaHydroelectricProjectLicenseApplication.Referencestospecific"Appendices"(App.)aretotheappendicesprovidedinVolumes2through7ofthisDraftEnvironmentalImpactStatement.**LandownershipandclassificationterminologyisprovidedinAppendixF,TableF-2. 3-43.1.1.2.2ExistingandFutureOwnershipStatusandManagementEnactmentoftheAlaskaStatehoodActof1958,theAlaskaNativeClaimsSettlementActof1971,andtheAlaskaNationa1InterestLandsConservationActof1981hasplacedmuchofthe1andinA1aska,inc1uding1andswithintheupperandmiddleSusitnaRiverBasinareaandalongtheproposedFairbankstoAnchoragetransmissionlinecorridor,inastateoftransitionofowner-shipandmanagement.MostofthelandintheupperandmiddleSusitnaRiverBasinisnowownedbytheU.S.GovernmentandmanagedbytheBureauofLandManagement.However,muchoftheFederallandisintheprocessofbeingtransferredtothestateandtotheCookInletRegion,Inc.(CIRI),theNativeregionalcommissionforthearea(seeFig.3-2).NativeselectedlandsintheprojectareagenerallyoccuralongbothsidesoftheSusitnaRiverandaroundtheStephanLakearea.TherearetwostatelanddisposalareaswestoftheproposedprojectsitesandsomesmallprivateparcelsandNative-conveyedlandsinthebasinarea.ItisunlikelythattheMatanuska-Susitna(Mat-Su)Borough,withinwhichtheprojectareaislocated,wouldselectanylandsinthevicinityoftheproposeddamsites,reservoirs,oraccessroadareas.MostofthelandalongtheproposedrouteofthetransmissionlinecorridoriscurrentlyownedbythestateandmanagedbytheAlaskaDepartmentofNaturalResources.TheU.S.Governmentownsonlyscatteredparcelsoflandwithinthecorridor.NativeselectedlandsarelocatednearDunbarandinthevicinityofAnderson,andarebeingappliedforintheTalkeetnaarea.TheonlyFairbanks-NorthStarBoroughapprovedorpatentedlands alongthetransmissionlinecorridorareaarewestofFairbanks.TheMat-SuBoroughisconcentratingitsselectionoflandsinthelowerSusitnaBasinnearexistinghighwaysandwestoftheSusitnaRiver.Privatelandownershipisscatteredalongtheentireproposedrouteofthetransmissionlinecorridor.3.1.1.2.3ExistingandFutureLandValuesCompleteandaccuratedataonvaluesoflandintheWatana,DevilCanyon,andtransmissionlinecorridorareasarenotavailable.Thisisdueprimarilytotheon-goingchangesinlandowner-shipandtothecurrentlackofdevelopmentanduseoflandintheSusitnaRiverValleyareathatwould indicateorassignavalueforaspecificpieceofproperty.Marketvaluesareavailableonlyforstate,borough,Native,orprivatelandsthathavebeen,orareabouttobe,sold.Specificlandvaluesforrequiredprojectlandswouldnotbeestablisheduntiltheactualprojectlandacquisitionprocesswasstarted.Althoughitisdifficulttoaccuratelypredictfuture1andvalues,itisanticipatedthattheseva1ueswi11increaseovertime.ThisisespeciallytruefortheRailbeltRegionofAlaskabecauseofexistingandplannedhumandevelop-mentandactivities,presenceofroadandutilitycorridors,andpotentialforresourcedevelopment.3.1.2Climate,AirQuality,Noise3.1.2.1ClimateTheclimateofAlaskaisdividedintofourmajorclimaticzonesonthebasisoftemperatureandprecipitation:Arctic,Continental,Transition,andMaritime.TheproposedSusitnaprojectfeatureswouldbelocatedmainlywithintheContinentalZone,althoughthelowerportionofthetransmissionlinecorridorwouldextendintothesouthernTransitionzonenearAnchorage.TheContinentalclimateinAlaskaischaracterizedbyextremedailyandseasonaltemperaturevaria-tionsandlowprecipitation.EightmeteorologicalstationswereinstalledwithintheupperandmiddleSusitnaRiverBasinaspartofthestudiesconductedfortheproposedproject.MostrepresentativeofthestudyareaaretheWatanameasurementsreportedfromApril8,1980,throughSeptember30,1981.AtWatana,windswererarelymorethan22milesperhour(mph)[10meterspersecond(m/s)],withdirectionstypicallyfromthesouthwestornortheastovertheyear.Datafromotherstationsrevealthesamerangeinwindspeedbutwiththepredominantwinddirectionalteredbythetopographicalfeatures.Therangeoftemperatureswastypically-58°Fto95°F(-50°Cto35°C)atallstations.3.1.2.2AirQualityandNoiseNodataonexistingairqualityintheprojectareahavebeenpresentedbytheApplicant.Somegeneralcommentscanbemade,however,onthebasisofdatafromnearbyregions.Theexistingairqualityshouldbeexcellentsincetherearenourbanorindustrialcomplexeswithinabout100mi(160km).Infact,theairqualityinmostofAlaskaisgenerallyverygoodbecausetherearefewlargeindustrialcomplexesorpopulationcenterswithinthestate.Thelargeindustrialandurbanpollutionsourcesthatdoexist,e.g.,thelargenumberofindustrial,residential,andautomobilesourcesinAnchorageandFairbanks,areisolatedbydistanceandprecipitousmountainrangesintoseparateairbasins.Thus,itisexpectedthatallpollutantsareatextremelylowconcentrationsintheprojectsitevicinity.Totalsuspendedparticulate o36 9MILESSCALE~I~~§iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii~~~1RI2WRIIWR2.WRIOWR9WRawR7WR6WR5W,!III--+_._-II1--LJR9ELEGEND----~~ItfII@::}1•-V./{}]~~ISSSJ~c::J@]STUDYAREABOUNDARYPUBLICPARKSPRIVATEFEDERALRAILROADNATIVESELECTIONSTATESELECTIONSUSPENDEDSTATESELECTIONSTATESELECTIONPATENTEDORTENTATIVELYAPPROVEDBUREAUOFLANDMANAGEMENTSECTIONSCONVEYEDTOCOOKINLETREGION,INC.Figure3-2.LandOwnershipandManagementPatternsintheUpperandMiddleSusitnaRiverBasin.[Source:ApplicationExhibitE,Vol.8,Chap.9,Fig.E.9.3J 3-5(TSP)measurementsthroughouttheStateofAlaskahavebeenfoundtoexceedthe24-hourparticulatematterstandardduetofugitiveemissionsonlynearhumanactivities.Noambientnoisemeasurementsweremadeattheproposedprojectsite,whichissituatedinanisolatedruralarea.Veryfewambientnoisemeasurementshavebeenmadeinruralareas,butofthosemade,typicalA-weightedsoundlevelsrangefrom27-45dBA.Nighttimevaluesaremostrepresentativeofthetruenoiseresidualandgenerallymeasureapproximately30dBA.3.1.3WaterQualityandQuantity3.1.3.1SurfaceWaterResourcesTheSusitnaRiverBasinisthesixthlargestriverbasinintheStateofAlaska,coveringanareaof19,400squaremiles(mi2)[50,250squarekilometers(km2)],whichisaboutequivalenttothesizeofVermontandNewHampshire.ThemainstemoftheSusitnaRiverflows320mi(515km)fromitsheadwatersintheAlaskaRangetoCookInlet(Fig.3-3).Threedifferentphysiographicregionscanbeidentifiedwithinthebasin.TheupperbasinextendsfromtheoutwashplainsofnumerousglaciersintheAlaskaandTalkeetnamountainsdowntotheconfluencewiththeTyoneRiver.Inthissub-basintherivermeandersthroughabroadvalleydrainingmanyswampylowlands.Inthemiddlebasin,theriverturnswestandflowsthroughanarrow,steep-walledcanyon.Theproposedhydroelectricdams[WatanadamatRiverMile(RM)184,Devil.CanyondamatRM152]arelocatedinthismiddlesectionoftheriverbasin.Rivergradientsinthecanyonsectionarehigh,averaging10to30ft/mi(5to15m/km).Thechannelpatternhereisrelativelystraightandentrenched,withoccasionalmidchannelislands.TherapidsinthevicinityofDevilCanyonareratedamongthemostviolentinNorthAmerica(U.S.Dept.oftheInterior,1980).BelowtheDevilCanyondamsite,theSusitnaValleygraduallywidensandtheriverchangesfromasinglechannelconfigurationtoasplitchannelwithintermittent,well-vegetatedislands,sidebars,andbackwatersloughs.BottomsubstrateinthemainchannelbelowDevilCanyonconsistsprimarilyofgravel,withawell-developedcobblearmor.Thesloughsinthelj1iddlebasinareoverflowchannelsbehindsidebarsorislandsthatconveyclearwaterfromsmalltributariesand/orupwellinggroundwateratintermediateandlowmain-channelflows.Bottomsubstratesinthesloughsgradefromsandandgravelattheir"mouthstocobbleandboulderattheirupstreamends.Thesesloughsareconsideredimportanthabitatforsalmonspawning(see'Sec.3.1.4).Fartherdownstream,attheconfluenceoftheChulitna,Talkeetna,andSusitnarivers(RM104to95)nearthetownofTalkeetna,anotherdramaticchangeoccursintheriver.Belowthisthree-riverconfluence,thevalleybroadensagain,gradientsbecomemuchless,andtherivertakesonabraidedpatternwithmultiplechannels,islands,andawell-developedfloodplain.AlthoughtheSusitnaandChulitnariverscontributeapproximatelythesameproportionofflowtothelowerbasin(respectively,43%and39%ofthemeanannualflowatSusitnaStation),sedimentyieldfromtheChulitnaRiverhasbeenestimatedtobe15timesgreaterthanfromtheSusitnaRiver(BredthauerandDrage,1982).Thisdifferencecanbeattributedtotheproximityofthethree-riverconfluencetotheglaciersintheChulitnadrainageandtotherelativelyhighsediment-trapefficiencyoftheupperSusitnaBasin.SixdistincttypesofaquatichabitatcanbeidentifiedthatareimportanttosalmonintheSusitnaRiver(Fig.3-4).Physicalconditionsinthesehabitattypesareoftenrelatedtomainstemflow.Forexample,sidesloughsundergothreehydraulicregimesasmain-channelflowchanges.Thefirstregimeoccurswhileflowsarehighenoughtoovertopbermsatthesloughs'upperends;herethesloughsactassidechannelsdirectlylinkedtothemainstem.Whenmain-stemflowdropsbelowthepointwheretheupstreambermsareovertopped,waterlevelsinthesidesloughsaredeterminedbythebackwatereffectofthemainstematthesloughs'downstreamends.Atverylowflowsinthemainstem,waterlevelsinthemainstemfalltothepointwerenowaterbacksupintothemouthsofthesidesloughs.Duringthislow-flowcondition,thesloughsareentirelydependentongroundwaterupwellingandsurfacerunoff.TheSusitnaRiveristypicalofnorthern,glaciallyfedriverswithhighflowsinlatespringandsummerandlowflowsinthewinter.MaximumdischargegenerallyoccursduringJune,July,andAugust(Fig.3-5).Earlyfloods(MayandJune)aremoresevereandaregeneratedprimarilybysnowmeltandicebreakup.Laterfloods(AugustandSeptember)causedbyrainfallareusuallylesssevere.Lowflowsoccurthroughoutthewinterandearlyspring(November-April)whileicecoverpersists.Thevariationbetweenmeanmonthlysummerandwinterflowsexceeds10:1.Theupperbasincontributesbyfarthegreatestproportionofstreamf10wstothelowerreachesoftheSusitnaRiver;annualwateryieldfromtheUpperBasinis3.1cubicfeetpersecondpersquaremile(cfs/mi2)[0.23cubicmeterspersecondpersquarekilometer(m3/s-km2)],whiletheyieldfromthemiddlebasinisonly1.2cfs/mi2(0.09m3/s-km2).Themeanannualstreamf10wsattheWatanaandDevilCanyondamsiteshavebeenestimatedat7,986cfsand9,084cfs(257and266m3/s),respectively(ExhibitE,Vol.5A,Chap.2,TableE.2.4).Thelongesthistoricalflowrecordswithinthebasin(1949tothepresent)comefromtheU.S.GeologicalSurvey(USGS)gagingstationatGoldCreek(RM137).Thisstationwillbeusedasapointofreferenceforevaluatingtheeffects·offlowregulationinSection4.AtGold 3-61460W18MilesIndicatesDrainageBasinBoundary1470W1490WLowerSusitnaDrainage,,\\\,IIIIIIII"......c............"...-,\\\\,,I\II,III/Basin_------1--__........~~~-------------......1500WzoN<0zFigure3-3.MapoftheSusitnaRiverDrainageBasinShowingtheLocationsofU.S.GeologicalSurveyGagingStations. ,~"".,,_.,e eM ~"E'TCP-'~1'w""·'m·HF""'===::::"'='·CU"'=:~;::':·'k.,;;=~....===';;:V'~~··~=-'"":~";lo'm-rrn 'M ",,""Pm "'·UF~·r-"··M"~-·!"'!W··...!·""'·-·-='''···m-""=~~''';=:?::=1::::l=~l::::=!:'-!F'·""·'C~""'·w -..ET-ll ~nwm·<==l:<;""7.,==>«=:'>=<l-~=::4 1.MAINSTEM HABITAT 2.SIDE CHANNEL HABITAT 3.SIDE SLOUGH HABITAT 4.UPLAND SLOUGH HABITAT 5:TRIBUTARY HABITAT 6.TRIBUTARY MOUTH HABITAT Figure 3-4.Generalized Aquatic Habitat Types Important to Salmon in the Susitna River.[Source:Alaska Dept.of Fish and Game,1983J W I -...J 3-84140SOMI1961THRU1972JF M A MJ JASONDSUSITNARNRCANTWELL~TATIONNO.15291500RM223JFM A MJ JASONDSUSITNARATSUSITNASTATION19,400SOMISTATIONNO.152943501975THRU1979RM26,I,,, ,II I1--4..'11M111J'IA'U.II,,}:;TAl"AAJ"."",-~1\r"\1\IUVJal\.•JI",JII.,~fIV.1\-"\~\\I\.\.\.j'-~r--10$:o--lLL~40f----------------------juLLoen~30f-----------jj~-------------j<l:en::JoII-20f--------l~....___-__v____1r___---------jz2200180~160uLL1400en0120z<l:en100::J0I80I-Z$:600--l40LL2002018~16uLL014en012z<l:en10::J0I8I-Z$:60--l4LL20JFM A MJ JA S0N DSUSITNARNRDENALI950SOMISTATIONNO.152910001957THRU1979RM291503'"40.....uLL0en030z<l:en::J0I20I-Z$:0--l10LL0JFMAMJJA S0N.DSUSITNARATGOLDCREEK6160SOMISTATIONNO.152920001949THRU1979RM137Figure3-5.AnnualHydrographsforMeanDailyFlowsandEstimated10%and90%DailyExceedenceFlowsatFourUSGSGagingStationsontheSusitnaRiver.[Source:ModifiedfromChapman,1982] 3-9Creek,88%ofthemeanannualstreamflowoccursbetweenMayandSeptember.ThemlnlmumandmaximummonthlyflowsobservedatGoldCreekbothoccurredin1964(ExhibitE,Vol.5A,Chap.2,TableE.2.8):713cfs(20m3/s)inMarchand50,580cfs(1,432m3/s)threemonthslaterinJune.Thedominantorbankfulldischarge(annualfloodwitharecurrenceintervalof1.5years)isapproximately40,000cfs(1,133m3/s)(ExhibitE,Vol.5A,Chap.2,TableE.2.29).ThemaximuminstantaneouspeakflowatGoldCreekwas90,700cfs(2,570m3/s)onJune7,1964(ExhibitE,Vol.5A,Chap.2,TableE.2.11).ExistingusesofwaterresourceswithintheSusitnaRiverBasinincludedomesticandmunicipalwatersupply,placermining,navigation,fisheries,wasteassimilation,recreation,riparianhabitat,andfreshwaterrecruitmenttotheCookInletEstuary.Becauseoftheundevelopednatureofthebasin,existingdownstreamwaterrightsthatmightbeaffectedbytheproposedprojectarerelativelyinsignificant(Dwight,1981).Themostsignificantwaterusesthatmightconflictwithdamoperationareinstreamusesformai/ltaining.Ciquaticandriparianhabitatandfornavigationorotherformsoftransportation.Sloughs,tributaries,side-channels,andthemainstemoftheSusitnaRiverprovideimportanthabitatsforsalmonspawning,eggincubation,rearingofsub-adults(seeSec.4formoredetails).Commercialnavigation(i.e.,bargeandtowtraffic)doesnotoccurontheSusitnaRiver(Trihey,1982).RecentstudiesoftherecreationalaccesstotheSusitnaRiverhaveindicatedthatrecreationaltrafficontheriverisincreasingatahigh,annualrate(Dwight,1981).MajorboatlandingsarelocatedatTalkeetna(RM97),SunshineBridgeattheParksHighway(RM84),KashwitnaLanding(RM61),andWillowCreek(RM49).Whenfrozen,theriveralsoprovidesanimportantaccesscorridorforgroundtransportation(e.g.,snowmobilesanddogsleds).IceisformedfirstintheupperreachesoftheSusitnaRiverasaresultofsubfreezingairtemperatureandnear32°F(O°C)watertemperatures.ThisinitialphaseoficeformationoccursinlateOctoberorearlyNovember.Noiceisformedinthelowerreachesoftheriversinceairtemperaturesarestillabovefreezingatthistime.Thisfrazilice,formedupstream,flowsdownstream,creatingicejamsatnaturallodgementpointssuchasareaswithboulders,logs,orsmallislands.Asdownstreamairandwatertemperaturesdiminish,icebeginstoformalongtheriverbanksuntilicecoverclosureoccurs.Withtheicesuppliedbyupstreamreaches,icecoverthickensandprogressesupstreamtoDevilCanyon(RM152).Thisprogressionoccurs overathree-tofive-weekperiod.Duringicefrontprogression,upstreamwaterlevelsmayincreaseby2to4ft(0.6to1.2m).TributariescontributeonlyasmallfractionofthetotaliceintheSusitnaRiver;70%to80%oftheiceinthelowerSusitnaRiveroriginatesintheSusitnaratherthanintributaries.Bythetimeoficebreakup,icethicknessontheSusitnaRiveraverages4ft(1.2m).Thicknessesinexcessof10ft(3m)havebeenobservednearVeeCanyon.Asairtemperaturesriseduringthespring,theicecoverweakens.Theincreasedrunoffduetomeltingofthesnowpackandrainfallcausesanincreasedriver-discharge.Thisgreaterriverflowprovidesthenecessaryforcetoinitiateicemovementandbreakup.FirsticemovementbeginsaboutthefirstofMay,withthemainstembeinggenerallyicefreewithinaweekfollow-ingicemovement.Iceonriverbanksandbackwaterareaswilldecayinplaceandremainforabouttwoweeksafterthemainstembecomesicefree.Theprecisetiminganddurationofthebreakupprocessvariesslightlyfromyeartoyearasafunctionofspringclimaticconditionsandtheextentofuplandsnowcover.Breakupisaviolentprocesscharacterizedbyfloodingandextensiveerosionoftheriverbanks.3.1.3.2SurfaceWaterQualityExceptwhereindicated,thebaselinedescriptionofsurfacewaterqualityintheSusitnaRiverpresentedbelowisbasedondataprovidedinExhibitE(Vol.5A,Chap.2,Secs.2.3and2.6)andonreportsbytheAlaskaDepartmentofFishandGame(1983).WaterqualityforthesmallertributariesoftheSusitnaRiver,includingthosealongtheproposedaccessroutesandtransmis-sioncorridors,wouldnotbeexpectedtodiffersubstantiallyfromthatofthemainstemSusitnaRiverintermsofmostwaterqualityparameters.Themajordifferenceinwaterqualityislikelytobesuspendedsolids,withtributarystreamsdrainingwatershedswithoutglacialsedimentsourceshavingalowerconcentrationduringpeakflow(spring-summer)periodsthanthemainstemSusitna.ThefollowingdescriptionofwaterqualitythusfocusesonthemainstemSusitnaRiver,emphasizingthosewaterqualityparametersthatcouldbeaffectedbyconstructionandoperationoftheSusitnaproject.ThebaselinesalinityofwaterinCookInletisalsodescribedbecauseoftheinfluenceoffreshwaterinputsfromtheSusitnaRiveronsalinityintheupperCookIn1et.Concentrationsofsuspended(particulate)anddissolvedconstituentsintheSusitnaRiverarewithintherangecharacteristicofnaturalwaters,includingotherglaciallyfedsubarcticriversinSouthcentralAlaska(U.S.GeologicalSurvey,1979).AlthoughtheconcentrationofsomeconstituentsintheSusitnaRiver,includingaluminum,cadmium,copper,manganese,mercury,zinc,andtotaldissolvedgases,occasionallyexceedwaterqualitystatutes(ExhibitE,Vol.5A,Chap.2,TableE.2.17)orguidelinesfortheprotectionofaquaticorganisms,theseconcentra-tionsaremostlikelytheresulteitherofnaturalprocessesor ofsamplecontaminationcausedbyincompleteseparationofthesolubleandparticulatematerialsinwaterpriortoanalysis. 3-10WaterqualityoftheSusitnaRiveristypicalofnorthern,glaciallyfedrivers,undergoingseasonalvariationsasaresultofglacialmelt,snowmelt,andrainfall,allofwhichtendtodilutesolublenutrientsderivedfrombedrockandsoilweathering,whileincreasingtheconcen-trationofnutrientsinparticulatephases,particularlythosederivedfr~~glacialscouring.SusitnaRiverwaterisofthecalciumbicarbonatetype,withcalcium(Ca)beingthemajorcationandbicarbonate(HCOg)themajoranioninsolution.Theconcentrationofthesetwoionsrangeannuallyfromapproximately10to50partspermillion(ppm)(mg/L)and17to160ppm(mg/L),respectively(ExhibitE,Vol.5A,Chap.2).ConcentrationsofbothionstendtodecreasedownstreamduetodilutionfrominflowingtributariesthatdrainwatershedswithageologydifferentfromthatintheupperSusitnadrainage(Fig.3-6).ConcentrationsoftheothermajornutrientionsintheSusitnaRiveressentialforalgalproduc-tionaretypicalofstreamsdrainingsimilargeologicterraininSouthcentra1Alaska.Nitratenitrogen(NOg-N)occursinmoderateconcentrations,averaginglessthan300partsperbillion(ppb)(~g/L)atallgagingstationsontheriver(ExhibitE,Vol.5A,Chap.2).Levelsofammonianitrogen(NH4-N)appeartobelessthanthoseforNOg-N,averaginglessthan100ppb(~g/L)atGoldCreek(ExhibitE,Vol.5A,Chap.2).Dissolvedorganicnitrogenlevelsarecomparabletothosefornitrate,rangingfrom150to340ppb(~g/L)atGoldCreek.Concentrationsofsolublereactivephosphorus,reportedasorthophosphorus(ExhibitE,Vol.5A,Chap.2),arelowatallgagingstationsontheSusitnaRiver,averaginglessthan50ppb(AlaskaDept.ofFishandGame,1983).Levelsoftotalphosphorus,whichincludessolubleplusparticu-lateP,aregenerallylessthan100ppbatallgagingstations,exceptduringthehigh-flowpericdinsummer,whenparticulatephosphorusconcentrationsareattheirannualmaximum.Silica(reportedasSi02)concentrationsintheSusitnaRiverare withintherangereportedformostsurfacewaters,rangingfrom6to13ppmatGoldCreek(ExhibitE,Vol.5A,Chap.2).DissolvedoxygenconcentrationsgenerallyremainhighatangagingstationsontheSusitnaRiver.Wintervaluesaverage11.6to13.0ppm(mg/L),whilesummerconcentrationsaveragebetween11.5and12.0ppm(Fig.3-7).Duringthesummer,oxygenlevelsareatornearsatura-tionatallgagingstations.Althoughsaturationlevelsofdissolvedoxygendeclineduringthelow-flowperiodinwinter,averagesaturationlevelsdonotfallbelow80%atanyofthegagingstations.Thus,theseverewinterdissolvedoxygendepressionsobservedinsomearcticandsubarcticstreamsandriversinAlaska(SchallockandLotspeich,1974)havenotbeenobservedintheSusitnaRiver.Totaldissolvedgas(nitrogen)concentrationshavebeenmonitoredintheDevilCanyon,whereextremelyturbulentflowfromstandingwavesresultsinairentrainment,causingnitrogensuper-saturation.AboveDevilCanyon,totaldisso1vedgasisapproximately100%ofsaturation.LevelsofdissolvedgasimmediatelyupstreamanddownstreamoftheproposedDevilCanyondamsiterangefrom105%to117%,withthelevelofsaturationgenerallyincreasingwithincreasingdischarge(Fig.3-8).Alaskawaterqualitystatutes(AlaskaDept.ofcEnvironmenta1Conservation,1979)allowamaximumtotaldissolvedgasconcentrationofnogreaterthan110%ofsaturation.ThisstatuteisthusexceedednaturallyinDevilCanyonduringhighflows.DissolvedandsuspendedsolidsintheSusitnaRiverexhibitacontrastingseasonalpatterninconcentration,withtotaldissolvedsolids(TDS)atamaximumduringthelow-flowperiodinwinterwhentheconcentrationofsuspendedsolidsandturbidityareatanannualminimum(Fig.3-9).MostofthesuspendedsolidsinSusitnaRiverwaterconsistofglacialflourproducedbyglacia1scouring.Concentrationsofbothdisso1vedandsuspendedso1idstendtodecreasedownstreamduetobothdilutionfrominf10wing,clearwatertributariesandsettlingofsuspendedso1ids·fromthewater.Suspendedsolidsincreasewithspringbreakupfromawintervalueof10ppm(mg/L)toasummermaximumvalueinexcessof1,000ppm(ExhibitE,Vol.5A,Chap.2).Concentrationsofsuspendedsolidsinexcessof5,000ppmhavebeenmeasuredatDenaliduringperiodsofpeakflow.Particlesizeanalysisofsuspendedsolidsindicatesthatthemediansizeofsuspendedsolidsisgenerallylessthan0.002inch(in)[50micrometers(~m)](ExhibitE,Vol.5A,Chap.2).TheSusitnaRiveristypicallyclearduringwintermonths,withturbidityvalues·atornearzero[asmeasuredinNephelometricTurbidityUnits(NTU)].Whensnowmeltandbreakupcommencesinthespring,turbidityincreases,reachingamaximuminthesummerwheninputsofsuspendedsolidsfromglacialscouringareattheirannualmaximum.Aswouldbeexpected,turbidityexhibitsalongitudinaltrendidenticaltothatofsuspendedsolids,decreasingdownstreamduebothtosettlingofsuspendedsolidsfromthewatercolumnandtodilutionoftheSusitnaRiverwaterfrominflowofclear-watertributaries.TheSusitnaRiverisamajorcontributoroffreshwatertoCookInlet,withthemeasuredflowatGoldCreekaccountingforapproximately19%ofthemeasuredflowatSusitnaStationnearCookInlet(ExhibitE,Vol.5A,Chap.2).Assuch,theSusitnaRiverhasamajorinfluenceonthesa1inityintheupperCookInlet.AtNode27neartheSusitnaRivermouth,salinityrangesannuallyfromapproximately6partsperthousand(ppt)(giL)to21ppt.Asoneproceedsdown 3-n100(0)~EQ.75Q.~r<>0ucU<J)50c~>-I-Z....J25<J:~....J<J:Ol-...J--I..---I...---.J40r-----r-------,-------,----,(b),;1111liP'EQ.30Q.~=>U....J<320ow>....Jo(f)(f)10ooVEECANYONAGOLDCREEKoTALKEETNAOL---I..---I...---L..-----lSUMMERWINTERBREAKUPFigure3-6.SeasonalPatternsinthe+~a)MeanAlkalinity(expressedasCaCOs)and(b)MeanCalcium(Ca)ConcentrationsinSolutionintheSusitnaRiveratVeeCanyon,GoldCreek,andTalkeetna.[Source:R&MConsultants,1981,1982] 20 ~ E 0.150.-- Z W <..9r ~10 0w :J 0 (J) 5(J)-0 o SUMMER --- ___b- ---::R::---------- o VEE CANYON 6.GOLD CREEK o TALKEETNA WINTER -_.lA'I -""f.l BREAKUP w,..... '" Figure 3-7.Seasonal Patterns in the Mean Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations in the Susitna River at Vee Canyon, Gold Creek,and Talkeetna.[Source:R&M Consultants,1981,1982J ~ • w,.....w 30 • 20 25 DISCHARGE (1000 cfs) 15 (%SAT)=105.8 +0 251 (DISCHARGE).1rlrlrl ~ ..--.......~. •••~A1\1___!l_.__.-e!._••~--e------_DEC STATUTE1I5.~~,<-------------------------.......• •••••••••••••• .-115 c 0.--0 '- :J-0 (f) ~......... Cf)« (9 o 110 w>~a Cf) Cf) 0 ~«f-a f- 105 10 Figure 3-8.Relationship in the Susitna River at Devil Canyon Between Total Dissolved Gas (nitrogen),Expressed as Percent Saturation,and Discharge.(Also shown is the Alaska water quality statute for dissolved gas,demonstrating that under some natural flow conditions,the statute is exceeded in Devil Canyon. [Source:Application Exhibit E,Vol.SA,Chap.2J 3-14~150E",",Q.",Q.(0)",,,,,-",",'"(J)"""0/0..........""-"-l100/'.........."a"•.........."(J)/"......"0•"w/.....·~tl~0........a50(J)(J)0-l<I:I-a0I-1000~(b)0VEECANYONEIJ.GOLDCREEKQ.Q.°TALKEETNA-(J)7500-la(J)p0,w500",0,,z°,w,CL"-,,(f)..,::J""-,,(f)•,250",-l,•,~,,,~,-.(J,,--,.-',0SUMMERWINTERBREAKUPFigure3-9.SeasonalPatternsintheMeanConcentrationsofCa)DissolvedSolidsand(b)SuspendedSolidsintheSusitnaRiveratVeeCanyon,GoldCreek,andTalkeetna.[Source:R&MConsultants,1981,1982] 3-15CookInlettowardtheGulfofAlaska,thesalinityincreases,approachingthatofseawater,andtheannualvariationinsalinitydecreases,duetothedeclininginfluenceoffreshwaterinputstoCookInlet.Duringthewinter,SusitnaRivermainstemwatertemperaturesareapproximately32°F(DOC).Locallyareasofwarmerwater,about36°F(2°C)mayoccurinregionsofgroundwaterdischarge.Duringthesummer,upstreamwatertemperatures(aboveDenali)willremainnear32°F(DOC)asaresultofglacialmelt.Mainstemwatertemperatureswillprogressivelywarmwithbothtimeanddownstreamdistanceasaresultofsolarheating.Forexample,duringJuly1980,adownstreamgradientofapproximatelyD.16°Fpermile(D.D6°Cperkm)wasobservedbetweenDenali(RM291)andVeeCanyon(RM244).Duringthesametime,thedownstreamtemperaturegradientbetweenVeeCanyon'andSusitna(RM26)wasobservedtobeapproximatelyD.D15°Fpermile(D.DD5°Cperkm).Maximumrecorded watertemperaturesattheWatanadamsite(RM184),GoldCreek(RM137),andtheSusitnaStation(RM26)are57.2°F(14°C),59°F(15°C),and61.7°F(16.5°C),respectively.InAugust,SusitnaRiverwaterbeginstocool,reachingaminimumofabout32°F(DOC)betweenlateSeptemberandOctober.Duringthesummermonths,themainstemoftheSusitnaRivershowslittlediurnaltemperaturevariations(lessthan4°F,or2°C)verticaltemperaturegradients.Thisisaresultofthelargevolumefluxandhighflowvelocities.Sloughwatertemperaturesmayvarysignificantlyfromthemainstemwatertemperaturesandexhibitdiurnaltemperaturevariationsof18°F(lDOC)ormore.Duringthehigh-flowregimeofthespringandsummer,wh~nthesloughsareovertopped,sloughwatertemperaturesareclosetothelocalmainstemtemperature.However,duringothertimesoftheyear,sloughwatertemperaturesmaybeinfluencedbysolarheatingduringtheday,backradiationatnight,andgroundwaterdischarge.Therearetwocomponentsassociatedwithgroundwaterdischargetothesloughs:(1)mainstemwatermovingthroughthecoarsegravelbetweenthemainsternandsloughsdrivenbystagedifferences,and(2)dischargesfromalluvialaquiferswithrechargesourcesintheuplandareasofthewatershed.Inordertodistinguishbetweenthesetwosubsurfacesources,theformerwillbereferredtoasmainsteminfiltrationandthelatterasgroundwaterdischarge.Measurementsofsubsurfacewatertemperaturesbetweenthemainstemandsloughsrevealastrongcarre1ationwithadjacentrna;nstemtemperatures.Measured51Qughintergrave1temperatures(AlaskaDept.ofFishandGame,1983)indicatenearisothermalconditionsinsomeareas,rangingonlyfromabout35.6°Fto37.4°F(2°Cto3°C),whileinotherareasintergraveltemperaturesparalledlocalsurfacewatertemperatures.Thesedatasuggestthattherelativeimportanceofmainsteminfiltrationandgroundwaterdischargevariesfromsloughtoslough,aswellasvaryingwithlocationwithinagivenslough.Thesefactorsinfluencingsloughwatertemperaturesresultinathermalstructureconsiderablydifferentthanthemainstem.Unlikethemainstem,sloughsdemonstratesignificanttemporalandvertica1structure.Short-termsurfacetemperaturefl uctuationsinslough21ascomparedwithmainstemtemperaturestakenatPortageCreekareprovidedinFigure3-10.Thisfigureclearlyshowsthestrongdiurnalcharacterofsloughwatertemperature.Measurementsofverticalthermalstructuresinsloughshaveshowndifferencesbetweensurfaceandintergraveltemperaturesofabout9°F(5°C).Duringthesummermonths,tributariesgenerallyexhibitsomewhatlowerwatertemperaturesthantheSusitnaRiver,producinglocallylowerwatertemperaturesintheSusitnaneartheareaswherethesetr;butariesenter.Ouringthewinter,tributarywatertemperaturesareabout32°F(DOC)andwarmduringsummerinthesamemannerasintheSusitna.3.1.3.3GroundwaterGeohydrologicstudiesoftheSusitnaRiverBasinhavefocusedoninvestigationoftheconditionsattheproposedWatanaandDevilCanyondamsites.Theunderstandingofthegroundwaterregimewithintheprojectedareasofthereservoirsanddownstreamoftheproposeddamsislargelybasedonphotointerpretationandregionalgeology.Groundwateriscommonlyfoundinunconfinedaquifersassociatedwithalluviumorotheruncon-solidatedsediments.Thecharacteristicsoftheseaquifershavebeenquantifiedatthedamsitesandsloughs8Aand9.Thewatertableintheunconfinedaquifershasbeeninterpretedtobeasubduedrep1icaofthesurfacetopography.No5ignificantbedrockaquifershavebeenidentified.However,drillinginvestigationsatthedamsiteshavelocatedjointandfracturesystemswithinthebedrockwhichconveywater.Artesianconditionshavebeenidentifiedinholesdrilledinbedrock·attheWatanadamsite.PerchedaquifersarecommonlyfoundintheupperSusitnaBasinoverlyingpermafrostformations.PermafrostisabundantintheupperSusitna8asin,withathicknessofupto300ft(100m),andcommonlyoccursasdiscontinuousformationsonthesouthernsideoftheriverchannel.Thepermafrost,whichhasatemperatureofapproximately30°F(-1°C),tendstoreducethepermeabilityofthesoilandtheapparentavailabilityofgroundwater.",I" SLOUGH21(RM142)3-16SUSITNARIVERATPORTAGECREEK(RM149)-,-,T I,,-~-/'[7'--·. .· ..II, ,,, ,,I------I ,,,I ,I10~80:::0w6I-4400100016002200TIMEAUG31-SEP61008~0:::0w6I-4400100016002200TIMEAUG31-SEP68uo~6::0~4I~/~-L.../.......r-_·,· .,.I8uo'0:6::0wI-4I III~-I--,,.I',.400100016002200TIMESEP7-13400100016002200TIMESEP7-138u~0:6::0wI-4I,,I,,r--.....-./~/"~-, ,.,8~;;:6::0wI-4I, ,I,,I--~-.. .,,•400100016002200'TIMESEP14-20400100016002200TIMESEP14-20.I--,I, I,-I-/""--I--• • • • •,,II,II-,I--I---I,I I, I8U6~a:::0w4I-2400100016002200TIMESEP21-278240010001600TIMESEP21-272200Figure3-10.ComparisonofAveragedDiurnalTemperatureFluctuationsintheMainstemandSlough21DuringSeptember1981.[Source:ApplicationExhibitE,Vol.58,Chap.2,Fig.E.2.73J 3-17Thegroundwaterregimeisrechargedbysnowmelt,glacialrunoff,andprecipitation.Dischargesofgroundwatertosurfacewatertypicallyoccurinthevalleybottomsandalluvialfans.Springsorartesianflowshavenotbeenidentifiedbutmayexist.RelictchannelsoftheSusitnaRiveroritsancestorsexistinseverallocationsintheupperbasin.TworelictchannelshavebeenidentifiedintheareaneartheWatanadamsite,andonehasbeenidentifiedneartheDevilCanyondamsite.Theserelictchannelscouldbeaffectedbyprojectcompletionandarethesubjectofongoinginvestigation.DownstreamoftheDevilCanyonsite,groundwaterdischargestothesloughsthroughouttheyear.Thequantityofgroundwaterdischargedtothesloughsandthedescriptionoftheeffectofgroundwaterdischargesonthehydrologyofsloughs8Aand9isbeinginvestigated.3.1.4FishCommunitiesTheSusitnaRiverfishcommunitiesconstituteoneofthemajorexploited(orpotentiallyexploited)resourcesoftheprojectenvirons(AppendixI).AllfivespeciesofPacificSalmon(pink,Oncorhynchusgorbuscha;chum,O.keta;coho,O.kisutch;sockeye,O.nerka;andchinook,O.tschawytscha)usetheSusitnaRiversystemforspawning(Figs.3-11and312),andtheyareharvestedincommercial.sport,andsubsistencefisheries.Otheranadromousspeciesalsooccur(Fig.3-13),andthereisanassemblageofresidentfishesthatincludesvaluedsportsspecies.oFourmajorzonescanbedistinguished:(1)thepotentiallyinundatedzonesaboveDevilCanyon,(2)theSusitnaRiverbetweenDevilCanyonandtheconfluenceoftheSusitna,Talkeetna,andChulitnarivers,(3)theSusitnadownstreamofTalkeetna,and(4)tributaryanduplandareastobeaffectedbyaccessfacilitiesortransmissionlines.3.1.4.1WatershedAboveDevilCanyonUpstreamofthelowerreachesofDevilCanyon(RM150),theSusitnaRiverfishfaunaiscomposedofyear-roundresidentspecies(Fig.3-11).Adultsalmonarepreventedfrompassingthroughthecanyonbythesteepgradient[31ft/mi(5.9m/km)],rapidwaterflow,andturbulentrapids.AlthoughadultchinooksalmonhavebeendocumentedasfarasRM156.8inthelow-flowyear1982,nootheranadromousspecieshasbeenreported;ntheimpoundmentreach.Sevenresidentfishspecieshavebeenreportedintheimpoundmentreach:Arcticgrayling(Thymallusarcticus),DollyVarden(Sa1ve1inusma1ma),burbot(Lotalota),humpbackwhitefish(Coregonuspidschian),roundwhitefish(Prosopiurncylindraceum),longnosesucker(Catostomuscatostomus),andslimysculpin(Cottuscognatus)(listedingeneraldecreasingvaluetofisheries).FewresidentfishoccupytheturbulentDevi1Canyon,whereassignificantpopulationsarefoundinthelessseveregradient[13ft/mi(2.4m/km)]andmultiplechannelsofthereachfromDevilCreektotheapproximateupstreamlimitofimpoundment,OshetnaRiver(RM233).Thereachesnearthelessturbidtributarymouthsaremosthighlypopulated,withburbot,roundwhitefish,andlongnosesuckerbeingcapturedexclusivelythere.ArcticgraylingandDollyVardenaretributaryspeciesthatusethemainstemforoverwinteringandasamigrationrouteamongtribu-tarystreams,althoughDollyVardenmaybeamorepermanentriverresident.Tributaries,suchasOshetnaRiverandKosinaCreek,provideoptimalhabitatforArctic grayling.Rainbowtrout,DollyVardenandseveralspeciesofsmallerfishes,principallycottids,alsooccurthere.Thesetributarystreamsarecharacterizedbyhabitatswithlargenumbersofpools,moderatestreamflowvelocity,andlowturbidity.Lakesintheareacontainlakeandrainbowtroutandnorthernpike.Thereislittleknowledgeaboutbenthicinvertebratefaunaoralgaeorotherprimaryproducersoforganicmatterintheimpoundmentreach.Thebenthicaquaticecosystemalmostcertainlyisfedbydetritusfromsurroundingterrestrialhabitatsandislimitedinthemainstembyhighturbidity.Fishingpressureisextremelylightduetolimitedaccess,althoughArcticgrayling,DollyVarden,lakeandrainbowtrout,andburbothavethepotentialforvaluablesportsfisheries.3.1.4.2·DevilCanyontoTalkeetnaNumerousislands,gravelbars,andsloughsoftherelativelystablebutoftensplitchanneloftheSusitnaRiverdownstreamofDevilCanyontoitsconfluencewiththeChulitnaRivermakethisreachespeciallysuitableforsalmonmigration,spawning,andrearing.Themainchannelisoftenbedrockorfirmcobble,andglacialsiltclogsintersticesofmostgravelbars;thus,mostspawningoccursintheloosergravelsofsidechannels,sloughs,andtributarymouths.Thesehabitattypesintergradewith1ittledistinction.Tributariesandsloughshavetheclearestwater,andthussupportthelargestnumbersofrearingjuveniles.AdultsalmonofallfivespeciesmigrateupstreamintothisreachoftheSusitnaRiverfromlatespringthroughearlyfall(Figs.3-11and3-12),aperiodthatcorrespondswithhighsummerrunoff.Eachspecieshasasomewhatcharacteristicmigrationperiod(Fig.3-14).Chinookarrivefirst,migratingfrommid-JunethroughJuly;pinkmigratefromlateJulythroughAugust;"," 3-1819811982(%PASTSUNSHINE)CHINOOK100SOCKEYE100100COHO100100CHUM100100PINK10010019811982(%PASTSUNSHINE)CHINOOK22.8SOCKEYE2.10.9COHO5.65.3CHUM5.06.8PINK2.013.3,.••JlA....MATANU$KARIVER104.575.585.974.61.56.572.9100.919B11982(%PASTSUNSHINE)CHINOOK22.0SOCKEYE3.62.0COHO16.711.1CHUM7.911.4PINK4.616.5198119821%PASTSUNSHINE)CHINOOKSOCKEYECOHOCHUMPINKCHfNITNABAY/-------....(ANCHORPOINTFigure3-11.UpperCookInletandtheSusitnaDrainage(nottoscale),ShowingPercentofSalmonMigratingPastSunshineStationThatPassTalkeetnaandCurryStations,andtheRelativeSizesofRunsPasttheYentnaandSunshineStations.[Source:AdaptedbyFERCStafffromApplication] SOCKEYE SALMON co,,... '" AlAS<A ADULT NUMBERS (SECOND RUN) 1981-133,000 1982-151.000 JUNE JUL AUG ADULT TIMING 1982 I REARING 1 YEAR IN LAKES (FIRST RUN) , ,TOTALS: 1981-272,000 1982-265,000 ADULT NUMBERS {SECOND AUN) 1981-4,800 1982-3,100 1t--t- SECOND RUN SPAWNING IN SLOUGHS AND SOME TRIBUTARY MOUTHS {AUG.-SEPT.} ADULTS FIRST RUN-EARLY JUNE (5 YEAR ClOS) SECOND RUN-LATE JULY (3-7 YEARS OLD) ~,\ \ I I AUG SEPT AOUlT NUMBERS 1981-19,800 1982-45,700 ADULT TIMING i i AlAS<A, KASHWITNA -9/l--~-9 EMIGRATION PEAKS IN JUNE; CONTINUES THROUGH OCT. \\V(1)~ _..__......__..._I COHO SALMON ADULTS ·LATE JUNE-SEPT. (3-4 YEARS OLO) 1981-36,000 1982-79,800 \SPAWNING IN TRIBUr;R1ES '"AND OCCASIONALLY IN ""-.--."SLOUGHS AND MAINSTEM (LATE SEPT.-EARLY OCT.! '<-"',--,,,,\\ \/) ~.....RIt/..1 JUVENILES REAR FOR 'PI?TWO YEARS IN FRESH WATER (A)(B) Figure 3-12 (A-B).Generalized Life Cycles of Pacific Salmon in the Susitna River Drainage:Coho and Sockeye. PINK SALMON w, '"0=> SPAWNING IN SLOUGHS (SOME MAIN CHANNELl ADULT NUMBERS 1981-263,000 1982-430,000 SOME TRIBUTARY SPAWNING ,",AS'. JULY AUG ADULT NUMaERS 1981-13,100 1982-29,500 CHUM SALMON JUVENILE OUTMIGRATION IN FIRST SUMMER ADULTS JULY-LATE SEPT. (3-5 YEARS OLD) 1981-283,000 1982-458,000 ADULTS NUMBERS 1981-20,800 1982-49,000 AUG ADULT TIMING i i JULY JUVENILE OUTMIGAATIDN BY JUNE AFTER EMERGENCE ADULTS JULY-EARLY SEPT. 2 YEARS OLD 1981-85,600 1982-890,500 COOK INLET (C)(D) Figure 3-12 (C-D).Generalized Life Cycles of Pacific Salmon in the Susitna River Drainage:Pink and Chum. w, '"I-' ADULT TIMING i I JUNE JULY AUG 11!~~~~~~~~~~ENNS~ERf~~~~CVHE~:~~IL oevi L CANYON SUS/)':"'4 r n··...._..IJUVENILES'FIAST SUMMER IN CLEAR· f·...,WATER TRIBUTARIES AND SLOUGHS JUVENILES'SECOND SPRING IN LOWER RIVER CLEARWATEA TRIBUTARIES AND SLOUGHS CHINOOK SALMON 1-1::'P"AW::N::,"NG:C:C'N""'T::R::,,"UT::A::R",.:c,::'J"Ul:7Y:-:"AU:::G::."1 /'1_-I ADULTS LATE MAY-EARLY JUNE (:1-7 YEARS OLD) NUMBER NOT DETERMINED (E) Figure 3-12 (E).Generalized Life Cycles of Pacific Salmon in the Susitna River Drainage:Chinook. PINK SALMON ADULTS JULY-EARLY SEPT. 2 YEARS OLD 19B1-B5.600 19B2-890.500 JUVENILE OUTMIGRATION BY JUNE AFTER EMERGENCE (C) JULY AUG ADU LTS NUMBERS 1981-20.800 1982-49.000 ADULTS JULY-LATE SEPT. (3-5 YEARS OLD I 1981-283.000 1982-45B.000 CHUM SALMON ADULT NUMBERS 1981-13.100 1982 -29.500 SOME TRIBUTARY SPAWNING SPAWNING IN SLOUGHS (SOME MAIN CHANNELl ADULT NUMBERS 1981-263.000 1982-430.000 (D) W I I'»o Figure 3-12 (C-D).Generalized Life Cycles of Pacific Salmon in the Susitna River Drainage:Pink and Chum. .......~i~~ W I N I--' ADULT TIMING JUNE JU LY AUG JUVENILES'SECOND SPRING IN LOWER RIVER CLEARWATER TRIBUTARIES AND SLOUGHS If I~~~~~~~~~~~SZER~~~~~CVHE~1~;IL CHINOOK SALMON I-S-PA-W-N-IN-G-IN-TR-I-BU-T-A-RI-ES-I-JU-L-Y---AU-G-.I-I ,I I ADULTS LATE MAY-EARLY JUNE (3-7 YEARS OLD) NUMBER NOT DETERMINED (E) Figure 3-12 (E).Generalized Life Cycles of Pacific Salmon in the Susitna River Drainage:Chi nook. --=~~:,;-----.:::::-::;--_2'.~;'_,,_----=-----",_...:.:.:.:.::;:_~- -_c__.,.--.---._ EULACHON BERING CISCO W I N N OCT DEVI L CANYON S'US'/h 1114 -5'/t-, ~ JUVENILE OUTMIGRATION IN SPRING OF FIRST YEAR ADULTS RETURN TO SEA AFTER SPAWNING,TO RETURN AGAIN ANOTHER YEAR ADULTS EARLY AUG.-EARLY SEPT. (4-6 YEARS OLD) MAY JUNE ADULT TIMING: SIMILAR FOR UPSTREAM AND DOWNSTREAM [U DEVIL CANYON SUS'/h 1114 -5'/t-, "'-5' SOME ADULTS RETURN TO OCEAN AFTER SPAWNING JUVENILE OUTMIGRATION IN FI RST YEAR ADULTS FIRST RUN:MID MAY SECOND RUN:EARLY JUNE 13-4 YEARS OLD) SPAWNING IN MAINSTEM AND LOWER YENTNA IN RIFFLE AREAS AND OFF CUT BANKS (FEW DAYS DURATION) (A)(B) Figure 3-13 (A-B).Generalized Life Cycles of Anadromous Eulachon and Bering Cisco in the Susitna River Drainage. ~ 3-23MONTHACTIVITYJANFEBMARAPRMAYJUNJULAUGSEPOCTNOVDECPINKSALMONADULTPASSAGEUPRIVER[)~SPAWNINGINCUBATION/EMERGENCEOUTMIGRATIONCHINOOKSALMONADULTPASSAGEUPRIVERSPAWNINGINCUBATION/EMERGENCEJUVENILEREARINGOUTMIGRATIONCHUMSALMONADULTPASSAGEUPRIVERSPAWNINGINCUBATION/EMERGENCEJUVENILEREARINGOUTMIGRATIONCOHOSALMONADULTPASSAGEUPRIVER-SPAWNINGINCUBATION/EMERGENCEJUVENILEREARINGOUTMIGRATIONSOCKEYESALMONAOULTPASSAGEUPRIVERSPAWNINGINCUBATION/EMERGENCEJUVENILEREARING--OUTMIGRATIONINTENSEACTIVITYMODERATEACTIVITYFigure3-14.TimingofStagesofSalmonintheSusitnaRiverfromTalkeetnatoDevilCanyon.[Source:AdaptedbyFERCStafffromApplication] ,I,I,',,:11IIIIIII'IIIIII1,1I!',I,IIIIIII"3-24sockeyeandchummigratefromlateJulythroughmid-September;andcohoextendmigrationfrom1ateJulythroughSeptember.Althoughthereisconsiderab1ewanderinganddelayin"stagingareasII,adultsalmonreturntonatalstreamreachestospawn.Chinookareprimarilytributaryspawners;theotherspecies(ofwhichchumismostabundant)occupymostlysidechannels,sloughs,ortributarymouthswhicharestronglyinfluencedbyriverstage.EggsincubateingravelsfromspawninginlatesummerorearlyfallthroughemergenceoffryinMarchorApril,withtimingofemergencedependingheavilyuponincubationtemperature.Highriverstagesinwintercausedbyicejammingcreateflowsintosidechannelsandsloughswhichpreventdewateringandfreezingofsomespawningsitesduringlow-flowperiods,butwhichalsocoolgroundwaterseepageareas(normallywarmerthantheriverchannel)usedforincubation.Thereisacomplexinterdependenceofspawningandincubationwithintergravelwaterflowsandtemperaturesforwhichtherelation-shipswithriverconditionsarenotclearlyresolved.JuvenilesalmonalsooccurseasonallyinthisreachoftheSusitnaRiveranditstributaries.Theperiodofseawardmigrationbeginswithicebreakupbutprimarilyoccursinlatespringandearlysummeratatimeofrisingriverflows(Fig.3-14).Althoughpink,sockeye,andchumintheSusitnagenerallypassdownstreaminthespringandsummerofemergence,chinookandcohoremainforonetotwoyears,feedingandgrowinginfreshwater.Clearwatersloughsandmouthsofclearwatertributariesareespeciallyimportanthabitatsforjuvenilesalmon,whichdependonsightforlocatingfood.Temperaturesintributariesandsloughsareclosertopublishedoptimumgrowthtemperatures[near60°F(15°C)]foryoungsalmonthanaretemperaturesinthemainchannels.ResidentspeciesinthisreachoftheSusitnaaresimilartothoseinthereachaboveDevilCanyon.Benthicinvertebratesandaquaticplantsareimportantcomponentsoftherivereco-systemforrearingofjuvenilesalmonandmaintenanceofresidentspecies,andtheirabundanceisprobablylimitedbyscouringandlightattenuationduetowaterbornesilt.Fishingpressureislight,restrictedprimarilybylimitedsuitableaccess.3.1.4.3BelowTalkeetnaTheSusitnaRiverbelowtheTalkeetnaRiverisamajorcorridorforupstreamanddownstreammigratingsalmonofallfivespecies.ItalsoprovidesspawninghabitatinitsextensivelysubdividedandmeanderingchannelthatreceivesextensivecontributionsoflooseglacialgravelsfromtheChulitnaRiver.NumeroustributariesandsloughsareusedbysalmoninamannersimilartotheuseoftributariesandsloughsintheTalkeetnatoDevilCanyonreach.AdultmigrationoccursfromlateMayintoSeptember.SincethemajorityofUpperCookInletsalmonexceptsockeyearebelievedtooriginateintheSusitnasystem,thisreachbelowtheconfluenceoftheChulitna,Talkeetna,andupperSusitnariversishighlyimportant.Althoughalljuvenilesalmonmustpassthroughthisriverreachduringoutmigration,juvenilechinook,coho,andprobablysockeyedependonthisreachforrearinginsummer.Theareaisespeciallyimportantasover-winteringhabitatforjuvenilechinook;juvenilecohogenerallyoverwinterintributarymouths.Thelowersectionofthisriverreachisinhabitedbyotheranadromousspeciesaswell:theBeringcisco,eulachon,andlamprey.BeringciscoareabundantinthemainstemfromAugusttoOctober.Eulachonspawninaboutthelower50mi(80km).AllresidentspeciesintheSusitnadrainageexceptforlaketroutarefoundinthisreach.Improvedaccesstothisreach,whichisintheAnchorage-to-FairbanksRailbelt.allowssubstantialrecreationalfishing.3.1.4.4AccessRoadsandTransmissionLineCorridorsThesixmajornewcorridorsthatwouldberequiredforaccessroads,transmissionlines,andrailroadspursareasfollows(Fig.2-11):(1)upgradeofDenaliHighwayfromCantwelltoWatanaAccessRoad;(2)WatanaAccessRoadfromDenaliHighwaytoWatanaDam;(3)DevilCanyonAccessRoadandtransmissionlinebetweenWatanaDamandDevilCanyonDam;(4)railroadspurfromGoldCreektoDevilCanyon;(5)SusitnatransmissionlinefromAnchoragetoWillow;and(6)Susitnatransmission1inefromHealytoFairbanks.TheApplicanthasidentifiedmorethan100streamsthatwouldbecrossedbythesecorridors(ExhibitE,Vol.6a,Chap.3,TablesE.3.19throughE.3.23).Formostofthesestreams,itispossibleonlytoinferwhatspeciesarepresent.Inthecaseofcorridors(1), (2), (3),and(6),themostcommonspeciespresentislikelygrayling,althoughcottids(sculpin)areprobablynumerous.Otherspecieslikelytobepresentinatleastsomeofthesestreamsareblackfish,burbot,DollyVarden,inconnu(sheefish),10ngnosesucker,northernpike,andwhitefish.Streamsincorridor(4)(railroadspur)andcorridor(5)(Willow-to-Anchoragetransmissionline)commonlyhavepresentoneormoreofthefivePacificsalmonspeciesandrainbowtrout.Inaddition,theWillow-to-Anchoragetransmissionlinesegmentwouldinc;:ludeanunderwatercrossingofKnikArm.KnikArmservesasamigrationcorridortotheMatanuskaandKnikriversandtributariesforthefivespeciesofPacificsalmon,aswellasotheranadromousspeciessuchasDollyVarden,Beringcisco,eulachon,andlamprey.3.1.4.5FisheryResourcesFisheryresourcesintheSusitnaRiverdrainageconstituteamajorportionoftheCookInletcommercialsalmonharvestandprovidesportandsubsistencefishingforarearesidentsand 3-25tourists.ThecommercialfisheryinUpperCookInletharvestsallfivespeciesofPacificsalmon.Indecreasingorderofimportanceintermsofnumberscaught,thesesalmonspeciesaresockeye,pink,chum,coho,andchinook(Fig.3-15).Withtheexceptionofsockeye,themajorityofsalmonharvestedinUpperCookInletareproducedintheSusitnadrainage.ThequantitativecontributionoftheseSusitnaRiversalmonstockstothecommercialfisheryinUpperCookInlethasnotbeenestablished.ThesportandsubsistencefisheriesoperateprimarilyintheSusitnaRiveranditstributariesratherthanUpperCookInlet.Indecreasingorderofnumbercaught,thesalmonspeciesarepink,coho,chinook,chum,andsockeye.Thechinooksalmon(kingsalmon),however,isthelargestandmosthighlyprized.Thepinksalmonhaveatwo-yearlifecyclethatresultsintwogeneticallydistinctstockscalledllodd-year"orIleven-yearllonthebasisoftheyearinwhichadultsspawn.IntheSusitnadrainagetheeven-yearrunsofpinksalmonareapproximatelytentimesthesizeoftheodd-yearruns.Otherspeciesofimportancetothesportfisheryare(indecreasingorderofnumbercaught)rainbowtrout,Arcticgrayling,DollyVarden,burbot,and1aketrout.TheApplicanthasestimatedthepercentageofsalmonmigratingpastSunshineStation(RM80),whichincludesfishheadingfortheChulitna,Talkeetna,andUpperSusitnarivers,thatcontinuepastTalkeetnaStation(RM103)andpastCurryStation(RM120)(Fig.3-11).Lessthan25%ofthesalmonthatmigratepastSunshineStationgoasfarasTalkeetnaStation,andgenerallylessthan10%migratepastCurryStation.DataarenotpresentlyavailabletoestimatethepercentageofsalmonmigratingpastSusitnaStation(RM26)thatmigrateasfarupriverasSunshineStation.However,withtheexceptionofchum,thenumbersofsalmonmigratingpastYentnaStationarenearlyequaltothenumberspassingSunshineStation(Fig.3-11).3.1.5TerrestrialCommunities3.1.5.1PlantCommunitiesThesitesoftheproposedSusitnaprojectarelocatedalmostentirelywithinanecoregionclassi-fiedbyBailey(1978)astheAlaskaRangeProvinceoftheSubarcticDivision.Majorvegetationtypesincludeconifer,deciduous,andmixedconifer-deciduousforests,aswellastheirvarioussuccessiona1stages(seeApp.J,Sec.J.1.2)atlowere1evations,andshrub1andsandtundrasystemsathigherelevationsabovethetimberline[about2,500to3,500ft(760to1,100m)MSL].TheoccurrencesofvariousforestandshrubtypesintheupperandmiddleSusitnaBasinoftencanberelatedtosuchfactorsaselevation,slope,aspect,drainage,andfirehistory.Inthetaigaecosystems(moistsubarcticforests)ofInteriorAlaska,thesefactorsapparentlyinfluenceecosystemstructureandfunctionthrougheffectsonairandsoiltemperatures,soilmoisture,andthepresenceofpermafrost(VanCleveandViereck,1981;VanCleveeta1.,1983).Intheuplandareasofthetaiga,fireisamajorfactoraffectingthedistributionofuplandvegeta-tiontypes.Thefiresareoftenpatchy,resultinginamixtureofvarious-agedvegetationstandsthataresuperimposedovervariationsinslopeandaspect,thuscreatingamosaicofvegetationtypes(VanCleveeta1.,1983).Incontrast,vegetationtypesoccurringonriverfloodplainsarecontrolledprimarilybyriveraction,sincetheseareasarerelativelyprotectedfromfireexceptontheolderterraces(VanCleveandViereck,1981).~.L.·I~fl',,,,,,0Z4-ThegeneraldistributionofmajorvegetationclasseswithinSouth~ralAlaskainrelationtothesitesoftheproposeddamsisillustratedinFigure3-16."EachofthevegetationclassesdelineatedinthefigureisdescribedbrieflyinTable3-1.Theclassificationsystempresentedinthetableisusefulfordepictingthedistributionofvegetationoverrelativelylargeareas.However,thefollowingdescriptionsofvegetationtypesandtheirdistributionintheregionsaroundtheproposedprojectfeaturesarebasedprincipallyonplantecologystudiesconductedfortheApplicantbyMcKendricketa1.(1982)duringthesummersof1980and1981.Inthesestudies,McKendrickandcoworkersidentifiedvegetationtypesaccordingtothehierarchica1classificationsystemproposedbyViereckandDyrness(1980),whichdoesnotcorresponddirectlytotheclassificationsystemusedinFigure3-16.Toprovidesomebasisforcomparisonbetweenthetwosystems,theViereckandDyrness(1980)vegetationtypes(App.J,TableJ-3andSec.J.1.2.1)thataremostlikelytooccurwithinthevegetationclassesshowninFigure3-16areidentifiedinTable3-2..Theproposeddams,impoundments,andrelatedprojectfaci1itieswou1dbelocatedmostlyinforestedareas.InthevicinityoftheproposedWatanadamsiteandimpoundment(Figs.3-16andFig.J-2ofApp.J),morethan75%ofthevegetatedareaisforested,andmostoftheremain-ingareaisshrubland.Thepredominantforesttypesareblackspruceandmixedconifer-deciduousforestwithblackandwhitespruce,paperbirch,tremblingaspen,andbalsampoplar.Theareaaroundtheproposedconstructioncamp,village,andairstripsites(Fig.2-3andFig.J-2ofApp.J)iscoveredbylowshrubtypescharacterizedbybirchandwillow.Theborrowsites(Figs.2-2and2-6)wouldbelocatedinareascoveredpredominatelybyvariousforesttypesandlowshrubland.BorrowsitesA,E,H,andIaremostlyforested;whereassites0andFaremostlylowshrubland. 3-26fO123r------.-----.,------.------,-----.---.CHINOOK(x104)-\/\/-,I\J-/-'.Ol------"-------l----l..------'-----"-----I0~---l-----l-----L-----l.--...L....-i32-PINK(x106)•----SOCKEYE(x106)~I \J\ _f-\A,_\ 0ocf(\k8-cf~o,)_j\/(J,_o-__-l---L,-'-__'-------=---"--_19601964 196819721976f980YEAR1624Figure3-15.CommercialCatchofSalmonintheUpperCookInlet,bySpecies,1954-1982.[Source:ApplicationExhibitE,Vol.6A,Chap.3,TableE.3.3] 3-27INSERTEDINPOCKETINSIDEBACKCOVERFigure3-16.GeneralVegetationDistributioninSoutheentralAlaskaandLocationsof·ProposedDamSites,Non-SusitnaAlternativeHydropowerSites,andAlternativeThermalUnitSites.[Source:AdaptedfromSelkregg,1974,1977J II''I,I3-28Table3-1.DescriptionsofGeneralizedVegetationClassesUsedforMappinginFigure3-16VegetationClassImportantSpeciesDescriptionill1111i.IiHI:1111.i'I'CoastalWesternHemlock-SitkaSpruceForestBottomlandSpruce-PoplarForestUplandSpruce-HardwoodForestLowlandSpruce-HardwoodForestHighBrushSitkaspruce(Piceasitchensis)Westernhemlock(Tsugaheterophyl1a)Mountainhemlock(Tsugamertensiana)Balsampoplar(PopUlUSbalsamifera)Blackcottonwood(PopUlUStr;chocarpa)Whitespruce(Piceaglauca)BalsampoplarBlackcottonwoodPaperbirch(Betulapapyrifera)Quakingaspen(Populustremuloides)WhitespruceBlackspruce(Piceamariana)PaperbirchQuakingaspenBalsampoplarBlackspruceWhitesprucePaperbirchQuakingaspenBalsampoplarSitkaalder(Alnussinuata)Americangreenalder(Alnuscrispa)Thinleafalder(Alnustenuifolia)Willows(Salixs~Resinbirch(Betulaglandulosa)ExtensionofPacificrainbeltforests;mountainhemlockreplaceswesternhemlockinCookInletarea;westofCookInletSitkasprucedominates;deciduoushardwoodsoccurpri-marilyonstreamfloodplains.Tall.relativelydenseforests(andthesuccessionalstagesleadingtothem)foundonleveltonearlylevelfloodplains,lowriverterraces,anddeeplythawedsouth-facingslopes;balsampoplarandcottonwoodquicklyinvadefloodplainsfollowingpioneerandalder-shrubstages;whitesprucereplaceshardwoodsinlaterseralstages.Variedforesttypesdependingonconditions;successionalstagesoftenpresentduetofire;mixedwhitespruce-deciduousstandsoccuronsouth-facingslopesandwell-drainedsoils;blackspruceoftenreplaceswhitespruceonnorth-facingslopesandonothercoldorpoorlydrainedsoils;purestandsofwhitespruceormixedwhitespruce-balsampoplaroftenoccuralongstreams;purestandsofpaperbirchoraspenoccurassucces-sionalstagesfollowingfireonwarmerwell-drainedsoils.Forestsusually,dominatedbyblackspruce.sometimesinextensivepurestands;succes-sionalstagesoftenpresentduetofire;occursonareasofshallowpeat.glacialdeposits,outwashplains.intermontanebasins,lowlands,andnorth-facingslopes;standsoftenunderlainbypermafrost;organiclayeroftenwell-developed.Occursasthreesubtypes;coastalalderthicketsarefoundbetweenbeachandforestalongthesoutherncoastoftheAlaskaPeninsulaandeasternCookInlet;floodplainthicketsdominatedbywillowandalderoccuronalluvialdepositsinriversandalongmeanderingstreams;birch-alder-willowthicketsoccurbetweentreelineandtundra,inavalanchepaths,andoldforestburnareasininteriorAlaska. VegetationClassLowBrush,Muskeg-SogMoistTundraWetTundraAlpineTundra3-29Table3-1.(Continued)ImportantSpeciesBlackspruceSedges(Carexspp.)Mosses(sphagnumandothers)Cottongrasses(Eriophorumspp.)80grosemary(Andromedapolifolia)ResinbirchDwarfArcticbirch(Betulanana)Labradortea(LedumgroenTandTCum)Wi11owsBogcranberry(OXYCOCCUSmicrocarpus)Blueberries(Vacciniumspp.)Crowberry(Empetrumnigrum)CottongrassPolargrass(Arctagrostislatifolia)Bluejoint(Calamagrostiscanadensis)SedgesDwarfArcticbirchResinbirchWillowsLabradorteaBlueberriesBearberry(Arctostaphylosspp.)CrowberryBogcranberryCottongrassSedgesRushes(Juncusspp.)Willows---DwarfArcticbirchLabradorteaMountaincranberry(Vacciniumvitis-idaea)Mountainavens(Dryasspp.)Mosscampion(Sileneacaulis)Cassiopes(Cas~spp.)DwarfarcticbirchCrowberryLabradorteaAlpinebearberry(ArctostaphYlosalpina)Bogblueberry(Vacciniumuliginosum)Mountainheather(Phyllodocespp.)WillowsAlpineazalea(Loiseleuriaprocumbens)DescriptionMuskeg-bogsusuallyconsistofathickmatofmosses,sedges,lichens,anddwarfshrubs;shrubsdominateexposedanddriersites,andmossesandherbaceousspeciesdominatewaterloggedareas;coastalmuskegsfoundinwet,flatbasinsontheKenaiPeninsulaandborderingupperCookInletoftenhaveconifers(westernhemlockandAlaskacedar)scatteredoverdrierareas;interiorbogsoftenoccurwhereconditionsaretoowetfortrees,althoughscatteredblacksprucedooccurondrierareas;stringbogshaveunevenlyspacedstring-likeridgesthatareoftentoowetforshrubs.Communitycompositionvariesfromalmostcontinuouscotton-grasstussockswithsparsegrowthofsedgesanddwarfshrubstostandsinwhichdwarfshrubsaredominantandtussocksarescarceorabsent.Dominantspeciesaresedgesandcottongrass,whichusuallyoccurinamatratherthanintussocks;woodyandherbaceousspeciesareinfrequentandoccurabovethewatertable;foundinlow,flatareaswheresoilsarewetandshallowlakesarecommon.Mostcommononridges,rubbleslopes,andothershallow.dryandporoussoilsinmountainsatelevationsbetween2,000and4,000ft(600to1,200m);vegetationissparseandonlyafewincheshigh;plantassocia-tionsvary,butmountainavensandlichensusuallydominate;associatedherbs,grasses,andsedgesoccuraslowmats.Source:BasedonSelkregg(1974,1977)andNeilandandViereck(1977). 3-30Table3-2.ViereckandOyrness(1980)VegetationTypesMostLikelytoOccurwithintheVegetationClassesDelineatedinFigure3-16t'ClassificationsystemusedinFigure3-16anddescribedinTable3-1.BasedonSelkregg(1974,1977)andNeilandandViereck(1977).t2ViereckandDyrness(1980)vegetationtypesandsubtypesidentifiedinTableJ-3anddescribedinSectionJ.1.2.1ofAppendixJ.t3N.A.=Notapplicable.CoastalforestsdidnotoccurwithinSusitnaBasinortransmissioncorridorstudyarea.Source:BasedonSe1kregg(1974,1977);NeilandandViereck(1977);andViereckandDyrness(198D).VegetationTypest2N.A.t3Balsampoplarforest,whitespruceforest,mixedforest,tallshrubland,herbaceousWhitespruceforest,blackspruceforest,birchforest,aspenforest,mixedforest,lowshrubland,tallshrublandBlackspruceforest,lowshrub1andTallshrub1and,lowshrublandLowshrubland,blackspruceforest,wetsedge-grasstundraMatandcushiontundra,mesicsedge-grasstundra,lowshrublandWetsedge-grasstundraAlpineherbaceoustundra,matandcushiontundra,mesicsedge-grasstundraMoisttundraVegetationClasst'Wettundr"AlpinetundraUplandspruce-hardwoodforestLowlandspruce-hardwoodforestHighbrushLowbrush,muskegbogCoastalwesternhemlock-SitkaspruceforestBottomlandspruce-poplarforestAlmostalloftheareaoccupiedbytheproposedDevilCanyondamsiteandimpoundment(Fig.3-16andFig.J-2ofApp.J)isforested,andalmost50%oftheforestsaremlxedconlfer-deciduoustypes.Othersignificantforesttypesfoundintheareaincludepaperbirch,blackspruce,andwhitespruceforests.Thesitesoftheproposedconstructioncampandvjl1age(App.J,Fig.J-2)andover75%ofproposedborrowsiteK(Fig.2-6)·wouldbelocatedinmixedconifer-deciduousforest.ProposedborrowsiteG(Fig.2-6)isrelativelysmallandhasstandsofblackspruce,mixedconifer-deciduousforest,andtallshrub1andcharacterizedbyalder.Theproposedaccessroutes(Fig.2-11),becauseoftheirlengthsandvariedelevations,wouldcrossavarietyofvegetationtypes.TheproposedDenaliHighway-to-Watanaaccessroutewouldcrossmostlylowshrubland,aswellassmallerareasofmatandcushiontundraandbothmesicandwetsedge-grasstundratypes.Thetundratypesgenerallyoccuratthehigherelevations.TheproposedWatana-to-DevilCanyonaccessroutewouldtraversemostlyshrublands(bothlowandtalltypes)andvarioustundratypes,butitalsowouldcrossforeStedareas(mostlymixedconifer-deciduousandwhitesprucetypes)nearTsusenaCreekandtheSusitnaRiver.FromDevilCanyontoGoldCreek,mixedconifer-deciduousforestisthepredominantvegetationtypethatwouldbecrossedbytheproposedrailaccess.TheproposedDams-to-GoldCreekpowertransmis-sioncorridor(Fig.2-7)wouldfollowaroutesimilartothatoftheproposedWatana/DevilCanyon/GoldCreekaccessroutesand,thuswouldcrosssimilarvegetationtypes.BelowtheproposedDevilCanyondamsite,plantcommunitiesoccurringintheSusitnaRiver~floodplainconstitutethevegetationmostlikelytobeaffectedbytheproposedproject.These.communitiesappeartobepartofthefloodplainsuccessionalsequencedescribedbyVanCleveand~IJ,'~Viereck(1981)(seeApp.J,Sec.J.1.2.2).Briefly,pioneercommunitiesconsistingofherbaceousandshrubspeciesarereplacedbycommunitiesdominatedfirstbyalderandthenbybalsampoplar.Finally,theoldest,moststableareasarecoveredbymixedconifer-deciduous(whitespruce-paperbirch)forest.Throughphysicaldisturbance--suchasiceprocesses(especiallyduringfreezeupandbreakup),floodlngevents,andbanKerosionandsedimentdepositionduringtheopenwaterperiod--laterseralstagesmaybereplacedbyearlierseralstages.Thus,vegetationdevelopmentinagivenareamaynotproceeddirectlythroughtheentiresuccessionalsequence. 3-31TheproposedpowertransmissionroutefromFairbankstoAnchorage(Fig.2-7)crossesawidevarietyofvegetationtypes.Forests(predominatelysprucetypes)coverover75%ofthepro-posedHealy-to-Fairbankssegment.Mostoftherestofthissegmentiscoveredbylowshrublandandwetsedge-grasstypes.Thesoutherntwo-thirdsoftheproposedHealy-to-Wi11owsegmentisprimarilyforestedwithwhitespruce-paperbirchforestsonthedriersitesandwhitespruce-balsampoplartypesinforestedfloodplainareas.Blackspruceforestsarefoundinpoorlydrainedareas.Thenorthernone-thirdofthissegmentwouldcrossmostlyshrubland,sparselywoodedareas,andtundratypes.TheproposedWi11ow-to-Anchoragesegmentisabouttwo-thirdsforested,withmixedconifer-deciduousandspruceforestsbeingthepredominanttypes.Wetsedge-grasstundra(marsh)istheothermajorvegetationtype,coveringaboutone-fourthofthesegment.WithintheupperandmiddleSusitnaBasin,wetlandsincluderiparianzones,ponds,andlakesonuplandplateaus,andareaswithwetorpoorlydrainedsoilssupportingcommunitiessuchaswetsedge-grasstundra,lowshrubland,orblackspruceforest.Wetlandareasthathavebeenidenti-fiedwithintheupperandmiddleSusitnaBasinneartheproposedprojectfeaturesincludeupperBrushkanaandTsusenacreeks,theareabetweenlowerDeadmanandTsusenacreeks,theFogLakesarea,andtheareasaroundStephanLakeandPrairieCreek,SwimmingBearLake,andJackLongCreek(Fig.3-17).TherearealsolargenumbersoflakesintheextensiveflatareasoftheupperandmiddleSusitnaBasin,suchasthoseinthevicinityofLakeLouise(ExhibitE,Vol.6A,Chap.3,p.E-3-223).AlongthelowerSusitnaRiverfloodplain,herbaceouspioneercommunitiesaswellasmostoftheareasintheimmediatefloodplainthataredominatedbyalderandwillowcanprobablybeclassifiedaswetlands.However,communitiesdominatedbywhitespruce-paperbircharenot1ikelytobewetlands.WithintheproposedFairbanks-to-Anchoragepowertrans-missioncorridor,wetlandssupportingwetsedge-grass,spruceforest,andlow'shrubcommunitiesareknowntooccur(App.J,Secs.J.I.2.I.5,J.I.2.2.4,andJ.I.2.3.4).3.1.5.2AnimalCommunitiesTheprojectareasupportsadiversityofwildlifespeciestypicalofSouthcentralAlaskaneco-systems(AlaskaDept.ofFishandGame,1973,1978;Selkregg,1974,1977).Thesespeciesincludebiggame,furbearers,raptors,waterbirds,andavarietyofsmallgameandnon-gamebirdsandmamma1s.Becauseofthediversityandabundanceofwildlifeassociatedwiththeproject,thefollowingdiscussioncannotcovereachwildlifespeciesindepth.Therefore,emphasishasbeengivento:(1)speciesthatwouldreceivethegreatestimpact,(2)lifehistorycharacteristicsthatwouldlikelybeaffected,and(3)taxaconsideredimportantbecauseoftheirvalueasgameorfurbearers,recreationalinterest,orhighpublicinterest.Moose:Moose(Alcesalces)arethemostimportantbiggamespeciesthroughouttheprojectarea.IntheupperandmiddleSusitnaBasin,moosedensitiesrangefromabout2to4/mi2(0.8to1.5/km2)fromDevilCreektoDeadmanCreekandfromButteCreektotheupperreachesoftheOshetnaRiver(App.K,Fig.K-2).AlongthelowerSusitnaRiver,peakdensitiesrangedfrom3.5toIO/mi'(1.5to4/km2).Althoughmooserangethroughallhabitattypesoftheprojectarea,riparianorlowlandforesthabitatneartheriverispreferredduringtheimportantoverwinteringandcalvingstages.Particularlyimportantoverwinteringhabitatlikelyoccursintheprojectedimpoundmentzones(App.K,Fig.K-5).DownstreamfromDevilCanyon,riverineislandsaffordhabitatforcalvingandrearingthatisrelativelyisolatedfrompredatorsandhighinbrowseavailability.Theseasonalchangesinbrowseavailabilitynecessitatemovementbylargenumbersofmoose.ThemajormoosemigratorypathsareeastofDeadmanCreek(App.K,Fig.K-I).LocalmovementsofmoosefrequentlyentailcrossingtheSusitnaRiverinthevicinityoftheproposedimpoundments.ThesemovementshavetendedtobeconcentratedalongtheriverfromFogCreektooppositeStephanLake,DeadmanCreekto5mi(8km)upstream,WatanatoJayCreeks,andfromGoose·CreektoClearwaterCreek.AlongthelowerSusitnaRiver,movementtoandfromtherivernecessitatescrossingtheproposedtransmissionlineroute.DispersalofmoosefromthemainstemoftheSusitnaRivermaybeanimportantsourceofrecruitmentintomoreperipheralpopulations.Barren-GroundCaribou:Caribou(Rangifertarandus)aremostcharacteristic·ofopentundraandshrublandhabitats.Thus,intheprojectarea,caribouaremostabundantintheuplandareasoftheupperandmiddlebasinandfromCantwelltoNenanaalongtheproposedtransmissionlineroute.TheNelchinaherdintheupperandmiddlebasincomprisesabout20,000individualsrangingoverabout20,000mi2(50,000km2).Duringmostoftheyear,caribouconcentrationsareremovedfromtheprincipalprojectarea(App.K,Figs.K-6toK-8).However,duringthesummer,afewbullcariboumayusehabitatintheproposedprojectarea.Themajorpathsofcariboumovementaresoutheastofthemajorprojectfeatures,althoughsomecariboumaytravelalongtheriverduringmovementfromwinteringtocalvingrange.BullcariboudispersingtosummerrangenorthoftheSusitnaRivermayalsocrosstheriverintheprojectedarea·ofimpoundment.Movementfromcalving/summerrangeintheChulitnaMountainstowinteringrangenearMonahanFlatrequirescrossingtheproposedaccessroutetotheWatanasites(App.K,Fig.K-7).Theseareasareusedbyasmall(ca.2,000individuals)subherdoftheNelchinaherd. 3-32-?/i-~\(\ClorI<:."\Cl\\<.ee'"~<,~~,,<>Lake;;Louiseif'0~z0N<D146'W150'W149'W148'W147'W17MilesFigure3-17.LocationsofCreeksandWaterBodiesintheUpperandMiddleSusitnaBasinAroundWhichWetlandsHaveBeenIdentified.1I 3-33Dal1'sSheep:Dal1'ssheep(Ovisdal1i)aretypicallyfoundinrugged,uplandareasandhavearestrictedrangeintheprojectarea(App.K,Fig.K-9).OnlytherangeoftheWatanaHillspopulationextendsintoareasofproposedprojectfeatures.Aminerallickthatreceivesexten-siveusefromApriltoJuneislocatedalongJayCreek.AportionofthislickislocatedwithintheprojectedboundariesoftheWatanaimpoundment.Mineral.licksareofgreatimportanceassupplementalsourcesofmineralnutrients,especiallysodium.AlthoughotherlicksoccurintherangeoftheWatanaHillspopulation,theJayCreeklickappearstobeveryimportantbecauseitisheavilyusedeventhoughitisbelowtheextentofoptimalsheephabitatandlocatedawayfromotherareasofhighconcentrationsofsheep.BrownBear:Althoughbrownbear(Ursusarctos)useallthehabitattypesfoundintheprojectarea,theyaremosttypicalofopenuplandhabitatsuchasfoundonthebenchesabovetheupperandm;ddleSusitnaRiver.Overwinteringdensarefrequentlyestab1ishedinloosesoil5onslopesinuplandhabitat,throughwhichtheproposedaccessroadtoWatanawouldpass.Afteremergencefromtheden,bearmovetothelowlandforestalongtherivertotakeadvantageofearlyspringplantgrowthandmooseconcentrations(App.K,TableK-3).Mooseandcaribouarethemainpreyofthishighlycarnivorousbear.Inearlytolatesummer,somebearmoveintotheuplandshrubandtundraareastofeedonthesummerberrycrop.DuringJulyandAugust,manybearmovetosalmonspawningareas,apparentlyinordertofish.Concentrationsof30to40bearmaybefoundalongPrairieCreekduringsalmonspawning.Bearalsomoveintotheareaofspawn-ingsloughsdownstreamofDevilCanyonandalongPortageCreek.Directionalmovementstoareasoffoodconcentrationmaybeinexcessof30mi(50km),andmayinvolvecrossingthemainstemoftheSusitnaRiver.BlackBear:Blackbear(Ursusamericanus)rangethroughouttheprojectarea;however,intheupperandmiddleSusitnaBasin,suitablelowlandforesthabitatisrestrictedinextenttotheSusitnaRiverandprincipaltributaries(App.K,Fig.K-10).Fartherdownstream,blackbearhabitatismoreextensive.Intheareaoftheproposedimpoundments,blackbearoverwinteredindensintheforestsalongtheriveratelevationsaveraging2,000ft(600m)meansealevel(MSL).About55%oftheknowndensare withintheprojectedboundariesoftheproposedimpound-ment.Becauseabout50%ofthedenswerereused,itappears1ikelythatdenninghabitatislimitedintheupperandmiddleSusitnaBasin.Afteremergencefromdens,blackbearfeedonthenewspringplantgrowthandalsousemoosecarrionorpreytoalesserextent.Inearlysummer,blackbeartendtomovetoshrub1andsadjacenttothelowlandforeststofeedupontheripeningbenycrop(App.K,TableK-4).Aswithbrownbear,someblackbearmovetosalmonspawningareasinordertoexploitthefisheriesresource.Asbrownbearbecomelesscommondownstream,blackbearmorecommonlyfrequentthespawningareas.MovementsinresponsetofoodavailabilityfrequentlynecessitatedcrossingtheSusitnaRiverintheprojectedimpoundmentzones.GrayWolf:Graywolf(Canislupus)rangethroughoutmuchoftheprojectarea,beingmostabundantinareasawayfromhumandevelopment.Theprincipalhabitatfeaturesdeterminingwolfpresencearepreydistributionandabundance.Moose,caribou,andavarietyofsmallbirdsandmammalsarethechiefcomponentsofwolfdietsintheregion.Thereareabout13knownorsuspectedgroupsorpacksof2to15individualwolfeachintheupperandmiddleSusitnaBasin.From19BOto1982,from20to50individualwolfrangedthroughthebasin,althoughonlytwoorthreepacksrangedovertheprojectareaitself.Wolfplayaminorroleinlimitingnumbersofmooseinthebasin,butareprobablyaprincipalfactor,alongwithhunting,inlimitingcaribounumbers.Furbearers:HabitatforaquaticfurbearersislimitedintheprojectedimpoundmentzonesbecauseofthefastandfluctuatingflowsalongtheSusitnaRiverandthelowerreachesofitstribu-taries.InthemiddlereachesofDeadmanCreek,oneactivebeaverlodgeperstreammile(0.5/km)wasobservedin1982;higherdensitieswerefoundintheupper,moremarshyreaches.Muskratsignwasfoundalongsomeofthelakesabovetheriver.Pinemartenwerethemostabundantterrestrialfurbearers,averagingabout2/mi2(5/km2)alongtheriverfromDeadmantoWatanacreeks.Mostmartensignwasinspruceforestbelow3,300ft(1,000m)MSL.OtherfurbearersfoundintheproposedprojectareaincludeWOlverine,redfox,riverotter,mink,lynx,andwease1.RaptorsandRavens:Manyraptorsorbirds-of-preyrangethroughtheprojectarea,includinggoldeneagle,baldeagle,gyrfalcon,goshawk,andraven,afunctionalraptor.CliffsalongtheSusitnaRiveroffersomeofthe·majorc1iff-nestinghabitatofhighqualityinSouthcentra1Alaska.Inthe·~pperandmiddleSusitnaBasin,·21raven,16goldeneagle,3gyrfalcon,and1baldeaglecliff-nestinglocationsareknowntoexist.Knowntree-nestinglocationsinthebasinarelesscommonandinclude7baldeagleand3goshawklocations.Anumberofthesenestinglocationsaresituatedinareasthatmightbeaffectedbyprojectfeatures.Waterbirds:Waterbirdsdonotmakeextensiveuseoftheaquatichabitatsavailab.leintheupperandmlddleSusitnaBasin.However,alongthelowerSusitnaBasin,habitatforanabundanceofwaterbirdsexists.HighdensitiesofwaterbirdsexistintheSusitnaFlatsGameRefuge,throughwhichtheproposedtransmissionlineroutewouldpass.Thesecoastalwetlandssupportonthe 3-34orderof200-600ducks/mi2(80-230/km2),20-100geese/mi2(10-40/km2),and60-300shorebirds/mi2(20-100/km2).Theareaisusedextensivelyforwaterfowlhunting.TrumpeterswannestingandsummeringareasoccuralongtheproposedtransmissionlineroutefromCookInlettoNenana.8reedinghabitatfortrumpeterswansinAlaskagenerallyconsistsofwaterbodieswithstablewaterlevelsanddensestandsofemergentvegetation.Intheupperandmiddlebasin,mostsuitabletrumpeterswanhabitatislocatedtothesouthandeastoftheproposedprojectfeatures.OtherBirdsandMammals:AlargevarietyofsmallbirdsandmammalsrangethroughthehabitatsofSouthcentralAlaska.Manyoftheseformthepreybaseforthesmallerpredators,suchaspinemarten,redfox,andseveraloftheraptors.Althoughsomespeciescanbefoundinavarietyofhabitats,othersaremorerestrictedintheiruseofhabitat.Forexample,ptarmigans,Baird'ssandpiper,Laplandlongspur,Arcticgroundsquirrel,andhoarymarmotarecharacteristicinhabitantsofopentundraorshrublandhabitat;woodpeckers,black-cappedchickadee,browncreeper,redsquirrel,andporcupinearemorerestrictedtoforesthabitat.Forestandwoodlandhabitatssupportthemostdiverseandabundantfaunas,whereasalpinetundrasupportstheleastdiverseandabundantfaunas.3.1.6ThreatenedandEndangeredSpeciesAtpresentnoplantspeciesknowntooccurinAlaskahavebeenofficiallylistedasthreatenedorendangeredbyFederalorstateauthorities.Thereare,however,30planttaxaunderreviewforpossibleprotectionundertheEndangeredSpeciesActof1973,asamended.Todate,noneofthecandidatetaxaunderreviewhasbeenfoundinanyoftheareasthatwouldbeaffectedbytheproposedSusitnaproject.TheU.S.FishandWildlifeServiceandAlaskaDepartmentofFishandGamelistonlyfourtaxaofwildlifeasthreatenedorendangeredinA1aska.Ofthese,onlytheAmericanperegrinefalcon(Falcoperegrinusanatum)rangesovertheareaoftheproposedprojectandtransmissionfacili-ties.BothFederalandstatewildlifeauthoritieslisttheAmericanperegrinefalconasendan-gered.Peregrinenestincliffledgesassociatedwithwaterbirdhabitat.Theirprincipalfoodsarewaterbirdsandotherbirds.Noperegrinefalconhasbeenobservedduringrecentsurveysinthevicinityoftheproposeddams,reservoirs,andaccessroutes,althoughperegrineoccasionallyhavebeenobservedintheareainthepast.Ingeneral,thisareaisnotconsideredtobeofhighqualityasperegrinebreedinghabitat.However,primeperegrinehabitatislocatedalongtheTananaRiverupstreamfromthetownofNenana.Sixknownhistoricalnestinglocationsaresituatedwithin1to5mi(2to8km)oftheproposedtransmissionlineinthisarea.3.1.7RecreationResourcesTheproposedWatanaandDevilCanyondamsitesandprojectaccessroutesarelocatedinaremoteareaoflimitedaccessibility,andnopublicagenciescurrentlyprovidesitesorfacilitiesthatcontributetoanorganizedoutdoorrecreationprogram.Localrecreationactivitiesconsistprimarilyofhuntingandfishing,and,toalesserextent,trail-relatedrecreation.Developedrecreationsitesintheprojectareaareprivatelyownedlodgesandisolatedcabins.ThelargestofthethreelodgecomplexesintheareaistheStephanLakeLodge(17structures),whichislocated14mi(23km)southwestoftheproposedWatanadamsite(TerrestrialEnviron-mentalSpecialists,1982a).HighLakeLodge(11structures)islocated6mi(10km)northeastoftheproposedDevilCanyondamsite.TheTsusenaLakeLodge(3structures)is8mi(13km)north oftheWatanadamsite.Theprincipalmodeofaccesstothelodgesisviafloatplane.Theselodgesareprimarilybasefacilitiesforhuntingandfishing.Opportunitiesforsportfishingareabundantinthearea.Bothsportandtrophyhuntingoccur;favoredspeciesareDa111ssheep,moose,caribou,andblackandbrownbears.Thelodgesalsoaccommodaterivertravelersandoverlandtrailusers.Individuallyownedcabinsarelocatedinclustersaroundlakes,aswellasinrelativelyremoteareas.Thesestructuresareusedforavarietyofactivities,butabout50unitshavebeenidentifiedasprovidingshelterspecificallyforsupportinghuntingandfishingactivities(ExhibitE,Vol.8,Chap.9,TableE.9.5).Theexistingnetworkofoverlandtravelcorridorsintheimmediateprojectareawasbuiltprimarilyforaccessbyminers,trappers,hunters,andfishermen.SummaryinformationrelativetothevarioustrailsispresentedinTable3-3,andgenerallocationsareshowninFigures3-18and3-19.Thevariousroadsandtrailsprovideopportunitiesforsuchactivitiesashiking,snowmobiling,andoff-road-vehiclepleasuredriving.Localwaterwaysalsoconstituteimportantrecreationtravelcorridors.TheStephanLake-PrairieCreek-TalkeetnaRivercorridorisacommonlyusedriver-runningroute,andtheSusitnaRiver-DenaliHighwayjunctionisapopularaccesspointforriverrecreation.Fromthislaunchpoint,rivertravelersfollowtheSusitnaRiverdownstreamtoupperVeeCanyonandportagetoClarenceLake,ordivertfromtheSusitnaandpowerupstreamontheTyoneRivertoLakeLouise.NaturalfeaturesoftheSusitnaRiverthatalsocontributetoriverrecreationincludetheVeeCanyonandDevilCanyonrapids,whicharesignificantwhite-waterresources.ThelatterisgenerallyconsideredtobeClassVIwaters, ~ Table 3-3.Existing Trails in the Susitna Project Recreation Study Areat' • Trail type Beginning Middle End Years Used Use Random throughout the southern area of Susitna River 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14~ 15. CaCORV, Cat,ORV Cat Packhorse,Old Sled Road ATV Snodgrass Lake Trail Portage Creek Trail Susitna River Trail Talkeetna Trails Stephan Lake Trail Big Lake Trail Butte Creek Trail Byers Lake Trail Little Coal CreeK Curry Ridge Trail Gold Creek Gold Creek Alaska Railroad mil e 232 Chunil na Denali Highway Denali Highway Chunil na Near Cantwell Denali Highway Near Butte Lake Denali Highway near the Susitna Bridge Byers Lake Parks Highway Park Highway at Little Coal Creek Ridge top west of VABM Clear Portage Creek Butte Lake Devi 1 Canyon Confl uence of John &Chuni 1na Creeks Chunilna Creek Mermaid Lake Tsusena Lake Snodgrass Lake Portage Creek To Maclaren River the study area Stephan Lake Big Deadman Lakes Butte Creek drainage same (loop) Curry Ri dge Parks Highway at Troublesome Creek Crossing 1950s -present 1961 -present 1957 -present 1920s -present 1950s -present Foot,snowmobile, ski s Sled road foot use Dry,snowmobiles and foot Unknown Best portaging Biking &off-road vehicles Off-road vehicles &hi ki ng Hiking Hiking Hiking;to be built in 1983 w, w '" t'Existing trails are shown in Figure 3-18. Source:Modified from Exhibit E,Vol.8,Chap.7,Table E.7.6. ® '.IIM. T.U. SCALE 0 4 8 MILES, W I W O"l Figure 3-18.Schematic Representation of Recreation Features in the Susitna Project Area.(See next page for legend.) [Source:Application Exhibit E,Vol.8,Chap.7,Fig.E.7.4 (Revised June 1983)J d.lIi 3-37RECREATIONACTIVITIES:UHIKINGUCROSSCOUNTRYSKIING"DOGSLEDDINGIIBOATING~ROCKHUNTING~BERRYPICKING~CAMPING=:ISNOWMACHINING~TAKE-OUTPOINTIIHUNTING~SNOWSHOEING~PUT-INPOINT••-;0;::.=FISHING[I!:MOUNTA1NEERINGCIPHOTOGRAPHYmFLYINGIIOFF-ROADDRIVINGIISHELTERt:IBIRDWATCHINGC;HORSEBACKRIDING1--1LIMITSOFRECREATIONSTUDY_.-SUSITNAWATERSHEDBOUNDARY---PROPOSEDTRANSMISSIONLINES~BLACKBEARoBROWNBEAR•••••••PORTAGETRAIL•TOWNS-STRUCTURES11-BUILDINGCLUSTERS*HIGHPOINTS...MINORVIEWS+-MAJORVIEWS11I11I111I1SIGNIFICANTLANDSCAPESETTINGSoWATERFOWLoSHEEPIIIIIWILDLIFECONCENTRATIONS:LANDSCAPEFEATURES:WATERWAYSRAILROADSEXISTINGROADSPROPOSEDROADS---TRAILS_U_PARKBOUNDARIESoMOOSEoCARIBOUNOTE:SEETABLEE.1,eFORSPECIFICTRAILDATA.'~lRECREATIONLEGENDFigure3-19.LegendforFigure3-18.(SeeTable3-3forspecifictraildata.) 3-38basedontheinternationalscaleofwhite-waterclassifications(ExhibitE,Vol.8,Chap.7,Sec.3.1.2).ThemajorrecreationresourceareasadjacenttoproposedprojectboundariesaretheDenaliNationalParkandPreserveandDenaliStatePark.Atnearestdistance,thestateparkiswithin10mi(16km)oftheDevilCanyonprojectboundary.Encompassing324,000acres[131,000hectares(ha)],DenaliStateParkabutstheDenaliNationalParkandPreserveatboththewesternandnorthernboundaries.ThevastDenaliNationalParkandPreservecomprises6.03millionacres(2.44millionha),about31%ofwhichisdesignatedwildernessarea(NationalParkService,1982).DenaliNationalParkisthemostpopularrecreationresourceareaintheregion,withover250,000visitationsreportedin1981.OtherpublicrecreationareasadjacenttotheprojectareaincludeseveralsitesalongtheDenaliHighway.TheprincipalsiteadjacenttotheprojectareaistheBrushkanaCampground,comprisedof31campsites.ThecampgroundisadministeredbytheU.S.BureauofLandManagement.VariousprivateestablishmentslocatedalongtheParksHighwayandAlaskaRailroadalsocon-tributetoavailablerecreationopportunities.Someexamplesincludelodges,campgrounds,recreationoutfitters,andtourguideservices.Severalprivaterecreation-relateddevelopmentsalsooccuralongtheDenaliHighway.RecreationuseintheareathatwouldbetraversedbytheproposedDams-to-GoldCreektrans-missionline(Fig.2-7)istypifiedbylow-densitydispersedrecreationactivities;primarilyhuntingandfishing.The37-mi(60-km)Watana-to-GoldCreektransmissionlineright-of-waywouldpasswithin2mi(3.2km)oftheHighLakeLodgecomplex,theonlydevelopedfacilitiesinproximitytotheproposedlines.TheproposedcorridorwouldintersectTsusenaCreekandtheSusitnaRiver,whichareusedforsportfishingandotherwater-basedrecreationactivities.Severalrecreationtrailsalsowouldbeintersectedand/orparalleled,primarilyintheGoldCreekarea.TheproposedGoldCreek-to-Fairbankstransmissionlinewouldbypassafewisolatedresidential/recreationcabins,butnomajorprivateordedicatedrecreationresourceareasorfacilitiesoccuralongthecorridor.Afewrecreationtrails,unimprovedroads,andsecondaryhighways,aswellasmajortouristroutes,wouldvariouslyparalleland/orintersecttheright-of-way.TheParksHighwaywouldbeintersectedatthreelocations,theAlaskaRailroadattwolocations,andtheDenaliHighwaynearCantwell(ExhibitG,Vol.4,PlatesG30-G52).IntersectedrivercorridorswouldincludetheNenana(threelocations),Susitna,andTanana,whichareparticularlyimportantsourcesofrecreationopportunities.Fourotherriversalsowouldbecrossed.TheGoldCreek-to-AnchoragesegmentoftheproposedtransmissionsystemwouldextendthroughtheSusitnaFlatsStateGameRefugeforabout5mi(8km),andtraverseaproposedexpansionofthe'WillowCreekStateRecreationArea(ParkPlanningSection,1983).Comparedtotheisolateddevelopmentsalongmostofthecorridor,residential/recreationalcabinsandrecreationtrailsareofrelativelycommonoccurrenceintheareatothesouthwestofWillowandinthevicinityandsouthoftheNancyLakesarea.MajortouristroutesthatwouldintersectthetransmissionlineincludetheAlaskaRailroadandtheGlennandDavisHighways.IntersectedmajorriverrecreationcorridorswouldincludetheLittleSusitna,Kashwitna,andTalkeetnarivers.3.1.8SocioeconomicFactorsWiththeexceptionofaportionofthetransmissionlineroute,theproposedSusitnaprojectwouldbelocatedentirelyintheMatanuska-Susitna(Mat-Su)BoroughofAlaska(Fig.3-20).Onlyafewisolatedresidencesexistwithinorneartheproposedprojectboundaries,butmanycom-munitiesintheMat-SuBoroughandelsewhereoutsideprojectboundariesmightbeaffectedasprojectworkersandtheirfamiliesarelikelytomaintainresidencesintheselarger,moreestablishedcommunities.Thesocioeconomicenvironmentisthesamefortheproposeddams,onsitestructures,accessroutes,andtransmissionlineroutes.3.1.8.1PopulationDevelopmentofnumerouslarge-scaleprojectsinAlaskaledtoa32%increaseinthepopulationofthestatebetween1970and1980(from302,361to400,481)(Table3-4).OverthissameperiodpopulationoftheMat-SuBoroughgrewatevenagreaterrate--173%(from6,509to17,816people).Thisgrowthwasprimarilyinunincorporatedareas,chieflyinthesouthernpartoftheborough.Estimatesof1980populationbyboroughadministratorsareevenhigher,about22,000.Cantwell,Healy,Nenana,andPaxsoncurrentlyhavesmallpopulations.ThepopulationofCantwellrosebyabout44%between1970and1980.Healy,Nenana,Anchorage,andFairbanksalsogrewconsiderablyinthe1970s.AnchorageandFairbankspopulationsareexpectedtoincreasebyabout65%and50%,respectively,by2010.NoprojectionshavebeenmadefornearbyYukon-KoyukukBoroughcommunitiesorPaxson.About95%oftheMat-SuBoroughpopulationiswhiteandanother2%isAmericanIndian(Natives).InCantwell,thepercentageofNativesisprobablyabouthalf,butexactfiguresarenotavailable. r3-39z..............................:.Miles40,.,I",r.....,...\....rI~IIIII,,I'"...."'"\............··6._......_..I,",\---'"J',-'.._--.Paxson,\I,,,,\,I",rI ,\ I--...········T·II,\..'"-----_._~~I:_,.1......__oJ,.~.,t~-~~--_......,.............."_.••••••yJ'7J~~ANCHORAG£0ll)r----~---____.:.,.-.----~=::::;:--__,«)........•..-/..•.........._......•................zo'<:t«)z°to«)oC'I«)z°~5"!2:-:0t-W-~_-:..:...:.;4....:..;~-------..:..u1::.J4~8~O:...W-.l..l.....-----14-6""':(/~W----'....Figure~-20.MapoftheLocationofSusitnaHydropowerProjectStructuresandFeaturesoftheSocioeconomicEnvironment. Table 3-4.Baseline Population Projections,1970-2010 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Political Appl ;-App];-Appl i-App];-Appl;-Appl i- Subdivision 1970tl 1981 ISERt2 cantt3 ISERt 2 cantt3 ISERt 2 cantt3 ISERf2 cantt3 ISERt 2 cantt3 ISERt2 cantt3 Matanusl:.a-Susitna Borough Tal keetna 182 640t3 623 780 700 1,000 726 1,281 741 1,642 779 2,106 834 NA Trapper Creek NA 225t3 215 263 241 320 250 390 255 474 269 577 288 NA Willow 38 139t4 129 NA 145 NA 150 NA 153 NA 161 NA 173 NA Houston 69 600t3 580 878 652 1,415 676 2,278 690 3,669 726 5,909 777 NA Wasilla 300 2,168t3 2,082 2,895 2,342 4,157 2,428 5,967 2,479 8,474 2,607 12,053 2,791 NA Palmer 1,140 2,567t3 2,469 3,302 2,776 4,525 2,878 5,374 2,938 6,383 3,091 7,581 3,309 NA Big Lake 36 410t4 386 NA 434 NA 451 NA 460 NA 484 NA 518 NA Other 4,818 16,085t3 15,498 23,084 17 ,430 31,547 18,072 39,317 18,449 48,692 19,405 59,843 20,777 NA Total Borough 6,509 22,285t4 21,466 31,202 24,142 42,964 25,030 54,607 25,553 69,334 26,877 88,069 28,777 NA PaxSon Unknown,very small Projections not made Yukon-Koyukuk 8orough Cantwellt S 62 89t4 97 107 117 128 143 158 (1980) HealytS 79 334t4 425 470 519 573 632 698 (1980) NenanatG 362 470t4 529 613 710 823 929 1,077 W I(1980)-l> Total 80rough 7,69lt4 04,752 NA NA NA NA NA NA (1980) Municipality of 126,385 187,761 200,918 NA NA NA NA NA Anchoraget7 Anchorage Census Oivision 124,542 173,017t2 197,829 NA .218,123 NA 234,393 NA 246,390 NA 264,329 NA 287,865 NA (includes Greater Anchorage Area 8orough) Fairbanks Census Oivision 45,864 57,366t2 63,561 NA 70,060 NA 74,043 NA 76,743 NA 81,536 NA 87,959 NA NA:Not Available or not made because supporting information not available. t 1 U.S.Bureau of the Census (1973),pp.3-15,3-16. t 2 Projections of Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER),University of Alaska,as in Reeder et a1.(1983)for Mat-Su Borough,Anchorage,and Fairbanks only.Projections made only at borough or census division level.Baseline population projections for the communities in the Mat-Su and Yukon- Koyukuk boroughs were made in the following way:8ecause of the lack of data,a general assumption was made that the distribution of borough population to the communities in 1981 would hold through 2005.This assumption is weak in that many factors affect where inmigrants settle,e.g.,distance from project 1ocat ions,commerci a1 deve 1opment,avail abi 1i ty of hous i ng and communi ty servi ces.Lacki ng thi S i nformat i on,the assumption of constant di stri but i on pattern was used.These distribution percentages were then applied to the ISER borough total projections for each year to generate projections by community.Totals are less than sum of allocation (by 0.024%)to communities because of rounding errors in calculating percentages. t 3 Frank Orth &Associates (1982)p.4-7.Projections made for Mat-Su Borough only. t 4 U.S.Bureau of the Census (1980). t S Projections are made by Staff and assume 2%growth rate,the same rate assumed for Cantwell by Frank Orth &Associates (1983),p.33. t 6 Projections are made by Staff and assume 3%growth rate,slightly higher than the Cantwell rate because of Nenana's greater percentage growth between 1970 and 1980 (6%)and its proximity to Fairbanks. t 7 Yarzebinski (1983),pp.25,27.Projections made only through 1988.Includes more census divisions than do ISER projections below. t 8 U.S.Bureau of Land Management (1982). 3-41BecauseuncertaintyexistsaboutthespeedatwhichgrowthmayoccurintheMat-SuBorough,threesetsofbaselineprojectionsofpopulationgrowthareusedinthisdocument,onesetmuchlowerthantheothers(Table3-4).TheApplicant'sprojectionsshowanearly300%increaseintotalMat-SuBoroughpopulationbytheyear2005,theanticipatedendofprojectconstruction.ProjectionsmademorerecentlybytheInstituteofSocialandEconomicResearch(ISER)attheUniversityofAlaskashowanincreaseofonlyabout20%by2005.ProjectionsmadebytheMat-SuBoroughPlanningDepartmentshowanincreaseofabout200%inbaselinegrowthby2001(Table3-5).TheseprojectionsarealsomadebyPlanningDistricts,whichincludetheidentifiedcommunityplusdispersedpopulationonlandaroundthecommunity.Thus,theallocationsaresimilarto,butnotentirelycomparablewith,theothertwoprojections.TheISERbaselineprojectionsandMat-SuBoroughbaselineprojectionshavebeenusedinthisdocumentforcalculatingcapacitiesofservices.3.1.8.2InstitutionalIssuesandQualityofLifeThecitiesofAnchorage,Fairbanks,Palmer,Wasilla,Houston,andNenana,andtheMat-SuBorougharetheonlyincorporatedgovernmententitiesinthestudyarea.Incorporatedpo1itica1unitsingeneralhavepowerstolevytaxesandprovideandmaintainmanycommunityservices.NoformalregionalorlocalformsofgovernmentexistintheYukon-KoyukukBorough.Nativeorgani-zationshavejurisdictionovermuchofthelandinthe area.TheAhtnaCorporation,aNativeAlaskanorganization,administersNativefinancialconcernsinCantwell,andotherNativecorpora-tionshavejurisdictionoverPaxson,Nenana,andotherlandintheregionoftheproposedproject.Ingeneral,non-Nativeresidentsvaluetheisolated,ruralsettingsandthescenicwilderness.Becauseemploymentopportunitiesarelimitedandtourismisnotwell-developed,residentsareoftenwillingtoacceptaself-sufficientexistenceorliveonlowincomesinordertoremaininthesetting.Nativecorporationshaveagenerallypositiveattitudetowardfurtherdevelopment.Lega1andculturalconflictsexistintheSusitna8asinareaamongthosewhoclaimsubsistenceuses(huntingandfishingforruralcustomandtraditionaluses)ofthelands,otherscompetingforthesameharvests,andgovernmentagenciesthatmustinterpretandenforceAlaska1ssub-sistence1aws(AssociatedPress,1983;U.S.BureauofLandManagement,1982).SubsistenceactivitiesareprotectedbylawforaparticularpopulationofAlaskans,andsuchactivitiesremainanimportantaspectoftheeconomyandcultureofruralNativecommunitiesandofindi-vidualswhoresideinremoteareas.Subsistenceusersmayrelyonsubsistenceactivitiesforamajorityoftheirsustenanceneedsormayusethemtosupplementtheirfoodandmaterialsuppliesandcashincome.3.1.8.3EconomyandEmploymentEconomicactivityofMat-SuBoroughiscenteredprimarilyinthesouthernpartoftheborough,inandaroundthecommunitiesofPalmer,Wasilla,Houston,BigLake,andWillow.Ingeneral,theeconomyoftheRailbelt(whichencompassesthecommunitiesalongtheAlaskaRailroadandParksHighwaybetweenAnchorageandFairbanks)isundeveloped,withtheexceptionofsometourist-relatedcommercealongtheParksHighway.ConstructionandretailsaleshavethelargestreceiptsinMat-SuBorough.Governmentisthemajor'employerinMat-SuandYukon-Koyukukboroughs(App.N,TableN-4).Additionally,manyemployedresidentsofbothboroughs(from36%to50%inMat-Su)workoutsidetheboroughsinAnchorage,Fairbanks,orelsewhere(Ender,1980;CommonwealthAssociates,1982).EmploymentinbothFairbanksandAnchoragehasbeenprimarilyingovernment:25.1%and35.8%,respectively,in1982.Bothcitieshaveabout20%oftheiremploymentineachofservicesandtradeand10%inconstruction.CommercialandsportfishingandhuntingareimportantindustriesintheSusitnaBasinandintheCookInletregion.A1980studyfoundthat"commercialfishermenreceivedover$7millionfromSusitnaBasinfishll(Grogan,1983:p.4).EmploymentandincomeinmanyregionsofAlaskaarehighlydependentonstatesources.Onan_institutionallevel,thestateprovidesfundstofinanceenergydevelopmentandcommunityinfra-'structuretosupportpopulationincreasesrelatedtothatdevelopment(AlaskaDept.ofCommerceandEconomicDevelopment,1983:p.111-12).Itprovidesfundingtoaidboroughsinneedofservicesthatcannotbeprovidedwithlocaltaxincome.Currently,thestateprovidesabout85%ofthetotalMat-SuBoroughbudget,whenbothsharedrevenueandgrantsareincluded(Campbell,1983).ThroughtheAlaskaHousingFinanceCorporationandtheDivisionofHousingAssistance,thestatealsobuysmortgagesmadebyprivatelendinginstitutions.Ithasbeenestimatedthatstatespendinghasaccountedfor84%ofemploymentgrowthsince1978andanaverageofabout31%ofwageandsalaryincome.Inruralareaswheresubsistenceactivitiesmaybetheprimarysourceofliveli~ood,residentsrelyonpublicfundsforabout45%to50%ofpersonalwage-and-sa1aryincome(Hoffman,1983;Irvin,1983;Darbyshire&Associates,1980;Myers,undated).Volatileunemploymentrates,rangingfrom7%to19%intheprojectareabetween1976and1981,reflectthedependenceofmuchoftheAlaskanworkforceontemporaryandseasonallarge-scaleprojectsforemployment(Table3-6).Averageper-capitapersonalincomeinAlaskain1980was$12,759,whichwas134%ofthenationalaverage.Mat-SuBoroughper-capitapersonalincomewas ~==----- - - Table 3-5.Mat-Su Borough Planning Department Baseline Population Projections Political Subdivision 1983 1985 1987 1989 1990 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 Matanuska-Susitna Borough Talkeetna 1,027 1,209 1,463 1,723 1,861 2,010 2,280 2,538 2,746 2,970 3,213 Trapper Creek 146 172 208 245 265 286 324 360 389 421 456. Wi 11 ow 911 1,073 1,298 1,528 1,650 1,782 2,021 2,249 2,433 2,631 2,845 Houston-Big Lake 3,291 3,874 4,687 5,518 5,959 6,436 7,300 8,125 8,788 9,506 10,281 w Wasilla 11,397 13,709 16,942 20,363 22,217 24,237 28,041 31,824 35,085 38,667 42,600 I.,. '"Palmer 5,959 6,722 7,779 8,742 9,216 9,710 10,461 11,029 11,265 11,467 11,626 Other 2,168 2,580 3,190 3,846 4,178 4,487 5,047 5,582 6,011 6,476 6,981 Total Borought 1 24,899 29,339 35,567 41,965 45,346 48,948 55,474 61,707 66,717 72,138 78,002 (27,589) (32,534)(39,807) (47,075)(50,771) (54,722) (61,513) (68,368) (73,935) (79,525)(86,032) t 1 Total Borough figures in parentheses are updated Borough Planning Department projections (no date).Updated projections are not available for each planning district. Source:Calculated from DOWL Engineers (1983),pp.IY-18 -IY-19,IY-21 -IY-24.Figures were calculated by subtracting the Planning Depart- ment's projections of "Susitna Hydro Impact Population Projections"(pp.IY-21 -IY-22)from total population projections. 3-43Table3-6.TotalLaborForceandUnemploymentRatesforProposedProjectAreaandTransmissionLineRoute,1976through1981PoliticalSubdivision1976TotalLaborForceEmploymentUnemploymentRate(%)1977TotalLaborForceEmploymentUnemploymentRate(%)1978TotalLaborForceEmp1oymentUnemploymentRate(%)1979TotalLaborForceEmploymentUnemploymentRate(%)1980TotalLaborForceEmploymentUne~~loymentRate(%)1981TotalLaborForceEmploymentUnemploymentRate(%)Matanuska-Susitna8orough5,4954,68314.86,3455,34115.86,8915,59118.99,1947,86914.49,1257,72315.49,3628,16712.8Yukon-Koyukuk8orough2,6892,39011.12,2831,98613.02,2431,87416.52,0701,78813.62,0791,73816.42,0631,76814.3Anchorage68,05363,1847.277,64872,0657.282,18475,4358.280,06374,1067.481,64775,6167.486,06479,9567.1Fairbanks24,78922,9177.621,92419,04613.121,81717,96717.620,91618,22112.920,48817,98212.220,81318,28812.1StateofAlaska164,000150,0008,5172,000156,0009.3181,000161,00011.0183,000166,0009.3187,000169,0009.6192,000174,0009.4Source:AlaskaDepartmentofLabor(1983),pp.23-24.$10,846;Yukon-Koyukuk8orough,$12,429;Anchorage,$14,266;andFairbanks,$13,308(AlaskaDept.ofLabor,1983).However,whenthehighcostoflivinginAlaskaisaccountedfor,theaverageper-capitaincomeislowerthantheU.S.averageper-capitaincome(0.86oftheU.S.averagein1979)(Edgaretal.,1982:p.46).Nativehouseholdsaregenerallyamongthepoorestinthestate.InAnchoragein1979,one-sixthofatotalof12,000familiesmadelessthan$5,000;73%ofNativefamilieswerebelowthemedianincomeforAnchoragefamilies,and21%werebelowthepovertylevel,ascomparedwithabout7%forAnc~orageoverall(Yarzebinski,1983:pp.44-45,49).3.1.8.4Housing\HousinginMat-SuBoroughisamixtureofpermanentyear-roundresidencesandrecreationalorpart-yearresidences.CantwellIHealy,Nenana,Anchorage,andFairbankshavefewerrecreationalunitsthanMat-Su8oroughcommunities.Allthecommunitiesintheregionhavevolatilehousingmarketsthatfollowtheboom-and-bustcyclesoftheeconomy. II"I.'.,,,'1'1,~I i,,q'I3-44Over80%ofresidentialhousingstockintheareain1979wasinsingle-familydwellingunits,about10%wasinmobilehomes,andtheremainderwasinmulti-familyunits.Fewofthesearerentalunits(App.N,TableN-6).Vacancyratesrangefrom5%to20%,dependingonwhetherthedataincluderecreational,seasonallyusedunits.HousingisbeingbuiltrapidlyinsouthernMat-SuBorough,Anchorage,andFairbankstomeetthedemandfromthegrowingandmobilepopulation.Atotalof35temporary1ivingunitfacilities,mostlylodgesandcabinsbetweenWasi11aandHealy,werecountedinasurveybytheApplicant(App.N,TableN-6).Threeoftheseareidenti-fiedasbeingintheprojectvicinity;othersareavailablealongmajorhighwaysintheprojectarea.Capacityofthesefacilitiesisnotknown.Manyofthesetemporarylodgingfacilitiesareopenonlyinthesummermonths.Mostareingreatdemandbytourists,hunters,andfishermen,arereservedinadvance,andarefilled,particularlyonsummerweekends.Baselineprojectionsofthenumberofhouseholdsthatwouldbeneededinthestudyareathrough2010accordingtothelowest(ISER)andhighest(Applicant)populationprojectionsareshowninTable3-7.Therewouldbea300%increaseinMat-SuBoroughhousingneedsundertheApplicant'sprojections,butonlya20%increaseinneedsunder1983ISERprojections.Anchoragewouldneedabout65%morehousingunits,andFairbanksabout50%more.3.1.8.5CommunityServicesandFiscalStatusMostcommunityservicesinMat-SuBoroughnearproposedsitesofprojectfacilitiesareprovidedandadministeredbytheborough.TheYukon-KoyukukBoroughdoesnothavethesepowers,soCantwellIHealy,andNenanamustprovidetheirownservicesandfacilities.Manyoftheservicesinbothboroughsaresupportedbystatefunds,aswellaslocalcommunitytaxes.AnchorageandFairbanksprovideallcommunityservicesthroughmunicipa1systems.Avai1ab1edataonthecapacitiesofpresentandplannedcommunityservicesintheprojectareaareshowninTable3-8.YearswhencapacitieswillbereachedunderallthreebaselinepopulationprojectionsareshowninTables3-9and3-10.BasedonthecommunityservicestandardsusedtoevaluateexistingcapacitiesandusingISERandtheApplicant'sprojections(Table3-9),mostservicesincommuni-tiesintheprojectareashouldsufficetomeetbaselineneedsthrough2000.ExceptionsarefireandpoliceservicesinthesouthernpartofMat-SuBoroughandschoolsinAnchorage.However,itcannotbeestimatedusingprojectionsbyISERandtheApplicantifresidentsoutsidecommunityboundaries(the"Other"categoryinalltables)wouldbeadequatelyserved,astheycannotbeappropriatelyallocatedonacommunity-by-communitybasis.BecauseMat-SuBoroughPlanningDepartmentpopulationprojectionsaremadebyPlanningDistrictsthatincluderesidentsoutsidecommunityboundaries,Table3-10providesamorepessimisticpictureandmightbeconsideredahigh-impactprojection.MajorsourcesofrevenuefortheMat-SuBoroughanditscommunitiesareresidentialpropertytaxes,municipalassistancefunds,andstateandFederallysharedfunds.Totalassessedvalueofallland,businesses,andhomesrose19.2%between1982and1983assessments(Campbell,1983).Mostcommunitiesrelyonboroughandstatefunding.CantwellandHealybothrelypri-marilyonstategrantsandonannualstate-sharedrevenues.SomeadditionalfundingforcommunityservicesinCantwellcomesfromper-capitagrantsviatheNativevillagecouncil.Whenshort-fallshaveoccurredinboroughbudgetsinthepast,thestatehascontributedtothebudgettopreventdeficits.Asisthecaseinmostruralareas,educationisthelargestexpenditureinboroughbUdgets,followedbyroadmaintenance.3.1.8.6TransportationBesideshavingtheirownnetworksofstreets,FairbanksandAnchoragearejunctionsofmajorroad,air,andrailtransportationroutesfortheregion.Anchoragealsohasashipport.Mostcommunitiesintheprojectareahaveairstripsforsmallaircraft.Majornorth-southroadwaystraversingtheregionaretheParksHighway,whichistheprimaryroutebetweenAnchorageandFairbanks,andtheRichardsonHighway,whichlieseastoftheprojectsiteandconnectsValdezandFairbanks.Bothhighwayshaveexcesscapacity.TheDenaliHighwayconnectsCantwellontheParksHighwaywithPaxsonontheRichardsonHighway.TheAlaskaRailroadconnectsAnchorageandFairbanks.Itservessomecommunitiesandresidenceswithoutroadaccess,carryingfreight(atanestimated20%ofcapacity)andpassengers(dailyinthesummer,twiceperweekinthewinter).3.1.8.7HumanUseandManagementofWildlifeResourcesAprincipalhumanuseoftheupperandmiddleSusitnaBasinistheharvestingofbiggameandfurbearers.Wildlifeharvestingiscarriedoutforrecreational,subsistence,andcommercialpurposes.AsecondaryhumanuseisnonconsumptiveviewingofwildlifeIchieflybiggameandbirds.Nonconsumptiveuseisgenerallyrestrictedtotheperipheryoftheaffectedprojectareaduetolimitedaccess.Accesstotheproposedprojectareaiscu.-rentlylimitedbythenumberandqualityofgl'oundtransportationroutes.Theprincipa1modesoftransportareair;off-road,all-terrainvehicles;andacombinationofhighwayandfootaccess.Inaddition,boataccessisavailablefromTalkeetnatoDevilCanyonandfromDenaliHighwaytoVeeCanyon. Tab 1e 3-7.Baseline Projections of Number of Households,1970-2010 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Political Appli-Appli-Appl i-Appli-Appli-Appli- Subdivision 1970t'1980t 2 ISERt 2 cantt 3 ISERt 2 cantt3 ISERt 2 cantt 3 ISERt 2 cantt3 ISERt 2 cantt3 ISERt 2 cantf3 Matanuska-$~i~na Borough Talkeetna S4 209 201 246 226 334 23S 453 240 618 252 792 270 NA Trapper Creek NA 74 71 83 80 107 83 138 84 178 89 217 95 NA Willow 11 45 42 NA 47 NA 49 NA 50 NA 53 NA 57 NA Houston 20 197 189 308 212 508 220 837 225 1,381 236 2,224 253 NA Wasilla 88 708 683 930 768 1,404 796 2,124 812 3,189 855 4,536 915 NA Palmer 335 839 808 1,083 909 1,551 942 1,928 962 2,402 1,012 2,853 1,083 NA Big Lake 11 134 140 NA 158 NA 164 NA 167 NA 176 NA 188 NA Other 1,417 5,257 5,063 7,277 S,695 10,514 5,904 13,891 6,027 18,326 6,340 22,523 6,788 NA Total Borough 1,841 7,283 7,015 9,927 7,890 14,417 8,180 19,371 8,351 26,095 8,783 33,146 9,404 NA Paxson Unknown,very small number.Projections not made. Yukon-Koyukuk Borough w,... Cantwell 16 20 31 34 37 40 45 50 tn Healy 20 105 134 148 163 180 199 219 Nenana 91 148 166 193 223 259 292 339 Total Borough 1,01S 2,280 NA NA NA NA NA NA Anchorage Census Division 34,988 60,470 70,653 77,901 86,922 87,996 94,403 102,809 NA (includes Greater (70,104)t4 Anchorage Area Borough) Fairbanks Census Division 11,590 18,224 21,918 26,946 28,478 29,517 31,360 33,830 NA NA:Not Available t 1 1970 household data for the boroughs &census divisions are taken from the U.S.Bureau of the Census (1973),pp.3-31.3-52.Household data for com- munities are estimated by dividing the population estimates from Table 3-4 by the estimated average household size for the borough in which the community is located (U.S.Bureau of the Census,1973:p.3-31). t 2 Anchorage and Fairbanks data are from Bureau of the Census (1980).Assumes Mat-Su Borough household size of 3.06;YUkon-Koyukuk Borough household size of 3.18;Anchorage household size of 2.8;and Fairbanks household size of 2.6 (U.S.Bureau of the Census,1980).Calculated from ISER model population projections (Reeder et al.)1983)shown on Table 3-4.(See footnote 2 on that table for explanation of distribution to communities.)Mat-Su Borough estimates for 1981 are higher,giving a total of 7,701 housing units in the borough (OOWL Engineers,1983). t 3 Household projections by Frank Orth &Associates (1982),Table 4.1-6,p.4-14.Assumes household size of 3.07 for 1982,decreasing to Census Bureau's national average of 2.657 in year 2000. t 4 1982 figure from Yarzebinski (1983)for municipality of Anchorage,which includes more census divisions than do ISERrs Anchorage projections. ~ 3-46Table3-8.ExistingorPlannedCapacity(personsserved)ofCommunityServicesofProject-AreaCommunitiest'Schoolst4CommunityWatert1Sewerst1SolidWastetlDisposalElementary(students)Secondary(Jr/Sr)(students)PolicetlHospitalFacilitiesTa1keetnaTrapperCreekHoustonWasillaIndividualsourcesIndividualsourcesIndividualsources4,400Individua1septictanksIndividualseptictanksIndividualseptictanksIndividualseptictanksRelyonboroughlandfillsRelyonboroughlandfillsRelyonboroughlandfillsRelyonboroughlandfills120(65)350(177)1,170(959)180(122)Attendinothercommunities600/1,200(353/715)4500CoveredbyNoneexistboroughNoCoveredbyNoneexistfacilitiesborough1800-1920CoveredbyNoneexistborough1800-1920CoveredbyNoneexistboroughNA20,0001800-19205,400140,000168,000tilPalmerMatanuska-SusitnaBoroughAnchoraget&Fairbankst6Cantwell13,200NA227,00053,000Individualsources5,000NA340,00080,000IndividualseptictanksRelyonboroughlandfills28,352by2009tSNANARelyonprivatelandfill950(754)350029,700(21,090)8,850(6,667)60500/900(332/619)370012,090(15,854)6,750(4,341)28,000300030,000Coveredbystate30,000ProvidedinPalmerNA(4hospitals,709beds;5long-termcarefacilities,266beds;1psychi-atrichosp1tal,175beds)NA(2hospitals,227beds;2long-termcarefacilities,155beds)NoneexistNA'"Notapplicableornotavailable.t1Sources:DOWLEngineers(1983);ExhibitE,Vol.7,Chap.5,p.ES8-7;allnumbersarecalculatedusingstandardsfromStenehjemandMetzger(1980).t2Source:FrankOrth&Associates(1982);ExhibitE.t3Plannedorplannedplusactual.t4Existingenrollment,whenavailable,isinsideparentheses.Sources:DOWLEngineers(1983),p.111-48,andExhibitE,Vol.7,Chap.5,p.ESB-7.tSAccumulatedovertimetototalthispopulationinyear2009,whenlandfillwillreachcapacity.t6DivisionofBudgetandManagement1982schoolcapacitiescalculatedassuming25studentsperclassroom. Table 3-9.Year.When Community Service Needs Will Equal Existing or Planned Capacity in Project-Area Communities Using ISER Population Projectionst' Schools Solid Waste Secondary Hospital CommOnity Water Sewers Disposal Elementary (Jr/Sr)Fire Police Facilities Talkeetna Individual Individual Re lyon borough 2010+2010+ 2010+Covered by None exist sources septic 1andfi 11 s borough tanks Trapper Individual Individual Rely on borough 2010+Attend in No·Covered by None exist Creek sources septic 1andfi 11 s other facil ities borough tanks communities Houston Individual Individual Re lyon borough 2010+2010+ 2010+Covered by None exist sources septic 1andfi 11 s borough tanks Wasilla 2010+Individual Rely on borough 2010+2010+/2010+1983 Covered by None exist septic 1andfi 11 s.borough w, tanks ..,...., Palmer 2010+2010+Re lyon borough 2010+2010+/2010+1983 2010+2010+t 3 1andfi 11 s Matanuska-NA NA 2009+t 2 2010+2010+NA 1982 Provided Susitna in Palmer Borough Anchorage 1992 2010+NA 2010+1983 1983 1983 NA Fai rbanks 1983 2004 NA 2010+2001 1983 1983 NA Cantwell Individual Individual Rely on private 2010+Covered by None exist sources septic 1andfi 11 s Unknown state tanks NA =Not applicable t'Calculated from Table 3-4,ISER projections,and Table 3-8. t 2 See comparable entry in Table 3-4. t 3 The Mat-Su Borough Planning Department estimated capacity would be reached in 1995 (OOWL Engineers,1983). ~ -------- ~~----~~-- ~---~------ Tabl e 3-10.Years When Community Service Needs Will Equal Existing or Planned Capacity Using Mat-Su Borough Population Projectionst' Schools Solid Waste Secondary Hospital Community Water Sewers Disposal Elementary (JrISr)Fire Police Facil ities Talkeetna Individual Individual Re lyon borough 1985 1989 2001+Covered by None.exist sources septic I andfi 11 s borough tanks Trapper Individual Individual Re lyon borough 2001+Attend in No Covered by None exist Creek sources septic landfill s other facil it i es borough tanks communities Houston Individual Individual Re lyon borough 1983 1983 1983 Covered by None exist sources septic 1andfi 11 s borough w tanks ,... CD Wasilla Serves Individual Rely on borough 1983 1983/1990 1983 Covered by None exist community septic 1andfi 11 s borough only tanks Palmer 2001+1983 Re lyon borough 1989 1990/2001+1983 1983 1985+t 3 1andfi 11 s Matanuska-NA NA 1985t 2 1987 1987 NA 1983 Provided Susitna in Palmer Borough NA =Not applicable t'Calculated from Tables 3-5 and 3-8. t 2 See comparable entry in Table 3-4. t 3 The Mat-Su Borough Planning Department estimated capacity would be reached in 1995 (DOWL Engineers,1983). 3-49Limitedaccesstotheareasserves,inpart,asaconstrainingfactoronthehumanusesofthebasin'swildliferesources.TheresponsibilityforregulatinghumanusesofwildlifeandmanagingwildliferesourcesofAlaskarestsintheAlaskaDepartmentofFishandGame,whichimplementsthemanagementpoliciesoftheAlaskaBoardofGame.HuntingandtrappingintensityiscontrolledbyAlaskaDepartmentofFishandGameregulationsthroughthreebasicmethods:(1)limitingthehuntingseason,(2)establishingharvestquotas,and(3)imposingdirectlimitationsoneffort,e.g.,issuingalimitednumberofpermits.Thesemethodsareusedtovaryingdegreesincontrollingharvestofmoose,othergame,andfurbearersintheaffectedgamemanagementunits.SubsistenceusesofwildliferesourceshavearecognizedpriorityunderbothFederalandstate1aws,providedthatsuchusesdonotinterferewithwildlifeconservationgoals.SubsistenceusersharvestgameandfurbearersasasourceoffoodIcloth;n9.orforotheruti1itar;anpurposes.Subs;stenceuserstatisticsarenotdistinguishah1einharveststatisticsforgamespecies,withtheexceptionofcaribou.Therefore,specificsubsistenceuserpatternsfortheareaarenotcurrentlyknown.Indirectcommercialbenefitsaccruefromrecreationalandsubsistencehuntingofgamespecies.Biggamehuntingbynon-residentsofAlaskarequiresbylawtheemploymentoflicensedguideswhoprovideguidingservicesandmayoffertransportation,lodging,food,orcampingservices.Thereareanumberoflodgesinthegeneralregionthatserveconsumptiveandnonconsumptiveusersofgameresourcesintheimpactarea.Inaddition,financialgaincanaccruetointerestsoutsidetheprojectregionthroughsupplyinggamehunterswithtransportation,food,equipment,taxidermyservices,andmeatandhidepreparation.Theprincipalgamespeciesintheaffectedareaaremoose,caribou,Dall1ssheep,blackandbrownbear,andwolf(Sec.3.1.5.2).Thestatusofthesepopulationshasbeendiscussedindi-viduallyabove.Theeconomicimportanceofeachspeciesisdifficulttoascertain.Thereisnoinformationonthebusinessvolumeassociatedwitheachspecies.Moreover,huntsareoftenconductedascombinedhuntsandcostsarenotapportionedtoeachspecies.Inlieuofsuchdata,relativeimportancemaybeexpressedonthebasisoftakeinthebasinduring1978-1979asaproportionofstatewideharvest:moose-14.5%;wolf-9.0%;blackbear-5.0%;caribou-9.ifk,brownbear-8.0%.3.1.9VisualResources3.1.9.1LandscapeCharacterTypesTheupperandmiddleSusitnaRiverBasinandtheareaalongtheproposedpowertransmissionlinecorridorcontain24aestheticallydistinctlandscapecharactertypes,consistingofamixtureofvarioustopographic(mountains,broadvalleys),vegetation(woodlands,tundra,barrenland),andwaterresource(rivers,waterfalls,rapids,lakes,andstreams)features(App.M,Sec.M.2.1,TablesM-2andM-3).Thesephysicalfeaturesareenhancedbyothervisualandaestheticelements,suchasatmosphericconditions,presenceofwildlife,andnaturalscentsandsounds.LandformswithintheupperandmiddleSusitnaBasinaredefinedbythreemajorelements:(1)thedeeplyincisedSusitnaRiverValleyanditstributaries,(2).thenorthernTalkeetnaandChulitnamountains,and(3)thenorthernTalkeetnaplateau(TerrestrialEnvironmentalSpecialists,1982b).SelectedphotosoftheselandformsareshowninFigure3-21(alsoseeApp.M,Sec.M.2.1.1,TableM-2andFigs.M-1toM-3).Thevegetationisdiverseandvarieswithelevation.Densespruce-hardwoodforestscoverthelowerdrainageareasandslopes,whilelargeareasoftundravegetationcoverthehigherelevations.Avarietyofshrub-typevegetationoccursbetweentheforestandtundraareas.Colorvariationalsoenhancestheaestheticqualityofthearea.Thisisparticularlytrueinfallwhentheleavesofthedeciduoustreesturncolor(yellow,orange,andred)andarecontrastedagainstthedominantdark-greenspruce.Thetundraalsoundergoesbriefcolorchangeintheautumn,andtherecanbeconsiderablecontrastagainstmountainback-dropsandareasofopen,bluesky.Duringthewinter,partialandcompletesnowcoverdominatesthe1andscape.TherouteoftheproposedpowertransmissioncorridorgenerallyfollowsportionsoftheGeorgeParksHighway(Route3),theAlaskaRailroad,andtheAnchorage-FairbanksTransmissionLineIntertieroute.\ThelandformsalongthetransmissionlinecorridoraremainlydefinedbytheTanana,Nenana,·~hulitna,andSusitnarivervalleysandtheirtributaries;theAlaskaMountainRange(including~t.McKinley);theTalkeetnaMountains;andtheCookInletofftheGulfofAlaska.Theareaalsocontainsanumberofhumandevelopments(e.g.,cities,towns,smallsettlements,highways,andrai1road).Aspreviouslydiscussed,thevegetationintheareaisdiverseandvarieswithelevation,slope,drainage,andseason.SelectedviewsofthelandscapetypesalongtheproposedtransmissioncorridorareshowninFigure3-22(alsoseeApp.M,Sec.M.2.1.2,TableM-3andFigs.M-4toM-9). 3-50(D)DeadmanCreekFalls(B)SusitnaRiverValley(F)SusitnaRiverUplandsandWetTundraBasin(E)VeeCanyon(A)DevilCanyon(C)ChulitnaMountainsFigure3-21.ViewsofSelectedLandscapeCharacterTypesandProminentNaturalFeaturesoftheUpperandMiddleSusitnaBasin.[Source:ApplicationExhibitE,Vol.8,Chap.8] r3-51(A)TananaRidge(C)BroadPass(E)HurricaneGulch(B)AlaskaRange(WindyPassArea)(D)CurryRidge(F)SusitnaRiverLowlandsFigure3-22.SelectedLandscapeCharacterTypesandProminentNaturalFeaturesAlongtheProposedTransmissionLineCorridor.[Source:ApplicationExhibitE,Vol.8,Chap.8] I"I:1:11'1'1'I:tii,I3-523.1.9.2ProminentNaturalFeatures.Anumberofprominentnaturalfeaturesoccurwithintheupperandmiddlebasin.TheV-shapedvalleysoftheSusitnaRiveranditstributariesarevisuallyprominent,andforestedareasassociatedwiththevalleysformdistinctpathsofgreenthroughapredominantlytundra-typelandscape.TheSusitnaRivervalleyisparticularlyprominentatandnearDevilandVeecanyons(seeFig.3-21),whereturbulentrapids,rockoutcroppings,shearcliffs,andenclosedcanyonwallspredominate(seeApp.M,Sec.M.2.1.1.2).DevilCanyonisasteep-sided,nearlyenclosedgorge.Theunusualgeology,hydrology,andaestheticcharacteristicsofthecanyonmakeitanotablenaturalfeaturewithintheproposedDevilCanyondamsiteandimpoundmentarea,aswellastheentirestate.VeeCanyonincludesadoublehairpinbend,hasadeeplycutchannel,andhasastretchofwhite-water.Thecanyonisunusuallycolorfulbecauseitisofteninterlaidwithmarbleandgreenschist.VeeCanyon,withitsmoreopenwalls,ismorevisiblethanDevilCanyon,andisasignificantvisualresourcelocatedwithintheproposedWatanadamreservoirarea.Therearenumerousclear,fast-flowingmountaincreekswithintheupperandmiddleSusitnaBasin.Someofthesecreeksflowoversteepandrockyembankments,formingwaterfallsandflumes.DeadmanCreekFallsisoneofthelargestandmostscenicwaterfallsintheprojectarea.Itsurgesoverlooserockinanincisedchannelandplummetsverticallyoverrockyslopesandoutcroppingsintoaclear,boulder-strewnpool(seeFig.3-21).ThesefallsarelocatedwithintheproposedWatanaimpoundmentarea.Therearealsonumerouslakesinavarietyofshapesandsettings--fromsmall,irregular-shapedlakesinwoodlandsettingstolargerglaciallakesandacomplexsetoffine,finger-shapedlakessetinablackspruceandshrubwetlandarea.Viewssurroundingthebasinareoftenofhighermountainpeaksanddistantmountainranges.Anumberofprominentnaturalfeaturesoccureitherwithinoradjacenttotheproposedtrans-missionlinecorridor(seeApp.M,Sec.M.2.1.2.2).ManyofthemountainousnaturalfeaturesoccurwithintheAlaskaRange.ThemostsignificantnaturalfeaturewithintheregionisMt.McKinley,whichdominatesthelandscapefromvariouslocationsalongthecorridor.Acolor-ful"badlands"typearea(softrockstratarapidlyeroding)occursintheNenanaUplands.Thenarrow,steep-walledNenanaGorgeislocatedtothewestofthecorridor.NaturalfeaturessurroundingthescenicBroadPassareaincludeMt.McKinley,Mt.Deborah,Mt.Pendleton,PanoramaMountain,andtheReindeerHi11s.Notab1enaturalfeatureslocatedwithintheChu1itnaRiverValleylandscapeareaincludeHurricaneGulch,whichhasasteeplyincisedvalleythatprovidesforaspectacularviewfromtheAlaskaRailroadbridgeandGeorgeParksHighwaybridge(seeFig.3-22).TheprominentCurryRidgeextendsthroughtheDenaliStatePark,andtheTalkeetnaMountainsarelocatedtotheeast.TheSusitnaRiverlowlandslandscapeareaincludesthescenicNancyLakeStateRecreationArea..3.1.9.3SignificantViewsheds,VistaPoints,andTravelRoutesThehighermountainpeaks,includingDeadman,Devil,andWatanamountains,providevistapointsthatoverlooktheproposeddamsitesandadjacentareas.ViewscanalsobeobtainedfromthemoreaccessibleoverlooksofTsusenaandChulitnabuttesandalongtheridgesaboveVeeCanyonandatBigLakeandSWimmingBearLake.ManyofthesesitesallowextensiveviewsofthecentralTalkeetnaMountainsandtheAlaskaRange(seeApp.M,Sec.M.2.1.1.3,TableM-2).Viewsextend;ngwithintheproposedtransmission1inecarridarareawauldoccuratvariouspointsalongtheGeorgeParksHighway,AlaskaRailroad,andfromtownsandsettlementslocatedadjacenttothehighwayandrailroadbetweenAnchorageandFairbanks(seeApp.M,Sec.M.2.1.2.3,TableM-3).SignificantviewshedsandvistapointswouldoccurinnumerouslocationsalongtheTanana,Nenana,Chulitna,andSusitnarivervalleyandridgeareas.ViewsextendingintothetransmissionlinecorridorwouldbepossiblebyrecreationistsalongridgelinesandalsowouldoccurfromvariouslocationswithintheDenaliNationalParkandPreserveandDenaliStatePark.TravelersontheGeorgeParksHighwayoutsideofFairbanksviewanexistingtransmissionlineatvariouspointsbetweenFairbanksandtheline'sterminusatHealy.VisibletransmissionlinesandothertypesofhumandevelopmentarealsoclearlyvisibleintheAnchorgearea.3.1.10CulturalResourcesAnunderstandingofthegeologicalcontextoftheculturalresources(i.e.,geoarcheo10gy)oftheproposedprojectareaisessentialtoanappreciationoftheirsignificance.AlargeportionofthemiddleandupperSusitnaRiverBasincontainsasequenceofatleastthreeandpossiblyfourdistinguishablelayersofvolcanictephra(Dixonetal.,1982,1983).Thissequenceprovidesadatablestratigraphiccontextfornumerousarcheologicalsitesintheregion.Theprojectstudyareahasbeeninhabitedforatleast12,000yearsandcontainsremainsoffourprehistoricarcheologicaltraditions(identifiedbydiagnosticartifacttypes):American r!,!l3-53Pa1eoarctic(12,000-6,500yearsBeforePresent,orB.P.),NorthernArchaic(6,500-4,000yearsB.P.),ArcticSmallTool(4,000-1,500yearsB.P.),andAthapaskan(after1,500A.O.).Remainsfromthehistoricperiod,followingEuropeandiscoveryinthemid-18thCenturyA.D.andeventualpurchaseofAlaskabytheUnitedStates,includenon-Nativetradegoodsandsitesoccupiedbyminers,hunters,andtrappers.Theculturalresourcesstudyareafortheproposedprojectcontainsatotalof423identifiedarcheologicalandhistoricsites.Ongoingsurveyseemslikelytoyieldadditionalsites.MostofthesitesareconcentratedinthemiddleandupperSusitnaBasin,andmanyofthesearelikelytobesignificant(i.e.,eligibleforinclusionintheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlaces)duetotheirpotentialcontributionstoknowledgeofAlaskanprehistoryandhistory.Manycontainartifactsinstratigraphic(volcanictephra)context,whilesomecontainmultiplecomponents,features,andfaunalremains.Thefollowingculturalresourcesoccurinareasthatwouldbeaffectedbytheproposedproject(Dixoneta1.,1982, 1983,1984):1.Watanadam,impoundment,andassociatedfaci1ities:122archeo1ogica1and4historicsites,22ofwhichhavebeenassessedforsignificance(Fig.3-23,sitegroups1and2).2.DevilCanyondam,impoundment,andassociatedfacilities:8archeologicaland3historicsites,3ofwhichhavebeenassessedforsignificance.3.Accessroutes:30archeologicaland2historicsites,1ofwhichhasbeenassessedforsignificance(Fig.3-23,sitegroups3and5).4.Transmissionlines:42culturalresourcesites,atleast6ofwhicharehistoricand1ofwhichhasbeenassessedforsignificance.Themajorremainingtaskintheevaluationoftheexistingenvironmentistheassessmentofsignificanceformostofthesitesintheaffectedareas.Onlyoneofthesitesassessedtodatehasbeentermedinsignificant.ItisapparentthatalargeproportionofthesitesintheproposedWatanaandDevilCanyonimpoundmentareas(butnototherprojectareas)willbejudgedassignificant.Intermsofpaleontologicalresources,plantmacro-fossilsofTertiaryagehavebeenrecoveredfromaseriesoflocalitiesalongWatanaCreek(withintheWatanaimpoundmentarea)(Dixoneta1.,1982),andlargePleistocenemammalremainshavebeenfoundneartheSusitna-TyoneconfluenceandatarcheologicalsiteTLM196onGooseCreek(withintheWatanaimpoundmentarea)(Dixonetal.,1982,1984).Noneofthesehasbeenassessedassignificanttodate.3.2SUSITNADEVELOPMENTALTERNATIVESTheSusitnadevelopmentalternativesaredescribedinSection2.2(seeFigs.2-13to2-17).3.2.1LandResourcesThegeologyandsoilsfortheWatanaI-DevilCanyonalternative,theWatanaI-ModifiedHighDevilCanyonalternative,andtheWatanaI-ReregulatingdamalternativearesimilarinnaturetothosedescribedinSection3.1.1.1.Similarly,thelanduseandownershipfortheareasofalternativedamlocationsanddesigns,accessroutes,powertransmissionroutesandborrowareaswithintheupperandmiddleSusitnaRiverBasinisasdescribedinSection3.1.1.2.3.2.2Climate,AirQuality,NoiseBecauseoftheshortdistancesbetweenthesitesoftheproposedSusitnaprojectfeaturesandthoseoftheSusitnadevelopmentalternatives,theinformationprovidedinSection3.1.2applies.ThesitesofthesealternativesshouldalsohaveContinentalZoneclimate,excellentambientairquality,andverylowambientnoiselevels.3.2.3WaterQuantityandQualityTheexistingwate~quantityandqualityassociatedwiththesitesoftheSusitnadevelopmentalternativesareid~ntica1tothatoftheproposedprojectsites,asdiscussedinSection3.1.3.3.2.4AquaticCommunitiesTheexistingaquaticcommunitiesintheareasofthein-basinalternativesareidenticaltothoseintheareaoftheproposedprojectsites,asdiscussedinSection3.1.4. 3-54•LakeLouise..:(jo.E•~z•r<Jcoz•~1.j.5-0:-·-W-------14-9.,.·-W--------14-S""T.-W--------14-7.,.·-W--------14-16• W17Miles,II~Archeological/HistoricSiteGroupsIFigure3-23.MajorCulturalResourceSiteGroupsintheMiddleqndUpperSusitnaBasin.[Source:BasedondatafromDixonetal.,1982,1983,1984]I'I,III'Ii!Ii:1,;,I 3-553.2.5TerrestrialCommunities3.2.5.1PlantCommunities./VegetationtypesfoundinthevicinityoftheWatanaIalternativeareessentiallythesameasthosedescribedfortheproposedWatanadamandimpoundment(Sec.3.1.5.1).FortheReregulatingdamalternative(Fig.2-17),thedam,impoundment,andpowerhousewouldbelocatedinspruceandmixedconifer-deciduousforesttypes.TheModifiedHighDevilCanyonalternative(Fig.2-17)wouldbelocatedinessentiallythesameenvironmentastheproposedDevilCanyondamandimpound-ment(Sec.3.1.5.1),exceptthatmixedconifer-deciduousforestlocatedbetweenthetwodamsiteswouldnotbeaffected.Thenorthernaccessalternative(Sec.2.2.2.4andFig.2-13)betweenHurricaneandDevilCanyonandthenovertoDevilCreekwouldtraversemostlywhitespruceandmixedconifer-deciduousforests,aswellassometallshrubcommunities(e.g.,alongPortageCreek)andsomeriparianandwetlandareas.AtthehigherelevationsbetweenDevilCreekandWatana,theroutewouldcrossmostlyshrublandsandvarioustundratypes.Thesouthernaccessalternative(Sec.2.2.2.4andFig.2-13)wouldcrosspredominatelymixedconifer-deciduousforestbetweenGoldCreekandDevilCanyon,andwhitespruce,mixedforest,andtallshrubtypesbetweenHurricaneandDevilCanyon.FromDevilCanyontoWatana,theroutewouldcrossacomplexmosaicofvegetationtypes,inclUdingmixedforest,tallshrub,lowshrub,tundra,andspruceforest,aswellasnumerouswetlandareasintheeasternportionnearPrairieCreek,StephanLake,andTsusenaandDeadmancreeks.Thealternativepowertransmissioncorridors(Figs.2-14through2-16)wouldcrosssimilarvegetationtypesasthosecrossedbytheproposedcorridors(Sec.3.1.5.1);however,thepropor-tionsofspecificvegetationtypeswithinthevariousalternativecorridorsarenotalwayssimilartothoseoftheproposedcorridors.ThelocationsofalternativeborrowsitesB, C,J,andLareillustratedinFigs.2-2and2-6.BorrowsiteBiscoveredmostlybymixedconifer-deciduousforest.MostofborrowsiteCiscoveredbyamixtureofspruceforestandlowshrubland,buttundratypesarefoundathigherelevations.BorrowsiteJiscontainedwithintheSusitnaRiver.BorrowsiteLiscoveredbydeciduousforestandamarshyareaoftallshrub.3.2.5.2AnimalCommunitiesIngeneral,alternativeSusitnadevelopmentswouldoccurwithinthewildliferangesdescribedpreviouslyfortheproposedproject.VariationsoftheWatanadamheightwouldaffectthesamegeneralwildlifepopulationsdescribedpreviously,aswouldalterationsinthedesignoftheproposedWatanadevelopmentfeatures.TheHighDevilCanyonalternativewouldbelocatedinanareaoflowerqualitymoosehabitatthantheWatanasiteandwouldaffectthesamepopulationsaffectedbytheupperportionsoftheproposedDevilCanyonreservoir.TheReregulatingdambelowWatanawou1dbelocatedintheuppermost10mi(16km)oftheproposedDevilCanyonimpoundment.Allalternativeaccessrouteslpowertransmissionlineroutes,andborrowsitesarewithinthewild1iferangespreviouslydescribed.•AiternativeaccesstotheParksHighwaywouldcrosswetlandsbetweenthehighwayandGoldCreekthatareproductiveaquaticfurbearerhabitat.ThesouthernalternativeaccessandpowertransmissionlineroutesbetweenDevilCanyonandWatanawouldpassnearStephanLakeandPrairieCreek.ThelatterareahaslargeconcentrationsofbrownbearduringsalmonspawninginJulyandAugust.Thatareaalsosupportsmoderatetohighdensitiesofmoose.3.2.6ThreatenedandEndangeredSpeciesSeveralofthealternativetransmissionlinecorridorsfromHealytoFairbankswouldpassneartheperegrinefalconhabitatnorthofNenana.AlthoughthisareaisnotcurrentlyuS'edbyperegrine,severalhistoricalnestinglocationsaresituatedinthehillsoverlookingtheTananaRiver.NootherthreatenedorendangeredspeciesofplantsorwildlifewouldbeassociatedwithSusitnadevelopmentalternatives(seeSec.3.1.6).3.2.7RecreationResourcesThepatternofrec~eationusesthroughouttheareaencompassingtheproposedandalternativedamlocationsischaracterizedbylow-intensitYldispersedrecreationactivitiesandtrail-relatedmodesofrecreation.Thus,thediscussionpresentedinSection3.1.7isapplicabletoalterna-tivedamsitesanddesigns.Nomeaningfuldifferencesaredistinguishablebetweenrecreationresourceareasandactivitiesassociatedwiththeproposedandalternativeaccessroutes.TheApplicantindicatesthatcon-siderationsofrecreationresourceswereessentiallyeliminatedascriteriaforthedesignationandevaluationofalternativeaccessroutes(ExhibitE,Vol.9,Chap.10,p.E-1D-49). 3-56Followingsuccessivescreenings,theApplicantidentifiedfouralternativecorridorsforroutingtheDam-to-Go1dCreektransmission1ines.Recreationusepatternsofthefouralternativecorridorsareessentiallysimilar;i.e.,low-densitydispersedrecreationactivities(seeApp.L,Sec.L.1.3.3.1).ThealternativecorridorsfortheWillow-to-Anchoragetransmission1ines(Fig.2-16)encroachon,orareinproximityto,staterecreationareas,privatelyownedrecrea-tionsites,andotherwisesensitiveareasinseverallocations,particularlyintheNancyLakesandWasilla-Palmerareas.Thecorridorsalsovariouslyparalleland/orintersectmajortouristroutesandrecreationtrails(seeApp.L,Sec.L.l.3.3.2).AllthreeofthealternatecorridorsfortheHealy-to-Fairbankssectionofthetransmissionlinetraverseremoteterrain(Fig.2-15).Recreationusepatternsarecharacterizedbylow-density,dispersedactivitiesandtrail-relatedmodesofrecreation(seeApp.L,Sec.L.l.3.3.3).DiscussionofrecreationresourceareasandactivitiespresentedinSection3.1.7relativetodamsitesandaccessroutesisalsoapp1icab1etothealternateborrowsites(seeApp.L,Sec.L.1.3.4).3.2.8SocioeconomicFactorsAllthealternativedamlocationsanddesignsintheSusitnaBasin,andalternativeaccessroutes,powertransmissionroutes,andborrowsiteswouldbelocatedinthesamesocioeconomicsettingastheproposedSusitnadevelopmentasdescribedinSection3.1.8.Nativeconcernsareparticularlyimportantinregardtotheaccessroutes,asNativegroupscontrolorwilleventuallyacquirecontrolofmuchofthelandintheSusitnaBasinarea.Projectaccessroadswouldprovideaccesstothislandtodeveloprecreationalandbusinesspursuits.However,Nativeorganizationsaredividedintheirpreferencesforaccessroutes.Eachorganizationpreferstheroutethatwouldprovidegreatestaccesstoitsland.TheAhtnaCorporationsupportsthepro-posedDenali-Northroute;otherorganizationspreferthesouthernaccessroute(FederalEnergyRegulatoryCommission,1983;ExhibitE,Vol.9,Chap.10,p.E-I0-48).3.2.9VisualResourcesIngeneral,thelandscapecharactertypes,prominentnaturalfeatures,andviewingareasforthealternativeSusitnadamsitesanddesignsandalternativeaccessroutes,borrowareas,andpowertransmissionroutesarethosedescribedinSection3.1.9.However,thealternativetransmissionroutesegmentsalsoextendthroughfourlandscapecharactertypesnotpreviouslyidentified.Theselandscapesinclude(1)Fairbankslandscapecharactertype,characterizedbyanurbantownlandscapesituatedwithinnearlylevelfloodplainsandlowlandswithalluvialfans,(2)LittleSusitnaRiverlandscapecharactertype,borderedbyhighmountainsonthreesidesandextendingintothebroad,openSusitnaRiverlowlandstothewest,(3)Knik-MatanuskaDeltalandscapearea,whichincludestheKnikArmofCookInletqndsurroundingtideflats(mudflats),tidalmarshlands,andsomerollingmorainalterrainand(4)thenarrow,glaciatedChugachFoothillslowlandlandscapearealocatedbetweenAnchorageandtheKnikRiverdelta,borderedbythesteepChugachMountainstotheeastandtheKnikArmtothewest.3.2.10CulturalResourcesExistingculturalresourcesfortheWatanaI-ModifiedHighDevilCanyonalternativeswouldbethesameasthosedescribedfortheproposedWatanaandDevilCanyondevelopments,respectively(seeSec.3.1.10).TheReregulatingdamalternativewouldaffectanareasmallerthanthatimpactedbytheproposedDevilCanyondam,excludingonehistoricandonearcheologicalsite.Thefollowingculturalresourcesoccurinthealternativeaccesscorridors:1.Corridor1(North):12archeologicalsites,2historicsites(Fig.3-23,sitegroup5).2.Corridor2(South):nositesreportedtodate.3.Corridor3(Denali-North):18archeologicalsites(Fig.3-23,sitegroup3).Onlyoneofthesehasbeenevaluatedforsignificance(withpositiveresults):itappearslikelythatthemajorityofthesesites,whichlackastratigraphiccontext,willnotbetermedsig-nificant.Additionalsurveywouldbenecessaryinordertofullyassessexistingculturalresources.'Theaffectedenvironmentwouldbeessentiallythesameforthevariousalternativetransmissionlinerouteswithrespecttoculturalresources.IntheHealyarea,alternativerouteNos.3and4wouldaffecteightarcheologicalsites,whileNo.10wouldaffectonlyone.IntheAnchoragearea,alternativerouteNos.4,7,and16wouldeachaffectonesite,whileNos.15and17wouldaffecttwoandthreesites,respectively(Dixonetal.,1984).Anon-groundsurveywouldbenecessaryinordertofullyassessexistingculturalresources. 3-57Onlythreeborrowsitescontainculturalresources:1.BorrowsiteC:20archeologicalsites,1ofwhichhasbeenassessedassignificant(Fig.3-23,sitegroup4).2.BorrowsiteE:2archeologicaland1historicsite,1ofwhichhasbeentermedsignificant.3.BorrowsiteF:10archeologicaland1historicsite(Fig.3-23,sitegroup4).Ahighproportionofthesesitesarelikelytobejudgedsignificant,sinceamajoritypossessvolcanictephrastratigraphy.3.3NATURAL-GAS-FIREOGENERATIONSCENARIOFeaturesofthenatural-gas-firedgenerationscenarioareoutlinedinSection2.3(seeFig.2-18).3.3.1LandResources3.3.1.1GeologyandSoilsAnchorage-KenaiPeninsula.ThickunconsolidatedglacialoutwashdepositsoftheCookInletlowlandscovertheeasternshoreoftheKenaiPeninsulafromtheKnikRivertoKatchemakBayalongtheedgeoftheruggedKenaiandChugachmountainrangesthatformthebackboneofthepeninsula.TheagriculturalsuitabilityoftheSpodsolicsoilsthatcovertheselowlandsoftheCookInletregionrangesfromgoodtounsuitable,.dependingprimarilyonlocaldrainage.Perma-frostdepositsareabsentinthisarea.TheKenaiPeninsulaandAnchorageareasoftheCookInletLowlandarelocatedwithinanareaidentifiedashavingahighpotentialforgasandoildevelopmentandhavingknownlignitetosubbituminouscoaldeposits.ChuitnaandLowerBelugaRivers.TheBelugaandChuitnaareasarelocatedonthethickfluvial,glacialandglaciofluvialdepositsofthewesternCookInletLowlands.TheBelugaareaissituatedinthepoorlydrainedfloodplainsofthebraidedriverchannelofthelowerBelugaRiverandtheCookInlettidalplains.SoilsintheBelugaareaareprimarilyHistosolsinthemarshytidalflatsandSpodolsneartheBelugaRiverandaregenerallyunsuitableforagri-culturaluse.TheChuitnaareaislocatedonabroad,roundedmorainesouthwestoftheChuitnaRiver.SoilsattheChuitnaareaareInceptisolsandaregenerallyunsuitableforagriculturalusebecauseofsteepslopesandsoilwetness.NomineralresourcesareknowntooccurateithertheBelugaorChuitnaareas,andpermafrostisabsentintheseareas.3.3.1.2LandUseandOwnershipCurrentlanduseintheBelugaandChuitnariversareaisdiverseandoflowintensity.Dis-persedrecreptionactivitiesoccurwithintheregion.Naturalresourcesbeingdevelopedintheareaincludeoil,gas,coal,andtimber.Nomajorgroundtransportationroutesoccurintheregion.LandownershipintheBelugaareaisvariedandincludestheStateofAlaska;CookInletRegion,Inc.;TyonekNativeCorp.;andtheKenaiPeninsulaBorough.Withinthenorth-westernKenaiarealanduseismixedandincludesdevelopedareas,aswellaslandsoflow-intensityuse.MuchoftheKenairegionisusedforrecreationpurposes.MorethanhalfoftheKenaiPeninsulaisencompassedbythemajorfederalholdingsoftheKenaiFjordsNationalPark,KenaiNatiana1WildlifeRefuge,andtheChugachNationalForest.Themajorgroundtranspor-tationcorridorinthenorthwesternKenaiareaistheSterlingHighway.Anchoragelanduseismixedandownershipdiverse.LanduseinandsurroundingtheAnchoragemetropolitanareaincludesresidential,commercial,industrial,andrecreation.TheareaisservedbytheGeorgeParksHighway,GlennHighway,theAlaskaNationalRailroad,theAnchorageInternationalAirport,andanoceanport.3.3.2Climate,AirQuality,Noise3.3.2.1ClimateAlloftheplantsthatwouldbedevelopedaspartofthenatural-gasalternativewouldbelocatedintheTransitionZonebetweentheinlandContinentalclimatesandtheMaritimeclimatesborderingtheocean.TheplantsnearAnchorage,theChuitnaRiver,theBelugaRiver,andnearKenaiwouldfall".inthisTransitionZone.Attheselocationsthereisalessextremeclimatethanthatofthe~nterior,withtemperaturesbeingmoderatedsomewhatbythenearbyseas.TheCookInletarea,ingeneral,isinatransitionalclimatezonebetweentheContinentalclimateoftheInteriorandtheMaritimeclimatemorecommontothecoastalareasfarthersouth.3.3.2.2AirQualityandNoiseTheCookInletAirQualityControlRegionisdesignatedaClassIIattainmentareaforallcriteriapollutants.TheTuxedniNationalWildlifeRefuge,about100mi(160km)southwestof IIi1',",I'I3-58theTyonekarea,istheclosestClassIarea.AnchorageisoneoftwoareasofAlaska(alongwithFairbanks)thatisnonattainmentintermsoftheambientairqualitystandardsforcarbonmonoxide.TheactualairqualityonthewesternshoreofCookInletnearTyonekisnotknown.Severalsourcesofemissionsofparticulatematter,sulfuroxides,carbonmonoxide,nitrogenoxides,andhydrocarbonsarescatteredthroughouttheonshoreareaIwithanumberofoffshoreoi1andgasplatformsconcentratedintheNikishka/Kenaiarea.Nitrogendiox;deemi55icnsaregreatestIwithproductsofcombustionrepresentingthemajorityfrombothoffshoreandonshorepollutantemissionsources.Theimpactoftheseexistingsourcesonambientairqualitytendstobeverylocalized,withthehighestregionalpollutantconcentrationsoccurringwheresourcecongestionisgreatest.ThemostcongestedareasincludeTrad;ngBayandSalamatof,andevenintheseareasseparationbetweenindividualsourcesisgood.Forthesereasons,airqualitywithintheareaisexpectedtobewellwithintheNationalandAlaskaAmbientAirQualityStandards.Visibilityisoccasionallyaproblemthroughouttheinletarea.AtAnchorage,thevisibilityis0.5mi(0.8km)orlessfor5%ofthetimeduringDecemberandJanuary,primarilyduetofog.AirqualitydatadoexistfortheKenaiPeninsulaarea.AmonitoringstationwassetuptoprovideambientdataforapotentialexpansionoftheTesororefinery.MonitoringwasconductedfromJune1,1981,toMay31,1982,atthesite.Themonitoringsitewaslocatedabout9mi(14km)north-northwestofKenaiand0.9mi(1.4km)southoftherefinery.ComparisonofthemonitoringdatawiththeNationalAmbientAirQualityStandardrevealsthattheambientpollutantlevelsintheKenaiareaarewellwithinthestandards.Recentdataontotalsuspendedparticulates(TSP)inthenorthernKenaiPeninsulahaveshownsomeexcursionsbeyondthe24-houraveragestandard,butthesearethoughttobeduetonaturaldustratherthanplantemissions.Theoccurrenceswererecordedsimultaneouslyondry,windydaysatboththesamplingsiteintheCityofKenaiandtheindustrialsite10mi(16km)northoftown.Ofparticularsignificanceisthe20to40~g/m3increaseinTSPconcentrationsintheindustrializedareasincelandwasclearedforconstructionofanewLNGfacilityandamajorconstructionprojectcommencedattheammonia-ureaplant.Asmentionedabove,Anchorageisdesignatednonattainmentwithrespecttocarbonmonoxideduetoautomobileemissions.ItisstrictlynonattainmentduetoTSPbutisdesignatedattainmentsincetheTSPviolationisduelargelytonaturalsourcesofparticulates.ThereexistsnolargestationarysourceofTSPinAnchorage.Anchoragehasairqualitymonitorsinsidethecitylimitsandoneinanoutsideruralareathatmeasuressulfuroxides,nitrogenoxides,ozone,carbonmonoxide,andTSP.AsdescribedinSection3.1.2,ambientnoiselevelsareexpectedtobeverylowinruralareassuchasthoseidentifiedforthegas-firedplants.3.3.3WaterQuantityandQualityTwoofthefoursitesforalternativegas-firedgeneratingfacilitiesarelocatedonriversystems--theBelugaandChuitnarivers,whichdrainintothewesternsideofCookInlet.Theothertwogas-firedplantswouldbesitedonorveryclosetoCookInletatKenaiandintheAnchoragevicinity.BoththeBelugaandtheChuitnasitesareintheBelugaflats,amarshylowlandarea.TheriversintheBelugaregionoriginateintheAlaskaRangeandhaveglacialflowregimessimilartothosedescribedfortheSusitnaBasin.Althoughspecificwatersourcesforallsitesofthecombined-cycle,gas-firedunitalternativehavenotbeenspecified,datafortwosites(BelugaRiverandChuitnaRiver)donotindicateanywaterqualitycharacteristicsthatwouldprecludeconstructionandoperationofgas-fired,combined-cyclepowerplantsatthesesites(ExhibitE,Vol.9,Chap.10,TableE.10.35).WaterqualityofthesesitesiscomparabletothatofmostotherlargeriversinSouthcentra1Alaskaintermsoftheconcentrationofmajorions,dissolvedsolidsandgases,nutrients,andsuspen-dedsolids.Sincewateruseiszeroforthegas-firedcombustionturbines,waterqualityisnotanissueforthisalternative.3.3.4AquaticCommunitiesAlthoughspecificsitesfortheunitsthatwouldbedevelopedunderthisalternativehavenotbeendesignated,thelistoffishspeciesinpotentiallyaffectedstreamsandlakesinthevicinityofthelowerBelugaRiver,theChuitnaRiver,CookInletnearKenai,TurnagainArmsoutheastofAnchorage,andintheimmediatevicinityofAnchoragearelikelytoincludesomeorallofthefollowing:thefivePacificsalmon,burbot,cottids,DollyVarden,grayling,northernpike,rainbowtrout,sculpin,suckers,whitefish,andavarietyofmarinefishandinvertebratespeciesthatdependgreatlyontheexactlocationsselected.8ecauseofthelargersizeofthefacilitiesandthegreaterrequirementsforwater,thecombined-cycleunits(ascomparedtothesma11ercombustionturbines)are1ike1ytobeassociatedwith1argerstreamsandlakeshaving However,mooseandSewardHighway,Potter3-59moreofthesespecies.Thecombined-cycleunitsarealsomorelikelytobelocatedinrelativelyremoteareas.3.3.5TerrestrialCommunities3.3.5.1PlantCommunities~BasedonFigure3-16,vegetationinthelowerBelugaRiverareaismostlyuplandspruce-hardwoodforestexceptnearthecoast,wherewetsedge-grasspredominates.TheChuitnaRiveroriginatesinanareaofhighbrushandthenextendsthroughuplandspruce-hardwoodforestonitswaytoCookInlet.NorthofKenaithevegetationisprimarilylowlandspruce-hardwoodforest,althougharelativelynarrowstripofuplandspruce-hardwoodforestoccursalongthecoast.SoutheastofAnchoragethenaturalvegetationhasprobablybeenalteredsomewhatbydevelopmentactivities.Undisturbedorrelativelyundisturbedareasarelikelytobebottomlandspruce-popularforest,uplandspruce-hardwoodforest,orlowlandspruce-hardwoodforest.3.3.5.2AnimalCommunitiesPrincipalbiggameintheChuitna-Belugaareaarebrownandblackbearandmoose.Summercon-centrationsofmooseoccuronthelowerChuitnaRiverandupperChuitCreekandtotheeastalongtheBelugaRiver.Awinte~concentrationareaofmooseoccurswestwardalongNikolaiCreekandeastwardfromthemouthoftheBelugaRiver.BlackbeardenninghabitatoccursalongthemiddleChuitnaandupperNikolaiCreek.Brownbeardenningoccursintheuplands;however,summerfeedingconcentrationsoccurinseveralareasinthelowerdrainageoftheChuitnaRiver.Baldeaglesarecommonraptorsthroughoutthearea,whereascliff-nestingraptorsareuncommon.Anumberofwaterbirds,includingtrumpeterswanandsandhillcrane,occurinthecoastalwet-lands'.Avarietyofducks,geese,andloonsarecommoninthearea.TheKenaiPeninsulasupportsawidearrayofwildlifepopulations.Concentrationsofmoose,caribou,andwaterfowloccurinalltheareaswithavailablenaturalgas.AnareaofintensiveusebyblackbearoccursnorthwestofKenaiandSoldotna.OtherspeciesoccurringintheKenaiareaincludebrownbear,DallISsheep,mountaingoat,andwolf.Anchorageisbasicallyurbanizedandprovideslimitedwildlifehabitat.otherwildlifedousetheareaonoccasion.SouthofAnchoragealongtheMarshsupportsalargenumberofwaterbirds.3.3.6ThreatenedandEndangeredSpeciesNothreatenedorendangeredspeciesofplantsorwildlifewouldbeassociatedwithanyfeaturesofthenatural-gas-firedgenerationscenario(seeSec.3.1.6).3.3.7RecreationResourcesNosubstantialdevelopedrecreationsitesoccurintherelativelyremoteBelugaandChuitnariverareas,althoughrecreationuseissubstantial(Bechtel,1983).Huntingandfishingaretheprincipaldispersedrecreationactivities,whichalsoincludehiking,camping,andskiing,andotherwater-basedrecreationactivities.Readilyaccessiblebylandorwater,muchofthenorthwesternKenaiPeninsulaiswithintheKenaiNationalWildlifeRefuge,whichaffordsopportunitiesforwildernessrecreationexperiences,aswellasuseofdevelopedfacilities(Simmerman,1983).Staterecreationareasaffordaddi-tionalopportunitiesforpublicuseofdevelopedfacilities.IntheAnchorage-TurnagainArmarea,recreationresourcesofmunicipalparks,ChugachStatePark,andChugachNationalForestaffordnumerousopportunitiesforpublicuseofdevelopedrecreationsites,aswellasawiderangeofdispersedrecreationactivities(Simmerman,1983).TheAlyeskaResortandotherprivatedevelopmentsfurthercontributetolocallyabundantrecrea-tionopportunities(AlaskaNorthwestPublishing,1983).3.3.8SocioeconomicFactorsThesocioeconomicenvironmentsofthepotentialsitesoftheeight200-MWcombined-cycleunitsareKenai,Soldbtna,thenorthernKenaiPeninsula,theTyonekareasouthwestofAnchorage,andtheAnchoragem~tropolitanarea(Fig.3-24).Thepotentialsitesofthetwo70-MWcombustionturbinesusinggaswouldbenearAnchorage.ThesocieconomicenvironmentoftheAnchorageareaisdiscussedinSection3.1.8;socioeconomicfactorsofthenorthernKenaiPeninsulaandoftheTyonekareaaresummarizedhere.Kenai,Soldotna,andsomesmallsettlementsnorthofKenai(e.g.,SalamatofandNikishka)areinwhatiscalledtheCentralPeninsulaareaoftheKenaiPeninsulaBorough.Theeconomyandlifeoftheareaarebasedonfishingandtimberindustries,oilandgasdevelopment,tourism,and 3-60IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIDotLakeI'-lternativesoHydrooGasoCoalbSusitno59MilesDeltalot.Junctiortr.....I......I""lM~\I\,I,".'f--,.......--_.......-~,..~Pa)(s00\'.I~\,-~~~,..:I..':'\..':l/:..~"""'rI:'-------.:"....\-',...--..........--':,.--.............."\.•...-.'\...........·····.a·····-.;.irapperCree~...•....•........:::::~:~~..................:z."If)r--.-----...,.,..---z::-::?"----:ltoFigure3-24.LocationsofSusitnaHydropowerAlternativesandFeaturesoftheSocioeconomicEnvironment.z.z.".q-cD"r0toz."~z."...--cDz"ocDz"~1+53-;O;-:-W---1-5.,.1o-W-....J---14--9....0-W----14--7..,..O-W----1-4-""':5°~W-- 3-61subsistenceactivities.Almost90%ofthepopulationofKenaiPeninsulaBoroughresideintheCentralPeninsulainthecommunitiesofKenai,Soldotna,Homer,andSeldovia(Fig.3-24).The1982populationsofKenaiandSoldotnawere5,231and3,008persons,respectively.NorthandnortheastoftheKenai-Soldotnaarea,the1982populationtotaled4,120--2,014inNikishka,1,143inSalamatof,andtheremainderscatteredoutsideofcommunities.Populationincreasedby20%ormoreinthisregionbetween1978and1982,andgrowthisexpectedtocontinuethrough1992.Boroughplannershavethreegrowthscenariosprojectinggrowthratesof3.3%,48%,or106%between1978and1992.Theactualgrowthratebetween1978and1982wasabouthalfwaybetweenthemediumandhighscenarios.ThepopulationinKenaiandSoldotnaisover90%white;theremainderisprimarilyNativeAlaskan(KenaiPenin.Bor.Resour.Oev.Off.,1983).EmploymentintheCentralPeninsulaisconcentratedingovernment,followedbymanufacturing,services,andwholesaleandretailtrades,inthatorder.AswithotherareasinAlaska,theunemploymentrateishigh,variesconsiderablyseasonally,andhasrangedwidelyoverthepastdecade.Per-capitaincomefortheboroughwas$10,158in1980,avaluethatranked18thamongAlaska's29censusdivisionsandislowerthantheU.S.average(AlaskaOfficeofManagementandBudget,1983;KenaiPenin.Bor.Resour.Oev.Off.,1983).Personalandpropertytaxesmakeuponlyslightlymorethanathird(39%)oftotalboroughrevenues;intergovernmentalsources(e.g.,fromthestate)contribute45%oftotalrevenues.Incontrast,theincorporatedcitiesofKenaiandSoldotnarelyonpersonalpropertytaxesfromtheirresidentsforover50%oftheirrevenues.Schoolsarethegreatestexpense(U.S.BureauofLandManagement,1981;KenaiPenin.Bor.Resour.Oev.Off.,1983).In1977,KenaiandSoldotnahadabout1,300and700households,respectively.Single-fami1yunitsaremostcommoninallcommunities(App.N,TableN-ll),andbetween30%and40%ofresidences unitsarerented.Vacancyratesforapartmentsvaryseasonally.BothKenaiandSoldotnahaveafullrangeofelementaryandsecondaryschools.Mosthouseholdsinthetwocommunitiesrelyoncitywaterandsewersystems.Fireserviceisprovidedbyeachcityandbyborough-administeredserviceareadepartments.Thelatteraresupportedbypropertytaxesintheserviceareas.TheCentralPeninsulaGeneralHospitalisinSoldotna.Therearealsothreedistrictmentalhealthcarecenters,oneofwhichisinKenai(KenaiPenin.Bor.Resour.Oev.Off.,1983).TheKenaiPeninsulaisaccessiblebyhighwayfromAnchorageviaSterlingHighway(Highway1).Smallerroads,mostunpaved,extendnorthofKenaitoSalamatofandtheareaaroundNikishka.Fishingboats,personalboats,commercialships,andbargesalsoservethecoastalareasofthepeninsula.RailserviceonthepeninsulaisavailableonlybetweenAnchorageandSeward,viaPortage.KenaiandHomerbothhaveairports,whichareusedbelowcapacity.Otherairstripsforsmallplanesarescatteredaroundthepeninsula.TyonekislocatedbetweentheChuitnaandBelugariversonthewesternshoreofCookInlet(Fig.3-24).TyonekisaFederallycharteredNativeAlaskanvillagethathadapopulationof239in1980-onlysevenpersonsmorethanin1970.ExceptforTyonek,theareaissparselypopulated.TheTyonekNativeCorporationrepresentstheNativesinthevillage.Thepolicyofthecorporationinthepasthasbeennottoalloweasementsandrights-of-wayacrosstheirland,thuslimitingthedevelopmentofnaturalresourcesintheTyonekarea(Bechtel,1983).EmploymentopportunitiesintheTyonekareaarelimitedtoafewservicejobsintheVillageandtojobsinthedevelopmentofnaturalresources,e.g.Icommercialfishing,timberharvestingandprocessing,andexplorationforpetroleum.Mostofthese opportunitiesareseasonalIandunem-ploymentishigh,particularlyinwinter.Personalincomeislow,andmosthouseholdsrelyonNative/PublicHealthbenefitsorsomeotherformofaid(e.g.,foodstamps,SocialSecurity)tosupplementtheirincomes.BecauseofstrongtiestoNativeAlaskanculture,thelackofemploy-mentopportunities,andthelowlncomes,thereisheavyrelianceonsubsistenceactivities.Likeemployment,subsistenceactivitiesaremoreproductiveandaccessibleduringthesummer(Bechtel,1983).ResidentsofTyonekVillagepaypropertytaxestotheCentralHospitalServiceArea,whichsupportsthehospital(locatedinSoldotnaontheKenaiPeninsula),boroughservices,andpublicrecreationfacilities.Almostalloftheapproximately90homesinTyonekaresingle-familyresidencesownedbytheTyonekVillageCouncil.Thereareonlysixtrailers(twofortemporaryresidencesforschoolteachers)andno,multifamilyunits.ApermanentworkercampatthenearbylumbermillandnearbyShirleyvill~Lodgeprovidehousingfacilitiesforworkersandvisitors.\Villagehousesareconnectedtothevillagewatersystem,whichdependsonalakeasitsource,whilepublicbuildingsandservicesandindustryusewellwater.Largeseptictanks,currentlyinpoorcondition,providethevillagewithwastewaterdisposal.PoliceserviceisprovidedbyaresidentconstablewhoisemployedbytheAlaskaStateTroopers;fireprotectionisprovidedbytheU.S.BureauofLandManagement.AmedicalcenterinTyonekhasemergencymedicalanddentalcarefacilities,butnodoctorsordentistsareinpermanentresidenceinthecommunity.Oneschool,withcapacityfor240students,servesabout90elementarythroughhighschoolstudents(Bechtel,1983). "1li,li,'"3-62TyonekandtheChuitnaandBelugariverareasareaccessiblebyunpavedroads.Noroadconnect-ingtheareatoAnchorageisopenyear-round,exceptwhentheSusitnaRiverfreezestoprovideawintercrossing.ThereisoneprimaryairportinTyonek,controlledbytheVillage,andseveralotherprivatelyowned,smaller,andlesswell-maintainedstrips.Tyonekandindustrialopera-tionsalongthecoastalsoareservedbybarge.3.3.9VisualResourcesVisualcharacteristicsoftheBeluga/Chuitnariversregionincludesteepmountains,vegetateduplands,andcoastalwetlands.Theregionisdominatedbymountains,glaciers,lakes,andstreamsintheAlaskaRange.Panoram;cvieW5ofspectacularmountainousandglae;atedterra;nareCOmmon.WithintheKenaiPeninsulaarea,visualresourcesrangefromhighmountainsandglacierstouplands,denseforests,lakes,rivers,andwetlands(AlaskaGeographicSociety,1981).AnumberofsmallcommunitiesandhomesteadsarescatteredalongtheSterlingHighway.ViewsoftheCookInletandlowlands,uplands,andmountainousregionsareoftenhighlyscenic.TheAnchorageareaconsistsofanurbanizedtownlandscapesituatedwithinrollingandflatterracedlowlands.RollingandmoderatelysteepslopesoccurintheChugachFoothills.TheareaisdominatedbytheKnikandTurnagainarmsoftheCookInlet.Becauseoftheflattoundulatingterrain,viewsaregenerallyopen.TheAlaskaRange,nearbyMountSusitna,theKenaiMountains,andtheCookInlet,withitsunusualmudflats,canbeviewedwithintheAnchorageurbanarea.3.3.10CulturalResourcesFewculturalresourceshavebeendiscoveredintheareasthatwouldbeaffectedbythenatural-gasgenerationscenario.FourarcheologicalsitesareknownintheKenaiarea,buthere,aswellasintheBeluga-ChuitnaandAnchorageareas,site-specificsurveyswouldbenecessarytoadequatelyassessculturalresources.3.4COAL-FIREOGENERATIONSCENARIOThecoal-firedgenerationscenarioisdescribedinSection2.4(seeFig.2-18).3.4.1LandResources3.4.1.1GeologyandSoilsTheWillowareaislocatedintheflat,poorlydrained,alluvialplainofthelowerSusitnaRiverBasin.WelltopoorlydrainedEntisolsoilswithsevereuselimitationsarepresentadjacenttotheSusitnaRiverandontheriverterraceseastoftheriverintheWillowarea.Spodsolicsoilsarepresent.Thesesoilsaresuitableforcultivationandhavefewuselimita-tions.Permafrostisabsentinthisareaand,todate,withtheexceptionofcoal,nomineralresourceshavebeenidentified.TheNenanaareaislocatedonthickalluvialfloodplaindepositssouthoftheTananaRiver.PoorlydrainedInceptisolsoilsarepresentinlowlyingareasoftheTananafloodplainsandhavesevereuselimitationsduetopermafrostdepositsandwetness.Awayfromthefloodplains,theInceptisolsarewelldrainedandarepotentiallysuitableforcultivation.Withtheexcep-tionofcoalInomineralresourceshavebeenidentifiedintheareatodate.3.4.1.2LandUseandOwnershipGenerallanduseandownershippatternsintheNenana/HealyareaandWillowareaaredescribedinSection3.1.1.2.MiningactivitiesoccurintheNenanavicinityandextensivelyintheHealyarea.ResidentialdevelopmentandrecreationaluseoccurswithintheWillowarea.AgriculturalsaleshaveoccurredalongtheGeorgeParksHighwayand5mi(8km)southwestofWillow.LanduseandownershipintheCookInletareaisdiverse.Muchoftheregionisrelativelyremote,andcurrentlanduseisdiverseandgenerallyoflowintensity.Dispersedrecreationactivitiesoccurwithintheregion.Naturalresourcesbeingdevelopedincludeoil,gas,coal,andtimber.TheCityofAnchorage,thestate'smajormetropolitanarea,isalsolocatedwithintheCookInletRegion.3.4.2Climate,AirQuality,Noise3.4.2.1ClimateThecoal-firedgenerationscenariowouldinvolveplantssitedatWillowandNenana.TheselocationsareintheContinentalClimaticZoneandshouldhavesimilarclimaticfeaturesastheproposedSusitnaprojectarea(Sec.3.1.2).DatacollectedatWillowsince1963revealarecordhightemperatureof90°F(32°C)andrecordlowtemperatureof-56°F(-49°C). 3-633.4.2.2AirQualityandNoiseThenearestairqualitymonitoringstationstoWillowareatPalmerandEagleRiver.ThesedataareforTSPaloneandrevealfrequentexceedencesofthe24-hrTSPstandardduetofugitiveemissions.RecentdataatPalmerrevealmuchlowerTSPconcentrations(belowthestandard)andthisisprobablyduetoarecentpavingofanearbyroad.BaselinedatafromtheHealyPlantnearNenanarevealedexcellentairquality.TheHealymeasurementstationswereatNorthNenanaandGarner.MeasurementswereavailableintheperiodsofJanuary1979-August1979(502andmeteorologicaldata)andMarch1978-July1979(TSP).The502datarevealednoexceedenceofstandards;theTSPdataindicatedincreasesfromverylowlevelsonlywhenthewindwasblowingfromtheriverbank.Atbothsites,ambientlevelsofallpollutantsareexpectedtobeextremelylow,exceptforTSP.Ambientnoiselevelsareexpectedtobeverylowintheruralenvironmentinwhichthecoal-firedplantswouldbelocated..3.4.3WaterQuantityandQualityTheriverbasinsaffectedbycoal-firedpowerplantswouldbetheLowerSusitnaRiverBasinbelowWillow(approximatelyRM45),theTananaRiverBasinbelowtheconfluenceoftheNenanaandTananarivers,andthebasinwithinwhichcoalminingwouldbelocated(probablytheNenanaRiverBasin).Bothgeneratingfacilitieswouldbelocatedonrelativelylargeriversystemswithlowgradientsandhighlybraidedchannels.TheSusitnaRiverattheUSGSgagingstationatSunshine(RM84)hasaupstreamwatershedareaof11,100mi2(28,750km2)andanaverageannualflowof23,611ft3/s(669m3/s).TheTananaRiveratNenanahasaupstreamwatershedareaof25,600mi2(66,300km2)andanaverageannualflowof23,490ft3/s(665m3/s).Lowflowsofrecordatthetwositesareduringthewintermonths:5,400ft3/s(153m3/s)fortheSusitnaRiveratSunshineand4,000ft3/s(113m3/s)fortheTananaRiveratNenana.Waterqualityoftheexistingenvironmentslikelytobeaffectedbythecoal-firedpowerplantalternative(twounitsontheSusitnaRivernearWillowandthreeunitsontheNenanaRivernearNenana)canbeclassifiedasgoodandissimilartothatfortheSusitnaRiver(seeSec.3.1.3.2),andotherlargeriversinSouthcentra1Alaska.Theseriverstypicallyhavelowtomoderateconcentrationsofdissolvedsolidsandnutrientions,highconcentrationsofdissolvedoxygen,andseasonallyvaryingconcentrationsofsuspendedsolids,reachingamaximuminsummerandaminimumduringwinter.3.4.4AquaticCommunitiesThelistoffishspeciesinpotentiallyaffectedstreamsandlakesatWillow,Nenana,andaroundCookInletmayincludeburbot,cottids,OollyVarden,grayling,longnosesucker,northernpike,rainbowtrout,sculpin,andwhitefish.Duetothelargersizeofthefacilitiesandthegreaterrequirementsforwater,thecoalunits,ascomparedtothesmallercombustion-turbineunits,wouldbeassociatedwithlargerstreamsandrivers,suchastheChuitnaandSusitna,havingmoreofthesespecies.3.4.5TerrestrialCommunities3.4.5.1PlantCommunities~BasedonFigure3-16,vegetationintheWillowareaisprimarilylowlandspruce-hardwoodforest,althoughbottomlandspruce-poplarforestisfoundalongtheSusitnaRiver.AlongtheTananaandNenanariversnearNenana,thevegetationisprimarilybottomlandspruce-poplarforest.Fartherawayfromtheriversthepredominantvegetationtypeislowlandspruce-hardwoodforest.InthevicinityofHealy,wherethecoalwouldbemined(Fig.1-14),vegetationalongtheNenanaRiveranditstributariesisuplandspruce-hardwoodforest.Awayfromtheriver,athigherelevations,thevegetationgradesintomoisttundraandalpinetundra.VegetationoccurringinlikelylocationsforsitingofgascombustionturbinesforthisscenariohasbeendescribedinSec-tion3.3.5.1.3.4.5.2AnimalCommunitiesTheareaaroundWillowsupportswildlifepopulationstypicalof thosefound·a10ngthelowerSusitnadrainage.MooseconcentratealongtheriverandnearNancyLakes.BlackbearmakeintensiveuseofareassouthwestofWillow.WaterfowloccurinlowtomoderatedensitiesinthevicinityofWillO"\Baldeagleandtrumpeterswannestalongdrainagesinthearea.TheNenanaareaislocatedinthenorthernthirdoftheproposedtransmissionlineroute.InthevicinityofNenana,winterconcentrationsofmooseoccuralongtheriver.LowtohighdensitiesofwaterfowlarefoundinthevicinityofNenana.TheMintoFlatsareatothenorthsupportsahighdensityofwaterfowl. 3-64TheHealymlnlngareaisalsosituatedalongthenorthernportionoftheproposedtransmissionlineroute.Theareasupportsspeciescharacteristicofmoreopenhabitats,suchascaribouandbrownbear.Winteraggregationsofcaribouoccurinthevicinityofthemine.Mooseandblackbearrangethroughtheareainfewernumbers.HabitatforDall'5sheepandcliff-nestingraptorsislocatedinthehighlands10mi(16km)southoftheminearea.3.4.6ThreatenedandEndangeredSpeciesDevelopmentofcoal-firedpowergenerationfacilitiesinNenanawouldoccurinthevicinityofperegrinefalconhabitatsituatednorthoftheTananaRiver.Althoughthisareaisnotcurrentlyusedbyperegrine, severalhistoricalnestinglocationsareknowntoexistnortheastofNenana.Nootherthreatenedorendangeredspeciesofplantsorwildlifewouldbeassociatedwiththecoal-firedgenerationscenario(seeSec.3.1.6).3.4.7RecreationResourcesDedicatedrecreationareasnearWillowincludetheNancyLakeStateRecreationSiteandtheWillowandNancyLakeStateRecreationAreas;othernearbydedicatedareasincludetheFingerLake,RockyLake,andtwoBigLakeStateRecreationSites(ParkPlanningSection,1982).Severalcommercialdevelopmentsandprivaterecreationcabinsfurthercontributetolocalrecreationresources.IntheNenanaarea,localaccommodationsservetravelersoftheParksHighwayandAlaskaRail-road,whicharemajortouristroutes(AlaskaNorthwestPublishing,1983).TheNenanaandTananariversarepopularrecreationcorridors,andlocaldispersedrecreationconsistsprimarilyofhuntingandfishingactivities.RecreationresourcesintheCookInletareaarepresentedinSection3.3.7.3.4.8SocioeconomicFactorsThesocioeconomicenvironmentforthecoal-firedgenerationscenariowouldincludethecommuni-tiesofHealyandNenana(coalminesite)intheYukon-KoyukukBorough,Willow,theTyonekarea,metropolitanAnchorage,andthenorthernKenaiPeninsula.SocioeconomicaspectsoftheseareasaredescribedinSections3.1.8and3.3.8.3.4.9VisualResourcesThelandscapecharactertypesandassociatedprominentnaturalfeaturesandviewsintheNenana/HealyandtheWillowareasaregenerallydescribedinSection3.1.9.ViewscanbecomemonotonouswithinthebraidedriverareasoftheNenanaRiverlowlandsandtheWillowareabecauseofthelackoftopographicalreliefandlackofdistinctiveandvaryingforegroundfeatures.TheNenanauplandviewsareorientedtotheAlaskaRangetothesouthandthehighfoothillstotheeast.Existingtransmissionlinesarevisibleintheregion.VisualcharacteristicsoftheCookInletregionareextremelyvariedandincludesteepmountains,vegetateduplands,andcoastalwetlands,asgenerallydescribedinSection3.3.9.Viewsareoftenopenandpanoramic,withmountainousandglaciatedterrainvisibleinthebackground.TheCookInletregionalsoincludestheAnchoragearea,whichisdescribedinSection3.3.9.3.4.10CulturalResourcesOnlylimitedinformationoncultural.resourcesispresentlyavailablefortheareasthatwouldbeaffectedbythecoal-firedscenario.OnearcheologicalandthreehistoricsitesareknownintheWillowarea,andsevenculturalresourcesitesarecurrentlyrecordedfortheNenanaarea.AnumberofarcheologicalandhistoricsitesareknownaroundtheshoresofCookInlet(Dixonetal.,1984;Smith,personalcommunication*).Site-specificsurveys,whichseemlikelytoyieldadditionalsites,wouldbenecessaryinordertofullyassessexistingculturalresources.3.5COMBINEDHYDRO-THERMALGENERATIONSCENARIOFeaturesofthecombinedhydro-thermalgenerationscenarioaredescribedinSection2.5(seeFigs.2-18to2-22).*Smith,T.A.(OfficeofHistoryandArchaeology,AlaskaStateDivisionofParks).Oralcommuni-cationtoJ.F.Hoffecker(ArgonneNationalLaboratory),March24,1984. 3-653.5.1LandResources3.5.1.1GeologyandSoilsTheJohnsonalternativewouldbeontheJohnsonRiver,whichflowsfromitsheadwatersintheglaciersoftheAlaskaRangethroughtheAlaskaRangefoothillsnorthwardthroughthebroad,flatplainsoftheTananaRivervalleyintheTanana-KuskokwinLowlands.ThickoutwashdepositsfromtheAlaskaRangeandalluvialmaterialscoverthealternativesite.Permafrostdepositsarediscontinuous,andInceptisolsoilspotentiallysuitableforagriculturearepresentinthelowlands.Nomineralresourcesarepresentinthesitearea.TheKeetnaalternativewouldbelocatedonthelowerTalkeetnaRiverattheedgeofthesteepTalkeetnaMountainsintheCopperRiverPlateau.GlacialdepositscovertheslopesoftheTalkeetnaRiverintheKeetnaarea.Spodsolicsoilsoccurinthisarea,butareagriculturallyunsuitableduetosteepslopes.Nomineralresourcesarepresentinthearea.LocatedintheextremelyruggedKenaiMountainRangeoftheKenaiPeninsula,theSnowsitewouldoccupyadeepbedrockgorgeontheSnowRivernearthesouthernendofKenaiLake.Graywackesandstatesareexposedthroughoutthearea,andsurficialdepositsandsoilsaregenerallyabsent.Spodsolicsoilsoccuronlyintherivervalley.Numerousmineralresourcesareexpectedtoexistinthearea,althoughnonehasbeenidentifiedintheproposedreservoirarea.TheBrownealternativewouldbelocatedinthemodifiedmoraineandglacialdriftdepositsoftheNenanaRiverValleyjustnorthofHealyatthenorthernedgeoftheunglaciatedNorthernfoothillsoftheAlaskaRange.Easilyeroded,softTertiarysedimentsthatincludeextensivecoaldepositsoftheNenanacoalfieldarepresentnorthandeastofHealy.Inceptisolsoilscapableoflimitedagriculturaluseanddiscontinuouspermafrostarepresent.TheChakachamnaalternativewouldbelocatedatLakeChakachamna,whichisinadeepglaciatedvalleyinthesouthernmostregionoftheAlaskaRange.Thelakeissurroundedbynumerousglae;ers,moraines.andhighmountainpeaks,oneofwhich,Mt.Spurrlisanactivevalcano.Volcanic,glacial,andfluvialdepositsandagriculturallyunsuitableInceptisolsoilscovermuch"ofthearea.Isolatedmassesofpermafrostarepresentinthisarea.Theareahasgeo-thermalenergypotentialandislocatedadjacenttotheBelugacoalfields.DescriptionsofthegeologyandsoilsforthelowerBelugaRiver,theChuitnaRiver,andtheAnchorageenvironsarepresentedinSection3.4.1.1.DescriptionsfortheNenanaareaarepresentedinSection3.3.1.1.3.5.1.2LandUseandOwnershipTheChakachamnaLakeareaisremote,andcurrentlanduseisdiverseandoflowintensity.Recreationusewithintheareaislimitedbutincreasing(Bechtel,1983).Futurelandusewillprobablyrevolvearoundresourceextraction,processing,andtransportationofoil,gas,coal,andtimber.TheBrownesiteislocatedwithintheAlaskaRailbeltRegionnearthevicinityofthecommunitiesofHealy,Suntrana,andFerry.Landuseisdiverseandoflowintensity.Dispersedrecreationuseoccursthroughoutthearea.ExtensivecoaldepositsandminingoccurintheareaeastofHealy.MajortransportationroutesintheareaincludetheGeorgeParksHighwayandtheAlaskaNationalRailroad.LandusesintheKeetnaareaarecharacterizedbydispersed,low-intensityrecreationandsubsis-tenceactivities.TheclosestdevelopmentconsistsofseveralhomesteadsatParsonLake,about13mi(21km)southwestofthesitearea.Accessinthesiteareaislimited.ThenearestmajortransportationroutesaretheGeorgeParksHighwayandtheAlaskaNationalRailroad,locatedapproximately15mi(24km)westofthearea.TheSnowsitealternativeislocatedwithintheChugachNationalForest,whichismanagedformultipleuse.Occasionalandinter-mittentusesintheregionincluderecreation,sporthuntingandfishing,subsistence,seasonalresidences,andresourceexploration(Selkregg,1974).MajortransportationroutesintheareaincludetheAlaskaHighwayandtheAlaskaNationalRailroad.OccasionalandintermittentlanduseintheJohnsonareaincludesrecreation,sporthuntingandfishing,subsistence,seasonalresidences,andresourceexploration.SomeruralsettlementandagriculturaluseoccursalongtheTananaRivereastoftheJohnsonRiverconfluence.ThenearestcommunityisDot.Lake,locatedabout15mi(24km)eastoftheJohnsonsiteontheAlaskaHighway.Landuseandown~rshippatternsfortheNenana,ChuitnaRiver,andAnchorageareasaredescribedinSections3.3.1.2.and3.4.1.2.3.5.2Climate,AirQuality,NoiseUnderthisalternativescenario,thecoal-fired,combined-cycle,andgasturbineplantswouldbelocatedprimarilynearAnchorageandNenana.TheexistingenvironmentsintheseareashavebeendescribedpreviouslyinSections3.1.2through3.4.2.Thenon-SusitnaBasinhydropowerunitsat Johnson,Browne,Keetna,andastheSusitnaprojectarea.Section3.3.2.3-66Snowshouldhavesimilarclimate,airquality,andnoisefeaturesTheChakachamnasiteisclosetoTyonek,whichwasdiscussedin3.5.3WaterQuantityandQualityThefivepotentialhydropowersitesincludedinthisalternativearelocatedoutsideoftheupperSusitnaRiverBasin.WatershedareaandsummaryflowstatisticsforthesesitesaregiveninTable3-11.WiththeexceptionoftheJohnsonandSnowsites,annualhydrographsforthesesitesaredominatedbyglacialmeltwaterssimilartoeachotherandtotheSusitnaRiverattheDevilCanyon/Watanadamsites.AttheJohnsonsite,glacialinfluenceisminimalandpeaksintheannualhydrographoccurlaterinAugustandSeptemberduetosummerrainfall.TheSnowsiteisinacoastaldrainagewithhighelevationandhighannualprecipitation[greaterthan100inches(250centimeters)peryear].Table3-11.WatershedandStreamFlowCharacteristicsofAlternative,Out-of-BasinHydroelectricProjectsSummerPeakFlowsWatershedMeanAnnual90thlOthWinterLowSite/RiverArea(mi2)Flow(cfs)PercentilePercenti1eFlows(cfs)BROWNE!2,4504,70022,0009,100500-1,000NenanaRiverCHAKACHAMNA/1,1203,60017,0009,600400-700ChakachatnaRiverJOHNSON/10,45011,00040,00024,0004,000-6,000TananaRiverKEETNA/2,0062,40014,0005,000400-1,000TalkeetnaRiverSNOW/6347101,200750400-1,500SnowRiverConversions:Toconvertsquaremiles(mi2)tosquarekilometers(km2),multiplyby2.59;toconvertcubicfeetpersecond(cfs)tocubicmeterspersecond(m3/s),multiplyby0.0283.Source:BasedondatafromChapman(1982).WaterqualityoftheexistingenvironmentslikelytobeaffectedbyconstructionandoperationoftheproposedhydropoweralternativescanbeclassifiedasgoodandiscomparabletothatfortheSusitnaRiversitesdescribedinSection3.1.3.2(U.S.GeologicalSurvey,1979).Themajordifferenceamongthefouralternativehydropowersitesforwhichdataareavailableisinthemagnitudeofseasonalvariationsinsuspendedsolids,withthemaximalsummerconcentrationbeinggreaterinriversandlakesfedbyglacialmeltwater(Nenana,Tanana,Chakachamna)thaninthesystemfedbysnowmeltalone(Talkeetna)(U.S.GeologicalSurvey,1979).ThereisanindicationofdepressionsindissolvedoxygenintheTananaRiverduringwinter,withthemagnitudeofthedepressionbeinggreaterdownstreamthanupstream(SchallockandLotspeich,1974).Waterqualitydata.fortheSnowRiverwasnotavailable.3.5.4AquaticCommunitiesOut-of-basinhydroelectricalternativesarelocatedinareasthatrepresentadiversityofaquaticcommunities.FortheJohnsonalternative,threespeciesofsalmon(chinook,coho,andchum)areharvestedbysportfishermanintheTananaRiverdrainage(AlaskaOept.ofFishandGame,1983).Mostofthespawningoccursinthelowerbasin,butsomemayoccurnearthepotentialdamsite.Rainbowtrout,grayling,whitefish,burbot,andsheepfisharespeciesresidentintheregion.Acom-parisonofthesportfishharvesttothatinotherdrainagebasinsispresentedinTable3-12.Fourspeciesofanadromoussalmon(chinook,coho,chum,andsockeye)arepresentinthereachoftheTalkeetnaRivercontainingthepotentialdamsitefortheKeetnaalternative.Chinookare ~~~~-~~---~---~ 6 Basin (alternative) Kenai (Snow) W.Susitna (Chakachamna) E.Susitna (In-basin) (Keetna) Table 3-12.Summary of Five-Year Average Sport Fish Harvests in River Basins That Include Alternative Hydropower Sites Number of Fish (thousands) Chinook Coho Chum Grayl i ng Sockeye Pinkt 'Rainbow Burbot O.Varden Total 18 43 0.35 1.9 75 43/14 32 0 65 280 4.6 9.4 1 6.9 1.7 5.4/3.8 12 0.33 3.7 45 w, en 1.4 7.8 5.6 9.5 1.3 52/13 7.2 0.38 3.5 89 -..J Tanana (Browne) (Johnson) 0.5 0.1 0.35 73 o o 12 2.3 0.6 23 t 'High/low runs. Source:Mills (1979-1982). 3-68knowntospawnintributariesnearandupstreamfromthesite.DatafromAlaskaDepartmentofFishandGamemonitoringstationsontheSusitnaRiveratSunshine(belowtheTalkeetnacon-fluence)andTalkeetna(aboveit)showmanyfishnotprogressinguptheSusitnaRiverthatmayusetheTalkeetnaRiver(App.I,Fig.1-10).Residentspeciesintheriver,tributaries,andsurroundinglakesarelikelytoincluderainbowandlaketrout,grayling,burbot,andwhitefish.NoanadromousfishareknowntooccurintheSnowRiver.SockeyeandcohoarepresentinthedrainagesystemandinKenaiLake.ResidentspeciesofinterestinKenaiLakeincluderainbowtroutandwhitefish.NoanadromousfishoccurintheNenanaatthepotentialBrownealternativesite.Residentspeciesintheriver,tributaries,andsurroundinglakesarelikelytoincludegrayling,rainbowandlaketrout,burbot,andwhitefish.IntheareaofthepotentialChakachamnaalternativesite,allfivespeciesofPacificsalmonarefoundintheChakachatnaRiverandtributaries.ResidentspeciesinLakeChakachamnaincludelaketrout,DollyVarden,grayling,whitefish,andsculpins.Spawningbysalmonintheriverbelowthelakeoccursprim·arilyinthesloughsandtributaries.However,thelargestsalmonescapementinthebasinoccursintheChilleganandIgitnariversupstreamofthelake,whereapproximately41,000sockeyespawn.LakeChakachamnaistheprimaryrearingareaforthesefish.TheMcArthurRiversystemissimilartotheChakachatnaRiverbelowthelake,wheremostsalmonspawningoccursinthetributaries.FishfrombothriversystemsuseNoauktaSlough.EstimatedsalmonpopulationsfortheLakeChakachamnabasinarepresentedinTable3-13,andtherelativeimportanceofthisareatooverallsportfishingispresentedinTable3-12.Table3-13.EstimatedSalmonEscapementfromtheChakachamnaRegion,1982SpeciesChinookCohoChumSockeyePinkChakachatna2,5212,5991,92043,6378,263MacArthur3,5834,7292952,40019,777Source:Bechtel(1983).3.5.5TerrestrialCommunities3.5.5.1PlantCommunities~Thefollowingdescriptionsofvegetationoccurrencenearsitesidentifiedforthecombinedhydro-thermalscenarioarebasedprimarilyonFigure3-16.AlongtheTananaRiverneartheJohnsonalternativesitethevegetationismostlybottomlandspruce-poplarforest;fartherawayfromtheTananaRiverfloodplainandalongtheJohnsonRiver,thevegetationismostlyuplandspruce-hardwoodforest.However,therearealsosmallerareasoflowlandspruce-hardwoodforestandlowshrub,muskegbog,aswellasmoisttundraandalpinetundraatthehigherelevations.Bottomlandspruce-poplarforesttypespredominate alongtheTalkeetnaRiverneartheKeetnaalternativesite.Theseforestsgradeintouplandspruce-hardwoodforestsawayfromtheflood-plain.Athigherelevationsabovetheriverthevegetationconsistsofmoisttundratypes(i.e.,mesicsedge-grasstundraandmatandcushiontundra)similartothosefoundoilthebenchesabovetheSusitnaRivercanyon.ForestedareasneartheSnowalternativesitearemostlycoastalwesternhemlock-Sitkaspruceforest;however,cottonwoodsandwillowsprobablydominatetherivervalleysandfloodplains.Tallshrubcommunities,dominatedbyalder,gradeintoalpinetundratypesabovethetreeline.VegetationalongtheNenanaRiverneartheBrownealternativesiteismostlybottomlandspruce-poplarforest.Fartherfromtheriverthevegetationgradesintolowlandspruce-hardwoodcom-munities.About10mi(16km)upstreamfromthedamsite,uplandspruce-hardwoodforestcommuni-tiespredominatealongtheriver.Athigherelevationsthevegetationgradesintomoisttundraandalpinetundra. 3-69ThevegetationonthesteepslopessurroundingChakachamnaLakecanbegenerallyclassifiedastallshrublandwithalpinetundraandbarerockathigherelevations.TheChakachatnaRivercanyonandthefloodp1ainsofriversflowingintoChakachamnaLakearealsocoveredbytallshrubcommunities.Large,low-shrubbogsarefoundonflat,poorlydrainedareasasthetopo-graphyflattensouttotheupperCookInletcoastalplain.Sedge-grasscoastalmarshescovermostoftheareawithinImi(1.6km)ofCookInlet,aswellassomeareasalongtheMcArthurRiver.Intermediatebetweenthecoastalmarshesandthebogsarepoorlydrainedareasofblackspruceforest.Theseareasdifferfromthebogsinthelackoffloatingvegetationmatsandtheabsenceofblackcottonwood(Bechtel,1983).VegetationinthevicinityofNenana,thelowerBelugaRiver,theChuitnaRiver,andAnchorage,wherethermalunitsforthisscenariowouldprobablybesited,havebeendescribedinSec-tions3.3.5.1and3.4.5.1.3.5.5.2AnimalCommunitiesCommonmammalsintheChakachamnaareaaremoose,blackandbrownbear,coyotes,andgraywolf.RiverotterIbarren-groundcar;bou,andwo1verineareoce'asianallyencounteredduriogfie1dsurveys.Moosearecommonthroughoutthearea,principallyinhabitatassociatedwithdrainagesintoChakachamnaLakeandtheChakachatnaandMcArthurRiverriparianhabitats.MooseareabundantinthecoastalmarshriparianhabitatatthemouthsoftheriversandlessabundantinuplandalderthicketsontheslopesaboveChakachamnaLake.BlackandbrownbearareabundantintheareasaboveChakachamnaLakeandjustdownstream.Highaltitude,riparianhabitatsupportsthemostbear.BearbecomelesscommonindownstreamhabitatsalongtheChakachatnaandMcArthurrivers.Graywolfarecommonlyfoundinhighaltituderiparianhabitat.Coyotearedistributedoverallhabitats,andareabundantincoastalmarshhabitat.Coastalmarshriparianhabitatsupportsthegreatestdiversityofbirds.Trumpeterswan,Canadagoose,marshhawk,baldeagle,sandhillcrane,andseveralspeciesofgullsarecommonlyfoundincoastalmarshes.Thishabitatalsosupportsanabundanceofducks.BaldeaglenestsareconcentratedinthemarshhabitatofNoauktaSloughandthelowerChakachatnaandMcArthurrivers.TrumpeterswannestsaremostdenseinanareafromNoauktaSloughtoBlockadeGlacieralongtheMcArthurRiver.ThewildlifespeciesintheareaoftheBrownesitearetypicalofthosefoundinthecentralportionsoftheRai1belt.Importantbiggameincludemoose,caribou,blackandbrownbear,andDall'ssheep.Mooseconcentrateinthegeneralareaduringfallandwinter.Inwinterinparticular,moosetendtoconcentrateinriparianhabitatalongtheNenanaRiver.Caribourangethroughoutthearea,andwinterconcentrationsarefoundalongtheNenana.Dall'ssheepconcen-trationsarefoundinthehighlandsabovetheNenanaRiversome10mi(16km)southoftheBrownesite.Brownandblackbearrangethroughoutthearea.Severalmilestothesouth,anareaintensivelyusedbybrownbearislocatedaroundtheentrancetoDenaliNationalParkandPreserve.FurbearersoccuralongtheNenanaRiverbutdonotappeartobeverycommon.AlthoughwaterfowlusetheareaalongtheNenanaRiver,densitiestendtobelow.Amajorflywayoccursthroughthearea,paralleltotheNenanaRiver.Common.raptorsincludesharp-shinnedhawk,rough-leggedhawk,Americankestrel,andgoldeneagle.ThewildlifespeciesoftheKeetnaareaaretypicalofthosefoundinthemiddleSusitnadrainage.Thesiteislocatedinanareaoffallandwinterconcentrationsofmoose.Caribourangethrough-outtheregion,andwinterconcentrationsoccuraroundthepotentialdamsite.ConcentrationsofDal1'ssheeparewellremoved,some25mi(40km)tothesoutheast.Blackandbrownbearalsorangethroughthearea.ThebrownbearfishingareaatPrairieCreekisupstreamofthissite.Thisisnotamajorwaterbirdusearea.TheriparianhabitatintheSnowRiversupportsmooseandotherwildlife.Upstreamanddown-streamofthepotentialdamsiteareareasoffallandwintermooseconcentration.MountaingoatandDall'ssheepoccupythesteepslopesabovethesite.Blackandbrownbearandwolfrangeacrossthearea.Waterfowlusethevicinityofthesiteforanestingandmoltingareaduringspringandsummer.MooseandcaribourangethroughouttheareaoftheJohnsonsite,andafallconcentrationareaformooseislocatedtothesouthwestalongtheJohnsonRiver.Abisoncalvingareaislocateddownstreamofthesite,alongtheTananaRiver.Blackandbrownbeararealsopresent.Lowdensitiesofwaterfowlusetheareafornestingandmolting.\Thewildlifepopui~tionsoftheNenana,ChuitnaRiver,andAnchorageareas--potentialsitesofcoal-firedunitsunderthisalternative--havebeendescribedpreviously.3.5.6ThreatenedandEndangeredSpeciesDevelopmentofcoal-firedpowergenerationfacilitiesinNenanawouldoccurinthevicinityofperegrinefalconhabitatsituatednorthoftheTananaRiver.Althoughthisareaisnotcurrentlyusedbyperegrine,severalhistoricalnestinglocationsareknowntoexistnortheastofNenana.Nootherthreatenedorendangeredspeciesofplantsorwildlifewouldbeassociatedwiththecombinedhydro-thermalgenerationscenario(seeSec.3.1.6). '1113-70I::3.5.7RecreationResourcesDedicatedrecreationsitesinthegeneralareaoftheJohnsonRiverincludetheTokRiver,MoonLake,ClearwaterandDonnellyCreekStateRecreationSites,andtheQuartzLakeandHardingLakeStateRecreationAreas(ParkPlanningSection,1982).RivertouringontheTananaRiverisavailableonacommercialbasis.Accessibilitybyamajortrailaffordsopportunitiesforawiderangeoftrail-relatedactivitiesanddispersedrecreationintheotherwiseremoteareaoftheKeetnaalternative.Sporthuntingandfishing,andriverrunningareamongthemorepopularactivities(AlaskaDept.ofNaturalResources,1982).Campsites,boatlaunchandotherancillaryfacilities,aswellasseveralhikingtrailsaremaintainedbytheU.S.ForestServiceintheareaofthepotentialSnowalternative(AlaskaNorthwestPublishing,1983).PrivateestablishmentsalongtheSewardHighwayprovidetouristaccommodations,aswellasguideandotherservicesforlocalrecreationopportunities.TheNenanaRiveraffordsopportunitiesforrivertouringandotherwater-basedrecreationintheBrownearea. Adevelopedwaysidearea,aswellasprivateestablishments,provideaccommodationsfortravelersoftheParksHighway(A1askaNorthwestPub1ishing,1983).Other1oca1outdoorrecreationconsistsofdispersedactivities,primarilyhuntingandfishing.SummarydiscussionsrelativetorecreationresourcesofChakachamna(BelugaandChuitnariverareas),ChuitnaRiver,Anchorage,andNenanaareasarepresentedinSections3.3.7and3.4.7.3.5.8SocioeconomicFactorsLocationsofthefivepotentialhydropowerfacilitiesareshowninFigure3-11.Thesocio-economicenvironmentoftheJohnsonsitewouldincludethecommunitiesofTok,DeltaJunction,andmetropolitanFairbanks;theKeetnaenvironmentwouldincludeTalkeetna,theRailbelt,andthemetropolitanareasofAnchorageandFairbanks;theSnowsocioeconomicenvironmentwouldincludethecityofSewardandtheEasternPeninsulasectionoftheKenaiPeninsulaBorough;socioeconomicenvironmentofBrownewouldbethecommunitiesofHealy,Nenana,Fairbanks,andnorthernMat-SuBorough;andtheChakachamnasitewouldbeintheTyonekarea.Thethermalunitsinthisscenariowouldbeasubsetof thosedescribedinSections3.3.8and3.4.8.Theirsocioeconomicenvironmentswould includeNenana-,-Healy,metropo1itan·Fairbanks,thenorthernRailbelt,theTyonekarea,andmetropolitanAnchorage.Healy,Nenana,Paxson,theentireRai1-belt,Talkeetna,Anchorage,andFairbanksaredescribedinSection3.1.8.TheTyonekareaandthenorthernKenaiPeninsulaaredescribedinSection3.3.8.TheSnowhydropoweralternativewouldbelocatednearthesoutheasterncoastlineoftheKenaiPeninsula.ThenearestpopulationcentertothesiteisSeward,whichisthelargestpopulationcenterontheEasternPeninsulaoftheKenaiPeninsula(1982populationof1,828).Thepopula-tionoftheSewardCensusDivision,whichincludesSewardandtheeasterncoastalareasoftheKenaiPeninsula,hasincreasedby31%since1970,toa1982totalof3,500(KenaiPenin.Bar.Resour.Dev.Off.,1983).Sewardisahomerulecityandthushaspowertotaxitscitizens,toprovideeducationandothercommunityservices,andtoplanandzone.AreasarounditareservedbydepartmentsprovidedthroughSewardServiceAreataxes.SewardisthesouthernterminusoftheAlaskaRailroadandofHighway9fromAnchorage,andisacargoport.PrimaryindustrialbasesforSewardarefishingandprocessingforfishandtimber.TheEasternPeninsulaisapopulartouristattraction,andtourismprovidesanimportantpartoftheeconomicbaseofthewholearea.However,Federal,state,andlocalgovernmentemployabout20%oftheworkingpopulationintheSewardCensusDivision.Thetotallaborforcein1982was1,622.Theunemploymentrateisvolatile,andat14.7%in1982,isusuallyhigherthanintherestoftheboroughorinthestateasawhole.Wagesfromgovernmentemploymentmadeupover40%ofthetotalwagepaymentsin1980.The1980per-capitaincomewas$ll,967,51ightlyhigherthanfortherestoftheborough,butthecostoflivinginSewardisalsohigher(KenaiPenin.Bar.Resour.Dev.Off.,1983;AlaskaOfficeofManagementandBudget,1983).In1982,justunder70%ofhousinginthecityofSewardwasinsinglefamilyunits,withalmostalltheremaining30%inapartmentunits(App.N,TableN-ll).Lessthan1%wasinmobilehomes.Vacancyratesarenotavailable.NearlyallSewardhouseholdsareoncitywaterandsewersystems.Sewardhasonehospital,onementalhealthclinic,anditsownfireandpolicedepartments.TheEasternPeninsulahasfourelementaryschoolsandonehighschool;oneoftheelementaryschoolsandthehighschoolareinSeward.TheJohnsonhydropoweralternativesiteisjustnorthoftheAlaskaHighwayabout140mi(22Dkm)southwestofFairbanks.ThelargestcommunitiesintheareaareDeltaJunctiontothenortheastofthesiteandToktothesouthwest.Tokisasmall,unincorporatedcommunityattheinter-sectionoftheAlaskaHighwayandtheTokcut-offoftheGlennHighway,about70mi(110km) 3-71southeastofthesite.Tok's1980populationwas750,up250%since1970.Thetownis-pri-marilyaservicecenterfortouristsandhighwayvehiclesusingtheAlaskaHighway.Thus,employmentisseasonalformanyresidents.In1982,anaverageof11,620passengerspermonthenteredAlaskaattheTokStation,almost33,000inJunealone(KenaiPenin.Bor.Resour.Dev.Off.,1983).Thereareseveralmotels,threecommercialcampgrounds,elementaryandhighschools,apublichealthclinic,afiredepartment,aStateTrooperstation,andsmallairfield,whichservesprivateandcharteredplanes.Servicesareprovidedbythestate(AlaskaNorthwestPublishing,1983;U.S.BureauoftheCensus,1973).Twosmallnativecommunities,Tanacross(1982populationof117)andDotLake(1982populationof67),arelocatedontheAlaskaHighwaybetweenTokandtheJohnsonsite.Tanacrosshasanairstripandisthesiteofafireguardstationforthearea.DotLakehasafewlodgingunitsandafewtourist-relatedservices.Onelodgeislocatedabout30mi(50km)northwestofthesiteontheAlaskaHighway.DeltaJunction,anincorporatedcommunity(1982populationof1,044)atthemergeroftheAlaskaandRichardsonHighways,isabout40mi(64km)farthernorthwestontheAlaskaHighway.Ithasfullcommunityservices,includingafirestation,ahealthclinicstaffedbyaphysician'sassociate,andschools.Thetown'scommercialoperationsaretourist-oriented.TheareaaroundDeltaJunctionisusedforagriculture,primarilygrowingofbarley(AlaskaNorthwestPublishing,1983).BetweenDeltaJunctionandFairbanksareanumberoflodges,motels,andothertouristfacilitiesandonecommunity,NorthPole(1980populationof928),locatedjustsouthofFairbanks(AlaskaNorthwestPublishing,1983).3.5.9VisualResourcesThevisua1characteristicsoftheChakachamnaLakeareaincludesteepmountainousterrain,vegetateduplands,andcoastalwetlands.ChakachamnaLake,ChakachatnaRiverCanyon,andtheheadwatersoftheMcArthurRiverarelocatedinnarrowglaciatedvalleysthataresurroundedbysteepandruggedmountainousterrain(Bechtel,1983).Extendedviewsfromalongthelakeofferscenicvistasofglaciersdescendingintothelake.TheChakachatnaRiverdescendsfromthelakeandgoesthroughatwistingcanyonsurroundedbysteepmountainousterrain.ThelandscapecharacteroftheBrowneareaismainlydefinedbythebraidedNenanaRiverValleyanditstributariesandtheAlaskaMountainRange,whichincludesMt.McKinley.Theareaincludesscatteredsmalllakes,bogareas,wetlands,andnumerousislandswithinthebroadfloodplain.AnumberofsmallhumandevelopmentareasoccurintheRailbeltcorridor.ViewsareessentiallyorientedtothemountainsoftheAlaskaRangeand-highfoothillareas.TheKeetnaareaislocatedinthelowerhalfoftheTalkeetnaRiverBasin.MajorlandformsincludetheTalkeetnaMountains,locatedtothenortheast.Thevegetationneartheprojectsiteispredominatelyuplandspruce-hardwoodforest.TwoscenicareaslocatedintheareaincludeSentinelRockandGraniteGorge(ExhibitE,Vol.8,Chap.10,p.E-1D-13).TheSnowRiverisoneoftheKenaiPeninsulalsmajorriverdrainagesystems.Theregionischaracterizedbyglaciallycarvedvalleys,rugged,snow-cappedmountainridges,andavarietyofvegetationtypes.LargeglacialicefieldsarelocatedintheKenaiMountainsnortheastoftheSnowsite.-ThedominantlandformintheJohnsonareaistheAlaskaRange.JohnsonRiverislocatedinaglaciated"U"-shapedvalley.ThebraidedriverflowstowardthebroadvalleyoftheTananaRiver,whichisborderedbytheAlaskaRangeandrounded,gentleridgestothesouthandslopesoftheYukon-TananaUplandareatothenorth.ThelandscapecharacterfortheNenanaareaisdescribedinSection3.4.9.TheChuitnaRiverandAnchoragelandscapesaredescribedinSection3.3.9.3.5.10CulturalResourcesCulturalresourcesitesareunknowninmostoftheareasthatwouldbeaffectedbythecombinedhydro-thermalsce~ario.NositesarecurrentlyrecordedfortheJohnson,Keetna,orChakachamnaalternativedamsi,tes.TheareaofthealternativeSnowRiversitepossessesseveralhistoricsites,however,an~theBrownesitecontainsover50archeologicalandhistoricsites,manyofwhichappearlikelytobesignificant.NositesareknownintheBelugacombined-cycleandAnchoragecombustion-turbinesitinglocations,butsevenarcheologicalandhistoricsitesarerecordedintheNenanaarea(Smith,personalcommunication*).Site-specificsurveyswouldbenecessaryinallareastoproperlyassessexistingculturalresources.*Smith,T.A.(OfficeofHistoryandArchaeology,AlaskaStateDivisionofParks).Oralcommuni-cationtoJ.F.Hoffecker(ArgonneNationalLaboratory),March24,1984. 3-72REFERENCESFORSEC.3AlaskaDepartmentofCommerceandEconomicDevelopment.1983.1983LongTermEnergyPlan.WorkingDraft.DivisionofEnergyandPowerDevelopment.AlaskaDepartmentofEnvironmentalConservation.1979.WaterQualityStandards.Juneau.AlaskaDepartmentofFishandGame.1973.Alaska'sWildlifeandHabitat.Vol.I.Juneau.AlaskaDepartmentofFishandGame.1978.Alaska'sWildlifeandHabitat.Vol.II.Juneau.AlaskaDepartmentofReport.Vol.4.PowerAuthority.FishandGame.1983.SusitnaHydroAquaticStudies,PhaseIIBasicDataAquaticHabitatandInstreamFlowStudies,1982.PreparedfortheAlaskaAnchorage.AlaskaDepartmentofLabor.1983.AlaskaPlanningInformation.Juneau.160pp.AlaskaDepartmentofNaturalResources.1982.LandUseIssuesandPreliminaryResourceInventory.Vol.1:PlanningBackgroundReport.PreparedincooperationwiththeMatanuska-SusitnaBorough,AlaskaDepartmentofFishandGame,andTransportationandPublicFacilitiesoftheKenaiPeninsulaBorough.199pp.AlaskaGeographicSociety.1981.AlaskaNationalInterestLands-The0-2Lands.Geographic.Vol.8,No.4.Anchorage.AlaskaAlaskaNorthwestPublishingCo.1983.TheMilepost1983.Alaska,WesternCanada.35thed.Anchorage.496pp.AlaskaOfficeofManagementandBudget.1983.AlaskaStatisticalReview1982.Vol.II.OfficeoftheGovernor,DivisionofStrategicPlanning.179pp.AssociatedPress.1983.Gorsuch:subsistence"constitutional".TheAnchorageTimes.March10,p.B-3.Bailey,R.G.1978.DescriptionoftheEcoregionsoftheUnitedStates.U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService,IntermountainRegion.Ogden,.UT.77pp.BechtelCivilandMinerals,Inc.1983.ChakachamnaHydroelectricProjectInterimFeasibilityAssessmentReport.Vol.1,Sec.1-10,AppendicestoSec.4.0and8.0,andVol.II,AppendixtoSec.6.0.PreparedfortheAlaskaPowerAuthority.Anchorage.Bredthauer,S.andB.Drage.1982.Task3,Hydrology:RiverMorphology.PreparedbyR&MConsultants,Anchorage,forAcresAmericanIncorporated.Buffalo,NY.Campbell,A.1983.SteadygrowthrateincreasesMat-Sulandvalues.TheAnchorageTimes.March23,p.B-1.Chapman,D.L.1982.DailyFlowStat.isticsofAlaskanStreams.NOAATechnicalMemorandumNWSAR-35.UnitedStatesDepartmentofCommerce,NationalOceanicandAtmosphericAdministra-tion,NationalWeatherService.Anchorage.57pp.CommonwealthAssociates,Inc.1982.Anchorage-FairbanksTransmissionIntertie,AlaskaPowerAuthority,EnvironmentalAssessmentReport.PreparedwithassistancefromDOWLEngineersandKevinWaringAssociates.Darbyshire&Associates.1980.CityofBethelComprehensiveDevelopmentPlan.Vol.III.TheBethelEconomy:PresentandFuture.Dixon,E.J.,G.S.Smith,R.C.BettsandR.M.Thorson.1982.FinalReport,Sub-Task7.06.Cultura1ResourcesInvestigationsfortheSusitnaHydroe1ectricProject:APre1iminaryCulturalResourcesSurveyintheUpperSusitnaRiverValley.PreparedbyUniversityofAlaskaMuseum,Fairbanks,forAcresAmerican,Inc.Buffalo,NY.1011pp.Dixon,E.J.,G.S.Smith,M.L.KingandJ.D.Romick.1983.FinalReport1982FieldSeason,Sub-Task7.06.CulturalResourcesInvestigationfortheSusitnaHydroelectricProject:CulturalResourceSurveyintheMiddleSusitnaRiverValley.PreparedbyUniversityofAlaskaMuseum,Fairbanks,forAcresAmerican,Inc.Buffalo,NY.346pp.Dixon,E.J.,G.S.Smith,W.Andrefsky,B.M.Saleeby,C.J.UtermohleandM.L.King.1984.SusitnaHydroelectricProject:1983FieldSeasonCulturalResourcesInvestigation(3volumes).PreparedbyUniversityofAlaskaMuseum,Fairbanks,forAlaskaPowerAuthority.Anchorage. 3-73DOWLEngineers.1983.Matanuska-SusitnaBoroughComprehensiveDevelopmentPlan.Draft.PreparedforMatanuska-SusitnaBorough.Dwight,L.D.1981.SusitnaHydroelectricProject,ReveiwofExistingWaterRightsintheSusitnaRiverBasin.PreparedforAcresAmericanIncorporated.Buffalo,NY.Edgar,D.E.,L-J.Constraints.131 pp.OnestiandG.M.Kaszynski..1982.AlaskanCoal:ResourcesandEnvironmentalANL/LRP-18.ArgonneNationalLaboratoryforU.S.DepartmentofEnergy.Ender,R.L.1980.Mat-SuHousingandEconomicDevelopmentStudy:SurveyFindings.PreparedbyPolicyAnalysts,Limited,forAlaskaDepartmentofCommunityandRegionalAffairs,withMatanuska-SusitnaBorough,CookInletNativeAssociation,andMat-SuOEDP,Inc.FederalEnergyRegulatoryCommission.1983.InthematterofAlaskapowerauthority,DocketNo.Project7114,Vol.1.PublicScopingMeetings,June20-23,1983.FrankOrth&Associates,Inc.1982.AlaskaPowerAuthoritySusitnaHydroelectricProject.EnvironmentalStudiesFinalReport.Subtask7.05:SocioeconomicAnalysis.PreparedforTerrestrialEnvironmentalSpecialists,Inc.,andAcresAmerican,Inc.FrankOrth&Associates,Inc.1983.SusitnaHydroelectricProjectSubtask4.5:SocioeconomicStudies.DraftFina1.ProjectionAssumptions,MethodologyandOutputFormats.PreparedforHarza-EbascoandtheAlaskaPowerAuthority.94pp.Grogan,R.L.1983.LetterandcommentsfromR.L.Grogan,AssociateDirector,AlaskaOfficeoftheGovernor,toL.Crawford,AlaskaPowerAuthority,regardingSusitnaHydroe1ectricProjectApplication.18November.Hoffman,D.G.spending.1983.Villageeconomies.ThedangerofvillageeconomiesbasedongovernmentAlaskaNativeNews.July,pp.15-17.Irvin,G.1983.LetterfromG.Irvin,NaturalResourcesDirector,RuralAlaskaCommunityActionProgram,toB.A.Payne,ArgonneNationalLaboratory.August5.KenaiPeninsulaBoroughResourceDevelopmentOffice.1983.SituationandPro<pects.KenaiPeninsulaBorough.121 pp.Matanuska-SusitnaPlanningDepartment.Undated.MSBPopulationProjections(Amended).1p.McKendrick,J.,W.Collins,D.Helm,J.McMullenandJ.Koranda.1982.SusitnaHydroelectricProject,EnvironmentalStudies,Subtask7.12:PlantEcologyStudies,PhaseIFinalReport.PreparedbyUniversityofAlaskaAgriculturalExperimentalStation,Palmer,fortheAlaskaPowerAuthority.Anchorage.124 pp.Mills,M.J.1979.AlaskaStatewideSportFishHarvestStudies.ADF&GFederalAidinFishRestoration.Volume20.F-9-11,SW-I.Mills,M.J.1980.AlaskaStatewideSportFishHarvestStudies1980.AlaskaDepartmentofFishandGame.FederalAidinFishRestoration.Volume21.F-9-12,SW-I.65pp.Mills,M.J.1981.AlaskaStatewideSportFishHarvestStudies-1980Data.ADF&GFederalAidinFishRestorationandAnadromousFishStudies.Volume22.F-9-13,SW-I.Mills,M.J.1982.AlaskaStatewideSportFishHarvestStudies.ADF&GFederalAidinFishRestoration.Volume23.F-9-14,SW-I.Myers,E.F.Undated.CommentsonNorthernAlaskaEnvironmenta1CentertotheFederalEnergyRegulatoryCommissionRespectingtheProposedSusitnaHydroelectricProject,FERCProjectNo.7114.NationalParkService.1982.Index.PrintingOffice.Washington,DC.Neiland,B.J.an\L.A.Viereck.1977.ProceedingsNorthAmericanForestAlaska.Fairbanks.NationalParkSystemandRelatedAreas.U.S.Government94pp.Foresttypesandecosystems.pp.109-136,In:SymposiumLandsatLatitudesNorthof60Degrees.UniversityofParkPlanningSection.1982.AlaskaStateParkSystem:DivisionofParks,DepartmentofNaturalResources.SouthCentralRegionPlan.153pp.Alaska 3-74ParkPlanningSection.1983.MasterPlanfortheProposedWillowCreekStateRecreationArea.DivisionofParks,AlaskaDepartmentofNaturalResources.86pp.Reeder,B.,S.Goldsmith,K.WhiteandG.Knapp.1983.MAPModelRegionalBase CaseProjec-tions198D-2DIDforuseinOCSLeaseSale87(DiapirField)ImpactAnalysis.PreparedbyInstituteofSocialandEconomicResearch,UniversityofAlaska,Fairbanks,forMineralsManagementService,AlaskaOCSOffice.19pp.R&MConsultants.1981.SusitnaHydroelectricProject.HydrologyWaterQualityin198D.R&MConsultantsandL.A.PetersonandAssociates.1982.WaterQualityEffectsResultingfromImpoundmentoftheSusitnaRiver.Simmerman,N.L.1983.Alaska'sPark1ands,TheCompleteGuide.TheMountaineers.Seattle,WA.336pp.Se1kregg,L. L.1974.AlaskaRegionalProfiles.Vol.I.Southcentra1Region.TheUniversityofAlaska,ArcticEnvironmentalInformationandDataCenter.Anchorage.255pp.Stenehjem,LJ.andJ.LMitzger.1980.AFrameworkforProjectingEmploymentandPopu1ationChangesAccompanyingEnergyDevelopment.Vols.IandII.ReportANL/AA-14.ArgonneNationalLaboratory.Argonne,IL.TerrestrialEnvironmentalSpecialists,Inc.1982a.SusitnaHydroelectricProject,Environ-menta1Studies,Subtask7.08:RecreationPlanning,PhaseIReport.Preparedincoopera-tionwiththeUniversityofAlaskaforAcresAmericanInc.Buffalo,NY.39pp.Terrestria1Environmenta1Specialists,Inc.1982b.SusitnaHydroe1ectricProject,Environ-mentalStudies,Subtask7.07:LandUseAnalysis.Phase1Report.PreparedforAcresAmerican,Inc.Buffalo,NY.TheUniversityof346pp.1974.LowWinterDissolvedOxygeninSomeAlaskanRivers.U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.Washington,DC.Selkregg,L.L.1977.AlaskaRegionalProfiles.Vol.VI.YukonRegion.Alaska,ArcticEnvironmentalInformationandDataCenter.Anchorage.Schallock,E.W.andF.B.Lotspeich.ReportNo.EPA-660/3-74-0D8.33pp.Trihey,LW.1982.InstreamFlowAssessmentfortheProposedSusitnaHydroelectricProject.PreparedforAcresAmericanIncorporated.Buffalo,NY.108pp.U.S.BureauofLandManagement.1981.FinalEnvironmentalImpactStatement,ProposedDuterContinentalShelfOilandGasLeaseSale,LowerCookInlet/ShelikofStrait.U.S.BureauofLandManagement.1982.FinalEnvironmentalImpactStatement,ProposedDuterContinentalShelfOilandGasLeaseSale71,DiapirField.U.S.DepartmentoftheInterior.U.S.BureauoftheCensus.1973.Population.Part3:Alaska.197DCensusofPopulation.Vol.1:U.S.DepartmentofCommerce.CharacteristicsoftheU.S.BureauoftheCensus.1980.1980CensusofPopulation.CharacteristicsofthePopula-tion,NumberofInhabitants,Alaska.PC80-1-A3.U.S.DepartmentofCommerce.U.S.DepartmentoftheInterior.1980.ProtectionofElevenAlaskanStreams.HeritageCon-servationandRecreationService.Washington,DC.139pp.U.S.GeologicalSurvey.1979.WaterResourcesDataforAlaska.USGSWater-DataReportAK-79-1.NationalTechnicalInformationService.Springfield,VA.VanCleve,K.andL.A.Viereck.1981.ForestsuccessioninrelationtonutrientcyclingintheborealforestofAlaska.pp.185-211,In:D.C.West,H.H.Shugart,andD.B.Botkin(eds.),ForestSuccession:ConceptsandApplication.Springer-Verlag.NewYork.VanCleve,K.,C.T.Dyrness,L.A.Viereck,J.Fox,F.S.ChapinIIIandW.Oechel.1983.TaigaecosystemsininteriorAlaska.BioScience33:39-44.Viereck,L.A.andC.T.Dyrness.1980.APreliminaryClassificationSystemforVegetationofAlaska.ForestServiceTechnicalReportPNW-I06.PacificNorthwestForestandRangeExperimentStationGeneral,U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture.38pp.YarzebinskiJJ.DepartmentCommission1983.EconomicBaseStudy,Anchorage,Alaska,1983.Draft.PreparedbyofCommunityPlann;n9,ResearchSect;onIandAnchorageEconomicDevelopmentfortheMunicipalityofAnchorage.109pp. 4.ENVIRONMENTALIMPACT4.1PROPOSEDPROJECT4.1.1LandResources4.1.1.1GeologyandSoilsDuringtheSusitnaconstructionphase,WatanareservoirslopestabilitieswouldbeaffectedbythechanginggroundwaterregimesinthereservoirvicinityandbythethawingofthepermafrostdepositspresentthroughouttheWatanaarea.Solifluction,skinflows,andbimodalfai1ureswouldoccurandwouldbemostlikelyonnorth-facingslopesbetweenthedamsiteandVeeCanyonwherefrozenbasaltillsarepresent.Seismicactivityintheareawouldincreasethemagnitudeandfrequencyofsuchfailures.Soilerosionwouldoccurthroughoutthereservoirareaasaresultofconstructionactivities,e.g.,vegetationstripping)construct;oncampandvi11agedevelopmentIexcavationofborrowsites,androadconstruction.TheApplicantproposestocontrolerosionbyrestrictingvegeta-tionstrippingactivitieswhereverpossible,promotingrapidrevegetationofdisturbedareasaroundconstructionsites,locatingfacilitiesongentleslopeswhenpossible,andusingrevet-ments,desiltingponds,andbermswhereverfeasible.Theseandothermeasureswouldreduce,althoughnotprevent,erosionlosses.Permafrostthawwauldresultindifferentia1settlementofsoi15andsedimentflows.Becausethetemporaryconstructioncampandvillage,theairstrip,andnumeroussiteroadswouldbelocatedinareasofpermafrost,theApplicantproposestouseinsulatingbasestopreventperma-frostthaw.AlthoughtheWatanalOevi1Canyonreservoircomplexwouldbeamongtheworld'slargest,reservoir-inducedseismicitywouldbeunlikelybecausenofaultswithrecentdisplacementareknowntooccurintheimmediatereservoirvicinityandbecausetheApplicantproposestofillthereservoirataslow,steadyrate.Duringtheoperationphase,Watanareservoirslopeinstabilitieswouldberelatedtoseasonalfluctuationsinthereservoirlevel.Thawingofthepermafrostdepositswouldresultininitialslopeinstabilitiesthatwouldlessenwithtime.SeepageintheWatanarelictchannelwouldbegreatestwhenthereservoirwasfilled.Groutingwouldbeusedifseepagelosseswerefoundtobeexcessive.Becauseoftheover-consolidatednatureoftherelictchanneldeposits,lique-factionofthesedepositswhensaturatedwouldnotbelikely.Manyoftheareassusceptibletoerosionduringtheconstructionperiodwouldbeinundatedbythereservoir,buterosionlosseswouldcontinuealongroads,theairstrip,andthepermanentvillage.IntheareadownstreamfromDevilCreek,thereservoirshorelinewouldbeincontactwithsteepbedrockcliffs,andslopeinstabilitieswouldbeduetosmallrockfalls.Upstream,beachingandotherslopefailureswouldincreaseasthethicknessofunconsolidatedmaterialsalongtheshorelineincreased.Therearenopermafrostdepositsintheseareas.SmallseasonaldrawdownsoftheDevilCanyonreservoirwouldfurtherreducethepotentialforslopeinstability.TheApplicanthascalculatedthatapproximately2,500acres[1,000hectares(ha)]oflandadjacenttotheDevilCanyonreservoirwouldbeaffectedbysomeformofslopeinstability.BecauseofthesteepandnarrowconfigurationoftheDevilCanyon,thetotalareaclearedofvegetationfortheDevilCanyonfacilitywouldbeonly15%ofthatclearedfortheWatanadevelop-ment.ThethinnessoftheoverburdenintheDevilCanyonimpoundmentareaalsowouldresultinreducedcumulativeerosion1assesrelativetotheWatanadevelopment.Duringtheoperationphase,allDevilCanyonconstructionfacilitieswauldbedismantledandtheareaswauldberevegetatedtoreduceerosionlosses.NoagriculturalsoilsorknownmineralresourceswouldbeinundatedbytheWatanalOevilCanyonreservoirs.Liquefactionfailures,problemsrelatedtopermafrostthaw,andlandslidesmightoccurintheunstab1e,uncon~t1idatedgeo1ogicmaterialsthatarepresentalongtheproposedaccessroad4-1 4-2routebetweentheDenaliHighwayandtheDevilCanyondamsite,aswellastheDams-to-GoldCreekrailaccess.TheApplicant,however,proposestoavoidsuchdepositsthatmightbefoundduringgeotechnicalinvestigationsduringaccessroutedevelopment.Removalofvegetationduringconstructionofthisaccessroadwouldresultinincreasederosion,soilcompaction,andaltera-tionofsurfacedrainagepatterns,whichcouldresultinliquefactionandpermafrostthaw.Erosionlosseswouldbecontrolledbysuchmethodsastheuseofdesiltingpondsandrevetments.Permafrostthawwouldbecontrolledbyprovidingadequatedrainage,promptlyrevegetatingdis-turbedareas,andusinginsulatinggranularfillunderroadbeds..TheApplicantproposestoreduceborrow-siterequirementsforroaddevelopmentthroughmaximumuseofside-borrowandcut-and-fi1ltechniques.BecauseoftheincreasedaccessprovidedbythedevelopmentoftheDenaliHighwaytoDevilCanyonaccessroute,off-roadtrafficwouldincreaseintheprojectarea.Increasedtraffic,inturn,wouldincreasesoilerosionintheaffectedareas.ConstructionoftherailextensionbetweenDevilCanyonandGoldCreekandrelatedfacilitieswoulddisturbabout118acres(48halofvegetationandsoils.Onaunit-lengthbasis,soildisturbancesandconstructionmaterialrequirementswouldbelessfortherailaccessthanfortheroadbecauseofthenarrowerclearancewidthrequiredfortherailline.Noknownmineralresourcesoragriculturallysuitablesoilswouldbeaffectedbytheproposedaccessroute.InordertominimizeimpactsassociatedwithconstructionoftheOams-to-GoldCreeksegmentoftheproposedtransmissionline(suchasvegetationclearingandroadconstruction),theApplicanthasproposedthatthe transmissioncorridorfollowtheWatana-to-GoldCreekaccessroadroute.Thetransmissionlineimpactsthuswouldbesimilarinnaturetothoseforconstructionoftheaccessroute.About1,540acres(620halofvegetationwouldbeclearedforthetransmissioncorridorbetweentheWatanadamandGoldCreek.Becausethelowvegetationandorganicmatalongtheroutewouldbeleftintact,soilerosionlosseswouldbelocalized,occurringprimarilyfromconstructionoftransmissiontowers,relaybuildings,andcontrolstations.BetweenWillowandFairbanks,thetransmissionlinewouldparallelanexistingtransmissioncorridorandexistingaccessroutesandhighwaysformuchofitslength.Right-of-waydevelop-mentalongthissegmentwouldentailwideningoftheexistingcorridorandwouldresultinlessdisturbanceofsoilandvegetationthanwouldthedevelopmentofanewright-of-way.Unstable,unconsolidatedgeologicaldepositsalongtheproposedroutebecomeincreasinglymorecontinuoustothenorth,thusincreasingthepotentialforconstructiondifficultiesandsoilfailures.Limitedareasoflandsuitableforagricultureoccuratthenorthernendofthistransmissionroutesegment,butthetotalareathatwouldbeoccupiedbytransmissiontowersorimpactedduringtowerconstructionwouldbesmall.BetweenWillowandPortMacKenzie,thetransmissionright-of-waywouldalsocrosssmallareasofsoilssuitableforagriculture.4.1.1.2LandUseandOwnershipConstructionoftheWatanadamandassociatedpower-generationandtransmissionfaci1ities(e.g.,substation),theimpoundmentar~a,theconstructioncampandvillage,andthepermanentsettlementwouldproduceasignificantchangeinthecharacteranduseofthelandintheupperandmiddleSusitnaRiverBasin.Theremote,largelyundisturbedareawouldbecomeoneofincreasedhumanactivityanddevelopment.Landthatisnowusedprimarilyfordispersedrecrea-tionalactivities,subsistenceactivities,andsmallminingoperationswouldbecomemorehighlydevelopedforhydroelectricpowergeneration,resultingininducedresidential,commercial,recreation,andnaturalresourcedevelopment.ConstructionactivitiesandtheassociatednoisearoundtheWatanadamandreservoirprojectareawouldadverselyaffectuseoftheareaforrecreationalandsubsistencepurposes.Theproposeddamandreservoirwouldinundateabout36,000.acres(14,600haloflandwithintheSusitnaRiverValley.TheWatanaimpoundmentwouldinundateonlysixstructures--ahuntinglean-to,fourcabins(twonolongerinuse),andaco11apsedshack.Theconstructioncamp,permanentandtemporaryvi11age,andairstripattheWatanasitewouldcoverabout370acres(150hal.DevelopmentoftheWatanaprojectwouldrequirethetransferofownershipofsubstantialareasofFederal,Native,andprivatelandstotheStateofAlaska.Thesetransferswouldoccureitherthroughactualpurchaseorright-of-wayeasementagreements.TheTalkeetnaMountainSpecialUseDistrict(managedbytheMat-SuBorough)wouldrequirepermitsforspecifieddevelop-mentssuchasroads.Specificvaluesforlandrequiredfortheprojecthavenotbeenestablished,anditisanticipatedthatlandvalueswouldnotbedetermineduntilthelandacquisitionprocessfortheprojectwasstarted.TheremoteandnaturalcharacterofthelandintheupperandmiddleSusitnaRiverBasinareawouldcontinuetochangeduringtheoperationoftheWatanadamandtheestablishmentofapermanenttown.Thepermanenttownsite,whichwouldbelocatednorthofthedam,wouldoccupy 4-3about90acres(36hal.Thetownwouldconsistofacentralareawithabout20buildings,plusahospital,93singleandmultifamilydwellingunitsby1992(125unitsby2001),awaterandsewagetreatmentplant,andalandfill.ThecapacityofmuchofthelandintheWatanaprojectareatosupportconcentrated,high-density,humandevelopmentappearstohavemoderatetoseverelimitationduetosuchphysicalconstraintssuchasslope,soil,drainage,andload-bearingcapacity.PressuresforhumansettlementneartheWatanadamsiteandpermanenttowncouldincreaseduetodemandforincreasedrecreationservices(e.g.,supplystores,outfitters).IncreasedhumanactivityanddevelopmentatthetownandincreasedrecreationactivitiesonandsurroundingtheWatanareservoirwouldcausefurtherfundamentalchangesinthelanduseintheareaandresultindegradationofvegetationandincreasedpressureonhuntingandfishingresourcesintheupperandmiddleSusitnaRiverBasinarea(seeSees.4.1.5and4.1.7).Thenewlycreatedprojectroadandrailaccesswouldallowforeasieraccessandexploitationoftimberandmineralresourcesinthearea.Additionally,increasedopportunitiesforresourceexplorationandextractionactivitiesmightresultfromtheavailabilityofsupportservicesatandaroundthepermanentWatanasettlement.SuchactivitiesalsocouldresultinadditionalpressuresfordevelopmentofcommercialandindustrialsupportservicesattheWatanadamsettle-ment.TheactuallevelofadditionalresourcedevelopmentthatmightoccurintheSusitnaBasinareaasaresultofprojectoperationwoulddependonsuchfactorsastheextentandtypeofaccessintothearea,fina1 1andownershipandmanagementpatternsIresourcemarketdemands,laborsupply,developmentconstraints,andtheactualqualityandquantityofmineralresourcesfoundwithinthebasin.DevelopmentoftheWatanaprojectprobablywouldcauseincreasesinthevaluesofpropertieslocatednearthepermanenttown,adjacenttothereservoirandaccessroads,alongtheDenaliandGeorgeParksHighways,andinthecommunitiesofTalkeetna,Cantwell,andGoldCreek.Futurelandvalueswoulddependinpartontheamountoflandmadeavailablebythemajorland-owners,parcelsize,locationinrelationtoaccess,naturalresourceslocatedontheproperty,andthetypeofdevelopmentplanned.TheconstructionandoperationoftheDevilCanyondamandassociatedfacilities,theimpound-mentarea,andtheconstructioncampand.villagewouldcauselanduseimpactssimilartothosediscussedabovefortheWatanadevelopmentandwouldproducefurtherchangesintheuseandcharacteroflandintheupperandmiddleSusitnaRiverBasinarea.ConstructionofprojectaccessroadsandarailspurwouldmeanthatthelargelyundisturbedDevilCanyonareaoftheSusitnaRiverareawouldbecomeaccessibletoautomobiles,trucks,andheavyequipmentvehicles.AswouldbethesamefortheWatanadevelopment,landthatisnowusedprimarilyfordispersedrecreation,subsistence,andsmallminingoperationswouldbemadeaccessibleforlarge-scalehydropowerdevelopmentanditsassociatedfacilities.Constructionoftheprojectaccessroadsandrailspurwouidresultinthedestructionofvege-tationandslumpinganderosionofsoilsduringtheconstructionperiod.Theproposed40-mile(mi)[67-ki10meter(km)]gravelaccessroadbetweentheDenaliHighwayandtheWatanasitewouldrequireabout630acres(255halofland.Pulloutsandtrai1headswouldbeconstructedalongtheroutetopermitviewingandaccessintotheinteriorregionofthebasin.The37-mi(60-km)Watana-to-DevilCanyonaccessroutewouldrequireabout400acres(162halofland.Ahigh-levelsuspensionbridgewouldextendacrosstheSusitnaRiverbelowthedamsiteandconnecttheaccessroadwiththeterminusoftherailspurfromGoldCreek.The12-mi(20-km)railexten-sionfromGoldCreektotheDevilCanyonsitewouldrequireabout72acres(29hal.IncreaseddevelopmentwouldbeexpectedinthevicinitiesoftheGoldCreekandCantwellareas,whichwouldbecomestagingareasfortransportationofconstructionmaterialstotheWatanaandDevilCanyondamsandtheirsupportfacilities(alsoseeSec.4.1.B).Ifpublicuseoftherailfacilitywasnotallowed,landdevelopmentalongtherailspurwouldbelimited.Mostofthesignificantimpactstoandchangesinlandusepatternsthatwouldresultfromconstructionoftheaccessfacilitieswouldcontinueforaslongastheaccessrouteswereopenandusable.PreviouslyremoteareasinthevicinityoftheWatanaandDevilCanyondevelopmentswouldbeaccessibleforrecreation,mineralexploration,harvestingoftimber,andsettlement.Althoughthesechangescouldbeofpositivecommercialvalue,allwouldproduceincreasedpressureon,andinmanycasesdegradationof,thenaturalresourcesofthebasin.Thisincreasedaccessibilitycou1,!!alsobeexpectedtoresultinincr.easelandvaluesinthenewlyopenedareas.~Asisthecaseforotherproject-relatedfeatures,constructionofthevariouspowertrans-missionfacilitieswouldcontributetosignificantchangesintheuseandcharacterofthelandintheaffectedareas.Inmanycases,landthatnowisusedprimarilyfordispersedlow-densityactivities,suchasrecreation,wouldbeclearedforthetransmission1ineright-of-way,andadjacentareasmightbemademoreaccessible.Insomecases,the1ineswouldextendthroughdevelopedareas.Constructionactivitiesandtheassociatednoisecreatedduringc1earingof 4-4thetransmissionlinerights-of-way,constructionoftowerstructures,andstringingoftrans-mission wirescouldadverselyaffectanyresidentsorrecreationistsneartheproposedtrans-missionlineroute.Aminimumstandardaccessroadwouldbecreatedalongtheentirelength oftherouteformaintenancepurposes.Routinemaintenanceactivitiesshouldnotadverselyimpactsurroundinglanduses.However,floatplaneflightpatternscouldbeadverselyaffectedwherethetransmissionlinesextendednearlakesusedfortakeoffandlanding(e.g.,BigLakearea).FlightpatternscouldalsobeadverselyimpactedatHealy,theGoldenNorthAirport,andGoldCreekwherelandingstripsarelocatedlessthan1mi(1.6km)fromtheproposedrouteofthetransmissionlines.Aswouldbethecaseforotherprojectfeatures,transfersofownershiporcontrolofFederal,Native,andprivatelandstotheStateofAlaskawouldberequiredfordevelopmentofthetrans-missionsystem.Thesetransferswou1doccureitherthroughactualright-of-waypurchaseoreasementagreements.Becauseofthepresent1QW-;ntensityuseandundetermined1andvaluesalongmuchoftheproposedtransmissionlineroute,itisnotanticipatedthattherewouldbesignificantimpacttoadjacentlandvaluesalongmostoftheroute.However,theresalevalueofexistingresidentialorrecreationallandsadjacenttothetransmission,lineroutemightbe1imited.The45-mi(72-km)longDams-to-Go1dCreektransmission1inesegmentwou1drequirea3DO-foot(ft)[90-meter(m)]wideright-of-waybetweentheWatanaandDevilCanyondamsanda510-ft(155-m)right-of-wayfromDevilCanyonDamtoGoldCreek.Totalright-of-wayrequirementswouldbe1,500acres(600halofland.Thenewright-of-waywithintheremoteandnaturalareaoftheupperandmiddleSusitnaRiverbasinwouldallowincreasedrecreationaccessintothearea,affectinghunting,fishing,trapping,andotherrecreationactivities.The330-mi(530-km)transmission1ineroutebetweenFairbanksandAnchoragewouldoccupya300-ft(90-m)right-of-waybetweenGoldCreekandFairbanksanda400-ft(120-m)wideright-of-wayfromGoldCreektoAnchorage.However,betweentheHealyandWillowsubstations,theroutewouldparallelthe110-ft(34-m)wideAnchorage-FairbanksTransmissionIntertiecorridorforabout170mi(265km)andrequireonly190ft(58m)ofnewright-of-waybetweenGoldCreekandFairbanksand290ft(88m)betweenGoldCreekandAnchorage.BecauseoftheexistenceoftheIntertieline,onlyincrementalimpactsonlandusewouldbeexpected.FromHealytothenorthernterminusatEsterSubstation(90mi,or145km)andfromWillowtothesouthernterminusatAnchorage[70mi(113km)],entirelynewtransmissionlineright-of-way(300ftand400ft,or90and120m,respectively)wouldbenecessary.Totalright-of-wayrequirementsforthenorthernandsouthernsegmentsandtheadjacentIntertiesegmentwouldbeapproximately10,200acres(4,100hal.Landuseconflictscouldoccurwhereconcentrationsofresidentialdevelopmentoccur--suchasinthecommunitiesofEster,Nenana,Healy,Cantwell,Talkeetna,Willow,andAnchorage--andinother,moresparselysettledresidentialareasthatwouldbeimmediatelyadjacenttothetrans-missionlinecorridor.ConflictsalsocouldoccurwheresectionsofthetransmissioncorridorwouldextendacrosslandthathasbeendesignatedforvillageselectionwithintheboundariesofDoyon,Ltd.,andlandsownedbyCIRI.AsdiscussedinSection4.1.9,thepresenceoftheclearedright-of-wayandtowerstructureswou1dconstituteanadverseaestheticimpactatadjacentresidencesandrecreationa1areas,suchastheDenaliStatePark.Theproposedtransmissionroutewouldextendacrossorparallelnumeroustrai1s--inc1udingtheIditarodTrail,seismicsurveylines,andtractorandpioneeringoff-roadvehicletrails--andwouldcross5mi(8km)oftheSusitnaFlatsStateGameRefuge.Approximately29mi(47km)ofexistingorproposedagri-culturalsalelandswouldbetraversedbythetransmissionlinecorridorbetweenFairbanksandAnchorage(ExhibitE,Suppl.Information,Sec.9,Item7).Totallandacreageimpactedduetoconstruction,towerplacement,andaccessrequirementswoulddependontheamountoflandactuallydevelopedforagriculturaluse,finalright-of-wayalignment(e.g.,alongfencelinesoracrossfields),andtypeofagriculturaluse(e.g.,pastureorrowcrops).However,itisanticipatedthatthetotalamountofpotentialfarmlandthatwouldbeusedfortowerplacementwouldbeminimal,ontheorderof15to26acres(6to11hal.Theproposedtransmissionroutewouldcrossabout10mi(16km)oftheU.S.AirForceClearM.E.W.S.MilitaryReservenearAnderson,andwouldalsoextendclosetoElmendorfAirForceBaselandsandcrossabout18mi(29km)oftheFortRichardsonMilitaryReservenearAnchorage.AdverseimpactstoAirForcelandcouldresultfromtransmissionlinelocations,design,andtowerheightinrelationtoflightactivities,communications,andsecurity.Inaddition,thepresenceofthetransmissionlinecorridorcouldaffecttraining,maneuvers,andbasesecurityatFortRichardson.4.1.2Climate,AirQuality,NoiseAnyimpactofhydroelectricplantconstructionandoperationonambientweatherconditionswouldbeveryminor.Landclearing,paving,anderectionofbuildingswouldchangesurfacealbedosandheatcapacitiesoversmallareas.Theairimmediatelyovertheseareasmayoftenbeslightlywarmerthaninthesurroundingareas,duringbothdayandnight.Thesurfaceareaofthereservoirs 4-5atWatanaandDevilCanyonwouldbetoosmalltoleadtoanysignificantdifferencesinmeasuredmeteorologicalvariablesbeyondthereservoirboundaries.Thereservoirsurfacewouldalso·befrozeninthewinter,lesseningfurtheranychangesbetweenlandandwaterconditions.Neithertheincreasedambientsurfacetemperaturenortheincreasedre1at;vehum;dit;esoversmallportionsofthesitewouldbeexpectedtohaveanynoticeableeffectonoffsiteweatherconditions.Forthisreason,theimpactofthehydroelectricprojectonweatherconditionswouldbeconsiderednil.FourairqualityimpactswouldbepresentduringconstructionofWatanaandDevilCanyondams:(a)fugitivedustemissions,(b)dieselgeneratorexhaustemissions,(c)emissionsfromincinera-torsattheconstructioncamps,and(d)icefogscausedbycondensationofemittedwatervaporunderverycoldweatherconditions.Eachimpactwillbediscussedinturn.AttheWatanasite,thelargestsourcesoffugitivedustwouldberoaddustraisedbytrucktrafficandwind-blowndustfromstoragepiles.ThequantitiesoffugitiveemissionreleaseswerecomputedbytheApplicantusingEPA-recommendedmethodologies.Theareasofpotentialreleasewouldallbewithinthesiteboundary,yetfugitiveemissionsmightbetransportedbythewindoutsidethesiteboundary.ConstructionatDevilCanyonwouldbemainlyintheriverbed,resultinginverysmallamountsoffugitivereleases.TheApplicanthasmadeanacceptable worst-casecalculationofthedownwindconcentrationoffugitivedustattheWatanadamsite.Thatscenarioplacedastoragepileinastraightline3mi(4.8km)longby220ft(67m)widerunningeasttowest.Vehiculartrafficwasplacedparalleltothestoragepileonaroadway2mi(3.2km)longby50ft(15m)wide.Usingmeteoro-logicaldatafromtheWatanaClimateStation,aworstdaywaschosen,onewhichwouldtendtomaximizethe24-hrconcentration.TheEPA-approvedmodelISCSTwasrunanditwasfoundthataconcentrationof627microgramspercubicmeter(~g/m3)waspredictedtooccuratapoint1,300ft(400m)fromthestoragepile.ThisvalueexceedstheAlaska24-hrmaximumtotalsuspendedparticulates(TSP)standardof150~g/m3"(nottobeexceededmorethanonceperyear).Althoughthatpointislikelytobeinsidetheprojectboundary,itraisesthepossibilitythatexceed-encesoftheregulationscouldoccurforpointsoutsidethesiteboundary,dependingontherelativelocationofthestoragepileandroadway.ItisnotclearatpresentwhethertheSusitnaprojectwouldbesubjectto"PreventionofSigni-ficantDeterioration"(PSD)reviewonTSPsince(a)itisnotdefinitethattherewouldbeareleaseofsomecriteriapollutantwithemissionsabovethetriggerlevelof250tonsperyear[225metrictons(MT)]peryear,and(b)ithasnotyetbeendeterminedbytheAlaskaDepartmentofEnvironmentalConservationwhetherconstructionemissionsforthisplantfallwithintheexemptionforreleasesofatemporarynature.Twelvetemporarydieselgeneratorswouldbeinstal"ledonsitetoprovide10.3MWofpowerforthefirstthreeyearsofconstruction.Thesegeneratorswouldconsume723gallons(2,7401iters)perhourofNo.2dieselfuel.Thegeneratorsareplannedforusecontinuouslythroughouttheentireyear.No.2dieselfuelisalowsulfuroilconsideredhighqualityandlowpolluting.Itiswithinstandardssetinstateregulationsonthemaximumsulfurcontentallowableinafuel.TheApplicanthascomputedtheemissionsfromthesegeneratorsbasedonEPAemissionfactorsandengineeringcalculations.Noneofthesepollutantsexceedsthe250tons(225MT)peryeartriggerlevelthatwouldrequireaPSDapplication.Inanycase,theApplicantappliedtheEPA-approvedPTPLUmodelusingdatarecordedattheWatanaWeatherStationonJuly18,1981.Predictionsprovidedanestimateofthemaximum1-hrconcentrationofeachpollutantin~g/m3.ForS02,themaximum3-hraverage(estimatedbytheStafffromthemaximum1-hrpredictionoftheApplicant)is11.6~g/m3.ThePSDincrementfor3-hrmaximumS02concentrationsis512~g/m3.Thepredicted24-hrmaximumforTSPis0.6~g/m3,whereasthePSDlimitis37~g/m3.Ascanbeseen,themaximumpredictedground-levelconcentrationsarequitesmallcomparedwithPSDincre-ments.TheAppljcant'scalculationsweremadewithmeteorologicaldatafromonlyoneday;however,thatdaywasspecificallychosenbecauseofitshighpersistenceinwinddirection;whichwouldtendtomaximizeanimpactfora24-hraveragingperiod.Basedonthiscomparison,airqualityimpactsfromthesedieselgeneratorsshouldbeminimalintermsofAlaskaorEPAairqualitystandards."Incineratorswoufubeuseatoburngarbageatthetemporarycampsforworkers.TheStateofAlaskahasparticulateandopacityregulationsonsuchsmallincinerators.Theparticulateemissionsmaynotexceed0.15grainspercubicfoot(340mg/m3).Opacityisameasureofthedensityofthestackplumeonapercentagebasisfrom0to100.Forsuchincinerators,visibleemissions(excludingcondensedwatervapor)maynotreducevisibilitythroughtheexhausteffluentbygreaterthan20%foratotalofmorethanthreeminutesinanyonehour.Pollutantemissionsfromincineratorsdependtoagreatdegreeonhowtheyareoperated.ItisimportanttocontrolcombustionconditionstominimizecarryoverofunburnedmaterialDrtoprevent 4-6blowingtoomuchairthroughtheincinerator,therebyleadingtotheemissionoftoomanypar-t icuIates.Stateregulationsshauldensureefficientoperationofthetemporaryincinerators.IcefogsareapotentialprobleminregionsofInlandAlaska,especiallyatFairbanks.Whentheaircoolstoextremelylowtemperatures(-30°Fto-40°F,or-34°Cto-40°C),thewatervaporintheaircondenses,formingicecrystalsaroundparticulatematternucleiintheair.Thetemporarydieselgeneratorswouldproduceseveraltonsofwatervaporperhour.Theexhaustsofthedieselgeneratorswould.be20ft(6m)offtheground,andthebuoyantnatureoftheplumeshouldtendtokeepitandtheicefogaloftunderlowwindconditions.Theincreaseinpar-ticulatematterintheairduringplantconstructioncouldenhanceicefogformation.However,inverycoldconditions,evenifnaturalicefogconditionsdonotoccur,avisibleplumewouldpersistwithicecrystalspresent.TheStateofAlaskathroughtheAlaskaDepartmentofEnvironmentalConservationstatesinitsAirQualityRegulationsthatlitheDepartmentwill,initsdiscretion,requireanypersonpropos-ingtobuildoroperateanindustrialprocess,fuelburningequipment,orincinerator,inareasofpotentialicefogtoobtainapermittooperateandtoreducewateremissions."Thedieselgeneratorsshouldbelocatedandtheexhaustdirected,asmuchaspossible,soastoavoidpotentialicefogimpactscausingvisibilityproblemsonroads.WatanaandDevilCanyonconstructionwouldhaveverysimilarairqualityimpactsexceptthatthefugitivedustproblemwouldnotbeexpectedtobesignificantatDevilCanyonbecauseconstruc-tionwouldbelargelywithintheriverbedarea.NocalculationsforfugitivedustreleasewerepreparedbytheApplicantforDevilCanyon.Thecalculationsdescribedaboverepresentaworst-casesituationfor theentireprojectconstructionarea.DuringtheoperationoftheWatanaandDevilCanyondams,therewouldnolongerbefugitiveemissionsduetoconstructionactivities.Thedieselgeneratorswouldberemovedaswell.Thepermanentvillagewouldcontainsmallincineratorsthatwouldberegulatedbythestatefortheopacityofthestackplumeandtheemissionofparticulates.Furthermore,aworkersvillagewouldbeattheWatanasiteonly.DuringconstructionatWatanaandDevilCanyon,thesourcesofnoisewouldbelargelyfromblasting,drilling,andtruckandbulldozeroperations.Theintermittentnatureoftheblastingoperationsshouldlessenanyannoyance.Nearbytownsaresufficientlydistantandtheconstruc-tionperiodtemporarysothatannoyancetoresidentsintheareashouldbeminimal.Theoperationoftheplantwouldinvolvetheuseoftransformersthatwouldemittonalnoiseat120,240,360,and480Hzfrequencies.Thisnoiseshouldnotimpactnearbyresidentsbecausethepowerhousesarelocatedinadeepvalley,andthenoisecantravelupthevalleybutwillbegreatlyattenuatedhorizontallytothelocationofthenearesttown.Noimpactisexpectedfromthetransformers.Noaudiblenoiseshouldresultfromthe138-kVtransmissionlines.However,noisefromthe345-kVtransmissionlinescontainsbothbroadbandandtonalcharacteristics.Cracklingsoundscharacterizethebroadbandnatureofthenoise;superimposedonthisnoiseisa120-Hztonethatsoundslikethehumofatransformer.Infairweather,audiblenoisefrombroadbandandtonalsoundshouldextendonlyabout50ft(15m)fromthetransmissionlines.Infoul(rainy)weather,annoyingsoundcouldextendapproximately500ft(150m)fromthelines.Atapproximately2,000ft(600m),thenoiseshouldbeinaudible.4.1.3WaterQuantityandQuality4.1.3.1SurfaceWaterResources4.1.3.1.1FlowRegimeThenaturalflowregimeoftheSusitnaRiverwouldbesignificantlychangedbytheproposedprojectduringbothitsconstruction/fillingandoperationalphases.TheWatanareservoirwouldbeoperatedinastore-and-releasemode,resultinginageneralincreaseinlow-flowsduringthewintermonths(November-April)andadecreaseinpeak-flowsduringthesummermonths(May-October).ThegreatestimpactswouldbeconcentratedinthereachbetweenDevilCanyonandtheSusitna/ChulitnaconfluencenearTalkeetna.Flowreductionswouldbemostsevereduringthethree"yearperiodwhenWatanareservoirwasbeingfilled.RelativelylittlechangeinmainstemflowswouldoccurwhileWatanadamwasunderconstruction.Allflowslessthan30,000cubicfeetpersecond(cfs)[850cubicmeterspersecond(m3/s)]wouldberoutedthroughdiversiontunnelswithoutimpoundment.Thiswouldcausethedewateringofa1-mi(1.6-km)sectionofthemainstemoftheSusitnaRiver.Flowsbetween30,000and87,000cfs(850to2,460m3/s)wouldcauseatemporaryimpoundmenttodevelopabovetheupstreamcofferdam.Flowsexceeding87,000cfs(2,460m3/s)couldovertopthecofferdamandcausedown-Teamfloodingiftheyweretooccurbeforetheheightofthedamreached1,536ft(468m). 4-7FillingofWatanaReservoirwouldrequiretheimpoundmentof9.47millionacre-feet(ac-ft)[11.7billioncubicmeters(m3)]frommainstemSusitnaRiverflowsovera28-to30-monthperiod.OnlyflowsbetweenMayandOctoberwouldbeusedinfilling.Thisprocesswouldresultinamajorreductioninnaturalflowsduringthesummermonths(Fig.4-1).BeginninginMay,allflowinexcessof6,000cfs(170m3/s)wouldbeappropriatedforreservoirfilling.A6,000-cfs(170-m3/s)releasewouldbemaintaineduntilJuly27,whenitwouldbesteppedupto12,000cfs(340m3/s)atarateof1,000cfs(28m3/s)perday.The12,000-cfs(340-m3/s)releasewouldthenbemaintaineduntilSeptember15,afterwhichitwouldbedecreasedto2,000cfs(56m3/s)forthemonthofOctober.DuringtheperiodNovembertoApril,damreleaseswouldbeequaltoreservoirinflow.ThegreatestchangesinstreamflowbelowWatanadamwouldoccurinJunewhenmeanmonthlyflowswouldbedecreasedby78%,34%,and18%,respectively,atGoldCreek,Sunshine,andSusitnaStation.Watanadamwouldbeoperatedforbase10adpowergenerationuntiltheDevilCanyondevelopmentwascompleted.Oai1yoperationwouldbedeterminedbytheproposedrulecurveforthereservoir,minimumflowrequirements(Table4-1),andpowerdemands.Flowsinexcessoftheminimumflowrequirementandthepowerdemandwouldbestoredinthereservoirunlessitsvolumewasgreaterthantherule.curve.MaximumrateofchangeofWatanareleaseswouldbe2,000cfs(66m3/s)perday(ExhibitE,Vol.SA,Chap.2,p.E-2-104).*Theminimumreleases,expressedasdischargeattheGoldCreekgagingstation,wouldvarybetween445%(March)and22%(June)ofthepreprojectmeanmonthly flows(Table4-1).ThemostsignificantreductioninstreamflowwouldoccurduringthemonthsofJuneandJuly(Fig.4-2);theminimumflowsof6,000cfs(170m3/s)inJuneand6,480cfs(184m3/s)inJulywouldbelowerthananymonthlyflowsonrecordatGoldCreekforthesemonths.Flowvariabilityandtherecurrenceoflowflowsandhighflowsduringprojectoperationwouldbedeterminedprimarilybysystemwidepowerdemand.AllestimatesofoperationalflowsarebasedontheApplicant'sprojectedelectricaldemandfortheyears2002and2010(ExhibitE,Vol.SA,Chap.2,p.E-2-55).ItisexpectedthatoperationoftheWatanadevelopmentalonewouldresultinareductioninmeanannualfloodsatGoldCreek,Sunshine,andSunshineStationof60%,32%,and19%,respectively(EXhibitE,Vol.SA,Chap.2,p.E.2.108).Theone-in-tenyearfloodwouldbereducedby70%,38%,and23%atthesamethreegagingstations.AtGoldCreek,thiswouldmeanareductionofthemeanannualfloodfrom40,000cfs(1,100m3/s)to15,000cfs(420m3/s)(Fig.4-3).Moreimportantly,thetimingofpeakflowswouldbeshiftedfromthetimeofspringsnowmelttoeither'latesummer,whenrainfallwouldpeakandthereservoirwouldreachitsmaximumpoolelevation,ortowintermonthswhenpowerdemandwouldbethehighest.ThemeanannualfloodatGoldCreekwouldbecomprisedofwinterpowerhousedischargesof14,700cfs(416m3/s)andasmallamountoflocalrunoffdownstreamofthedam..ThiswinterhighflowwouldbemorethanfivetimesgreaterthanthemaximumhistoricalmonthlyflowsforDecember,January,orFebruary.FlowalterationresultingfromthefillingofDevilCanyonDamandcombinedDevilCanyon/WatanaoperationswouldbeverysimilartotheimpactsoftheWatanadevelopmentalone.ThewaterneededtofillDevilCanyonreservoir(1,060,000ac-ft,or1.34billionm3)wouldbeappro-priatedfromWatanareleasesintwostages,thefirstofwhichwouldbesufficientonlytoraisepoolelevationstothepointwheredamoutletstructurescouldbeutilizedanddiversiontunnelssealed.Thisfirststagewouldrequireonly76,000ac-ft(93.7millionm3)andlastnomorethanfourweeks,dependingonthetimeoftheyearinwhichi.toccurred(ExhibitE,Vol.SA,Chap.2,p.E-2-148).Thesecondstageoffillingwouldrequirewithholding1,014,000ac-ft(1.25bi11ionm3)and1astforfivetoeightweeks.Duringbothfi11ingphases,theminimumflowrequirementsforWatana(Table4-1)wouldalsobeenforcedatDevilCanyondam.Thetwo-stagefillingprocesswouldspanatleasttwowateryears,withtheexacttimingandimpactmagnitudedependentonspecificconstructiontiming.OncetheDevilCanyonreservoirwasfilledanditspowerhousecameonline,theoperationofWatana.Damwouldchangefrombaseloadtopeakinggeneration.DevilCanyonDamoperationwouldalwaysbeforbaseloadgeneration,actinginpartasareregulationfacilityforthepeakingreleasesfromWatana.ThedailyvariationofinflowstoOevilCanyonreservoirisexpectedtocausenomorethana1-ft(0.3-m)changeinwatersurfaceelevation(ExhibitE,Vol.SA,Chap.2,p.E-2-156).MinimumflowswouldremainthesameasforWatanaoperationalone.AlthoughmonthlyflowsunderthecombinedoperationwouldbeverysimilartothoseforWatanaalone,therewouldbeageneraldecreaseinthemeanflowsduringthemonthsMaythroughAugustandareductioninth~year-to-yearvariabilityinflows(Fig.4-2).FlowalterationwouldbelessseverebelowtH~Susitna/Chulitna/Ta1keetnaconfluence.However,althoughthesummerflows*Throughoutthisdocument,referencestospecific"Exhibits"aretotheexhibitssubmittedtoFERCaspartofAlaskaPowerAuthority'sSusitnaHydroelectricProjectLicenseApplication.Referencestospecific"Appendices"(App.)aretotheappendicesprovidedinVolumes2through7ofthisDraftEnvironmentalImpactStatement. 40 ~ w w 30 r:::t: U ~ o~ .....J u 00 (.9 0 20o I-'<{~-so 10 .....J L1.. o MEDIAN MONTH LY PREPROJECT MEDIAN MONTHLY FLOWS AT GOLD CREEK -11-----1-1-11 I FILLING FLOWS It{~/IATGOLDCREEK "IA 't I I I I I I I I I I \I\ I I I I • "\\I \ I I I I ... I FILLING , co \\1\\COMPLETE,"-~\I r V]"~,I'I'U r\~'--FI LLlNGI\'I/I-~1\'j V- I COMMENCES'.....lJ ~ ~ J FMAMJ J AS aND J FMA MJ J AS ONDJ FMAMJ J AS ON D YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 Figure 4-1.Comparison of Median (50%exceedence)Monthly Streamflow at Gold Creek before and during the Filling of Watana Reservoir.[Source:Modified from Application Exhibit E,Vol.58,Chap.2,Fig.E.2.138] t'Frequency(%)atwhichspecifiedminimumflowisequalledorexceededbyhistoricalmonthlyflows,i.e.,inSeptember,themini-mumflowof9,300cfsisequalledorexceededin73%ofallSeptembersonrecord.t2Averagemonthlyflow,includingtransitionalminimumflowsfortheperiods27-31Julyand15-30September.Conversion:Toconvertcfstom3/s,multiplyby0.0283.Source:ApplicationExhibitE,Vol.5A,Chap.2,TableE.2.36,andStaffanalysis.(May-October)wouldaverageonly8%lessthanpreprojectconditions,winterflowswouldbeapproximatelydoubledatSusitnaStation(ExhibitE,Vol.5A,Chap.2,p.E-2-110).4.1.3.1.2PhysicalHabitatAvailabilityTheflowalterationresultingfromthefillingandoperationofWatanareservoirwouldleadtochangesinthephysicalcharacteristicsofseveraloftheimportanthabitattypesdescribedinSection3.1.3.Theaquatichabitatsmostsensitivetoflowchangesarethesidesloughs,tribu-tarymouths,and,toalesserextent,thesidechannels.ThebiologicalsignificanceofthesechangesisdiscussedinSection4.1.4.ThemodifiedflowregimesproposedforreservoirfillingandoperationwouldresultinageneraldewateringandisolationofsidesloughhabitatsalongtheSusitnabelowDevilCanyon.Thesechangeswouldoccurthroughouttheopenwatermonths(May-October),buttheywouldbemostsevereinJuneandJuly.TheaveragereductioninsurfaceareainthesloughsaboveTalkeetnawouldbemorethan50%duringthesesummermonths(Fig.4-4).SidesloughsbelowTalkeetnawouldalsobea~fected,buttoalesserdegree;theaveragereductioninsurfaceareawouldbeapproximately2~·inJuneandJuly(ExhibitE,Vol.5A,Chap.2,App.E.2.A,TableA-5).Thefrequencyofoccurrenceofvarioushydrau1icregimesinthesidesloughs(overtopping,backwater,andisolation)(Sec.3.1.3)wouldalsobechanged..Thisimpactcanbeexaminedbycombiningflowdurationdatawiththeflowthresholdsforovertopping,backwater,andisolationregimespresentedinExhibitE(Vol.5A,Chap.2,App.E.2.A,TableA-I).Overtoppingofsloughs,whichoccurredonaverage3if~to50%ofthedaysinJune,July,andAugustunderbase-lineconditions,wouldbeessentiallyeliminatedinthereachbetweenDevilCanyonandTalkeetna. 60 ,iii iii Iii I i •PRE-PROJECT 50 I-a WATANA o WATANA AND DEVIL CANYON I U> '<- U LL 40 0 C/l 0z« C/l 30::J 0 I l- I II T .1-I -I> Z ,....,--r -0 $:200 -l LL 10 o J F M A M J J A FLOW (1000 cfs) s o N D Figure 4-2.Comparison of Maximum,Mean,and Minimum Monthly Flows at Gold Creek under Preproject Conditions,Watana Operation,and Combined Watana/Oevil Canyon Operation.(Shaded portion of the graph indicates proposed minimum flow requirements.)[Source:Application Exhibit E,Vol.SA,Chap.2, Tables E.2.24 and E.2.36] J. l .,.,.......... 50 100 200 5001.25 2 5 10 20 RECURRENCE INTERVAL (YEARS) 1.05 ~.- " ...OBSERVED DATA "eoESTIMATEDDATA.....4~.....~•95%CONFIDENCE LIMITS .......4 _4 .J I.,) ~~j}~..r' PRE_PROJECT ,- .r.....-,,,- _.--~~~~ e 4.-_.....A-<Y~~ ~~~~WATANA OPERATION -~-~.... .....WATANA /DEVIL CANYON OPERATION, 20 10 1.005 500 1000 en "<-200(.) 0 0 0.....100- $ 0 -l LL Figure 4-3.Annual Flood Frequency Curves at Gold Creek for Preproject Conditions,Operation of Watana Reservoir,and Combined WatanalDevil Canyon Operation.[Source:Application Exhibit E,Vol.58,Chap.2,Figs.E.2.29,E.2.155,and E.2.186] 4-12PREPROJECTvsWATANA/OEVILCANYONALLSITESCOMBINEDI I I I I I II----/1\V-J--<f-1 I I I I 1PREPROJECTvsWATANA/OEVILCANYONALLSITESCOMBINEDPREPROJECTvsWATANAALLSITESCOMBINED, , ,,------1\/-J-'-i---, I II I I,I I , , ,, I ,PREPROJECTvsWATANA-ALLSITESCOMBINEDf----n'\I),.rYr-----I I ' ,,SIDESLOUGHSABOVETALKEETNASIDESLOUGHSBELOWTALKEETNAPREPROJECTvsfiLLINGALLSITESCOMBINED,,,,,I-PREPROJECTvsfiLLING-ALLSITESCOMBINEDf-l-I-W~f--f--l-I--I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I If-f-~-f-.,/l-V\1/~,....---I I I I I I I I I-80-60-100J F MAMJ JASONDJF MAMJ JAS0 N D J FMAM JJAS0 N DMONTHOFTHEYEAR100806040200-20«w-40a:«w-60u«"--80a:::>U"l-100zwt'J100z«I80uf-Z60wua:40w"-200-20-40Figure4-4.ChangesinWettedSurfaceAreaofSelectedSloughs(ninesloughsaboveTalkeetnaandfivesloughsbelowTalkeetna)duringProjectFillingandOperation.[Source:BasedondatafromAlaskaDept.nfFishandGame(1983a)andflowdatafromApplicationExhibitE] ,4-13Thisconclusionisbasedontheassumptionthatmeanmonthlyflowswouldbeapproximatelyequaltomeandailyflowsunderprojectoperation.ThebackwaterregimewouldpersistonlyinJuneandAugust.HydraulicchangeswouldbeevenmoresevereduringfillingofWatanareservoirwhennoovertoppingwouldoccur,andthebackwaterregimewouldexistonlyinsloughs8Aand9forashortperiodinAugust.Therefore,afterprojectoperationbegan,thesidesloughsaboveTalkeetnawouldbecomealmosttotallydependentonsurfacerunoffandgroundwaterupwellingforcirculation.Naturalflushingprocessesthatoccurduringovertoppingandthatremovedebrisandfinesedimentdepositsfromthesidesloughswouldnolongeroccur.BasedonsalmonpassagecriteriaestablishedbytheAlaskaDepartmentofFishandGame(1983b)forminimumdepthsanddistancesthroughshallowriffles,thresholdsofmainstemflowshavebeenestablishedwhichrestrictaccesstosidesloughs.AcutesloughaccessibilityproblemsforsalmonwouldpersistthroughouttheyearexceptduringAugustandSeptemberinverywetyears(Fig.4-5).ThehydraulicconditionsinsidesloughsbelowTalkeetnawouldbeaffectedlessthanthoseaboveTalkeetnabecauseoftheincreasedflowcontributedbytheunregulatedChulitnaandTalkeetnarivers.ThefrequencyofovertoppingatRabideauxSlough[occurringat65,000cfs(1,800m3/s)]woulddecreasefrom20%to60%ofthedaysinJune,July,andAugustto0%to10%underopera-tionalflows.Thebackwaterregimewouldincreaseinfrequencyofoccurrencefrom40%to80%ofthedaysinJune,July,andAugustto90%to100%.ThedecreaseinmainstemflowsduringreservoirfillingandoperationwouldcauseareductioninwatersurfaceelevationoftheSusitnaRiverattributarymouthsbelowthedam.However,tribu-taryflowswouldnotbedirectlyaffected.Thestagechangeshavebeenestimatedtobe-3.5to-7.6ft(-1.1to-2.3m)duringannualfloodeventsand-0.5to-4.0ft(-0.2to-1.2m)duringmeanmonthlyflows(R&MConsultants,1982a).Stagereductionsofthismagnitudecouldleadtoperchingofthetributarymouths,reduceddepth,increasedscour,andeventualbackcuttingofthetributarybeds.Perchingmighthinderupstreamsalmonmigration(Sec.4.1.4)andbackcuttingmightresultinero~ionofthefoundationsofrailroadbridgessouthofGoldCreek.Nineteentributarieswereexaminedforpotentialperchinganderosionproblems(R&MConsultants,1982b).Ofthese,JackLong,Sherman,andOeadhorsecreeksweretheonlytributariesidentifiedashavingpotentialfishpassageproblemsduringoperationalflows.AccesstoIndianRiverandPortageCreek,thetwomostimportanttributariesforsalmonspawning,isnotexpectedtobereducedbecausetheserivershavenaturalflowssufficienttoprovideadequatedepth-of-passageforadultsalmon(Trihey,1983).Althougherosionofbridgefoundationsisanaturallyoccurringproblem,itwouldbeaggravatedbyWatanaoperationsinsomeareas.Threetributaries,SkullCreekandtwounnamedcreeksatRiverMile(RM)123.9andRM101.1,mightbesubjectedtoenoughbackcuttinganddegradationtoendangertherailroadbridgesonthesouthernbankoftheSusitnaRiver.CombinedoperationofWatanaandDevilCanyondamswouldresultinchangesinhabitatavailabilityverysimilartooperationofWatanaalone.Otherhabitattypes,includingsidechannelsandmainstem,wouldbelessaffectedthanthesidesloughsandtributarymouths.Someofthesidechannelswouldbecomeclassifiedassidesloughsunderthelowerpostprojectflowregimeifanupstreambermwerepresent.Mainchannelhabitatwouldbe·decreasedinareabutstillwouldbeavailable(seenextsection).4.1.3.1.3ChannelStabilityandSedimentTransportDuringWatanaconstruction,impactsonrivermorphologywouldbeconcentratedaroundthedamandborrowsites.BorrowsitesabovethedamwouldbeinundatedbytheWatanareservoir.SitesbelowthedamwithintheSusitnafloodplainwouldbesubjectedtolocalizedinstabilityanderosionduringtheperiodbetweenWatanaconstructionandDevilCanyonconstruction.However,thesesiteswouldbeinundatedonceDevilCanyondamwasconstructed.Duringfillingandlong-termoperationoftheWatanareservoir,sedimenttransportwouldbegreatlyreducedintheSusitnaRiverbelowthedam.Bedloadmovementwouldbeverylowoverthisreachbecauseofthearmorlayerandthereducedflows.Inisolatedareaswherebedmaterialsizewasinthec~arsegravelrange(i.e.,somewhatsmallerthaninmostoftheriverbetweenDevilCanyonandTalkeetna),bedmaterialmovementmightoccur.Theselocalizedareasofdegrada-tionareatRM124(belowSkullCreek),RM131to133(nearSherman),andneartheconfluencewiththeChulitnaRiver.Thelackofsuspendedsedimentstransportedintothisreachwouldsignificantlyreducesiltationincalmerareassuchasthesidesloughs.Tributarystreams,includingPortageCreek,IndianRiver,GoldCreek,andFourthofJulyCreek,wouldextendtheiralluvialfansintotheriver. 100 75 25 ."., '"-'.". DNos -PRE-PROJECT M J J A MONTH /WATANA+DEVIL CAN~: '.;:t-.'""o-;~.jP> \',~IF WATANA ALONE AMFJ o wuzw 0:: 0::: ::J U Uo l..L 50 o >-uz W ::Jaw 0::: l..L Figure 4-5.Frequency of Occurrence of Acute Access Limitations for Salmon to Nine Side Sloughs above Talkeetna. [Source:Based on data from Application Exhibit E and Alaska Dept.of Fish and Game (1983b)] 4-15TheSusitnaRivermainchanne·,wouldbecomebetterdefined,withanarrowerchannelaboveTalkeetnaduetothereductioninpeakflows.Themainchannelriverpatternwouldevolvetowardatighter,better-definedmeanderpatternwithintheexistingbanks.Theextentofchannelreductioncanbeestimatedusingtheregimetheoryofhydraulicgeometry(LeopoldandMaddock,1953)andthefollowingempiricalequation(Parker,1981):W/W-(Q/Q)0.441postpre-postprewhere:Wpostispostprojectbankfullwidth,Wpreispreoperationalbankfulldischarge,Qpostisthepostprojectbankfulldischarge,andQpreisthepreoperationalbankfulldischarge.Ifbankfulldischargeisrepresentedbythemeanannualflood,thisrelationshippredictsthatbankfullwidthafterWatanabeganoperationwouldbe33%lessthanthepreprojectwidth.Thedewateredportionoftheriverchannelwouldeventuallybecolonizedbyvegetation(seeSec.4.1.5).Inwinter,substantialdifferencesinchannelstabilitymightoccurasiceprocesseswerealteredbychangesinflowandtemperatureregimes.AbovetheChulitnaRiver,theeffectsoficeforcesduringbreakupontherivermorphologywouldbereducedbecauseof higherflows,higherriverstages,andwarmerwatertemperatures.AlthoughanicecovercouldformasfarupstreamasDevilCanyon,therapidriseinstreamflowsthatinitiatesicemovementatbreakupundernaturalconditionswouldbeeliminated..Inthesloughs,regulatedflowswouldeliminateessentiallyallovertoppingoftheupstreamgravelberms.Movementofsandandgravelbarsinthesloughswouldbeminimized.Debrisjamsandbeaverdams,whichpreviouslywerewashedoutbyhighflows,wouldremaininplace,withresultantpondinginthosesloughsnotmaintainedaspartofthefisheriesmitigationprogram.Vegetationencroachmentinthesloughsandsidechannelsmightalsooccurasthehighflowsandassociatedscoureventswerereduced.AttheChulitna-Susitnaconfluence,theChulitnaRiverwouldbeexpectedtoexpandandextenditsalluvialdeposits.ReducedsummerflowsintheSusitnaRhermightallowtheChulitnaRivertoextenditsalluvialdepositstotheeastandsouth,encroachingontheopen-waterleadsintotheSusitna(R&MConsultants,1982c).DownstreamfromtheSusitna-Chulitnaconfluence,thepreprojectmeanannualbankfullfloodwouldnowhavearecurrenceintervaloffivetotenyears.Thiswouldtendtodecreaseboththefrequencyandamountofbedmaterialmovement.Conse-quently,changesinbraidedchannelshape,form,andnetworkwouldbecomelessfrequent.Atrendtowardrelativelystabilizedfloodplainfeatureswouldbegin,butthiswouldoccuroveralongperiodoftime,perhapsseveraldecades(R&MConsultants,1982c).ThemorphologicalprocessesdescribedforWatanaoperationwouldcontinuetooccurbecauseflowsfromWatanareservoiroperationwouldbeunchangedduringconstructionoftheDevilCanyondam.Themostsignificantimpactsfromconstructionwouldbeatthedamsite,astherapidsattheupperendofDevilCanyonwouldbeolockedoffandabout1,100ft(330m)oftheSusitnaRiverbetweentheupstreamanddownstreamcofferdamswouldbedewatered.NoimpactstothemorphologyoftheSusitnaRiverareanticipatedfromborrowsiteexcavationsincetherearenoborrowsiteslocatedbelowDevilCanyondam.AlthoughborrowsiteGissouthofandadjacenttotheSusitnaRiver(Fig.2-6),nominingactivitieswouldbeundertakenintheriverbed.CheechakoCreekwouldbereroutedtofacilitateefficientborrowexcavation.Consequently,itwouldbechannel-izedtotheeasternboundaryoftheborrowsite.AveragemonthlyflowsduringWatana/DevilCanyonoperationwouldbesimilartothoseofWatanaoperation,althoughanadditionalredistributionoftheflowwouldoccur(Fig.4-2).ThechangeinWatanareservoiroperationduringthefirstfewyearsafterDevilCanyoncameonlinewoulddecreasetheabilityofthereservoirsystemtoabsorbhighflows.Consequently,theoccurrencesofhighflowscapableofinitiatinggravelbedmovementintheSusitnaRiveraboveTalkeetnawouldbeincreasydslightly.ProjectimpactspreviouslydescribedforWatanaimpoundmentandoperationwouldremainrelevantexceptthatriverbedstabilitywouldtendtodecreasesincethelargerreturnperiodfloodflowswouldhavebeenincreased.DevelopmentoftheaccessroutestoWatanadamandDevilCanyondamwouldnotsignificantlychangeanysurfacerunoff,tributaryflows,ormainchannelflows.Powerlineconstructionwouldnotresultinanysignificantchangesinwaterquantity. 4-164.1.3.2WaterQuality4.1.3.2.1DamDevelopmentTheprimarywaterqualityissuesfortheWatanaandDevilCanyondamprojectsaretheimpactofconstruction,filling,andoperationonsuspendedsolidsandturbidityintheSusitnaRiverandinthetworeservoirs;theimpactofprojectoperationonnitrogengassaturationintheSusitnaRiverdownstreamofthedams;theimpactofprojectconstructionandoperationonnutrientlevelsandproductivityintheSusitnaRiverandinthereservoirs;theimpactofprojectreservoirfillingandoperationonsalinityintheupperportionofCookInletresultingfromseasonallyalteredfreshwaterflowsintheSusitnaRiver;andtheimpactoffillingandoperationonwatertemperatureintheSusitnaRiverandintheWatanaandDevilCanyonreservoirs.SUSPENDEDSOLIDSConstructionactivitiesforWatanawouldcauseincreasesintheconcentrationofsuspendedsolidsintheimpoundedreach,andforsomedistan~edownstreamduringtheconstructionperiod(Sec.2.1.3).Increasesinsuspendedsolidsfromerosionindisturbedareasmightpersistafterconstructionuntilthedisturbedareaswerestabilizedbyrevegetation,buttheeffectonwaterqualityisexpectedtobenegligible.Theseincreaseswouldresultprimarilyfromtheexcava-tionofgravelandrockfromtheborrowsiteswithinandadjacenttotheSusitnaRiver.TheconcentrationofsuspendedsolidsintheSusitnaRiveratGoldCreekispredictedtoincreasefromanaveragesummer1eve1of730partspermi11ion(ppm)underpreprojectconditionstoalmost900ppmfromdredgingduringthesummerconstructionperiods(May-August).Thiscalcula-tedincreaseinsuspendedsolidsismostlikelyanoverestimate,however,becausenotallofthematerialinthesilt-claysizerangewouldbeentrained,andnotallofthematerialthatwasentrainedwouldremaininsuspension.Inanycase,thepredictedincreaseinsuspendedsolidsatGoldGreekduetodredgingforWatanaconstructioniswithinthenaturalrangeofvariationintheconcentrationofsuspendedsolidsforthesummerperiod.Becauseofthenaturallyhighconcentrationsofsuspendedsolidsduringsummer,nosignificantadverseimpactisanticipatedfromtheincreasedconcentrationofsuspendedsedimentsresultingfromtheexcavationofborrowsites.IncreasedconcentrationsofsuspendedsolidsintheSusitnaRiver,andinsmallstreamsintheprojectarea,wouldalsoresultfromtheprocessinganddepositionofborrowmaterial,fromvegetationclearing,fromrunoffatconcreteprocessingareasandbatchplants,andfromtheconstructionofcofferdamsanddiversiontunnels.TheproposedmitigativemeasuresdescribedinSection2.1.12shouldminimizetherunoffandentrainmentofsuspendedsolidsresultingfrommostoftheseactivities.However,sometemporary,1oca1izedincreasesinsuspendedsolidswouldundoubtedlyoccurduringtheconstructionofWatana.Althoughtheexactmagnitudeoftheseincreasescannotbepredicted,theywouldnotbeexpectedtobelargenortohaveanylong-termadverseimpactsonwaterqualityintheSusitnaRiver.ConstructionactivitiesforDevilCanyonwouldcausetemporaryincreasesintheconcentrationofsuspendedsolidsintheSusitnaRiverintheareatobeimpoundedandforsomedistancedown-stream.Theseincreaseswould,however,belessthanthoseoccurringduringtheconstructionofWatanabecauseoflessuseofborrowsiteswithintheSusitnaRiver.NosignificantadverseimpactonsuspendedsolidsintheSusitnaRiverisanticipatedasaresultoftheconstructionactivitiesforDevilCanyon.AsWatanareservoirbegantofill,watervelocitieswithintheimpoundmentwoulddecline,result-inginthesettlingandretentionofsuspendedsolidsinthereservoir.BasedonthepredictedtrappingefficiencyforsuspendedsolidstransportedintoWatanafromupstream,theconcentra-tionofsuspendedsolidsattheoutletofWatanaduringthefirstfillingperiod(June-October)wouldbereducedby40%inJuneandbyapproximately90%inOctoberrelativetotheconcentra-tionintheSusitnaRiverattheupstreamendofthereservoir.Thesepredictedreductionsinsuspendedsolidsare,however,consideredbytheStafftobeoverestimatesbecausetheempiricaldatausedtopredicttrappingefficiencyarenotfromreservoirsinwhichglacialflour,whichhasalowsettlingvelocity,dominatestheloadofinflowingsuspendedsolids.Inaddition,waterreleasedfromWatanaduringthefirstyearoffillingwouldbepassedthroughthelow-leveloutlet.Thiswouldlikelyresultinalowertrappingefficiencythanthatpredictedbecausesluicingoperationssuchasthistendtoreducethetrappingefficiencyrelativetothatincomparablereservoirswithsurfacedischarges(Brune,1953).Bytheendofthesecondfillingyear,thepredictedtrappingefficiencyofWatanawouldbethesameasthatatfullpoollevelunderoperatingconditions.Duringthefirstwinteroffilling,theconcentrationofsuspendedsolidsattheoutletofWatanawouldexceedthatintheSusitnaunderpreprojectconditions.Thiswinterincreasewouldresultfromtheoutflowofsuspendedsolidsretainedinthereservoirduringthe.firstsummeroffilling.Becauseofthesluicingoperationduringthefirstyearoffilling,thepredictedconcentrationofsuspendedsolidsattheoutletofWatanaduringwinterwouldexceed50ppm,a 4-17fourfoldincreaseinsuspendedsolidsatGoldCreekrelativetotheaveragepreprojectconcentra-tioninwinter.Duringthesecondwinterofthefillingperiod,thetrappingefficiencywouldapproximatethatofthefullpool(operational)efficiency,whensuspendedsolidsattheoutletofWatanaarelessthan50ppm.AdditionalsuspendedsolidswouldbeintroducedintothereservoirduringandafterthefillingofWatanaduetoshoreerosionandtolandslidesresultingfromslopeinstabililty.TheincreaseinsuspendedsolidswithinanddownstreamofWatanaduetotheseprocessescannotbepredicted.AsdiscussedinAppendixH,thecontributionofbankerosionandbankslumpingtosuspendedsolidsinWatanareservoirandintheSusitnaRiverdownstreamareexpectedto(1)bemaximalduringandimmediatelyafterfilling,(2)occurprimarilyduringsummerwhenwaveactionoccurs,and(3)declineinimportancewhenstableshorelinesdevelopasthereservoirages.TheneteffectofshoreerosionandbankslumpingonsuspendedsolidsdownstreamofWatanawouldbetoincreasetheconcentrationabovethatpredictedbyusingthetrappingefficiencyforsedimentstransportedintoWatanafromupstream.Eros;onandslumpiogIhowever,arenotexpectedtoincreasethesummerlevelsofsuspendedsolidsabovethatofthepreprojectsummerlevels.BecauseofthenaturallylargeseasonalvariationinsuspendedsolidsintheSusitnaRiver,theincreasedconcentrationsresultingfromprojectfillingwouldnotbeexpectedtoadverselyaffectwaterqualitydownstreamofthedam.BecauseoftheshorttimerequiredforfillingoftheDevilCanyonreservoir,itisnotantici-patedthatthefillingphasewouldadverselyaffectsuspendedsolidsintheSusitnaRiverrelativetothatcausedbytheoperationofWatana.DuringWatanaoperation,thereservoirwouldactasbothasourceandasinkforsuspendedsedimentsintheSusitnaRiver,dependingonthetimeofyear.Duringthesummer,thereservoirwouldactasanetsinkforsediments;inthewinteritwouldactasanetsourceforsedimentstotheSusitnaRiverdownstreamofthedamsrelativetopreprojectconcentration.ThiswinterincreasewouldbeduetothesmallersizefractionsofsuspendedsolidscarriedintotheWatanareservoirduringthesummerremaininginsuspensionandbeingtransportedoutduringwinter.BecauseofthelongdetentionstoragetimeofwaterlikelytooccurinWatana(1.74years)andthelowsettlingvelocityofthesmallparticles,thereservoirwouldremainturbidthroughoutthewinter,providingtheSusitnaRiverwithacontinuoussourceofsuspendedsolids.Useoftheminimumpredictedtrappingefficiency(94%)forWatanareservoirandtheaveragesummerconcentrationofsuspendedsolidsintheSusitnaRiveratVeeCanyonof799ppm(U.S.GeologicalSurvey,1982)astheoutputresultsinacalculated·averageconcentrationinwinterattheoutletofWatanadamofapproximately50ppm.Thiscomparestoanaveragepreprojectconcentra-tioninwinteratGoldCreekof12ppm.Thus,takinginto.accountthatthisisprobablyaconservativeoverestimateoftheoutletconcentrationforWatanadam,therewouldbeapproxi-matelyafourfoldincreaseinsuspendedsolidsinwinteratGoldCreekasaresultofWatanaoperationcomparedtothemeanlevelunderpreprojectconditions.BecausethispredictedincreaseiswithintherangeofnaturalvariationinsuspendedsedimentsatGoldCreekduringwinter,noadverse,long-termimpactonwaterqualitywouldbeexpected.SomeadditionalincreaseinsuspendedsolidsdownstreamofWatanadamwouldoccurduringwinterasaresultofincreasedbankerosion.Withtheformationoficecover,theriverstagenecessarytopasstheincreasedwinterflowsresultingfromWatanaoperationwouldbegreaterthanthatforopen-waterconditions.ThisincreasedstagingdownstreamoftheWatanaprojectwouldresultinbankerosion,causinganincreaseintheconcentrationofsuspendedsolidsintheSusitnaRivercomparedtopreprojectwinterconditions.Itisanticipatedthattheerosioncausedbytheincreasedstaginginwinterwouldoccurprimarilyinthevicinityoftheicefrontandwouldmoveupstreamasfreeze-upoccurs.Themagnitudeofincreasesinsuspendedsolidsresultingfromsuchbankerosioncannotbequantified,butitisanticipatedthatitwouldberelativelysmallandlocalizedcomparedtotheincreaseresultingfromthewinterreleasesofsuspendedsolidsfromWatanareservoir.Somesedimentationoftheerodedbankdepositswouldo·ccurindownstreamareasandmightadverselyaffectthesurvivalofincubatingsalmoneggsinsidechannelsbyreducingtheintragravelflowofwater.Noadverse,long-termimpactonwaterqualityfromincreasesinsuspendedsolidsresultingfrombankerosioninwinterisanticipated.During~ummer,thetrappingefficiencyofthereservoirswouldbelessthanforwinterbecauseofgreaterinducedmixingbywind,thermalinputs,andhydrologicinputsandoutputs.Inaddition,shoreerosionandbankslumpingwouldcontributetotheconcentrationofsuspendedsolidsattheoutletofWatana.However,sincethenatural(preproject)concentrationofsuspendedsolidsintheSusitnaRiver~ismaximuminsummer(Fig.3-9),sedimentationinWatanareservoirwouldbeexpectedtoresul,..inanetdecreaseintheconcentrationofsuspendedsolidsintheSusitnadownstreamofthedamsduringsummercomparedtotheaveragepreprojectsummerlevels.BasedonthetrappingefficiencyforsuspendedsedimentsenteringWatanafromupstream,thepredictedconcentrationattheoutletofWatanaduringsummerwouldrangefrom80to176ppm(mg/L).Thisrangeofpredictedconcentrationscomparestoanaveragesummer;concentrationofsuspendedsolidsmeasuredatGoldCreekof740ppm,afour-toninefoldreductioninsuspendedsolidsatGoldCreekinsummerwithWatanainoperationcomparedtopreprojectconditions. 4-18Thus,therewouldbeanetbenefitofWatanaoperationduringsummerintermsofreducingtheconcentrationofsuspendedsolidsandturbiditydownstreamofthedam.Althoughshoreerosionandbankslumpingwouldcontributetotheconcentrationofsuspendedsolidsattheoutlet,therebyreducingtheapparenttrappingefficiency,theimportanceoftheseprocessesassourcesofsuspendedsolidsinWatanawouldbeexpectedtodeclineasthereservoiragedandasstableshorelinesdeveloped.OperationofDevilCanyonwouldresultinadditional,butsmall,reductionsinsuspendedsolidsatGoldCreekduringthesummercomparedtothatforWatanaoperationalone.ConcentrationsofsuspendedsolidsatGoldCreekinwintershould,however,belesswithDevilCanyoninoperationthanforWatanaoperationalonebecauseofthe additionaltrappingofsedimentsreleasedfromWatana.TheincrementaleffectofDevilCanyonoperationonsuspendedsolidsatGoldCreekduringsummerwouldbeexpectedtobesmallbecauseofthelowertrappingefficiencyofthisreservoir.Thisisbecausethedetentionstoragetimewouldbeshorter(58days)andbecausetheaverageparticlesizeofsuspendedsedimentsenteringDevilCanyonfromWatanawouldbelessthanthatofsedimentsenteringWatana,witharesultantlowersettlingvelocity.GASSUPERSATURATIONSupersaturationofwaterwithnitrogengasispossiblebelowhigh-headdamssuchasWatanaandDevilCanyonasaresultoftheentrainmentofairindischarges.Supersaturationoccurswhenaeratedflowsaresubjectedtopressuresgreaterthan30to40ft(9to12m)ofhead,whichforcesexcessnitrogengasintosolution.Thiscanoccurwhenwaterissubjecttothehighpressuresthatoccurinplungepoolsoratlargehydraulicjumps.Therefore,nitrogensaturationintheSusitnaRiverwouldnotbeaffectedduringtheconstructionphaseoftheWatanaorDevilCanyonprojects.Intake,penstock,turbine,tailrace,andlow-leveloutletfacilitiesatWatanaandDevilCanyon,whichwouldbeusedduringoperation,aredesignedtominimizeentrainmentofair.Inaddition,releasesfromtheturbinesatbothdamswouldhaveasubsurfacedischargethatshouldnotentrainair.Turbinedischarges,however,couldbesupersaturatedwithnitrogenduringsummerasaresultofwarmingofsurfacewatersinthereservoirandwithdrawalofthewaterbeforeitequilibratedwiththeatmosphere(Harvey,1967).Becauseofthehighturbidityinthereservoirs,warmingofwaterbelowthedepthofwindmixingwouldbeminimal.Thus,assumingtherewasnoairentrainmentinwaterpassingthroughtheturbines,thelevelofsaturationinturbinereleaseswouldbelessthan110%.Dischargesfromthelow-leveloutletduringreservoirfillingandfromturbinesduringoperation,therefore,wouldnotbeexpectedtoincreasenitrogensaturationintheSusitnaRivertolevelsexceedingtheAlaskaDepartmentofEnvironmentalConservation(ADEC)(1979)statuteof110%ofsaturation.Theoutletfacilities,whichwouldbeusedforaugmentationandexcessflowsatWatanaandDevilCanyon,aredesignedtodischargepeakflowswitharecurrenceintervalofupto1in50years.Theoutletfacilitiesatbothdamswouldbeequippedwithfixed-conedischargevalvesthatwouldbeinstalledatthedownstreamendoftheoutletmanifold.Theyaredesignedtodissipatethehydrostatichead,therebyreducingairentrainmentandsupersaturationofnitrogen.Itisassumedthatthefixedconevalveswouldoperateasdesignedtopreventnitrogensaturationofwaterdischargedfromtheoutletfacilitiestolevelsgreaterthan110%.Thus,releasesofwaterfromtheoutletfacilityatWatanaandDevilCanyonwouldnotbeexpectedtocausenitrogensaturationlevelsinexcessoftheADECstatutedownstream.DuringtheinitialphaseoffillingDevilCanyon,thediversiontunnelwouldbeusedtoreleasewateruntilthewaterelevationreached1,135ft(344m).NitrogensupersaturationdownstreamofDevilCanyonduringthisperiodwouldbeminimal«110%)becauseofthelackofaplungepoolinwhichairentrainmentoccurs.AfterthewaterelevationinDevilCanyonreached1,135ft(344m),andfortheremainderofthefillingperiod,dischargesfromthereservoirwouldbethroughtheoutletfacility.Assumingtheconevalvesoperatedasdesigned,nitrogensuper-saturationinexcessoftheADECstatuteof110%wouldnotoccurdownstreamofDevilCanyonduringfi11ing.TheemergencyspillwaysproposedfortheWatanaandDevilCanyonfacilitiesaredesignedtodischargeflowswithapredictedrecurrenceintervalgreaterthanoncein50years.Althoughthespillwaysaredesignedwithafliplip,dischargesfromtheemergencyspillwaywouldbeintoaplungepool.Itislikelythatnitrogensupersaturationwouldoccurduringdischargesfromtheemergencyspillway.-BasedontheobserveddecayrateofnitrogenintheSusitnaRiverdownstreamofDevilCanyon(PeratrovichandHutchinson,1982),nitrogensupersaturationfromemergencyspillwayflowsatWatanaDamandDevilCanyonwouldpersistforseveralmilesdown-stream.Asaconsequence,adverseimpactsonfishfromnitrogensupersaturationintheSusitnaRiverduringtheseemergencyspillwaydischargeswouldbelikely.Itshouldbeemphasized,however,thatthepredictedrecurrenceintervalofsuchanimpactisrelativelylong(onceinmorethan50years). 4-19Exceptforperiodsofemergencyspillwaydischarges,WatanaandDevilCanyonoperationwouldreducethenitrogensupersaturationproblemin,anddownstreamof,DevilCanyonbyreducingtherecurrenceintervalofhighflowsabovewhichsupersaturationinexcessoftheAlaskawaterqualitystatute(110%ofsaturation)(AlaskaDept.ofEnvironmentalConservation,1979)occursnaturallyinDevilCanyon.Underpreprojectconditions,meanmonthlyflowsduringJunethroughAugustatWatanaexceedthethresholddischarge(-16,000cfs)atwhichnitrogensupersaturationinDevilCanyonisgreaterthanthestatutelevel.WithWatanainoperation,thisthresholddischargewouldneverbeexceededatWatanaunderpredictedminimumandaveragemonthlyflowconditions,andwouldbeexceededinonlytwomonthsofmaximumflowyearswithWatanainopera-tion,comparedtofourmonthsunderpreprojectconditions(ExhibitE,Vol.SA,Chap.2,TableE.2.43).Thus,therewouldbeanetbenefittooperatingWatanaintermsofreducingthenaturalrecurrenceofnitrogensupersaturationinandbelowDevilCanyontolevelsexceedingtheAlaskastatuteforwaterquality.TheoperationofDevilCanyonwouldessentiallyeliminatethenaturaloccurrenceofnitrogensupersaturationinexcessoftheADECstatuteinandbelowDevilCanyonbypreventingthehighflowsatwhichthestatuteisexceeded.NUTRIENTSTheprimarywaterqualityissuesconcerningnutrientsaretheimpactofconstructionandopera-tionofWatanaandDevilCanyonfacilitiesonnutrientlevelsintheSusitnaRiverdownstreamoftheprojectandinthereservoirs,andtheresultingtrophicstatusinthesesystems.Construc-tionactivitieswouldnotbeexpectedtohaveanysignificantadverseorbeneficialimpactsonnutrientlevelsintheSusitnaRiver.Proposedmitigativemeasures(describedinSec.2.1.12)wouldminimizeorpreventanypoint-sourceinputsofnutrientsfromsewagetreatmentfacilitiesandconstructionfacilities.Becausereservoirswithsurfacedischargescanactasnutrienttraps,itispossibilethatoperationofWatanaandDevilCanyonmightreducenutrientinputstotheSusitnaRiverdownstreamofthesedams,therebyalteringthetrophicstatusofthelowerreachesoftheriver.Whilethetrappingofsuspendedsolidsbythereservoirscouldimproveconditionsforprimaryproductiondownriverinthesummer,theconcentrationofsuspendedsolidswouldstillremainatlevelsthatrestrictlightpenetration,therebylimitingprimaryproduction.Thus,anyeffectofnutrientretentionbyWatanaand·DevilCanyononnutrientloadingdownstreamwouldnotbeexpectedtoresultinanysignificantadverseeffectonthetrophicstatusoftheSusitnaRiverdownstreamoftheprojectbecausethesystemwouldbelimitedbylightratherthanbynutrients.Furthermore,theeffectofreducednutrientloadingasaresultofreservoiroperationwouldbelocalizedbecauseincomingtributariesdownstreamofthedamwouldcontributenutrientstotheSusitnaRiver.Thetrophicstatusofclearwaterreservoirsandlakeshasbeenassessedusingnutrientloadingratesandhydraulicflushingrates(Petersonetal.,1982).PhytoplanktonproductionandbiomassinWatanaandDevilCanyonreservoirsareexpectedtobelow,typicalofthatinoligotrophiclakes.ItisanticipatedthatphytoplanktonproductionandbiomassinWatanawouldbesomewhatlowerthanthatpredictedfromnitrogenandphosphorusloadingratesalonebecauseoflightlimitationcausedbyhighturbidity;nuisancebloomsofalgaewouldnotoccurineitherreservoir.SALINITYAlthoughtheSusitnaRiveristhemajorcontributoroffr~shwatertoCookInletand,thus,hasamajorinfluenceonthesalinityofwaterintheupperportionoftheInlet,81%oftheSusitnaRiverflowenteringCookInletiscontributedbytributarieslocateddownstreamoftheWatanaandDevilCanyonsites.ThepotentialfortheWatanaprojectoperationtoaffectsalinityinCookInletisthereforesubstantiallylessenedbythefactthattheflowintributariesthataccountformostofthe freshwaterinputs toCookInletwouldnotbeaffectedbytheproject.ToquantifytheeffectsofsalinityofalteredfreshwaterinputstoCookInletresultingfromprojectoperation,theApplicantusedanumericalestuarinemodel(Smith,1977,1982).ThismodelsimulatessalinityatvariouslocationsinCookInletonaseasonalbasis,usingdifferentfreshwaterflowsintotheestuary.DuringconstructionofWatana,freshwaterdischargesintheSusitnaRiverwouldnotbealtered.Asaresult,salinityinCookInletwouldnotbeaffectedduringtheconstructionphase.Simu-lationsofpreprojectandpostproject(WatanafillingandWatanaoperation)conditionsshowthatthesalinitychang'esduringfillingrelativetopreprojectlevelswouldberelativelysmallandwouldvaryseasona1~y.ThesechangeswouldnotbeexpectedtohaveanyadverseimpactsonbiotainCookInlet.WithWatanainoperation,thesalinityatnode27,locatednearthemouthoftheSusitnaRiver,wouldbelowerduringtheperiodofminimumflow(OctoberthroughApril)thanpreprojectlevels.ThiswouldbeduetotheincreasedflowsintheSusitnarelativetopreprojectflows.Themaximumpredicteddecreaseinsalinityatnode27isapproximately1.4ppt(partsperthousand)andwouldoccurinApril,whenthepreprojectsalinityisapproximately20ppt. I',",1j'I"Ii,IIII:!,j,II,,IIi,~',',4-20Duringsummer,whenpreprojectflowintheSusitnaRiverisatitsannualmaximum,theoperationofWatanawouldreduceflows,resultinginasalinityincreaseinCookInlet.ThemaximumsalinityincreasepredictedtooccurinCookInletatnode27asaresultofWatanaoperationisapproximately0.7ppt.ThiswouldoccurinJunewhenthepreprojectsalinityatnode27isapproximately10ppt.ThesepredictedsalinitychangeswouldnotbeexpectedtohaveanyadverseeffectsonaquaticorganismsinCookInletsincetheyarewithinthetherangeofnaturalvaria-tioninsalinityresultingfromannualfluctuationsinfreshwaterflows.Inaddition,asindicatedinSection3.1.3,theuseofupperCookInletbyaquaticorganismsisminimal,exceptaspartofamigrationrouteintooroutoftheSusitnaRiver.Thisisduetothelargetidalfluctuations,highturbidity,andunstablefinesubstrates,allofwhichtendtoreducethequalityoftheupperpartofCookInletasahabitatforestuarineorganisms.Changesinsalinityatnode27inCookInletfromtheoperationofDevilCanyonwouldbenegli-giblerelativetothosewithWatanainoperation.ThisisbecauseDevilCanyonwouldbeopera-tedasabaseloadplant.Hence,changesinflowintheSusitnaRiverrelativetothoseforWatanaoperationalonewouldbenegligible.FlowalterationsfromDevilCanyonoperationthuswouldnotadverselyaffectthesalinityinCookInlet.OTHERWATERQUALITYIMPACTSThereareotherpotentialimpactsofconstructionandoperationoftheSusitnaProjectonsurfacewaterquality.Relativetotheissuespreviouslydiscussed,theseareminorsourcesofimpact,however,andwouldnotresultinanysignificantdegradationofwaterquality.Thesourcesinc1udeaccidenta1spi11sofpetroleumproducts(e.g.,fuel,oil,hydraulicfluids,antifreeze)fromconstructionandmaintenanceequipment,reductionindissolvedoxygenresultingfromthedischarge,orinundation,ofmaterialswithahighbiochemicaloxygendemand(BOD),andthecontaminationofsurfacewatersbyothermaterialsusedinconstruction(e.g.,concrete).AllstateandFederalregulationsgoverningthepreventionandreclamationofaccidentalspillsofpetroleumproducts,includingthedevelopmentofaspillpreventionandcontainmentplan,wouldbeadheredtoonthisproject.Thus,reasonableprecautionswouldbetakentopreventorminimizethecontaminationofsurfacewatersbypetroleumproducts.Wastewaterfromconstructioncampswouldbetreatedwithasecondarytreatmentfacilitypriortoitsdischargeintosurfacewaters.Thissecondarytreatmentwou1dreducetheBODandtotaldissolvedsolidstolevelsacceptabletotheAlaskaDepartmentofEnvironmentalConservation(1979)andtheU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.Noadverseeffectsonwaterqualityshouldresultfromthesetreatedwastewaterdischarges.SomereductionsindissolvedoxygeninWatanaandinDevilCanyonReservoirwouldoccurasaresultoftheinundationofsoilsandvegetationwithahighBOD.Theareaaffected,however,wouldberestrictedtoazonewithinandjustabovethereservoirbottom.Thisshouldhavenolong-termadverseeffectsondissolvedoxygenlevelsinthereservoirsorintheSusitnaRiverdownstreamofthedams.ContaminationoftheSusitnaRiverbyconcretewouldbeminimizedbyappropriatemitigativemeasures(seeSec.2.1.12).Thesewould includetheuseofho1dingpondsforconcretewastes,neutralizingwastesfromthesepondspriortotheirdischargeintosurfacewaters,anddisposalofwasteconcreteinrockdisposalareasawayfromsurfacewatersorallowingittohardenbeforedisposal.NosignificantdegradationofwaterqualityintheSusitnaRiverwouldbeexpectedfromconcretecontamination.4.1.3.2.2AccessRoutesandTransmissionFacilitiesTheconstructionofaccessroutestoWatanaandDevilCanyonprojectsitesandtomaterialanddisposalsiteswouldresultinsomewaterqualitydegradationinnearbystreams.Theseimpactswouldresultfromaccidentalspillsofpetroleumproducts,theerosionofdisturbedsoilwithsubsequentincreasesinsuspendedsolidsandturbidity,andtheclearingofriparianvegetation,resultinginincreasedwatertemperaturefromincreasedsolarradiationatstreamsurfaces.Theseimpactswouldbelocalizedandwouldnotcauseanylong-termdegradationofwaterqualityinstreamsalongtheaccessroutes.Withproperrouting,design,construction,maintenance,andmitigativemeasures,fewwaterqualityimpactswouldoccurfromthesubsequentuseoftheaccessroutes.Itisanticipatedthat.constructionoftransmissionlineswouldresultinsomelocalizedincreasesinsuspendedsolidsandturbidityinstreamsasaresultofinstreamactivities,erosionfromvegetativeclearingalongtransmissioncorridors,andsitingoftransmissiontowers.Asecondpotentialimpactonwaterqualitywouldbefromthecontaminationofstreamswithpetroleumproductsandfromaccidentalspillsandleaksfromconstructionandmaintenanceequip-ment.Withproperdesignandconstructionpractices,fewerosionproblemswouldoccurduringtheconstructionandmaintenanceoftransmissionlines.MitigativemeasuresproposedbytheApplicant(Sec.2.1.12)wouldalsominimizewaterqualityproblemsduetopetroleumproductspillsduringtheconstructionandmaintenanceoftransmissionlines. Asa5ignifi-4-214.1.3.3Temperature4.1.3.3.1ReservoirsDuringtheearlystagesofWatanafilling,therewouldbelittlechangeinthethermalstructureupstreamofthedam.Asthereservoirbecamedeeperandmorestatic,aseasonalverticalthermalstructurewoulddevelopandpersistafterfillingwascomplete.Duringthewintermonths,Watanareservoirwouldbenearisothermalat39°F(4°C),withathinlayerofcolderwateratthesurface.Asairtemperatureswarmedintothesummer,thereservoirwoulddevelopagreaterthermalstructure,withawarmlayer(about50°Fto54°F,or10°Cto12°C)nearthesurface,decreasing1inearlyto39°F(4°C)ncarmid-depth.MuchofWatanareservoirwouldbeat39°F(4°C)year-round.Vertica1temperaturegradientsthatexistduringthesummerwauldbere1a-tivelyweak.Asaresult,verticalmixingisexpectedinareaswithlargeshears,suchasthepowerhouseintakeandtheriverinflowregion.Intermittentmixingcouldoccurovermuchofthereservoirduringthesummerasaresultofforcingbymeteorologicevents.ThethermalevolutionoftheDevilCanyonreservoirwouldbesimilartothatofWatanareservoir;however,theshorterresidencetimeexpectedforwaterpassingthroughthisreservoirwouldlikelyproduceathermalstructurelesspronouncedthanforWatana.4.1.3.3.2MainstemSusitnaRiverWatertemperaturedownstreamofthedamswouldbeinfluencedbythemagnitudeandtemperatureofthedamdischarge,rivermorphology,andsurfaceheattransfer.Watanadamdesignincludesmultilevelintakestructuresthatallowselectivewithdrawaloverarangeofdepths.DuringtheinitialphasesoftheWatanafilling,thereservoirwouldbeshallowandexhibitlittlethermalstructure.Consequently,dischargewaterwouldparallelpreconstruc-tionwatertemperatures.Asthereservoirdeepened,athermalstructurewaulddevelop.Therewouldbeaperiodduringfillingwhenaweakverticalthermalstructurewouldexist;however,thereservoirwouldnotbesufficientlyfulltoallowtheupperlevelintaketobeused.Asaresult,dischargewaterwouldbesomewhatcoolerduringthesummerandwarmerduringthewinterascomparedwithpreconstructionconditions.Duringthefina1stagesofWatanafi11ingandduringWatanaoperation,theupper-leve1intakewouldbeusedtoregulatedischargetermperaturesinordertomorecloselysimulatepreconstruc-tiontemperatures.TheApplicanthasestimatedoperationaldischargetemperaturesrangingfromabout51°F(lO.5°C)inthesummertoabout35°F(1.5°C)inthewinter(ExhibitE,Vol.58,Chap.2,Figs.E.2.174andE.2.175).TheextentofthecontrolexpectedbytheApp1icantisbelievedtobeoverlyoptimistic.TheStaffbelievesthattheverticalthermalstructureinWatanareservoirwouldbetooweaktoalloweffectiveselectivewithdrawal.TheselectivewithdrawalprocessisshownschematicallyinFigure4-6.Intheabsenceofanyverticalthermalstructure[Fig.4.6(a)],theintakewouldwithdrawwateroverasignificantverticalextent.Inthepresenceofaverticalthermalstructure,theeffectivenessofselectivewithdrawalwoulddependuponthesharpnessofthemetalimnion(commonlyreferredtoasthethermocline)anditspositionrelativetotheintake.Forawell-definedthermoclinethatisconsiderablydeeperthantheintake,onlywarmepilimnoticwaterwouldbewithdrawn[Fig.4-6(b)].Forasharpthermoclineatadepthneartheintake,theintake-inducedflowwoulddisplacethethermoclineupward,resultinginthewithdrawalofpredominantlyepilimnoticwater,butalsosomecoldhypo1imnoticwater[Fig.4-6(c)].ThethermalstructureinWatanareservoirisexpectedtobetooweaktoremainstableunderwithdrawal-inducedshear,sothatwaterhavingarangeoftempera-tureswouldbewithdrawn[Fig.4-6(d)].Consequently,Watanadischargetemperatureswouldbewarmerduringthewinterandcolderduringthesummerthanunderpreconstructionconditions.Dischargetemperaturesareexpectedtobenear39°F(4°C)orlessduringthewinter.Summerdischargetemperatureswauldbehighlytransient,dependingonshort-termdamoperationandlocalmeteorologicalconditions.Asaresult,summerdischargetemperaturescannotbequanti-fiedatthistimebutcouldrangefrom41°F(5°C)to50°F(10°C).Fillingof.theDevilCanyonimpoundmentwouldoccuroveraperiodofseveralmonths.resultofthisshortfillingtime,DevilCanyondischargetemperatureswouldnotdiffercantlyfromwatertemperaturesoccurringunderWatanaoperationalone.TheApp1icanthas,estimatedthatundercombinedWatanalDevilCanyonoperation,Devi1Canyondischargetemperatureswouldrangefromabout46°F(BOC)toabout3BoF(3.5°C)(ExhibitE,Vol.58,Chap.2,~igs.E.2.215andE.2.216).AsinthecaseofWatanaoperationalone,outflowtemperaturesfromtheDevilCanyondamwouldberegulatedviaselectivewithdrawalthroughmultilevelintakes.ThethermalstructureoftheDevilCanyonreservoirwouldbeweakerthanfortheWatanareservoir.Consequently,itisexpectedthatthemultilevelintakewouldofferverylittlecontroloveroutlettemperature.Asaresult,winteroutletwatertemperaturesareexpectedtobenear39°F(4°C),andsummeroutlettemperatures,althoughunquantifiab1eatthistime,areexpectedtobesomewhatcolderthanthoseestimatedbytheApplicant. (a)4-22ISOTHERMALCONDITIONS~~INTAKE/jWARM'iiiI,I"::i:';;~lil,,~I:liI,,:~~lIllilllillli;11(b)(c)\__....:T...:..H:.::E:.;.,R:.:.:M.:..:O:...;C:...;L:.;.I:..:.N.::.E~__l/11NTAKECOLDWARMTHERMOCLINECOLDII II(d)WARMCOOLCOLD~"/:INTAKEIFigure4-6.SchematicDiagramofIntakeFlowFieldunder(a)IsothermalConditions,(b)StrongStratificationandaDeepThermocline,(c)StrongStratificationandaShallowThermocline,and(d)aWeakVerticalTemperatureGradient. 4-Z3DownstreammainstemwatertemperatureshavebeensimulatedforcombineddamoperationusingananalyticthermalmodeldescribedinAppendixH.Twocasesareanalyzed,oneforconditionstypicaloflatefall/earlywinterandtheotherformid-summerconditions.Forbothofthesecases,outlettemperaturesestimatedbytheApplicantwereused.Figure4-7showsaplotoftemperatureversusdownstreampositionfromtheDevilCanyondamtotheChulitnaconfluenceforthelatefall/earlywintercase.Thisplotindicatesthatthewarmerdischargewater[39.ZoF(4°C)]wouldrapidlycoolwithdownstreamlocationandreach3ZoF(DOC)within15rivermilesoftheDevilCanyondam.Undermid-summerconditions,waterwouldbedischargedatatemperaturenearitsequilibriumvalue,46°F(7.75°C),andnowarmingbetweenthedamandtheChulitnaconfluenceispredicted.Underfallandwinterconditions,thecombinedoperationoftheWatanaandDevilCanyondamswouldproduceinsignificantchangesinthedownstreamtemperatureprofileofthemainstemSusitnaRiver.Duringspringandsummerconditions,thethermalinertiaofthereservoirswouldproduceadelayinthewarmingoftheriver,andthecoolerdischargetemperatureswouldresultinthemainstemwaterbeingcoolerduringthisentireperiod.Itislikelythatduringthespringandsummer,theentiredownstreamreachoftheriverwouldbecoolerthanpreoperationalconditions.OnlyminortemperaturedifferencesareexpecteddownstreamoftheChulitnaconfluence;however,watertemperaturescoolerbyasmuchas4°F(ZOC)couldoccurbetweentheChulitnaconfluenceandtheDevilCanyondam.ForWatanaoperationalone,downstreamwatertemperaturesareexpectedtobesimilartothoseanticipatedundercombinedoperation.4.1.3.3.3SloughsThreemechanismscaninfluencethewatertemperatureinsloughs:surfaceheattransfer,ground-waterdischarge,andanyhydraulicconnection,eithersurfaceorsubsurface,withthemainstemSusitnaRiver.Inthisdiscussion,groundwaterdischargeistakenassubsurfacewaterwithoriginsotherthanthemainstemSusitnaRiver.Somesubsurfacewaterreachingthesloughscouldcomefromtheriver.Thiswaterwouldbeatornearthetemperatureoftheriverwater.Duringthewinterlowflows,theupperendofthesloughsareclosed,makingthesesloughsbackwaterareaswithonlyaweakdownstreamsurfacehydraulicconnectionwiththemainstem.Consequently,duringthewinter,changesindownstrea~watertemperaturesresultingfromreservoirfillinganddamoperationwouldhave1itt1ethermalimpactonwinterwatertemperaturesinsloughs.Theinfluenceofmainstemwatertemperatureonsloughsismostsignificantduringsummermonths,whenbermsattheupstreamendsofsloughsareovertopped.Overtoppingwouldbesignificantlyreducedinfrequencyduringprojectoperations(seeSec.4.1.3.1).Thecorrespondinglyreducedriverelevationcouldalsoreducesubsurfaceflowsfromthemainstemintothesloughs.This·wouldenhancetheinfluenceofsurfaceheattransferandgroundwaterdischargeonsloughwatertemperatures.Sloughwatertemperaturestendtobeincreasedbysurfaceheattransfer,butdecreasedbygroundwaterdischarge.Insufficientdataareavailab1eonthemagnitudeofgroundwaterdischargeandmainsteminfiltrationtosloughs,and,therefore,theeffectsoftheproposedprojectonsloughwatertemperaturescannotbequantified.4.1.3.4IceProcessesOperationoftheproposeddamswouldsignificantlyaffecticeprocessesintheSusitnaRiver.Higherwinterflowswoulddelaytheonsetoficeformationandwouldlikelycauseathinnericecoverandgreaterice-inducedstagingthanunderpreoperationalcondjtions.Warmerwinterdischargewatertemperatureswouldlikelycauseasmallportion(lessthan15rivermiles)oftheSusitnaRiverimmediatelydownstreamattheDevilCanyondamtoremainice-free.Lowerspringriverflowswouldtend.todelaytheicebreakupprocess,butthiswouldbebalancedbythewarmerdichargewatertemperaturesfromthedams,whichwouldtendtoacceleratetheonsetoficebreakup.Asaresultofthereducedspringflows,thebreakupprocesswouldbeconsider-ablylessviolentthanunderpreoperationalconditions,withthefullbreakupcycleoccurringoveralongerperiod(perhapsdaystoweekslonger)andmuchoftheicecoverdecayinginplace.IcebreakuphasaprofoundinfluenceonthemorphologyoftheSusitnaRiver.AfterfillingofWatanacommenced,theeffectoficebreakuponrivermorphologywouldbesignificantlyreduced.Thereductioninice-relatedscour,alongwithreducedoperationalsummerflowswouldchangethemorphologicalcharacteroftheSusitnaRiver--particu1ar1ybetweentheDevilCanyondamandTalkeetna--rende~ngitmorestable,similartoriversinmoretemperateclimates.OncefillingofWatanawascomplete,theimpoundmentwouldbeexpectedtoiceoverinwinter.Asairtemperaturesincreasedinthespringandsummer,theiceshoulddecayinplace.IceformationanddecayintheDevilCanyonimpoundmentwouldbesimilartothatexpectedfortheWatanaimpoundment. ----!-~-ii --1 -j--~~ 5 tJ o I Pol ~ E-f 4 3 2 1 ~ Q <::o ~ '"U 0-<..... ~ Q ."., '".". 170160150140 RIVER MILE 130120110 oIii I 6 ,,Iii 100 Figure 4-7.Predicted Downstream Water Temperature Resulting from Combined Dam Operation under Late Fall/Early Winter Conditions. 4-254.1.3.5GroundwaterConstructionoftheproposeddamswouldhavenoimpactongroundwater.Oncefillingofthereservoirswascompleted,theproximityofrelativelywarmreservoirwatertoshallowpermafrostzonescouldresultinsomemeltingofpermafrost.ThiswaterwouldmovethroughthesoilinadownstreamdirectionandwouldbedischargedtotheSusitnaRiverdownstreamofthedams.Althoughthemagnitudeofthisdischargecannotbequantified,itisexpectedtobelimitedtoareasimmediatelydownstreamofthedams.Furtherdownstream,theproposedprojectwouldhavenodirectimpactongroundwater.Thereduceddownstreamflowsduringfillingofthereservoirsandduringdamoperationmightresultinareductioninmainsteminfiltrationtothesloughs.Therefore,theprojectwouldresultingroundwaterdischargehavingenhancedimportanceinthethermalstructureofsloughs.4.1.4AquaticCommunities4.1.4.1PlantandInvertebrateCommunitiesWatanaandDevilCanyonfacilitydevelopment(includingmaindamandcofferdamconstruction,in-channeldredging,anddeforestation)wouldintroduceadditionalsiltintotheSusitnaRiver,butthequantitiesareestimated(Sec.4.1.3.2)tobenominalcomparedtoalreadyhighlevelsintheopen-waterconstructionseason.Duringlaterstagesoffillingandnormalreservoir~operation,themajorconsequencesofimpoundingtheSusitnaRiverwithWatanaandDevilCanyondamswouldbereductioninsummertimeturbidityandstabilizationofflows,changesthattheStaffjudgescouldsignificantlyincreasebenthicaquaticplantand·invertebrateproductivityandthusfoodavailabilityforfish.Increasedbenthicalgaeandinvertebrateproductiononthesub-mergedriverbedwouldoccurconcurrentlywithadecreaseinwettedsurfaceareaduetoreducedsummerflowsduringbothfillingandoperationofthedams(Sec.4.1.3.1).BecauseoftheoverwhelminginfluencesoftheunregulatedChulitnaandTalkeetnariversonbothflowandturbidity,theStaffhasconcludedthatnodetectablechangeinaquaticplantandinvertebratecommunitieswouldresultdownstreamofthec~nfluencesintheopen-waterseason.Withinthereservoirs,phytoplanktonproductioningeneralisexpectedtobemoderatelylowduetooligotrophic·waterquality(Sec.4.1.3.2)andseasonallyhighsiltloading.ThepoorlydevelopedbenthicinvertebratecommunityintheSusitnaandthehigherpopulationsfoundinclearwatertributarieswouldberemovedbyinundation.Therewouldbegradualreplacementbybenthicspeciestypicalofreservoirsanddevelopmentofreservoirzooplankton.ThezooplanktoncommunitythatcanbeexpectedtodevelopinthereservoirsmaybeanimportantsupplementtoinvertebratesintheSusitnaRiverbelowthedams.Thereservoirsareexpectedtobeoligotrophic,however,sozooplanktonpopulationsmaynotbeextensivelydeveloped.ThesparseriverinecommunityofbenthicinvertebratesinthereachesoftheSusitnatobeinundatedbytheWatanaandDevilCanyonreservoirsisexpectedtobereplacedbyanequallysparsecom-munityofoligochaetes,chironomids,pisidclams,andbenthiccladocerans.Biomasswouldberestrictedbylargefluctuationsinwaterelevation(affectinglittoralzones)andheavysedimen-tationrates(affectingdeepzones).Increasedturbidityandsiltationassociatedwithstreamcrossingsbyaccessroutesandpowertransmissionfacilitieswouldresultinsomedegradationandlossofhabitatutilizedbybenthicalgae,periphyton,andinvertebrates.Somechangesinspeciescompositionmightoccurlocally.Theseimpactswouldoccurprimarilyduringtheconstructionphaseofthestreamcrossings.4.1.4.2FishCommunities4.1.4.2.1DamDevelopmentProjectconstructionfromsitepreparationthroughreservoirfillingwouldimpactfisheryresourcesprimarilythroughadditionsofsilt,eliminationofriverinehabitatforresidentspecies(muchofwhichwouldbeconvertedtolakehabitat),changesindownstreamtemperature,andreductionsinsummerflows.SiltadditionduringconstructionofWatanadamisjudgedtobeaminorincreasetoanalreadyhighglacialsiltloadinmostoftheopen-waterseason(Sec.4.1.3.2).Entryoferodedbankmaterials(fromwhichtheheaviestparticleswoulddepositrapidly)andimpactstoriverinefishpopulationsbeyondthelocalconstructionsiteareexpectedtobeminor.Riverinehabitat\nowutilizedbyresidentfisheswouldbepermanentlylostattheWatanadamcon-structionsiteandpermanentlytransformedtolakehabitatbetweenthedamandjustdownstream ,HlIllllli~1lill:I~I~I~·jII'111111'"'"1.,,~IJ'UIIIW'I;t'~I'1111::'III!ii'4-26ofVeeCanyonasthereservoirfilled.Thealterationwouldincludelowerreachesofseveraltributarystreams.TheFERCscopingprocessrevealedconcernthatwaterqualityalterationscausedbyimpoundmentoftheriverbyWatanadam(andlater,DevilCanyondam)couldcausesignificantdisorientationofadultspawnersintheyearsimmediatelyfollowingclosure.ExperiencesatotherhydroelectricprojectsonPacificcoastalriverssuggestthatthispotentialproblemmaybeminimal,eventhoughquantitativemethodstoevaluateitarenotavailable.Migrationsintotributariesmorethanafewkilometersdownstreamofnewdamsareusuallynotinterrupted.DuringfillingofWatanareservoir,temperaturesintheSusitnaaboveTalkeetnamightbesuffi-cientlylowinJune-Septembertoretardentryofmigratingadultsalmonandpreventnormalaccessandspawningbymanyfishduringthefillingyears.Pink,chum,andcohosalmonspawningareasinthemainstemareexpectedtobeadverselyaffectedbytheflowsproposedinthefillingscheduleforWatanareservoir.Decreasedmainstemflowswouldresultindecreaseddepthsandvelocitiesinsomeside-channelhabitatandcompletedewateringofotherside-channelhabitat.Thisisexpectedtoalteroreliminatetheavailabilityorsuitabilityofsomeofthecurrentlyusedspawninghabitat.SloughhabitatsbetweenWatanadamandTalkeetnaareexpectedtobethespawninghabitattypemostsignificantlyaffectedbyfi11ingflows.Intheabsenceofmitigatiyemeasures,fi11ingflowsareexpectedtocauseaccessproblemsforreturningadultchumandsockeyesalmon.Forsalmonthatdidgainaccess,thespawningareawithinthesloughswouldbereducedbecauseoflowermainstemflows.Accessibilityoftributariestoadultsalmonisnotlikelytobeaproblematthefillingflows,especiallyatPortageCreekandIndianRiver,whicharethetwomostproductivesalmontributariesupriverofTalkeetna.BelowTalkeetna,flowreductionsmightreducetheareaofspawninghabitat,sincethishabitattendstobelocatedonthelateralmarginsofthemainstemandinside-channelareas.SpawninginsloughsandtributariesbelowTalkeetnaisnotexpectedtobesignificantlyaffectedduringfillingofWatanareservoir.Duringreservoirfilling,thenormalwinterecologyofsalmonidswouldlikelypersistintosummerintheDevilCanyontoTalkeetnareachoftheSusitnaRiverduetotheabnormallycold[4DOF(4°C)]releasesfromWatana.ItislikelythattherewouldbeaninsignificantamountofsalmonfrygrowthintheDevilCanyontoTalkeetnareachduringthesummersofWatanafilling.DownstreamoftheconfluencewiththeChulitnaandTalkeetnarivers,growthratesofjuvenilesalmonandresidentspecieswouldalsobesuppressedbycooltemperatures.TheStaffestimatesareductioninaccumulatedJune-Septembergrowthinthisreachbyabout50%to60%comparedtopotentialgrowthatpreprojecttemperatures(Table4-2).Numerousissueshavearisenregardingmaintenanceoffishpopulations,especiallysalmon,intheSusitnaRiverinthefaceofoperatingtheSusitnaHydroelectricProject.Thissectionemphasizesthoseissues.Thediscussionsareorganizedaccordingtomajorlifestagesofanadromousfish:upstreammigrationandspawningofsalmon,incubation,juvenilerearing,andsalmonemigration.BetweenDevilCanyonandTalkeetna,theprimaryimpactsonsalmonspawningduringtheoperationphaseoftheproposedprojectwouldbesimilarto,butlessseverethan,thosediscussedfortheconstructionphase.Thedecreasedsummerflowswouldcausepassageproblemsforadultsalmonenteringsloughspawninghabitatsandwouldreducetheareaofsuitablespawninghabitatwithinthesloughs.Ifunmitigated,andassumingthataccesstoandavailabilityofsuitablespawninghabitatarepresentlylimitingsalmonproduction,decreasedsummerflowswouldreducethenumberofchum,sockeye,andpinksalmonspawninginthesloughsupstreamfromTalkeetna.AccessibilityoftributariestoadultsalmonisnotlikelytobeaproblemduringJunethroughSeptemberduringtheoperationphase,especiallyatthetwomostproductivesalmontributariesupriverofTalkeetna--PortageCreekandIndianRiver.DownriverfromTalkeetna,operationofWatanaaloneisexpectedtohavelessofanimpactonspawninginallhabitattypesrelativetoupriverareas.Thisisbecauseonthedownriverareastheprimarywater-relatedvariablesinfluencingspawning(i.e.,flow,temperature,turbidity,andsiltation)wouldbechangedtoalesserextentrelativetopreprojectconditions.ReviewofavailabletemperaturepredictionsfortheSusitnawithWatanadamoperatingandthecircumstancesofreportedmigrativeeffectselsewhereindicateslittlepotentialforimpedanceofmigrationfromtheSusitnaintotributarystreamsduringreservoiroperations.Conevalvesthatareproposedfortheoutletfacilitiestodissipatemomentumshouldreduce·thelikelihoodofsupersaturationvaluesexceeding110%.Therearenosimilarcontrolsproposedforthespillway,anditsuse,albeitinfrequent,canbeexpectedtocauseextensivefishmortalities 4-27Table4-2.ChangeinPotentialSummerGrowthofJuvenileSalmonintheTa1keetna-to-MouthReachDuetoFillingofWatanaReservoirandOperationofWatanaandDevilCanyonDamst'MonthTemperature(avg.OF)inLowerSusitnaJuneJulyAugustSeptemberAccumulatedJune-Septembergrowth(ounces)Reductionfrompreproject.growth(%)Preproject5252.75246.50.19WatanaFilling434445420.063-58Watana+DevilCanyonOperator444546430.07053t'Calculationswerebasedonassuminggrowthatmainstemtemperaturesandestimatingtemperaturesbysimpledilution.Accumulatedgrowthwascalculatedonbasisofaninitial0.2gfrythatdevelopedatweight-specificratespublishedforsockeyesalmon.Averagemonthlytempera-turesforthereachwerecalculatedfromaveragetemperatureandflowdatafortheChulitnaandTalkeetnariversandtheprojectedminimumflowsintheSusitnaRiverduringfillingandoperationofbothdams.TemperaturesfortheSusitnaRiverassumemaximumdownstreamwarmingfromreleasetemperatures(4°Cduringfilling).WarmingfromTalkeetnatothemouthhasnotbeenconsidered,butwouldchangelittleduetotheproject.intheriverdownstream.Supersaturationinexcessofthe110%tolerancethresholdformostfishcanbeexpectedduringuseofthespillway.HighmortalitiesareexpectedforfishofallagesthatarepresentinthemainstemforanindeterminatedistancebetweenthedamsiteandthejunctionwiththeChulitnaandTalkeetnariverswheredilutionwilloccur.TheconclusionwasreachedbytheAlaskaDepartmentofFishandGame,FisheriesRehabilitationEnhancementandDevelopmentDivision,thatupriverexpansionofanadromOU5salmonpopulationstoareasaboveDevilCanyonwasnotpracticableintheabsenceoftheSusitnaproject.TheStaffthusconcludesthatlossofupriversalmonpotentialwouldnotbeasignificantprojectimpact.WithWatanadamalone,reducedflowsinDevilCanyonwouldprobablyallowsalmonaccesstoseveralcreekspreviouslyusedrarely,ifatall,includingCheechako,Chinook,andDevilcreeks.Theadditionalspawningareacouldbesignificant.Changesinriverflowandtemperatureduringthistimecanbeexpectedtohavesomeimpactonincubationsuccessthroughthemechanismspresentedbelow.BecausetheSustinaRiverisusedformainstemandsloughspawningbyallPacificsalmonspeciesexceptchinook,powerpeakingwouldputspawningareasatrisk.Theproposedlimitationofwaterreleasestothoseofabase10adoperationconstitutesaneffectivefishconservationmeasurecomparedtoapeakingmodeofoperation.SomeredddewateringmightoccurinwinteraboveShermanduringreservoiroperationsduetoreducedicestaging.Theflowstabi1izationwouldreducestrandingoffrycausedbyfreshetflowsinsummer.Consideringtheu~~ertaintiesinestimatingactualincubationtemperatures,thepreliminaryanalysishasfocus~donalteredrivertemperaturesandthepotentialshiftsinincubationratepatternsthattheywouldcause.ThemajorpotentialincubationimpactoftheSusitnaprojectwouldbeaccelerationofdevelopmentratesbywarmertemperaturesinautumnandwinter(Figs.4-8,4-9).Underpredictedrivertemperatureregimes,correctedforwarmingand/orcoolingasdischargestraversetheDevilCanyontoTalkeetnareach,earlyspawningpinkandchumsalmon(mid-July)couldcompletedevelopmenttotheemergencestagebymidtolateOctoberwithWatanaalone,ratherthanearlyspring.Wintersurvivalwouldlikelybenegligible.Later-spawningsalmonwouldbeaffectedonlyslightly. 4-281020DEC1020NOVDATESOF00/EMERGENCEoRM116RM131,-RM1521020OCT1020SEPTWATANADAMONLYoPINKSALMONoCHUMSALMON1020AUGRM101-+-~'1020JULNORMALSHERMAN(noautumnemergence)426o8oRM10112RM116RM131........-~RM152---::~....10,I10':jRM101IRMtf6WATANAANDDEVILCANYON;,i;':'1-8RM131uRM152'II0~II,Wa:6::>l-e:(a:4wRM131Q.I~IIwI-2Illlll'IIII.lU!I~'iiI ,I-jillill,j,UI,I0~, ,"WIa:i::>i";l-e:(':'"a:wQ.~WI-;'l'lliilllllll~11'!IIIIj",::1Figure4-8.PredictedEarlyEmergenceofPinkandChumSalmon.Calculatedforconditionsduringfallingmainstemtemperatures(OC)inautumnfromeggsspawnedonJuly15atfourlocationsintheSusitnaRiverbetweenDevilCanyonoutlet(RM152)andtheChulitnajunction(RM101)andincubatedatmainstemrivertemperatures. 4-29oJ'"',~~.....fY• I.__IIII,,INCUBATIONRATESWATANAANDD.C.MAINSTEM~TEMPERATURESv.---PREPROJECTMAINSTEM--.Ji~WATANAMAINSTEM_-..;\,,'':'\WATANAANDD.C.MAINSTEM\,\\'\\\\,\\\\\\,\'\"\',ASOND J F M A M JMONTH246o810206040100zo80I-a...a::o(f)CD«~....Jo>-WI-W....Ja...::i:ouuo~wa::::::>I-«a::wa...::i:wI-Figure4-9.IncubationRatesforChumSalmonEmbryosSpawnedOnAugust15underDifferentTemperatureScenarios.[PreprojectmainstematSherman,ShermanmainstemwithWatanadamalone,ShermanmainstemwithWatanaandDevilCanyondams,andinter-gravelinasloughwithoutovertopping(1),andwithtworepresentativeover-toppingdates:November(2)andFebruary(3).][Source:MainstemtemperaturesweredevelopedbytheFERCStafffromApplication.SloughtemperaturesandregressionequationsforincubationratemodelingfromWangaardandBurger(19B3)] ",i"111,,,,iilll,II,i'UI,'illll'lll:!,Ii11~lilll:ilo:illilIi'1'111111''','",IIWw:HI4-30ThethermaleffectsoneggincubationestimatedforWatanareservoiraloneduetowarmautumntemperaturewouldbesomewhatreducedwithbothdamsinoperationinspiteofadditionalpro-longationofwarmertemperaturesintothelateautumnbyDevilCanyondam.EarlyspawningpinkandchumsalmoncouldproduceemergingfryinNovember-Decemberwithbothdamsinoperation(Fig.4-8).Later-spawningfishwouldbemoreaffectedthanwithWatanaalone.OperationofWatanaandDevilCanyondamswouldyieldmainstemfallandwintertemperaturesintheDevilCanyon-to-Talkeetnareachthatapproximatepreprojecttemperaturesinspawninggravelsofsloughs(Fig.4-9).Thiscould,inconjunctionwithprogressiveeliminationofsiltgravels,enhancemainstemspawningandincubationsuccess.Siltationistheprincipalnemesisofincubatingeggsinrivergravels,asseveralstudieshaveshownaninverserelationshipbetweentheamountofsedimentinspawninggravelsandemergencesuccessofsalmonandtroutfry.WintersiltloadsresultingfromoperationoftheSusitnareservoirswouldhavethepotentialofreachinglevelsdetrimentaltodownstreamredds.AnalogieswithexistingglaciallakessuchasEklutna,however,suggestthatresidualturbidityfromoperationinwinterwouldnotbedetrimental.Theexpectationofchangedgrowthisofparticularconcernforjuvenilesalmonofallfivespeciesthatdevelopintheriverforvaryinglengthsoftimepriortoandduringtheirseawardmigration.Itisknownthatlargerfishattimeofentrancetotheoceanhaveahigherlikeli-hoodofsurvivingtoadulthood.TheresultsindicatelittlealterationofpresentlyachievablegrowthwhenWatanadamaloneisinplace(Fig.4-10).WithWatanadamalone,warmingoftheriverinautumngenerallywouldcompensateforsomewhatdelayed(butsimilar)summerpeaktempera-turesindeterminingthecumulativeannualgrowthofthosespeciesthatremainallyear(chinook,coho).Ifchum,pink,andsockeyesalmoncontinuedtomigrateoutofthisreachofriverbytheendofJuly,theirgrowthcould,however,bereducedbyaboutone-third,withsomereductioninsurviva1.Alteredtemperatures,andthusgrowthrates,intheSusitnafo11owingdamconstruc-tionwouldlikelyfavorthespeciesmostcapableofgrowingbestincoolerwater(whichappeartobesockeyeandpinksalmon).PotentialgrowthofjuvenilesalmondownstreamofDevilCanyonandWatanadamswouldmarkedlydecreasewhenbothdamswereinoperation(Fig.4-10,Table4-2).Annualgrowthpotentiallymightreachonlyabout50%ofpreprojectlevels.Thespeciesthatemigrateintheirfirstsummermightaccumulateonlyaboutone-thirdoftheirnormalriverinegrowth.AlthoughthemodestchangesingrowthwithWatanadamalonewouldprobablybeundetectable,themorestrikingchangesassociatedwithbothdamsoperatingcouldhaveimportantimplicationsforsurvivaloftheemigratingjuvenilesalmon.MajorconsequencesofimpoundingtheSusitnaRiverwouldbereductioninsummertimeturbidityandstabilizationofflows,changesthatcouldsignificantlyincreasebenthicproductivityandthusfoodavai1abi1ityforfishfauna(Sec.4.1.4.1).loop1anktonoriginatinginanupstreamreservoircanbeanimportantsupplementtofoodresourcesfordownstreamsalmonids,andmightbecomeimportantinthepost-impoundmentSusitna.However,thisincreasemightbereducedbyDevi1Canyondamdeve1opment,duetothesummertemperaturereductions(Sec.4.1.3.3).Theprojectedtemperaturereductionsmightbesufficientlyseveretoretardgrowthofbenthicfoodorganisms.ThedegreetowhichincreasedfishfoodavailabilityperunitareaintheSusitnaduringprojectoperationwouldoffsettheeffectsofadecreaseinwettedperimeterandreducedwatertempera-turesisamatterofspeculation.BecausethermalchangeswithWatanaalonewouldberelativelysmall,itislikelythatoverallproductivityoftheSusitnafromthedamtoTalkeetnawouldrise,andjuvenilesalmonproductionshouldincrease.Undoubtedly,thereductioninturbidityandflowstabilizationofferimportantmanagementopportunitiesforSusitnaRiversalmon.Woodydebris(trees,stumps,logs,brush)atcertainlocationsintheSusitnacurrentlycreatessmallpoolsandbackwaterareasthatareusedbyyoungsalmonforrestingandfeeding.BlockageofupstreamsourcesofthisdebrisandreductionsinpeakflowsthaterodewoodedriverbankscouldleadtodepletionofsuchdebrisintheriverabovetheChulitnaconfluencebyprogressivewashoutdownstream,andthusdegradationofrearinghabitat.Elevationof.wintertemperaturesinthereachesdownstreamofthedamswouldbeaprojectmodi-ficationthatmightaffectthebehaviorandsurvivalofoverwinteringfishes.Thetemperaturealterationwouldbemostpronouncedclosetoadamoutlet,anditwouldbemoderateddownstreambylowairtemperaturesandcoldtributaryinflows.Ifa5°C(41°F)thresholdforinducingbehavioralchangesthathasbeenseenelsewhereisgermanetoSusitnapopulations(presentlyuntested),theneventhemostelevatedtemperaturesinwinterwouldstill,bebelowthisthreshold,andanormalannualbehaviorcyclewouldoccur.Thepronouncedlaginautumnalcooling,however,woulddelayonsetofinactivity.GenerallywarmerwintertemperaturesintheSusitnaRiverbelowWatanadammightresultinanearlierbreakupofriverice,warmerrivertemperaturesearlierintheseason,andpotential 4-312565CUMULATIVEWEIGHTBEFORE(SHERMAN=RM131)RM101/AFTERRM116RM131CUMULATIVEWEIGHTDURINGGROWINGSEASONBEFORE(SHERMAN=RM131)(>3°ClrAFTER4RM101~RM~116RM131RM152TEMPERATURESBEFORE(SHERMAN=RM131)AFTE(0)WATANADAMONLY~~-----l...-.L---.l..-..L~~~0r---r-.--r--:-:-:-:=:::-:-::-:-:-:=--=-=::-:-::----=7':":::-:-=:-:-::-:-:~___,-__,-r____,6(b)WATANAANDDEVILCANYONDAMSTEMPERATURESBEFORE(SHERMAN=RM131)AFTER21214164201412_10u!..UJa:8:::>l-e(a:UJ6a..:::EUJI-4OL----I.._...I-----lL-....J...._...I-----l_---'-_...I----'_--'--_.L-----.L_....L.._l....---'030153115301531153115301531153015MAYJUNEJULYAUGSEPTOCTNOVDEC.~Figure4-10.TemperatureandCumulativeGrowthforJuvenileSockeyeSalmonintheSusitnaRiverbetweenOevilCanyonandTalkeetna,BeforeandAftertheProject.(Sockeyesalmonisassumedtoadequatelyillustrateeffectsonthesalmonspecies.) II',i,,I,,III!"I!I',,,,1;1.1!i"II'I"4-32advancementofthetimingofsmoltout-migration.Itseemsreasonabletoconcludethatadvance-mentofrivertemperaturesinspringcouldresultinaconcomitantadvancementofoutmigrationofjuvenilesalmonids.Thisadvancementcouldbedetrimentalforthepopulationsinvolvedbecauseofthenegativeeffects(reducedsurvival)ofearlyentrancetocoldcoastalwaters.Potentialshiftsmightoccurbecauseofdifferentdirectionsordegreesofresponsetodam-inducedenvironmentalchanges.SuchshiftscouldbeimportantforfisheriesinboththeriverandinCookInlet.Astheprojectimpactsarebetterdefinedandquantified,andasthefishpopulationsarebetterunderstood,projectionsaboutrelativeadvantagesmightbemade.Thestateofbasicknowledgeandecologicaltheoryrelatedtocompetitiveprocessesdoesnotallowpredictionsbeyondspeculationatthispoint.Ifunanticipatedshiftsinrelativeabundancewereshownbypostprojectmon;toring,add;tiana1mitigativemeasuresmightbenecessarytorestorepreprojectrelationships.HabitatpotentialforfishinWatanaandDevilCanyonreservoirswouldbelimitedbycoldtempera-tures,lowproductivity,highsiltloadsinsummermonths,andlargedrawdownthatwouldpreventdevelopmentofalittoralzone(Sec.4.1.3).TheApplicantevaluatedtheannualdrawdowncycleofWatanareservoirinrelationtofishspawning.Winterdewateringandspringflooding(Sec.4.1.3)arebothofconcernforsuccessfulreproductioninthereservoir.Inadditiontoyear-roundresidentfishes,WatanareservoirwouldbeexpectedtoprovideimportantnewoverwinteringhabitatforfishesthatoccupytributariesandtheSusitnaupstreamoftheDshetnaRiver.Kokanee(landlockedsockeyesalmon)isthemostabundantfishinmanylargesubalpinelakesandreservoirsofwesternNorthAmerica,anditcouldprovideavaluablesalmonidfishspeciesforDevilCanyonandWatanareservoirsandtributariesaboveDevilCanyon.ChakachamnaLakecurrentlyprovidesrearingfora 1argenumberofjuveni1esockeyesalmon.Estab1ishmentandmaintenanceofaKokaneepopulationinWatanareservoircouldprovideapelagiccomponentofthefaunacomparabletotheScandinavianroachandaviablealternativetoAlaskaDepartmentofFishandGameproposalstoopentheupperSusitnatoanadromoussalmonstocksthroughfishpassagefacili-tiesatDevilCanyon.LimitingfactorswouldbethecapabilityoftheturbidWatanareservoirtosustainzooplanktonandimpairedreproductionalongthereservoirshoreline(althoughtheupperSusitnaandtributariesshouldprovideabundantspawninghabitat).DevilCanyonreservoirwouldofferfavorablehabitattofishpopulations,althoughlowprodUC-tivity1eve1swauldbeanticipatedduetocooltemperatures,nutrient1imitationIandsmallamountofspawningarea.DollyVarden,Arcticgrayling,rainbowandlaketrout,burbot,white-fish,andlongnosesuckerscouldbeexpected,parallelingtrendsprojectedforWatanareservoir.Insummary,projectedchangesintheflowandtemperatureregimesdownriverofthetwoproposeddamshavebeenidentifiedaboveashavingpotentiallynegativeimpactsonthesalmonstocksutilizingtheDevilCanyontoTalkeetnareachoftheSusitnaRiverforspawningandrearing.TheStaffhasanalyzedhistoricalflow,temperature,andcommercialcatchdatafortheyears1950-1982todetermineiftherehasbeenanobviousinfluenceoflowflowsinsummerorofloworhightemperaturesinsummerorwinteronyear-classstrengthforanyofthefivesalmonspecies.Foreachspecies,usingtheappropriatelagbetweenyearofflowwhenspawningoccurredandyearofcatchoftheprogenybythecommercialfishery,themeancommercialcatchforlow-flowyearswascomparedwiththatforhigh-flowyears.Therewerenostatisticallysignificantdifferences,indicatingthatOvertherangeofflowsoccurringduringJuly,August,andSeptemberfrom1950-1981thereisnostrongevidencethatyear-classstrengthforanyofthefivespeciesisadverselyaffectedbylowflowsduringthespawningperiod.AnimportantcaveatforthisanalysisisthattheaverageflowsatGoldCreekforthelow-flowyearswereallabove12,000cfs(340m3/s)whereastheproposedprojectflowsatGoldCreekduringJuly,August,andSeptemberare6,480,12,000,and9,300cfs(180,340,and260m3/s),respectively.Thereisnosoundbasisforjudgingthevalidityofextrapolatingtheresultsofthisanalysistotheselowerflows.Consideringthepotentialcumulativeimpactofchangesinflow,temperature,andturbidityregimesonallstagesofthesalmonlifecyclefrominmigrationofadultsthroughoutmigrationofsmolts(andmitigationofunacceptablelossesduetogassupersaturationduringprojectoperation),theStaffexpectsthefallowingchanges.Salmon.productionaboveTalkeetnaforallfivespecieswouldbegreatlyreducedduringthesecondandthirdyearsoffillingofWatanareservoir.However.thelostproductioninthisreachforthesetwoyearswouldlikelybeatleastpartiallyoffsetbyincreasedproductionthatwouldoccurinothersystemsbecausesalmonthatnormallywouldhavecontinuedtomigrateuptheSusitnaRiverwouldselectthewarmerwateroftheTalkeetnaRiver.AllfivesalmonspecieswouldbeexpectedtoincreasetheiruseoftheDevilCanyontoTalkeetnareachoftheSusitnaRiveragainwhenWatanastartedoperating,althoughtherateofreturntohigherproductionlevelswouldvaryamongthefivesalmonspecies,depend-ingonthelifecycleandonthestrengthoftheyearclassesreturningintheyearsimmediately 4-33followingthefillingofWatana.Inthecaseofpinksalmon,noimprintedadultsmightbeavailabletocomebacksincebothodd-yearandeven-yearstockswouldbeimpactedduringthesecondandthirdyearsoffi11ing,andthusrecoverytohigherproduction1eve1swauld 1ikelytakelongerthanfortheotherspecies.ItisnotpossibletoassesswhethertheSusitnaHydroelectricProjectwouldresultinanaverage,long-termdecreaseorincreaseinpopulationsofsalmonpresentlyspawningintheSusitnaRiverBasin.However,itislikelythattherewouldbeatleastshort-termdecreasesinsalmonstocksizesduetoconstructionofWatanaandDev;1Canyondamsandfi11ingofWatanareservo;r.Thesedecreaseswouldresultfromsubstantialchangesinflow,temperature,andturbidityregimes.BasedontheStaff'sanalysis,themagnitudeofanydecrease,especiallyinlightofthevariousmitigativemeasurestobeimplemented(Sec.2.1.12),wouldnotbegreat.Nocombinationofimpactshasbeenprojectedthatwouldreducebyasmuchas50%anyofthefivesalmonpopula-tionsspawningintheSusitnaRiverandtributariesaboveitsconfluencewiththeTalkeetnaandChulitnarivers,althoughthechumandsockeyestocksarelikelytobemoreaffectedthanthechinook,coho,andpinksalmonstocks.Conversely,itisnotreasonabletoexpectthattheproposedproject,evenincombinationwithextensivemitigativemeasures,wouldresultinanincreasebyasmuchas50%ofanyofthesefivesalmonpopulations.Itisnotpossibletoquantifythedirectimpactoftheprojectonthecommercial,sport,orsubsistencefisheries,exceptthat,otherfactorsbeingequal,changesincatchwouldbeapproxi-matelyproportionaltodecreasesorincreasesinthesizeofthespawningstocks.Otherfactors,however,wouldnotbeequalwithandwithouttheproject.AsdiscussedinSection4.1.8,theprojectwouldtendtopromoteeconomicandpopulationgrowth.Thesechanges,inturn,wouldinevitablyincreasefishingeffortbythecommercial,sport,andsubsistencefisheries.Theeffectofthisincreasedfishingeffortisrelativelyeasytopredictbasedoncasehistoriesfornumerousotherfishstocksallovertheworld.Increasingexploitationwouldeventuallyresultindecreasingfisheryresourcesun1esstherewasincreasinginterventionoffisherymanagementpractices.Thislong-termandindirectimpactoftheprojectislikelytomaskanydirectimpactsoftheprojectondownstreamhabitatandthesizeofthefishpopulationsthishabitatcansupport.4.1.4.2.2AccessRoutesandPowerTransmissionFacilitiesTherearetwoenvironmetalimpactstobeassessedforfishcommunitiesinstreamsandlakesinthevicinityoftheproposedaccessroutes.Thegreatestsourceofadverseimpactonfishcommunitieswouldbetheincreasedaccessibilityofthesestreamsandlakestofishingpressureviathenetworkofaccessroutes.Bysubjectingthesestreamstoincreasedfishingpressure,manyofthelarger,olderfishwouldberemovedfromthepopulation,alteringtheagestructureandpossiblyreducingreproductivepotentials.Anotherimpactassociatedwithaccessroadsandrailroads,asidentifiedbytheApplicantandthevariousagenciesconcernedwithfisheryresources,wouldbetheeffectonresidentfishpopulations,graylinginparticular,ofincreasedturbidityandsiltationassociatedwithstreamcrossings.Thebasesforthisconcernarethattherewouldbeapproximately100streamcross-ingsandthatincreasedturbidityandsiltationatthesecrossingswouldlikelyresultindegrada-tionandlossofhabitat,especiallyhabitatpresentlyusedforspawningandrearingofjuveniles.Assumingeffectivemitigativeactionstoavoidlong-termalterationsofstreamsatcrossings,themajor impactisexpectedtobeincreasedfishingpressure.CooperativeregulationoffishingactivitiesorfishremovalbyprojectStaffandtheAlaskaDepartmentofFishandGamemightmitigatetheseimpactsaswell.4.1.5TerrestrialCommunities4.1.5.1PlantCommunitiesPotentialimpactstoterrestrialplantcommunitiesandwetlandsfromconstructionoftheproposedSusitnaprojectcanbedividedintothreecategories:(1)thedirectremovalofvegetation,(2)indirectvegetationlossordamage,and(3)alterationofplantcommunities.Thefirstcategorygenerallyconstitutesthemostsevereimpactsandisthemostquantifiable.Thesecondandthirdcategoriesarenotmutuallyexclusiveinthatindirectvegetationlossordamageoftenresultsinalterationofplantcommunities.Constructionof·~eproposedWatanaandDevilCanyondams,impoundments,andrelatedfacilitiesandofproposedaccessfacilitieswouldresultinthedirectremovalofabout44,000acres(17,800halofvegetation,orabout1.3%ofthevegetatedareawithintheupperandmiddleSusitnaBasin(Table4-3).Ofthisamount,36,000acres(14,600halwouldbeforest.Thisarearepresentsabout4.2%oftheforestedareaswithintheupperandmiddleSusitnaBasin.Morespecifically,aboutone-thirdofthepaperbirchforestand10%ofthemixedconifer-deciduousforesttypesintheupperandmiddleSusitnaBasinwouldbelost.Lessthan1%ofthetundraandshrublandtypesintheupperandmiddlebasinwouldberemoved.Arealestimatesofspecific "'I!ir:1"I,:'II:::;'IIII4-34Table4-3.AcreagesofPermanentandTemporaryVegetationandWetlandRemovalDuetotheProposedSusitnaProjectandAcreagesofVegetationandWetlandDisturbedbyProposedPowerTransmissionCorridorsFacilityandTypeofLossPermanentRemovalWatanaTotalDamandimpoundmentPermanentvillageandairstripDevilCanyonTotalDamandimpoundmentAccessTotalPermanentRemovalPercentageofBasinTotalt3TemporaryRemovalt4WatanaTotalCampandvillageBorrowareas(A,D,E,F,H,I)ConstructionworkareasDevilCanyonTotalCampandvillageBorrowareas(G,K)ConstructionworkareasTotalTemporaryRemovalPercentageofBasinTotalt3TotalVegetationRemovalPercentageofBasinTotalt3VegetationOisturbancetSTransmissionLineCorridorsAffectedAcreagebyVegetationTypet'TotalVegetatedForestShrub1andTundraArea27,0004,40021031,00027,0004,20021031,000011001105,700170275,9005,700170275,9001907002101,10033,0005,20044038,000(3.8%)(0.3%)«0.1%)(1.1%)2,6002,4001905,200024002402,4001,3001903,90020084001,0001,1005201,20019000190340520390580005803,7002,5001906,400(0.4%)(0.2%)«0.1%)(0.2%)36,0007,70064044,000(4.2%) (0.5%) (0.1%)(1.3%)6,6003,4001,70012,000PotentialWetlandAcreageAffectedt"Z28,00028,0001304,2004,20074033,000(1.5%)4,2002403,200720450o1403104,600(0.2%)37,000(1.7%)7,600I''t'Valuesroundedtotwosignificantfigures;acreagesdonotadduptototalsduetoro~ndingerrors.tZExtremelyliberalestimatesbasedoncorrelationofvegetationtypestowetlandtypesofCowardinetal.(1979)aspresentedinAppendixJ,TableJ-5(seealsoSec.J.1.2.1.5).t3AcreageofvegetationorwetlandslostconvertedtopercentageofthatvegetationorwetlandtypefortheupperandmiddleSusitnaBasin(seeApp.J,TablesJ-7andJ-12).t4Theuseofthewordtemporaryimpliesthattheareawouldeventuallyberehabilitated.t5Acreagespresentedareareasthatwouldbecrossedbythecorridors.Conversion:Toconvertacrestohectares,multiplyby0.405. 4-35vegetationtypesthatwouldberemovedforeachdamandimpoundment,relatedfacilitiesateachsite,andthevariousaccessroutesarepresentedinTablesJ-18, J-19,J-22,J-23,andJ-26ofAppendixJ.Areasclearedforconstructioncampsandvillages,constructionroads,contractorworkareas,andborrowareasatbothsiteswouldcoveratotalofabout6,400acres(2,600hal,or15%ofthetotal44,000acres(17,800halofvegetationremoved(Table4-3).EstimatesofthetotalacreagesofspecificvegetationtypesthatwouldbeclearedforconstructionofthesefacilitiesarepresentedinTablesJ-19andJ-23(App.J).Becausethesefacilitieswouldonlyberequiredduringconstructionofthedamsandimpoundments,thepotentialforestablishmentandgrowthofvegetationontheareasoccupiedbythesefacilitieswouldonlybetemporarilylost.AccordingtotheschedulepresentedinExhibitE(Vol.6A,Chap.3,pp.E-3-276-E-3-277),temporaryfacilitiesandborrowareaswouldberemovedand/orregradedandrehabilitatedbytheendof theconstructionandreserve;r-fi11in9period.GeneralrehabilitationproceduresplannedbytheApp1icanthavebeendescribedinAppendix J(Sec.J.3.1.3)andExhibitE(Va1.6A,Chap.3,pp.E-3-279-E-3-281).Ifsoilscanbeadequatelyrestoredonrehabilitatedareas,itislikelythatatleastsomevegetationwauldreestab1ishratherrapidlybecauseofthedisturbance-adaptednatureofsub-arcticplantspeciesandcommunities(ChapinandChapin,1980;VanCleveandViereck,1981).However,inmost(ifnotall)instances,itwauldbereadilyapparentforsometimethattheareahadbeendisturbed.Therateatwhichplantcommunitiesinrehabilitatedareasreplacetheoriginalpatternoflostvegetationorblendinwithsurroundingcommunitieswoulddependontheratesofplantreestab1ishmentandsuccession ontherehabilitatedsiteandinsurroundingareas,andtheseratescanvarywithnumerousfactors(seeApp.J,Sec.J.2.1.1.1).Basedontheratesofplantsuccessionreportedforfloodplainsandglacialmorainesandthoseobservedfollowingfires(Viereck,1966;ViereckandSchandelmeier,1980;VanCleveandViereck,1981),itm;ghtbe150yearsormorebeforetheor;gina1vegetationtypesremovedfromsomeareas(genera11ythoseoccupiedby1atersuccessiana1stages)werereplacedwith5imilarplantcom-munities.Ontheotherhand,replacementoflatersuccessionalstandsbyearlierseralstagesmightbebeneficialforwildlifebecauseearlyseralstagesgenerallyprovidemorehigh-qualityforagethandolaterseralstages(Wolff,1978;WolffandZasada,1979).Manyof thevegetatedareasthatwouldbeclearedcanbeconsideredwetlands.However,itisdifficulttoaccuratelypredicttheactualacreagesofvariouswetlandtypesthatwouldberemovedbecausetheApp1icanthasnotconductedadetai1edwetlandsmappingprogram.Lackingbetterinformation,theStaffhasmadeextremelyliberalestimatesofpotentialwetlandsthatwouldbelost(Table4-3)bycorrelatingvegetationtypestothewetlandtypesofCowardinetal.(1979)(seeApp.J,TableJ-5andSec.J.1.2.1.5).About24,000acres(9,700halofthepotentialwetlandsthatwouldberemovedarepalustrineforested,needle-leavedevergreentypes;thisacreagerepresentsover3%ofthattypewithintheupperandmiddleSusitnaBasin.Onlyabout300acres(120ha)ofpalustrineorlacustrineemergent,persistent,andlessthan50acres(20halofpalustrineforested,broad-leaveddeciduouswetlandtypeswouldberemoved,buttheseareasaccountforabout2.5%andover4%,respectively,ofthesetypeswithintheupperandmiddleSusitnaBasin.Arealestimatesofspecificwetlandtypesthatwouldberemovedforeachdamandimpoundment,relatedfacilitiesateachsite,andthevariousaccessroutesarepresentedinTablesJ-20, J-21, J-24,J-25,andJ-27inAppendixJ.Althoughthelandareaswheretemporaryconstructionfacilitiesandborrowareashadbeenlocatedwouldbephysicallyrehabilitated,itisimpossibletopredictwhetherwetlandsthatoriginallyoccurredintheseareaswouldberestored.(SeeApp.J,TablesJ-21andJ-25,forarealestimatesofspecificwetlandtypesthatwouldbeclearedforconstructionofthesefacilities.)Sincelocalizeddrainagepatternsandterrainmightoftenbeaffectedorpurposefullychangedduringconstructionofprojectfacilitiesandaccessroadsandduringexcavationofborrowareas,thepotentialforandthefeasibilityofreestablishingwetlandconditionsmustbeconsideredonacase-by-casebasis.Conversely,construction-relatedchangesinlocaldrainagepatternsmightalsoresultincreationofnewwetlandareasnearby(Berg,1980).TheApplicanthasindicatedthateffortswouldbetakentoavoidwetlandswhereverpossibleduringconstruc-tionactivitiesandtominimizepotentialmajoralterationstodrainagepatternsthroughproperengineeringdesign(ExhibitE,Vol.6A,Chap.3,pp.E-3-256andE-3-290).The12,000acres(4,900halofvegetatedareatobecrossedbytheproposedpowertransmissioncorridors(Table4-3)representaworst-caseestimateofvegetationthatwouldbeimpacted.TheApplicanthasind>catedthatclearingofvegetationfromtherights-of-waywouldbeselective,withtotalremoval~TIenerallyconfinedtotowersites,accesstrails,andtemporaryconstructionfacilities.Vegetationwithintherights-of-waywouldbeclearedtovariousmaximumheights,butingeneralatleastground-layervegetationwouldbeleftintact.Herbicideswouldnotbeused(ExhibitE,Vol.6A,Chap.3,pp.E-3-270-E-3-271).Thus,becauseoftheiroverstorylayerheights,forestandtallshrubtypes(representingabout60%of thevegetationthatwouldbecrossedbythecorridors)wouldbemostimpactedbyclearing.(SeeApp.J,TablesJ-28,J-30, J-32,andJ-34,formorespecificestimatesofvegetationtypesthatwouldbecrossedbyeachcorridor.)Asaworst-caseestimate,7,600acres(3,100halofpotentialwetlandswouldbe I;dlll',,1'II,I "..'IIIi•I4-36crossedbytheproposedtransmissioncorridors(App.J,TablesJ-29, J-31, J-33,andJ-35).However,theApplicanthasindicatedthatsite-specificadjustmentswouldbemadeinthecorridorsduringdetailedalignmentstudiesinordertominimizewetlandandfloodplaincrossings(ExhibitE,Vol.6A,Chap.3,p.E-3-290).Additionalareaswouldbesubjectedtoindirectdamage(orloss)ofvegetationandalterationofplantcommunitiesduringprojectconstruction.However,itisimpossibletoquantifytheacreageandidentifyspecificvegetationtypesthatwouldbethusaffected.ThenatureofthesetypesofimpactshasbeendescribedinmoredetailinSectionJ.2.1(App.J);thetypesofpotentialindirecteffectsareonlybrieflymentionedhere.Vegetationlossordamagecouldoccurasaresultoferosionandslumpageonslopessurroundingtheimpoundments(especiallyWatana)orotherfacilities(BaxterandGlaude,1980).Morelocalizederosionwouldprobablyoccurasaresultofconstruction-relatedfactors,suchasaltereddrainagepatterns,blowdownoftreesbyincreasedwindsduetogreaterfetchacrossclearedareas,anddestabilizationofsoilsexposedbyclearing(especiallyinpermafrostareasandinnon-permafrostareaswheretheorganiclayerhasbeenremoved)(VanCleve,1978;Berg,1980;Todd,1982;AldrichandSlaughter,1983).Changesindrainagepatternsandsurfacehydro-logywouldbecausedbysuchconstructionactivitiesasclearing,ditching,roadbuilding,soilstockpi1ing,andborrowsiteexcavation(Berg,1980).Somesoi1smightbecomewaterlogged;othersmightaccumulatelessmoisture.Soilaerationandnutrientcyclingprocessescouldalsobeaffected.Theactivelayerofpermafrostareasmightchange,andclearedsoilsmightfreezeandthawdeeperandearlierthanwheninsulatedbyvegetation.Allsuchchangescouldfostererosionandalterthecompositionorproductivityofnearbyplantcommunities.Erosion-andpermafrost-relatedimpactswouldbeminimized,however,bytheuseofballoon-tireandflat-treadvehiclesinconstructionareasandalongtransmissioncorridors(RickardandBrown.1974).Fugitivedustfromclearedareasandborrowsitescouldaccumulateonvegetation,causeabrasivedamage,oraffecttherateofsnowmelt,allofwhichcouldaffectplantphenology(Everett,1980;Drake,1981).Clearingandindirectvegetationdamagemightalsoaffecttheabundanceofinsects,decayorganisms,anddisease-causingagents;thesechangescouldinturnfurtheraffectvegetation.Althoughfireisanaturalfactoraffectingplantcommunitydistributionsintheregion(ViereckandSchandelmeier,1980),thefrequency,duration,intensity,andareaoffiresmightchangeasaresultofincreasedhumanactivityinthearea,therebyaffectingvegetation.Nonessentialdisturbanceofvegetationduetoincreasedhumanactivitycannotbetotallyavoided.Also,useofoff-roadandall-terrainvehicles(ORV/ATV)wouldprobablyincreaseasaresultofincreasedaccessandhumanactivityinthearea.DamageoralterationofplantcommunitiesduetoORV/ATVusagewouldprobablybemostsevereasaresultofsummeruseandinareaswithpermafrost,inwetlandsorareaswithhighsoilmoisturecontent.ondeepgravel-freesoils,onslopes,andintundravegetationtypes.Plantrecoverywouldbe1ess1ikelyiftheorganic 1ayerwasseverelydisturbedandrootsystemsdestroyed(RickardandBrown,1974;GersperandChallinor,1975;ChallinorandGersper,1975;Sparrowetal.,1978).Operationoftheproposedprojectfacilitieswouldresultincontinuationofsomeindirectimpactstovegetationcausedbyincreasedincidenceoffires;increasedhumanaccess.activity.andORV/ATVusage(especiallynearaccessroadsandalongtransmissioncorridors);treeblowdownnearthereservoirs;erosionandpermafrostthaw,particularlynearthereservoirsandaccessroads;andfugitivedustingalongaccessroads.Inaddition.WatanaandDevilCanyonoperationwouldaffectvegetationthroughregulationofdownstreamflowsandmesoclimaticchanges.Theregulatedflowsassociatedwithprojectoperationwouldaffectthedevelopmentofriparianplantcommunitiesdownstreamofthedamsites.Specificeffectsaredifficulttopredictorquantifysincetheywouldvaryatparticularlocationsdependingonrivermorphologyanddistancefromthedams.Thefollowingdiscussionofpotentialimpactsisbasedonpredictionsofriverstaging,watertemperatures,andiceregimespresentedinExhibitE(Vol.5A,Chap.2).Ingeneral,regulatedflowswouldbehigherthanpreprojectflowsinwinterandlowerthanpreprojectflowsinsummer.andincreasedtemperaturesofwaterreleasedfromthedamswouldaffecticeformationdownstreamofthedamsites.WithonlyWatanainoperation,itisexpectedthaticeformationwouldnotoccurintheWatanatoDevilCanyonreach.Sincesummerflowswouldbereducedbycomparisontopreprojectflows.vegetationwouldgraduallyestablishonnewly-exposedareasalongbanksandonislands.However,theactualareasinvolvedwouldprobablyberelativelysmallbecauseofthesteepbanksinthisreach.Withtheeliminationoficescouringandmajorfloodingevents,successionofexistingandnewlyestablishedvegetationstandswouldproceedwithrelativelylittleinterruptiontowardmaturebalsampoplarandwhitespruceforestuntilclearingandinundationoftheDevilCanyonreservoirwasbegun.IntheDevilCanyontoTalkeetnareach,icewouldbeexpectedtoform,althoughitsformationwouldlikelybedelayedbyseveralweeks,andtheexactlocationoftheend-of-wintericefront 4-37hasnotbeenpredictedwithcertainty.Abovethisend-of-wintericefront,vegetationdevelop-mentwouldbesimilartothatintheWatanatoDevilCanyonreachoftheriver.Whereiceformationoccurred,however,reducedsummerflowswouldexposemoreareacapableofbeingcolonized.However,highericestagingassociatedwithincreasedwinterflowscouldextendintotheseareas.affectingnoton1ythenewlydeve1opingcommunitiesbutlinsome1Deationslevensomeexistingvegetatedareas.Itisdifficulttopredictwhateffectsthisicestagingwouldhavebecauseunderunregulatedconditionsicestaginglevelsareoftenbelowratherthanabovethewatersurfaceelevationsthatoccurduringsummerflows.Thus,untilclearingandinunda-tionoftheDevilCanyonreservoirwasbegun,thewidthofareaoccupiedbyearly-tomid-successionalstagesmighteitherincreaseoverpreprojectconditionsorremainsimilartopre-projectconditions.WithbothWatana.andDevilCanyondamsinoperation,iceformationisconsideredunlikelybetweenDevilCanyonandTalkeetna.Sincesummerflowswouldbereducedbycomparisontopreprojectflowsandsinceice-stagingeffectsassociatedwithoperationofWatanaalonewouldbeeliminated,anincreaseinvegetatedareaoverpreprojectconditionswouldprobablyoccur.Thewidthofareaoccupiedbyearly-tomid-successionalstageswouldprobablyincreaseoverpreprojectconditionsinitially.Withtime,however,successionwouldproceedtowardsmaturebalsampoplarandwhitespruceforests,andthewidthofareaoccupiedbyearly-tomid-successionalstagesmighteventuallybedecreasedbelowpreprojectconditionssincefewereventscapableofcausingvegetativerecessiontoearlierseralstageswouldoccur.IntheSusitnareachfromtheconfluenceoftheSusitna,Chulitna,andTalkeetnariverstotheYentnaRiver,thechannelisbraided,andtheSusitnacontributesonly40%ofthetotalflow.Theimportanceoficeprocessesinvegetativesuccessionisreducedexceptinlocalizedareas,andthemagnitudeofincreasedSusitnawinterflowswouldbediluted.Regulatedandreducedsummerflowswouldhavesomeeffectonthefrequencyandseverityoffloodinginthisreach,buttheeffectswouldbeattenuatedbyflowsfromtheotherrivers.Thus,early-andmid-successionalstandsmightdevelopsufficientlyinsomeareastoprovidesomestabilizationagainstlaterfloods.Althoughreducedsummerflowsandperhapsincreasedwinterflowswouldprobablyhavesomeeffectonvegetationinthisreach,itisimpossibletopredictwhethertheneteffectswouldbeincreasesordecreasesinvegetatedareaorinsuccessionrates.InthereachfromtheYentnaRivertoCookInlet,bankfullflowsandfloodingwouldprobablybethemajorfactorsaffectingvegetativesuccessionrates.Becauseofthedilutioneffectoftheotherrivers(theSusitnacontributesonly20%tobankfullflows),aswellasthetidalinfluenceuptoRM20,anychangesinvegetationwouldbedifficulttoattributesolelytooperationoftheproposedproject.Thelargevolumeofwaterinthereservoirs,especiallyWatana,wouldwarmmoreslowlyinspringandcoolmoreslowlyinfallthansurroundinglandmasses.Resultantseasonalchangesinairandsoiltemperaturesnearthereservoir(particularlyonthesouthernsideofWatanaduetoprevailingnortheasterlywinds)wouldprobablyaffectplantphenologyandperhapscausealtera-tionofplantcommunities.Moderationofdiurnaltemperaturefluctuationsbythereservoirmightalsoaffectlocalrainfallpatternsandhumidity,possiblyhavingsomeeffectonnearbyvegetation(BaxterandGlaude,1980).Thepresenceofthereservoirsalsocouldcauseincreasedoccurrencesoffogandrimeiceaccumu-1ationsonvegetationinsurroundingareas,especiallyduringbreakupandfreezeupperiods(BaxterandGlaude,1980).Whenrimeiceaccumulationsarethick,branchesandtwigscanbreak,damagingvegetation.However,ifplantsarenotseverelydamaged,thiscouldhaveabeneficialeffectforwildlifeifsucculentnewgrowthisinduced.Similarly,icefoggingandrimeiceaccumulationwouldbeexpectedalongthedownstreamfloodplaininthesectionoftheriverwhereformationoficewouldbepreventedbydamoutflowtemperatures.4.1.5.2AnimalCommunitiesAvarietyofimpactstowildlifewouldresultfromconstructionandoperationoftheSusitnaproject.Installationoffacilitiessuchasthedams,reservoirs,airstrip,androadswouldpermanentlywithdrawhabitatfromfutureusebywildlife(Table4-3).Inaddition,about50%ofthehabitatalongthetransmissionlineroutewouldgenerallybealteredfromforest/woodlandtoearlysuccessionalshrublandstages.AlterationofflowregimesbelowthedamswouldalsoresultinalterationofriparianhabitatinthefloodplainoftheSusitnaRiver.Theimpoundmentsmightimpedemov~entofwildlife,especiallyduringspringicebreakup.Toalesserdegree,accessroutesand~hetransmissionlineright-of-waymightalsointerferewithwildlifemovements.Noiseandhumanactivitiesassociatedwithprojectconstructionandmaintenancemightdisturbspeciessensitivetohumanpresenceandcausethemtoavoidtheprojectarea,effectivelyrestrictingtheamountofavailab1ehabitat.Conversely,somewi1dlifemightbeattractedtocentersofhumanactivityandbecomenuisances.Indirectimpactsmightaccruethroughincreasedaccessibilityoftheprojectareaandincreasedhumanpresenceevenaftertheconstructionphase.Increasedaccessibilitymightcauseincreased I'IIi.4-38huntingpressuresalongtheSusitnaRiverrelativetotheperipheralareaswherecurrenthigh-waysexist.Increasesinhuntingpressurewouldfurtherexacerbatethe'negativeimpactsoftheprojectuponwildliferesources..Moredetaileddiscussionsofpotentialproject-relatedimpactsfollow.Moose:Approximately2,200moosenowrangethroughtheareaoftheOevilCanyonandWatanaimpoundments.Thesemoosewouldbemostdirectlyimpactedbyconstruction,filling,andopera-tionofthereservoirs,andanother9,000moosemightbeaffectedindirectlyduetointeractionswiththedirectlyaffectedindividuals(Ballardetal.,1983a).Moosedisplacedfromtheinunda-tionareasandotherprojectareascouldcompetemoreintenselyforfoodandcoverhabitatinareasoutsidethedirectlyimpactedzones.Thisincreasedcompetitionamongmoosecouldleadtoinct;recteffectssuchasreducednutritiana1statusorincreasedmorbidityandmortalityofmoosenotdirectlyaffectedbylossofhabitat.Otherspecificimpactsrelatedtohabitatlosswouldinclude:Lossofpotentialwintercarryingcapacityequivalentto540moose,about5%of the basin-widecapacity(preliminaryestimates)(App.K,Sec.K.3).-Lossofabout10%ofthemajorwinteringandspringcalvinghabitatwithin10mi(16km)oftheimpoundmentarea(Figs.4-11and4-12).IncreasesinhuntingpressureandtakewouldlikelyoccurasaresultofincreasedaccesstotheSusitnaRiverbasinaboveGoldCreek.TheApplicantprojectsthatadoublinginbig-gamehuntingwouldresultfromtheproposedSusitnaHydroelectricProject(ExhibitE,Vol.8,Chap.7,TableE-7-13).Themagnitudeofthisimpactcannotbequantified.However,increasedhuntingtakewauldresultinanetincreaseinmortalityand1eadtofurtherreductioninthemoosepopulationsizeunlesshuntingregulationsbecamemorerestrictive.Constructionactivitieswouldlikelyresultinthegenerationofnoiseandvisualstimulithatcoulddisturbindividualmooseintheimmediatevicinityofprojectfeatures.Thesedisturb-anceswouldbeshort-term,occurringduringtheperiodofconstruction(about10yr).Duringoperationoftheproject,humanuseoftheareawouldbeexpectedtoincreasefourfoldcomparedtopreprojectuse(ExhibitE,Vol.8,Chap.7,TableE-7-13).Thisincreasedhumanpresencecouldleadtofurther,longer-termdisturbanceofindividualmooseasaresultofcasualnoiseorvisualstimuliaswellasdirectharassment.Additionally,avoidancebymooseofareasofhumanactivitycouldeffectivelyreducehabitatavailability.Theseeffectswouldfurtherexacerbateimpactsfromhabitatlossandhuntingpressure.Otherlikelyimpactswouldinclude:Delaysofspringplantemergenceduetolatersnowmeltandwarmingadjacenttoreservoirs,reducingtheavailabilityofnutritious,earlyplantgrowthasforagewhenpost-winteringmoosemovetothereservoirareastorecovernutritionalbalanceinearlyspring.Impedimentstomovementthroughandacrosstheimpoundmentzone,particularlyduringspringice-breakup.ImpedimentstoreachingriverineislandsbelowDevilCanyonusedforcalvingduring.latewinter/earlyspringduetopresenceofopenbutfrigidwatersoverwinter.Normallytheseislands"areaccessibleacrossice.However,theopenwatersthatwouldresultfromtheprojectwouldgenerallybeavoidedbecauseof thelikelihoodofcoldstress.-Increasedmortalityduetovehicleuse(about500-600vehiclesperday)ofaccessroadsduringpeakconstructionphases.-Losses(for10to30years)ofhabitattotemporaryprojectfeatures.Rehabilitationmightprovideanincreaseinsuitableforageforaperiodof1to25yearspriortodevelopmentofmatureforests.Clearingofforestedareasfortransmissionlinesandaccessroutesmightenhancemooseforageavailabilitybyafactorof5to20overapproximately6,600acres(2,700hal.However,studiesinInteriorAlaskaindicatethatonlyanaverageof20%ofthisavailableforagewouldbeusedbymoose(WolffandZasada,1979).Indeed,evenwithabundantavailableforage,mooseusagemightbeeffectivelyzero.Duringseverewinters,deepsnowsinaclearedright-of-waycouldmakethisforageunavailableandcouldalsorestrictmoosemovement.Caribou:Caribouarenotabundantinmostareasoftheprincipalprojectfeatures(Pitcher,1982,1983).Mosthabitataffectedbytheprojectwouldbeforested,whereascaribouarecharac-teristicallyfoundinmoreopenhabitats.Asmallnumberofcariboumightbeaffectedbyprojectactivitiessuchashabitatclearingandreservoirfi11ing.Transmission1inerights-of-waymightinhibitmovementofcaribou,butprobablynotonalargescale. 4-39zon<0LakeLouisezo~1~50:o;::W:-------14-9'O:-W--------14-8"O-W--------14-7"To-W--------14-6-l·oW17MilesMOOSEE====IUpstreamWinteringFigure4-11.GeneralRangesforMooseOverwinteringinUpperandMiddleSusitnaBasin,1977-1982.[Source:Ballardeta1.,1983a] ImPl:roM~11~~'~'lIrjIii"II~ljlllllill,4-40LakeLouisezof;i1~5-:0-;;'-W-------14-'9'-W--------1-4"'8r,-W--------1-4-7r'-W--------1-4-16'W17MilesMOOSE~UpstreamCalvingFigure4-12.GeneralRangesforMooseCalvinginUpperandMiddleSusitnaBasin,1977-1982.[Source:Ballardeta1.,1983a] 4-41TheDenali-Watanaaccessroutewouldbisectamigratorypathwayfromsummerrangetowinter/calvingrangeforaportionoftheNenana-Upper$usitnacaribousubherd,whichconstitutesabout2,000individualsand10%ofthebasinwideherd(Fig.4-13).Theaccessroadcould:-Impedemovementbetweensummeringandwinteringrange,thusreducingtheflexibilitytoeffectivelyrespondtovaryingavailabilityofsuitablehabitat.-Increasemortality(roadkills)substantiallyduringthepeakconstructionperiod,when500-600vehiclesperdaymightpassovertheroad.Theimprovedaccessibilityofthecentralbasinwouldlikelytributetheareasofharvestawayfromcurrentaccessroutes.managementandregulatorypolicytowardcaribouharvest.increasehuntingdemandandredis-ThismightnecessitatechangesinEffectsuponmovementsofthemainNelchinacaribouherdinthebasinwouldbelesspredictablethanforthelocalsubherd.Movementsfromthewinteringgroundstocalvinggroundscurrentlytendtoskirttheprojectedimpoundmentzones.However,historicalwinteringgroundoccursnorthoftheSusitnaRiver(Hemming,1971)andfuturemovementsacrosstheimpoundmentscouldberestricted.Thus,theimpoundmentscouldeffectivelyrestrictexpansionintowinterrangesnorthoftheSusitnaRiverbythosecowcariboutraditionallycalvingsouthoftheriver.DispersingmalecariboumightalsobemorerestrictedintheirabilitytorangeintohabitatnorthoftheSusitnaafterwinteringintheLakeLouisearea,southeastoftheproposedimpound-mentzones.Oall'sSheep:ProjectfeatureswouldnotdirectlyimpacthabitatofDall'ssheepexceptalongJayCreek,wheretheWatanaimpoundmentwouldinundatethelowerportionofaminerallick(Ballardetal.,19B2;Tankersley,19B3).Becausethelickisheavilyusedbysheepeventhoughitisoutsideofmoretypicalsheephabitat,thislickislikelyofmajorimporttotheWatanaHi11ssheeppopulation.Althoughimpoundmentwaveactionmightaccelerateexposureofminera1soilmaterials,floodingwouldleadtoextensiveleachingofthelowerportionsofthelick,whicharemostheavilyusedbysheepatthistime.BoatingandfloatplaneuseofthereservoirnearJayCreekcouldfurtherreducethesuitabilityofthislickforsheepuse.Sheepinareasaroundprojectfeaturesmightalsobeaffectedbyconstructionactivities,particularlyoverflightsbyaircraft.ThismightbeaproblemprincipallyalongtheproposedtransmissionlineroutethroughtheruggedterrainsouthofHealy.ClearingactivitiesnearJayCreekmightaffectuseoftheminera1 1ickduringspring.Sheepareespeciallysensitivetohumandisturbance(Geist,19BO),buttheseeffectswouldbetemporaryunlessprolongeddisturb-anceoccurredduringoperation.BrownBear:Althoughbrownbearrangethroughallthehabitattypesoftheproposedprojectarea,theyaretypicallyfoundinopenshrubland;thus,lossofabout39,000acres(16,000halofforestedhabitatprobablywouldnotrepresentacriticallosstobrownbear.However,afteremergingfromoverwinteringdens,brownbeardouselowlandhabitatthatwouldbeinundatedbyfi11ingofthereservoirs.Thishabitatapparentlyprovidesanearlysourceofspringplantgrowth,overwinteredberries,andmoosepreyconcentrationsduetoearlierwarmingandsnowmeltthanoccursintheuplands(MillerandMcAllister,1982;Miller,19B3).Additionally,delayofwarmingandsnowmeltcausedbytheinfluenceofthereservoirsmightfurtherreducethesuit-abi1ityof1owlandhabitatadjacenttotheimpoundments.LossofsuchhabitatwouldnegativelyimpactthebrownbearpopulationwithintheupperandmiddleSusitnaBasinbecausetheearlyspringnewgrowthprovidesahigh-qualityfoodsourceforrecoveringnutritionalbalanceduringthepost-denningperiod.Becausemanybrownbearcrosstheprojectedimpoundmentzonesastheymoveinresponsetofoodavailability,theimpoundmentswouldimpede,tosomedegree,bearmovements.Thiswouldbemostlikelytooccurduringearlyspringicebreakupwhenbearwouldbemovingintothereservoirareasafteremergingfromtheirdens.Movementrestrictionscouldpreventsomebearfrommovingintoareasofhigh-qualityfoodandthusleadtonutritionalstress.Brownbearmightalsobeimpactedbydisturbanceduringconstructionandoperationasaresultofincreasedhumanpresenceinandaccesstotheprojectareas.Thiscouldresultinbearsavoidingareasofhigh-qualityfood.Disturbanceduringwinterdenningcouldresultindenabandonment;thi.swouldbemostlikelytooccuralongtheDenali-Watanaaccessroute.Increasedaccessibilityo~theareawouldalsoalterthepatternsofhumanharvestandincreasehuntingdemand.AlthoughthesloughfisheriesresourcefromTalkeetnatoDevilCanyonmightbeenhancedduringprojectoperation,brownbearfishingsuccessbelowDevilCanyoncouldbeseverelyrestrictedforthethreeyearsafterinitiationoffillingthereservoirs.IncreasedaccessibilitytotheStephanLake/PrairieCreekareamightalsoreducethesuitabilityofthisareaasabearfishery(Miller,19B3).Additionally,reductionofmooseabundancewouldreducetheavailabilityofpreyinthebasinandcouldresultinareductioninbrownbearnumbers. 4-42LakeLouiseo17Mileszo~5!:O;0::W:-------'4-9"":0:-W--------'4-S'"To:-W--------14-7'0::-W--------:'4":"6]0WJIII:"11It~~llIR'II~1~:;I~II"I.I·Ii'l~llillll~Illiilllllr.!CARIBOUrnmmnMovementIi·;Figure4-13.GeneralPathwaysforSeasonalMovementoftheNenana-UpperSusitnaSubherdofCaribou.[Source:Pitcher,1983Ji'lI 4-43BlackBear:BlackbearwouldlikelybeoneofthemostseverelyimpactedspeciesintheupperandmiddleSusitnaBasin.TheavailabilityofsuitablehabitataboveGoldCreekisrestrictedtothelowlandforestadjacenttotheSusitnaRiver,particularlyspruceforesthabitat(Fig.4-14).Inundationofthislowlandareawouldremoveabout10%ofthesuitableblackbearhabitatwithin10mi(16km)oftheSusitnaRiver(Table4-3).Carryingcapacityforblackbearwouldbereducedaccordingly.Lossofthiscarryingcapacitycouldincreasecompetitionforthealreadylimitedhabitatthatwouldremainavailabletoblackbearintheupperandmiddlebasin.Increasedcompetitioncouldresultinindirectimpactssuchasreducednutritionalstatusandincreasedaggressiveencounters.Althoughunquantifiable,theseindirecteffectswouldfurtherexacerbateimpactsfromhabitatloss.About55%oftheknownblackbeardenswouldbeinundatedbyreservoirfilling(Miller,1983).Availabilityofsuitabledenninglocationsappearstobelimited,asevidencedbythehighrateofreuseofdensfrompreviousyears.Lossofsuchalargeproportionofdenlocationwouldhaveamarkedimpactuponoverwinteringsurvivalofthebearintheupperandmiddlebasin.Densprovidethenecessarythermalenvironmentforreducingenergyuseageduringoverwinteringwhenlittlefoodisconsumed.Otherimpactsthatcouldexacerbatetheselossesinclude:Delaysinavailabilityofearlyspringforageadjacenttothereservoirsandconsequentreductionincapabilitytorecovernutritionalbalanceafterwinter.-IncreasedhuntingpressureandtakeduetotheincreasedaccessibilitytothehabitatalongtheSusitnaRiver,resultinginincreasedavoidancebybearoftheareaofactivityandmortality.Increasedhuman/bearinteractions,resultinginoccurrenceofnuisancebearandavoidancebybearofareaswithdisturbinghumanactivity.Reductioninavailabilityofsloughfisheriesforatleastthedurationofreservoirfill-ing(Sec.4.1.4.2).Restrictionofmovementsrequiredforblack beartotakeadvantageofgeographicalvarianceinfoodavailability.-Increasedaggressiveinteractionswithbrownbearifblackbearmovetomoreuplandhabitattocompensateforlossesoflowlandhabitat.Clearingofforesthabitatalongtheaccessroutesandtransmissionlinerights-of-waywouldenhanceforageavailability.However,aswithmoose,itislikelythatblackbearwouldnotorcouldnotmakefulluseofthisincrease.GrayWolf:WolfwouldbeprincipallyimpactedintheupperandmiddleSusitnaBasinduetolossofmorethan10%oftherangeoftwowolfpacks,affectinguptoabout30individuals.About45%ofthewolfobservationsforthesetwopackswerewithinthis10%oftherange(Ballardetal.,1983b).Thus,theimpoundmentswouldprobablyresultindisruptionofthehomerangeofatleastonepackanddispersalofpackmemberstoareaswheretheywouldcomeintocompetitionwithmembersofotherpacks.Theprincipalwolfpackthatwouldbeaffectedappearstobetheleasthuntedpackinthebasin(Ballardetal.,1983b).Thispackprobablyisasourceofnewindividualsrecruitedintosurroundingpacks.Thus,impactswouldbemanifestedinthebasin-widewolfpopulation.Otherimpactsinclude:Reductioninavailabilityofprey,particularlymoose.Althoughavailabilityofpreyisnotcurrentlylimitingwolfpopulationsinthebasin,reducedpreyavailabilitycouldinturnreduceoverallpotentialcarryingcapacityforwolfinthebasin.-Increaseddisturbanceandharvestingpressureduetoincreasedaccessibi1ityandhumanactivityinthebasin.Thiswouldresultinincreasedwolfmortality.Furbearers:Impactstofurbearersmightbeexpectedtoresultin(Gipsonetal.,1982):-Reductionintherateofoverwintersurvivalamong5to10muskratsduetolossofover-winteringhabi~atinborrowareasDandE.-DisturbanceofbeaverandredfoxandhabitatalterationalongtheDenali-Watanaaccessroadduringconstructionduetovegetationremovalandalterationofdrainagepatterns.-Lossofcarryingcapacityfortheequivalentofaboutonewolverineduetoinundation. 4-44:;Izc...,'"lakeLouisezc~1·~5::0;0:W:;-------14-9'0::-W--------1-48"'0:-W--------1-4"7'-0-W--------1-4-1eoW17Milesl~jl:I!liI!jirul'i",,:I,~1,~;i!lill;I'III;lli:~~!'!!liiItII'I~111,Ill~I,~BlackBearFigure4-14.GeneralExtentofSuitableBlackBearHabitatinUpperandMiddleSusitnaBasin.[Source:MillerandMcAllister,1982;Miller,1983J 4-45Lossofhabitatforabout150pinemartenduetoinundation.Lossofforesthabitatforotherfurbearers--includingredfox,mink,riverotter,lynx,andweasels--duetoinundation.-Increasedtrappingpressureandharvestduetoincreasedaccessibilityofthearea.-EnhancementofbeaverandmuskrathabitatdownstreamfromDevilCanyonasaresultofstabilizationofriverflow.RaptorsandRavens:Theprincipalimpactstoraptorsandravenswouldbelossofnestingloca-tionsduetoimpoundmentconstructionandfillinganddisturbanceduringconstructionandmain-tenanceoffacilities.Specificimpactswouldinclude:-Lossof12to.14goldeneagle,4baldeagle,1gyrfalcon,2goshawk,and13ravennestinglocations(ExhibitE,Vol.6B,Chap.3,TableE-3-161).-Disturbanceof4goldeneagle,1goshawk,and6ravennestinglocations(ExhibitE,Vol.6B,Chap.3,TableE-3-16).-Lossofapproximately50%ofhigh-quality,cliffnestinghabitatabovePortageCreek(Kesseleta1.,1982).-Lossofsomeriverineforaginghabitatforbaldeagleandofopenforaginghabitatforotherrapters.-Creationofsomenewopenforaginghabitatforraptorsalongaccessandpowertransmissionrights-of-way.Potentialforelectrocutionoflargeraptorsalongtransmissionlineswouldbeprecludedbystate-of-the-artdesignoffacilities(8enson,1982).Waterbirds:Themajorprojectfeatureswouldbeinareasoflowusebywaterbirdsandthustherewouldbefewimpactstosuchbirds(Kesseletal.,1982).ThetransmissionlinebelowWillowwouldextendthroughareasofhighdensitiesofwaterfowl,andthepotentialforcollisionswithconductorsandstructureswouldbehighestalongthisportionof theroute.However,collisionsofthistypemakeuponlyasmallfractionofreportednon-huntingmortalityofwaterfowl(StoutandCornwell,1976;8anks,1979).Thus,collisionswouldbeunlikelytohavemajorimpactstoregionalpopulations.Nestingofsometrumpeterswansalongthetrans-missionlineroutemightbedisruptedifconstructionandmaintenanceactivitiesoccurredduringspring.Disruptionscouldbeavoidedbyappropriateschedulingofactivitiestoavoiddisturb-ingtrumpeterswansinthespringorsummer.SmallMammalsandBirds:Althoughhabitatforseveralthousandsmallmammalsandbirdswouldbeaffected,onlyasmallfractionof thetotalpopulationsintheregionwouldbeimpacted.4.1.6ThreatenedandEndangeredSpeciesCurrentlynoplanttaxaknowntooccurinAlaskaareofficiallylistedasthreatenedorendangeredbyFederalorstateauthorities.Therefore,noimpactstothreatenedorendangeredplantspecieswouldoccurasaresultofconstructionandoperationoftheproposedSusitnaproject.Amongwildlifespecies,onlytheendangeredAmericanperegrinefalconmightoccurintheprojectarea.NortheastofNenana,theproposedtransmission1ineroutewauldpass1to5mi(2to8km)ofhabitatthatishighlysuitedforperegrinenesting.Thishabitatextendsalongthenorthernsideof theTananaRiverfromNenanatonearFairbanks(Fig.4-15).Theroutewouldnotpassthroughanyperegrinenesting1ocation.NorthofNenana,thetransmission1ineroutewouldpasswithin1mi(1.6km)oftwohistoricalperegrinefalconnestinglocationsandwithin2to5mi(3-8km)ofseveralothers.Althoughtheselocationshavenotbeenusedrecently,peregrineinthepasthaveoccupiedthesesitesduringthesummerseason.Potentially,activitiesalongtheproposedright-of-waycoulddiscourageuseofthisareabyarecoveringpopulationofperegrinefalcon.TheApplicantwouldberequiredtotakemeasurestoavoiddisruptiveactivitiesduringthenestingseasonandtocomplywithconditionsestablishedbytheU.S.FishandWildlifeServiceinordertomaintainsuitableperegrinehabitat.TheStaffconcludesthattheproposedtransmissionline~ouldnotposeathreattorecoveryoftheAmericanperegrinefalcon.4.1.7RecreationResourcesConstructionandoperationoftheproposedprojectwouldentailabroadspectrumofdirectandindirectimpactsonrecreationresourcesandusepatterns.Project-re1atedeffectsonwhite-waterresourcesoftheSusitnaBasinwouldconstituteoneofmoresubstantialofthedirectimpacts,whilerecreationdemandinducedbydevelopmentof theproposedprojectwouldbean 4-46"271MlNORTH1KMooEXISTINGMAJOR'""TRANSMISSIONLINE•••PROPOSEDINTERTIERECOMMENDED..ROUTEBOUNDARY•CORRIDORBOUNDARY1/2CONTOURINTERVAL100FTZONE}WILDLIFEBOUNDARIESSALSALMONPRESENT•••••PEREGRINEFALCONPRIMEHABITATS~NSWANNESTAREA[WITH1MI.RAD.BUFFERZONEJ-tITACTIVENESTSITES1980·81[WITH1MI.RAD.BUFFERGEGOLDENEAGLEBEBALDEAGLEGFGYRFALCONGHGOSHAWKUNUNKNOWN~:=:..:.:=.--=.:.::~,-=---=::..=:::::=:....:.......:=---.--:....:........:..~..::......:...IGBIOLOGICALCONSTRAINTSVEGETATIONBOUNDARIESWSGWETSEDGEGRASSSPFWETSPRUCE/POTENTIALPERMAFROSTAREAFigure4-15.GeneralLocationofPrimePeregrineHabitatwithintheProposedTransmissionLineCorridor.[Source:AcresAmerican,1982:MapM3] 4-47indirecteffect.Othereffectswouldincludethosethatareperceptualinnature.Forexample,someindividualsmightforegorecreationopportunitiesintheprojectareabecauseofperceiveddisruptionofrelativelyundisturbedwildernesssettings.Inrecognitionoftheforegoingandotherpotentialimpacts,theApplicantproposestoimplementarecreationdevelopmentplan.TheplanisdescribedinSection2.1.11,andtheimplicationsofimplementingtheplanarediscussedinthelatterpartofthissection.Developedrecreationresourcesinthevicinityofthedamsitesandimpoundmentareasareessen-tiallylimitedtothreeprivatelodgecomplexesandscatteredcabins.Virtuallyallsuchstruc-turesareusedasbasestationsfordispersedrecreation,primarilyhuntingandfishing,andtoalesserextentforrivertravelandtrail-relatedactivities.Thus,projectdevelopmentwouldprimarilyimpactdispersedrecreationactivitiesinarelativelyundisturbedwildernesssetting.ConstructionactivitiesattheWatanaandDevilCanyondamsiteswouldresultindestructionofhabitatanddisplacementofwildlifetoadjoiningundisturbedareas.Similar,butmoreexten-sive,effectswouldresultfromclearingofvegetationforthe38,000-acre(15,380-ha)Watanareservoirandthe7,800-acre(3,155-ha)DevilCanyonreservoir(ExhibitA,Vol.1,Secs.2and8).Constructionactivitieswouldalsoadverselyaffectfishresources.Constructionofcoffer-damsandriverdiversiontunnelsanddredgingoftheriverwoulddamageandkillfish,reducefishreproduction,anddestroyfishhabitat.AdditionalinformationconcerningeffectsonfishandwildliferesourcesispresentedinSections4.1.4and4.1.5,respectively.Intermsofeffectsonrecreationresources,theforegoingconstructionimpactswouldentailpreemptionofsporthuntingareaandfishingsites,decreasesinhuntingandfishingopportunities,andincreasesinpressureonwildlifeandfishpopulationsinadjacentareas.Muchofthedemandforincreasedrecreationopportunitieswouldbeattributab1etoprojectpersonnellivinginonsitehousingattheWatanaandDevilCanyonsites.Accommodationsatbothsiteswouldincludeawiderangeofdevelopedrecreationfacilitiesthatmightsomewhatalleviatepressuresonlocalrecreationresources.Further,theApplicantproposesthataccessroutestothedamsitesnotbeopentothepublicduringprojectconstruction.Thus,increasedlevelsofsporthunting,fishing,andotherrecreationactivitieswouldprimarilyinvolveoff-dutypersonneloftheworkforce.Nevertheless,markedcompetitioncouldoccurbetweenlocalresidentsandprojectpersonnelforuseoflocalrecreationresources,particularlyduringtheyears1988to1992and1997to2000,thepeakconstructionperiodsforWatanaandDevilCanyon,respectively(ExhibitE,Vol.7,Chap.5,TableE.5.25).Suchcompetitionforrecreationresourceswouldnotlikelybelimitedtotheimmediateprojectarea.Someconstructionpersonnelwouldundoubtedlyelecttocommutefromnearbycommunities.Thus,commutingpersonnelwouldcompetewithcommunityresidentsforlocalrecreationfacilities,opportunities,andservices.Touristactivitiescouldbeaffectedinsomeinstanceswhereprojectpersonnelleaseorrentallavailablehousing(seeSec.4.1.8).ThenearestmajorpublicrecreationsitetotheprojectareaisDenaliStatePark,atclosestdistanceabout10mi(16km)fromtheDevilCanyonprojectboundary.ArailspurwouldbebuiltfromGoldCreektoarailheadneartheDevilCanyonsitetosupportconstructionactivitiesattheDevilCanyonsite.Sincetherailspurwouldnotbeaparticularlyconvenientcommuterroute,itislikelythatmostconstructionpersonnelwouldoptforonsitehousingatDevilCanyon.ItisalsolikelythatprojectpersonnelwouldnotappreciablydisruptrecreationusepatternsatDenaliStateParkorothermajorrecreationresourceareas.However,competitionforuseofsmallrecreationsitessuchastheBrushkanaCampgroundwouldbesevere.TheclosureoftheWatanadamin1991andtheDevilCanyondamin2001(ExhibitC,Vol.1,Figs.C.1andC.2)andthesubsequentfillingofthetwoimpoundmentareaswouldresultinimpactsonrecreationresourcesandactivitiesbothup-anddownstreamofthedams.Theremain-ingwildlifeintheimpoundmentareaswouldbedisplaced,resultinginincreasedpressureonadjacenthabitatsandhuntingopportunities.Tenrecreationcabinswouldbeinundated.ThefillingoftheWatanaimpoundmentwouldinundatetheVeeCanyonrapids,whichisasignificantwhite-waterresource.Inaddition,VeeCanyonisarecognizedscenicresource(Sec.4.1.9).PrimesportfishingareaswhereclearwaterstreamssuchasDeadman,Watana,andothercreeksflowintotheSusitnaRiverwouldalsobeinundated(ExhibitE,Vol.6A,Chap.3,Sec.2.3).DownstreameffectsofWatanareservoirfilling(1991-1993)wouldincludetheinterruptionoffreeflowoftheDevilCanyonrapids,andthenoteworthinessofthiswhite-waterresourcewouldbediminished.CompletefillingoftheDevilCanyonimpoundmentin2002wouldinundatetherapids,andth;'snotable(ClassVIwater)white-waterresourcewouldbeeliminated.Therearefewcomparable~hite-waterrunsintheworld.ImportantfishingareaandspawninghabitatforArcticgraylingandotherspeciesattheconfluencesofTsusenaandFogcreekswiththeSusitnaRiverwouldalsobeinundated(ExhibitE,Vol.6A,Chap.3,Sec.2.2).Controlledreleasesofwater,firstfromtheWatanadamandlatertheDevilCanyondam,wouldaffectrecreationresourcesandactivitiesdownstreamfromtheDevilCanyonsite.Forexample,boatingandotherriverrecreationactivitiesthatarepossibleonlyduringhighriverflowswouldbecurtailedorforegone,particularlyduringperiodsoflowprecipitationandrunoff.Thequality,schedule,andtemperatureofwaterreleasesfromthedamswouldcreateapotentialforchangesinsport 'Ijlll:I,UI"!J~.:1I~~I~'l~I~11,n~,";~~,.lilii""'"111JuI.1ild1r.j]I1~11;'II!;~IJIII4-48fishpopulationsandanglingsuccessratesindownstreamstretchesoftheriverandinterconnec-tedwaterways(seeSec.4.1.4).TheproposedoperatingschemefortheWatanaandDevilCanyonfacilitieswouldresultinsubstan-tialseasonalfluctuationsinwaterlevelswithinthereservoirs;thisconditionwouldlimitthepotentialfordevelopmentofrecreationfacilitiesattheland-waterinterface.FluctuationsintheWatanareservoirwouldrangeupto110ft(34m)(ExhibitE,Vol.5A,Chap.2,Sec.4.2.3),andexposedmudflatsatlowwaterlevelswouldinduceunsightlybanksloughingthatcouldlimitorrestrictaccessalongtheshoreline.DrawdownsintheDevilCanyonreservoirwouldbelesssevere;waterlevelsduringAugustandSeptemberwouldbe50ft(15m)lowerthanfortheremainderoftheyear.TheproposedaccessroadfortheWatanasitewouldentailupgradinga21-mi(34-km)segmentoftheDenaliHighwayextendingeastfromCantwellandtheconstructionofa42-mi(68-km)roadsouthtotheWatanasite.ConstructionactivitiesduringupgradingoftheDenaliHighwaywouldadverselyaffecthighwaytravelers,includingtouringsightseersandrecreationists.Inadditiontobeingsubjectedtodisruptedtrafficpatternsandothershort-terminconveniences,travelerswouldviewthedisruptedterrain,whichwoulddetractfromtheaestheticqualitiesofthehigh-wayroute.Comp1etionoftheupgradingoftheDenaliHighwaywould 1ikelyinduceincreasedtrafficthatcouldresultinoverutilizationofBrushkanaCampgroundandotherrecreationresourceareasalongthehighway.Recreationuseinthevicinityoftheproposed42-mi(68-km)accessroadbetweentheDenaliHighwayandtheWatanadamsitecurrentlyconsistsofdispersedrecreationactivities,primarilyhuntingandfishing.Roadconstructionandsubsequenttrafficwouldresultindisplacementanddisturbanceofgamespecies(Sec.4.1.5),whichinturncouldaffectsporthunt~ng.AssumingthattheDenaliHighway-Watanaaccessroadwou1dbeopenedtothepub1icfo11owingWatanaconstruction(1994),recreationusepatternsintheprojectareawouldbeexpectedtochangesubstantially.Theaccessroadwouldfaci1itateincreasedparticipationinawiderangeofrecreationopportunities.Concurrentwiththeincreasedrecreationbenefits,pressureongameandfishresourceswouldincrease.Participationintrail-relatedactivitieswouldlikewiseincrease,thusriskingoverutilizationofthemoreaccessibleareas,aswellasdegradationofsensitiveremoteareas.TheproposedWatana-to-DevilCanyonaccessroadandtheWatana-to-DevilCanyontransmission1ineswouldbeessentiallyparallelovermostofthe37-mi(6D-km)accessroutebetweentheWatanaandDevilCanyonsites.Therights-of-wayoftheaccessroadandtransmissionlineswouldtraverseremoteterrainwiththeexceptionthatthelineswouldpasswithin2mi(3.2km)oftheHighLakeLodgeandtheaccessroadwouldpassaslightlycloserdistance(ExhibitE,Vol.8,Chap.7,Sec.3.1.4).Thelodgeiscurrentlyaccessiblebyaircraft;thus,theproposedaccessroadcouldbenefitthelodgeownerbyprovidingdevelopedoverlandaccesstothelodge.Ontheotherhand,thepresenceoftheroad,constructionnoise,androadtrafficwoulddetractfromtherelativelyundisturbedlandscapessurroundingthelodge.Thetransmissionlineswouldalsobevisibletolodgeresidents,aswellasrecreationistsintheSusitnaRiverandTsusinaCreekareas.RailwayaccesstotheDevilCanyonsitewouldconsistofa14-mi(23-km)railroadspurofftheAlaskaRailroadatGoldCreek,extendingeasterlyalongthesouthernbankoftheSusitnaRiver.TheDevi1Canyon-to-Go1dCreektransmi55ion1ineswouldgenerallypara11e1therai1roadspur.Clearingfor,andconstructionof,thetwofacilitieswouldresultinreducedsuccessratesofsporthuntingandfishingandwouldcauseadversevisualeffectsforparticipantsintrail-relatedactivities.Operationoftherailroadwouldcontinuetoimpactgameanimalsthroughouttheprojectconstructionperiod,whichinturnwouldadverselyaffectsporthuntingopportuni-ties.TheGoldCreek-to-Fairbankstransmissionlinewouldnotencroachonanydedicatedrecreationareas,butownersofseveralisolatedrecreationcabinswouldbeaffectedbyshort-termconstruc-tionimpacts..Constructionofthelinecouldalsohaveminoreffectsonsporthuntingandfishingopportunities.However,theprincipalandenduringimpactswouldbeofavisualnature.Thelineswouldvariouslyparalleland/orintersectmajortouristroutes(GeorgeParksandDenalihighways,andtheAlaskaRailroad),majorriverrecreationcorridors(Nenana,Tanana,andSusitnarivers),andlocalroadsandtrails.VisualimpactswouldbeincrementalfortheGoldCreek-to-Healysegment,sincetheroutewouldparallelanexistingline.VisualimpactswouldalsobesignificantfortheproposedGoldCreek-to-Anchoragetransmissionlines.Majortouristroutesparalleledand/orintersectedwouldincludetheGeorgeParks,Glenn,andDavishighways,andtheAlaskaRailroad.MajorriverrecreationcorridorswouldincludetheTalkeetna,Kashwitna,andLittleSusitnarivers,andWillowCreek.Thelineswouldparalleland/orintersectnumerousrecreationtrails(includingtheIditarodTrail),particularlyinthevicinityandsouthoftheNancyLakesarea.Numerouslakesiderecreationcabinswouldbewithinviewingdistanceofthelines.Sinceanumberofthesecabinsareaccessedviafloatplane,thelineswouldposeadegreeofhazardforlocalcabinowners.Visualimpactsforthe1 4-49GoldCreek-to-WillowtransmissionlinesegmentandintheAnchorageareawouldbeincrementalsincetheproposedlineswouldparallelexistingfacilities.Lastly,theproposedlineswouldtraversetheSusitnaFlatsStateGameRefugefor5mi(8km),aswellasaproposedexpansionoftheWillowCreekStateRecreationArea.TheApplicanthasproposedtoimplementarecreationdevelopmentplantocompensateforpublicrecreationopportunitiesforegoneasaresultofdevelopingtheproposedSusitnaprojectandtoaccommodaterecreationdemandinducedbytheproject.Therecreationplancons;stsofphaseddevelopmentandentailsmonitoringandperiodicanalysisofrecreationdemandpriortosucces-sivephasesofdevelopment(Sec.2.1.11).Akeyelementof therecreationplanisthemonitor-ingprogram,whichwouldentailcollectionofrecreationuseanddemanddata.Analysisofthedatawouldprovideguidancetoestablishthescopeandpatternoffuturerecreationdevelop-ments.Itispertinenttonotethatimplementationoftherecreationplanwouldinitselfgenerateimpactsonex;5t;ngrecreationresourcesandopportunities.ForexampleIthedevelopmentofagivenhikingtrailcouldresultindiminishedremotenessofanaccessedarea,aconditionthatsomeindividualsmightconsiderasadiminutionintheprimaryrecreationalattractivenessoftheaffectedarea.Further,thedevelopedaccesswouldtendtoinducerecreationdemandforsuccessiveextensionsofaccesstootherremoteareas.Inthisrespect,apublicsurveyreportedbytheUniversityofAlaskaisrelevant(ExhibitE,Vol.8,Chap.7,Sec.5.1.2).SelectedresidentsofAnchorage,Fairbanks,andthegeneralRai1be1tareawererequestedtoindicatepreferenceformanagementofrecreationresourcesintheprojectarea,assumingdevelopmentoftheproposedproject.Thepredominantresponseindicatedpreferenceformanagedwildernesswithlimitedaccess.Thispreferencewasfactoredintothedesignof theApplicant'sproposedrecrea-tionplan(EXhibitE,Vol.8,Chap.7,Sec.5.1.2).Theforegoingillustratestheutilityofthemonitoringaspectoftheproposedplan.GivendevelopmentoftheproposedSusitnaproject,publicattitudesconcerninglocalrecreationopportunitieswouldlikelychangeappreciablyinsubsequenttimes;suchchangesinattitudewouldbedetectedbyanalysisofmonitoringdata.4.1.8SocioeconomicImpactsTheprincipalsocioeconomicimpactsrelatedtotheproposedSusitnaprojectwouldbeof thekindscommonlycalled"boomtownllphenomena--causedbysudden,rapidgrowthinpopulationinaruralarea,followedbyadeclineor"bustllperiod.FortheWatanaDamandDevilCanyondamdevelopmentscombined,theratioofpeakconstructionworkforceto operationworkforcewouldbe21:1,indicatinga1argedifferencebetweenpeakandlong-term,postprojectdemandsforhousingandothercommunityresources.Thesepotentialimpactsarediscussedbelow.Population:AsdescribedinSection3.1.8,baselinepopulationprojectionsfortheprojectareavarygreatly,reflectingtheconditionsprevalentwhentheprojectionsweremade.Itisacomplextasktoallocatetheprojectworkersandsupportworkers,andthehouseholdmembersaccompanyingbothgroups,topopulationcentersintheprojectarea.Researchhasindicatedthatprojectedimpactsoflarge-scaleconstructionprojectsoftenhavebeenunderestimatedbecauseofunexpecteddelaysinconstructionschedulescausedby,forexample,workstoppagesordelaysinreceivingequipmentormaterials(DenverResearchInstituteetal.,1982).However,totalpopulationgrowthhasgenerallybeenoverestimated.TheprojectionsmadeherefortheSusitnaprojectshouldbeconsideredinlightofthesefindings.AmodelwasusedbytheApplicanttopredictthesizeofproject-inducedpopulationforbothWatanaandDevi1CanyonphasesandtoallocatethatinmigratingpopulationtotheregionISpopulationcenters.Ingeneral,theApplicant'spredictionsofproject-relatedpopulationhavebeenusedbytheFERCStaffaspartoftheiranalysis.However,intheFERCanalysis,theseproject-relatedinmigrationfigureshavebeenaddedtothe1983baselinepopulationprojectionsmadebytheInstituteofSocialandEconomicResearch(ISER)attheUniversityofAlaska.AsdiscussedinSection3.1.8,theISERprojectionsareconsiderablylowerthantheApplicant'sbase1ineprojections.ThenetresultofaddingtheApp1icant'sproject-relatedinmigrationvaluestotheISERbaselineprojectionisthatthevaluesfortotalpopulationincreases(project-relatedplusbaseline)usedinthisdocumentarelowerthanthosecitedbytheApplicantinExhibitE(Vol.7).Itshouldbekeptinmindthatproject-relatedpopulationgrowthandassociatedimpactscouldvarywidely,dependingonthetransportationplansdevelopedtopermitworkerstocommutetothesiteanddependingonshiftandleaveplans(Metz,1983).Suchplanshavenotyetbeendeveloped.TheApplicantha\madeseveralassumptionsthatleadtoconservativeprojectionsofproject-inducedgrowth.Itwasassumedthatallsingleworkerswouldliveintheconstructioncampsortemporaryvillagesatthedamsites,thusminimizingpopulationimpactsinsurroundingcommuni-ties.ItalsowasassumedintheApplicant'smodelthatonsitehousingwouldbeusedtocapacity.Themodelallocatesinmigratingworkerswhoareexpectedtoreside(temporarilyorpermanently)offsiteaccordingtotimeoftravelfromdistanceof thecommunitytotheprojectsite.Althoughtransportationtimeisacrucialfactor,itisnottheonlyfactorconsideredinadecisiontoestablisharesidence.Further,itisassumedbytheApplicantthatonly10%ofprojectworkers i:i4-50whowouldbehiredfromtheRailbelt,Fairbanks,orCookInletregions(about350workers)wouldmoveclosertotheprojectarea,e.g"toTalkeetna,TrapperCreek,orCantwell.SincetheApplicantprojectsthatonly7%oftheworkforcewouldcomefromtheMatanuska-Susitna(Mat-Su)Borough,inwhichtheSusitnadamsitesarelocated,thisisprobablyalowestimateofinmigra-tion.Additionally,acharacteristicofpopulationinfluxesrelatedtolarge-scaleAlaskanconstructionprojectsisthatalargenumberofunemployedworkerscometotheprojectarealookingforwork.Thispotentialfactorincreasestheprobabilityofunderestimatingproject-relatedinmigration.TheApplicantdidnotincludeHealy,Nenana,orPaxsonwhenprojectingthedistributionoftheinmigratingpopulation.Therefore,theprojecteddistributionwasadjustedbytheFERCStafftoincludetheseadditionalcommunities,whichareasaccessiblefromtheprojectsiteasaremanyofthecommunitiesintheMat-SuBorough.TheApplicant'soriginalprojectionsandtheStaff'srevisedversionareshowninTable4-4.ProjectionsusedforCantwellarethoseoftheApplicantlshighcase,whichwasmadebasedontheassumptionthattheNativeCorporationAHTNA,Inc"wouldallowresidentialdevelopmentoftheirlandintheCantwellarea.Mat-SuBoroughplannershavemadepopulationprojectionsfortheboroughbothwithandwithoutSusitnaprojecteffects.BoththeApp1icant'sandborough'sprojectionsofproject-inducedpopulationimpactsareshowninTable4-5.Boroughplannersassumedamorestabi1ized,butstillgrowing,baselinepopulation--particularlyintheareanorthofAnchorage--andassumedgreaterproject-inducedgrowthimpactsincommunitiesnearthesitethandidtheApplicant.TheboroughprojectionhasbeenusedbytheStafftoprovideahighboundtotherangeofprojectedimpacts.Intheirprojections,boroughplannersdistributedpopulationtoBoroughPlanningDistricts,whichmayincludeoneormorecommunitiesandalargeamountofrelativelyunpopulatedland.TheApplicantallocatedproject-relatedpopulationstospecificcommunities.Thus,thegeo-graphicalareasusedfordistributionarenotidentical.InTable4-5,the"Other"categoryforMat-SuBoroughcoverstheinterioroftheborough--inwhichtheSusitnaproject,butnopopula-tioncenters,arelocated.Thiscategoryincludesthepopulationprojectedto1iveinprojecthOU5in9atthedams;teoFortheApp1;cantIsproject;ons,the"Other"category;ncludesanypartoftheboroughnotspecificallylistedseparately,andexcludesthepopulationhousedatthedamsites.Comparisonofthetwopopulationprojections(andtheotherimpactsbasedonthem)thusshouldbebasedonrelativeestimatesanddistributionratherthanabsolutenumbers.Preciseorevennarrowly-boundedestimatescannotbemadewithconfidence.Thetwosetsofprojectionsforoverallwith-projectgrowthareshowninTable4-6.TheyprovideawiderangeofgrowthprojectionsforMat-SuBorough.Thelowerset[Applicant(revised)]isthatmadebycombiningISERbaselineprojectionswiththeApplicant'sproject-induced(directandsupportworkersandtheiraccompanyinghouseholdmembers)populationprojectionsredistri-buteds1ightlytoincludeHealy,Nenana,andPaxson.ThissetalsoincludesprojectionsforAnchorage,Fairbanks,andCantwell.TheprojectionsmadebytheMat-SuBoroughplannersarethehigherset.Theseshowhighertotalboroughpopulationgrowthduetotheproject,butitisconcentratedincommunitiesclosetotheproject.Mat-SuBoroughprojectionsareusedasthebasisforanyboroughpreparationsinprogressoranticipated.Bothsetsofprojectionsindicatesubstantialpopulationgrowthby1990inTalkeetna(45%),TrapperCreek(20%),andCantwell(900%).Thepopulationoftheareasincludedinthe"Other"category,primarilythecentral,sparselypopulatedareaofMat-SuBorough,wouldincreasebybetween25%(Applicant)and2000%(borough)(Table4-7).Theseverityof(Jboom-bust"impactsthatwouldoccurintheprojectareaaftercompletionofconstructionwoulddependonthestabilityofthepopulation,i.e.,thepercentageofthepeakproject-inducedpopulationthatremainsinthearea.Manyassumptionsmustbemadeabouthowmuchofthepopulationinmigratingduringthe"boom"periodwouldremainafterconstructionandtowhatextentexistingcommunityservicesandfacilitiescouldbeexpandedorstretchedtohandlethepeak,yetnotbeleftwithunusedcapacityduringthebustperiodthatfollowed.Mat-SuBoroughplannersprojectfarmorevolatilityinthepopulationthandoestheApplicant.Thus,boroughplannershaveexpectationsthattheboroughwouldexperiencethesetlboom-bustlJplanningproblems.TheDevi1Canyonconstructionperiadwauldcreateasecond,moremoderateboom-and-bustcycle.SmallercommunitieslikeTalkeetna,TrapperCreek,andCantwellwouldexperiencethegreatestincreasesagain.Additionally,aninfluxofjob-seekersbeyondthenumberthatcouldbehiredmightrecur.Impactsontheareawouldbesimilarto,butnotassevereas,thosethatwouldhaveoccurredearlierduringconstructionoftheWatanaDam.Thedecreasedseveritywouldbebecauseadjustmentstorapidgrowthwouldhavebeenmadepreviously.Few,ifany,additionalpopulationimpactswouldoccurfromoperationofprojectfacilities.ThisisbecausethesmallworkforceswouldresideprincipallyatthepermanentvillageattheWatanadamsite. 4-51Table4-4.CumulativeDistribution(Applicant'sandStaff'srevised)ofProjectedProjectPopulationtoImpact-AreaCommunitiesforAlternateYears,1990(peakyear),and2002(endofconstruction)t'Community!PlanningDistrict198519871989 19901991199319951997199920012002TalkeetnaApplicant25174267335 323250222 240257230 209Revised25174267335 323250 222 240257230 209TrapperCreekApplicant32241378475451288227278314256212Revised32241378475 451288227278314256212HoustonApplicant4233544423735 36 3735 33Revised31523 292825232423 2322WasillaApplicant5314759 574844 4648 44 42Revised32131 3938322931322928PalmerApplicant52639494839 35 373936 33Revised3172633 32262325262422OtherApplicant40226341427 415351327338352328308Revised40226341427415351327338352328308Mat-SuBoroughTotalApplicantno7211,1071,3891,3371,0138919751,047930837Revisedt41056949661,338 1,2889728529361,006891 801CantwellApplicant430638843999984920785 785 796767 744Revised430638843999984920785 785796 767 744HealyApplicantNANANANANA NANA NANANA NARevised2n1620 201616 16161614NenanaApplicantNANANA NANA NANANANA NA NARevised2n1620 2016 16 16161614PaxsonApplicantNANANANANANANANA NANANARevised159n997 7 9 78AnchorageCensusDivisionApplicant435325537663556-219-523-219-36-333-532Revised435325537663556-219-523-219-36-333-532FairbanksCensusDivisionApplicant82-89-136-173-171-280-323-295 -271-309 -341Revised82-89-136-173-171 -280-323-295-271 -309 -341t'"Applicant"valuesarefromExhibitE,Vol.7,Chap.5,TableE.5.35."Revised"valueshavebeenadjustedbytheFERCStafftoincludeHealy,Nenana,andPaxsoninthedistribution.Toaccomplishthis,one-thirdofthepopulationallocatedtoeachofHouston,Wasilla,andPalmerweresUbtracte~andthenreallocated:40%eachtoHealyandNenana,20%toPaxson.NA=Notavailable. -~~---f-l---~__'_'I __~'.-----_._--~---=~== Table 4-5.Cumulative Distribution of Annual Project-Induced Population to Mat-Su Borough Communities as Projected by Applicant (unrevised)and Mat-Su Borough Planning Department Community/ Planning Districtt 1 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Talkeetna Appl icant 25 33 174 237 267 335 323 294 250 233 222 229 240 253 257 251 230 209 Borough NA NA NA 882t'854 826 796 551 302 265 295 385 405 244 90 60 65 NA Trapper Creek Applicant 32 43 241 337 378 475 451 387 288 250 227 247 278 306 314 302 256 212 Borough NA NA NA 588t'570 550 530 368 202 177 196 256 270 162 60 40 42 NA Houston Applicant 4 5 23 31 35 44 42 40 37 36 35 35 36 37 37 36 35 33 Borough NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Wasilla Applicant 5 7 31 42 47 59 57 54 48 46 44 45 46 48 48 47 44 42 Borough NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Palmer Applicant 5 6 26 35 39 49 48 44 39 37 35 36 37 39 39 39 36 33 "'"Borough NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA , <n Other N Applicantt3 40 52 226 303 341 427 415 390 351 336 327 331 338 349 352 346 328 308 Borough 393 1,542 4,296 5,013 5,059 5,107 5,157 3,519 2,600 2,649 2,652 2,920 2,884 1,840 1,107 1,025 1,066 NA Mat-Su Borough Total Applicantt 3 110 146 721 985 1,107 1,389 1,337 1,210 1,013 937 891 924 975 1,032 1,047 1,021 930 837 Borought 4 393 1,542 4,296 6,483 6,483 6,483 6,483 4,438 3,104 3,091 3,143 3,561 3,559 2,246 1,257 1,125 1,173 NA t 1 The Applicant allocated projected population specifically to the communities listed.The borough planning department allocated projected population to planning districts that include the community and some surrounding land.The units are similar,although not identical,geographical areas. t'It is not clear from the source if all these persons would move in only during 1988 or over several of the previous years. t 3 Excludes workers.household members.and staff housed in onsite housing.If these workers were added,peak years of 1990 and 1999 would increase in the 1I0ther ll category to 3.727 and 2.552.respectively,and to 4.689 and 2.847 in the Total Borough.respectively. t 4 It is not explicitly stated that projections for this planning district include persons housed in onsite facilities.but the large numbers during peak Watana employment years imply that these persons are included. NA =Not available.Borough projections not made for these areas/years. Sources:Applicant1s projections are from Application Exhibit E.Vol.7,Chap.5,Table E.5.35;Mat-Su Borough projections are from DOWL Engineers (1983). pp.IV-21 -IV-22. ,4-53Table4-6.CumulativeProjectionsofTotalPopulationIncludingSusitnaProject-InducedPopulation,asMadebyApplicant(revised)t"andMat-SuBorought2forAlternateYears,1990(peakyear),and2002(endofconstruction)Community!PlanningDistrictTalkeetnaAppl.Rev.BoroughTrapperCreekAppl.Rev.Borol'gllWillowAppl.Rev.t3BoroughHoustonAppl.Rev.Borought4WasillaAppl.Rev.BoroughPalmerAppl.Rev.BoroughOtherAppl.Rev.BoroughMat-SuBoroughTotalAppl.Rev.BoroughCantwellAppl.Rev.BoroughHealyAppl.Rev.BoroughNenanaAppl.Rev.BoroughPaxsonAppl.Rev.BoroughAnchorageCensusDivisionAppl.Rev.BoroughFairbanksCensusDivisionAppl.Rev.Borough19856481,209247172NA1,0735833,8742,08513,7092,4726,72216,555(15,538)t554222,588(21,571)32,927527NA427NA531NANANA198,264NA63,643NA19878331,463468208NA1,2986284,6872,22516,9422,6307,77918,600(16,629)4,47625,384(23,413)44,103739NA454NA572NANANA208,271NA66,659NA19899552,577615815NA1,5286645,5182,33420,3632,7568,74220,465(17,483)5,27127,690(24,708)53,558'48NA477NA611NANANA215,139NA68,836NA19901,0352,687716815NA1,6506815,9592,38122,2172,8099,21621,824(17,857)5,33629,447(25,480)57,2541,106NA490NA633NANANA218,786NA69,887NA19911,0462,806700816NA1,7827016,4362,45624,2372,8989,71021,883(18,411)5,40429,685(26,213)61,2051,093NA499NA651NANANA224,114NA71,510NA19939752,582538526NA2,0217007,3002,45728,0412,90110,46120,126(18,402)2,88027,698(25,974)64,6171,033NA515NA685NANANA230,079NA72,841NA19959482,833477556NA2,2496958,1252,45731,8242,90111,02919,454(18,399)2,96426,937(25,882)71,511902NA535NA726NANANA233,860NA73,720NA19979673,151528659NA2,4337008,7882,46235,0852,90711,26520,195(18,430)3,22127,759(25,994)77,494906NA556NA769NANANA238,793NA74,559NA19991,0923,060567481NA2,6317099,5062,49138,6672,94111,46720,838(18,655)1,47128,540(26,357)80,782921NA578NA815NANANA243,142NA75,734NA2001'773,149514478NA2,7367199,8862,52940,9602,98811,55120,122(18,937)1,40427,850(26,665)84,175'98NA600NA864NANANA249,203NA77,281NA2002'133,278472498NA2,84572410,2812,55142,6003,01311,62619,475(19,089)1,46027,199(26,813)87,205878NA610NA887NANANA252,380NA78,165NAt1ProjectionsweremadeusingISERbaselineprojectionsasshowninTable3-4andRevisedApplicant'sproject-relatedpopulationprojectionfromTable4-4.t2OOWLEngineers(1983),pp.IV-18-IV-19,exceptforMat-SuBoroughtotals.Totalsareupdated,higherprojectionsmadeinlightofmorerecentcensusdata.However,thesenewfigureswerenotdistributedtoPlanningDistricts.Thus,totalpopulationinanyyearexceedsthesumofthePlanningDistrictsabove.t3Applicantdidnotmakeprojectionsspecifical1yforWil1ow,butinsteadincludedtheWillowareainthe"Other"category.t4Borough'sprojectionforHoustonPlanningDistrictincludes8igLake.tSNumberoutsideparenthesesincludesresidentsofonsilevillagesandconstructioncamps;numberinsideparenthesesexcludesthoseresidents.NA=NotAvailable. 4-54t'Thebasesforselectionoftheyearsincludedinthetableare:1985isthebeginningofWatanaconstruction;1990isthepeakemploymentyearforWatanaconstruction;1995istheyearWatanaisoperationalandthelowestemploymentyear;1999isthepeakemploymentyearforDevilCanyon;2001/2002isthelastyearofDevilCanyonconstructionortheyearinwhichprojectionsweremade(seeExhibitE,Vol.7,Chap.5,TableE.5.28).Noprojectionswere·,debytheApplicantafter2002;noneweremadebytheboroughafter2001.t2Numberoutsideparenthesesincludesresidentsofonsitevillagesandconstruc-tioncamps;numberinsideparenthesesexcludesthoseresidents.NA=NotAvailable.Sources:CalculatedfromTables3-4,4-4,and4-5.<1NA<13o1o1o5(3)1222828294(2)2715552001/2002<1<124o1o1o335313(4)2NA14(2)30412414637199923<1<11o3o8(3)4NA1o3111915467119958(2)8502o<144o<13484422(6)11NA19720893419901o25(2)2,230<1<1<1o4o<1o<1o<1<115o5«1)1NA7«1)2634431985Table4-7.PercentageoverBaselineISERProjectionsofPopulationGrowthProjectedwithSusitnaProjectt'Community/PlanningDistrictBoroughCantwe11Appl.Rev.HealyApp1.Rev.NenanaApp1.Rev.PaxsonApp1.Rev.AnchorageCensusDivisionApp1.Rev.FairbanksCensusDivisionApp1.Rev.TalkeetnaAppl.Rev.BoroughTrapperCreekAppl.Rev.BoroughHoustonAppl.Rev.BoroughWasi11aApp1.Rev.BoroughPalmerAppl.Rev.BoroughOthert2Appl.Rev.BoroughMat-SuBoroughTotalt2App1.Rev.I,. 4-55TherailextensionproposedforconstructionfromGoldCreektotheDevilCanyoncampfortrans-portofmaterialsandsuppliesmightinducepopulationinmigrationtoGoldCreek.Additionally,becauseofitslocationattheheadof theproposedrailspurandattheheadofanaccessroad,GoldCreek(andthesurroundingarea)mightbeselectedforpermanentorlong-termtemporaryresidencebyinmigratingDevilCanyondamconstructionworkersiftheywereallowedtocommutetothesitebyrail.Evenasmallinfluxofpopulationwouldmeanasubstantialincreaseinthisverysparselypopulatedarea.Negligiblesocioeconomicimpactswouldoccuratanyofthealternativeborrowsites,astheyarefarfrompopulationcentersandresidences.InstitutionalIssuesandQualityofLifeImpacts:Facedwithincreasingdemandstoprovideplanningandservicesforproject-inducedpopulationinfluxes,Mat-SuBoroughwouldhavetoexpanditsadministrativeoperationsbeforepropertytaxrevenuewasavailabletopayfortheexpansions.BasedonaratioofaboutsixboroughstaffemployeesinthePalmerofficeper1,000boroughresidents,theofficestaffwouldhavetonearlydoublebytheendof theproject.AdditionaladministrativedutieswouldbetakenonbytheMat-SuBoroughSchoolDistricttoadministertheonsiteschool.Becauseofgreatlyincreasedpopulation,desireforgreaterlocalcontrol,andpotentialneedforlargertaxrevenues,Talkeetna,TrapperCreek,andCantwellmightfinditpracticaltoincorporate.Manyresidentsof theprojectareafearthatproject-inducedgrowthwouldinterferewiththeirruralwayoflife.EvenslightincreasesinpopulationwouldgreatlyaffectthenatureofsmallcommunitiessuchasTalkeetna,TrapperCreek,Cantwell,andGoldCreekforthosewhonowlivethere.Thequalityoflifeforthesepeoplewhovaluetheirisolationandthewildernesswouldchange--bereduced,intheeyesofmost(AcresAmerican,undated;BraundandLonner,1982).Thesefearsaresupportedbyexperienceinotherrapid-growthareas.Greaterformalizationofactivitiesandlargernumbersofresidentshavechangedthenatureofsmall-townculturesreliantonpersonaltrust,communitysocia1controlmechanisms,andface-to-facecontact.Crime,alcoholism,andothersocialproblemsincrease.Shortagesofhousingandservicesraiseprices(CorteseandJones,1977;Finsterbusch,1980;Freudenburg,1981;PayneandWelch,1982).Ontheotherhand,manylong-termresidentswhohavealreadyseenmanychangesintheareaandmanyNativeAlaskansarenot50opposedtotheproject,becauseof theeconomicandemploymentoppor-tunitiesthattheybelievewouldresult(BraundandLonner,1982).IncreasedgrowthanddevelopmentcouldinterferewithsubsistenceactivitiesparticularlyinNativeAlaskancommunities.SubsistenceactivitiesareprotectedbylawforIlrura1Alaskaresidents"(AlaskaBoardofGame,undated;seealsoApp.N,Sec.N.l.l.3).Projectactivity,populationgrowth,andimprovedaccesstohunting,fishing,andtrappingareascouldincreasecompetitionforsubsistenceharvestsanddrivefishandanimalstonewareas.Althoughsubsis-tenceactivitiesareprotectedbylaw,theavailabilityofresourcesintraditionallyusedareasisnot.SubsistenceactivitiesareusuallycarriedonbyNatives.Becauseoflackoftrainingandbecausetheyarenotmembersofconstructionworkersunions,Nativesarenotexpectedtobehiredfortheprojectingreatnumbers.Thus,theywillremaindependentonsubsistenceactivitiestosupplementtheirfoodandotherresourcesupplies.Inadditiontofillingresourceneeds,subsistenceactivitiesareapartofaculturalheritageforNativeAlaskansandforotherswhoselecttoliveatleastpartially"offtheland"inremoteareasofAlaska.Disrup-tionofthoseactivitiescouldreducethepreservationofthatculture(JustusandSimonetta,1983).EconomyandEmployment:LabordemandforWatanaconstructionactivitieswouldstartin1985at1,100workers,buildtoapeakof3,498workers,andthendroptoalowof649workersin1995(Table2-1).Theprojectwouldprovidemanyjobopportunities,althoughthesewouldbeseasonalandshort-term,asdifferentskillneedsinconstructionpassquickly.BecausehiringwouldbethroughunionhallsinAnchorageandFairbanks,projectarearesidentswhoarenotunionmembersorskilledworkerswouldnotbelikelytoobtainprojectwork.Thus,directprojectworkoppor-tunitiesmayhelptoreducethealreadyfairlylowunemploymentratesinAnchorageandFairbanks,butmaydolittletoreducethemuchlargerunemploymentinMat-SuBorough.Opportunitiesinsupportjobsgeneratedbytheincreaseddemandforserviceswouldmore1ike1ybeavailab1etopeopleresidinginthelocalarea,particularlywomen.However,currentMat-Suresidentswouldhavetocompetewithhouseholdmembersofinmigratingworkersforthesepositions.Counter-balancingtHeexpansionofjobopportunitieswouldbethefactthatlarge-scaleconstructionprojectsinAlaska(particularlytheTrans-AlaskaPipeline)havehistoricallyattractedalargergroupofjob-see\ersthancouldbehired.Theproject-relatedconstructionactivitiesandimprovedaccesstotheprojectareacouldprovideanopportunityforsubsidiariesofAHTNA,Inc.,toexpandtheirexperienceandbusinesses.Expansioncouldtaketheformofcatering,housekeeping,andmaintenanceforconstructionfacili-ties;developingmoreNative-ownedandoperatedtourist-relatedbusinesses;andcreatingademandfordevelopmentofNativelandsheldbyseveralvillagecorporations.Othertourist-relatedbusinesseswouldalsoprosper.However,somecurrentresidentsfeelincreasedaccesswoulddetractfromthetourist,recreational,andresidencevalueoftheareaasaremote,relativelyundevelopedwilderness. I'I""I~I~II~I'III~~;iI""Ii'II'"Irl,;r~!~~ili:i'~j~II~I~:~'1I'4-56Localcommercialoperationsandnewbusinesseswouldbenefitfromincreasedsalestothelargerpopulationandfromsubcontractingfortheproject.Increasedaccessibilitytoremotewilder-nessareasfortouristsandforrecreationalandcommercialhunters,trappers,andfishermenwouldincreasevisitors'expenditures.However,someguidingbusinesseswouldalsobedisplacedbytheconstructionandoperationofWatanaandDevilCanyonfacilities.Shortagesofhousing,services.andsupplieswouldincreaseprices.AftertheWatanaconstructionpeakin1990,demandforgoodsandserviceswoulddropasconstruc-tioneffortswerecompletedandworkersleftthearea.TheDevilCanyonconstructionworkforcepeakin1999wouldbeonlyabouthalfthesizeoftheWatanaworkforce(Table2-1).Localbusinessesmightbeleftwithlargeinventoriesandtoomanyworkers.Somemighthavetoclose,unabletocontinueatthereducedlevelofdemand,atleastuntilDevilCanyonconstructionbroughtinmoreinmigrants.Additionally,rapidgrowthperiods,suchaswouldoccurincommuni-tiesnearthesite,areoftenaccompaniedbyinflationanddifficultyingettingfinancingandsupplies(GilmoreandStenejhem,1980;Scrimgeour,undated),creatingdifficultiesforbuyersandsellersalike.Residentswithlowerorfixedincomeswouldhavetheirbuyingcapabilitiesreduced(Clemente,1973,1975;CorteseandJones,1977).However,businessesandworkersalikecouldperhapsprofitfromuseoftheperiodbetweenconstructionpeakstoadjustandstabilizeoperationsandtoplanforthebustperiodaftertheyear2000.UnemploymentwouldalsoincreaseinthelullperiodbetweenWatanaandDevilCanyonconstructionpeaks.DevilCanyonconstructionwouldemployonlyslightlymorethanhalfthenumberofworkersofthepeakemploymentyearontheWatanaphase.Thus,evenifthesameskillsandworkerscouldbeusedonboth,overhalfwouldnotbeneededafter1995.Unlessplansfornewlarge-scaleconstructionprojectsinMat-SuBoroughdevelopinthenextdecade,workersremainingintheareamightcauseincreasedunemployment,placingmorefinancialandadministrativeburdensonthesocialservicesystemsoflocalandstategovernments.FinancingalargeproportionoftheSusitnaprojectwouldaddtothestate'sproblemsofdecreasingrevenues,diminishingtheproportionofitsfundsthestatecouldprovideforlocalgovernments,privateindustrialdevelopment,housingmortgages,andincomeforitscitizens.MaintenanceactivitiesforDenaliHighwayandtheaccessroadwouldalsoaddtostateexpenses.Additionalimpactstotheeconomyandemploymentfromoperationofallprojectfacilitieswouldbeminimaloncethearearecoveredfromthedeclineinpopulationbetween1990and1995.Housing:OnthebasisofthepopulationprojectionsshowninTable4-6,theStaffhasestimatedthenumberofhouseholdsthatwouldbeexpectedintheareaofpopulationimpact.Theseestimates,showninTable4-8,provideanindicationoftheincreaseddemandsthatwouldariseforhousing.DemandforhousinginTalkeetna,TrapperCreek,unincorporatedareasofMat-SuBorough,andCantwellwouldrisedramaticallybetween1980and1995asaresultofproject-relatedinmigration:50%,200%,and900%,respectively(Table4-7).Unincorporatedandsparselysettledareasinthe1l0therllcategorieswouldalsohavelargehousingneeds.Vacantandseasonalhousingwouldquicklybefilledbecausethegreatlyincreasedhousingneedwouldbeginsuddenlyandriserapidlyoveraboutfiveyears.Becausevacancyratesarealreadylowinthearea,asubstantialnumberofmoreshort-termlodgingunits,trailerfacilities,andmulti-familyunits)aswellaspermanentresidences,wouldbeneededinthecommunitiesandunincorporatedareasnearthesite,especiallyifthehigherboroughpopulationprojectionsprovedcorrect.Approximately50%ofthehousingdemandcouldbefortemporaryunitsandwouldbehighestinsummer,whenworkerswouldbecompetingwithtouristsforthelimitedfacilities.Considerableplanning,development,financing,andconstructionofhousingwouldhavetooccurbeforeandduringtheearlyyearsofWatanaconstructiontoavoidahousingshortage,evenunderthemoreconservativerevisedApp1icantISgrowthprojections.Overcrowdingandsanitationproblems,rentgouging,displacementofcurrentresidents,andhastyconstructionofsubstandardhousing,asoccurredduringconstructionoftheTrans-AlaskaPipelineandinotherboomsitua-tions,wouldalsobelikelytooccurintheSusitnaprojectarea.DemandforhousingwoulddecreaseaftertheWatanaconstructionpeak,increaseagainuntiltheDevilCanyonconstructionpeakin1999,andthendecline.SomehousingandcommunityservicesconstructedduringtheWatanaperiod,ifretained,wouldservefortheDevilCanyonconstructionperiod.However,initialoverbuildingwouldbedifficulttocontrol,especiallyinlightofthemanyuncertaintiesabouthousingandlocationpreferencesofworkers.Most,ifnotall,thesmalloperationsworkforceforWatanaandDevilCanyonfacilitieswouldliveinthepermanentvillageconstructedonsite,causingfewadditionalimpactsatsurroundingcommunities.. 4-57Table4-8.CumulativeProjectedNumberofHouseholdsinImpactAreaCommunitiesforAlternateYears,1990(peakyearl,and2002(endofconstructionlt'Community/PlanningDistrict19BOt21985 1987198919901991199319951997199920012002Talkeetna209App1.Rev.212272312338 342319310 316357319298Borough3954788428789178449261,0301,0001,0291,071TrapperCreek74Appl.Rev.81153201234229176156173185168154Borough5668226266266172182215157156 163Houston197Appl.Rev.191205217223 229229229229 232235237Borough1,2661,5321,8031,9472,1032,3862,6552,8743,1073,2313,360Wasilla708Appl.Rev.681727763778803803803805 814826834Borough4,4805,5376,6557,2607,9219,16410,400 11,466 12,63613,38613,922Palmer839Appl.Rev.808 859901918947948948950 961976985Borough2,1972,5422,8573,0123,173 3,4193,6043,6813,7473,7753,799Othert35,436Appl.Rev.5,4106,0786,6887,1327,1516,5776,3586,6006,8106,5766,364(5,078)(5,434)(5,713)(5,836) (6,017)(6,014) (6,013) (6,023) (6,096) (6,189)(6,238)80rough5281,8972,2222,2832,3481,6021,7041,848 1,3511,3531,407Mat-Su80roughTotalt37,283Appl.Rev.7,3828,2959,0499,623 9,7019,0528.8039.0729,3279,1018,889(7,049)(7,651) (8,075)(8,327)(8,566) (8,488)(8,458)(8,495) (8,613) (8,714)(8,762)Borough10,76014,41317,50318,71020,00221,11723,38925,32526,39927,50828,498Cantwell20Appl.Rev.166232298348344 325284285 290282276Healy105Appl.Rev.134143150154157 162168175182 189 192Nenana148Appl.Rev.16718019219920521S228242256272279PaxsonNAAppl.Rev.NANANANANANANANANANANAAnchorageCensusDivision61,791Appl.Rev.70,80974,383 76,835 78,13880,04182,17183,52185,28386,83689,00190,136FairbanksCensusDivision20,763Appl.Rev.24,47825,63824,584 24,96027,504.26,01528,35426,628 29,12827,600 27,916t'BasedonthehouseholdsizesusedinTable3-7(seefootnote2)andTable4-6.t'FromTable3-7.Valuesareforcommunitiesonly,notforplanningdistricts,sotheyaremorecomparabletotheRevisedApplicant'sprojections.WillowandBigLakeareincludedin"Other"category.t'Seefootnotes2and3inTable4-6. ,I!I4-58Iftheproposedtransmissionlineroutewentthroughexistingresidentialareasorareasplannedfordevelopment,controversiesoverreductionsinpropertyvaluesneartheright-ot-waywouldbeexpected.Temporarylossesinpropertyvaluesandpermanentchangesindevelopmentduetositingoftransmissionlinerights-of-wayhavebeendocumentedinsomecases.CommunityServicesandFiscalStatus:Thelargenumbersofinmigrantswouldchangethewaysomecommunityservicesareprovidedandseverelystresscurrentcapacities.Additionalserviceneedsforproject-inducedpopulationalonehavebeenestimatedbytheStaffandareshowninTable4-9.TheyearswhenexistingcapacitieswouldbeequalledorexceededbytotalpopulationgrowthareshowninTable4-10.Insituationsofrapidgrowth,greatercentralizationandformalizationofcommunityservicesusuallyoccurs.Theseeffectsoccurbecauseofgreaterneedsforcoordinatedplanning,higherandmoreconsistentquality,greaterefficiencyinresourceuse,andmorecost-effectiveconstruc-tionorprovisionofservices.UnderMat-SuBoroughbaselinepopulationprojections(Table3-5),manyservicesarealreadyatornearcapacity(Table3-10).Individualprovisionofservices(e.g.,individualwellsandseptictanks)maynolongersuffice.Additionally,demandforserviceswoulddeclineafterthetwopeaksinconstructionworkforcein1990and1999.ServicessuppliedfortheWatanaperiodcould,ifretained,beusedfortheDevilCanyonpeakpopulation.However,carefulplanning,particularlyforTalkeetna,TrapperCreek,andCantwell,wouldbeneededtosupplypeakdemand,yetnotoverbuildandbeleftwithmaintenancecostsforunusedcapacities.Becauseproject-inducedpopulationincreasesprojectedforFairbanksandAnchorageareslight,serviceandfiscalimpactsareexpectedtobenegligible.TheApplicanthasalreadyprojectedaproject-inducedpopulationorinmigrationtoAnchorageofabout650people(Table4-4).Ifatransportationplanprovidedforcommutingbetweentheprojectsitesandthosecities,itisassumedthatFairbankswouldreceiveabout10%oftheworkersandtheirhouseholds(200peopleforFairbanksunderApplicant'sprojectionsand650peopletoeachcityunderMat-SuBoroughprojections)(seeApp.N,Sec.N.2.1.1.7).CommunitieslikeTalkeetna,TrapperCreek,andCantwellwouldlikelybefacedwithexpectationsofanddemandsforcentralizedwatersuppliesandsewagetreatment.Becausethesecommunitiesarecurrentlyunincorporated,Mat-SuBoroughwouldberesponsiblefortheseservicesforTalkeetnaandTrapperCreekandthestateforCantwell.ThelargercommunitiesofPalmerandWasillaarenowfacingshortagesinwaterandsewerservice,respectively,accordingtoboroughgrowthprojections.Anchorage'swaterandsewersystemneedswouldbeonlyslightlyacceleratedbytheprojectedpopulationincreaseof200to650.Fairbanksisalreadyinneedofexpandedwaterfacilities,althoughsewerfacilitiesareexpectedtosufficeuntilafter2000.Using10%ofboroughproject-inducedprojectionsforthehigherWatanapeak(650persons)thecitywouldneedexpandedsewerfacilitiesayearortwoearlierandwouldhavetoexpandcapacitiesforitsnewwatersystems.Littleaccommodationwouldhavetobemadeassumingtheincreasewouldbe200persons,asindi-catedintheApplicant'sprojections(asrevised).SolidwastedisposalistheresponsibilityoftheboroughinMat-SuBorough.Accordingtoboroughprojections,existinglandfillswouldsufficeonlyuntil1985.PlansareunderwaytodevelopnewcentralizedlandfillsnearPalmerandHoustonthatwouldhavesufficientcapacitytolast100years.TheremainingproblemoftransportingthewastesfromTalkeetnaandTrapperCreekwouldbefurtherexacerbatedbytheSusitnaproject.Basedontheborough'sgrowthprojections,therewouldbeimpactstotheschoolsysteminMat-SuBorough.BecauseoftheSusitnaproject,schoolsservingpeoplelivingoutsideestablishedcommunitieswouldrequire18additionalclassesforelementarystudentsand18forsecondarystudents--atotalof36additionalclasses(equivalenttoabouttwonewschools).UnderBoroughprojections,Talkeetna,TrapperCreek,Houston,andWasillaschoolswouldneedtobeexpandedverysoonornewschoolsadded.UnderApp1icantISprojections(asrevised),Susitna-re1atedpopulationincreaseswouldaddonlyabout10to12childreneachtotheschoolpopulationsinthetownsofPalmer,Houston,andWasilla.BecausetheschoolforchildrenoffamilieslivingattheconstructionsiteswouldbeinMat-SuBorough,theboroughSchoolOistrictwouldprefertohaveresponsibilityforitsoperation,addingtootherproject-inducedserviceimpacts.UndertheApplicant'spopulationprojections(asrevised),if10%ofthepeakWatanaandOevilCanyonworkforceslivingoffsitecommutedtoFairbanksandAnchoragetolive,about150and45children,respectively--ortheequivalentofapproximatelytwoextraclassesandteachers--wouldbeaddedtotheelementaryandsecondaryschoolpopulationsofthosecitiesby1990.Underboroughprojections,about150children,orfiveclasses,wouldbeaddedtoeachofthecityschoolsystems.Policeforceswouldhavetobeexpandedtomaintainadequateofficer-to-populationratiosandpossibleincreasesincrimeandtodealwiththeappearanceofnewkindsofcrimesthatoften Table 4-9.Additional Community Services Requirements over Baseline for Project-Induced Population in 1990 (peak Watana construction work force)t ' Solid Schoolst 2 Community/Waste Secondary Hospital Planning Ois1lr1Ct Water Sewers Disposal Elementary (Jr/Sr)Fire Police Facilities Talkeetna App1.Rev.Individual Individual Re lyon 1 class 1 class Would need 1 officer Would need Borough sources may septic tanks borough 3 classes 3 classes addit i ona 1 2 officers full-time not be may not be landfills staff and hea lth care adequate adequate full-time professionals employees Trapper Creek Appl.Rev.Individual Individual Rely on 2 classes 2 classes Would need 2 offi cers Would need Borough sources may septic tanks borough 2 classes 2 classes community 2 offi cers full-time not be may not be 1andfi 11 5 based hea lth care adequate adequate faci 1ities professionals .". Houston , '"<0 Appl.Rev.Individual Individual Rely on No additional No additional No additional No addi-No addit i ona 1 Borough sources may septic tanks borough needs needs needs tional needs not be may not be 1andfi 11 5 needs adequate adequate Wasilla Appl.Rev.No addi-Individual Rely on No additional No additional No add it i ona 1 No addi-No additional Borough tional needs septic tanks borough needs needs needs tional needs may not be 1andfi 11 5 needs adequate Palmer App 1.Rev.No addi-No additional Rely on No additional No additional No add it i ona 1 No addi-About 25% Borough tional needs borough needs needs needs tiona1 additional needs 1andfill 5 needs facil it i es and staff ~ -"'"~-W---ii--~---s.- -~~fIx g __~_-=-__E _ _____~__"~c~e-~-~-~-ffi.E _~-,-,£__l.l:_~-- Table 4-9.(Continued) Solid Schoolst 2 Community/Waste Secondary Hospita 1 Planning District Water Sewers Disposal Elementary (Jr/Sr)Fire Police Facilities Other App 1.Rev.Individual Individual Re lyon 2 classes 2 classes Would need 1 officer Rely on Palmer Borough sources may septic tanks borough 18 classes or 18 classes or additional 7 offi cersnotbemaynotbe1andfi115staffand adequate adequate 1 school 1 school full-time employees Mat-Su Borough TotaH 3 Appl.Rev.NA NA Landfi ll/area S classes 5 classes Would need 3 officers see Palmer Borough NA NA needed several S classes S classes additional 11 offi cers entry years earlier staff;and than currently +1 school +1 school full-time planned employees -l> Cantwe 11 , en 0 Appl.Rev.Individual Individual Private 4 classes 4 classes No additional 2 offi cers Would need sources may septic tanks 1andfi 11 need full-time not be may not be may not be hea lth care adequate adequate adequate professionals Healy Appl.Rev.No addi-No additional No additional No add it i ana 1 No addit i ana 1 No additional No addi-No additional tional need need need need need tional need need need Nenana App 1.Rev.No addi-No additional No additional No additional No additional No additional No addi-No additional tional need need need need need tional need need need Paxson Appl.Rev.No addi-No additional No additional No additional No additional No addit i ana 1 No addi-No additional tional need need need need need tional need need need t'Calculated using Tables 3-8, 3-9,and 4-S and standards from Stenehjem and Metzger (1980). t 2 Each new class or school would require a teacher and other staff (principal,clerical,janitorial,librarian,etc.) --------------------'~ Table 4-10.Years When Existing or Planned Community Services Capacity of Project Area Communities Would Be Exceeded (In~ludes service requirements for project-related population) Solid Schoolst' Community/Waste Secondary Hospital Planning District Water Sewers Disposal Elementary (Jr/Sr)Fire Police Facilities Tal keetn'r' Appl.Rev.Individual Individual Re lyon 1990 2002+2002+Covered None exist Borough sources may septic tanks borough 19B5 1986 2002+by not be may not be 1andfill s borough adequate adequate Trapper Creek Appl.Rev.Individual Individual Re lyon 2002+(80 studentsJt2 May need Covered None exist Borough sources may septic tanks borough 2002+(90 students)t2 to acquire by not be may not be 1andfi 11 s own borough adequate adequate facil ities Houston Appl.Rev.Individual Individual Rely on 2002+2002+2002+Covered None exist .., sources may septic tanks borough by , Borough 1983 1983 1983 '"not be may not be 1andfi 11 s borough >-' adequate adequate Wasilla Appl.Rev.2002+Individual Rely on 2002+2002+/2002+1985 Covered None exist Borough 1983 septic tanks borough 1983 1983/1990 1983 by may not be 1andfi 11 s borough adequate Palmer Appl.Rev.2002+ 2002+Re lyon 2002+2002+1985 2002+2002+ Borough 2002+1983 borough 1989 1990/2002+1983 1983 19851andfi11s Other Appl.Rev.Individual Individual Rely on Correspondence courses Covered by Covered None exist Borough sources may septic tanks borough or attend in communities borough fi res by not be may not be 1andfi 11 s districts borough adequate adequate Mat-Su Borough Totalt3 Appl.Rev.NA NA 2002+2002+2002+NA 1985 Provided Borough NA NA 1985 1985 1985 NA 1985 in Palmer ___~!!If!-~-~~_~--- ~-i'--_~i ~-,,--i_~~~o-~- Table 4-10.(Continued) Community! Planning District Water Sewers Solid Waste Oisposal Schoolst' Secondary El ementary (Jr!Sr)Fire Hospital Police Facilities Covered None exist by state Cantwell Appl.Rev. Borough Healy App 1.Rev. Borough Nenana App 1.Rev. Borough Paxson App 1.Rev. Borough Individual sources may not be adequate Individual sources may not be adequate Individual sources may not be adequate Individual sources may not be adequate Individual septic tanks may not be adequate Individual septic tanks may not be adequate Individual septic tanks may not be adequate Individual septic tanks may not be adequate Private 1andfi 11 services may not be adequate Rely on private 1andfi 11 Re lyon private 1andfi 11 Rely on private 1andfi 11 19B5 Unknown Unknown Unknown 19B5 Unknown Unknown Unknown 2002+ Unknown Unknown Unknown Covered by state Covered by state Covered by state None exist None exist None exist .;>, '"N t'Projection for Mat-Su Borough is based on the borough's planning value of 22.B%of population in school-aged children;for Cantwell 1B%school-aged children assumed (Frank Orth &Associates,19B3:p.69). t 2 Could attend in other communities. t 3 All entries for Mat-Su Borough services are based on assumption that the borough would not provide services for onsite popu- lation.The borough would have to administer and may contribute to financing of some of these services,particularly the school located onsite. NA =Not Applicable. Sources:Tables 3-B and 4-6,and standards from Stenehjem and Metzger (19BD).Anchorage and Fairbanks do not appear on the table because the adequacy of their services cannot be estimated until worker transportation plans and work schedules are developed.However,see text discussion on estimates of service impacts in these cities under specified assump- tions about transportation plans. 4-63accompanyboomtownconditions.Therewouldalsobeaneedtoexpandfiredepartmentstaffsandtohirefull-timepaidfireprofessionals,ratherthancontinuingtorelyonvolunteers.Estimatesofpersonnelneedswoulddependonthenumberanddistributionoffirestationsandtrucks.Expensesforthenewstaffwouldbeincurredbytheborough,addingtoincreasedburdensfromproject-relatedgrowth.ExpansionofhospitalfacilitiesinMat-SuBoroughwouldbeneededsoontomeetbaselinegrowth.TheSusitnaprojectwouldacceleratethisneedconsiderably.Besideshospitals,full-timehealthprofessionals,includingsocialandmentalhealthcounselors,wouldbeneededinclinicsinmanyofthecommunities.TheincrementalincreaseinpopulationinAnchorageandFairbanks,assumingcommutingplanstothesecities,wouldprobablynotfurtherstressexistinghealthcarefacilitiesandservices.Inrapidgrowthsituations,communityservicesmustbeplannedandconstructedinadvanceofpopulationinmigration.Beforeaprojectisunderway,manyuncertaintiesexistastoitsscale,schedules,timingofapprovalbylicensingagencies,size,andnatureofworkforce,andwhereinmigrantswouldsettle.Theboroughmaynothaveadequatestafftoadjustandimplementplansquickly.Inboomtownsituations,increasedrevenuesarecollectedonlyafterexpendituresarerequiredtoprovideincreasedservicesforthenewpopulation.Thus,largedeficits,whichmaybedifficulttorepay,wouldbeaccruedbefore1985andduringthefirsttwoyearsorsoofprojectconstruction.Iftheboroughchosetoincreaseservicesinanticipationofinmigration,itcouldberespon-sibleforbuildingandstaffingaschoolandfireandpolicestationsintheTalkeetna/TrapperCreekarea,expandinglandfills,establishingandextendingsewerandwatersystems,andestab-lishingalibrary,communityrecreationfacilities,andhealthclinics.Financingoftheseitemswouldseverelystrainalreadylimitedboroughresources.Thestate,alreadyfacingdeclin-ingrevenues,wouldberesponsibleforplanningandfinancingexpansionofservicesinYukon-KoyukukBoroughcommunities,andmighthavetocompensateforshortfallsinMat-SuBoroughrevenuesinadvanceoftheinmigratingpopulation.Transportation:Alltransportationmodesandroutes--roads,rails,andairfie1ds--wouldbeusedmoreheavilyduringconstructionofallprojectstructures.Highwayuse,particularlyontheDenaliandParkshighways,wouldexperiencethelargestincrease.BecausetheParksHighwayiscurrentlyusedatonlyabout10%capacity,fewdifficultieswouldbeanticipatedalongmostofthishighway.However,congestioncouldoccurduringpeaktouristseasons,particularlyattheintersectionoftheParksandDenalihighways,andatintersectionswiththesiteaccessroadandrailheadaccessroads.TheDenaliHighwaywouldbepavedandclearedinwinterbetweenCantwellandtheprojectaccessroad,increasingusebyrecreationandtouristvehiclesandincreasingmaintenanceexpensesfortheStateDepartmentofTransportation.Trafficvolumeonthishighwaycouldincreasetotwicetheprojectedbaselinevolume.SomedisruptionofnormalrailactivitiesmayoccurattheintersectionofthemainraillineandthespuratGoldCreek.Unlessdeliveriesandtransfersofmaterialsarescheduledaroundroutinerailtraffic,somedelaysmayoccur.Increasedpopulationsinareacommunitieswouldnecessitateimprovementandexpansionoflocalroadsystems.TheresponsibilityforplanningandfinancingconstructionandmaintenanceoftheseroadswouldrestwithprivatedevelopersorwithMat-SuBoroughandthestate.HumanUseofWildlifeResources:HumanusesofwildliferesourcesoftheupperandmiddleSusitnaBasinwouldbeaffectedbytheincreasedaccessibilitythatwouldresultfromtheproposedproject.Accessbypersonalgroundvehicleswouldbecomepossibleinanareathatcurrentlyhaslimitedaccess.RecreationaldemandinthenorthernhalfofGameManagementUnit13wouldbeexpectedtoincreasetwo-tofourfoldasaresultoftheSusitnadevelopment.Bothconsumptiveandnonconsumptiveusesofwildlifewouldbeinvolved.Nonconsumptiveusesinthebasin(e.g.,wildlifeviewing,birdwatching)wouldincreasedrama-tically,andconsumptiveuseswouldbeexpectedtoincreaseuptotwofoldasaresultoftheproject(ExhibitE,Vol.8,Chap.7,TableE-7-13).Wildlifepopulationsinthebasininteriorwouldbesubjecttohigherharvestpressureandincreasedtake.Incombinationwithincreasedmortalityanddecreasedproductivityduetootherprojectimpacts,increasedharvestingwouldlikelyresultinwildlifepopulationsstabilizingatlower,perhapsmuchlower,sizesthancurrentlyexist.Themakeupofthebesin'suserpopulationwouldprobablychange(ExhibitE,Vol.B,Chap.7,TableE-7-13).Theaverageper-user-daydollarvaluewouldprobablydeclineinthebasinbecauseofthepresenceofalessexpensiveaccessalternativeandanincreaseinusetypesthatcarrylowerdollarvalues.Theproportionofhigh-dollar-value,out-of-stateuserswouldlikelydecline,whereasin-stateuserproportionwouldlikelyincrease.Theabsolutenumberofout-of-stateusersmightalsodeclineinthebasinbecausetheseusersmightnotwishtopayhighvalueforthehunting/wildernessexperienceinanareaofhigherusercompetitionandmorehumandevelopment. ::'1:1111':Ilj.l!.I.I;~1111'1,·111111;~IIII~i!ilj~llili"'I;1··"'",4-64Thedevelopmentoftheareawouldmarkedlyalterthecharacterofthehunting/wildernessexperienceforusersinthebasin.Theconsequencesofalteringthatcharacterwoulddependuponindividualusertastes.Comparedtoconditionsintheabsenceoftheproject,postprojectuserswouldprobablyencountermorehumanactivity,sufferalowertakepereffortorsuccessrate,andperhapsviewlessgame.Formanyusers,theseconditionswouldlowerthequalityofthehunting/wildernessexperience.Thus,userswouldbemorelikelytobethosewhoprefernottoexpendlargesumsofmoneytouseareaswithlowerhumandevelopmentandpossiblyhigherharvestsuccessrate.Subsistenceuserswouldbethegroupmostseverelyimpacted.Decreasedwildlifeproductivityandincreasedcompetitionfortheharvestwouldresultindecreasedsuccessrates.Decreasedsuccessrateswouldbedetrimentaltotheextentthatfurthereffortcouldnotbeexpendedtomaintainanabsoluterateoftakeperseasonandtotheextenttheuserisdependentuponsub-sistenceforhisorherownwell-being.Unfortunately,thiscannotbequantifiedatthistime.HumanuseandwildlifemanagementpolicyandstrategyfortheupperandmiddleSusitnaBasinwouldlikelyneedtobereviewedandrevisedinordertomeetgoalsforwildlifeconservation,subsistencemaintenance,andotheruses.4.1.9VisualResourcesConstructionoftheWatanadamandassociatedfacilitiesandfillingofthereservoirwouldproduceasignificantchangeintheimageandcharacteroftheupperandmiddleSusitnaRiverBasinarea,especiallywithinandadjacenttotheSusitnaRiverValleyandthesouthernportionoftheWetUplandTundraareanorthoftheSusitnaRiver.ThecurrentlyremoteandlargelyundisturbedSusitnaRiverValleywouldbecomeanareaofincreasedhumanactivityanddevelop-ment,andvisualresourceswouldbealteredaccordingly.TemporaryvisualimpactsduringconstructionoftheWatanadamwouldincludethepresenceofconstructionpersonnel,heavyequipment,andmaterials,andthephysicaldisturbanceandalterationofthelandscape.Land-scapealterationsthatarenotinundatedbythereservoirwouldremainvisibleduringtheentireoperationallifetimeoftheproject,asdiscussedbelow.Thegeometriclinesandformsofthe885-ft(270-m)high,4,100-ft(1,750-m)crest-lengthWatanadamandassociatedstructureswouldbeindramaticvisualcontrasttothenaturalform,color,andtextureoftherivervalley(seeFig.4-16).Thespillwayswouldbepositionedindeeprockcutsontherivervalleyslopesandwouldbehighlyvisibletooperationpersonnelandvisitorsastheycrossedtheaccessroadbridge.Thisrockcutandgradingwouldbeinconsistentwiththenaturallandformsandvegetationinthearea.Thevisualscarscreatedbyconstructionoftheaccessroadtothepowerhouseandtailracetunnelareaswouldremainhighlyvisiblefromthevicinityofthedam.Theform,lines,andcoloroftheelectricalequipmentwithintheWatanaswitchyardwouldpredominateinanareawherethereislittlevegetationscreening.Theelec-tricalequipmentandstructureswouldbesilhouettedagainsttheskylinefromvariousvantagepoints,suchasalongtheaccessroad.Thedamfacilitieswouldbeviewedbyprojectpersonnel,supportstaff,recreationistsinthearea,andpeopleflyingoverorneartheprojectarea.Whenfilled,theWatanaimpoundmentwouldbeabout54mi(90km)long,morethan5mi(8km)wide,andhaveawatersurfaceareaof36,000acres(14,600hal.Thelandforms,waterforms,andvegetationwithinthevalleyoftheSusitnaRiverwouldbeinundated.Theimpoundmentalsowouldinundateportionsofmajortributaries,includingDeadman,Watana,Kosina,andJaycreeks.TheDeadmanandWatanacreekwaterfallsandmuchofthehighlyscenicVeeCanyonareawouldbeinundated.DeadmanCreekFallsisoneofthelargestandmostscenicwaterfallsintheprojectarea.VeeCanyonincludesadoublehairpinbend,adeeplycutchannel,andastretchofwhite-waterrapids.Variousrockformations,steepridges,andvariedcoloration(rockinterlaidwithmarbleandgreenschist)maketheareaanimportantvisualresource.Thepartialinundationofthecanyonareawoulddetractfromitssignificanceasanaturalscenicfeature.Itisanticipatedthatduringoperation,themaximumreservoirdrawdownof120ft(35m)wouldbeinthespring(AprilandMay)andwouldresultinexposureofsubstantialareasofmudflats.Thesemudflats,expectedtobemorethan1mi(1.6km)wide,wouldbevisuallyobtrusivetoanyrecreationistsnearthereservoir(althoughsnowcovermayobscuretheviewofthemudflatsinearlyspring).Themudflatareaswouldcontinuetobevisuallyobtrusivetorecreationistsonornearthereservoirthroughoutthesummermonthsuntilthereservoirwasfilled(completelycoveringexposedmudflatareas)inSeptember.Extensiveslumping,scaling,andlandslidingwouldbeexpectedtooccuralongsteepslopesofthenewlycreated-reservoir.Suchs1umpingcauldextendhundredsoffeetupthesidesoftheslopeandwouldresultinunsightlyscarsvisibletorecreationistsusingthereservoirandadjacentareas.Long-termvisualimpactswouldoccuratthoseborrowsitesnotinundatedbythereservoir.Suchareaswouldincludeislandsintheriverbelowthedam,thelownorthriverterracebelowthe 4-65Figure4-16.Artist'sRenditionof theP.roposedWatanaDamandReservoir.(Doesnotincludepermanenttown,accessroads,transmissionlines,substation,oraircraftlandingstrip.)[Source:ApplicationExhibitE,Vol.B,AppendixEBb]\ iil'lI"'Ilt~I~I~"1I1:'"I,1'''''1litilli;'~hlI,'I! ,4-66dam(nearthemouthofTsusenaCreek),andalongthe640-acre(256-ha)borrowsitelocatedonthehighnorthterraceadjacenttoOeadmanCreek.Theborrowsitesalongtheriverbelowthedamwouldbeinfullviewfromthedamarea.Borrowsitesupstreamofthedammightcreaterigidangularformsalongtheshorelineofthereservoir;thesefeatureswouldbevisibletovisitorsinthe area.Theproposed300-acre(120-ha)temporaryconstructioncampandvillagewouldcauselong-termvisualimpactsthatwouldextendintotheoperationphaseoftheWatanaproject.Visualimpactswouldincludethepresenceofareasdevoidofvegetationwherethecampstructureswereremoved.Intheseareasdenudedofvegetation,mudandwaterpondingwouldresultfromsoilcompactionandwouldbevisibletoresidentsofthepermanenttownwhotraveledthroughtheareaandwholivedadjacenttotheconstructionvillagesite.The90-acre(36-ha)permanenttownsitewouldvisuallycontrastwiththenaturallandscapecharacterofthearea.Thetownwouldconsistofavillagecenterwithapproximately20buildings,ahospital,125dwellingunits,andawaterandsewagetreatmentplant.Extensivehumanactivitiesinandaroundthepermanenttownwoulddegradethevisualcharacteroftheexistingwetlandsetting.TemporaryvisualimpactsduringconstructionoftheDevilCanyondamprojectwouldbesimilartothosefortheWatanaproject.TheOevilCanyonprojectareawouldbeviewedbyprojectpersonnel,recreationists,andindividualsflyingoverornearthe area.Theline,form,andcolorofthe645-ft(195-m)high,1,300-ft(394-m)spanconcretearchdamwouldvisuallycontrastwiththenaturalform,color,andtextureoftheOevilCanyonarea(seeFig.4-17).Theelectricalequipmentandstructuresatthesitewouldbesilhouettedagainsttheskylinefromvariousvantagepoints,suchasalongtheaccessroad.TheoperationoftheOevilCanyondamandthefillingofthereservoirwouldproduceanimpound-mentapproximately32mi(53km)longandamaximumof1,800ft(549m)widenearthedam.Thesurfaceareaofthereservoirwouldbeabout7,800acres(3,120hal,andthewaterimpoundmentwouldreachupstreamalmostasfarastheWatanadam.ThereservoirwouldinundateOevilCanyonandthewhite-waterrapidsthatextendthroughit.Theunusualgeology,hydrology,andaestheticcharacterofthecanyonmakesitanotableAlaskannaturalfeature.Thecanyonisasteep-sided,nearlyenclosedgorgethatconstrictstheSusitnaRiverchannelandresultsinover10mi(16km)ofturbulent(ClassVI)white-waterrapids.TheimpoundmentwouldalsoinundateminorportionsofDevilandFogcreeks.TheI,OOO-ft(300-m)longDevilCanyonsaddledamthatwouldbeadjacenttothemainarchdamwoulddominatethesmall-scaleplateau-typelandscape.Thetextureandcolorofthesaddledamwouldwillbeinsharpcontrasttothesurroundingvegetationandsmallpondarea.Extensiveclearingofvegetationandrockcuttingfor2.5mi(4km)ofroadaccessduringtheconstructionofthepowerhousetunnelwouldleavelargevisualscarsonthesteepnorthernslopes.Thesewouldbevisiblefromtheaccessroadandfromthevisitorcenter.Thedevelopmentofthe200-acre(80-ha)temporaryconstructionvillageandcampsiteswouldcauselong-termvisualimpactsthatwouldextendintotheoperationphaseoftheDevilCanyonproject.Largeareasdevoidofvegetationwouldbevisiblewherethecampstructureswereremoved.Thislackofvegetationandthepresenceofpondsofmudandwatercreatedbysoilcompactionwouldbevisibletopersonswhotraveledthroughthe area.TemporaryvisualimpactsduringconstructionoftheproposedDenaliHighway-to-Watanadamaccessroutesite,theWatanadam-to-DevilCanyondamaccessroute,andtheDevilCanyonrailspurwouldconsistofthepresenceofworkers,equipment,andmaterialsalongtheroutes.Theseimpactswouldbesimilarinnaturetothosepreviouslydiscussed.Visualimpactsalongthe42-mi(67-km)longDenaliHighway-to-Watanaaccessroutewouldconsistofviewsoflargecutandfillareas,areaswherevegetationhadbeenremoved,andareasoferosion.Allthesefeatureswoulddetractfromtheaestheticcharacterofthearea.Largeborrowpitswouldbelocatedadjacenttotheroadandwouldresultinlong-termvisualimpactsfromscarificationcausedbyremovalofvegetation,erosion,andthepresenceofpartiallywater-filleddepressions.Onthepositiveside,thehighwaywouldalsoprovidenewaccesstoscenicviewsforvisitors,recreationists,andpersonsfromthepermanentWatanavillage.ThesewouldincludepanoramicviewstowardtheAlaskaRange,ClearwaterMountains,andtheTalkeetnaRange.However,recreationistsintheareaaroundtheproposedroutemightconsidertheroadavisualintrusiondetractingfromtheirenjoymentofthenaturallandscape.AswiththeDenaliHighway-to-Watanadamaccessroad,thevisualcharacterofthe34-mi(56-km)long,Watana-to-DevilCanyonaccessroadwouldbeincontrasttotheexistingnaturalenviron-ment,butatthesametime,theroutewouldprovideviewsofthesurroundingareapreviouslyseenonlybypersonsonfoot.Dneofthemorevisuallyprominentfeaturesoftheaccessroadwouldbea2,600-ft(785-m)steelbridgesuspended600ft(180m)abovetheSusitnaRivertothewestoftheDevilCanyondam.Constructionofthishigh-levelsuspensionbridgewouldrequireextensivegradinganddisruptionoflandformsandvegetationforthebridgeapproaches.Thesealterationswouldcontinuetobevisibleafterconstructionceased.Aclearviewofthedam 4-67Figure4-17.Artist'sRendition.oftheProposedDevilCanyonDamandReservoir.(Doesnotincludeconstructioncampandvillage,accessroads,transmissionlines,orsubstation.)[Source:ApplicationExhibitE,Vol.8,AppendixE8B] ,,",°'11'.'II~II'lllli.,I.~,n",ll~il'jllil~r;l:1I11,.nll:""'''11~1~1~IUUllil1111;III:lrlll""1,1",,,4-68wouldnotbepossiblefromthebridge,andtheproposedstructuralstyleandformofthebridgewoulddolittletocomplementtheformandlineofthesurroundingDevilCanyonlandscape.Thepresenceofa14-mi(23-km)longrailspurbetweenGoldCreekandtheDevilCanyondamsitewouldresultinvisualimpactsalongtheSusitnaRiver.Therailalignmentwouldresultincutandfilloperationsthatwouldcontrastwiththecolorandtextureofthenaturallyforestedandvegetatedareasalongtherivervalley.RecreationistsusingtheSusitnaRiverwouldbeabletoviewthescarificationontheslopesadjacenttotherailspur.Atpresent,thereisnointen-tionofusingthespurforpublictransportation;thusthelinewouldnotprovidemembersofthepublicwithnewopportunitiestoviewremoteareasintheSusitnaRiverValley.Thetemporaryvisua1impactsthatwauldoccurduringconstruct;onoftheSusitnatransmissionlinefacilitieswouldbesimilarforallsegmentsoftheproposedcorridor.Theseimpactswouldconsistofthepresenceofworkers,equipment,andmaterialsduringconstructionofassociatedaccessroads,transmissionlinetowers,substations,andthestringingoftheconductors.Thesevisualdisturbanceswouldbeviewedbyconstructionpersonnel,individualsflyingoverthetransmissionlineroute,recreationists,personsatvariousvantagepointsalongprojectaccessroadsandonhighwaysandraillinesinthevicinitiesofthetransmissionlinesegments,and'residentsofcommunitiesalongthevariouscorridorsegments.Inadditiontothesetemporaryimpacts,thedevelopmentofthetransmissionfacilitieswouldcreatelong-termvisualimpacts.Thetransmissiontowersalong345-kVtransmissionlinesegmentswouldconsistprincipallyof100-ft(30-m)high,guyed,steel-pole,X-framestructureswithsomesinglesteel-polestructuresusedforanglesandareaswithsteepslopes.Thewidthoftheclearedright-of-waywouldvaryfrom300to510ft(90-155m).Thedistancebetweentowerstructuresalongalinetypicallywouldbe1,300-ft(390-m);adjacenttowersalongparallellineswouldbeabout115-ft(35-m)apart.AlongtheDams-to-GoldCreeksegment[45mi(72km)long]thetransmissionlinetowersandconductorswouldbesilhouettedagainsttheskylinefromvariousviewpointsalongtheWatana-to-Oevi1Canyonaccessroad(includingtheHighLakearea)andrailspurandatthedamsites.Throughwoodedareas,theclearedright-of-way[300to510ft(90to155m)wide]wouldbehighlyvisiblefromtheair.BetweenGoldCreekandtheHealyandWillowsubstations,thetransmissionlinewouldessentiallyparalleltheAnchorage-to-FairbanksTransmissionIntertie.Therefore,visualimpactscausedbythetowerandlineplacementalongthisportionoftheGoldCreek-to-FairbanksandGoldCreek-to-AnchoragesegmentsoftheSusitnatransmissionlinewouldbeonlyincrementalinnature.FromtheHealysubstationtotheterminuspointatEsternearFairbanksandfromtheWillowsubstationtotheAnchorageterminus,completelynewright-of-waywouldberequired.Areasofmajorvisualresourceimpactsalongthe185-mi(298-km)lineextendingbetweenGoldCreekandFairbankswouldincludetheBroadPassarea,wherethetransmissionlinewouldextendacrossDenaliHighwayandbeinfullviewofmotorists.Thisareahasbeenrecommendedbythestatefordesignationasascenichighwayarea.Thetransmissionlinewouldbefrom200ft(60m)toabout2mi(3km)awayfromtheGeorgeParksHighway(Route3)inthishighlyscenicregion.ThetransmissionlinewouldalsobevisibleattwoAlaskaRailroadcrossingsandfromportionsoftheplannedremoteparcellanddisposalareasbetweenGoldCreekandHurricane.BetweenCantwellandtheYanertFork,thetransmissionlinewouldagainextendclosetotheGeorgeParksHighway.IntheAlaskaRangelandscape,thetransmissionlinewouldbehighlyvisiblealongtheIndianRiver.ThetransmissionlinecorridoralsowouldbevisiblefromvariousvantagepointsalongtheeasternboundaryofDenaliNationalParkandtheGeorgeParksHighway.TheHealysubstationneartheAlaskaRailroadwouldbehighlyvisible.FromHealytoFairbanks,thetransmissionlinewouldextendthroughtheforestedTananaRidgeandtheNenanaUplandslandscapes,whileparallelingtheroadnearHealy.MajorvisualresourceimpactsbetweenGoldCreekandAnchorage(alinelength of145mi,or233km)wouldincludethoseintheTalkeetnaMountainsarea,wherethetransmissionlinewouldbeinfullviewfromCurryRidgeinDenaliStateParkandwouldbehighlyvisibleasitextendedacrosstheTalkeetnaRiver,consideredtobeanimportantrecreationresource.IntheChulitnaRiverlandscapearea,the transmissionlinewouldbevisiblefromtheGeorgeParksHighway.BetweenWillowandAnchorage,thetransmissionlinecorridorwouldbevisiblemainlyfromtheair.Within.thegreaterAnchoragearea,fromtheKnikArmtotheterminuspoint,thecorridorwouldessentiallyparallelanexistingtransmissionlineandwouldnotsignificantlyaffectthevisualresourcesofthearea.4.1.10CulturalResourcesEightarcheologicalsiteswouldbedirectlyimpacted,andsixwouldbeindirectlyimpactedbytheconstructionoftheproposedWatanadamandassociatedfaci1ities(App.0,Sec.0.2.1). 4-69Theinundationoftheimpoundmentareawoulddirectlyimpact37archeologicaland3historicsitesandindirectlyimpact(duetoincreasedslopeinstabilityanderosion)18archeologicalsitesand1historicsite.Mostimpactstosignificantculturalresourceswouldbemitigatedbyinvestiga-tion,theresultsofwhichwouldalmostcertainlymakeasubstantivecontributiontoknowledgeofAlaskanprehistory.Currently,19ofthesesiteshavebeentestedforsignificance,andallbutonehavebeenassessedassignificant.Anumberofadditionalsitesarelikelytobejudgedassignificant.Duringtheoperationphase,53archeologicalsiteswouldbeexposedtopotentialimpactduetoincreasedaccesstothearea.Avo;danceandprotection(throughamon;toriI1gprogram),withinvestigationofsignificantsiteswhennecessary,wouldmitigatemostimpacts.Todate,threesiteshavebeentestedandassessedassignificant.NoculturalresourcesitesoccurintheimmediatevicinityoftheproposedDevilCanyondamandassociatedfacilities,butfivearcheologicalandtwohistoricsiteswouldbedirectlyimpactedbyinundationoftheimpoundmentarea.Onearcheologicalsiteonthereservoirmarginwouldbeindirectlyimpacted.Investigationwouldmitigatemostimpactstosignificantsites,andwouldbe1ikelytocontributetoknowledgeofAlaskanprehistory.Atpresent,threesiteshavebeendeterminedtobesignificant.Duringtheoperationphase,twoarcheologicalandonehistoricsitewouldbesubjecttopoten-tialimpactsduetoincreasedaccesstothearea.Avoidanceandprotection(throughamonitor-ingprogram),withinvestigationofsignificantsiteswhennecessary,wouldmitigatemostimpacts.Noneofthesesiteshasbeenassessedforsignificance.DuringtheconstructionoftheproposedDenaliHighway-to-Watanaaccessroad,fourarcheologicalsiteswouldbedirectlyimpactedbyexcavationofproposedborrowpits,andfourarcheologicalsiteswouldbeindirectlyimpactedbygreatlyincreasedaccesstothearea.Anothereightarcheologicalsiteswouldbeexposedtopotentialimpactasaresultofincreasedaccess.Mostimpactstosignificantsiteswouldbemitigatedbyavoidanceandprotection(throughamonitoringprogram)orbyinvestigationincasesofunavoidabledirectorindirectimpacts.Nositeshavebeenassessedforsignificanceatpresent,anditdoesnotappearlikelythatmanywillbetermedsignificant.Anyuninvestigatedsiteswouldcontinuetobesubjecttopotentialimpactsduringtheoperationphase.AtotalofninearcheologicalsiteswouldbedirectlyimpactedduringtheconstructionoftheproposedWatana-to-DevilCanyonaccessroadbyborrowareaexcavation.whilethreemorearcheo-logicalsiteswouldbesubjecttopotentialimpactsduetoincreasedaccess.Mostimpactstosignificantsiteswouldbemitigatedbyavoidanceandprotection(throughamonitoringprogram)andbyinvestigationincasesofunavoidabledirectorindirectimpacts.Nositeshavebeenassessedforsignificanceatpresent,anditdoesnotappearlikelythatmanywillbetermedsignificant.Anyuninvestigatedsiteswouldcontinuetobeexposedtopotentialimpactsduringtheoperationphase.TwohistoricsitesarepresentlyknownalongtheproposedrailaccesstoDevilCanyon.Thesesiteswouldbeexposedtopotentialimpactsduringboththeconstructionandoperationphase.Impactswouldbemitigatedbyavoidance.Nineculturalresourcesitesarepresentlyknownalongtheproposedtransmissioncorridor,atleasttwoofwhicharehistoric.Allbutoneofthesesiteswouldbesubjecttopotentialimpactsduringtheconstructionphaseduetoincreasedaccess.Onearcheologicalsite(whichislocatedinthedirectimpactzoneoftheproposedWatanacampandassociatedfacilities)wouldbedirectlyimpactedbyconstructionactivity.Avoidanceandprotection(throughamonitoringprogramduringconstruction)wouldmitigatemostimpactstosignificantsites,exceptinthecaseofthedirectlyimpactedsite,whichhasbeen'assessedassignificantandwouldrequiremitigativeinvestigation.Althoughtheremainingknownsiteshavenotbeenevaluatedforsigni-ficance,itislikelythatseveralofthemwillbetermedsignificant.4.2SUSITNADEVELOPMENTALTERNATIVES4.2.1LandResources4.2.1.1GeologypndSoilsImpactsoftheWa\anaIdevelopmentwouldbesimilartoimpactsfortheproposedWatanadam(Sec.4.1.1.1).ThesmallerWatanaIdamwouldrequirelessborrowmaterial,therebyreducingimpactsrelatedtoborrowsites,and.lesslandwouldbeinundatedbythesmallerWatanaIreservoir.BecausetheshorelineelevationoftheWatanaIreservoirwouldbelocatedmid-slopeonmanyoftheborderinghills,slopefailurewouldbeexpectedtobehigherfortheWatanaIreservoirthanfortheproposedWatanadevelopment.ImpactsoftheModifiedHighDevilCanyonandReregulatingdamswouldbesimilartoimpactsfortheproposedDevilCanyondevelopment.ReservoirslopefailurewouldbeexpectedtobelessforthealternativeReregulatingdamand 4-70fortheModifiedHighOevilCanyonalternativethanfortheproposedproject.BorrowmaterialrequirementswouldbesomewhatlessfortheReregulatingdamalternative,andsubstantiallylesslandwouldbefloodedbytheReregulatingdamalternative(seeApp.E,Sec.E.2.2.1).Impactsrelatedtothealternativeaccessrouteswouldbesimilartoimpactsfortheproposedaccessroutes(Sec.4.1.1.1).ExtensivesidehillcuttingwouldberequiredinthePortageCreekValleyforthenorthernaccesscorridorandinthemountainousareabetweenDevilCanyonandWatanaforthesouthernaccesscorridor.Erosionlossescouldbehighintheseareasevenwiththeuseoferosion-controlmeasures(seeApp.E,Sec.E.2.2.2).Impactsalongalternativetransmissionrouteswouldbesimilartoimpactsfortheproposedtransmissionroutes(Sec.4.1.1).IntheWillow-to-Anchoragesegment,impactsassociatedwithaccessroaddevelopmentandright-of-wayclearingwouldbeminorforCorridorABC'(Fig.2-15)(althoughalmosttwiceaslongastheproposedcorridor)becauseofthepresenceofexistingtransmissionlinesandhighwaysalongtheroute.IntheDams-to-GoldCreeksegment(Fig.2-14),CorridorsABCD,ABECD,AJCF,ABCF,AJCD,andABECFareamongtheshortestroutesandarelocatedinahillyareawheremoderateerosionwouldbeexpected.CorridorsABCJHI,ABECJHI,CBAHI,andCEBAHIareintermediateinlength,andportionsofthesecorridorsextendthroughthemostmountainousterrainofthearea.Despitesteepslopes,erosionlossesinthisareacouldbemoderatebecauseoftheshallowbedrockandabsenceofsoils.CorridorsCBAG,CEBAG,andCJAGarethelongestroutesandcrossgentlyslopingareaswhereerosionwouldbemoderatebecauseofthepresenceofextensiveunconsolidateddepositsandpermafrost(seeApp.E,Sec.E.2.2.3).IntheHealy-to-Fairbankssegment(Fig.2-16),impactsofaccessroaddeveloment,right-of-wayclearing,andassociatedactivitieswouldbegreaterforthealternativecorridorsAEF,AEDC,andABDCthanfortheproposedcorridor,whichfollowsanexistingtransmissioncorridorformuchofitslength.4.2.1.2LandUseandOwnershipForthealternativedamlocationsanddesigns,accessroutes,borrowareas,andpowertransmis-sionroutes,landuseimpactsofconstructionandoperationwouldbeofthesametypesdiscussedinSection4.1.1.2.TheModifiedHighDevilCanyonalternativewouldinundate6,800acres(2,750halofland;theWatanaIandReregulatingdamswouldinundate28,300acres(11,450haland4,000acres(1,600hal,respectively.Also,thenorthernandsouthernalternativeaccessrouteswouldimpactadditionallandsbetweenthecommunityofHurricaneandthedamsites.4.2.2Climate,AirQuality,NoiseTheimpactsonclimate,airquality,andnoisefromthealternativeSusitnadevelopmentswouldbeverysimilartothosedescribedinSection4.1.2fortheproposedproject.TheModifiedHighDevilCanyonalternativewouldinvolvedamconstructionatanearbylocation.TheReregulatingdamalternativewouldinvolveconstructionofareregulationdamdownstreamoftheWatanaIdam.Foralldamconfigurationsandalternatives,fugitivedustemissionsmightextendbeyondsiteboundariesasindicatedfromthecalculationsdiscussedinSection4.1.2fortheproposedWatanadam.4.2.3WaterQuantityandQualityThemajordifferencesbetweentheproposedWatana-DevilCanyondamsandthethreeSusitnadevelop-mentalternativesareintotalstoragevolumeofthereservoirs,surfacearea,andlength ofmainstemSusitnaRiverthatwouldbeinundated(Table4-11).AllalternativesincludeWatanaI,amodifieddesignthatwouldhaveacrestelevation100ft(30m)lowerthantheproposedWatanadam.Thisreductionindamheightwouldresultina30%reductioninboththestoragevolumeandsurfaceareaofWatanareservoir.CombiningWatanaIwiththeModifiedHighDevilCanyondamortheReregulatingdamwouldfurtherreducetheseparameters.TheSusitnadevelopmentalternativesalsowouldmovethelocationofthedownstreamdamprogres-sivelyupstream:DevilCanyondamwouldbeatRM152,ModifiedHighDevilCanyonwouldbeatapproximatelyRM158,andtheReregulatingdamwouldbeatRM168.2.WiththeModifiedHighDevilCanyondesign,threetributarieswouldnolongerbeinundated,includingCheechakoCreek.WiththeReregulatingdamdesign,ninetributariesorsidesloughswouldnotbeflooded,includ-ingbothCheechakoandDevilcreeks.TheflowregimesinthemainchannelbelowDevilCanyonwouldbesimilartothepostprojecthydrographsdescribedinSection4.1.3.However,becauselivestorageofthereservoirswouldbereducedbyeachoftheSusitnadevelopmentalternatives,themagnitudeofpotentialflowalterationwouldbecorrespondingless.Otherimpacts,suchasreductionsinhabitatavaila-biityinsidesloughsandstabilizationofthechannel,wouldalsobesimilarto,butoflessermagnitudethan,thosediscussedinSection4.1.3.Thedifferencesinwaterquality,relativetopreprojectconditions,betweenthatresultingfromconstruction,filling,andoperationofthethreeSusitnadevelopmentalternativesandthatduetotheSusitnaprojectasproposedarepredictedtoberelativelyminor.Thelargestdifference 4-71Table4-11.ComparisonofStorageVolume,ReservoirArea,andMilesofStreamInundatedforIn-BasinHydroAlternativesTotalSurfaceFloodedVolumeAreaRiverChannelAlternative(l06acre-feet)(103acres)(miles)Watana9.B40.04BWatanaI6.728.047DevilCanyon1.17.832ModifiedHighDevilCanyon0.966.826ReregulatingDam,0.353.916Watana-DevilCanyon10.947.B80WatanaI-DevilCanyon7.835.879WatanaI-ModifiedHighDevilCanyon7.6634.873WatanaI-ReregulatingDam7.0531.963Conversion:Toconvertacre-feettocubicmeters,multiplyby1233;toconvertacrestohectares,multiplyby0.405;toconvertmilestokilometers,multiplyby1.61.wouldbeinsuspendedsolids,withtheconstructionofWatanaIplustheReregulatingdamrequir-inglessworkintheriverchannel,thusresultinginlessofanincreaseinsuspendedsolidsintheSusitnaRiverduringconstructioncomparedtothatforDevilCanyonconstruction.TheReregulatingdam,however,wouldhavealowertrappingefficiencythantheDevilCanyondam.TheresultwouldbethatsuspendedsolidsdownstreamoftheReregulatingdamwouldbegreaterinbothsummerandwinterthanwithDevilCanyonasproposed.NoneoftheSusitnadevelopmentalternativeswouldbeexpectedtohaveasignificantlygreateradverseorpositiveimpactonwaterqualitythantheSusitnaprojectasproposed,withthepossibleexceptionoftheadverseimpactoftheWatanaI/ReregulatingdamsalternativeonsuspendedsolidsintheSusitnaRiver,particularlyduringwinter.Iceformationandbreak-upundertheSusitnadevelopmentalternativeswouldbequalitativelysimilartotheproposedproject.Sincedischargeflowsforthesealternativeswouldbeexpectedtomorecloselyparallelbaselineflows,changesiniceprocessescouldbeslightlyreducedascomparedtotheproposedproject.Themostimportantparameterinfluencingthethermalstructureofanimpoundmentistheresidencetimeofawatermass.Forashortresidencetime,awatermasswillquicklypassthroughtheimpoundmentwithminimalopportunityforsurfaceheatexchange.Thusanimpoundmentwithextremelyshortresidencetimewillhaveathermalstructurethatdeviatesonlyslightlyfromfree-flowingconditions.Increasingtheresidencetimewillallowgreatersurfaceheattransfer,resultinginamorepronouncedreservoirverticaltemperaturestructure.ThethermalstructureofSusitnadevelopmentalternativereservoirsascomparedtotheproposedreservoirswouldbeproportionaltotherelativechangeinwatermassresidencetime.Thisfactor,inturn,wouldbeproportionaltochangesintheactivestoragevolumeofthereservoir.TheWatanaIreservoirwouldlikelyhavealoweractivestoragevolumethanWatana,resultinginaweakersummerthermalstructure.Deepareasofthisreservoirwouldbeat39°F(4°C)year-round,butsummersurfacewatertemperaturewouldbecooler,perhapsby2°Fto4°F(1°Fto2°C),thanWatana.Thiswouldresultinareducedverticaltemperaturegradient.Theweakerstrati-ficationwouldbeareducedbarriertoverticalmotion,sothattheWatanaIreservoirwouldexhibitgreatermixingthantheproposedWatanareservoir.TheactivevolumeoftheModifiedHighDevilCanyonreservoirwouldbecomparabletotheDevilCanyonreservoirandconsequentlytheirthermalstructureswouldbequitesimilarasdescribedinSection4.1.3.Theactivevo1umeoftheReregulatingdamwouldbesosmallthattheriverreachbetweenth\SdamandtheWatanaIdamwouldexhibitafree-flowingthermalregime.InthemainstemSusitna,therelativechangesindownstreamwatertemperaturesresultingfromoperationoftheSusitnadevelopmentalternativeswouldberelatedtochangesindamdischargesandoutlettemperaturesascomparedtotheproposedproject.ForWatanaI-DevilCanyon,dif-ferencesindownstreamtemperatureswouldreflectdifferencesbetweentheWatanaIreservoirandtheWatanareservoir.Outletwatertemperatureswoulddependstronglyonthedesignandopera-tionoftheintakegatesystem.Awell-designedsystemforWatanaIcouldproduceoutletwatertemperaturesthatwouldmorecloselyparallelpreoperationalconditionsthanWatana.Duetothe I.IIIIIIIi,ii!i'J~I111!"~kI,i.lijlIIIIIii'I'i",~1,,'j'''''11~IUJll:ill,II'4-72expectedreducedactivestoragevolumeoftheWatanaIreservoir,dischargeflowswouldbeconstrainedtomorecloselypara11e1preoperatiana1flowsthanWatana.Thesedifferencesinoutlettemperatureanddischargeareslight,andwouldslightlyreducethedifferencesbetweenbaselineandoperationalwatertemperaturesdownstreamoftheDevilCanyondamascomparedwiththeproposeddesign.DownstreammainstemwatertemperaturesresultingfromtheoperationoftheWatanaI-ModifiedHighDevilCanyonalternativewouldbeessentiallyidenticaltotheWatana1-DevilCanyonalternative.FortheWatanaI-Reregulatingdamalternative,theReregu1atingdamwouldhaveanactivestoragevolumesufficientlysmallthatitspresencewouldhavenegligibleimpactondownstreamtempera-tures.Changesindownstreamwatertemperatures,forthisalternative,wouldbealmostcompletelyinfluencedbyWatanaIoperation.Themajordifferencebetweenthisalternativeandtheothersistheadditionofmorethan20rivermiles(32km)atnearfree-flowingconditions.Thisdistancewouldofferadditionalhoursforriverwatertoexchangeheatwiththeatmosphereandapproachbaselineconditions.Forthisreason,theWatanar-ReregulatingdamalternativewouldbeexpectedtoresultinwatertemperaturesdownstreamofthedamsthatwereclosertobaselineconditionsthantheproposedprojectortheothertwoSusitnadevelopmentalternatives.Duringperiodswhenthebermsattheupstreamendofsloughsareovertopped,sloughwatertemperaturewouldbethesameasthemainstem.Itislikelythatallthealternativeswouldoffergreatersummerdischargeflowsthantheproposedproject.Therefore,undertheSusitnadevelopmentalternatives,bermswouldbeovertoppedslightlymorefrequently.Inaddition,theincreasedstageassociatedwithincreasedflowswouldproducemainsteminfiltrationclosertobaselineconditions.Thesechangeswouldbeslight;however,theycouldresultinsloughwatertemperaturesthatwereclosertobaselineconditionsthantheproposedproject.GroundwaterimpactswouldbeslightforalltheSusitnadevelopmentalternativesandsimilartoimpactsoftheproposedproject.4.2.4AquaticCommunitiesUndertheWatanaI-DevilCanyonalternative,loweringthemaximumelevationofWatanadamto2,100ft(640m)abovemeansealevel,withotheraspectsoftheprojectremainingthesame,wouldnotchangedownstreamimpactssignificantly.Thesmallerstoragevolumewouldbeexpectedtoyieldslightreductionsinmagnitudeoftemperaturechangesandflowregulationthatarewithinthemarginsoferrorofourabilitytopredictecologicaleffectsassociatedwiththeproposedproject.Therewouldbereducedfloodingofreservoirtributaryreaches,withpropor-tionalreductioninlocalimpactstothesestreamecosystems.SelectionoftheWatanaI-ModifiedHighDevilCanyonalternativewouldaffectaquaticcommunitiesthrough(1)placementofthedaminDevilCanyon,(2)reductioninvolumeforwaterstorage(thatwouldalterwatertemperatureandflowregimesandtheireffectsonaquaticlife),and(3)reductionofreservoirfloodedareacomparedtotheproposedproject.PlacementofthedaminDevilCanyonatamoreupstreamsitewouldpreserveseveralmilesoffreelyflowingriverhabitatdownstream.Thereachisnotespeciallyvaluablehabitat,however,foritdoesnotcontainanadromousfishexceptinexceptionallylow-flowyears,andthehighvelocitiesandturbulencearenotconducivetodevelopinglargepopulationsofresidentfish.Smallerchangesinflowandtemperaturewouldbefavorableformaintainingdownstreamaquaticlifeinacondi-tionmorelikethatbeforetheproject.BothupstreamplacementofthedaminDevilCanyonandalowerWatanadamwouldreducefloodingofreservoirtributaryreaches,withaproportionalreductionin1oca1aquaticimpacts.TheModifiedHighDevi1Canyondamwouldavoidonemajortributarycompletely,CheechakoCreek,whichishabitatforresidentspecies.Atamaximumof12,000cfs(340m3/s)summerflow,moresalmonmightbeabletopenetrateDevilCanyonandutilizesuchtributariesforspawningonamoreregularbasis.ThecombinationofalowerWatanadam(WatanaI)andaReregulatingdamforpeakingpowerhydro-electricreleasesatWatanawouldreduceaquaticimpactswhencomparedtothetwo-damproposedproject.ReducedfloodingoftributariesbyaWatanareservoirelevationof2,100ft(640m)wauldreduce1oca1streamimpactsproportianally.DownstreameffectsofflowandtemperaturechangesonaquaticlifewouldbemostcomparabletohavingWatanaalone(App.I,Sec.1.2.1.1),althoughthemagnitudeswouldbereducedsomewhatduetosmallerstoragevolume.DifferenceswouldbewithinthemarginoferrorofpredictionsfortheWatana-onlycase.4.2.5TerrestrialCommunities4.2.5.1PlantCommunitiesThetypes ofimpactstoplantcommunitiesfromuseofalternativedesignsfortheproposeddamsitesandforrelatedfacilitieswouldbeessentiallysimilartothoseimpactsdescribedinSection4.1.5.1fortheproposedproject.However,insomecasesthemagnitudeoftheimpactswouldbedifferent. 4-73ConstructionandoperationoftheWatanaIalternativewouldresultinimpactssimilartothosedescribedfortheproposedWatanadamsite(seeSec.4.1.5.1,andSec.J.2.1.1ofApp.J),althoughinmostcasestheextentofbothdirectandindirectimpactswouldbereducedsomewhatduetothesmallerimpoundmentsizeandbecauseregulatedflowswouldbemoresimilartopre-projectflows.TheWatanaIimpoundmentwouldinundateabout28,300acres(11,450hal,ofwhichabout24,000acres(9,700halareexpectedtobevegetated.SpecificvegetationtypesthatwouldbelostshouldbesimilartothosequantifiedinTableJ-18(App.J)exceptthattherelativeproportionsofeachtypemightchangeslightly.ConstructionandoperationoftheReregulatingdamandModifiedHighDevilCanyonalternativeswouldresultinsimilar,butprobablylessextensive,impacts(bothdirectandindirect)thanthosedescribedfortheproposedDevilCanyon"damsite(seeSec.4.1.5.1,andSec.J.2.1.2ofApp.J).TheReregulatingdamalternativewouldinundatelessarea[about4,000acres(1,600hajjandlessvegetation[about3,000acres(1,200hajjthanDevilCanyon.Vegetationlocatedinthe5mi(8km)betweentheModifiedHighDevilCanyonalternativedamsiteandtheproposedDevilCanyondamsite(primarilymixedconifer-deciduousforest)wouldnotbeinundatedbytheModi-fiedHighDevilCanyonalternative.However,thehigherreservoirelevationofthisalternativewouldcauseinundationofvegetationhigherupthecanyonslopesthanwouldoccurwiththeproposedDevilCanyonimpoundment.TheModifiedHighDevilCanyonalternativewouldinundateanestimated6,800acres(2,750hal,ofwhichapproximately5,100acres(2,100halwouldbevege-tated.ForboththeReregulatingdamandModifiedHighDevilCanyonalternatives,specificvegetationtypesthatwouldbelostshouldbesimilartothosequantifiedinTableJ-22(App.J),althoughtherelativeproportionsofeachtypemightchangeslightly.Constructionofthenorthernorsouthernaccessalternatives(seeSec.2.2.2.4andFig.2-13)wouldresultinclearingandpermanentlossofabout810acres(330halor980acres(400halofvegetation,respectively(seeTableJ-36,App.J,forspecificvegetationtypes).Onthebasisofworst-caseestimates(seeSec.4.1.5.1,andTableJ-5andSec.J.1.2.1.5ofApp.J),about510acres(210halofpotentialwetlandtypesmightbeclearedforthenorthernaccessalterna-tive;whereasonly420acres(170halofpotentialwetlandtypeswouldbeclearedforthesouthernaccessalternative(seeTableJ-37,App.J,forspecificwetlandtypes).Potentialindirectconstructioneffectstovegetationaswellaspotentialoperationalimpactstovegeta-tionwouldbesimilartothosedescribedinSection4.1.5.1(seealsoSec.J.2.2.2,App.J).Theacreagesofvariousvegetationtypesthatwouldbecrossedbyalternativepowertransmissionrouteswereestimatedonlyforthetechnicallyandeconomicallyfeasiblealternatives,asidenti-fiedinExhibitE(Vol.9,Chap.10,TableE.10.24).Inthenorthernstudyarea(Fig.2-15),theright-of-wayforalternativepowertransmissionrouteABDCwouldcrossabout3,100acres(1,250halofvegetation.Inthecentralstudyarea(Fig.2-14),therights-of-wayforthesixtransmissionroutea1ternatiyeswouldcrossvary;ngacreagesofvegetationIrang;ngfrom1,300acres(530halforcorridorAJCFto3,000acres(1,200halforcorridorCJAHI.Inthesouthernstudyarea(Fig.2-16),3,300acres(1,300halofvegetationwouldbecrossedbytheright-of-wayforalternativeABC';whereas1,900acres(770halofvegetationwouldbecrossedbyalternativeAEFC.Theseareasrepresentaworst-caseestimateofvegetationtobeimpacted,sinceonlytheforestandtallshrubtypes(becauseoftheiroverstoryheights)wouldrequiremajorclearing(seeSec.4.1.5.1).Worst-caseestimatesofpotentialwetlandtypes(seeSec.4.1.5.1,andTableJ-SandSec.J.1.2.1.5ofApp.J)thatwouldbecrossedbythealterna-tivetransmissionlinerights-of-wayindicatethatnoneofthealternativesexceptforalterna-tiveABC'inthesouthernstudyareawouldcrosssignificantlyfel;erpotentialwetlandareasthantheproposedcorridors.SpecificvegetationandwetlandtypesthatwouldbecrossedbythetechnicallyandeconomicallyfeasiblealternativetransmissionrouteshavebeenquantifiedinTablesJ-38throughJ-41ofAppendixJ.Additionalpossiblealternativetransmissionlinecorridorsinthenorthernandsouthernstudyareas(asidentifiedinWakefield,1983)wouldcrosssimilartypesofvegetationasthetechnicallyand.economicallyfeasib1e alternativesidentifiedinExhibitE(Vol.9,Chap.10,TableE.10.24),althoughthespecificproportionsofvariousvegetationtypescontributingtothetotalacreagewouldbedifferent.OtherpotentialimpactstovegetationfromconstructionandoperationofthealternativepowertransmissionrouteswouldbesimilartothosealreadydiscussedinSection4.1.5.1.WiththeexceptionofborrowsiteJ,whichiscontainedwithintheSusitnaRiver(Fig.2-2),useofthealternativeborrowsiteswouldresultinthetemporaryremovalofvegetationfromthesesites.Vegetationandsoilswouldbeclearedpriortoexcavation,andtheareaswouldberehabi1itatedas"out1inedinSection4.1.5.1.TheacreagesofvegetationclearedforborrowsitesBandL(F"\ig.2-2)wouldberelativelysmall;whereas,about1,500acres(610halofvegetationwouldbeclearedforborrowsiteC(Fig.2-6).4.2.5.2AnimalCommunitiesReconfigurationofdam-orconstruction-facilityfeaturesmightaltertheareaIextentanddistributionofhabitattypestobeaffectedbytheproposedproject.However,thesealtera-tionswouldnotresultinasubstantivechangeinimpactstowildlifebecausethesealternativeswouldnotalterthemajoreffectsattributabletotheimpoundments,borrowareas,accessroutes, 11'1"'1I'Iii'II'il!i!"4-74andtransmissionlines,whichmakeupmorethan95%ofthehabitatthatwouldbeaffected(Table4-3).Alternativeoperationscenarioswouldalterdownstreamflowdynamicstoadifferentextentthanwouldoccurundertheproposedflowregime.WildlifeimpactsdownstreamfromDevilCanyonwouldbereducedtotheextentthatalternativeflowregimesmorecloselyresemblednaturalfluctuationsinriverflow.Alternativeuseofborrowareaswouldresultintemporarylossofhabitatintheareasactuallyused,exceptwheretheborrowareaswouldbeinundatedbythereservoir.Nomajorreductionsinimpactstowildlifewouldbeachievedbyselectingoneareaoveranother,exceptbyusingareasthatwouldbeinundatedoraffectedbyconstructionanyway,suchasareasA,8,0,E,I,J,L,andG(Figs.2-2and2-6).ExcavationofborrowareasCandFwouldlikelyhaveadditionalimpactonbrowsehabitatformooseandotherwildlifeoverandabovereservoirfilling,althoughtheareascouldberehabilitatedtoregainatleastaportionofthebrowseproductivity.BorrowareasHandKaresituatedinmorerugged,cliffhabitatwhichwouldbesuitableforraptornesting.Differencesinimpactsamongalternativeaccessroutes(Fig.2-13)aresubstantial.TheaccessroutefromHurricaneontheParksHighwaytoDevilCanyonwouldcrosswetlandhabitatofhighvaluetoaquaticfurbearerssuchasbeaverandmuskrat.Becauseofthenatureoftheterrain,developmentofthisroutecouldresultinsubstantialerosionimpacts(Sec.4.2.1)toseveralwetlandareas,aswellastothefisheriesresourcesofIndian RiverandPortageCreek,whichareusedbybear.Theareaisalsoproductivemooseandbirdhabitat.ThisroutewouldaffectwildlifehabitatofhighervaluethanwouldaroutefromGoldCreek.BecausetheroutewouldconnecttotheParksHighway,themainstemmiddleSusitnaRiverwouldbecomereadilyaccessibletoRailbeltresidents.BecausetheParksHighwayismoretraveledbyRailbe1tresidents,acces-sibilitywouldbemuchhigherthanforaroutefromGoldCreekand,toalesserextent,thanforaroutefromtheDenaliHighway.AsouthernaccessroutefromDevilCanyontoWatanawouldpassthroughextensivewetlandhabitatintheStephanLake/FogLakesarea,whichisusedbylargenumbersofmoose,furbearers,andwaterfowl.GreateraccesstotheStephanLakeareacouldleadtoincreasedhumandisturbanceandhuntinginthevicinityofPrairieCreek.ThiscouldseverelydegradethesuitabilityofthePrairieCreekareaasafisheryforbrownbearintheregion(Miller,19B3).ItcouldalsoaffectthesuitabilityoftheareaforusebybaldeaglethatnestinlowlandforestsalongtheSusitnaRiver.AdecisiontoeliminateaccessfromtheDenaliHighwaytoWatanawouldreduceimpactstobeaveralongDeadmanCreek,aswellastobrownbeardenninginadjacentuplands.Underthisalterna-tive,caribouwouldcontinuetofreelymoveacrosstheareawithoutthepotentialimpedimentofaroad.Vehicularmortalitywouldbereducedbyrelianceonrailtransportofpersonnelratherthanpersonalvehicles.Lackof1inkagetoamajorhighwaywouldmarkedlyreducetheaccessi-bi1ityoftheareaincomparisontoeitheraDenalioraParksHighwayconnection.Selectionofalternativetransmissionlinerouteswouldvariablyaffectwildliferelativetotheproposedroutes,dependinguponlength ofline,amountofclearingofforesthabitatrequired,proximitytoraptororswannestinglocations,andamountofwaterfowlhabitattraversed.Qualitativeimpactswouldbethesameasdiscussedpreviously.Theamountanddistributionofimpactswouldvaryamongalternatives.ThealternativeroutesfromthedamsitestotheRailbeltarefundamentallysimilarexceptinlength(Fig.2-14).Severalaretwiceormorethelengthoftheproposedrouteandwouldbeexpectedtohavegreaterimpacttowildlifehabitats.RoutespassingfromFogLakestoStephanLakecouldhavesubstantiallyhigherpotentialforwaterfowlcollisions,albeitsuchmortalitywouldstillbeasmallfractionofoverallmortality.RoutespassingthroughtheuplandsnorthoftheSusitnaRivercouldimpactbrownbeardenninghabitat.Selectionofanyroutenotassoci-atedwithaselectedaccessroutewouldfurtherenhanceaccessibilityoftheregion.Thepro-posedroutewouldtraversetheshortestlength ofhabitatamongthealternativesandwouldfollowtheproposedaccessroutefromGoldCreek.AlternativesfortheHealy-to-Fairbankssegmentarebasicallysimilarexceptinlength(Fig.2-15).OnlyalternativesthatswingsouthoftheTananaRiverandextendtothesouthernsideofFairbankswouldavoidtheprimeperegrinefalconhabitatlocatedalongthenorthernsideoftheriverfromNenanatoChenaRidge.Impactstotheperegrinehabitatcanbeavoidedbyproperschedulingofconstructionandmaintenanceactivities.Therefore,theextramileagerequiredtoavoidtheareawouldnotbewarranted.FromWillowtoAnchorage,theprincipaldifferenceamongalternativeswouldbethelength oftheroute(Fig.2-16).AlternativeroutesaroundKnikArmwouldbenearlytwicethelengthofroutestoPt.MacKenzie.Noparticularadvantageswouldbegainedbyselectingthelongeralternatives.Thealternativedamconfigurations(Fig.2-17)wouldresultinanimpacttowildlifeatalevellowerthanwouldbeexpectedundertheproposedtwo-damconfiguration.ReductionintheheightoftheWatanadam(WatanaIconfiguration)wouldaffectabout37,000acres(15,000hal,about 4-7585%oftheprojectedareafortheproposedproject.Aconsiderableamountofforesthabitatwouldstillbelosttothewildlifeinthebasin.Someblackbeardensandsomeraptornestinglocationswouldbeinundatedunderthisalternative.Thereservoirwouldstillserveasanimpedimenttowildlifemovement.ImpactsfromtheothertwodamconfigurationswouldbelessthanthoseoftheWatanaI-DevilCanyonbecauseofthelowerareaofinundationforthedownstreamdam.Habitatareaslostwouldbeabout36,000acres(14,000halforaWatanaI-ModifiedHighDevilCanyonconfiguration,and33,000acres(13,000halforaWatanaI-Reregu1atingdamconfiguration.Anticipatedimpactswouldbesimilartothosedescribedearlierfortheproposedproject,butthemagnitudeofimpactwouldbeproportionatelysmaller.4.2.6ThreatenedandEndangeredSpeciesNoimpactstothreatenedorendangeredspecieswouldbeexpectedtooccurasaresultofconstruc-tionandoperationofanyoftheSusitnadevelopmentalternatives.4.2.7RecreationResourcesThesitesoftheSusitnadevelopmentalternativesare withinthegeneralareaoftheproposedproject.FurtherIrecreationusepatternsarealso5imilar.Thus,impactsassociatedwithimplementationofthealternativeswouldbesimilartothosediscussedinSection4.1.7,withthefollowingexceptions.ThereductionintheheightoftheproposedWatanadam(WatanaIalternative)wouldresultinamarkeddecreaseinthelandareapreemptedforenergyproduction(App.J,TableJ.45)andcurrentlyusedprimarilyfordispersedrecreation.OptingfortheWatana1-Reregulatingdamwouldresultinafurtherreductioninpreemptedlandarea.Thisalternativeisoffurthersignificancewithrespecttoriverrecreation,i.e"freeflowoftheDevilCanyonrapidswouldcease,buttherapidswouldnotbeinundated,aswouldbethecaseforotheralternatives.Recreationpotentialsassociatedwiththethreealternativeaccessroutesareessentiallyindis-tinguishable;currentrecreationusepatternsalongtheseroutesarecharacterizedbydispersedrecreationactivities.8asedonpub1icandagencymeetingsanddiscussions,theApp1icantstatesthatrecreationpotentialwasessentiallyeliminatedasanevaluationcriterionforaccessrouteselection(ExhibitE,Vol.9,Chap.10,Sec.2.3.6).ThefourprincipalalternativesselectedforroutingtheOams-to-GoldCreektransmissionlinestraverseremoteterrain.Recreationusepatternsarecharacterizedbydispersedrecreationactivities,includingtrail-relatedactivitiesandrivertouring.Afewrecreationtrailsmightbetemporarilyobstructedordisplaced;however,theprincipaleffectsofthe transmissionlinedevelopmentonrecreationistswouldbeofavisualnature.ThealternativecorridorsfortheHealy-to-Fairbankstransmissionlinesalsotraverseremoteareas.Featurescommontothethreealternativecorridorsincludeafewisolatedcabinsandseveralrecreationtrails.OneofthecorridorsparallelsashortsegmentofHealyCreekusedforrivertouring,andallthreecorridorscrosstheWoodandTananarivers.TheTananaisamajorriverrecreationcorridor;however,adverseeffectswouldessentiallybelimitedtovisualimpacts.ThealternativecorridorfortheWillow-Ft.MacKenzietransmissionlinestraversesNancyLakeStateRecreationAreafor9mi(15km)(ExhibitE,Vol.9,Chap.10,Fig.E.10.10).Transmissionfacilitieswouldlikelybealignedtoavoidencroachmentondevelopedrecreationsites;however,visualimpactswouldprevail.Anumberoflakesiderecreationcabinsalsoarelocatedalongthecorridor.Severalofthelakesintheareaareaccessedbyfloatplane;thus,thelineswouldcreateadegreeofhazardforthelocalrecreationists.ThealternativeWi11ow-AnchoragecorridortraversesthePalmer-Wasillaarea.Assumingthattherelativelynumerouspublicandprivaterecreationareascouldbeavoidedduringfina1alignment,thetransmi55ion1ineswou1dconstitutesignificantvisualimpacts.Nospecificrecreationresourceareasoractivitiesareidentifiablewiththealternativeborrowareas.Thus,optingforuseofoneormoreoftheborrowsiteswouldnotmeaningfullyaffectrecreationresources.4.2.8SocioeconomicFactorsAnumberofassumRtionshavebeenmadetoassessimpactsrelativetoSusitnadevelopmentalter-natives.Toestim~tepopulationgrowth,one-halftheconstructionworkforcewasassumedtobeunaccompaniedbyhouseholdmembers.Constructionworkersnotinconstructioncampsandthetotalpopulationwereassumedtohavehousehold·sizesof3.0persons.8ecausethefacilitiesundereachofthethreealternativeSusitnadevelopmenthydropowerplantswouldbelocatedinthesamesocioeconomicenvironmentastheproposedproject,theimpactareawouldbethesame.Theconstructionworkforcesforthealternativeswouldbeslightlysmallerandtheconstructionperiodshorter.Thus,impactsofthealternativeswouldbeonlylessthan(particularlyfortheWatanaI-Reregulatingdamalternative),butsubstantiallyofthesametypeas,impactsoftheproposedproject(Sec.4.1.8). 'III:14-76Aswiththeproposedaccessroute,bothalternativerouteswouldincreaseaccessibilityoftheprojectareafortouristsandforrecreationalandcommercialhunting,fishing,andtrapping.NativeAlaskanscoulddevelopcommercialoperationsontheirlandintheprojectareamoreeasilythanpresently.Otherresidentswouldviewincreasedaccessibi1ityasreducingtherural,isolatednatureoftheareawhichtheyvalue.Becauseoftheeasycommutetothedamsites,thenorthernalternativeroutewouldcausegrowthinHurricane,thetinyunincorporatedcommunitywheretheaccessroutewouldintersecttheParksHighway.Evenafewnewhouseholdsinthecommunitywouldchangethenatureofthesettingandinvitecommercialandresidentialdeve1opment.Servicefaci1ities,fundedbytheborough,wouldhavetobebuilttoaccommodatenewresidents.ThesouthernalternativeaccessroutewouldmakeGoldCreekattractivetoconstructionworkersandtocommercialandresidentialdevelopers.ImpactstoGoldCreekwouldthusbeincreasedbeyondthelevelsdescribedfortheproposedprojectinSection4.1.8.Impactsofalternativepowertransmissionrouteswouldbethesameasthosedescribedfortheproposedtransmissionroutes(Sec.4.1.8).Allalternativeborrowsitesarelocatedinunpopula-tedareas.Therefore,nosocioeconomicimpactswouldoccurasaresultoftheuseofanyofthem.4.2.9VisualResourcesUseofthealternativedamlocationsanddesigns,accessroutes,borrowareas,andalternativepowertransmissionrouteswouldresultinthesametypeofvisualresourceimpactsdiscussedinSection4.1.9.Inaddition,theModifiedHighDevilCanyonalternativewouldinundateTsusenaFalls.ThenorthernalternativeaccessroutewouldparallelthescenicPortageCreekarea.Thesouther"naccessroutewouldresultinvisualresourceimpactsbecauseofanumberofsidehillcutsthatwouldberequiredinthemountainousterrainbetweentheDevilCanyonandWatanadamsites.Twoalternativeborrowareas(nearTsusenaandFogCreeks)wouldrequiretheconstruc-tionofextendedhaulroads,furtherdegradingviewsofthesurroundingnaturalfeatures.AnalternativetransmissionlinesegmentextendingthroughtheFairbankslandscapeareawouldbeviewedbyasubstantialnumberofpersons.SeveralofthealternativetransmissionroutesegmentsbetweenWillowandAnchoragewouldbevisibletoasubstantialnumberofpeopleinthemorepopulatedareasaroundWasillaandPalmerandtheGlennHighwayarea(Route1)northofAnchorage.4.2.10CulturalResourcesTheareaoftheWatanaIreservoirwouldbesubjecttothesameimpactsonculturalresourcesasundertheproposedWatanadevelopment(Sec.4.1.10),exceptthat5archeologicalsiteswouldoccupyindirectorpotentialratherthandirectimpactzones,and17archeologicalsiteswouldoccupypotentialratherthanindirectimpactareas.Inallcases,mostimpactstosignificantsiteswouldbemitigatedbyinvestigationinthecaseofdirectorindirectimpacts,orbyavoidanceandprotection(throughamonitoringprogram).Twoofthesitesshiftedfromdirecttoindirectorpotentialimpactzones,andonesiteshiftedfromanindirecttoapotentialimpactareahavebeenevaluatedassignificant.Someoftheremainingsitesmentionedabovealsoappearlikelytobeevaluatedassignificant.ImpactstoculturalresourcesfortheModi-fiedHighDevilCanyondevelopmentwouldbeidenticaltothosedescribedforDevilCanyon(Sec.4.1.10).TheReregulatingdamalternativealsowouldhavethesameimpactsonculturalresourcesitesastheproposedprojectDevilCanyondeve1opment(Sec.4.1.10),exceptthattherewouldbenoimpact(ratherthanapotentialimpact)ononehistoricandonearcheologicalsitelocatedonPortageCreekandDevilCreek,respectively.Anumberofculturalresourcesitesalongthealternativeaccessrouteswouldlikelybesubjecttodirect,indirect,andpotentialimpactsduetoroadconstruction,borrowsiteexcavation,andincreasedaccessinCorridor1(North)andCorridor3(Denali-North).Mostimpactstosignifi-cantsiteswouldbemitigatedbyavoidanceandprotection(throughamonitoringprogram),withinvestigationwherenecessary.Fewsitesinthesetwocorridorsappeartobesignificant.NoculturalresourcesarepresentlyknowninCorridor2(South),whichappearstobeanareaoflimitedpotentialforsignificantsites.Impactstoculturalresourcespresentlyknownalongthevariousproposedalternativetransmissionlinerouteswouldnotdiffersignificantlyfromimpactsdescribedfortheproposedprojecttransmissioncorridor(seeSec.4.1.10).Archeologicalandhistoricsiteswouldbesubjecttopotentialimpactsduetoincreasedaccessduringtheconstructionphase.Impactswouldbemitigatedbyavoidance,coupledwithconstruction-phasemonitoringtodeterminewhetherinvesti-gationofanysignificantsiteswouldbenecessary.Althoughnositesalongthealternativerouteshavebeenevaluatedforsignificance,itappearslikelythatseveralwillbetermedsignificant. 4-77Developmentofthreeofthealternativeborrowsites(C,E,andF)wouldhaveimpactsonculturalresources.DevelopmentofborrowsiteCwoulddirectlyimpact15archeologicalsitesduringexcavation,andindirectlyimpactfivearcheologicalsitesduetodestabilizationofslopesandincreasederosion.TheexcavationofborrowsiteE(whichwouldbewithintheproposedDevilCanyonimpoundmentarea)woulddirectlyimpacttwoarcheologicalsitesandonehistoricsite.UseofborrowsiteFwouldhavedirectimpactsoneightarcheologicalsitesandonehistoricsite,andindirectimpactsontwoarcheologicalsitesduetodestabilizationofslopesandincreasederosion.Mostimpactstosignificantsiteswouldbemitigatedbyinvestigation,theresultsofwhichwouldbelikelytomakeasubstantivecontributiontoknowledgeofAlaskanpre-history.Twoofthearcheologicalsites(oneeachinborrowsitesCandE)havebeenassessedassignificant,anditappearslikelythatotherswillbetermedsignificantaswell.4.3NATURAL-GAS-FIREDGENERATIONSCENARIO4.3.1LandResources4.3.1.1GeologyandSoilsAtotalofabout50acres(20haloflandwouldberequiredforthenatural-gas-firedgenerationscenario.Acceleratedsoilerosionandsoilcompactionwouldbetheprimaryimpactsofsiteconstructionact;vities.Eros;onlossesmightbegreaterfortheChuitnaandAnchorageloca-tions.wheretheterrainismoresloping.Nopermafrostormineralresourcesareknowntoexistinthevicinityoftheproposedsites.AreasofagriculturallysuitablesoilsarepresentneartheLowerBelugaRiverandKenaisites,butbecauseofthesmallarealextentoftheunits,thesefeaturescouldbeavoidedwithpropersiting.4.3.1.2LandUseandOwnershipLanduseimpactsduetotheconstructionandoperationofnatural-gas-firedplantswouldbeminimalatthealternativesitelocations.Landrequirementswouldbeabout5acres(2halperplantforthe tencombined-cycleandcombustion-turbineunits.Itisestimatedthatover9,000acres(3,600haloflandwouldberequiredfortransmissionlinefacilitiesunderthisscenario.However,dependingonfinalplantsiting,significantlanduseimpactscouldoccurifextendedaccessortransmissionstubswererequiredtoreachtheplantsiteorifaplantwasconstructedadjacenttoanareasupportingalandusethatisnotconsideredtobecompatiblewithindustrialdevelopment(e.g.,dispersedrecreationorresidentialarea).4.3.2Climate,AirQuality,NoiseClimaticimpactsoftheeight200-MWcombined-cyclegasunitsandthetwo70-MWcombustion-turbineunitswouldbenegligible.Impactswouldinvolvechangesinsurfacealbedosandheatcapacitiesover·smallareasduetolandclearing,paving,anderectionofbuildings.Alsoinvolvedwouldbeveryslighttemperatureandhumidityincreasesinthelocalareaoftheplants.Thevisibleplumefromthewet/drycoolingtowerswouldextendapproximately0-350ft(0-100m)downwind,dependinguponatmospherictemperatureandrelativehumidity.PollutantemissionsfromthegasunitsandcombustionturbineswouldbeverysmallexceptforNDxemissionsfromthecombined-cycleunits.TheNOreleaseratefroma200-MWunitvariesfrom138gramspersecond(g/s)(nosteaminjection)xto34g/s(steaminjection).Astandard200-MWcoal-firedplantemits151g/sofNO.WithoutsteaminjectiontoreduceNOemissions,thethreeunits(600MW)locatedontheChOitnaRiverwouldemit414g/sofNO.TheChuitnaplantmightbedesignedtohavethreeidentical200-MWunits,onestackperunit.CalculationsmadewiththeEPAscreeningmodelPTPLUrevealedthatthemaximum24-hrground-levelconcentrationforNOwouldbe23micrograms'percubicmeter(~g/m3),withthismaximumconcentrationreachedataXpoint2.9mi(4.7km)downwind.TheAlaskaairqualitystandardis100~g/m3onanannualarithmeticmeanbasis.Sincethepredictedmaximum24-hraverageconcen-trationislessthantheannualaveragelimitation,itisclearthattheannuallimitforNOshouldbemet.Otherpollutantsreleasedfromcombined-cyclegasunitsareatverylowlevel~.PSDlimitson502andTSPshouldbesatisfiedduetotheverylowemissionlevelsfromsuchnatural-gasunits.Althoughthecombined-cycleplantstackswouldonlybe65ft(20m)high,theveryhightemperatureatplumeexit(approximately370°F,or190°C)wouldleadtoaverybuoyantplumeand'\.highplumerise.Asaresult,lowconcentrationsarepredictedatgroundlevel...BecauseofthelowpollutantemissionlevelsandthelargedistancesbetweenanyoftheseunitsandtheClassIareasofAlaska,nosignificantimpactonClassIareaswouldbeexpected.Carbonmonoxideemissionsfromthe200-MWunitsoutheastofAnchorageshouldbesufficientlydilutedduringtransporttoAnchoragetohavenosignificantimpactontheAnchoragenonattain-mentarea.Ground-levelconcentrationspredictedbyPTPLUatAnchoragewerefoundtobesigni-ficantlybelowtheAlaskastandardforimpactonacarbonmonoxidenonattainmentarea. 4-78Climaticandairqualityimpactsofthe70-MWcombustionturbineswouldbenegligiblebecauseofthesmallheat,moisture,andpollutantreleases.Noiseimpactsshouldbeinsignificantiftheturbinesaresitedatleast0.5to1.5mi(0.8to2.4km)fromthenearestnoise-sensitiveareas.4.3.3WaterQuantityandQualityThegas-fired,combined-cyclegeneratorswithwet/drymechanicalcoolingtowerswouldhaveverylowconsumptivewaterrequirements«2cfsor0.05m3/s).Atthefoursitesconsidered,therewouldbenoproblemsmeetingthesewaterdemandsfrombaseflowsintheBelugaandChuitnarivers,fromgroundwatersourcesinalluvialaquifers,orfromthesmalllakesinthevicinityoftheKenaisite.Plantconstructionmightrequirethelocalizeddestructionofwetlandhabitats,butthiswouldnotexceed10acres(4halpersite.Sourcesofwaterpollutionfromnatural-gas-firedpowerplantsincludecoolingsystemblowdown,wastewaterfromregenerationofdeminera1izers,re1easesofc1eaningsoluticns,aceidenta1spills,anddomesticwateruse.Releasestosurfacewatersfromthesegas-firedunitswouldberequiredtomeetappropriatestate(AlaskaStateWaterQualityStatutes,AlaskaDept.ofEnviron-mentalConservation,1979)andFederal(CleanWaterAct-NPDESpermits)waterqualityandeffluent1imitationguide1ines.Nosign;ficantadverseimpactsfromconstructionandoperationofthenatura1-gas-firedpowerplantswouldbeanticipated.Nothermalimpacts,groundwaterimpacts,norchangesiniceprocesseswouldbeexpectedwiththisalternative.4.3.4AquaticCommunitiesConstructionoftheeight200-MWcombined-cycleunitsandthetwo70-MWcombustion-turbineunitswouldimpactaquaticcommunitiesintheimmediatevicinityofthefacilitiesandalongaccessroutes.Aquatichabitat(e.g.,wetlands)wouldbelostwhereverthefacilitiesweresited.Increasedsiltationandturbiditywouldadverselyaffectaquaticcommunitiesinthevicinityofconstructionsitesandwhereaccessroutesandpowertransmissioncorridorscrossedstreams.Thespatialextentoftheseimpactsshouldbelimitedtotheimmediatevicinity[e.g.,300ft(90m)]ofconstructionactivities.Adverseeffectsshouldbelessduringoperationoftheseunitsthanduringconstruction.Theincreaseddissolvedsolidsdischargedfromcoolingsystemsintostreamsorothersurfacewatersmightcausesomelocalchangesindistributionofplant,invertebrate,andfishcommunities.Bothconstructionandoperationimpactsareexpectedtobeproportionallygreaterforthe200-MWcombined-cycleunitsascomparedtothe70-MWcombustion-turbineunits.Thegreatestsourceofadverseimpactonfishcommunitiesislikelytobetheincreasedaccessi-bilityofstreams,rivers,andlakestosportandsubsistencefishingpressureinthevicinityofthefacilitiesandalongaccessroutesandtransmissionlinecorridors.Directconstructionandoperationimpactsarelikelytobelimitedtofishspeciesinthestreamsandlakesdirectlyaffectedbyconstructionandoperation.Theindirectimpactsduetoincreasedaccessibility,however,couldalsoaffectsalmonpopulationsmigratingupnearbyrivers,suchastheBelugaandChuitna.Increasesinaccessibilityaremorelikelytobeassociatedwiththecombined-cycleunitsthanthecombustion-turbineunits,sincethecombustionturbineswouldtendtobelocatedinoradjacenttoalreadyexistingpopulationcenters,whereasthelargercombined-cycleunitswouldbelocatedinmoreremoteareas.4.3.5TerrestrialCommunities4.3.5.1PlantCommunitiesConstructionoffacilitiesassociatedwitheachofthe200-MWcombined-cycleunitsandthe70-MWcombustion-turbineunitsinthenatural-gas-firedgenerationscenariowouldresultinthepermanentremovalof5acres(2halofvegetation.Thus,atotalofabout50acres(20halofvegetationwouldbepermanentlylostasaresultoftheimplementationofthisscenario.Place-mentofgaspipelinespurstotheplantswouldprobablyrequiretemporaryremovalordisturbanceandsubsequentrehabilitationofrelativelynarrowandshortcorridorsofvegetation.Relativelyshort[1essthan10mi(16km)]transmission1inestubswou1dprobablybeconstructedtotheplants,resultinginvegetationimpactssimilartothosedescribedinSection4.1.5.1.If,inadditiontotransmissionlinestubstotheplants,itisassumedthattransmissionofthepowertotheRailbeltwouldrequireat1east(1)constructionoftwo345-kV1inesfromWi11owtoAnchorageandfromHealytoFairbanksand(2)upgradingoftheexistingIntertiebetweenHealyandWillowtotwo345-kVlines,thenatleast9,000acres(3,640halofvegetationmightbedisturbedbyconstructionandoperationofpowertransmissionfacilities.NoimpactstoevensensitiveplantspeciesfromS02orNOemissionswouldbelikely(Ovoraketal.,1978).Impactstowetlandswouldprobablybeminimalxifthefacilitiesweresitedsoastoavoidcriticalorsensitivewetlandareas. 4-794.3.5.2AnimalCommunitiesThetwocombined-cycleplantssituatedalongtheBelugaRiverwouldoccupyabout10acres(4halofuplandspruce-hardwoodforest.Moosecongregatingintheareaduringwintermightbedis-turbedbyhumanactivitiesduringconstructionandoperationandmighttendtoavoidtheplantarea.However,thiswouldaffectonlyaminutefractionoftheirwinterrange.AlongtheChuitnaRiver,thethreecombined-cycleplantswouldoccupyabout15acres(6halofuplandspruce-hardwoodhabitat.PlantconstructionandoperationmightdisruptblackbeardenningareasalongtheChuitnaRiver.However,theareaaffectedwouldrepresentlessthan1%oftheavailablehabitat.Somefishingareasusedbybrownbearduringsalmonspawningmightalsobeimpacted.Nootherareasofknownwildlifesensitivitywouldbeaffectedbythesealternativethermaldeve1opments.Theareaisalreadyaccess;b1ebyroad,anda1ternativedevelopmentswouldnotincreaseaccessibility.NearKenai,twocombined-cycleplantswouldoccupyabout10acres(4haloflowlandspruce-hardwoodhabitat.Althoughavarietyofwildliferangethroughthearea,noknownsensitiveareasexistinthevicinityofthesepossiblealternativedevelopments.Theaffectedhabitatwouldbeasmallfraction«<1%)ofavailablerange.Theareaisalreadydevelopedwithroads,andpetroleumindustryact;vitiesareextensivethroughoutthearea.Thus,thealternativedevelopmentswouldnotmateriallyincreasehumanpresence.The15acres(6halneededforthethreecombined-cycleplantsintheAnchorageareawouldbesituatedinmoreurbanizedhabitatandwouldnotsubstantivelyaffectwildliferesources.4.3.6ThreatenedandEndangeredSpeciesNoimpactstothreatenedorendangeredspecieswouldbeexpectedtooccurasaresultofcon-structionandoperationoffacilitiesincludedinthenatural-gas-firedgenerationscenario.4.3.7RecreationResourcesTherearenodedicatedorsignificantdevelopedrecreationresourceareasintheBelugaandChuitnariverareas(Bechtel,1983).Essentiallyallrecreationusepatternsresultfromdis-persedrecreation,primarilysporthuntingandfishing,butalsoincludingtrail-relatedandwater-basedrecreationactivities.Givenjudicioussitingprocedures,itisunlikelythatdevelopingfivecombined-cyclegasplantsrequiringatotalof30acres(12halwouldappre-ciablyimpactexistingrecreationpatterns.Similarly,thedevelopmentoftwo200-MWcombined-cycleunitsnearKenaiwouldnotappreciablyimpactrecreationopportunities,providedthatdevelopedrecreationsitesoftheKenaiNationalWildlifeRefugeandlocalstateparksandrecreationareaswereavoided.AssumingthatChugachStateParkandmunicipalrecreationareasinAnchoragewereavoided,thedevelopmentofa200-MWcombined-cycleunitandtwo70-MWcombustion-turbineunitsrequiringatotalofabout20acres(7halwouldnotmeaningfullyaffectrecreationresourceareasoractivitiesintheAnchorage-TurnagainArmarea.4.3.8SocioeconomicFactorsTyonekisthecommunitythatwouldbenearesttothefivecombined-cycleunitsonthelowerBelugaandChuitnarivers.Ingeneral,constructionofoneoftheseunitswouldrequireaworkforceofabout45personsoveraperiodoftwotofiveyears;operationwouldrequireaboutsixpersonsperunit(8atte1lePacificNorthwestLaboratories,1982p.5-19).Assumingsuccessiveconstructionperiods,amaximumtotalof108newworkerswouldbeintheareaatonce,foratotalmaximuminmigratingpopulationofabout200,excludinginmigratingsupportworkers--almostequaltothecurrentpopulationof239.Few,ifany,Tyonekresidentswouldlikelybehiredontheprojects.NovacanthousingisavailableinTyonek,withtheexceptionof24roomsintheShirleyvilleLodge.Thus,housingwouldhavetobebuiltorlotsfortrailersdeveloped.Theschoolbuildingwouldhaveenoughcapacityformanyinmigratingchildren,butanotherteachermightbeneeded.TheKenaiPeninsulaBoroughwouldbeartheplanningandfundingresponsibili-tiesforexpandedservices.TyonekisaNativeAlaskancommunitywhoseresidentsrelyagreatdealonsubsistenceactivitiesfortheirlivelihood.Oeve10pmentofcommercialinterestsinresponsetotheexpandedpopula-tionwouldbeoutweighedbyconflictsbetweentheculturesoftheNativesandofconstructionworkers,andby.potentialinterferenceofthenewpopulationwithtraditionalsubsistenceactivi-ties.Aconstrd~tioncamptohouseworkersnearthesitewouldreducetheseimpactsconsiderably.Roadswouldhavetobebuilttothesitesofthecombined-cycleunits.BetterroadconnectionswithAnchoragewouldbebeneficialbutwould.increaseaccesstothearea.PermissiontobuildsomeaccessroadsmightbedifficulttoobtainfromtheTyonekNativeCorporation.Underthisscenario,twocombined-cycleunitswouldbeconstructedinanareawithincommutingdistanceofthemoresubstantialcommunitiesKenaiandSoldotna.Ifthetwounitswerebuiltinsuccession,amaximumofapproximately100inmigrantsmightbeexpectedatonetime.Thiswould :,I",IiiIII,"'II I4-80beapproximatelya2%increaseoverthe1982population.MinorimpactswouldbemainlyintheformofincreasedaccesstotheareanorthofKenaiandslightdisruptionoftherurallifestyleof thosewholivenearby.Onecombined-cycleunitandtwo70-MWcombustion-turbineunitswouldbebuiltnearAnchorage.Theworkforceneededforconstructionofacombustion-turbineunitwouldbeapproximately30persons.SincemostworkerscouldcommutefromAnchorage,impactswouldbeminorandlimitedtoslightincreasesinroadtrafficandincreasedaccesstothesiteareas.4.3.9VisualResourcesSpecificvisualresourceimpactsforeachofthe200-MWcombined-cycleunitsandthe70-MWcombustion-turbineunitswoulddependontheactuallocationoftheplantfacilitieswithintheproposedBeluga,Kenai,andAnchorageareas.Potentialviewersimpactedmightincludehighwaymotorists,recreationists,orlocalresidents.Impactsmightoccurfromviewsoftheplantstructure,smokestack(about75-ft,or23-mhigh),anyhazardwarninglights(e.g.,strobes)locatedonthestack,and,dependingoncoolingtowerdesignandatmosphericconditions,watervaporplumesemanatingfromthecoolingtowers.Ifwet-drycoolingtowerswereused,nosignifi-cantvaporplumeswouldbeanticipated.Inaddition,visualresourceimpactsmightoccuralongthegaspipelineandpowertransmissionlineright-of-waysthatwouldbenecessarytoconnectthepowerplantwithexistingutilityfacilities.4.3.10CulturalResourcesPotentia1forimpactstoculturalresourcesinthedesignated1ocationsforthenatura1-gas-firedgenerationscenariowouldappeartobelimited.Mostimpactstosignificantsiteswouldprobablybemitigablebyavoidanceandprotection(throughmonitoring).Site-specificsurveysandsignificanceassessmentswouldbenecessarytodeterminetheextentofneededmitigation.4.4COAL-FIREDGENERATIONSCENARIO4.4.1LandResources4.4.1.1GeologyandSoilsDevelopmentofthefivecoal-firedunitswoulddisturbapproximately350acres(140haloflandatWillowand450acres(180halatNenana,andwouldresultinincreasedratesoferosion,sedimentation,andrunoff;soilcompaction;andincreased1eve1sofpotentiallyhazardousmaterialsinsoil.Bothareasarelocatedinrelativelylevelterrainwheresucherosionlossescouldbemoreeasilycontrolled.ImpactsfrompermafrostthawwouldbeexpectedattheNenanasitesonly.Approximately110milliontons[97millionmetrictons(MT)]ofcoalwouldbeusedconsumptivelyoverthe3D-yearlifeofthefive200-MWplants.Approximately2,250acres(910haloflandwouldbedisturbedbyminingassociatedwiththeoperationofthefive200-MWplants.Surfacemining impactswouldincludeincreasedsedimentationandwinderosionofsoilsfromspoilpiles,modificationofsurfacedrainageandtopography,slopefailuresduetoexcavation,andperma-frostthawresultingfromvegetationstripping.Theten70-MWcombustion-turbineplantsthatwouldbelocatedaroundtheCookInletwouldappro-priateatotalof50acres(20hal,andtheconstruction-relatedimpactswouldbehighlysite-specific.4.4.1.2LandUseandOwnershipTheconstructionandoperationofcoal-firedgenerationplantscouldproducesignificantlanduseimpactsatalltheplantsites.Landrequirementsforeachofthetwoplantswouldbeapproximately200to300acres(80-120halforplantandassociatedstructures,coalunloadingfaci1ities,andcoalstoragepiles,andanadditiona11.5acres(0.6halof1andperyearforwastedisposal.Inaddition,itisestimatedthatoperationofa200-MWcoal-firedpowerplantwouldrequire450acres(180haloflandtobestripminedforcoaloverthe3D-yearlifeofthepowerplant.Thefive200-MWcoal-firedunitslocatedatNenanaandWillowandtheten70-MWgas-combustionturbinesunderthecoal-firedgenerationscenari0wouldrequireatotalof600acres(240haloflandforplant-sitefacilities,225acres(90haloflandforwaste-disposalsites,andabout2,250acres(910haloflandforsurfaceminingofcoalduringthe3D-yearoperatinglifeofthefacilities.Similartothenatural-gasgenerationscenario,itisestimatedthatover9,000acres(3,600haloflandwouldberequiredfortransmissionlineright-of-way.AsdiscussedinSection4.3.1.2,significantlanduseimpactscouldalsooccurifextendedaccessortransmissionlinestubswereneededtoreachtheplantsiteorifthesitewerelocatedadjacenttoanexistingnoncompatiblelanduse. 4-814.4.2Climate,AirQuality,NoiseTheclimaticandairqualityimpactsofsitingvariouscombinationsof200-MWcoal-firedunitsatNenanaandWillowaredescribedinthissection.Thecasesofmostsignificantinterest(andimpact)involvesitingfiveunitsatNenanaOf,alternatively,threeunitsatNenanaandtwoatWillow.TheseplantswouldbetoosmalltosignificantlyaffecttheclimateintheNenanaandWillowareas.Theeffectoflandclearing,paving,anderectionofbuildingswouldinvolveachangeinthesurfacealbedosandheatcapacitiesoversmallareas.Asmallvaporplumefromato300ft(0to100m)longwouldbeexpectedfromthewet/drycoolingtowers;onlyverysmallincreasesintemperatureandhumiditywouldbeexpected,andthesechangeswouldoccuronlyinsmallareasnearthetowerstructures.Avisiblevaporplumewouldextendfromtheplantstackstensoffeetinthesummerandhundredsoffeetinthewinter.Themajorairqualityissuesinvolvingthecoal-firedplantstackreleasesinclude:(a)maintain-ingAlaskaambientairqualitystandards,(b)meetingPSDincrementsnotonlyintheClassIIareainwhichNenanaandWillowarelocated,butalsoattheClassIDenaliNationalParkapproxi-mately60mi(95km)southoftheNenanasite,(c)ensuringnosignificantimpactonthenearbynonattainmentareaforcarbonmonoxide(CO)atFairbanks,andCd)ensuringnovisibilityimpair-mentattheDenaliNationalPark.Toinvestigatethesefourissues,theStaffmadenumerica1computationsusingEPA-approvedmodels.First,theEPAscreeningmodelPTPLUwasusedtoevaluatecompliancewithPSDClassIIincrementsforthevicinityofNenanaandWillow.Calculationsrevealedthatforsulfurdioxide(502)andparticulates,maximum3-hrand24-hrconcentrationsforS02andmaximum24-hrconcen-trationsfortotalsuspendedparticulates(TSP)wouldbewellwithinPSDClassIIincrementswhenflatterrainisimpacted. Alaskaambientairqualitystandardswouldbemetaswellfor502,T5P,andNOx'WillowandNenanaarenotnearmajorindustrialsourcesand,asaresult,ambientlevelsareverylow.Incrementscontributedbythenewcoal-firedplantswouldbesufficientlysmallthatwhenaddedtothebackground,thetotalwouldfallfarbelowAlaskastandards.AnexampleofthenumericalvaluesobtainedisthepredictionforthreeunitsatNenana.Themaximum3-hrSD2concentrationpredictedwas90.3~g/m3andthemaximum24-hrTSPconcentrationwas2.8~g/m3.PSDClassIIincrementsforthesepollutantsare512~g/m3and37~g/m3,respec-tively.Allpredictedmaximawouldoccur0.88mi(1.4km)downwindofthestacks.SupplementarycalculationswerepreparedtoevaluatetheimpactofonetofiveunitssitedontheelevatedterrainjusttothenortheastofNenana.AsimplifiedversionoftheVALLEYModelwasusedtoevaluateconcentrationsatelevatedterrain5mi(8km)northeastoftheplantstacks.Twenty-four-houraveragedS02concentrationswerepredictedtobe68~g/m3fortwounits,102~g/m3forthreeunits,136~g/m3forfourunits,and170~g/m3forfiveunits;thePSDClassIIlimiton24-hraveragedconcentrationsis91~g/m3.Althoughmoredetailedanalysesthanascreeninganalysisisrequiredtoconfirmthatregulatoryviolationswouldoccur,thepresentpredictionsrevealasmallexceedenceforthreeunitsandsignificantexceedencesforfourandfiveunits.Next,thesimplifiedversionoftheVALLEYModelwasusedtopredictmaximumincrementalconcen-trationsunderaworst-casescenarioattheDenaliNationalPark.ThesecalculationsrevealedacceptableSD2andTSPincrementsatthisClassIareafortwounitsatNenanaorWillow.However,maximum24-hrconcentrationsofS02atDenaliwerepredictedtobe4.1~g/m3forthreeunitsatNenana,5.4~g/m3forfourunits,and6.8~g/m3forfiveunits,comparedwithaPSDClassIincrementof5~g/m3.Hereagain,thesitingoffourorfiveunitsatNenanawouldleadtoapotentialviolationofPSDClassIincrementrequirements.CalculationswiththesimplifiedVALLEYModelforcarbonmonoxiderevealedanextremelysmallincrement(1.1~g/m3,maximum24-hraverage)atFairbanks,thenearestnonattainmentareafromafive-unitNenanacoal-firedplant.Thispredictedincrementshouldnotinvolveanyviolationofstandards(5,000~g/m3formaximum8-hraverageand2,000~g/m3formaximum1-hraverage)andisnotwithinsignificantlevelsforCOforanonattainmentarea.Finally,aLevel-lscreeninganalysiswasperformedtoassesspotentialvisibi1ityimpactsonDenaliNationalParkcausedbyoperationofonetofivecoal-firedunitsatNenanaandtwounitsatWillow.Section169AoftheCleanAirActrequiresvisibilityprotectionformandatoryClassIFederal'~reaswhereithasbeendeterminedthatvisibilityisanimportantvalue.Furthermore,theStateofAlaskaassessesvisibilityimpactsonacasebycasebasis(AlaskaDept.ofEnvironmenta1Conservation,1983).ThepurposeofthisLevel-1screeninganalysis istoestimatetheworst-casevisualimpactsthatmightoccurattheNationalPark.TheresultsoftheanalysisindicatedsignificantvisibilityimpairmentduelargelytotheNOemissionsfromaplantatNenanawiththree,four,orfiveunits.ChemicalconversionsduringXtransportoftheNenanaplumewouldresultinavisibleplumeoverDenali.Thisplumeisrevealedthroughthree ,Iii4-82contrastparameters,oneofwhichcontraststheplumewiththesky(ratherthanwithterrainfeatures).Thevalueofthisparameter,C"exceededitslimitof0.1intheStaff'scalcula-tionforthree,four,andfiveNenanaunits.ThelargebackgroundvisualrangeatDenali[100to240mi(170to390km)]isacontributingfactorinthisvisibilityimpairment.Level-2andLevel-3analyseswouldlikelyleadtothesameresultsduetotheextrememeteorologyinthatarea;i.e.IlargefrequencyofinversionsandpoormixingofpollutantsinthegeneralregionaboutFairbanks.ApplicationoftheLevel-1screeninganalysiswithoneandtwocoal-firedunitsatNenanaorWillowrevealednovisibilityimpairment,althoughsomeplumecontrastwiththeskywouldstillbenoticeableatDenali.ControltechnologyappliedtoNOmightassistinthesitingofthreeunitsatNenanabymitigat-ingthepotentialvisibilitypr6blem.AnotherpossibilityistheplacementofthreeunitsatWillowandtwoatNenana.ThislatteralternativewouldnotleadtoeitherPSDorvisibilityimpairmentproblemsateitherNenanaorWillow.Constructionandoperationalnoiseimpactsfromthecoal-firedplantsshouldbeminimalifsitingwasatleast0.5to1.5mi(0.8to2.4km)fromthenearestresidences.Themajornoisesourcesintheoperationoftheplantshouldbethecoal-handlingequipment,thecoolingtower,andthetransformers.Anin-depthtreatmentofnoiseimpactsrequiresapreciselocationoftheplantwithrespecttonearestnoise-sensitiveareas,ambientbaselinenoisedata,andanidenti-ficationofspecificequipmenttobeusedinplantconstructionandoperation.4.4.3WaterQuantityandQualityThecoal-firedpowerplantsatWillowandNenanawouldhavenegligibleimpactsonsurfacewaterresources.Theconsumptivewateruseestimatedfora200-MWfacilitywithwet/drymechanicaldraftcoolingtowersisonly4cfs(0.11m3/s).Becauseoftheperformanceofthecoolingtowerdesign,makeupwaterwouldberequiredonlyduringthewarmestmonthsoftheyear(June,July,andAugust).ThisdemandcouldbeeasilysatisfiedfromavailableflowsintheSusitnaRiveratWillow,theTananaorNenanariversatNenana,orfromlocalgroundwaterinalluvialaquifers.Sourcesofwaterpollutionfromcoal-firedpowergenerationincludecoolingsystemb10wdown,wastesfromregeneratingdem;neralizers,chemicalcleaningsolutions,ashpondoverflow,coalpiledrainage,anddomesticwateruse(BattellePacificNorthwestLaboratories,1978).Itisexpectedthatallpoint-sourcedischargestosurfacewatersfromthecoal-firedpowerplantswouldmeetappropriatestateandFederalwaterqualityandeffluentlimitationguidelinesandthatnoadverseimpactonsurfacewaterqualitywouldoccurfromdischargesattheseplants.Closed-cyclecooling(coolingtowers)wouldberequired,andthusnosignificantadversechangesinwatertemperaturewouldresultfromoperationofthecoal-firedpowerplants.Nosignificantchangesiniceprocessesshouldoccur.Localice-freeareascouldexistinthevicinityofthermaldischarges.Thermalimpactsthatcouldoccurasaresultofcoal-firedpowergenerationwouldbeassociatedwiththedischargeofblowdownfromthecoo1ingwatersystemproducingathermalplumeinthereceivingwaterbody.Foralltheunitsconsideredinthisscenario,thermalloading,ifany,wouldbeminorwithadequateflowavailablefordilution.Asaresult,anythermalimpactswouldbeminorandlimitedtoasmallthermal-plumemixingzone.Groundwatercontaminationofshallow,unconfinedaquiferscouldoccurasaresultinfiltrationofcoal-pi1erunoff,accidenta1spi11sand1eaks,andseepagefromsolidand1iquidwastedisposalareas.Suchimpactscouldbeeliminatedorreducedtoacceptablelevelsthroughproperfacilitydesign,operation,andmaintenance.4.4.4AquaticCommunitiesConstructionofthefive200-MWcoalunitsandthe ten70-MWcombustion-turbineunitswouldimpactaquaticcommunitiesintheimmediatevicinityofthefacilitiesandalongaccessroutes.Aquatichabitat(e.g.,wetlands)wouldbelostwherethefacilitiesweresited.Increasedsiltationandturbiditywouldadverselyaffectaquaticcommunitiesinthevicinityofconstruc-tionsitesandwhereaccessroutesandpowertransmissioncorridorscrossedstreams.Thespatialextentoftheseimpactsshouldbelimitedtotheimmediatevicinity[e.g.,300ft(90m)]ofconstructionactivites.Duringoperationofthecombustionturbines,adverseaffectswouldbeexpectedtobelessthanduringconstruction.Duringoperationofthecoalunits,however,therewouldbeadditionalimpactsassociatedwithcoalpilesandfly-ashdisposalareas.Sitesfortheseareaswouldlikelyin.cludeadditionalaquatichabitat(mostlikelywetland),andduringoperationtherewouldlikelybesomechangeinthecompositionanddistri-butionofaquaticplant,invertebrate,andfishcommunitiesintheimmediatevicinityofrunofffromtheseareas.Theincreaseddissolvedsolidsdischargedfromcoolingsystemsintostreamsorothersurfacewatersmightcausesomelocalchangesincompositionanddistributionofplant,invertebrate,andfishcommunities.Bothconstructionandoperationimpactsareexpectedtobeproportiona11ygreaterforthe200-MWcoalunitsthanforthe70-MWcombustion-turbineunits. 4-83Thegreatestsourceofadverseimpactonfishcommunitieswouldlikelybetheincreasedaccessi-bilityofstreams,rivers,and1akestosportandsubsistencefishingpressureinthevicinityofthefacilitiesandalongaccessroutesandtransmissionlinecorridors.Directconstructionandoperationimpactsarelikelytobelimitedtofishspeciesinthestreamsandlakesdirectlyaffectedbyconstructionandoperation.Theindirectimpactsduetoincreasedaccessibility,however,couldalsoaffectsalmonpopulationsmigratingupnearbyriverssuchasthesusitna,Nenana,andTanana.Increasesinaccessibilitywouldbemorelikelytobeassociatedwiththecoalunitsthanwiththecombustionturbines,sincethecombustionturbineswouldbelocatedinoradjacenttoalreadyexistingpopulationcenters,whereasthelargercoalunitswouldbelocatedinmoreremoteareas.4.4.5TerrestrialCommunities4.4.5.1PlantCommunitiesConstructionoffacilitiesassociatedwiththefive200-MWcoalunitsandtheten70-MWcombustion-turbineunitsofthecoal-firedgenerationscenariocouldresultinthepermanentremovalordisturbanceof600acres(240halofvegetation.Overthe30-yearlifeofthecoalunitsanadditionaltotalofabout225acres(90halofvegetationwouldbetemporarilyremovedforsolidwastedisposalattheplantsites,andatotalofabout2,250acres(910halofvegeta-tionwouldbetemporarilyremovedduringsurfaceminingofcoal.Itwouldbeexpectedthatthewastedisposalandsurfaceminesiteswouldeventuallyberehabilitated.Ifsoilscouldbeadequatelyrestoredontheseareas,rehabilitationshouldbenomoredifficultthantherehabili-tationofborrowsitesorothertemporaryfacilitiesplannedfortheproposedsusitnaproject(seeSec.4.1.5.1).Temporaryremovalordisturbanceofvegetationwouldbeassociatedwithconstructionoftransmissionlinestubsorgaspipelines(seeSec.4.3.5.1).Aswiththenatura1-gas-firedgenerationscenario,transmissionofpowertotheRailbeltwouldrequireconstructionandoperationofpowertransmissionfacilitiesthatcoulddisturbabout9,000acres(3,640halofvegetation(Sec.4.3.5.1).Localizedalterationordamageofplantcommunitiesmightresultfromfugitivedustingnearcoalminepits,alongtransportationroutes,nearcoalstoragepiles,andnearwastedisposalsites.Traceelementsinrunofforseepagefromsolidwastedisposa1areasmighthavesome1oca1izedeffectsonvegetationsurroundingthesite,althoughtheprobabilityofthiswouldlikelybelow(Ovoraketa1.,1978).Noimpactstovegetationfromparticulatesortraceelementcombustionemissionswouldbeexpected.Underworst-casefumigationconditions(seeSec.4.4.2;Sec.G.2.4,App.G;andSec.J.2.3.2,App.J),s02-sensitivespecieswouldprobablynotsufferacuteinjuryordamage,exceptperhapsatspecificlocationsundercertainconditions(seeSec.J.2.3.2,App.J).Althoughthepotentialfors02-inducedchronicorlong-terminjuryoralterationofplantcommunitiesnearthecoalunitsexists,itisimpossibletopredictwhetherornotsucheffectswouldactuallyoccurbecauseverylittleinformationonchronicorlong-terminjurythresholdlevelsexistsintheliterature.ItisunlikelythatvegetationinthevicinityofthecoalunitswouldbedirectlyaffectedbyNOemissions,butNOtogetherwithotherpollut-antemissionsmightcausegreaterinjurythangnyoneofthep01futantswouldalone(Dvoraketa1.,1978).Impactstowetlandswouldprobablybeminimalifthefacilitiesweresitedtoavoidcriticalorsensitivewetlandareas.4.4.5.2AnimalCommunitiesThe400MWofcoal-firedgeneratingcapacitysitednearWillowwouldrequireapproximately350acres(140halofhabitatforplantfacilitiesandwastestorage.Principally,lowlandspruce-hardwoodhabitatwouldbeimpacted.Theplantwouldbelocatedinanareaofhighdensitiesofmooseandblackbear.However,suitablehabitatforthesespeciesoccursthrough-outthisportionofthesusitnaBasin.Theareaislightlydevelopedforrecreationalpurposes,andaccessmightbeenhancedtosomedegreebydevelopmentofthecoal-firedunits.Thisdevelopmentcouldalsoresultinincreaseddisturbancetonestingtrumpeterswansandbaldeagles.ThethreeNenanacoalunitswouldbelocatedmainlyinbottomlandspruce-hardwoodhabitatandrequireabout450acres(180hal.Moosedoconcentrateintheareaduringwinter,butthegeneratingfacilitieswouldoccupyonlyasmallfractionofthehabitatavailable.Sometrumpeterswannestingmightbedisturbed.Historicalperegrinenestinglocationswouldpoten-tiallybewithin5..mi(8km)oftheplant.BecausetheareaislocatedontheParksHighway,noadditionalaccessifi~litywouldresult.CoalminingnearHealywouldnecessitatedisturbingabout2,250acres(910halofuplandspruce-hardwoodandtundrahabitat.Brownbear,caribou,andmoosewouldbemostimpactedbythishabitatloss.Reclamationoftheminedlandwouldrecoversomeofthelostproductivity.MortalityofbiggamealongtheAlaskaRailroadcouldincreasedramatically,particularlyduringwinterwhencoalshipmentscouldrequiretwotothreetimesthecurrentrailtraffic. 'I!.IiiIiI:iI·ilI;..4-84Useofapproximately50acres(20halforcombustion-turbineplantswouldhaveeffectssimilartothosedescribedinSection4.3.5.2,buttheexactnatureandmagnitudeoftheimpactswoulddependuponpreciselywheretheplantswerelocated.4.4.6ThreatenedandEndangeredSpeciesNoimpactstothreatenedorendangeredspecieswouldbeexpectedtooccurasaresultofconstruc-tionandoperationoffacilitiesinthecoal-firedgenerationscenario.4.4.7RecreationResourcesSeveraldedicatedrecreationareasarelocatedinthevicinityofWillow.TheWillowStateRecreationAreaisproposedtobeexpandedby3,450acres(1,396hal(ParkPlanningSection,1983).Additionally,theareahasbeenthesceneofa"recreationcabinboom"inrecentyears(U.S.Dept.ofAgriculture,1981).Patternsofdispersedrecreationarealsowellestablished,especiallywithrespecttofishingandboatingactivitiesassociatedwithWillowCreek.Giventhattwo200-MWcoal-firedunitswouldbedevelopedinaleastsensitivearea,outdoorrecrea-tionistswouldbesubjecttovisualimpactsinvolvingstackemissions,coaltransportactivities,andotherrelatedeffects.AsidefromtheGeorgeParksHighwayandtheAlaskaRailroad,whicharemajortouristroutes,recreationpatternsintheNenanaareaconsistoflow-densitydis-persedrecreation.Developmentofthreecoal-firedunitsintheNenanaareawouldresultinconsiderablylessimpactsonrecreationactivitiesthanwouldbethecaseintheWillowarea.Developmentofthe tencombustion-turbineunitsassociatedwiththecoal-firedscenariointheTyonek-Beluga,northwestKenaiIandAnchorageareaswouldresultinminorimpactsonrecreationresourceareasandactivities.BasedontheassumptionthattheNenanacoalfieldwouldbethefuelsourcefortheNenanaandWillowcoal-firedplants,recreationopportunitiesintheHealyareawouldbealteredduetoincreasedminingactivity.Competitionamonginmigratingminepersonnel,tourists,andlocalresidentswouldlikelygeneratethestrongestrecreationdemandforaccommodationsandservicesofestablishmentsinHealy(seeSec.4.4.8),aswellasthoselocatedalongtheParksHighway.However,miningpersonnelwouldalsocompetefordispersedrecreationopportunities,suchashuntingandfishing.ThedemandforuseofdevelopedrecreationfacilitieswouldbesomewhatalleviatedbytheproximityofDenaliNationalParkand,toalesserextent,DenaliStatePark.4.4.8SocioeconomicFactorsItisassumedthatallthecoalforthecoal-firedunitsthatwouldbebuiltunderthisscenariowouldcomefromtheNenanacoalfieldnearHealy.Tosupplythefuelforfive20D-MWcoal-burningpowerunitsandmaintaincurrentsuppliestoexistingmarkets[about700,000tons(630,000MT)peryear],productionwouldhavetoincreasebyoverfivefold,toabout3.8milliontons(3.4millionMT)peryear.CurrentoperationattheUsibelliMinenowemploysabout90personsinthesummerand70inthewinter.Itisassumedherethatatotalof300workers(about210new)wouldbeneededtomeetthenewproductionlevels.Becauseminingoperationswouldrequireapermanentworkforce,mostoftheseworkerswouldprobablysettleinthearea.Thiswouldaddatotalofabout1,100peopletotheexistingpopulation(seeApp.N,Sec.N.2.3.2.1).Aninfluxof1,100persons(300%increase)wouldcreateseveredifficultiesinHealy.Manyserviceswouldberequired--newandperhapscentralizedwaterandsewerservices;schools;fire,police,andhealthfacilities;andnewandupgradedroads.Thestatewouldberesponsibleforplanning,financing,andadministeringthenewservices.CulturaldifficultiesbetweenNativeresidentsandnon-Nativeinmigrants,interferencewithsubsistenceactivities,anddramaticchangesinlifestyleforcurrentresidentsaccustomedtothesmall-townsettingwouldoccur.Economicopportunitiesmightexpand,butthesewouldbeofmorebenefittonewdevelopersandinmigratingsupportworkersandtheirhouseholdsthantocurrentresidentswhocouldnotade-quatelyprovidetheservicesandskills.Currently,allcoalisshippedfromtheUsibelliMinetoFairbanksbyrailon75-toncarsinabout3-1/2unittrainspermonthinthesummerandabout10unittrainspermonthinwinter,anaverageofabout1.8trainsperweek.Approximately2.3milliontons(2.1millionMT)peryearwouldbeshippedtothe generatingunitsinNenana.Thiswould'bringthenumberofunittrainstoaboutone(twotrips)perday.Using100-toncarson100-carunittrains(themorecommonsizeofunittrainsinthelower48states),thenumberofunittrainsneededwouldbereducedtoaboutthreetrainseveryfourdays,moreinthewinterthaninthesummer,oraboutthreetimesthecurrentnumber.ShippingcoaltotheWillowunitswouldrequireaboutsevenunittrainseverytwoweeksif75-toncarswereused,oraboutfivetrainsof100carseveryweek,if100-toncarswereused. 4-85Currently,theAlaskaRailroadisonlyusedat20%offreightcapacity.Amaximumaverageincrementofabout14tripsperweekbetweenthemineandNenanamaynotstrainthe1ine.Additionaltripswouldbeneededtotransportequipmentneededforminingandforoperationofthepowerplants,andperhapstotransportgoodstothegreatlyexpandedpopulationsinHealyandNenana.Morefrequentmaintenanceofthelinewouldberequired,particularlyinwinter.EachofthethreegeneratingunitslocatedinNenanawouldrequireabout600workerstwotofiveyearstoconstructandabout100personstooperate.Ifbuiltinsuccession,atpeakconstruc-tionofthethirdunit,theworkforcerequiredwouldbeatamaximum800persons.Intheworstcase,ifallconstructionworkerschosetoliveinNenanaratherthancommutefromFairbanks[about50mi(80km)away],populationinmigrationcouldreachafirstpeakofabout2,600persons,dropofftoaslowasabout500,increasetoasecondpeakofabout3,100,dropbacktoabout1,000residentsassociatedwithoperationofthetwocompletedunits,andincreaseonceagaintoafinalpeakofabout3,600persons,finallydroppingtoabout1,500permanentresidentsrelatedtoallthreeoperationwprkforces.Apopulationinfluxintheworstcaseofabout2,600personsoveronlytwoorthreeyearswouldcausesevereimpactstothecommunity.Populationincreasesrelatedonlytotheoperationworkforcewouldstillalmosttriplethesizeofthetown;increasesrelatedtopeakconstructiononthethirdplant(3,600persons)wouldtotalseventimesthecurrentpopulationof470.InNenana,shortfallsinhousingandcommunityandcommercialserviceswouldoccur,andtheclassicplanningandfinancing"boom-bust"problemsdiscussedinSection4.1.8woulddevelop.Thestatewouldberesponsibleforthecostsofplanningandconstructingnewservices.NativeAlaskancultureandsubsistenceactivitiesinNenanawouldbeoverwhelmedbynon-Nativeactivities.ConstructionoftwounitsintheWillowareacouldhavesubstantialimpacts,a1taoughnotassevereasthoseinNenana.Peakinmigrationofprojectandsupportworkersandtheirhouseholdscouldbeabout2,600personsforthefirstunit,and3,100forthesecond,followedbyatotalpermanentoperationspopulationofabout1,000.However,becauseoftheexistingsupportandserviceoperationsinthearea,inmigrationofsupport-worker-re1atedpopulationmightbeless,reducingtheseprojections.Willowitselfisaverysmallcommunity,butlargercommunities--suchasHouston,Wasilla,andPa1mer--aswellasunincorporatedresidentialdevelopmentsarelocatedwithinreasonablecommutingdistance.IfalargeproportionoftheinmigrantschosetoresideinWillow,boom-and-bustimpactswouldbesimilartothosedescribedinSection4.1.8.Toaccommodatehalfoftheinflux,Willowwouldneedaschool,policeandfirestationsandstaff,healthcarefaci1ities,improvedroads,andbetween800and1,200housingunitstomeetdemandsduringpeakconstructionperiods.Mat-SuBoroughwouldberesponsibleforthesepublicservices,anduntilextrataxrevenuewerecollected,constructiontoprepareforthegrowthmightpresentfinancialdifficulties.Palmer,Wasilla,andHoustonwouldhavetoexpandtheirservicefacilities,particularlythesmallerHouston,toaccommodatetheproportionsofconstructionandoperationworkforcesthatchosetosettlewithintheboundariesofthesecommunities.However,thescaleofgrowthimpactswouldbelessthanthoseinWillow.BecauseofthegreateraccesstonaturalgasnearTyonek,alargeproportionofthetencombus-tionturbineswouldbelocatedinthatarea.OtherswouldprobablybelocatednorthofKenai,andnearAnchorage.Aconstructionworkforceof30personsforninemonths,possiblyspreadovertwosummers,wouldbeneededforeachunit.Nooperationsworkforcewouldbenecessary.AccommodationsofworkforcesforeventwoorthreeunitsbuiltinsuccessionwouldbeminimalintheAnchorageandKenaiareas.Fortheshortconstructionperiod,itislikelythatacon-structioncampcouldbebuilttohouseworkersfortheTyonekareaplants.ThiswouldlimitimpactstothoseresultingfromuseofTyonek'slimitedcommercialoperationsbyproject-relatedpersonnel.4.4.9VisualResourcesCoal-firedgenerationplantswouldproducemanyofthesamevisualresourceimpactsasdiscussedinSection4.3.9.Furthermore,eachplantwouldrequireadditionalplantstructures,coalunloadingfacilities,reservecoalpiles,andwastedisposalareas.Thestackateachplantwouldbebetween400and500ft(120-150m)highandveryvisiblefromnearbyareas.Oependingonatmosphericconditions,thevisibleplumeemanatingfromthestackwouldvaryfrombeingnonexistenttose~eralhundredfeetlongduringthesummerandupto1mi(1.6km)longduringthewinter.Visiililitydownwindfromtheplantwou1dbeadverselyimpactedbyhaze1ayerscreatedfromstackemissions.Additionalvisualimpactsmightoccurastheresultofstripminingofcoaltofuelaplant.Inparticular,thefive200-MWcoal-firedunits(threeinNenanaandtwoinWillow)wouldprobablybevisuallyobtrusiveinrelationtotheirsurroundingenvironmentandbecauseoftheirproximitytoscenichighways,waterways,andrecreationareas.BecauseoftheproximityofDenaliNationalParkandPreserveandotherscenicresources,thevisualresourcesoftheNenanaareawouldbesignificantlyimpactedbytheoperationofthree200-MWcoal-firedunits.Theresidentialand ':I4-86recreationalareassurroundingtheWillowareawouldalsobeadverselyimpactedbyviewsofplantfacilitiesandtheassociatedhazelayercreatedbytheoperationoftwo200-MWcoal-firedunits.4.4.10CulturalResourcesImpactstoculturalresourcesinthedesignatedlocationsforunitsthatwouldbedevelopedunderthisscenariowouldprobablybelimited.Mostimpactstosignificantsiteswouldprobablybemitigablebyavoidanceandprotection(throughmonitoring).Site-specificsurveysandsigni-ficanceassessmentswouldbenecessarytodeterminetheextentofneededmitigation.4.5COM8INEOHYORO-THERMALGENERATIONSCENARIO4.5.1LandResources4.5.1.1GeologyandSoilsGenerally,impactsrelatedtodevelopmentofthenon-SusitnahydropowerprojectswouldbesimilarinnaturetothosedescribedfortheWatanaprojectinSection4.1.1.1.Ouetotheflatterraininthesitearea,theJohnsonreservoirwouldinundate84,000acres(34,000halandresultinthe1055ofareasofpotentiallygoodagriculturalsoils.Theuncon-solidateddepositsandareasofpermafrostonthelowslopessurroundingthereservoirmightbesusceptibletoflowandslumpfailures.8eacherosionwouldbeexpectedtobeextensive.SlumpingandslopefailurewouldbeexpectedintheglacialdepositsformingtheshorelineoftheKeetnareservoir.Impactsofpermafrostthawwouldalsobepossibleatthissite.Noagriculturalsoilsormineralresources-wouldbelo?tbyreservoirinundation.Thesmallarealextent(2,600acres,or1,050haloftheSnowreservoiranditslocationinabedrockgorgewouldminimizeboththelength ofshorelinesubjecttoerosionandthepotentialforslopefailures.Soilsthatwouldbefloodedbythereservoirareagriculturallyunsuitable.Noknownmineralresourceswouldbeinundated,althoughtherearenumerousmineralclaimsnorth-eastofthearea.IntheareaoftheBrownealternative,extensiveslopefailureandbeacherosionmightbeexpec-tedtooccurinthe50ftTertiarysedimentaryrockandunconsolidateddepositspresentthrough-outthereservoirarea.Permafrostthawimpactswouldalsobeprobableinthisarea.AreasofagriculturallysuitablelandsandsubbituminouscoalreservesoftheNenanacoalfieldwouldbeinundatedbytheBrownereservoir,althoughthemagnitudeoftheselossescannotbedeterminedatthistime.NoadditionalareaswouldbeinundatedthroughtheuseoftheexistingLakeChakachamna.Changesintheratesoflakedrawdownforthispowergenerationplanmightaffectslopestabili-tiesalongthelakeshoreline,however.ReactivationoftheMt.Spurrvolcanocouldjeopardizethepowerfacility,butfailureofthelakewouldnotbemademoreorlesslikelybythedevelop-mentofthelake-tapforthepowerplant..ImpactsthatwouldbeexpectedforthethermalunitsthatwouldbeconstructedunderthisscenariohavebeenoutlinedinSections4.3.1.1and4.4.1.1.4.5.1.2LandUseandOwnershipIngeneral,landuseimpactsatthevariousalternativedamsitesunderthehydropowerportionofthecombinedhydro-thermalscenariowouldbesimilarinnaturetothosediscussedinSec.4.1.1.2.Thesedamswouldinundateabout102,000acres(41,300halofland;additionallandwouldberequiredforaccessroutes,powertransmissionrights-af-way,borrowareas,andsupportfacilities.Inparticular,theBrowneprojectwouldinundate10,640acres(4,310hal,includingportionsoftheexistingGeorgeParksHighwayandAlaskaRailroad.DevelopmentoftheJohnsonsitewouldresultininundationof84,000acres(34,000hal,includingaportionoftheAlaskaHighway(Route2)andanabovegroundpipeline.LanduseimpactswouldbeminimalattheChakachamnasitesincenodamandassociatedreservoirwOlJ.ldberequired.Landuseimpactsofthethermal(coalandgas)portionofthecombinedhydro-thermalscenariowerediscussedinSections4.3.1.2and4.4.1.2.4.5.2Climate,AirQuality,NoiseThethermalportionofthisgenerationscenariohasbeendiscussedpreviously(Sec.4.1.2,4.2.2,4.3.2,and4.4.2).Theimpactsofthenon-SusitnaalternativeswouldparallelthoseoftheSusitnadevelopmentalternatives.Dependingupontheextentofsiteboundariesforconstruc-tionandoperationofJohnson,Keetna,Snow,andBrowne,fugitiveemissionandnoiseimpactsmightextendbeyondthoseboundaries.Nonoiseimpactswouldbeexpectedifnonoise-sensitiveareaswerewithin0.5to1.5mi(0.8to2.4km)oftheplantsites. 4-87Foggingandicingeffectsatthe84,000-acre(34,000-ha)impoundmentattheJohnsonsitemightoccasionallyextendbeyondthereservoir.However,sucheffectsshouldbeconfinedtowithin150ft(45m)oftheshoreline.4.5.3WaterQuantityandQualityImpactsonsurfacewaterresourcesfromthenatural-gas-firedandcoal-firedthermalgeneratingfacilitiesarediscussedinSections4.3.3and4.4.3.Impactstosurfacewaterresourcesfromthefivenon-SusitnahydropowerprojectswouldrangefromminorattheSnowsitetomajoratLakeChakachamna.AttheSnowsite,naturalstreamflowwouldbedivertedoutoftheoriginalchanneltoapower-houseonKenaiLake.Approximately8mi(13km)oftheSnowRiverwouldbedewatered,thelower4mi(6.5km)ofwhichwouldparallelHighway9andtheAlaskaRailroadbeforeenteringthesouthernendofKenaiLake.TheJohnsonandBrowne-siteswouldinvolveconstructionoflargemainstemreservoirsontheTananaandNenanariversnorthoftheAlaskaRange.ThemaximumstoragevolumeofJohnsonreservoirwouldbe65,000ac-ft(80millionm3);thevolumeofBrownereservoirhasnotbeendetermined.TheKeetnahydroprojectwouldincludeconstructionofadamandmainstemreservoir,withanestimatedreservoircapacityof1millionac-ft(1billionm3)ontheTalkeetnaRiver.TheChakachamnahydroprojectwouldinvolvethemostseverehydrologicmodificationsofallthenon-Susitnahydropoweralternatives.Itwouldaffecttwolargeriversystems:(1)theChakachatnaRiver,whichdrainsLakeChakachamna,and(2)alltheMcArthurRiver,onwhichthepowerhousewouldbelocated.Thenaturalflowregimeofthelower15mi(24km)oftheChakachatnaRiverwouldbesignificantlyreducedastheoutflowsfromLakeChakachamnaweredivertedintotheMcArthurRiverpowerhouse.OailyoutflowsfromLakeChakachamnarangedfrom10,500cfs(300m3/s)inSeptember1982tolessthan600cfs(17m3/s)inMarchandApril1983.FlowsintheMcArthurRiverforthesameperiodrangedbetween1,500cfs(42m3/s)inSeptemberand29cfs(1m3/s)inMarch.Amaximumof7,200cfs(204m3/s)wouldbedivertedoutoftheChakachatnaRiverintotheMcArthurRiver.FishpassagefacilitiesareplannedtotransportsalmonuptoLakeChakachamna.Theproposedminimumreleasethroughthesefacilitieswouldbe343cfs(10m3/s).ThepotentialimpactsofthesefivehydropoweralternativesonsurfacewaterqualityaresimilartothosefortheSusitnaprojectdescribedinSection3.1.3.Theseinclude(1)changesinthesuspendedsolidandturbidityregimesdownstreamoftheprojects,resultingfromconstructionactivitiesandfromtheretentionandreleaseofsuspendedsolidsretainedwithinthereservoir,(2)changesinthethermalregimeofreceivingwatersdownstreamoftheproject,and(3)super-saturationofwaterduetoentrainmentofairatdischarges.Temporalchangesinturbidityregimes,similartothosepredictedfortheSusitnaproject(Sec.3.1.3.2),wouldoccuratthehydropowersites,particularlythoseatwhichglacialflourdominatesthesuspendedsolidload(e.g.,Browne,Johnson,Chakachmna).TheChakachmnaprojectwouldresultin.temporalchangesinthesuspendedsolidloadintheMcArthurRiverfromthediversionofwaterfromLakeChakachamna,withtheconcentrationincreasingduringthefall-winterperiodanddecreasingduringthespring-summerperiodrelativetopreprojectlevels.Similartemporalchangesinsuspendedsolidconcen-trationswouldoccurfortheotherhydropoweralternatives.Althoughthemagnitudeofsuchchangescannotbeestimatedwithoutinformationonthepredictedreservoirhydrologyandonwaterqualityintheexistingenvironment,adverseimpactsonwaterqualityfromchangesintheconcentrationofsuspendedsolidswouldnotbeanticipatedforanyofthehydropoweralternatives.Nitrogensupersaturationathigh-headdamscanbepreventedwithappropriatedesignandmitiga-tivemeasures.Itisassumedthatsuchmeasureswouldbeimplementedandthatnitrogensuper-saturationinexcessoftheAlaskawaterqualitystatute(110%ofsaturation)wouldnotoccurdownstreamofthesealternativehydropowersites.NomajorchangesiniceprocesseswouldbeexpectedattheSnowhydropowersite.ChangesiniceprocesseswouldbeexpectedintheChakachatnaRiverandtheMcArthurRiverasaresultofflowdiversionsassociatedwithChakachamnaprojectoperations.Changesindownstreamflowsresult-ingfromtheoperationoftheJohnson,Browne,andKeetnahydrofacilitiescouldproducechangesiniceprocessesintheTanana,Nenana,andTalkeetnarivers.Relativetoth~malconditions,theSnowprojectwouldnotimpoundanywaterand,therefore,upstreamofthediversionpointtheSnowRiverwouldmaintainpreprojectconditions.The8-mi(13-km)reachoftheSnowRiverfromthediversionpointtoKenaiLakewouldbedewatered.WaterdivertedfromtherivercouldproducelocalandminortemperaturechangestoKenaiLake,butwouldhavenoimpactonthelarge-scalethermalstructureofthelake.TheChakachamnahydropowerprojectwouldbeexpectedtohavenothermalimpactsonLakeChakachamna;however,thediversionofwaterfromtheChakachatnaRivertotheMcArthurRivercouldresultintemperaturechangestobothrivers. II':'1I'!I,;j.,4-88TheJohnson,Brown,andKeetnahydroprojectswouldresultinthecreationofreservoirsontheTanana,Nenana,andTalkeetnarivers,respectively.IntheimpoundedportionoftheseriversJthe.thermalcharacterwouldchangefromfree-flowingisotherma1tomorestatic,withseasonalvertica1thermalstructure.Temperaturechangeswouldbeexpecteddownstreamofthesedams.Theextentofthesechangeswoulddependondamdesignandoperation.Nosignificantgroundwaterimpactswouldbeanticipatedfromanyofthenon-Susitnahydropowerprojects.4.5.4.AquaticCommunitiesWhereastheSnow,Browne,andJohnsonsiteswouldaffectfewfisheriesresources,theKeetnasite(TalkeetnaRiver)andChakachamnasite(ChakachatnaRiver)areimportantforanadromoussalmonids(Sec.3.5.4).SalmonidrunstotheTalkeetnaRiverhavebeenincompletelycharac-terized,butcomparisonsofdataonupstreammigrantsintheSusitnamainstreamattheSunshine(belowtheconfluence)andtheTalkeetna(above)stationsindicatenumerousfishusingeithertheTalkeetnaorChulitnarivers.BothKeetnaandChakachamnadamswouldblockmigrationstoupstreamspawningareas.TheseblockagescouldresultinsalmonlossesgreaterthanthoseduetotheproposedSusitnaproject.TheChakachamnaprojecthastheadditionalpotentialtomarkedlyimpactanadromousfishdownstreamasaresultofdewateringordecreasingflowsintheupperChakachatnaRiver.Therewouldbesomeimpactstoaquaticlifedownstreamofbothprojectsduetoalterationsinwaterquality,'changesinthefoodbase,andaccesstolowerriverspawningsitesunderchangedflowregimes.DiversionoftheChakachatnaRiverflowstotheMcArthurRivercouldaffectthesuccessoffishinthatsystemthroughincreasedflowsandalteredwaterquality.4.5.5TerrestrialCommunities4.5.5.1'PlantCommunitiesConstructionofthevariousdams,impoundments,diversions,laketaps,andassociatedfacilitiesattheJohnson,Keetna,Snow,Browne,andChakachamnasites,andthevariousthermalfacilitiesofthecombinedhydro-thermalgenerationscenariowouldresultinthepermanentortemporaryremovalofabout103,000acres(41,700halofvegetationeitherwithorwithoutLakeChakachamna.AdditionalindirectvegetationlossesplusdamageandalterationofplantcommunitiesasaresultofconstructionandoperationofthesehydropowersitesandassociatedaccessroadsandtransmissionlineswouldlikelyoccurandwouldbesimilarintypetothoseimpactsdescribedinSection4.1.5.1.Aswiththenatural-gas-andcoal-firedgenerationscenarios,transmissionofpowertotheRailbeltwouldrequireconstructionandoperationofpowertransmissionfacilitiesthatcoulddisturbabout9,000acres(3,640halofvegetation(seeSec.4.3.5.1).Inaddition,constructionandoperationoftransmissionlinestubstoeachofthedamsitesandthermalunits(asdescribedinSees.2.3.3and2.5.3)couldpotentiallydisturbanother4,800acres(1,940halofvegetationwithLakeChakachamnaoranother3,500acres(1,420halwithoutLakeChakachamna.Thus,atotalofabout12,500to13,800acres(5,060to5,580halofvegetationcouldbedis-turbedbytransmissionfaci1itiesforthisscenario.ImpactstowetlandscausedbydevelopmentofthehydropowersiteswouldbesimilartothosedescribedinSection4.1.5.1,butmightvarydependingonsite-specificconditions.Non-transmissionrelatedimpactstovegetationfromthethermalfacilitiesofthisscenariohavebeendescribedinSections4.3.5.1and4.4.5.1.4.5.5.2AnimalCommunitiesImplementationofeithercombinedhydro-thermalalternative(withorwithoutChakachamna)wouldresultininundationofover115,000acres(46,500halofhabitat,rangingfromtundratoforest.TheKeetnadevelopmentwouldeliminatethesalmonrunstoPrairieCreek.LossofthisfisherycouldhaveasevereimpacttobrownbearandbaldeagleintheupperandmiddleSusitnaBasin.TheChakachamnadevelopmentcouldaffectbrownbearfisheriesdownstream.WinterrangeforcaribouandmoosewouldbeaffectedbytheBrowneandJohnsondevelopments.MountaingoatandDa11'ssheepmightbedisturbedbyconstructionactivitiesattheSnowdevelopment.IncreasedaccessibilitywouldlikelyoccurattheKeetna,Snow,andChakachamnasites.OtherimpactswouldbesimilarinnaturetothosedescribedfortheSusitnadevelopment.Themagnitudeofimpactswouldvarywithsizeofthedevelopment,valueofwildlifehabitataffected,andnumbersofwildlifeaffected.4.5.6ThreatenedandEndangeredSpeciesNoimpactstothreatenedorendangeredspecieswouldbeexpectedtooccurasaresultofconstructionandoperationoffaci1itiesinthecombinedhydro-thermalgenerationscenario.4.5.7RecreationResourcesDevelopmentoftheJohnsonsitewouldpreemptanextensivearea[84,000acres(40,000hal]currentlyusedforavarietyofdispersedrecreationactivities.BothprivateandcommercialrivertouringoftheTananaRiverwouldbecurtailed(AlaskaNorthwestPublishing,1983),anda 4-89segmentoftheAlaskaHighway--amajortouristroute--wouldbedisplaced.ImpactsonrecreationresourcesoftheKeetnaalternativewouldincludecurtailmentofsportfishingforanadromousspeciesinPrairieCreekandtheTalkeetnaRiver,inundationofamajortrailusedprimarilyforaccessingprimehuntingandfishingareas,andinundationofsignificantwhite-waterresources(AlaskaDept.ofNaturalResources,1982).ConstructionofanimpoundmentattheSnowsitewouldinundatesomedevelopedfacilitiesmaintainedbytheU.S.ForestService,aswellasanareausedextensivelyfordispersedrecreationactivities.DevelopmentattheBrownesitewouldcurtailrivertouringontheNenanaRiver;inundate10,640acres(4,305halusedprimarilyforlow-densitydispersedrecreation;andcausedisplacementofsegmentsoftheGeorgeParksHighwayandtheAlaskaRailroad,whicharemajortouristroutes.Effectsonrecreationresourcesassoci-atedwiththeChakachamnasitewouldbesimilartothosediscussedinSection4.3.7withrespecttotheBelugaandChuitnariverareas.Impactsrelatedtodevelopmentofacoal-firedplantatNenanaarediscussedinSection4.4.7,andeffectsofdevelopinggas-firedunitsintheChuitnaareaandnearAnchorageareidentifiedinSection4.3.7.4.5.BSocioeconomicFactorsForthisanalysis,theStaffassumedthatconstructionoftheSnow,Browne,andKeetnahydro-powerplantswouldrequireconstructionperiodsoffouryearsandworkforcesof200persons;300workerswouldberequiredforJohnson;and400forChakachamna.Theoperationsworkforcewasassumedtobe10personsforthesmallerplants,25forJohnson,and50forChakachamna.TheJohnsonhydropowerfacilitywouldbethefirsttobebuiltunderthisscenario.Inthemostextremecasethatnoconstructioncamporonsitehousingwasprovided,thesparselypopulatedareabetweenTokandDeltaJunctionwouldexperiencesevereimpactsduringpeakconstruction.Apopulationinfluxofasmanyas1,300personsduringthepeakperiodwouldalmostdoublethecurrentpopulationofthearea(seeApp.N,Sec.N.2.3.3.1).Asmanyas400newhouseholdswouldrequiretemporaryorpermanenthousing.TokandDeltaJunctionwouldreceivethemajorityoftheinmigrants.Communityserviceswouldhavetobeexpandedconsiderably--atthecostofthestateforTokandofthecommunityforDeltaJunction.Boomtownimpactswouldoccurinbothcommunities(seeSec.4.1.8).Existingcommercialoperationsmightbeexpandedandnewonesbeopened.However,thesebenefitsmightbeoffsetbythedecreaseintherural,undevelopednatureoftheareaandthechangeinthequalityofthesettingforcurrentresidents.Ifconstructioncampsoronsitehousingwereprovidedfortheconstructionperiod,allowingworkerstomaintainpermanentresidenceselsewhere[e.g.,140mi(230km)awayinFairbanks),impactswouldbelimitedtogreaterdemandoncommercialoperationsfromworkersatthecamps.TheNativeAlaskan·communitiesofTanacrossandDotLakemightexperienceculturalconflictswiththeinmigrants.Subsistenceactivitiesmightbeinterferedwithasaresultofincreasedcompetitionforfishandgame.Movementintotheareabytheoperationsworkforceof25personsandtheirfamiliescouldresultin75newpermanentresidentsnearthesite.Impactsofthissmallpopulationwouldbelimitedtoincreasedbusinessatexistingcommercialoperations.TheimpoundmentcreatedbytheJohnsondamwouldinundateaportionoftheAlaskaHighway.Itisassumedthatconstructionofanewsegmentofthehighwayaroundtheimpoundmentwouldoccurconcurrentlywithplantconstruction,furtherincreasingpopulationinmigrationandboom-bustimpacts.IftheStateofAlaskahadtobeartotallyorpartiallythecostofthisconstruction,thiscouldbeasubstantialadditiontoexpenditures.Chakachamna·wouldbethesecondhydroelectricplanttocomeonlineinthescenariowithChakachamnaandwouldbelocatedinthesparselypopulated,NativeAlaskan,Tyonekarea.Thepeakworkforceof400wouldmeanapeakpopulationincrementofabout2,000persons(includingfamiliesandsupportpersonnel).Thepermanentoperationsworkforceof50personscouldresultininmigrationofuptoabout250persons(seeApp.N,Sec.N.2.3.3.2).ImpactstoTyonekwouldbeoftypessimilarto,butatsubstantiallygreaterlevelsthan,thosedescribedinSec-tion4.3.8.Sewerandwatersystems,fireandpoliceprotectionpersonnel,andlocalmedicalfacilitieswouldhavetobeadded,andtheschoolwouldhavetobeexpandedby50%,atleastfortheperiodofconstruction.PlanningandconstructionoftheserviceswouldbefundedbytheKenaiPeninsulaBorough.NativeAlaskancultureandsubsistenceactivitieswouldbeinterferedwithifnotdominatedbythelifestyleoftheinmigrants.Commercialoperationswouldalsoexpandanddiversify.)fprojectdeveloperschosetoestablishworkforcecampsoratemporarycommunityneartl\esiteanddistantfromTyonekforconstruction.andoperation,impactstoTyonekwouldbereducedtoexpansionofcommercialoperationsandinterferencewithcultureandsubsistenceactivities.PermitsfromtheTyonekNativeCorporationtoconstructroadstothesitemightbedifficulttoacquire.ConstructionandoperationoftheSnowhydropowerplantwouldaffecttheEasternKenaiPeninsulaandtheCityofSeward.Inmigrationattheconstructionpeakwouldbeabout900persons,'ora25%increaseoverthe1982populationoftheEasternPeninsula.SomeSewardresidentsmightbehiredtoworkontheproject,possiblycommutingfromtheirresidencesinSeward,thusreducing ,yiii!II:·J·'1'1'11..1":Ii'II',ill"I,II!I;'4-90thehighunemploymentthere.Upto300newpermanentortemporaryhousingunitswouldhavetobeprovided;sewer,water,andothercommunityservicesexpanded;andadditionalschoolstaffhiredatCityofSewardexpense.TrafficvolumeontransportationroutesintheEasternPeninsulawouldincreasewithproject-relatedtravelanddeliveries.Ifworkerschoseto1ivenearthesite,housingwou1dbeneeded.Individualwellsandseptictanksmightsufficeforwaterandsewerservices,butschools,fireandpoliceprotection,andhealthfacilitieswouldhavetobeaddedattheexpenseoftheKenaiPeninsulaBorough.Thesmalloperationsworkforcenecessarywouldhavenegligibleimpactsonthearea.TheBrownehydropowerplantwouldcauseimpactsonHealyandNenanasimilarto,'althoughatalesserscaleandoverashortertimeperiodthan,thosefromthecoal-firedalternative(Sec.4.4.8).TheKeetnaplantwouldcauseimpactsinTalkeetnaandTrapperCreekofatypesimilarto(butofalessermagnitudeandforashorterperiod)thanthoseprojectedfortheproposedproject(Sec.4.1.8).InthescenariowithoutChakachamna,theeffectswouldoccurseparatelybecauseconstruct;onperiodswouldbetenyearsapart.HoweverIwithChakachamna,thetwoplantswouldbeconstructedconcurrently,andimpactsmightbeincreasedandspreadbeyondthesecommunitiesbecauseofoverlappingproject-relateddemands.4.5.9VisualResourcesVisualresourceimpactsatthevariousnon-Susitnahydropowerandthermalgenerationscenariositeswouldbesimilartothosediscussedinpreviousvisualresourceimpactsections(Sees.4.1.9through4.4.9).Inparticular,theBrownesitewoulddetractfromthevisualresourcesoftheNenanaRivervalley.Twoscenicareas,SentinelRockandGraniteGorge,wouldbeinundatedattheKeetnasite.AlthoughtheSnowandJohnsonsiteswouldnotimpactanydesignatedscenicareas,theirdevelopmentwouldresultinthepresenceofman-madefacilitiesinanareaofhighaestheticqualityandessentiallynatural,undisturbedareas.Long-termvisualimpactsattheChakachamnasitewouldbeminimalsincenodamstructurewouldbeconstructed.4.5.10CulturalResourcesDevelopmentofthecombinedhydro-thermalgenerationscenariowouldprobablyhaveanumberofimpacts(direct,indirect,andpotential)onsignificantculturalresourcesites.TheBrownedamlocationcontainsatleasttwoknownculturalresourcesitesthatwouldbedirectlyimpactedandoveradozenothersitesthatwouldbeindirectlyorpotentiallyimpactedbytheconstruc-tionofadamandreservoir.Furthersurveywouldalmostcertainlyproducenumerousadditionalsites.Itseemslikelythatmanyofthesesiteswouldbetermedsignificant.Althoughnositesarecurrentlykno'wnattheremainingdesignateddamsitesandreservoirareas,surveyswouldprobablyyieldsignificantsitesindirectandindirectimpactareasoftheJohnsonsite,andpossiblyothersaswell.Mostimpactstosignificantsiteswouldprobablybemitigablebyinvestigationandavoidance.Site-specificsurveysandsignificanceassessmentswouldbenecessaryinallareasthatwouldbeaffectedunderthisscenarioinordertodeterminetheextentofneededmitigation.4.6.NO-ACTIONALTERNATIVEFromtheviewpointofFERC,theno-actionalternativeamountstodenialofalicensetoconstructandoperatetheSusitnaHydroelectricProjectasproposed.TheApplicantwouldneed,then,toimp1ementalternativemethodsformeetingload-growthrequirements.ThesealternativescouldincludepowergenerationscenariosasdiscussedinSections4.2through4.5,otherconventionalcentralizedsourcesofpowergeneration,non-conventionalcentralizedsourcesofpowergenera-tion,dispersedsourcesofenergy,effortstolimitpowerconsumptionandreducedemands,ornofurtherefforttokeepupwithloadgrowth.UnlessalternativeSusitnadevelopmentswereadopted,environmentalimpactstotheupperandmiddleSusitnaBasinwouldbeavoidedbythesealternativestotheproposedaction.Theenviron-mentofthebasinwouldcontinuetomaintainthebaselinestatusout1inedinSection3.1.Factorsotherthanpowergenerationwouldcontinuetoaffecttheenvironmentofthebasin,butthelarger,stepwiseeffectofreservoirdevelopmentwouldbeavoided.Adoptionofalternativepowersourceswouldhavepotentialfor-impactingtheenvironmentoftheRailbeltandadjoiningregions.SomeoftheseimpactsarediscussedinSections4.3through4.5.Thenatureandmagnitudeofimpactswouldvarywithlocation,typeoffacility,andextentofthefacilitiesrequiredforpowergeneration.Coal-firedfacilitieswouldrequirelargeacreagesforcoalminingandwastedisposalwhereasnatural-gasfacilitieswouldnot.Tidalpowerdevelopment·couldaffectoceanographicdynamicsinCookInlet,alteringfisheriesresources.Relianceondisperseduseofdieselorwoodfuelscouldhaveseriousimpactsonlocalairquality,particularlyintheurbancentersofAnchorageandFairbanks.Evenconservationeffortsto1imitenergyusecouldhaveimpactstothesocioeconomicdevelopmentofAlaska.Specificdiscussionofimpactscannotbeundertakenuntilspecificno-actionalternativesareproposed. rI!IIIII4-914.7COMPARISONOFALTERNATIVES4.7.1LandResources4.7.1.1GeologyandSoilsEachofthealternativeSusitnadamconfigurationsconsideredwouldinundatelesslandthantheproposedSusitnaproject.Fromageelog;candsoil5perspectiveIhowever,theincreasedareathatwouldbefloodedbytheproposedprojectisinsignificant,asneitheruniquenorvaluablemineralorsoilsresourceswouldbeinundatedbyeithertheproposedoralternativedevelop-ments.Thetotalareasthatwouldbeaffectedbyreservoirslopeinstabilitiescouldbesimilarfortheproposedandalternativeprojects.Detailedgeotechnicalevaluationswouldberequiredtosubstantiatethisconclusion,however.Althoughthealternativeaccessrouteswouldnotcrossthepotentiallyerodab1eandpermafrost-richareabetweentheDenaliHighwayandtheWatanadamsite,thealternativeaccessrouteswouldcrossareasofmoreruggedanderodableterrainbetweenthedamsitesandHurricaneand/orGo1dCreek.IntheWil10w-to-Anchoragesegment,theproposedtransmissionrouteandCorridorAEFC(Fig.2-16)wouldhavesimilarimpacts.CorridorABC',althoughalmosttwiceaslongastheproposedroute,wouldfollowexistingright-of-ways,andaccessrouteconstructionimpactsmightbelessforCorridorABC'thantheproposedroute.BetweenGoldCreekandthedamsites,theproposedroutewauldcross1essruggedtopographythanthealtErnativeroutes.Thetransmission1ineroutealsowouldparalleltheaccessroute,therebyreducingaccessrouterequirementsandrelatedimpacts.IntheHea1y-to-Fairbankssegment,theproposedroute(unliketheotheralternativeroutes)wouldfollowexistingrights-of-way,therebyminimizingimpacts.Thegas-firedandcoal-firedgenerationscenarioswoulddisturbinsignificantamountsoflandrelativetotheproposedproject.Withproperconstructionpractices,theerosionlossesrelatedtopowerunitconstructionwouldbeminimalforthesescenariosandwouldbeinsignificantincomparisontotheproposedalternative.Althoughnoknownmineralresourceswouldbeimpactedbytheproposedproject,thesealternativescenarioswouldrequiresubstantialconsumptiveuseofregionalnaturalgas··orcoalreserves.Sitingofthegas-orcoal-firedunitsmightimpactverysmallareasofagriculturallysuitableland.Nosuchimpactswouldbeexpectedfortheproposedproject.Underthecombinedhydro-thermalgenerationscenario,thedevelopmentofthevariousreservoirswouldhavevaryingadvantagesanddisadvantagesovertheproposedproject.TheJohnsonprojectwouldinundatetwicetheareaoftheproposedproject.MuchsmallerareasoflandwouldbeinundatedbytheSnow,Browne,andKeetnaalternatives,andnolandwouldbeinundatedbytheChakachamnaalternative.Un1iketheproposedproject,varyingamountsofpotentiallysuitab1eagriculturallandmightbeinundatedordisturbedbytheJohnsonandBrownealternatives.ReservoirslopefailuresmightbeexpectedtobegreaterthantheproposedprojectfortheJohnsonalternative,andsignificantlylessfortheSnowandtheChakachamnaalternatives.Permafrost-thawimpactswouldbeexpectedforthosealternativesoutsidetheCookInletlowland.SomesubbituminouscoalreservesoftheNenanacoalfieldmightbeinundatedbytheBrownereservoir.Noknownmineralresourceswouldbeimpactedbytheotheralternativesorthepro-posedproject.Thefewestgeo1ogicallyrelatedconstructionimpactswauldbeassociatedwiththeChakachamnaalternative,althoughthisalternativewouldhavethegreatestgeologichazardriskduetotheproximityoftheactiveMt.Spurrvolcano.Theseismicriskforallalterna-tivesmightbeexpectedtobesimilartothethatoftheproposedproject.4.7.1.2LandUseandOwnershipIngeneral,theconstructionandoperationoftheSusitnadevelopmentalternativesanduseofalternativeaccessroutes,transmissionlines,andborrowareaswouldresultinsimilartypesoflanduseimpactsasdiscussedfortheproposedprojectinSection4.1.1.2.Inparticular,theaccessroutealternativeswouldpromotegreaterlanduseactivityanddevelopmentbetweenthedamsitesandHurricane(locatedalongtheGeorgeParksHighway)andintheGoldCreekarea.SeveraloftheHea1y-to-FairbankstransmissionlinealternativeswouldimpacttheHealyCreek,WoodRiver,andopenflatlandareassouthofFairbanks.AlternativeAEF(Fig.2-16)wouldextendacrossthe.BlairLakeAirForcebombingrange.SeveraltransmissionlinealternativeroutesintheupperandmiddleSusitnaRiverBasinwouldadverselyimpactnaturalandrecreationlandswithinorne~rtheChulitnaMountainsandtheDenaliHighwayareausedbyrecreationistsforscenicroadtouring(seealsoSec.4.7.7).IntheWillow-to-Anchoragetransmissionlinecorridorarea,severalofthealternativeroutesegmentswouldimpactresidentialandrecrea-tionalareas(e.g.,Palmer,NancyLakeStateRecreationArea).Alloftheabove-mentionedtransmissionlinesegmentswouldresultingreaterimpactstolandusethantheproposedtrans-missionlineroute.-Regardingthevariousalternativepowergenerationscenarios,thenatural-gas-firedgenerationscenariowouldrequiretheleastamountoflandandwouldhavefewerdirectlanduseimpacts 4-92thantheproposedproject,thecoal-firedgenerationscenario,orthecombinedhydro-thermalgeneratingscenario.Thealternativecoal-firedplantsthatwouldbelocatedatNenanaandWillowcouldadverselyimpactthesurroundingresidentialandrecreationallanduse.Thecombinedhydro-thermalgenerationscenariowouldrequirethegreatestamountofacreageforprojectfacilities.Additionally,theBrowneandJohnsonsiteswouldsignificantlyimpacttransportationandutilitycorridorsbyinundatingportionsoftheGeorgeParksandAlaskahighwaysandapetroleumproductspipeline.4.7.2Climate,AirQuality,NoiseTheproposedSusitnaprojecthasonlyoneairqualityimpactofsignificance:fugitivedustemissionsduringconstruction.Leftuncontrolled,theTSPconcentrationsoutsidethesiteboundarymightexceedAlaskaambientairqualitystandards.Mitigativemeasuressuchassprin-klingofwaterortheuseofchemica1stabilizingagentsmightbeapplied.AllairqualityimpactsoftheSusitnaprojectwouldbelimitedtothevicinityofthedamandtownsites.Impactsofthecoal-firedgenerationscenariowoulddependonthenumberandlocationof200-MWgeneratingunits.Allcombinationsofoneandtwo200-MWunitssitedatWilloworNenanawouldsatisfyAlaskaambientairqualitystandardsandPSDregulationsforClassIandClassIIareas.Thesitingofthree,four,orfive200-MWunitsatNenanawouldalmostcertainlyleadtoperiodicsignificantimpairmentofvisibilityatthenearestClassIarea,DenaliNationalPark.TheimplementationofNOcontroltechnologyorthesitingofonlytwounitsatNenana(andthreeatWillow)arereasonablealternativesforconsideration.Inadditiontovisibilitydegradation,operationofthree,four,orfiveunitsatNenanaalsowouldleadtoexceedencesofthePSDClassIIincrementsforS02(24-hraveragedconcentrations)atelevatedterrain5mi(8km)northeastoftheplant.AlsoexceededwouldbePSDClassIincrementsforS02(24-hraverageaconcentrations)forfourandfiveunitsatNenana.AdditionalS02scrubbingbeyondthemanda-tory70%reductioncouldresultinacceptabilityofthesethree,four,orfiveunitsatNenana.Furtheranalysisisrequired,however.Fortheeightcombined-cyclegasunitsproposedforthenatural-gas-firedscenario,allappli-cablestandardsshouldbesatisfied(AlaskaambientairqualityandPSDregulations).NOx,istheonlypollutantwithsignificantemissionrates.Thestackheightswouldonlybe65rt(20m)fortheseplants(twostacksperunit);however,plumerisewouldbeveryhighduetoelevatedplumeexittemperatures.Asaresult,plumeimpactwiththegroundwouldbedelayed,leadingtoverylowconcentrationswhengroundimpactdidoccur.The70-MWgasturbinesproposedinallalternativegeneratingscenarioswouldhaveverylowpollutantreleaselevels;theirairqualityimpactswouldbeeffectivelynil.Noiseimpactsforallalternativeswouldbenegligibleprovidedthatthecoal-andgas-firedplantsweresited0.5to1.5mi(1to2km)awayfromnoise-sensitiveareas.Intermsofairqualityimpacts,theSusitnaproposedproject,Susitnadevelopmentalternatives,andout-of-basinhydroalternativeswouldprovidetheleastclimate,airquality,andnoiseimpacts.Thecoal-generationscenariowouldprovidethegreatestimpact.However,allalterna-tiveswouldprovideacceptableimpacts(intermsofregulatorystandards)exceptforthescenariowiththree,four,orfivecoal-firedplantsatNenana.Theselattercoal-firedscenariosintheirpresentformareunlikelytobeacceptabletotheU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency,theAlaskaDepartmentofEnvironmentalConservation,andtheNationalParkService.Climaticimpactswouldbenegligibleforallalternativesconsidered.4.7.3WaterQuantityandQualityImpactstowaterquantityandqualityresultingfromtheSusitnaprojecthydroalternativeswouldbesimilartothoseprojectedforthe'~roposedaction.Totalimpactswouldlikelybeafunctionofthesizeoftheaction,withsmallerprojectsanticipatedtohavesmallerimpacts.Accessimpactswouldlikelybesimilarforanyin-basinalternative.Basedonthesizeoftheprojectsandtheareasaffected,theorderofseverity--fromgreatesttoleast--amongthein-basinalternativeswouldbeasfollows:Proposedproject,WatanaI-DevilCanyon,Watana1-ModifiedHighDevilCanyon,andWatanaI-Reregulatingdam.Thethermalalternativeswouldinvolvelittleornowaterqualityimpacts,withonlyminorwaterconsumption.Waterqualitychangesduetocoalminingandgasextractionareafunctionofcontrolsemployed,andarenotpresentlyaprobleminAlaska.Thenon-Susitnahydropoweralternativeswouldinvolvemodificationstorivers.TheSnowprojectwouldresultinrelativelysmallchanges,buttheChakachamnaprojectwouldrerouteariver,withlargechangesinflowsandtemperaturesinboththeChakachatnaandMcArthurrivers.TheKeetnapr~jectwouldstronglymodifytheTalkeetnaRiver,whiletheJohnsondamwouldaffecttheTananaRiver,andtheBrowneprojectwouldmodifytheNenanaRiver.TheChakachamnaproject r4-93wouldhavegreaterimpactsthantheproposedproject,whereastheJohnson,Browne,andKeetnaprojectswouldhaveimpactssimilartobutsmallerthantheproposedaction.ThewaterquantityandqualityimpactsoftheSnowprojectwouldbesignificantlylessthantheproposedprojectoranySusitnabasindevelopmentstudied.4.7.4AquaticCommunitiesBecauseitwouldincreasetheaccessibilityofthestreamsandlakesnorthoftheSusitnaRiverthatarepresentlynotreadilyaccessibletolargenumbersofpeople,theproposedaccessplanwouldlikelyhavethegreatestaquaticresourceimpactsofalltheaccessplansexamined.TheaccessalternativethatwouldhavetheleastimpactstoaquaticresourceswouldberailandroadaccessfromGoldCreektotheWatanasite.Underthisalternative,fewerstreammileswouldbemadereadilyavailableandaccesscontrolwouldbemoreeasilyaccomplished.Susitnadevelopmentalternativeswouldresultinimpactssimilartothoseoftheproposedproject,butonasmallerscale.Theimpactsforthedevelopmentalternativeswouldbelessbecauseofreducedreservoirsurfacearea,whichwouldaffectlesstributaryandmainstemhabitatintheimpoundedreach,andbecauseofreducedstoragevolume,whichwouldresultindecreasedflowandtemperaturealterationsfromthepresentsituation.AccessimpactswouldbesimilarforanyoftheSusitnaBasindevelopments,andwouldbeafunctionofthecontrolsplacedonaccessbytheApplicantandtheregulatoryagencies.Basedonthesizeoftheprojectsandtheareasaffected,theorderofseverity--fromgreatesttoleast--amongtheSusitnaalternativeswouldbeasfollows:Proposedproject,WatanaI-DevilCanyon,WatanaI-ModifiedHighDevilCanyon,andWatanaI-Reregulatingdam.Thenatureandmagnitudeofaquaticimpactsofthethermalalternativeswoulddependontheexactlocationoftheprojectandthedesignandoperationofthefacilities.Inthegenerallocationsselectedforanalysis,thelikelyaquaticimpactswouldbetrivial.Consumptiveuseofwaterisassumedtobesmallforthecombustionfacilities,andnomajorthermalorchemicalimpactsshouldoccur.Constructionimpactscouldbesuccessfullyminimized,andaccesstopresentlyunusedareaswouldbeafunctionoftheactuallocationschosenforthefacilitiesandthetransmissionroutes.TheaquaticimpactsofcoaldevelopmentandgasextractionarenotpresentlysevereinAlaska,andcarefuldevelopmentcouldensurethatimpactsremainedsmall.Becauseofthespeciesaffected,thenon-Susitnahydropoweralternativeswould1ikelyhavesmalleraquaticimpactsthantheSusitnaBasindevelopmentalternatives,withtwoexceptions.TheKeetnadamwouldinterceptsalmonmigrationsontheTalkeetnaRiver,whichcouldbeafunctionoffacilitydesign.Ontheassumptionthattheimpactsonthesockeyesalmonruncouldnotbeaverted,impactsatChakachamnawouldexceedthoseoftheSusitnaalternatives,includingtheproposedproject.ImpactsattheSnowsitewouldlikelybesmall,duetothespeciespresentandtheprojectenvisionedatthesite.Becauseofthefisheriesaffected,theimpactsoftheJohnsonandBrownedevelopmentswouldlikelybesmallerthantheSusitnaalternatives.Thedesignandoperationofthealternativeprojectswouldhaveamajoreffectonthenatureandmagnitudeofaquaticimpacts.4.7.5TerrestrialCommunities4.7.5.1PlantCommunitiesComparisonof theaccessalternatives(seeSec.2.2.2.4andFig.2-13)indicatesthattheproposedroutewouldbethelongestandwould,therefore,di$turbmorevegetation.Theproposedroutewouldalsodisturbmorepotentialwetlandareathanthetwoalternatives.TheApplicanthasindicated,however,thatwetlandsbetweenHurricaneandIndianRiverinboththenorthernandsouthernalternativerouteswouldhavearelativelyhighpotentialforcausingdrainagealterationsandmightcauseexcessivesettlementoftheroadinsomeareas(ExhibitE,Vol.9,Chap.10,Supp1.Information,June30,1983,pp.10-15-1and10-15-2).TheApp1icantalsoindicatedthattheproposedDenaliHighway-to-Watanaroutedoesnothaveanywetlandareaswithashighapotentialfordrainagealterations.However,theproposedroutecouldprovideincreasedaccesstogreaterlandareasthaneitherof thealternatives,therebyincreasingthepotentialforincreasedhuman-useimpactstovegetationunlessmeasuresweretakentolimitorpreventuseoftheaccessroadsafterconstructionoftheprojectwascompleted.Acomparisonof\healternativepowertransmissionroutes(seeFigs.2-14to2-16)indicatesthattheproposed\routeswouldcrossneitherthemostnortheleastvegetation.However,inmostcases,theproposedcorridorswouldcrosslessforestandtallshrubcommunities(whichwouldbesubjecttothegreatestdisturbanceduetotheiroverstorylayerheights)andlesspotentialwetlandsthanwouldthealternatives.'TheexceptionstothisarealternativesABDCinthenorthernstudyarea(forestandtallshrubland),ABC'inthesouthernstudyarea(wetlands),andAJCFinthecentralstudyarea(both). 4-94Relativetoimpactstovegetation,alternativeborrowareas(seeFigs.2-2and2-6)thatwouldbeinundatedbytheimpoundmentswouldhavetheleastadditionaleffects.Thoseborrowareassitedalongthebanksofotherwiseundisturbedcreeksmightpresentmoredifficultiesinrehabilitation.Dependinguponthedepthofthesitesandprovisionsmadeforregradingsteepslopes,quarrysitesA,B,K,andLmightbemoredifficulttorehabilitatethanborrowsitesC,D,E,F,G,H,I,andJ.Acomparisonof theimpactstovegetationforthevariousalternativepowergenerationscenarios(includingtheSusitnaprojectasproposedandthealternativeSusitnadevelopments)ispresentedinTable4-12.ThiscomparisonindicatesthatthealternativeSusitnadevelopmentswouldremoveordisturblessvegetatedarea(about82%to88%)thanwouldtheproposedproject.However,thenatural-gas-firedandcoal-firedgenerationscenarioswouldhavetheleasteffectsonvegeta-tion.Vegetationremovedordisturbedbythenatural-gas-firedandcoal-firedscenarioswouldbeabout16%and22%,respectively,ofthevegetatedareathatwouldbeaffectedbytheproposedproject.Furthermore,eachofthesethermalscenarioswouldhavefewerindirecteffectsonvegetationthanwouldanyofthealternativescenarioswithhydropowersites.DuetotheverylargeimpoundmentareaestimatedfortheJohnsonsite[84,000acres(34,000ha)],thecombinedhydro-therma1scenari0wouldprobablydisturbovertwiceasmuchvegetatedarea[morethan115,000acres(46,500ha)]astheproposedSusitnaproject.4.7.5.2AnimalCommunitiesDifferencesamongalternativeborrowareasareonlysubstantiveforthosethatwouldnotbeinundatedbyreservoirfilling--areasC,F,H,andK(Figs.2-2and2-6).Alternativetrans-mission1ineroutesarealllongerthantheproposedroutes,andafewcrossmoresensitivewildlifehabitat(Figs.2-14to2-16).Theaccessalternativewithleastimpactstowildlifewouldberail/roadaccessfromGoldCreektoWatana,southoftheSusitnabelowDevilCanyonandnorthof theSusitnaaboveDevilCanyon(Fig.2-13).ThisroutewouldavoidthesensitiveStephanLakearea,avoidthemovementpathwayoftheNenana-UpperSusitna caribou,andmaintainmore-restrictedaccessthanisnowproposed.Alternativepowergenerationconfigurationsdiffersubstantivelyinimpacts.Onthebasisofamountofhabitatlost,thecombinedhydro-thermalalternativeistheleastdesirableforwild-lifeconsiderations;thisalternativewouldaffecttwicetheamountofhabitatthatwouldbeaffectedbytheproposedproject.However,thevalueoftheaffectedhabitatmightbelowerforthecombinedconfiguration;althoughtheKeetnadevelopmentwouldeliminatethefisheriesofthePrairieCreekarea,whichareusedbybrownbear.Thethermalalternativeswouldaffectfewerwildliferesourcesthanwouldanyofthehydropoweralternativesortheproposedproject.Natural-gasconfigurationswouldaffectaboutsixtotwelvetimesfeweracresofwildlifehabitat,andcoal-firedconfigurationswouldaffectaboutfivetotentimeslessacreagethanhydropowerdevelopments(Table4-13).Forthemostpart,thesealternativeswouldbedevelopedinhabitatsoflowsensitivityoraffectonlyasmallfractionofsensitivehabitat.Additionally,thermaldevelopmentswouldgenerallyoccurinareaswithsomedegreeofexistinghumandevelopment.Thenatural-gasconfigurationwouldbemorecompatiblewithwildlifemanagementgoalsbecausefarlesslandwouldberequiredthanforotheralternatives.4.7.6ThreatenedandEndangeredSpeciesSincenoimpactstothreatenedorendangeredspecieswouldbeexpectedtooccurasaresultofconstructionandoperationoftheproposedSusitnaprojectoranyalternatives,potentialimpactstothreatenedandendangeredspecieshavenobearingonacomparisonofalternatives.4.7.7RecreationResourcesEffectsonrecreationresourcesassociatedwiththeWatanaI-DevilCanyonandWatanaI-ModifiedHighDevilCanyonalternativeswouldbeessentiallysimilar,butdevelopmentoftheWatana1-Reregulatingdamalternativewouldresultinsignificantlylessareabeingwithdrawnfromdis-persedrecreationuse.Also,thisalternativewouldresultincurtailmentoffreeflowintheDevilCanyonrapids,buttherapidswouldnotbeinundatedaswouldbethecaseforthetwootheralternatives.Incomparison,theproposedimpoundmentswouldentailpreemptionofmorelandareathanwouldberequiredforanyoftheaforementionedalternatives(Table4-12),andtheDevilCanyonwhite-waterrunwouldbeinundated.Nomeaningfuldifferencesinimpactsonpublicrecreationresourceswouldresultfromselectingbetweentheproposedandalternativeaccessroutesorborrowareas.However,theproposedaccessroutewouldpasswithin1mi(1.6km)oftheHighLakeLodge.Selectingamongthefouralternativesconsideredinthefinalphaseofrouteselection(includ-ingtheproposedroute)fortheDams-to-GoldCreektransmissionlineswouldnotdifferwithrespecttoimpactsonrecreationresources,withthefollowingexceptions.Transmission Table 4-12.Comparison of Estimated Quantifiable and Unquantifiable Disturbance to Vegetation Among the Power Generation Scenarios 4 Scenario #,0-' Permanent or Long-Term Vegetation Removal (acres) Dams,Impoundments, Construction of Permanent Facilities Access Temporary Vegetation Removal (acres)t 1 Temporary Facilities, Borrow Areas,Waste Disposal,Mining Vegetated Area Disturbed by Transmission Facilities (acres)t2 Total Quantifiable Vegetated Area Disturbed (acres) Potential Unquantifiable Indirect Effects to Vegetationt3 Proposed Susitna Project Watana-Devil Canyon Alternative Susitna Developments Watana I-Devil Canyon Watana I-Reregulating Dam Watana I-Modified High Devil Canyon Natural-Gas-Fired Coal-Fired Combined Hydro-Thermal Johnson,Keetna,Snow,Browne,Chakachamna Thermal Units Total Johnson,Keetna,Snow,Browne Therma 1 Units Total 36,900 1,100 6,400 11,700 56,100 29,900 1,100 6,400 11,700 49,100 27,000 1,100 6,400 11,700 46,200 29,100 1,100 6,400 11,700 48,300 50 N.D.t 4 N.A.t S 9,000+9,050+t 6 600 N.D.2,475 9,000+12,075+ 102,040 N.D.N.D.13,600 115,640+ 230 N.D.495 200+925+ 102,270 N.D.495+13,800+116,565+ 102,040 N.D.N.D.12,300 114,340+ 235 N.D.495 200+930+ 102,275 N.D.495+12,500+115,270+ A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H A,B,C,F A,B,C,F,G,H A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H .j::> I lD U"1 t 1 The use of the word temporary implies that the area would eventually be rehabilitated. t 2 For natural-gas-fired,coal-fired,and combined hydro-thermal scenarios,assumes (1)construction of two 345 kV liroes from Willow to Anchorage and from Healy to Fairbanks and (2)upgrading of existing intertie between Healy and Willow to two 345 kV lines as well as construction of lines described in Sections 2.3.3 and 2.5.3 to the various dam sites and thermal units. t 3 Caused by:A =erosion,slumpage,or permafrost thaw;B =alteration of drainage patterns;C =fugitive dusting;0 =climatic changes;E =downstream flow changes;F =increased human use or access;G =potential for seepage from waste disposal areas,H =slight potential for air pollutant effects. t 4 N.D.=Not determined. t S N.A.=Not applicable. t 6 "+"indicates an additional undeterminable acreage;these amounts would likely be higher for hydropower sites than for thermal sites due to greater constraints on siting. Conversion:To convert acres to hectares,multiply by 0.405. Table 4-13.Relative Potential for Impacts to Wildlife as a Result of Alternative Generation Scenarios Habitat Loss Brown Black Human Scenario (acres)Moose Caribou Bear Bear Furbearers Raptors Waterbirds Use Susitna Hydroelectric Project 64,000 High Moderate-High Moderate High Low Moderate Low High Watana I-Devil Canyon 55,000 High Moderate-High Moderate High Low Moderate Low High Watana I-Mod.High Devil Cyn.54,000 High Moderate-High Moderate High Low Moderate Low High Watana I-Reregulating Dam 52,000 High Moderate-High Moderate High Low Moderate Low High -l'> I Natural-Gas Generation 9,000 Low None Low Low Low Low Low Low 1..0 (J) Coal Generation 12,000 Low-Moderate Low Low Low Low Low-Moderate Moderate Low Combined Hydro-Thermal 115,000 Moderate Low High Low NO NO Low Low-Moderate wlo Chakachamna Combined Hydro-Thermal 116,000 Moderate Low High Low NO NO Low Low-Moderate wi Chakachamna -- Conversion:To convert acres to hectares,multiply by 0.405. T4-97facilitiesconstructedwithinthealternativecorridorthattraversestheSusitnaRiverneartheWatanadamsitewouldbeobservablefromprivaterecreationdevelopmentsintheStephanandFogLakesareas,andtheproposedcorridorwouldpasswithin2mi(3.2km)ofHighLakelodge.TheproposedandalternativecorridorsfortheHealy-Fairbankstransmissionlinetraverseremoteareasandrecreationusepatternsarecharacterizedbylow-densitydispersedrecreation.Over-all,theshorterofthethreealternativeswouldlikelyresultintheleastimpactsonrecrea-t ionresources.Ofthetwoa1ternativecorridorsfortheWi11ow-Anchorage1ines,theWi11ow-Pt.MacKenziecorridorsegmenttraversessomesensitiveareas,includingNancyLakeStateRecreationArea.However,theotheralternativealsotraversessensitivesitesinthePalmerareaandisalmosttwicethelengthoftheWillow-Pt.MacKenziesegment.TheproposedWillow-to-Pt.MacKenziecorridorsegmentbypassesNancyLakeStateRecreationAreaandtraversesfewersensitiveareasthantheWillow-to-Pt.MacKenziealternative.Incomparisonsamongalternativegenerationscenarios,thegas-firedalternativeswouldappearmorecompatiblewithexistingrecreationpatterns.Therelativelyinnocuousemissionsandminorarearequirements[about5acres(2haJJofindividualgas-firedgenerationunitswouldallowconsiderableflexibilityinsitingfacilitiestoavoidsensitiveareaswithhighintrinsicrecreationpotential.Althoughmoreextensive,thearearequirementsforthecoal-firedscenarioarealsorelativelymodest.Anestimated600acres(240ha)wouldberequiredfordevelopingallgeneratingfacilitiesrelatedtothecoal-firedscenario(Table4-12).Miningandwastedisposalactivitieswouldresultinadditionaldisturbedareas,buttosomeextent,therecrea-tionpotentialofsuchareaswouldberestoredbyreclamation(Sec.2.6.5.1).Thecoal-firedgenerationunitslocatedatNenanawouldbewithinanareacharacterizedbylow-density,dis-persedrecreation,asopposedtothecoal-firedfacilitiesatWillow,whereparticipationlevelsinrecreationactivitiesarerelativelyhigh.Theintensityofimpactsonrecreationresourceswouldvarydependingontheactualsitingofthecoal-firedgenerationplants;however,thetotalareaaffectedbythecoal-firedscenariowouldbemarkedlylessthanthat-fortheproposedprojectwhereinmorethan64,000acres(26,200ha)oflandandwaterwouldbepreemptedforenergyproduction(ExhibitA,Vol.1,Sees.1.1and7.1).Thecombinedhydro-thermalgenerationscenariowouldentailinundationofsignificantlymorelandareathanfortheproposedproject.DevelopmentoftheJohnsonRiversitewouldpreemptalargearea[84,000acres(34,000haJJthatcurrentlysupportsawidevarietyofdispersedrecrea-tionuse.TheSnowandKeetnaimpoundmentswouldinundaterelativelysmallareas;however,recreationuselevelsarecomparativelyhigh.Additionally,theTalkeetnaRiver(includingtheKeetnasite)hasbeenproposedforstaterecreationriverstatus.RecreationuselevelsinthevicinityoftheBrownesitearerelativelylow,butdevelopmentofthesitewouldinundateanestimated10,640acres(4,300ha),aswellassegmentsoftheGeorgeParksHighwayandtheAlaskaRailroad,whicharemajortouristroutes.DevelopmentalsowoulddisrupttouringoftheNenanaRiver.4.7.8SocioeconomicFactorsConstructionandoperationofSusitnadevelopmentalternativeswouldhavesocioeconomicimpactsgenerallysimilarinnatureandmagnitudetothoseoftheproposedproject.Thesmallcommuni-tiesofTrapperCreek,Talkeetna,andCantwellwouldbethelocationsaffectedmostbythesehydropoweralternatives.TheSusitnaBasinalternativesalsowouldhavegreatersocioeconomicimpactsthanthenon-SusitnaBasinalternativesbecausetheformerwouldrequirelargercon-structionworkforcesforlongerperiodsthanwouldtheotheralternatives.Thus,boom-and-bustphenomenawouldbegreaterforthecommunitiesnearthesitesoftheSusitnaBasinalternatives.Eachalternativeaccessroutewouldincreaseaccessibilitytoadifferentsectionoftheprojectarea,thusincreasingpossibilitiesforrecreational,tourist,andcommercialusesofthearea.Additionally,thenorthernaccessroutealternativewouldcausegrowthinHurricane,andthesouthernalternativewouldcausegrowthinGoldCreek.Bothsettlementsarecurrentlyverysmallandwouldexperienceboomtowntypesofimpacts.Thus,thealternativeaccessroutesarecomparableintermsofsocioeconomicimpacts.Eachalternativepowertransmissionroutewouldhaveessentiallycomparablesocioeconomicimpacts.Thealternativeborrowsiteswouldhavenegligiblesocioeconomicimpacts.Thecoal-firedandnatural-gas-firedgenerationscenarioseachwouldhavesocioeconomicimpactsonthesmallNativecommunityofTyonek.Eachofthesealternativefacilitieswouldrequireinmigrationofp~jectworkerstothearea.Developmentofseparateconstructionworkforcecommunitiescouldreduceimpacts,aswouldsuccessiveconstructionperiodsforthetencombustion-turbineunits(requiringatotalofabouttenyears)underthecoal-firedgenerationalternative(seeSec.4.4.8).About1.5timesasmanyconstructionworkers(45workers)wouldbeneededforabouttenyearsforthenatural-gas-firedgenerationalternativethanforthecoal-firedgenera-tionalternative.Constructioncampsandsuccessiveconstructionperiodswouldreduceimpacts.However,evenifconstructionworkercommunitiesweredeveloped,inmigrationofprojectworkersandtheirhouseholdscouldresultinasmuchasa100%increaseinthepresentpopulationofTyonek(Sec.4.3.8).Withorwithoutthesecamps,impactstoTyonekanditscitizenswouldbesignificantlygreaterunderthenatural-gas-firedgenerationscenariothanthecoal-firedscenario. 4-98ExceptforimpactstoTyonek,thenatural-gas-firedgenerationscenariowouldcreatefewerimpactstoothercommunitiesthanwouldthecoal-firedgenerationscenario.Underthenatural-gasscenario,othercombined-cycleandcombustion-turbineunitswouldbelocatednearAnchorageandtheKenai-Soldotnaarea.Bothofthesesitesarewithincommutingdistanceofexistingcommunitieslargeenoughtoprovideasourceof theworkersneededforconstructionandopera-tionof theunits.Underthecoal-firedgenerationscenario,however,othersmallcommunitiesbesidesTyonekwouldexperiencesignificantpopulationinmigration.HealyandNenana,inparticular,wouldgrowconsiderably(by300%and700%atpeak,respectively)duetoinmigrationofworkersandtheirhouseholdsforthecoalmineoperationandforconstructionandoperationofthe200-MWunits.Thisnewpopulationwouldsignificantlyaffectsuppliesofservicesandthelifestyleandsub-sistenceactivitiesofthelargelyNativepopulationsofthesecommunities.TheareaaroundWillowisbetterequippedtoaccommodateaworkforceinfluxforconstructionofthetwo200-MWcoalunitsunderthisscenario.However,someboomtowneffectswouldbeexperiencedtherealso.Thus,withtheexceptionofsignificantimpactstoTyonek,thenatural-gas-firedgenerationscenariowouldhavefeweroverallsocioeconomicimpactsthanwouldtheSusitnaBasinorcoal-firedgenerationscenarios.Thehydro-thermalgenerationscenariowithChakachamnawouldhavemoresevereimpactsthanthescenariowithoutChakachamnabecauseofthesignificantsocioeconomicimpactstoTyonekfromconstructionandoperationoftheChakachamnafacility.Asmanyas2,000personscouldmoveto'theareaduringpeakconstruction--almosttentimesthecurrentpopulation(Sec.4.5.8).Addi-tionally,underthescenariowithChakachamna,concurrentconstructionoftheKeetnaandBrownefacilitiesmightexacerbateindependenteffectsofthetwoprojectsonnearbyNenana,Healy,Cantwell,TrapperCreek,andTalkeetna.EitherwithorwithoutChakachamna,thermalunitswouldbeconstructednearNenanaandTyonek,causingadditionalsubstantialgrowthimpactsintheseareas.Othersmallcommunitieswouldexperiencesocioeconomicimpactsfromconstructionofthenon-Susitnahydropowerfacilities.ThesparselysettledareaalongtheAlaskaHighwaybetweenTokandDeltaJunctionwouldbeaffectedsignificantlybyinmigrationofasmanyas1,300peopleduringpeakconstruction.DotLakeandTanacross,twosmallNativeAlaskancommunitiesnearthesite,wouldbeparticularlystressedbyevenminorpopulationincreases(Sec.4.5.8).DevelopmentoftheSnowfacilitycouldcauseanincreaseinthepopulationoftheSewardareabyasmuchas25%.DevelopmentoftheBrownehydropowerfacilitieswouldaffectHealy,Nenana,andCantwell;theKeetnafacilitywouldaffecttheTrapperCreekandTalkeetnaareas.Theimpactsthatwouldbeexperiencedinallcaseswouldbeshortagesofservicesandchangesinlifestyleandsubsistenceactivities.However,theimpactswouldnotbeof themagnitudeofthosecreatedunderotherscenarios.BasedontheassumptionthatconstructioncampswouldbebuiltforprojectsintheTyonekarea,thenatural-gas-firedgenerationscenariowouldappeartotheStafftohavefeweroverallsocio-economicimpactsthananyoftheotherscenario(includingtheproposedproject).Substantialpopulationgrowthfromproject-inducedinmigrationinpresentlysmallcommunitieswouldoccurtosomedegreeunderallscenarios.Thisgrowthwouldcauseshortagesinallcommunityservices,changesinlifestyles,anddisruptionofsubsistenceactivities.Thecombinedhydro-thermalscenariowithChakachamnaandalltheSusitnaBasindevelopments(includingtheproposedproject)wouldhavethegreatestsocioeconomicimpacts.Thecoal-firedgenerationscenariowouldhavemoresubstantialimpactsthanthenatural-gas-firedscenario,butlessthantheotheralternatives.4.7.9VisualResourcesTheconstructionandoperationofalternativesinvolvingWatanaI,theReregulatingdam,andModifiedHighDevilCanyonwouldessentiallyresultinthesametypesofvisualresourceimpactsaswouldtheproposedWatanaandDevilCanyondams.Thedamstructures,associatedfacilities,andreservoirswouldmodifythevisualcharacteroftheareafromthatofaremoteandlargelyundisturbedrivervalleyandcanyonareatooneofgreaterhumanactivity,development,anddisturbance.Constructionactivitiesalongthenorthernandsouthernalternativeaccessrouteswouldresultinsimilarvisualdisturbancesastheproposedaccessroute.Allaccessrouteswouldrequirecutandfilloperations,vegetationremoval,excavationofborrowareas,andconstructionofhigh-levelsuspensionbridgesthatwoulddegradethenaturalcharacteroftheregionandbevisibleduringthelong-termoperationphaseoftheproject.Noneofthealterna-tiveaccessroutesortheproposedrouteareclearlypreferablefromavisualimpactsstand-point.Inthenorthernstudyarea(Fig.2-15),alternativeroutesAEFandAEDChavemorepotentialfordisruptingbackcountryviewsbecauseoftheirlength,extendingthroughtheHealyCreekandWoodRivervalleys,andextendingacrosstheextensiveopen,flatareasouthofFairbanks.Ingeneral,thetransmissionlinecorridorsegmentswithinthecentralstudyarea(Fig.2-14)extendingalongDeadmanCreekandtheDenaliHighway,TsusenaCreekandJackRiver,andDevilCreekand "11-I'IIIIIIIi4-99JackRiverwouldproducegreatersignificantvisualimpactswithintheChulitnaMountainsandtundrauplandsthantheproposedandalternativecorridorsegmentsextendingwestfromthedamsitestotheGoldCreekarea.Withinthesoutherncorridorarea(Fig.2-16),alternativeroutesegmentsABCIandAEFCwouldproducesignificantlygreatervisua1impactsthantheproposedroute.Ofthetenalternativeborrowsiteareas(Figs.2-2and2-6),four(B,I,J,andL)wouldbecompletelyinundatedandwouldnotcauseanylong-termvisual'impacts.Thesixremain-ingalternativeborrowsiteareaswouldbevisibleoverthelongterm.BorrowsitesCandHwouldrequireextensivehaulroads,furtherdegradingtheviewsofthesurroundingnaturalfeaturesandresultingingreatervisualresourceimpactstotheSusitnaRiverValleyareathantheothereightsites.Visualresourceimpactsforthevariouspowergenerationscenariosarehighlydependentontheactualsitinglocationoftheprojectalternativeswithrespecttothevisualqualityofthearea,establishedviewpointsandviewshedareas,andthenumberofpersonsresidingortravelingthroughsuchareas.Ingeneral,naturalgas-firedgenerationplantswouldbevisuallylessobtrusiveandresultinfewervisualresourceimpactsthanthelargercoal-firedplantsordamalternativesforthereasonsdiscussedinprevioussections.Inparticular,theurbanAnchorageareawouldbebestsuitedforadditionalnatural-gas-firedpowerplantdevelopmentinrelationtominimizingvisualresourceimpacts.Thefive200-MWcoal-firedunits(threeinNenanaandtwoinWillow)wouldbevisuallyobtrusiveinrelationtotheirsurroundingenvironmentandproximitytoscenichighways,waterways,andrecreationalareas.Underthecombinedhydro-thermalalterna-tive,LakeChakachamnawouldnotproducesignificantlong-termvisualimpacts;however,theremaininghydrounitsandcoal-firedplantsinNenanawouldproducesignificantvisualresourceimpacts.4.7.10CulturalResourcesOftheSusitnadevelopmentalternatives,theWatanaI-DevilCanyonandWatanaI-ModifiedHighDevilCanyonalternativeswouldhavethesamereducedimpactstoculturalresources(5archeo-logicalsitesinindirectorpotentialratherthandirectimpactareas,and17archeologicalsitesinpotentialratherthanindirectimpactareas)comparedwiththeproposedproject.TheWatanaI-Reregulatingdamalternativewouldhaveevenlessimpactthantheotheralternatives,byexcludingonearcheologicalandonehistoricsitefromanyimpacts.Amongalternativeaccesscorridors(Fig.2-13),Corridor2(South)wouldappeartohavetheleastimpactonculturalresources.Nositesarepresentlyknowninthisarea,anditseemstohavelimitedpotentialforsignificantlocalities.Corridors1(North)and3(Denali-North)wouldhavesimilarimpactsonarcheologicalsites(directlyor.indirectlyimpactingeightandninesites,respectively,alongwithpotentialimpactstoseveralothersiteseach).However,mostimpactswouldprobablybemitigablebyavoidance.Thealternativetransmissionrouteswouldnotappeartovarysignificantlywithrespecttoimpactsonculturalresources.Severalsegmentswouldpotentiallyimpactfewercurrentlyknownsites,butadditionalsurveywouldundoubtedlyproducenewsites,makingcomparisonsdifficultatthistime.Mostimpactswouldprobablybemitigablebyavoidance.OnlyborrowsitesC,E,andF(Figs.2-2and2-6)wouldhaveimpactsonsignificantsites.BorrowsiteCwouldhavetheheaviestimpact(20archeologicalsitesdirectlyorindirectlyimpacted),followedbyF(10archeologicaland1historicsitedirectlyorindirectlyimpacted),andE(2archeologicaland1historicsitedirectlyimpacted).Manyofthesesitesseemlikelytobesignifi.cant,andmitigationwouldrequireinvestigationinthesecases.Amongthethreenon-Susitnapowergenerationscenarios,thecombinedhydro-thermalscenarioseemslikelytohavethegreatestimpacttoculturalresources.ThisisduetotheinundationofthedesignatedBrownereservoir,andpossiblyotheralternativereservoirlocationsaswell,whichwouldprobablydirectlyandindirectlyimpactseveralsignificantarcheologicalandhistoricsites.Thegas-firedandcoal-firedscenarioswouldbelesslikelytohaveunavoidabledirectorindirectimpactsonsites,duetolimitedlanddisturbance;fewculturalresourcesitesareknowninthedesignatedsitinglocations.Site-specificsurveysandsignificanceassessmentwouldbenecessaryforareliablecomparisonofalternatives.4.8.RELATIONSHIPTORESOURCEPLANSANDUTILIZATIONTheAlaskaBoard~rGameestablishespolicyforthemanagementofwildlifeintheSusitnaprojectarea,andthispoticyisadministeredbytheAlaskaDepartmentofFishandGame.Thegameandfurbearingwildlifeoftheregionaremanagedsuchthatpopulationsaremaintainedataviablelevelthatcansustainacontinuedhumanharvestforsubsistenceandrecreationaluse.Manage-mentgoalsands~rategiesofimplementationwithineachgamemanagementunitarefunctionsofharvestpressuresintheunit,wildlifepopulationproductivityandgrowthpotential,sustain-ablecarryingcapacityofthehabitat,andconservationprinciples. 4-100Theproposedprojectwouldreducehabitatcarryingcapacityandaltertheproductivityofgameanimalpopulations,aswellaschangepatternsofharvestpressure,principallyinGameManage-mentUnit13,theNelchina-UpperSusitnaBasin.Theseeffectswouldprobablybesufficienttorequirechangesinmanagementstrategies.Ingeneral,thestrategychangescouldresultinamorerestrictedharvestsufficienttobalancethenegativeimpactsoftheproposedprojectandmaintaincurrentpopulationlevelsinhabitatnotlosttotheproject.Managementgoalsmightalsobealteredsoastoallowpopulationsizestostabilizeatlowerlevelsthanarecurrentlypresent.TheAlaskaDivisionofParksischargedwithnumerousfunctions,includingplanningforfuturerecreationneeds.Currentrecommendationsforacquisition,planning,development,andmanage-mentareprojectedthrough1992.PlanneddevelopmentpertinenttotheproposedSusitnaprojectincludestheexpansionoftheWi11owCreekStateRecreationarea.Theproposedexpansion[3,450acres(1,395ha)]wouldextendtothewestoftheexistingWillowCreekStateRecreationArea,parallelingeithersideofWillowCreektotheSusitnaRiver.4.9UNAVOIDABLEADVERSEIMPACTS4.9.1ProposedProjectConstructionandoperationoftheproposedSusitnaHydroelectricProjectwouldresultinthefollowingunavoidableandsignificantadverseimpacts:Localizedandtemporarygenerationofnoiseandfugitivedustduringconstructionofdams,accessroads,andotherprojectfeatures.Largepopulationincreasesinsmallcommunitiesneartheprojectareaduringprojectcon-struction,withsubsequentgrowth-relatedimpacts,includinghousingshortages,culturalconflicts,interferencewithsubsistencelifestyles,andshortfallsinsomecommunityrevenuesandservices.Dedicationofabout56,000acres(22,700ha)ofvegetatedlandtoprojectfeaturesduringthelifeof theproject[approximately6,000acres(2,400ha)ofthetotal56,000acres(23,000ha)couldberehabilitated].Large-sea-1Bimpactstowildlifehabitat,wi-thsubsequent:;ignificantandpermanentreduc-tionsinpopulationsofsomeimportantbiggamespecieswithincertainpartsoftheSusitnaRiverBasin.Essentiallypermanentimpactsonrecreationalandsubsistencehuntingandfishinginsomepartsof theSusitnaBasin.Permanentsubstantialimpactsuponvisualresourcesduetothepresenceoflargeandvisuallyobtrusiveprojectstructuresinwhatispresentlyaremoteandlargelyundisturbedarea.4.9.2AlternativesDevelopmentofalternativesdiscussedinthisdocumentwouldhavethefollowingunavoidableimpacts:AnyofthealternativeSusitnaprojectdesignsandconfigurationswouldresultinimpactsgenerallysimilarintypetothoseidentifiedinSection4.9.1above.Themagnitudeofimpactsforthevariousalternativeswoulddiffersomewhatfromtheproposedproject.TheseimpactsforthevariousSusitnaprojectalternativesarecomparedinSection4.7.Ofthethermalalternativesconsidered,onlythecoal-firedgenerationscenariowouldresultinsignificantadverseimpacts.Whilelanddisturbanceforthecoalscenariowouldtotallessthan25%thatof theproposedproject,itwouldnonethelessbeconsideredasignificantimpactinanabsolutesense.Additionally,Staffanalysessuggestthatsitingofmorethantwo200-MWcoalunitsatNenanacouldresultinsignficantdegradationofairqualityinthevicinityofNenanaduetoS02emissions,andunacceptablevisibilityimpactsatDenaliNationalPark.Thecombinedhydro-thermalscenariowouldresultindedicationofover115,000acres(46,500ha)oflandtoprojectfeaturesforthelifeofthevarioushydrocomponentsofthealternative(84,000acres,or34,000ha,fortheJohnsonprojectalone).TheChakachamnahydroprojectwouldhavesevereadverseimpactsonanexistingsalmonfishery.Lesser,butsignificant,fisheryandwildlifeimpactscouldalsobeassociatedwithdevelopmentoftheKeetnaandJohnsonprojects. f"",,:,··.c,S"'.IIiI4-101Sociological,recreational,andvisualqualityimpactsqualitativelysimilartothoseidentifiedinSection4.9.1wouldbeassociatedwithdevelopmentofanyofthealterna-tives.Severityofimpactswouldbeproject-specific.4.10IRREVERSIBLEANDIRRETRIEVABLECOMMITMENTOFRESOURCES4.10.1ProposedProjectLandfeaturesintheprojectareawouldbepermanentlychangedorlostduetoconstructionofdams,accessroutes,andotherprojectfeatures,Landfeatures,culturalresourcesites,vegeta-tion,fishandwildlifehabitat,visualresources,andrecreationpatternsintheproposedinundationareaswouldbeirretrievablylostoralteredbecauseitisunlikelythatdamsandaccumulatedsedimentinreservoirswouldberemovedafterprojectretirement.Areaswithintheproposedreservoirsites[atotalofabout45,000acres,(18,000ha)Jpresentlyaffordoppor-tunitiesfordispersedrecreation,suchasfishing,hunting,sight-seeing,kayaking,andhiking.Theseopportunitieswouldbelostfollowingfillingofthereservoirs.Additionally,previouslyundisturbedareasadjacenttoprojectlandswouldlikelybeaffectedduetoshiftsinrecreationpatternsasaresultofunavailabilityofprojectlandsandincreasedaccesstoadjacentlandsviaprojectaccessroutes.Thesetypesofimpactswouldessentiallybepermanent.Somesocioeconomicimpactswouldalsobeconsideredirreversible;e.g.,permanentchangesinsubsistenceandrurallifestylesinareasneartheprojectwouldresultduetoincreasedpopula-tionsanddifferingattitudesamongnewcomers.Fishandwildlifepopulationsdestroyedordisplacedbydamconstructionandreservoirfillingwouldbeirretrievablylostintheaffectedareas,creatingirreversiblerecreation-relatedimpactsintheprojectarea.4.10.2AlternativesDevelopmentofanyof thealternativeSusitnaprojectdesignsandconfigurationswouldresultinqualitativelysimilar,butsomewhatlesssevere,irreversibleandirretrievablecommitmentsofresourcestothosediscussedinSection4.10.1.However,onealternativeprojectconfiguration,WatanaIwithadownstreamreregulationdam,wouldnotinundateDevilCanyon,whichisconsideredtobeahigh-qualityvisualresourceanduniquewhite-waterrecreationarea.Thecombinedhydro-thermalalternativewouldverylikelypermanentlyalteralandareaofabout100,000acres(40,000ha).Secondaryeffectsofthisalternativewouldbesimilarintypetothoseoftheproposedproject.Boththecoalandgasalternativeswouldresultinlargeirre-trievablecommitmentsoffossilfuelresources.4.11SHORT-TERMUSESANDLONG-TERMPRODUCTIVITY4.11.1ProposedProjectTheprojectenvironmentandthewatersoftheSusitnaRiverwouldbeusedtoprovideasourceofelectricalpowerthatwouldinturnmeetthemajorityofelectricpowerdemandfortheRailbeltwellintothenextcentury.TherewouldbenoconsumptiveuseofSusitnaRiverwaters.TheApp1icantwouldsellthegeneratedpowertoutilitiesoperatingintheregion,andtherebypayforprojectconstructionandoperation.Constructionandoperationoftheprojectwouldincludemanyshort-termusesoftheenvironment.Forpurposesofthisdiscussion,"short-term"referstothelifeoftheproject,estimatedtobeatleast50years.Projectstructuresandreservoirswouldpreemptlandspreviouslydevotedtofishandwildlifehabitat,recreation,timberproduction,andsubsistencehuntingandfishing.Inundationofnearly100mi(160km)ofriverchannelwouldreducesignificantlytheamountoffree-flowingaquaticandriparianhabitatinthemiddleandupperSusitnaRiver,andchangesinstreamhydraulicpatternsbelowthedamswouldadverselyaffectfishandpossiblywildlifepopulationsindownstreamreachesoftheriver.Theincreaseinpopulationsofnearbycommuni-tiesduetoinfluxofconstructionworkerswouldcausealterationsofthehumanenvironment,aswellasacceleratedshort-termuses.Increasedaccesstoareasadjacenttoprojectlandswouldcauseincreaseduseoftheseareas.Becauseitwouldbeun1ikelythatdamstructuresofthemagnitudeproposedforthisprojectwouldorcouldbe~emovedaftertheusefullifeof theproject,manyofthemajorenvironmentalusesoutlinedabovewouldalsobelong-term,essentiallypermanentuses.Itisconceivablethatthelargereservoirswouldeventuallyfillwithsedimentandanewriverchannelwoulddevelopinwhathadbeenthereservoirarea.Thiswouldrestoretheterrestrialhabitatforusebyanimals,butitwouldnotresembleeitherinphysicalappearanceorusethepreprojectenviron-ment.Followingabandonment,flowsandchannelsdownstreamofthedamswouldstabilizeandpossiblyreturntopreprojectconditions,butonecannotpredictiffishandwildlifeuseof theareaaffectedbytheprojectwouldreturntopreprojectproductivities.Secondaryusesofthe 1983b.SusitnaHydroelectricProjectAlaskaDepartmentofFishandGame,4-102environmentrelatedtoincreasedaccessandhumanpopulationswouldalsopersistoverthelongterm.Environmentsusedforsomeprojectfeatures,e.g.,transmissionlines,couldprobablybereturnedovertimetoessentiallypreprojectconditions.4.11.2AlternativesMostandpossiblyalldescriptionsofshort-andlong-termusesoftheenvironmentoutlinedinthepreceedingsectionwouldalsoapplytothevarioushydropoweralternativesconsideredinthisEIS.Itispossib1ethatwiththesmaller-sca1ehydrodeve1opments,somedamsandreservoirscouldberemovedafterprojectabandonment,withtheenvironmentpossiblybeingreturnedtosomethingresemb1ingpreprojectuses.ThiswouldcertainlybetruefortheChakachamnaprojectarea,whichwouldnotbemarkedlyaffectedbyevenlong-termuseoftheprojectenvironment,withthepossibleexceptionofdownstreamfisherieswhichmaynotreturntopreprojectconditions.Environmentsusedforthermalgeneratingfacilitiescouldmoreeasilyberestoredtopreprojectconditionsfollowingretirementanddismantling.Thiswouldbeparticularlytrueforthenatural-gas-firedfacilities,whichdisturbverylimitedareasanddonotrequirethelargefuelstorage,mining,anddisposalareasofcoal-firedunits.REFERENCESFORSECTION4AcresAmerican,Inc.Undated.SusitnaHydroelectricProject,FeasibilityReport.Vol.7.AppendixD:CoordinationandPublicParticipation.FinalDraft.PreparedforAlaskaPowerAuthority.Anchorage.AcresAm2rican,Inc.1982.SusitnaHydroe1ectricProject.TransmissionLineSe1ectedRoute.FinalDraft.PreparedforAlaskaPowerAuthority.Anchorage.AlaskaBoardofGame.Undated.AlaskaHuntingRegulations.No.24.RegulationseffectiveJuly1,1983-June30,1984.pp.70-71.A1askaDepartmentofEnvironmenta1Conservation.1979.WaterQualityStandards.Juneau.AlaskaDepartmentofEnvironmentalConservation.1983.AirQualityControlRegulations18AA50.October.AlaskaDepartmentofFishandGame.1983a.Synopsisofthe1982AquaticStudiesandAnalysisofFishandHabitatRelationships.AppendixE:EffectsofMainstemSusitnaDischargeonTotalWettedPerimeterandBlackwaterSurfaceAreaatSelectedStudySites.PreparedfortheAlaskaPowerAuthority.Anchorage.46pp.AlaskaDepartmentofFishandGame.1983b.Synopsisofthe1982AquaticStudiesandAnalysisofFishandHabitatRelationships.AppendixB:TimingandPassageofAdultSalmonintheMainstemSusitnaRiverandAccessintoSelectedSloughsUpstreamoftheChulitnaRiverConfluence.PreparedfortheAlaskaPowerAuthority.Anchorage.49pp.AlaskaDepartmentofNaturalResources.1982.LandUseIssuesandPreliminaryResourceInven-tory.Vol.1.PlanningBackgroundReport.199pp.AlaskaNorthwestPublishingCo.1983.TheMilepost1983.Alaska,WesternCanada.35thed.Anchorage.496pp.Aldrich,J.W.andC.W.Slaughter.1983.Soilerosiononsubarcticforestslopes.JournalofSoilandWaterConservation38:115-118.Ballard,W.B.,J.H.Westlund,C.L.GardnerandR.Tobey.1982.SusitnaHydroelectricProjectPhaseIFinalReport,BigGameStudies.Vol.V.DallSheep.AlaskaDepartmentofFishandGame,submittedtotheAlaskaPowerAuthority.Anchorage.Ballard,W.B.,J.S.Whitman,N.G.Tankersley,L.D.AumillerandP.Hessing.1983a.SusitnaHydroelectricProjectPhaseIIProgressReport,BigGameStudies.Vol.HI.Moose-Upstream.AlaskaDepartmentofFishandGame,submittedtotheAlaskaPowerAuthority.Anchorage.Ballard,W.B.,J.S.Whitman,L.D.AumillerandP.Hessing.1982AnnualReport,BigGameStudies.Vol.V.Wolf.submittedtotheAlaskaPowerAuthority.Anchorage.Banks,R.C.1979.HumanRelatedMortalityofBirdsintheUnitedStates.SpecificScientificReport-WildlifeNo.215.U.S.FishandWildlifeService.Washington,DC. 4-103BattellePacificNorthwestLaboratories.1978.TheImpactofIncreasedCoalUtilizationinthePacificNorthwest.PreparedforU.S.DepartmentofEnergy.BattellePacificNorthwestLaboratories.1982.CandidateElectricEnergyTechnologiesforFutureApplicationintheRailbeltRegionofAlaska.VolumeIV.PreparedfortheOfficeoftheGovernor,StateofAlaska.Baxter,R.M.andP.Glaude.1980.Environmenta1EffectsofDamsandImpoundmentsinCanada:ExperienceandProspects.CanadianBulletinofFisheriesandAquaticScience,Bulletin205.pp.1-34.BechtelCivil&Minerals,Inc.1983.ChakachamnaHydroelectricProjectInterimFeasibilityAssessmentReport.Vol.II.AppendixtoSection6.0.PreparedfortheAlaskaPowerAuthority.239pp.Benson,P.C.1982.Project1002.PreventionofGoldenEagleElectrocution.FinalReport.EA-2680;ResearchBrighamYoungUniversityforElectricPowerResearchInstitute.PaloAlto,CA.Berg,R.L.1980.Roadperformanceandassociatedinvestigations.pp.53-100,In:J.BrownandR.L.Berg(eds.),EnvironmentalEngineeringandEcologicalBaselineInvestigationsalongtheYukonRiver-PrudhoeBayHaulRoad.CRRELReport80-19.U.S.ArmyCorpsofEngineers,ColdRegionsResearchandEngineeringLaboratory,Hanover,NH.Braund,S.R.andT.D.Lonner.1982.AlaskaPowerAuthoritySusitnaHydroelectricProjectSocioculturalStudies.SubmittedtoAcresAmericanInc.Brune,G.M.1953.Trapefficiencyofreservoirs.TransactionsoftheAmericanGeophysicsUnion34:407-418.Challinor,J.L.andP.L.Gersper.1975.Vehicleperturbationeffectsuponatundrasoil-plantsystem.II:Effectsonthechemicalregime.SoilScienceSocietyofAmericaProceedings39:689-695.Chapin,F.S.IIIandM.C.Chapin.1980.Revegetationofanarcticdisturbedsitebynativetundraspecies.JournalofAppliedEcology17:449-456.Clemente,F.1973.Effects ofindustrialdevelopmentsonheadsofhouseholds:Comment.GrowthandChange14:20-21.Clemente,F.1975.Whatindustryreallymeanstoasmalltown.FarmEconomics.PennsylvaniaStateUniversityandtheU.S.DepartmentofAgriculture.UniversityPark,PA..Cortese,C.F.andB.Jones.1977.Thesociologicalanalysisofboomtowns.WesternSociologicalReview8(1):76-90.Cowardin,L.M.,V.Carter,F.C.GoletandE.T.LaRoe.1979.ClassificationofWetlandsandDeepwaterHabitatsoftheUnitedStates.FWS/OBS-79/31.U.S.DepartmentoftheInterior,FishandWildlifeService,BiologicalServicesProgram.Washington,DC.103pp.DenverResearchInstituteandBrowne,Bortz&Coddington.1982.SocioeconomicImpactsofPowerPlants.EA-2228,ResearchProject1226-4.PreparedforElectricPowerResearchInstitute.PaloAlto,CA.DOWLEngineers.1983.Matanuska-SusitnaBoroughComprehensiveDevelopmentPlan.Draft.PreparedforMatanuska-SusitnaBorough.Drake,J.J.1981.Theeffectsofsurfacedustonsnowmeltrates.ArcticandAlpineResearch13:219-223.Dvorak,A.J.,etal.1978.ImpactsofCoal-FiredPowerPlantsonFish,Wildlife,andTheirHabitats.FWS/OBS-78/29.U.S.FishandWildlifeService,preparedbyArgonneNationalLaboratory.261pp.Everett,K.R.~80.Distributionandpropertiesofroaddustalongthenorthernportionofthehaulroad.'pp.101-128,In:J.BrownandR.L.Berg(eds.),EnvironmentalEngineeringandEcologicalBaselineInvestigationsalongtheYukonRiver-PrudhoeBayHaulRoad.CRREL-Report80-19.U.S.ArmyCorpsofEngineers,ColdRegionsResearchandEngineeringLabora-tory,Hanover,NH.Finsterbusch,K.1980.SagePublications.UnderstandingSocialImpacts.BeverlyHills,CA.309pp.AssessingtheEffects ofPublicProjects. 4-104Frank Orth&Associates,Inc.1983.SusitnaHydroelectricProjectSubtask4.5:SocioeconomicStudies.DraftFinal.ProjectionAssumptions,MethodologyandOutputFormats.PreparedforHarza-EbascoandtheAlaskaPowerAuthority.94pp.Freudenburg,W.R.1981.AsocialsocialimpactanalysisofaRockyMountainenergyboomtown.pp.287-290,In:J.E.Carlson,W.R.LasseyandM.L.Lassey(eds.),RuralSocietyandEnvironmentinAmerica.McGrawHill.NewYork.Geist,V.1980.Behavior.pp.297-304,In:NorthAmerica.EcologyandManagement.J.L.SchmidtandD.L.Gilbert(eds.),BigGameofStackpoleBooks,Harrisburg,PA.Gersper,P.L.andJ.L.Challinor.1975.Vehicleperturbationeffectsuponatundrasoil-plantsystem:1.Effectsonmorphologicalandphysicalenvironmentalpropertiesofthesoils.SoilScienceSocietyofAmericaProceedings39:737-744.Gilmore,J.S.andE.J.Stenehjem.1980.Oilshaledevelopment:Theneedforandtheproblemsofsocio-economicimpactmanagementandassessment.PresentedataconferenceonOilShale--TheEnvironmentalChallenge,sponsoredbytheOilShaleTaskForceandtheU.S.DepartmentofEnergy,Vail,CO,August11-14.Gipson,P.S.,S.W.BuskirkandT.W.Hobgood.1982.SusitnaHydroelectricProjectFurbe'arerStudies,PhaseIReport.AlaskaCooperativeWildlifeResearchUnit,submittedtoTerres-trialEnvironmentalSpecialists,Inc.Harvey,H. H.1967.Supersaturationof1akewaterwithaprecautiontohatcheryusage.Trans-actionsoftheAmericanFisheriesSociety96:194-201.Hemming,J.E.1971.TheDistributionandMovementPatternsofCaribouinA1aska.GameTechnicalBulletinNo.1.AlaskaDepartmentofFishandGame.Juneau.Justus,R.andJ.Simonetta.1983.schemesandtheIndianinterest.Social,Economic,andCulturalAugust25-27,1982.Socialpollution:Impactmitigationandcompensationpp.216-226,In:S.Yarie(ed.),AlaskaSymposiumontheImpactsofNaturalResourceDevelopment,Anchorage,!;l'1·(j1iiKessel,B.,5.0.MacDonald,D.D.Gibson,B.A.CooperandB.A.Anderson.1982.AlaskaPowerAuthoritySusitnaHydroelectricProjectEnvironmentalStudies,PhaseIFinalReport.Subtask7.11.BirdsandNon-GameMammals.UniversityofAlaskaMuseum.Fairbanks.Leopold,L.B.andT.Maddock.1953.TheHydraulicGeometryofStreamChannelsandSomePhysio-graphicImplications.U.S.GeologicalSurveyProfessionalPaper422-A.Metz,W.C.1983.Industryinitiativesinimpactmitigation.pp.239-252,In:S.Yarie(ed.),AlaskaSymposiumontheSocial,Economic,andCulturalImpactsofNaturalResourceDevelop-ment,Anchorage,August25-27,1982.Miller,S.D.1983.SusitnaHydroelectricProjectPhaseIIFirstAnnualProgressReport,BigGameStudies.Vol.VI.BlackBearandBrownBear.AlaskaDepartmentofFishandGame,submittedtotheAlaskaPowerAuthority.Anchorage.Miller,S.D.andD.C.McAllister.1982.SusitnaHydroelectricProjectFinalPhaseIReport,BigGameStudies.Vol.VI.BlackBearandBrownBear.AlaskaDepartmentofFishandGame,submittedtotheAlaskaPowerAuthority.Anchorage.Newbury,R.W.,K.G.BeatyandG.K.McCullough.1978.Initialshorelineerosioninapermafrostaffectedreservoir,SouthernIndianLake,Canada.pp.834-839,In:Proceedings,ThirdInternationalConferenceonPermafrost.Vol.I.Edmonton,Alberta.Parker,G.1981.ApredictionofthedownstreamresponseofPop1arCreek,California,totheDutchGulchDam.pp.128-162,In:D.B.Simons,R.M.Li,P.LagasseeandR.M.Milhouse(eds.),ProceedingsofaWorkshoponDownstreamRiverChannelChangesResultingfromDiversionsorReservoirConstruction.FWS/OBS-81/48.U.S.DepartmentoftheInterior,U.S.FishandWildlifeService.Washington,DC.347pp.1983.MasterPlanfortheProposedWillowCreekStateRecreationArea.AlaskaDepartmentofNaturalResources.85pp.ParkPlanningSection.1982.AlaskaStateParkSystem:DivisionofParks,DepartmentofNaturalResources.ParkPlanningSection.DivisionofParks.SouthCentralRegionPlan.153pp.Alaska rI4-105Payne,B.A.andC.Welch.1982.AnAssessmentofEnergy-RelatedDevelopmentintheWesternOilShaleRegion.Vol.II.AnAssessmentoftheSocioeconomicImpactsofEnergyDevelopmentinNorthwesternColorado.UnpublishedreportbyDivisionofEnvironmentalImpactStudies,ArgonneNationallaboratory.Peratrovich,Nottingham,andDrageConsultants,andI.P.G.Hutchinson.1982.SedimentationandWaterClarityStudy.PreparedforAcresAmerican,Inc.SusitnaRiverBuffalo,NY.Peterson,l.A.,andAssociatesandR&MConsultants,Inc.1982.WaterQualityAffectsResultingfromImpoundmentoftheSusitnaRiver.PreparedforAcresAmerican,Inc.Buffalo,NY.Pitcher,K.W.1982.SusitnaHydroelectricProjectPhaseIFinalReport,BigGameStudies.Vol.IV.Caribou.AlaskaDepartmentofFishandGame,submittedtotheAlaskaPowerAuthority.Anchorage.Pitcher,K.W.1983.SusitnaHydroelectricProjectPhaseII1982AnnualReport,BigGameStudies.Vol.IV.Caribou.AlaskaDepartmentofFishandGame,submittedtotheAlaskaPowerAuthority.Anchorage.R&MConsultants,Inc.1982a.SusitnaHydroelectricProject,RiverMorphology.PreparedforAcresAmerican,Inc.Buffalo,NY.R&MConsultants,Inc.1982b.SusitnaHydroelectricProject,TributaryStabilityAnalysis.PreparedforAcresAmerican,Inc.Buffalo,NY.R&MConsultants,Inc.1982c.SusitnaHydroelectricProject,HydraulicandIceStudies.PreparedforAcresAmerican,Inc.Buffalo,NY.Rickard,W.L,Jr.andJ.Brown.1974.Effectsofvehiclesonarctictundra.EnvironmentalConservation1:55-62.Scrimgeour,D.P.Undated.MitigatingtheSocialandEconomicImpactsofOilShaleDevelopment.PreparedforQualityDevelopmentAssociates,Inc.Denver,CO.Stenehjem,E.J.andJ.E.Metzger.1980.AFrameworkforProjectingEmploymentandPopulationChangesAccompanyingEnergyDevelopment.Vols.IandII.ReportANL/AA-14.ArgonneNationallaboratory.Argonne,Il.Smith,V.H.1977.User'sGuidefortheEstuaryHydrologyandWaterQualityModels.DepartmentoftheArmy,AlaskaDistrict,CorpsofEngineers.Anchorage.Smith,V.H.1982.Thenitrogenandphosphorusdependenceofalgalbiomassinlakes:Anempiricalandtheoreticalanalysis.limnologyandOceanography27:1101-1111.Sparrow,S.D.,F.J.WoodingandLH.Whiting.1978.Effects ofoff-roadvehicletrafficonsoilsandvegetationintheDenaliHighwayregionofAlaska.JournalofSoilandWaterConservation33:20-27.Stout,I.J.andG.W.Cornwell.1976.NonhuntingmortalityoffledgedNorthAmericanwaterfowl.JournalofWildlifeManagement40(4):681-693.Tankersley,N.C.Vol.VIII.Authority.1983.SusitnaHydroelectricProjectPhaseIIProgressReport,BigGameStudies.DallSheep.AlaskaDepartmentofFishandGame,submittedtoAlaskaPowerAnchorage.Todd,A.M.D.1982.Naturalregeneration:Policies,proceduresandpracticesinthePrinceGeorgeforestregion.pp.5-15,In:ForestRegenerationatHighlatitudes:ExperiencesfromNorthernBritishColumbia.UniversityOfAlaska,FairbanksandU.S.ForestService,PacificNorthwestForestandRangeExperimentStation,Misc.ReportNo.82-1.Trihey,E.W.1983.IndianRiver.PreliminaryAssessmentofAccessbySpawningSalmonintoPortageCreekandPreparedfortheAlaskaPowerAuthority.Anchorage.U.S.Department&!Agriculture.1981.WillowSubbasin-SusitnaRiverBasinStudy-Alaska.FinalReport.U.S.DepartmentofAgricultureincooperationwithAlaskaDepartmentofNaturalResources,AlaskaDepartmentofFishandGame,andU.S.DepartmentoftheInterior.144pp.U.S.GeologicalSurvey.1982.WaterQualityAnnualReportforAlaska.U.S.G.S.WaterDataReport. 4-106VanCleve,K.1978.RecoveryofdisturbedtundraandtaigasurfacesinAlaska.pp.422-455,In:J.Cairns,Jr.,K.L.DicksonandE.E.Herricks(eds.),RecoveryandRestorationofDamagedEcosystems.UniversityPressofVirginia,Charlottesville.VanCleve,K.andL.A.Viereck.1981.ForestsuccessioninrelationtonutrientcyclingintheborealforestofAlaska.pp.185-211,In:D.C.West,H.H.ShugartandD.B.Botkin(eds.),ForestSuccession:ConceptsandApplication.Springer-Verlag.NewYork.Viereck,L.A.1966.Glacier,Alaska.PlantsuccessionandsoildevelopmentongraveloutwashoftheMuldrowEcologicalMonographs36:181-199.Viereck,L.A.andL.A.Schande1meier.1980.EffectsofFireinAlaskaandAdjacentCanada- ALiteratureReview.AlaskaTechnicalReport6.BLM/AK/TR-80/06.U.S.DepartmentofInterior,BureauofLandManagement.Anchorage.124pp.Wakefield,W.C.II.1983.MemorandumfromW.C.Wakefie1dII,FERCSusitnaProjectManager,toSusitnaAdvisoryCommittee.PotentialRefinementsfortheSusitnaHydroelectricProject.(Dated18October1983).Wangaard,D.B.andC.V.Burger.1983.EffectsofVariousWaterTemperatureRegimesontheEggandA1evinIncubationofSusitnaRiverChumandSockeyeSalmon.U.S.DepartmentoftheInterior,FishandWildlifeService,NationalFisheryResearchCenter,AlaskaFieldStation.Anchorage.Wolff,J.O,1978.BurningandbrowsingeffectsonwillowgrowthinInteriorAlaska.JournalofWildlifeManagement42:135-140.Wolff,J.O.andJ.C.Zasada.1979.MoosehabitatandforestsuccessionontheTananaRiverfloodplainandYukon-Tananaupland.ProceedingsoftheNorthAmericanMooseConferenceandWorkshop15:213-244. 5.STAFFCONCLUSIONS5.1SIGNIFICANTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTS5.1.1ProposedProject5.1.1.1LandResources5.1.1.1.1GeologyandSoilsAcceleratedslopeerosionandslopefailurealongtheshorelinesoftheWatanaand,toalesserextent,DevilCanyonreservoirs.Possiblereservoir-inducedseismicevents.PossiblesubstantialseepagelossesintheWatanarelictchannelfollowingreservoirdevelopment.Increasederosionandimpactsrelatedtopermafrostwithclearingofvegetationfromreservoirareasanddevelopmentofborrowareas,accessroutes,transmissionlines,andconstructionfacilities.Soilcompaction,erosion,anddisturbancesalongaccessroutes,transmissionlinesandatconstructioncamps,aswellasinareassubjecttQoff-roadvehicletraffic.5.1.1.1.2LandUseandOwnershipTheremote,highlyinaccessible,largelyundisturbedUpperandMiddleSusitnaRiverBasinwouldbecomeanareaofincreasedhumanactivityanddevelopmentwiththeconstructionandoperationoftheproject.TheproposedWatanaandDevilCanyondamswouldinundateabout36,000acres[14,600hectares(ha)]and7,900acres(3,200ha)ofland,respectively,withintheSusitnaRiverValley.TheWatanaandDevilCanyonconstructioncampsandvillageswouldrequire435acres(180ha)ofland,whiletheWatanapermanentsettlementandairstripwouldrequire130acres(53ha).Approximately1,100acres(450ha)oflandwouldberequiredforaccessroutes,and11,700acres(4,730ha)wouldberequiredfortransmissionlinerights-of-way.TheStateofAlaskawouldberequiredtopurchaseoracquireright-of-wayeasementforsubstantialareasofFederal,Native,andprivatelandsfortheproject.Landsrequiredwouldincludedamandreservoirareas,borrowareas,accessroutes,andtransmissionlinecorridorstotalingmorethan64,000acres(25,900ha).LandvalueswithintheupperandmiddleSusitnaRiverBasinwouldincreaseovertime,especiallyforlandsadjacenttotheaccessroutes,permanentsettlement,andalongthereservoir.Residentialandrecreationallandsadjacenttothetransmissionlinecorridorcoulddecreaseinvalue.RecreationusewouldbeadverselyimpactedwheretheproposedtransmissionlinewouldbeviewedbyrecreationistswithintheDenaliNationalParkandPreserveandtheDenaliStatePark.5.1.1.2Climate,AirQuality,NoiseDuringconstruction,fugitiveemissionscouldexceedAlaskastandardsfortotalsuspendedparticulates(TSP)withinandjustbeyondtheprojectboundariesattheWatanadamsite.Thelargestsourceswouldberoaddustraisedbytrucktrafficandwind-blowndustfromstoragepiles.5.1.1.3WaterQuantityandQualityTheSusitnaRiverwouldbealteredfromanuncontrolledglacialrivertoacontrolledflow.Turbiditylevelswouldbereducedinthesummerandincreasedinthewinter.5-1 5-2Watertemperaturesinthemainstemwouldbereducedinthesummerandincreasedinthewinter.TheriverchannelbetweenthedamsandTalkeetnawouldbenarrowedandstabilized.OnsetoficecoverwouldbedelayedintheautumnandicebreakupwouldbeslowedinthespringbetweenthedamsandTalkeetna.5.1.1.4AquaticCommunitiesAccesstosloughsusedforspawningbyadultchumandsockeyesalmonwouldberestrictedbyreducedsummerflows.Theimpactswouldvaryaccordingtothesite-specifictopographyofthesloughs.Timingofsalmoneggincubationwouldbealteredbychangesinrivertemperature,resultinginprematureemergenceoffryfromearlyspawns.SurvivalratesofsalmonspawnedintheDevilCanyon~to-Talkeetnareachwouldbereducedduetoloweraccumulatedgrowthsbythesmoltsasaresultofalteredtemperatures.ImprovedaccesstotheBasinwouldresultinincreasedfishingpressureonthefisheriesresourceoftheentirearea.Alterationofflowswouldcausealossofsuitablesalmonspawninghabitat.Lossoftributaryandriverhabitatwouldoccurinthereservoirzones.Relativeabundanceofsalmonspecieswouldshiftduetochangesinhabitat,flows,andtemperatures.5.1.1.5TerrestrialCommunities5.1.1.5.1PlantCommunitiesConstructionoftheproposedWatanaandDevilCanyondamsandimpoundments,relatedfacili-ties,andaccessroadswouldresultinthedirectremovalofabout44,000acres(17,800ha)ofvegetation,orabout1.3%ofthevegetatedareawithintheupperandmiddleSusitnaBasin.Morespecifically,about4%ofallforestedareas,about10%ofmixedconifer-deciduousforesttypes,aboutone-thirdofthepaperbirchforeststands,andlessthan1%ofthetundraandshrublandtypeswithintheupperandmiddleSusitnaBasinwouldberemoved.Morethan80%[37,000acres(15,000ha)]ofthevegetationthatwouldberemovedcouldalsobeconsideredpotentialwetlandareas.Thisrepresentsabout1.7%ofthepotentialwetlandareaswithintheupperandmiddleSusitnaBasin.FollowingcompletionoftheproposedWatanaandDevilCanyondamsandimpoundments,about6,400acres(2,600ha),orabout15%ofthetotalvegetatedarearemovedduringconstruction,wouldrequirerehabilitationtopreventfutureerosion,vegetationandwildlifehabitatloss,andvisualandrecreationalimpacts.Inadditiontotheareasdescribedabove,about12,000acres(4,900ha)ofvegetation(ofwhichalmosttwo-thirdsmightalsobeconsideredpotentialwetlands)wouldbecrossedbytheproposedpowertransmissioncorridorsandwouldbesubjecttoselectiveclearing.Forestandtallshrubtypes,whichrepresentalmost60%ofthevegetationcrossedbythecorridors,wouldbemostimpactedbyclearingbecauseoftheheightofoverstoryvegetation.TheregulatedflowsandchangesiniceprocessesassociatedwithWatanaandDevilCanyonoperationwouldvariouslyaffectthedevelopmentofriparianplantcommunitiesdownstreamofthedamsites,butspecificeffectsaredifficultorimpossibletoreliablypredictorquantify.Anadditionalunquantifiableacreageofvegetationwouldbeindirectlylost,damaged,and/oralteredduetofactorssuchaserosion,permafrostthaw,slumpage,wind,fugitivedust,alterationofdrainagepatterns,mesoclimaticchanges,andincreasedhumanactivitiesandusagecausedbyconstructionandoperationoftheproposedproject.5.1.1.5.2WildlifeReductionoftheSusitnaBasin'smoosepopulationduetolossofabout60squaremiles(mi2)[150squarekilometers(km2)]ofimportanthabitat,atwofoldincreaseinhuntingpressure,andincreasedmortality.Severereductioninthebasin'sblackbearpopulation'duetolossofabout60mi2(150km2)already-limitedhabitat,lossof50%ofavailabledenningsites,andatwofoldincreaseinhuntingpressure.Reductioninthebasin'sbrownbearpopulationdueto,loss ofsomespringhabitat,reducedavailabilityofprey(mooseandsomesalmon),andatwofoldincreaseinhuntingpressure. 5-3Reductioninthebasin'sgraywolfpopulationduetolossofabout10%ofthehomerangeofthecentral-mostpack,reducedavailabilityofprey(moose),andatwofoldincreaseinhuntingpressure.PossiblereductionoftheWatanaHillsgroupofDall'ssheepduetoreductioninthesuit-abilityoftheJayCreekminerallickasaresultofinundationandleachingofsolubleminerals.Possiblerestrictionofthemovementofcaribouinthebasin.Lossordisturbanceof4baldeagleand16to18goldeneaglenestinglocations.Lossof50%ofthecliff-nestinghabitatalongthemiddleSusitnaRiver.Possibleneedtoalterwildlifemanagementplansandgoalswithinthebasin.5.1.1.6RecreationResourcesAsidefromconstructionsitesandaccessandtransmissionlinecorridors,thedevelopmentoftheproposedprojectwoulddisruptcurrentrecreationusepatternsonmorethan45,000acres(18,200ha)oflandandwaterthatwouldbeinundated(ExhibitA,Vol.1,Sec.2.8)*,therebyintensifyingthedemandforcomparablewildernessrecreationexperiencesinadjoiningareas.ThefillingoftheWatanaimpoundment(1991-1993)(ExhibitC,Vol.1,Fig.C.1)wouldinundatetheVeeCanyonrapids,whichconstituteasignificantwhite-waterresourceandrecognizedscenicarea.ThefillingoftheDevilCanyonimpoundment(2001-2002)wouldinundatetheDevilCanyonrapids,recognizedasoneofthefewClassVIwhite-waterrunsintheworld(ExhibitE,Vol.8,Chap.7,Sec.3.1.2).Off-dutyconstructionpersonneloptingtoresideinonsitehousingwouldcompeteamongthemselvesandwithlocalresidentsforrecreationopportunities;thiscouldjeopardizerecreationresourcesinandadjacenttotheprojectarea,particularlyduringpeakcon-structionperiods;i.e.,1988-1992fortheWatanasite,and1997-2000fortheDevilCanyonsite(ExhibitE,Vol.7,Chap.5,TableE.5.25).Projectdevelopmentwouldresultinsomediminutioninthequalityandsuccessratesofsporthuntingandfishingopportunitieswithinanddownstreamoftheprojectarea.Projectaccesswouldcreateopportunitiesforsuccessiveextensionsofaccess,thusjeopardizingwildernesssettingsandwildernessrecreationactivitiesinotherwiseremoteareas.5.1.1.7SocioeconomicFactorsSignificantpopulationincreaseswouldresultfrominmigrationofprojectworkers,supportworkers,andtheirfamilies(particularlyinTrapperCreek,Talkeetna,andCantwell),followedbylargedecreasesinpopulationafterconstructionattheWatanasitewascom-pleted.Theboom-and-bustpatternwouldberepeatedwiththeconstructionandoperationoftheDevilCanyonfacility.Populationgrowthwouldbeaccompaniedbyhousingshortages;culturalconflicts;inter-ferencewithsubsistenceuseintheprojectarea;andshortagesofcommunitywater,sewer,solidwastedisposal,fire,police,andhealthservices.ShortfallswouldoccurinMat-SuBoroughrevenuesduetotheneedtofinanceexpansionofcommunityservicespriortopopulationinmigration.Greateraccessibilityoftheareawouldcauseconf1ictswithsubsistenceusersandsub-sistenceactivities.Human-usepatternsintheSusitnaRiverBasinwouldbealteredduetoafourfoldincreaseinnumberofusers,possiblyleadingtoloweredgame-harvestsuccessrates,reductioninthequalityofthehuntingexperience,andachangeinthemakeupofusersofthebasin.Withrapidpopulationgrowth,communitiesintheprojectareawouldlosetheirrural,small-town,isolatedcharacter,thuschangingthequalityoflifeforresidents.\*Throughoutthisdocument,referencestospecific"Exhibits"aretotheexhibitssubmittedtoFERCaspartofAlaskaPowerAuthority'sSusitnaHydroelectricProjectLicenseApplication.Referencestospecific"Appendices"(App.)aretotheappendicesprovidedinVolumes2through7ofthisDraftEnvironmentalImpactStatement. 5-45.1.1.8VisualResourcesThegeometriclinesandformsoftheWatanaandDevilCanyondamsandassociatedstructureswouldbeinsignificantvisualcontrasttothenaturalsettingoftheSusitnaRiverValleyandDevilCanyonlandscapes.TheWatanareservoirwouldinundatethescenicDeadmanandWatanaCreekwaterfallsandmuchofthehighlyaestheticVeeCanyonarea,detractingfromitssignificanceasanaturalscenicfeature.TheDevilCanyonreservoirwouldinundatethehighlyscenicandremoteDevilCanyonandtheClassVIwhite-waterrapidsthatextendthroughit.ItisanticipatedthatduringmaximumWatanareservoirdrawdown(AprilandMay),substantialareasofmudflatsmorethan1mi(1.6km)widewouldbeexposedalongtheshoreoftheimpoundmentandwouldcontinuetobevisuallyobtrusivetorecreationistsonandnearthereservoirthroughoutthesummermonthsuntilthereservoirwasfilledinSeptember.Extensiveslumping,scaling,andlandslidingwouldbeexpectedtooccuralongthesteepslopesoftheWatanareservoir,resultinginsignificantvisualimpactsforrecreationistsboatingon,orusinglandadjacentto,thereservoir.ExtensivehumandevelopmentandactivitiesaroundtheWatanaandDevilCanyonconstructioncampandvillageandtheWatanapermanentsettlementwoulddegradethevisualcharacteroftheexistingnaturalsettings.Theprojectaccessrouteswouldvisuallydetractfromthenaturalcharacteroftheareabecauseofroadsurfacing,cutandfilloperations,vegetationremoval,erosion,anddevelop-mentofborrowareas.Alongthetransmissionlinecorridors,clearedright-of-wayandthe100-foot(ft)[30-meter(m)]high,guyed,steel-pole,x-frametowerswouldbevisiblefromvariousvantagepointswithintheupperandmiddleSusitnaRiverBasin.Theserights-of-wayandtowersalsowouldbevisiblefrompointsalongtheGeorgeParksHighway,AlaskaRailroad,andDenaliHighwayatvariouslocationsinRailbeltcommunities,DenaliNationalParkandPreserve,andDenaliStatePark;andfromaircraftflyingoverhead.5.1.2Alternatives5.1.2.1LandResources5.1.2.1.1GeologyandSoilsCoal-andnatural-gas-firedgenerationscenarioswouldresultinsignificantconsumptiveuseofregionalcoalandgasresources.Coalminingactivitieswouldresultintopographicdisturbancesandpossibleincreasederosionandsedimentation.Areasofsoilspotentiallysuitableforagriculturewouldbedisturbedbyconstructionofcoal-firedunitsatWillowandNenana.AllbuttheChakachamnahydropoweralternativeswouldinundateextensiveareas,andreservoirslopefailurescouldbesubstantialforallbuttheChakachamnaandSnowalternatives.TheJohnsonandBrownehydropoweralternativeswouldinundatepotentiallysuitableagri-culturalland,andtheBrownealternativewouldinundateunknownamountsofcoalreserves.5.1.2.1.2LandUseandOwnershipSignificantlanduseimpactsresultingfromdevelopmentofalternativeSusitnaBasindamlocationsanddesigns,accessroutes,borrowareas,andalternativepowertransmissionrouteswouldbesimilarinscopetothosediscussedinSection5.1.1.1.2.Becauseofthesmallerreservoirareas,lessacreagewouldberequiredfOrthealternativedamsthanfortheproposedproject.Thecombinedhydro-thermalgenerati·onscenari0wauldinundatemorethan102,000acres(41,300ha)oflandandresultinsimilarlanduseimpactsasdescribedfortheproposedproject.Inparticular,theBrownehydrositealternativewouldsignificantlyimpactlandusewithintheAlaskaRailbeltbyinundating10,640acres(4,310ha)ofland,includingportionsoftheGeorgeParksHighwayandAlaskaRailroad.TheJohnsonhydrositealterna-tivewouldinundatealandareaof84,000acres(34,000ha),includingaportionoftheAlaskaHighwayandanabove-groundpipeline.Thecoal-firedgenerationscenariowouldrequiremorethan3,000acres(1,200ha)ofland,inc1uding600acres(240ha)forsHefacilities,225acres(91ha)forwastedisposa1sites,and2,250acres(910ha)(over30years)forsurfaceminingofcoal.Anadditional9,000acres(3,600ha)wouldberequiredfortransmissionlinerights-of-way.Inaddition,operationofcoal-firedgenerationplants(suchasthosethatwouldbelocatedatNenana 5-5andWillow)isoftenincompatiblewithuseofsurroundingnatural,recreational,residential,orcommerciallands.5.1.2.2Climate,AirQuality,NoiseUnderthecoal-firedgenerationscenarioinwhichthreetofivecoalunitswereassumedtobesitedatNenana,threesignificantimpactscouldresult:ImpairedvisibilitycouldoccurattheClassIareaatDenaliNationalParkbecauseoftheoperationofthreeormorecoalunitsatNenana.Mitigationmightinvolveapplica-tionofNOcontrolsfortheseNenanaplants.NoClassIvisibilityimpairmentwouldoccurift~eeunitswereplacedatWillowandtwoatNenana.ThePSDClassIIincrementforS02(24-houraverage)atelevatedterrainnortheastofNenanawouldbeviolatedwiththeoperationofthree,four,orfiveunitsatNenana.ThePSDClassIincrementforS02(24-houraverage)atDenaliNationalParkwouldbeviolatedwithfourorfiveunitsatNenana.5.1.2.3WaterQuantityandQualityAdoptionofanyofthealternativeSusitnaBasindamdesignsorconfigurationswouldresultinmodificationofthebasininamannersimilarto,buttoalesserdegreethan,theproposedproject.Developmentofnon-Susitnahydropoweralternativeswouldresultinmodificationoftheriversuponwhichdamswouldbeconstructed.TheChakachamnaprojectwoulddiverttheChakachatnaRiverintotheMcArthurRiverdrainage.Developmentofcoal-firedgeneratingunitscouldresultinincreasedturbidityinstreamsnearcoalminingoperations.5.1.2.4AquaticCommunitiesImprovedaccesswouldresultinincreasedfishingpressureinpresentlyremoteareasoftheTanana,Talkeetna,Nenana,andSusitnariverbasins.Adoptionof theChakachamnaprojectwouldresultinthelossofamajorsockeyesalmonfisheryatLakeChakachamna.AdoptionoftheKeetnaprojectwouldresultinamajorimpactonasalmonrunontheTalkeetnaRiver.5.1.2.5TerrestrialCommunities5.1.2.5.1PlantCommunitiesImpactstovegetationfromalternativeSusitnadamlocationsanddesigns,accessroutes,powertransmissionroutes,andborrowsiteswouldbesimilarintypeandmagnitudetoimpactsoftheproposedproject.Thecombinedhydro-thermalgenerationscenariowouldresultinthedirectremovalordis-turbanceofmorethan115,000acres(46,500ha)ofvegetation(ormorethantwicethevegetatedareathatwouldbeaffectedbytheproposedproject),aswellasothertypesofimpactssimilartothoseidentifiedfortheproposedproject.5.1.2.5.2WildlifeSeveralalternativetransmissionrouteswoulddoubletheamountofwildlifehabitatcrossedincomparisontotheproposedroutes.AParksHighwayaccessconnectionwouldincreaseaccessibilityofthebasinevenmorethanwouldtheproposedplan.AnaccessroutetoWatanasouthoftherivercouldreducethesuitabilityofPrairieCreekasafisheryforbrownbear.Adoptionofthecombinedhydro-thermalgenerationconfigurationwouldresultintwicethehabitatlo~astheproposedproject,aswellaslossofthePrairieCreekfishery.5.1.2.6RecreationResourcesTheWatanaI-DevilCanyonandWatanaI-ModifiedHighDevilCanyonalternativeswouldinvolveinundationoftheDevilCanyonwhite-waterrun,asdoestheproposedproject.Incontrast,developmentof theWatanaIplusReregulatingdamalternativewouldresultincontrolledflowsthroughDevilCanyon,buttherapidswouldnotbeinundated. 5-6ThealternativeWillow-to-Pt.MacKenzietransmissionlinesegmentwouldtraverseNancyLakeStateRecreationAreaforabout9mi(15km)(ExhibitE,Vol.9,Chap.10,Fig.E.10.10).Installationoftwo200-MWcoal-firedunitswouldsignificantlydegradeenvironmentalsettingsinthevicinityofWillow,whererecreationresourcesincludepublic,private,andcommercialdevelopments,andwhereparticipationlevelsindispersedrecreationactivitiesarerelativelyhigh(App.L,Sec.L.1.4.2.2).TheJohnsonsitealternativewouldentailinundationof84,000acres(34,000ha)andelimi-nationofdispersedrecreationopportunitiesonthatacreage.AsegmentoftheAlaskaHighway,whichisamajortouristroute,wouldbeinundated.Commercialandprivaterecrea-tiontouringoftheTananaRiverwouldalsobedisrupted(App.L,Sec.L.1.4.3.2).DevelopmentoftheBrownealternativewoulddisruptamajorrivertouringrouteandinundate10,640acres(4,300ha),includingsegmentsoftheGeorgeParksHighwayandtheAlaskaRailroad,whicharemajortouristroutes(App.L,Secs.L.1.4.2.2,L.1.4.3.5).DevelopmentoftheKeetnaimpoundmentwouldinundateprimemooseharvestareas,notablewhite-waterresourceareas,asegmentofamajoroff-roadvehic1eaccessroute,andestablishedhikingtrails.TheTalkeetnahasbeenproposedforStateRecreationRiverstatus(App.L,Sec.L.1.4.3.3).5.1.2.7SocioeconomicFactorsUndertheSusitnaBasinhydropoweralternatives,populationwouldincreasesignificantly,causingshortagesinhousingandservicessimilartothosedescribedfortheproposedproject.Theseinitialpopulationincreaseswouldbefollowedbylargedecreasesinpopula-tionandservicedemandsuponcompletionofconstruction.Forthegas-firedgenerationscenario,significantpopulationincreaseswouldoccurinTyonekasaresultofinmigrationofconstructionandoperationworkersandtheirhouseholds.PopulationincreaseswouldbeaccompaniedbyshortagesofhousingandallcommunityservicesandconflictswithNativeAlaskancultureandsubsistenceactivities.Underthecoal-firedgenerationalternative,thepopulationinandaroundHealy,Nenana,Willow,andTyonekwouldincreasesignificantlyduetotheinfluxofworkers,theirfamilies,andsupportworkersneededfortheexpansionoftheUsibelliCoalMineandconstructionandoperationofthe200-MWcoal-firedunitsandthe70-MWcombustionturbines.Shortagesofhousingandallcommunityservices,andpossibleconflictswiththelargeNativeAlaskancomponentofcurrentresidents,theirculture,andtheirsubsistenceactivitieswouldoccur.Underthecombinedhydro-thermalscenario,thepopulationwouldincreasesignificantlyintheTok-to-DeltaJunctionareaalongtheAlaskaHighway,andinandaroundTalkeetna,Seward,andthesoutheasternKenaiPeninsula,Healy,Nenana,andTyonekduetoinmigratingprojectworkers,supportworkers,andtheirhouseholds.Populationincreaseswouldbeaccompaniedbyshortagesofhousingandallcommunityservices.Afterthepeakconstructionperiodpassed,thepopulationwoulddecrease,potentiallyleavingthesecommunitieswithexcessesofhousingandservices.PossibleconflictswithNativeAlaskancultureandsubsistenceactivitiesmightalsooccurinHealy,Nenana,Tyonek,andinsmallNativeAlaskancommunitiesbetweenTokandDeltaJunction.5.1.2.8VisualResourcesDevelopmentofalternativeSusitnaBasindamlocationsanddesigns,accessroutes,borrowareas,andpowertransmissionroutescouldresultinsignificantvisualresourceimpactssimilarinnaturetothosediscussedinSection5.1.1.8fortheproposedproject.Ofparticularnote,theModifiedHighDevilCanyonalternativewouldinundateTsusenaFalls.ConstructionoftheKeetnahydropoweralternativewouldresultintheinundationoftwoscenicareas,SentinelRockandGraniteGorge.DevelopmentoftheBrownealternativehydropowersitewoulddetractfromthevisualresourcesoftheNenanaRiverValley.DevelopmentoftheSnowandJohnsonalternativehydropowersiteswoulddetractfromthenatrualandhighaestheticqualityoftheseareas.Significantvisualresourceimpactscouldresultfromthesitingofcoal-fire~generationplantsnearNenanaandWillowduetotheneedfora400-to500-ft(120-to150-m)smoke-stackateachplantandthedegradationofvisualresourcesinthedownwindareabecauseofthepresenceofvaporplumesandhazefromstackemissions.5.1.3.No-ActionAlternativeUndertheno-actionalternative,thenatureandmagnitudeofimpactswoulddependonwhichspecificactionstheApplicantwouldtakeshouldthelicensefortheproposedactionbedenied(seeSec.4.6). rI5-75.2RECOMMENDATIONS5.2.1PowerGenerationTheapproachtakenbytheStaffinevaluatingalternativemeansofmeetingprojectedpowergenerationrequirementsfortheRailbeltregionwastoassesstheeconomic,engineering,andenvironmentalcosts,feasibilityandeffectsofarangeofrepresentativegenerationscenarios,eachprimarilybasedonanabundantavailablesourceofenergythatcouldbedevelopedtomeetprojectedpowerneeds.Itwasnotpossibletospecificallyanalyzethelargenumberofcombina-tionsofsitesandgenerationtechnologiesthatcouldresultfromintegrationormixingofthefourpowergenerationscenariosconsidered.Clearly,atremendousnumberofmixedhydroorhydro-thermalscenarioscouldbeconceivedthatwould,beforedetailedstudy,appearlikelyorrealisticcandidatesformeetingfutureenergyneedsintermsofcost,engineeringfeasibility,andenvironmentalimpacts.However,becausetheStaffassessmentofrepresentative,alternativepowergenerationscenariosexaminedavarietyofresonablesitesforeachtechnology,andbecausearangeoftechnologieswasincluded,itcanbereadilyinferredfromStaff'sdiscussionthatcertaineconomic,engineering,andenvironmentalcharacteristicsofindividualsitesandtech-no1ogiesmakethemobviouslypreferab1etoothers.Itisonthisbasisthatthefo11owinggeneralrecommendationsareoffered.Basedonconsiderationsofengineeringfeasibility,economiccharacteristics,andenvironmentaleffects,theFERCStafffindsthat~mixedthermal-basedgenerationscenario,supplementedwithselectednon-SusitnabasinhydropowerfacilitieswouldbethemosteffectiveapproachtomeetingtheprojectedgenerationrequirementsoftheRailbeltarea.Suchanapproachwouldprovideflexibilityinsystemsplanningandefficientfuelusetocopewiththeuncertaintiesinpopula-tiongrowthandgenerationrequirementsdelineatedinSection1.Thethermal-basedgenerationscenariowithselectedhydropowerfacilitieswouldconsistofamixtureofcoal-andgas-firedplantssitedthroughouttheRailbeltarea,combinedwithhydro-powerprojectsdevelopedafterindependentevaluationanddeterminationofmeritfromaneconomicandenvironmentalviewpoint.Thebenefitsofthisapproachincludeeconomicandenvironmentalfactors.AsdemonstratedinSection1ofthisdocument,thermalgenerationwithselectedhydro-powerislesscostlythantheproposedSusitnadevelopmentasameansofmeetingtheprojectedloadgrowthoftheRailbelt.Thermalgenerationcostsforthemedianloadforecastareapproxi-mately75%ofthecostoftheproposedSusitnadevelopmentonalevelized,totalannualcostbasis.Further,levelizedcapitaloutlaysassociatedwiththedevelopmentofseveralplants,versusthesinglelargecapitalcommitmentfortheSusitnaproject,wouldreducetheimpactofenergycoststotheconsumer.Fromanenvironmentalperspective,theadverseimpactsprojectedforthealternativehydroandthermalscenariosaregenerallylessthanthoseprojectedfortheproposedSusitnaproject.Specifically,properlysitedandsizedcoal-andgas-firedpowerunitswouldresultinminimalimpactstoland,water,andairresources,whiletheselectionofthemostenvironmentallyacceptablenon-SusitnahydropowerprojectswouldalsolessenimpactscomparedwiththoseexpectedwithfulldevelopmentofhydropowerresourcesintheSusitnaBasin.Additionally,theregionaldispersionofimpactsrelatedtoseveralcoal,gas,andhydropowerdevelopmentswoulddiluteanddecentralizeadverseeffectsandwouldprovidemoreopportunitiesandgreaterflexibilityforoptimizationofmitigativefeatures.AlthoughtheStafffindsthatthethermal-basedscenario,withselectednon-Susitnahydropowerdevelopment,wouldbethemostreasonablealternative,shouldanyhydroelectricdevelopmentbeauthorizedintheSusitnaBasin,itshouldbelicensedandconstructedinstages,respondingtogenerationrequirements.ThefirststageofthisdevelopmentintheSusitnaBasinwouldbetheWatanaIalternativedescribedinSection2.StagingthelicensingandconstructionofanySusitnaBasindevelopment,ratherthanthepro-posedactionofcompletedevelopmentofthebasin,wouldrequireeachincrementofdevelopmenttomeettheeconomic,environmental,andloadrequirementsexistingatthetimeoflicensing.IncrementaldevelopmentintheSusitnaBasinwouldattempttotakeadvantageofsomeoftheconceptsexpressedaboveinthatcostsandenvironmentalimpactswouldbestaged,matchingthenear-termloadgrowthinastepwisefashion.Thefirsts~ageunderthisconceptwouldbeWatanaI[normalpoolelevation2,100ft(640m)J.Thesecondstagewouldbeoneofthefollowing:ModifiedHighDevilCanyon,DevilCanyon,orthereregulatingdamincludedintheApplicant'stunnelNo.3alternativescheme.Theselectionofthesecondstagewoulddependonloadgrowth.StagingtheSusitpaBasindevelopmentwouldresultinincrementalcapitaloutlaysthatwouldhavetheadvantag~oflevelizingthe increasesinenergycoststotheconsumer.Environmen-tally,thisstagedapproach,duetotherelianceonthelowerWatanaI,wouldsignificantlyreducetheareaofinundation,whencomparedtotheproposedSusitnaproject,thusdecreasingthelevelofterrestrialandaquaticimpactsasdiscussedinSection4.Further,stageddevelop-mentwouldensurethatunavoidableenvironmentalimpactwouldoccuronlywhenabsolutelyessential.WatanaIwithadownstreamreregulationdamwouldbethemostenvironmentallyandeconomicallysoundSusitnaBasindevelopment.Ultimately,shoulddevelopmentintheSusitnaBasingoforward,ratherthanthepreviouslyrecommendedthermalandselectednon-Susitnahydropowerscenario,theSusitnaBasindevelopmentshouldbestagedtoconservebotheconomicandenvironmentalresources. 5-85.2.2FlowRegulationTheApplicantconsideredarangeofflowreleasescenarios.ThemlnlmUmflowduringsalmonspawning(August1toSeptember15)isproposedtobe12,000cubicfeetpersecond(cfs)[340cubicmeterspersecond(m3/s)],whichwillsubjectanestimated50%ofsidesloughhabitattoacuteaccess1imitations.Toreducetheseaccessrestrictions,theStaffhasrecommendedthatspikingflowsof20,000cfs(566m3/s)beimplementedduringthesalmonspawningseason.Thesespikereleasesshouldoccurforatleastthreecontinuousdays,andshouldoccurduringatleastthreedifferentperiodsbetweenAugust1andSeptember15.Minimumflowsduringsalmonemergence,outmigration,andrearing(May,June,andJuly)shouldalsobereevaluatedinlightofpresentlyongoingstudies.Allphasesofthelifecyclesofsalmonshouldbeprovidedforintheminimumflowregimesfortheproject.5.2.3AccessPlanTheApplicantconsideredthreebasicalternativeaccessroutes:fromDenaliHighway,fromGoldCreek,andfromParksHighway(ExhibitE,Vol.9,Chap.10,Sec.2.3).TheApplicantadoptedanaccessplanconsistingofaroadlinkfromDenaliHighwaytoWatanaandDevilCanyondamsandaraillinkfromGoldCreektoDevilCanyon(Fig.2-11).AccessfromDenaliHighwaywouldrequireconstructionofanewrailheadatCantwell,upgradingofabout20mi(30km)oftheDenaliHighway,andconstructionofabout40mi(60km)ofnewroadtotheWatanadamsite(Sec.2.1.7).AccessfromtheDenaliHighwaywouldhavesevereimpactsuponwildliferesourcesintheupperandmiddleSusitnaRiverBasin(Sec.4.1.5.2).TheroadwouldbisectamajorpathofmovementfortheNenana-UpperSusitnasubherdofcaribou,impactbeaverhabitatalongDeadmanCreek,andprovidereadyaccessforpersonalvehiclesintothecentralbasin.ThisaccesswouldlikelyresultinamajorshiftinpatternsofhumanusewithintheupperandmiddleSusitnaBasinandincreasedwildlifemortalityduetohuntingandtrapping(Secs.4.1.5and4.1.8).Thesechangeswouldnecessitateareview,andpossiblyalteration,ofcurrentwildlifemanagementgoalsandpractices.AccessfromGoldCreekalonewouldmarkedlyreducethepotentialforimpactstotheNenana-UpperSusitnacaribousubherdandallowgreatercontrolofaccessintotheprojectregion.AccessfromGoldCreekalonealsowouldmarkedlyreduceoverfishingofgraylinghabitatnorthoftheprojectarea.Greatercontrolofaccesswouldleadtoareductioninthepotentialforimpactsduetoincreasedfishing,hunting,andtrappingpressureonfishandwildliferesources.Inaddition,patternsofhumanuseofthebasin'sfishandwildliferesourceswouldnotbealteredasmuchasundertheproposedaccessplan.Thus,impactstowildlifemanagementgoalswouldbesubstantiallylessthanundertheproposedconditions.Basedontheseconsiderations,theStaffrecommendsthattheApplicantadoptanalternativetotheDenaliHighwayaccessplanthatincorporatesaccessfromGoldCreekonly.5.3MITIGATIVEMEASURES5.3.1LandResources5.3.1.1GeologyandSoilsThemitigativemeasuresproposedbytheApplicanttoaddressgeologic-andsoil-relatedimpactsarediscussedinSection2.1.12.1.Basedoncurrentlyavailablesiteinformation,thesemeasureswouldforthemostpartbeeffectiveinminimizingimpacts.Becausemoresite-specificinforma-tionwouldbecomeavailableduringtheApplicant'sproposedgeotechnicalstudies,theStaffsuggeststheinvolvementofthestateandFederalsoilconservationagenciesandgeologicalresourceagenciesinreviewingconstructionandmitigationplanssoastoensurethesuitabilityoftheproposedmitigativemeasures.ApprovaloftheApplicant'serosion-controlmitigativemeasuresshouldbeobtainedfromthesestateandFederalagencies(includingFERC)priortoprojectdevelopmentanduponcompletionofrelevantgeotechnicalinvestigations.Manyofthesignificantimpactsrelatedtotheproposedproject,e.g.,thelossoflandduetoreservoirinundation,reservoirslopeinstability,andseismicallyinducedslopefailuresorliquefactions,wouldbeessentiallyunmitigatable;however,theStaffsuggeststhattheApplicantcontinuetoevaluatethemagnitudeofsuchimpactsasrelevantgeotechnicalinformationarisesfromongoingstudies.MitigativemeasuresappropriateforthealternativesarediscussedinSection2.7.1.5.3.1.2LandUseandOwnershipAtpresent,nosinglecomprehensivelandmanagementplanexistsfortheentireupperandmiddleSusitnaRiverBasin.Inordertocontrolunwanteddevelopment,conflictivelanduses,andunlimitedoff-roadaccessintotheregion,theApplicantmustcontinuetocoordinatewiththevariousFederal,state,Native,andlocalgoverningagenciesandwithprivatelandholders.The 5-9applicantshouldassistinthedevelopmentandimplementationofappropriatelandmanagementpracticesthroughlanduseandcomprehensiveplans,specialpurposefunctionalplans,zoningordinances,andotherpertinentlandusecontrols.AgencycoordinationthathasbegunintheplanninganddesignstageoftheSusitnaprojectshouldcontinuethroughtheconstructionandoperationphases.TheApplicantalsoshouldcontinuetomonitorthelandstatusandownershipchangeswithintheproposedprojectareaandkeepthenewlandownersandmanagersinformedofprojectstatusandofanychangesindesign,constructionmethods,accessrequirements,andoperationalprocedures.Tominimizeconflictivelandusealongthepowertransmissionlinecorridor,theApplicantshouldavoid,totheextentfeasible,recreationlands,residentialareas,andareasofexisitingorplannedagriculturaluse.Ifatransmissionlinetowerislocatedonagriculturalland,theuseofguyed,x-frametowersshouldbeavoidediffeasible.Theamountoflandremovedfromcropproductioncanbeminimizedbyusingself-supportingH-frameorsingle-poletowers.Whereverpossible,anytowerstructuresinanagriculturalareashouldbelocatedalongtheedgeofanagriculturalfieldtolessentheprobabilityofoperationaldamagetofarmequipmentand/ortothetransmissionlinetowerandtominimizetheamountofcropland(existingorpotential)removedfromproduction.Wherefeasible,thetransmission1ineshouldbeplacedadjacenttoexistingtransmissionlinecorridorstominimizetheamountofnewright-of-wayrequired.MeasurestomitigateimpactstorecreationallandusearediscussedinSections2.1.12.6and5.3.6,whi1emit igativemeasurestominimizeaestheticimpactsto1andownersandothersadjacenttoprojectfacilitiesaredescribedinSections2.1.12.8and5.3.8.5.3.2Climate,AirQuality,NoiseThepotentialproblemofoffsiteexceedencesofAlaskaambientairqualityregulationsduetofugitivedustemissionsmaybesolvedthroughimplementationofmitigativemeasures.Forexample,stabilizingagentscanbeusedonstoragepilestomaintainacrustthatwouldholddownfugitiveemissions.Roadscanbewateredduringdryperiods.Restrictionscanbeplacedonvehiclespeeds,andunauthorizedvehiclescanbekeptoffunpavedroadsinordertominimizedustimpacts.TheApplicantlistsmethodssuchastheseintheApplication;however,thereisnocommitmentbytheApplicanttocarryoutanyspecificmitigativemeasure.TheApplicantshouldprepareadetailedplanforthemitigationoffugitivedustemissions.SuchaplanshouldbebasedonanevaluationofwhichareasoftheprojectaremorelikelytoleadtoexceedencesofAlaskaambientairqualitystandardsoutsidethesiteboundary.Mitiga-tivemeasuresshouldbechosenandcriteriadefinedtodeterminewhenandhowoftenthemitiga-tionshouldbeapplied.Acombinationofthemethodslistedinthissectionmaybesatisfactory.5.3.3WaterQuantityandQualityTheselectionofappropriateconstraintsonreservoirreleaseswouldbeacriticalelementinthemitigationpolicyfortheproposedproject.Theseconstraintsincludenotonlyaminimumflowregimetoprotectdownstreamfisheries,butalsolimitsonmaximumreleases,limitsonthemaximumrateofchangeofreleases,allocationofexcessreservoirvolumewhenitisavailable,andtheneedforshort-termspikereleasestocompensateforthelossofpreprojectfloods.ApolicyforspikedreleasesisnecessarybecauseboththefluvialdynamicsandthebiologyoftheSusitnaRiverarecontrolledbythemagnitudeandfrequencyofoccurrenceofhigh-flowevents.Althoughasignificantamountofinformationisnowavailableonthesesubjects,thedefinitionofreleaseconstraintsshouldbenegotiatedaftercurrentfieldstudieshavebeencompleted.Ascheduleforthesenegotiationsisanintegralpartofthemitigationpolicy.Accessibilitytopreprojectsalmonspawninghabitatinthesidesloughswouldbeseverelylimitedundertheproposedminimumflowregime.Atthe12,000cfs(340m3/s)minimumflowduringsalmonspawning(August1toSeptember15),anestimated50%ofsidesloughhabitatwouldbeunavailable(i.e.,subjecttoacuteaccesslimitations).Mainstemflowsofapproximately13,000cfs(368m3/s)provideunrestrictedaccesstohalfofthesidesloughhabitatutilizedbysalmonin1981and1982.Acuteaccesslimitationstothesecondhalfofpreprojectspawninghabitatpersistuntilmainstemflowsreach18,000cfs(510m3/s).Unrestrictedaccesstothesecondhalfofthespawninghabitatdoesnotbeginuntilflowsexceed20,000cfs(566m3/s).ThissecondhalfofthespawninghabitatincludeshighlyutilizedsloughssuchasSlough9(RM129.2)andSlough21(RM142).Therefore,theS~~ffrecommendsthatspikeflowsinexcessof20,000cfs(566m3/s)beimple-mented,alongwiththeminimumrelease,duringthesalmonspawningperiod.TheseincreasedreleasesshouldoccurduringatleastthreedifferentperiodsbetweenAugust1andSeptember15,witheachpeakbeingheldforatleastthreedays.SomeovertoppingofsitessuchasSlough9wouldbegintooccurifthesepeakflowsreached23,000cfs(680m3/s).Ninedaysofspikedreleasesof24,000cfs(680m3/s)representanadditional107,000ac-ft(1.32x108m3)overtheminimumflowregime,or3%ofthelivestorageofWatanareservoir.Astrategyforallocatingreservoirvolumeofthismagnitude,especiallyinwetyears,shouldbedevelopedaspartofprojectmitigation. 5-10ThemlnlmumflowsforMay,June,andJulyshouldalsobereconsidered.NoevidencehasyetbeenpresentedbytheApplicanttosupporttheassumptionthatthe6,000cfs(170m3/s)minimumflowsduringthisperiodadequatelyprotectsalmonemergence,outmigration,andrearing.Theresultsofcurrentstudiesshouldbeevaluatedtoensurethatallphasesofthelifecyclesareprovidedforintheminimumflowregime.Forexample,accessbecomesamootpointifthespawningareasaresubsequentlydewateredornosuitablerearinghabitatisprovided.Thenegotiationsforreleaseconstraintpolicywillresolvetheseoutstandingissues.Minimumreleasepoliciesshouldberequiredatallhydropoweralternatives.Informationavailablefortheproposedprojectwouldbesufficienttoevaluateinstreamflowneedsforthein-basinalternatives.However,site-specificstudieswouldhavetobeconductedattheout-of-basinalternatives,especiallyJohnsonandBrowne,wherebaselineinformationislimitied.Theimplementationofawater-resourcemodelingprogramwithintheSusitnaRiverBasinshouldbeincludedinmitigationplanning.Theobjectivesofsuchaprogramshouldbetoachievestate-of-the-artforecastingofstreamflowswithinthebasinandtoimprovereservoiroperationbyallocat-ingstreamflowsinexcessofpowerdemandstooptimizefisheriesproductionbelowthedams.Recentstudieshaveconcludedthatforecastingandreservoiroptimizationmodelingcanachievesignificantimprovementsintheoperatingefficiencyofwater-resourcedevelopments(OfficeofTechnologyAssessment,1982).TheStateofAlaskahasnotyetimplementedthesemethodologies(OfficeofTechnologyAssessment,1982).ForamajorprojectsuchastheSusitnaproject,suchaprogramcouldhelpensurethatadverseimpactswereminimized.Habitatresponseinformationandspeciesrequirementsobtainedfrompastfieldstudiesandfuturemonitoringshouldbedesignedtoimprovetheallocationofreservoirreleases.Thiscanbeachievedthroughexistingsimulationoroptimaticmodeling(e.g.,Saleetal.,1982).5.3.4.AquaticCommunitiesTheconceptualmitigationplanforfisheriesprovidedbytheApplicant(Sec.2.1.12.3)isgenerallyappropriate.Basedonadditionaldatapresentlybeingcollected,specificrecommenda-tionstomitigateproblemswillbedeveloped~TheApplicant'sobjectiveofprovidinghabitatsufficienttomaintainnaturallyproductivesalmonpopulationsdownstreamfromtheprojectissuperiortorelianceonhatcheryproduction.Hatcheryexperienceoverseveraldecadeshasnotbeentotallysuccessfulinother1ocations(e.g.,theColumbiaRiver).Themitigativestepsofavoiding,minimizing,rectifying,andcompensatingimpacts,withmonitoringovertimetoallowidentificationofunanticipatedimpacts,areappropriateandconceptuallysound.Thespeciesselectedforevaluation(e.g.,chum,chinook,cohoandpinksalmon,andArcticgrayling)aregenerallythoseforwhichinterestismostintenseandwhichcanbeexpectedtobemostsusceptib1etoimpacts.Alternativespeciesmightbeconsideredthatcouldprovidemanagementopportunities,especiallyinthereservoirs(e.g.,DollyVarden,Kokaneestrainsofsockeyesalmon,orlaketrout).TheApplicant'smajorpremisethatimprovedconditionsintheSusitnaRivermainstemresultingfromprojectoperationwouldprovidereplacementhabitattomitigateforpotentiallossofsloughsisinadequatelysubstantiated.ImportantimpactsidentifiedinSection4.1.4needtobeintegrated.Forexample,gravelcleaninginsidechannelsandsloughstoprovidesubstrateforspawningwouldbeoflittlebenefitwhenmainstemtemperaturesinwinteraretoolowtoallowincubationtoprogressatanormalrate(App.I,Fig.I-IS).Pipingofmainstemwaterintosloughswouldsimilarlybeoflittleadvantagewhenanalysesshowovertoppingofsloughbermstocausedetrimentallylowtemperatures.Priorityattentionshouldbegivenareasthatcurrentlyhaveabundantwinter)butdeep,muddysediments.forincubationthroughthewinter.toprovidingadequatequalityofspawninggravelinsloughupwelling(asdeterminedbyobservationsofopenwaterinTemperaturestypicalofgroundwaterwouldthusbeavailableImpactsoffillingWatanareservoirwouldrequiremitigationinadditiontothosemeasuresproposedbytheApp1icant.Therewouldbemajoralterationsofriverflowandtemperatureduringthethree-yearfillingofWatanareservoir,butlesssignificantchangeswhenDevilCanyonReservoirwasfilled(Sec.4.1.3).Thesealterationswouldbeexpectedtohaveimportanteffectsonaccesstosloughspawningareasbyadultchumandsockeyesalmoninallthreeyears,andongrowthratesofjuvenilesofallsalmonspecies,especiallyinthesecondandthirdyears(Sec.4.1.4).Althoughtheapplicanthasselectedaflowregimethatisplannedtominimizeflow-relatedimpacts,therearenospecificplanstomitigatelossesinfishgrowthduetolowtemperaturesinsummerortorectifyorcompensatelostspawningareainthefillingyears.Mitigationmeasuresforimpactsduringoperationareplannedtobeinitiatedduringthefillingperiod,andsomemaybeeffectiveduringthefillingyearsifbegunearlier.ManagementofthepotentialfisheryresourcesinWatanaandDevilCanyonreservoirsislikelytoprovideamitigationopportunitybeyondthatplannedbytheApplicant.ExperiencesinScandinaviasuggestthatgoodfisheriescanbedevelopedinimpoundedglacialriverswhenspecieslikelake I"I5-11troutandArcticchar(DollyVarden)areused.IntheUnitedStates,Kokaneesalmonhavepro-vidednewrunstoupstreamtributariesblockedbydams.EmphasisonmanagementofthesespecieswouldseemmoreappropriatethandevelopingahatcheryforArcticgrayling.Conevalvesplannedforbothdamsandwatermanagementinthereservoirstoreducethelikelihoodofgassupersaturationindischargesseemappropriate.Asplansdevelopfurther,theirdeploymentonthedamscanbemorecarefullyaddressedtoavoidancillaryimpacts.Thelong-termeffectivenessofmitigationmeasuresremainsunclear,principallybecausetheuncertaintyofpredictingfundamentaleffectssuchasrivertemperaturesandgroundwaterflowremainshigh(Sec.4.1.3).Astheseeffectsareclarifiedandtranslatedquantitativelyintobiologicalimpacts(Sec.4.1.4andAppendixI),thentheoveralleffectiveness(ornecessity)ofmitigativemeasureswillbemoreevident.5.3.5TerrestrialCommunitiesAsnotedinSection2.1.12,theApplicanthasbeendevelopinganextensivemitigationplanthatwouldbeimplementedduringconstructionandoperationoftheproposedproject.ThisplanhasbeendevelopedincooperationwiththemajorFederalandstateresourceagenciesinAlaska.Resourceagencies'formalcommentsonproposedmitigationplanshavetendedtobegeneralcritiquesofthemitigationplaninitscurrentstate.Generalrecommendationsinclude:(1)continuedcloseinteractionwiththeresourceagencies;(2)continuedmonitoringofthestatusofbotanicalandwildliferesources,andassociatedmitigativeactionsinthebasin;and(3)establishmentofthefeasibilityofplannedmitigativeactions.TheStaffconcursthatcontinued,closeinteractionwiththeresourceagenciesisanecessityfordevelopingandimplementingmitigativemeasures.TheApplicantalsoacknowledgesthenecessityofsuchinteraction.Continuedinteractionwouldensuredevelopmentofaplanthatismoredefinitivethanthecurrentone.Thecurrentlackofdefinitivenessisdue,inlargepart,toalackofsufficientinformationastothefeasibilityofmitigationproposals.Continuedmonitoringofplantandwildlifepopulationsandtheirresponsestotheprojectandtomitigativemeasureswouldbenecessary(1)todevisefuturemitigationoraltertheapproachtomitigationifneeded,and(2)toquantifytheextenttowhichmitigationiscompensatingforlosses.TheStaffagreesthatsuchstudiesshouldbeanintegralpartofthemitigationplan.Thereissomeconcernonthepartoftheagencieswithregardtofeasibilityoftheproposedcompensationmeasures.TheStateofAlaska,OfficeofManagementandBudget,hasexpressedconcernthathabitatenhancementeffortscouldberiskyand,therefore,favorscompensationwithreplacementlands.Conversely,theU.S.FishandWildlifeServicehasindicatedsupportfortheApplicant'schosenoptionofcompensationthroughhabitatenhancement,butnotedthatselectionanddevelopmentoflandsforhabitatenhancementmustalsoincludeconsiderationofotherhabitatcharacteristicsaffectingwildlifehabitatvalues,including(1)locationwithrespecttowild-life-usepatternsand(2)interspersionwithvegetationtypesprovidingcoverandprotection.ThereisalsoconcernonthepartoftheagenciesandtheStaffaboutthefeasibilityandspecificsofhabitat-enhancementmeasures.Althoughitisfairlywelldocumentedthatdisturbancessuchasfiregenerallyeffectanincreaseinbrowseproduction,thereareuncertaintiesastoselec-tionofmethodsandthespecificeffectsoffactorssuchassoilandenvironmentalconditions,thespeciescompositionofvegetativecommunitiestobemodified,andthecompositionofsurround-ingcommunities.Thus,atpresentitwouldbedifficultinmanylocationstopredictwithconfidencethepreciseresultsofenhancementmanipulationsonchangesinvegetativecommunitystructureandproductivity.Furthermore,itwouldbeevenmoredifficulttopredicttheresponsesofwildlifepopulationstovariousenhancementmanipulations.Therefore,severalagencieshaveindicatedthatadditionalstudiesarerequiredtodeterminemoreprecisely(1)whatimportanthabitatareaswouldbelostduetoconstructionandoperationoftheproposedproject,(2)whetheritispossibleorfeasibletoreplacetheseareas,and(3)howandwheretobestattemptreplace-mentmanipulations.Itisforthesereasonsthatresourceagencieshaverecommendedvegetationandwetlandstudiesandmappingthatareorientedtowardsquantificationandunderstandingofplantcommunitiesfromawildlifehabitatperspective.TheApplicanthasacknowledgedtheseconcernsandhasstatedthateffortsarebeingmadetopursuesuchstudieswiththehelpandconsultationofappropriateresourceagenciesduringthemitigationplanrefinementprocess:BecausetheApplicanthasnotdocumentedthelikelihoodofsuccessforitsrehabilitationandenhancementproposals,nordocumentedtheamountofcompensationthatcouldbeattributedtotheenhancementeffor~,theStaffhasassumedinitsanalysisthatimpactstowildlifewouldnotbecompensatedforbyenhancementtechniques.TheStaffconcursthattheApplicantshouldfurtherstudytheefticacyofproposedrehabi1itationandenhancementtechniqueswiththegoalofimplementingfeasiblemitigativeactionsthathavealikelihoodofsuccess.TheU.S.FishandWildlifeServicehasstatedthatseveralofthewildlifespecieswhichithasidentifiedasevaluationspeciesfallwithinitscriteriaforrequiring"in-kind"compensation.Thisrequirescompensationforlosstoagivenspeciesbyreplacementorenhancementofthe/ 5-12affectedspecies.Thisapproachcontrastswith"out-of-kind"mit igationofonespeciestocompensatelossestoanotherspecies.ConcerningtheApplicant'sapproachtorectificationofvegetationimpacts,theagenciesandtheStaffconcurwiththegeneralrehabilitationproceduresproposedbytheApplicant,recognizingthatmorespecificdetailsofprocedures,locations,schedules,andcostsareplannedforthedetaileddesignphaseoftheproposedprojectdevelopmentandshouldalsobecoveredingreaterdetai1intheApp1icantJsplannedRevegetation/Rehabi1itationManuaLHowever,theStaffrecommendsthattheApplicant,wherefeasible,considertheuseofengineeringpracticestostabilizeerosiveareaseitherinadditiontoorinlieuofseedingwithnativegrasses.Forexample,terracingwouldnotonlyreduceerosionbutwouldhelpcollectmoisturethatmightbecriticaltorapidlyachievingsuccessfulrevegetation.Asanotherexample,properlyplacedwater-controldiversionswouldminimizeerosionwhile allowingsurfacedrainageofexcesswater.Sinceseedingwithgrasses(evennativespecies)mightinhibitlaterinvasionbyothernativespecies,thejudicioususe,wherefeasible,ofsucherosion-controlmeasuresinlieuofortominimizeseedingwithgrassesmightallowdevelopmentofamoretypicalnativecommunitythanwouldotherwiseoccur.TheStateofAlaskahasnotedthattheApplicantcannotrelyupontheAlaskaBoardofGametomitigatetheproject-inducedchangesinpatternsofhumanuseandeffectsfromthesechanges.ThestatearguesthattheApplicantshouldtakeeverysteppossibletomitigateimpactspriortoanyneedfortheBoardofGametoreviewandrevisemanagementstrategies.TheStaffagreeswiththisviewandconsidersthatanyBoardreviewandrevisionsnecessitatedbytheprojectwouldbeimpactsresultingfromtheprojectandnotapartofmitigativeactivities.Severalagenciessuggestedalterationsinproposedprojectplansinordertoreduceoravoidimpacts.TheStaffhasconsideredthesesuggestionsinitsdiscussionofalternativestoproposedprojectfeatures.5.3.6RecreationResourcesTheStaffconsidersthattheappropriateimp1ementationoftheApp1icant'srecreationplan(Sec.2.1.11)wouldconstitutereasonablemitigationforlossesofrecreationresourcesandopportunitiesrelatedtothedevelopmentoftheproposedproject,aswellasforaccommodatingrecreationdemandthatwouldaccruefromconstructionandoperationofprojectfacilities.Accordingly,noadditionalmitigationappearswarrantedatthistime.Althoughnotspecificallyidentifiedasmitigation,severalrecommendationshavebeenproposedbyconcernedresourceagencieswithrespecttoproject-related,pUblicrecreationneeds(ExhibitE,Vol.lOB,Chap.11,App.11J).Forthemostpart,therecommendationsentailadditionaldevelop-mentatsitesotherthanthoseidentifiedintheApplicant'srecreationplan.However,thefutureneedfortherecommendeddevelopmentsissubjecttovaryingdegreesofuncertainty.OnesuchexampleistherecommendationthatconsiderationshouldbegiventoprovidingpublicaccessfromtheprojecttransportationcorridortoPortageCreekforfishingand/orkayaking.Aspresentlyplanned,theconstructionoftheappropriatesegmentoftheprojecttransportationcorridorwouldbecompletedin1994,butwouldnotbeavailableforpublicusebeforecompletionofconstructionattheDevilCanyondamsiteintheyear2002.Accordingly,theneedfortherecommendedpublicaccesstoPortageCreekin2002isnotforeseeablewithmeaningfulcertaintyatthepresenttime.Additionaldiscussionofotherrecommendationsconcerningproject-relatedrecreationdevelopmentsispresentedinAppendixL,SectionL.3.5.3.7SocioeconomicFactorsTheStaffandAlaskastateagenciesconcurontheneedfordevelopmentofthefollowingadditionalmitigationstrategies:Developmentofdefinitivetransportationplans,includingprOV1Slonoflow-costtransRortionoptionsfromthesiteareatotheFairbanksandAnchorageareas,todiscourageinmigrationtolocalcommunitiesandtoprecludeorlimitmobilitybyprivatevehicles.Developmentofdefinitiveshiftandleaveschedulesthatencourageworkerstoestablishormaintainpermanentresidencesoutsideth2projectarea,e.g.,extendedperiodsofworkfollowedbyextendedleaves.Trainingandhiringoflocalsubcontractors,thelocallaborforce,andunemployedresidentsandinmigrantsseekingemploymentsoastoreducelocalunemploymentandwelfareneeds.Developmentofincentives(e.g.,lowrents,low-interestmortgages)toencourageworkers(andtheirhouseholds)toliveinonsitehousingandthusreduceinmigrationtosmallcommunitiesintheprojectarea.Development,incooperationwiththeaffectedagencies,ofcleardefinitionsofresponsi-bilitiesbytheApplicant,state,borough,orlocalauthoritiesforadministrationand 5-13fundingofproject-areafacilitiesandservices(e.g.,powerandtelephones,roads,theonsiteschool)soastoreduceuncertaintiesinplanning.Definitionoflegalresponsibilitiesforaccesstothesiteduringconstructionandopera-tiontoclarifyfundingandworkforceneedsandsources.Active,project-fundedparticipationbystate,Federal,andlocalagencyrepresentativesindevelopingmitigationstrategiesandmonitoringofimpacts.Theserepresentativesshouldhavelegalauthoritytoapprovemitigationplansandtorecommendchangesinimplementationofplansinlightofmonitoringstudiesandinformationoneffectivenessoftheplanssoastoensuremutuallysatisfactoryeffortsandreducefutureconflicts.Reimbursementofguidesdisplacedbyprojectstructuresandactivitiesforlossesofinvest-ments,lossesfromtransferstoanotherarea,andcostsofreestablishingtheirbusinesses.Establishmentofcontrolstolimitfishing,hunting,andtrappingbyonsitepersonnel,particularlyinareasusedforsubsistenceactivities,basedonstudiesofeffectsofrestrictedandopenaccessandofpermitting.Coordinationwithstate,Federal,andlocalagenciesonspecificplansforandadministrationof theconstructioncamp/village,andforaccessoptions.Financingthedevelopmentofcommunityandboroughlanduseplanstoadapttoproject-inducedgrowthinanorderlyfashion,inlinewithcommunitygoals.ProvisionoffundsbytheApplicanttothestate,theborough,andlocalcommunitiestofinanceconstructionofcommunityservices(e.g.,waterandsewersystems,counselingservices,localroads)inadvanceofpopulationinmigration.Theamountandnatureoffunding(e.g.,grants,loans,payments-in-lieu-of-taxes)shouldbedeterminedinconsulta-tionwiththegovernmentagencies,andadjustedasongoingimpactmonitoringrevealedeffectivenessandshortfalls..Quarterlyoron-demand,communicationtolocal,borough,andstateagenciesofprojectschedules,delaysandchangesinschedule,workforcesizesandprojectedneeds,andofshiftandleaveschedulestoaidplanningbytheseagencies.Financingofresidentialconstructionthroughloansandotherincentivestolocaldevelopers,recruitingdeveloperswhenlocalonesarenotavailable,andbuyinglandfortemporaryorpermanenthousingsothat(1)constructioncouldbeginpriortoinmigrationofworkersand(2)difficultiesofacquiringbackingwouldbereduced.SuchfinancingcouldbeprovidedasinvestmentsbytheApplicant.Provisionofsalariesandofequipmentforcommunityandservice-areafireandpolicepersonnel.Cooperationwithlocal,borough,andstatetransportationplannerstoplanandconstructnewtraffic-controlfacilitiesatintersections(e.g.,intersectionoftheParksandDenalihighways)andotherareasoftrafficcongestioninthetransportationnetwork.Provisionofincentives(e.g.,salaryincreases,transportationcosts)forworkerslaidoffoverthewintertoreturnthefollowingsummerandforthoseemployedonWatanatoworkonDevilCanyoninordertoreducethetotalnumberofinmigrantsandtherateofpopulationturnover.Provisionofinformationaboutthelocalarea,especiallyaboutNativeAlaskancommunities,culture,andsubsistenceactivities,toinmigratingworkerssoastoreduceculturalandotherconflictswithlong-timeresidents.Analysistodeterminewhatareaswouldbefloodedshouldoneofthedamsfail,followedbydevelopmentoflanduserestrictionsinthoseareas.Developmentofarecruitmentprogramtoobtainphysicianandhealthcareprofessionalsforproject-areacommunities.5.3.8VisualResourcesTheApplicant'smitigationplanforvisualresourcesisdescribedinSection2.1.12.9andinAppendixM,SectionM.4.TheStaffagreeswithallthemeasuresstated.Inaddition,whereroadandstreamcrossingsoccuralongtheproposedtransmissionlineroute,shrubsandtreesshouldbeplantedand/orretainedtotheextentpossibletopreventaviewintothecorridorfromalongsuc~.crossingpoints.Tominimizetheviewingtimeandlengthofthelineseenfromroadways,cross\ngsshouldbemadeatrightanglestoroadwayswhereverpossible.H-frameand/orsingle-poletowersshouldbeusedtoreducetowerdominanceinsensitiveviewingareas.Low-profiletowerstructuresshouldbeused(iffeasible)inhighlyvisibleareaswheretowersofstandardheightcouldbeviewedabovethetreetops.Towerstructuresshouldbesetasfarbackfromroadwaysandstreambanksasfeasible.Alltransmissionlinestructuresshouldbecoloredtoblendinwiththenaturalbackgroundvegetation.Visualimpactsinforestedareascanbeminimizedbyselectiveclearing,leavingasmuchlowgrowthintheright-of-wayaspossible,andthroughadditionalplanting.Taperedclearingof 5-14theright-of-way(throughtreetopping,etc.)wouldsoftentheedgesoftheright-of-way,thusreducingthevisualimpact.Aright-of-wayclearingpatternshouldbedevelopedwherefeasibletoreducethestraight-linecorridoreffect.Theproposed1ineshouldberoutedsothatitfollowsandconformstonaturaltopographiclinesasmuchaspossible.Inaddition,linesshouldbesitedtooneedgeofavalleyordrawandparallelalandformchange.Skyliningofthelineandtowersshouldbeminimized.Ifahillmustbecrossed,itshouldbecrossedatanangle(e.g.,sideorshoulderofthehillratherthanthetop).Ifthelinetraversesaprominentviewingarea,thelineshouldbelocatedbetweentheviewingareaandavegetativeortopo-graphicalscreeniffeasible.Attheproposedsubstationlocations,anyexistingtrees,andvegetationshouldbeleftstandingtotheextentpossibletoscreentheterminalfacilities.Thebuildingandassociatedfacili-tiesshouldbepaintedacolorthatwouldbestblendinwiththebackgroundvegetation.Theheightofthetransmissionlineterminatingstructuresshouldbekepttotheminimumsafeandpracticalheight.5.3.9CulturalResourcesArcheologicalandhistoricsitesthatpossesssignificance(asdefinedin36CFR60.4)andareeligibleforinclusionintheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlacesrequireappropriatemitigativemeasures.Thetwochiefformsofrecommendedmitigationareinvestigation,inthecaseofdirectlyorindirectlyimpactedsites,andavoidance,inthecaseofpotentiallyimpactedsites.Thefullextentofthemitigationnecessarycannotbedetermineduntiltheinventoryofculturalresourcesandassessmentoftheirsignificanceiscompleted.TheproposedWatanaandDevilCanyondevelopmentswoulddirectlyorindirectlyimpact75archeo-logicaland6historicsites.Twenty-twoofthesesiteshavebeenassessedassignificant,anditappearslikelythatahighproportionoftheremainingsiteswillbetermedsignificantaswell.Therecommendedmitigationfortheseculturalresourcesisinvestigationthroughexcava-tion.Mostofthesesitesoccurinrelativelyshallowsedimentarycontextsandappeartobeofrestrictedarealextent,thuslimitingthescopeofinvestigation.Nevertheless,theirexcava-tionandanalysiswillalmostcertainlymakeasubstantivecontributiontoknowledgeofAlaskanprehistory.Theremaining55archeologicalsitesand1historicsite(3ofwhichhavebeenjudgedsignificant)inthisproposedprojectareawouldbesubjecttopotentialimpacts.Therecommendedmitigationforthesesitesispreservationthroughavoidanceandprotection(amonitoringprograminvolvingperiodicsiteinspectionsbytheappropriateland-managingagency).Site-specificlistsofrecommendedmitigationmeasuresarepresentedinTables0-1and0-2ofAppendixO.Theproposedaccessrouteswoulddirectlyorindirectlyimpact17archeologicaland2historicsites,andpotentiallyimpact11archeologicalsites(noneofwhichhasbeenassessedforsignificance).Avoidanceandprotection(throughmonitoring)ofsignificantsitesarerecommended.Itappearsunlikelythatmanyofthesesiteswillbetermedsignificant.Asite-specificlistofrecommendedmitigationmeasuresispresentedinTable0~3ofAppendixO.,Theproposedtransmissionlineswouldpotentiallyimpact11archeologicalandhistoricsites.Althoughnoneofthesesiteshasbeenevaluatedforsignificance,itappearslikelythatseveralwillbetermedsignificant.Forthesesites,avoidanceandprotection(throughconstruction-phasemonitoring)arerecommended.Asite-specificmitigationlistispresentedinTable0-4ofAppendixO.5.4RECOMMENDEDANDONGOINGSTUDIES5.4.1LandResources5.4.1.1GeologyandSoilsTheApplicantproposestocontinuegeotechnicalstudiestodeterminethesite-specificfoundationconditionsfortransmissiontower,constructioncamp,andaccessroadfoundations.Suchstudieswouldbedesignedsoastomatchconstructiontechniquesandfoundationdesignstotheexistingconditions.Suchstudieswouldensurethestabilityofthevariousfacilitiesand,asaconse-quence,shouldalsoallowtheApplicanttoadaptconstructiontechniquestothespecificenviron-ment,thusminimizingsoilerosionandimpactsrelatedtopermafrostthaw.Seepagechannelinvestigationswouldbecontinuedtoensurethesafefunctioningofthereservoirsystem.5.4.1.2LandUseandOwnershipItisrecommendedthattheApplicantcontinuetomonitorongoinglandownershipchanges,manage-mentplanrevisions,andlandvalueinformationfortheproposedprojectarea. 5-155.4.2AquaticCommunitiesTheextensivefieldstudiesinfisheriesandaquaticresourcesbeingconductedfortheApplicantbyseveralgroups,includingtheAlaskaDepartmentofFishandGame,areappropriateandextremelyvaluable.TheStaffrecommendsthatthesestudiesbecontinued.Increasedattentiontotheinteractionsbetweenintragravelwater(supply,temperature,andquality)andincubationratesandsuccessinsloughsiswarranted.Sincegrowthdynamicsofyoungsalmonappeartobeimportantimpacts,andsincebothnegativeinfluences(lowtemperature,sloughdewatering)andpositiveones(waterclarification,increasedbenthicproductivity)havebeenidentified,additionalstudyofgrowthdynamicsmaybeimportantforissueresolution.•Staffrecommendsadditionalattentiontodefiningaquatic(especiallyfisheries)resourcesintwoareasof theSusitnadrainagethatarenotwellcharacterized:(1)theTalkeetna-to-CookInletreachand(2)theChulitnaandTalkeetnarivers.ThelowerreachoftheSusitnaRivermaybeinfluencedbytheSusitnaprojecttoalargerextentthaninitiallyanticipated,especiallyashabitatforrearingandoverwinteringofjuvenilesalmon.ThenumbersofspawningsalmonthatusetheChulitnaandTalkeetnariversarenotcharacterizedexceptbysubtractionoftheTalkeetnaStationnumbersfromthoseofSunshineStation.Relativesuitabilityofhabitatsinthesetworiversisgermanetoestimatingimpactsofproject-causedalterationsintheSusitnaRiver.5.4.3TerrestrialCommunitiesTheStaffrecommendsthatongoingstudiesorientedtowardsquantificationandunderstandingofplantcommunitiesfromawildlifehabitatperspectiveaswellasthosedesignedtoevaluatetheresponsesofplantcommunitiesandwildlifepopulationstovarioushabitatmanipulationoptionsbecompleted.Thesestudiesshouldincludedirectmappingofwetlandsforallareasthatwouldbeaffectedbyconstructionandoperationoftheproposedproject(includingtheHealy-to-Willowtransmissionlinesegment)usingclassificationcategoriessufficientlyspecifictoassesslossesofhigh-valuewetlandtypes.TheStaffalsorecommendsthatstudiesbeconductedtodeterminetheeffectsoflong-term(fivetotenyears)soilstorageonrehabilitationsuccess.Althoughthereisevidencethatreplace-mentofmineraland/ororganic-layersoilscansignificantlyimproverevegetationofdisturbedsites,long-termstorageofsoil(mineralororganic-layer)couldaffectseedorvegetativepropaguleviabilityand/orthechemical,physical,andmicrobialpropertiesofthesoil.Theseeffectscouldreducerehabilitationsuccesscomparedtoareaswherereplacedsoilswerestoredforlessthanayearortwo.Evenmoreimportantly,itshouldbedeterminedwhetherspecificstoragemethodsorpractices(e.g.,controllingmoisturecontentorcompactionlevels,depthofstockpiles,ormixtureoforganicandmineralsoils)canenhancethepotentialforrehabilita-tionsuccesswhenreplacementsoilsmustbestoredforlongperiods.5.4.4RecreationResourcesTheApplicantproposestopreparearecreationmasterpianforPhaseOnedevelopmentofpublicrecreationfacilities(Sec.2.1.11),tobecompletedinSeptember1985.Informationincludedinthemasterplanrelativetofinalsiteselectionandsite-specificinformationwouldbeusedasabasisforPhaseTwoengineeringdesignspecificationstobefinalizedin1986.Developmentofpublicrecreationfacilitieswouldbeinitiatedduringthe1986constructionseason(ScheduleB,SupplementalItemsVol.2,Sec.7,ResponsetoComment11).5.4.5SocioeconomicFactorsTheApplicantstatesthatstudiesarebeingconductedto:Updatebaselineandproject-inducedpopulationprojections;Developandupdateamitigationplan;Planthelocationof theproposedtownsiteandprovisionofservicesandfacilities;andReviseallsocioeconomicimpactanalyses.Studiesrecommendedinadditiontothoseongoingare:Analysiso;\theimpactsofthelocation,type,andadministrationoftheonsitecampandvillageonfishandwildliferesources;Analysisoftheimpactsoftheproposedprojectoncommercialfishing,includingchangesinthenumberofjobs,indollarvaluesofcatch,inlifestyleoffishingfamilies,andinsubsistencecatches;Evaluationandmonitoringofsubsistence,recreational,andcommercialhunting,fishing,andtrappingintheprojectarea; 5-16Monitoringoftheavailabilityoflaborandskillsinthelocalarea,bothamongthecurrentresidentpopulationandamongtheinmigrantpopulationattractedbytheprospectofemploy-mentontheproject,inordertoreducelocalunemploymentandwelfareprograms;Surveyingofworkerstocommunicatetogovernmentagenciesandlocalinterestsinformationonwheretheworkershavetheirpermanentresidences;onthefishing,hunting,andtrappingactivitiesoftheworkers;andonusebytheworkersoflocalcommunityfacilitiessothatmitigationandplanningcanbeupdated;andSurveying(incooperationwithNativeCorporationsandCouncils)ofsubsistenceactivitiesinCantwellandinthevicinityoftheprojectsitesoastoprovideabasisforadjustingprojectactivitiestoavofdanypotentialinterferencewithsuchsubsistenceactivities.5.4.6VisualResourcesTheApplicanthasstatedthataninterdisciplinarydesignteamwouldbeassembledduringthePhaseIIdetaileddesignprocesstoresolveidentifiedvisualresourceimpactproblemsthrough(1)additionalstudies,(2)properdevelopmentpractices,(3)alterationsinengineeringdesign,and(4)modificationtostructuresandlandscapeusingthevisualconceptsofform,line,color,andtexture.REFERENCESFORSECTION5OfficeofTechnologyAssessment.1982.UseofModelsforWaterResourceManagement,Planning,andPolicy.OTA-O-159.CongressoftheUnitedStates,OfficeofTechnologyAssessment.Washington,DC.242pp.Sale,M.J.,E.DowneyBrill,Jr.andE.E.Herricks.1982.Anapproachtooptimizingreservoiroperationfordownstreamaquaticresources.WaterResourcesResearch18(4):705-712. 6.LISTOFPREPARERSThefollowingstaffmembersoftheFederalEnergyRegulatoryCommission,ArgonneNationalLaboratory,andOakRidgeNationalLaboratorywereresponsibleforpreparationofthisDraftEnvironmentalImpactStatement:FederalEnergyRegulatoryCommissionB.E.Biggerstaff(B.S.civilengineering,completedcoursesforM.S.inindustrialengineer-ing).Almost30yearsofexperienceinpowersystemplanning,operations,andeconomics.PhilipL.Essley,Jr.(B.S.,M.S.petroleumengineering,M.B.A.).Twentyyearsofexperienceinengineering,12yearsinenergyforecastingandregulation.JamesFargo(B.S.,M.S.,civilengineering).Morethannineyearsofexperienceincivilengineeringinnuclearandhydroelectricprojectdesignandanalysis.JerryL.Foster,P.E.(B.S.C.E).EightyearsofexperiencedesigningwaterresourcesstructuresandbuildingswiththeCorpsofEngineers,sixyearsexperiencewithFERC.EdwardJ.Fowlkes,P.E.(B.S.E.E.,M.E.electricpowerengineering).Twentyyearsofexperienceinelectricpowersystemengineeringandanalysis.DavidB.Hatcher(B,A.,M,A.,Ph.D.economics:Ph.D.'DissertationonDemandforElectricity).Nineyearsof,experienceasanenergyeconomist,principallyelectricalenergy.MelvinKofkin(B.S.electricalengineering,M.S.economics).Twelveyearsofexperienceasgovernmenteconomist.CliffordM.Lane,Jr.,P.E.(B.A.mathematics,B.S.E.E.,M.S.E.E.).Thirty-twoyearsofexperienceinelectricpowersystemengineeringandanalysis.J.MarkRobinson(A.B.,M.S.biology).Sixyearsofexperienceinthefieldsofaquaticecologyandimpactassessment.WadeP.Sewell(B.S.engineering,M.S.economics,ABOforPh.D.ineconomics).Sixyearsofexperienceteachingeconomicsattheuniversitylevel,29yearsineconomicandeconometricanalysis.MartinJ.Thorpe(B.S.electricalengineering).Fourteenyearsofexperienceinelectricpowersystemplanningintheelectricutilityindustry,15yearswiththegovernmentinregulatoryanalysisofelectricpowersystemplanningandoperation.GeraldR.Wilson(B.S.E.E.).Twenty-sixyearsofexperienceinhydropowerlicensingwithFPC/FERC.ArgonneNationalLaboratoryJohnD.DePue(B.A.government,M.S.biology).Seventeenyearsofexperienceintechnicaleditingandjournalism.JohnF.Hoffecker(B.A.archeology,M.A.andPh.D.candidacy,anthropology).Tenyearsofexperienceinarcheologicalresearch.JulieD.Jastrow(B.S.agriculturalscience,M.S.agronomy).Sixyearsofexperienceinplantsciencesandrevegetationresearch,threeyearsinassessmentofenvironmentalimpactsonterrestrialecosystems.DarwinD.Ness(B.A.biology,B.S.andM.F.forestry,Ph.D.forestecology).Sixyearsofexperienceassupervisorofstaterecreationandfarmforestryprograms,12yearsinassessmentofenvironmentalimpactsonrecreationresourcesandterrestrialecosystems.RichardD.Olsen(B.S.biology,Ph.D.botany-microbiology).Twelveyearsofexperiencein1imnologicalandaquaticecologyresearchandenvironmentalimpactassessment,eightyearsasprojectleader.BarbaraA.Payne(A.B.psychology;M.A.education,M.A.sociology,Ph.D.sociology).Sevenyearsofexperienceinsocialandeconomicresearchandevaluation.\.6-1 6-2ArgonneNationalLaboratory(Cont'd)AnthonyJ.Policastro(B.S.,M.S.,Ph.D.civilengineering).Nineyearsofexperienceinmeteorologicalresearchandenvironmentalimpactassessment.MaryA.Snider(B.S.,mathematics).Fifteenyearsofexperienceincomputerdatamanagementandcomputer-graphicsdevelopment.LarsF.Soholt(B.S.,Ph.D.biology).Fifteenyearsofresearchexperienceinwildlifeecologyandenvironmentalphysiology,sixyearsinassessmentofimpactstoterrestrialecosystems.RonaldC.Sundell(B.S.businessadministration,M.U.P.urbanandregionalplanning).Sevenyearsofexperienceinresearchandassessmentoflanduse,socioeconomic,andaestheticresourceissues.R.GaryWilliams(B.A.sociology,M.Ed.socialscienceeducation,Ph.D.sociology).Eightyearsofexperienceinsocialandeconomicimpactassessmentandresearchintoeffectsofrapidpopulationchangeoncommunities.MargeryC.(Bynoe)Winters(B.A.geology,M.S.physicalgeography).Fouryearsofexperi-enceinassessmentofimpactsrelativetogeologicalresources.AlbinJ.Zielen(A.B.chemistry,Ph.D.chemistry).Eighteenyearsofexperienceasaresearchchemist,13yearsasacomputerscientist.OakRidgeNationalLaboratoryCharlesC.Coutant(B.A.,M.S.,Ph.D.biology).Twenty-fiveyearsofexperienceinfisheriesandenvironmentalimpactanalysis.JerryW.Elwood(B.S.fisheries,Ph.D.ecology).Seventeenyearsofexperienceinfisheriesandaquaticecology.FrancisC.Kornegay(B.S.,M.S.meteorology).Eightyearsofexperienceinenvironmentalimpactassessment,fouryearsinprojectmanagement.DonaldW.Lee(B.S.mechanicalengineering,M.S.engineeringscience,Ph.D.appliedmechanics).Eightyearsofexperienceinfluidmechanicsandenvironmentalassessment.MichaeLJ.Sale(B.S.zoology,M.S.biology,Ph.O,€Rvironmentalengineering).Sixyearsofexperienceininstreamflowanalysisandenvironmentalimpactassessment.WebsterVanWinkle,Jr.(B.A.history,Ph.D.zoology).Seventeenyearsofexperienceinaquaticsciencesandenvironmentalimpactanalysis.AlanJ.Witten(B.S.mechanicalengineering,M.S.,Ph.D.mechanicalandaerospacesciences).Nineyearsofexperienceinfluidmechanicsandenvironmentalimpactanalysis. 7.LISTOFRECIPIENTSThefollowingagencies,organizations,andindividualsarebeingprovidedcopiesoftheDraftEnvironmentalImpactStatement:FederalAdvisoryCouncilonHistoricPreservationDepartmentofAgriculture,ForestServiceDepartmentofArmy,CorpsofEngineersDepartmentofCommerceDepartmentofEnergy,AlaskaPowerAdministrationDepartmentofHealthandHumanServicesDepartmentoftheInterior·DepartmentofTransportationEnvironmentalProtectionAgencyRuralElectrificationAdministrationLocalMayor,CityofAnchorageMayor,CityofFairbanksMatanuska-SusitnaBoroughCommunityofCantwell,Inc.AlaskaResourcesLibraryAnchorageMunicipalLibraryElmerE.RasmausonLibrary--UniversityofAlaskaatFairbanksFairbanksNorthStarBoroughPublicLibraryandRegionalCenterPalmerPublicLibrarySusitnaValleyHighSchoolLibraryTalkeetnaPublicLibraryUniversityofAlaskaatAnchorageLibraryApplicantAlaskaPowerAuthorityStateAlaskaPublicUtilitiesCommissionAlaskaState-FederalCoordinatorAlaskaDepartmentofFishandGameAlaskaDepartmentofCommerceandEconomicDevelopmentAlaskaDepartmentofEnvironmentalConservationAlaskaDepartmentofNaturalResourcesAlaskaDepartmentofPublicSafetyOfficeoftheGovernorOfficeofCoastalManagementStateHistoricPreservationOfficerOthersSenatorTedStevensSenatorFrankH.MurkowskiRepresentativeDonaldE.YoungCookInletRegion,Inc.TyonekNativeCorporationAHTNA,Inc.CookInletAquacultureAssociationCookInletNativeAssociationSierraClubNorthernAlaskaEnvironmentalCenterTrusteesforAlaskaAlaskaCenterfortheEnvironmentNationalWildlifeFederationAlaskanSurvival7-1 Ji:1, FEDERALPOWERCOMMISSIONoOROER'16oC(IMUedOecembel'18.1972)ITATEMENTOFGENERALPOLICYTOIMPLEMENTPROCEDtrRESFORCOMPLIANCEWITHTHENATIONALENVIRONMENTALPOLICYACTOF1869(I)UIbaIlbllbe.tIMftlpoUc)'oftbeFIden1Pow.ComlDl8ltolltotdoptandtoadheretoUtiobltcUvHtn4tiIIuoflblNallowEIlYlzoamenta1PoUc)'ActofIN'(Act)IZIItansl&iaUOIluaclerUteFtcltnIPow.ActaDdlbeNa&1UtlGuAct.TbeNIUowEDYIzoIlJD-"talPoUe,Actof196'Nqulnl..amo...olb.tbiIlIa.ellF.-nIeceDCdnto1ZIclu41a4e&alle4ltDYIzolllllenta1Ita_entIn....,recommendationorreportOnpropoalaforlip!allonaDdo&b.malorFtdtnlacUonetIpltIcaDU)'aft..",iDItbequilt,oftbeb\llDUlenYlzollllllnto(b)TbaNfon.IncompliancewilbtMNillona!Environ-menta1PoUcyActof1969lbeCommlalonttattIbaI1mulade&alledenYlzoamentalIta_entwbIDtbertII&iatorylictIontakenb,\ItUDd.lblFedtnlPowerActU1dNaturalGuActwIUbe".alilDltlcaDteavtrolllllentallmptCt.A"deta11edeta_ent"prepue4IncompUtncewilbUteNqllinmenteofh2.81tbrolllb2.82oftblePenIbaI1tuIl,d.....oplbefivefactonUetedberelDatttrInlblco....xtofIIIIdlcoDtideraUoneulbepropoeed..,t!Ytty'.dlnettDdiDdIncteffectonlbeairtDdwa_eDYiroamentoflblprojectornaturalPIpipeUnIfacUlty:OiltheIud,air.tndwa_btote:OneltabillbedparkaDdreenatlona1_:andOn.teeofDatunl,bbtoric.aDd..eDlevallleltDdft80_oflbeIftLTileltatementshell.u.eu.tileexteDtoflbeconformityoftbepropoaedacUvlt)'wi&bellappliubleenYlzoamltDtalat.uKIar4LTbeIta_entshellal80fIIIIydealwilbalternativeCOIInUofacUontothepropotUtnd.tolbemaxlmllmextentpucUcable.tteIDYIzoIllllIDta1effectaofeacbaltemaUve.Further.ItIbaIlopedtlcaJIydiaclluplaDtfwfuturedevelopmentrelatedtolbeapp1lcaUonIIIldercolllllderaUon.Tbeabovetaetonare·Uetedtomerel)'iU_talbe1dDdaofval....tIlet1Dut&beconsideredIZIlbeltatement.IIInO_ectittble1iaUIlItobeco_educoverf.Dlelll'I1e¥aDtfacton.TIllftvefactonwblcbmllltbe_cl.fically~intbedetailedIta_ent1ft:(1)theltDYIzonmen\&!impactoftbepropoeedactio...(2)anyadve-envlronmenta1effectswblebcannotbeIvoldedshould&beproposalbeImplemented;(3)alternaUveatolbepropoMd""lion.(')lberelatiollll>ipbetweenlocalshort-termu.aesofmm'.envtronmentandthemainte-nanceandonbancemontoflo.....termpro-dllctivity.tnd(II)myIrrevenibleandIrretrievablecommit-menteofraourceawhithw01l1dbeIZlvolvedIZItbepropoeodactionshollldItbeimple-mented.(c)(I)Tothomaxlmll1DextentpracticlbleDOftna1admiDi-otn.tiYlactionIItobetaken800nertbtDninetyda,.aikradraftenvironmentalltatementh....beencircl&iatedforcom-mltDtorthlrt,daYIafterlbefIII&ItextofanenYlzonmenta1Ita_entbaabelDmtdeIvallabletotheCollnCilonEn*roll1DentalQlI&1ityaDdlbePllblic.(c)(II)Upon.ftndiDItIletItIInecellQyandapproprtateIZItbtPIIblicIntent&,lbeCommlaalonma)'d~wtlbtn,timeperiodopeoUIedIn§§2.80-2.82.§2.10DI&aIlIdEnYlzoamlnta1StakmeDt.8.ATTACHMENTSATTACHMENTI8-1§2.8JCompUanclwltb\beNltlonalEnYUunmenttlPoUcyActof1969IIDderPutIof&beFecIorn1Pow.Act(a)AUappllcetlonslormalorprojects(lbollInex_of2.000......POW.)orforreMrvolnonl)'providlq......latory110_to40wnatreem(malor)bYdroelectric"prolectaUDd.PutIoflbeFtcleralPowerActforUceDteorreIIcenae.IIhalIbeaccomP&llladb)'ExblbltW.tileappUcant'ldl&alle4reportoflbeenYironmentalfactonmeeIfIedIn~2.80and'.41.AUapplicationefor_Dd.oramendmentof•Ueenaepropoalnccq-"'ctlon.or0_UDaebuqeofIprolectohaI1beIccompeaiedby&be-..pllctnt'.de&alledreportof&beenvironmentalfactors.-uleclIn§2.80.NoticeofelltilthappllcatloneIbaIIcontinuetobemadeIIpreterlbedbylaw.(1))TbestaffshallmakeanIDlUaJreviewoflbeappUcant'.nportand.IIDec.OIIar)'.requireapplicanttocornetdeft-cienclaeInlbereport.Iflbeproposedsc(:lo"itd_1DIDecltobeamaienF....._actionIiID1tIctnu,aff.....lbeqllallt)'oftheb\llll&J1enYlzoll1Dln&.lbettatfIballcoDdllctadetallodIndo_delltanaly.oftheactionandprep...adraftenYlzonmentaiImpactltatementwhichIbellbemadlIvallabletolboCOIIIICUOnEnYlzonmenta1QlIalIt)'.lbeEIlYlzonmenta1ProtectionAlene,.otberIpproprtatelovI_entaibodle..andtolblpublic.foreO_Int.Theetttementshellal80be-..edonaDpartleetolbl1II'OOIIdiDI.TheSecretaryoflblFederalPowerCo_laaIoneballca....promptpllbUeIUonInlbeFedtnlRealtterofnoticeortheIvallabWt,oftbettatf'.draftenvtroDlllentalltatement.WrlttoncommenteIIhalIbemadewitbiD'IIdaYloflbldatethenoticeofavailability-..peUiIn&beFederalae.a.tv.Ittn)'loverDIDlDtaleBtIty.Fldenl,ltate••JoeeI,oran)'memberof\bepllbUo,fallatoCO_IntwltlUntbeUmlprovided.ItIbaIlbl_ed.abeaDtaNqIllRfora-weexteDaionoftime.tIlettIIcbentit,or_DbaanocomMenttomake.ExtaDllonaoftimeIbaIIbearantedonlyfor1004call"Ibown.AUentitlolfIIiDIco_entewilbtbeCommlulonwllitIIbJDIttallcopiesoftIIcbco_enletolbeCOllftellonEnYlzoamIDtaiQuaIlty.UponexplftUoDoflbetlmlforcommenttheatatfshellcoDtid~com-mentereceivedandreYialunec-.yandfInaIbeItaenvIroDlZlltDtalImpactltatemeatwbleb,loIetherwiUltbtcommIDtareceived.shellaccompany&bepropoaaltbrolllblbe..enc)'reviewand4ectaon-1Ila1lIn&proCIIIendIbaUbemadeavailableto&bepU1IeatolbeprocoediDl.lbeCOWIdlOnEllvlronmentalQuaIlt,.tDdUIepllblic.IIIlbe_tIbepropoaalitthe..bjactofaIIoIaIDI\beatatt'lenvIronmenta1lta_ltDtwillbeplaced...nJdanceattIlethaariII&.(c)Anyp.....nmayflitapeUtlontoInterveneonlbobaIiaofthoatatfdnltenYlzonmentaiIta_ent.ADIntervenerstaI<in&apositionononYlzonmentalmattonIbaIItiletimelycommenta,InaccordeDcewiUlp.......pb(1))oftblesection.onlbedrafteta_entwtlbtbeCommlaion1Dc111dlna.blltnot1imItedto,tn.....,...ofthmeavlron-mellta1pollUonInlbecontextofthefactonenlllDente4In2.10.tDdapecltyiDatn,dlff_wI&betatf'.positionllponwblehInterven.wtabeatobehl&ld.NolbiDlhaeInIbaIl_lIIdetnInfromfIliDIadetaBe4eavtrora-_Wlmp..,tltatement. (d)InUaecueofeaoboonlenedapplic:aUon.Uaeapplleut.lI&aff.adallinle...enentaldnlapolltiononenvirolUllentalmaU.,..ahaIlofferevidenceforUaerecoldInoupportofUaeirenvirolUllentalpooiUon.TheapplleutandaUsucbIncer-venenabaIIlPeclfyuycIi1ferencnwiUaUaeatatf'.pollUon.,andshallInclude.&mODIoUaerrelevanlfadon,adileualOnoftheirpooitionInUaeconle"lofUaefaclonenumentedIn92.80.(e)Inthe..-ofeaobconler&ed.PpIleaUon.,theInitialandreplybrief.fiJedbyIbe~Ucut,UaeoIaffandaUIDterYenentakinIapoeltlononenvironmentalmatienmuet_iflcallyanalyzeandevalualeUleevidenceintbeli&hlofUaeenvironmentalcriteriaenumeratedIn92.10.Furthennore.UaeInlUa1DecloionofthePnoidinll"'dminl-etrativeLawJudieInsucbcues,andIbefinalolderofIbeCommilliondeailnlwUb.tbeapplieaUollonIhemeritsInallcase..shal1includeanevaluationoftbeenvironmentalfactonenumeratedIn§2.80andIbevie...and<ommentlexp...-dInconjunctionIbQewiUabyUaeapplicantandaUUaOIemakilllformalcommentp...........ttoIbepro-viIIo...ofUaIslectlon.§2.82CompUance..lUitheNaUonaiE_entalPoUCy"'etof1989UnderIbeNatuft1Gu"'cI.(a)...11oerUllealeapplioalio...filedWIderSection7(c:)ofUaeNaturalGu"'ct(11'>U.s.C.717f(c»forthe00'"etructionofp.pelinefaoi1lUe..exceplabbreviatedappll-caUo...filedpunuanltoSeetioD.l11'>7.7(b).(c)ad(d)ofCommlulonReculatlolllandproduCQappUcationaforIbeaaieoflasfiledpunuanttoSecUODa11'>7.23·29ofComlllilalonRrculaUons,obaIlbeaccompaniedbyIbeappUcant'sdel&iledreponofIbeenvironmentalfactonlI"dfIedIn§2.80..NoUceofaUsucb.ppUcaUon.obaIlcontinuetobem.deuprelCribedbyla...(b)ThelI&affabaUrllaiteanIDlUa1reviewofIbeappUcut'areponand.ifncce..,.,..requireappUcanttocorneldefl..cienc:inInIbereport.Iftheprop"-action..deter-mlIMdtobeam~rFedenlacUoaIipIftcultiyaffwIbIIUa.qlUl1lboftlwbllm..,.nviroDlD.n&.tileNItabaUOOndllO&•daWieGUld.pelld.nteDa1ylllof&he.&lonUIdpr.pan•dnftanY\roDlD.ntaJiIDP.eteta&elDentwbleb8IaI1be1DId._a1IIbl.'0til.COIlDCUODInvtroDln.ntalQlIaI.t1y.lb•••"llIIIantalProt"tion....noy.olberIPpro·..W.0_ta1bcIdI...endtotb.pllblle.'oroonlln.nt.Th........tIIIaIIa1Iobe.....donaUpanlea&0Ibeproea.d1n..Tile....tarYof&he"ederalPOWIfCommilelonIhIIIa._promptpllbUa.UonIn&hePed.raiRa.let.rofnolkl.0'the..a1IIbWtyoflhe,,,"'adnftenvironmental"'telllent.Writwnaom••rlt'ehaIlb.madewithin4&d.ya0'IbedlwtilanotAae01••a1IIbWty.pp....IIItil.Federalaelieter.IfMYIO"flllD.ntal.ntUy.Federal,etate.or...orMY••mberoflb.pllblic.fllilatocorameotwtllW1Ibetimaprovided..tebaIIbe-&4.ab_taftCIlleel'oraepecUlca"wlUtDDofUrn..Utal1Il0b.nUtyor_nhuDOoo_antto...EztenoloDll0'U1n.aballbepantedonlyfor10Ddoeuaeabo.....AUanU"..fIUIIIcommenkwtUalb.CoJ1UllialdonabaIIIIlbmlttoncopl.,0'IIlcbcom'lIl.ntetotbeCollDClflonEnvironmentalQuaIIt,.Uponexp~aUon0'theUrn.foraomlllentUaeetaffabaUClonllderalleo_entlnoelvedudftwieeUDeCl.-,.andflnalJ&eIk-mro-antalImPMt_'-entwlUah.tDll.UaarwtUalite_a.k--...d,ebaII__PutYlb.Pl'llpoealtbrolllb\b.....,....wwudd....on-maldn&p~udIhaUbemadeIftiIabIetolb.parUu10lb.lII'IIe..dl&ll.tlwCo1Ullll1onlaftro__ta1Ql&aII.t,.andlb.public.InUae_ttlwpeo~IItlw_bl"t0'ab-.tnl.lite..."..-sroam_tai_MID..,wWbeplMedUleYSdenoeallbat......(0)"'n,penon_,tileapeUUontoUllerYen.onlitebaIIaof\b.etaffdraftenYlloDlD..tai"'ternant.AUIn.....__MIdDI•PQIlUononanYlronmentalmat\anebaUfilltimel,_II,UluoordaDeawttilpanpepb(b)oftblI.etloD,011lite*-"_MlDantwitiltb.CornnWetonlDClbIdIaI.butnot1lIDUedto.UIlIIa1ylllofUaalreDYlI'on'lIlellUlPDiuloaUltlwaoalestoftlwfactonallUrneratedIn,iLlIG.IIIdII*lltJInIMYllltt__wtUaetaff',pollUollupgawbIDIIIna-Mrwtabeetobebeard.JlotblDlbenlaaballpnoIucl.III·In_fromftIIac•delelled.\'\roD-....uiIIIPUteta"8-2(d)InliteClaMof.-ellconMetedappUcatiun.Uaeappll-oeD"etaff.udallUl,-ntak1IlIapoll&looonenY\ro...1Il1lll.e1_I\anlbaUofbrevtc1lnee'orUa.recordInIIlpponofUae~...vIronmentaipoellion.TbeappUcanludallouch1D.....neneba11-""anycIi1ferenoelwiththe.l.l11t',PO"lIWoD,andeballInclllde.amODioUaerrdevllDtfacto....aclUeuIIIonotIbmpolltlo1lUltheconle"IofUaefectonnumerated1D§2.80.(a)InIbecaMofeaohconler&ed.ppUcaUon,lb.IniUalandreplybrtefafUedb,UaeappUcant.tbeetaff,andallIn....n...MI<.I&IIapoeIUononeavlronmutalmattenm_epedficaUyaaalyaeandevailla1etbeeYSd......UlIbe1IIbtoflb.enviroIlm&lltalcrlter\aenumeratedIn§2.80.~......Ibe1rIlUa1DedelonofthePnIIdinlAdmlDl-&traltore.LawJud&eIII...ch_..endtbeflna1olderofUaeCollllllieelondealinlwiUaUleapplillationonlite.erlkUlaU--.aballlDdudaenevalu.lionofUaeanvUonmentalfactonanUlll_tedIn§2.10andthevie...udoommenla~III~\lDaUonlbarewiUaby&beappUcantandaUUaOMmaIdDIf-.leo_entp_110&beIII'IIvWotuoftblI-*on.nD&RALPOWERCOMMlSSIOIf·RULU0..PR...CTlCE"'NDPROCEDURE11cn1.'lIltervanUoa"(a)InlIiaUon0'Interv...Uon.ParticlpaUonIn•pro-oeedi&II.._UllerYeDerm.ybeinitiatedufoUo...:(1)ByIblftUIlIof•noUceofIntervenUonbyal\ateCommiaalon.IDcludinl...yfelUietorybody01UaeSteleormlllliclpalllybavin&lurledlcUonto_lalez.teeendeboerI"fortile"aofelectricenlJ'lY.ornatural....uUae_maybe.10conoumanwiUalnlb.IntervenlDaStateormuDlclpallly.(2)ByorderofUaeCommlellonIlponpatiUontoiDternne.(b)Whom.ypetlUon....petiUontoIntervenemaybefiledbyuypenoodaimJJIcar\lbttoIntervenaoranIa_oflIleb_tuftthatUlte....DIIOIlIIneeu.ryora"propn-tftotil.edllllDlftioaUoDofth._tllWUIId~wllleblb.Pt<IC~IIbl'lllIlbt.a\lebI1IbtorUl.....etlillY"I(1)Ar\lbtaontundbyetaNW0'taleVlllted(2)AnIntere.twhlcbmaybecIINoUyar'..tId&1\11whlobIInotadlQllu.lyr.preMnLedby.zletln,partteaanclutowblehpeUUonl"mayb.bOllndbytheCoaam.lI"n'••ellonIntheproee.dln.(th.10Uo.",-m."heve&\laba"Int'lfell;ennNm.n""¥adbythe.ppUeant,de'.ndult.nr,..apool\.nt:holdera01..eunU••ofUae.ppUa.nt.d.'.nd·ant.DrrelPond.nt:andoompeUtonof&heIPplle..l.dl'.ndult.ornlPond.nt).(8)"'nyotharIntaNetofNOhnaillnlbatpelilloMr·.pU1lclpationm.ybeInIbeI"Ibllclntereet.(c)"orm...dconleDIaofp.tiUons,'.UtlonatoIIlterwnaahallMIoutclearlyandconcleelyIhe'ectatromwblebUaen"ureofUaepeUUoner'.alIe.adr\lM~rInte,..etcanbedlLermUled.IbelJ'O\lnd,ofUaepropoeedIIllerv.nUon,IIIdUaepollUonof\bepeUtionerInUa.proeeedl&ll.eoufIlIIyandco.pietell"toadviaeIbepU't:lnudUaeCoINDiaIIoD•toth._Iftcbill..off.clDrlawtoberaleedor_Roovaned.byedml&tinI.dln)'lDlOfoUa__-erialapeeI60aaUyudIndetail,..ab1Il.1er\aiaUeaaUonofteetorlaw_rtedUlUaeproa.edinl,andaiUalbyappro"w.....anceUa.etailltorypzovlllonaorotheraulllodb'..u.don:Prorided,thatwbenIbeP\lI'1IOM0'tha~Ul-'.ventiOD11toobtainUaU_tlOIlofnatural...foreeIaanddletribuUonbya_norIIlllll1c1palltyaDll&PdorleIa11yallUaozhed10a_eUlUaeIooalcIietrIbllUoaofIlIdUnlorarWldal...toUaepublle.UaepeU&I...ehall-PlywUbIbanqulreIn.nuofPU11&60'tblIClbap\el'(Le..a......tionaUDClertheNatwa!Gu"'ot).SuchpedUouabIIIlilloilier_ateOOlllplywtUalb.reqllinlDnalaof§§l.Uto1.n.IIlalllllYa.(d)rllinl...dMmCIofpetltiODll,PeUtio...toID'-andnotleeeofUlterwnUonmaybefUedat..yUrn.foDo_inllthafIUIII0'•nolleeofraleoztarifforofIII.ppUeaUoo.,peUUon.aomplaUlt.oroUlerdoenat_ldaICollllDllel.,naelioo.,butUlno..en'Ie'"IbanthedawfilledfortiletilInIofpeUllo...toIIltuven.UllilYorderorno"'"wilbreapecttot1lflproaeedlDp'->ledby\b.COIDJDbIIoaorillS_tuy.1lIlla...Inextraordinarycllallml&lllewfor.DOd ......II>OWD,$hoComlDblAon...$horia..aJa"ftIIIII.8en'1ooIbalIbemad.uproYidecllDU.n.When.P_Dbaa""'DpermltWd'<>InservaooDotwlu..saad1DlbiI'aiI\1ft..,filebiIpetitionwl$lllnthoUnlopreoaribecllD$Ilia..-lPapb.theCollUll1olllooorofflcard.....aect..,~o_Ywbeft$h.CIzeUDlotan....warranl.parmllUlewalftr0'&1MnquJremoD"0'§l.26(c)(lI)w1lbrqpoel..,eopinofeldllb6toforaaebIDservODar.(e)AlUWontop.llllonLAnyparty..,thePMC-mcorIlaUCOWlaOImayfU.anlUYWar'"apetitioo'"lD"rvtlDe.andlDdofault\be....f.mayb.dooll"••dtobavewatv.cllIDYob/eotioato$heP'LD&IDIof...cbpetition.Ifmod...........obaIlbefiledwithin10donafterlb.dateof.-viaeofthepetitio...butDotlaterthaD:>day.prior'"lbeda"eetforlbecoaun.oeementofIbebearlDa.UIDY,unIe8'oroauee$heColDJDlMloowilborwilboutmotioDobaIlpenadboadUfenotlime.TbeyIbalIInallolb...._toooatOIlllto$henqWnmODtoof~§1.1lIto].17.iDduIIve.(I)MoUe.endacUooODpeUUo...(1)NoUceaodoerYIee.PoUUOnltola&olYelM,wbeotondOftdtolb.CommlaoioofortiIID&.obaIl_oweerviae$henofUPOIlallparticlPllDIatolbePIOCMdiDIlaconformitywitb§l.17(b).(2)AatlooonpetitionLAolOOnupmcUcablealter$heuplratl<>noflb.u.me'orfIIiD&......arato~petitio...ordefaull$horeof,uproYidedInPIlftIPlIPb(e)0'tbil..etlon.lb.CommialloDwWP'LDtordODY..ebpeUt60DInwboleorInportormay.Ufouadtobeappropria".authorizeIlm1tedparticlpallon.NopetiUonato__maybefIleclorwWbeactedupDDdurIDIabaut.DI~perm.lt\tdbylbeColDJDlMloDalteropportWlityforallpartie.toob/eclIbe.."'.OnlytoavoiddetrtlDaolto$hepubliclD,,"",wUJanypreoidlDcoffteer"Dlatlvelypermllpart!clpaUolliDabearIDIIDodvaDeeof.and$hononly...bl.ctto.$h.IfUlliDIby$heColDJDlMloDofapeUUoDtoIntervene.(I)LimitationInhearlD&a.Wh.....Ih.rearetwoormoreIn<erv,"onhavineoub.taot.ia1lyw...Inltre,,"aDdpollltio....theCommiMionorprelidiDiofficermay.inordert.ou-pedite$h.hearlD&.anlD'"approprial.llm1talioDa00$henumberofallorney.whowWbeperm1ltee110...-samiDeandmakeandUlUemotto...andobjeetio...ODbebalfofIUChiD.-nrDen."8-3 8-4ATTACHMENTIIFormL-2(RevisedOctober,1975)FEDERALENERGYREGULATORYCOMMISSIONTERMSANDCONDITIONSOFLICENSEFORUNCONSTRUCTEDMAJORPROJECTAFFECTINGLANDSOFTHEUNITEDSTATESArticle1.Theentireproject,asdescribedinthisorderoftheCommission,shallbesubjecttoalloftheprovisions,terms,andconditionsofthelicense.Article2.Nosubstantialchangeshallbemadeinthemaps,plans,specifications,andstatementsdescribedanddesignatedasexhibitsandapprovedbytheCommissioninitsorderasapartofthelicenseuntilsuchchangeshallhavebeenapprovedbytheCommission:Provided,however,ThatiftheLicenseeortheCommissiondeemsitnecessaryordesirablethatsaidapprovedexhibits,oranyofthem,bechanged,thereshallbesubmittedtotheCommissionforapprovalarevised,oradditionalexhibitorexhibitscoveringtheproposedchangeswhich,uponapprovalbytheCommission,shallbecomeapartofthelicenseandshallsupersede,inwholeorinpart,suchexhibitorexhibitstheretoforemadeapartofthelicenseasmaybespecifiedbytheCommission.Article3.TheprojectworksshallbeconstructedinsubstantialconformitywiththeapprovedexhibitsreferredtoinArticle2hereinoraschangedinaccordancewiththeprovi-sionsofsaidarticle.Exceptwhenemergencyshallrequirefortheprotectionofnavigation,life,health,orproperty,thereshallnotbemadewithoutpriorapprovaloftheCommissionanysubstantialalterationoradditionnotinconformitywiththeapprovedplanstoanydamorotherprojectworksunderthelicenseoranysubstantialuseofprojectlandsandwatersnotauthor-izedherein;andanyemergencyalteration,addition,orusesomadeshallthereafterbesUbjecttosuchmodificationandchangeastheCommissionmaydirect.Minorchangesinprojectworks,orinusesofprojectlandsandwaters,ordivergencefromsuchapprovedexhibitsmaybemadeifsuchchangeswillnotresultinadecreaseinefficiency,inamaterialincreaseincost,inanadverseenvironmentalimpact,orinimpairmentofthegeneralschemeofdevelopment;butanyofsuchminorchangesmadewithoutthepriorapprovaloftheCommission,whichinitsjudgmenthaveproducedorwillproduceanyofsuchresults,shallbesubjecttosuchalterationastheCommis-sionmaydirect.Uponthecompletionoftheproject,oratsuchothertimeastheCommissionmaydirect,theLicenseeshallsubmittotheCommissionforapprovalrevisedexhibitsinsofarasnecessarytoshowanydivergencefromorvariationsintheprojectareaandprojectboundaryasfinallylocatedorintheprojectworksasactuallyconstructedwhencomparedwiththeareaandboundaryshownandtheworksdescribedinthelicenseorintheexhibitsapprovedbytheCommission,togetherwithastatementinwritingsettingforththereasonswhichintheopinionoftheLicenseenecessitatedorjustifiedvariationinordivergencefromtheapprovedexhibits.Suchrevisedexhibitsshall,ifandwhenapprovedbytheCommission,bemadeapartofthelicenseundertheprovisionsofArticle2hereof.Article4.,Theconstruction,operation,andmaintenanceoftheprojectand anyworkincidental,toadditionsoralterationsshallbesubjecttotheinspectionandsupervisionoftheRegionalEngineer,FederalEnergyRegulatoryCommission,intheregionwhereintheprojectislocated,or ofsuchotherofficeroragentas~heCommissionmaydesignate,whoshallbetheauthorizedrepresentativeoftheCommissionforsuchpurposes.TheLicenseeshallcooperatefullywithsaidrepresentativeandshallfurnishhimadetailedprogramofinspectionbytheLicenseethatwillprovideforanadequateandqualifiedinspectionforceforconstruction-oftheprojectandforanysubsequentalterationstotheproject.Constructionoftheproject 8-5worksoranyfeatureoralterationthereofshallnotbeinitiateduntiltheprogramofinspec-tionfortheprojectworksoranysuchfeaturethereofhasbeenapprovedbysaidrepresentative.TheLicenseeshallalsofurnishtosaidrepresentativesuchfurtherinformationashemayrequireconcerningtheconstruction,operation,andmaintenanceoftheproject,andofanyalterationthereof,andshallnotifyhimofthedateuponwhichworkwillbegin,asfarinadvancethereofassaidrepresentativemayreasonablyspecify,andshallnotifyhimpromptlyinwritingofanysuspensionofworkforaperiodofmorethanoneweek,andofitsresumptionandcompletion.TheLicenseeshallallowsaidrepresentativeandotherofficersoremployeesoftheUnitedStates,showingpropercredentials,freeandunrestrictedaccessto,through,andacrosstheprojectlandsandprojectworksinth~performanceoftheirofficialduties.TheLicenseeshallcomplywithsuchrulesandregulationsofgeneralorspecialapplicabilityastheCommissionmayprescribefromtimetotimefortheprotectionoflife,health,orproperty..Article5.TheLicensee,withinfiveyearsfromthedateofissuanceofthelicense,shallacquiretitleinfeeortherighttouseinperpetuityalllands,otherthanlandsoftheUnitedStates,necessaryorappropriatefortheconstruction,maintenance,andoperationoftheproject.TheLicenseeoritssuccessorsandassignsshall,duringtheperiodofthelicense,retainthepossessionofallprojectpropertycoveredbythelicenseasissuedoraslateramended,includingtheprojectarea,theprojectworks,andallfranchises,easements,waterrights,andrightsofoccupancyanduse;andnoneofsuchpropertiesshallbevoluntarilysold,leased,transferred,abandoned,orotherwisedisposedofwithoutthepriorwrittenapprovaloftheCommission,exceptthattheLicenseemayleaseorotherwisedisposeofinterestsinprojectlandsorpropertywithoutspecificwrittenapprovaloftheCommissionpursuanttothethencurrentregulationsoftheCommission.Theprovisionsofthisarticlearenotintendedtopre-venttheabandonmentortheretirementfromserviceofstructures,equipment,orotherprojectworksinconnectionwithreplacementsthereofwhentheybecomeobsolete,inadequate,orineffi-cientforfurtherserviceduetowearandtear;andmortgageortrustdeedsorjudicialsalesmadethereunder,ortaxsales,shallnotbedeemedvoluntarytransferswithinthemeaningofthisarticle.Article6.IntheeventtheprojectistakenoverbytheUnitedStatesuponthetermi-nationofthelicenseasprovidedinSection14oftheFederalPowerAct,oristransferredtoanewlicenseeortoanon-powerlicenseeundertheprovis~onsofSection15ofsaidAct,the·Licensee,itssuccessorsandassignsshallberesponsiblefor,andshallmakegoodanydefectoftitleto,or ofrightofoccupancyandusein,anyofsuchprojectpropertythatisnecessaryorappropriateorvaluableandserviceableinthemaintenanceandoperationoftheproject,andshallpayanddischarge,orshallassumeresponsibilityforpaymentanddischargeof,allliensorencumbrancesupontheprojectorprojectpropertycreatedbytheLicensee'orcreatedorincurredaftertheissuanceofthelicense:Provided,Thattheprovisionsofthisarticlearenotintendedtorequireth~Licensee,forthepurposeoftransferringtheprojecttotheUnitedStatesortoanewlicensee,toacquireanydifferenttitleto,orrightofoccupancyandusein,anyofsuchprojectpropertythanwasnecessarytoacquireforitsownpurposesastheLicensee.Article7.Theactuallegitimateoriginalcostoftheproject,andofanyadditiontheretoorbettermentthereof,shallbedeterminedbytheCommissioninaccordancewiththeFederalPowerActandtheCommission'sRulesandRegulationsthereunder.Article8.TheLicenseeshallinstallandthereaftermaintaingagesandstream-gagingstationsforthepurposeofdeterminingthestageandflowofthestreamorstreamsonwhichtheprojectislocated,theamountofwaterheldinandwithdrawnfromstorage,andtheeffectiveheadontheturbines;shallprovidefortherequiredreadingofsuchgagesandfortheadequateratingofsuchstations;andshallinstallandmaintainstandardmetersadequateforthedeter-minationoftheamountofelectricenergygeneratedbytheprojectworks.Thenumber,charac-ter,andlocationofgages,meters,orothermeasuringdevices,andthemethodofoperationthereof,shallatalltimesbesatisfactorytotheCommissionoritsauthorizedrepresentative.TheCommissionreservestheright,afternoticeandopportunityforhearing,torequiresuchalterationsinthenumber,character,andlocationofgages,meters,orothermeasuringdevices,andthemethodofoperationthereof,asarenecessarytosecureadequatedeterminations.Theinstallationofgages,theratingofsaidstreamorstreams,andthedeterminationoftheflowthereof,shallbeunderthesupervisionof,orincooperationwith,theDistrictEngineeroftheUnitedStatesGeologicalSurveyhavingchargeofstream-gagingoperationsintheregionoftheproject,andtheLicenseeshalladvancetotheUnitedStatesGeologicalSurveytheamountoffundsestimatedtobenecessaryforsuchsupervision,orcooperationforsuchperiodsasmaybemutuallyagreedup~n.TheLicenseeshallkeepaccurateandsufficientrecordsoftheforegoingdeterminationstothesatisfactionoftheCommission,andshallmakereturnofsuchrecordsannuallyatsuchtimeandinsuchformastheCpmmissionmayprescribe, 8-6Artic~e9.TheLicenseeshall,afternoticeandopportunityforhearing,installaddi-tionalcapac~tY.6rmakeotherchangesintheprojectasdirectedbytheCommission,totheextentthat1t1Seconomicallysoundandinthepublicinteresttodoso..Article10.TheLicenseeshall,afternoticeandopportunityforhearing,coordinatetheoperat1onof.theproject,electricallyandhydraulically,withsuchotherprojectsorpowersyste~s.and1n~uchmannerastheCommissionmaydirectintheinterestofpowerandotherbene~lc1alpubl1:usesofwa~erresources,andonsuchconditionsconcerningtheequitableshar1ngofbenef1tsbytheL1censeeastheCommissionmayorder.Article11.WhenevertheLicenseeisdirectlybenefitedbytheconstructionworkof~notherlicensee,~permittee,ortheUnitedStatesonastoragereservoirorotherheadwater1mprovement,theL1censeeshallreimbursetheowneroftheheadwaterimprovementforsuchpartoftheannualchargesforinterest,maintenance,anddepreciationthereofastheCommissionshall~ete:mineto.beequitable,a~dshallpaytotheUnitedStatesthecostofmakingsuchdeterm1nat~onasf1xedbytheComm1ssion.Forbenefitsprovidedbyastoragereservoirorotherheadwater1mprovementoftheUnitedStates,theLicenseeshallpaytotheCommissiontheamountsforwhich~ti~billedfromtimetotimeforsuchheadwaterbenefitsandforthecostofmakingthedeterm1nat1onspursuanttothethencurrentregulationsoftheCommissionundertheFederalPowerAct.Article12.TheoperationsoftheLicensee,sofarastheyaffecttheuse,storageanddischargefromstorageofwatersaffectedbythelicense,shallatalltimesbecontrolledbysuchreasonablerulesandregulationsastheCommissionmayprescribefortheprotectionoflife,health,andproperty,andintheinterestofthefullestpracticableconservationandutilizationofsuchwatersforpowerpurposesandforotherbeneficialpublicuses,includingrecreationalpurposes,andtheLicenseeshallreleasewaterfromtheprojectreservoiratsuchrateincubicfeetpersecond,orsuchvolumeinacre-feetperspecifiedperiodoftime,astheCommissionmayprescribeforthepurposeshereinbeforementioned.Article13.Ontheapplicationofanyperson,association,corporation,Federalagency,Stateormunicipality,theLicenseeshallpermitsuchreasonableuseofitsreservoirorotherprojectproperties,includingworks,landsandwaterrights,orpartsthereof,asmaybeorderedbytheCommission,afternoticeandopportunityforhearing,intheinterestsofcomprehensivedeve1opmentof·the~waterwayorwaterways·invo1vedandtheconservationanduti1izationofthewaterresourcesoftheregionforwatersupplyorforthepurposesofsteam-electric,irriga-tion,industrial,municipalorsimilaruses.TheLicenseeshallreceivereasonablecompensationforuseofitsreservoirorotherprojectpropertiesorpartsthereofforsuchpurposes,toincludeatleastfullreimbursementforanydamagesorexpenseswhichthejointusecausestheLicenseetoincur.AnysuchcompensationshallbefixedbytheCommissioneitherbyapprovalofanagreementbetweentheLicenseeandthepartyorpartiesbenefitingorafternoticeandoppor-tunityforhearing.Applicationsshallcontaininformationinsufficientdetailtoaffordafullunderstandingoftheproposeduse,includingsatisfactoryevidencethattheapplicantpossessesnecessarywaterrightspursuanttoapplicableStatelaw,orashowingofcausewhysuchevidencecannotconcurrentlybesubmitted,andastatementastotherelationshipoftheproposedusetoanyStateormunicipalplansororderswhichmayhavebeenadoptedwithrespecttotheuseofsuch.waters.Article14.Intheconstructionormaintenanceoftheprojectworks,theLicenseeshallplaceandmaintainsuitablestructuresanddevices·toreducetoareasonabledegreetheliabil-ityofcontactbetweenitstransmissionlinesandtelegraph,telephoneandothersignalwiresorpowertransmissionlinesconstructedpriortoitstransmissionlinesandnotownedbytheLicensee,andshallalsoplaceandmaintainsuitablestructuresanddevicestoreducetoareasonabledegreetheliabilityofanystructuresorwiresfallingorobstructingtrafficorendangeringlife.NoneoftheprovisionsofthisarticleareintendedtorelievetheLicenseefromanyresponsibilityorrequirementwhcihmaybeimposedbyanyotherlawfulauthorityforavoidingoreliminatinginductiveinterference.Article15.TheLicenseeshall,fortheconservationanddevelopmentoffishandwild-liferesources,construct,maintain,andoperate,orarrangefortheconstruction,maintenance,andoperationofsuchreasonablefacilities,andcomplywithsuchreasonablemodificationsoftheprojectstructuresandoperation,asmaybeorderedbytheCommissionuponitsownmotionorupontherecommendationoftheSecretaryoftheInteriororthefishandwildlifeagencyoragenciesofanyStateinwhichtheprojectorapartthereofislocated,afternoticeandoppor-tunityforhearing. 8-7Article16.WhenevertheUnitedStatesshalldesire,inconnectionwiththeprojecttoconstructfishandwildlifefacilitiesortoimprovetheexistingfishandwildlifefacilitiesatitsownexpense,theLicenseeshallpermittheUnitedStatesoritsdesignatedagencytousefreeofcost,suchoftheLicensee'slandsandinterestsinlands,reservoirs,waterwaysand'projectworksasmaybereasonablyrequiredtocompletesuchfacilitiesorsuchimprovementsthereof.Inaddition,afternoticeandopportunityforhearing,theLicenseeshallmodifytheprojectoperationasmaybereasonablyprescribedbytheCommissioninordertopermitthemaintenanceandoperationofthefishandwildlifefacilitiesconstructedorimprovedbytheUnitedStatesundertheprovisionsofthisarticle.ThisarticleshallnotbeinterpretedtoplaceanyobligationontheUnitedStdtestoconstructorimprovefishandwildlifefacilitiesortorelievetheLicenseeofanyobligationunderthislicense.Article17.TheLicenseeshallconstruct,maintain,andoperate,orshallarrangefortheconstruction,maintenance,andoperationofsuchreasonablerecreationalfacilities,includingmodificationsthereto,suchasaccessroads,wharves,launchingramps,beaches,picnicandcampingareas,sanitaryfacilities,andutilities,givingconsiderationtotheneedsofthephysicallyhandicapped,andshallcomplywithsuchreasonablemodificationsoftheproject,asmaybeprescribedhereafterbytheCommissionduringthetermofthislicenseuponitsownmotionorupontherecommendationoftheSecretaryoftheInteriororotherinterestedFederalorStateagencies,afternoticeandopportunityforhearing.Article18.Sofarasisconsistentwithproperoperationoftheproject,theLicenseeshallallowthepublicfreeaccess,toareasonableextent,toprojectwatersandadjacentprojectlandsownedbytheLicenseeforthepurposeoffullutilizationofsuchlandsandwatersfornavigationandforoutdoorrecreationalpurposes,includingfishingandhunting:Provided,ThattheLicenseemayreservefrompublicaccesssuchportionsoftheprojectwaters,adjacentlands,andprojectfacilitiesasmaybenecessaryfortheprotectionoflife,health,andprop-erty.Article19.Intheconstruction,maintenance,oroperationoftheproject,theLicenseeshallberesponsiblefor,andshalltakereasonablemeasurestoprevent,soilerosiononlandsadjacenttostreamsorotherwaters,streamsedimentation,and anyformofwaterorairpollu-tion.TheCommission,uponrequestoruponitsownmotion,mayordertheLicenseetotakesuchmeasuresastheCommissionfindstobenecessaryforthesepurposes,afternoticeandoppor-tunityforhearing.Article20.TheLicenseeshallconsultwiththeappropriateStateandFederalagenciesand,withinoneyearofthedateofissuanceofthislicense,shallsubmitforCommissionapprovalaplanforclearingthereservoirarea.Further,theLicenseeshallclearandkeepcleartoanadequatewidthlandsalongopenconduitsandshalldisposeofalltemporarystructures,unusedtimber,brush,refuse,orothermaterialunnecessaryforthepurposesoftheprojectwhichresultsfromtheclearingoflandsorfromthemaintenanceoralterationoftheprojectworks.Inaddition,alltreesalongtheperipheryofprojectreservoirswhichmaydieduringoperationsoftheprojectshallberemoved.Uponapprovaloftheclearingplanallclearingofthelandsanddisposaloftheunnecessarymaterialshallbedonewithduediligenceandtothesatisfac-tionoftheauthorizedrepresentativeoftheCommissionandinaccordancewithappropriateFederal,State,andlocalstatutesandregulations.Article21.TimberonlandsoftheUnitedStatescut,used,ordestroyedinthecon-structionandmaintenanceoftheprojectworks,orintheclearingofsaidlands,shallbepaidfor,andtheresultingslashanddebrisdisposedof,inaccordancewiththerequirementsoftheagencyoftheUnitedStateshavingjurisdictionoversaidlands.Paymentformerchantabletimbershallbeatcurrentstumpagerates,andpaymentforyounggrowthtimberbelowmerchant-ablesizeshallbeatcurrentdamageappraisalvalues.However,theagencyoftheUnitedStateshavingjurisdictionmaysellordisposeofthemerchantabletimbertoothersthantheLicensee:Provided,Thattimbersosoldordisposedofshallbecutandremovedfromtheareapriorto,orwithoutundueinterferencewith,clearingoperationsoftheLicenseeandincoordinationwiththeLicensee'sprojectconstructionschedules.SuchsaleordisposaltoothersshallnotrelievetheLicenseeofresponsibilityfortheclearinganddisposalofallslashanddebrisfromprojectlands.Article22.TheLicenseeshalldoeverythingreasonablywithinitspower,andshallrequireitsemployees,contractors,andemployeesofcontractorstodoeverythingreasonablywithintheirpower,bothindependentlyandupontherequestofofficersoftheagencyconcerned,toprevent,toma'eadvancepreparationsforsuppressionof,andtosuppressfiresonthelandstobeoccupiedorusedunderthelicense.TheLicenseeshallbeliableforandshallpaythecostsincurredbytheUnitedStatesinsuppressingfirescausedfromtheconstruction,opera-tion,ormaintenanceoftheprojectworksoroftheworksappurtenantoraccessorytheretounderthelicense. !.~I'l,8-8Article23.TheLicenseeshallinterposenoobjectionto,andshallinnowayprevent,theusebytheagencyoftheUnitedStateshavingjurisdictionoverthelandsoftheUnitedStatesaffected,orbypersonsorcorporationsoccupyinglandsoftheUnitedStatesunderpermit,ofwaterforfiresuppressionfromanystream,conduit,orbodyofwater,naturalorartificial,usedbytheLicenseeintheoperationoftheprojectworkscoveredbythelicense,ortheusebysaidpartiesofwaterforsanitaryanddomesticpurposesfromanystream,conduit,orbodyofwater,naturalorartificial,usedbytheLicenseeintheoperationoftheprojectworkscoveredbythelicense.Article24.TheLicenseeshallbeliableforinjuryto,ordestructionof,anybuild-ings,bridges,roads,trails,lands,orotherpropertyoftheUnitedStates,occasionedbytheconstruction,maintenance,oroperationoftheprojectworksor oftheworksappurtenantoraccessorytheretounderthelicense.Arrangementstomeetsuchliability,eitherbycompen-sationforsuchinjuryordestruction,orbyreconstructionorrepairofdamagedproperty,orotherwise,shallbemadewiththeappropriatedepartmentoragencyoftheUnitedStates.Article25.TheLicenseeshallallowanyagencyoftheUnitedStates,withoutcharge,toconstructorpermittobeconstructedon,through,andacrossthoseprojectlandswhicharelandsoftheUnitedStatessuchconduits,chutes,ditches,railroads,roads,trails,telephoneandpowerlines,andotherroutesormeansoftransportationandcommunicationasarenotincon-sistentwiththeenjoymentofsaidlandsbytheLicenseeforthepurposesofthelicense.ThislicenseshallnotbeconstruedasconferringupontheLicenseeanyrightofuse,occupancy,orenjoymentofthelandsoftheUnitedStatesotherthanfortheconstruction,operation,andmaintenanceoftheprojectasstatedinthelicense.Article26.Intheconstructionandmaintenanceoftheproject,thelocationandstan-dardsofroadsandtrailsonlandsoftheUnitedStatesandotherusesoflandsoftheUnitedStates,includingthelocationandconditionofquarries,borrowpits,andspoildisposalareas,shallbesubjecttotheapprovalofthedepartmentoragencyoftheUnitedStateshavingsuper-visionoverthelandsinvolved.Article27.TheLicenseeshallmakeprovision,orshallbearthereasonablecost,asdeterminedbytheagencyoftheUnitedStatesaffected,ofmakingprovisionforavoidinginduc-tiveinterferencebetweenanyprojecttransmissionlineorotherprojectfacilityconstructed,operated,ormaintainedunderthelicense,and anyradioinstallation,telephoneline,orothercommunicationfacilityinstalledorconstructedbeforeorafterconstructionofsuchprojecttransmissionlineorotherprojectfacilityandowned,operated,orusedbysuchagencyoftheUnitedStatesinadministeringthelandsunderitsjurisdiction.Article28.TheLicenseeshallmakeuseoftheCommission'sguidelinesandotherrecog-nizedguidelinesfortreatmentoftransmissionlinerights-of-way,andshallclearsuchportionsoftransmissionlinerights-of-wayacrosslandsoftheUnitedStatesasaredesignatedbytheofficeroftheUnitedStatesinchargeofthelands;shallkeeptheareassodesignatedclearofnewgrowth,allrefuse,andinflammablematerialtothesatisfactionofsuchofficer;shalltrimallbranchesoftreesincontactwithorliabletocontactthetransmissionlines;shallcutandremovealldeadorleaningtreeswhichmightfallincontactwiththetransmissionlines;andshalltakesuchotherprecautionsagainstfireasmayberequiredbysuchofficer.NofiresfortheburningofwastematerialshallbesetexceptwiththepriorwrittenconsentoftheofficeroftheUnitedStatesinchargeofthelandsastotimeandplace.Article29.TheLicenseeshallcooperatewiththeUnitedStatesinthedisposalbytheUnitedStates,undertheActofJuly31,1947,61Stat.681,asamended(30U.S.C.Sec.601,etseq.),ofmineralandvegetativematerialsfromlandsoftheUnitedStatesoccupiedbytheprojectoranypartthereof:Provided,ThatsuchdisposalhasbeenauthorizedbytheCommissionandthatitdoesnotunreasonablyinterferewi.ththeoccupancyofsuchlandsbytheLicenseeforthepurposesofthelicense:Providedfurther,Thatintheeventofdisagreement,anyquestionofunreasonableinterferenceshallbedeterminedbytheCommissionafternoticeandopportunityforhearing.Article30.IftheLicenseeshallcauseorsufferessentialprojectpropertytoberemovedordestroyedortobecomeunfitforuse,withoutadequatereplacement,orshallabandonordiscontinuegoodfaithoperationoftheprojectorrefuseorneglecttocomplywiththetermsofthelicenseandthelawfulordersoftheCommissionmailedtotherecordaddressoftheLicenseeoritsagent,theCommissionwilldeemittobetheintentoftheLicenseetosurrenderthelicense.TheCommission,afternoticeandopportunityforhearing,mayrequiretheLicenseetoremoveanyorallstructures,equipmentandpowerlineswithintheprojectboundaryandto 8-9takeanysuchotheractionnecessarytorestoretheprojectwaters,lands,andfacilitiesremain-ingwithintheprojectboundarytoaconditionsatisfactorytotheUnitedStatesagencyhavingjurisdictionoveritslandsortheCommission'sauthorizedrepresentative,asappropriate,ortoprovideforthecontinuedoperationandmaintenanceofnonpowerfacilitiesandfulfillsuchotherobligationsunderthelicenseastheCommissionmayprescribe.Inaddition,theCommis-sioninitsdiscretion,afternoticeandopportunityforhearing,mayalsoagreetothesurren-derofthelicensewhentheCommission,forthereasonsrecitedherein,deemsittobetheintentoftheLicenseetosurrenderthelicense.Article31.TherightoftheLicenseeandofitssuccessorsandassignstouseoroccupywatersoverwhichtheUnitedStateshasjurisdiction,orlandsoftheUnitedStatesunderthelicense,forthepurposeofmaintainingtheprojectworksorotherwise,shallabsolutelyceaseattheendofthelicenseperiod,unlesstheLicenseehasobtainedanewlicensepursuanttothethenexistinglawsandregulations,oranannuallicenseunderthetermsandconditionsofthislicense.Article32.ThetermsandconditionsexpresslysetforthinthelicenseshallnotbeconstruedasimpairinganytermsandconditionsoftheFederalPowerActwhicharenotexpresslysetforthherein.\