HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA1653FERC/DEIS-0038
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC ~~ !iiH&J
~~:~-~~~-~--------· . ~
FERC No. 7114 ~ ~~u\~'
~
ALASKA
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Volume 1: Main Text
OFFICE OF ELECTRIC POWER REGULATION
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
MAY 1984
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF ELECTRIC POWER REGULATION
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
FERC NO. 7114 -ALASKA
Volume 1. Main Text
App 1 i cant: Alaska P~r Authority
333 ljes·( 4th Avenue
SuiXe 31
Anehorage, Alaska 99501
rK
P-\ d. '5"""
FERC/DEIS-0038 · ' 5 "iS'
F Ll'lZ
1\D llS~ •
~dditional copies of the Draft-EIS may be ordered from:
Division of Public Information
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
825 North Capitol St., NE.
Washington, D.C. 20426
ARLis May 1984 . AiaskaR Library & 1 esources ~~at1on Serv:t --.-..ge, ~.Ita ces
CD
N
(") r--
CD
(")
0
0
0
L!)
L!) r--
(")
(")
COVER SHEET
a. Lead Agency: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
b. Cooperating Agencies: United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and
the Rural Electrification Administration
c. Title: Susitna Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 7114-Alaska
Application for FERC license to construct, operate, and maintain the
proposed Susitna Hydroelectric Project
d. Contact: Mr. J. Mark Robinson
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Telephone: (202) 376-9060
e. Draft Environmental Impact Statement
f. Abstract: Alaska Power Authority (Applicant) of Anchorage, Alaska,
proposes to construct a hydroelectric project with an installed capacity
of 1620 megawatts (MW) on the Susitna River approximately 140 miles
north-northeast of Anchorage. The action proposed by the Applicant would
require (1) an earth-fill dam (Watana), with a crest level of 2205 feet
above mean sea level and a height above foundation of 885 feet, located
at Susitna River Mile 184 (approximately 2.5 miles upstream of the conf-
luence with Tsusena Creek); (2) a concrete arch dam (Devil Canyon), with
a crest level of 1463 feet above mean sea level and a height above
foundation of 646 feet, located at Susitna River Mile 152 (about 32 miles
downstream of the proposed Watana dam), and an earth-fill saddle dam with
a height 245 feet above its base on the south abutment of the Devil
Canyon dam; (3) underground powerhouses at the proposed Watana and Devil
Canyon dams; (4) approximately 370 miles of overhead and 4 miles of
submarine transmission line; (5) 62 miles of access roads and 13 miles of
railroad access; (6) a permanent town housing 130 operations workers at
the Watana dam site; and (7) other appurtenant facilities. Construction
would commence subsequent to issuance of a license.
g. Transmittal: This draft environmental impact statement, prepared by the
Commission's Staff in connection with an application filed by the Alaska
Power Authority for proposed Project No. 7114, is being transmitted for
your information pursuant to the requirements of the National Environ-
mental Policy Act of 1969 and Commission Order No. 415-C, issued
December 18, 1972 (see Sec. 8, Attachment I).
h.
i .
Copies of the draft environmental impact statement are available for
public review at the San Francisco Regional Office-FERC.
The draft environmental impact statement was sent to the Environmental
Protection Agency and made available to the public on or about May 25,
1984.
iii
ARL1s
AlaskaR Library & 1 esources
nformatJon S Anc.lior;~ae A, ervices ~· .... aska
FOREWORD
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), pursuant to the Federal Power
Act (FP Act)* and the Department of Energy (DOE) Organization Act,** is
authorized to issue licenses for terms up to 50 years for the construction and
operation of non-federal hydroelectric developments subject to its jurisdic-
tion, on the necessary condition:
(T)hat the project adopted ... shall be such as in the judgment of
the Commission will be best adapted to a comprehensive plan for
improving or developing a waterway or waterways for the use or
benefit of interstate or foreign commerce, for the improvement and
utilization of waterpower development, and for other beneficial
public uses, including recreational purposes ... ***
The Commission may require such other conditions not inconsistent with the
provisions of the FP Act as may be found necessary to provide for the various
public interests to be served by the Project.t Compliance with such condi-
tions during the license period is required. Section 1.6 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure allows any person objecting to a licensee's
compliance with such conditions to file a complaint noting the basis for such
objection for the Commission's consideration.tt
* 16 u.s.c. § 791(~) -825(r)
** Public Law 95-91, 91 Stat. 556
*** 16 U.S.C. Sec. 803(a)
t 16 u.s.c. Sec. 803(g)
tt 18 C.F.R. Sec. 1.6
v
PREFACE
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Susitna Hydroelectric
Project is composed of seven volumes. Volume 1 contains the main text of the
DEIS, consisting of eight sections. Section 1 deals with the purpose and need
for the action, including past, present, and future need for power, discussion
of Applicant's and Staff's load growth forecasts, range of alternatives
examined, economic analysis of alternatives, and Staff's development of various
power generation scenarios that represent the range of available and feasible
options for meeting the future electric energy demand in the Railbelt region
of Alaska. Section 2 contains a detailed description of the proposed project
and the various alternative power generation scenarios considered in the DEIS.
Section 3 contains descriptions of the regional and project-specific environ-
ments that could potentially be affected by development of the proposed project
or any of the array of alternatives analyzed. This section covers land
features and uses, climate and air quality, water resources and aquatic com-
munities, plant and animal populations and associations, socioeconomic factors,
recreational and visual resources, and arch eo l ogi cal and historic sites.
Section 4 describes and discusses the probable environmental impacts that
would be likely to occur in the environments described in Section 3 if the
Susitna Hydroelectric Project or any of the various alternatives were con-
structed and operated as described in Section 2. In addition to discussion of
environmental impacts of each proposed or alternative scenario, this section
also covers impacts of the no-action alternative, a comparison of the projected
impacts of the various alternatives, relationship of impacts to known resource
plans and utilization, impacts that cannot be avoided or mitigated, resources
that would be permanently lost, and short-term vs. long-term uses of the
environment. A companion section to that detailing impacts is Section 5,
which presents the Staff's conclusions regarding impacts of the proposed and
alternative projects, the Staff's recommendations regarding the proposed
project or alternatives, and any necessary mitigation or additional studies
that the Staff believes are necessary to minimize impacts or clarify issues.
Sections 6 and 7 contain a list of preparers and a list of primary recipients,
respectively. Section 8 contains two standard attachments included in all
FERC Environmental Impact Statements.
In an effort to reduce the length and improve the readability of the main DEIS
text, Sections 1 through 5 of Volume 1 are presented more or less as summaries
of the Staff's studies and project-related descriptions, analyses, and environ-
mental impact discussions. These five sections contain relatively brief and
concise supporting technical discussions, few reference citations, and com-
paratively few technical tables and figures. Summary descriptions, analyses,
and discussions in Volume 1 are comprehensively discussed and supported, as
appropriate, with substantial technical detail in a parallel set of appendices
grouped by disciplines in Volumes 2 through 7. These appendix volumes are
available for public inspection at various public locations throughout the
Railbelt, or may be ordered individually from the FERC Public Information
Office in Washington, D.C.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE PAGE .
COVER SHEET
FOREWORD
PREFACE
CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF TABLES
SUMMARY
1. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION
1.1 PURPOSE OF ACTION ..
1. 2 NEED FOR POWER . . . . .
1.2.1 Historical Energy Requirements
1.2.1.1 Perspective on Geography and Economy of the Region
1.2.1.2 Energy Use in the Region
1.2.2 Present Energy Scenario ...... .
1. 2. 3 Future Energy Resources ...... .
1. 2. 4 Load Growth Forecast ....... .
1.2.4.1 Alaska Power Authority Forecasts
1.2.4.1.1 Methodology ... .
1.2.4.1.2 Load Projection ...... .
1.2.4.1.3 World Oil Price .. .
1.2.4.2 FERC Staff Projections
1.2.5 Generation-Load Relationships of Existing and Planned Railbelt System
1. 3 ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS . . . . . .
1.3.1 Alternative Project Designs
1.3.1.1 Previous Studies
1.3.1.2 Applicant's Studies ..
1. 3.1. 3 Staff Studies . . . . .
1.3.2 Other Hydroelectric Alternatives
1.3.3 Non-Hydroelectric Alternatives •.
1.3.3.1 Petroleum Fuels
1. 3. 3. 2 Natural Gas .. .
1.3.3.3 Coal ..... .
1.3.3.4 Peat ..... .
1.3.3.5 Geothermal Energy
1.3.3.6 Tidal Power ...
1.3.3. 7 Solar Energy
1.3.4 Non-Structural Alternatives
1.3.4.1 Effects of Conservation on Demand
1.3.4.2 Effects of Rate Revision on Demand
1. 4 SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . . .
1. 4.1 Sus itna Basin Development . . . . . . .
1.4.2 Non-Susitna River Hydroelectric Development Plans
1.4.3 Natural-Gas-Fired Generation Scenario
1.4.3.1 Scenario Evaluation ...... .
1.4.3.2 Data Assumptions for Gas Scenario .
1.4.4 Coal-Fired Generation Scenario ... .
1.4.4.1 Scenario Evaluation ....... .
1.4.4.2 Data Assumptions for Coal Scenario
1.4.5 Scenario Comparison and Combined Scenarios
1.4. 5.1 Hydroelectric Scenarios ....... .
ix
iii
v
vii
ix
xvii
xix
xxi
1-1
1-1
1-1
1-1
1-1
1-3
1-4
1-8
1-8
1-8
1-8
1-9
1-9
1-9
1-15
1-19
1-19
1-19
1-19
1-22
1-22
1-30
1-30
1-30
1-33
1-33
1-33
1-34
1-34
1-34
1-34
I-35
1-35
1-35
1-36
1-36
1-37
1-39
1-39
1-42
1-42
1-43
1-43
1.4.5.2
1.4.5.3
REFERENCES .
Thermal Scenarios .
Combined Scenarios
CONTENTS (Cont'd)
1-43
1-43
1-45
2. PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 2-1
2.1 PROPOSED PROJECT . . . . . 2-1
2.1.1 Location . . . . . . . 2-1
2.1.2 Facilities . . . . . . 2-1
2.1.2.1 Watana Development 2-1
2.1.2.2 Devil Canyon Development . . 2-2
2.1.2.3 Construction and Permanent Site Facilities 2-2
2.1.2.3.1 Watana . . . . . . . 2-2
2.1.2.3.2 Devil Canyon . . . . 2-3
2.1.2.3.3 Project Transmission 2-3
2.1.3 Construction Schedule . . . . 2-5
2.1.3.1 Watana . . . . . . . . . 2-5
2.1.3.2 Devil Canyon . . . . . . 2-5
2.1.4 Construction Workforce Requirements 2-6
2.1.5 Operation and Maintenance . . . . . 2-6
2.1.5.1 Operation . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6
2.1.5.1.1 Operation within the Railbelt System 2-6
2.1.5.1.2 Susitna Project Operation 2-6
2.1.5.2 Maintenance. . . . . . . 2-8
2.1. 5. 2.1 Monitoring Program 2-8
2.1.5.2.2 Periodic Maintenance 2-8
2.1. 6 Safety Inspections . . . . . 2-11
2.1. 7 Access Plan . . . . . . . . . 2-11
2.1.8 Transmission Line Electrical Effects 2-11
2.1.9 Compliance with Applicable Laws . . . 2-13
2.1.10 Future Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-13
2.1.11 Recreation Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-14
2.1.11.1 Inventory and Evaluation of Potential Recreation Development Areas 2-14
2.1.11.2 Implementation and Description of the Proposed Recreation Plan 2-14
2.1.11.2.1 Phase One 2-16
2.1.11.2.2 Phase Two 2-17
2.1.11.2.3 Phase Three 2-18
2.1.11.2.4 Phase Four. 2-19
2.1.11.2.5 Phase Five . 2-19
2.1.11.3 Recreation Monitoring Program . 2-20
2.1.12 Mitigative Measures Proposed by the Applicant 2-21
2.1.12.1 Land Resources . . . . . . 2-21
2.1.12.1.1 Geology and Soils 2-21
2.1.12.1.2 Land Use and Ownership 2-21
2.1.12.2 Water Quantity and Quality 2-22
2.1.12.3 Fisheries . . . . . . . 2-23
2.1.12.4 Terrestrial Communities 2-25
2.1.12.4.1 Plant Communities . 2-25
2.1.12.4.2 Wildlife. . . . . . . . . . 2-27
2.1.12:5 Threatened and Endangered Species 2-27
2.1.12. 6 Recreation Resources . 2-28
2.1.12. 7 Socioeconomic Factors 2-28
2.1.12.8 Visual Resources. . . . 2-29
2.1.12. 9 Cultural Resources . . . 2-29
2.2 SUSITNA DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES 2-29
2.2.1 Alternative Facility Designs 2-29
2.2.1.1 Applicant's Studies. . . . 2-29
2.2.1.2 Alternative Watana Facilities . . . 2-29
2.2.1.3 Alternative Devil Canyon Facilities 2-30
2. 2. 2 Alternative Access Corridors . . . . . 2-30
2.2.2.1 Applicant Studies. . . . . . . . . 2-30
2.2.2.2 Corridors Studied . . . . . . . . . 2-30
2.2.2.3 Development of Plans . . . . . . . . 2-32
2.2.2.4 Description of Most Responsive Access Plans 2-32
2.2.3 Alternative Transmission Line Corridors 2-32
2.2.4 Alternativ~ Susitna Development Schemes 2-33
2.2.4.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-33
2.2.4.2 Watana !-Devil Canyon Development . . 2-33
2.2.4.3 Watana !-Modified High Devil Canyon Development 2-33
2. 2. 4. 4 Watana I -Reregul at i ng Dam Deve 1 opment . . . . . 2-33
3.
xi
CONTENTS (Cont'd)
2.3 NATURAL-GAS-FIRED GENERATION SCENARIO
2.3.1 Alternative Facilities
2.3.2 Location ........ .
2.3.3 Construction Requirements .
2.3.4 Operation and Maintenance .
2.4 COAL-FIRED GENERATION SCENARIO
2.4.1 Alternative Facilities
2.4.2 Location ........ .
2.4.3 Construction Requirements .
2.4.4 Operation and Maintenance .
2.5 COMBINED HYDRO-THERMAL GENERATION SCENARIO
2.5.1 Hydro Units ..
2.5.1.1 Browne
2.5.1.2 Chakachamna
2.5.1.3 Johnson .
2.5.1.4 Keetna ..
2.5.1.5 Snow ...
2.5.2 Thermal Units .
2.5.2.1 Facilities
2.5.2.2 Location
2.5.2.3 Construction Requirements
2.5.2.4 Operation and Maintenance
2.5.3 Transmission ....... .
2. 6 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE ..... .
2. 7 MITIGATIVE MEASURES FOR ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS
2. 7.1 Land Resources . . . . . .
2. 7.1.1 Geology and Soils ...
2.7.1.2 Land Use and Ownership
2. 7.2 Climate, Air Quality, Noise
2. 7.3 Water Quantity and Quality
2.7.4 Fisheries ...... .
2. 7.5 Terrestrial Communities .
2. 7.5.1 Plant Communities ..
2.7.5.2 Wildlife ..... .
2.7.6 Threatened and Endangered Species
2.7. 7 Socioeconomic Factors
2.7.8 Visual Resources
2.7.9 Cultural Resources
REFERENCES . . . . . .
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ..
3.1 PROPOSED PROJECT .
3.1.1 Land Resources
3.1.1.1 Geology and Soils
3.1.1.2 Land Uses and Ownership
3.1.1.2.1 Existing and Future Uses
3.1.1.2.2 Existing and Future Ownership Status and Management
3.1.1.2.3 Existing and Future Land Values
3.1.2 Climate, Air Quality, Noise
3.1.2.1 Climate ....... .
3.1.2.2 Air Quality and Noise .
3.1.3 Water Quality and Quantity
3.1.3.1 Surface Water Resources
3.1.3.2 Surface Water Quality
3.1. 3. 3 Groundwater ..... .
3.1.4 Fish Communities
3.1.4.1 Watershed Above Devil Canyon
3.1.4.2 Devil Canyon to Talkeetna ..
3.1.4.3 Below Talkeetna ...... .
3.1.4.4 Access Roads and Transmission
3.1.4.5 Fishery Resources .
3.1.5 Terrestrial Communities .... .
3.1.5.1 Plant Communities ..... .
3.1.5.2 Animal Communities
3.1.6 Threatened and Endangered Species
3.1.7 Recreation Resources
3.1.8 Socioeconomic Factors
3.1.8.1 Population
Line Corridors
2-37
2-37
2-37
2-39
2-39
2-39
2-39
2-39
2-39
2-40
2-41
2-41
2-41
2-41
2-41
2-41
2-41
2-41
2-41
2-45
2-45
2-45
2-45
2-46
2-46
2-46
2-46
2-46
2-46
2-47
2-47
2-47
2-47
2-48
2-48
2-48
2-48
2-48
2-49
3-1
3-1
3-1
3-1
3-1
3-1
3-4
3-4
3-4
3-4
3-4
3-6
3-6
3-9
3-15
3-17
3-17
3-17
3-24
3-24
3-24
3-25
3-25
3-31
3-34
3-34
3-38
3-38
xii
CONTENTS (Cont'd)
3.1.8.2 Institutional Issues and Quality of Life
3.1. 8. 3 Economy and Emp 1 oyment . . . .
3.1.8.4 Housing ................ .
3.1.8.5 Community Services and Fiscal Status
3.1.8.6 Transportation ............ .
3.1.8. 7 Human Use and Management of Wildlife Resources
3.1. 9 Visual Resources ................ .
3.1. 9.1 Landscape Character Types .......... .
3.1. 9. 2 Prominent Natural Features ......... .
3.1.9.3 Significant Viewsheds, Vista Points, and Travel Routes
3.1.10 Cultural Resources .....
3.2 SUSITNA DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES
3.2.1 Land Resources ..... .
3.2.2 Climate, Air Quality, Noise
3.2.3 Water Quantity and Quality
3.2.4 Aquatic Communities ..
3.2.5 Terrestrial Communities .
3.2.5.1 Plant Communities ..
3.2.5.2 Animal Communities
3.2.6 Threatened and Endangered Species
3.2. 7 Recreation Resources ..
3.2.8 Socioeconomic FactorS ..... .
3.2.9 Visual Resources ....... .
3.2.10 Cultural Resources ... .
3.3 NATURAL-GAS-FIRED GENERATION SCENARIO
3. 3. 1 Land Resources . . . . . .
3.3.1.1 Geology and Soils ...
3.3.1.2 Land Use and Ownership
3.3.2 Climate, Air Quality, Noise
3.3.2.1 Climate ....... .
3.3.2.2 Air Quality and Noise .
3.3.3 Water Quantity and Quality
3.3.4 Aquatic Communities ...
3.3.5 Terrestrial Communities .
3.3.5.1 Plant Communities ..
3.3.5.2 Animal Communities
3.3.6 Threatened and Endangered Species
3.3.7 Recreation Resources ..
3.3.8 Socioeconomic Factors ..
3.3.9 Visual Resources ....
3.3.10 Cultural Resources
3.4 COAL-FIRED GENERATION SCENARIO
3. 4.1 Land Resources ..... .
3.4.1.1 Geology and Soils .. .
3.4.1.2 Land Use and Ownership
3.4.2 Climate, Air Quality, Noise
3.4.2.1 Climate ....... .
3.4.2.2 Air Quality and Noise .
3.4.3 Water Quantity and Quality
3.4.4 Aquatic Communities ...
3.4.5 Terrestrial Communities .
3.4.5.1 Plant Communities ..
3.4.5.2 Animal Communities
3.4.6 Threatened and Endangered Species
3.4. 7 Recreation Resources ..
3.4.8 Socioeconomic Factors ..
3.4.9 Visual Resources
3.4.10 Cultural Resources
3.5 COMBINED HYDRO-THERMAL GENERATION SCENARIO
3. 5.1 Land Resources ..... .
3.5.1.1 Geology and Soils .. .
3.5.1.2 Land Use and Ownership
3.5.2 Climate, Air Quality, Noise
3.5.3 Water Quantity and Quality
3.5.4 Aquatic Communities ..
3.5.5 Terrestrial Communities
3.5.5.1 Plant Communities .
3.5.5.2 Animal Communities
3-41
3-41
3-43
3-44
3-44
3-44
3-49
3-49
3-52
3-52
3-52
3-53
3-53
3-53
3-53
3-53
3-55
3-55
3-55
3-55
3-55
3-56
3-56
3-56
3-57
3-57
3-57
3-57
3-57
3-57
3-57
3-58
3-58
3-59
3-59
3-59
3-59
3-59
3-59
3-62
3-62
3-62
3-62
3-62
3-62
3-62
3-62
3-63
3-63
3-63
3-63
3-63
3-63
3-64
3-64
3-64
3-64
3-64
3-64
3-65
3-65
3-65
3-65
3-66
3-66
3-68
3-68
3-69
4.
xi i i
CONTENTS (Cont'd)
3.5.6 Threatened and Endangered Species
3.5.7 Recreation Resources
3.5.8 Socioeconomic Factors
3.5.9 Visual Resources
3.5.10 Cultural Resources
REFERENCES . . . . . .
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT .
4.1 PROPOSED PROJECT
4.1.1 Land Resources
4.1.1.1 Geology and Soils
4.1.1.2 Land Use and Ownership
4.1.2 Climate, Air Quality, Noise
4.1. 3 Water Quantity and Quality
4.1.3.1 Surface Water Resources
4.1.3.1.1 Flow Regime ....
4.1.3.1.2 Physical Habitat Availability
4.1.3.1.3 Channel Stability and Sediment Transport
4.1.3.2 Water Quality ............... .
4.1. 3. 2.1 Dam Development ............ .
4.1.3.2.2 Access Routes and Transmission Facilities
4.1.3.3 Temperature ....... .
4.1.3.3.1 Reservoirs ..... .
4.1.3.3.2 Mainstem Susitna River
4.1.3.3.3 Sloughs ..
4.1.3.4 Ice Processes ...... .
4.1. 3. 5 Groundwater ....... .
4. 1. 4 Aquatic Communities . . . . . .
4.1.4.1 Plant and Invertebrate Communities
4.1.4.2 Fish Communities ...... .
4.1.4.2.1 Dam Development ....... .
4.1.4.2.2 Access Routes and Power Transmission Facilities
4.1. 5 Terrestrial Communities .....
4.1.5.1 Plant Communities ..
4.1.5.2 Animal Communities
4.1.6 Threatened and Endangered Species
4.1. 7 Recreation Resources
4.1.8 Socioeconomic Impacts ..
4.1.9 Visual Resources ....
4.1.10 Cultural Resources
4.2 SUSITNA DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES
4. 2. 1 Land Resources . . . . . .
4.2.1.1 Geology and Soils ...
4.2.1.2 Land Use and Ownership
4.2.2 Climate, Air Quality, Noise
4.2.3 Water Quantity and Quality
4.2.4 Aquatic Communities ..
4.2.5 Terrestrial Communities .
4.2.5.1 Plant Communities ..
4.2.5.2 Animal Communities
4.2.6 Threatened and Endangered Species
4.2.7 Recreation Resources
4.2.8 Socioeconomic Factors ..... .
4.2.9 Visual Resources ....... .
4. 2.10 Cultural Resources ... .
4.3 NATURAL-GAS-FIRED GENERATION SCENARIO
4. 3.1 Land Resources ..... .
4.3.1.1 Geology and Soils .. .
4.3.1.2 Land Use and Ownership
4.3.2 Climate, Air Quality, Noise
4.3.3 Water Quantity and Quality
4.3.4 Aquatic Communities ..
4.3.5 Terrestrial Communities .
4.3.5.1 Plant Communities ..
4.3.5.2 Animal Communities
4.3.6 Threatened and Endangered Species
4.3.7 Recreation Resources
4. 3. 8 Socioeconomic Factors . . . . . .
3-69
3-70
3-70
3-71
3-71
3-72
4-1
4-1
4-1
4-1
4-2
4-4
4-6
4-6
4-6
4-9
4-13
4-16
4-16
4-20
4-21
4-21
4-21
4-23
4-23
4-25
4-25
4-25
4-25
4-25
4-33
4-33
4-33
4-37
4-45
4-45
4-49
4-64
4-68
4-69
4-69
4-69
4-70
4-70
4-70
4-72
4-72
4-72
4-73
4-75
4-75
4-75
4-76
4-76
4-77
4-77
4-77
4-77
4-77
4-78
4-78
4-78
4-78
4-79
4-79
4-79
4-79
:I
'
5.
xiv
CONTENTS (Cont'd)
4. 3. 9 Visual Resources .... .
4. 3.10 Cultural Resources ... .
4.4 COAL-FIRED GENERATION SCENARIO
4. 4.1 Land Resources . . . . . .
4. 4.1.1 Geology and Soils . . .
4.4.1.2 Land Use and Ownership
4.4.2 Climate, Air Quality, Noise
4.4.3 Water Quantity and Quality
4.4.4 Aquatic Communities ..
4.4.5 Terrestrial Communities .
4.4.5.1 Plant Communities ..
4.4.5.2 Animal Communities
4.4.6 Threatened and Endangered Species
4.4. 7 Recreation Resources .
4.4.8 Socioeconomic Factors ..
4.4.9 Visual Resources
4. 4.10 Cultural Resources ..
4.5 COMBINED HYDRO-THERMAL GENERATION SCENARIO
4. 5.1 Land Resources ..... .
4.5.1.1 Geology and Soils .. .
4.5.1.2 Land Use and Ownership
4.5.2 Climate, Air Quality, Noise
4.5.3 Water Quantity and Quality
4.5.4 Aquatic Communities ..
4.5.5 Terrestrial Communities .
4.5.5.1 Plant Communities ..
4.5.5.2 Animal Communities
4.5.6 Threatened and Endangered Species
4.5.7 Recreation Resources
4.5.8 Socioeconomic Factors
4.5.9 Visual Resources
4.5.10 Cultural Resources .
4.6 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE ..
4.7 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
4.7.1 Land Resources
4.7.1.1 Geology and Soils .
4. 7.1.2 Land Use and Ownership
4.7.2 Climate, Air Quality, Noise
4. 7.3 Water Quantity and Quality
4. 7.4 Aquatic Communities ...
4. 7.5 Terrestrial Communities .
4. 7.5.1 Plant Communities ..
4.7.5.2 Animal Communities
4.7.6 Threatened and Endangered Species
4.7.7 Recreation Resources ..
4. 7.8 Socioeconomic Factors ..... .
4.7.9 Visual Resources ... .
4. 7.10 Cultural Resources ....... .
4.8 RELATIONSHIP TO RESOURCE PLANS AND UTILIZATION
4.9 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS ......... .
4. 9.1 Proposed Project ............ .
4. 9. 2 Alternatives ................. .
4.10 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES
4.10.1 Proposed Project .......... .
4.10.2 Alternatives ............ .
4.11 SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG TERM-PRODUCTIVITY
4.11.1 Proposed Project
4.11.2 Alternatives ....
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . .
STAFF CONCLUSIONS ..... .
5.1 SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
5.1.1 Proposed Project ..... .
5.1.1.1 Land Resources .... .
5.1.1.1.1 Geology and Soils ..
5.1.1.1.2 Land Use and Ownership
5.1.1.2 Climate, Air Quality, Noise
5.1.1.3 Water Quantity and Quality
4-80
4-80
4-80
4-80
4-80
4-80
4-81
4-82
4-82
4-83
4-83
4-83
4-84
4-84
4-84
4-85
4-86
4-86
4-86
4-86
4-86
4-86
4-87
4-88
4-88
4-88
4-88
4-88
4-88
4-89
4-90
4-90
4-90
4-91
4-91
4-91
4-91
4-92
4-92
4-93
4-93
4-93
4-94
4-94
4-94
4-97
4-98
4-99
4-99
4-100
4-100
4-100
4-101
4-101
4-101
4-101
4-101
4-102
4-102
5-1
5-1
5-1
5-1
5-1
5-1
5-1
5-1
XV
CONTENTS (Cont'd)
5.1.1.4 Aquatic Communities ..
5.1.1.5 Terrestrial Communities
5.1.1.5.1 Plant Communities
5.1.1.5.2 Wildlife ....
5.1.1.6 Recreation Resources
5.1.1.7 Socioeconomic Factors
5.1.1.8 Visual Resources
5.1.2 Alternatives ..... .
5.1.2.1 Land Resources
5.1.2.1.1 Geology and Soils
5.1.2.1.2 Land Use and Ownership
5.1.2.2 Climate, Air Quality, Noise
5.1.2.3 Water Quantity and Quality
5.1.2.4 Aquatic Communities ..
5.1.2.5 Terrestrial Communities
5.1.2.5.1 Plant Communities
5.1.2.5.2 Wildlife ....
5.1.2.6 Recreation Resources
5.1.2. 7 Socioeconomic Factors
5.1.2.8 Visual Resources
5.1.3 No-Action Alternative
5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS ...
5.2.1 Power Generation
-5.2.2 Flow Regulation
5.2.3 Access Plan ..
5.3 MITIGATIVE MEASURES
5.3.1 Land Resources
5.3.1.1 Geology and Soils
5.3.1.2 Land Use and Ownership
5.3.2 Climate, Air Quality, Noise
5.3.3 Water Quantity and Quality
5. 3.4 Aquatic Communities ..
5.3.5 Terrestrial Communities
5.3.6 Recreation Resources
5.3. 7 Socioeconomic Factors .
5.3.8 Visual Resources
5.3.9 Cultural Resources
5.4 RECOMMENDED AND ONGOING STUDIES
5. 4.1 Land Resources ..... .
5.4.1.1 Geology and Soils .. .
5.4.1.2 Land Use and Ownership
5.4.2 Aquatic Communities ..
5.4.3 Terrestrial Communities
5.4.4 Recreation Resources
5.4.5 Socioeconomic Factors
5.4.6 Visual Resources
REFERENCES . . . .
6. LIST OF PREPARERS
7. LIST OF RECIPIENTS
8. ATTACHMENTS . .
ATTACHMENT I. COMMISSION ORDER 415-D ...
ATTACHMENT II. FORM L -2. FEDERAL ENERGY COMMISSION TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF
LICENSE FOR UNCONSTRUCTED MAJOR PROJECT AFFECTING LANDS OF THE UNITED STATES
APPENDICES:
APPENDIX A. LOAD GROWTH FORECAST: THE ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY FORECASTS
APPENDIX B. FUTURE ENERGY RESOURCES
APPENDIX C. ENERGY CONSERVATION
APPENDIX D. 345-kV TRANSMISSION LINE ELECTRICAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
APPENDIX E. GEOLOGY AND SOILS .
5-2
5-2
5-2
5-2
5-3
5-3
5-4
5-4
5-4
5-4
5-4
5-5
5-5
5-5
5-5
5-5
5-5
5-5
5-6
5-6
5-6
5-7
5-7
5-8
5-8
5-8
5-8
5-8
5-8
5-9
5-9
5-10
5-11
5-12
5-12
5-13
5-14
5-14
5-14
5-14
5-14
5-15
5-15
5-15
5-15
5-16
5-16
6-1
7-1
8-1
8-1
8-4
Volume 2
Volume 2
Volume 2
Volume 2
Volume 3
xvi
CONTENTS (Cont'd)
Page
APPENDIX F. LAND USE AND OWNERSHIP Volume 3
APPENDIX G. CLIMATE, AIR QUALITY, NOISE Volume 3
APPENDIX H. WATER RESOURCES . . Volume 4
APPENDIX I. FISHERIES AND AQUATIC RESOURCES Volume.4
APPENDIX J. TERRESTRIAL BOTANICAL RESOURCES Volume 5
APPENDIX K. TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE RESOURCES Volume 5
APPENDIX L. RECREATION RESOURCES Volume 6
APPENDIX M. VISUAL RESOURCES Volume 6
APPENDIX N. SOCIOECONOMICS Volume 7
APPENDIX 0. CULTURAL RESOURCES Volume 7
II:
I
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
COVER PHOTO: Artist's Rendition of the Proposed Watana Dam and Reservoir
1-1
1-2
1-3
1-4
1-5
1-6
1-7
1-8
1-9
1-10
1-ll
1-12
1-13
1-14
1-15
2-1
2-2
2-3
2-4
2-5
2-6
2-7
2-8
2-9
2-10
2-ll
2-12
2-13
2-14
2-15
2-16
2-17
2-18
2-19
2-20
2-21
2-22
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
3-5
3-6
The Alaska Railway from Seward to Eielson Air Force Base ..... .
Electrical Transmission System of the Railbelt . . . . . . .... .
Alternative APA Load Projections for 1985-2010 Comparing Data Resources, Inc.,
Reference, Alaska Department of Revenue Mean, and Alaska Department of Revenue
30% Cases ............................... .
Projected World Oil Prices in 1983 Dollars Per Barrel, Including Possible
Supply Disruption ..................... .
Price of Oil Using Various Forecasts, Including Department of Energy,
Sherman H. Clark Associates, and Alaska Department of Revenue ....
FERC Staff Load Projections and Selected APA Load Projections for 1983-2D10,
Including APA Reference, Department of Revenue Mean, FERC High, FERC Medium,
and Department of Revenue 30% Cases . . . . . .
Mutually Exc 1 us i ve Deve 1 opments . . . . . . . .
Schematic Representation of Tunnel Alternatives ..
Profile: Watana-Devil Canyon Development .... .
Profile: Vee-High Devil Canyon Development ... .
Profile: Susitna III-High Devil Canyon Development
Profile: Watana-Tunnel 3 Development ...... .
Profile: Watana-Modified High Devil Canyon Development
Natural Gas and Petroleum Resources of the Railbelt Area, Including Natural
Gas, Petroleum Products, and Crude Pipelines
Major Coal Resources of the Railbelt Area ....
Vicinity Map--Susitna Development ....... .
Watana Reservoir Plan and Generalized Location of Borrow Areas
Watana Facilities--Plan ...... .
Watana Facilities--Sections .... .
Site Layout--Devil Canyon Development
Devil Canyon Reservoir Plan and Generalized Location of Borrow Areas
Susitna Project 345-kV Transmission System
Construction Schedule--Watana .... .
Construction Schedule--Devil Canyon ... .
Reservoir Rule Curves--Watana and Devil Canyon
Plan of Proposed Access Routes .....
Map Showing Recreation Resource Areas Included in Applicant•s Proposed
Recreation Plan ..................... .
Alternative Access Corridors ............... .
Alternative Trartsmission Line Corridors--Central Study Area .
Alternative Transmission Line Corridors--Northern Study Area
Alternative Transmission Line Corridors--Southern Study Area
Locations of Alternative Susitna River Developments
Location of Thermal and Hydroelectric Alternatives
Site Layout--Browne Development ...
Site Layout--Chakachamna Development
Site Layout--Keetna Development .. .
Site Layout--Snow Development ... .
Land Use Patterns within the Upper and Middle Susitna River Basin
Land Ownership and Management Patterns in the Upper and Middle Susitna
River Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... .
Map of the Susitna River Drainage Basin Showing the Locations of U.S. Geological
Survey Gaging Stations . . . . . . . . . . ......... .
Generalized Aquatic Habitat Types Important to Salmon in the Susitna River
Annual Hydrographs for Mean Daily Flows and Estimated 10% and 90% Daily
Exceedence Flows at Four USGS Gaging Stations on the Susitna River
Seasonal Patterns in the Mean Alkalinity and Mean Calcium Concentrations in
Solution in the Susitna River at Vee Canyon, Gold Creek, and Talkeetna
xvii
1-2
1-7
1-ll
1-13
1-14
1-17
1-21
1-23
1-25
1-26
1-27
1-28
1-29
1-38
1-41
2-1
2-1
2-2
2-2
2-2
2-2
2-4
2-5
2-5
2-10
2-ll
2-15
2-31
2-34
2-33
2-35
2-36
2-38
2-42
2-43
2-44
2-41
3-2
3-4
3-6
3-7
3-8
3-ll
xviii
FIGURES (Cont'd)
3-7 Seasonal Patterns in the Mean Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations in the Susitna
River at Vee Canyon, Gold Creek, and Talkeetna . . . . . . . . . 3-12
3-8 Relationship in the Susitna River at Devil Canyon Between Total Dissolved Gas,
Expressed as Percent Saturation, and Discharge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-13
3-9 Seasonal Patterns in the Mean Concentrations of Dissolved Solids and Suspended
Solids in the Susitna River at Vee Canyon, Gold Creek, and Talkeetna 3-14
3-10 Comparison of Averaged Diurnal Temp-erature Fluctuations in the Mainstem and
Slough 21 During September 1981 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-16
3-11 Upper Cook Inlet and the Susitna Drainage, Showing Percent of Salmon Migrating
Past Sunshine Station that Pass Talkeetna and Curry Stations, and the Relative
Sizes of Runs Past the Yentna and Sunshine Stations . . . . . 3-18
3-12 Generalized Life Cycles of the Five Pacific Salmon in the Susitna River
Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-19
3-13 Generalized Life Cycles of Anadromous Eulachon and Bering Cisco in the Susitna
River Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-22
3-14 Timing of Stages of Salmon in the Susitna River from Talkeetna to Devil Canyon 3-23
3-15 Commercial Catch of Salmon in the Upper Cook Inlet, by Species, 1954-1982 . . . 3-26
3-16 General Vegetation Distribution in Southcentral Alaska and Locations of Proposed
Dam Sites, Non-Susitna Alternative Hydropower Sites, and Alternative Thermal
Unit Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-27
3-17 Locations of Creeks and Water Bodies in the Upper and Middle Susitna Basin Around
Which Wetlands Have Been Identified . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-32
3-18 Schematic Representation of Recreation Features in the Susitna Project Area . . . 3-36
3-19 Legend for Figure 3-18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-37
3-20 Map of the Location of Susitna Hydropower Project Structures and Features of the
Socioeconomic Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-39
3-21 Views of Selected Landscape Character Types and Prominent Natural Features of the
3-22
Upper and Middle Susitna Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-50
Se l ected 1 Landscape Character Types and Prominent Natura 1 Features Along the
Proposed Transmission Line Corri dar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-51
3-23 Major Cultural Resource Site Groups in the Middle and Upper Susitna Basin . 3-54
3-24 Locations of Susitna Hydropower Alternatives and Features of the Socioeconomic
Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-60
4-1 Comparison of Median Monthly Streamflow at Gold Creek before and during the
Filling of Watana Reservoir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-8
4-2 Comparison of Maximum, Mean, and Minimum Monthly Flows at Gold Creek under
Preproject Conditions, Watana Operation, and Combined Watana/Devil Canyon
Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-10
4-3 Annual Flood Frequency Curves at Gold Creek for Preproject Conditions, Operation
of Watana Reservoir, and Combined Watana/Devi l Canyon Operation . . . . . 4-11
4-4 Changes in Wetted Surface Area of Selected Sloughs during Project Filling and
Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-12
4-5 Frequency of Occurrence of Acute Access Limitations for Salmon to Nine Side
Sloughs above Talkeetna . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-14
4-6 Schematic Diagram of Intake Flow Field under Isothermal Conditions, Strong
Stratification and a Deep Thermocline, Strong Stratification and a Shallow
Thermocline, and a Weak Vert i ca 1 Temperature Gradient . . . . . . . . . . . 4-22
4-7 Predicted Downstream Water Temperature Resulting from Combined Dam Operation
under Late Fall/Early Winter Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-24
4-8 Predicted Early Emergence of Pink and Chum Salmon . . . . . . . . . . . 4-28
4-9 Incubation Rates for Chum Salmon Embryos Spawned on August 15 under Different
Temperature Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-29
4-10 Temperature and Cumulative Growth for Juvenile Sockeye Salmon in the Susitna
j;' 4-11
River between Devil Canyon and Talkeetna, before and after the Project 4-31
General Ranges for Moose Overwintering in Upper and Middle Susitna Basin,
1977-1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-39
4-12 General Ranges for Moose Calving in Upper and Middle Susitna Basin, 1977-1982 4-40
4-13 General Pathways for Seasonal Movement of the Nenana-Upper Susitna Subherd of
Caribou . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-42
4-14 General Extent of Suitable Black Bear Habitat in Upper and Middle Susitna Basin 4-44
4-15 General Location of Prime Peregrine Habitat within the Proposed Transmission
Line Corridor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-46
4-16 Artist 1 s Rendition of the Proposed Watana Dam and Reservoir . . . 4-65
4-17 Artist 1 s Rendition of the Proposed Devil Canyon Dam and Reservoir . . . . . . 4-67
Table
1-1
1-2
1-3
1-4
1-5
1-6
1-7
1-8
1-9
1-10
1-11
1-12
1-13
1-14
1-15
1-16
1-17
1-18
1-19
1-20
1-21
1-22
1-23
1-24
1-25
1-26
2-1
2-2
2-3
2-4
2-5
2-6
2-7
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
3-5
3-6
3-7
3-8
3-9
3-10
LIST OF TABLES
1981 Alaskan Fuel Consumption ................. .
Comparative Cost for Heating Fuels in the Railbelt for 1981 .. .
Capacity and Generation for Railbelt Utility Generating Stations, 1982
Hydroelectric Plants in the Railbelt ... .
Schedule of Planned Utility Additions ........ .
APA Reference Case, World Oil Price Scenario .... .
APA Reference Case, Railbelt Load Projection, 1983-2010
APA Load Projections Relative to the Reference Case Forecast
Annual Load Growth Implied by APA Forecasts ........ .
Railbelt Load Forecast, FERC Staff Medium World Oil Price Scenario, 1983-2022
Railbelt Load Forecast, FERC Staff High World Oil Price Scenario, 1983-2022
System Generation Capability--Selected Years
Susitna Schedule of Retirements ......... .
Potential Susitna Basin Hydroelectric Developments
Data on Staff Susitna Basin Alternatives
Summary of Results of Screening Process ..... .
Shortl i sted Sites ................ .
Data on Staff Non-Susitna Basin Alternatives
Summary of OPCOST Data on Susitna Basin Alternatives, Proposed Project and
Preferred Alternatives ........................ .
Summary of OPCOST Data on Preferred Non-Susitna Basin Development Plans ..
Cook Inlet Gas Scenario Cost Comparison with Proposed Susitna Project; Present
Worth and Levelized Total Annual Cost--$106 .....
Load Forecast Used for Thermal Alternatives Evaluation
Fuel Price Projections ............... .
Nenana Coal Scenario Cost Comparison with Susitna; Present Worth and
Level ized Total Annual Cost--$10 6 . . . . . . ..... .
Comparison of Susitna Basin and Non-Susitna Basin Hydroelectric Development
Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Comparison of Thermal Development Plans ..
Onsite Construction and Operations Workforce Requirements--1985 to 2002
Monthly Flow Requirements at Gold Creek ............... .
Impacts Issues and the Applicant 1 s Proposed Mitigation Features for Anticipated
Filling and Operational Impacts to Aquatic Habitats, Susitna Hydroelectric
Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................. .
Plant Addition Technical Parameters and Economic Assumptions--Combined-Cycle and
Combustion-Turbine Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Plant Addition Technical Parameters and Economic Assumptions--Coal-Fired and
Combustion-Turbine Units .....
Required Thermal Resources--Medium Load Growth
Minimum Flows for the Alternative Hydro Sites .
Descriptions of Generalized Vegetation Classes Used for Mapping in
Figure 3-16 ................... .
Viereck and Oyrness Vegetation Types Most Likely to Occur within the Vegetation
Classes Delineated in Figure 3-16 ........ .
Existing Trails in the Susitna Project Recreation Study Area
Baseline Population Projections, 1970-2010 ........ .
Mat-Su Borough Planning Department Baseline Population Projections
Total Labor Force and Unemployment Rates for Proposed Project Area and
Transmission Line Route, 1976 through 1981 ........... .
Baseline Projections of Number of Households, 1970-2010 ....... .
Existing or Planned Capacity of Community Services of Project-Area
Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Years When Community Service Needs Will Equal Existing or Planned Capacity in
Project-Area Communities Using ISER Population Projections
Years When Community Service Needs Wi 11 Equa 1 Existing or Planned Cap·acity Using
Mat-Su Borough Population Projections ..................... .
xix
Page
1-4
1-5
1-6
1-8
1-8
1-10
1-10
1-12
1-12
1-16
1-16
1-18
1-18
1-20
1-24
1-31
1-32
1-32
1-36
1-37
1-39
1-40
1-40
1-42
1-44
1-44
2-7
2-9
2-26
2-37
2-40
2-45
2-47
3-28
3-30
3-35
3-40
3-42
3-43
3-45
3-46
3-47
3-48
3-ll
3-12
3-13
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-4
4-5
ill 4-6
4-7
4-8
4-9
4-10
4-ll
4-12
4-13
XX
TABLES (Cont'd)
Watershed and Stream Flow Characteristics of Alternative, Out-of-Basin
Hydroelectric Projects ............. .
Summary of Five-Year Average Sport Fish Harvests in River Basins that Include
Alternative Hydropower Sites ............. .
Estimated Salmon Escapement from the Chakachamna Region, 1982 ....
Minimum Flows at Gold Creek from the Proposed Project and a Comparison to
Natural Flow Regime Statistics .................... .
Change in Potential Summer Growth of Juvenile Salmon in the Talkeetna-to-Mouth
Reach Due to Filling of Watana Reservoir and Operation of Watana and Devil
Canyon Dams . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . .
Acreages of Permanent and Temporary Vegetation and Wetland Removal Due to the
Proposed Susitna Project and Acreages of Vegetation and Wetland Disturbed by
Proposed Power Transmission Corridors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cumulative Distribution of Projected Project Population to Impact-Area
Communities for Alternate Years, 1990, and 2002 ............ .
Cumulative Distribution of Annual Project-Induced Population to Mat-Su Borough
Communities as Projected by Applicant and Mat-Su Borough Planning Department
Cumulative Projections of Total Population Including Susitna Project-Induced
Population, as Made by Applicant and Mat-Su Borough for Alternate Years, 1990,
and 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Percentage over Baseline ISER Projections of Population Growth Projected with
Susitna Project ............................ .
Cumulative Projected Number of Households in Impact Area Communities for
Alternate Years, 1990, and 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Additional Community Services Requirements over Baseline for Project-Induced
Population in 1990 ........................ .
Years When Existing or Planned Community Services Capacity of Project Area
Communities Would Be Exceeded . . . . . . ........ .
Comparison of Storage Volume, Reservoir Area, and Miles of Stream Inundated for
In-Basin Hydro Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . .....
Comparison of Estimated Quantifiable and Unquantifiable Disturbance to
Vegetation Among the Power Generation Scenarios . . . . . . . . . .
Relative Potential for Impacts to Wildlife as a Result of Alternative Generation
Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3-66
3-67
3-68
4-9
4-27
4-34
4-51
4-52
4-53
4-54
4-57
4-59
4-61
4-71
4-95
4-96
SUMMARY
The action before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is an application for a license
to construct and operate the proposed Susitna Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 7114. The Applicant,
Alaska Power Authority, seeks authorization to construct and operate a hydroelectric generating
system located on the Susitna River, approximately 140 miles (mi) [220 kilometers (km)] north-
northeast of Anchorage, Alaska. The system would be comprised of two dams (Watana and Devil
Canyon), reservoirs, and powerhouses with an installed capacity of approximately 1,620 megawatts
(MW) producing an average of approximately 6,570 gigawatt hours (GWh) annually. The Applicant
proposes to utilize the power and energy developed by the Susitna project to serve the needs of
customers within the Railbelt region of Alaska. This region includes Anchorage and Fairbanks,
the two largest cities in Alaska, as well as most of the population of the state. The Susitna
Hydroelectric Project would utilize waters of the Susitna River for power production. The
Susitna project would not involve a consumptive use of water, because all water would be
returned to the river via the pmverplant tailrace or spillways.
Watana dam would be located at River Mile (RM) 184 approximately 2.5 mi (4 km) upstream of the
confluence with Tsusena Creek. This earth-rock fill dam would have a impervious central core
protected by fine and coarse filters. The nominal crest elevation of the dam would be 2,205 feet
(ft) [672 meters (m)] MSL, with a maximum height of 885 ft (270 m) above the foundation and a
crest length of 4,100 ft (1,250 m). The total volume of the structure would be approximately
62 million yd 3 ( 47 million m3 ) of fill. The Watana dam would create a reservoir approximately
48 .mi (77 km) long, with a surface area cif 38,000 acres [15,400 hectares (ha)], and a gross
storage capacity of 9 million acre-feet (ac-ft) [1.2 x 10 10 cubic meters (m 3 )] with the water
surface at elevation 2185 ft (666 m) MSL, the normal maximum operating level. The maximum water
surface elevation of the reservoir would be 2201 ft (678 m) MSL, and the minimum operating level
of the reservoir would be 2,065 ft (629 m) MSL, providing a live storage of 3 million ac-ft
(4. 6 x 109 m3).
The Devil Canyon dam would be located at the upstream entrance of the Devil Canyon gorge at
RM 152 approximately 32 mi (51 km) downstream from Watana dam. The Devil Canyon dam would be a
thin arch concrete structure 646 ft (197 m) high with a crest length-to-height ratio of approxi-
mately two. The dam would have a crest el_evation of 1,463 ft (446 m) MSL and be supported by
mass concrete thrust blocks on each abutment. On the south abutment, the lower bedrock surface
would require the construction of a large thrust block and adjacent to this thrust block, a
245-ft (75-m) high earth and rockfill saddle dam to provide closure to the south bank. The
saddle dam would be a central core type similar in cross section to the Watana dam. The Devil
Canyon dam would form a reservoir approximately 26 mi (42 km) long with a water surface area of
7,8DO acres (3,2DO ha) and a gross storage capacity of 1 million ac-ft (1.4 x 10 9 m3 ) at eleva-
tion 1,455 ft (443 m) MSL, the normal maximum operating level. The maximum water surface eleva-
tion of the reservoir would be 1,466 ft (447 m) MSL, and the minimum operating level would be
1,405 ft (428 m) MSL, providing a live storage of D.35 million ac-ft (4.3 x 10 8 m3.).
The construction and operation of the Susitna development would require facilities to support
the construction activities throughout the entire construction peri ad. The most s i gni fi cant
facility would be a combination temporary camp and village constructed and maintained at the
Watana project site. The camp/village would be a largely self-sufficient community housing up
to 3,300 people during construction of the project. Upon completion of construction, most of
this facility would be dismantled and the area rehabilitated. The dismantled buildings and
other items from the camp would be used, to the extent possible, during construction of the
Devil Canyon development. The Devil Canyon camp/village would provide housing and living facili-
ties for 1,800 people during construction. The Devil Canyon camp/village would be completely
dismantled and the site rehabilitated after construction. Other temporary site facilities would
include contractors 1 work areas and roads and onsite facilities to provide power, services, and
communications. Permanent facilities would include a town or small community for approximately
130 staff members and their families located at the Watana site. Other permanent facilities
would include a maintenance building and airstrip for use during operation of the power plant.
Transmission and substation additions would be constructed in stages keyed to the differing
dates for Watana and Devil Canyon generation. Transmission facilities to be constructed for
Watana would include: (1) two 37-mi (59-km), single-circuit, 345-kV (kilovolt) outlet trans-
mission lines to connect the powerhouse substation with B new substation located at. Gold Creek
xxi
xxii
on the existing Healy-to-Willow 1 i ne (which waul d then be upgraded to 345 kV), (2) a second
345-kV line, 170 mi (270 km) long, from Healy to Willow paralleling the existing line, (3) a
pair of single-circuit, 345-kV lines, 63 mi (101 km) long, extending from Willow to the new Knik
Arm and University substations in the Anchorage area, and (4) a pair of single-circuit 345-kV
lines, 100 mi (160 km) long, extending from Healy to the new Ester substation west of Fairbanks.
Transmission facilities to be constructed for Devil Canyon would include: (1) 8 mi (13 km) of
345-kV, double-circuit outlet transmission from the powerhouse substation to the Gold Creek
substation, and (2) an additional 345-kV circuit, 123 mi (197 km) long, from Gold Creek to Knik
Arm, paralleling the previously constructed two single-circuit lines.
The Applicant's proposed access plan would provide for rail and road transport of the necessary
materials, equipment, and personnel to the Watana-Devil Canyon construction sites. A railhead
and storage facility covering approximately 40 acres (16 ha) would be constructed at Cantwell
along the existing Alaska Railroad. From this facility, access to the Watana site would be
along an existing road, 2 mi (3 km) to the intersection of the George Parks and Denali Highways,
then easterly along the Denali Highway for 21.3 mi (34.1 km) to a new road. The new road would
be constructed to the Watana camp site approximately 42 mi (67 km) due south from the Denali
Highway. Access to the Devil Canyon site would be along a new road, approximately 20 mi (30 km)
in length, constructed from the Watana access road. A high-level suspension bridge would be
required where the· access road would cross the Susitna River downstream of the Devil Canyon dam.
Rail access to the Devil Canyon site would require construction of a spur between the existing
Alaska Railroad at Gold Creek and the camp site.
The Applicant's proposed construction schedule spans a period from April 1985, beginning with
access road construction at Watana, to October 2002, when commercial operation of Devil Canyon
units would begin. This schedule is predicated on the awarding of a FERC license by December 31,
1984. Two constraints were considered in the development of this schedule: the issuance date
of the FERC 1 i cense and the need to have four units on 1 i ne by January 1994 in order to meet
Railbelt load growth as projected by the Applicant.
The critical path of activities to meet these constraints would be through site access, site
facilities, diversion, and main dam construction. The proposed schedule would require that
extensive planning, bid selection, and commitments be made before the end of 1984 to permit work
to progress on schedule during 1985 and 1986. Year-round road access to the site would be
required by October 1, 1985; equipment would be transported overland via winter trail during the
winter of 1984 in order for an airfield to be constructed by July 1985. This would allow site
facilities to be developed in a very short time to support the main construction activities. A
camp to house approximately 1,000 people would be constructed during the first 18 months.
Onsite power generating equipment would have to be installed in 1985 to supply power for camp
and construction activities, and an aggregate processing plant and concrete hatching plant would
have to be operational to start diversion tunnel concrete work by April 1986. Excavation of the
access tunnel into the powerhouse complex would start in late 1987. Stage I concrete would
begin in 1989, and installation of major mechanical and electrical work would start in 1991.
Construction of the transmission lines and switchyards has been scheduled to begin in 1989 and
to be completed before commissioning of the first unit. The first four units are scheduled to
be on line by the beginning of 1994 and the remaining two units in early 1994.
The schedule for Devil Canyon was developed to meet the on-line power requirement of all four
units in 2002. The critical path of activities was determined to follow through site
facilities, diversion, and main dam construction. The development of site facilities at Devil
Canyon would begin slowly in 1994, with a rapid acceleration in 1995 through 1997. It has been
assumed that site access built to Watana would exist at the start of construction. A road would
be constructed connecting the Devil Canyon site to the Watana access road, including a high-
level bridge over the Susitna River downstream of the Devil Canyon Dam. At the same time, a
railroad spur would be constructed to permit rail access to the southern bank of the Susitna
near Devil Canyon. These activities would be completed by mid-1994. Within a short period of
time thereafter, construction would begin on most major structures.
Excavation and concreting of the single diversion tunnel would begin in 1995. River closure and
cofferdam construction would take place to permit start of dam construction in 1996. The con-
struction of the arch dam would be the most critical construction activity from start of excava-
tion in 1996 until topping out in 2001. Excavation of access into the powerhouse cavern would
begin in 1996. Stage I concrete would begin in 1998, and installation of major mechanical and
electrical work would start in 2000. The spillway and intake would be scheduled for completion
by the end of 2000 to permit reservoir filling the next year. The additional transmission
facilities needed for Devil Canyon would be scheduled for completion by the time the final unit
was ready for commissioning in late 2001.
Workforce requirements for construction of the Watana development would vary from approximately
1,100 people at the start of access road construction in 1985 to a peak of about 3,500 in 1990.
A rapid drop in workforce needs would occur between 1990 and 1995 when construction would be
xxiii
complete and the operation staff of 105 would occupy the permanent town. Workforce requirements
for construction of the Devil Canyon development would vary from about 100 in 1994 to a peak of
1,700 in 1998, reducing to a permanent staff of approximately 25 in 2002.
The Staff analyzed the potential environmental consequences of the proposed project in relation
to several alternatives. Alternative development along the middle Susitna River included alterna-
tive dam designs and configurations, flow regimes, access routes, and transmission line routes.
In addition, Staff considered alternative power generation scenarios that would not involve
development along the Susitna River. These scenarios included: natural-gas generation of power
at sites around Cook Inlet; generation of power at Nenana and Willow using coal from the Nenana
coal field; and a combined hydropower-thermal generation of power at several sites in South-
central and Interior Alaska. Each alternative scenario that was addressed was considered capable
of meeting load growth needs in Alaska's Railbelt region and of providing equivalent energy
generation. The array of alternative scenarios was chosen to be representative of the feasible
extremes of development that would meet projected load growth.
The Staff considered three alternative development schemes within the Susitna River Basin:
Watana I with Devil Canyon; Watana I with Modified High Devil Canyon, and Watana I with a
reregulating dam.
Watana !-Devil Canyon development would be identical to the proposed project, with the exception
that Watana dam would be scaled down to have a crest elevation of 2,125 ft (646 m) MSL and a
normal reservoir level of 2,100 ft (637 m) MSL [versus 2,210 ft (671 m) and 2,185 ft (663 m)
MSL, respectively, for the proposed dam]. This project would operate in the same manner as the
proposed project, i.e., Watana I would operate as a baseload plant until completion of Devil
Canyon. After completion of Devil Canyon, Watana I would operate as a peaking plant and Devil
Canyon would be operated to regulate Watana I discharges to meet downstream fishery requirements.
Watana !-Modified High Devil Canyon development would be as described above except a modified
High Devil Canyon development would be located at approximately RM 157, or about 5 mi (8 km)
upstream from the proposed Devil Canyon site. The dam would be of earth and rockfill construc-
tion with an impervious core; it would have a crest elevation of 1,495 ft (454 m) MSL. It would
have a normal maximum water surface elevation of 1,470 ft (447 m) MSL and a maximum height of
approximately 595 ft (181 m). This development would be operated in the same manner as the
Watana !-Devil Canyon project.
Watana 1-Reregulating dam development would utilize a reregulating dam located approximately
16 mi (25 km) downstream of Watana I. The reregulating dam would be of earth and rockfill
construction, with a crest elevation of 1,500 ft (456 m) MSL and a maximum height of approxi-
mately 250 ft (76 m). A spillway would be located on the northern abutment, and a 200-MW power-
house would be downstream of the dam on the southern bank. A tunnel and a powerhouse at Devil
Canyon could be added in the future. However, if further study indicates that the tunnel is an
economically feasible alternative, the Reregulating dam powerhouse construction could be staged
to avoid installing capacity that could not be used if water was diverted to the tunnel power-
house. The project would be operated in the same manner as the two previously discussed develop-
ments.
The gas-fired generation scenario analyzed by the Staff assumed the phased installation of eight
200-MW, gas-fired, baseload, combined-cycle units and two 70-MW gas-fired combustion-turbine
peaking units. The combined-cycle units each would include two combustion-turbine generator
units, a heat recovery boiler using the exhaust gases of the combustion turbines to produce
superheated steam, and a steam turbine generator. The combined cycle substantially improves
power generation efficiency. A plant with two combustion turbines can be operated at partial
load with one of the gas turbines out of service.
In its analysis, the Staff assumed that the combined-cycle and combustion-turbine units would be
sited in proximity to natural-gas distribution pipelines. Because of the greater volume of gas
required by the combined-cycle units, it is expected that they would be concentrated in the
western Cook Inlet area and on the Kenai Peninsula. Specific sites considered were along the
Chuitna and Beluga rivers, near Kenai, and near Anchorage.
For its coal-fired generation scenario, the Staff assumed the phased installation of five 200-MW,
coal-fired, baseload units and ten 70-MW combustion-turbine peaking units to meet the projected
Railbelt power requirements. The coal units were assumed to be of conventional design and to
use dry flue gas desulfurization scrubbers for the removal of sulfur oxides, baghouse particulate
removal, wet/dry mechanical draft cooling towers for heat rejection, and pulverized coal for
combustion. The assumed capital cost was deemed to reflect the state-of-the-art with regard to
en vi ronmenta 1 safeguards and an abi 1 ity to meet estab 1 i shed performance standards. The
combustion-turbine peaking units were assumed to be simple-cycle machines using natural-gas
fuel.
xxiv
In the coal scenario, the Staff assumed that three 200-MW coal generation units would be located
in the Nenana area and two 200-MW units in the Willow area. Combustion-turbine facilities would
be dispersed throughout Cook Inlet area. Coal delivery to the Nenana and Willow stations was
assumed to be by unit train from the vicinity of the Usibelli Mine in the Nenana coal field.
Fuel for the combustion-turbine installations was assumed to be available from gas distribution
pipelines.
The final scenario considered by the staff was a combined hydro-thermal generating scenario
consisting of hydropower faci1 i t_i es at sites outside the Susitna Basin p 1 us various thermal
(coal-and gas-fired) units. The hydroelectric sites considered in this scenario were Browne,
Chakachamna, Johnson, Keetna, and Snow.
The Browne site is located on the Nenana River near Healy, approximately 75 mi (120 km) south-
west of Fairbanks. The Browne dam would be either a concrete gravity or a concrete-faced rock-
fill structure. It would have a crest elevation of 995ft (302m) MSL and a maximum height of
approximately 235 ft (71 m). A diversion tunnel and flip-bucket spillway would be constructed
on the northern abutment and a power tunnel and surface powerhouse on the southern abutment.
Chakachamna Lake is located in the Alaska range approximately 80 mi (130 km) west of Anchorage.
The lake discharges into the Chakachatna River, which runs southeasterly out of the lake and
eventually discharges into Cook Inlet. The alternative development here would be a lake tap of
Chakachamna Lake, with a diversion tunnel [approximately 23 ft (7 m) in diameter] to the MacArthur
River Basin. An underground powerhouse would be located on the MacArthur River near the base of
the Blockade Glacier.
The Johnson site is located on the Tanana River, approximately 120 mi (190 km) southeast of
Fairbanks, and has a drainage area of 10,450 square miles (mi 2 ) [27, 060 square ki 1 ometers
(km 2 )]. The Johnson dam would be a concrete gravity structure with earthen dikes, and would
have a maximum height of about 140 ft (40 m). The reservoir would have a maximum water surface
elevation of 1470 ft (447 m) MSL and would have an active storage of about 5 million ac-ft
(6.5 x 109m3).
The Keetna site is located on the Talkeetna River, approximately 70 mi (110 km) north of Anchorage.
The Talkeetna River, with headwaters in the Talkeetna Mountains, flows southwesterly to its
confluence with the Susitna River. The damsite has a drainage area of 1,260 mi 2 (3,260 km 2 ).
Streamflow records indicate the yearly average discharge at the site to be 1 million ac-ft
(2.09 x 10 9 m3). Power development would include a dam with a diversion tunnel. The dam would
be of earth and rockfill construction and would have a crest elevation of 965 ft (293 m) MSL,
with a maximum height of approximately 365 ft (111m). The spillway and power facilities would
be located south of the dam.
The Snow site is located on the Snow River in the Kenai Peninsula. Power development would
include a dam with diversion through a tunnel approximately 7,500 to 10,000 ft (2,300 to
3,600 m) long. An earth and rockfill dam with a crest elevation of 1,210 ft (367 m) MSL and a
maximum height of approximately 310 ft (90 m) would be constructed. The diversion and power
tunnel would be located on the southern abutment, and a spillway would be constructed at the
southern end of the reservoir approximately 1 mi (2 km) from the dam.
The average annual streamflow at the dam site is estimated at 510,000 to 535,000 ac-ft
(6.3 x 10 8 to 6.6 x 10 8 m3). The dam site would be fed by 105 mi 2 (272 km 2 ) of the river's
166-mi 2 (430-km 2 ) drainage area.
The thermal portion of a combined hydro-thermal scenario would consist of the same types of
thermal generating units considered in the coal and gas scenarios discussed previously. These
would include one 200-MW conventional coal-fired unit of the type discussed in the coal scenario,
three or four 200-MW combined-cycle gas units as discussed in the gas scenario, and three 70-MW
gas-fired combustion-turbine units as discussed in both of the thermal scenarios. Use of the
lower-cost hydropower resources in the combined scenario would reduce the number of thermal
units needed to meet power requirements through the 30 years of operation, as compared to the
two all-thermal scenarios.
The single coal-fired unit in the combined hydro-thermal scenario was again assumed to be in the
Nenana area of the Railbelt, taking advantage of the expansion capability of the Usibelli Mine.
Gas-fired combined-cycle units were again located in the Kenai Peninsula and on the western side
of the Cook Inlet (the Beluga area) close to natural-gas fuel supplies. Required gas-fired
combustion-turbine units for peaking were again assumed to be located near natural-gas distribu-
tion pipelines.
The Staff has comp 1 eted a detai 1 ed analysis of the en vi ronmenta l consequences of implementing
the proposed Susitna hydropower development or any of the alternatives that were considered.
I
XXV
The Staff has found that significant environmental impacts would occur as a consequence of the
proposed action:
1. Geology and Soils
Accelerated slope erosion and failure along the shorelines of the reservoirs;
Accelerated soil erosion and permafrost thaw as a result of vegetation clearing for
reservoirs, construction facilities, and rights-of-way.
2. Land Use and Ownership
Conversion of the remote, poorly accessible upper and middle Susitna River Basin into
an area of greater human activity and development.
3. Water Quality and Quantity
Nitrogen supersaturation due to release of excess flows between July and September in
almost every year of operation;
Reduced mean summer flows and increased mean winter flows;
60% reduction in mean annual flood; stabilization and narrowing of river channel above
Talkeetna;
Decreased summer turbidity and increased winter turbidity.
4. Fisheries
Restricted access to spawning sloughs used by chum and sockeye salmon;
50% reduction in annual juvenile growth for salmon; growth reduction by 60% to 70% for
early emigrating chum and pink salmon;
Increased fishing pressure on species throughout the middle and upper Susitna Basin
due to improved access.
5. Terrestrial Communities
Inundation and complete or selective clearing of more than 56,0DO acres (22,700 ha) of
vegetation;
Reduction in the moose population in the upper and middle Susitna Basin as a consequence
of losing about 60 mi 2 (150 km 2 ) of overwintering and calving habitat;
Reduction in the black bear population in the basin as a consequence of inundation of
already limited habitat and of 50% of the available denning sites;
Doubling of the hunting pressure on big game in the basin and consequent increases in
wildlife mortality;
Loss or disturbance of 4 bald eagle and 16 to 18 golden eagle nesting locations.
6. Recreation Resources
Disruption of wilderness-type recreation experiences in the upper and middle Susitna
Basin, including hunting and fishing;
Increased competition for use of recreation resources and the potential for degradation
of recreation resource areas, particularly during peak construction periods;
Inundation of the Vee Canyon and Devil Canyon rapids,· which are noteable white-water
recreation resources;
7. Socioeconomic Factors
Large population increases followed by decreases ("boom-and-bust" conditions) in
Trapper Creek, Talkeetna, Cantwell, and other communities in the project area;
Shortages in housing and community services;
Potential cultural conflicts between inmigrants and current residents;
Alteration in patterns of human use of fish and wildlife in the upper and middle
Susitna Basin;
Need to alter current fish and wildlife management goals and practices in response to
changes in resource use patterns in the basin.
xxvi
8. Vi sua 1 Resources
Significant visual contrast between the project features and the natural setting of
the Susitna River Valley landscapes;
Exposure of mudflats during spring and summer along the shores of the Watana reservoir;
Vegetation clearing and transmission line structures visible at a number of points
along the Parks Highway, Alaska Railroad, and Denali Highway; from various locations
in Railbelt communities, Denali National Park and Preserve, and Denali State Park; and
from the air.
The Staff also identified a number of other significant impacts of implementing alternatives to
the proposed projects, including:
Significant consumptive use of regional coal and gas reserves for thermal alternatives
to the proposed project;
Inundation of portions of the Parks and Alaska highways with filling of the reservoirs
that would be associated with the Browne and Johnson hydropower alternatives;
Potential for impaired visibility in the Class I area at Denali National Park as a
result of emissions from three to five 200-MW coal-fired units at Nenana (one or two
units should not result in significant impairment of visibility);
Potential violation of PSD Class II increment for S0 2 (24-hr average) at elevated
terrain northeast of Nenana due to three to five 200-MW coal-fired units at Nenana
(one or two units would not result in violations);
Potential violation of PSD Class I increment for S0 2 (24-hr average) at Denali National
Park due to four or five 200-MW coal-fired units at Nenana (one to three units would
not result in violations);
Potential loss of major sockeye salmon population at Lake Chakachamna due to river
rerouting;
Potential loss of salmon habitat at the Keetna hydropower site;
Potential loss of salmon habitat at the Johnson hydropower site;
Increased pressure on fisheries due to improved access for all hydropower and thermal
alternatives;
Dedication of more than 115,000 acres (46,000 ha) of land and vegetation to project
use in the combined hydro-thermal alternative;
Disruption of a major river touring route along the Nenana River as a result of the
Browne hydropower alternative;
Alternating increases and decreases in populations of communities near alternative
sites resulting in the boomtown syndrome;
Alteration of aesthetic quality in area of alternative developments.
In reviewing the various alternative power generation scenarios (including the proposed project),
the Staff concluded that, from an environmental standpoint only, the thermal alternatives (natural-
gas and coal-fired generating facilities) would have the least severe consequences. Additionally,
based on considerations of engineering feasibility, economic characteristics, and environmental
impacts, the Staff concluded that a mixed therma 1-based generation scenario, with selected
non-Susitna hydropower projects added as needed, appears to be the most effective approach to
meeting the projected generation requirements of the Railbelt area. The Staff further recommended
that if any hydropower development is authorized for the Susitna Basin, it should be licensed
and constructed in stages, with the first stage being Watana I.
The Staff concluded that the proposed project access route from Denali Highway to the Watana dam
site would result in substantial adverse impacts to fish and wildlife populations, and therefore
recommended that access to the Devil Canyon and Watana project areas be restricted by develop-
ment and use of only the proposed Gold Creek-to-Devil Canyon and Devil Canyon-to-Watana access
routes.
The Staff. recommended that if the proposed project is authorized·, the minimum releases from
project dams proposed by the Applicant [12,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) or 340 cubic meters
per second (m 3 /s)] be augmonted with periodic spiking flows up to a combined totar release of
20,000 cf& (566 m3 /s) during the salmon spawning season (August 1 to September 15). These spike
releases should occur for at least three continuous days, and should occur during at least three
different periods during the indicated spawning season.
1. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION
1.1 PURPOSE OF ACTION
The proposed action before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) involves an applica-
tion for license for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 7114, by the Alaska Power
Authority (APA)* seeking authorization to construct power facilities with a total installed
capacity of approximately 1,620 megawatts (MW) producing an average of approximately
6,574 gigawatt-hours (GWh) of electricity annually. The Applicant proposes to use the power and
energy developed by the Susitna project to serve the needs of customers within the 11 Railbelt"
region of Alaska. This region includes the two largest cities in Alaska--Anchorage and
Fairbanks--as well as most of the population of the state. The.Susitna Hydroelectric Project
would utilize waters of the Susitna River for power production. The Susitna project would not
involve a consumptive use of water, since all water would be returned to the river through the
powerplant tailrace or spillways.
1.2 NEED FOR POWER
1.2.1 Historical Energy Requirements
1.2.1.1 Perspective on Geography and Economy of the Region
The Alaskan Railbelt encompasses more than 150,000 square miles (mi 2 ) [385,000 square kilometers
(km 2 )] of territory, stretching from the Kenai Peninsula on the Gulf of Alaska and Cook Inlet in
the south to Fairbanks and the surrounding military installations in the north. The so-called
. Southcentral portion of the Rail belt runs from the Matanuska and Susitna valleys north of
Anchorage to the southern terminus of the Alaska Railroad at Seward on the Kenai Peninsula
(see Fig. 1-1).
Alaska•s agricultural production, a minor factor in the state economy, historically has been
developed most thoroughly in the Mantanuska and Susitna valleys. The growing season is 120 days
long with up to 19 hours of sunlight daily. The annual precipitation of approximately 17 inches
(in) [43 centimeters (em)] often is barely adequate for cultivation, and supplemental irrigation
is common. The Tanana Valley section, 100 miles (mi) .[160 kilometers (km)] east of Fairbanks,
is the expanding agricultural area of the state, with medium-scale grain farming.
Anchorage is the primary business center of the state and is a major port and rail station.
Fairbanks is the transportation and business center of the interior section of the Railbelt and
the takeoff and supply point for the Arctic and the Trans-Alaska Pipeline maintenance activity.
Coal is mined at Healy for the local generation of electric power, as well as for export to
Korea.
Alaskan economic development during the 20th Century, including that of the Railbelt area, can
be characterized as a sequence of boom periods and stagnations. Since the paucity of region-
specific data prevents exclusive treatment of the Railbelt, it is necessary to discuss the
economy of the state as a whole, rather than confine the description to just the Railbelt.
However, the dominance of the state's economy by the Railbelt region means that the data avail-
able at the state level are, in large part, indicative of the developments within the Railbelt.
Ever since Alaska achieved statehood in 1959, the primary factors shaping the economy have been
the government and petroleum. Indeed, prior to the pipeline boom of the mid-1970s, the major
economic force operating within the state appears to have been government payrolls.
The military_ was responsible for the major buildup of Federal government workers. Subsequent to
World War II and the Korean War, during which Alaska experienced a massive infusion of military-
related investment, the Defense Department continued to build a presence in Alaska due to the
state•s strategic location as part of the nation 1 s early warning system. Federal government
*Throughout this document, the Alaska Power Authority is also referred to as APA and the
Applicant.
1-1
,,
!
1-2
Eielson A.F.B.
Mt. McKinley 0
Talkeetna
Figure 1-1. The Alaska Railway from Seward to Eielson Air Force Base.
[Source: Transportation and Market Analysis of Alaska Coal -
Department of Energy Study -1980]
I
[,
1-3
employment reached a peak of 51,000 in 1967 and declined to 36,000 in 1981. Most of the fluc-
tuations in Federal employment were attributable to the changes in the number of military per-
sonnel stationed in Alaska. In contrast to the military, civilian Federal employment has
remained essentially constant at around 15,000 since the late 1960s. Despite the drop in the
total number of Federal employees, the nominal dollar wages and salaries paid by the government
have risen dramatically as a result of increases in wage rates.
Whi 1 e avera 11 Federa 1 emp 1 oyment was declining, state and 1 oca l emp 1 oyment were increasing
rapidly. In 1981, 36,000 persons were employed by state and local governments, compared with
18,000 in 1970 and 8,000 a decade before that. Wages and salaries to these government employees
increased at even a faster rate than the number of personnel. In fact, government wage rates
increased more rapidly than the wage rates in other Alaskan industries. Between 1970 and 1981,
state and local government employment doubled, but their payrolls rose fivefold. As of 1981,
combined Federal, state, and local government payrolls accounted for more than $2 billion, or
nearly 40% of the state's total personal income of $5.8 billion.
The construction boom brought about by the building of the oil pipeline transportation system
from the North Slope altered the state and Railbelt economies appreciably. The pipeline, which
cost more than $8 billion, extends BOD mi (1,300 km) from Prudhoe Bay on the northern coast of
Alaska to the northernmost ice-free harbor in the United States at Port Valdez in the South-
central region of Alaska on the Gulf of Alaska. Construction began in 1974 and was completed in
1977. As a consequence, construction employment of all types went from less than 5, 000 i ndi-
viduals in 1970 to a peak of more than 26,000 persons in 1976. As of 1981, construction employ-
ment in Alaska was back to 7,000 persons. Other categories of employment which benefited from
the pipeline construction phase, but which did not suffer the decline after its completion,
include oil and gas extraction employment, pipeline transportation employment, and food products
employment.
Regionally, the Railbelt benefited most from the pipeline. A major reason for this is that
Anchorage alone of all Alaskan cities has attained a 11 critica1 mass 11 in terms of a market for
both goods and services. The physical remoteness, small size, and fragmentation of communities
outside the Railbelt historically have resulted in very high costs of doing business there. It
has been cheaper to produce goods .outside the state and then ship them into Alaska, rather than
produce them in small, high-cost plants. within the state. Transportation costs, as a conse-
quence, are a significant component of the delivered price of nearly everything in Alaska. The
smaller the size of the destination market, the greater the per-unit transportation costs
typically associated with the product being sold. The service sector is also subject to econ-
omies of scale, and here as well the size of the Anchorage market has given that locale a compara-
tive advantage over other Alaskan communities. When employment on the North Slope, hundreds of
miles beyond the Railbelt, expanded in the mid-1970s, the markets within the state that absorbed
most of the expenditures by that labor force were in Anchorage, and to a lesser extent, Fairbanks.
Anchorage was and is, by a wide margin, the largest economic region in the state; by 1978 more
than 48% of all non-military jobs in Alaska were located in the Anchorage area. As stated by
Kresge et al. (1978):
Anchorage also had the largest regional share of employment within most individual
industry groups. As the state's trade and commercial c~nter, Anchorage's dominance of
the support sector is particularly striking. This is especially significant since the
support sector is the major area of growth in Alaska's economy. In addition to growing
very rapidly, the support sector has also become increasingly concentrated in the
Anchorage area.
Between 1970 and 1978, service sector employment ( i ncl udi ng government, but exl udi ng the
military) rose by 41% for the state as a whole. For Anchorage, the increase was in excess of
55%. Civilian employment for the region as a whole grew by slightly more than 50% between 1970
and 1981. Over the same period, civilian earnings grew by nearly 300%, and, after adjusting for
inflation, those earnings rose by 69% in real terms. Four years after the completion of the
pipeline, the Railbelt could claim a real per-capita increase in personal incomes of 25% during
the 1970-1981 period. During this period, the regional inflation rate actually lagged well back
of the rate of the United States as a whole. Thus, in terms of the local prices, real incomes
per capita grew even more.
1.2.1.2 Energy Use in the Region
The use of energy within the state, as well as the Railbelt, mirrored the pace set by the economy.
For the state, energy consumption totalled 180.6 trillion Btu in 1970 and 316.0 trillion Btu in
1978--an increase of 75%. Residential energy use doubled over the same period. Electrical
energy generation for the state went from 1,044 GWh in 1970 to 2,609 GWh in 1978--an increase of
150%.
1-4
Expenditures for energy increased at a faster rate than usage because energy prices increased
during the 1970s. However, those price increases were far less than were experienced in the
rest of the United States. Residential electricity expenditures, for instance, increased from
$14 million to $56 million between 1970 and 1980. Adjusting for i nfl at ion and putting those
expenditures on a per-capita basis, however, means that annual Alaskan residential electricity
expenditures went from $45.43 to $65.03 in constant 1970 dollars (an increase of slightly less
than 45%). Energy prices in the aggregate [i.e., sales-weighted average price of natural gas,
distillate fuel oil, LPG (bottled gas) and electricity] for the residential sector increased by
slightly in excess of 30% between 1970 and 1980. In the context of statewide increases in real
per-capita incomes of 38% during the period, energy costs as percentage of incomes declined in
absolute terms for Alaskans.
Within the Railbelt, the energy picture is even more striking than that for the state. Natural
gas consumption to the residential sector, for instance, went from 6.4 trillion Btu to
12.4 trillion Btu between 1970 and 1978. Expenditures for the gas decreased in real terms,
however, going from $9.7 million to $6.3 million on a constant 1970 dollar basis. During that·
period, the real price of Alaskan natural gas delivered to the residential sector decreased by
48%. Annual electricity expenditures by residential consumers in the Railbelt went from $56.59
per capita in 1970 to $79.25 in 1980 (figured in constant 1970 dollars). This represents a 40%
real increase in per-capita expenditures. The average increase in the real price of energy of
all types to the residential sector during 1970-1980 was slightly in excess of 10% in the Rail-
belt. During the same time period, the increase in real per-capita incomes within the Railbelt
was approximately 35%. Here again, the percentage of per-capita incomes that was spent on
energy declined during the period, despite an increase in per-capita Btu consumption on the
order of 100%.
1.2.2 Present Energy Scenario
Data collected by the Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development provides a fairly
camp l ete picture of the 1981 energy situation for both the state and the Rail belt region. In
that year, Alaskans used 543 trillion Btu of primary energy. Of this, approximately 184 trillion
Btu of refined products, ammonia/urea, and liquefied natural gas (LNG) were exported from
Alaska. Some 86 trillion Btu were lost in refining operations, electricity generation, and the
processing of natural gas for ammonia/urea and LNG. Approximately half the total, or 273 trillion
Btu, were consumed in the form of delivered energy to the residential, commercial, industrial,
transportation and national defense sectors within the state. Oil, natural gas, coal, and
hydroelectricity were the four main sources of the energy consumed in the final demand sectors.
Oil and natural gas predominate, supplying approximately 93% of the delivered Btu. A regional
breakdown of that energy consumption is shown in Table 1-1.
Region
(Population)
Railbeltta
(313,767)
Southeast
(51,689)
North Slope
(3,282)
Bush
(53,449)
Total State
(422,187)
Table ~-1. 1981 Alaskan Fuel Consumptiont 1
(trillion Btu)
Fuel T e
Natural All
Petroleum Gas Coal Hydro Wood Fuel st2
137.1 81.0 12.6 2.9 1.6 235.2
19.9 3.3 1.2 24.4
11.9 1.7 13.6
29.8 0.3 30.1
198. 7 82.7 12.6 6.2 3.1 303.2
t 1 Includes 30 trillion Btu lost in conversion to electric power.
t 2 Does not include LNG or ammonia/urea.
t 3 Railbelt figures include the Valdez/Cordova area, with a popula-
tion of 9,301.
Source: Computed by FERC Staff from data in 1983 Long Term Energy
Plan--State of Alaska.
1-5
The Railbelt region accounts for more than 75% of the total energy delivered to the six basic
consumption sectors in Alaska. Of total energy delivered to the Railbelt, 11% is for national
defense, 41% (exclusively petroleum) goes to the transportation sector, and the remaining 48% is
delivered to the residential, commercial, industrial, and electric utility sectors. Natural gas
provides most of the energy for space heating and electric generation.
The relative mix of fuels used within the Rail belt reflects the prices at which those sources of
energy are available. Natural gas, for instance, presently is priced at less thanc$2.00 per
thousand cubic feet (Mcf) [$7.06 per 100 cubic meters (m 3 )] to -the Tesidential sector (·the lowest
price in any state). ·where a gas distribution pipeline-system makes natural gas available to
consumers; this fuel clearly is more cost effective to use (on a -cost per. Btu basis) than the
alternatives--electricity, distillate oil or liquid propane--as shown in Table 1-2.
Fuel
Electricity
Fue 1 Oil
Natural Gas
Wood
Propane
Table 1-2. Comparative Cost of Heating Fuels
in the Railbelt for 1981t 1
(1981 $/MM Btu)
Anchorage Fairbanks
11.49 26.83
9.45 9.94
l. 65
6.36 5.23
13.82 13.85
Matanuska
12.58
10.24
4.87
17.86
t 1 Does not account for efficiencies
heat from specific fuel.
of equipment used to produce
Source: Computed by FERC Staff from data in 1983 Long Term Energy
Plan--State of Alaska.
The Railbelt prices of fossil fuels reflect local market conditions, which in turn are affected
by conditions internationally. Natural gas, for instance, is exceptionally inexpensive due to
the bountiful supplies associated with petroleum production in the Cook Inlet area, coupled with
the lack of an extensive export market (despite significant efforts to develop one). Conversely,
the cost of coal within the Railbelt is currently greater than it perhaps might otherwise be
because production economies of scale cannot be obtained without the expanded production which
the export markets would permit. Fuel oil, by comparison, is competitive with prices observed
elsewhere in the United States, in part, because the active export market has enabled the local
market to benefit from the economies of large-scale production and transportation of crude
petroleum. The high production costs of the small-scale refineries in Alaska are more than
offset by avoiding the transportation costs of fuel refined outside the state. A more detailed
discussion of the inter-relationship between the prices of energy in the Railbelt and the price
of crude oil in world markets is present'ed in Appendix 8. An appraisal of the current energy
infrastructure of the Railbelt requires, among other things, an inventory of crude oil reserves,
petroleum refineries, natural gas reserves, natural gas processing capabilities, coal reserves,
and electric power production and distribution capabilities.
Qi!. While lying beyond the Railbelt proper, the North Slope oil deposits are in some ways an
important energy source of the region by virtue of the single transportation link to those
resources. The Trans-Alaska pipeline runs through the interior section of the Rail belt and
feeds the second largest refinery in the state just outside Fairbanks. Further, the Valdez
pipeline supplies crude oil to a second refinery within the Railbelt, on the Kenai Peninsula.
Proven reserves of crude oil in the state that impact directly on the Railbelt are estimated at
nearly 9 billion barrels [1,200 metric tons (MT)], including some 600 million barrels (80 million
MT) of oil in the Cook Inlet. The aggregate reserve-to-production ratio in Alaska is nearly
14 years at current production levels. For specific fields, the rate can vary from as little as
two years for certain reservoirs in the Cook Inlet, to as high as 15 years for fields on the
North Slope.
Petroleum Refineries. The three largest refineries in the State of Alaska are located within
the Railbelt territory. The Chevron refinery at Kenai is rated at a capacity of 22,000 barrels
(3,000 MT) per day and is supp-lied by· tanker from Valdez. The Tesoro refinery, also at Kenai,
1-6
is rated at 48,500 barrels (6,600 MT) per day and is supplied from the Cook Inlet for some 90%
of its throughput. The Mapco refinery at North Pole, outside of Fairbanks, has a capacity of
46,000 barrels (6,300 MT) per day and processes North Slope crude. The Chevron refinery and the
Mapco refinery produce jet fuel and distillate fuel oil for local consumption. In addition to
these products, the Tesoro refinery produces motor gasoline and LPG for consumption within the
Rail belt
Natural Gas. The only natural gas reserves currently of importance to the Railbelt are those
located in the Cook Inlet. This gas is used primarily to serve heating and electric demand of
Railbelt residential, commercial, and industrial sectors. Production from these gas fields was
slightly more than 200 billion .cubic feet (Bcf) (5.7 billion m3 ) in 1982. Of this amount,
nearly half is processed for export, either as liquefied natural gas or as ammonia and urea.
The LNG processing facility located at Kenai exports to Japan under a contract which has just
been renewed for five years. The ammonia and urea production is mostly exported to the conti-
nental United States. Natural gas takes are almost evenly split, at 50 Bcf (1.4 billion m3 ) per
year each, between these latter two uses.
Coal. There are two major coal fields located within the Railbelt. The Beluga coal field
located near Anchorage has proven reserves of 275 million tons (250 million MT) and indicated
reserves of more than ten times that amount. The Nenana field, located south of Fairbanks, has
proven reserves of 861 million tons (781 million MT) with indicated reserves of 6 billion tons
(5.4 billion MT). The Nenana field contains the only currently producing mine, at Healy, with
1982 production of better than 800,000 tons (725,000 MT). This coal is used for electric genera-
tion in the Fairbanks area and potentially may be used for export to a South Korean electric
utility company.
Electric Power. The 1982 installed capacity (nameplate rating) for utilities within the Railbelt
is reported by the Alaska Power Administration to total 1,063 megawatts (MW). Other generating
capacity within the Railbelt includes 18 MW owned by the University of Alaska at Fairbanks and,
based on a survey done by Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, some 96 MW of capacity owned
by the military at various installation within the region. That same survey indicated that
approximately 28 MW of additional capacity was owned by industrial concerns within the Railbelt
as of 1981. A summary breakdown of the capacity by type, and generation by fuel category, in
1982 is presented in Table 1-3 for the utility generating stations in the Railbelt.
Table 1-3. Capacity (by prime mover) and Generation (by fuel)
for Railbelt Utility Generating Stations, 1982
Gas Steam
Hydro Diesel Turbine Turbine
Capacity (MW) 45 40 820 153
Hyct"ro Oil Gas Coal
Net Generation (GWh) 192 121 2,254 359
Total
1,063
Total
2,926
The existing electric transmission system within the Railbelt is composed of isolated networks
in the Anchorage and Fairbanks areas. An interconnection currently under construction between
Willow and Healy will link the two areas by 1984. The transmission system is shown in Figure 1-2.
Details of hydroelectric plants are shown in Table 1-4.
Other Resources. While a number of so-called 11 renewable 11 sources of energy are discussed in a
subsequent section addressing non-hydroelectric alternatives, as well as in Appendix B, one such
fuel deserves mention as a significant component of the present energy picture within the Rail-
belt. That resource is wood. Currently, firewood finds widespread use as a secondary fuel for
space heating in residences. In the Matanuska Valley area of the Railbelt, 15% of the homes
used wood as the primary means of heating. Even in the Anchorage area, where energy costs are
among the lowest in the state, a survey conducted in 1981 found that 23% of the homes used wood
as a secondary heating fuel.
Claims that the expanded use of wood for space heating in individual homes is constrained by
resource availability ·.seem misplac~d as the forest resources of Alaska are immense. There are
two distinct forest ecosystems: the coastal rain forest and the interior forest. The interior
forest covers 106 million acres [43 million hectares (ha)], over 22 million acres (9 million ha)
of which is classified as commercial forest land. These 22 million acres compare in both size
1-7
LOCATION OF MAP
Figure 1-2. Electrical Transmission System of the Railbelt.
[Source: Alaska Power Authority, as Modified
by FERC Staff]
1-8
Table 1-4. Hydroelectric Plants in the Rail belt
Nameplate
Energy Capacity
Name Date (GWh) (MW) Utility
Eklutna 1955 148 30.0 Alaska Power Admin.
Cooper Lake Units 1 & 2 1961 42 15.0 Chugach Electric Assn.
190 45.0
and growth productivity to the combined forests of Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin. One of
the state's four largest interior forests is located within the Railbelt area in the Matanuska
District. The coastal rain forests contain nearly 6 million acres (2.4 million ha) of commercial
forests, and again, some of the largest of these forests are located within the Railbelt near
Anchorage.
A household using approximately 1000 gallons (3 MT) of fuel oil per season could meet its thermal
needs with less than 10 cords (4m3 ) of wood. It takes about 2 acres (0.8 ha) to support a
sustained annual harvest of 1 cord (4m 3 ), so the household would need access to 18 to 20 acres
(7.3 to 8.1 ha) of timberland. However, according to the state's Division of Energy and Power
Development, recent energy efficient house designs reduce the annual wood consumption to the
level of two to three cords (7-10 m3 ) instead of ten cords (36 m3 ) per year. Current prices for
wood are in the vicinity of $90 to $120 per cord ($25 to $33 per m3 ) in the urban areas of the
state; this compares favorably with oil costs of $1.30 per gallon ($400 per metric ton).
1.2.3 Future Energy Resources
A schedule of known planned utility additions is shown in Table 1-5.
Unit
Bradley Lake
Grant Lake
Total
1.2.4 Load Growth Forecast
Table 1.5. Schedule of Planned
Utility Additions
Type MW Year
Hydro 90.0 1988
Hydro 7.0 1988
97.0
1.2.4.1 Alaska Power Authority Forecasts
1.2.4.1.1 Methodology
Average
Energy
(GWh)
347
33
380
The Applicant has submitted a number of alternative load forecasts for the Railbelt, based upon
varying world oil price scenarios. All of these forecasts were generated by means of the same
modeling structure. That structure employs three computer-operated models that provide, respec-
tively, projections of (1) regional demographic, and state economic and fi seal variables;
(2) regional electricity demands given specific energy price assumptions; and (3) least-cost
generation expansion programs given a demand forecast. The last two models are iterated to
determine a consistent electricity demand forecast given the cost of power projected by the
generation expansion program appropriate to that demand forecast.
1-9
1.2.4.1.2 Load Projection
The Applicant has prepared load projections for the time period 1983-2010 under a wide range of
alternative scenarios.* Each forecast scenario is characterized by a specific trajectory for
the price that crude oil will command in world markets over the forecast horizon.
There are at least three reasons that the world oil price is chosen as the single exogenous
variable that is to be altered in attempting to bracket the load growth in the Railbelt. First,
world oil prices affect the level of petroleum revenues to the State of Alaska, mainly through
severance taxes ·and royalty payments. These revenues account for more than 80% of total state
revenues, and the state is the single largest economic force acting on the Railbelt economy.
Second, world oil prices affect directly the costs of electricity generated in the Railbelt
because of the linkage between crude prices and prices of other fossil fuels. The Railbelt is,
as demonstrated in Section 1.2.2, heavily dependent on fossil-fired electric generation. Third,
world oil prices through their influence on other fuel prices affect the substitution possibil-
ities that exist for electricity in the Railbelt.
1.2.4.1.3 World Oil Price
APA OIL PRICE AND LOAD PROJECTION
The APA takes as its reference case for the world oil price scenario a projection made by
Sherman H. Clark Associates (SHCA), a California-based energy consulting firm. The forecasters
responsible for this oil price projection have assigned a 35% probability of occurrence to this
particular scenario. Among other things, this forecast, according to the APA, assumes 11 that
OPEC will continue operating as a viable entity and will not limit production during the fore-
casted period. Recent trends in economic growth in the United States and the free world will
continue at reasonable rates. 11 The particular prices for world crude associated with this
reference case are shown in Table 1-6.
State petroleum revenues consistent with this world oil price trajectory are computed and are
input to the Man in the Arctic Program (MAP) model to begin the load forecasting sequence. The
results of that forecast procedure are shown in Table 1-7. The Applicant presented other alter-
native load projections, described in Appendix A. For purposes of comparison, four of these
alternative load projections are depicted graphically in Figure 1-3.
Using APA 1 s nreferencen case as a standard for comparison, it should be noted that there is
little to distinguish these projections in the near-term. Variation around that reference case
load projection is less than 3.5% in 1985, as seen in Table 1-8. By 1990, however, significant
differences are seen to exist in the forecasts. Implied annual growth rate in kWh loads during
that period are shown in Table 1-9.
1.2.4.2 FERC Staff Projections
The FERC Staff has independently evaluated the various possibilities for future oil prices and
identified the following mid-range projection shown in 1983 dollars:
Year 1983 1985 1990 1995 2000 2010
Oil price ($/barrel) 29 24 20 22 24 29
($/metric ton) 213 176 147 162 176 213
The range of staff's projections are shown in Figure 1-4. Various forecasts of others are shown
in Figure 1-5.
The Staff judged the world oil price trajectories described in Appendix A to be more plausible
than the oil price scenarios recommended by the Applicant. The Staff projection is based on an
assumption that the strength of economic forces now acting in the direction of reducing oil
prices (fuel switching, conservation, and the growth of non-OPEC oil production) will continue
throughout the 1980s to exceed the strength of economic forces tending to increase oil prices
(renewed world economic growth). Several oil price projections by Alaska's Department of Revenue,
consultants to the Alaskan Power Authority (SHCA), and DOE are shown in Figure 1-5. The SHCA
and DOE projections are all postulated on an assumption that the combination of economic forces
will cause a sufficient growth in demand for oil to allow OPEC to increase its output, and hence
maintain its market power.
*Forecasts produced by the RED model were extended by the Applicant from 2010 to 2020 using
the average annual growth for the period 2000-2010.
1-10
Table 1-6. APA Reference Case, World Oil Price Scenario
Price in Annual Rate
Final Year of Change
of Period in Price
Years (1983$/bb l) (%)
1983 28.95 -14.9
1984 27.61 -4.7
1985-1988 26.30 -1.2
1989-2010 50.39 2.6
Conversion: The price of $1/barrel = $7.35/metric ton.
Source: Compiled by FERC Staff from data presented in
Susitna Hydroelectric Project, Vol. 2A, Alaska
Power Authority, 1983.
Table 1-7. APA Reference Case, Railbelt
Load Projection, 1983-2010
Peak
Energy Demand
Year (GWh) (MW)
1983 2,803 579
1985 3,096 639
1990 3,737 777
1995 4,171 868
2000 4,542 945
2005 5,093 1,059
2010 5,858 1,217
Source: Compiled by FERC Staff from data presented in
Susitna Hydroelectric Project, Vol. 2C, Alaska
Power Authority, 1983.
1-11
GWh
7000 DRI
6000
Reference
DOR mean
5000 DOR 30%
4000
2800
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Figure 1-3. Alternative APA Load Projections for 1985-2010 Comparing Data Resources, Inc.,
Reference, Alaska Department of Revenue Mean, and Alaska Department of Revenue
30% Cases.
'1'·.' I ·.;
' I'';
II,'
11,11.'1
'11'1 11
. ,,
, I'
'J'.li
',,''
1-12
Table 1-8. APA Load Projections Relative to the
Reference Case Forecast
Forecast Year
Scenario 1985 1990 1995 2000
DRit 1 l. 00 0.99 l. 04 l.ll
Reference l. 00 l. 00 1. 00 1.00
DOR Meant 2 0.99 0.94 0.92 0.93
DOR 30%t 3 0.97 0.90 0.85 0.86
t' Data Resources, Inc.
t2 Alaska Department of Revenue mean case.
t3 Alaska Department of Revenue 30% case .
Table 1-9. Annual Load Growth (%) Implied by APA Forecasts
Forecast
Scenario 1985-1990 1990-1995
DRit 1 3.64 3.15
Reference 3.84 2.22
DOR Meant 2 2.84 1.87
DOR 30'£t 3 2.22 1.14
t 1 Data Resources, Inc.
t 2 Alaska Department of Revenue mean case.
t 3 Alaska Department of Revenue 30% case.
Years
1995-2000
3.04
1. 72
3.80
l. 79
2010
1.19
l. 00
0.92
0.85
2000-2010
3.29
2.60
2.47
2.44
Cl) ... ... cv
.CI .......
en ... cv
Ci
"C
M co
0)
Cl)
(.) ... c.. -·-0
100~---------------------------------------------,
80
60
40
20
1970
,, ,
·§:·.'~~,, ~~~, ,, ,, ,, ,,
Possible Supply Disruption ,, .,.,
1980
\ , .. , ..
" , .. .. , .. ,,
II , .. ,, ,, ..... .. \ , ......
-----------Minimum ........
' -----I --------' --1\ ----P 'bl D r D t \1 --Competitive Pricing Potential ossl e .ec me .ue o :i---(price collapse) Photovolta1cs, Fus1on, etc.
1990 2000 2010
Year
2020 2030 2040 2050
Figure l-4. Projected World Oil Prices in 1983 Dollars per barrel, Including Possible Supply Disruption.
.,
f-.'
' f-.' w
100
80
en ....
~
"iS
'C 60 N co c::n ,...
c 40 -c
G) u ·;::
Q..
20
1970 1980
(1)
,(2) 1. DOE NNEP-83 Scenario C
• /
./·
2. Sherman H. Clark Associates-Supply
Disruption
3. DOE NNEP-83 Scenario A (low case)
/ • /
,/·
/ /(3)
/./ /~ •• {4) . ~ .. ~ ,. ..
•' -'-··· ·" /'' . .,
' ,! / -·--(5) ......... ; -·--. ·-"'<:.-llllrta.. -.. •• __
~--··-··-··-(6)
---{7)
1990 2000 2010
Year
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%
2020
Figure 1-5. Price of Oil Using Various Forecasts, Including U.S. Department of Energy,
Sherman H. Clark Associates, and Alaska Department of Revenue.
r 1-15
If oil prices decline, then the magnitude of fuel switching and conservation should diminish,
1 ess exp 1 oration and deve 1 opment should occur in non-OPEC countries, and the world's economic
growth should be stimulated. In short, a reduction in oil prices will reduce the magnitude of
forces tending to further reduce oil prices and will increase the magnitude of forces tending to
cause prices to rise. As a consequence, even if oil prices decline in the near term, they
eventually will start to rise again. Almost all analysts project increasing prices after about
a decade, or less. Conversely, if oil prices rise, then the economic forces tending to cause
oil prices to fall will be strengthened, whereas the degree of the world's economic recovery
will tend to be reduced.
A series of load projections have been made utilizing Staff world oil price forecasts. The
projections use the same modeling apparatus constructed by the APA and required conversion of
the world oil price forecast to a forecast of state petroleum revenues for use in the MAP model.
This conversion was carried out in a manner consistent with the one used by APA. Further, the
Railbelt Electricity Demand (RED) model input requirements for end-user fuel prices were made
consistent with Staff world oil price trajectories. The load projections that resulted for the
medium and high world oil price assumptions are shown in Tables 1-10 and 1-11.* A graphical
comparison of APA and FERC Staff projections of electric demand is shown in Figure 1-6.
It should be noted that in addition to the changes in world oil price scenarios that Staff chose
to make, alterations to the MAP model were also pursued. The objective in making those altera-
tions was to improve what Sta-ff judged to be the economic consistency of what appears to be a
sop hi sti cated forecasting too 1. Neverthe 1 ess, where the specification of an equation caul d be
altered to add economic content, as well as improve both the statistical fit and significance of
coefficients in the equation, then such a modification was made. In those instances when an
equation was successfully altered, it was also the case that substitution of the new equation
into the model caused the system to become unstable. This was the case because critical linkages
within the system of equations were broken as a consequence of the changes made by Staff. This
can occur despite the changes having improved the particular equation viewed in isolation. This
is not an unreasonable circumstance given a model with the complexity of the MAP system. For
this reason, Staff has judged that the forecasting models employed by the Applicant could not be
improved upon in the time allotted, and these same models have been adopted for purposes of
generating the Staff Railbelt forecasts.
1.2.5 Generation-Load Relationships of Existing and Planned Railbelt System
The existing and presently planned additions to generating resources of the Railbelt system
(without Susitna) are summarized in Table 1-12 in relation to the Staff's medium oil price load
growth projections. The peak loads are the point-of-use figures given in Table 1-10 increased
by an average 9% transmission loss to represent loads at the generator busbars. Table 1-12
shows reserve margins above 20% until the mid 1990s without further additions. The existing
capacity retirement schedule considered in Table 1-12 is shown in Table 1-13. However, a reserve
margin figure is not per se a sufficient indicator of power supply adequacy. The probable
availability for service of individual generating units, especially at peak load periods, is the
principal determinant of reserve requirement. Probable availability varies with generating unit
type, size and age. In the case of hydropower generation, energy limitations (water supply) may
not permit a unit to develop its full power capability for each successive daily peak in the
peak load period, thus restricting the load-carrying ability of a unit to less than its rating.
The load-carrying characteristics of the various forms of existing and planned Railbelt genera-
tion were examined in terms of the shape of the Railbelt load duration curve to determine the
point at which further generation additions will be needed. This analysis showed that addi-
tional Railbelt generation will be needed in 1994 to limit the probable unserved system energy
requirement.
Although Table 1-12 shows a 36% reserve margin in 1993, based on installed capacity ratings, the
analysis showed that generating resources are only marginally adequate in that year.
*No projections consistent with the low world oil price trajectory could be generated. The state
economic model component of MAP was unable to compute a solution given the drastic reductions
in state revenues implied by the low oil price in 1985. This should not be viewed as a failure
of the MAP model. The result is indicative of the very serious economic problems the world and
Alaska, in particular, are likely to face if the price of oil collapses to the $10 barrel range
in 1985.
I
I
.I
• :!
.I
1-16
Table 1-10. Railbelt Load Forecast, FERC Staff
Medium World Oil Price Scenario,
1983-2022
Year
1983
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2020
2022
Year
1983
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2020
2022
Peak
Energy Demand
(GWh) (MW)
2,8D2 579
3,094 639
3,474 722
3,788 788
4,168 866
4,623 960
5,234 1,086
6,424 1,332
6,693 1,388
Table 1-11. Railbelt Load Forecast, FERC Staff
High World Oil Price Scenario,
1983-2022
Peak
Energy Demand
(GWh) (MW)
2,814 581
3,116 644
3,567 742
3,927 817
4,447 925
4,793 996
5,371 1,115
6,591 1,367
6,866 1,424
r
GWh
6000
5500
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
1985
1-17
1990 1995 2000 2005
APA
reference
DOR mean
FERC high
FERC
medium
DOR 30%
2010
Figure 1-6. FERC Staff Load Projections and Selected APA Load Projection for 1983-2010,
Including APA Reference, Department of Revenue Mean, FERC High, FERC Medium,
and Department of Revenue 30% Cases.
1-18
Table 1-12. System Generation Capability--Selected Years
(medium oil price level)
Year
Parameter 1993 1994 1995 2000 2010 2020 2022
Existing generating
capacity (1992) (MW) 1,034 1,034 1,034 1,034 1,034 1,034 1,034
Planned additions
(1988) (MW) 97 97 97 97 97 97 97
Available capacity
(1992) (MW) 1,131 1,131 1,131 1,131 1,131 1,131 1,131
Retirements (MW) ~ 47 76 304 537 989 989
Net available capacity
(MW) 1,115 1,084 1,055 827 594 142 142
Peakload (as generated)
(MW) 818 845 859 944.7 1,184 1,452 1,513
Margin (MW)
( ) = deficit 297 239 196 (117) (590) (1,310) (1,371)
Table 1-13. Susitna Schedule of Retirements
Ca2acit~ (MW) Retired
Gas Turbine Combined Annual
Year Coal Gas Oil Diesel Cycle Total Cumulative
I !1'!'1 1993 9 7 16 16
'·'I 11 ,iii. 1994 30 1 31 47
:,il!l 1995 14 8 7 29 76
· .. !II 1996 65 65 141
.1'!!·1 1997 3 65 1 69 210
'1
11
1
1998 50 50 260
II] 1999 260
I' 2000 25 18 1 44 304 oil I' 2001 304 ill , I! 2002 51 51 355 II,, I
1,11
2003 53 53 408
II 2004 408
'I'' I 2005 21 58 79 487 ;1,
111 2006 23 23 510 '!
,!, 2007 26 26 536 ill 2008 536
I'' ·Ill 2009 1 537
1
11 2010 537
'II 2011 6 139 145 682
111
2012 116 178 294 976
2013 976
I 2014 976
I
2015 13 13 989
Total 59 451 138 24 317 989
1-19
1.3 ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1.3.1 Alternative Project Designs
The Staff's analysis of alternative development plans for the Susitna River Basin is based on
its study of the previous site-selection studies done by the Applicant, the State of Alaska, the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), and the Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau).
1.3.1.1 Previous Studies
The first major study of the Susitna Basin was performed by the Bureau in 1953. The following
ten damsites were identified above the railroad crossing at Gold Creek:
(1) Gold Creek
(2) Olson
(3) Devil Canyon
(4) Devil Creek
(5) Watana
(6) Vee
(7) Maclaren
(8) Denali
(9) Butte Creek
(10) Tyone
Field reconnaissance eliminated half of these upper basin sites, with further Bureau considera-
tion centered on Olson, Devil Canyon, Watana, Vee, and Denali. All of the Bureau studies since
1953 have regarded these sites as the most appropriate for further investigation.
In 1974, the Office of the Governor, State of Alaska, commissioned a study that became known as
the Kaiser Proposal. In this study it was proposed that the initial Susitna development consist
of a single dam known as High Devil Canyon. Subsequent developments suggested in the study
included a downstream dam at the Olson site and an upstream dam at a site known as Susitna III.
The Corps undertook the most comprehensive study of the potential of the upper Susitna River
Basin prior to the Applicant's studies. The Corps studies, performed in 1975 and 1979, involved
analysis of 23 alternative developments, including those proposed by the Bureau.
The Corps study initially recommended construction of an earthfill dam at Watana with a height
of 810 ft (247 m). In the longer term, development of Devil Canyon and Denali sites were dis-
cussed. Further investigations on the Susitna Basin by the Corps in 1979 reaffirmed Devil
Canyon and Watana as appropriate sites, and alternative dam types were investigated.
1.3.1.2 Applicant's Studies
The Applicant's studies included review of the 12 damsites previously identified in the upper
portion of the Susitna Basin. These sites are listed in Table 1-14 along with relevant data
concerning cost, installed capacity, and energy potential. Figure 1-7 illustrates which sites
are mutually exclusive, i.e., cannot be developed jointly', since development of the downstream
site would inundate the upstream site.
The Applicant's screening process reduced the original 12 sites by eliminating those that would
obviously not be included in the initial stages of the Susitna development plan, and that there-
fore did not deserve further study at this stage. Three basic screening criteria were used to
eliminate sites: excessive environmental damage, mutually exclusive sites, and insufficient or
uneconomical energy contribution.
The App 1 i cant's screening process resulted in the e 1 imi nation of the Go 1 d Creek, 01 son, Tyone,
Devil Creek and Butte Creek sites. The remaining sites upstream from Vee, i.e., Maclaren and
Denali, were retained to "insure that further study be directed toward determining the need and
viability of providing flow regulation in the headwaters of the Susitna" (Exhibit B, p. B-1-7].*
In its next screening, APA considered engineering layouts and more reliable cost estimates for
the seven remaining developments. The results of this screening indicated that the Susitna
Basin development plan should incorporate a combination of dams and powerhouses located at one
or more of the following sites:
(1) Devil Canyon
(2) High Devil Canyon
(3) Watana
(4) Susitna III
(5) Vee
*Throughout this document, references to specific "Exhibits" are to the exhibits submitted to
FERC as part of Alaska Power Authority's Susitna Hydroelectric Project License Application.
References to specific "Appendices" (App.) are to the appendices provided in Volumes 2 through 7
of this Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
-----=~---_____ : =---=------~ ~
Table 1-14. Potential Susitna Basin Hydroelectric Developments
Economict 1
Dam Capital Average Cost of
Cost Installed Annua 1 Energy
Proposed Height Upstream ($ million Capacity Energy ($/1,000 Source
Site Type (ft) Regulation 1980) (MW) (GWh) kWh) of Data
Go 1 d Cree kt 2 Fill 190 Yes 900 260 1,140 37 USBR 1953
Olson
(Susitna II) Concrete 160 Yes 600 200 915 31 USSR 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 BOO 3,540 21 This study
Devil Creekt 2 Fill Approx. No
850 .....
' Watana Fill 880 No 1,860 800 3,250 20 This study "' 0
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 530t 4 55 100 124 This study
Denell Fill 230 No 4BOt 4 60 245 81 This study
Butte Creekt 2 Fill Approx, No 40 130t3 USSR 1953
150
Tyonet" Fill Approx. No 6 22t 3 USSR 1953
60
t' Includes AFDC, insurance, amortization, and operation and maintenance costs.
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-
spective.
t• Includes estimated costs of power generation facility.
Conversion: To convert feet to meters, multiply by 0.305.
Source: Susitna Application, Exhibit 8, Table 8.1
GO to
CREEK OLSON DEVIL
CANYON
HIGW
DEVIL
CANYON
DEVIL
CREEK WATANA SUSITNA
GOLD CREEK
OLSON
DEVIL CANYON
HIGH DEVIL CANYON
DEVIL CREEK
WATANA
SUSITNA m
LEGEND
COMPATIBLE ALTERNATIVES VEE
D 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.
VEE MACLAREN DENALI
DENALI
BUTTE CREEK
TYONE
Figure 1-7. Mutually Exclusive Developments. [Source: Application Exhibit 8, Fig. 8.5]
BUTTE
CREEK TYONE
rl
I
I ~ I
; '
I'
'I I,
!
I
1-22
The following conclusions were drawn by the APA from the screening process (Exhibit B, p. B-1-12):
-"For energy requirements of up to 1750 GWh, the High Devil Canyon, Devil Canyon or the
Watana sites individually provided the most economic energy.
-For energy requirements of between 1750 and 3500 GWh, the high Devil Canyon site is the
most economic.
-For energy requirements of between 3500 and 5250 GWh, the combinations of either Watana and
Devil Canyon or High Devil Canyon and Vee are most economic.
-The total energy production capability of the Watana-Devil Canyon development is larger
than that of the High Devil Canyon-Vee alternative and is the only plan capable of meeting
energy demands in the 6000 GWh range."
The Applicant studied four tunnel schemes as alternative developments to the Devil Canyon dam in
the Watana-Devil Canyon development plan. The tunnel schemes could develop similar head for
power generation and provide environmental advantages by avoiding inundation of Devil Canyon.
The need for upstream regulation of flows would preclude a tunnel alternative from being other
than a second-stage development of an upstream storage reservoir such as Watana. The four basic
schemes developed by the Applicant are shown schematically in Figure 1-8. The economic analysis
of the four schemes by the Applicant indicated that tunnel scheme 3 would produce the lowest
cost energy by a factor of two.
The Applicant's review of the environmental impacts associated with the four tunnel schemes
indicated that scheme 3 would have the least impact, primarily because it offers the best oppor-
tunities for regulating daily flows downstream from the project. Based on this assessment and
because of its superior economics, tunnel scheme 3 was the only tunnel alternative selected for
further study by the Applicant.
1.3.1.3 Staff Studies
The FERC Staff's studies of alternative hydro developments in the upper Susitna River Basin made
use of the economic and environmental screening performed by the Applicant. The Staff con-
sidered the five major dam projects investigated by the Applicant along with the tunnel scheme 3
alternative as possible candidate sites for meeting Railbelt energy requirements. From these
six basic alternative developments, 19 development schemes were formulated for the upper Susitna
River for further study. Table 1-15 shows the costs, installed capacity, and average annual
energy associated with the developments, and Figures 1-9 through 1-13 show profile representa-
tions with the river mile of the dam sites and normal pool elevations.
The Corps program entitled Simulation of Flood Control and Conservation Systems (HEC-5) was used
to develop the energy capability of the 19 alternatives. The program was developed by the Corps
to assist in planning studies for evaluating proposed reservoirs in a system and to assist in
sizing the flood control and conservation storage requirements.
The HEC-5 program was used to evaluate the energy potential of the Susitna alternatives by
simulating the hydro operation of each project using 33 years of Susitna River flow records at
Gold Creek and rule curves to simulate power operations. The constraints modeled were: minimum
flow requirements at Gold Creek and tandem operation constraints of combined alternatives such
as Watana and Devil Canyon. The tandem constr,aints included hydraulic balance of the turbines
and usable reservoir storage of the respective reservoirs.
Case C (Exhibit B, Table B.54) minimum flows were used in the analysis of project output. The
output of the HEC-5 program was the monthly energy generation for all 33 years of simulation.
From the water years utilized in the study, the average power year selected was November 1967 to
October 1968.
1.3.2 Other Hydroelectric Alternatives
The Staff's analysis of the non-Susitna River hydro alternatives began with a review of the
Applicant's studies of Alaska hydro potential. The Applicant reviewed all earlier studies that
inventoried potential sites throughout Alaska and indexed the various economic data in the
inventories to a constant base. The Applicant then applied a multiple-step screening process to
reduce the vast number of potential non-Susitna hydro projects to those considered the most
economi ca 1 and environmentally acceptable. The two main inventories used by the Applicant in
the screening process were those published in the Corps' National Hydropower Study and the APA's
"Hydroelectric Alternatives for the Alaska Rail belt." These combined inventories identified a
total of 91 potential hydro projects located outside the mid-Susitna River that were technically
feasible.
r 1-23
2200 FT. WATANA 800 MW
Figure 1-8.
2 TUNNELS
38 FT. DIAMETER
800 MW-70 MW
2
38 FT. DIAMETER
· 800 MW-850 MW
15.8 MILES-I 1475 FT.
DEVIL CANYON
550 MW
1150 MW
--RE-REGULATION DAM
30 MW
2 300 MW
30 FT. DIAMETER
800 MW
2 TUNNELS 365 MW
24 FT. DIAMETER
Schematic Representation of Tunnel Alternatives.
[Source: Application Exhibit 8, Fig. 8.13]
TUNNEL
SCHEME
#
I.
2.
3.
4.
I i I
I i
; I 'I
I'
1-24
Table 1-15. Data on Staff Susitna Basin Alternatives
Susitna Basin
Alternative Investigated
Watanat 1
Watana I·
Watana II
H. Devil Canyon
Watana-Devil Canyont 1
Watana !-Devil Canyon
Watana !!-Devil Canyon
H. Devil Canyon-Vee
H. Devil Canyon-Susitna III
Watana-Tunnel 3 (300 MW)
Watana-Tunnel 3 (45D MW)
Watana !-Tunnel 3 (450 MW)
Watana !!-Tunnel 3 (450 MW)
Watana-Modified H. Devil Canyon
Watana !-Modified H. Devil
Canyon
Watana !!-Modified H. Devil
Canyon
Watana-Tunnel Rereg
Watana !-Tunnel Rereg
Watana !!-Tunnel Rereg
t 1 Proposed project.
Estimated
Total Cost
of Project
($ million
1982)
4,062
3,494
3,168
2,255
5,565
4,997
4,671
4,570
5,302
5,453
5,512
4,944
4,618
5,355
4,787
4,461
4,827
4,259
3,933
Total
Installed
Capacity of
Alternative
(MW)
1,020
900
720
800
1,620
1,50D
1,32D
1,200
1,250
1,350
1,500
1,380
1,200
1,420
/ 1,300
/
1,120
1,220
1,100
920
Average
Annua 1
Energy of
Alternative
(GWh)
3,260
2,958
2,307
2,034
6,574
6,120
5,356
5,076
5,478
5,549
5,890
5,433
4,658
5,64D
5,183
4,451
4,341
3,948
3,246
3600'
3000'-tu w
LL
z
2500' 0
_,_,.,.
~· ~ i5 2100' ..,., ...J ~ t===--r~2000~·=;:::(~t---t-+--J-+-t--t-t--l2000' w
~ --0~ __ _j1~~~-~~~~~r:----r----1----::~--l----:~---1----~----l----:;----L--~~--__j 1~
/ ;' 220 240 200 200 300
,. tu
1000' ~
~ ............. ~-O-L-0--.dREEK GAGE i5 ~.,.,._.::,__.+--+15292000 ---11---+---+---1----t ~· ~
...J w
120 140
0
160 180 200
RIVER MILES----I~
Figure 1-9. Profi 1 e: Watana-Devi 1 Canyon Deve 1 opment.
WA T ANA EL. 2200'
WATANA I EL. 2100'
WA T ANA II EL. 2000'
= <( z
!:
Ul
:>
!!!
z
0 >-z w <( w u > .... 2330' > w /.,. 0
J:
"' / :;: 1750'
_....-II
220 240 200 v E
1000' w u.
z
---~ GOLD CREEK GAGE 0
i=
15292000 500' <( a;
...I w
0
120 140 160 180 200
RIVER MILES---•
Figure 1-10. Profile: Vee-High Devil Canyon Development.
)
280 300
3600'
3000'-
t:; w
!:
2500' ~
~
...I
2000' w
1500'
3500' = <( z .... u;
:> ~
z
0 >-z
<(
(.) ...
~
0
J:
C!> :;: 1760'
-:mY~
<( w z u..
!: z (/)
:> 2500' 0
(/) 2340' !i
/,.. iii
-' 2000' w v
-r--r-1 >--'
' "' -.J 1500'
220 240 200 200 300
i= w
1000' w u..
__. ----:;-LD JREEK GAGE
~ 1~2000----t----t----t----t--__,
z
0
600' !i ~ w
0
120 140 160 180 200
RIVER MILES--__,._
Figure 1-11. Profile: Susitna III-High Devil Canyon Development.
::;;
< Cl
z
Cl < w ;::: z (J) < < :::> ...J .... 0 :::> < ...____ r "' 3: a: w 2200'
-------
w a: 3: w
2100' ,.,.. ~ 0 a:
11. ... , 2000' "' ...J ~r-r ...J w w z z z z :::> :::> .... 1500' ....
~/ 220 240
E
870' :.,.. .... 1000' w
lL.
--r. z
0 _......~ GOLD CREEK GAGE i=
500' < 15292000
iii ---....1 w
0
120 140 160 180 200
RIVER MILES-----<•
Figure 1-12. Profile: Watana-Tunnel 3 Development.
)
"" '\
260 ~260 300
WATANA EL 2200'
WATANA I EL. 2100'
WA TANA II EL. 2000'
3500'
3000'-
t;;
w
lL.
z
2500' 0
~
....1 2000' w
1500'
>-'
' N
00
<( z
<(
!;(
:t 2200'
2100'
2000'
~r-("
t;
1000' ~
z
--
............ r:;LD JREEK GAGE O
__...,..::_-+--+15292000 -----il--+---+-----il-----1 fm' ~
120 140 180 180
RIVER MILES----i._
0
200
-' w
_,.,
220 240 200
Figure 1-13. Profile: Watana-Modifi ed High Devil Canyon Deve 1 opment.
280
)
300
WATANA El. 2200'
WATANA I El. 2100'
WATANA II El. 2000'
3600'
3000't;
w
lL
z
2liOO' 0
~
~ -' 2000' w
>-' ' "' 1fm' 0.0
!
1,, i
, ,I'
I:'.
I I ' .
I ,,
i
1-30
The screening process carried out by the Applicant required the application of several itera-
tions with progressively more stringent criteria until a field of ten potential non-Susitna
projects were chosen. The Applicant assumed the Bradley Lake and Grant hydro projects would be
added to the Railbelt system prior to 1990, and therefore these two projects were considered
planned additions rather than alternatives.
The Staff considers the Applicant's general approach acceptable but believes it appropriate to
consider the 18 sites that remained after the Applicant's fourth iteration. Table 1-16
summarizes the results of the Applicant's screening process by identifying the 91 original sites
compiled from two inventories and the sequence of progressive elimination after the application
of screening criteria. The 18 11 Shortlisted sites 11 that survived the Applicant 1 s fourth itera-
tion are listed in Table 1-17, along with the environmental rating of the sites.
FERC Staff selected for study those projects that had an environmental rating of good or accept-
able and the lowest energy cost. The five alternatives selected by the Staff along with their
respective costs, installed capacity, and average annual energy, are shown in Table 1-18. The
values listed for average annual energy of the sites were derived with the Corps' HEC-5 computer
model, using historic streamflow data for each river basin along with appropriate minimum flow
criteria for fishery habitat maintenance.
1.3.3 Non-Hydroelectric Alternatives
The physical availability of fuels for thermal generation in the Railbelt is not a significant
issue. There are sufficient reserves of oil, gas and coal, each taken individually, to meet the
most optimistic projections of internal Railbelt thermal generation from now until well past the
mid-21st Century. Physical supply is simply not a constraint. The cost at which any of those-
resources will be made available to Railbelt consumers is what is at issue, and the estimation
of non-hydroelectric fuel cost is central to the evaluation of thermal alternatives.
1.3.3.1 Petroleum Fuels
The supply of petroleum fuel is related to the supply of crude oil. From Alaska's point of
view, its crude oil reserves are so large relative to its internal needs that supply should not
be a constraint on the use of petroleum fuels for the foreseeable future. Price is another
matter. If oil prices rise relative to other energy resources, which are also abundant in
Alaska, then the state may receive the greatest economic benefit from 11 exporting 11 its petroleum
resources while consuming its lower cost resources. Petroleum fuel consumption could become
11 demand constrained.11
1.3.3.2 Natural Gas
Alaska 1 s proven gas reserves far exceed its internal needs for the foreseeable future under even
the most optimistic projections of growth. Further, its potential gas resources may materially
exceed its proven reserves. The amount of gas required to generate all of the Rai 1 be 1t' s e 1 ectri c
power needs for the next half century, about 3 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) (85 billion m3 ) is
likely less than 10% of Alaska's proven gas reserves and perhaps 4% of its potential gas
resources. However, the bulk of Alaska 1 s gas may not be accessible for use to generate power in
the Railbelt area, may be accessible only after it is needed, or may be accessible only at a
cost that prohibits its use. Unless oil prices increase materially, a pipeline to transport
Prudhoe Bay gas may not be constructed. If oil prices follow the Staff's projections, for
instance, Prudhoe Bay gas may remain locked in place well into the next century. The Cook Inlet
proven reserves, while readily accessible to the lower-Railbelt area, may not be sufficient to
meet the area's power needs for more than about 20 years if consumption continues at the present
rate.
In addition to the approximately 3.4 Tcf (96 billion m3 ) of proven reserves in the Cook Inlet
area, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) indicates that there is likely another 1.3 to
13 Tcf (37 to 370 billion m3 ) of gas as yet undiscovered in the area. If so, then there could
be more than adequate gas to meet the Railbelt's power needs for the next half century. But
since such potential reserves are not proven, and may not materialize', it is argued that it
would be imprudent to plan on the use of the as yet undiscovered gas. Further, it is argued,
that even if the gas is present, gas prices will have to rise materially to ensure that it is
discovered and developed. If Prudhoe Bay gas reserves remain locked in place, and if no new
reserves are discovered in the Cook Inlet area, then a strategy by Anchorage area electric
utilities to rely upon natural gas as a fuel for power generation could result in their units
running out of fuel early in the 21st Century.
However, it is possible that circumstances may result in Alaska's continued receipt of abundant,
low-cost gas supplies that could provide by far the least-cost power supply for many Alaskans in
the future, as it has during recent years. A discussion of this potential is included in
Table 1-16. Summary of Results of Screening Process
Elimination Elimination Elimination Elimination
Iterationt2 Iterationt2 Iterationt2 Iterationt2
Sitet 1 1 2 3 4 Sitet 1 1 2 3 4 Sitet 1 1 2 3 4 Sitet 1 1 2 3 4
Allison Creek Fox * Lowe * Talachulitna R'iver *
Beluga Lower * Gakona * Lower Chulitna * Ta 1 keetna 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 * Greenstone * Mclaren River * Tebay Lake *
Bremmer R. -s. F. * Gul kana River * Million Dollar * Teklanika *
Browne Hanagita * Moose Horn * Ti eke 1 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 * 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 1 achul itna *
t' Final site selection underlined.
t2 An asterisk (*) denotes site eliminated from further consideration.
Source: Exhibit E, Table E.10.1.
II
I
. I
, I
1':.
I .II
I.
1',1,.
I I
. ' jl
I . •I ..
.,
;, ' p
'1.1.'
! 'I
'I'
.I,
I·' '.
I ·~:r
II'.
! i,
! ·'
I
II
1-32
Table 1-17. Shortlisted Sites
Environmental CaEacit,-(MW)
Rating 0-25 25-100 100
Good Strandline Laket 1 Hi ckst' Brownet 1
A 11 i son Creekt 1 Snowt' Johnson
Tustumena Cachet'
Silver Lake Bruskasnat 1
Acceptable Keetnat 1 Chakachamnat 1
Poor Tal keetna-2t 1 Lane
Lower Chulitna Tokichitna
t 1 One of ten selected sites .
Source: Application Exhibit E, Table E.10.11.
Table 1-18. Data on Staff Non-Susitna Basin Alternatives
Estimated Total Average
Total Cost Insta 11 ed Annual
of Project Capacity of Energy of
Alternative ($ million Alternative Alternative
Investigated 1982) (MW) (GWh)
Johnson 319 210 920
Chakachamna 905 333 1,300
Snow 305 100 375
Keetna 519 100 420
Browne 681 100 418
1-33
Appendix B. The questions with regard to future power (after the next decade or so) are will
gas be available (1) where it is needed, (2) when it is needed, and (3) at a price that allows
economic power generation?
FERC Staff's gas price projections are based on an assumption that sufficient volumes of gas
will be discovered in the Cook Inlet to meet the future power requirements of the lower-Railbelt
area, and that the electric utilities will be able to obtain several contracts for such gas.
The price projections are higher than net-back prices should be for decades, but are projected
eventually to be somewhat lower. While the gas price projections are considered to be reason-
able estimates and should be sufficient to insure additional exploration, there is considerable
uncertainty in both the underlying assumption of Cook Inlet gas availability and the gas price
projections.
1.3.3.3 Coal
Because the only significant market for coal within the Railbelt is as a boiler fuel for produc-
tion of electricity, it does not compete with electricity as an end-use energy source. Further-
more, unlike petroleum fuels and natural gas, coal as an energy source is not linked as directly
to the price of crude oil. The reason that this has been, and will likely continue to be, the
case is that coal is not a close substitute for oil. The major uses to which coal is likely to
be put are the conventional ones--as a boiler fuel for producing industrial process heat and for
powering steam turbines for generating electricity by the utility industry. It is the latter
use that is the internal market for coal within the Railbelt. The export market for the
Railbelt's coal will likely entail both uses for this resource. The developing export market in
the near term is, however, as a fuel for generating electric power.
Should the market develop for Railbelt coal exports, then the export price that coal commands
will constitute the real cost of consuming that fuel locally. The outlook for such expansion is
mixed. First, the competition among coal suppliers to the Pacific Rim is substantial and will
increase in the near future. Second, the motivating factor for the diversification away from
petroleum and into coal, among other fuels, has diminished measurably during the last 18 months
as the outlook for real escalation in world prices has moderated and the prospects for falling
crude prices have become reality. Thus, the value of the coal available for electricity genera-
tion within the Railbelt is likely to be the cost of extracting and transporting it to the
generator .. Given the vast· supplies available to serve both the domestic as well as export
markets, there is no persuasive reason to anticipate that the real costs of supplying the coal
will esc a 1 ate.
1.3.3.4 Peat
Alaska contains permafrost-free peat deposits that are estimated at 27 to 107 million acres (11
to 43 million ha), and represent more than half of total U.S. peat reserves. Forty-seven million
acres (19 million ha) are located 5 ft (1.5 m) or less from the surface. Some 30 million acres
(12 million ha) show promise as an energy resource. A 1980. survey by the Department of Energy
investigated large peat fields located in three separate locations within the Railbelt (the
Matanuska-Susitna valleys, Fairbanks, and the Kenai Peninsula) and concluded that those fields
constituted a potentially valuable source of fuel, particularly for remote communities. Accord-
ing to the Division of Energy and Power Development of Alaska, .peat for use in steam electric
generation plants appears competitive with coal priced at $2.00 per million Btu, however, develop-
mental and operational issues associated with prototype plants would have to be addressed before
commercial plants could be contemplated.
1.3.3.5 Geothermal Energy
Several areas of Alaska have geothermal potential, particularly areas near or within the Railbelt.
To date, however, only a fraction of that potential has actually been tapped--in the form of hot
springs used for space heating and resort spas. Such springs are located at Manley Hot Springs,
Chenea Hot Springs, and Tolovana. A number of geothermal sites are being investigated for their
thermal energy and electric generation potential. Areas containing hot igneous systems, in or
bordering the Railbelt, include Mt. Drum, Mt. Wrangell, and Double Peak. In most cases, how-
ever, geothermal heating systems are not currently economically competitive with conventional
heating a 1 ternatives. Drilling costs are extremely high, and the resource va 1 ue of geothermal
energy is critically dependent upon the proximity to the end user. The heat distribution system
for these wells can increase costs by a factor of five or six. According to the Division of
Energy and Power Development, estimates of heat distribution piping average about $150/ft
($500/m), so even a small village of 50 residences, each about 150 ft (46 m) apart, would pay
over $1 million for just the distribution system.
,I
i' , I
. 1 'I
i,'.
I'
I
'I
'
I
' I !
I;
1-34
1.3.3.6 Tidal Power
Tidal energy is potentially available in Alaska, primarily in the Cook Inlet areas of the Rail-
belt, where the height of tidal variation and the volume of tidal flow are sufficient to make
tidal power projects practical. Ti da 1 energy can be converted into electricity by capturing
both the potential energy associated with the height of tidal fluctuations as well as the kinetic
energy associated with the flow of tidal water in and out of a contained area. If all the
potential and kinetic energy of Cook Inlet were captured and made available to users in the
Railbelt area of Alaska, it would provide electric power for the entire region well beyond the
year 2050. A study prepared by Acres American identified 16 sites in the Cook Inlet area whose
total energy capacity exceeded 186,000 GWh, with a total potential capacity of 73 GW. The
Division of Energy and Power of Alaska concluded early in 1983 that development of commercial
tidal power is more than a decade away.
1.3.3. 7 Solar Energy
Solar energy is not regarded as a potential source of power within the Railbelt, either in the
form of photovoltaic energy or solar heat. Despite the long hours of daylight that characterize
the summers in the Railbelt, the periods of greatest energy need are during the winter, when
solar energy production in Alaska will be negligible. In order to justify even the projected
low investment costs in solar devices, it would be necessary for such equipment to make sub-
stantial contributions to the supply of energy when energy requirements are greatest.
1.3.4 Non-Structural Alternatives
Non-structural alternatives to construction of new electric generating capacity are being
emphasized in many states because of the high capital costs of new generation and the resulting
need for rate increases. The most important non-structural alternatives are conservation (of
energy), rate revision, and load management. In an effort to advance these alternatives, the
Congress has passed three related Acts: (1) the National Energy Conservation Act of 1978;
(2) the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978; and (3) the Public Utility Regulatory
Policies Act (PURPA) of 1978. Provisions of these Acts that may be pertinent are included in
Appendix C. A separate action to advance the effects of non-structural alternativs (rate
revision and load management) is a study proposed by the National Association of Regulatory
Utility Commissioners (NARUC). This study, known as the NARUC Resolution No. 9 Study, has been
in progress for some time, and is described in Appendix C.
1.3.4.1 Effects of Conservation on Demand
Conservation of electric energy has been advocated as one means of reducing the demand for
electric power, thereby reducing the need to install new generating facilities. To date, most
conservation measures have been voluntary and have been encouraged through public education or
Federal programs. These measures include encouraging the use of major appliances during off-
peak hours, lowering the thermostat setting of heating units, and raising the thermostat setting
on air conditioning units. Conservation could also be encouraged by providing tax incentives or
low-cost Federal loans for insulating residential and commercial establishments, for designing
and constructing energy-efficient homes and offices, and for manufacturing energy-efficient
equipment.
There are three principal types of conservation programs that play a part in the current energy
scenario of the Railbelt. Those program categories are: (1) the State Residential Energy
Conservation Program; (2) the Municipality of Anchorage Low-Income Weatherization Program; and
(3) various Railbelt utility-sponsored conservation assistance programs.
The state-sponsored program has undertaken the following: (1) the training of energy auditors;
(2) the performance of residential energy audits entailing the physical inspection of the
premises; (3) the provision of grants and loans for conservation improvements recommended by the
audit; and (4) provision of retrofitted insulation and weatherization for qualifying low-income
households .. The Municipality of Anchorage's program provides grants of up to $1,600 for energy
conservation materials and repairs. The utility-sponsored conservation programs, at least so
far as they address residential consumers, can best be described as educationally oriented.
Distributing brochures, making presentation to groups, and counseling customers regarding conser-
vation techniques appear to characterize the bulk of this activity. Most assessments of.these
conservation programs ( i ncl udi ng the assessments of the sponsoring organizations) indicate
modest impacts, particularly in the Anchorage area. The trend appears to be curtailment rather
than expansion of most of these efforts. Experience in other states suggests that consumer
conservation measures are generally undertaken when electric rates become burdensome and the
savings available from specific measures are well identified.
1-35
1.3.4.2 Effects of Rate Revision on.Demand
Restructured or redesigned electric tariffs, developed to reduce electric energy consumption,
should attempt to more accurately represent the true cost of producing the electric power. The
cost in terms of economic resources to produce a unit of electricity for the supply of utility
system loads changes continuously. Cost depends on the size of the system load, which is con-
stantly varying in hourly, daily, weekly, and seasonal cycles, and on the availability and
efficiency of generation capacity, which often varies in a 12-month cycle. To the extent that
rates reflect these costs, rates provide signals to customers about the amount of power consump-
tion that is consistent with the efficient use of energy resources. In theory, seasonal rates
designed to account for the average seasonal difference in the cost of producing energy might be
used; or, if the cost of implementing them can be justified, time-of-day rates--rates that
reflect the marginal cost of producing energy, a cost that fluctuates with each change in system
load--should be used.
While the economic theory of rate revision is basically sound, the implementation of rate
revision presents a variety of practical problems. Electric energy use appears to be responsive
to price in the long run, but is limited in response during shorter periods. For example, most
consumers of electricity have a significant investment in electrical equipment. For these
consumers, operating existing equipment at high electric costs may be less expensive than invest-
ing in more efficient equipment that would operate at a relatively lower cost. In this situa-
tion, implementation of increased rates has the potential to penalize the consumer while
achieving little or no reduction in energy consumption.
As a result of a number of experiments conducted in the 1970s, it appears that revised rate
designs and load management, in the absence of major changes in the general rate level, will
reduce but not eliminate the need for substantial amounts of new peaking capacity. It is doubt-
ful that in the near future, rate design and load management will invalidate the need for
additional generation.
1.4 SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT
FERC Staff examined several alternative power resource development scenarios for the Railbelt.
These scenarios include development of the Susitna River Basin using the Susitna project as
proposed by the Applicant and numerous other alternatives for Susitna River development; the
development of smaller hydroelectric resources outside of the Susitna River Basin; the use of
thermal generation expansion patterns fueled predominantly by either coal or gas; and the use of
a combination of resource types. All of the scenarios considered technologies currently avail-
able, and the combination scenario considered some technologies expected to be commercially
available in the next decade. Each scenario is discussed separately in the following sections.
1.4.1 Susitna Basin Development
The Staff studied the 19 alternatives for Susitna Basin hydropower development identified in
Section 1.3.1 (Table 1-15) to determine which projects would meet the system load requirements
for the Railbelt through the year 2013 with the least total system cost. The Railbelt power
system costs were determined for the alternative projects using the OPCOST program model. The
Applicant's data for the existing system characteristics with planned additions and retirements
a·nd Staff estimates of fuel costs, fuel cost escalation, and load projections were used. The
system operation was simulated from 1993 to 2042, with load growth and real fuel cost escalation
assumed from 1993 to 2013, but constant load and constant real fuel cost assumed from 2014 to
2042. OPCOST was run for each generation alternative using the Staff's high, low, and medium
load forecasts.
The OPCOST program simulates the hour by hour operation of an electric power generating system
subject to constraints imposed by the system generating unit characteristics, unit 1 oadi ng
criteria, and user-specified system operating rules. Input data are the hourly system 1 oads,
individual generating unit data, and assumed load and fuel escalation rates. Output consists of
a tally of the energy production, fuel consumption, and costs incurred for each unit. Results
are also aggregated into monthly and yearly system total costs, system total energy production,
and various other system operating statistics.
The OPCOST runs identified a total of six alternative hydropower development plans for the
Susitna River that meet system load requirements through the year 2013 and provide low overall
system costs for all three load forecasts. Table 1-19 contains a summary of the levelized
annual system power costs (in constant 1982 dollars) for the proposed project and each of the
six alternative plans for both the high and low load forecasts, and for a range of real discount
rates from 3.5% to 7.0%. These costs include the levelized capital, operation, and maintenance
costs of the hydroelectric developments.
I
I' ,I
!
ij
I
I
'
·I !
I
:111:
)!
:·I
!1_:1'·
I,
I
I• .I
1-34
1.3.3.6 Tidal Power
Tidal energy is potentially available in Alaska, primarily in the Cook Inlet areas of the Rail-
belt, where the height of tidal variation and the volume of tidal flow are sufficient to make
tidal power projects practical. Tidal energy can be converted into electricity by capturing
both the potential energy associated with the height of tidal fluctuations as well as the kinetic
energy associated with the flow of tidal water in and out of a contained area. If all the
potential and kinetic energy of Cook Inlet were captured and made available to users in the
Railbelt area of Alaska, it would provide electric power for the entire region well beyond the
year 2050. A study prepared by Acres American identified 16 sites in the Cook Inlet area whose
total energy capacity exceeded 186,000 GWh, with a total potential capacity of 73 GW. The
Division of Energy and Power of Alaska concluded early in 1983 that development of commercial
tidal power is more than a decade away.
1.3.3. 7 Solar Energy
Solar energy is not regarded as a potential source of power within the Railbelt, either in the
form of photovoltaic energy or solar heat. Despite the long hours of daylight that characterize
the summers in the Railbelt, the periods of greatest energy need are during the winter, when
solar energy production in Alaska will be negligible. In order to justify even the projected
low investment costs in solar devices, it would be necessary for such equipment to make sub-
stantial contributions to the supply of energy when energy requirements are greatest.
1.3.4 Non-Structural Alternatives
Non-structural alternatives to construction of new electric generating capacity are being
emphasized in many states because of the high capital costs of new generation and the resulting
need for rate increases. The most important non-structura 1 a 1 ternati ves are conservation (of
energy), rate revision, and load management. In an effort to advance these alternatives, the
Congress has passed three related Acts: (1) the National Energy Conservation Act of 1978;
(2) the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978; and (3) the Public Utility Regulatory
Po 1 i ci es Act (PURPA) of 1978. Pro visions of these Acts that may be pertinent are included in
Appendix C. A separate action to advance the effects of non-structural alternativs (rate
revision and load management) is a study proposed by the National Association of Regulatory
Utility Commissioners (NARUC). This study, known as the NARUC Resolution No. 9 Study, has been
in progress for some time, and is described in Appendix C.
1.3.4.1 Effects of Conservation on Demand
Conservation of electric energy has been advocated as one means of reducing the demand for
electric power, thereby reducing the need to install new generating facilities. To date, most
conservation measures have been voluntary and have been encouraged through public education or
Federa 1 programs. These measures include encouraging the use of major app 1 i ances during off-
peak hours, lowering the thermostat setting of heating units, and raising the thermostat setting
on air conditioning units. Conservation could also be encouraged by providing tax incentives or
low-cost Federal loans for insulating residential and commercial establishments, for designing
and constructing energy-efficient homes and offices, and for manufacturing energy-efficient
equipment.
There are three principal types of conservation programs that play a part in the current energy
scenario of the Railbelt. Those program categories are: (1) the State Residential Energy
Conservation Program; (2) the Municipality of Anchorage Low-Income Weatherization Program; and
(3) various Railbelt utility-sponsored conservation assistance programs.
The state-sponsored program has undertaken the following: (1) the training of energy auditors;
(2) the performance of resi denti a 1 energy audits entailing the physi ca 1 inspection of the
premises; (3) the provision of grants and loans for conservation improvements recommended by the
audit; and (4) provision of retrofitted insulation and weatherization for qualifying low-income
households .. The Municipality of Anchorage's program provides grants of up to $1,600 for energy
conservation materials and repairs. The utility-sponsored conservation programs, at 1 east so
far as they address residential consumers, can best be described as educationally oriented.
Distributing brochures, making presentation to groups, and counseling customers regarding conser-
vation techniques appear to characterize the bulk of this activity. Most assessments of_ these
conservation programs ( i ncl udi ng the assessments of the sponsoring organizations) indicate
modest impacts, particularly in the Anchorage area. The trend appears to be curtailment rather
than expansion of most of these efforts. Experience in other states suggests that consumer
conservation measures are generally undertaken when electric rates become burdensome and the
savings available from specific measures are well identified.
1-35
1.3.4.2 Effects of Rate Revision on_Demand
Restructured or redesigned electric tariffs, developed to reduce electric energy consumption,
should attempt to more accurately represent the true cost of producing the electric power. The
cost in terms of economic resources to produce a unit of electricity for the supply of utility
system loads changes continuously. Cost depends on the size of the system load, which is con-
stantly varying in hourly, daily, weekly, and seasonal cycles, and on the availability and
efficiency of generation capacity, which often varies in a 12-month cycle. To the extent that
rates reflect these costs, rates provide signals to customers about the amount of power consump-
tion that is consistent with the efficient use of energy resources. In theory, seasonal rates
designed to account for the average seasonal difference in the cost of producing energy might be
used; or, if the cost of implementing them can be justified, time-of-day rates--rates that
reflect the marginal cost of producing energy, a cost that fluctuates with each change in system
load--should be used.
While the economic theory of rate revision is basically sound, the implementation of rate
revision presents a variety of practical problems. Electric energy use appears to be responsive
to price in the long run, but is limited in response during shorter periods. For example, most
consumers of electricity have a significant investment in electrical equipment. For these
consumers, operating existing equipment at high electric costs may be less expensive than invest-
ing in more efficient equipment that would operate at a relatively lower cost. In this situa-
tion, implementation of increased rates has the potential to penalize the consumer while
achieving little or no reduction in energy consumption.
As a result of a number of experiments conducted in the 1970s, it appears that revised rate
designs and load management, in the absence of major changes in the general rate level, will
reduce but not eliminate the need for substantial amounts of new peaking capacity. It is doubt-
ful that in the near future, rate design and load management will invalidate the need for
additional generation.
1.4 SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT
FERC Staff examined several alternative power resource development scenarios for the Railbelt.
These scenarios include development of the Susitna River Basin using the Susitna project as
proposed by the Applicant and numerous other alternatives for Susitna River development; the
development of smaller hydroelectric resources outside of the Susitna River Basin; the use of
thermal generation expansion patterns fueled predominantly by either coal or gas; and the use of
a combination of resource types. All of the scenarios considered technologies currently avail-
able, and the combination scenario considered some techno 1 ogi es expected to be commercially
available in the next decade. Each scenario is discussed separately in the following sections.
1.4.1 Susitna Basin Development
The Staff studied the 19 alternatives for Susitna Basin hydropower development identified in
Section 1.3.1 (Table 1-15) to determine which projects would meet the system load requirements
for the Railbelt through the year 2013 with the least total system cost. The Railbelt power
system costs were determined for the alternative projects using the OPCOST program model. The
Applicant's data for the existing system characteristics with planned additions and retirements
a·nd Staff estimates of fuel costs, fuel cost escalation, and load projections were used. The
system operation was simulated from 1993 to 2042, with load growth and real fuel cost escalation
assumed from 1993 to 2013, but constant load and constant real fuel cost assumed from 2014 to
2042. OPCOST was run for each generation a 1 ternative using the Staff's high, 1 ow, and medi urn
load forecasts.
The OPCOST program simulates the hour by hour operation of an electric power generating system
subject to constraints imposed by the system generating unit characteristics, unit loading
criteria, and user-specified system operating rules. Input data are the hourly system loads,
individual generating unit data, and assumed load and fuel escalation rates. Output consists of
a tally of the energy production, fuel consumption, and costs incurred for each unit. Results
are also aggregated into monthly and yearly system total costs, system total energy production,
and various other system operating statistics.
The OPCOST runs identified a total of six alternative hydropower development plans for the
Susitna River that meet system load requirements through the year 2013 and provide low overall
system costs for all three load forecasts. Table 1-19 contains a summary of the levelized
annual system power costs (in constant 1982 dollars) for the proposed project and each of the
six alternative plans for both the high and low load forecasts, and for a range of real discount
rates from 3.5% to 7.0%. These costs include the levelized capital, operation, and maintenance
costs of the hydroelectric developments.
'I
:!
I
' i' I!
I'
" :'I
'
1-36
Table 1-19. Summary of OPCOST Data on Susitna Basin Alternatives,
Proposed Project and Preferred Alternatives
Discount
Susitna Development Scenario Rate (%)
Watana-Devil Canyon (Application) 3.5
5.2
7.0
Watana !-Devil Canyon 3.5
5.2
7.0
Watana II-Devil Canyon 3.5
5.2
7.0
High Devil Canyon-Vee 3.5
5.2
7.0
Watana !-Modified High Devil Canyon 3.5
5.2
7.0
Watana !!-Modified High Devil Canyon 3.5
5.2
7.0
Watana !-Tunnel Rereg 3.5
5.2
7.0
Levelized Total
Power Costt 1
($ million 1982)
High Load Low Load
Forecast Forecast
192.6 183.5
195.7 188.4
193.4 187.7
186.1 172.8
184.9 174.4
180.9 172.7
184.6 169.1
181.2 169.0
175.0 166.0
163.6 158.3
159.3 154.3
155.5 147.2
185.2 172.4
187.1 172.3
179.1 170.3
186.9 170.9
182.1 169.4
175.0 165.0
192.0 172.3
190.8 175.9
188.4 177.4
t 1 Power cost includes fuel and operating costs of existing and planned Railbelt generation,
less retirements, plus the capital and operating costs of the specified combinations of
alternative hydropower additions.
The six alternatives were screened on the basis of relative cost and energy capability and
environmental acceptability. This screening resulted in three preferred alternative development
scenarios for the Susitna River. Each includes Watana I as the first-stage development, with
either Devil Canyon, Modified High Devil Canyon, or Tunnel 3 Reregulating dam as the second stage.
The most environmentally acceptable of the plans appears to be the Watana I development with the
Tunnel 3 Reregulating dam.
1.4.2 Non-Susitna River Hydroelectric Development Plans
The Staff studied the optimum development schedule for the five non-Susitna hydropower projects
identified in Table 1-18. The analysis included development plans for the Chakachamna site, as
well as plans without Chakachamna but with a combined cycle plant or a coal plant and gas
turbine as replacements. The various scenarios were analyzed using the Staff 1 s OPCOST program
to determine the Railbelt system power cost in the same manner as discussed in Section 1.4.1.
The results of the analysis for the four lowest-cost scenarios are summarized in Table 1-20.
The studies indicate that the 11 With Chakachamna 11 scenarios 1 and 2 and the 11 without Chakachamna 11
scenarios 3 and 4 have almost identical total levelized costs. In all cases thermal generation
additions are needed to meet load requirements through the year 2013, as indicated in Table 1-20.
1.4.3 Natural-Gas-Fired Generation Scenario
The proven and estimated natural gas resources in the Cook Inlet area of the Railbelt (see
Fig. 1-14) and the possibilities for transport of North Slope natural gas to the Railbelt justify
consideration of natural gas generation as an alternative to the proposed project. In its gas
1-37
Table 1-20. Summary of OPCOST Data of Preferred
Non-Susitna Basin Development Plans
Development Plan
With Chakachamna
(1) 1993-Johnson
2003-Chakachamna & Snow
2008-Browne & Keetna & Coal Plant
(2) 1993-Johnson
1998-Chakachamna
2003-Snow
2008-Browne & Keetna & Coal Plant
Without Chakachamna
(3) 1993-Johnson
2003-Snow & Keetna
2008-Browne & Combined Cycle & Coal Plant
(4) 1993-Johnson
1998-Snow & Keetna
2008-Browne & Combined Cycle & Coal Plant
Discount
Rate (%)
3.5
5.2
7.0
3.5
5.2
7.0
3.5
5.2
7.0
3.5
5.2
7.0
Levelized Total
Power Costt 1
($ million 1982)
High Load
Forecast
139.9
120.9
98.1
138.1
120.6
99.2
140.0
119.1
96.3
140.3
120.8
99.7
Low Load
Forecast
118.9
104.3
85.2
117.9
104.9
87.6
117.8
101.6
82.5
118.6
103.7
86.4
t 1 Power cost includes fuel and operating costs of existing and planned generation, less
retirements, plus the capital and operating costs of the .specified combinations of alter-
native hydropower additions.
scenario, the Staff assumed that adequate supplies of natural gas will be available in the Cook
Inlet area at the assumed price to fuel all generating units added by 2022. The scenario also
includes the assumption that an exemption from the Fuel Use Act will allow the use of natural
gas as a fuel for base-load power generation.
1.4.3.1 Scenario Evaluation
The gas scenario was evaluated by determining the annual operating costs associated with the
scenario, as developed by the PRODCOST production costing model over the 30-year period 1993-
2022. The analysis was based on an assumed real escalation of fuel costs but no escalation of
other costs. Fuel costs were escalated from 1982 through 2022 and held constant thereafter.
Total power costs of each year include the operating and maintenance cost of that year plus the
plant investments made in that year. To reflect costs beyond 2022, the total operating cost
experienced in 2022 was assumed to be repeated for an additional 20 years. These total annual
costs were adjusted to 1982 present worth and then levelized over the 50-year life of a hydro-
electric license, using discount rates of 3.5%, 5.2%, and 7.0%. The gas scenario requires eight
200-MW combined-cycle units and two 70-.MW combustion-turbine units to be installed by 2022 to
meet medium load growth.
Costs were examined for high and medium demand levels, with both high and medium fuel escalation
rates. Results of the analysis are shown Table 1-21.
''
II
!
I •'i
I ~~ ~.·1' ,I : .I
'I
NATURAL GAS &
PETROLEUM
(\¢¢()( NATURAL GAS FIELDS
• OIL FIELDS
••••• PROPOSED NORTH SLOPE
NATURAL GAS PIPELINE
-·-NATURAL GAS PIPELINES
·-· PETROLEUM PRODUCTS PIPELINE
1-38
SCALE
0 50 100 Miles
Figure 1-14. Natural Gas and Petroleum Resources of the Railbelt Area, Including Natural
Gas, Petroleum Products, and Crude Pipelines. [Source: Battelle Pacific
Northwest Laboratories, 1982b]
1-39
Table 1-21. Cook Inlet Gas Scenario Cost Comparison with Proposed
Susitna Project; Present Worth (PW) and Levelized
Total Annual Costt 1 (LAC)--$10 6 ($ 1982)
Discount Rate (%)
3.5 5.2 7.0
Scenario PW LAC PW LAC PW
Mid Forecast and Mid Fuel Escalation Rate
Gas 3,701 157.79 2,315 130.75 1,484
Susitna 4,383 186.86 3,368 190.22 2,615
Mid Forecast and High Fuel Escalation Rate
Gas 4,046 172.50 2,507 141.59 1,595
Susitna 4,459 190.10 3,408 192.48 2,638
High Forecast and Mid Fuel Escalation Rate
Gas 4,089 174.33 2,554 144.25 1,623
Susitna 4,566 194.67 3,478 196.43 2,685
High Forecast and High Fuel Escalation Rate
Gas 4,474 190.74 2,758 156.33 1,760
Susitna 4,663 198.80 3,531 199.42 2,714
t' Present worth in 1982 dollars and cost levelized over 50 years.
1.4.3.2 Data Assumptions for Gas Scenario
LAC
107.53
189.48
115.57
191.15
178.62
194.55
127.53
196.66
The technical data for projected generating facilities used in the gas scenario were again
adopted from the Applicant's data, after review, and as in all other scenarios, data for existing
plants and their retirement schedules are the same as used by Applicant. As did the Applicant,
the Staff assumed the Bradley Lake and Grant Lake hydroelectric projects were in service prior
to 1993 and that the siting flexibility of gas-fired combustion turbines and gas-fired combined
cycle facilities justified analysis without consideration of transmission requirements for unit
additions. Location of generating resources in the Cook Inlet area would probably require
reinforcement of intertie transmission to serve load in the Fairbanks area.
Staff assumptions for electric power demand and fuel cost are shown in Tables 1-22 and 1-23.
1.4.4 Coal-Fired Generation Scenario
In light of the extensive coal resources available to the Railbelt, system expansion served
predominantly by coal-fired generation (but i ncl udi ng a considerable amount of gas-fired
combustion-turbine units) is a realistic alternative to the Susitna project. Among the many
coal fields in the area (Fig. 1-15), two--the Nenana and Beluga fields--show superior potential
for development. The Nenana coal field has proven reserves of 861 million tons (781 million MT)
and indicated reserves of over 6 billion tons (5.4 billion MT). The Beluga field has proven
reserves of 275 million tons (250 million MT) and indicated reserves of more than ten times that
amount. The only major, currently producing mine in the Railbelt, the Usibelli mine, is located
in the Nenana field. The Beluga field is currently in an exploratory and predevelopment stage
and has not been producing to date.
Requirements for development of the Beluga coal field include a major export market on the order
of 5 million tons (4.5 million MT) per year, a major local market with rapidly increasing coal
demands, or a combination of export and local markets. In light of the uncertainty regarding
development of the Beluga coal field, the existing expansion capability of the Usibelli mine,
and the proven reserves available in the Nenana coal field, the Staff chose to develop a coal
generation scenario that reflected the costs and en vi ronmenta l impacts of production from the
Nenana field and electric power generation in the Nenana area. The environmental effects of
locating five coal units in the Nenana area were subsequently evaluated and found to be undesir-
able. The location of three coal units in the Nenana area and two subsequent units in the
Will ow area was considered more acceptable in the Staff review. The latter arrangement waul d
increase the coal scenario cost slightly but would not alter the general cost comparison with
the Susitna project.
1-40
Table 1-22. Load Forecast Used for Thermal Alternatives Evaluation
Load Forecast 1983 1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040
High
Energy (GWh) 2,760 3,049 3,680 4,107 4,472 5,767 7,437 9,591 12,368
Peak (MW) 573 629 765 855 930 1,198 1,545 1,992 2,569
~ I'
Mid
Energy 2,760 3,032 3,487 3,821 4,197 5,359 6,844 8,739 11,160
I.
Peak 573 626 726 795 873 1,114 1,424 1,818 2,322
Low
Energy 2,760 3,021 3,372 3,568 3,899 4,961 6,313 8,033 10,222
Peak 573 623 701 742 810 1,028 1,308 1,665 2,118
Table 1-23. Fuel Price Projections ($ 1982)
Fuel
Forecast 1983 1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
\ Oil ($/bbl)
High 29 26 31 29 32 38 46 56 68 82
Medium 29 24 20 22 24 29 36 44 54 66
. Low 29 10 14 16 17 21 25 30 37 46
. :
Gas ($/MMBtu)
High 2.68 2.51 2.80 3.03 3.20 3.53 4.02 4.60 5.29 6.10
Medium 2.68 2.39 2.16 2.62 2.74 3.03 3.44 3.90 4.48 5.18
Low 2.68 l. 58 1.81 2.25 2.33 2.54 2. 77 3.09 3.49 4.02
I Coal ($/MMBtu)
il High l. 55 l. 55 l. 55 l. 57 l. 59 l. 64 l. 70 1.76 l. 82 l. 89
Medium l. 55 l. 55 l. 55 l. 55 l. 55 l. 55 l. 55 1. 55 l. 55 l. 55
! :i
Low
Diesel Oil ($/bbl)
··I High 40 37 42 40 43 49 57 67 79 93
•I Medium 40 35 31 33 35 40 47 55 65 77
,11: Low 40 21 25 27 28 32 36 41 48 57
t· i
,, i ..
I
I;
r
I
1-41
COAL RESOURCES~
-FIELDS HAVING SUPERIOR POTENTIAL
~ OTHER FIELDS I'
SCALE
0 50
Figure 1-15. Major Coal Resources of the Railbelt Area.
[Source: Battelle Pacific Northwest
Laboratories, 1982a]
(
100 Miles
I'
1:
I
!
,,
' I i
1-42
Analysis of a Nenana Coal generation scenario provides a reasonable cost comparison of coal
generation versus the Susitna project. It illuminates environmental issues and helps determine
whether there is a need to disperse Nenana-supplied coal generation along the Alaskan Railroad.
It also provides information pertinent to the possible development of the Beluga coal field.
1.4.4.1 Scenario Evaluation
The coal scenario was evaluated by using the PRODCOST production costing model to simulate the
annual Railbelt electric power system operation with the Susitna project in service and alter-
natively, with the coal scenario. System operation over the 30-year period 1993-2022 was simula-
ted in detail. The analysis included consideration of cost escalation above a general inflation
rate by including real cost escalation for thermal fuels and assumed zero escalation for all
other costs. Fuel costs were escalated from 1982-2022 and held constant thereafter.
Total costs in each year reflected the operating and maintenance costs of that year plus any
plant investment made that year. To reflect costs beyond the year 2022, the total operating
cost experienced in 2022 was assumed to be repeated for an additional 20 years. These total
annual costs were adjusted to 1982 present worth and then levelized over the 50-year life of a
hydroelectric license, using discount rates of 3.5%, 5.2%, and 7.0%. The coal scenario requires
five 200-MW coal units and ten 70-MW combustion-turbine units to serve the medium load growth
forecast through 2022.
Sensitivity analyses included determination of system costs associated with the Staff's medium
and high electric power demand forecasts, each with medium and high fuel escalation rates. The
cost of the high demand/high fuel escalation rate case was also calculated with transmission
requirements included. The results of the analyses are shown in Table 1-24.
1.4.4.2 Data Assumptions for Coal Scenario
The Staff reviewed and adopted as reasonable the Applicant's technical data for existing and
projected generating facilities and adopted the Applicant's schedules for the retirement of
existing generating facilities. The Staff a 1 so concurred in the App 1 i cant's assumption that
both the Bradley Lake and Grant Lake hydroelectric developments would be in operation prior to
1993.
Table 1-24. Nenana Coal Scenario Cost Comparison with Susitna; Present
Worth (PW) and Levelized Total Annual Costt 1 (LAC)--$10"
Discount Rate (%)
3.5 5.2 7.0
Scenario PW LAC PW LAC PW
Mid Forecast and Mid Fuel Escalation Rate
Coal Scenario 3,748 159.79 2,392 135.10 1,558
Susitna 4,383 186.86 3,368 190.22 2,615
Mid Forecast and High Fuel Escalation'Rate
Coal Scenario 3,912 166.78 2,492 140. 74 1,620
Susitna 4,459 190.10 3,408 192.48 2,638
High Forecast and Mid Fuel Escalation Rate
Coal Scenario 4,156 177.19 2,644 149.33 1, 720
Susitna 4,566 194.67 3,490 197.11 2,696
High Forecast and High Fuel Escalation Rate
Coal Scenario 4,351 185.50 2,759 155.82 1,789
Susitna 4,663 198.80 3,531 199.42 2,714
Coal Scenario Plus
Transmissiont2 4,656 198.5
t1 Present worth in 1982 do 11 ars and cost levelized over 50 years.
LAC
112.89
189.48
117.38
191.15
124.63
195.35
129.63
196.66
t2 Assumed 20% increase in the fixed cost portion (assumed to be 35% of total) of
the total levelized annual cost.
1
1-43
Assumptions with regard to electric power demand and fuel cost were prepared separately (see
Sec. 1.2.4). The Staff's electric power demand projections are shown in Table 1-22 and fuel
costs in Table 1-23.
The forecast demands shown in Table 1-22 are preliminary figures used for computer analysis of
the various scenarios. They are somewhat higher in the later years than the latest staff projec-
tions shown in Table 1-6 and result in slightly higher total costs for thermal generation.
However, the slight difference has no impact on the conclusions reached by the Staff in their
analyses.
1.4.5 Scenario Comparison and Combined Scenarios
1.4.5.1 Hydroelectric Scenarios
The Staff's analyses in Sections 1.4.1 and 1.4.2 show that non-Susitna Basin hydropower develop-
ment plans can provide a lower-cost means of meeting the Railbelt system electric loads till the
year 2013 than the three preferred Susitna Basin hydropower alternatives, and are also less
costly than the Susitna development plan proposed by the Applicant. The three preferred Susitna
Basin alternative plans are compared with a non-Susitna hydroelectric scenario in Table 1-25.
1.4.5.2 Thermal Scenarios
The analyses in Sections 1.4.3 and 1.4.4 indicate that the coal and gas scenarios would meet the
Railbelt power requirements at lower cost than the proposed Sustina project.
1.4.5.3 Combined Scenarios
In recognition of concerns regarding sole source dependence on greatly expanded development of
the Nenana coal fields or on the absence of other markets for the Cook Inlet gas reserves, the
Staff also examined the economic implications of a mixed scenario consisting of a combination of
gas-fired combined-cycle generation in the Cook Inlet area and coal-fired generation in the
Nenana area. For medium load growth, the mixed coal and gas development consists of three
200-MW coal-fired units, four 200-MW gas-fired combined-cycle units, and four 70-MW combustion-
turbine units to be installed by the year 2022. A comparison of the more prudent mixed thermal
scenario with the coal and gas scenarios is shown in Table 1-26. Other combinations of thermal
generating resources were also considered. The utilization of gas-based fuel cells and refuse-
derived fuel for steam generation were both found to be more expensive than the gas-fired
combined-cycle and coal-fired alternative forms of generation.
The results shown in Tables 1-25 and 1-26 indicate that use of Alaska's coal and gas resources,
either singly or in combination, is likely to provide a more economic means of meeting the
Railbelt power requirements than the proposed Susitna project or any of the preferred Susitna
River Basin alternatives to the Susitna project. The tables also show that, on the basis of
available construction cost estimates, a non-Susitna River hydroelectric development plan appears
to be the lowest cost hydropower development scenario. A conclusion from these· analyses is
that, with the high construction costs of the larger hydroelectric projects and current uncer-
tainties regarding Beluga coal development, the most prudent Railbelt generation expansion plan
would be a mix of non-Susitna hydroelectric resources with a combination of gas-fired combined
cycle generation in the Cook Inlet area and coal-fired generation in the Nenana area. The use
of smaller, lower cost hydroelectric resources in such a plan would reduce thermal generation
requirements and fuel demands through t~e study period.
I
I
I ~~
'11
1
I I,
1-44
Table l-25. Comparison of Susitna Basin and Non-Susitna
Basin Hydroelectric Development Plans
Development Scenario
Watana !-Devil Canyon
Watana !-Modified High Devil Canyon
Watana !-Tunnel Reregulation
With-Chakachamna Development Plan (1)
1993--Johnson
2003--Chakachamna & Snow
2008--Browne & Keetna & Coal Plant
Discount
Rate (%)
3.5
5.2
7.0
3.5
5.2
7.0
3.5
5.2
7.0
3.5
5.2
7.0
t 1 Present worth in 1982 levelized over 50 years.
Levelized Total
Power Costt 1
($million 1982)
High Load
Forecast
186.1
184.9
180.9
185.2
187.1
179.2
192.0
190.8
188.4
139.9
120.9
98.1
Low Load
Forecast
172.8
174.4
172.7
172.3
172.3
17D.3
172.3
175.9
177.4
118.9
104.3
85.2
Table 1-26. Comparison of Thermal Development Plans
Discount
Development Scenario Rate (%)
Coal 3.5
5.2
7.0
Gas 3.5
5.2
7.0
Coal and Gas Mix 3.5
5.2
7.0
Levelizedt 1 Total
Power Costt2
($ million 1982)
High Load Mid Load
Forecast Forecast
177.19 159.79
149.33 135.10
124.63 112.89
174.33 157.79
144.25 130.75
118.62 107.53
174.29 156.12
146.5D 131.76
122.17 110.14
t 1 Present worth in 1982 dollars levelized over 50 years.
t 2 Mid fuel escalation rate.
1-45
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 1
Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories. 1982a. Coal-Fired Steam-Electric Power Plant Alterna-
tive for the Railbelt Region. Richland, WA.
Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories. 1982b. Preliminary Railbelt Electric Energy Plans.
Richland, WA.
Kresge, D. T., Morehouse and Rogers. 1978. Issues in Alaska Development, University of
Washington Press.
I
I
I
'I '!
• i
i
.I' . I
2. PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
2.1 PROPOSED PROJECT
2.1.1 Location
The proposed project would consist of the Watana and Devil Canyon hydroelectric developments on
the Susitna River about 180 miles (mi) [288 kilometers (km)] north and east of Anchorage, Alaska
(see general vicinity map, Fig. 2-1).
2.1.2 Facilities
2.1.2.1 Watana Development
Watana· dam would be located at River Mile (RM) 184 approximately 2.5 mi (4 km) upstream of the
Tsusena Creek confluence. The earth-rock fill dam would have a central impervious core protected
by fine and coarse filters. A downstream outer shell of rockfill and alluvial gravel underlain
by a toe drain and filter, and an upstream outer shell of clean alluvial gravel. The nominal
crest elevation of the dam would be 2,205 feet (ft) [672 meters (m)] with a maximum height of
885 ft (270 m) above the foundation and a crest length of 4,100 ft (1,250 m). The embankment
crest would initially be constructed to the elevation of 2,210 ft (674 m) to allow for potential
settlement. The total volume of the structure would be approximately 62 million cubic yards
(yd 3 ) [47 million cubic meters (m 3 )]. During construction, the river would be diverted through
two concrete-lined diversion tunnels, each 38ft (11.6 m) in diameter and 4,100 ft (1,250 m)
long, to be driven through the north bank abutment of the dam.
The Watana dam would create a reservoir approximately 48 mi (77 km) long, with a surface area of
38,000 acres (15,400 hectares (ha)], and a. gross storage capacity of 9.5 million acre-feet (ac-ft)
(11. 7 billion m3 ) with the water surface at elevation 2,185 ft (666 m), the normal maximum operat-
ing level. The maximum water surface elevation of the reservoir would be 2,201 ft (671 m). The
minimum operating level of the reservoir would be 2,065 ft (671 m), providing a live storage of
3.7 million ac-ft (4.6 billion m3 ). A plan of the Watana reservoir is shown in Figure 2-2.
The power intake would be located on the northern bank, with an approach channel excavated in
rock. The concrete intake structure would be controlled with multilevel gates capable of
operation over the full 120-ft (36.6-m) drawdown range. From the intake structure, six concrete-
lined penstocks, each 17 ft (5.2 m) in diameter would lead to an underground powerhouse housing
six 170-megawatt (MW) generating units. Access to the powerhouse would be by means of an unlined
access tunnel and a road that would pass from the crest of the dam, down the southern bank of
the river valley and across the embankment near the downstream toe. The turbines would discharge
through six draft tube tunnels to a surge chamber downstream from the powerhouse, thence to the
river through two 34-ft (10.4-m) diameter concrete-lined tailrace tunnels. A separate transformer
gallery just upstream from the powerhouse cavern would house nine single-phase 15/345-kilovolt
(kV) transformers (three transformers per group of two generators). The transformers would be
connected by three 345-kV single-phase, oil-filled cables through two cable shafts to the switch-
yard at the surface.
Outlet facilities would be located on the northern bank and would be designed to discharge flood
flows of up to 24,00D cubic feet per second (cfs) [680 cubic meters per second (m 3 /s)]. Combined
with 7,000 cfs (200 m3 /s) passing through the powerhouse, two units operating, the outlet facili-
ties would handle the estimated 50-year flood with an increase in the pool elevation from 2,185 ft
(666 m) to 2,193 ft (668 m) due to flood surcharge. The upstream gate structure for the outlet
works would be adjacent to the power intake and would convey flows through a 28-ft (8.5-m)
diameter concrete-lined tunnel to six fixed-cone discharge valves downstream of the dam. These
valves would be housed beneath the spillway flip bucket and would be used to dissipate energy
and eliminate undesirable nitrogen supersaturation in the river downstream from the dam during
spillway operations.
The main spillway would be located on the northern bank and would consist of an ogee control
structure with three vertical fixed-wheel gates and an inclined concrete chute and flip bucket
designed to pass a maximum discharge of 120,000 cfs (3,400 m3 /s). This spillway, together with
2-1
2-2
the outlet facilities and the powerhouse, would be capable of discharging the estimated 10,000-
year flood [156,000 cfs (4,400 m3 /s)]. An emergency spillway and fuse plug on the northern bank
would provide sufficient additional capacity to permit discharge of the Probable Maximum Flood
(PMF) without overtoping the dam. Emergency release facilities would be located in one of the
diversion tunnels after closure to allow lowering of the reservoir over a period of time to
permit emergency inspection or repair of impoundment structures.
A local depression on the northern rim of the reservoir upstream of the dam would be closed by a
low dike with a crest elevation of 2,210 ft (674 m). Provision would be made for monitoring
potential seepage through this area and placement of appropriate filter blankets at Tsusena
Creek downstream. Diagrams of the proposed Watana facilities are shown in Figures 2-3 and 2-4.
2.1.2.2 Devil Canyon Development
The Devil Canyon arch dam would be located at the upstream entrance of the Devil Canyon gorge at
RM 152 approximately 32 river miles (51 km) downstream from Watana dam. The Devil Canyon dam
would be a thin arch concrete structure 646 ft (197 m) high with a crest length-to-height ratio
of approximately two. It would be designed to withstand dynamic loadings from intense seismic
shaking. The dam would have a crest elevation of 1,463 ft (446 m) [not including a proposed
3-ft (1-m) parapet] and be supported by mass concrete thrust blocks on each abutment. On the
southern abutment, the lower bedrock surface would require the construction of a large thrust
block and adjacent to this thrust block, a 245-ft (74.7-m) high earth and rockfill saddle dam to
provide closure to the southern bank. The saddle dam would be a central core type similar in
cross section to the Watana dam, with a nominal crest elevation of 1,469 ft (447.7 m) plus an
additional 3 ft (1 m) of overbuild for potential seismic settlement.
The Devil Canyon dam would form a reservoir approximately 26 mi (42 km) long with a surface area
of 7,800 acres (3,200 ha) and a gross storage capacity of 1.1 million ac-ft (1.4 billion m3 ) at
elevation 1,455 ft (443.5 m), the normal maximum operating level. The maximum water surface
elevation of the reservoir would be 1,466 ft (446.8 m), and the minimum operating level would be
1,405 ft (428.2 m), providing a live storage of 350,000 ac-ft (432 million m3 ). During construc-
tion, the river would be diverted through a single 30-ft (9.1-m) diameter concrete-lined tunnel
on the southern bank of the river.
A power intake on the northern bank would consist of an approach channel excavated in rock
leading to a reinforced concrete gate structure. From the intake structure, four 30-ft (9.1-m)
diameter concrete-lined penstock tunnels would lead to an underground powerhouse housing four
150-MW generating units.
Access to the powerhouse would be by means of an unlined access tunnel approximately 3,200 ft
(975 m) long and a 950-ft (290-m) deep vertical access shaft. The turbine discharge would
return to the river through a single 38-ft (12-m) diameter tailrace tunnel extending from the
surge chamber downstream of the powerhouse cavern. A separate transformer gallery just upstream
of the powerhouse cavern would house 12 single-phase 15/345-kV transformers. The transformers
would be connected by 345-kV single-phase, oil-filled cables through a cable shaft to the switch-
yard at the surface.
Outlet facilities consisting of seven individual conduits would be located in the lower part of
the main dam. These would be designed to discharge all flood flows of up to 38,500 cfs
(1,090 m3 /s), the estimated 50-year flood at Devil Canyon. This is based on the assumption that
one of the generating units would be operating. Each outlet conduit would have a fixed-cone
valve similar to those provided at Watana to dissipate energy and minimize undesirable nitrogen
supersaturation in the flows downstream. The main spi l h1ay would be located on the northern
bank, and would consist of an upstream ogee control structure with three vertical fixed-wheel
gates, and an inclined concrete chute and flip bucket designed to pass a maximum discharge of
123,000 cfs (3,480 m3 /s).
This spillway, together with the outlet facilities, would be capable of discharging the estimated
10, 000-year flood. An emergency spill way and fuse plug on the southern bank would be designed
to permit discharge of the probable maximum flood (PMF) without overtopping the dam.
A site layout of the Devil Canyon development is provided in Figure 2-5, and a reservoir plan is
shown in Figure 2-6.
2.1.2.3 Construction and Permanent Site Facilities
2.1.2.3.1 Watana
Support facilities would be required throughouth the construction period for the Watana develop-
ment. Following construction, the operation of the \~atana hydroelectric project would require
permanent staff and facilities to support the operation and maintenance program. The most
significant facility would be a combination camp and village constructed and maintained at the
~ ~ .. !e 0
!e
/
Figure 2-1. Vicinity Map--Susitna Development. [Source: Application Exhibit F, Plate Fl]
!
<D 3: 3: 3: ~ !!? "' . 0 "' ~ <t !2 ~ :!
i
AIRSANKS ! . I
GULF 0
KEY MAP
LEGEND
~ PRIMARY PAVED UNDIVIDED HIGHWAY
---SECONDARY PAVED UNDIVIDED HIGHWAY
-----·· SECONDARY GRAVEL HIGHWAY
~RAILROAD
-···-RIVER
SCALE 0~~~2~0~-~4l0 MILES
)_
( (
'r-----...
> .. ~( c.~Y
··.,__...;
,L
.t 'i I \
LOCATION MAP
./
Figure 2-2. Watana Reservoir Plan and Generalized Location of Borrow Areas (letters).
[Source: Modified from Application Exhibit F, Plate F2].
0 ·~~~4iiiiiijjiiiiiijjjjjj8 MILES SCALE; "'
-------NORMAL MAXIMUM
OPERATING LEVEL
EL. 1455
-2ooo--~~~u:s~ FEET
dff/i!/!1/J/111/l/.@ BORROW AREA
0~~~--~2 MILES SCALE: c
~/
~ ~ i I I I I §I
I <P/' ~ §I ~I 01 §I § a, ..rl fill ~I ~I 0
~I r!:l <T ~ .... ~I r-:;;I r-w: wl WJ w w w wi v I
I ~2200~
'I-# ,.--Y
I
N
N
N
I I
~~---lfl~.------:---+----r---~-i--
1 I
-+---.,----~ PERMANSNT
:) ·.TOWN
;.·· '(' ·--"\...
·. -~ '----J
N
Figure 2-3. Watana Facilities--Plan. [Source: Application Exhibit F, Plate F3]
LOCATION MAP SCALE 0~~~4iiliiiiiiiiiiiii.a8 MILES
AREA-E
FILTER 8 AGGREGATE
SOURCE
~ :~ 2-34!1KV
TRANSMISSION LINES
TO GOLD CREEK
O~~~IO~OO:iiiiiiiiiiliiij2000 FEET SCALE c
aoo-
2100
.... 2000 ..
~1900
z
;leoo
2-
~1700
~1800 ..
::[
::[
1900
::; 1800 ... "-noo
~
z teOO
0
~ 1500
~1400 ...
1300
0+00
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
SCAL.E•A
'1,\r:P ACCES~
2100
2000
... 1900 w
"' ... 1800
~
z 1700 0 ;:
~ 1600
"' ..J 1500 "'
1400
2300
2200
2100
2000 ... w 1900 w ....
!!: I BOO
IS'OIA.CONCRETE-
LINED TUNNELS
NORMAL. MAX.
W.L.EL.2200
GROUT CURTAIN
SECTION THRU DAM
SCAL.E•B
II ---------~~==~ .. ~~-
1: ----------
'I
II
ACCESS SHAFT~ l
II
jl
II
11
II
II
I' I
11 --11 ---<EXISTING GROUND SURFACE
!\'--cABLE SHAFTS ---------~
II
II TRANSFORMER AND DRAFT i! TUBE GATE GALLERY -~-"-.
2-23' DIA. CONCRETE LINED TUNNELS
CONCRETE PLUG
5+00 10+00 15+00 20+00
STATIONING IN FEET
SPILLWAY PROFILE
SCALE•B
LONGITUDINAL SECTION THRU CENTERLINE OF DAM
SCAL.E•B
AVERAGE
TAILVIATER
EL.I450
EXISTING ROCK
LEVEL
0+00
Figure 2-4. Watana Facilities--Sections.
5+00
[Source:
10+00 15+00
STATIONING IN FEET
POWER FACILITIES PROFILE
SECTION A-A
SCALE•C
SCALE•B
ROCK ANCHORS
20+00
Application Exhibit B, Fig. 8.7]
25+00
SCALE C
SCALE B
SCALE A
30+00
0 100 200 FEET
0 200 400 FEET
0 500 IOOOFEET
·~ )
.. :
Figure 2-S. Site Layout--Devil
0
0
0
uS
ill
w
Canyon Development.
1500
SCALEO ~~~2~0;0-~400 FEET
I~
[Source: Application Exhibit F, Plate F41]
\
LOCATION MAP
l
\
-,
/
Figure 2-6. Devil Canyon Reservoir Plan and Generalized Location of Borrow Areas (letters).
[Source: Modified from Application Exhibit F, Plate F39]
SCALE 0~~§4 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil8 MILES
-------NORMAL MAXIMUM
OPERATING LEVEL
EL. 1455
-2000-CONTOUR IN FEET
ABOVE MSL
@/f/fflffffllf//l}) BORROW AREA
SCALE 0~!!!!!!!!!5iiiiiiiiiiiiliii2 MILES
2-3
project site. The camp/village would be a largely self-sufficient community housing 3,300 people
during construction of the project. After construction v1as completed, most of this facility
would be dismantled and the area reclaimed. The dismantled buildings and other items from the
camp would be used, as much as possible, during construction of the Devil Canyon development.
Other site facilities would include contractors' work areas, site power, services, and communica-
tions. Items such as power and communications would be required for construction operations
independent of camp operations, as would a hospital or first aid room.
Permanent facilities would include a town or small community for approximately 130 staff members
and their families. Other permanent facilities would include a maintenance building for use
during operation of the power plant.
2.1.2.3.2 Devil Canyon
A camp and construction village would be constructed and maintained at the Devil Canyon project
site. The camp/village would provide housing and living facilities for 1,800 people during
construction. Other site facilities would include contractors' work areas, site power, services,
and communications. Items such as power, communications, and hospital services would be required
for construction operations independent of camp operations.
If possible, buildings used at the Watana development during construction would be used at Devil
Canyon. These buildings would be retrofitted from fuel oil to electric heat. The camp village
would be dismantled and the site reclaimed after construction. Electric power would be provided
by the Watana development. Following construction, operation and maintenance activities would
be centered at Watana; therefore, a minimum number of permanent facilities would be required at
the Devil Canyon site to maintain the power facility.
2.1.2.3.3 Project Transmission
The project as proposed by the Applicant would require construction of a number of transmission
line segments and associated substations to carry the electricity generated by the project to
the load centers in the Anchorage and Fairbanks areas. Some of the transmission additions would
parallel an existing line and use the same or adjoining right-of-way. Other segments would
require new routes and rights-of-way.
Not a part of the project, but presently planned for 1984 operation, is a new 170-mi (274-km)
long, single-circuit transmission line between the Willow substation, about 30 mi (48 km) north
of Anchorage, and the Healy substation, about 100 mi (160 km) south of Fairbanks. This line
will interconnect the two major load centers and for the first time permit synchronous operation
and power transfers throughout the Railbelt area. The line will operate initially at 138 kV but
is designed for eventual operation at 345 kV. It would become part of the transmission system
of the proposed project.
Transmission and substation additions would be constructed in stages keyed to the differing
dates for the \~atana and Devil Canyon generation. Transmission facilities that would be con-
structed for Watana include: (1) two 37-mi (60-km), single-circuit, 345-kV outlet transmission
lines to connect the powerhouse substation with a new Gold Creek substation located on the
existing Willow-to-Healy line (which would then be operated at 345 kV), (2) a second 345-kV
line, 170 mi (274 km) long, from \<Jillow to Healy paralleling the existing line, (3) a pair of
single-circuit, 345-kV lines, 63 mi (101 km) long, extending from Willow to the new Knik Arm and
University substations in the Anchorage area, and (4) a pair of single-circuit, 345-kV lines,
100 mi (160 km) long, extending from Healy to the new Ester substation in the Fairbanks area.
Transmission facilities that would be constructed for Devil Canyon include: (1) 8 mi (13 km) of
345-kV, double-circuit outlet transmission from the powerhouse substation to the Gold Creek
substation, and (2) an additional 345-kV circuit, 123 mi (198 km) long, from Gold Creek to Knik
Arm, paralleling the previously constructed two single-circuit lines.
The lines from Willow to the Anchorage area must reach the east side of the Knik Arm, which
extends northeastward from the head of Cook Inlet at Anchorage. The Applicant's primary proposal
is to construct an overhead line from Willow to the Lake Lorraine area, opposite Anchorage, and
3 to 4 mi (4.8 to 6.4 km) of underwater cable passing under Knik Arm to its east side, above
Anchorage and Six t~i l e Creek. Alternative longer, all-overhead line routings through the
Matanuska Valley also have been examined.
At the Ester substation, 138-kV interconnections would be made with the Fairbanks Municipal and
Golden Valley Electric Association systems. At the University substation, interconnections
would be made with the Anchorage Municipal Light and Power, Chugach Electric Association, and
Matanuska Electric Association systems. Other portions of the Anchorage area load are served
from the Willow and Knik Arm substations.
Figure 2-7 shows the configuration of the proposed ultimate transmission system for the project.
LEGEND
~ PRIMARY PAVED UNDIVIDED HIGHWAY
SECONDARY PAVED UNDIVIDED HIGHWAY
SECONDARY GRAVEL HIGHWAY
RAILROAD
RIVER
= E:: PROJECT TRANSMISSION LINES
A PROPOSED DAM SITE
6 TRANSMISSION SUBSTATION
SCALE 0~""'11"'~2~0iiiiiiiiiiiiiil40 MILES
\
2-4
Figure 2-7. Susitna Project 345-kV Transmission System (ultimate configuration).
[Source: Modified from Application Exhibit F, Plate Fl]
----
2-5
2.1.3 Construction Schedule
The Applicant's proposed construction schedule spans a period from April 1985, beginning with
access road construction at Watana, to October 2002, when commercial operation of Devil Canyon
units would commence. This schedule is predicated on the assumption that a FERC license would
be awarded by December 31, 1984.
2.1.3.1 1'/atana
The Applicant's proposed schedule for construction of Watana is shown in Figure 2-8. Two con-
straints were considered in the development of this schedule: the issuance date of the FERC
license and the need to have four units on-line by January 1994 in order to meet Railbelt load
growth as projected by the Applicant.
The critical path of activities to meet these constraints was determined to be through site
access, site facilities, diversion and main dam construction. In general, construction activi-
ties leading up to diversion in 1987 are on an accelerated schedule, whereas the remaining
activities are on a normal schedule.
The proposed schedule requires that extensive planning, bid selection, and commitments be made
before the end of 1984 to permit work to progress on schedule during 1985 and 1986. The rapid
development of site activities is required in order that construction operations have the needed
support.
The spillway and intake structures have been scheduled for completion one season in advance of
the requirement to handle flows. In general, excavation for these structures does not have to
begin until most of the excavation work has been completed for the main dam. Excavation of the
access tunnel into the powerhouse complex has been scheduled to start in late 1987. Stage I
concrete would begin in 1989, with start of installation of major mechanical and electrical work
in 1991. The first four units are scheduled to be on line by the beginning of 1994 and the
remaining two units in early 1994. Construction of the transmission lines and switchyards has
been scheduled to begin in 1989 and to be completed before commissioning of the first unit.
Road access to the site would be required by October 1, 1985, and equipment would be transported
overland during the winter of 1984 in order for an airfield to be constructed by July 1985.
This would allow site facilities to be developed in a very short time to support the main con-
struction activities. A camp to house approximately 1,000 men would be constructed during the
first 18 months. Onsite power generating equipment must be installed in 1985 to supply power
for camp and construction activities and, an aggregate processing plant and concrete batching
plant must be operational to start diversion tunnel concrete work by April 1986.
Construction of diversion and dewatering facilities, the first major activity, would start by
mid-1985. Excavation of the portals and tunnels would require a concentrated effort to allow
completion of the lower tunnel for river diversion by October 1986. The upstream cofferdam must
be in place by October 1986 to divert riverflow and then the cofferdam must be raised suffi-
ciently by the following spring to avoid overtopping. The upper tunnel must be complete by May
1987 to handle spring runoff.
The progress of work in the main dam is c•itical throughout the period 1986 through 1993.
Mobilization of equipment and start of site work must begin in 1986. Excavation of the right
abutment and of river alluvium under the dam core would begin in 1986. During 1987 and 1988,
dewatering, excavation, and foundation treatment must be completed in the riverbed area and a
substantial start made on placing fill. An average six-month construction season was assumed
for the period required to place approximately 62 million yd 3 (47 million m3 ) of fill.
2.1.3.2 Devil Canyon
The Applicant's proposed schedule for construction of Devil Canyon is shown in Figure 2-9. The
development of site facilities at Devil Canyon would begin slowly in 1994, with a rapid accelera-
tion in 1995 through 1997. Within a short period of time, construction would begin on most
major civil structures. This schedule was developed to meet the on-line power requirement of
all four units in 2002. The critical path of activities was determined to follow through site
facilities, diversion and main dam construction. It has been assumed that site access built to
1'/atana will exist at the start of construction. A road would be constructed connecting the
De vi 1 Canyon site to the Watana access road, i ncl udi ng a hi gh-1 eve l bridge over the Sus i tna
River downstream of the Devil Canyon dam. At the same time, a railroad spur would be constructed
to permit rail access to the southern bank of the Sus i tna near Devil Canyon. These activities
would be completed by mid-1994.
2-6
Excavation and concreting of the single diversion tunnel would begin in 1995. River closure and
cofferdam construction would be scheduled so as to permit start of dam construction in 1996.
The construction of the arch dam would be the most critical construction activity from start of
excavation in 1996 until topping out in 2001. The concrete program has been based on an average
eight-month placing season for 4-1/2 years. The spillway and intake would be scheduled for
completion by the end of the year 2000 to permit reservoir filling the next year. Excavation of
access into the powerhouse cavern would be scheduled to begin in 1996. Stage I concrete would
begin in 1998, with start of installation of major mechanical and electrical work in 2000. The
additional transmission facilities needed for Devil Canyon would be scheduled for completion by
the time the final unit was ready for commissioning in late 2001.
2.1.4 Construction Workforce Requirements
Projected workforce requirements for Watana and Devil Canyon construction activities are shown
in Table 2-1. Workforce requirements for construction of the Watana development would vary from
approximately 1,100 persons at the start of access road construction in 1985 to a peak of about
3,500 in 1990. Workforce levels would also vary seasonally. A rapid drop in workforce needs
waul d occur between 1990 and 1995, when construction waul d be camp l ete and the operation staff
of 105 would occupy the permanent town.
Workforce requirements for construction of the Devil Canyon development waul d vary from about
100 in 1994 to a peak of 1,700 in 1998, reducing to a permanent staff of about 25 in 2002.
2.1.5 Operation and Maintenance
2.1.5.1 Operation
Based on the Applicant's schedule, the first four Watana units would be on-line in early 1994,
followed by the remaining two Watana units in mi d-1994. Startup of four Devil Canyon units
would be in October 2002.
2.1.5.1.1 Operation within the Railbelt System
The Susitna project would be the single most significant power source in the Railbelt system.
The dispatch and distribution of power from all sources by the most economical and reliable
means would therefore be essential. Under current conditions in the Railbelt, a total of nine
utilities with limited interconnections share responsibility for generation and distribution of
electric power. The proposed arrangement for opt i mi zat ion and contra l of the dispatch of
Susitna power to Railbelt load centers is based on the expectation that a single entity would
eventually be set up for this purpose and that sufficient interties would be developed to allow
for the economic dispatch of Susitna power to the various load centers in the Railbelt. A
Susitna Area Control Center would be located at Watana to control both the Watana and the Devil
Canyon power plants. The control center would be linked through a supervisory system to the
Central Dispatch Control Center at Willow.
Operation would be semiautomatic, with generation instructions input from the Central Dispatch
Center at Willow, but with direct control of the Susitna system at the control center at Watana
and Devil Canyon power plants for testing/commissioning or during emergencies. The Susitna Area
Contra l Center waul d be capable of camp 1 ete ly independent contra l of the project in case of
system emergencies. Similarly, it would be possible to operate the Susitna units in an emergency
situation from the Central Dispatch Center.
2.1.5.1.2 Susitna Project Operation
Watana would operate as a baseload plant until Devil Canyon commenced operation. At that time
the Devil Canyon development would operate baseload and Watana would shift to peak and reserve
operation. The operation simulation of the project reservoirs and the power facilities by the
Applicant was carried out on a monthly basis to assess the energy potential considering minimum
flow releases and flood control.
The Applicant considered seven operational flow cases covering a range of m1n1mum target flows
at Gold Creek as shown in Table 2-2. The flow cases analyzed include the operational flows that
would produce the maximum amount of usable energy from the project, neglecting all other consid-
erations (referred to as Case A) and the operational flows that would have resulted in essentially
no impact on the downstream fishery during the anadromous fish spawning period (referred to as
Case D). The Applicant's analysis of these flow cases resulted in the recommendation of Case C
as the operational flow.
The Case A, A1, and A2 minimum flows would increase the economic benefits of the proposed project
over the proposed Case C by allowing a greater power draft of Watana reservoir during the winter
peak-1 oad period and reducing the amount of surp 1 us energy generated during the summer refill
pedod. Cases C1, C2, and D would decrease project benefits by restricting the amount of winter
DESCRIPTION 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994
01 FERC LICENSE if 01
02 INITIAL ACCESS liii"IIIID""' 02
03 03
04 MAIN ACCESS lrD"#. !vi'D"I'D"ID"D"I"D"D"A 04
05 05
06 SITE FACILITIES 1/P'IIID"D"D"D"I'I_,. III"'D"D"D"D"ID"ID"D"D"I"' 11/P'I"I.IIGIID"ID"I'& -D"ID"D"D"ID"D"..ell 06
07 co IAPLETE N0.2 NO. 1 ~':ir RJ~NNEL LOW~R TIIN• Fl~ Pllll>
07
OB DIVERSION TUNNELS 11111111111111111111 JUIIIII 111111111111 08 A IIIIIIIIIIUIIII!III
09 W CL >itt T I 09
SE
10 COFFERDAMS 111111111111111111111~1111111111 IIIIIIIIIIHIIIT I I 10
II
lRIITU.f'NTS ~ Rl /ER BED .1. START GRJ VEL ~JtJlJvonm:: ~e 60 ~10 : ~ ~0 ~1 30 ~ 10 II
12 MAIN DAM 'nlllllll~llllll IIIIIIIIIIIII;JIIIIIi!li)i'l'il'ttlllllllill llllllllllillfh 'li'li'l'i"lilb)i'li'li '-''''''''"' "''''''''' ,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,, "'''''''''' 12
13 I 13
14 RELICT CHANNEL
I
I 111111111111111111111111 ,,,,,,,,,,,_ ----.. ,,,,,,,,,, 14
15 I 15
11111111111111111111111111111 1111 11111111111111111111111111111 111 111111111111111111111111111111 111111111 DIIIIIIIIIIIEIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ' 16 MAIN SPILLWAY 16
17 : FUSE PLUG 17
IB EMERGENCY SPILLWAY 111111111111111111111111 1111111110111111111111 :-.,.,, ... _, IB
19 I 19
20 OUTLET FACILITIES 1111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 IIIII II 11111111111111111~1111111111 20
21 I 21
22 POWER INTAKE 11111111111111111 1111111111111111 1111111111111 11111111 IIIIIIIII!IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIID 22
23 I 23
24 PENSTOCKS rllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 24
25 ~ ! 25 _ACCESS I VAULT STAGE STAGE 2
26 POWERHOUSE I
111111111111111111111!11111111111111111111 11111111118111111111 I 26
27 ' I I TRANSFORM! RS 27
26 TRANSFORMER GALLERY I CABLE SHAFTS I GALLERY /SHAFTS I IIIIIIIIDDIIIIIIDD 28 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
29 I I • I 29
30 TAILRACE/SURGE CHAMBER 111111111 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 111111111111 I 30
31 if I I 31
32 TURBINE I GENERATORS IIIIIBIBIBIIIIIBIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIBIBIIIIIIIIIIIIIJBIIII lllllllilllliiiiiiiiBIBIBIDDIIIIII ~IBIDDI 32
33 Ill
I I I 33 PH CRANES
34 MECH. I ELECT. SYSTEMS 11111111111111111111111 IIIIIIIIIBIIIIB BIBIIDIIIIDDIDDIBI~IIIII ~IDDIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1111111111~ 34
35
FIL FOUNDATIONS e-rollt'TII •~"' '~n111PIIENT : I 35
36 SWITCH YARD I CONTROL BLDG. 1111111111111111111111 llllllllllf''''''''''' 1111111 1111111111111111111111111 ! 36
37 I : I
ACCESS CL,;J luNG TOWE RS/STRINGING I 37
38 TRANSMISSION LINES JTD".ID"D"II'.JIIIIIIIII IIIII IIIII !1f1!'!'!'11HIIII 1111111111111111111111111\
I 38
39 .. ~ ~ : . .EW 1!_65 ~ 50 I 39
40 IMPOUNDMENT ~----~------· IIIIIIIIIIIDIIIIIIIDIIIIIIIDIIIIIIIDIIIIIIID I 40
41 J,1_ ~1 W2 W3 4 J,s '-f6 ON-LINE 41
42 TEST AND COMMISSION lmllllll lllllllllldlmllllllllillllllldiiiiiE IEDIDEI IDE Ill 42
43 43 \
144 44
LEGEND
I"..V.IIIA ACCESS/FACILITIES
11111111111111111 EXCAVATION/FOUNDATION TREATMENT ,,,,,,,, FILL -CONCRETE
11111111811111 MECHANICAL/ELECTRICAL --· IMPOUNDMENT
Figure 2-8. Construction Schedule--Watana. [Source: Application Exhibit C, Fig. C.l]
DESCRIPTION 1992
01
02 MAIN ACCESS ll!lr'.I'.-Ai"'".l'.l'.l'..r.:i
03
04 SITE FACILITIES
05
06 DIVERSION TUNNELS
07
08 COFFERDAMS
09
10 MAIN DAM
II
12 SADDLE DAM
13
14 OUTLET FACILITIES
15
16 MAIN SPILLWAY
17
IB EMERGENCY SPILLWAY
19
20 POWER INTAKE
21
22 PENSTOCKS
23
24 POWERHOUSE
25
26 TRANSFORMER GALLERY I CABLE SHAFTS
27
2B TAILRACE/SURGE CHAMBER
29
30 TURBINES/ GENERATORS
31
32 MECH./ELEC~ SYSTEMS
33
34 SWITCHYARD I CONTROL BLDG.
35
36 TRANSMISSION LINES
37
3B IMPOUNDMENT
39
40 TEST a COMMISSION
41
42
43
44
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
!ill"".....,.....,....,......,.......,...,..,......,.....,...r.;; !011"".-.-.-~
ll"lllllll "'IIIIIIII.IIIID iS"DI.a'ATIIII'IIII"" iii"IHIIIII.II.-1
lllllllllllllllllllnn '""'"
'lllit:LOSE
:"..'-')'''''' ,,,,-.:
' RIVFAR.I"D
1111111111M!fi;WI1N~R1111 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111
111111111111111111111111111111111
lllllllllllllllllllllilllill
lllllllllllllllllllillllllllll 1111 111111111111111111'1111111111
111111111111111111111111111111
111111111111111111111111111111
111111111111111111111
ACCESS VA T
111111111111111111111111111111111 1~111111111111111111
I PI'
1111111111111111111111111111111111°1~111111
I
1111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111
1999 2000 2001 2002
DIIIER!UtUI PLUG
II.
T
I I
: :
I I
·'''''''''' :-,.,,,,,,,,, I
I
I
lllllillllllllllllllillllili I
I
1111111111 li!llliiillillllillll!lllllllllilll I
FUSE PLUG I
111111111111111111111111111111111 _.....,,,,
I
I
A ........ li!llliiillilllliiilliiillillllillll I ... I I
I IIIII I
STAGE 1 s=id
I TRANSFORM AS
I 1111111111111111111111
I I
I I
• I I
11BIIIIIIBIIIIIIBIIIIIIIIIIBIIII BIBIBIBIBIIIIIIIIII,.IBI 1111111111111111
PH CRANES,. I I I
11111&11111111111 llllilllllllllllill lmllillllllllllllllllllllll~llllllll 111111111111111111,
EXCAVA TION/FlL F STRUCTU RESt"n' ,..,;,.,...,. I
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIL'-'-'-'-'-'-'-' 111111111111111111111~ I
FOUNDATlQctll!_
. I I TOWERS/$~
111111111111111111 1111111111111111 Dlllllllllllllllllllll~ I
w I I ---..,..-· ---liDija-•
.,J,1-.... 1 y2 .J,3 w4
81"11.1.1.-! ACCESS /FACILITIES
11111111111111111 EXCAVATION/FOUIIDATION TREATMENT
•'-'-'-'-'-'-' FILL
CONCRETE
E 111111111111 MECHANICAL/ELECTRICAL
---IMPOUNDMENT
lua111 IIIIIIDDlDDIIIIIIMIIIIIIDDl
Figure 2-9. Construction Schedule--Devil Canyon. [Source: Application Exhibit C, Fig. C.2]
2003
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
IB
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
3l
32
33
3<
35
3E
'Sf
3!1
~ 3S
'40
41
42
43
44
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
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Peak Const./Yr
330
341
473
726
792
957
1089
1100
990
759
561
385
1100
Operations/Maintenance
Subtotal -Year
Total 1100
405
419
581
891
972
1175
1337
1350
1215
932
689
473
1350
1350
571 750
590 775
818 1075
1255 1650
1370 1800
1655 2175
1883 2475
1902 2500
1712 2250
1312 1725
970 1275
666 875
1902 2500
840
868
1205
1849
2017
2437
2773
2801
2521
1933
1429
980
2802
1902 2500 2802
1050
1085
1504
2309
2519
3044
3463
3498
3149
2414
1784
1224
3498
976
1008
1398
2146
2.341
2829
3219
3252
2927
2244
1658
1138
3251
750
775
1075
1650
1800
2175
2475
2500
2250
1725
1275
875
2500
3498 3251 2500
390 240
402 248
558 344
857 528
935 576
1130 696
1285 792
1298 800
1169 720
896 552
662 408
454 280
1299 800
70 145
1369 945
151
156
217
333
363
439
499
504
454
348
257
177
504
145
649
239
247
343
527
575
694
790
798
718
551
407
279
798
145
943
376
388
539
827
902
1090
1241
1253
1128
865
639
439
1253
479
495
686
1054
1149
1389
1581
1596
1437
1102
814
559
1596
510 449
527 464
730 643
1121 988
1223 1077
1478 1302
1681 1481
1698 1496
1529 1347
1172 1033
866 763
594 524
1698 1496
270 45
279 47
387 65
594 100
648 109
783 131
891 149
900 151
801 136
621 104
459 77
315 53
899 151
145 145 145 145 145 170
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.
2-8
power draft of Watana and increasing the surplus energy generated during the summer refill
months. The minimum flow requirements studied by the Applicant are shown in Table 2-2.
Gross storage volume of the Watana reservoir at its normal maximum operating level of 2,185 ft
(660 m) would be 9.5 million ac-ft (11.7 billion m3 ), about 1.6 times the mean annual flow (MAF)
at the damsite. Live storage in the reservoir would be about 3.7 million ac/ft (4.6 billion m3 )
(75% of MAF). Devil Canyon reservoh would have gross storage of about 1.1 million ac/ft
(1.4 billion m3 ) and live storage of 0.34 million ac/ft (419 million m3 ). The minimum reservoir
level at Watana would be 2,045 ft (623 m) during normal operation, resulting in a maximum draw-
down of 140ft (42.7 m). The Devil Canyon reservoir would be operated to maintain a normal
level of 1,455 ft (443 m) whenever possible. Figure 2-10 shows the monthly target reservoir
1 eve 1 s for both reservoirs. These l eve 1 s were determined by the App 1 i cant based on Case C
operational flows at Gold Creek.
2.1.5.2 Maintenance
2.1.5.2.1 Monitoring Program
Instrumentation would be installed to permit monitoring designed to ensure that the performance
of the dams and structures was within the limits assumed in the design and to enable any varia-
tions beyond those limits to be recognized quickly so that remedial action could be taken without
delay.
An essential part of the monitoring program would be a routine visual inspection of all exposed
parts of the structures and the area downstream of the dams for any unusual features, such as
local settlement or other movement, zones of seepage discharge, wet areas, and changes in vegeta-
tion. All exposed concrete surfaces would be inspected and records kept of any signs of distress,
cracking, or deterioration.
The most important aspects of the monitoring program and areas of possible maintenance require-
ments include foundation and abutment pore pressure relief system monitoring. Since sections of
the foundation would be frozen, the grouted cutoff might not be fully effective, and leakage
might increase as the rock temperature increased. This condition would be indicated by increased
discharge from the drainage system and would be remedied by additional grouting from the grouting
gallery, possibly combined with additional drainage holes. Any discoloration of the drainage
system discharge would indicate the leaching of fine material either from the rock foundation or
from the core. The problem area would be located and additional grouting carried out. Water
quality would also be monitored for any change in mineral content.
Structural deformation monitoring as observed by settlement and lateral movements instrumenta-
tion would be expected to occur soon after construction and under initial filling of the
reservoir. Deformation records would be correlated with such data as reservoir level, occurrence
of heavy storms, and seismic activity to determine problem areas. Particular attention would be
paid to monitoring the entire area of the relict channel. This monitoring would include regular
readings of piezometers and thermistors, determination of surface elevation, survey monitoring,
and inspections of the discharge zone fot' changes in seepage flows and any signs of piping
failure.
2.1.5.2.2 Periodic Maintenance
The generating plant would undergo periodic maintenance to ensure safe and reliable operation to
correct deficiencies which might result in reduced efficiency of the plants. Experience records
from machines similar to those at Watana and Devil Canyon indicate that a minimum maintenance
period of five to six days is required for each machine, resulting in an outage of 150 to 170 MW
capacity for an average period of 50 to 60 days in the year. In exceptional cases, certain
machines may be down fot' greater maintenance periods. It is therefore reasonable to allow a
total of 2-1/2 to 3 months planned outage as a conservative approach to system generation and
maintenance planning for the Susitna units. In principle, these outages are scheduled during
the months of June to August when the lower summer load demands make it possible to release the
units for maintenance. The actual outages would be coordinated on a week-to-week basis with the
planned maintenance of the units in the rest of the system, and would take into consideration
emergency shutdowns, breakdowns, delays in construction and maintenance, and other unforeseen
contingencies.
The Watana and Devil Canyon power plants each would be provided with below-ground workshops to
facilitate the normal maintenance needs of each plant. These include operations for fitting and
machining, welding, electrical, and relay instrumentation, with adequate stores for tools and
spare parts. The Watana power plant would also be provided with surface maintenance and central
storage facilities to meet the needs of both plants.
Maintenance operation planning of both plants would be centralized at Watana. Operation staff
normally would be located at Watana and housed at the operators' village at Watana. With
2-9
Table 2-2. Monthly Flow Requirements (cfs) at Gold Creek
Case
Month A A1 A2 c C1 C2 D
Oct 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
Nov 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
Dec 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
Jan 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
Feb 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
Mar 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
Apr 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
May 4,000 5,000 5,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000
Jun 4,000 5,000 5,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000
Jult 1 4,000 5,100 5,320 6,480 6,530 6,920 7,260
Aug 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 19,000
Sept 1 5,000 6,500 7,670 9,300 10,450 11,620 13,170
tl Derivation of transitional flows:
Date Case
Jul Sep A A1 A2 c Cl C2 0
25 21 4,000 5,000 5,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000
26 20 4,000 5,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 7,000 7,500
19 19 4,000 5,000 5,000 7,000 8,000 8,500 9,000
18 18 4,000 5,000 6,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 10,500
17 17 4,000 5,000 7,000 9,000 10,000 11,500 12,000
16 16 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 11,000 13,000 14,000
15 15 5,000 7,000 9,000 11,000 12,500 14,500 16,000
-- ---- - ------------
Conversion: To convert cubic feet per second (cfs) to cubic meters per second (m 3 /s),
multiply by 0.0283.
Source: Application Exhibit E, Vol. 5, Chap. 2, Table E.2.34.
2200
2180
'""" lJ._ 2160
...J
liJ
> 2140
liJ
...J
0::
0 2120
>
0::
liJ
(,/)
liJ 2100
0::
2080
1460
1450
t 1440
...J
liJ > 1430
liJ
...J
0::
0 1420
>
0::
liJ
(,/)
liJ 1410 0::
1400
1390
r-
1-
1-
1-
2-10
2190
NORMAL MAXIMUM ,OPERATING LEVEL 2185 I
217J
2180
2160
2150
2130
211J
2125
21)9J I 2092
l I I I _j
0 N D J F M A M J A s
MONTHS
WATANA RESERVOIR
NORMAL MAXIMUM OPERATING LEVEL 1455
RESERVOIR IS KEPT FULL AT
ALL TIMES IF POSSIBLE.
0 N D J F M A
MONTHS
M
DEVIL CANYON RESERVOIR
J A
Figure 2-10. Reservoir Rule Curves--Watana and Devil Canyon.
[Source: Application Exhibit B, Fig. B.69]
s
2-ll
centralized control of the Susitna project located at Watana, the Devil Canyon plant would not
have a resident operating and maintenance staff. Proper road and transport facilities would be
maintained between Watana and Devil Canyon to facilitate movement of personnel and/or equipment
between the plants.
2.1.6 Safety Inspections
The FERC Staff inspects licensed projects, both during and after construction, to ensure their
physical safety and the safety of the public, including recreational users, and to ensure that
the licensee complies with any special construction and operating requirements of the license.
Projects under construction are usually inspected at least once a month. The inspecting engineer
reviews construction and testing procedures and notes the progress and quality of the various
stages of construction, such as foundation and cut-off trench excavations, abutment treatment,
diversion and closure, and initial filling of the reservoir.
Licenses issued for major construction include a special article that requires the licensee to
employ a board of qualified independent consultants to review the design, specifications, and
construction of the project. The board is required to assess the construction inspection program,
the construction procedures and progress, the planned instrumentation, the filling schedule for
the reservoir, and the plans for surveillance during initial filling of the reservoir.
After the project is placed in operation, it is inspected by the FERC Staff, normally once a
year. During these annual inspections, staff engineers review the overall development from a
safety standpoint, and also assess whether the licensee is operating and maintaining the facili-
ties in accordance with the license provisions. A licensee is required to notify the Commission
promptly of any conditions that could jeopardize the safety of the project, and special inspec-
tions are made to assess such problems. Additional Staff inspections are also made following
natural disasters such as floods, landslides, or earthquakes.
Part 12 of the Commission's regulations requires periodic safety inspections of licensed dams by
qualified independent consultants at regular five-year intervals. This requirement applies to
those hydroelectric developments having a dam exceeding 35 ft (11 m) in height above streambed
or a gross reservoir storage capacity of 2,000 ac-ft (2.5 million m3 ). Inspections are per-
formed by or directed by qualified independent consultants employed by licensees. The basic
purpose of this inspection is to determine whether there are deficiencies or potential defi-
ciencies in the design, quality, and adequacy of maintenance, or in the methods of operation of
project structures that might endanger public safety.
2.1.7 Access Plan
The Applicant's proposed access plan would provide for rail and road transport of the necessary
materials and equipment to the Watana -Devil Canyon construction sites. A railhead and storage
facility, covering approximately 40 acres (16 ha) would be constructed along the existing Alaska
Railroad in Cantwell. From the facility, access to the Watana site would be along an existing
road, 2 mi ( 3 km) to the intersection of the George Parks and Denali highways, then easterly
along the Denali Highway for 21.3 mi (34.3 km) to a new road. The new road would be constructed
to Watana Camp site 41. 6 mi ( 66. 9 km) due south of the Denali Highway.
Access to the Devil Canyon site would be-along a new road, approximately 20 mi (32 km) long,
constructed to the Watana access road. A high-level suspension bridge would be required where
the access road crossed the Susitna River downstream of the Devil Canyon dam. Rail access to
the Devil Canyon site would require construction of a spur between the camp site and the exist-
ing Alaska Railroad. A plan of the proposed access routes is shown in Figure 2-11.
2.1.8 Transmission Line Electrical Effects
Transmission lines of practical design create high electric field gradients at the conductor
surface which cause ionization of the surrounding air layers when the field intensity exceeds
the breakdown strength of this air. The resulting corona formation on the conductors, along
with random gap discharges on other line hardware, gives rise to radio noise and audible noise
and generates ozone (0 3 ) and oxides of nitrogen (NO ). Corona formation is a function of line
voltage, conductor radius, line geometry, conductorxsurface condition (roughness, adherence of
foreign particles, etc.), relative air density, humidity, wind, and precipitation. Corona and
its associated audible and radio noise levels increase substantially during periods of foul
weather, especially rain. Hence, it is neither practical nor economically feasible to design
EHV lines such that they will never be in corona, as is accomplished at lower voltages, although
lines are commonly designed with sufficient conductor size or bundling to limit surface gradients,
within the normal operating voltage range, bel ow the critical level at which corona begins to
sharply increase.
2-12
Energized, load-carrying transmission lines also generate electric and magnetic fields that
permeate the surrounding medium and induce voltages and currents in conducting objects in the
vicinity, including persons and animals. The question of potential hazards of these fields from
a bi o l ogi cal and en vi ronmenta l standpoint has been given increasing attention in recent years,
particularly with regard to lines designed for operation in the extra-high-voltage (EHV) range
(345-1,000 kV) and for future lines being considered for operation in the ultra-high-voltage
(UHV) range (above 1,000 kV).
In assessing the environmental impact of the expected levels of these electrical effects for the
Susitna project 345-kV transmission lines, due recognition should be made of the fact that such
lines have been in existence in other parts of the United States for some 30 years. These lines
traverse sparsely settled rural regions as well as areas with high population density. As a
result of this development, the design with regard to known electrical effects and other environ-
mental aspects has become well established. Furthermore, the 345-kV operating voltage lies near
the lower threshold voltage level at which many of the electrical effects associated with higher
voltage 1 i nes become of margi na 1 s i gni fi cance. Neverthe 1 ess, the App 1 i cant had an analysis
conducted to predict levels of electrical effects from the Susitna project transmission lines,
calculated using methods developed at Project UHV. A survey was also made of existing radio and
television broadcast signal strengths and ambient radio noise levels along the Anchorage-to-
Fairbanks transmission corridor* (Willow-to-Healy section) for use in evaluating the influence
of some of these line-generated electrical effects. In addition, a survey was made of sensitive
communication facility locations in the vicinity of the corridor, such as microwave installa-
tions and air navigational radio beacons. Recommended minimum separation distances of those
facilities from the lines were developed, based on existing guidelines and criteria. This study
was performed by APA's consultant, Commonwealth Associates, Inc. (CAI). The results of this
study are presented in the APA Electrical Environmental Effects Report, R-2394, dated June 4,
1982.
The presently planned routes and number of circuits ultimately to be installed as part of the
Susitna project 345-kV transmission system are indicated in Figure 2-7. The calculations used
to develop the predicted electrical effects in Report R-2394 were based on three single-circuit,
345-kV transmission lines on a common 400-ft (122-m) right-of-way, as shown in Appendix 0,
Figure D-2, operating at a voltage of 362.5 kV. This would be typical of the structure placement
for the Knik Arm-Gold Creek section of the Anchorage-Fairbanks transmission corridor. Electrical
effects generated by this particular transmission link should be representative of the entire
345-kV transmission configuration ultimately to be installed as part of the Susitna project, and
the Report R-2394 calculations should be conservative due to the multiple-circuit right-of-way
occupancy represented and the upper limit of the normal operating voltage range, 362.5 kV (5%
above nominal 345-kV 1 eve l). Both of these factors tend toward increased intensity of such
effects as audible and radio noise and ozone production.
A review of the environmental significance of the electrical effects produced by the Susitna
project transmission lines has been made. Guidelines used in this effort consisted of material
contained in Report R-2394 along with reference information and data on this subject developed
by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and others. Hand calculations were also per-
formed, based on formulas and design curves (Electric Power Research Inc., 1982), which verified,
to a close approximation, the audible and radio noise levels at the edge of the right-of-way,
and the maximum ground-level electric field strengths reported in R-2394, calculated by computer
methods.
As a result of this review, the basic conclusions reached by APA/CAI are concurred in by the
Staff, i.e., no adverse environmental consequences of a permanent and irremediable nature should
result which could be attributed to the operational performance of the 345-kV transmission lines
to be constructed as part of the Sus i tna project. Specifically, the following qualitative
assessment is made:
(1) No environmentally hazardous levels of corona-generated ozone or oxides of nitrogen
should result from operation of the lines. In fact, the resulting increment to ambient
levels due to line operation would likely not even be measurable.
(2) Audible noise generated by corona formation on the lines would not be objectionable
and would not contribute significantly to ambient noise levels.
(3) Corona-generated radio noise would not be likely to interfere with AM radio broadcast
reception at distances greater than 1,000 ft (305 m) from the centerline of the trans-
mission line right-of-way even under worst-case weather conditions for noise genera-
tion, viz., rain. No interference at all is expected for FM radio reception due to
*Hereinafter referred to as the "Anchorage-Fairbanks corridor", or simply "corridor" where the
meaning is clear from the context.
Figure 2-11. Plan of Proposed Access Routes. [Source: Application Exhibit F, Plate F32]
0
. SCALE
LEGEND
-PROPOSED ROAD
111111111111 PROPOSED RAILROAD
__.,. EXISTING RAILROAD
EXISTING ROAD
PROPOSED
TRANSMISSION LINE
2 4 MILES
2-13
its inherent noise-rejection capability. Television reception should be unaffected at
locations where television reception is presently good. Furthermore, problems, if
any, would be expected to arise only rarely, and mitigative measures could generally
be employed to alleviate any such problem on a case-by-case basis, such as by relocat-
ing receiving antennas, etc. The routing of the lines would be adjusted as necessary
to allow for industry-recommended separation distances from sensitive microwave and
other types of communication facilities to avoid potential interference problems.
(4) Results of studies on possible biological harm from exposure to electric and magnetic
fields are inconclusive at best, and no general acceptance of such a correlation seems
to exist among the scientific community. Inasmuch as the proposed line design conforms
to generally accepted and long-established design practice for 345-kV transmission
lines, the same not'mal levels of field intensity at ground level would result from
these lines as for all the other numerous existing lines in this class. It is, there-
fore, concluded that no reasonable basis for concern exists on this account. Likewise,
no shock hazards from induced potentials due to these fields would be expected.
(5) The 30-ft (9-m) minimum phase-to-ground clearances are more than sufficient to satisfy
the present requirements of the American National Standards Institute (1984), including
the 5-milliampere induced-current limit on large vehicles short-circuited to ground
under the lines. Again, this conforms to present and long-established design practice
for lines in the 345-kV class.
The foregoing conclusions apply for the Susitna lines operated within the normal ± 5% limits of
their nominal design voltage level--345 kV. Initially, the first transmission link, currently
being constructed along the Anchorage-Fairbanks corridor, would be operated at 138 kV, at which
voltage the levels of the foregoing electrical effects should be entirely negligible.
2.1.9 Compliance with Applicable Laws
Prior to construction and operation of the proposed project, the Applicant would review the need
for and obtain, as necessary, the following Federal, state, and local permits and authorizations:
Federal
State
Local
Hydroelectric License
Section 404 Permit
Section 10 Permit
Right-of-Way Grant & Temporary Use Permits
FLPMA Section 302 Leases, Permits & Easements
Free Use Permit for Gravel
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit
Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality
Determination of Eligibility for the National Register
Determination of Effect on Sites
NPDES Certification
Certificate of Reasonable Assurance
Alaska Coastal Management Program Certificate of Consistency
Anadromous Fish Protection Permit
Fishways for Obstruction to Fish Passage
Land Use Permits
Material Sales
Water Rights Permit & Certificate of Appropriation
Land Lease
Permit to Construct a Dam
Right-of-Way Permit for an Easement
Matanuska-Susitna Borough Permits and Reviews
2.1.10 Future Plans
The Applicant has no current plans for further development of the Watana/Devil Canyon system and
no plans for further water power projects in the Susitna River Basin at this time. Development
of the proposed projects would preclude further major hydroelectric development in the Susitna
2-14
Basin, with the exception of major storage projects in the Susitna Basin headwaters. Although
these types of plans have been considered in the past, they are neither active nor anticipated
to be so in the foreseeable future.
2.1.11 Recreation Plan
The Applicant has identified four primary objectives to be accommodated by implementation of the
proposed project recreation plan (Exhibit E, Vol. 8, Chap. 7, Sec. 1.1)* as follows:
To offset losses of public recreation resources due to the construction of the proposed
project;
To accommodate project-induced recreation demand;
To estimate and provide for indicated recreation user potential within the project area;
and
To focus public access on project lands and water while protecting the scenic, recreational,
cultural, and other environmental values of the project area.
The proposed recreation plan would basically involve development or enhancement of facilities or
features at selected recreation resource areas, i ncl udi ng both specific sites and corridors.
The names and locations of recreation resource areas included in the recreation plan are depicted
in Figure 2-12.
2.1.11.1 Inventory and Evaluation of Potential Recreation Development Areas
The Applicant's inventory of resource areas with high intrinsic recreation potential involved
reviewing planimetric information, previous inventories, aerial photographs, and similar informa-
tion sources. All potential resource areas were field checked, and the quality and extent of
the various landscape features were defined (Exhibit E, Vol. 8, Chap. 7, Sec. 5.2.1). Features
and settings indicating the distributions and locations of the recreation resources (including
special views or vistas) for a given area were mapped. The objective of site inventories was to
identify landscapes that support the most diverse range of recreation opportunities. Accordingly,
resource areas were defined in terms of attractiveness (physical attributes), accessibility, and
recreation preference type, i.e., pristine, primitive, semiprimitive, and developed. Recreation
activities were identified for the various preference types, for example, mountaineering, kayak-
canoeing, nature study, and big game hunting are compatible with pristine preference types. In
contrast, sports, snowmobiling, tours, picnicking, and pleasure driving are compatible with
developed preference types.
Potential recreation development sites were also evaluated on the basis of available recreation
opportunities. Parameters of evaluation included natural value, inherent durability, visual
quality, present land status, and carrying capacity. Considerations of carrying capacity
included visitation estimates and peak capacity estimates (Exhibit E, Vol. 8, Chap. 7, Sec. 5.3).
2.1.11.2 Implementation and Description of the Proposed Recreation Plan
In parallel with the phased or staged development of the proposed Susitna project, the recrea-
tion plan would also be implemented in phased intervals. For example, the initiation of con-
struction at selected recreation resource areas (Phase One development) would correspond with
the beginning construction at the Watana dam site in 1985 (Exhibit C, Vol. 1, Fig. C.1).
Phase Two, Three, and Four recreation developments would occur at later dates generally corres-
ponding with initial operation of Watana facilities, beginning construction at the Devil Canyon
site, and initial operation of Devil Canyon facilities. Phase Five development would occur
ten years following initial operation of Devil Canyon facilities, provided such development
would be needed to accommodate demand for public recreation (Ex hi bit E, Vol. 8, Chap. 7,
Sec. 6.1.6). In general, Alaska Division of Parks design standards would be used for developed
recreation facilities, since this organization would be the principal managing agency for the
proposed recreation developments (Exhibit E, Vol. 8, Chap. 7, Sec. 5.4.8). Development of the
required agreements, policies, and regulations for implementation of the proposed recreation
plan is in progress. Community involvement will be encouraged through the Susitna Public Parti-
cipation Program (Schedule B, Supplemental Items, Vol. 2, Sec. 7, Response to Comment 14).
The total effort will culminate in a recreation implementation report to be submitted to the
FERC.
*Throughout this document, references to specific "Exhibits" are to the exhibits submitted to
FERC as part of Alaska Power Authority's Susitna Hydroelectric Project License Application.
References to specific "Appendices" (App.) are to the appendices provided in Volumes 2 through 7
of this Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
0~!""""~4iiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil8 MILES SCALE c
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]
2-16
Selected characteristics of proposed recreation resource areas and respective recreation
features and/or facilities to be constructed or provided are presented below for each develop-
ment phase of the recreation plan (Exhibit E, Vol. 8, Chap. 7, Sec. 5.4 and Schedule B, Supple-
mental Items, Vol. 2, Sec. 7, Response to Comment 9a). Locations are shown in Figure 2-12.
2.1.11.2.1 Phase One (Watana Construction)
BRUSHKANA CAMPGROUND
This existing campground consists of 33 campsites and includes picnic, fireplace, and toilet
facilities. Surrounded by scenic views of distant glaciers within the Alaska Range, the camp-
ground is adjacent to Brushkana Creek, and campsites are interspersed among scattered coniferous
and hardwood trees, with a strongly developed understory of tall shrub vegetation.
Proposed Recreation Plan Features and Facilities: About 0.25 mi (0.4 km) of road, 25 camp-
sites, 3 single-vault latrines, 1 bulletin board, 8 trash cans, and 1 water well.
Recreation Opportunity Summary: Car camping, picnicking, fishing, big game hunting, photo-
graphy, and berry picking.
Accessibility: The site is immediately adjacent to the Denali Highway (Mile Post 105), which
intersects the Parks Highway about 30 mi (48 km) to the west.
TYONE RIVER
The site is located at the confluence of the Tyone and Susitna rivers at River Mile (RM) 246,
where the Susitna River is a fixed-channel river. The adjacent terrain is a rolling open land-
scape of the Gulkana uplands.
Proposed Recreation Plan Features and Facilities: One shelter.
Recreation Opportunity Summary: Boating, kayaking-canoeing, camping, big game hunting, and
fishing.
Accessibility: Boat launch areas include the Susitna River-Denali Highway intersection and
Lake Louise (via access road from the Glenn Highway).
BUTTE CREEK
An outfall of Butte Lake, Butte Creek drains upland tundra, meandering through a broad valley to
a confluence with the Susitna River. The valley encompasses small ponds, lakes, and wetlands
that are in contrast with the rugged Talkeetna Mountains in the background to the south. Down-
stream from its confluence with Butte Creek, the Susitna River is broad, braided, and shallow.
Proposed Recreation Plan Features and Facilities: One boat launch at the Denali Highway-
Susitna River intersection.
Recreation Opportunity Summary: Botanical interest sites, fishing, big game hunting, photo-
graphy, boating, ski touring, and snowshoeing.
Accessibility: Butte Creek--cross-country hiking from Deadman Lake, or by boat vi a the
Susitna River. Butte Lake--all-terrain vehicles and aircraft.
MIDDLE FORK, CHULITNA RIVER
From the Summit station on the Alaska Railroad, this proposed recreation corridor extends
easterly through the Summit Lakes chain and successively parallels the Middle Fork of the
Chulitna River, the lakes in Caribou Pass, the upper reach of the Jack River, and a mountain
pass that extends into the upper limits of the Tsusena Creek watershed. The terrain along this
27-mi (45-km) corridor includes broad river valleys as well as narrow V-shaped valleys in
glaciated mountainous landscapes. Dramatic views of the Alaska Range are observable from the
Middle Fork Chulitna River basin.
Proposed Recreation Plan Features and Facilities: 25 mi (40 km) of primitive trail, 1 trail-
head, 2 overnight shelters, 6 parking spaces, trash cans, 1 bulletin board, and signs.
Recreation Opportunity Summary: Hiking, backpacking, camping, collection sites, botanical
interest sites, wildlife observation, ski touring (Broad Valley only), snowshoeing, big game
hunting, fishing, potential for trail development.
2-17
Accessibility: Railroad stop at Summit, Parks Highway, proposed foot-trail along Tsusena
Creek, and cross-country hiking from the Jack Creek and Soule Creek drainages.
PORTAL SIGN
The site is located at the junction of the Denali Highway and the proposed Denali Highway-Watana
damsite access road. Development would include a portal sign displaying visitor information and
pull-off parking for two or three cars.
2.1.11.2.2 Phase Two (Watana Operation)
YIATANA DAM SITE
This recreation site would be located above the proposed Watana dam site on the southern side of
the Susitna River (RM 184) and within the Fog Lakes area. Vantage points afford views of the
Susitna River (both up-and downstream), and toward the Chulitna Mountains.
Proposed Recreation Plan Features and Facilities: One visitor exhibit building, 20 parking
spaces, 2 single-vault latrines, 1 interpretive trail, 4 picnic sites, and 1 bulletin board.
Recreation Opportunity Summary: Viewpoint, visitor information, photography, picnicking, and
hiking.
Accessibility: The proposed Denali Highway-\o/atana damsite access road, including access
across Watana dam.
WATANA TO\o/NSITE
The townsite would be a private development site. A proposed public recreation corridor would
extend from the townsite to Tsusena Creek Falls. Related recreation developments include 2 mi
(3.2 km) of primitive trail, 1 trailhead, and parking.
TSUSENA CREEK
This proposed recreation corridor corresponds with the Tsusena Creek Valley, connecting with the
Middle Fork, Chulitna River recreation corridor (see Phase One sites) at the upper limit of the
Tsusena Creek drainage. From the headwaters area, the Tsusena Creek Valley extends southerly
toward the Tsusena Lakes, which comprise almost 250 acres (100 ha). The valley floor also
encompasses ponds, wetlands, and scattered stands of spruce and brush areas, some with over-
stories of mixed coniferous and hardwood trees. Many unusual rock formations, waterfalls, and
depositional features reflect past glacial activity.
Proposed Recreation Plan Features and Facilities: 20 mi (31 km) of primitive trail, 2 shelters,
1 trailhead, and 3 parking spaces.
Recreation Opportunity Summary: Hiking, backpacking, botanical interest sites, rock hounding,
wildlife observation, photography, snowshoeing, ski touring, mountaineering, fishing, and poten-
tial for trail development.
Accessibility: Proposed foot trail from the Middle Fork, Chulitna River corridor (see
Phase One sites), aircraft at Tsusena Lakes, and foot trail from the proposed Watana-Devil
Canyon access road.
TSUSENA BUTTE
The lower portion of Tsusena Creek Valley divides around Tsusena Butte, which is a solitary
prominent feature of the local landscape. However, the fork of the valley to the east of Tsusena
Butte terminates, grading into an upland terrace above the Susitna River. The Tsusena Lakes,
over 1 mi (1.6 km) in length, are located between Tsusena Butte and the foothills of the Chulitna
Mountains to the northeast.
Proposed Recreation Plan Features and Facilities: 4 mi (6.4 km) of primitive trail, 1 primi-
tive campsite (2 4 capacity), 1 trailhead, and 6 parking spaces.
Recreation Opportunity Summary: Hiking, backpacking, photography, wildlife observation, ski
touring, snowshoeing, and fishing.
Accessibility: Proposed Denali Highway-Yiatana damsite access road.
2-18
DEADMAN/BIG LAKES
Deadman and Big Lakes comprise about 1,800 acres (720 ha) at the southern base of Deadman Mountain.
The terrain surrounding the lakes consists of rolling hills with rock outcrops. Deadman Creek
meanders through the lake basin enroute to its confluence with the Susitna River.
Proposed Recreation Plan Features and Facilities: 4 mi (6.4 km) of primitive trail, 1 primi-
tive campsite (5-6 capacity), 1 trailhead, and 6 parking spaces.
Recreation Opportunity Summary: Hiking, backpacking, photography, wildlife observation, and
fishing.
Accessibility: Aircraft at Big Lake, and hiking from the proposed Denali Highway-Watana
damsite access road.
CLARENCE LAKE
This site is located on a rolling upland terrace above and to the south of the Susitna River and
includes Clarence Lake, which is a popular fly-in fishing lake. Outfall from the lake (Gilbert
Creek) flows westerly into Kosina Creek, which flows northerly to its confluence with the Susitna
River. Vegetation of the terrace consists of alpine tundra; mixed coniferous-hardwood stands
occur only along Kosina Creek.
Proposed Recreation Plan Features and Facilities:
signs.
9 mi (15 km) of primitive trail, and
Recreation Opportunity Summary:
fishing, and big game hunting.
Hiking, backpacking, photography, wildlife observation,
Accessibility: Aircraft at Clarence Lake and primitive trail from the proposed Watana
Reservoir.
WATANA LAKE
This site includes Mt. Watana and Watana Lake located well above and to the south of the Susitna
River Valley and represents the northern limits of the Talkeetna Mountains. Vegetation of the
gently undulating uplands surrounding Watana Lake consists of alpine tundra which extends into
the Talkeetna Mountains.
Proposed Recreation Plan Features and Facilities: 3 mi ( 5 km) of primitive trail , 1 foot-
bridge, and l primitive campsite (2-3 capacity).
Recreation Opportunity Summary:
fishing, and big game hunting.
Hiking, backpacking, photography, wildlife observation,
Accessibility: Aircraft on l·latana Lake and a proposed hiking trail from Kosina Creek (boat
access only).
2.1.11.2.3 Phase Three (Devil Canyon Construction)
MID-CHULITNA/DEADMAN MOUNTAIN
The western half of this proposed recreation corridor is characterized by a complex mosaic of
distinctive multicolored mountaintops, reflecting an intermingling of snow, glacier, and high
wet tundra landscapes. The area includes headwaters of Deadman Creek, which meanders through a
broad, flat tundra muskeg, then abruptly descends toward the east near Deadman Mountain.
Proposed Recreation Plan Features and Facilities: 15 mi (24 km) of primitive trail, 1 primi-
tive campsite (2-4 capacity), l trailhead, and 10 parking spaces.
Recreation Opportunity Summary: Hiking, backpacking, photography, wildlife observation,
botanical interest sites, and potential for trail development.
Accessibility: The proposed Denali Highway-Watana damsite access road and hiking from a
proposed trail in the Tsusena Creek drainage.
2-19
2.1.11.2.4 Phase Four (Devil Canyon Operation)
DEVIL CREEK
This proposed recreation corridor corresponds with the Devil Creek drainage, which is confluent
with the Susitna River at RM 161. Devil Creek meanders through upland tundra and then cascades
southerly through steep canyons and narrow, brushy, and partially wooded valleys. Near the
Susitna River, flows of Devil Creek and a small tributary plunge through narrow slots in the
cliffs of the Susitna River gorge, creating two spectacular waterfalls. This setting is highly
scenic and a major recreation resource.
Proposed Recreation Plan Features and Facilities: 9 mi (14.5 km) of primitive trail, 1 trail-
head, 5 parking spaces, 1 bench, and signs.
Recreation Opportunity Summary: Hiking, nature observation, and photography.
Accessibility: The proposed \~atana-Devil Canyon access road.
DEVIL CANYON DAMSITE
This proposed recreation site occurs in open forested uplands high above, and immediately to the
south of the Susitna River at RM 152. Expansive views are observable to the west and north, as
well as views of the steep walls of the Susitna River gorge below.
Proposed Recreation Plan Features and Facilities: One visitors center, 0.5 mi (0.8 km) of
trail, 1 shelter, 1 single-vault latrine, 8 picnic sites, 15 parking spaces, 3 benches, and
signs.
Recreation Opportunity Summary: Visitor information service, hiking, picnicking, nature
observation, photography, ski touring, and snowshoeing.
Accessibility: The proposed Watana-Devil Canyon access road.
MERMAID LAKE
Located in an undulating upland tundra landscape, this proposed recreation site encompasses many
medium-to-large lakes in shallow basins. This upland area is highly diverse in topographic
character. The Chulitna Mountains are in the background to the north, and the Devil Canyon of
the Susitna River parallels the southern boundary of the site.
Proposed Recreation Plan Features and Facilities: Eight campsites, 1 shelter, 2 single vault
latrines, 1 water well, 1 bulletin board, 5 garbage cans, and signs.
Recreation Opportunity Summary: Car camping, snowshoeing, ski touring, nature observation,
wildlife observation, fishing, and big game hunting.
Accessibility: The proposed Watana-Devil Canyon access road.
2.1.11.2.5 Phase Five (To be developed if the need is indicated by recreation demand.)
SOULE CREEK
The Soule Creek corridor extends westward from the proposed Denali Highway-Watana damsite access
road paralleling the northern edge of the Brushkana Creek drainage. Vistas of the Alaska Range
are observable to the east. Farther west, the corridor extends into a large basin within a
broad valley of the Soule Creek drainage. A 2-mi (3.2-km) linear lake occurs within the basin.
The surrounding terrain is a complex of often snow-covered mountaintops and ridges composed of
multicolored rock. The basin is a strikingly scenic natural area.
Proposed Recreation Plan Features and Facilities: 8 mi (13 km) of primitive trail, 1 primi-
tive campsite (5-6 capacity), 1 trailhead, and 5 parking spaces.
Recreation Opportunity Summary: Hiking, backpacking, wildlife viewing, primitive camping,
photography, fishing, big game hunting, and potential for trail development.
Accessibility: Aircraft on the lake in the basin, and the proposed Denali Highway-Watana
damsite access road.
2-20
SOUTHERN CHULITNA MOUNTAINS
The proposed recreation site consists of a small valley in the southeastern foothills of the
Chulitna Mountains and is surrounded by rugged terrain. Vegetation of the valley floor is
alpine tundra overlying a rocky base, causing very wet conditions in some places. A small lake
created by an old moraine is located at the lower end of the valley, at which vantage points
afford views of the Susitna River below.
Proposed Recreation Plan Features and Facilities: 3 mi (5 km) of primitive trail, 1 primitive
campsite (3-4 capacity), 1 trailhead, and 3 parking spaces.
Recreation Opportunity Summary: Hiking, backpacking, nature observation, snowshoeing, and
ski touring.
Accessibility: The proposed Denali Highway-Watana damsite access road.
FOG LAKES
Located within a partially wooded upland above the Susitna River, the proposed Fog Lakes recrea-
tion site encompasses a cluster of linear lakes in generally paralleling orientation, several of
which exceed 1.5 mi (2.5 km) in length. Outfalls from several of the lakes coalesce into Fog
Creek, which meanders westerly and then cascades through small canyons enroute to the Susitna
River at RM 177. The rugged and scenic Talkeetna Mountains are in the background of vistas to
the south.
Proposed Recreation Plan Features and Facilities: 15 mi (24 km) of primitive trail, 15-unit
campground, 1 single-vault latrine, 15 parking spaces, 1 trailhead, and signs.
Recreation Opportunity Summary: Hiking, car camping, nature observation, wildlife observa-
tion, photography, and fishing.
Accessibility: Aircraft on Fog Lakes, and the access road across the proposed Watana dam.
STEPHAN LAKE
The proposed recreation site is within a wooded valley located in uplands south of the Susitna
River. The valley encompasses the 3.5-mi (5.6-km) long Stephan Lake, which is a popular fly-in
recreation area. The southern boundary of the valley landscape abuts the Talkeetna Mountains.
Outfall from Stephan Lake (i.e., Prairie Creek) flows southerly enroute to the Talkeetna River.
Proposed Recreation Plan Features and Facilities: 5 mi (8 km) of primitive trail, 5 camp-
sites (semi-primitive), signs, and a canoe boat ramp.
Recreation Opportunity Summary: Hiking, backpacking, kayaking-canoeing, wildlife observation,
photography, fishing, and big game hunting.
Accessibility: Aircraft on Stephan Lake, and a proposed hiking trail from the Susitna River.
2.1.11.3 Recreation Monitoring Program
In addition to phased recreation development, the Applicant's proposed recreation plan includes
provisions for a monitoring program to parallel the development program. The purpose of the
monitoring program would be the collection of data relative to intensity and patterns of recrea-
tion use, as well as other information i ndi cat i ve of recreation demand. Such data waul d serve
as the basis for adjustments in the recreation development program if required. Accordingly,
the analysis of Phase One monitoring could result in modification in Phase Two, Three, and Four
developments, as currently committed to by the Applicant (Exhibit E, Vol. 8, Chap. 7, Sec. 6.2).
It should be noted that the Applicant is not committed to recreation development Phase Five,
which would be implemented only if recreation demand data indicate a need (Exhibit E, Vol. 8,
Chap. 7, Sec. 5.4.5).
The monitoring program and the Phase One recreation development would be initiated concurrent
with beginning construction at the Watana dam site. At the time Watana facilities would become
operational in 1994 (or ten years after completion of Phase One recreation development, which-
ever is earlier), Phase One monitoring data would be evaluated and Phase Two development would
be verified or modified. Construction of the Phase Two recreation developments would be
completed within three years of the joint determination of recreation need by parties involved;
i.e., the Applicant, Alaska Division of Parks, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Native Corpora-
tions, and/or other affected landowners (Exhibit E, Vol. 8, Chap. 7, Sec. 6.2). As noted in
Section 2.1.11.2, community involvement would also be encouraged.
2-21
Phase Three of the recreation plan would be evaluated concurrent with beginning construction at
Devil Canyon, and the Phase Three elements would be verified or modified based on moni tor'i ng
experience related to development of Watana facilities. Phase Three developments would be
constructed within three years of the joint determination of need. When Devil Canyon facilities
became operational in 2002 (Exhibit C, Vol. 1, Fig. C.2) (or ten years after completion of
Phase Three construction, whichever is earlier), Phase Four development would be verified or
modified, as indicated by monitoring information. Following Phase Four implementation, the
appropriate parties would jointly agree on need for additional development and/or major rehabili-
tation based on evaluations of monitoring data at ten-year intervals throughout the duration of
the project license. It is currently anticipated that the Alaska Division of Parks and the
Applicant would enter into an agreement whereby the Division would agree to perform the survey,
evaluation, design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the recreation facilities on
public lands, with the costs to be borne by the Applicant (Exhibit E, Vol. 8, Chap. 7, Sec. 6.2.1).
Agreements of similar intent would be entered into with other agencies or individuals as
appropriate.
2.1.12 Mitigative Measures Proposed by the Applicant
2.1.12.1 Land Resources
2.1.12.1.1 Geology and Soils
Although not all geologic-and soil-related impacts of the proposed Susitna project could be
controlled, the mitigative measures proposed by the Applicant would be effective in minimizing
the severity of such impacts to the extent possible given the Applicant's project requirements.
The proposed combination of access route and transmission corridors or transmission corridors
and existing rights-of-way would minimize the total areas to be affected by access road construc-
tion impacts, such as soil erosion and compaction and permafrost thaw. Proposed geotechnical
investigations of the substrate materials for transmission towers, access roads, and construc-
tion facilities would allow the Applicant to adapt construction techniques and designs to ensure
structural stability and reduce possible impacts. Use of balloon-tired equipment for construc-
tion and hauling activities wherever possible would reduce soil compaction associated with those
activities. Use of appropriate insulating gravel pads or rigid insulation, as well as installa-
tion of surface water drainage systems for any facility, road, or transmission tower structure
constructed would minimize or prevent thaw in areas of permafrost. Additionally, selective
removal of vegetation and avoidance of the stripping of surface organic litter would help reduce
erosion losses as well as impacts related to permafrost thaw. Prompt revegetation of disturbed
areas outside the reservoir and the use of surface water diversions and sediment-trap basins for
all construction activities and borrow areas would also reduce erosion losses.
Slow and steady filling of the reservoirs would reduce the potential for reservoir-induced
seismic activity and slow the rate of potential reservoir slope failures. Monitoring of seepage
rates in high-risk areas is proposed, and installation of grouting or cutoff wells as needed
would be effective in controlling these losses and reducing the risk of related failures.
2.1.12.1.2 Land Use and Ownership
Land use mitigative measures have been proposed by the Applicant for each of the major project
features, including the dams and impoundment areas, construction camps and villages, planned
recreation areas, access routes, and transmission line corridors (see App. F, Sec. F.4). In
summary, these mitigative measures proposed by the Applicant include:
Developing a land management plan in cooperation with the appropriate agencies;
Confining land use activities to project construction areas;
Posting and enforcing construction camp rules;
Restricting use of private vehicles and providing transportation services;
Siting of sewage treatment lagoons and landfills away from housing;
Limiting road and outdoor recreation vehicle access;
Restoring disturbed site areas;
Developing a fire protection plan;
Using existing transmission line rights-of-way where feasible; and
Siting right-of-way away from private or special-use land.
2-22
2.1.12.2 Water Quantity and Quality
The Applicant has proposed to develop mitigative measures to protect, maintain, and/or enhance
the water quantity and quality of the Susitna River. The first phase of the mitigative process
involves identifying water quality and quantity impacts from construction, filling, and opera-
tion, and incorporating mitigative measures in the preconstruction planning, design, and schedul-
ing where feasible. Three mitigative measures were incorporated into the engineering design:
(1) establishing minimum flow requirements to provide the fishery resources with adequate flows
and water levels for upstream migration, spavming, rearing, over-wintering, and out-migration
while maintaining the economic viability of the project; (2) using fixed cone valves on the
outlet facility to reduce the hydraulic momentum, thereby preventing nitrogen saturation in
excess of the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) statute of llO%; and
(3) using multi-level intakes to improve downstream temperature control.
The second phase of mitigation would involve the implementation of environmentally sound con-
struction practices and monitoring of those practices and the resulting impacts in order to
identify and correct problems.
\~ater qua 1 i ty and water quanti ty-ori en ted mitigative measures proposed by the App 1 i cant for the
construction phase of the Susitna project are discussed in detail in Exhibit E, Chapter 2.
Those mitigative measures include the scheduling of mining of borrow sites in and adjacent to
surface waters to avoid periods when suspended solids in the Susitna River are at their annual
minimum concentration, siting facilities away from streams, employing erosion-control measures
(e.g., revegetation, buffer strips), treating and disposing of spoil from gravel washing and
concrete processing plants in ways to avoid adverse effects on water quality, developing and
implementing spill-prevention and containment procedures to minimize the impact on water quality
from accidental spills of petroleum products, and processing of wastewater to meet necessary
state and Federal wastewater and waste disposal permits and requirements.
Sustained high levels of sediment in a system can change the species composition and produc-
tivity of the system. Siltation can affect development of fish eggs and benthic food organisms.
The primary mitigative measures that would be used by the Applicant to minimize construction
erosion are: (1) siting facilities away from the clearwater fish streams; (2) employing erosion-
control measures such as runoff control, stilling basins, and revegetation; (3) scheduling
erosion-producing activities at biologically noncritical seasons; (4) minimizing the time
necessary to complete the activity so that erosion is a short-term, non-reoccurring problem; and
(5) maintaining vegetated buffer zones.
Removal of floodplain gravel can cause erosion, siltation, increased turbidity, increased ice
buildup caused by groundwater overflow, fish entrapment, and alteration of fish habitat. These
adverse impacts on aquatic habitats would be avoided or minimized. Before floodplain material
(e.g., sand, gravel) sites were used, it would be determined that upland sources were inadequate
to supply the needed material. Floodplain sites would be thoroughly explored to verify that
they could supply the necessary quantities of material. Important habitats such as overwintering
and spawning areas would be identified and avoided. Buffers would be retained between the sites
and any active channels except when draglining in the active channel. Material would be stock-
piled outside the floodplain to avoid backing flow at higher stages and to avoid the possibility
of material being eroded into downstream reaches. Overburden would be disposed of in upland
sites or returned to the area from which it was removed and contoured and planted. Material-
washing operations would use recycled water and would not discharge into adjacent streams.
Dredging in the river channel would be limited to the summer period when concentrations of
suspended solids are at their annual maximum.
The Tsusena Creek material site (borrow site E) would be rehabilitated after mining ceased. The
goal of rehabilitation would be to create productive aquatic habitat. The site would be shaped
and contoured to enhance fish habitat, and all man-made items removed from the site. Exposed
slopes would be graded and seeded. Rehabilitated areas would be monitored to ensure that grading,
revegetation, and other mitigative measures were effective in preventing erosion. The Cheechako
Creek and Susitna River borrow sites would be inundated and would not require rehabilitation
beyond that needed to minimize erosion.
Spills of oil and other hazardous substances into streams are toxic to fish and their food
organisms. A Spill Prevention Containment and Countermeasure Plan (SPCC) would be developed as
required by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Equipment refueling or repair
would not be allowed in or near floodplains without adequate provisions to prevent the escape of
petroleum products. Waste oil would be removed from the site and be disposed of using ADEC/USEPA-
approved procedures. Fuel-storage tanks would be located away from water bodies and within
lined and bermed areas capable of containing llO% of the tank volume. Fuel tanks would be
metered and all outflow of fuel accounted for; all fuel lines would be located in aboveground or
ground-surface utilidors to facilitate location of ruptured or sheared fuel lines. State law
requires that all spills, no matter how small , be reported to the ADEC. Personnel would be
2-23
trained and assigned to monitor storage and transfer of oil and fuel and to identify and clean
up spilled oil and other hazardous material. All personnel employed on the project, especially
field personnel, would be trained to respond to fuel spills in accordance with an approved
oil spill contingency plan.
Vehicle accidents, although difficult to fully protect against, can be minimized by
the roads with properly designed curves to accommodate winter driving conditions.
would be provided with adequate signs; during the winter, difficult stretches would
cleared and sanded. In summer, dust would be controlled with water.
constructing
The roads
be regularly
Discharge of camp effluents could result in increased levels of metals and nutrient loading.
Concrete batching plants release high alkaline effluents. Effluents would comply with ADEC/USEPA
effluent standards. The concrete batching effluent would be neutralized and treated prior to
discharge to avoid impacts related to pH and toxicity.
Adverse impacts associated with removing vegetation along streams are: (1) accelerated erosion
into the streams; (2) altered temperature regimes; and (3) operation of equipment in perennial
or ephemeral streambeds. Clearing would be scheduled as close to reservoir filling as is
feasible. Control methods would be employed wherever needed to minimize erosion to streams. To
the extent practicable, clearing would take place during the winter. Cleared vegetation would
be dried for one season and burned in place.
The primary water quantity and water quality issues during fi 11 i ng and operation of the Watana
and Devil Canyon would be the. maintenance of minimum downstream flows for fishery resources and
other instream flow needs, maintenance of an acceptable downstream thermal regime throughout the
year, and control of downstream gas supersaturation below the dams.
Selection of appropriate flow regime for reservoir operations consistent with power needs is
offered by the Applicant as a measure to avoid or minimize impacts. The Watana filling flow in
the period October to Apri 1 would reflect inflow to the reservoir; during operation, flows
during this period would be 5,000 cfs (140 m3 /s). Because slough overtopping is expected in
this period, with consequent temperature reduction in salmon incubation areas, the Applicant has
proposed to heighten upstream berms. From r~ay to the last week of July, the target flow would
be 6,000 cfs (170 m3 /s) to allow mainstem fish movement. A brief flow peak proposed by the
Applicant for this time period (of a magnitude to be specified following additional biological
studies) would be generated to stimulate outmigration of juvenile salmon. During the last week
of July, flows would be increased from 6,000 cfs to 12,000 cfs (170 to 340 m3 /s), in increments
of 1000 cfs (28 m3 /s) and maintained through mid-September to provide access by sockeye and chum
salmon to sloughs upstream of Talkeetna. To rectify anticipated difficulty with slough access,
even at 12,000 cfs ( 340 m3 Is), the App 1 i cant proposes to structurally modify the streambed
profiles of eight s 1 oughs. To rectify decreases in i ntragrave l flow caused by lowe red river
elevations, the Applicant has suggested piping mainstem water through the berm and releasing it
beneath the substrate. Compensation for anticipated loss of slough spawning habitat would be
accomplished by gravel cleaning in side channels, mainstem areas, and currently unused sloughs
in order to deveiop new spawning substrates. An estimated 432,315 ft 2 (38,902 m2 ) of spawning
habitat would be created, which is 187,000 ft2 (16,830 m2 ) greater than the estimated slough
spawning habitat used by salmon upstream of Talkeetna in 1981 and 1982. As a last alternative
for compensation, the Applicant has indicated that a hatchery for chum salmon could be developed.
The Applicant has proposed using multi-level water intakes on hydropower generating facilities
at Watana and Devil Canyon dams as a measure to mitigate the unavoidable temperature changes
associated with creation of a reservoir. Jhe multi-level intake strucutres would be used to
select temperatures within the stratified reservoir that most closely match the pre-project
thermal regime. This sytem would not be operative during reservoir filling.
The Applicant's plan for mitigating nitrogen supersaturation downstream of the dams is to install
fixed cone valves on the outlet facility. These fixed cone valves would be used during augmenta-
tion and excess flows. Nitrogen supersaturation of turbine flows would be mitigated by having
subsurface discharge to minimize air entrainment.
2.1.12.3 Fisheries
The Applicant has provided a conceptual plan for mitigation of anticipated impacts to fishery
resources. Details of the plan await further resolution of the aquatic resources to be impacted
by the project.
The objective of fisheries mitigation planning for the project has been to "provide habitat of
sufficient quality and quantity to maintain natural reproducing populations" wherever this is
compatible with the hydroelectric project's power objectives. Artificial propagation is contem-
plated only as a last resort.
2-24
The priorities of the fisheries mitigation were determined by employing the hierarchical approach
to mitigation contained in the Susitna Hydroelectric Project Application and U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and Alaska Department of Fish and Game mitigation policies. The five basic
mitigative actions, in order of priority, are:
Avoiding impacts through design features or scheduling activities to avoid loss of
resources.
Minimizing impacts by carefully scheduling and siting operations, timing and controll-
ing flow releases, and controlling impacts through best management practices.
Rectifying impacts by repairing disturbed areas to provide optional fish habitat and
reestablishing fish in repaired areas.
Reducing or eliminating impacts over time through monitoring, maintenance, and proper
training of project personnel.
Compensating for impacts by conducting habitat construction activities that rehabili-
tate altered habitat or by managing resources on project or nearby public lands to
increase habitat values.
The Applicant selected four species of Pacific salmon (chum, chinook, coho, and pink) in the
Susitna River downstream of the project and the Arctic grayling in the impoundment reach as
"evaluation species". These species currently have high regional visibility and their popula-
tions seemed most susceptible to project impacts. A major premise of mitigation planning for
the Susitna River downstream of the project has been that improved conditions of flow (stabilized),
water quality (reduced turbidity) and substrate (managed) in the mainstem would provide replace-
ment habitat to mitigate for the potential loss of fish habitat zones in partially dewatered
sloughs.
The Applicant's proposed mitigative measures for certain impact issues are described below.
Staff comments on these plans, as well as a discussion of these plans and other potential mitiga-
tive measures, are provided in Section 5.1.1.
Mitigation of construction impacts would be achieved primarily by incorporating environmental
criteria into pre-construction planning and design, and by good construction practices. A
design criteria manual and a construction practices manual are to be prepared. The continuing
aquatic studies program would be used to define sites, designs, and schedules so as to minimize
impacts. Environmental staffs would maintain a high degree of communication and cooperation
with personnel conducting design and construction. Monitoring of construction facilities and
activities is planned to identity and correct impacts.
The following is a discussion of the impact issues and the mitigative measures that would be
applied during and after construction. Those issues considered to have the greatest potential
for adverse impact to the aquatic environment are discussed first. Avoidance, minimization,
rectification, and reduction of impacts are discussed. There are presently no direct costs
associated with these mitigative measures.
Improperly constructed stream crossings can block fish movements and increase siltation in the
stream. Roads with inadequate drainage structure can alter runoff patterns of nearby wetlands
and streams. Encroachments on stream courses can alter hydraulic characteristics and increase
siltation of streams, thereby affecting fish habitat.
The objective of constructing stream crossings is to maintain the natural stream configuration
and flow so that passage of fish is ensured. Alaska state law (AS-16.05.840) requires the
maintenance of fish passage. Appropriate control measures would be undertaken as a part of
routine maintenance to ensure that beaver dams do not interfere with fish passage needs. For
the project area, the evaluation species used in developing criteria for stream crossings is
Arctic grayling. In designing and constructing a crossing, consideration would be given to
presence or absence of fish or fish habitat, location of crossing, type of crossing structure,
flow regime, and method of installation.
The sport fishing pressure on the local streams and lakes waul d substantially increase. The
access road and transmission line rights-of-way would allow fishermen to reach areas previously
unexploited. To minimize this impact during the construction phase, access to the streams would
be limited by closing roads to unauthorized project personnel and to the general public. The
Alaska Board of Fisheries would be provided such information as they require to manage the
fisheries. Some watersheds, such as the Deadman Creek/Deadman Lake system, would require modifi-
cation of present seasons and catch limits if current stocks are to be maintained. These regula-
tions might take the form of reduced seasons or catch limits, imposition of maximum size limits,
or control of fishing methods.
2-25
Fish fry and juveniles can be impinged on intake screens or entrained into hoses
water is withdrawn from water bodies for miscellaneous uses during construction.
surface water withdrawal would be from streams or lakes that do not contain fish.
be withdrawn from a fish-bearing water body, the Alaska Department of Fish and
design criteria would be used for all intakes.
and pumps when
If possible,
If water must
Game intake
Blasting in or near fish streams can rupture fish swim bladders and damage incubating embryos.
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has standard blasting guidelines that establish the
distance from water bodies at which charges can be detonated without harming fish. These guide-
lines would be used for blasting at project sites.
Fish passing downstream through the diversion tunnels are expected to be lost because of the
high tunnel velocities. During summer, relatively few fish are present in the vicinity of the
tunnel entrance. During winter, resident fish are expected to be entrained into the intake and
passed downstream. The segment of the fish population lost in the diversion tunnel would be
lost in any case due to reservoir filling, because of lost tributary habitat and the expected
low habitat value in the reservoir. Mitigation for these losses would be achieved by the early
initiation of grayling propagation.
For filling and operation impacts, the Applicant has proposed mitigative measures for four
specific impact issues that affect fisheries: (1) flow regime downstream of the project, (2)
temperature changes downstream of the project, (3) inundation impacts on mainstem and tributary
habitats by reservoirs, and (4) nitrogen supersaturation (Table 2-3). These topics are also
addressed above in Section 2.1.12.2 (Water Quantity and Quality).
Because there will be no way to avoid, minimize, or rectify inundation of grayling habitat in
the reservoir zones, the Applicant proposes funding research on grayling propagation technology,
developing hatchery facilities for grayling, and introducing rainbow trout into Devil Canyon
reservoir as compensation measures.
2.1.12.4 Terrestrial Communities
2.1.12.4.1 Plant Communities
The Applicant's proposed plan for mitigation of impacts to botanical resources includes implemen-
tation of the following measures (listed in order of priority): avoidance, minimization, recti-
fication, reduction, and compensation. This approach was adopted after consultation with resource
agencies, including the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Removal of vegetation cannot be totally avoided during construction of many proposed project
facilities; therefore, the Applicant has proposed implementation of the other mitigative measures.
Mitigative measures proposed by the Applicant to minimize impacts to vegetation generally consist
of measures applied to the design or location of project facilities so as to reduce clearing
requirements or effects on sensitive areas such as wetlands. The Applicant has already applied
these mitigative measures to the proposed siting and design of major facilities, such as construc-
tion camps and villages, the Devil Canyon railhead facility, and general access and transmission
line routing. However, these mitigative measures also would be applied on a more site-specific
basis during detailed engineering and alignment studies for project facilities.
Proposed use of flexible speed designs as well as application of side-borrow and balanced cut-
and-fill techniques for access road construction should reduce fill requirements and essentially
eliminate the need for large borrow sites located some distance away from the access corridors,
thereby minimizing impacts to veg~tation. The Applicant also has proposed a plan to minimize
vegetation loss associated with disposal of spoil created during construction activities and
borrow excavations. This plan includes depositing most of the spoil within the impoundment area
in such a way that fines do not become entrained in water flows. To minimize impacts to vegeta-
tion crossed by the transmission line corridors, the Applicant has planned only selective clear-
ing of the rights-of-way and maximum use of existing roads for access to transmission lines.
The potential for impacts to vegetation as a result of increased access to the upper and middle
Susitna Basin (e.g., off-road vehicle effects and increased incidence of fires) would be mini-
mized during construction through restriction of public access. Policies concerning public
access to the proposed project area after project construction would be developed with concur-
rence of land and resource management agencies and private landowners whose lands would be
affected.
Mitigative measures to rectify impacts to vegetation generally would be applied once facilities
used on a temporary basis during construction were no longer needed. Rehabilitation would be
initiated by the first growing season following removal of facilities or equipment. Areas
disturbed by either construction activities or nonessential activities would also require recti-
fication. Proposed rehabilitation procedures include dismantling of structures, ripping land
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 Develo2ment Develo2ment Develo2ment
Issues Filling 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 I
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
2-27
surfaces and regrading to contour, replacement of mineral and/or organic layer soils salvaged
during facility construction, application of fertilizers, scarification of replaced soils, and
encouragement of reinvasion by native species from surrounding undisturbed areas. Seeding would
be used only where necessary to provide erosion control or improve visual impact. Wl1ere seeding
was required, native species, primarily fast-growing native grasses, would be used.
Mitigative measures planned by the Applicant to reduce impacts to vegetation would really be an
extension of rectification in that these measures would mainly involve monitoring of project
facilities and activities to ensure the most effective use and application of rehabilitation
measures. Monitoring measures would be stipulated in the comprehensive restoration plans and
would be intended to help focus and implement the plans. Monitoring would also be used to
maintain awareness of the extent and location of disturbed areas, both planned and unplanned, so
that rehabilitation could begin as early as feasible once activities in a given area diminished.
Vegetation losses associated with development of the proposed dam and impoundment sites could
only be offset through compensation measures. The Applicant has proposed to compensate for
losses by ranking lost vegetation types with respect to their value as wildlife habitat, and
then selectively altering vegetation on acquired lands to replace or exceed lost areal coverages
of high-priority vegetation types. This would allow compensation for high-priority vegetation
(habitat) types while requiring acquisition of relatively smaller land areas. In identifying
replacement lands for habitat enhancement, the Applicant would place the highest priority on
state and Federal lands that can be acquired at minimal or no cost.
2.1.12.4.2 Wildlife
The Applicant's mitigation plan for wildlife was developed within the constraints of project
needs in consultation with Federal and state resource agencies. As noted above, much of the
plan involves recovery of plant communities. The plan is in a state of ongoing refinement and
further definition and will be integrated with the Applicant's monitoring plan.
Avoidance of impacts would be implemented primarily in project design, and hence is constrained
by the project goals. The avoidance of some impacts has been factored into the analysis of
impacts in Section 4.1. Alternative project designs that might avoid impacts are discussed in
Sections 4.2 to 4.7. Avoidance would also be achieved by scheduling and siting project activi-
ties such that they do not occur during periods or in locales important in the life history of a
wildlife population. The Applicant proposes to schedule activities such that they would not
interfere with nesting raptot's, nesting trumpeter swans, overwintering bear, or calving moose.
In addition, the Applicant proposes to relocate some activities (e.g., overflights) so that they
would not interfere with rap tor or swan nesting nor with sheep use of the Jay Creek mineral
lick.
Impacts might be reduced by lessening the magnitude or extent, or altering the location, of
project features. The minimum level to which impacts might be reduced would be limited by
project design goals. The Applicant proposes to reduce impacts in several areas. For example,
use of borrow material areas would be minimized to the extent possible while excavating sufficient
fill material. In addition, selective clearing of rights-of-way would be implemented to maintain
as much vegetation cover as possible while allowing safe operation of transmission facilities.
Restoration would be most effective in recovering browse productivity on lands requiring temporary
disturbance during project construction. As discussed above, the Applicant proposes to revege-
tate areas of borrow sites, temporary villages, construction laydown areas, and similar features.
Recovery of these areas would be feasible, although complete recovery could require more than
50 years. However, for l to 20 years after initiation of revegetation, productivity of browse
might be enhanced to a level similar to that found in early stages of plant succession.
Replacement activities proposed by the Applicant would principally be used to replace raptor
nesting locations that would be lost to the project. Replacement lands for lost habitat might
also be used.
Compensation through habitat enhancement is the major action by which the Applicant proposes to
mitigate for loss of habitat carrying capacity. The Applicant proposes to convert mature growth
forest into early successional vegetation communities. Early successional vegetation tends to
provide higher productivity of forage for moose, bear, and other wildlife. The Applicant has
proposed using fire, vegetation crushing, and forest clearing to achieve its goals.
2.1.12.5 Threatened and Endangered Species
The only threatened or endangered species that could be impacted would be the American peregrine
falcon (Falco peregri nus ana tum) (see Sees. 3. l. 6 and 4. l. 6). North of Nenana the proposed
il
if ,,
' I: ,,
'
I'
2-28
transmission line would pass near peregrine nesting habitat in the hills overlooking the Tanana
River to the south. Several historical peregrine nesting sites are located within these hills.
Two of these locations are within 1 mi (1.6 km) of the proposed route. However, the proposed
route does avoid prime habitat. Because the nests are inact-ive, the only applicable mitigative
action would be the avoidance of permanent or long-term alteration of high-quality peregrine
habitat. If nesting locations near the proposed route did become active, further steps would be
implemented to avoid disturbance.
2.1.12.6 Recreation Resources
The Applicant 1 s recreation plan (see Sec. 2.1.11) constitutes proposed mitigation for losses of
recreation resources and opportunities due to the development of the proposed project and provides
means for accommodating recreation demand generated by the construction and operation of project
facilities. Consistent with phased development of the entire project, the Applicant proposes to
implement the recreation plan in phases (Exhibit E, Vol. 8, Chap. 7, Sec. 6.1), each phase
intended to mitigate specific aspects of the overall project as follows:
Phase One Objectives (Watana Construction)
To mitigate for loss of recreation opportunities because of construction activities
and associated land closures;
To provide recreation opportunities for project construction workers;
To provide the public with some early recreation benefits derived from the public
investment in Watana.
Phase Two Objectives (Watana Operation)
To mitigate for loss of recreation opportunities due to the operation of Watana
facilities;
To provide for the recreation use potential of the project;
To accommodate project-induced recreation demand;
To allow public access to project lands and waters;
To protect the environmental values of the project area.
Phase Three Objectives (Devil Canyon Construction)
To mitigate for loss of recreation opportunities due to Devil Canyon construction;
To provide recreation opportunities for construction workers.
Phase Four Objectives (Devil Canyon Operation)
To mitigate for loss of recreation opportunities due to the operation of Devil Canyon
facilities;
To provide for the recreation use potential of the project;
To accommodate project-induced recreation demand;
To allow public access to project lands ·and waters;
To protect the environmental values of the project area.
Concurrent with initial construction, the Applicant proposes to initiate a program to monitor
recreation use and demand continuously throughout the life of the project license.
2.1.12.7 Socioeconomic Factors
The Applicant has proposed, in general terms, to reduce the speed, magnitude, and distribution
of project-induced population growth by adjusting timing of labor needs and leave and shift
schedules to avoid extreme monthly, seasonal, and annual peaks; and by providing transportation
incentives and services to encourage workers to reside in large population centers remote from
the site and discourage settlement in the small communities nearby. However, no specific
scheduling or transportation plans have been deve 1 oped. The App 1 i cant has a 1 so proposed, as
part of the project plan, development of onsite housing for single workers; some temporary and
permanent single-family housing for construction engineers, managers, and their families; and a
permanent village for households of operation workers. These plans include recreation facili-
ties, a school, community services, and a health facility.
2-29
2.1.12.8 Visual Resources
The App 1 i cant 1 s vi sua 1 resource mitigation plan is designed to reduce or eliminate adverse
impacts due to project development. The emphasis of the plan is on (1) avoidance of critical
environments, including ongoing site refinements throughout the design phase, (2) use of best
development practices and site-sensitive engineering, and (3) rehabilitation. The Applicant has
identified four major categories of mitigation: (1) addition a 1 studies, (2) best deve 1 opment
practices, (3) creative engineering design, and (4) the use of form, line, color, and texture
(Exhibit E, Vol. 8, Chap. 8, p. E-8-47). Additional mitigative measures that would reduce
visual resource impacts include vegetation impact mitigative techniques described in Sec-
tion 2.1.12.4.1.
During the Phase II detailed design process, additional studies to resolve the visual impacts
would be performed by an interdisciplinary design team. Potential aesthetic impacts would be
further arne l i orated through s i te-speci fi c design analysis ?tnd development. Visual resource
impacts would be mitigated through siting studies (e.g., avoidance of thaw-susceptible areas)
and alternative solutions (e.g., project design changes). Additional measures that would be
implemented would include best development practices through construction techniques (e.g.,
construction equipment would be confined to gravel roads and construction zone areas), rehabili-
tation techniques (e.g., grading to contour and reseeding), and operation policies (e.g., restrict-
ing off-road vehicle use). Where project facilities would not be compatible with the surrounding
landscape character, creative engineering design measures would be taken (e.g., minimizing road
profile elevations to blend with existing natural contours). Finally, the use of form, line,
color, or texture could reduce visual impacts caused by project features (e.g., painting build-
ings an appropriate color to blend with the surrounding natural landscape).
2.1.12.9 Cultural Resources
The Applicant has recommended the investigation of all significant cultural resource sites
(i.e., those eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places) that would be
subject to unavoidable direct or indirect impacts resulting from project development. Preserva-
tion by avoidance (combined with a monitoring program) is recommended for significant sites that
would be exposed to potential impacts during either the construction or operation phases of the
project.
2.2 SUSITNA DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES
2.2.1 Alternative Facility Designs
2.2.1.1 Applicant's Studies
The design of the proposed facilities at the Watana and Devil Canyon developments are the result
of detailed studies during which the design of each major component was evaluated relative to
increasingly refined criteria. The criteria for design included economics, environmental and
geotechnical constraints, load forecasts, and engineering considerations. A detailed discussion
of the various components and methodology for the screening and review of alternative general
arrangements of the components is presented in the Application (Exhibit B, Sec. 2). A summary
of these studies follows.
2.2.1.2 Alternative Watana Facilities
Main Dam. The Applicant selected the elevation of the Watana dam crest based on consideration
of the value of the hydroelectric energy produced from the associated reservoir, geotechnical
constraints on reservoir levels, and freeboard requirements. Three crest elevations were studied,
2240, 2190, and 2140 ft (682. 8, 667.5 and 652. 3 m). The dam type was se l.ected based on a com-
parison of embankment, concrete arch, and concrete-faced rockfill dams for Watana. Comparison
criteria considered economics, availability of suitable construction materials, and expected
performance of the dam based on the seismic, climatic, and geotechnical conditions at each site.
Diversion Facilities. The topography of the site generally dictates that diversion of the river
during construction be accomplished using diversion tunnels with upstream and downstream coffer-
dams protecting the main construction area. A design flood with a recurrence frequency of once
in 50 years was selected for the design of the cofferdams based on experience and practice with
other major hydroelectric projects.
Concrete-lined and unlined rock tunnels were compared. The reliability of an unlined tunnel is
more dependent on rock conditions than is a lined tunnel, particularly given the extended period
during which the diversion scheme is required to operate. Based on these considerations, given
a considerably higher cost, together with the somewhat questionable feasibility of four unlined
tunnels with diameters approaching 50 ft (15 m) in the type of rock expected at the site, the
unlined tunne 1 s were eliminate d. The 1 i ned tunne 1 schemes ex ami ned were (1) pressure tunne 1
with a free outlet, (2) pressure tunnel with a submerged outlet, and (3) a free flow tunnel.
,,
'
1111
2-30
Spillway Facilities. Discharge of the spillway design flood would require a gated service
spillway on either the left or right bank. Three basic alternative spillway types were examined:
chute spillway with flip bucket, chute spillway with stilling basin, and cascade spillway.
Consideration was also given to combinations of these alternatives with or without supplemental
facilities, such as valved tunnels and an emergency spillway fuse plug for handling the PMF
discharge.
Power Facilities. Selection of the optimum powerplant development involved consideration of the
following:
Location, type and size of the power plant;
Geotechnical considerations;
Number, type, size, and setting of generating units;
Arrangement of intake and water passages; and
Environmental constraints.
Studies were also made to compare the construction costs of both surface and underground power-
houses.
Preliminary studies were undertaken during the development of conceptual project layouts at
Watana to investigate both right and left bank locations for power facilities. The location on
the southern bank was rejected because of economics and indications that the underground facili-
ties would be located in relatively poor quality rock. The underground powerhouse was therefore
located on the northern bank such that the major openings lay between the two major shear
features ("The Fins" and the "Fingerbuster").
General Arrangement. Preliminary alternative arrangements of the Watana project were developed
and subjected to a series of review and screening processes. The layouts selected from each
screening process were developed in greater detail prior to the next review and, where necessary,
additional layouts were prepared combining the features of two or more of the alternatives.
Assumptions and criteria were evaluated at each stage and additional data incorporated as
necessary.
Four arrangement schemes were developed during the preliminary review stage (Exhibit 8,
Figs. 8.27 through 8.32), and two schemes evolved out of these for review in the final stage.
The proposed scheme (scheme WP3A) was adopted based on economics and fewer potential geo-
technical problems.
2.2.1.3 Alternative Devil Canyon Facilities
The methodology used by the Applicant to develop the designs of the various components of the
Devil Canyon development were similar to those used to evolve the Watana design.
2.2.2 Alternative Access Corridors
2.2.2.1 Applicant Studies
The objective of alternative access studies•conducted by the Applicant was to provide a transpor-
tation system that would support construction activities and allow for the orderly development
and maintenance of the site facilities, while considering the relative environmental impacts of
the various alternatives. Three general corridors leading from the existing transportation
network to the proposed dam sites were identified (Fig. 2-13). A detailed discussion of these
corridors is provided in the Application (Exhibit E, Chap. 10, Sec. 2.3) and a summary of the
studies follows.
2.2.2.2 Corridors Studied
The three corridors identified were:
Corridor 1 -From the Parks Highway to the Watana dam site via the northern side of
the Susitna River.
Corridor 2 -From the Parks Highway to the Watana dam site via the southern side of
the Susitna River.
Corridor 3-From the Denali Highway to the Watana dam site.
Within these corridors, a total of 18 plans were developed by laying out routes on topographical
maps in accordance with accepted road and rail design criteria.
Figure 2-13. Alternative Access Corridors. [Source:
SCALE
Application Exhibit B, Fig. 8 _42 ]
0~~~4 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii~8 MILES
N
I w
f-'
,, ,,
I
2-32
2.2.2.3 Development of Plans
Once the basic corridors were defined, alternative routes that met the selected design param-
eters were established and evaluated against technical, economic, and environmental criteria.
Within each corridor, the most favorable alternative route in terms of length, alignment, and
grade was identified. These routes were then combined with each other and/or with existing
roads or railroads to form the various access plans.
These plans were screened using the following criteria:
Minimizing impacts to the environment;
Minimizing total project costs;
Providing transportation flexibility to minimize construction risks;
Providing ease of operation and maintenance; and
Pre-construction of a pioneer road.
This led to the development of eight alternative access plans. Three additional plans were
added at the suggestion of the Susitna Hydroelectric Steering Committee.
Studies of these 11 access p 1 ans culminated in the recommendation of Plan 5 as the route that
most closely satisfied the selection criteria. Plan 5 starts from the George Parks Highway near
Hurricane and traverses along the Indian River to Gold Creek. From Gold Creek the road
continues east on the southern side of the Susitna River to the Devil Canyon dam site, crosses a
low-level bridge and continues east on the northern side of the Susitna River to the Watana dam
site. For the project to remain on schedule, it would have been necessary to construct a
pioneer road along this route prior to the FERC license being issued. This plan was, however,
eventually eliminated due to comments received from the public, agencies, and organizations.
Seven additional access alternatives then were developed using refined evaluation criteria. All
18 plans were evaluated using the refined criteria to determine the most responsive access plan
in each of the three basic corridors.
2.2.2.4 Description of Most Responsive Access Plans
The proposed p 1 an, Plan 18 "Dena 1 i -North", is described in Section 2. 1. 7. The most responsive
plan for the two other corridors are described below.
Plan 13 "North". This plan would utilize a roadway from a railhead facility adjacent to the
George Parks Highway at Hurricane to the Watana dam site following the northern side of the
Susitna River. A spur road 7 mi (11 km) long would be constructed at a later date to service
the Devil Canyon development. Travelling southeast from Hurricane, the route would pass through
Chulitna Pass, avoid the Indian River and Gold Creek areas, then parallel Portage Creek at a
high elevation on the northern side. After crossing Portage Creek the road would continue at a
high elevation to the Watana dam site. Access to the southern side of the Susitna River at the
Devil Canyon dam site would be over a high-level suspension bridge approximately 1 mi (1.6 km)
downstream from the Devil Canyon dam. This route would cross mountainous terrain at high eleva-
tions and include extensive sidehill cutting in the region of Portage Creek. Construction of
the road, however, would not be as difficult as Plan 16, the southern route.
Plan 16 "South". This route would generally parallel the Susitna River, traversing west to east
from a railhead at Gold Creek to the Devil Canyon dam site, and continue following a southerly
loop to the Watana dam site. To achieve initial access within one year, a temporary low-level
crossing to the northern side of the Susitna River would be required approximately 12 mi
(19 km) downstream from the Watana dam site. This would be used until completion of a perma-
nent high-level bridge. In addition, a connecting road from the George Parks Highway to Devil
Canyon, with a major high-level bridge across the Susitna River, would be necessary to provide
full road access to either site. The topography from Devil to Watana is mountainous and the
route would involve the most difficult construction of the three plans, requiring a number of
sidehill cuts and the construction of two major bridges. To provide initial access to the
Watana dam site, this route would present the most difficult construction problems of the three
routes, and would have the highest potential for schedule delays and related cost increases.
2.2.3 Alternative Transmission Line Corridors
The Applicant's initial choice of transmission line corridors for further study depended upon
certain environmental selection criteria, and, to a lesser extent, technical and economical
analysis. Three areas with 22 corridors were defined and se 1 ected for fi na 1 study. Four
corridors were chosen for consideration in the northern area to transmit project power from the
Healy substation to Fairbanks; three corridors were chosen for the southern area to transmit
project power from the Willow substation to Anchorage (Cook Inlet); and 15 corridors were chosen
2-33
in the central area to carry project power from the Watana and Devil Canyon sites to the Willow-
Healy Intertie. One transmission corridor was then selected in each area, with the environ-
mental factors and technical and economic ratings being considered. Additionally, the choice of
the access route for the Susitna development affected the choice of the transmission line corridor
in the central area.
The four corridors studied by the Applicant in the northern area varied in length from 85 to
115 mi (136 to 185 km). Only two route segments from Healy are practical because of topography,
with one along an existing transportation route being preferred.
The 15 corridors studied by the Applicant in the central area were reduced to seven because of
technical or economic unacceptability [i.e., mountain crossings over 4,000 ft (1,200 m)]. The
selection of the access route in September 1982 narrowed the corridors to four, all connecting
the Watana dam site, the Devil Canyon dam site, and the proposed Gold Creek substation on the
Intertie. The final selection amounted to a choice between two parallel corridor segments
connecting the two dam sites and two parallel corridor segments connecting the Devil Canyon site
with the Intertie substation. These four corridors are about 40 mi (64 km) long each.
The three corridors studied by the Applicant in the southern area included two connecting the
Willow substation and Point MacKenzie and one connecting Willow to Anchorage via Palmer. The
corridor via Palmer is the longest at 73 mi (117 km), but the preferred route from Willow to
Point MacKenzie via Red Shirt Lake is 38 mi (61 km) in length.
Figures 2-14 through 2-16 show routes of the proposed and alternative transmission-line segments
considered by the Applicant when selecting a preferred route.
2.2.4 Alternative Susitna Development Schemes
2.2.4.1 General
As indicated in Section 1.4.1, the FERC Staff has considered three alternative development
schemes for the Susitna River Basin: Watana I with Devil Canyon; Watana I with Modified High
Devil Canyon, and Watana I with a reregulating dam. The locations of these developments are
illustrated in Figure 2-17.
2.2.4.2 Watana I-Devil Canyon Development
Facilities. This development would be identical to the proposed project, with the exception
that Watana dam would be scaled down to have a crest elevation of 2,125 ft (648 m) and a normal
reservoir level of 2100 ft (640 m) [versus 2,210 ft (674 m) and 2,185 ft (666 m), respectively,
for the proposed dam].
Operation. This project would operate in the same manner as the proposed project, i.e., Watana I
would operate as a baseload plant until completion of Devil Canyon. After completion of Devil
Canyon, Watana I would operate as a peaking plant and Devil Canyon would be operated to maintain
a constant tailwater elevation at Watana I and to regulate Watana I discharges to meet downstream
fishery requirements.
2.2.4.3 Watana !-Modified High Devil Canyon Development
Facilities. The Watana I development would be as described in Section 2.2.4.2. The High Devil
Canyon development would be located approximately at RM 157, or about 5 mi (8 km) upstream from
the proposed Devil Canyon site. The dam would be constructed of similar materials and designs
as the High Devil Canyon Dam studied by the Applicant (Exhibit B, Fig. 8.9). It would be of
earth and rockfill construction with an impervious core, and a crest elevation of 1,495 ft
(456 m). It would have a normal maximum water surface elevation of 1,470 ft (448 m) and a
maximum height of approximately 595 ft (181m). The south abutment spillway and north abutment
underground powerhouse would be similar in concept to High Devil Canyon.
Operation. This development would be operated in the same manner as the Watana I-Devil Canyon
Project.
2.2.4.4 Watana I-Reregulating Dam Development
Facilities. This development would incorporate a reregulating dam located approximately 16 mi
(24 km) downstream of Watana I. The Reregulating dam would be of earth and rockfill construc-
tion, with a crest elevation of 1,500 ft (457 m) and a maximum height of approximately 250 ft
(76 m). A spillway would be located on the northern abutment and a 200-MW powerhouse would be
downstream of the dam on the southern bank. This development would be similar in_design to the
Tunnel No. 3 Reregulation dam scheme considered by the Applicant in development plan E3 of
SCALi IN MILES
LOCATION MAP
Figure 2-14.
2-34
LEGEND
---STUDY CORRIDOR
5
INTERTIE
(APPROXIMATE)
10
SCALE IN MILES
Alternative Transmission line Corridors--Central Study Area.
[Source: Application Exhibit B, Fig. 8.48]
Figure 2-15. Alternative Transmission Line Corridors--Northern Study Area.
[Source: Application Exhibit B, Fig. 8.49]
LOCATION MAP
LEGEND
---STUDY CORRIDOR
•••••••••••••• I NTERTIE
{APPROXIMATE)
SCALE IN MILES
2-35
LEGEND ---STUDY CORRIDOR
I NTERTIE
(APPROXIMATE )
SCALE IN MILES
LOCATION MAP
Figure 2-16. Alternative Transmission Line Corridors--Southern Study Area.
[Source: Application Exhibit B, Fig. 8.47]
Reregulating Dam
/
Susitna River Fog Creek
Modified High Devil Canyon Dam
~ t ~ N N1-------------------------------~--------------------------------------~----------~----~ (.0
149°30' w 148°30' w
5 Miles
Figure 2-17. Locations of Alternative Susitna River Developments.
N
I w en
2-37
Exhibit B, except the 15-mi (24-km) long power tunnel between the Reregulating dam and Devil
Canyon would not be constructed. The tunnel and a powerhouse at Devil Canyon could be added in
the future. However, if further study indicates that the tunnel is an economically feasible
alternative, the Reregulating dam powerhouse construction could be staged to avoid installing
capacity which could not be used if water was diverted to the tunnel powerhouse.
Operation. The project would be operated in the same manner as the two previously discussed
developments.
2.3 NATURAL-GAS-FIRED GENERATION SCENARIO
2.3.1 Alternative Facilities
For its natural-gas generation scenario, the Staff assumed that eight state-of-the-art 200-MW
gas-fired baseload combined-cycle plants and two 70-MW gas-fired combustion-turbine peaking
units would be installed. The assumed combined cycle plants each include two combustion-turbine
generator units, a heat recovery boiler using the exhaust gases of that combustion turbines to
produce superheated steam, and a steam turbine generator. Addition a 1 details regarding the
assumed design and operating parameters of the combined-cycle plants are given in Appendix G,
Table G.5. The combined-cycle substantially improves power generation efficiency. A plant with
two combustion turbines can be operated at partial load with one of the gas turbines out of
service. The combustion-turbine peaking units assumed for this scenario (as well as all other
thermal scenarios) are simple-cycle facilities using natural gas as fuel.
The technical parameters and economic assumptions used for units in the gas scenario are listed
in Table 2-4.
2.3.2 Location
Table 2-4. Plant Addition Technical Parameters
and Economic Assumptions--Combined-Cycle
and Combustion-Turbine Units
Parameter
Technical
Unit Size (MW)
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)
Planned Outages (%)
Forced Outages (%)
Economic
Unit Capital Costt 1 ($/kW)
O&M Costs
Fixed ($/kW-yr)
Variable (mills/k\olh)
Economic Life (years)
Combined
Cycle
200
8,000
7
8
1,107
7.25
1. 69
30
Combustion
Turbine
70
12,200
32
8.0
636
2. 7
4.8
30
t 1 Including interest during construction at 0% escala-
tion and 3% interest.
Source: Adapted from Applicant's Revised Table D.18.
The Staff assumed that the combined-cycle and combustion-turbine units would be sited in proxim-
ity to natural gas distribution pipelines in the Anchorage-Cook Inlet areas. Because of the
greater volume of gas required by the combined cycle units, it is expected that they would be
concentrated in the western Cook Inlet area and on the Kenai peninsula. For purposes related to
impact analysis, Staff assumed the 200-M\o/ combined-cycle plants would be located as follows:
two on the lower Beluga River, three on the lower Chuitna River, two on Cook Inlet near Kenai,
and one southeast of Anchorage. General site locations are shown in Figure 2-18. The two 70-MW
gas turbines were not specifically sited, but it was assumed they would be located in close
proximity to the Anchorage load center.
z:
z:
0
0
1.0
z:
z:
z: I
46 Miles I
I
I
o~..,____-----J 1.0
2-38
ALTERNATIVES
0 Hydro
0 Gas
<) Coal
!::, Susitna
0 ~5~~3 ~0 -w------~--1-51~0-W ______ l_ ____ 1_4~9°--W-----------1-4-7~0 -W-----------,~4:5~o:w~----t
N
Figure 2-18. location of Therma1 and Hydroe1ectric Alternatives.
2-39
2.3.3 Construction Requirements
The Staff's gas scenario analysis indicated eight 200-MW combined-cycle units and two combustion-
turbine units would be required to meet Railbelt power requirements through the year 2042.
Construction requirements for the combustion turbines are identical to those indicated in the
coal scenario. The personnel required for construction of a 200-t~\~ combined-cycle plant would
vary over a 32-month construction period and peak at about 400 people in the second year.
The services needed to support construction of a combined-cycle plant would include access
roads; a complete water supply, storage, and distribution system; power lines to provide elec-
tric power for construction activities; and camp facilities, including sewage treatment facili-
ties, a waste incinerator and garbage compactor, sleeping recreation and dining quarters, and an
airstrip for personnel transport, the transport of perishable goods, and medical emergencies.
Installation of combustion-turbine units can require from less than one year to about two years.
Only limited construction is required because most of the installation consists of prefabricated
modules. A relatively small work force of about 30 people would be required, and site services
would vary depending on site location.
Transmission line connections would be required to tie the combined cycle plants into existing
transmission networks. It was assumed that two 345-kV lines would connect the Beluga River and
Chuitna River plants to existing transmission facilities at the nearby Beluga gas plant.
Upgrading of the Beluga to Anchorage lines might be necessary. The Kenai and Anchorage plants
would be located adjacent to existing lines.
2.3.4 Operation and Maintenance
A combined-cycle unit would require 10-15 operating and 18 maintenance personnel. An operating
staff of about 12 people would be needed for the combustion-turbine facilities.
Periodic maintenance would be performed on combustion-turbine and combined-cycle plants and
equipment in accordance with an established maintenance program that would include the complete
stripdown and major inspection of the turbines at intervals required or suggested by the equip-
ment manufacturer. In addition, the maintenance programs would include monitoring of the revege-
tation and erosion-prevention programs initiated during the cleanup phase of construction. In
general, major equipment replacement or overhaul functions would be performed during a plant's
annual scheduled outages.
The operation and maintenance costs assumed in the Staff's analysis are listed in Table 2-4.
2.4 COAL-FIRED GENERATION SCENARIO
2.4.1 Alternative Facilities
For the coal scenario, the Staff assumed that five 200-MW baseload coal-fired units and ten
70-MW combustion-turbine peaking units would be installed as needed to meet the projected Rail-
belt power requirements. The coal units were assumed to be of conventional state-of-the-art
design and to be provided with dry flue-gas desulfurization scrubbers for the removal of sulfur
oxides, baghouse particulate removal, wet/dry mechanical draft cooling towers for heat rejection,
and pulverized coal for combustion. A more detailed description of the assumed coal unit design
and operating parameters is given in Appendix G, Table G.8. The assumed capital cost was deemed
to reflect the state-of-the-art with regard to environmental safeguards and an ability to meet
established performance standards. The combustion-turbine peaking units were assumed to be
simple-cycle machines using natural gas as fuel. The technical parameters and economic assump-
tions for capital cost, operation and maintenance costs, and economic life are listed in
Table 2-5.
2.4.2 Location
In its analysis, the Staff assumed that coal-fired generation facilities would be located in the
Nenana and Willow areas of the Railbelt. Staff assumed siting of three units near Nenana and
two near Willow (see Figure 2-18). Coal delivery to the generating stations was assumed to be
by unit train from the vicinity of the Usibelli Mine in the Nenana coal fields. The ten combus-
tion turbines were not specifically sited, but it was assumed they would be dispersed throughout
the Anchorage-Cook Inlet area as necessary to optimize delivery of electric power. Fuel for
the combustion turbine installations was assumed to be available from gas distribution pipelines.
2.4.3 Construction Requirements
The coal scenario analysis indicated that five 200-MW coal-fired units and ten combustion
turbines would be required to serve anticipated load growth through the year 2022. Construc-
tion of a single coal unit would require about five years. The number of construction workers
2-40
Table 2-5. Plant Addition Technical Parameters and
Economic Assumptions--Coal-Fired and
Combustion-Turbine Units
Parameter
Technical
Unit Size (MW)
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)
Planned Outages (%)
Forced Outage (%)
Economic
Unit Capital Costst 1 ($/MI-1)
O&M Cost
Fixed ($/kW-yr)
Variable (mills/kWh)
Economic Life (years)
Coal-Fired
Steam
200
10,000
8.0
5.7
2,309
16.83
0.6
30
Combustion
Turbine
70
12,200
3.2
8.0
636
2.7
4.8
30
t 1 Including interest during construction at 0% escalation
and 3% interest.
Source: Adapted from Applicant's Revised Table 0.18.
required would vary, but would peak at about 500 by the end of the second year and fall off
dramatically near the end of the fourth year.
Construction of a coal unit would require access roads; a complete water supply, storage and
distribution system; power lines to provide electric power for construction activities; a rail-
road spur to provide fuel and equipment transport; construction camp facilities, including
sewage treatment facilities, a waste incinerator and garbage compactor; sleeping, recreation,
and dining quarters; and an airstrip for the transport of personnel and perishable goods and for
medical emergencies.
The ultimate transmission construction requirement for transmission of power from generating
units in the Nenana area to the load centers was assumed to be similar to that required for
transmission of the power output from the proposed Watana development. This includes construc-
tion of a second 100-mi (160-km) 345-kV line from Healy to Willow, paralleling the proposed
345-kV Intertie; a double-circuit, 345-kV extension from Willow to the University station in
Anchorage; and a 100-mi (160-km) long, double circuit, 345-kV extension of the Intertie from
Healy to the Ester substation in the Fairbanks area. The Staff assumed that two 345-kV outlets
from the Nenana coal plant would interconnect with the Healy-to-Ester 345-kV transmission line
at a switching station in the vicinity of the Nenana coal fields, between Healy and Nenana, and
that transmission outlets from the coal plant would be shorter than the 37-mi (59-km) long
outlets from Watana to the Intertie right-of-way. The transmission arrangements for two coal
units in the Willow area would probably involve connection of the Willow area generation at the
Willow substation via one 345-kV line.
2.4.4 Operation and Maintenance
Operation and maintenance of a single 200-MW coal unit has an estimated staff requirement of
about 100 persons to support a three-shift, 24-hour-a-day operation. Operation and maintenance
staffing requirements for the gas turbines would be the same as described for the gas scenario.
Periodic maintenance would be performed by the coal plant staff on all pipes, valves, rotating
machinery, heat-sensitive equipment, and other items subject to wear, leaks, corrosion or other
deterioration. In addition, the maintenance programs would provide for monitoring of the reve-
getation and erosion prevention programs initiated during the cleanup phase of construction. In
general, major equipment replacement or overhauls would be performed during the plant's annual
scheduled outages, sometimes involving the temporary assignment of specialized personnel. On
the average, scheduled outages are estimated to require approximately four weeks per year for
plants ranging in size from 100 MW to 300 MW, corresponding to a scheduled outage rate of 8%.
The operation and maintenance costs assumed in the Staff analysis are listed in Table 2-5.
2-41
2.5 COMBINED HYDRO-THERMAL GENERATION SCENARIO
2.5.1 Hydro Units
The hydroe 1 ectri c sites considered in the combined hydro-therma 1 scenario are Browne,
Chakachamna, Johnson, Keetna, and Snow (Fig. 2-18). The Chakachamna area has been studied
previously for hydroelectric development and is currently under study by the Applicant; there-
fore, fairly detailed site informaton is available. Browne, Johnson, Keetna, and Snow, however,
have not been intensively studied, and information on those areas is limited primarily to non-
specific inventory data and resource maps.
2.5.1.1 Browne
The Browne site is located on the Nenana River near Healy, about 75 mi (120 km) southwest of
Fairbanks. The site layout for the Browne project is shown in Figure 2-19. The Browne dam
would be either a concrete gravity or a concrete-faced rockfill structure. It would have a
crest elevation of 995 ft (303m) and a maximum height of approximately 235 ft (71.6 m). A
diversion tunnel and flip-bucket spillway would be constructed on the northern abutment, and a
power tunnel and surface powerhouse would be built on the southern abutment.
2.5.1.2 Chakachamna
Chakachamna Lake is located in the Alaska Range about 80 mi (130 km) west of Anchorage. The
lake is drained by the Chakachatna River, which runs southeasterly out of the lake and eventually
into Cook Inlet. The site layout for the Chakachamna development is shown in Figure 2-20. The
development would be a lake tap of Chakachamna Lake with a diversion tunnel [approximately 23 ft
(7 m) in diameter] to the McArthur River basin. An underground powerhouse would be located on
the McArthur River near the base of the Blockade Glacier.
2.5.1.3 Johnson
The Johnson site is located on the Tanana River, approximately 120 mi (190 km) southeast of
Fairbanks and has a drainage area of 10,450 mi 2 (27 ,066 km 2 ). The Johnson dam would be a
concrete gravity structure with earthen dikes and would have a maximum height of about 140 ft
(43 m). The reservoir would have a maximum water surface elevation of 1,470 ft (448 m) and
would have an active storage of about 5,300,000 ac-ft (6.5 billion m3 ).
2. 5. l. 4 Keetna
The Keetna site is located on the Talkeetna River, approximately 70 mi (110 km) north of
Anchorage. The Talkeetna River, with headwaters in the Talkeetna Mountains, flows southwesterly
to its confluence with the Susitna River. The dam site has a drainage area of 1,260 mi 2
(3,263 km 2 ). Streamflow records indicate the yearly average discharge at the site to be
1.7 million ac-ft (2.1 billion m3 ). Power development would include a dam with a diversion
tunnel (Fig. 2-21). The dam would be of earth and rockfill construction and would have a crest
elevation of 965.0 ft (294.1 m) with a maximum height of approximately 365ft (111m). The
spillway and power facilities would be located south of the dam.
2.5.1.5 Snow
The Snow site is located on the Snow River in the Kenai Peninsula. Power development would
include a dam with diversion through a tunnel approximately 7,500 to 10,000 ft (2,300 to 3,000 m)
long. An earth and rockfill dam with a crest elevation of 1,210 ft (369m) and a maximum height
of approximately 310 ft (94 m) would be constructed. The diversion and power tunnel would be
located on the southern abutment and a spillway would be constructed at the southern end of the
reservoir [approximately 1 mile (0.6 km) from the dam] (Fig. 2-22).
The Snow River at the proposed dam site flows in a deep narrow gorge cut into bedrock on the
floor of a glacial valley. Graywacke and slate are exposed and this overburden is evident. The
river flows west and north into the southern end of the Kenai Lake. The average annual stream-
flow at th~ dam site is estimated at 510,000 to 535,000 ac-ft (629 to 660 million m3 ). The dam
site would be fed by 105 mi 2 (222 km 2 ) of the river's 166-mi 2 (430-km 2 ) drainage area.
2.5.2 Thermal Units
2.5.2.1 Facilities
The thermal portion of a combined hydro-thermal scenario would consist of the same types of
thermal resources considered in the coal, gas, and mixed coal and gas thermal scenarios discussed
previously. These would inc 1 ude the 200-MW, convention a 1 co a 1-fired units discussed in the co a 1
2-42
DIVERSION
TUNNe.L ,,r:J:>
(
_ _.-/
~/
/
# /
SURF 4C~ -'f~ERHO!.JS!:
1 CAP4CITY
___ ... ___/·r
-~ --··---.:::::_
FLIPOUCt<:ET
O.J
Flguce 2-19. Site layout--Bcowne Oe>elopment. [Soucce, Applicant, Ta,k 6
Oe,ign Oe>elopmeot, Fig. C.G (Oecembec 1981)]
0.2 MIU:.S
!!!!!\...... -coN~ OVeRFLOW 1 fl'-..... STRUCTURE-. CREST EL. 114! . ...... ~
', I PC>WeR ...... ...._ INT.b.Kl:. ...._ ,-CONSTRUCTION
'...._ 1 AOIT
...... ...._ I
...... ,
......
...._ ...._ _..-..-<Z6 1 OIA.. POINE.R IUNNCL
--...._ 10-!1 Ml~ LONG
...... ...... ..... ...... ..... ..... ...... ..., __
I ----J...__CONSTRUCTION-
I AOIT
Figure 2-20. Site Layout--Chakachamna Development. [Source: Applicant, Task 6
Design Development, Fig. C.9 (December 1981)]
N
I
.j:> w
2-44
POM;R INTAKi SURFACE. FOWE.RI-ICXJSE'
roO MW CAAO.CtTY
.~ .
I TAIL.WA"n:R El.. GIS.O' I
-....---Df 5 COFFERDAM ... ---.. ______.
Figure 2-21. Site Layout--Keetna Development. [Source: Applicant, Task 6
Design Development, Fig. C.4 (December 1981)]
1300
1200 ::::;;;_~';:7.
1100
I 000 ------===::::=:::::.-
1000
0
0
0
SCALE:A
SCALE:S
Figure 2-22. Site Layout--Snow Development. [Source: Applicant, Task 6
Design Development, Fig. C.3 (December 1981)]
UNDERGROUND POWERHOUSE SO MW CAPACIT
PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT
SCALE' 8
0----~~~~~~0~.1---·0~.'2 M\LES
O.liiiiiiiiiii!IIIIIIIBII~--~2 MILES
2-45
and mixed scenario, the 200-MW combined-cycle units discussed in the gas and mixed scenario and
the gas-fired combustion turbines discussed in all of the thermal scenarios. Utilizing the
lower cost hydropower resources in the ccmbined scenario reduces the number of thermal units
required to meet power requirements through the 30 years of operation, as compared to all-thermal
scenari as. The thermal plant requirements for the thermal and mixed hydroe 1 ectri c/therma 1
scenarios are listed in Table 2-6 for a medium load-growth rate.
Table 2-6. Required Thermal Resources--
Medium Load Growth
Number of Units
70-MW 200-MW
Combustion Combined
Scenario Turbine Cycle
Coal 10
Gas 2 8
Coal/Gas 5 4
Hydro-thermal
With Chakachamnat 1 3 3
Without Chakachamnat2 3 4
t 1 Johnson, Chakachamna, Keetna, Snow, Browne.
200-MW
Coal-Fired
5
3
1
1
t 2 Johnson, Keetna, Snow, Browne plus one 200-MW combined cycle
unit.
2.5.2.2 Location
The single coal generating unit in the combined hydro-thermal scenario was again assumed to be
in the Nenana area of the Railbelt, taking advantage of the expansion capability of the Usibelli
Mine. Gas-fired combined-cycle units were again located in the Kenai Peninsula and on the
western side of the Cook Inlet (the Beluga area) in.proximity to natural-gas fuel supplies.
Required natural-gas-fired combustion-turbine units for peaking were again assumed to be located
in proximity to natural-gas distribution pipelines.
2.5.2.3 Construction Requirements
The thermal resource components of the combined hydro-thermal development plan as required by
load growth through the year 2022 are shown in Table 2-6. The construction requirements associ-
ated with each type of plant have been described previously in connection with the coal and gas
scenarios.
2.5.2.4 Operation and Maintenance
Baseload operation of coal-fired units and gas-fired combined-cycle units would be coordinated
with the firm and peaking capability of the hydro resource development, and the gas-fired combus-
tion turbines would provide additional peaking capability as required. Operation and mainten-
ance aspects of the individual plant types would be as described in the previous discussions of
thermal scenarios.
2.5.3 Tra·nsmission
The dispersed locations of the generating plants in the hydro-thermal scenario would result in a
transmission system somewhat different from that described for the proposed project. Less
generation would be located along the Fairbanks-Anchorage Intertie, r_equiring less strengthening
of the Interti e. However, 1 anger 1 i nes at 1 ower voltage 1 eve 1 s waul d be needed for the three
hydropower plants located beyond the extremities of the Intertie.
The 100-MW Browne and Keetna hydro plants, between Anchorage and Fairbanks, could each be connec-
ted to the Intertie with separate pairs of 138-kV lines of about 5 and 20 mi (8 and 32 km)
length; respectively. The 200-MW coal plant in the Nenana area could connect to a strengthened
Intertie using 138-kV twin outlet lines, probably less than 10 mi (16 km) long.
ii
II
II.
2-46
The Chakachamna 300-MW hydro plant, west of Anchorage, could connect with the existing Beluga
substation using twin 230-kV transmission lines about 50 mi (80 km) long. The 100-MW Snow hydro
plant, south of Anchorage, could be integrated with the Anchorage load area by construction of
two 115-kV lines to existing substations, one about 30 mi (48 km) long and the other about 60 mi
(97 km) long. The Johnson 210-MW hydro plant, southeast of Fairbanks, could be integrated with
the Fairbanks load area by twin 138-kV lines extending about 45 mi (72 km) to an existing sub-
station and doubling an existing 138-kV line 73 mi (117 km) long from the substation. to Fair-
banks.
The gas-fired combined-cycle and combustion-turbine units of this scenario would be located in
the load center areas and would not require significant amounts of high-voltage transmission.
While these general possibilities are evident, the optimum voltage levels and numbers of lines
for connecting the generating plants and strengthening the Intertie can only be determined by
detailed load flow and reliability studies.
2.6 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE
The no-action alternative would constitute a denial of a license to construct, operate, and
maintain the Susitna Hydroelectric Project, as proposed by the Applicant. This a 1 ternati ve
would result in the non-utilization of potential electric energy that could be derived by develop-
ing the portion of the Susitna River between the Oshetna River and Devil Canyon. The Applicant
would then need to develop. one or more alternative power sources in order to meet projected
future load-growth requirements.
2.7 MITIGATIVE MEASURES FOR ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS
2.7.1 Land Resources
2.7.1.1 Geology and Soils
Mitigative measures for construction of the alternative access and transmission routes and the
alternative hydropower sites would be similar to those described for the proposed project (see
Sec. 2.1.12.1). Conventional construction practices designed to control erosion losses and soil
disturbances waul d be adequate in contra ll i ng impacts arising from the construction of the
i ndivi dua 1 coa 1-and gas-fired plants under the a 1 ternati ve scenari as. Conventi anal co a 1-
storage and -handling procedures would be sufficient to minimize or control erosion losses from
storage and ash disposal areas. Coal mine practices such as drainage diversion, use of sediment
traps, restoration of topography, soil stripping/storage, and revegetation would be required to
control surface mining impacts.
2. 7.1.2 Land Use and Ownership
Many of the land use mitigative measures described in Section 2.1.12.1 would also be applicable
for the alternative dam facilities and power-generation scenarios. Specific siting criteria for
the gas-fired and coal-fired plants would be required to minimize the potential for land use
conflicts with surrounding natural, recreational, residential, or commercial lands. Plans for
the Browne and Johnson hydropower facilities would have to incorporate engineering design measures
that would mitigate the inundation of portions of the Nenana River Valley (including the George
Parks Highway and Alaska Railroad) and the Johnson River valley (including the Alaska Highway
and an above-ground pipeline).
2. 7.2 Climate, Air Quality, Noise
No climate, air quality, or noise mitigation would be required for the combined-cycle natural
gas units or gas turbines. These plants, as proposed in the various alternative generating
scenarios, should satisfy all applicable air quality standards. The same is true of up to two
coal-fired units at Nenana and for the two at Willow.
If three, four, or five coal-fired units were to be sited at Nenana, potential problems would
arise involving visibility impairment at Denali National Park (Class I area), exceedence of the
PSD Class I increment for S0 2 at Denali (four and five units only), and exceedence of the PSD
Class II increment at the elevated terrain northeast of Nenana. These potential air quality
problems were revealed upon application of EPA-approved screening analyses to the determination
of air quality impacts. These potential violations should be confirmed using more sophisticated
ana lyses (and site-specific meteorol ogi cal data) i nvol vi ng more camp 1 ex EPA-approved models.
The visibility impairment problem might be mitigated to some degree by employing NO controls
(more efficient combustion) at the Nenana plants. It is primarily the NO emission \hat waul d
lead to visibility impairment in the observation of plume contrast with t~e sky. The two PSD
2-47
problems are attributable solely to the 50 2 emissions and could be mitigated to some degree by
additional scrubbing beyond the minimum required, i.e., 70% reduction in sulfur.
Model calculations would be required to determine if such pollutant emission reductions would
lead to compliance with EPA and Alaska air quality standards.
2.7.3 Water Quantity and Quality
Minimum flows to reduce impacts on fish migration and spawning activities are assumed. Although
the actual flow requirements are unknown, reasonable estimates based on historical flows and
typical minimum flow requirements are possible. Table 2-7 contains the minimum flow require-
ments at each of the hydro sites for the critical summer months as well as for the remainder of
the year. These values are based on a minimum flow in June, July, and August of the maximum of
the historical Q90 value, while the remainder of the year the minimum flow is 30% of the mean
annual flow. For comparison, the values for the Susitna at Devil Canyon are also included in
Table 2-7. The Susitna flows appear realistic, which indicates that some confidence in the
values is warranted. These minimum flows are input to the economic models to determine the
generation costs for each hydro site.
Table 2-7. Minimum Flows for the Alternative Hydro Sites
Minimum Flow (cfs)
Site Summer Other Months
Bradley Lake 1,200 180
Lake Chakachamna 9,900 1,100
Browne 9,300 1,400
Snow 740 210
Johnson 24,000 3,200
Keetna 5,000 720
Susitna (Devil Canyon) 18,000 2,700
Conversion: To convert cubic feet per second to cubic meters per
second, multiply by 0.0283.
For all thermal alternatives, mitigative techniques to m1n1m1ze water consumption are assumed.
These techniques include wet/dry cooling systems, maximum water recycling, and best available
controls on water-consuming devices, such as dry scrubbers on the coal facilities. The tech-
niques assumed presently exist, but may add some cost to the facilities, which is included in
the cost analyses.
2.7.4 Fisheries
Among alternatives considered for the Susitna project, fisheries mitigation would appear
necessary for the Susitna Basin alternatives and for the Keetna and Chakachamna projects. The
Susitna Basin alternatives each would require mitigation similar to, but at different scales
than, the proposed project. A project at the Keetna site on the Talkeetna River would disrupt
upstream fish migrations, which would require mitigation. Until the size and composition of
these migrations are determined, no mitigation plan can be developed beyond the conceptual
outline discussed in Section 2.1.12.3. At the Chakachamna site, mitigation would be required
for potential losses of about 40,000 spawning sockeye that pass through Chakackamna Lake and
whose young use the lake for rearing. Important salmon spawning areas downstream of the water
diversion would also require some mitigation for probable l.osses. A fish ladder for upstream
migrants has been suggested, but no firm plans for mitigation have been made.
2.7.5 Terrestrial Communities
2. 7.5.1 Plant Communities
Alternative Susitna dam designs and locations, access and transmission line routes, and borrow
sites would require mitigation similar to that described for corresponding proposed facilities
(Sees. 2.1.12.4.1 and 5.3.5). Measures necessary for mitigation of impacts to vegetation
2-48
caused by construction of the non-Susitna hydropower alternatives also would be similar to those
described for the proposed project. Mitigative measures necessary for natural-gas-fired units
would include (l) siting of facilities such as buildings, transmission line stubs, and pipe-
line spurs to avoid sensitive vegetation types or wetlands, and (2) rehabilitation of areas
disturbed by construction of such facilities. Mitigative measures necessary for coal-fired
power plants would include those measures indicated for natural-gas-fired units, plus rehabilita-
tion of solid-waste disposal sites and land disturbed by surface mining.
2.7.5.2 Wildlife
Mitigative measures for alternative actions would be similar to those described in Sec-
tion 2.1.12.4.2, although the extent of mitigation would vary with the magnitude of impacts to
wildlife. Specific measures cannot be presented here without more site-specific data on poten-
tial impacts.
2.7.6 Threatened and Endangered Species
Mitigative measures such as those outlined in Section 2.1.12.5 would be required for alternative
transmission lines that pass near Nenana. No other alternatives would likely require.mitigative
measures for threatened and endangered species.
2.7. 7 Socioeconomic Factors
The primary mitigative measures for all alternatives located farther than about 40 mi (64 km)
from Anchorage or Fairbanks would be the same as those for the proposed project, including:
Provide construction camps (with recreation facilities) for single workers;
Develop leave and shift schedules (based on past experiences in Alaska) to discourage
inmigration to small communities and rural areas;
Provide low-cost transportation (e.g., air or bus travel to Anchorage and/or Fairbanks,
commuter buses to bus or train stations) for workers to travel easily to permanent
residences or for vacations outside the project area, and to discourage conflicts
between project-related traffic and local and tourist traffic;
Provide training programs for local labor and hire local workers;
Provide advance funding or loans to finance expansion of community services (e.g.,
water and sewer systems, schools) and for development of housing prior to the influx
of workers; and
Maintain ongoing communication with state, borough, and community officials on com-
munity and area plans and impacts, on proposed and actual construction schedules, and
on any schedule changes and similar matters.
2.7.8 Visual Resources
In general, many of the mitigative measures described in Section 2.1.12.8 and Section M.4
(App. M) that would be implemented to lessen impacts on visual resources for the proposed project
also would be applicable to the alternative dam facilities and power generation scenarios.
These measures include conducting additional studies; implementation of proper development
practices and creative engineering design; and the use of form, line, color, and texture to make
project facilities more visually compatible with surrounding natural features. In particular,
gas-and coal-fired generation plants should be sited away from highways, residential areas, and
recreation areas. If the power plants are located near visually sensitive areas, wet-dry cooling
towers or dry cooling towers should be used to limit the amount of vapor plumes emanating from
the plants. Additionally, state-of-the-art emission controls should be used to limit the amount
of haze that could develop downwind from the coal-fired plants.
2.7.9 Cultural Resources
Cultural resource mitigative measures for the Susitna development alternatives are essentially
the same as those recommended for the proposed project. Investigation would be required for
significant sites exposed to direct or indirect impacts, while preservation by avoidance (with
monitoring) would be necessary for potentially impacted significant sites. For the non-Susitna
power generation alternatives, surveys would be required in the affected areas in order to
inventory and evaluate cultural resources. For significant sites that would be directly or
indirectly impacted by the construction of dams and associated facilities or reservoir areas,
investigation is recommended. Significant sites in areas that would be impacted by non-
hydropower generation facilities would probably be mitigable by avoidance.
2-49
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2
Electric Power Research Institute. 1982. Transmission Line Reference Book, 345 kV and Above.
2nd ed.
American National Standards Institute. 1984. National Electrical Safety Code. Institute of
Electrical Electronics Engineers, Inc. New York.
3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
3.1 PROPOSED PROJECT
3.1.1 Land Resources
3.1.1.1 Geology and Soils
The proposed Susitna project is located in the middle Susitna River Basin of Southcentral Alaska
(Fig. 2-1). This area is bordered on the north and west by the Alaska Range, to the east by the
Copper River Lowlands and to the south by the Talkeetna Mountains.
At both of the proposed dam sites the topography is dominated by scoured bedrock knobs and
ridges. At the Devil Canyon site a thin veneer of glacial deposits covers the Cretaceous
graywacke and argillite rocks that form the steep valley walls. Upland from the broad V-shaped
Susitna River Valley at the Watana dam site, up to 80 feet (ft) [24 meters (m)] of glacial till
cover the underlying diorite bedrock. The construction camps and project villages would be
located on level terrain--north of the Susitna River at Watana and south of the river at Devil
Canyon. All proposed borrow pits would be located on relatively flat terrain adjacent to the
Susitna River or within broad valleys of tributaries to the Susitna.
Following the Denali Highway, the proposed access route would cross the thick glacial and alluvial
deposits of the Nenana River Valley from Cantwell to Brushkana Creek; from there it would extend
south across the relatively flat terrain of the Brushkana and Deadman creeks to the Watana dam
site, and thence across the sloping uplands between the Devil Canyon and Watana dam sites. A
rail line connecting the Devil Canyon camp area to the Alaska Railroad at Gold Creek would cross
relatively level terrain south of the Susitna River.
The proposed transmission line corridor would follow the access corridor. between Gold Creek and
the Watana dam site. From Gold Creek to Anchorage, the transmission line would cross thick
glacial and alluvial deposits in the Susitna River Valley along the edge of the Talkeetna Mountain
foothills to the swampy Cook Inlet lowlands at Point MacKenzie. North of Gold Creek the line
waul d extend through the Alaska Range vi a the Chulitna and Nenana river valleys, crossing the
extensive and swampy outwash deposits north of the Alaska Range foothills to the broad Tanana
River Valley and extend northwest to Ester across loess-covered ridges and hills.
Spodsolic soils, or soils containing a thin organic layer overlying a mineral horizon, are
present throughout the middle Susitna River Valley in the vicinity of the proposed reservoir
sites, construction camps, and access routes. The transmission line would cross Spodsolic soils
throughout its length north to Cantwell. North of Cantwell, the transmission line would cross
Inceptisols, or young, horizonless, incompletely formed soils. Permafrost is absent south of
Willow and becomes discontinuous to the north.
No mineral resources are known to be present in the vicinities of the sites of most of the
proposed project features. The transmission line waul d pass near or through subbi tumi no us and
lignite coal fields in the Healy area.
Southcentral Alaska is identified as a seismically active area. The major potential sources of
seismic ground motion for the proposed project include the Castle Mountain Fault system, the
Denali Fault system, and the Benioff interplate and intraplate regions.
3.1.1.2 Land Uses and Ownership
3.1.1.2.1 Existing and Future Uses
Existing land uses and development within the upper and middle Susitna River Basin are scattered
and of low intensity (see Fig. 3-1). There are essentially no major areas of agriculture,
timbering, or large-scale mining, nor:-of significant residential, commercial, or industrial
development within the area. At present, the primary land use within the basin is dispersed
recreation (see Sec. 3.1. 7). To date, the area has not met the criteria required for inclusion
in any of the following programs: National Park-Preserve System, National or Historic Landmark
Status, Wilderness Preservation System, National Forest System, or State Park System. The
3-1
0~~~3iiiiiiiiiiiiiii6~~~9 MILES SCALE o::
LEGEND
USE
RECREATION
RECREATION/
RESIDENTIAL
MINING
MINING/
RESIDENTIAL
Figure 3-1. Land Use Patterns within the Upper and Middle Susitna River Basin.
[Source: Application Exhibit E, Vol. 8, Chap. 9, Fig. E.9.8]
INTENSITY
LOW
MEDIUM
LO'N
MEDIUM
w
I
N
3-3
Susitna River has not been studied for inclusion in the National and Wild Scenic River System
(Exhibit E, Vol. 8, Chap. 7, p. E-7-16).*
The U.S. Soil Conservation Service has determined that there are no prime or unique farmlands or
rangelands located within the middle Susitna River Basin (Exhibit E, Vol. 8, Chap. 9, p. E-9-27).
Mineral exploratiop and mining activities have been limited, and only scattered claims have been
operated in the area on an intermittent basis. Few highway or major utility corridors exist
within the upper and middle Susitna River Basin. Ground access into the area is extremely
limited and essentially consists of a network of connecting trails. The major mode of access
into the basin is by aircraft. Because of this limited access, little development has taken
place, and that which has occurred generally consists of single and small clusters of cabins.
No special use lands (such as military reservations, firing ranges, testing, or training areas)
have been identified within the upper and middle Susitna River area.
The proposed 330-mile (mi) [530-kilometer (km)] transmission line corridor between Fairbanks and
Anchorage would extend through portions of the Tanana, Nenana, Chulitna and Susitna river valleys.
The corridor would parallel portions of the George Parks Highway and Alaska Railroad. This
region is commonly referred to as the Alaska Railbelt.
Along this proposed corridor, agricultural lands are located near Fairbanks, along the Parks
Highway and the Alaska Railroad between the communities of Dunbar and Nenana, north of Healy, in
the vicinity of Talkeetna, at the Delta Island agricultural disposal tract southwest of Willow,
at the Fish Creek Management Unit south of Red Shirt Lake, and at the Point MacKenzie agri-
cultural sale northwest of Point MacKenzie.** A preliminary analysis by the state has indicated
that forested areas along both sides of the George Parks Highway have high to moderate value as
forestry lands (Alaska Dep. of Natural Resources, 1982). Commercial use of wood resources has
been limited to small logging operations along the Susitna River floodplain in the lower basin
of the river. Wood is used by 1 oca 1 residents as a bui 1 ding materia 1 and as a heating fuel.
Only limited mineral exploration and mining activities have occurred within the area of the
-proposed transmission line corridor. Coal mining areas in the vicinity of the proposed corridor
are west of Fairbanks, east of Dunbar, in the vicinity of Nenana, and an extensive area east of
Healy. Coal is also located in the Broad Pass area (Commonwealth Associates, 1982).
Significant natural and recreation areas (including Denali National Park and Preserve, Denali
State Park, and the Nancy Lake State Recreation Area) are located both to the east and west of
the corridor. The proposed route does not extend through a nation a 1 park-preserve system,
national historic landmark area, designated wilderness area, or national forest system. However,
the corridor does parallel a portion of the Denali State Park for more than 10 mi (16 km) and
extends through about 5 mi (8 km} of the Susitna Flats State Game Refuge near Anchorage. Portions
of the transmission line corridor would essentially parallel the George Parks Highway and the
Alaska Railroad. The corridor would be crossed by the Denali Highway (Route 8) near the community
of Cantwell. Numerous landing strips and floatplane landing sites are located along the proposed
route of the transmission corridor.
An existing Golden Valley Electric Association transmission line extends from Fairbanks to
Healy, and right-of-way is being cleared for the Anchorage-Fairbanks Intertie between Healy and
Willow. An existing Chugach Electric Association transmission line extends east from the Knik
Arm near Anchorage. Between Fairbanks and Anchorage, the proposed Susitna transmission line
corridor would extend past a number of small communities and developed lands. The U.S. Air
Force Clear M.E.W.S. Military Reserve is located in the vicinity of Anderson, and lands managed
by the U.S. Army (Fort Richardson) and U.S. Air Force (Elmendorf Air Force Base) are located
along the proposed transmission line corridor route near Anchorage. The numerous small settle-
ment areas and special use lands are discussed in detail in Section F.1.2.2.1 (App. F).
Relative to future land use development and activities, no significant change in current types
or intensity of land use is anticipated for the upper and middle Susitna River Basin unless the
proposed project is developed. In the future, significant changes in land use in the basin
-----tioul d occur only with the deve 1 opment of a road system. A 1 ong the proposed route of the power
transmission line corridor, the extent and intensity of land use activities and development will
likely continue to increase along the George Parks Highway and Alaska Railroad corridors (even
without project development) as greater demands are placed on existing land resources for planned
recreational, agricultural, utility, and mineral resource development within the Railbelt region.
*Throughout this document, references to specific "Exhibits" are to the exhibits submitted to
FERC as part of Alaska Power Authority's Susitna Hydroelectric Project License Application.
References to specific "Appendices" (App.) are to the appendices provided in Volumes 2
through 7 of this Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
**Land ownership and classification terminology is provided in Appendix F, Table F-2.
3-4
3.1.1.2.2 Existing and Future Ownership Status and Management
Enactment of the Alaska Statehood Act of 1958, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971,
and the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1981 has placed much of the land in
Alaska, including lands within the upper and middle Sus i tna River Basin area and along the
proposed Fairbanks to Anchorage transmission line corridor, in a state of transition of owner-
ship and management.
Most of the land in the upper and middle Susitna River Basin is now owned by the U.S. Government
and managed by the Bureau of Land Management. However, much of the Federal land is in the
process of being transferred to the state and to the Cook Inlet Region, Inc. (CIRI), the Native
regional commission for the area (see Fig. 3-2). Native selected lands in the project area
generally occur along both sides of the Susitna River and around the Stephan Lake area. There
are two state land disposal areas west of the proposed project sites and some small private
parcels and Native-conveyed lands in the basin area. It is unlikely that the Matanuska-Susitna
(Mat-Su) Borough, within which the project area is located, would select any lands in the vicinity
of the proposed dam sites, reservoirs, or access road areas.
Most of the land along the proposed route of the transmission line corridor is currently owned
by the state and managed by the Alaska Department of Natural Resources. The U.S. Government
owns only scattered parcels of land within the corridor. Native selected lands are located near
Dunbar and in the vicinity of Anderson, and are being applied for in the Talkeetna area. The
only Fairbanks-North Star Borough approved or patented lands along the transmission line corridor
area are west of Fairbanks. The Mat-Su Borough is concentrating its selection of lands in the
lower Susitna Basin near existing highways and west of the Susitna River. Private land ownership
is scattered along the entire proposed route of the transmission line corridor.
3.1.1.2.3 Existing and Future Land Values
Complete and accurate data on values of land in the Watana, Devil Canyon, and transmission line
corridor areas are not available. This is due primarily to the on-going changes in land owner-
ship and to the current lack of development and use of land in the Susitna River Valley area
that would indicate or assign a value for a specific piece of property. Market values are
available only for state, borough, Native, or private lands that have been, or are about to be,
sold. Specific land values for required project lands would not be established until the actual
project land acquisition process was started. Although it is difficult to accurately predict
future land values, it is anticipated that these values will increase over time. This is
especially true for the Railbelt Region of Alaska because of existing and planned human develop-
ment and activities, presence of road and utility corridors, and potential for resource development.
3.1.2 Climate, Air Quality, Noise
3.1.2.1 Climate
The climate of Alaska is divided into four major climatic zones on the basis of temperature and
precipitation: Arctic, Continental, Transition, and Maritime. The proposed Susitna project
features would be located mainly within the Continental Zone, although the lower portion of the
transmission line corridor would extend into the southern Transition zone near Anchorage. The
Continental climate in Alaska is characterized by extreme daily and seasonal temperature varia-
tions and low precipitation.
Eight meteorological stations were installed within the upper and middle Susitna River Basin as
part of the studies conducted for the proposed project. Most representative of the study area
are the Watana measurements reported from April 8, 1980, through September 30, 1981. At Watana,
winds were rarely more than 22 miles per hour (mph) [10 meters per second (m/s)], with directions
typically from the southwest or northeast over the year. Data from other stations reveal the
same range in wind speed but with the predominant wind direction altered by the topographical
features. The range of temperatures was typically -58°F to 95°F (-50°C to 35°C) at all stations.
3.1.2.2 Air Quality and Noise
No data on existing air quality in the project area have been presented by the Applicant. Some
general comments can be made, however, on the basis of data from nearby regions. The existing
air quality should be excellent since there are no urban or industrial complexes within about
100 mi (160 km). In fact, the air quality in most of Alaska is generally very good because
there are few large industrial complexes or population centers within the state. The large
industrial and urban pollution sources that do exist, e.g., the large number of industrial,
residential, and automobile sources in Anchorage and Fairbanks, are isolated by distance and
precipitous mountain ranges into separate air basins. Thus, it is expected that all pollutants
are at extremely low concentrations in the project site vicinity. Total suspended particulate
Figure 3-2. Land Ownership and Management Patterns in the Upper and Middle Susitna River Basin.
[Source: Application Exhibit E, Vol. 8, Chap. 9, Fig. E.9.3]
LEGEND ---
L~::c{1
lt@II@j:}l •
h./{}]
t:<~ ',<I
tSS\1
V?2J
CJ
@]
STUDY AREA BOUNDARY
PUBLIC PARKS
PRIVATE
FEDERAL RAILROAD
NATIVE SELECTION
STATE SELECTION SUSPENDED
STATE SELECTION
STATE SELECTION PATENTED OR
TENTATIVELY APPROVED
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
SECTIONS CONVEYED TO COOK
INLET REGION, INC.
0 3 6 9 MILES
SCALE ~~§iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii~~~
l
3-5
(TSP) measurements throughout the State of Alaska have been found to exceed the 24-hour particulate
matter standard due to fugitive emissions only near human activities.
No ambient noise measurements were made at the proposed project site, which is situated in an
isolated rural area. Very few ambient noise measurements have been made in rural areas, but of
those made, typical A-weighted sound levels range from 27-45 dBA. Nighttime values are most
representative of the true noise residual and generally measure approximately 30 dBA.
3.1.3 Water Quality and Quantity
3.1. 3.1 Surface Water Resources
The Susitna River Basin is the sixth largest river basin in the State of Alaska, covering an
area of 19,400 square miles (mi 2 ) [50,250 square kilometers (km 2 )], which is about equivalent to
the size of Vermont and New Hampshire. The mainstem of the Susitna River flows 320 mi (515 km)
from its headwaters in the Alaska Range to Cook Inlet (Fig. 3-3). Three different physiographic
regions can be identified within the basin. The upper basin extends from the outwash plains of
numerous glaciers in the Alaska and Talkeetna mountains down to the confluence with the Tyone
River. In this sub-basin the river meanders through a broad valley draining many swampy lowlands.
In the middle basin, the river turns west and flows through a narrow, steep-walled canyon. The
proposed hydroelectric dams [Watana dam at River Mile (RM) 184, Devil. Canyon dam at RM 152] are
located in this middle section of the river basin. River 'gradients in the canyon section are
high, averaging 10 to 30 ft/mi (5 to 15 m/km). The channel pattern here is relatively straight
and entrenched, with occasional midchannel islands. The rapids in the vicinity of Devil Canyon
are rated among the most violent in North America (U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 1980). Below the
Devil Canyon dam site, the Susitna Valley gradually widens and the river changes from a single
channel configuration to a split channel with intermittent, well-vegetated islands, side bars,
and backwater sloughs. Bottom substrate in the main channel below Devil Canyon consists primarily
of gravel, with a well-developed cobble armor. The sloughs in the lj1iddle basin are overflow
channels behind side bars or islands that convey clear water from small tributaries and/or
upwelling groundwater at intermediate and low main-channel flows. Bottom substrates in the
sloughs grade from sand and gravel at their·mouths to cobble and boulder at their upstream ends.
These sloughs are considered important habitat for salmon spawning (see· Sec. 3.1.4).
Farther downstream, at the confluence of the Chulitna, Talkeetna, and Susitna rivers (RM 104 to
95) near the town of Talkeetna, another dramatic change occurs in the river. Below this three-
river confluence, the valley broadens again, gradients become much less, and the river takes on
a braided pattern with multiple channels, islands, and a well-developed floodplain. Although
the Susitna and Chulitna rivers contribute approximately the same proportion of flow to the
lower basin (respectively, 43% and 39% of the mean annual flow at Susitna Station), sediment
yield from the Chulitna River has been estimated to be 15 times greater than from the Susitna
River (Bredthauer and Drage, 1982). This difference can be attributed to the proximity of the
three-river confluence to the glaciers in the Chulitna drainage and to the relatively high
sediment-trap efficiency of the upper Susitna Basin.
Six distinct types of aquatic habitat can be identified that are important to salmon in the
Susitna River (Fig. 3-4). Physical conditions in these habitat types are often related to
mainstem flow. For example, side sloughs undergo three hydraulic regimes as main-channel flow
changes. The first regime occurs while flows are high enough to overtop berms at the sloughs'
upper ends; here the sloughs act as side channels directly linked to the mainstem. When main-
stem flow drops below the point where the upstream berms are overtopped, water levels in the
side sloughs are determined by the backwater effect of the mainstem at the sloughs' downstream
ends. At very low flows in the mainstem, water levels in the mainstem fall to the point were no
water backs up into the mouths of the side sloughs. During this low-flow condition, the sloughs
are entirely dependent on groundwater upwelling and surface runoff.
The Susitna River is typical of northern, glacially fed rivers with high flows in late spring
and summer and low flows in the winter. Maximum discharge generally occurs during June, July,
and August (Fig. 3-5). Early floods (May and June) are more severe and are generated primarily
by snowmelt and ice breakup. Later floods (August and September) caused by rainfall are usually
less severe. Low flows occur throughout the winter and early spring (November-April) while ice
cover persists. The variation between mean monthly summer and winter flows exceeds 10:1. The
upper basin contributes by far the greatest proportion of streamflows to the lower reaches of
the Susitna River; annual water yield from the Upper Basin is 3.1 cubic feet per second per square
mile (cfs/mi 2 ) [0.23 cubic meters per second per square kilometer (m 3 /s·km 2 )], while the yield
from the middle basin is only 1.2 cfs/mi 2 (0.09 m3 /s·km2 ). The mean annual streamflows at the
Watana and Devil Canyon dam sites have been estimated at 7,986 cfs and 9,084 cfs (257 and
266 m3 /s), respectively (Exhibit E, Vol. SA, Chap. 2, Table E.2.4).
The longest historical flow records within the basin (1949 to the present) come from the
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gaging station at Gold Creek (RM 137). This station will be used
as a point of reference for evaluating the effects· of flow regulation in Section 4. At Gold
z
0
N
<0
z
Sunshine
(RM 84) -----
3-6
' ' \
\
\
' I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ,
.,...c.. ........... ', ... -' \
"" \ \
\
' ' I
\
I
I
I
Lower Susitna ~ ,'
,..,
Drainage /
Basin _______ 1 ___ _ ......... ~
~~-------------
149° w
18 Miles
Indicates Drainage
Basin Boundary
147° w
Figure 3-3. Map of the Susitna River Drainage Basin Showing the Locations of
U.S. Geological Survey Gaging Stations.
146° w
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, 1983]
w
I
-...J
20
18
~ 16 u
LL
0 14
Cf)
0 12 z
<{
Cf) 10 ::J
0
I 8 I-
z
$ 6
0
_J 4 LL
2
0
50
"' 40 .... u
LL
0
Cf)
0 30 z
<{
Cf)
::J
0
I 20 I-
z
$
0
_J 10
LL
0
J F M A M J J A s 0 N D
SUSITNA R NR DENALI 950 SO Ml
STATION NO. 15291000 1957 THRU 1979
RM 291
3
J F M A M J J A s 0 N• D
SUSITNA RAT GOLD CREEK 6160 SO Ml
STATION NO. 15292000 1949 THRU 1979
RM 137
3-8
2
~ 40f----------------------j
u
LL
0
Cf)
~ 30f----------jj~-------------j
<{
Cf)
::J
0
I
I-20 f------~~a--~-4r----------j
z
$
0
_J
LL
~ u
LL
0
Cf)
0 z
<{
Cf)
::J
0
I
I-
z
$
0
_J
LL
10
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
J F M A M J J A S 0 N D
SUSITNA R NR CANTWELL
~TATION NO. 15291500
RM 223
I I I I I I
1--4 ..
'liM
1111'1-,;
JIA.II
,.}:; T
Ill \tA
A J. J-... ~
1\ r ,., 17\
VI ~I \.
4140 SO Ml
1961 THRU 1972
I I
Ill
"I t• \II
I 1¥ II
.I \f
f'l
\ . .1\ ""\
~\
\1\. \. \.
j ~
r--
J F M A M J J A S 0 N D
SUSITNA RAT SUSITNA STATION 19,400 SO Ml
STATION NO. 15294350 1975 THRU 1979
RM 26
Figure 3-5. Annual Hydrographs for Mean Daily Flows and Estimated 10% and 90%
Daily Exceedence Flows at Four USGS Gaging Stations on the Susitna
River. [Source: Modified from Chapman, 1982]
3-9
Creek, 88% of the mean annual streamflow occurs between May and September. The m1n1mum and
maximum monthly flows observed at Gold Creek both occurred in 1964 (Exhibit E, Vol. 5A, Chap. 2,
Table E.2.8): 713 cfs (20 m3 /s) in March and 50,580 cfs (1,432 m3 /s) three months later in
June. The dominant or bankfull discharge (annual flood with a recurrence interval of 1.5 years)
is approximately 40,000 cfs (1,133 m3 /s) (Exhibit E, Vol. 5A, Chap. 2, Table E.2.29). The
maximum instantaneous peak flow at Gold Creek was 90,700 cfs (2,570 m3 /s) on June 7, 1964
(Exhibit E, Vol. 5A, Chap. 2, Table E.2.11).
Existing uses of water resources within the Susitna River Basin include domestic and municipal
water supply, placer mining, navigation, fisheries, waste assimilation, recreation, riparian
habitat, and freshwater recruitment to the Cook Inlet Estuary. Because of the undeveloped
nature of the basin, existing downstream water rights that might be affected by the proposed
project are relatively insignificant (Dwight, 1981). The most significant water uses that might
conflict with dam operation are i nstream uses for mai ntai ni ng aquatic and riparian habitat and
for navigation or other forms of transportation. Sloughs, tributaries, side-channels, and the
mainstem of the Susitna River provide important habitats for salmon spawning, egg incubation,
rearing of sub-adults (see Sec. 4 for more details). Commercial navigation (i.e., barge and tow
traffic) does not occur on the Susitna River (Trihey, 1982). Recent studies of the recreational
access to the Susitna River have indicated that recreational traffic on the river is increasing
at a high,annual rate (Dwight, 1981). Major boat landings are located at Talkeetna (RM 97),
Sunshine Bridge at the Parks Highway (RM 84), Kashwitna Landing (RM 61), and Willow Creek (RM 49).
When frozen, the river also provides an important access corridor for ground transportation
(e.g., snowmobiles and dogsleds).
Ice is formed first in the upper reaches of the Susitna River as a result of subfreezing air
temperature and near 32°F (0°C) water temperatures. This initial phase of ice formation occurs
in late October or early November. No ice is formed in the lower reaches of the river since air
temperatures are still above freezing at this time. This frazil ice, formed upstream, flows
downstream, creating ice jams at natural lodgement points such as areas with boulders, logs, or
small islands. As downstream air and water temperatures diminish, ice begins to form along the
river banks until ice cover closure occurs. With the ice supplied by upstream reaches, ice
cover thickens and progresses upstream to Devil Canyon (RM 152). This progression occurs over a
three-to five-week period. During ice front progression, upstream water levels may increase by
2 to 4ft (0.6 to 1.2 m). Tributaries contribute only a small fraction of the total ice in the
Susitna River; 70% to 80% of the ice in the lower Susitna River originates in the Susitna rather
than in tributaries. By the time of ice breakup, ice thickness on the Susitna River averages
4ft (1.2 m). Thicknesses in excess of 10 ft (3m) have been observed near Vee Canyon.
As air temperatures rise during the spring, the ice cover weakens. The increased runoff due to
melting of the snowpack and rainfall causes an increased river· discharge. This greater river
flow provides the necessary force to initiate ice movement and breakup. First ice movement
begins about the first of May, with the mainstem being generally ice free within a week follow-
ing ice movement. Ice on river banks and backwater areas will decay in place and remain for
about two weeks after the mainstem becomes ice free. The precise timing and duration of the
breakup process varies slightly from year to year as a function of spring climatic conditions
and the extent of upland snow cover. Breakup is a violent process characterized by flooding and
extensive erosion of the river banks.
3.1.3.2 Surface \later Quality
Except where indicated, the baseline description of surface water quality in the Susitna River
presented below is based on data provided in Exhibit E (Vol. 5A, Chap. 2, Sees. 2.3 and 2.6) and
on reports by the A 1 as ka Department of Fish and Game (1983). Water qua 1 i ty for the smaller
tributaries of the Susitna River, including those along the proposed access routes and transmis-
sion corridors, would not be expected to differ substantially from that of the mainstem Susitna
River in terms of most water qua 1 i ty parameters. The major difference in water qua 1 i ty is
likely to be suspended solids, with tributary streams draining watersheds without glacial sediment
sources having a lower concentration during peak flow (spring-summer) periods than the mainstem
Susitna. The following description of water quality thus focuses on the mainstem Susitna River,
emphasizing those water quality parameters that could be affected by construction and operation
of the Susitna project. The baseline salinity of water in Cook Inlet is also described because
of the influence of freshwater inputs from the Susitna River on salinity in the upper Cook
Inlet.
Concentrations of suspended (particulate) and dissolved constituents in the Susitna River are
within the range characteristic of natural waters, including other glacially fed subarctic
rivers in Southcentral Alaska (U.S. Geological Survey, 1979). Although the concentration of
some constituents in the Susitna River, including aluminum, cadmium, copper, manganese, mercury,
zinc, and total dissolved gases, occasionally exceed water quality statutes (Exhibit E, Vol. 5A,
Chap. 2, Table E.2.17) or guidelines for the protection of aquatic organisms, these concentra-
tions are most likely the result either of natural processes or of sample contamination caused
by incomplete separation of the soluble and particulate materials in water prior to analysis.
3-10
Water quality of the Susitna River is typical of northern, glacially fed rivers, undergoing
seasonal variations as a result of glacial melt, snowmelt, and rainfall, all of which tend to
dilute soluble nutrients derived from bedrock and soil weathering, while increasing the concen-
tration of nutrients in particulate phases, particularly those derived fr~~ glacial scouring.
Susitna River water is of the calcium bicarbonate type, with calcium (Ca ) being the major
cation and bicarbonate (HC0 3 ) the major anion in solution. The concentration of these two ions
range annually from approximately 10 to 50 parts per million (ppm) (mg/L) and 17 to 160 ppm
(mg/L), respectively (Exhibit E, Vol. 5A, Chap. 2). Concentrations of both ions tend to decrease
downstream due to dilution from inflowing tributaries that drain watersheds with a geology
different from that in the upper Susitna drainage (Fig. 3-6).
Concentrations of the other major nutrient ions in the Susitna River essential for algal produc-
tion are typical of streams draining similar geologic terrain in Southcentral Alaska. Nitrate
nitrogen (N0 3 -N) occurs in moderate concentrations, averaging less than 300 parts per billion
(ppb) (~g/L) at all gaging stations on the river (Exhibit E, Vol. 5A, Chap. 2). Levels of
ammonia nitrogen (NH 4 -N) appear to be less than those for N0 3 -N, averaging less than 100 ppb
(~g/L) at Gold Creek (Exhibit E, Vol. 5A, Chap. 2). Dissolved organic nitrogen levels are
comparable to those for nitrate, ranging from 150 to 340 ppb (~g/L) at Gold Creek.
Concentrations of soluble reactive phosphorus, reported as orthophosphorus (Exhibit E, Vol. 5A,
Chap. 2), are low at all gaging stations on the Susitna River, averaging less than 50 ppb (Alaska
Dept. of Fish and Game, 1983). Levels of total phosphorus, which includes soluble plus particu-
late P, are generally less than 100 ppb at all gaging stations, except during the high-flow
period in summer, when particulate phosphorus concentrations are at their annua 1 maximum.
Silica (reported as Si0 2 ) concentrations in the Susitna River are within the range reported for
most surface waters, ranging from 6 to 13 ppm at Gold Creek (Exhibit E, Vol. 5A, Chap. 2).
Dissolved oxygen concentrations generally remain high at an gaging stations on the Susitna
River. Winter va 1 ues average 11.6 to 13.0 ppm (mg/L), while summer concentrati ens average
between 11.5 and 12.0 ppm (Fig. 3-7). During the summer, oxygen levels are at or near satura-
tion at all gaging stations. Although saturation levels of dissolved oxygen decline during the
low-flow period in winter, average saturation levels do not fall below 80% at any of the gaging
stations. Thus, the severe winter dissolved oxygen depressions observed in some arctic and
subarctic streams and rivers in Alaska (Schallock and Lotspeich, 1974) have not been observed in
the Susitna River.
Total dissolved gas (nitrogen) concentrations have been monitored in the Devil Canyon, where
extremely turbulent flow from standing waves results in air entrainment, causing nitrogen super-
saturation. Above Devil Canyon, tota 1 di sse lved gas is approximately 100% of saturation.
Levels of dissolved gas immediately upstream and downstream of the proposed Devil Canyon dam
site range from 105% to 117%, with the level of saturation generally increasing with increasing
discharge (Fig. 3-8). Alaska water quality statutes (Alaska Dept. ofcEnvironmental Conservation,
1979) allow a maximum total dissolved gas concentration of no greater than 110% of saturation.
This statute is thus exceeded naturally in Devil Canyon during high flows.
Dissolved and suspended solids in the Susitna River exhibit a contrasting seasonal pattern in
concentration, with total dissolved solids (TDS) at a maximum during the low-flow period in
winter when the concentration of suspended solids and turbidity are at an annual minimum
(Fig. 3-9). Most of the suspended solids in Susitna River water consist of glacial flour produced
by glacial scouring. Concentrati ens of both di sse 1 ved and suspended so 1 ids tend to decrease
downstream due to both dilution from inflowing, clearwater tributaries and settling of suspended
so 1 ids ·from the water.
Suspended solids increase with spring breakup from a winter value of 10 ppm (mg/L) to a summer
maximum value in excess of 1,000 ppm (Exhibit E, Vol. 5A, Chap. 2). Concentrations of suspended
solids in excess of 5,000 ppm have been measured at Denali during periods of peak flow. Particle
size analysis of suspended solids indicates that the median size of suspended solids is generally
less than 0.002 inch (in) [50 micrometers (~m)] (Exhibit E, Vol. 5A, Chap. 2).
The Susitna River is typically clear during winter months, with turbidity values. at or near zero
[as measured in Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU)]. When snowmelt and breakup commences in
the spring, turbidity increases, reaching a maximum in the summer when inputs of suspended
solids from glacial scouring are at their annual maximum. As would be expected, turbidity
exhibits a longitudinal trend identical to that of suspended solids, decreasing downstream due
both to settling of suspended solids from the water column and to dilution of the Susitna River
water from inflow of clear-water tributaries.
The Susitna River is a major contributor of fresh water to Cook Inlet, with the measured flow at
Gold Creek accounting for approximately 19% of the measured flow at Susitna Station near Cook
Inlet (Exhibit E, Vol. 5A, Chap. 2). As such, the Susitna River has a major influence on the
sa 1 i nity in the upper Cook In 1 et. At Node 27 near the Susitna River mouth, sa 1 i nity ranges
annually from approximately 6 parts per thousand (ppt) (g/L) to 21 ppt. As one proceeds down
3-ll
100
(a)
~
E
Q. 75 Q.
~
r<>
0 u
0 u
"' 50 0
~
>-
I-
z
__J 25 <!
~
__J
<!
oL-_J------------~-------------L~
40~~-------------.-------------.--.
E
Q. 30 Q.
~ ::>
u
__J
5 20
0 w >
__J
0
(/) (/) 10
0
(b)
o VEE CANYON
D. GOLD CREEK
0 TALKEETNA
OL-~-------------L------------~~
SUMMER WINTER BREAKUP
Figure 3-6. Seasonal Patterns in the+~a) Mean Alkalinity (expressed as CaC0 3 )
and (b) Mean Calcium (Ca ) Concentrations in Solution in the
Susitna River at Vee Canyon, Gold Creek, and Talkeetna. [Source:
R&M Consultants, 1981, 1982]
,;1111
111'
1
20
,....._
E
0. 15 0. __.
z w
<..9 >-
X 10 0
0
w
> _.J
0
(J)
5 (J) -0
0
SUMMER
--
..... ..,.t::,._---------------
0 VEE CANYON
6. GOLD CREEK
D TALKEETNA
WINTER
--'-J"-~
BREAKUP
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, 1982]
w
' .....
"'
.---c
0 -0
"-
:J -0
(f)
~ .._...
(f)
<(
(.9
0 w > _j
0
(f)
(f)
0
_j
<(
f-
0
f-
115
110
105
•
(%SAT)=105.8+0.251( DIS?~g~GE )~
. . ..
• • •• .• •~DEC ;TATUTE ---!1-•--....-!·-•• ~-----------------------------------.. ·~·'< ,. ..... •• • •• •••• ••• •• • •
10 15 20 25 30
DISCHARGE (1000 cfs)
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. 2]
w
' ,._.
w
~
E
Q.
Q. -
(f)
0
_j
0
(f)
0
w
~
0
(f)
(f)
0
_j
<I:
I-
0
I-
~
E
Q.
Q. -
(f)
0
_j
0
(f)
0
w
0 z w
CL
(/)
::::>
(/)
_j
~ ~
3-14
150
"' "' "' (a) "' .....
"' "' "' "" ' ,........o . ........_ ' ' ' 100 ............. . ......... ' ' • .......... ...
/ ... ....... ...
• ' / '·~e 0/
50
0
1000
(b) 0 VEE CANYON
IJ. GOLD CREEK
0 TALKEETNA
750
p ,
500 ·, , , ,
0
, ,
' , ,
' ,
' , ,
• ,
250 ' , ,
• , , , , , _.o , , --, .-· ,
0
SUMMER WINTER BREAKUP
Figure 3-9. Seasonal Patterns in the Mean Concentrations of (a) Dissolved Solids and
(b) Suspended Solids in the Susitna River at Vee Canyon, Gold Creek,
and Talkeetna. [Source: R&M Consultants, 1981, 1982]
3-15
Cook Inlet toward the Gulf of Alaska, the salinity increases, approaching that of seawater, and
the annual variation in salinity decreases, due to the declining influence of freshwater inputs
to Cook Inlet.
During the winter, Sus itna River mai nstem water temperatures are approximately 32°F (0°C).
Locally areas of warmer water, about 36°F (2°C) may occur in regions of groundwater discharge.
During the summer, upstream water temperatures (above Denali) will remain near 32°F (0°C) as a
result of glacial melt. Mainstem water temperatures will progressively warm with both time and
downstream distance as a result of solar heating. For example, during July 1980, a downstream
gradient of approximately 0.16°F per mile (0.06°C per km) was observed between Denali (RM 291)
and Vee Canyon (RM 244). During the same time, the downstream temperature gradient between Vee
Canyon ·and Susitna (RM 26) was observed to be approximately 0. 015°F per mile (0. 005°C per km).
Maximum recorded water temperatures at the Watana dam site (RM 184), Gold Creek (RM 137), and
the Susitna Station (RM 26) are 57.2°F (14°C), 59°F (15°C), and 61.7°F (16.5°C), respectively.
In August, Susitna River water begins to cool, reaching a minimum of about 32°F (0°C) between
late September and October.
During the summer months, the mainstem of the Susitna River shows little diurnal temperature
variations (less than 4°F, or 2°C) vertical temperature gradients. This is a result of the
large volume flux and high flow velocities.
Slough water temperatures may vary significantly from the mainstem water temperatures and exhibit
diurnal temperature variations of 18°F (10°C) or more. During the high-flow regime of the
spring and summer, when the sloughs are overtopped, slough water temperatures are close to the
local mainstem temperature. However, during other times of the year, slough water temperatures
may be influenced by solar heating during the day, back radiation at night, and groundwater
discharge. There are two components associ a ted with groundwater discharge to the s 1 oughs:
(1) mainstem water moving through the coarse gravel between the mainstem and sloughs driven by
stage differences, and (2) discharges from alluvial aquifers with recharge sources in the upland
areas of the watershed. In order to distinguish between these two subsurface sources, the
former will be referred to as mainstem infiltration and the latter as groundwater discharge.
Measurements of subsurface water temperatures between the mainstem and sloughs reveal a strong
correlation with adjacent mai nstem temperatures. Measured s 1 a ugh i ntergrave 1 temperatures
(Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game, 1983) indicate near isothermal conditions in some areas, ranging
only from about 35.6°F to 37.4°F (2°C to 3°C), while in other areas intergravel temperatures
paralled local surface water temperatures. These data suggest that the relative importance of
mainstem infiltration and groundwater discharge varies from slough to slough, as well as varying
with location within a given slough.
These factors influencing slough water temperatures result in a thermal structure considerably
different than the mainstem. Unlike the mainstem, sloughs demonstrate significant temporal and
verti ca 1 structure. Short-term surface temperature f1 uctuat ions in slough 21 as compared with
mainstem temperatures taken at Portage Creek are provided in Figure 3-10. This figure clearly
shows the strong diurnal character of slough water temperature. Measurements of vertical thermal
structures in sloughs have shown differences between surface and intergravel temperatures of
about 9°F (5°C).
During the summer months, tributaries generally exhibit somewhat lower water temperatures than
the Susitna River, producing locally lower water temperatures in the Susitna near the areas
where these tributaries enter. During the winter, tributary water temperatures are about 32°F
(0°C) and warm during summer in the same manner as in the Susitna.
3.1.3.3 Groundwater
Geohydrologic studies of the Susitna River Basin have focused on investigation of the conditions
at the proposed Watana and Devil Canyon dam sites. The understanding of the groundwater regime
within the projected areas of the reservoirs and downstream of the proposed dams is largely based
on photo interpretation and regional geology.
Groundwater is commonly found in unconfined aquifers associated with alluvium or other uncon-
solidated sediments. The characteristics of these aquifers have been quantified at the dam
sites and sloughs 8A and 9. The water table in the unconfined aquifers has been interpreted to
be a subdued rep 1 i ca of the surface topography. No s i gni fi cant bedrock aquifers have been
identified. However, drilling investigations at the dam sites have located joint and fracture
systems within the bedrock which convey water. Artesian conditions have been identified in
holes drilled in bedrock·at the Watana dam site.
Perched aquifers are commonly found in the upper Susitna Basin overlying permafrost formations.
Permafrost is abundant in the upper Susitna Basin, with a thickness of up to 300ft (100m), and
commonly occurs as discontinuous formations on the southern side of the river channel. The
permafrost, which has a temperature of approximately 30°F (-1°C), tends to reduce the permeability
of the soil and the apparent availability of groundwater.
,,
' I''
10
~a
a: :::;;
W6
1-
u
0
4
8
~6
:::;;
~
4
8
u
~
a:6
:::;;
w
1-
4
8
us
~
a:
:::;;
W4 1-
2
3-16
SLOUGH 21
(RM 142)
SUSITNA RIVER AT PORTAGE CREEK
(RM 149)
' -I T I I I
-
/
""""'
-
-
[7 ""'-
' ' ' . . ' I
400 1000 1600 2200
TIME
AUG 31-SEP 6
I
f.-/ ~ -
1.../ ....... r-_
. • . . . . I
400 1000 1600 2200
TIME
SEP 7-13
I I I I I I
~ -
/
f.-/ ' ~-
. . • •
400 1000 1600 2200'
TIME
SEP 14-20
I --1 I I I I
-
1-/ ~ --
1--
' 0 I I I I I I
400 1000 1600 2200
TIME
SEP 21-27
10
o8
~
a: :::;; W6
1-
u
0
4
8
'0:6
:::;;
w
1-
4
8
~ ;;:s
:::;;
w
1-
4
8
2
I I I -
-
-
I I
400
I I
f.-
1-
I I '
400
I I I
1-
f.-
. '
400
I I
1-
f.-
I I
400
I I I I I
I I I I I
1000 1600 2200
TIME
AUG 31-SEP 6
I I
I . . •
1000 1600 2200
TIME
SEP 7-13
I I I
' • • I
1000 1600 2200
TIME
SEP 14-20 ·
I I -,
I I I I
1000 1600 2200
TIME
SEP 21-27
Figure 3-10. Comparison of Averaged Diurnal Temperature Fluctuations in the Mainstem and
Slough 21 During September 1981. [Source: Application Exhibit E, Vol. 58,
Chap. 2, Fig. E.2.73]
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3-17
The groundwater regime is recharged by snowmelt, glacial runoff, and precipitation. Discharges
of groundwater to surface water typically occur in the valley bottoms and alluvial fans. Springs
or artesian flows have not been identified but may exist.
Relict channels of the Susitna River or its ancestors exist in several locations in the upper
basin. Two relict channels have been identified in the area near the Watana dam site, and one
has been identified near the Devil Canyon dam site. These relict channels could be affected by
project completion and are the subject of ongoing investigation.
Downstream of the Devil Canyon site, groundwater discharges to the sloughs throughout the year.
The quantity of groundwater discharged to the sloughs and the description of the effect of
groundwater discharges on the hydrology of sloughs BA and 9 is being investigated.
3.1.4 Fish Communities
The Susitna River fish communities constitute one of the major exploited (or potentially
exploited) resources of the project environs (Appendix I). All five species of Pacific Salmon
(pink, Oncorhynchus gorbuscha; chum, 0. keta; coho, 0. kisutch; sockeye, 0. nerka; and chinook,
0. tschawytscha) use the Susitna River system for spawning (Figs. 3-11 and 3 12), and they are
harvested in commercial, sport, and subsistence fisheries. Other anadromous species also occur
(Fig. 3-13), and there is an assemb 1 age of resident fishes that includes valued sports species.
~Four major zones can be distinguished: (1) the potentially inundated zones above Devil Canyon,
(2) the Susitna River between Devil Canyon and the confluence of the Susitna, Talkeetna, and
Chulitna rivers, (3) the Susitna downstream of Talkeetna, and (4) tributary and upland areas to
be affected by access facilities or transmission lines.
3.1.4.1 Watershed Above Devil Canyon
Upstream of the lower reaches of Devil Canyon (RM 150), the Susitna River fish fauna is composed
of year-round resident species (Fig. 3-11). Adult salmon are prevented from passing through the
canyon by the steep gradient [31 ft/mi (5. 9 m/km)], rapid water flow, and turbulent rapids.
Although adult chinook salmon have been documented as far as RM 156.8 in the low-flow year 1982,
no other anadromous species has been reported in the impouridment rea:ch.
Seven resident fish species have been reported in the impoundment reach: Arctic grayling
(Thymallus arcticus), Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma), burbot (Lata lata), humpback whitefish
(Coregonus pi dschi an), round whitefish (Prosopi urn cyl i ndraceum), 1 ongnose sucker (Catostomus
catostomus), and slimy sculpin (Cottus cognatus) (listed in general decreasing value to fisheries).
Few resident fish occupy the turbulent De vi 1 Canyon, whereas significant populations are found
in the less severe gradient [13 ft/mi (2.4 m/km)] and multiple channels of the reach from Devil
Creek to the approximate upstream limit of impoundment, Oshetna River (RM 233). The reaches
near the less turbid tributary mouths are most highly populated, with burbot, round whitefish,
and longnose sucker being captured exclusively there. Arctic grayling and Dolly Varden are
tributary species that use the mainstem for overwintering and as a migration route among tribu-
tary streams, although Dolly Varden may be a more permanent river resident.
Tributaries, such as Oshetna River and Kosina Creek, provide optimal habitat for Arctic grayling.
Rainbow trout, Dolly Varden and severa 1 species of smaller fishes, principally cotti ds, a 1 so
occur there. These tributary streams are characterized by habitats with large numbers of pools,
moderate streamflow velocity, and low turbidity. Lakes in the area contain lake and rainbow
trout and northern pike.
There is little knowledge about benthic invertebrate fauna or algae or other primary producers
of organic matter in the impoundment reach. The benthic aquatic ecosystem almost certainly is
fed by detritus from surrounding terrestrial habitats and is limited in the mainstem by high
turbidity. Fishing pressure is extremely light due to limited access, although Arctic grayling,
Dolly Varden, lake and rainbow trout, and burbot have the potential for valuable sports fisheries.
3.1.4.2 ·Devil Canyon to Talkeetna
Numerous islands, gravel bars, and sloughs of the relatively stable but often split channel of
the Susitna River downstream of Devil Canyon to its confluence with the Chulitna River make this
reach especially suitable for salmon migration, spawning, and rearing. The main channel is
often bedrock or firm cobble, and glacial silt clogs interstices of most gravel bars; thus, most
spawning occurs in the looser gravels of side channels, sloughs, and tributary mouths. These
habitat types intergrade with little distinction. Tributaries and sloughs have the clearest
water, and thus support the largest numbers of rearing juveniles.
Adult salmon of all five species migrate upstream into this reach of the Susitna River from late
spring through early fall (Figs. 3-ll and 3-12), a peri ad that corresponds with high summer
runoff. Each species has a somewhat characteristic migration peri ad (Fig. 3-14). Chi nook
arrive first, migrating from mid-June through July; pink migrate from late July through August;
II
1981 1981
(% PAST SUNSHINE)
CHINOOK 22.0
SOCKEYE 3,6 2.0
COHO 16.7 11.1
CHUM 7.9 11.4
PINK 4.6 16.5
1911 1912
(% PAST SUNSHINE)
CHINOOK
SOCKEYE
COHO
CHUM
PINK
TUX EON/
104.5 75.5
85.9 74.6
7.5 6.5
72.9 100.9
RIVER
/-------....( ANCHOR POINT
3-18
1981 1982
(% PAST SUNSHINE)
MATANUSKA RIVER
1981 1982
(% PAST SUNSHINE)
CHINOOK
SOCKEYE
COHO
CHUM
PINK
100
100 100
100 100
100 100
100 100
Figure 3-11. Upper Cook Inlet and the Susitna Drainage (not to scale), Showing
Percent of Salmon Migrating Past Sunshine Station That Pass
Talkeetna and Curry Stations, and the Relative Sizes of Runs Past
the Yentna and Sunshine Stations. [Source: Adapted by FERC Staff
from Application]
\rS::PC"AW:::N:::I:::N:-G-:-IN::::-T:-RI:-B:::UT:-A':R:::IE::S-, "\
"-..._ AND OCCASIONALLY IN
SLOUGHS AND MAINSTEM
(LATE SEPT.-EARLY OCT.)
COHO SALMON
"~'<-"'"-._,."' \ ,-------:...;\ \__;_;_/ }--'---,
"'1 Rtvr...l JUVENILES REAR FOR
<:'T TWO YEARS IN FRESH
WATER
ADULTS
·LATE JUNE-SEPT.
(3-4 YEARS OLD)
1981-36,000
1982-79,800
EMIGRATION PEAKS IN JUNE;
CONTINUES THROUGH OCT.
(A)
AUG SEPT
ADULT NUMBERS
{SECOND RUN)
1981-4,800
1982-3,100
YENTNA STATION
ADULTS
FIRST RUN-EARLY JUNE
(5 YEAR OLOS)
SECOND RUN-LATE JULY
(3-7 YEARS OLD)
SOCKEYE SALMON
SECOND RUN SPAWNING
IN SLOUGHS AND SOME
TRIBUTARY MOUTHS
{AUG.-SEPT.}
JUVENILE (SECOND RUN)
OVERWINTERING IN
LOWER RIVER (?)
TOTALS:
1981-272,000
1982-265,000
(B)
Figure 3-12 (A-B). Generalized Life Cycles of Pacific Salmon in the Susitna River Drainage: Coho and Sockeye.
w
' ,...
"'
ADULTS
JULY-EARLY SEPT.
2 YEARS OLD
1981-85,600
1982-890,500
PINK SALMON
JUVENILE OUTMIGAATION
BY JUNE AFTER EMERGENCE
(C)
ADULT TIMING
ADULTS NUMBERS
1981-20,800
1982-49,000
VENTNA STATION
ADULTS
JULY-LATE SEPT.
(3-5 YEARS OLD)
1981-283,000
1982-458,000
CHUM SALMON
JUVENILE OUTMIGRATION
IN FIRST SUMMER
(D)
ADULT NUMIJERS
1981-13,100
1982-29,500
SOME TRIBUTARY SPAWNING
SPAWNING IN SLOUGHS
(SOME MAIN CHANNEL)
ADULT NUMBERS
1981-263,000
1982-430,000
Figure 3-12 (C-D). Generalized Life Cycles of Pacific Salmon in the Susitna River Drainage: Pink and Chum.
w
' "' 0
ADULTS
LATE MAY-EARLY JUNE
(:i-7 YEARS OLD)
CHINOOK SALMON ~r~~P-AW_N_I_N_G-IN_TR_I_BU_T_A_RI_E_S_IJ-U-LY---A-U-G.-1,
ADULT TIMING
JUNE JULY AUG
NUMBER NOT DETERMINED
(E)
Figure 3-12 (E). Generalized Life Cycles of Pacific Salmon in the Susitna River Drainage: Chinook.
w
I
"' 1-'
ADULTS
JULY-EARLY SEPT.
2 YEARS OLD
19B1-B5,600
19B2-B90,500
PINK SALMON
JUVENILE OUTMIGRATION
BY JUNE AFTER EMERGENCE
(C)
JULY AUG
AOU L TS NUMBERS
19B1-20,BOO
19B2-49,000
ADULTS
JULY-LATE SEPT.
(3-5 YEARS OLD)
19B1-2B3,000
19B2-45B,OOO
CHUM SALMON
JUVENILE DUTMIGRATION
IN FIRST SUMMER
(D)
ADULT NUMBERS
19B1-13,100
19B2-29,500
SOME TRIBUTARY SPAWNING
SPAWNING IN SLOUGHS
(SOME MAIN CHANNEL)
ADULT NUMBERS
19B1-263,000
19B2-430,000
Figure 3-12 (C-D). Generalized Life Cycles of Pacific Salmon in the Susitna River Drainage: Pink and Chum.
w
I
!'>)
0
Figure 3-12 (E).
ADULTS
LATE MAY-EARLY JUNE
(3-7 YEARS OLD)
CHINOOK SALMON
lr-sP_A_W_N-IN_G_I_N_T_R_IB_U_T_A-RI-ES--IJ-U-LY---A-U-G-.1-,
JUVENILES' SECOND SPRING
IN LOWER RIVER CLEARWATER
TRIBUTARIES AND SLOUGHS
ADULT TIMING
NUMBER NOT DETERMINED
(E)
Generalized Life Cycles of Pacific Salmon in the Susitna River Drainage: Chi nook.
w
I
N
I-'
SPAWNING IN MAINSTEM AND
LOWER YENTNA IN RIFFLE
AREAS AND OFF CUT BANKS
(FEW DAYS DURATION)
EULACHON
ADULTS
FIRST RUN: MID MAY
SECOND RUN: EARLY JUNE
(3-4 YEARS OLD)
SOME ADULTS RETURN TO
OCEAN AFTER SPAWNING
JUVENILE OUTMIGRATION
IN Fl RST YEAR
(A)
ADULT TIMING:
SIMILAR FOR
UPSTREAM AND
DOWNSTREAM
[LJ
MAY JUNE
ADULTS
EARLY AUG.-EARLY SEPT.
(4-6 YEARS OLD)
BERING CISCO
ADULTS RETURN TO SEA
AFTER SPAWNING, TO RETURN
AGAIN ANOTHER YEAR
JUVENILE OUTMIGRATION
IN SPRING OF FIRST YEAR
(B)
Figure 3-13 (A-B). Generalized Life Cycles of Anadromous Eulachon and Bering Cisco in the
Susitna River Drainage.
w
I
N
N
ACTIVITY
JAN
PINK SALMON
ADULT PASSAGE UPRIVER
SPAWNING
INCUBATION/EMERGENCE
OUTMIGRATION
CHINOOK SALMON
ADULT PASSAGE UPRIVER
SPAWNING
INCUBATION/EMERGENCE
JUVENILE REARING
OUTMIGRATION
CHUM SALMON
ADULT PASSAGE UPRIVER
SPAWNING
INCUBATION/EMERGENCE
JUVENILE REARING
OUTMIGRATION
COHO SALMON
ADULT PASSAGE UPRIVER
SPAWNING
INCUBATION/EMERGENCE
JUVENILE REARING
OUTMIGRATION
SOCKEYE SALMON
AOUL T PASSAGE UPRIVER
SPAWNING
INCUBATION/EMERGENCE
JUVENILE REARING
DUTMIGRATIDN
INTENSE ACTIVITY
MODERATE ACTIVITY
3-23
MONTH
FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
[) ~
-
·-
Figure 3-14. Timing of Stages of Salmon in the Susitna River from Talkeetna to Devil Canyon.
[Source: Adapted by FERC Staff from Application]
,:
I'
3-24
sockeye and chum migrate from late July through mid-September; and coho extend migration from
1 ate July through September. Although there is consi derab 1 e wandering and de 1 ay in "staging
areas 11 , adult salmon return to natal stream reaches to spawn. Chinook are primarily tributary
spawners; the other species (of which chum is most abundant) occupy mostly side channels, sloughs,
or tributary mouths which are strongly influenced by river stage. Eggs incubate in gravels from
spawning in late summer or early fall through emergence of fry in March or April, with timing of
emergence depending heavily upon incubation temperature. High river stages in winter caused by
ice jamming create flows into side channels and sloughs which prevent dewatering and freezing of
some spawning sites during low-flow periods, but which also cool groundwater seepage areas
(normally warmer than the river channel) used for incubation. There is a complex interdependence
of spawning and incubation with intergravel water flows and temperatures for which the relation-
ships with river conditions are not clearly resolved.
Juvenile salmon also occur seasonally in this reach of the Susitna River and its tributaries.
The period of seaward migration begins with ice breakup but primarily occurs in late spring and
early summer at a time of rising river flows (Fig. 3-14). Although pink, sockeye, and chum in
the Susitna generally pass downstream in the spring and summer of emergence, chinook and coho
remain for one to two years, feeding and growing in fresh water. Clearwater sloughs and mouths
of clearwater tributaries are especially important habitats for juvenile salmon, which depend on
sight for locating food. Temperatures in tributaries and sloughs are closer to published optimum
growth temperatures [near 60°F (15°C)] for young salmon than are temperatures in the main channels.
Resident species in this reach of the Susitna are similar to those in the reach above Devil
Canyon. Benthic invertebrates and aquatic p 1 ants are important components of the river eco-
system for rearing of juvenile salmon and maintenance of resident species, and their abundance
is probably limited by scouring and light attenuation due to waterborne silt. Fishing pressure
is light, restricted primarily by limited suitable access.
3.1.4.3 Below Talkeetna
The Susitna River below the Talkeetna River is a major corridor for upstream and downstream
migrating salmon of all five species. It also provides spawning habitat in its extensively
subdivided and meandering channel that receives extensive contributions of loose glacial gravels
from the Chulitna River. Numerous tributaries and sloughs are used by salmon in a manner similar
to the use of tributaries and sloughs in the Talkeetna to Devil Canyon reach. Adult migration
occurs from late May into September. Since the majority of Upper Cook Inlet salmon except
sockeye are believed to originate in the Susitna system, this reach below the confluence of the
Chulitna, Talkeetna, and upper Susitna rivers is highly important. Although all juvenile salmon
must pass through this river reach during outmigration, juvenile chinook, coho, and probably
sockeye depend on this reach for rearing in summer. The area is especially important as over-
wintering habitat for juvenile chinook; juvenile coho generally overwinter in tributary mouths.
The lower section of this river reach is inhabited by other anadromous species as well: the
Bering cisco, eulachon, and lamprey. Bering cisco are abundant in the mainstem from August to
October. Eulachon spawn in about the lower 50 mi (80 km). All resident species in the Susitna
drainage except for lake trout are found in this reach. Improved access to this reach, which is
in the Anchorage-to-Fairbanks Railbelt, allows substantial recreational fishing.
3.1.4.4 Access Roads and Transmission Line Corridors
The six major new corridors that would be required for access roads, transmission lines, and
railroad spurs are as follows (Fig. 2-11): (1) upgrade of Denali Highway from Cantwell to
Watana Access Road; (2) Watana Access Road from Denali Highway to Watana Dam; (3) Devil Canyon
Access Road and transmission line between Watana Dam and Devil Canyon Dam; (4) railroad spur
from Gold Creek to Devil Canyon; (5) Susitna transmission line from Anchorage to Willow; and (6)
Susitna transmission 1 i ne from Healy to Fairbanks. The App 1 icant has i dent i fi ed more than 100
streams that would be crossed by these corridors (Exhibit E, Vol. 6a, Chap. 3, Tables E.3.19
through E.3.23). For most of these streams, it is possible only to infer what species are
present. In the case of corridors (1), (2), (3), and (6), the most common species present is
likely grayling, although cottids (sculpin) are probably numerous. Other species likely to be
present in at least some of these streams are blackfish, burbot, Dolly Varden, inconnu (sheefish),
longnose sucker, northern pike, and whitefish. Streams in corridor (4) (railroad spur) and
corridor (5) (Willow-to-Anchorage transmission line) commonly have present one or more of the
five Pacific salmon species and rainbow trout. In addition, the Willow-to-Anchorage transmission
line segment would inc;:lude an underwater crossing of Knik Arm. Knik Arm serves as a migration
corridor to the Matanuska and Knik rivers and tributaries for the five species of Pacific salmon,
as well as other anadromous species such as Dolly Varden, Bering cisco, eulachon, and lamprey.
3.1.4.5 Fishery Resources
Fishery resources in the Susitna River drainage constitute a major portion of the Cook Inlet
commercial salmon harvest and provide sport and subsistence fishing for area residents and
3-25
tourists. The commercial fishery in Upper Cook Inlet harvests all five species of Pacific
salmon. In decreasing order of importance in terms of numbers caught, these salmon species are
sockeye, pink, chum, coho, and chinook (Fig. 3-15). With the exception of sockeye, the majority
of salmon harvested in Upper Cook Inlet are produced in the Susitna drainage. The quantitative
contribution of these Susitna River salmon stocks to the commercial fishery in Upper Cook Inlet
has not been established.
The sport and subsistence fisheries operate primarily in the Susitna River and its tributaries
rather than Upper Cook Inlet. In decreasing order of number caught, the salmon species are
pink, coho, chinook, chum, and sockeye. The chinook salmon (king salmon), however, is the
largest and most highly prized. The pink salmon have a two-year life cycle that results in two
genetically distinct stocks called 11 odd-year 11 or 11 even-year 11 on the basis of the year in which
adults spawn. In the Susitna drainage the even-year runs of pink salmon are approximately ten
times the size of the odd-year runs. Other species of importance to the sport fishery are (in
decreasing order of number caught) rainbow trout, Arctic grayling, Dolly Varden, burbot, and
1 ake trout.
The Applicant has estimated the percentage of salmon migrating past Sunshine Station (RM 80),
which includes fish heading for the Chulitna, Talkeetna, and Upper Susitna rivers, that continue
past Talkeetna Station (RM 103) and past Curry Station (RM 120) (Fig. 3-11). Less than 25% of
the salmon that migrate past Sunshine Station go as far as Talkeetna Station, and generally less
than 10% migrate past Curry Station. Data are not presently available to estimate the percentage
of salmon migrating past Susitna Station (RM 26) that migrate as far upriver as Sunshine Station.
However, with the exception of chum, the numbers of salmon migrating past Yentna Station are
nearly equal to the numbers passing Sunshine Station (Fig. 3-11).
3.1.5 Terrestrial Communities
3.1.5.1 Plant Communities
The sites of the proposed Susitna project are located almost entirely within an ecoregion classi-
fied by Bailey (1978) as the Alaska Range Province of the Subarctic Division. Major vegetation
types include conifer, deciduous, and mixed conifer-deciduous forests, as well as their various
succession a 1 stages (see App. J, Sec. J .1. 2) at 1 ower e 1 evati ons, and shrub 1 ands and tundra
systems at higher elevations above the timber line [about 2,500 to 3,500 ft (760 to 1,100 m) MSL].
The occurrences of various forest and shrub types in the upper and middle Susitna Basin often
can be related to such factors as elevation, slope, aspect, drainage, and fire history. In the
taiga ecosystems (moist subarctic forests) of Interior Alaska, these factors apparently influence
ecosystem structure and function through effects on air and soil temperatures, soil moisture,
and the presence of permafrost (Van Cleve and Viereck, 1981; Van Cleve et al., 1983). In the
upland areas of the taiga, fire is a major factor affecting the distribution of upland vegeta-
tion types. The fires are often patchy, resulting in a mixture of various-aged vegetation
stands that are superimposed over variations in slope and aspect, thus creating a mosaic of
vegetation types (Van Cleve et al., 1983). In contrast, vegetation types occurring on river
floodplains are controlled primarily by river action, since these areas are relatively protected
from fire except on the older terraces (Van Cleve and Viereck, 1981). ~ · L •• I ~fl , ,., "'t:J1!4.-
The general distribution of major vegetation classes within South~ral Alaska in relation to
the sites of the proposed dams is illustrated in Figure 3-16.·· Each of the vegetation classes
delineated in the figure is described briefly in Table 3-1. The classification system presented
in the table is useful for depicting the distribution of vegetation over relatively large areas.
However, the following descriptions of vegetation types and their distribution in the regions
around the proposed project features are based principally on plant ecology studies conducted
for the Applicant by McKendrick et al. (1982) during the summers of 1980 and 1981. In these
studies, McKendrick and coworkers i dent ifi ed vegetation types according to the hi erarchi ca 1
classification system proposed by Viereck and Dyrness (1980), which does not correspond directly
to the classification system used in Figure 3-16. To provide some basis for comparison between
the two systems, the Viereck and Dyrness (1980) vegetation types (App. J, Table J-3 and
Sec. J.1.2.1) that are most likely to occur within the vegetation classes shown in Figure 3-16
are identified in Table 3-2. ·
The proposed dams, impoundments, and re 1 a ted project faci 1 iti es would be 1 ocated mostly in
forested areas. In the vicinity of the proposed Watana dam site and impoundment (Figs. 3-16
and Fig. J-2 of App. J), more than 75% of the vegetated area is forested, and most of the remain-
ing area is shrubland. The predominant forest types are black spruce and mixed conifer-deciduous
forest with black and white spruce, paper birch, trembling aspen, and balsam poplar. The area
around the proposed construction camp, village, and airstrip sites (Fig. 2-3 and Fig. J-2 of
App. J) is covered by low shrub types characterized by birch and willow. The borrow sites
(Figs. 2-2 and 2-6) would be located in areas covered predominately by various forest types and
low shrubland. Borrow sites A,E,H, and I are mostly forested; whereas sites D and F are mostly
low shrubland.
I
;Ill I ,.,
I
1:1
, 'I z
0
I! I
:::;;
--'
l'.li
<(
(f)
LL
0
I ': 0::
" w
II
Ill :::;; I~ ::J z
1,,1
'·' ' ill ,,
I
·'
1
1
:!,11
1'1 I
,,
•'I
II
,I,.
!;!:i
'I!:
''I
,,
:!!
Figure 3-15.
3-26
CHINOOK ( x 104 )
•
\ /\ I .,
I \1 ./·-.
12 CHUM ( x ~0 5 ) ~
~ ~ t, 10
X I I /I ~ I I
8 lit\ f\ t'f\ r
/It, tiK J't' I
6 }\ I \ I I I I I \ (\ I \t V\ I
PI ~-\" 1.\, \I ,~ ~ v· 4 -~~;\/\11' .\~ 1\¥ \v COHO.< X 10 5 ) .,.~Y
2 • \ I ; .~-. ... ~· • • • I . . .........
0 ~--_L ____ i_ __ ~L_ __ _L ____ i_~
32 • PINK (x 10 6 )
•
24 •
•
16
0
8
SOCKEYE ( x 106)
~
I \ J I • f •I A
/• I /:-o,/JI\ M j\/~,J
0 e_e_l_e __ e_L_e __ eo_L ____ ..J.._ __ ..::.._j_•_
1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980
YEAR
Commercial Catch of Salmon in the Upper Cook Inlet, by Species, 1954-1982.
[Source: Application Exhibit E, Vol. 6A, Chap. 3, Table E.3.3]
•
3-27
INSERTED IN POCKET INSIDE BACK COVER
Figure 3-16. General Vegetation Distribution in Southcentral Alaska and Locations of
·Proposed Dam Sites, Non-Susitna Alternative Hydropower Sites, and
Alternative Thermal Unit Sites. [Source: Adapted from Selkregg, 1974, 1977]
Figure 3·16
0 20 40 miles
0 1 0 20 30 40 50 kilometers
0 Glaciers and lcefields
Coastal Western Hemlock-Sitka Spruce Forest
Bottomland Spruce-Poplar Forest
B Upland Spruce-Hardwood Forest
Lowland Spruce-Hardwood Forest
11A'2A High Brush
liB Low Brush Bog and Muskeg
IU Moist Tundra
Wet Tundra
t• j.:-:;,j Alpine Tundra and Barren Ground
General Vegetation Distribution in Southcentral Alaska and
Locations of Proposed Dam Sites, Non-Susitna Alternative
Hydropower Sites, and Alternative Thermal Unit Sites.
[Source: Adapted from Selkregg, 1974; 1977]
~-:,<
I 'f ,;;;._s
\' 7 "',) 0
F: <1 i;l
no-!Co53
ARLIS
Alask<' Resources
Library & lnlormation Services
Anchorage Alaska
Proposed Hydropower Sites
&_watana
ffi Devil Canyon
Alternative Hydropower Sites
,&Johnson
~Browne
,&Keetna
ffisnow
& Lake Chakachamna
Alternative Thermal Sites
[!] Lower Beluga River
0 Chuitna River
0Kenai
8:] Southeast Anchorage
0wmow
0Nenana
II , I'
I
,I
·" '
:I!
!I
1il1
3-28
Table 3-1. Descriptions of Generalized Vegetation Classes
Used for Mapping in Figure 3-16
Vegetation Class Important Species Description
Coastal Western Hemlock-
Sitka Spruce Forest
Bottomland Spruce-
Poplar Forest
Up 1 and Spruce-
Hardwood Forest
Lowland Spruce-
Hardwood Forest
High Brush
Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis)
Western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla)
Mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana)
Balsam poplar (Populus balsamifera)
Black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa)
White spruce (Picea glauca)
Balsam poplar
Black cottonwood
Paper birch (Betula papyrifera)
Quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides)
White spruce
Black spruce (Picea mariana)
Paper birch
Quaking aspen
Balsam poplar
Black spruce
White spruce
Paper birch
Quaking aspen
Balsam poplar
Sitka alder (Alnus sinuata)
American green alder (Alnus crispa)
Thinleaf alder (Alnus tenuifolia)
Willows (Salix s~
Resin birch (Betula glandulosa)
Extension of Pacific rainbelt
forests; mountain hemlock
replaces western hemlock in
Cook Inlet area; west of Cook
Inlet Sitka spruce dominates;
deciduous hardwoods occur pri-
marily on stream floodplains.
Tall, relatively dense forests
(and the successional stages
leading to them) found on level
to nearly level floodplains,
low river terraces, and deeply
thawed south-facing slopes;
balsam poplar and cottonwood
quickly invade floodplains
following pioneer and alder-
shrub stages; white spruce
replaces hardwoods in later
seral stages.
Varied forest types depending
on conditions; successional
stages often present due to
fire; mixed white spruce-
deciduous stands occur on
south-facing slopes and well-
drained soils; black spruce
often replaces white spruce on
north-facing slopes and on
other cold or poorly drained
soils; pure stands of white
spruce or mixed white spruce-
balsam poplar often occur along
streams; pure stands of paper
birch or aspen occur as succes-
sional stages following fire on
warmer well-drained soils.
Forests usually. dominated by
black spruce, sometimes in
extensive pure stands; succeS-
sional stages often present due
to fire; occurs on areas of
shallow peat, glacial deposits,
outwash plains, intermontane
basins, lowlands, and north-
facing slopes; stands often
underlain by permafrost;
organic layer often well-
developed.
Occurs as three subtypes;
coastal alder thickets are
found between beach and forest
along the southern coast of the
Alaska Peninsula and eas-tern
Cook Inlet; floodplain thickets
dominated by willow and alder
occur on alluvial deposits in
rivers and along meandering
streams; birch-alder-willow
thickets occur between treeline
and tundra, in avalanche paths,
and old forest burn areas in
interior Alaska.
Vegetation Class
Low Brush, Muskeg-Bog
Moist Tundra
Wet Tundra
Alpine Tundra
3-29
Table 3-1. (Continued)
Important Species
Black spruce
Sedges (Carex spp.)
Mosses (sphagnum and others)
Cottongrasses (Eriophorum spp.)
Bog rosemary (Andromeda polifolia)
Resin birch
Dwarf Arctic birch (Betula nana)
Labrador tea (Ledum groenlandieum)
Wi 11 ows
Bog cranberry (Oxvcoccus microcarpus)
Blueberries (Vaccinium spp.)
Crowberry (Empetrum nigrum)
Cottongrass
Polar grass (Arctagrostis latifolia)
Bluejoint (Calamagrostis canadensis)
Sedges
Dwarf Arctic birch
Resin birch
Willows
Labrador tea
Blueberries
Bearberry (Arctostaphylos spp.)
Crowberry
Bog cranberry
Cottongrass
Sedges
Rushes (Juncus spp.)
Willows---
Dwarf Arctic birch
Labrador tea
Mountain cranberry (Vaccinium
vitis-idaea)
Mountain avens (Dryas spp.)
Moss campion (Silene acaulis)
Cassiopes (Cas~spp.)
Dwarf arctic birch
Crowberry
Labrador tea
Alpine bearberry (Arctostaphylos
alpina)
Bog b 1 ueberry (Vacci ni urn ul i gino sum)
Mountain heather (Phyllodoce spp.)
Willows
Alpine azalea (Loiseleuria procumbens)
Source: Based on Selkregg (1974, 1977) and Neiland and Viereck (1977).
Description
Muskeg-bogs usually consist of
a thick mat of mosses, sedges,
lichens, and dwarf shrubs;
shrubs dominate exposed and
drier sites, and mosses and
herbaceous species dominate
waterlogged areas; coastal
muskegs found in wet, flat
basins on the Kenai Peninsula
and bordering upper Cook Inlet
often have conifers (western
hemlock and Alaska cedar)
scattered over drier areas;
interior bogs often occur where
conditions are too wet for
trees, although scattered black
spruce do occur on drier areas;
string bogs have unevenly
spaced string-like ridges that
are often too wet for shrubs.
Community composition varies
from almost continuous cotton-
grass tussocks with sparse
growth of sedges and dwarf
shrubs to stands in which dwarf
shrubs are dominant and
tussocks are scarce or absent.
Dominant species are sedges and
cottongrass, which usually
occur in a mat rather than in
tussocks; woody and herbaceous
species are infrequent and
occur above the water table;
found in low, flat areas where
soils are wet and shallow lakes
are common.
Most common on ridges, rubble
slopes, and other shallow, dry
and porous soils in mountains
at elevations between 2,000 and
4,000 ft (600 to 1,200 m);
vegetation is sparse and only a
few inches high; plant associa-
tions vary, but mountain avens
and lichens usually dominate;
associated herbs, grasses, and
sedges occur as low mats.
:!
' ' ,,
''1'1
, , I
I ,
'' '
11,
't ,JI'
I
l
' ,,
il
3-30
Table 3-2. Viereck and Dyrness (1980) Vegetation Types Most Likely to
Occur within the Vegetation Classes Delineated in Figure 3-16
Vegetation Classt 1
Coastal western hemlock-Sitka
spruce forest
Bottomland spruce-poplar forest
Upland spruce-hardwood forest
Lowland spruce-hardwood forest
High brush
Low brush, muskeg bog
Moist tundra
Wet tundr~
Alpine tundra
Vegetation Typest 2
N.A.t 3
Balsam poplar forest, white spruce
forest, mixed forest, tall shrubland,
herbaceous
White spruce forest, black spruce forest,
birch forest, aspen forest, mixed forest,
low shrubland, tall shrubland
Black spruce forest, low shrubland
Tall shrubland, low shrubland
Low shrubland, black spruce forest, wet
sedge-grass tundra
Mat and cushion tundra, mesic sedge-grass
tundra, low shrubland
Wet sedge-grass tundra
Alpine herbaceous tundra, mat and cushion
tundra, mesic sedge-grass tundra
t 1 Classification system used in Figure 3-16 and described in Table 3-1.
Based on Selkregg (1974, 1977) and Neiland and Viereck (1977).
t 2 Viereck and Dyrness (1980) vegetation types and subtypes identified in
Table J-3 and described in Section J.1.2.1 of Appendix J.
t 3 N.A. = Not applicable. Coastal forests did not occur within Susitna Basin
or transmission corridor study area.
Source: Based on Selkregg (1974, 1977); Neiland and Viereck (1977); and Viereck
and Dyrness (1980).
Almost all of the area occupied by the proposed Devil Canyon dam site and impoundment (Fig. 3-16
and Fig. J-2 of App. J) is forested, and almost 50% of the forests are m1xed conlfer-deciduous
types. Other significant forest types found in the area include paper birch, black spruce, and
white spruce forests. The sites of the proposed construction camp and village (App. J, Fig. J-2)
and over 75% of proposed borrow site K (Fig. 2-6),would be located in mixed conifer-deciduous
forest. Proposed borrow site G (Fig. 2-6) is relatively small and has stands of black spruce,
mixed conifer-deciduous forest, and tall shrubland characterized by alder.
The proposed access routes (Fig. 2-11), because of their lengths and varied elevations, would
cross a variety of vegetation types. The proposed Denali Highway-to-Watana access route would
cross mostly low shrubland, as well as smaller areas of mat and cushion tundra and both mesic
and wet sedge-grass tundra types. The tundra types generally occur at the higher elevations.
The proposed Watana-to-Devil Canyon access route would traverse mostly shrublands (both low and
tall types) and various tundra types, but it also would cross forested areas (mostly mixed
conifer-deciduous and white spruce types) near Tsusena Creek and the Susitna River. From Devil
Canyon to Gold Creek, mixed conifer-deciduous forest is the predominant vegetation type that
would be crossed by the proposed rail access. The proposed Dams-to-Gold Creek power transmis-
sion corridor (Fig. 2-7) would follow a route similar to that of the proposed Watana/Devil
Canyon/Gold Creek access routes and, thus would cross similar vegetation types.
Below the proposed Devil Canyon dam site, plant communities occurring in the Susitna River
~ floodplain constitute the vegetation most likely to be affected by the proposed project. These
·communities appear to be part of the floodplain successional sequence described by Van Cleve and
~~J,-~ Viereck (1981) (see App. J, Sec. J.1.2.2). Briefly, pioneer communities consisting of herbaceous
and shrub species are replaced by communities dominated first by alder and then by balsam poplar.
Finally, the oldest, most stable areas are covered by mixed conifer-deciduous (white spruce-
paper birch) forest. Through physical disturbance--such as ice processes (especially during
freezeup and breakup), flood1ng events, and banK erosion and sediment deposition during the open
water period--later seral stages may be replaced by earlier seral stages. Thus, vegetation
development in a given area may not proceed directly through the entire successional sequence.
3-31
The proposed power transmission route from Fairbanks to Anchorage (Fig. 2-7) crosses a wide
variety of vegetation types. Forests (predominately spruce types) cover over 75% of the pro-
posed Healy-to-Fairbanks segment. Most of the rest of this segment is covered by low shrubland
and wet sedge-grass types. The southern two-thirds of the proposed Healy-to-Willow segment is
primarily forested with white spruce-paper birch forests on the drier sites and white spruce-
balsam poplar types in forested floodplain areas. Black spruce forests are found in poorly
drained areas. The northern one-third of this segment would cross mostly shrubland, sparsely
wooded areas, and tundra types. The proposed Will ow-to-Anchorage segment is about two-thirds
forested, with mixed conifer-deciduous and spruce forests being the predominant types. Wet
sedge-grass tundra (marsh) is the other major vegetation type, covering about one-fourth of the
segment.
Within the upper and middle Susitna Basin, wetlands include riparian zones, ponds, and lakes on
upland plateaus, and areas with wet or poorly drained soils supporting communities such as wet
sedge-grass tundra, low shrubland, or black spruce forest. Wetland areas that have been identi-
fied within the upper and middle Susitna Basin near the proposed project features include upper
Brushkana and Tsusena creeks, the area between lower Deadman and Tsusena creeks, the Fog Lakes
area, and the areas around Stephan Lake and Prairie Creek, Swimming Bear Lake, and Jack Long
Creek (Fig. 3-17). There are also large numbers of lakes in the extensive flat areas of the
upper and middle Susitna Basin, such as those in the vicinity of Lake Louise (Exhibit E, Vol. 6A,
Chap. 3, p. E-3-223). Along the lower Susitna River floodplain, herbaceous pioneer communities
as well as most of the areas in the immediate floodplain that are dominated by alder and willow
can probably be classified as wetlands. However, communities dominated by white spruce-paper
birch are not likely to be wetlands. Within the proposed Fairbanks-to-Anchorage power trans-
mission corridor, wetlands supporting wet sedge-grass, spruce forest, and low ·shrub communities
are known to occur (App. J, Sees. J.1.2.1.5, J.1.2.2.4, and J.1.2.3.4).
3.1.5.2 Animal Communities
The project area supports a diversity of wildlife species typical of Southcentral Alaskan eco-
systems (Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game, 1973, 1978; Selkregg, 1974, 1977). These species include
big game, furbearers, raptors, waterbirds, and a variety of small game and non-game birds and
mammals. Because of the diversity and abundance of wildlife associ a ted with the project, the
following discussion cannot cover each wildlife species in depth. Therefore, emphasis has been
given to: (1) species that would receive the greatest impact, (2) life history characteristics
that would likely be affected, and (3) taxa considered important because of their value as game
or furbearers, recreational interest, or high public interest.
Moose: Moose (Alces alces) are the most important big game species throughout the project area.
In the upper and middle Susitna Basin, moose densities range from about 2 to 4/mi 2 (0.8 to
l. 5/km 2 ) from Devil Creek to Deadman Creek and from Butte Creek to the upper reaches of the
Oshetna River (App. K, Fig. K-2). Along the lower Susitna River, peak densities ranged from 3.5
to 10/mi' (l. 5 to 4/km 2 ). Although moose range through all habitat types of the project area,
riparian or lowland forest habitat near the river is preferred during the important overwintering
and calving stages. Particularly important overwintering habitat likely occurs in the projected
impoundment zones (App. K, Fig. K-5).
Downstream from Devil Canyon, riverine islands afford habitat for calving and rearing that is
relatively isolated from predators and high in browse availability.
The seasonal changes in browse availability necessitate movement by large numbers of moose. The
major moose migratory paths are east of Deadman Creek (App. K, Fig. K-1). Local movements of
moose frequently entail crossing the Susitna River in the vicinity of the proposed impoundments.
These movements have tended to be concentrated along the river from Fog Creek to opposite Stephan
Lake, Deadman Creek to 5 mi (8 km) upstream, Watana to Jay Creeks, and from Goose· Creek to
Clearwater Creek. Along the lower Susitna River, movement to and from the river necessitates
crossing the proposed transmission line route. Dispersal of moose from the mainstem of the
Susitna River may be an important source of recruitment into more peripheral populations.
Barren-Ground Caribou: Caribou (Rangi fer tarandus) are most characteristic· of open tundra and
shrubland habitats. Thus, in the project area, caribou are most abundant in the upland areas of
the upper and middle basin and from Cantwell to Nenana along the proposed transmission line
route. The Nelchina herd in the upper and middle basin comprises about 20,000 individuals
ranging over about 20,000 mi 2 (50,000 km 2 ). During most of the year, caribou concentrations are
removed from the principal project area (App. K, Figs. K-6 to K-8). However, during the summer,
a few bull caribou may use habitat in the proposed project area. The major paths of caribou
movement are southeast of the major project features, although some caribou may travel along the
river during movement from wintering to calving range. Bull caribou dispersing to summer range
north of the Susitna River may also cross the river in the projected area· of impoundment.
Movement from calving/summer range in the Chulitna Mountains to wintering range near Monahan
Flat requires crossing the proposed access route to the Watana sites (App. K, Fig. K-7). These
areas are used by a small (ca. 2,000 individuals) subherd of the Nelchina herd.
z
0
N
<D
150° w
3-32
-?,,_ ~
·~-1::.
~' ' ~~
,_<> Loke ;; Louise if' () ~
149° w 148° w 147° w
17 Miles
Figure 3-17. Locations of Creeks and Water Bodies in the Upper and Middle
Susitna Basin Around Which Wetlands Have Been Identified.
1
I
146° w
3-33
Dall 's Sheep: Dall's sheep (Ovis dalli) are typically found in rugged, upland areas and have a
restricted range in the project area (App. K, Fig. K-9). Only the range of the Watana Hills
population extends into areas of proposed project features. A mineral lick that receives exten-
sive use from April to June is located along Jay Creek. A portion of this lick is located
within the projected boundaries of the Watana impoundment. Mineral .licks are of great importance
as supplemental sources of mineral nutrients, especially sodium. Although other licks occur in
the range of the Watana Hills population, the Jay Creek lick appears to be very important because
it is heavily used even though it is below the extent of optimal sheep habitat and located away
from other areas of high concentrations of sheep.
Brown Bear: Although brown bear (Ursus arctos) use all the habitat types found in the project
area, they are most typical of open upland habitat such as found on the benches above the upper
and middle Sus itna River. Overwintering dens are frequently established in 1 oose soils on
slopes in upland habitat, through which the proposed access road to Watana would pass. After
emergence from the den, bear move to the lowland forest along the river to take advantage of
early spring plant growth and moose concentrations (App. K, Table K-3). Moose and caribou are
the main prey of this highly carnivorous bear. In early to late summer, some bear move into the
upland shrub and tundra areas to feed on the summer berry crop. During July and August, many
bear move to salmon spawning areas, apparently in order to fish. Concentrations of 30 to 40 bear
may be found along Prairie Creek during salmon spawning. Bear also move into the area of spawn-
ing sloughs downstream of Devil Canyon and along Portage Creek. Directional movements to areas
of food concentration may be in excess of 30 mi (50 km), and may involve crossing the mainstem
of the Susitna River.
Black Bear: Black bear (Ursus americanus) range throughout the project area; however, in the
upper and middle Susitna Basin, suitable lowland forest habitat is restricted in extent to the
Susitna River and principal tributaries (App. K, Fig. K-10). Farther downstream, black bear
habitat is more extensive. In the area of the proposed impoundments, black bear overwintered in
dens in the forests along the river at elevations averaging 2,000 ft (600 m) mean sea level
(MSL). About 55% of the known dens are within the projected boundaries of the proposed impound-
ment. Because about 50% of the dens were reused, it appears 1 ike ly that denni ng habitat is
limited in the upper and middle Susitna Basin. After emergence from dens, black bear feed on
the new spring plant growth and also use moose carrion or prey to a lesser extent. In early
summer, black bear tend to move to shrublands adjacent to the lowland forests to feed upon the
ripening beny crop (App. K, Table K-4). As with brown bear, some black bear move to salmon
spawning areas in order to exploit the fisheries resource. As brown bear become less common
downstream, black bear more commonly frequent the spawning areas. Movements in response to food
availability frequently necessitated crossing the Susitna River in the projected impoundment
zones.
Gray Wolf: Gray wolf (Canis lupus) range throughout much of the project area, being most abundant
in areas away from human development. The principal habitat features determining wolf presence
are prey distribution and abundance. Moose, caribou, and a variety of small birds and mammals
are the chief components of wolf diets in the region. There are about 13 known or suspected
groups or packs of 2 to 15 individual wolf each in the upper and middle Susitna Basin. From
19BO to 1982, from 20 to 50 individual wolf ranged through the basin, although only two or
three packs ranged over the project area itself. Wolf play a minor role in limiting numbers of
moose in the basin, but are probably a principal factor, along with hunting, in limiting caribou
numbers.
Furbearers: Habitat for aquatic furbearers is limited in the projected impoundment zones because
of the fast and fluctuating flows along the Susitna River and the lower reaches of its tribu-
taries. In the middle reaches of Deadman Creek, one active beaver lodge per stream mile (0.5/km)
was observed in 1982; higher densities were found in the upper, more marshy reaches. Muskrat
sign was found along some of the lakes above the river. Pine marten were the most abundant
terrestrial furbearers, averaging about 2/mi 2 (5/km 2 ) along the river from Deadman to Watana
creeks. Most marten sign was in spruce forest below 3,300 ft (1,000 m) MSL. Other furbearers
found in the proposed project area include wolverine, red fox, river otter, mink, lynx, and
weasel.
Raptors and Ravens: Many rap tors or birds-of-prey range through the project area, i ncl udi ng
golden eagle, bald eagle, gyrfalcon, goshawk, and raven, a functional raptor. Cliffs along the
Sus itna River offer some of the ·major cliff-nesting habitat of high qua 1 ity in Southcentra 1
Alaska. In the ·~pper arid middle Susitna Basin, -21 raven, 16 golden eagle, 3 gyrfalcon, and
1 bald eagle cliff-nesting locations are known to exist. Known tree-nesting locations in the
basin are less common and include 7 bald eagle and 3 goshawk locations. A number of these
nesting locations are situated in areas that might be affected by project features.
Waterbirds: Waterbirds do not make extensive use of the aquatic habitats availab_le in the upper
and m1ddle Susitna Basin. However, along the lower Susitna Basin, habitat for an abundance of
waterbirds exists. High densities of waterbirds exist in the Susitna Flats Game Refuge, through
which the proposed transmission line route would pass. These coastal wetlands support on the
ii,il'
I' I'
II
i:,:j
I ~~~· .•.. 1
! '
·I
1,
'I
'' ,, ' ',I
i.l' 'i
1:1
:' '"
3-34
order of 200-600 ducks/mi 2 (80-230/km 2), 20-100 geese/mi 2 (10-40/km2), and 60-300 shorebirds/mi 2
(20-100/km 2). The area is used extensively for waterfowl hunting. Trumpeter swan nesting and
summering areas occur along the proposed transmission line route from Cook Inlet to Nenana.
Breeding habitat for trumpeter swans in Alaska generally consists of water bodies with stable
water levels and dense stands of emergent vegetation. In the upper and middle basin, most
suitable trumpeter swan habitat is located to the south and east of the proposed project features.
Other Birds and Mammals: A large variety of small birds and mammals range through the habitats
of Southcentral Alaska. Many of these form the prey base for the smaller predators, such as
pine marten, red fox, and several of the raptors. Although some species can be found in a
variety of habitats, others are more restricted in their use of habitat. For example, ptarmigans,
Bairct•s sandpiper, Lapland longspur, Arctic ground squirrel, and hoary marmot are characteristic
inhabitants of open tundra or shrubland habitat; woodpeckers, black-capped chickadee, brown
creeper, red squirrel, and porcupine are more restricted to forest habitat. Forest and woodland
habitats support the most diverse and abundant faunas, whereas alpine tundra supports the least
diverse and abundant faunas.
3.1.6 Threatened and Endangered Species
At present no plant species known to occur in Alaska have been officially listed as threatened
or endangered by Federal or state authorities. There are, however, 30 plant taxa under review
for possible protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. To date, none of
the candidate taxa under review has been found in any of th.e areas that would be affected by the
proposed Susitna project.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Alaska Department of Fish and Game list only four taxa of
wildlife as threatened or endangered in Alaska. Of these, only the American peregrine falcon
(Falco peregrinus anatum) ranges over the area of the proposed project and transmission facili-
ties. Both Federal and state wildlife authorities list the American peregrine falcon as endan-
gered. Peregrine nest in cliff ledges associated with waterbird habitat. Their principal foods
are waterbirds and other birds. No peregrine falcon has been observed during recent surveys in
the vicinity of the proposed dams, reservoirs, and access routes, although peregrine occasionally
have been observed in the area in the past. In general, this area is not considered to be of
high quality as peregrine breeding habitat. However, prime peregrine habitat is located along
the Tanana River upstream from the town of Nenana. Six known historical nesting locations are
situated within 1 to 5 mi (2 to 8 km) of the proposed transmission line in this area.
3.1. 7 Recreation Resources
The proposed Watana and Devil Canyon dam sites and project access routes are located in a remote
area of limited accessibility, and no public agencies currently provide sites or facilities that
contribute to an organized outdoor recreation program. Local recreation acti viti es consist
primarily of hunting and fishing, and, to a lesser extent, trail-related recreation.
Developed recreation sites in the project area are privately owned lodges and isolated cabins.
The largest of the three lodge complexes in the area is the Stephan Lake Lodge (17 structures),
which is located 14 mi (23 km) southwest of the proposed Watana dam site (Terrestrial Environ-
mental Specialists, 1982a). High Lake Lodge (ll structures) is located 6 mi (10 km) northeast
of the proposed Devil Canyon dam site. The Tsusena Lake Lodge (3 structures) is 8 mi (13 km)
north of the Watana dam site. The principal mode of access to the lodges is via float plane.
These lodges are primarily base facilities for hunting and fishing. Opportunities for sport
fishing are abundant in the area. Both sport and trophy hunting occur; favored species are
Da 11 1 s sheep, moose, caribou, and b 1 ack and brown bears. The 1 odges a 1 so accommodate river
travelers and overland trail users.
Individually owned cabins are located in clusters around lakes, as well as in relatively remote
areas. These structures are used for a variety of activities, but about 50 units have been
identified as providing shelter specifically for supporting hunting and fishing activities
(Exhibit E, Vol. 8, Chap. 9, Table E.9.5).
The existing network of overland travel corridors in the immediate project area was built
primarily for access by miners, trappers, hunters, and fishermen. Summary information relative
to the various trails is presented in Table 3-3, and general locations are shown in Figures 3-18
and 3-19. The various roads and trails provide opportunities for such activities as hiking,
snowmobiling, and off-road-vehicle pleasure driving. Local waterways also constitute important
recreation travel corridors. The Stephan Lake-Prairie Creek-Talkeetna River corridor is a
commonly used river-running route, and the Susitna River-Denali Highway junction is a popular
access point for river recreation. From this launch point, river travelers follow the Susitna
River downstream to upper Vee Canyon and portage to Clarence Lake, or divert from the Susitna
and power upstream on the Tyone River to Lake Louise. Natural features of the Susitna River
that also contribute to river recreation include the Vee Canyon and Devil Canyon rapids, which
are significant white-water resources. The latter is generally considered to be Class VI waters,
Table 3-3. Existing Trails in the Susitna Project Recreation Study Areat 1
Trail type
1.
2.
caCORV •
Cat, ORV
3. Cat
4. Packhorse, 01 d
Sled Road
5. ATV
6. Snodgrass Lake
Trail
7. Portage Creek
Trail
8. Susitna River
Trail
9. Talkeetna Trails
10. Stephan Lake
Trail
11. Big Lake Trail
12. Butte Creek Trail
13. Byers Lake Trail
14~ Little Coal CreeK
15. Curry Ridge Trail
Beginning
Gold Creek
Gold Creek
Alaska Railroad
mile 232
Chunilna
Denali Highway
Denali Highway
Chunil na
Near Cantwell
Middle
Ridge top west
of VABM Clear
Portage Creek
Butte Lake
End
Devil Canyon
Confluence of
John & Chuni l na
Creeks
Chunilna Creek
Mermaid Lake
Tsusena Lake
Snodgrass Lake
Portage Creek
To Maclaren
River
Random throughout the southern area of the study area
Susitna River Stephan Lake
Denali Highway Near
Butte Lake
Denali Highway near the
Susitna Bridge
Byers Lake
Parks Highway
Park Highway at Little
Coal Creek
Big Deadman
Lakes
Butte Creek
drainage
same (loop)
Curry Ridge
Parks Highway at
Troublesome
Creek Crossing
t' Existing trails are shown in Figure 3-18.
Source: Modified from Exhibit E, Vol. 8, Chap. 7, Table E. 7.6.
Years Used
1950s -present
1961 -present
1957 -present
1920s -present
1950s -present
Use
Foot, snowmobile,
skis
Sled road
foot use w
' w
Dry, snowmobiles "' and foot
Unknown
Best portaging
Biking & off-road
vehicles
Off-road vehicles
& hiking
Hiking
Hiking
Hiking; to be built
in 1983
0 4 8 MILES
SCALE
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)]
w
I w
O"l
l
3-37
RECREATION ACTIVITIES:
u HIKING u CROSS COUNTRY SKIING II DOG SLEDDING
II BOATING ~ ROCK HUNTING
~ CAMPING =a SNOW MACHINING
II HUNTING ~ SNOWSHOEING .
= FISHING [1!: MOUNTAlNEERING
m FLYING II OFF-ROAD DRIVING
t:l BIRD WATCHING c; HORSEBACK RIDING
WILDLIFE CONCENTRATIONS:
OMOOSE 0 SHEEP
OcARIBou 0 WATER FOWL
LANDSCAPE FEATURES:
II I II
WATERWAYS
RAILROADS
EXISTING ROADS
PROPOSED ROADS
---TRAILS
-·-SUSITNA WATERSHED BOUNDARY
---PROPOSED TRANSMISSION LINES
•--• LIMITS OF RECREATION STUDY
-~~-PARK BOUNDARIES
NOTE: SEE TABLE E.i!,l;l FOR SPECIFIC
TRAIL DATA. ·~
•••••••
• •
1f•
* ...
4
11111111111
~ BERRY PICKING
~ TAKE -OUT POINT
~ PUT-IN POINT
Cl PHOTOGRAPHY
II SHELTER
0 BROWN BEAR
~ BLACK BEAR
PORTAGE TRAIL
TOWNS
STRUCTURES
BUILDING CLUSTERS
HIGH POINTS
MINOR VIEWS
MAJOR VIEWS
SIGNIFICANT LANDSCAPE SETTINGS
RECREATION LEGEND
Figure 3-19. Legend for Figure 3-18. (See Table 3-3 for
specific trail data.)
3-38
based on the international scale of white-water classifications (Exhibit E, Vol. 8, Chap. 7,
Sec. 3.1. 2).
The major recreation resource areas adjacent to proposed project boundaries are the Denali
National Park and Preserve and Denali State Park. At nearest distance, the state park is within
10 mi (16 km) of the Devil Canyon project boundary. Encompassing 324,000 acres [131,000 hectares
(ha)], Denali State Park abuts the Denali National Park and Preserve at both the western and
northern boundaries. The vast Denali National Park and Preserve comprises 6.03 million acres
(2.44 million ha), about 31% of which is designated wilderness area (National Park Service,
1982). Denali National Park is the most popular recreation resource area in the region, with
over 250,000 visitations reported in 1981. Other public recreation areas adjacent to the project
area include several sites along the Denali Highway. The principal site adjacent to the project
area is the Brushkana Campground, comprised of 31 campsites. The campground is administered by
the U.S. Bureau of Land Management.
Various private establishments located along the Parks Highway and Alaska Railroad also con-
tribute to available recreation opportunities. Some examples include lodges, campgrounds,
recreation outfitters, and tour guide services. Several private recreation-related developments
also occur along the Denali Highway.
Recreation use in the area that would be traversed by the proposed Dams-to-Gold Creek trans-
mission line (Fig. 2-7) is typified by low-density dispersed recreation activities; primarily
hunting and fishing. The 37-mi (60-km) Watana-to-Gold Creek transmission line right-of-way
would pass within 2 mi (3.2 km) of the High Lake Lodge complex, the only developed facilities in
proximity to the proposed lines. The proposed corridor would intersect Tsusena Creek and the
Susitna River, which are used for sport fishing and other water-based recreation activities.
Several recreation trails also would be intersected and/or paralleled, primarily in the Gold
Creek area.
The proposed Gold Creek-to-Fairbanks transmission line would bypass a few isolated residential/
recreation cabins, but no major private or dedicated recreation resource areas or facilities
occur along the corridor. A few recreation trails, unimproved roads, and secondary highways, as
well as major tourist routes, would variously parallel and/or intersect the right-of-way. The
Parks Highway would be intersected at three locations, the Alaska Railroad at two locations, and
the Denali Highway near Cantwell (Exhibit G, Vol. 4, Plates G30-G52). Intersected river corridors
would include the Nenana (three locations), Susitna, and Tanana, which are particularly important
sources of recreation opportunities. Four other rivers also would be crossed.
The Gold Creek-to-Anchorage segment of the proposed transmission system would extend through the
Susitna Flats State Game Refuge for about 5 mi (8 km), and traverse a proposed expansion of the'
Willow Creek State Recreation Area (Park Planning Section, 1983). Compared to the isolated
developments along most of the corridor, residential/recreational cabins and recreation trails
are of relatively common occurrence in the area to the southwest of Willow and in the vicinity
and south of the Nancy Lakes area. Major tourist routes that would intersect the transmission
line include the Alaska Railroad and the Glenn and Davis Highways. Intersected major river
recreation corridors would include the Little Susitna, Kashwitna, and Talkeetna rivers.
3.1.8 Socioeconomic Factors
With the exception of a portion of the transmission line route, the proposed Susitna project
would be located entirely in the Matanuska-Susitna (Mat-Su) Borough of Alaska (Fig. 3-20). Only
a few isolated residences exist within or near the proposed project boundaries, but many com-
munities in the Mat-Su Borough and elsewhere outside project boundaries might be affected as
project workers and their families are likely to maintain residences in these larger, more
established communities. The socioeconomic environment is the same for the proposed dams,
onsite structures, access routes, and transmission line routes.
3.1.8.1 Population
Development of numerous large-scale projects in Alaska led to a 32% increase in the population
of the state between 1970 and 1980 (from 302,361 to 400,481) (Table 3-4). Over this same period
population of the Mat-Su Borough grew at even a greater rate--173% (from 6,509 to 17,816 people).
This growth was primarily in unincorporated areas, chiefly in the southern part of the borough.
Estimates of 1980 population by borough administrators are even higher, about 22,000. Cantwell,
Healy, Nenana, and Paxson currently have small populations. The population of Cantwell rose by
about 44% between 1970 and 1980. Healy, Nenana, Anchorage, and Fairbanks also grew considerably
in the 1970s. Anchorage and Fairbanks populations are expected to increase by about 65% and
50%, respectively, by 2010. No projections have been made for nearby Yukon-Koyukuk Borough
communities or Paxson.
About 95% of the Mat-Su Borough population is white and another 2% is American Indian (Natives).
In Cantwell, the percentage of Natives is probably about half, but exact figures are not available.
r
z
0
C'l
C.D
z
z
0
'<:t
C.D
z
......
... ··············
'"-·
--_ ...
........•.. ------------···········-········
••• ···yl'
7
I
~
~ANCHORAGE
3-39
...
.... .. ,,
\ ·· .. ·· ....
. .... ......
....... ···· ...... ··· :······
.................................... ,.
I
I ~
' I
I
I
I
' \
I ...
I
\ ', ... \ ___ .,. J''-' ,___ .
Paxson 1
\
I
I
\
\
I
\
' I
' r I I
\ I --~········T· I
• I I : ' ... ,.. ______ ._~
~ I .,.: __ .J_, J ....
I • ,-' .
....... .................. _____ .. ______ ... ____ .
40 Miles
Figure ~-20. Map of the Location of Susitna Hydropower Project Structures
and Features of the Socioeconomic Environment.
Table 3-4. Baseline Population Projections, 1970-2010
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Political
Subdivision
Matanusl:.a-Susitna Borough
Talkeetna
Trapper Creek
Willow
Houston
Wasilla
Palmer
Big Lake
Other
Total Borough
Paxson
Yukon-Koyukuk Borough
Cantwellts
182
NA
38
69
300
1,140
36
4,818
6,509
1981
640t3
225t3
139t4
600t3
2 ,16Bta
2 ,567t3
410t4
16,0BSta
22 ,28St4
Unknown, very small
62
79
B9t4
(19BO)
334t4
(1980)
Appl i-Appl i-Appl i-Appl i-Appli-
ISERtz cantt3 ISERt2 cantt3 ISERt 2 cantta ISERf2 cantt3 ISERt2 cantt3 ISERt 2
623 780
215 263
129 NA
580 878
2,082 2,895
2,469 3,302
386 NA
15,498 23,084
21,466 31,202
700 1,000
241 320
145 NA
652 1,415
2,342 4,157
2,776 4,525
434 NA
17,430 31,547
24,142 42,964
Projections not made
97 107
425 470
726 1,2B1
250 390
150 NA
676 2,278
2,42B 5,967
2,878 5,374
451 NA
18,072 39,317
25' 030 54' 607
117
519
741 1,642
255 474
153 NA
690 3,669
2,479 8,474
2,938 6,383
460 NA
18.449 48' 692
25' 553 69.334
128
573
779 2,106
269 577
161 NA
726 5,909
2,607 12,053
3,091 7,581
484 NA
19,405 59,843
26,877 88,069
143
632
834
288
173
777
2, 791
3,309
518
20,777
28,777
Appl i-
cantt3
158
698
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NenanatG 362 470t4
(19BO)
529 613 710 823 929 1,077
Total Borough
Municipality of
Anchoraget7
4,752 7 ,69lt4
(19BO)
126. 3B5 1B7. 761
NA
200,91B
Anchorage Census Division 124,542 173,017t2 197,B29
(includes Greater
Anchorage Area Borough)
Fairbanks Census Division 45,B64 57 ,366t2 63,561
NA . 21B,123
NA 70,060
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.
NA
NA
NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA
NA 234,393 NA 246,390 NA 264,329 NA 287,865 NA
NA 74,043 NA 76,743 NA 81,536 NA 87,959 NA
t 2 Projections of Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER), University of Alaska, as in Reeder et al. (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: Because 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
1 ocat ions, commercia 1 deve 1 opment, avail abi 1 i ty of housing and community services. Lacking this information, the assumption of constant di stri but ion
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).
ts 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).
w
I ...
0
3-41
Because uncertainty exists about the speed at which growth may occur in the Mat-Su Borough,
three sets of baseline projections of population growth are used in this document, one set much
1 ower than the others (Tab 1 e 3-4). The Applicant's projections show a nearly 300% increase in
total Mat-Su Borough population by the year 2005, the anticipated end of project construction.
Projections made more recently by the Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER) at the
University of Alaska show an increase of only about 20% by 2005. Projections made by the Mat-Su
Borough Planning Department show an increase of about 200% in baseline growth by 2001 (Table 3-5).
These projections are also made by Planning Districts, which include the identified community
plus dispersed population on land around the community. Thus, the allocations are similar to,
but not entirely comparable with, the other two projections. The ISER baseline projections and
Mat-Su Borough baseline projections have been used in this document for calculating capacities
of services.
3.1.8.2 Institutional Issues and Quality of Life
The cities of Anchorage, Fairbanks, Palmer, Wasilla, Houston, and Nenana, and the Mat-Su Borough
are the only incorporated government entities in the study area. Incorporated po 1 iti ca 1 units
in general have powers to levy taxes and provide and maintain many community services. No
formal regional or local forms of government exist in the Yukon-Koyukuk Borough. Native organi-
zations have jurisdiction over much of the land in the area. The Ahtna Corporation, a Native
Alaskan organization, administers Native financial concerns in Cantwell, and other Native corpora-
tions have jurisdiction over Paxson, Nenana, and other land in the region of the proposed project.
In general, non-Native residents value the isolated, rural settings and the scenic wilderness.
Because employment opportunities are limited and tourism is not well-developed, residents are
often willing to accept a self-sufficient existence or live on low incomes in order to remain in
the setting. Native corporations have a generally positive attitude toward further development.
Leg a 1 and cultura 1 conflicts exist in the Susitna Basin area among those who claim subsistence
uses (hunting and fishing for rural custom and traditional uses) of the lands, others competing
for the same harvests, and government agencies that must interpret and enforce Alaska•s sub-
sistence 1 aws (Associ a ted Press, 1983; U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 1982). Subsistence
activities are protected by law for a particular population of Alaskans, and such activities
remain an important aspect of the economy and culture of rural Native communities and of indi-
viduals who reside in remote areas. Subsistence users may rely on subsistence activities for a
majority of their sustenance needs or may use them to supplement their food and material supplies
and cash income.
3.1.8.3 Economy and Employment
Economic activity of Mat-Su Borough is centered primarily in the southern part of the borough,
in and around the communities of Palmer, Wasilla, Houston, Big Lake, and Willow. In general,
the economy of the Railbelt (which encompasses the communities along the Alaska Railroad and
Parks Highway between Anchorage and Fairbanks) is undeveloped, with the exception of some
tourist-related commerce along the Parks Highway. Construction and retail sales have the largest
receipts in Mat-Su Borough. Government is the major· employer in Mat-Su and Yukon-Koyukuk boroughs
(App. N, Table N-4). Additionally, many employed residents of both boroughs (from 36% to 50% in
Mat-Su) work outside the boroughs in Anchorage, Fairbanks, or elsewhere (Ender, 1980; Commonwealth
Associates, 1982). Employment in both Fairbanks and Anchorage has been primarily in government:
25.1% and 35.8%, respectively, in 1982. Both cities have about 20% of their employment in each
of services and trade and 10% in construction. Commercial and sport fishing and hunting are
important industries in the Susitna Basin and in the Cook Inlet region. A 1980 study found that
11 Commercial fishermen received over $7 million from Susitna Basin fish 11 (Grogan, 1983:p. 4).
Employment and income in many regions of Alaska are highly dependent on state sources. On an
_institutional level, the state provides funds to finance energy development and community infra-
'structure to support population increases related to that development (Alaska Dept. of Commerce
and Economic Development, 1983:p. 111-12). It provides funding to aid boroughs in need of
services that cannot be provided with local tax income. Currently, the state provides about 85%
of the total Mat-Su Borough budget, when both shared revenue and grants are included (Campbell,
1983). Through the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation and the Division of Housing Assistance,
the state also buys mortgages made by private lending institutions. It has been estimated that
state spending has accounted for 84% of employment growth since 1978 and an average of about 31%
of wage and salct:ry income. In rural areas where subsistence activities may be the primary
source of liveli~ood, residents rely on public funds for about 45% to 50% of personal wage-and-
sa 1 ary income (Hoffman, 1983; Irvin, 1983; Darbyshire & Associates, 1980; Myers, undated).
Volatile unemployment rates, ranging from 7% to 19% in the project area between 1976 and 1981,
reflect the dependence of much of the Alaskan work force on temporary and seasonal large-scale
projects for employment (Table 3-6). Average per-capita personal income in Alaska in 1980 was
$12,759, which was 134% of the national average. Mat-Su Borough per-capita personal income was
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• 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. IV-18-IV-19, IV-21-IV-24. Figures were calculated by subtracting the Planning Depart-
ment's projections of "Susitna Hydro Impact Population Projections" (pp. IV-21 -IV-22) from total population projections.
3-43
Table 3-6. Total Labor Force and Unemployment Rates for Proposed Project
Area and Transmission Line Route, 1976 through 1981
1976
Total Labor Force
Employment
Unemployment Rate (%)
1977
Total Labor Force
Employment
Unemployment Rate (%)
1978
Total Labor Force
Emp 1 oyment
Unemployment Rate (%)
1979
Total Labor Force
Employment
Unemployment Rate (%)
1980
Total Labor Force
Employment
Une~~loyment Rate (%)
1981
Total Labor Force
Employment
Unemployment Rate (%)
Matanuska-
Susitna
Borough
5,495
4,683
14.8
6,345
5,341
15.8
6,891
5,591
18.9
9,194
7,869
14.4
9,125
7,723
15.4
9,362
8,167
12.8
Yukon-
Koyukuk
Borough
2,689
2,390
11.1
2,283
1,986
13.0
2,243
1,874
16.5
2,070
1,788
13.6
2,079
1,738
16.4
2,063
1,768
14.3
Political Subdivision
Anchorage
68,053
63,184
7.2
77,648
72,065
7.2
82,184
75,435
8.2
80,063
74,106
7.4
81,647
75,616
7.4
86,064
79,956
7.1
Fairbanks
24,789
22,917
7.6
21,924
19,046
13.1
21,817
17,967
17.6
20,916
18,221
12.9
20,488
17,982
12.2
20,813
18,288
12.1
Source: Alaska Department of Labor (1983), pp. 23-24.
State of
A 1 aska
164,000
150,000
8,5
172,000
156,000
9.3
181,000
161,000
11.0
183,000
166,000
9.3
187,000
169,000
9.6
192,000
174,000
9.4
$10,846; Yukon-Koyukuk Borough, $12,429; Anchorage, $14,266; and Fairbanks, $13,308 (Alaska
Dept. of Labor, 1983). However, when the high cost of living in Alaska is accounted for, the
average per-capita income is lower than the U.S. average per-capita income (0.86 of the U.S.
average in 1979) (Edgar et al., 1982:p. 46).
Native households are generally among the poorest in the state. In Anchorage in 1979, one-sixth
of a total of 12,000 families made less than $5,000; 73% of Native families were below the
median income for Anchorage families, and 21% were below the poverty level, as compared with
about 7% for Anc~orage overall (Yarzebinski, 1983:pp. 44-45, 49).
3.1.8.4 Housing\
Housing in Mat-Su Borough is a mixture of permanent year-round residences and recreational or
part-year residences. Cantwell, Healy, Nenana, Anchorage, and Fairbanks have fewer recreational
units than Mat-Su Borough communities. All the communities in the region have volatile housing
markets that follow the boom-and-bust cycles of the economy.
I'
'
3-44
Over 80% of residential housing stock in the area in 1979 was in single-family dwelling units,
about 10% was in mobile homes, and the remainder was in multi-family units. Few of these are
rental units (App. N, Table N-6). Vacancy rates range from 5% to 20%, depending on whether the
data include recreational, seasonally used units. Housing is being built rapidly in southern
Mat-Su Borough, Anchorage, and Fairbanks to meet the demand from the growing and mobile
population.
A total of 35 temporary living unit facilities, mostly lodges and cabins between Wasilla and
Healy, were counted in a survey by the Applicant (App. N, Table N-6). Three of these are identi-
fied as being in the project vicinity; others are available along major highways in the project
area. Capacity of these facilities is not known. Many of these temporary lodging facilities
are open only in the summer months. Most are in great demand by tourists, hunters, and fishermen,
are reserved in advance, and are filled, particularly on summer weekends.
Baseline projections of the number of households that would be needed in the study area through
2010 according to the lowest (ISER) and highest (Applicant) population projections are shown in
Table 3-7. There would be a 300% increase in Mat-Su Borough housing needs under the Applicant's
projections, but only a 20% increase in needs under 1983 ISER projections. Anchorage would need
about 65% more housing units, and Fairbanks about 50% more.
3.1.8.5 Community Services and Fiscal Status
Most community services in Mat-Su Borough near proposed sites of project facilities are provided
and administered by the borough. The Yukon-Koyukuk Borough does not have these powers, so
Cantwell, Healy, and Nenana must provide their own services and facilities. Many of the services
in both boroughs are supported by state funds, as well as local community taxes. Anchorage and
Fairbanks provide all community services through muni cipa 1 systems. Avai 1 ab 1 e data on the
capacities of present and planned community services in the project area are shown in Table 3-8.
Years when capacities will be reached under all three baseline population projections are shown
in Tables 3-9 and 3-10. Based on the community service standards used to evaluate existing
capacities and using ISER and the Applicant's projections (Table 3-9), most services in communi-
ties in the project area should suffice to meet baseline needs through 2000. Exceptions are
fire and police services in the southern part of Mat-Su Borough and schools in Anchorage.
However, it cannot be estimated using projections by ISER and the Applicant if residents outside
community boundaries (the "Other" category in all tables) would be adequately served, as they
cannot be appropriately allocated on a community-by-community basis. Because Mat-Su Borough
Planning Department population projections are made by Planning Districts that include residents
outside community boundaries, Table 3-10 provides a more pessimistic picture and might be
considered a high-impact projection.
Major sources of revenue for the Mat-Su Borough and its communities are residential property
taxes, municipal assistance funds, and state and Federally shared funds. Total assessed value
of all land, businesses, and homes rose 19.2% between 1982 and 1983 assessments (Campbell,
1983). Most communities rely on borough and state funding. Cantwell and Healy both rely pri-
marily on state grants and on annual state-shared revenues. Some additional funding for community
services in Cantwell comes from per-capita grants via the Native village council. When short-
falls have occurred in borough budgets in the past, the state has contributed to the budget to
prevent deficits. As is the case in most rural areas, education is the largest expenditure in
borough budgets, followed by road maintenance.
3.1.8.6 Transportation
Besides having their own networks of streets, Fairbanks and Anchorage are junctions of major
road, air, and rail transportation routes for the region. Anchorage also has a ship port. Most
communities in the project area have airstrips for small aircraft. Major north-south roadways
traversing the region are the Parks Highway, which is the primary route between Anchorage and
Fairbanks, and the Richardson Highway, which lies east of the project site and connects Valdez
and Fairbanks. Both highways have excess capacity. The Denali Highway connects Cantwell on the
Parks Highway with Paxson on the Richardson Highway. The Alaska Railroad connects Anchorage and
Fairbanks. It serves some communities and residences without road access, carrying freight (at
an estimated 20% of capacity) and passengers (daily in the summer, twice per week in the winter).
3.1.8. 7 Human Use and Management of Wildlife Resources
A principal human use of the upper and middle Susitna Basin is the harvesting of big game and
furbearers. Wildlife harvesting is carried out for recreational, subsistence, and commercial
purposes. A secondary human use is nonconsumpt ive viewing of wi1 dl i fe, chiefly big game and
birds. Nonconsumptive use is generally restricted to the periphery of the affected project area
due to limited access. Access to the proposed project area is cu.-rently limited by the number
and qua 1 i ty of gt'ound transportation routes. The pri ncipa 1 modes of transport are air; off-
road, all-terrain vehicles; and a combination of highway and foot access. In addition, boat
access is available from Talkeetna to Devil Canyon and from Denali Highway to Vee Canyon.
Table 3-7. Baseline Projections of Number of Households, 1970-2010
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Political Appli-Appli-Appl ;-Appli-Appli-Appli-
Subdivision 1970t 1 1980t2 ISERt 2 cantt 3 JSERt 2 cantt3 ISERt 2 cantt3 JSERt 2 cantt3 ISERt 2 cantt3 ISERt 2 cantf3
Matanuska-SUh~i:tila Borough
Talkeetna 54 209 201 246 226 334 235 453 240 618 252 792 270 NA
Trapper Creek NA 74 7l 83 80 107 83 138 84 178 89 217 95 NA
Willow ll 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 ll 134 140 NA 158 NA 164 NA 167 NA 176 NA 188 NA
Other 1,417 5,257 5,063 7,277 5,695 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
Cantwell 16 20 31 34 37 40 45 50
Healy 20 105 134 148 163 180 199 219
Nenana 91 148 166 193 223 259 292 339
Total Borough 1,015 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 1 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 ISER 1s Anchorage projections.
w
' ...
tn
• •Ill 'I I:'
:il
II,
I .'1'
l11
!'I
I
3-46
Table 3-8. Existing or Planned Capacity (persons served) of
Community Services of Project-Area Communitiest 1
School st4
Secondary
Solid Wastetl Elementary (Jr/Sr) Hospital
Community Watert 1 Sewerst 1 Disposal (students) (students) Firet2 Policet 1 Facilities
Ta 1 keetna Individual Individua 1 Rely on borough 120(65) 180(122) 4500 Covered by None exist
sources septic landfills borough
tanks
Trapper Individual Individual Rely on borough 150t3 Attend in No Covered by None exist
Creek sources septic landfills other facilities borough
tanks communities
Houston Individual Individual Rely on borough 350(177) 300t3 1800-1920 Covered by None exist
sources septic landfills borough
tanks
Wasilla 4,400 Individual Rely on borough 1,170(959) 600/1,200 1800-1920 Covered by None exist
septic landfills (353/715) borough
tanks
Palmer 13,200 5,000 Rely on borough 950(754) 500/900 1800-1920 5,400 30,000
landfills (332/619)
Matanuska-NA NA 28,352 by 2009ts 3500 3700 NA 20,000 Provided '" Susitna Palmer
Borough
Anchoraget& 227,000 340,000 NA 29,700 12,090 140,000 168,000 NA
(21,090) (15,854) (4 hospitals,
709 beds; 5
long-term care
facilities, 266
beds; 1 psychi-
atric hosp1tal,
175 beds)
Fairbankst6 53,000 80,000 NA 8,850 6, 750 28,000 30,000 NA
(6,667) (4,341) (2 hospitals,
227 beds; 2
long-term care
facilities, 155
beds)
Cantwell Individual Individual Rely on private 60 3000 Covered by None exist
sources septic landfill state
tanks
NA"' Not applicable or not available.
t 1 Sources: OOWL Engineers (1983); Exhibit E, Vol. 7, Chap. 5, p. E5B-7; all numbers are calculated using standards from Stenehjem
and Metzger (1980).
t 2 Source: Frank Orth & Associates (1982); Exhibit E.
t 3 Planned or planned plus actual.
t 4 Existing enrollment, when avail ab 1 e, is inside parentheses. Sources: DOWL Engineers (1983), p. I II -48, and Ex hi bit E, Vol. 7,
Chap. 5, p. E5B-7.
ts Accumulated over time to total this population in year 2009, when landfill will reach capacity.
t 6 Division of Budget and Management 1982 school capacities calculated assuming 25 students per classroom.
Table 3-9. Year 0 When Community Service Needs Will Equal Existing or Planned Capacity in
Project-Area Communities Using ISER Population Projectionst 1
Schools
Solid Waste Secondary Hospital
Commiiiiity Water Sewers Disposal Elementary (Jr/Sr) Fire Police Facilities
Talkeetna Individual Individual Rely on borough 2010+ 2010+ 2010+ Covered by None exist
sources septic 1 andfi 11 s borough
tanks
Trapper Individual Individual Rely on borough 2010+ Attend in No· Covered by None exist
Creek sources septic 1 andfi 11 s other facilities borough
tanks communities
Houston Individual Individual Rely on borough 2010+ 2010+ 2010+ Covered by None exist
sources septic 1 andfi 11 s borough
tanks
Wasilla 2010+ Individual Rely on borough 2010+ 2010+/2010+ 1983 Covered by None exist
septic 1 andfi 11 s borough w
' tanks ..,. ...,
Palmer 2010+ 2010+ Rely on borough 2010+ 2010+/2010+ 1983 2010+ 2010+t 3
1 andfi 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
Fairbanks 1983 2004 NA 2010+ 2001 1983 1983 NA
Cantwell Individual Individual Rely on private 2010+ Covered by None exist
sources septic 1 andfi 11 s Unknown state
tanks
NA = Not applicable
t' Calcu·lated from Table 3-4, ISER projections, and Table 3-8.
t2 See comparable entry in Table 3-4.
t3 The Mat-Su Borough Planning Department estimated capacity would be reached in 1995 (DOWL Engineers, 1983).
Table 3-10. Years When Community Service
Community Water Sewers
Talkeetna Individual Individual
sources septic
tanks
Trapper Individual Individual
Creek sources septic
tanks
Houston Individual Individual
sources septic
tanks
Wasilla Serves Individual
community septic
only tanks
Palmer 2001+ 1983
Matanuska-NA NA
Susitna
Borough
NA = Not applicable
t 1 Calculated from Tables 3-5 and 3-8.
t 2 See comparable entry in Table 3-4.
Mat-Su Borough
Solid Waste
Disposal
Rely on borough
landfills
Rely on borough
land fills
Rely on borough
landfills
Rely on borough
landfills
Rely on borough
landfills
1985t 2
Needs Will Equal Existing or Planned Capacity Using
Population Projectionst 1
Schools
Secondary
Elementary (Jr/Sr) Fire Police
1985 1989 2001+ Covered by
borough
2001+ Attend in No Covered by
other facilities borough
communities
1983 1983 1983 Covered by
borough
1983 1983/1990 1983 Covered by
borough
1989 1990/2001+ 1983 1983
1987 1987 NA 1983
t 3 The Mat-Su Borough Planning Department estimated capacity would be reached in 1995 (DOWL Engineers, 1983).
Hospital
Facilities
None.exist
None exist
None exist
None exist
1985+t 3
Provided
in Palmer
w
' ;l;
3-49
Limited access to the areas serves, in part, as a constraining factor on the human uses of the
basin 1 s wildlife resources.
The responsibility for regulating human uses of wildlife and managing wildlife resources of
Alaska rests in the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, which implements the management policies
of the Alaska Board of Game. Hunting and trapping intensity is controlled by Alaska Department
of Fish and Game regulations through three basic methods: (1) limiting the hunting season,
(2) establishing harvest quotas, and (3) imposing direct limitations on effort, e.g., issuing a
limited number of permits. These methods are used to varying degrees in controlling harvest of
moose, other game, and furbearers in the affected game management units.
Subsistence uses of wildlife resources have a recognized priority under both Federal and state
1 aws, proVided that such uses do not interfere with wildlife conservation goa 1 s. Subsistence
users harvest game and furbearers as a source of food, clothing, or for other uti 1 i tari an
purposes. Subsistence user statistics are not di sti ngui shab 1 e in harvest statistics for game
species, with the exception of caribou. Therefore, specific subsistence user patterns for the
area are not currently known.
Indirect commercial benefits accrue from recreational and subsistence hunting of game species.
Big game hunting by non-residents of Alaska requires by law the employment of licensed guides
who provide guiding services and may offer transportation, lodging, food, or camping services.
There are a number of lodges in the general region that serve consumptive and nonconsumptive
users of game resources in the impact area. In addition, financial gain can accrue to interests
outside the project region through supplying game hunters with transportation, food, equipment,
taxidermy services, and meat and hide preparation.
The principal game species in the affected area are moose, caribou, Dall 1 s sheep, black and
brown bear, and wolf (Sec. 3.1.5.2). The status of these populations has been discussed indi-
vidually above. The economic importance of each species is difficult to ascertain. There is no
information on the business volume associated with each species. Moreover, hunts are often
conducted as combined hunts and costs are not apportioned to each species. In lieu of such
data, relative importance may be expressed on the basis of take in the basin during 1978-1979 as
a proportion of statewide harvest: moose -14.5%; wolf -9.0%; black bear -5.0%; caribou -9.ifk,
brown bear-8.0%.
3.1.9 Visual Resources
3.1.9.1 Landscape Character Types
The upper and middle Susitna River Basin and the area along the proposed power transmission line
corri dar contain 24 aesthetically di st i net 1 andscape character types, consisting of a mixture of
various topographic (mountains, broad valleys), vegetation (woodlands, tundra, barren land), and
water resource (rivers, waterfalls, rapids, lakes, and streams) features (App. M, Sec. M.2.1,
Tables M-2 and M-3). These physical features are enhanced by other visual and aesthetic elements,
such as atmospheric conditions, presence of wildlife, and natural scents and sounds.
Landforms within the upper and middle Susitna Basin are defined by three major elements: (1) the
deeply incised Susitna River Valley and its tributaries, (2) .the northern Talkeetna and Chulitna
mountains, and (3) the northern Talkeetna plateau (Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, 1982b).
Selected photos of these landforms are shown in Figure 3-21 (also see App. M, Sec. M.2.1.1,
Table M-2 and Figs. M-1 to M-3). The vegetation is diverse and varies with elevation. Dense
spruce-hardwood forests cover the lower drainage areas and slopes, while large areas of tundra
vegetation cover the higher elevations. A variety of shrub-type vegetation occurs between the
forest and tundra areas. Color variation also enhances the aesthetic quality of the area. This
is particularly true in fall when the leaves of the deciduous trees turn color (yellow, orange,
and red) and are contrasted against the dominant dark-green spruce. The tundra also undergoes
brief color change in the autumn, and there can be considerable contrast against mountain back-
drops and areas of open, blue sky. During the winter, partial and complete snow cover dominates
the landscape.
The route of the proposed power transmission corridor generally follows portions of the George
Parks Highway (Route 3), the Alaska Rail road, and the Anchorage-Fairbanks Transmission Line
Intertie route. , The landforms along the transmission line corridor are mainly defined by the
Tanana, Nenana, ·~hul i tna, and Susitna river va 11 eys and their tributaries; the A 1 aska Mountain
Range (including ~t. McKinley); the Talkeetna Mountains; and the Cook Inlet off the Gulf of
Alaska. The area also contains a number of human developments (e.g., cities, towns, small
settlements, highways, and rail road). As previously discussed, the vegetation in the area is
diverse and varies with elevation, slope, drainage, and season. Selected views of the landscape
types along the proposed transmission corridor are shown in Figure 3-22 (also see App. M,
Sec. M.2.1.2, Table M-3 and Figs. M-4 to M-9).
I I
3-50
(A) Devil Canyon
(C) Chulitna Mountains
(E) Vee Canyon
(B) Susitna River Valley
(D) Deadman Creek Falls
(F) Susitna River Uplands
and Wet Tundra Basin
Figure 3-21. Views of Selected Landscape Character Types and Prominent Natural Features
of the Upper and Middle Susitna Basin. [Source: Application Exhibit E,
Vol. 8, Chap. 8]
l
r 3-51
(A) Tanana Ridge
(C) Broad Pass
(E) Hurricane Gulch
(B) Alaska Range (Windy Pass
Area)
(D) Curry Ridge
(F) Susitna River Lowlands
Figure 3-22. Selected Landscape Character Types and Prominent Natural Features Along the
Proposed Transmission Line Corridor. [Source: Application Exhibit E,
Vol. 8, Chap. 8]
I
ll u
1:11. '1'1
'J.
I i
I I
II.
'
3-52
3.1.9.2 Prominent Natural Features.
A number of prominent natural features occur within the upper and middle basin. The V-shaped
valleys of the Susitna River and its tributaries are visually prominent, and forested areas
associated with the valleys form distinct paths of green through a predominantly tundra-type
landscape. The Susitna River valley is particularly prominent at and near Devil and Vee canyons
(see Fig. 3-21), where turbulent rapids, rock outcroppings, shear cliffs, and enclosed canyon
walls predominate (see App. M, Sec. M.2.1.1.2). Devil Canyon is a steep-sided, nearly enclosed
gorge. The unusual geology, hydrology, and aesthetic characteristics of the canyon make it a
notable natural feature within the proposed Devil Canyon dam site and impoundment area, as well
as the entire state. Vee Canyon includes a double hairpin bend, has a deeply cut channel, and
has a stretch of white-water. The canyon is unusually colorful because it is often interlaid
with marble and green schist. Vee Canyon, with its more open walls, is more visible than Devil
Canyon, and is a significant visual resource located within the proposed Watana dam reservoir
area.
There are numerous clear, fast-flowing mountain creeks within the upper and middle Susitna
Basin. Some of these creeks flow over steep and rocky embankments, forming waterfalls and
flumes. Deadman Creek Falls is one of the largest and most scenic waterfalls in the project
area. It surges over loose rock in an incised channel and plummets vertically over rocky slopes
and outcroppings into a clear, boulder-strewn pool (see Fig. 3-21). These falls are located
within the proposed Watana impoundment area. There are also numerous lakes in a variety of
shapes and settings--from small, irregular-shaped lakes in woodland settings to larger glacial
lakes and a complex set of fine, finger-shaped lakes set in a black spruce and shrub wetland
area. Views surrounding the basin are often of higher mountain peaks and distant mountain
ranges.
A number of prominent natural features occur either within or adjacent to the proposed trans-
mission line corridor (see App. M, Sec. M.2.1.2.2). Many of the mountainous natural features
occur within the Alaska Range. The most significant natural feature within the region is
Mt. McKinley, which dominates the landscape from various locations along the corridor. A color-
ful "badlands" type area (soft rock strata rapidly eroding) occurs in the Nenana Uplands. The
narrow, steep-walled Nenana Gorge is located to the west of the corridor. Natural features
surrounding the scenic Broad Pass area include Mt. McKinley, Mt. Deborah, Mt. Pendleton, Panorama
Mountain, and the Reindeer Hills. Notable natural features located within the Chulitna River
Valley landscape area include Hurricane Gulch, which has a steeply incised valley that provides
for a spectacular view from the Alaska Railroad bridge and George Parks Highway bridge (see
Fig. 3-22). The prominent Curry Ridge extends through the Denali State Park, and the Talkeetna
Mountains are located to the east. The Susitna River lowlands landscape area includes the
scenic Nancy Lake State Recreation Area. ·
3.1.9.3 Significant Viewsheds, Vista Points, and Travel Routes
The higher mountain peaks, including Deadman, Devil, and Watana mountains, provide vista points
that overlook the proposed dam sites and adjacent areas. Views can also be obtained from the
more accessible overlooks of Tsusena and Chulitna buttes and along the ridges above Vee Canyon
and at Big Lake and Swimming Bear Lake. Many of these sites allow extensive views of the central
Talkeetna Mountains and the Alaska Range (see App. M, Sec. M.2.1.1.3, Table M-2).
Views extending within the proposed transmission 1 i ne corri dar area waul d occur at various
points along the George Parks Highway, Alaska Railroad, and from towns and settlements located
adjacent to the highway and railroad between Anchorage and Fairbanks (see App. M, Sec. M.2.1.2.3,
Table M-3). Significant viewsheds and vista points would occur in numerous locations along the
Tanana, Nenana, Chulitna, and Susitna river valley and ridge areas. Views extending into the
transmission line corridor would be possible by recreationists along ridge lines and also would
occur from various locations within the Denali National Park and Preserve and Denali State Park.
Travelers on the George Parks Highway outside of Fairbanks view an existing transmission line at
various points between Fairbanks and the line 1 s terminus at Healy. Visible transmission l-ines
and other types of human development are also clearly visible in the Anchorge area.
3.1.10 Cultural Resources
An understanding of the geological context of the cultural resources (i.e., geoarcheology) of
the proposed project area is essential to an appreciation of their significance. A large portion
of the middle and upper Susitna River Basin contains a sequence of at least three and possibly
four distinguishable layers of volcanic tephra (Dixon et al., 19B2, 1983). This sequence provides
a datable stratigraphic context for numerous archeological sites in the region.
The project study area has been inhabited for at least 12,000 years and contains remains of four
prehistoric archeological traditions (identified by diagnostic artifact types): American
r 3-53
Paleoarctic (12,000-6,500 years Before Present, or B.P. ), Northern Archaic (6,500-4,000 years
B.P.), Arctic Small Tool (4,000-1,500 years B.P.), and Athapaskan (after 1,500 A.D.). Remains
from the historic period, following European discovery in the mid-18th Century A.D. and eventual
purchase of Alaska by the United States, include non-Native trade goods and sites occupied by
miners, hunters, and trappers.
The cultural resources study area for the proposed project contains a total of 423 identified
archeological and historic sites. Ongoing survey seems likely to yield additional sites. Most
of the sites are concentrated in the middle and upper Susitna Basin, and many of these are
likely to be significant (i.e., eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places) due to their potential contributions to knowledge of Alaskan prehistory and history.
Many contain artifacts in stratigraphic (volcanic tephra) context, while some contain multiple
components, features, and faunal remains. The following cultural resources occur in areas that
would be affected by the proposed project (Dixon et al., 1982, 1983, 1984):
1. Watana dam, impoundment, and associ a ted faci 1 it i es: 122 archeo 1 ogi ca 1 and 4 historic
sites, 22 of which have been assessed for significance (Fig. 3-23, site groups 1 and 2).
2. Devil Canyon dam, impoundment, and associated facilities: 8 archeological and 3 historic
sites, 3 of which have been assessed for significance.
3. Access routes: 30 archeological and 2 historic sites, 1 of which has been assessed for
significance (Fig. 3-23, site groups 3 and 5).
4. Transmission lines: 42 cultural resource sites, at least 6 of which are historic and 1 of
which has been assessed for significance.
The major remaining task in the evaluation of the existing environment is the assessment of
significance for most of the sites in the affected areas. Only one of the sites assessed to
date has been termed insignificant. It is apparent that a large proportion of the sites in the
proposed Watana and Devil Canyon impoundment areas (but not other project areas) will be judged
as significant.
In terms of paleontological resources, plant macro-fossils of Tertiary age have been recovered
from a series of localities along Watana Creek (within the Watana impoundment area) (Dixon
et al., 1982), and large Pleistocene mammal remains have been found near the Susitna-Tyone
confluence and at archeological site TLM 196 on Goose Creek (within the Watana impoundment area)
(Dixon et al., 1982, 1984). None of these has been assessed as significant to date.
3.2 SUSITNA DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES
The Susitna development alternatives are described in Section 2.2 (see Figs. 2-13 to 2-17).
3.2.1 Land Resources
The geology and soils for the Watana !-Devil Canyon alternative, the Watana !-Modified High
Devil Canyon alternative, and the Watana I-Reregulating dam alternative are similar in nature to
those described in Section 3.1.1.1.
Similarly, the land use and ownership for the areas of alternative dam locations and designs,
access routes, power transmission routes and borrow areas within the upper and middle Susitna
River Basin is as described in Section 3.1.1.2.
3.2.2 Climate, Air Quality, Noise
Because of the short distances between the sites of the proposed Susitna project features and
those of the Susitna development alternatives, the information provided in Section 3.1.2 applies.
The sites of these alternatives should also have Continental Zone climate, excellent ambient air
quality, and very low ambient noise levels.
3.2.3 Water Quantity and Quality
The existing water, quantity and quality associated with the sites of the Susitna development
alternatives are id~ntical to that of the proposed project sites, as discussed in Section 3.1.3.
3.2.4 Aquatic Communities
The existing aquatic communities in the areas of the in-basin alternatives are identical to
those in the area of the proposed project sites, as discussed in Section 3.1.4.
II! I
I
I
I
I ~ I
I
1
1
1
'
I
,I
I
z
• r<J co
z
•
3-54
0
Lake
Louise
~1~5-o~.-w--------------,-w----------------,-w----------------,-w--------------~
17 Miles
~ Archeological/Historic Site Groups
Figure 3-23. Major Cultural Resource Site Groups in the Middle qnd Upper Susitna Basin.
[Source: Based on data from Dixon et al., 1982, 1983, 1984]
w
3-55
3.2.5 Terrestrial Communities
3.2.5.1 Plant Communities ./
Vegetation types found in the vicinity of the Watana I alternative are essentially the same as
those described for the proposed Watana dam and impoundment (Sec. 3.1.5.1). For the Reregulating
dam alternative (Fig. 2-17), the dam, impoundment, and powerhouse would be located in spruce and
mixed conifer-deciduous forest types. The Modified High Devil Canyon alternative (Fig. 2-17)
would be located in essentially the same environment as the proposed Devil Canyon dam and impound-
ment (Sec. 3. 1. 5.1), except that mixed coni fer-deciduous forest 1 ocated between the two dam
sites would not be affected.
The northern access alternative (Sec. 2.2.2.4 and Fig. 2-13) between Hurricane and Devil Canyon
and then over to Devil Creek would traverse mostly white spruce and mixed conifer-deciduous
forests, as well as some tall shrub communities (e.g., along Portage Creek) and some riparian
and wetland areas. At the higher elevations between Devil Creek and Watana, the route would
cross mostly shrublands and various tundra types. The southern access alternative (Sec. 2.2.2.4
and Fig. 2-13) would cross predominately mixed conifer-deciduous forest between Gold Creek and
Devil Canyon, and white spruce, mixed forest, and tall shrub types between Hurricane and Devil
Canyon. From Devil Canyon to Watana, the route would cross a complex mosaic of vegetation
types, including mixed fOrest, tall shrub, low shrub, tundra, and spruce forest, as well as
numerous wetland areas in the eastern portion near Prairie Creek, Stephan Lake, and Tsusena and
Deadman creeks.
The alternative power transmission corridors (Figs. 2-14 through 2-16) would cross similar
vegetation types as those crossed by the proposed corridors (Sec. 3.1.5.1); however, the propor-
tions of specific vegetation types within the various alternative corridors are not always
similar to those of the proposed corridors.
The locations of alternative borrow sites B, C, J, and L are illustrated in Figs. 2-2 and 2-6.
Borrow site B is covered mostly by mixed conifer-deciduous forest. Most of borrow site C is
covered by a mixture of spruce forest and low shrubland, but tundra types are found at higher
elevations. Borrow site J is contained within the Susitna River. Borrow site L is covered by
deciduous forest and a marshy area of tall shrub.
3.2.5.2 Animal Communities
In general, alternative Susitna developments would occur within the wildlife ranges described
previously for the proposed project. Variations of the Watana dam height would affect the same
general wildlife populations described previously, as would alterations in the design of the
proposed Watana development features. The High Devil Canyon alternative would be located in an
area of lower quality moose habitat than the Watana site and would affect the same populations
affected by the upper portions of the proposed Devil Canyon reservoir. The Reregulating dam
be 1 ow Watana waul d be 1 ocated in the uppermost 10 mi (16 km) of the proposed De vi 1 Canyon
impoundment.
All alternative access routes, power transmission line routes, and borrow sites are within the
wi 1 dl ife ranges previously described. , A 1 ternat i ve access to the Parks Highway waul d cross
wetlands between the highway and Gold Creek that are productive aquatic furbearer habitat. The
southern alternative access and power transmission line routes between Devil Canyon and Watana
would pass near Stephan Lake and Prairie Creek. The latter area has large concentrations of
brown bear during salmon spawning in July and August. That area also supports moderate to high
densities of moose.
3.2.6 Threatened and Endangered Species
Several of the alternative transmission line corridors from Healy to Fairbanks would pass near
the peregrine falcon habitat north of Nenana. Although this area is not currently us·ed by
peregrine, several historical nesting locations are situated in the hills overlooking the Tanana
River. No other threatened or endangered species of plants or wildlife would be associated with
Susitna development alternatives (see Sec. 3.1.6).
3.2.7 Recreation Resources
The pattern of rec~eation uses throughout the area encompassing the proposed and alternative dam
locations is characterized by low-intensity, dispersed recreation activities and trail-related
modes of recreation. Thus, the discussion presented in Section 3.1. 7 is applicable to alterna-
tive dam sites and designs.
No meaningful differences are distinguishable between recreation resource areas and activities
associated with the proposed and alternative access routes. The Applicant indicates that con-
siderations of recreation resources were essentially eliminated as criteria for the designation
and evaluation of alternative access routes (Exhibit E, Vol. 9, Chap. 1D, p. E-10-49).
I 'I
,,
J
' I
1
'1''
l'i II II
'
:II
'I I,
3-56
Following successive screenings, the Applicant identified four alternative corridors for routing
the Dam-to-Gold Creek transmission 1 i nes. Recreation use patterns of the four alternative
corridors are essentially similar; i.e., low-density dispersed recreation activities (see App. L,
Sec. L.l. 3. 3.1). The alternative corridors for the Willow-to-Anchorage transmission lines
(Fig. 2-16) encroach on, or are in proximity to, state recreation areas, privately owned recrea-
tion sites, and otherwise sensitive areas in several locations, particularly in the Nancy Lakes
and Wasilla-Palmer areas. The corridors also variously parallel and/or intersect major tourist
routes and recreation trails (see App. L, Sec. L.1.3.3.2). All three of the alternate corridors
for the Healy-to-Fairbanks section of the transmission line traverse remote terrain (Fig. 2-15).
Recreation use patterns are charaCterized by low-density, dispersed activities and trail-related
modes of recreation (see App. L, Sec. L.1.3.3.3).
Discussion of recreation resource areas and activities presented in Section 3.1.7 relative to
dam sites and access routes is a 1 so app 1 i cab 1 e to the a 1 ternate borrow sites (see App. L,
Sec. L.l.3.4).
3.2.8 Socioeconomic Factors
All the alternative dam locations and designs in the Susitna Basin, and alternative access
routes, power transmission routes, and borrow sites would be located in the same socioeconomic
setting as the proposed Susi tna deve 1 opment as described in Section 3.1. 8. Native concerns are
particularly important in regard to the access routes, as Native groups control or will eventually
acquire control of much of the land in the Susitna Basin area. Project access roads would
provide access to this land to develop recreational and business pursuits. However, Native
organizations are divided in their preferences for access routes. Each organization prefers the
route that would provide greatest access to its land. The Ahtna Corporation supports the pro-
posed Denali-North route; other organizations prefer the southern access route (Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 1983; Exhibit E, Vol. 9, Chap. 10, p. E-10-48).
3.2.9 Visual Resources
In general, the landscape character types, prominent natural features, and viewing areas for the
alternative Susitna dam sites and designs and alternative access routes, borrow areas, and power
transmission routes are those described in Section 3.1.9. However, the alternative transmission
route segments also extend through four landscape character types not previously identified.
These landscapes include (1) Fairbanks landscape character type, characterized by an urban town
landscape situated within nearly level floodplains and lowlands with alluvial fans, (2) Little
Susitna River landscape character type, bordered by high mountains on three sides and extending
into the broad, open Susitna River lowlands to the west, (3) Knik-Matanuska Delta landscape
area, which includes the Knik Arm of Cook Inlet qnd surrounding tideflats (mudflats), tidal
marshlands, and some rolling morainal terrain and (4) the narrow, glaciated Chugach Foothills
lowland landscape area located between Anchorage and the Knik River delta, bordered by the steep
Chugach Mountains to the east and the Knik Arm to the west.
3.2.10 Cultural Resources
Existing cultural resources for the Watana I -Modified High Devil Canyon alternatives waul d be
the same as those described for the proposed Watana and Devil Canyon developments, respectively
(see Sec. 3.1.10). The Reregulating dam alternative would affect an area smaller than that
impacted by the proposed Devil Canyon dam, excluding one historic and one archeological site.
The following cultural resources occur in the alternative access corridors:
l. Corridor 1 (North): 12 archeological sites, 2 historic sites (Fig. 3-23, site group 5).
2. Corridor 2 (South): no sites reported to date.
3. Corridor 3 (Denali-North): 18 archeological sites (Fig. 3-23, site group 3).
Only one of these has been evaluated for significance (with positive results): it appears likely
that the majority of these sites, which lack a stratigraphic context, will not be termed sig-
nificant. Additional survey would be necessary in order to fully assess existing cultural
resources. '
The affected environment would be essentially the same for the various alternative transmission
line routes with respect to cultural resources. In the Healy area, alternative route Nos. 3 and
4 would affect eight archeological sites, while No. 10 would affect only one. In the Anchorage
area, alternative route Nos. 4, 7, and 16 would each affect one site, while Nos. 15 and 17 would
affect two and three sites, respectively (Dixon et al., 1984). An on-ground survey would be
necessary in order to fully assess existing cultural resources.
3-57
Only three borrow sites contain cultural resources:
1. Borrow site C: 20 archeological sites, 1 of which has been assessed as significant
(Fig. 3-23, site group 4).
2. Borrow site E: 2 archeological and 1 historic site, 1 of which has been termed significant.
3. Borrow site F: 10 archeological and 1 historic site (Fig. 3-23, site group 4).
A high proportion of these sites are likely to be judged significant, since a majority possess
volcanic tephra stratigraphy.
3.3 NATURAL-GAS-FIRED GENERATION SCENARIO
Features of the natural-gas-fired generation scenario are outlined in Section 2.3 (see Fig. 2-18).
3.3.1 Land Resources
3.3.1.1 Geology and Soils
Anchorage-Kenai Peninsula. Thick unconsolidated glacial outwash deposits of the Cook Inlet
lowlands cover the eastern shore of the Kenai Peninsula from the Knik River to Katchemak Bay
along the edge of the rugged Kenai and Chugach mountain ranges that form the backbone of the
peninsula. The agricultural suitability of the Spodsolic soils that cover these lowlands of the
Cook Inlet region ranges from good to unsuitable,. depending primarily on local drainage. Perma-
frost deposits are absent in this area. The Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage areas of the Cook
Inlet Lowland are located within an area identified as having a high potential for gas and oil
development and having known lignite to subbituminous coal deposits.
Chuitna and Lower Beluga Rivers. The Beluga and Chuitna areas are located on the thick fluvial,
glacial and glaciofluvial deposits of the western Cook Inlet Lowlands. The Beluga area is
situated in the poorly drained floodplains of the braided river channel of the lower Beluga
River and the Cook Inlet tidal plains. Soils in the Beluga area are primarily Histosols in the
marshy tidal flats and Spodols near the Beluga River and are generally unsuitable for agri-
cultural use. The Chuitna area is located on a broad, rounded moraine southwest of the Chuitna
River. Soils at the Chuitna area are Inceptisols and are generally unsuitable for agricultural
use because of steep slopes and soil wetness. No mineral resources are known to occur at either
the Beluga or Chuitna areas, and permafrost is absent in these areas.
3.3.1.2 Land Use and Ownership
Current land use in the Beluga and Chuitna rivers area is diverse and of low intensity. Dis-
persed recre.at ion activities occur within the region. Natura 1 resources being developed in the
area include oil, gas, coal, and timber. No major ground transportation routes occur in the
region. Land ownership in the Beluga area is varied and includes the State of Alaska; Cook
Inlet Region, Inc.; Tyonek Native Corp.; and the Kenai Peninsula Borough. Within the north-
western Kenai area land use is mixed and includes developed areas, as well as lands of low-
intensity use. Much of the Kenai region is used for recreation purposes. More than half of the
Kenai Peninsula is encompassed by the major federal holdings of the Kenai Fjords National Park,
Kenai Nation a 1 Wildlife Refuge, and the Chugach National Forest. The major ground transpor-
tation corridor in the northwestern Kenai area is the Sterling Highway. Anchorage land use is
mixed and ownership diverse. Land use in and surrounding the Anchorage metropolitan area includes
residential, commercial, industrial, and recreation. The area is served by the George Parks
Highway, Glenn Highway, the Alaska National Railroad, the Anchorage International Airport, and
an ocean port.
3.3.2 Climate, Air Quality, Noise
3.3.2.1 Climate
All of the plants that would be developed as part of the natural-gas alternative would be
located in the Transition Zone between the inland Continental climates and the Maritime climates
bordering the ocean. The plants near Anchorage, the Chuitna River, the Beluga River, and near
Kenai would fall\;.in this Transition Zone. At these locations there is a less extreme climate
than that of the ~nterior, with temperatures being moderated somewhat by the nearby seas.
The Cook Inlet area, in general, is in a transitional climate zone between the Continental
climate of the Interior and the Maritime climate more common to the coastal areas farther south.
3.3.2.2 Air Quality and Noise
The Cook Inlet Air Quality Control Region is designated a Class II attainment area for all
criteria pollutants. The Tuxedni National Wildlife Refuge, about 100 mi (160 km) southwest of
"11
1
"1' I ill
'I' :111
1
: ..
!
·I
'.:·1·11
I
I Iii
·' ''li
',I
I'.···
!:1.'111'!1
II, ,I
'' ·1:·1
: i
,I
1
,,
.l!il
3-58
the Tyonek area, is the closest Class I area. Anchorage is one of two areas of Alaska (along
with Fairbanks) that is nonattainment in terms of the ambient air quality standards for carbon
monoxide.
The actual air quality on the western shore of Cook Inlet near Tyonek is not known. Several
sources of emissions of particulate matter, sulfur oxides, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and
hydrocarbons are scattered throughout the onshore area, with a number of offshore oi 1 and gas
p 1 at forms concentrated in the Ni ki shka/Kenai area. Nitrogen dioxide emissions are greatest,
with products of combustion representing the majority from both offshore and onshore pollutant
emission sources. The impact of these existing sources on ambient air quality tends to be very
localized, with the highest regional pollutant concentrations occurring where source congestion
is greatest. The most congested areas include Trading Bay and Sal amatof, and even in these
areas separation between individual sources is good. For these reasons, air quality within the
area is expected to be well within the National and Alaska Ambient Air Quality Standards.
Visibility is occasionally a problem throughout the inlet area. At Anchorage, the visibility is
0.5 mi (0.8 km) or less for 5% of the time during December and January, primarily due to fog.
Air quality data do exist for the Kenai Peninsula area. A monitoring station was set up to
provide ambient data for a potential expansion of the Tesoro refinery. Monitoring was conducted
from June 1, 1981, to May 31, 1982, at the site. The monitoring site was located about 9 mi
(14 km) north-northwest of Kenai and 0.9 mi (1.4 km) south of the refinery. Comparison of the
monitoring data with the National Ambient Air Quality Standard reveals that the ambient pollutant
levels in the Kenai area are well within the standards.
Recent data on total suspended particulates (TSP) in the northern Kenai Peninsula have shown
some excursions beyond the 24-hour average standard, but these are thought to be due to natural
dust rather than plant emissions. The occurrences were recorded simultaneously on dry, windy
days at both the sampling site in the City of Kenai and the industrial site 10 mi (16 km) north
of town. Of particular significance is the 20 to 40 ~g/m 3 increase in TSP concentrations in the
industrialized area since land was cleared for construction of a new LNG facility and a major
construction project commenced at the ammonia-urea plant.
As mentioned above, Anchorage is designated nonattainment with respect to carbon monoxide due to
automobile emissions. It is strictly nonattainment due to TSP but is designated attainment
since the TSP violation is due largely to natural sources of particulates. There exists no
large stationary source of TSP in Anchorage. Anchorage has air quality monitors inside the city
limits and one in an outside rural area that measures sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, ozone,
carbon monoxide, and TSP.
As described in Section 3.1.2, ambient noise levels are expected to be very low in rural areas
such as those identified for the gas-fired plants.
3.3.3 Water Quantity and Quality
Two of the four sites for alternative gas-fired generating facilities are located on river
systems--the Beluga and Chuitna rivers, which drain into the western side of Cook Inlet. The
other two gas-fired plants would be sited on or very close to Cook Inlet at Kenai and in the
Anchorage vicinity. Both the Beluga and the Chuitna sites are in the Beluga flats, a marshy
lowland area. The rivers in the Beluga region originate in the Alaska Range and have glacial
flow regimes similar to those described for the Susitna Basin.
Although specific water sources for all sites of the combined-cycle, gas-fired unit alternative
have not been specified, data for two sites (Beluga River and Chuitna River) do not indicate any
water quality characteristics that would preclude construction and operation of gas-fired,
combined-cycle power plants at these sites (Exhibit E, Vol. 9, Chap. 10, Table E.10.35). Water
quality of these sites is comparable to that of most other large rivers in Southcentral Alaska
in terms of the concentration of major ions, dissolved solids and gases, nutrients, and suspen-
ded solids. Since water use is zero for the gas-fired combustion turbines, water quality is not
an issue for this alternative.
3.3.4 Aquatic Communities
Although specific sites for the units that would be developed under this alternative have not
been designated, the list of fish species in potentially affected streams and lakes in the
vicinity of the lower Beluga River, the Chuitna River, Cook Inlet near Kenai, Turnagain Arm
southeast of Anchorage, and in the immediate vicinity of Anchorage are likely to include some or
all of the following: the five Pacific salmon, burbot, cottids, Dolly Varden, grayling, northern
pike, rainbow trout, sculpin, suckers, whitefish, and a variety of marine fish and invertebrate
species that depend greatly on the exact locations selected. Because of the larger size of the
facilities and the greater requirements for water, the combined-cycle units (as compared to the
smaller combustion turbines) are likely to be associated with larger streams and lakes having
3-59
more of these species. The combined-cycle units are also more likely to be located in relatively
remote areas.
3.3.5 Terrestrial Communities
3.3.5.1 Plant Communities ~
Based on Figure 3-16, vegetation in the lower Beluga River area is mostly upland spruce-hardwood
forest except near the coast, where wet sedge-grass predominates. The Chuitna River originates
in an area of high brush and then extends through upland spruce-hardwood forest on its way to
Cook Inlet. North of Kenai the vegetation is primarily lowland spruce-hardwood forest, although
a relatively narrow strip of upland spruce-hardwood forest occurs along the coast. Southeast of
Anchorage the natural vegetation has probably been altered somewhat by development activities.
Undisturbed or relatively undisturbed areas are likely to be bottomland spruce-popular forest,
upland spruce-hardwood forest, or lowland spruce-hardwood forest.
3.3.5.2 Animal Communities
Principal big game in the Chuitna-Beluga area are brown and black bear and moose. Summer con-
centrations of moose occur on the lower Chuitna River and upper Chuit Creek and to the east
along the Beluga River. A winte~ concentration area of moose occurs westward along Nikolai
Creek and eastward from the mouth of the Beluga River. Black bear denning habitat occurs along
the middle Chuitna and upper Nikolai Creek. Brown bear denning occurs in the uplands; however,
summer feeding concentrations occur in several areas in the lower drainage of the Chuitna River.
Bald eagles are common raptors throughout the area, whereas cliff-nesting raptors are uncommon.
A number of waterbirds, including trumpeter swan and sandhill crane, occur in the coastal wet-
1 ancts·. A variety of ducks, geese, and 1 oons are common in the area.
The Kenai Peninsula supports a wide array of wildlife populations. Concentrations of moose,
caribou, and waterfowl occur in all the areas with available natural gas. An area of intensive
use by black bear occurs northwest of Kenai and Soldotna. Other species occurring in the Kenai
area include brown bear, Dall 1 S sheep, mountain goat, and wolf.
Anchorage is basically urbanized and pro vi des limited wildlife habitat.
other wildlife do use the area on occasion. South of Anchorage along the
Marsh supports a large number of waterbirds.
3.3.6 Threatened and Endangered Species
However, moose and
Seward Highway, Potter
No threatened or endangered species of plants or wildlife would be associated with any features
of the natural-gas-fired generation scenario (see Sec. 3.1.6).
3.3. 7 Recreation Resources
No substantial developed recreation sites occur in the relatively remote Beluga and Chuitna
river areas, although recreation use is substantial (Bechtel, 1983). Hunting and fishing are
the principal dispersed recreation activities, which also include hiking, camping, and skiing,
and other water-based recreation activities.
Readily accessible by land or water, much of the northwestern Kenai Peninsula is within the
Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, which affords opportunities for wilderness recreation experiences,
as well as use of developed facilities (Simmerman, 1983). State recreation areas afford addi-
tional opportunities for public use of developed facilities.
In the Anchorage-Turnagain Arm area, recreation resources of muni cipa 1 parks, Chugach State
Park, and Chugach National Forest afford numerous opportunities for public use of developed
recreation sites, as well as a wide range of dispersed recreation activities (Simmerman, 1983).
The Alyeska Resort and other private developments further contribute to locally abundant recrea-
tion opportunities (Alaska Northwest Publishing, 1983).
3.3.8 Socioeconomic Factors
The socioeconomic environments of the potential sites of the eight 200-MW combined-cycle units
are Kenai, Soldo.tna, the northern Kenai Peninsula, the Tyonek area southwest of Anchorage, and
the Anchorage m~tropolitan area (Fig. 3-24). The potential sites of the two 70-MW combustion
turbines using gas would be near Anchorage. The socieconomic environment of the Anchorage area
is discussed in Section 3.1.8; socioeconomic factors of the northern Kenai Peninsula and of the
Tyonek area are summarized here.
Kenai, Soldotna, and some small settlements north of Kenai (e.g., Salamatof and Nikishka) are in
what is called the Central Peninsula area of the Kenai Peninsula Borough. The economy and life
of the area are based on fishing and timber industries, oil and gas development, tourism, and
".1 I \
I'.!:
I 'II 'I\'
,,
I ' ,,,
'II;
,,
I
' ., I ,:
' :I
\,'
\,' ,''1
' I \,
I• '·\tl
:· ,\
I
I I·,
'' ill
I
z.
z.
0 .q-
eD
z.
0
r0
tO
z.
0
~
z.
0 ,....
<D
z
" 0
<D
i rapper
cr~e~.
3-60
.,\.
:··--........ •·····
...... · ......... ··
'\.
"························"""'"""-
,
..,.. ..... ,... ... --'
Delta lot.
Junctiortr .......
I '•
_,
I --,' ~~::1111
\
I
\
' I
' <,
' ______ ,-,
~ P ax:s o o'
Lake
', I ~ \ ,-""
~ ~ , ..
! I ..'
' I \ / \ r .. ,
~--·····r ,
\ ............ --•\ ,,-
, ...
o•••••o••••••••••-•'u
/1-lternatives
0 Hydro
0 Gas
()Coal
b Susitno
59 Miles
z
0 ~1+5~3.~W-------15-1r.-w--_j~--1-4~9.--W--------14-7~o-w ________ 1_4_5~.-w----
Figure 3-24. Locations of Susitna Hydropower Alternatives and Features
of the Socioeconomic Environment.
3-61
subsistence activities. Almost 90% of the population of Kenai Peninsula Borough reside in the
Central Peninsula in the communities of Kenai, Soldotna, Homer, and Seldovia (Fig. 3-24). The
1982 populations of Kenai and Soldotna were 5,231 and 3,008 persons, respectively. North and
northeast of the Kenai-Soldotna area, the 1982 population totaled 4,120--2,014 in Nikishka,
1,143 in Salamatof, and the remainder scattered outside of communities. Population increased by
20% or more in this region between 1978 and 1982, and growth is expected to continue through
1992. Borough planners have three growth scenarios projecting growth rates of 3.3%, 48%, or
106% between 1978 and 1992. The actual growth rate between 1978 and 1982 was about halfway
between the medium and high scenarios. The population in Kenai and Soldotna is over 90% white;
the remainder is primarily Native Alaskan (Kenai Penin. Bar. Resour. Dev. Off., 1983).
Employment in the Central Peninsula is concentrated in government, followed by manufacturing,
services, and wholesale and retail trades, in that order. As with other areas in Alaska, the
unemployment rate is high, varies considerably seasonally, and has ranged widely over the past
decade. Per-capita income for the borough was $10,158 in 1980, a value that ranked 18th among
Alaska's 29 census divisions and is lower than the U.S. average (Alaska Office of Management and
Budget, 1983; Kenai Penin. Bar. Resour. Dev. Off., 1983). Personal and property taxes make up
only slightly more than a third (39%) of total borough revenues; intergovernmental sources
(e.g., from the state) contribute 45% of total revenues. In contrast, the incorporated cities
of Kenai and Soldotna rely on personal property taxes from their residents for over 50% of their
revenues. Schools are the greatest expense (U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 1981; Kenai Penin.
Bar. Resour. Dev. Off., 1983).
In 1977, Kenai and Soldotna had about 1, 300 and 700 households, respectively. Si ngl e-fami ly
units are most common in all communities {App. N, Table N-11), and between 30% and 40% of
residences units are rented. Vacancy rates for apartments vary seasonally.
Both Kenai and Soldotna have a full range of elementary and secondary schools. Most households
in the two communities rely on city water and sewer systems. Fire service is provided by each
city and by borough-administered service area departments. The latter are supported by property
taxes in the service areas. The Central Peninsula General Hospital is in Soldotna. There are
also three district mental health care centers, one of which is in Kenai (Kenai Penin. Bar.
Resour. Dev. Off., 1983).
The Kenai Peninsula is accessible by highway from Anchorage via Sterling Highway (Highway 1).
Smaller roads, most unpaved, extend north of Kenai to Salamatof and the area around Nikishka.
Fishing boats, personal boats, commercial ships, and barges also serve the coastal areas of the
peninsula. Rail service on the peninsula is available only between Anchorage and Seward, via
Portage. Kenai and Homer both have airports, which are used below capacity. Other airstrips
for small planes are scattered around the peninsula.
Tyonek is located between the Chuitna and Beluga rivers on the western shore of Cook Inlet
(Fig. 3-24). Tyonek is a Federally chartered Native Alaskan village that had a population of
239 in 1980 -only seven persons more than in 1970. Except for Tyonek, the area is sparsely
populated. The Tyonek Native Corporation represents the Natives in the village. The policy of
the corporation in the past has been not to allow easements and rights-of-way across their land,
thus limiting the development of natural resources in the Tyonek area (Bechtel, 1983).
Employment opportunities in the Tyonek area are limited to a few service jobs in the Village and
to jobs in the development of natural resources, e.g., commercial fishing, timber harvesting and
processing, and exploration for petroleum. Most of these opportunities are seasonal, and unem-
ployment is high, particularly in winter. Personal income is low, and most households rely on
Native/Public Health benefits or some other form of aid (e.g., food stamps, Social Security) to
supplement their incomes. Because of strong ties to Native Alaskan culture, the lack of employ-
ment opportunities, and the low lncomes, there is heavy reliance on subsistence activities.
Like employment, subsistence activities are more productive and accessible during the summer
(Bechtel, 1983). Residents of Tyonek Village pay property taxes to the Central Hospital Service
Area, which supports the hospital (located in Soldotna on the Kenai Peninsula), borough services,
and public recreation facilities.
Almost all of the approximately 90 homes in Tyonek are single-family residences owned by the
Tyonek Village Council. There are only six trailers (two for temporary residences for school
teachers) and no ,multifamily units. A permanent worker camp at the nearby lumber mill and
nearby Shirleyville Lodge provide housing facilities for workers and visitors.
\
Village houses are connected to the village water system, which depends on a lake as it source,
while public buildings and services and industry use well water. Large septic tanks, currently
in poor condition, provide the village with wastewater disposal. Police service is provided by
a resident constable who is employed by the Alaska State Troopers; fire protection is provided
by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. A medical center in Tyonek has emergency medical and
dental care facilities, but no doctors or dentists are in permanent residence in the community.
One school, with capacity for 240 students, serves about 90 elementary through high school
students (Bechtel, 1983).
· ..
. I'
. ·,·I ''II
'·: 'li 1
'
I,
3-62
Tyonek and the Chuitna and Beluga river areas are accessible by unpaved roads. No road connect-
ing the area to Anchorage is open year-round, except when the Susitna River freezes to provide a
winter crossing. There is one primary airport in Tyonek, controlled by the Village, and several
other privately owned, smaller, and less well-maintained strips. Tyonek and industrial opera-
tions along the coast also are served by barge.
3.3.9 Visual Resources
Visual characteristics of the Beluga/Chuitna rivers region include steep mountains, vegetated
uplands, and coastal wetlands. The region is dominated by mountains, glaciers, lakes, and
streams in the Alaska Range. Panoramic views of spectacular mountainous and glaciated terrain
are common.
Within the Kenai Peninsula area, visual resources range from high mountains and glaciers to
uplands, dense forests, lakes, rivers, and wetlands (Alaska Geographic Society, 1981). A number
of small communities and homesteads are scattered along the Sterling Highway. Views of the Cook
Inlet and lowlands, uplands, and mountainous regions are often highly scenic.
The Anchorage area consists of an urbanized town landscape situated within rolling and flat
terraced lowlands. Rolling and moderately steep slopes occur in the Chugach Foothills. The
area is dominated by the Knik and Turnagain arms of the Cook Inlet. Because of the flat to
undulating terrain, views are generally open. The Alaska Range, nearby Mount Susitna, the Kenai
Mountains, and the Cook Inlet, with its unusual mud flats, can be viewed within the Anchorage
urban area.
3.3.10 Cultural Resources
Few cultural resources have been discovered in the areas that would be affected by the natural-
gas generation scenario. Four archeological sites are known in the Kenai area, but here, as
well as in the Beluga-Chuitna and Anchorage areas, site-specific surveys would be necessary to
adequately assess cultural resources.
3.4 COAL-FIRED GENERATION SCENARIO
The coal-fired generation scenario is described in Section 2.4 (see Fig. 2-18).
3.4.1 Land Resources
3.4.1.1 Geology and Soils
The Willow area is located in the flat, poorly drained, alluvial plain of the lower Susitna
River Basin. Well to poorly drained Entisol soils with severe use limitations are present
adjacent to the Susitna River and on the river terraces east of the river in the Willow area.
Spodsolic soils are present. These soils are suitable for cultivation and have few use limita-
tions. Permafrost is absent in this area and, to date, with the exception of coal, no mineral
resources have been identified.
The Nenana area is located on thick alluvial floodplain deposits south of the Tanana River.
Poorly drained Inceptisol soils are present in low lying areas of the Tanana floodplains and
have severe use limitations due to permafrost deposits and wetness. Away from the floodplains,
the Inceptisols are well drained and are potentially suitable for cultivation. With the excep-
tion of coal, no mineral resources have been identified in the area to date .
3.4.1.2 Land Use and Ownership
General land use and ownership patterns in the Nenana/Healy area and Willow area are described
in Section 3.1.1.2. Mining activities occur in the Nenana vicinity and extensively in the Healy
area. Residential development and recreational use occurs within the Willow area. Agricultural
sales have occurred along the George Parks Highway and 5 mi (8 km) southwest of Willow. Land
use and ownership in the Cook Inlet area is diverse. Much of the region is relatively remote,
and current land use is diverse and generally of low intensity. Dispersed recreation activities
occur within the region. Natural resources being developed include oil, gas, coal, and timber.
The City of Anchorage, the state's major metropo 1 itan area, is also 1 ocated within the Cook
Inlet Region.
3.4.2 Climate, Air Quality, Noise
3.4.2.1 Climate
The coal-fired generation scenario would involve plants sited at Willow and Nenana. These
locations are in the Continental Climatic Zone and should have similar climatic features as the
proposed Susitna project area (Sec. 3.1.2). Data collected at Willow since 1963 reveal a record
high temperature of 90°F (32°C) and record low temperature of -56°F (-49°C).
3-63
3.4.2.2 Air Quality and Noise
The nearest air quality monitoring stations to Willow are at Palmer and Eagle River. These data
are for TSP alone and reveal frequent exceedences of the 24-hr TSP standard due to fugitive
emissions. Recent data at Palmer reveal much lower TSP concentrations (below the standard) and
this is probably due to a recent paving of a nearby road. Baseline data from the Healy Plant
near Nenana revealed excellent air quality. The Healy measurement stations were at North Nenana
and Garner. Measurements were available in the periods of January 1979 -August 1979 (S0 2 and
meteorological data) and March 1978 -July 1979 (TSP). The S0 2 data revealed no exceedence of
standards; the TSP data indicated increases from very low levels only when the wind was blowing
from the river bank. At both sites, ambient levels of all pollutants are expected to be extremely
low, except for TSP. Ambient noise levels are expected to be very low in the rural environment
in which the coal-fired plants would be located. ·
3.4.3 Water Quantity and Quality
The river basins affected by coal-fired power plants would be the Lower Susitna River Basin
below Willow (approximately RM 45), the Tanana River Basin below the confluence of the Nenana
and Tanana rivers, and the basin within which coal mining would be located (probably the Nenana
River Basin). Both generating facilities would be located on relatively large river systems
with low gradients and highly braided channels. The Susitna River at the USGS gaging station at
Sunshine (RM 84) has a upstream watershed area of 11,100 mi 2 (28,750 km 2 ) and an average annual
flow of 23,611 ft 3 /s (669 m3 /s). The Tanana River at Nenana has a upstream watershed area of
25,600 mi 2 (66,300 km 2 ) and an average annual flow of 23,490 ft 3 /s (665 m3 /s). Low flows of
record at the two sites are during the winter months: 5,400 ft3 /s (153 m3 /s) for the Susitna
River at Sunshine and 4,000 ft3 /s (113 m3 /s) for the Tanana River at Nenana.
Water quality of the existing environments likely to be affected by the coal-fired power plant
alternative (two units on the Susitna River near Willow and three units on the Nenana River near
Nenana) can be classified as good and is similar to that for the Susitna River (see Sec. 3.1.3.2),
and other large rivers in Southcentral Alaska. These rivers typically have low to moderate
concentrations of dissolved solids and nutrient ions, high concentrations of dissolved oxygen,
and seasonally varying concentrations of suspended solids, reaching a maximum in summer and a
minimum during winter.
3.4.4 Aquatic Communities
The list of fish species in potentially affected streams and lakes at Willow, Nenana, and around
Cook Inlet may include burbot, cottids, Dolly Varden, grayling, longnose sucker, northern pike,
rainbow trout, sculpin, and whitefish. Due to the larger size of the facilities and the greater
requirements for water, the coal units, as compared to the smaller combustion-turbine units,
would be associated with larger streams and rivers, such as the Chuitna and Susitna, having more
of these species.
3.4.5 Terrestrial Communities
3.4.5.1 Plant Communities ~
Based on Figure 3-16, vegetation in the Willow area is primarily lowland spruce-hardwood forest,
although bottomland spruce-poplar forest is found along the Susitna River. Along the Tanana and
Nenana rivers near Nenana, the vegetation is primarily bottomland spruce-poplar forest. Farther
away from the rivers the predominant vegetation type is lowland spruce-hardwood forest. In the
vicinity of Healy, where the coal would be mined (Fig. 1-14), vegetation along the Nenana River
and its tributaries is upland spruce-hardwood forest. Away from the river, at higher elevations,
the vegetation grades into moist tundra and alpine tundra. Vegetation occurring in likely
locations for siting of gas combustion turbines for this scenario has been described in Sec-
tion 3.3.5.1.
3.4.5.2 Animal Communities
The area around Willow supports wildlife populations typical of those found ·along the lower
Susitna drainage. Moose concentrate along the river and near Nancy Lakes. Black bear make
intensive use of areas southwest of Willow. Waterfowl occur in low to moderate densities in the
vicinity of Willa"\ Bald eagle and trumpeter swan nest along drainages in the area.
The Nenana area is located in the northern third of the proposed transmission line route. In
the vicinity of Nenana, winter concentrations of moose occur along the river. Low to high
densities of waterfowl are found in the vicinity of Nenana. The Minto Flats area to the north
supports a high density of waterfowl.
3-64
The Healy m1n1ng area is also situated along the northern portion of the proposed transmission
line route. The area supports species characteristic of more open habitats, such as caribou and
brown bear. Winter aggregations of caribou occur in the vicinity of the mine. Moose and black
bear range through the area in fewer numbers. Habitat for Dall 's sheep and cliff-nesting raptors
is located in the highlands 10 mi (16 km) south of the mine area.
3.4.6 Threatened and Endangered Species
Development of coal-fired power generation facilities in Nenana would occur in the vicinity of
peregrine falcon habitat situated north of the Tanana River. Although this area is not currently
used by peregrine, several historical nesting locations are known to exist northeast of Nenana.
No other threatened or endangered species of plants or wildlife would be associated with the
coal-fired generation scenario (see Sec. 3.1.6).
3.4. 7 Recreation Resources
Dedicated recreation areas near Willow include the Nancy Lake State Recreation Site and the
Willow and Nancy Lake State Recreation Areas; other nearby dedicated areas include the Finger
Lake, Rocky Lake, and two Big Lake State Recreation Sites (Park Planning Section, 1982). Several
commercial developments and private recreation cabins further contribute to local recreation
resources.
In the Nenana area, local accommodations serve travelers of the Parks Highway and Alaska Rail-
road, which are major tourist routes (Alaska Northwest Publishing, 1983). The Nenana and Tanana
rivers are popular recreation corridors, and local dispersed recreation consists primarily of
hunting and fishing activities.
Recreation resources in the Cook Inlet area are presented in Section 3.3. 7.
3.4.8 Socioeconomic Factors
The socioeconomic environment for the coal-fired generation scenario would include the communi-
ties of Healy and Nenana (coal mine site) in the Yukon-Koyukuk Borough, Willow, the Tyonek area,
metropolitan Anchorage, and the northern Kenai Peninsula. Socioeconomic aspects of these areas
are described in Sections 3.1.8 and 3.3.8.
3.4.9 Visual Resources
The landscape character types and associated prominent natural features and views in the Nenana/
Healy and the Willow areas are generally described in Section 3.1.9. Views can become monotonous
within the braided river areas of the Nenana River lowlands and the Willow area because of the
lack of topographical relief and lack of distinctive and varying foreground features. The
Nenana upland views are oriented to the Alaska Range to the south and the high foothills to the
east. Existing transmission lines are visible in the region. Visual characteristics of the
Cook Inlet region are extremely varied and include steep mountains, vegetated uplands, and
coastal wetlands, as generally described in Section 3.3.9. Views are often open and panoramic,
with mountainous and glaciated terrain visible in the background. The Cook Inlet region also
includes the Anchorage area, which is described in Section 3.3.9.
3.4.10 Cultural Resources
Only limited information on cultural. resources is presently available for the areas that would
be affected by the coal-fired scenario. One archeological and three historic sites are known in
the Willow area, and seven cultural resource sites are currently recorded for the Nenana area.
A number of archeological and historic sites are known around the shores of Cook Inlet (Dixon
et al., 1984; Smith, personal communication*). Site-specific surveys, which seem likely to
yield additional sites, would be necessary in order to fully assess existing cultural resources.
3.5 COMBINED HYDRO-THERMAL GENERATION SCENARIO
Features of the combined hydro-thermal generation scenario are described in Section 2.5 (see
Figs. 2-18 to 2-22).
*Smith, T.A. (Office of History and Archaeology, Alaska State Division of Parks). Oral communi-
cation to J.F. Hoffecker (Argonne National Laboratory), March 24, 1984.
3-65
3.5.1 Land Resources
3.5.1.1 Geology and Soils
The Johnson alternative would be on the Johnson River, which flows from its headwaters in the
glaciers of the Alaska Range through the Alaska Range foothills northward through the broad,
flat plains of the Tanana River valley in the Tanana-Kuskokwin Lowlands. Thick outwash deposits
from the Alaska Range and alluvial materials cover the alternative site. Permafrost deposits
are discontinuous, and Inceptisol soils potentially suitable for agriculture are present in the
lowlands. No mineral resources are present in the site area.
The Keetna alternative would be located on the lower Talkeetna River at the edge of the steep
Talkeetna Mountains in the Copper River Plateau. Glacial deposits cover the slopes of the
Talkeetna River in the Keetna area. Spodsolic soils occur in this area, but are agriculturally
unsuitable due to steep slopes. No mineral resources are present in the area.
Located in the extremely rugged Kenai Mountain Range of the Kenai Peninsula, the Snow site would
occupy a deep bedrock gorge on the Snow River near the southern end of Kenai Lake. Graywackes
and states are exposed throughout the area, and surficial deposits and soils are generally
absent. Spodsolic soils occur only in the river valley. Numerous mineral resources are expected
to exist in the area, although none has been identified in the proposed reservoir area.
The Browne alternative would be located in the modified moraine and glacial drift deposits of
the Nenana River Valley just north of Healy at the northern edge of the unglaciated Northern
foothills of the Alaska Range. Easily eroded, soft Tertiary sediments that include extensive
coal deposits of the Nenana coal field are present north and east of Healy. Inceptisol soils
capable of limited agricultural use and discontinuous permafrost are present.
The Chakachamna alternative would be located at Lake Chakachamna, which is in a deep glaciated
valley in the southernmost region of the Alaska Range. The lake is surrounded by numerous
glaciers, moraines, and high mountain peaks, one of which, Mt. Spurr, is an active vo 1 cano.
Volcanic, glacial, and fluvial deposits and agriculturally unsuitable Inceptisol soils cover
much· of the area. Isolated masses of permafrost are present in this area. The area has geo-
thermal energy potential and is located adjacent to the Beluga coal fields.
Descriptions of the geology and soils for the lower Beluga River, the Chuitna River, and the
Anchorage environs are presented in Section 3. 4.1. 1. Descriptions for the Nenana area are
presented in Section 3.3.1.1.
3.5.1.2 Land Use and Ownership
The Chakachamna Lake area is remote, and current land use is diverse and of low intensity.
Recreation use within the area is limited but increasing (Bechtel, 1983). Future land use will
probably revolve around resource extraction, processing, and transportation of oil, gas, coal,
and timber. The Browne site is located within the Alaska Railbelt Region near the vicinity of
the communities of Healy, Suntrana, and Ferry. Land use is diverse and of low intensity.
Dispersed recreation use occurs throughout the area. Extensive coal deposits and mining occur
in the area east of Healy. Major transportation routes in the area include the George Parks
Highway and the Alaska National Railroad.
Land uses in the Keetna area are characterized by dispersed, low-intensity recreation and subsis-
tence activities. The closest deve 1 opment consists of severa 1 homesteads at Parson Lake, about
13 mi (21 km) southwest of the site area. Access in the site area is limited. The nearest
major transportation routes are the George Parks Highway and the Alaska National Railroad,
located approximately 15 mi (24 km) west of the area. The Snow site alternative is located
within the Chugach National Forest, which is managed for multiple use. Occasional and inter-
mittent uses in the region include recreation, sport hunting and fishing, subsistence, seasonal
residences, and resource exploration (Selkregg, 1974). Major transportation routes in the area
include the Alaska Highway and the Alaska National Railroad.
Occasional and intermittent land use in the Johnson area includes recreation, sport hunting and
fishing, subsistence, seasonal residences, and resource exploration. Some rural settlement and
agricultural use occurs along the Tanana River east of the Johnson River confluence. The nearest
community is Dot. Lake, located about 15 mi (24 km) east of the Johnson site on the Alaska Highway.
Land use and own~rship patterns for the Nenana, Chuitna River, and Anchorage areas are described
in Sections 3.3.1.2. and 3.4.1.2.
3.5.2 Climate, Air Quality, Noise
Under this alternative scenario, the coal-fired, combined-cycle, and gas turbine plants would be
located primarily near Anchorage and Nenana. The existing environments in these areas have been
described previously in Sections 3.1.2 through 3.4.2. The non-Susitna Basin hydropower units at
3-66
Johnson, Browne, Keetna, and
as the Susitna project area.
Section 3.3.2.
Snow should have similar climate, air quality, and noise features
The Chakachamna site is close to Tyonek, which was discussed in
3.5.3 Water Quantity and Quality
The five potential hydropower sites included in this alternative are located outside of the
upper Susitna River Basin. Watershed area and summary flow statistics for these sites are given
in Table 3-11. With the exception of the Johnson and Snow sites, annual hydrographs for these
sites are dominated by glacial meltwaters similar to each other and to the Susitna River at the
Devil Canyon/Watana dam sites. At the Johnson site, glacial influence is minimal and peaks in
the annual hydrograph occur later in August and September due to summer rainfall. The Snow site
is in a coastal drainage with high elevation and high annual precipitation [greater than 100 inches
(250 centimeters) per year].
Table 3-11. Watershed and Stream Flow Characteristics of Alternative, Out-of-Basin
Hydroelectric Projects
Summer Peak Flows
Watershed Mean Annual 90th lOth Winter Low
Site/River Area (mi 2 ) Flow (cfs) Percentile Percentile Flows (cfs)
BROWNE/ 2,450 4,700 22,000 9,100 500-1,000
Nenana River
CHAKACHAMNA/ 1,120 3,600 17,000 9,600 400-700
Chakachatna River
JOHNSON/ 10,450 11,000 40,000 24,000 4,000-6,000
Tanana River
KEETNA/ 2,006 2,400 14,000 5,000 400-1,000
Talkeetna River
SNOW/ 634 710 1,200 750 400-1,500
Snow River
Conversions: To convert square miles (mi 2 ) to square kilometers (km 2 ), multiply by 2.59; to
convert cubic feet per second (cfs) to cubic meters per second (m 3 /s),
multiply by 0.0283.
Source: Based on data from Chapman (1982).
Water quality of the existing environments likely to be affected by construction and operation
of the proposed hydropower alternatives can be classified as good and is comparable to that for
the Susitna River sites described in Section 3.1.3.2 (U.S. Geological Survey, 1979). The major
difference among the four alternative hydropower sites for which data are available is in the
magnitude of seasonal variations in suspended solids, with the maximal summer concentration
being greater in rivers and lakes fed by glacial melt water (Nenana, Tanana, Chakachamna) than
in the system fed by snowmelt alone (Talkeetna) (U.S. Geological Survey, 1979). There is an
indication of depressions in dissolved oxygen in the Tanana River during winter, with the
magnitude of the depression being greater downstream than upstream (Schallock and Lotspeich,
1974). Water quality data.for the Snow River was not available.
3.5.4 Aquatic Communities
Out-of-basin hydroelectric alternatives are located in areas that represent a diversity of
aquatic communities.
For the Johnson alternative, three species of salmon (chinook, coho, and chum) are harvested by
sport fisherman in the Tanana River drainage (Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game, 1983). Most of the
spawning occurs in the lower basin, but some may occur near the potential dam site. Rainbow
trout, grayling, whitefish, burbot, and sheepfish are species resident in the region. A com-
parison of the sport fish harvest to that in other drainage basins is presented in Table 3-12.
Four species of anadromous salmon (chinook, coho, chum, and sockeye) are present in the reach of
the Talkeetna River containing the potential dam site for the Keetna alternative. Chinook are
Table 3-12. Summary of Five-Year Average Sport Fish Harvests in River
Basins That Include Alternative Hydropower Sites
Basin Number of Fish (thousands)
(alternative) Chinook Coho Chum Grayling Sockeye Pinkt 1 Rainbow Burbot D. Varden Total
Kenai 18 43 0.35 1.9 75 43/14 32 0 65 280
(Snow)
w. Susitna 4.6 9.4 1 6.9 1.7 5.4/3.8 12 0.33 3. 7 45
(Chakachamna) w
' en
E. Susitna 1.4 7.8 5.6 9.5 1.3 52/13 7.2 0.38 3.5 89 -..J
(In-basin)
(Keetna)
Tanana 0.5 0.1 0.35 73 0 0 12 2.3 0.6 23
(Browne)
(Johnson)
t' High/low runs.
Source: Mills (1979-1982).
3-68
known to spawn in tributaries near and upstream from the site. Data from Alaska Department of
Fish and Game monitoring stations on the Susitna River at Sunshine (below the Talkeetna con-
fluence) and Talkeetna (above it) show many fish not progressing up the Susitna River that may
use the Talkeetna River (App. I, Fig. I-10). Resident species in the river, tributaries, and
surrounding lakes are likely to include rainbow and lake trout, grayling, burbot, and whitefish.
No anadromous fish are known to occur in the Snow River. Sockeye and coho are present in the
drainage system and in Kenai Lake. Resident species of interest in Kenai Lake include rainbow
trout and whitefish.
No anadromous fish occur in the Nenana at the potential Browne alternative site. Resident
species in the river, tributaries, and surrounding lakes are likely to include grayling, rainbow
and lake trout, burbot, and whitefish.
In the area of the potential Chakachamna alternative site, all five species of Pacific salmon
are found in the Chakachatna River and tributaries. Resident species in Lake Chakachamna include
lake trout, Dolly Varden, grayling, whitefish, and sculpins. Spawning by salmon in the river
below the lake occurs prim·arily in the sloughs and tributaries. However, the largest salmon
escapement in the basin occurs in the Chillegan and Igitna rivers upstream of the lake, where
approximately 41,000 sockeye spawn. Lake Chakachamna is the primary rearing area for these
fish. The McArthur River system is similar to the Chakachatna River below the lake, where most
salmon spawning occurs in the tributaries. Fish from both river systems use Noaukta Slough.
Estimated salmon populations for the Lake Chakachamna basin are presented in Table 3-13, and the
relative importance of this area to overall sport fishing is presented in Table 3-12.
Table 3-13. Estimated Salmon Escapement
from the Chakachamna Region, 1982
Species
Chinook
Coho
Chum
Sockeye
Pink
Source: Bechtel
3.5.5 Terrestrial Communities
3.5.5.1 Plant Communities ~
Chakachatna
2,521
2,599
1,920
43,637
8,263
(1983).
MacArthur
3,583
4,729
29
52,400
19,777
The following descriptions of vegetation occurrence near sites identified for the combined
hydro-thermal scenario are based primarily on Figure 3-16. Along the Tanana River near the
Johnson alternative site the vegetation is mostly bottomland spruce-poplar forest; fart~er away
from the Tanana River floodplain and along the Johnson River, the vegetation is mostly upland
spruce-hardwood forest. However, there are also smaller areas of lowland spruce-hardwood forest
and low shrub, muskeg bog, as well as moist tundra and alpine tundra at the higher elevations.
Bottomland spruce-poplar forest types predominate along the Talkeetna River near the Keetna
alternative site. These forests grade into upland spruce-hardwood forests away from the flood-
plain. At higher elevations above the river the vegetation consists of moist tundra types
(i.e., mesic sedge-grass tundra and mat and cushion tundra) similar to those found on· the
benches above the Susitna River canyon.
Forested areas near the Snow alternative site are mostly coastal western hemlock-Sitka spruce
forest; however, cottonwoods and willows probably dominate the river valleys and floodplains.
Tall shrub communities, dominated by alder, grade into alpine tundra types above the tree line.
Vegetation along the Nenana River near the Browne alternative site is mostly bottomland spruce-
poplar forest. Farther from the river the vegetation grades into lowland spruce-hardwood com-
munities. About 10 mi (16 km) upstream from the dam site, upland spruce-hardwood forest communi-
ties predominate along the river. At higher elevations the vegetation grades into moist tundra
and alpine tundra.
3-69
The vegetation on the steep slopes surrounding Chakachamna Lake can be generally classified as
tall shrubland with alpine tundra and bare rock at higher elevations. The Chakachatna River
canyon and the fl oodp l ai ns of rivers flowing into Chakachamna Lake are also covered by tall
shrub communities. Large, low-shrub bogs are found on flat, poorly drained areas as the topo-
graphy flattens out to the upper Cook Inlet coastal plain. Sedge-grass coastal marshes cover
most of the area within 1 mi (1.6 km) of Cook Inlet, as well as some areas along the McArthur
River. Intermediate between the coastal marshes and the bogs are poorly drained areas of black
spruce forest. These areas differ from the bogs in the lack of floating vegetation mats and the
absence of black cottonwood (Bechtel, 1983).
Vegetation in the vicinity of Nenana, the lower Beluga River, the Chuitna River, and Anchorage,
where thermal units for this scenario would probably be sited, have been described in Sec-
tions 3.3.5.1 and 3.4.5.1.
3.5.5.2 Animal Communities
Common mammals in the Chakachamna area are moose, black and brown bear, coyotes, and gray wolf.
River otter, barren-ground caribou, and wolverine are occ'as ion a 11y encountered during fie 1 d
surveys. Moose are common throughout the area, principally in habitat associated with drainages
into Chakachamna Lake and the Chakachatna and McArthur River riparian habitats. Moose are
abundant in the coastal marsh riparian habitat at the mouths of the rivers and less abundant in
upland alder thickets on the slopes above Chakachamna Lake. Black and brown bear are abundant
in the areas above Chakachamna Lake and just downstream. High altitude, riparian habitat supports
the most bear. Bear become less common in downstream habitats along the Chakachatna and McArthur
rivers. Gray wolf are commonly found in high altitude riparian habitat. Coyote are distributed
over all habitats, and are abundant in coastal marsh habitat. Coastal marsh riparian habitat
supports the greatest diversity of birds. Trumpeter swan, Canada goose, marsh hawk, bald eagle,
sandhill crane, and several species of gulls are commonly found in coastal marshes. This habitat
also supports an abundance of ducks. Bald eagle nests are concentrated in the marsh habitat of
Noaukta Slough and the lower Chakachatna and McArthur rivers. Trumpeter swan nests are most
dense in an area from Noaukta Slough to Blockade Glacier along the McArthur River.
The wildlife species in the area of the Browne site are typical of those found in the central
portions of the Railbelt. Important big game include moose, caribou, black and brown bear, and
Dall 's sheep. Moose concentrate in the general area during fall and winter. In winter in
particular, moose tend to concentrate in riparian habitat along the Nenana River. Caribou range
throughout the area, and winter concentrations are found along the Nenana. Dall's sheep concen-
trations are found in the highlands above the Nenana River some 10 mi (16 km) south of the
Browne site. Brown and black bear range throughout the area. Several miles to the south, an
area intensively used by brown bear is located around the entrance to Denali National Park and
Preserve. Furbearers occur along the Nenana River but do not appear to be very common. Although
waterfowl use the area along the Nenana River, densities tend to be low. A major flyway occurs
through the area, parallel to the Nenana River. Common. raptors include sharp-shinned hawk,
rough-legged hawk, American kestrel, and golden eagle.
The wildlife species of the Keetna area are typical of those found in the middle Susitna drainage.
The site is located in an area of fall and winter concentrations of moose. Caribou range through-
out the region, and winter concentrations occur around the potential dam site. Concentrations
of Dall's sheep are well removed, some 25 mi (40 km) to the southeast. Black and brown bear
also range through the area. The brown bear fishing area at Prairie Creek is upstream of this
site. This is not a major waterbird use area.
The riparian habitat in the Snow River supports moose and other wildlife. Upstream and down-
stream of the potential dam site are areas of fall and winter moose concentration. Mountain
goat and Dall 's sheep occupy the steep slopes above the site. Black and brown bear and wolf
range across the area. Waterfowl use the vicinity of the site for a nesting and molting area
during spring and summer.
Moose and caribou range throughout the area of the Johnson site, and a fall concentration area
for moose is located to the southwest along the Johnson River. A bison calving area is located
downstream of the site, along the Tanana River. Black and brown bear are also present. Low
densities of waterfowl use the area for nesting and molting.
\
The wildlife popui~tions of the Nenana, Chuitna River, and Anchorage areas--potential sites of
coal-fired units under this alternative--have been described previously.
3.5.6 Threatened and Endangered Species
Development of coal-fired power generation facilities in Nenana would occur in the vicinity of
peregrine falcon habitat situated north of the Tanana River. Although this area is not currently
used by peregrine, several historical nesting locations are known to exist northeast of Nenana.
No other threatened or endangered species of plants or wildlife would be associated with the
combined hydro-thermal generation scenario (see Sec. 3.1.6).
''
1
11'1 3-70
II'
1·:
I
3.5. 7 Recreation Resources
Dedicated recreation sites in the general area of the Johnson River include the Tok River, Moon
Lake, Clearwater and Donnelly Creek State Recreation Sites, and the Quartz Lake and Harding Lake
State Recreation Areas (Park Planning Section, 1982). River touring on the Tanana River is
available on a commercial basis.
Accessibility by a major trail affords opportunities for a wide range of trail-related activities
and dispersed recreation in the otherwise remote area of the Keetna alternative. Sport hunting
and fishing, and river running are among the more popular activities (Alaska Dept. of Natural
Resources, 1982).
Campsites, boat launch and other ancillary facilities, as well as several hiking trails are
maintained by the U.S. Forest Service in the area of the potential Snow alternative (Alaska
Northwest Publishing, 1983). Private establishments along the Seward Highway provide tourist
accommodations, as well as guide and other services for local recreation opportunities.
The Nenana River affords opportunities for river touring and other water-based recreation in the
Browne area. A developed wayside area, as well as private establishments, provide accommodations
for trave 1 ers of the Parks Highway (Alaska Northwest Pub 1 i shi ng, 1983). Other 1 oca 1 outdoor
recreation consists of dispersed activities, primarily hunting and fishing.
Summary discussions re 1 ative to recreation resources of Chakachamna (Be 1 uga and Chui tna river
areas), Chuitna River, Anchorage, and Nenana areas are presented in Sections 3.3. 7 and 3.4.7.
3.5.8 Socioeconomic Factors
Locations of the five potential hydropower facilities are shown in Figure 3-ll. The socio-
economic environment of the Johnson site would include the communities of Tok, Delta Junction,
and metropolitan Fairbanks; the Keetna environment would include Talkeetna, the Railbelt, and
the metropolitan areas of Anchorage and Fairbanks; the Snow socioeconomic environment would
include the city of Seward and the Eastern Peninsula section of the Kenai Peninsula Borough;
socioeconomic environment of Browne would be the communities of Healy, Nenana, Fairbanks, and
northern Mat-Su Borough; and the Chakachamna site would be in the Tyonek area. The thermal
units in this scenario would be a subset of those described in Sections 3.3.8 and 3.4.8. Their
socioeconomic environments waul d include Nenana-, -Healy, metropo 1 itan Fairbanks, the northern
Railbelt, the Tyonek area, and metropolitan Anchorage. Healy, Nenana, Paxson, the entire Rail-
belt, Talkeetna, Anchorage, and Fairbanks are described in Section 3.1.8. The Tyonek area and
the northern Kenai Peninsula are described in Section 3.3.8.
The Snow hydropower alternative would be located near the southeastern coastline of the Kenai
Peninsula. The nearest population center to the site is Seward, which is the largest population
center on the Eastern Peninsula of the Kenai Peninsula (1982 population of 1,828). The popula-
tion of the Seward Census Division, which includes Seward and the eastern coastal areas of the
Kenai Peninsula, has increased by 31% since 1970, to a 1982 total of 3,500 (Kenai Penin. Bar.
Resour. Dev. Off., 1983).
Seward is a home rule city and thus has power to tax its citizens, to provide education and
other community services, and to plan and zone. Areas around it are served by departments
provided through Seward Service Area taxes. Seward is the southern terminus of the Alaska
Railroad and of Highway 9 from Anchorage, and is a cargo port. Primary industrial bases for
Seward are fishing and processing for fish and timber. The Eastern Peninsula is a popular
tourist attraction, and tourism provides an important part of the economic base of the whole
area. However, Federal, state, and local government employ about 20% of the working population
in the Seward Census Division. The total labor force in 1982 was 1,622. The unemployment rate
is volatile, and at 14.7% in 1982, is usually higher than in the rest of the borough or in the
state as a whole. Wages from government employment made up over 40% of the total wage payments
in 1980. The 1980 per-capita income was $ll, 967, s 1 i ghtly higher than for the rest of the
borough, but the cost of living in Seward is also higher (Kenai Penin. Bar. Resour. Dev. Off.,
1983; Alaska Office of Management and Budget, 1983).
In 1982, just under 70% of housing in the city of Seward was in single family units, with almost
all the remaining 30% in apartment units (App. N, Table N-ll). Less than 1% was in mobile
homes. Vacancy rates are not available. Nearly all Seward households are on city water and
sewer systems. Seward has one hospital, one mental health clinic, and its own fire and police
departments. The Eastern Peninsula has four elementary schools and one high school; one of the
elementary schools and the high school are in Seward.
The Johnson hydropower alternative site is just north of the Alaska Highway about 140 mi (220 km)
southwest of Fairbanks. The largest communities in the area are Delta Junction to the northeast
of the site and Tok to the southwest. Tok is a small, unincorporated community at the inter-
section of the Alaska Highway and the Tok cut-off of the Glenn Highway, about 70 mi (110 km)
3-71
southeast of the site. Tok' s 1980 population was 750, up 250% since 1970. The town is ·pri-
marily a service center for tourists and highway vehicles using the Alaska Highway. Thus,
employment is seasonal for many residents. In 1982, an average of 11,620 passengers per month
entered Alaska at the Tok Station, almost 33,000 in June alone (Kenai Penin. Bor. Resour. Dev.
Off., 1983). There are several motels, three commercial campgrounds, elementary and high schools,
a public health clinic, a fire department, a State Trooper station, and small airfield, which
serves private and chartered planes. Services are provided by the state (Alaska Northwest
Publishing, 1983; U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1973).
Two small native communities, Tanacross (1982 population of 117) and Dot Lake (1982 population
of 67), are located on the Alaska Highway betwe.en Tok and the Johnson site. Tanacross has an
airstrip and is the site of a fireguard station for the area. Dot Lake has a few lodging units
and a few tourist-related services. One lodge is located about 30 mi (50 km) northwest of the
site on the Alaska Highway.
Delta Junction, an incorporated community (1982 population of 1,044) at the merger of the Alaska
and Richardson Highways, is about 40 mi (64 km) farther northwest on the Alaska Highway. It has
full community services, including a fire station, a health clinic staffed by a physician's
associate, and schools. The town•s commercial operations are tourist-oriented. The area around
Delta Junction is used for agriculture, primarily growing of barley (Alaska Northwest Publishing,
1983).
Between Delta Junction and Fairbanks are a number of lodges, motels, and other tourist facilities
and one community, North Pole (1980 population of 928), located just south of Fairbanks (Alaska
Northwest Publishing, 1983).
3.5.9 Visual Resources
The vi sua 1 characteristics of the Chakachamna Lake area include steep mountainous terrain,
vegetated uplands, and coasta 1 wetlands. Chakachamna Lake, Chakachatna River Canyon, and the
headwaters of the McArthur River are located in narrow glaciated valleys that are surrounded by
steep and rugged mountainous terrain (Bechtel, 1983). Extended views from along the lake offer
scenic vistas of glaciers descending into the lake. The Chakachatna River descends from the
lake and goes through a twisting canyon surrounded by steep mountainous terrain.
The landscape character of the Browne area is mainly defined by the braided Nenana River Valley
and its tributaries and the Alaska Mountain Range, which includes Mt. McKinley. The area includes
scattered small lakes, bog areas, wetlands, and numerous islands within the broad floodplain. A
number of small human development areas occur in the Railbelt corridor. Views are essentially
oriented to the mountains of the Alaska Range and ·high foothill areas.
The Keetna area is located in the lower half of the Talkeetna River Basin. ~1ajor landforms
include the Talkeetna Mountains, located to the northeast. The vegetation near the project site
is predominately up 1 and spruce-hardwood forest. Two scenic areas 1 ocated in the area include
Sentinel Rock and Granite Gorge (Exhibit E, Vol. 8, Chap. 10, p. E-10-13).
The Snow River is one of the Kenai Peninsula•s major river drainage systems. The region is
characterized by glacially carved valleys, rugged, snow-capped mountain ridges, and a variety of
vegetation types. Large glacial icefields are located in the Kenai Mountains northeast of the
Snow site ..
The dominant landform in the Johnson area is the Alaska Range. Johnson River is located in a
glaciated "U"-shaped valley. The braided river flows toward the broad valley of the Tanana
River, which is bordered by the Alaska Range and rounded, gentle ridges to the south and slopes
of the Yukon-Tanana Upland area to the north.
The landscape character for the Nenana area is described in Section 3.4.9. The Chuitna River
and Anchorage landscapes are described in Section 3.3.9.
3.5.10 Cultural Resources
Cultural resource sites are unknown in most of the areas that would be affected by the combined
hydro-thermal sce~ario. No sites are currently recorded for the Johnson, Keetna, or Chakachamna
alternative dam si,tes. The area of the alternative Snow River site possesses several historic
sites, however, an~ the Browne site contains over 50 archeological and historic sites, many of
which appear likely to be significant. No sites are known in the Beluga combined-cycle and
Anchorage combustion-turbine siting locations, but seven archeological and historic sites are
recorded in the Nenana area (Smith, personal communication*). Site-specific surveys would be
necessary in all areas to properly assess existing cultural resources.
*Smith, T.A. (Office of History and Archaeology, Alaska State Division of Parks). Oral communi-
cation to J.F. Hoffecker (Argonne National Laboratory), March 24, 1984.
3-72
REFERENCES FOR SEC. 3
Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development. 1983. 1983 Long Term Energy Plan.
Working Draft. Division of Energy and Power Development.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. 1979. Water Quality Standards. Juneau.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 1973. Alaska's Wildlife and Habitat. Vol. I. Juneau.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 1978. Alaska's Wildlife and Habitat. Vol. II. Juneau.
Alaska Department of
Report. Vol. 4.
Power Authority.
Fish and Game. 1983. Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies, Phase II Basic Data
Aquatic Habitat and Instream Flow Studies, 1982. Prepared for the Alaska
Anchorage.
Alaska Department of Labor. 1983. Alaska Planning Information. Juneau. 160 pp.
Alaska Department of Natural Resources. 1982. Land Use Issues and Preliminary Resource Inventory.
Vol. 1: Planning Background Report. Prepared in cooperation with the Matanuska-Susitna
Borough, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and Transportation and Public Facilities of
the Kenai Peninsula Borough. 199 pp.
Alaska Geographic Society. 1981. Alaska National Interest Lands -The D-2 Lands. Alaska
Geographic. Vol. 8, No. 4. Anchorage.
Alaska Northwest Publishing Co. 1983. The Milepost 1983. Alaska, Western Canada. 35th ed.
Anchorage. 496 pp.
Alaska Office of Management and Budget. 1983. Alaska Statistical Review 1982. Vol. II.
Office of the Governor, Division of Strategic Planning. 179 pp.
Associated Press. 1983. Gorsuch: subsistence "constitutional". The Anchorage Times. March 10,
p. B-3.
Bailey, R.G. 1978. Description of the Ecoregions of the United States. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Region. Ogden,. UT. 77 pp.
Bechtel Civil and Minerals, Inc. 1983. Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility
Assessment Report. Vol. 1, Sec. 1-10, Appendices to Sec. 4.0 and 8.0, and Vol. II, Appendix
to Sec. 6.0. Prepared for the Alaska Power Authority. Anchorage.
Bredthauer, S. and B. Drage. 1982. Task 3, Hydrology: River Morphology. Prepared by R&M
Consultants, Anchorage, for Acres American Incorporated. Buffalo, NY.
Campbell, A. 1983. Steady growth rate increases Mat-Su land values. The Anchorage Times.
March 23, p. B-1.
Chapman, D. L. 1982. Daily Flow Stat.istics of Alaskan Streams. NOAA Technical Memorandum NWS
AR-35. United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-
tion, National Weather Service. Anchorage. 57 pp.
Commonwealth Associates, Inc. 1982. Anchorage-Fairbanks Transmission Intertie, Alaska Power
Authority, Environmental Assessment Report. Prepared with assistance from DOWL Engineers
and Kevin Waring Associates.
Darbyshire & Associates. 1980. City of Bethel Comprehensive Development Plan. Vol. III. The
Bethel Economy: Present and Future.
Dixon, E.J., G.S. Smith, R.C. Betts and R.M. Thorson. 1982. Final Report, Sub-Task 7.06.
Cultural Resources Investigations for the Sus itna Hydroelectric Project: A Preliminary
Cultural Resources Survey in the Upper Susitna River Valley. Prepared by University of
Alaska Museum, Fairbanks, for Acres American, Inc. Buffalo, NY. 1011 pp.
Dixon, E.J., G.S. Smith, M.L. King and J.D. Romick. 1983. Final Report 1982 Field Season,
Sub-Task 7. 06. Cultural Resources Investigation for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project:
Cultural Resource Survey in the Middle Susitna River Valley. Prepared by University of
Alaska Museum, Fairbanks, for Acres American, Inc. Buffalo, NY. 346 pp.
Dixon, E.J., G.S. Smith, W. Andrefsky, B.M. Saleeby, C.J. Utermohle and M.L. King. 1984.
Susitna Hydroelectric Project: 1983 Field Season Cultural Resources Investigation (3 volumes).
Prepared by University of Alaska Museum, Fairbanks, for Alaska Power Authority. Anchorage.
3-73
DOWL Engineers. 1983. Matanuska-Susitna Borough Comprehensive Development Plan. Draft.
Prepared for Matanuska-Susitna Borough.
Dwight, L.D. 1981. Susitna Hydroelectric Project, Reveiw of Existing Water Rights in the
Susitna River Basin. Prepared for Acres American Incorporated. Buffalo, NY.
Edgar, D. E., L-J. Onesti and G.M. Kaszynski .. 1982. Alaskan Coal: Resources and Environmental
Constraints.
131 pp.
ANL/LRP-18. Argonne National Laboratory for U.S. Department of Energy.
Ender, R. L. 1980. Mat-Su Housing and Economic Development Study: Survey Findings. Prepared
by Policy Analysts, Limited, for Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs, with
Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Cook Inlet Native Association, and Mat-Su OEDP, Inc.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 1983. In the matter of Alaska power authority, Docket
No. Project 7114, Vol. 1. Public Seeping Meetings, June 20-23, 1983.
Frank Orth & Associates, Inc. 1982. Alaska Power Authority Susitna Hydroelectric Project.
Environmental Studies Final Report. Subtask 7. 05: Socioeconomic Analysis. Prepared for
Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Inc., and Acres American, Inc.
Frank Orth & Associates, Inc. 1983. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Subtask 4.5: Socioeconomic
Studies. Draft Fi na 1. Projection Assumptions, Methode 1 ogy and Output Formats. Prepared
for Harza-Ebasco and the Alaska Power Authority. 94 pp.
Grogan, R. L. 1983. Letter and comments from R. L. Grogan, Associate Director, Alaska Office of
the Governor, to L. Crawford, A 1 aska Power Authority, regarding Sus itna Hydroe 1 ectri c
Project Application. 18 November.
Hoffman, D.G.
spending.
1983. Village economies. The danger of village economies based on government
Alaska Native News. July, pp. 15-17.
Irvin, G. 1983. Letter from G. Irvin, Natural Resources Director, Rural Alaska Community
Action Program, to B.A. Payne, Argonne National Laboratory. August 5.
Kenai Peninsula Borough Resource Development Office. 1983. Situation and Pro<pects. Kenai
Peninsula Borough. 121 pp.
Matanuska-Susi tna Planning Department. Undated. MSB Population Projections (Amended). 1 p.
McKendrick, J., W. Collins, D. Helm, J. McMullen and J. Koranda. 1982. Susitna Hydroelectric
Project, Environmental Studies, Subtask 7.12: Plant Ecology Studies, Phase I Final Report.
Prepared by University of Alaska Agricultural Experimental Station, Palmer, for the Alaska
Power Authority. Anchorage. 124 pp.
Mills, M.J. 1979. Alaska Statewide Sport Fish Harvest Studies. ADF&G Federal Aid in Fish
Restoration. Volume 20. F-9-11, SW-1.
Mills, M.J. 1980. Alaska Statewide Sport Fish Harvest Studies 1980. Alaska Department of Fish
and Game. Federal Aid in Fish Restoration. Volume 21. F-9-12, SW-1. 65 pp.
Mills, M.J. 1981. Alaska Statewide Sport Fish Harvest Studies -1980 Data. ADF&G Federal Aid
in Fish Restoration and Anadromous Fish Studies. Volume 22. F-9-13, SW-1.
Mills, M.J. 1982. Alaska Statewide Sport Fish Harvest Studies. ADF&G Federal Aid in Fish
Restoration. Volume 23. F-9-14, SW-1.
Myers, E. F. Undated. Comments on Northern A 1 aska En vi ronmenta 1 Center to the Federa 1 Energy
Regulatory Commission Respecting the Proposed Susitna Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project
No. 7114.
National Park Service. 1982. Index.
Printing Office. Washington, DC.
Neiland, B.J. an\ L.A. Viereck. 1977.
Proceedings North American Forest
Alaska. Fairbanks.
National Park System and Related Areas. U.S. Government
94 pp.
Forest types and ecosystems. pp. 109-136, In: Symposium
Lands at Latitudes North of 60 Degrees. University of
Park Planning Section. 1982. Alaska State Park System: South Central Region Plan.
153 pp.
A 1 aska
Division of Parks, Department of Natural Resources.
.''1''·1 !II
! 3-74
Park Planning Section. 1983. Master Plan for the Proposed Willow Creek State Recreation Area.
Division of Parks, Alaska Department of Natural Resources. 86 pp.
Reeder, B., S. Goldsmith, K. White and G. Knapp. 1983. MAP Model Regional Base Case Projec-
tions 1980-2010 for use in OCS Lease Sale 87 (Diapir Field) Impact Analysis. Prepared by
Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, for Minerals
Management Service, Alaska OCS Office. 19 pp.
R&M Consultants. 1981. Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Hydrology Water Quality in 1980.
R&M Consultants and L.A. Peterson and Associates. 1982. Water Quality Effects Resulting from
Impoundment of the Susitna River.
Schallock, E.W. and F.B. Lotspeich.
Report No. EPA-660/3-74-008.
33 pp.
1974. Low Winter Dissolved Oxygen in Some Alaskan Rivers.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC.
Se l kregg, L. L. 1974. Alaska Regional Profiles. Vol. I. Southcentra l Region. The University
of Alaska, Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center. Anchorage. 255 pp.
Selkregg, L.L. 1977. Alaska Regional Profiles. Vol. VI. Yukon Region. The University of
346 pp. Alaska, Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center. Anchorage.
Simmerman, N.L. 1983. Alaska's Parklands, The Complete Guide. The Mountaineers. Seattle, WA.
336 pp.
Stenehjem, E. J. and J. E. Mitzger. 1980. A Framework for Projecting Employment and Population
Changes Accompanying Energy Development. Vols. I and II. Report ANL/AA-14. Argonne National
Laboratory. Argonne, IL.
Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Inc. 1982a. Susitna Hydroelectric Project, Environ-
mental Studies, Subtask 7. 08: Recreation Planning, Phase I Report. Prepared in coopera-
tion with the University of Alaska for Acres American Inc. Buffalo, NY. 39 pp.
Terrestrial En vi ronmenta l Specialists, Inc. 1982b. Susi tna Hydroelectric Project, En vi ron-
mental Studies, Subtask 7.07: Land Use Analysis. Phase 1 Report. Prepared for Acres
American, Inc. Buffalo, NY.
Trihey, E.W. 1982. Instream Flow Assessment for the Proposed Susitna Hydroelectric Project.
Prepared for Acres American Incorporated. Buffalo, NY. 108 pp.
U.S. Bureau of Land Management. 1981. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Proposed Outer
Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Lease Sale, Lower Cook Inlet/Shelikof Strait.
U.S. Bureau of Land Management. 1982. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Proposed Outer
Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Lease Sale 71, Diapir Field. U.S. Department of the Interior.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1973. 1970 Census of Population. Vol. 1: Characteristics of the
Population. Part 3: Alaska. U.S. Department of Commerce.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1980. 1980 Census of Population. Characteristics of the Popul a-
t ion, Number of Inhabitants, Alaska. PC80-1-A3. U.S. Department of Commerce.
U.S. Department of the Interior. 1980. Protection of Eleven Alaskan Streams. Heritage Con-
servation and Recreation Service. Washington, DC. 139 pp.
U.S. Geological Survey. 1979. Water Resources Data for Alaska. USGS Water-Data Report AK-79-1.
National Technical Information Service. Springfield, VA.
Van Cleve, K. and L.A. Viereck. 1981. Forest succession in relation to nutrient cycling in the
boreal forest of Alaska. pp. 185-211, In: D.C. West, H.H. Shugart, and D.B. Botkin (eds.),
Forest Succession: Concepts and Application. Springer-Verlag. New York.
Van Cleve, K., C.T. Dyrness, L.A. Viereck, J. Fox, F.S. Chapin III and W. Oechel. 1983. Taiga
ecosystems in interior Alaska. BioScience 33:39-44.
Viereck, L.A. and C. T. Dyrness. 1980. A Preliminary Classification System for Vegetation of
Alaska. Forest Service Technical Report PNW-106. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range
Experiment Station General, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 38 pp.
Yarzebi nski, J.
Department
Commission
1983. Economic Base Study, Anchorage, Alaska, 1983.
of Community Planning, Research Section, and Anchorage
for the Municipality of Anchorage. 109 pp.
Draft. Prepared by
Economic Development
4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
4.1 PROPOSED PROJECT
4.1.1 Land Resources
4.1.1.1 Geology and Soils
During the Susitna construction pha'Se, Watana reservoir slope stabilities would be affected by
the changing groundwater regimes in the reservoir vicinity and by the thawing of the permafrost
deposits present throughout the Watana area. Solifluction, skin flows, and bimodal failures
would occur and would be most likely on north-facing slopes between the dam site and Vee Canyon
where frozen basal tills are present. Seismic activity in the area would increase the magnitude
and frequency of such failures.
Soil erosion would occur throughout the reservoir area as a result of construction activities,
e. g. , vegetation stripping, construction camp and vi 11 age deve 1 opment, excavation of borrow
sites, and road construction. The Applicant proposes to control erosion by restricting vegeta-
tion stripping activities wherever possible, promoting rapid revegetation of disturbed areas
around construction sites, locating facilities on gentle slopes when possible, and using revet-
ments, desilting ponds, and berms wherever feasible. These and other measures would reduce,
although not prevent, erosion losses.
Permafrost thaw waul d result in differential settlement of soils and sediment flows. Because
the temporary construction camp and village, the airstrip, and numerous site roads would be
located in areas of permafrost, the Applicant proposes to use insulating bases to prevent perma-
frost thaw.
Although the Watana/Oevil Canyon reservoir complex would be among the world's largest, reservoir-
induced seismicity would be unlikely because no faults wi.th recent displacement are known to
occur in the immediate reservoir vicinity and because the Applicant proposes to fill the reservoir
at a slow, steady rate.
During the operation phase, Watana reservoir slope instabilities would be related to seasonal
fluctuations in the reservoir level. Thawing of the permafrost deposits would result in initial
slope instabilities that would lessen with time. Seepage in the Watana relict channel would be
greatest when the reservoir was filled. Grouting would be used if seepage losses were found to
be excessive. Because of the over-consolidated nature of the relict channel deposits, lique-
faction of these deposits when saturated would not be likely. Many of the areas susceptible to
erosion during the construction period would be inundated by the reservoir, but erosion losses
would continue along roads, the airstrip, and the permanent village.
In the area downstream from Devil Creek, the reservoir shoreline would be in contact with steep
bedrock cliffs, and slope instabilities would be due to small rock falls. Upstream, beaching
and other slope failures would increase as the thickness of unconsolidated materials along the
shoreline increased. There are no permafrost deposits in these areas. Small seasonal drawdowns
of the Devil Canyon reservoir would further reduce the potential for slope instability. The
Applicant has calculated that approximately 2,500 acres [1,000 hectares (ha)] of land adjacent
to the Devil Canyon reservoir would be affected by some form of slope instability.
Because of the steep and narrow configuration of the Devil Canyon, the total area cleared of
vegetation for the Devil Canyon facility would be only 15% of that cleared for the Watana develop-
ment. The thinness of the overburden in the Devil Canyon impoundment area also would result in
reduced cumulative erosion 1 osses re 1 ative to the Watana deve 1 opment. During the operation
phase, all Devil Canyon construction facilities waul d be dismantled and the areas waul d be
revegetated to reduce erosion losses.
No agricultural soils or known mineral resources would be inundated by the Watana/Devil Canyon
reservoirs.
Liquefaction failures, problems related to permafrost thaw, and landslides might occur in the
unstable, uncon~t l i dated geologic materials that are present along the proposed access road
4-1
4-2
route between the Denali Highway and the Devil Canyon dam site, as well as the Dams-to-Gold
Creek rail access. The Applicant, however, proposes to avoid such deposits that might be found
during geotechnical investigations during access route development. Removal of vegetation during
construction of this access road would result in increased erosion, soil compaction, and altera-
tion of surface drainage patterns, which could result in liquefaction and permafrost thaw.
Erosion losses would be controlled by such methods as the use of desilting ponds and revetments.
Permafrost thaw would be controlled by providing adequate drainage, promptly revegetating dis-
turbed areas, and using insulating granular fill under road beds. ·
The Applicant proposes to reduce borrow-site requirements for road development through maximum
use of side-borrow and cut-and-fill techniques. Because of the increased access provided by the
development of the Denali Highway to Devil Canyon access route, off-road traffic would increase
in the project area. Increased traffic, in turn, would increase soil erosion in the affected
areas.
Construction of the rail extension between Devil Canyon and Gold Creek and related facilities
would disturb about 118 acres (48 ha) of vegetation and soils. On a unit-length basis, soil
disturbances and construction material requirements would be less for the rail access than for
the road because of the narrower clearance width required for the rail line.
No known mineral resources or agriculturally suitable soils would be affected by the proposed
access route.
In order to minimize impacts associated with construction of the Dams-to-Gold Creek segment of
the proposed transmission line (such as vegetation clearing and road construction), the Applicant
has proposed that the transmission corridor follow the Watana-to-Gold Creek access road route.
The transmission line impacts thus would be similar in nature to those for construction of the
access route.
About 1,540 acres (620 ha) of vegetation would be cleared for the transmission corridor between
the Watana dam and Gold Creek. Because the low vegetation and organic mat along the route would
be left intact, soil erosion losses would be localized, occurring primarily from construction of
transmission towers, relay buildings, and control stations.
Between Willow and Fairbanks, the transmission line would parallel an existing transmission
corridor and existing access routes and highways for much of its length. Right-of-way develop-
ment along this segment would entail widening of the existing corridor and would result in less
disturbance of soil and vegetation than would the development of a new right-of-way. Unstable,
unconsolidated geological deposits along the proposed route become increasingly more continuous
to the north, thus increasing the potential for construction difficulties and soil failures.
Limited areas of land suitable for agriculture occur at the northern end of this transmission
route segment, but the total area that would be occupied by transmission towers or impacted
during tower construction would be small. Between Willow and Port MacKenzie, the transmission
right-of-way would also cross small areas of soils suitable for agriculture.
4.1.1.2 Land Use and Ownership
Construction of the Watana dam and associ a ted power-generation and transmission faci 1 it i es
(e.g., substation), the impoundment ar~a. the construction camp and village, and the permanent
settlement would produce a significant change in the character and use of the land in the upper
and middle Susitna River Basin. The remote, largely undisturbed area would become one of
increased human activity and development. Land that is now used primarily for dispersed recrea-
tional activities, subsistence activities, and small mining operations would become more highly
developed for hydroelectric power generation, resulting in induced residential, commercial,
recreation, and natural resource development. Construction activities and the associated noise
around the Watana dam and reservoir project area would adversely affect use of the area for
recreational and subsistence purposes. The proposed dam and reservoir would inundate about
36,0QO.acres (14,600 ha) of land within the Susitna River Valley. The Watana impoundment would
inundate only six structures--a hunting lean-to, four cabins (two no longer in use), and a
collapsed shack. The construction camp, permanent and temporary village, and airstrip at the
Watana site would cover about 370 acres (150 ha).
Development of the Watana project would require the transfer of ownership of substantial areas
of Federal, Native, and private lands to the State of Alaska. These transfers would occur
either through actual purchase or right-of-way easement agreements. The Talkeetna Mountain
Special Use District (managed by the Mat-Su Borough) would require permits for specified develop-
ments such as roads. Specific values for land required for the project have not been established,
and it is anticipated that land values would not be determined until the land acquisition process
for the project was started.
The remote and natural character of the land in the upper and middle Susitna River Basin area
would continue to change during the operation of the Watana dam and the establishment of a
permanent town. The permanent townsite, which would be located north of the dam, would occupy
4-3
about 90 acres (36 ha). The town would consist of a central area with about 20 buildings, plus
a hospital, 93 single and multifamily dwelling units by 1992 (125 units by 2001), a water and
sewage treatment plant, and a landfill.
The capacity of much of the land in the Watana project area to support concentrated, high-
density, human development appears to have moderate to severe limitation due to such physical
constraints such as slope, soil, drainage, and load-bearing capacity. Pressures for human
settlement near the Watana dam site and permanent town could increase due to demand for increased
recreation services (e.g., supply stores, outfitters). Increased human activity and development
at the town and increased recreation activities on and surrounding the Watana reservoir would
cause further fundamental changes ir. the land use in the area and result in degradation of
vegetation and increased pressure on hunting and fishing resources in the upper and middle
Susitna River Basin area (see Sees. 4.1.5 and 4.1. 7).
The newly created project road and rail access would allow for easier access and exploitation of
timber and mineral resources in the area. Additionally, increased opportunities for resource
exploration and extraction activities might result from the availability of support services at
and around the permanent Watana settlement. Such activities also could result in additional
pressures for development of commercial and industrial support services at the Watana dam settle-
ment. The actual level of additional resource development that might occur in the Susitna Basin
area as a result of project operation would depend on such factors as the extent and type of
access into the area, fi na 1 1 and ownership and management patterns, resource market demands,
labor supply, development constraints, and the actual quality and quantity of mineral resources
found within the basin.
Development of the Watana project probably would cause increases in the values of properties
located near the permanent town, adjacent to the reservoir and access roads, along the Denali
and George Parks Highways, and in the communities of Talkeetna, Cantwell, and Gold Creek.
Future land values would depend in part on the amount of land made available by the major land-
owners, parcel size, location in relation to access, natural resources located on the property,
and the type of development planned.
The construction and operation of the Devil Canyon dam and associated facilities, the impound-
ment area, and the construction camp and.village would cause land use impacts similar to those
discussed above for the Watana development and would produce further changes in the use and
character of land in the upper and middle Susitna River Basin area.
Construction of project access roads and a rail spur would mean that the largely undisturbed
Devil Canyon area of the Susitna River area would become accessible to automobiles, trucks, and
heavy equipment vehicles. As would be the same for the Watana development, land that is now
used primarily for dispersed recreation, subsistence, and small mining operations would be made
accessible for large-scale hydropower development and its associated facilities.
Construction of the project access roads and rail spur wouid result in the destruction of vege-
tation and slumping and erosion of soils during the construction period. The proposed 40-mile
(mi) [67-kilometer (km)] gravel access road between the Denali Highway and the Watana site would
require about 630 acres (255 ha) of land. Pullouts and trailheads would be constructed along
the route to permit viewing and access into the interior region of the basin. The 37-mi (60-km)
Watana-to-Devil Canyon access route would require about 400 acres (162 ha) of land. A high-
level suspension bridge would extend across the Susitna River below the dam site and connect the
access road with the terminus of the rail spur from Gold Creek. The 12-mi (20-km) rail exten-
sion from Gold Creek to the Devil Canyon site would require about 72 acres (29 ha). Increased
development would be expected in the vicinities of the Gold Creek and Cantwell areas, which
wo.uld become staging areas for transportation of construction materials to the Watana and Devil
Canyon dams and their support facilities (also see Sec. 4.1.8). If public use of the rail
facility was not allowed, land development along the rail spur would be limited.
Most of the significant impacts to and changes in land use patterns that would result from
construction of the access facilities would continue for as long as the access routes were open
and usable. Previously remote areas in the vicinity of the Watana and Devil Canyon developments
would be accessible for recreation, mineral exploration, harvesting of timber, and settlement.
Although these changes could be of positive commercial value, all would produce increased pressure
on, and in many cases degradation of, the natural resources of the basin. This increased
accessibility coul'(! also be expected to result in incr.ease land values in the newly opened
areas. \.·
As is the case for other project-related features, construction of the various power trans-
mission facilities would contribute to significant changes in the use and character of the land
in the affected areas. In many cases, land that now is used primarily for dispersed low-density
activities, such as recreation, would be cleared for the transmission line right-of-way, and
adjacent areas might be made more accessible. In some cases, the 1 ines would extend through
deve 1 oped areas. Construction activities and the associ a ted noise created during clearing of
4-4
the transmission line rights-of-way, construction of tower structures, and stringing of trans-
mission wires could adversely affect any residents or recreationists near the proposed trans-
mission line route. A minimum standard access road would be created along the entire length of
the route for maintenance purposes. Routine maintenance activities should not adversely impact
surrounding land uses. However, float plane flight patterns could be adversely affected where
the transmission lines extended near lakes used for takeoff and landing (e.g., Big Lake area).
Flight patterns could also be adversely impacted at Healy, the Golden North Airport, and Gold
Creek where landing strips are located less than 1 mi (1.6 km) from the proposed route of the
transmission lines.
As would be the case for other project features, transfers of ownership or control of Federal,
Native, and private lands to the State of Alaska would be required for development of the trans-
mission system. These transfers would occur either through actua 1 right-of-way purchase or
easement agreements. Because of the present 1 ow-intensity use and undetermined 1 and va 1 ues
along much of the proposed transmission line route, it is not anticipated that there would be
significant impact to adjacent land values along most of the route. However, the resale value
of existing residential or recreational lands adjacent to the transmission _line route might be
1 imited.
The 45-mi (72-km) 1 ong Dams-to-Go 1 d Creek transmission 1 i ne segment would require a 300-foot
(ft) [90-meter (m)] wide right-of-way between the Watana and Devil Canyon dams and a 510-ft
(155-m) right-of-way from Devil Canyon Dam to Gold Creek. Total right-of-way requirements would
be 1,500 acres (600 ha) of land. The new right-of-way within the remote and natural area of the
upper and middle Susitna River basin would allow increased recreation access into the area,
affecting hunting, fishing, trapping, and other recreation activities.
The 330-mi (530-km) transmission 1 ine route between Fairbanks and Anchorage would occupy a
300-ft (90-m) right-of-way between Gold Creek and Fairbanks and a 400-ft (120-m) wide right-of-
way from Gold Creek to Anchorage. However, between the Healy and Willow substations, the route
would parallel the 110-ft (34-m) wide Anchorage-Fairbanks Transmission Intertie corridor for
about 170 mi (265 km) and require only 190 ft (58 m) of new right-of-way between Gold Creek and
Fairbanks and 290 ft (88 m) between Gold Creek and Anchorage. Because of the existence of the
Intertie line, only incremental impacts on land use would be expected. From Healy to the
northern terminus at Ester Substation (90 mi, or 145 km) and from Willow to the southern terminus
at Anchorage [70 mi (113 km)], entirely new transmission line right-of-way (300 ft and 400 ft,
or 90 and 120 m, respectively) would be necessary. Total right-of-way requirements for the
northern and southern segments and the adjacent Intertie segment would be approximately
10,200 acres (4,100 ha).
Land use conflicts could occur where concentrations of residential development occur--such as in
the communities of Ester, Nenana, Healy, Cantwell, Talkeetna, Willow, and Anchorage--and in
other, more sparsely settled residential areas that would be immediately adjacent to the trans-
mission line corridor. Conflicts also could occur where sections of the transmission corridor
would extend across land that has been designated for village selection within the boundaries of
Doyon, Ltd., and lands owned by CIRI. As discussed in Section 4.1.9, the presence of the cleared
right-of-way and tower structures would canst i tute an adverse aesthetic impact at adjacent
residences and recreation a 1 areas, such as the Dena 1 i State Park. The proposed transmission
route would extend across or parallel numerous trails--including the Iditarod Trail, seismic
survey lines, and tractor and pioneering off-road vehicle trails--and would cross 5 mi (8 km) of
the Susitna Flats State Game Refuge. Approximately 29 mi (47 km) of existing or proposed agri-
cultural sale lands would be traversed by the transmission line corridor between Fairbanks and
Anchorage (Exhibit E, Suppl. Information, Sec. 9, Item 7). Total land acreage impacted due to
construction, tower placement, and access requirements would depend on the amount of land actually
developed for agricultural use, final right-of-way alignment (e.g., along fence lines or across
fields), and type of agricultural use (e.g., pasture or row crops). However, it is anticipated
that the total amount of potential farmland that would be used for tower placement would be
minimal, on the order of 15 to 26 acres (6 to 11 ha).
The proposed transmission route would cross about 10 mi (16 km) of the U.S. Air Force Clear
M.E.W.S. Military Reserve near Anderson, and would also extend close to Elmendorf Air Force Base
lands and cross about 18 mi (29 km) of the Fort Richardson Military Reserve near Anchorage.
Adverse impacts to Air Force land could result from transmission line locations, design, and
tower height in relation to flight activities, communications, and security. In addition, the
presence of the transmi"ssi on 1 i ne corri dar caul d affect training, maneuvers, and base security
at Fort Richardson.
4.1.2 Climate, Air Quality, Noise
Any impact of hydroelectric plant construction and operation on ambient weather conditions would
be very minor. Land clearing, paving, and erection of buildings would change surface albedos
and heat capacities over small areas. The air immediately over these areas may often be slightly
warmer than in the surrounding areas, during both day and night. The surface area of the reservoirs
4-5
at Watana and Devil Canyon would be too small to lead to any significant differences in measured
meteorological variables beyond the reservoir boundaries. The reservoir surface would alsa·be
frozen in the winter, lessening further any changes between land and water conditions. Neither
the increased ambient surface temperature nor the increased re 1 ati ve humidities over sma 11
portions of the site would be expected to have any noticeable effect on offsite weather conditions.
For this reason, the impact of the hydroelectric project on weather conditions would be considered
nil.
Four air quality impacts would be present during construction of Watana and Devil Canyon dams:
(a) fugitive dust emissions, (b) diesel generator exhaust emissions, (c) emissions from incinera-
tors at the construction camps, and (d) ice fogs caused by condensation of emitted water vapor
under very cold weather conditions. Each impact wfll be discussed in turn.
At the Watana site, the largest sources of fugitive dust would be road dust raised by truck
traffic and wind-blown dust from storage piles. The quantities of fugitive emission releases
were computed by the Applicant using EPA-recommended methodologies. The areas of potential
release would all be within the site boundary, yet fugitive emissions might be transported by
the wind outside the site boundary. Construction at Devil Canyon would be mainly in the riverbed,
resulting in very small amounts of fugitive releases.
The Applicant has made an acceptable worst-case calculation of the downwind concentration of
fugitive dust at the Watana dam site. That scenario placed a storage pile in a straight line
3 mi (4.8 km) long by 220 ft (67 m) wide running east to west. Vehicular traffic was placed
parallel to the storage pile on a roadway 2 mi (3.2 km) long by 50 ft (15 m) wide. Using meteoro-
logical data from the Watana Climate Station, a worst day was chosen, one which would tend to
maximize the 24-hr concentration. The EPA-approved model ISCST was run and it was found that a
concentration of 627 micrograms per cubic meter (~g/m 3 ) was predicted to occur at a point 1,300 ft
(400 m) from the storage pile. This value exceeds the Alaska 24-hr maximum total suspended
particulates (TSP) standard of 150 ~g/m 3 ·(not to be exceeded more than once per year). Although
that point is likely to be inside the project boundary, it raises the possibility that exceed-
ences of the regulations could occur for points outside the site boundary, depending on the
relative location of the storage pile and roadway.
It is not clear at present whether the Susitna project would be subject to "Prevention of Signi-
ficant Deterioration" (PSD) review on TSP since (a) it is not definite that there would be a
release of some criteria pollutant with emissions above the trigger level of 250 tons per year
[225 metric tons (MT)] per year, and (b) it has not yet been determined by the Alaska Department
of Environmental Conservation whether construction emissions for this plant fall within the
exemption for releases of a temporary nature.
Twelve temporary diesel generators would be instal.led onsite to provide 10.3 MW of power for the
first three years of construction. These generators would consume 723 gallons (2, 740 1 iters)
per hour of No. 2 diesel fuel. The generators are planned for use continuously throughout the
entire year. No. 2 diesel fuel is a low sulfur oil considered high quality and low polluting.
It is within standards set in state regulations on the maximum sulfur content allowable in a
fuel.
The Applicant has computed the emissions from these generators based on EPA emission factors and
engineering calculations. None of these pollutants exceeds the 250 tons (225 MT) per year
trigger level that would require a PSD application. In any case, the Applicant applied the
EPA-approved PTPLU model using data recorded at the Watana Weather Station on July 18, 1981.
Predictions provided an estimate of the maximum 1-hr concentration of each pollutant in ~g/m 3 .
For S0 2 , the maximum 3-hr average (estimated by the Staff from the maximum 1-hr prediction of
the Applicant) is 11.6 ~g/m 3 . The PSD increment for 3-hr maximum S0 2 concentrations is 512 ~g/m 3 .
The predicted 24-hr maximum for TSP is 0.6 ~g/m 3 , whereas the PSD limit is 37 ~g/m 3 • As can be
seen, the maximum predicted ground-level concentrations are quite small compared with PSD incre-
ments.
The Appl.icant's calculations were made with meteorological data from only one day; however, that
day was specifically chosen because of its high persistence in wind direction; which would tend
to maximize an impact for a 24-hr averaging period. Based on this comparison, air quality
impacts from these diesel generators should be minimal in terms of Alaska or EPA air quality
standards. ,
Incinerators woufu be usea to burn garbage at the temporary camps for workers. The State of
A 1 aska has particulate and opacity regulations on such small incinerators. The particulate
emissions may not exceed 0.15 grains per cubic foot (340 mg/m 3 ). Opacity is a measure of the
density of the stack plume on a percentage basis from 0 to 100. For such incinerators, visible
emissions (excluding condensed water vapor) may not reduce vi si bil i ty through the exhaust
effluent by greater than 20% for a total of more than three minutes in any one hour. Pollutant
emissions from incinerators depend to a great degree on how they are operated. It is important
to control combustion conditions to minimize carryover of unburned material or to prevent
4-6
blowing too much air through the incinerator, thereby leading to the emission of too many par-
ticulates. State regulations should ensure efficient operation of the temporary incinerators.
Ice fogs are a potential problem in regions of Inland Alaska, especially at Fairbanks. When the
air cools to extremely low temperatures (-30°F to -40°F, or -34°C to -40°C), the water vapor in
the air condenses, forming ice crystals around particulate matter nuclei in the air. The
temporary diesel generators would produce several tons of water vapor per hour. The exhausts of
the diesel generators would .be 20 ft (6 m) off the ground, and the buoyant nature of the plume
should tend to keep it and the ice fog aloft under low wind conditions. The increase in par-
ticulate matter in the air during plant construction could enhance ice fog formation. However,
in very cold conditions, even if natural ice fog conditions do not occur, a visible plume would
persist with ice crystals present.
The State of Alaska through the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation states in its
Air Quality Regulations that 11 the Department will, in its discretion, require any person propos-
ing to build or operate an industrial process, fuel burning equipment, or incinerator, in areas
of potential ice fog to obtain a permit to operate and to reduce water emissions." The diesel
generators should be located and the exhaust directed, as much as possible, so as to avoid
potential ice fog impacts causing visibility problems on roads.
Watana and Devil Canyon construction would have very similar air quality impacts except that the
fugitive dust problem would not be expected to be significant at Devil Canyon because construc-
tion would be largely within the riverbed area. No calculations for fugitive dust release were
prepared by the Applicant for Devil Canyon. The calculations described above represent a worst-
case situation for the entire project construction area.
During the operation of the Watana and Devil Canyon dams, there would no longer be fugitive
emissions due to construction activities. The diesel generators would be removed as well. The
permanent village would contain small incinerators that would be regulated by the state for the
opacity of the stack plume and the emission of particulates. Furthermore, a workers village
would be at the Watana site only.
During construction at Watana and Devil Canyon, the sources of noise would be largely from
blasting, drilling, and truck and bulldozer operations. The intermittent nature of the blasting
operations should lessen any annoyance. Nearby towns are sufficiently distant and the construc-
tion period temporary so that annoyance to residents in the area should be minimal.
The operation of the plant would involve the use of transformers that would emit tonal noise at
120, 240, 360, and 480 Hz frequencies. This noise should not impact nearby residents because
the powerhouses are located in a deep valley, and the noise can travel up the valley but will be
greatly attenuated horizontally to the location of the nearest town. No impact is expected from
the transformers.
No audible noise should result from the 138-kV transmission lines. However, noise from the
345-kV transmission lines contains both broadband and tonal characteristics. Crackling sounds
characterize the broadband nature of the noise; superimposed on this noise is a 120-Hz tone that
sounds like the hum of a transformer. In fair weather, audible noise from broadband and tonal
sound should extend only about 50ft (15m) from the transmission lines. In foul (rainy) weather,
annoying sound could extend approximately 500 ft (150 m) from the lines. At approximately
2,000 ft (600 m), the noise should be inaudible.
4.1.3 Water Quantity and Quality
4.1.3.1 Surface Water Resources
4.1.3.1.1 Flow Regime
The natural flow regime of the Susitna River would be significantly changed by the p~oposed
project during both its construction/filling and operational phases. The Watana reservoir would
be operated in a store-and-release mode, resulting in a general increase in low-flows during the
winter months (November-April) and a decrease in peak-flows during the summer months (May-October).
The greatest impacts would be concentrated in the reach between Devil Canyon and the Susitna/
Chulitna confluence near Talkeetna. Flow reductions waul d be most severe during the three" year
period when Watana reservoir was being filled.
Relatively little change in mainstem flows would occur while Watana dam was under construction.
All flows less than 30,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) [850 cubic meters per second (m 3 /s)]
would be routed through diversion tunnels without impoundment. This would cause the dewatering
of a 1-mi (1.6-km) section of the mainstem of the Susitna River. Flows between 30,000 and
87,000 cfs (850 to 2,460 m3 /s) would cause a temporary impoundment to develop above the upstream
cofferdam. Flows exceeding 87,000 cfs (2,460 m3 /s) could overtop the cofferdam and cause down-
-ream flooding if they were to occur before the height of the dam reached 1,536 ft (468 m).
4-7
Filling of Watana Reservoir would require the impoundment of 9.47 million acre-feet (ac-ft)
[11. 7 billion cubic meters (m 3 )] from mainstem Susitna River flows over a 28-to 30-month period.
Only flows between May and October would be used in filling. This process would result in a
major reduction in natural flows during the summer months (Fig. 4-1). Beginning in May, all
flow in excess of 6,000 cfs (170 m3 /s) would be appropriated for reservoir filling. A 6,000-cfs
(170-m 3 /s) release would be maintained until July 27, when it would be stepped up to 12,000 cfs
(340 m3 /s) at a rate of 1,000 cfs (28 m3 /s) per day. The 12,000-cfs (340-m 3 /s) release would
then be maintained until September 15, after which it would be decreased to 2,000 cfs (56 m3 /s)
for the month of October. During the period November to April, dam releases would be equal to
reservoir inflow. The greatest changes in streamflow below Watana dam would occur in June when
mean monthly flows would be decreased by 78%, 34%, and 18%, respectively, at Gold Creek, Sunshine,
and Susitna Station.
Watana dam would be operated for baseload power generation until the Devil Canyon development
was completed. Daily operation would be determined by the proposed rule curve for the reservoir,
minimum flow requirements (Table 4-1), and power demands. Flows in excess of the minimum flow
requirement and the power demand would be stored in the reservoir unless its volume was greater
than the rule .curve. Maximum rate of change of Watana releases would be 2,000 cfs (66 m3 /s) per
day (Exhibit E, Vol. 5A, Chap. 2, p. E-2-104).* The minimum releases, expressed as discharge at
the Gold Creek gaging station, would vary between 445% (March) and 22% (June) of the preproject
mean monthly flows (Table 4-1). The most significant reduction in streamflow would occur during
the months of June and July (Fig. 4-2); the minimum flows of 6,000 cfs (170 m3 /s) in June and
6,480 cfs (184 m3 /s) in July would be lower than any monthly flows on record at Gold Creek for
these months.
Flow variability and the recurrence of low flows and high flows during project operation would
be determined primarily by systemwide power demand. All estimates of operational flows are
based on the Applicant's projected electrical demand for the years 2002 and 2010 (Exhibit E,
Vol. 5A, Chap. 2, p. E-2-55). It is expected that operation of the Watana development alone
would result in a reduction in mean annual floods at Gold Creek, Sunshine, and Sunshine Station
of 60%, 32%, and 19%, respectively (Exhibit E, Vol. 5A, Chap. 2, p. E.2.108). The one-in-ten
year flood would be reduced by 70%, 38%, and 23% at the same three gaging stations. At Gold
Creek, this would mean a reduction of the mean annual flood from 40,000 cfs (1,100 m3 /s) to
15,000 cfs (420 m3 /s) (Fig. 4-3). More importantly, the timing of peak flows would be shifted
from the time of spring snowmelt to either· late summer, when rainfall would peak and the reservoir
would reach its maximum pool elevation, or to winter months when power demand would be the
highest. The mean annual flood at Gold Creek would be comprised of winter powerhouse discharges
of 14,700 cfs (416 m3 /s) and a small amount of local runoff downstream of the dam .. This winter
high flow would be more than five times greater than the maximum historical monthly flows for
December, January, or February.
Flow alteration resulting from the filling of Devil Canyon Dam and combined Devil Canyon/Watana
operations would be very similar to the impacts of the Watana development alone. The water
needed to fill Devil Canyon reservoir (1,060,000 ac-ft, or 1.34 billion m3 ) would be appro-
priated from Watana releases in two stages, the first of which would be sufficient only to raise
pool elevations to the point where dam outlet structures could be utilized and diversion tunnels
sealed. This first stage would require only 76,000 ac-ft (93.7 million m3 ) and last no more
than four weeks, depending on the time of the year in which i.t occurred (Exhibit E, Vol. 5A,
Chap. 2, p. E-2-148). The second stage of filling would require withholding 1,014,000 ac-ft
(1. 25 billion m3 ) and last for five to eight weeks. During both filling phases, the minimum
flow requirements for Watana (Table 4-1) would also be enforced at Devil Canyon dam. The two-
stage filling process would span at least two water years, with the exact timing and impact
magnitude dependent on specific construction timing.
Once the Devil Canyon reservoir was filled and its powerhouse came on line, the operation of
Watana. Dam would change from baseload to peaking generation. Devil Canyon Dam operation would
always be for baseload generation, acting in part as a reregulation facility for the peaking
releases from Watana. The daily variation of inflows to Devil Canyon reservoir is expected to
cause no more than a 1-ft (0.3-m) change in water surface elevation (Exhibit E, Vol. 5A, Chap. 2,
p. E-2-156). Minimum flows would remain the same as for Watana operation alone. Although
monthly flows under the combined operation would be very similar to those for Watana alone,
there would be a general decrease in the mean flows during the months May through August and a
reduction in th~ year-to-year variability in flows (Fig. 4-2). Flow alteration would be less
severe bel ow tH~ Susitna/Chul itna/Ta l keetna confluence. However, although the summer flows
*Throughout this document, references to specific "Exhibits" are to the exhibits submitted to
FERC as part of Alaska Power Authority's Susitna Hydroelectric Project License Application.
References to specific "Appendices" (App.) are to the appendices provided in Volumes 2 through
7 of this Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
~
w w
0::: u
0~
.....J u
40
30
8 8 20
0
f-o'
<(~ -s
0
.....J
LL
10
0
" -
~~EDIAN MONTHLY PREPROJECT-+----1---1
~MEDIAN MONTHLY l FLOWS AT GOLD CREEK
I~ FILLING FLOWS l ~ J' ..
/A 1'~ .. -tT GOLD CREEK I ' \ ~ ..._ \
~ I
I \ FILLING I \ COMPLETE,,..~+-tv/ \
v \~
,.FILLING I' ~·--·-I COMMENCES'-....
1 r"' \
I j
J FMAMJ J AS OND J FMA MJ J AS ONDJ FMAMJ JASON 0
YEAR 1 YEAR 2
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]
YEAR 3
.,.
' co
t' Frequency (%) at which specified minimum flow is equalled or
exceeded by historical monthly flows, i.e., in September, the mini-
mum flow of 9,300 cfs is equalled or exceeded in 73% of all
Septembers on record.
t 2 Average monthly flow, including transitional minimum flows for the
periods 27-31 July and 15-30 September.
Conversion: To convert cfs to m3 /s, multiply by 0.0283.
Source: Application Exhibit E, Vol. SA, Chap. 2, Table E.2.36, and
Staff analysis.
(May-October) would average only 8% less than preproject conditions, winter flows would be
approximately doubled at Susitna Station (Exhibit E, Vol. 5A, Chap. 2, p. E-2-110).
4.1.3.1.2 Physical Habitat Availability
The flow alteration resulting from the filling and operation of Watana reservoir would lead to
changes in the physical characteristics of several of the important habitat types described in
Section 3.1.3. The aquatic habitats most sensitive to flow changes are the side sloughs, tribu-
tary mouths, and, to a lesser extent, the side channels. The biological significance of these
changes is discussed in Section 4.1.4.
The modified flow regimes proposed for reservoir filling and operation would result in a general
dewatering and isolation of side slough habitats along the Susitna below Devil Canyon. These
changes would occur throughout the open water months (May-October), but they would be most
severe in June and July. The average reduction in surface area in the sloughs above Talkeetna
would be more tban 50% during these summer months (Fig. 4-4). Side sloughs below Talkeetna
would also be a~fected, but to a lesser degree; the average reduction in surface area would be
approximately 2~·in June and July (Exhibit E, Vol. SA, Chap. 2, App. E.2.A, Table A-5).
The frequency of occurrence of various hydraulic regimes in the side sloughs (overtopping,
backwater, and isolation) (Sec. 3.1.3) would also be changed. ·This impact can be examined by
combining flow duration data with the flow thresholds for overtopping, backwater, and isolation
regimes presented in Exhibit E (Vol. SA, Chap. 2, App. E.2.A, Table A-1). Overtopping of
sloughs, which occurred on average 3if~ to 50% of the days in June, July, and August under base-
line conditions, would be essentially eliminated in the reach between Devil Canyon and Talkeetna.
"' ..._
(.)
LL
0
(/)
0 z
<(
(/)
::J
0
I
1-
z
$
0
_j
LL
60
e PRE-PROJECT
50 0 WATANA
0 WATANA AND DEVIL
CANYON
40
30
20
10 ~
0
J F M A M J J A s 0 N
FLOW ( 1000 cfs)
Figure 4-2. Comparison of Maximum, Mean, and Minimum Monthly Flows at Gold Creek under
Preproject Conditions, Watana Operation, and Combined Watana/Devil 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]
-1>
' ....,
0
D
"' '+-
(.)
0
0
0 .---
$
0
_J
LL
1000
500
, .. ·
"
200
100
A. OBSERVED DATA ,,...~
0 ESTIMATED DATA , ..... 4
_,
.I-, e 95% CONFIDENCE LIMITS .~4 -4 ... )
"""""*'' ,-.. ,J
p R 'C-PR OJ 'C CT ~~}}~ , _ .. •• ,-
20
_, ,-~~-~
~ -~~ ·-..... -< T-~
;~ ~ y-./4 WATANA OPERATION -.--WATANA I DEVIL
CANYON OPERATION
-, I I 10
1.005 1.05 1.25 2 5 10 20 50 1 00 200 500
RECURRENCE INTERVAL (YEARS)
Figure 4-3. Annual Flood Frequency Curves at Gold Creek for Preproject Conditions, Operation of
Watana Reservoir, and Combined Watana/Devil Canyon Operation. [Source: Application
Exhibit E, Vol. 58, Chap. 2, Figs. E.2.29, E.2.155, and E.2.186]
·····~·r.t ·I ·I: ..
i I·: .!·1
111.1' I 1.1
1
I
···I' 1·.:,
,I
lj·
•I
100
80
60
40
20
0
~20
<(
w ~40 a:
<(
w ~60
u
<(
"-~80 a:
::0
"' ~100
"" w
<:) 100 z
<(
I 80 u
f-z 60 w u a: 40 w
"-
20
0
~20
~40
-60
-80
-100
r-
r-
~
-
r-
1-
~
-
1-
r-
r-
1-
r-
r-
r-
1-
PREPROJECT vs FILLING
ALL SITES COMBINED
I I I I I I I I I I
.,--' v
\ 1/ ,....
I I I I I I I I I
' ' ' ' '
PREPROJECT vs FILLING
ALL SITES COMBINED
w ~
I I I J I I I
4-12
SIDE SLOUGHS ABOVE TALKEETNA
-
-
-
--
PREPROJECT vs WATANA
ALL SITES COMBINED
' ' ' '
1\ I
/ .....
I I I I I I I
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
PREPROJECT vs WATANA/OEVIL CANYON
ALL SITES COMBINED
I I I I I I I I
-
--
-
1\ /
v -
1--<
r-
I I I I I I
SIDE SLOUGHS BELOW TALKEETNA
-
r-
-
-
--
' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
PREPROJECT vs WATANA
ALL SITES COMBINED
.i'i
'\ I_},. rfl
I I ' ' '
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
PREPROJECT vs
WATANA/OEVIL CANYON
ALL SITES COMBINED
J F M AM J J AS 0 N D J F M AM J J AS 0 N D J F MA M J J AS 0 N D
MONTH OF THE YEAR
Figure 4-4. Changes in Wetted Surface Area of Selected Sloughs (nine sloughs
above Talkeetna and five sloughs below Talkeetna) during Project
Filling and Operation. [Source: Based on data from Alaska Dept.
nf Fish and Game (1983a) and flow data from Application Exhibit E]
' 4-13
This conclusion is based on the assumption that mean monthly flows would be approximately equal
to mean daily flows under project operation. The backwater regime would persist only in June
and August. Hydraulic changes would be even more severe during filling of Watana reservoir when
no overtopping would occur, and the backwater regime would exist only in sloughs SA and 9 for a
short period in August.
Therefore, after project operation began, the side sloughs above Talkeetna would become almost
totally dependent on surface runoff and groundwater upwelling for circulation. Natural flushing
processes that occur during overtopping and that remove debris and fine sediment deposits from
the side sloughs would no longer occur.
Based on salmon passage criteria established by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (1983b)
for minimum depths and distances through shallow riffles, thresholds of mainstem flows have been
established which restrict access to side sloughs. Acute slough accessibility problems for
salmon would persist throughout the year except during August and September in very wet years
(Fig. 4-5).
The hydraulic conditions in side sloughs below Talkeetna would be affected less than those above
Talkeetna because of the increased flow contributed by the unregulated Chulitna and Talkeetna
rivers. The frequency of overtopping at Rabideaux Slough [occurring at 65,000 cfs (1,800 m3 /s)]
would decrease from 20% to 60% of the days in June, July, and August to 0% to 10% under opera-
tional flows. The backwater regime would increase in frequency of occurrence from 40% to 80% of
the days in June, July, and August to 90% to 100%.
The decrease in mainstem flows during reservoir filling and operation would cause a reduction in
water surface elevation of the Susitna River at tributary mouths below the dam. However, tribu-
tary flows would not be directly affected. The stage changes have been estimated to be -3.5 to
-7.6 ft (-1.1 to -2.3 m) during annual flood events and -0.5 to -4.0 ft (-0.2 to -1.2 m) during
mean monthly flows (R&M Consultants, 1982a). Stage reductions of this magnitude could lead to
perching of the tributary mouths, reduced depth, increased scour, and eventual backcutting of
the tributary beds. Perching might hinder upstream salmon migration (Sec. 4.1.4) and backcutting
might result in ero~ion of the foundations of railroad bridges south of Gold Creek.
Nineteen tributaries were examined for potential perching and erosion problems (R&M Consultants,
1982b). Of these, Jack Long, Sherman, and Deadhorse creeks were the only tributaries identified
as having potential fish passage problems during operational flows. Access to Indian River and
Portage Creek, the two most important tributaries for salmon spawning, is not expected to be
reduced because these rivers have natural flows sufficient to provide adequate depth-of-passage
for adult salmon (Trihey, 1983).
Although erosion of bridge foundations is a naturally occurring problem, it would be aggravated
by Watana operations in some areas. Three tributaries, Skull Creek and two unnamed creeks at
River Mile (RM) 123.9 and RM 101.1, might be subjected to enough backcutting and degradation to
endanger the railroad bridges on the southern bank of the Susitna River. Combined operation of
Watana and Devil Canyon dams would result in changes in habitat availability very similar to
operation of Watana alone.
Other habitat types, including side channels and mainstem, would be less affected than the side
sloughs and tributary mouths. Some of the side channels would become classified as side sloughs
under the lower postproject flow regime if an upstream berm were present. Main channel habitat
would be ·decreased in area but still would be available (see next section).
4.1.3.1.3 Channel Stability and Sediment Transport
During Watana construction, impacts on river morphology would be concentrated around the dam and
borrow sites. Borrow sites above the dam would be inundated by the Watana reservoir. Sites
below the dam within the Susitna floodplain would be subjected to localized instability and
erosion during the period between Watana construction and Devil Canyon construction. However,
these sites would be inundated once Devil Canyon dam was constructed.
During filling and long-term operation of the Watana reservoir, sediment transport would be
greatly reduced in the Susitna River below the dam. Bedload movement would be very low over
this reach because of the armor layer and the reduced flows. In isolated areas where bed material
size was in the c~arse gravel range (i.e., somewhat smaller than in most of the river between
Devil Canyon and Talkeetna), bed material movement might occur. These localized areas of degrada-
tion are at RM 124 (below Skull Creek), RM 131 to 133 (near Sherman), and near the confluence
with the Chulitna River. The lack of suspended sediments transported into this reach would
significantly reduce siltation in calmer areas such as the side sloughs. Tributary streams,
including Portage Creek, Indian River, Gold Creek, and Fourth of July Creek, would extend their
alluvial fans into the river.
w u z
100
~ 75
0:::
::J u u
0
LL 50
0
>-u z w
::J
0 w
0:::
LL
25
0
J F
.. .::·~ -----~-~---=--_-. -__ -___ .· -==------
~-~--· -----~---"-~---~----~~~~~
M A
~~~-
/WATANA+ DEVIL CANY~~
--·o-... rO-. r 0. "'()...,..,·~· \' '~~
WATANA
ALONE
-PRE -PROJECT
M J J A s 0 N
MONTH
D
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)]
4-15
The Susitna River main channe·, would become better defined, with a narrower channel above Talkeetna
due to the reduction in peak flows. The main channel river pattern would evolve toward a tighter,
better-defined meander pattern within the existing banks. The extent of channel reduction can
be estimated using the regime theory of hydraulic geometry (Leopold and Maddock, 1953) and the
following empirical equation (Parker, 1981):
W /W _ (Q /Q )0.441 post pre -post pre
where:
wpost is postproject bankfull width,
wpre is preoperational bankfull discharge,
Qpost is the postproject bankfull discharge, and
Qpre is the preoperational bankfull discharge.
If bankfull discharge is represented by the mean annual flood, this relationship predicts that
bankfull width after Watana began operation would be 33% less than the preproject width. The
dewatered portion of the river channel would eventually be colonized by vegetation (see Sec. 4.1.5).
In winter, substantial differences in channel stability might occur as ice processes were altered
by changes in flow and temperature regimes. Above the Chulitna River, the effects of ice forces
during breakup on the river morphology would be reduced because of higher flows, higher river
stages, and warmer water temperatures. Although an ice cover could form as far upstream as
Devil Canyon, the rapid rise in streamflows that initiates ice movement at breakup under natural
conditions would be eliminated. ·
In the sloughs, regulated flows would eliminate essentially all overtopping of the upstream
gravel berms. Movement of sand and gravel bars in the sloughs would be minimized. Debris jams
and beaver dams, which previously were washed out by high flows, would remain in place, with
resultant pending in those sloughs not maintained as part of the fisheries mitigation program.
Vegetation encroachment in the sloughs and side channels might also occur as the high flows and
associated scour events were reduced.
At the Chulitna-Susitna confluence, the Chulitna River would be expected to expand and extend
its alluvial deposits. Reduced summer flows in the Susitna Rfver might allow the Chulitna River
to extend its alluvial deposits to the east and south, encroaching on the open-water leads into
the Susitna (R&M Consultants, 1982c). Downstream from the Susitna-Chulitna confluence, the
preproject mean annual bankfull flood would now have a recurrence interval of five to ten years.
This would tend to decrease both the frequency and amount of bed material movement. Conse-
quently, changes in braided channel shape, form, and network would become less frequent. A
trend toward relatively stabilized floodplain features would begin, but this would occur over a
long period of time, perhaps several decades (R&M Consultants, 1982c).
The morphological processes described for Watana operation would continue to occur because flows
from Watana reservoir operation would be unchanged during construction of the Devil Canyon dam.
The most significant impacts from construction would be at the dam site, as the rapids at the
upper end of Devil Canyon would be olocked off and about 1,100 ft (330 m) of the Susitna River
between the upstream and downstream cofferdams would be dewatered. No impacts to the morphology
of the Susitna River are anticipated from borrow site excavation since there are no borrow sites
located below Devil Canyon dam. Although borrow site G is south of and adjacent to the Susitna
River (Fig. 2-6), no mining activities would be undertaken in the riverbed. Cheechako Creek
would be rerouted to facilitate efficient borrow excavation. Consequently, it would be channel-
ized to the eastern boundary of the borrow site.
Average monthly flows during Watana/Devil Canyon operation would be similar to those of Watana
operation, although an additional redistribution of the flow would occur (Fig. 4-2). The change
in Watana reservoir operation during the first few years after Devil Canyon came on line would
decrease the ability of the reservoir system to absorb high flows. Consequently, the occurrences
of high flows capable of initiating gravel bed movement in the Susitna River above Talkeetna
waul d be i ncreasyd slightly. Project impacts previously described for Watana impoundment and
operation would remain relevant except that river bed stability would tend to decrease since the
larger return period flood flows would have been increased.
Development of the access routes to Watana dam and Devil Canyon dam would not significantly
change any surface runoff, tributary flows, or main channel flows.
Power line construction would not result in any significant changes in water quantity.
·.i;·l·i.l'l.··. ·II,,
l
!il:lll'.'l:l ·I'··,'. " ' 1.,1 .1',1'
I·J 'I('
·I· ·I· .1.' '. ·: 'I', I
I' ~ ! I ' , I I,;
.I!
4.1.3.2 Water Quality
4.1.3.2.1 Dam Development
4-16
The primary water quality issues for the Watana and Devil Canyon dam projects are the impact of
construction, filling, and operation on suspended solids and turbidity in the Susitna River and
in the two reservoirs; the impact of project operation on nitrogen gas saturation in the Susitna
River downstream of the dams; the impact of project construction and operation on nutrient
levels and productivity in the Susitna River and in the reservoirs; the impact of project reservoir
filling and operation on salinity in the upper portion of Cook Inlet resulting from seasonally
altered freshwater flows in the Susitna River; and the impact of filling and operation on water
temperature in the Susitna River and in the Watana and Devil Canyon reservoirs.
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
Construction activities for Watana would cause increases in the concentration of suspended
solids in the impounded reach, and for some distan_ce downstream during the construction period
(Sec. 2.1.3). Increases in suspended solids from erosion in disturbed areas might persist after
construction until the disturbed areas were stabilized by revegetation, but the effect on water
quality is expected to be negligible. These increases would result primarily from the excava-
tion of gravel and rock from the borrow sites within and adjacent to the Susitna River. The
concentration of suspended solids in the Susitna River at Gold Creek is predicted to increase
from an average summer 1 eve 1 of 730 parts per million (ppm) under preproject conditions to
almost 900 ppm from dredging during the summer construction periods (May-August). This calcula-
ted increase in suspended solids is most likely an overestimate, however, because not all of the
material in the silt-clay size range would be entrained, and not all of the material that was
entrained would remain in suspension. In any case, the predicted increase in suspended solids
at Gold Greek due to dredging for Watana construction is within the natural range of variat"ion
in the concentration of suspended solids for the summer period. Because of the naturally high
concentrations of suspended solids during summer, no significant adverse impact is anticipated
from the increased concentration of suspended sediments resulting from the excavation of borrow
sites.
Increased concentrations of suspended solids in the Susitna River, and in small streams in the
project area, would also result from the processing and deposition of borrow material, from
vegetation clearing, from runoff at concrete processing areas and batch plants, and from the
construction of cofferdams and diversion tunnels. The proposed mitigative measures described in
Section 2.1.12 should minimize the runoff and entrainment of suspended solids resulting from
most of these activities. However, some temporary, l oca 1 i zed increases in suspended solids
would undoubtedly occur during the construction of Watana. Although the exact magnitude of
these increases cannot be predicted, they would not be expected to be large nor to have any
long-term adverse impacts on water quality in the Susitna River.
Construction activities for Devil Canyon would cause temporary increases in the concentration of
suspended solids in the Susitna River in the area to be impounded and for some distance down-
stream. These increases would, however, be less than those occurring during the construction of
Watana because of less use of borrow sites within the Susitna River. No significant adverse
impact on suspended solids in the Susitna River is anticipated as a result of the construction
activities for Devil Canyon.
As Watana reservoir began to fill, water velocities within the impoundment would decline, result-
ing in the settling and retention of suspended solids in the reservoir. Based on the predicted
trapping efficiency for suspended solids transported into Watana from upstream, the concentra-
tion of suspended solids at the outlet of Watana during the first filling period (June-October)
would be reduced by 40% in June and by approximately 90% in October relative to the concentra-
tion in the Susitna River at the upstream end of the reservoir. These predicted reductions in
suspended solids are, however, considered by the Staff to be overestimates because the empirical
data used to predict trapping efficiency are not from reservoirs in which gl aci a 1 f1 our, which
has a low settling velocity, dominates the load of inflowing suspended solids. In addition,
water released from Watana during the first year of filling would be passed through the low-level
outlet. This would likely result in a lower trapping efficiency than that predicted because
sluicing operations such as this tend to reduce the trapping efficiency relative to that in
comparable reservoirs with surface discharges (Brune, 1953). By the end of the second filling
year, the predicted trapping efficiency of Watana would be the same as that at full pool level
under operating conditions.
During the first winter of filling, the concentration of suspended solids at the outlet of
Watana would exceed that in the Susitna under preproject conditions. This winter increase would
result from the outflow of suspended solids retained in the reservoir during the. first summer of
filling. Because of the sluicing operation during the first year of filling, the predicted
concentration of suspended solids at the outlet of Watana during winter would exceed 50 ppm, a
4-17
fourfold increase in suspended solids at Gold Creek relative to the average preproject conce.ntra-
tion in winter. During the second winter of the filling period, the trapping efficiency would
approximate that of the full pool (operational) efficiency, when suspended solids at the outlet
of Watana are less than 50 ppm.
Additional suspended solids would be introduced into the reservoir during and after the filling
of Watana due to shore erosion and to landslides resulting from slope instabililty. The increase
in suspended solids within and downstream of Watana due to these processes cannot be predicted.
As discussed in Appendix H, the contribution of bank erosion and bank slumping to suspended
solids in Watana reservoir and in the Susitna River downstream are expected to (1) be maximal
during and immediately after filling, (2) occur primarily during summer when wave action occurs,
and (3) decline in importance when stable shorelines develop as the reservoir ages. The net
effect of shore erosion and bank slumping on suspended solids downstream of Watana would be to
increase the concentration above that predicted by using the trapping efficiency for sediments
transported into Watana from upstream. Erosion and slumping, however, are not expected to
increase the summer levels of suspended solids above that of the preproject summer levels.
Because of the naturally large seasonal variation in suspended solids in the Susitna River, the
increased concentrations resulting from project filling would not be expected to adversely
affect water quality downstream of the dam.
Because of the short time required for filling of the Devil Canyon reservoir, it is not antici-
pated that the filling phase would adversely affect suspended solids in the Susitna River
relative to that caused by the operation of Watana.
During Watana operation, the reservoir would act as both a source and a sink for suspended
sediments in the Susitna River, depending on the time of year. During the summer, the reservoir
would act as a net sink for sediments; in the winter it would act as a net source for sediments
to the Susitna River downstream of the dams relative to preproject concentration. This winter
increase would be due to the smaller size fractions of suspended solids carried into the Watana
reservoir during the summer remaining in suspension and being transported out during winter.
Because of the long detention storage time of water likely to occur in Watana (1.74 years) and
the low settling velocity of the small particles, the reservoir would remain turbid throughout
the winter, providing the Susitna River with a continuous source of suspended solids. Use of
the minimum predicted trapping efficiency (94%) for Watana reservoir and the average summer
concentration of suspended solids in the Susitna River at Vee Canyon of 799 ppm (U.S. Geological
Survey, 1982) as the output results in a calculated· average concentration in winter at the
outlet of Watana dam of approximately 50 ppm. This compares to an average preproject concentra-
tion in winter at Gold Creek of 12 ppm. Thus, taking into .account that this is probably a
conservative overestimate of the outlet concentration for Watana dam, there would be approxi-
mately a fourfold increase in suspended solids in winter at Gold Creek as a result of Watana
operation compared to the mean level under preproject conditions. Because this predicted increase
is within the range of natural variation in suspended sediments at Gold Creek during winter, no
adverse, long-term impact on water quality would be expected.
Some additional increase in suspended solids downstream of Watana dam would occur during winter
as a result of increased bank erosion. With the formation of ice cover, the river stage necessary
to pass the increased winter flows resulting from Watana operation would be greater than that
for open-water conditions. This increased staging downstream of the Watana project would result
in bank erosion, causing an increase in the concentration of suspended solids in the Susitna
River compared to preproject winter conditions. It is anticipated that the erosion caused by
the increased staging in winter would occur primarily in the vicinity of the ice front and would
move upstream as freeze-up occurs. The magnitude of increases in suspended solids resulting
from such bank erosion cannot be quantified, but it is anticipated that it would be relatively
small and localized compared to the increase resulting from the winter releases of suspended
solids from Watana reservoir. Some sedimentation of the eroded bank deposits would o·ccur in
downstream areas and might adversely affect the survival of incubating salmon eggs in side
channels by reducing the intragravel flow of water. No adverse, long-term impact on water
quality from increases in suspended solids resulting from bank erosion in winter is anticipated.
During ~ummer, the trapping efficiency of the reservoirs would be less than for winter because
of greater induced mixing by wind, thermal inputs, and hydrologic inputs and outputs. In addition,
shore erosion and bank slumping would contribute to the concentration of suspended solids at the
outlet of Watana. However, since the natural (preproject) concentration of suspended solids in
the Susitna River~ is maximum in summer (Fig. 3-9), sedimentation in Watana reservoir would be
expected to resul<t in a net decrease in the concentration of suspended solids in the Susitna
downstream of the dams during summer compared to the average preproject summer levels. Based on
the trapping efficiency for suspended sediments entering Watana from upstream, the predicted
concentration at the outlet of Watana during summer would range from 80 to 176 ppm (mg/L). This
range of predicted concentrations compares to an average summer; concentration of suspended
solids measured at Gold Creek of 740 ppm, a four-to ninefold reduction in suspended solids at
Gold Creek in summer with Watana in operation compared to preproject conditions.
4-18
Thus, there would be a net benefit of Watana operation during summer in terms of reducing the
concentration of suspended solids and turbidity downstream of the dam. Although shore erosion
and bank slumping would contribute to the concentration of suspended solids at the outlet,
thereby reducing the apparent trapping efficiency, the importance of these processes as sources
of suspended solids in Watana would be expected to decline as the reservoir aged and as stable
shorelines developed.
Operation of Devil Canyon would result in additional, but small, reductions in suspended solids
at Gold Creek during the summer compared to that for Watana operation alone. Concentrations of
suspended solids at Gold Creek in winter should, however, be less with Devil Canyon in operation
than for Watana operation alone because of the additional trapping of sediments released from
Watana. The incremental effect of Devil Canyon operation on suspended solids at Gold Creek
during summer would be expected to be small because of the lower trapping efficiency of this
reservoir. This is because the detention storage time would be shorter (58 days) and because
the average particle size of suspended sediments entering Devil Canyon from Watana would be less
than that of sediments entering Watana, with a resultant lower settling velocity.
GAS SUPERSATURATION
Supersaturation of water with nitrogen gas is possible below high-head dams such as Watana and
Devil Canyon as a result of the entrainment of air in discharges. Supersaturation occurs when
aerated flows are subjected to pressures greater than 30 to 40 ft (9 to 12 m) of head, which
forces excess nitrogen gas into solution. This can occur when water is subject to the high
pressures that occur in plunge pools or at large hydraulic jumps. Therefore, nitrogen saturation
in the Susitna River would not be affected during the construction phase of the Watana or Devil
Canyon projects.
Intake, penstock, turbine, tailrace, and low-level outlet facilities at Watana and Devil Canyon,
which would be used during operation, are designed to minimize entrainment of air. In addition,
releases from the turbines at both dams would have a subsurface discharge that should not entrain
air. Turbine discharges, however, could be supersaturated with nitrogen during summer as a
result of warming of surface waters in the reservoir and withdrawal of the water before it
equilibrated with the atmosphere (Harvey, 1967). Because of the high turbidity in the reservoirs,
warming of water below the depth of wind mixing would be minimal. Thus, assuming there was no
air entrainment in water passing through the turbines, the level of saturation in turbine releases
would be less than 110%. Discharges from the low-level outlet during reservoir filling and from
turbines during operation, therefore, would not be expected to increase nitrogen saturation in
the Susitna River to levels exceeding the Alaska Department of En.vironmental Conservation (ADEC)
(1979) statute of 110% of saturation.
The outlet facilities, which would be used for augmentation and excess flows at Watana and Devil
Canyon, are designed to discharge peak flows with a recurrence interval of up to 1 in 50 years.
The outlet facilities at both dams would be equipped with fixed-cone discharge valves that would
be installed at the downstream end of the outlet manifold. They are designed to dissipate the
hydrostatic head, thereby reducing air entrainment and supersaturation of nitrogen. It is
assumed that the fixed cone valves would operate as designed to prevent nitrogen saturation of
water discharged from the outlet facilities to levels greater than 110%. Thus, releases of
water from the outlet facility at Watana and Devil Canyon would not be expected to cause nitrogen
saturation levels in excess of the ADEC statute downstream.
During the initial phase of filling Devil Canyon, the diversion tunnel would be used to release
water until the water elevation reached 1,135 ft (344m). Nitrogen supersaturation downstream
of Devil Canyon during this period would be minimal (<110%) because of the lack of a plunge pool
in which air entrainment occurs. After the water elevation in Devil Canyon reached 1,135 ft
(344m), and for the remainder of the filling period, discharges from the reservoir would be
through the outlet facility. Assuming the cone valves operated as designed, nitrogen super-
saturation in excess of the ADEC statute of 110% would not occur downstream of Devil Canyon
during filling.
The emergency spillways proposed for the Watana and Devil Canyon facilities are desi gried to
discharge flows with a predicted recurrence interval greater than once in 50 years. Although
the spillways are designed with a flip lip, discharges from the emergency spillway would be into
a plunge pool. It is likely that nitrogen supersaturation would occur during discharges from
the emergency spillway.· Based on the observed decay rate of nitrogen in the Susitna River
downstream of Devil Canyon (Peratrovich and Hutchinson, 1982), nitrogen supersaturation from
emergency spillway flows at Watana Dam and Devil Canyon would persist for several miles down-
stream. As a consequence, adverse impacts on fish from nitrogen supersaturation in the Susitna
River during these emergency spillway discharges would be likely. It should be emphasized,
however, that the predicted recurrence interval of such an impact is relatively long (once in
more than 50 years).
4-19
Except for periods of emergency spillway discharges, Watana and Devil Canyon operation would
reduce the nitrogen supersaturation problem in, and downstream of, Devil Canyon by reducing the
recurrence interval of high flows above which supersaturation in excess of the Alaska water
quality statute (110% of saturation) (A 1 aska Dept. of Environmental Conservation, 1979) occurs
naturally in Devil Canyon. Under preproject conditions, mean monthly flows during June through
August at Watana exceed the threshold discharge (-16,000 cfs) at which nitrogen supersaturation
in Devil Canyon is greater than the statute level. With Watana in operation, this threshold
discharge would never be exceeded at Watana under predicted minimum and average monthly flow
conditions, and would be exceeded in only two months of maximum flow years with Watana in opera-
tion, compared to four months under preproject conditions (Exhibit E, Vol. SA, Chap. 2,
Table E.2.43). Thus, there would be a net benefit to operating Watana in terms of reducing the
natural recurrence of nitrogen supersaturation in and below Devil Canyon to levels exceeding the
Alaska statute for water quality. The operation of Devil Canyon would essentially eliminate the
natural occurrence of nitrogen supersaturation in excess of the ADEC statute in and below Devil
Canyon by preventing the high flows at which the statute is exceeded.
NUTRIENTS
The primary water quality issues concerning nutrients are the impact of construction and opera-
tion of Watana and Devil Canyon facilities on nutrient levels in the Susitna River downstream of
the project and in the reservoirs, and the resulting trophic status in these systems. Construc-
tion activities would not be expected to have any significant adverse or beneficial impacts on
nutrient levels in the Susitna River. Proposed mitigative measures (described in Sec. 2.1.12)
would minimize or prevent any point-source inputs of nutrients from sewage treatment facilities
and construction facilities.
Because reservoirs with surface discharges can act as nutrient traps, it is possibile that
operation of Watana and Devil Canyon might reduce nutrient inputs to the Susitna River downstream
of these dams, thereby altering the trophic status of the lower reaches of the river.
While the trapping of suspended solids by the reservoirs could improve conditions for primary
production downriver in the summer, the concentration of suspended solids would still remain at
levels that restrict light penetration, thereby limiting primary production. Thus, any effect
of nutrient retention by Watana and· Devil Canyon on nutrient loading downstream would not be
expected to result in any significant adverse effect on the trophic status of the Susitna River
downstream of the project because the system would be limited by light rather than by nutrients.
Furthermore, the effect of reduced nutrient loading as a result of reserv·oir operation would be
localized because incoming tributaries downstream of the dam would contribute nutrients to the
Susitna River.
The trophic status of clearwater reservoirs and lakes has been assessed using nutrient loading
rates and hydraulic flushing rates (Peterson et al., 1982). Phytoplankton production and biomass
in Watana and Devil Canyon reservoirs are expected to be low, typical of that in oligotrophic
lakes. It is anticipated that phytoplankton production and biomass in Watana would be somewhat
lower than that predicted from nitrogen and phosphorus loading rates alone because of light
limitation caused by high turbidity; nuisance blooms of algae would not occur in either reservoir.
SALINITY
Although the Susitna River is the major contributor of fr~sh water to Cook Inlet and, thus, has
a major influence on the salinity of water in the upper portion of the Inlet, 81% of the Susitna
River flow entering Cook Inlet is contributed by tributaries located downstream of the Watana
and Devil Canyon sites. The potential for the Watana project operation to affect salinity in
Cook Inlet is therefore substantially lessened by the fact that the flow in tributaries that
account for most of the freshwater inputs to Cook In 1 et waul d not be affected by the project.
To quantify the effects of salinity of altered freshwater inputs to Cook Inlet resulting from
project operation, the Applicant used a numerical estuarine model (Smith, 1977, 1982). This
model simulates salinity at various locations in Cook Inlet on a seasonal basis, using different
freshwater flows into the estuary.
During construction of Watana, freshwater discharges in the Susitna River would not be altered.
As a result, salinity in Cook Inlet would not be affected during the construction phase. Simu-
lations of preproject and postproject (Watana filling and Watana operation) conditions show that
the salinity chang'es during filling relative to preproject levels would be relatively small and
would vary seasonal~y. These changes would not be expected to have any adverse impacts on biota
in Cook Inlet.
With Watana in operation, the salinity at node 27, located near the mouth of the Susitna River,
would be lower during the period of minimum flow (October through April) than preproject levels.
This would be due to the increased flows in the Susitna relative to preproject flows. The
maximum predicted decrease in salinity at node 27 is approximately 1.4 ppt (parts per thousand)
and would occur in April, when the preproject salinity is approximately 20 ppt.
I:'
;
! i, ,,.,,
II'
4-20
During summer, when preproject flow in the Susitna River is at its annual maximum, the operation
of Watana would reduce flows, resulting in a salinity increase in Cook Inlet. The maximum
salinity increase predicted to occur in Cook Inlet at node 27 as a result of Watana operation is
approximately 0. 7 ppt. This would occur in June when the preproject salinity at node 27 is
approximately 10 ppt. These predicted salinity changes would not be expected to have any adverse
effects on aquatic organisms in Cook Inlet since they are within the the range of natural varia-
tion in salinity resulting from annual fluctuations in freshwater flows. In addition, as
indicated in Section 3.1.3, the use of upper Cook Inlet by aquatic organisms is minimal, except
as part of a migration route into or out of the Susitna River. This is due to the large tidal
fluctuations, high turbidity, and unstable fine substrates, all of which tend to reduce the
quality of the upper part of Cook Inlet as a habitat for estuarine organisms.
Changes in salinity at node 27 in Cook Inlet from the operation of Devil Canyon would be negli-
gible relative to those with Watana in operation. This is because Devil Canyon would be opera-
ted as a baseload plant. Hence, changes in flow in the Susitna River relative to those for
Watana operation alone would be negligible. Flow alterations from Devil Canyon operation thus
would not adversely affect the salinity in Cook Inlet.
OTHER WATER QUALITY IMPACTS
There are other potential impacts of construction and operation of the Susitna Project on surface
water quality. Relative to the issues previously discussed, these are minor sources of impact,
however, and would not result in any significant degradation of water quality. The sources
include acci denta 1 spi 11 s of petro 1 eum products (e. g. , fuel, oil , hydraulic f1 ui ds, antifreeze)
from construction and maintenance equipment, reduction in dissolved oxygen resulting from the
discharge, or inundation, of materials with a high biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), and the
contamination of surface waters by other materials used in construction (e.g., concrete).
All state and Federal regulations governing the prevention and reclamation of accidental spills
of petroleum products, including the development of a spill prevention and containment plan,
would be adhered to on this project. Thus, reasonable precautions would be taken to prevent or
minimize the contamination of surface waters by petroleum products.
Wastewater from construction camps would be treated with a secondary treatment facility prior to
its discharge into surface waters. This secondary treatment would reduce the BOD and total
dissolved solids to levels acceptable to the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
(1979) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. No adverse effects on water quality should
result from these treated wastewater discharges.
Some reductions in dissolved oxygen in Watana and in Devil Canyon Reservoir would occur as a
result of the inundation of soils and vegetation with a high BOD. The area affected, however,
would be restricted to a zone within and just above the reservoir bottom. This should have no
long-term adverse effects on dissolved oxygen levels in the reservoirs or in the Susitna River
downstream of the dams.
Contamination of the Susitna River by concrete would be minimized by appropriate mitigative
measures (see Sec. 2.1.12). These would include the use of ho 1 ding ponds for concrete wastes,
neutralizing wastes from these ponds prior to their discharge into surface waters, and disposal
of waste concrete in rock disposal areas away from surface waters or allowing it to harden
before disposal. No significant degradation of water quality in the Susitna River would be
expected from concrete contamination.
4.1.3.2.2 Access Routes and Transmission Facilities
The construction of access routes to Watana and Devil Canyon project sites and to material and
disposal sites would result in some water quality degradation in nearby streams. These impacts
would result from accidental spills of petroleum products, the erosion of disturbed soil with
subsequent increases in suspended solids and turbidity, and the clearing of riparian vegetation,
resulting in increased water temperature from increased solar radiation at stream surfaces.
These impacts would be localized and would not cause any long-term degradation of water quality
in streamS along the access routes. With proper routing, design, construction, maintenance, and
mitigative measures, few water quality impacts would occur from the subsequent use of the access
routes.
It is anticipated that .construction of transmission lines would result in some localized
increases in suspended solids and turbidity in streams as a result of instream activities,
erosion from vegetative clearing along transmission corridors, and siting of transmission towers.
A second potential impact on water quality would be from the contamination of streams with
petroleum products and from accidental spills and leaks from construction and maintenance equip-
ment. With proper design and construction practices, few erosion problems would occur during
the construction and maintenance of transmission lines. Mitigative measures proposed by the
Applicant (Sec. 2.1.12) would also minimize water quality problems due to petroleum product
spills during the construction and maintenance of transmission lines.
4-21
4.1.3.3 Temperature
4.1.3.3.1 Reservoirs
During the early stages of Watana filling, there would be little change in the thermal structure
upstream of the dam. As the reservoir became deeper and more static, a seasonal vertical thermal
structure would develop and persist after filling was complete. During the winter months,
Watana reservoir would be near isothermal at 39°F (4°C), with a thin layer of colder water at
the surface. As air temperatures warmed into the summer, the reservoir would develop a greater
thermal structure, with a warm layer (about 50°F to 54°F, or 10°C to 12°C) near the surface,
decreasing linearly to 39°F (4°C) ncar mid-depth. Much of Watana reservoir would be at 39°F
( 4°C) year-round. Vertical temperature gradients that exist during the summer waul d be re l a-
tively weak. As a result, vertical mixing is expected in areas with large shears, such as the
powerhouse intake and the river inflow region. Intermittent mixing could occur over much of the
reservoir during the summer as a result of forcing by meteorologic events.
The thermal evolution of the Devil Canyon reservoir would be similar to that of Watana reservoir;
however, the shorter residence time expected for water passing through this reservoir would
likely produce a thermal structure less pronounced than for Watana.
4.1.3.3.2 Mainstem Susitna River
Water temperature downstream of the dams would be influenced by the magnitude and temperature of
the dam discharge, river morphology, and surface heat transfer.
Watana dam design includes multilevel intake structures that allow selective withdrawal over a
range of depths. During the initial phases of the Watana filling, the reservoir would be shallow
and exhibit little thermal structure. Consequently, discharge water would parallel preconstruc-
ti on water temperatures. As the reservoir deepened, a thermal structure waul d develop. There
would be a period during filling when a weak vertical thermal structure would exist; however,
the reservoir would not be sufficiently full to allow the upper level intake to be used. As a
result, discharge water would be somewhat cooler during the summer and warmer during the winter
as compared with preconstruction conditions.
During the final stages of Watana filling and during Watana operation, the upper-1 eve l intake
would be used to regulate discharge termperatures in order to more closely simulate preconstruc-
tion temperatures. The Applicant has estimated operational discharge temperatures ranging from
about 51°F (10.5°C) in the summer to about 35°F (1.5°C) in the winter (Exhibit E, Vol. 58,
Chap. 2, Figs. E. 2.174 and E. 2.175). The extent of the contra l expected by the Applicant is
believed to be overly optimistic. The Staff believes that the vertical thermal structure in
Watana reservoir would be too weak to allow effective selective withdrawal. The selective
withdrawal process is shown schematically in Figure 4-6. In the absence of any vertical thermal
structure [Fig. 4.6(a)], the intake would withdraw water over a significant vertical extent. In
the presence of a vertical thermal structure, the effectiveness of selective withdrawal would
depend upon the sharpness of the metalimnion (commonly referred to as the thermocline) and its
position relative to the intake. For a well-defined thermocline that is considerably deeper
than the intake, only warm epilimnotic water would be withdrawn [Fig. 4-6(b)]. For a sharp
thermocline at a depth near the intake, the intake-induced flow would displace the thermocline
upward, resulting in the withdrawal of predominantly epilimnotic water, but also some cold
hypolimnotic water [Fig. 4-6(c)]. The thermal structure in Watana reservoir is expected to be
too weak to remain stable under withdrawal-induced shear, so that water having a range of tempera-
tures would be withdrawn [Fig. 4-6(d)]. Consequently, Watana discharge temperatures would be
warmer during the winter and colder during the summer than under preconstruction conditions.
Discharge temperatures are expected to be near 39°F (4°C) or less during the winter. Summer
discharge temperatures waul d be highly transient, depending on short-term dam operation and
local meteorological conditions. As a result, summer discharge temperatures cannot be quanti-
fied at this time but could range from 41°F (5°C) to 50°F (10°C).
Filling of.the Devil Canyon impoundment would occur over a period of several months.
result of this short filling time, Devil Canyon discharge temperatures would not differ
cantly from water temperatures occurring under Watana operation alone.
As a
s i gnifi-
The Applicant has, estimated that under combined Watana/Devil Canyon operation, Devil Canyon
discharge temperatures would range from about 46°F (8°C) to about 38°F (3.5°C) (Exhibit E,
Vol. 58, Chap. 2, ~igs. E.2.215 and E.2.216). As in the case of Watana operation alone, outflow
temperatures from the Devil Canyon dam would be regulated via selective withdrawal through
multilevel intakes. The thermal structure of the Devil Canyon reservoir would be weaker than
for the Watana reservoir. Consequently, it is expected that the multilevel intake would offer
very little control over outlet temperature. As a result, winter outlet water temperatures are
expected to be near 39°F (4°C), and summer outlet temperatures, although unquantifiable at this
time, are expected to be somewhat colder than those estimated by the Applicant.
, : I
'' !'I'
I' ,,
"
I !
::::,;;~liill~l:li
I
~~llllill;,llli.11
: i
' ! I,
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
4-22
ISOTHERMAL
CONDITIONS
WARM
~ ~INTAKE /j
\ ----~T~H~E~R~M~o~c~L~I~N~E---------~~~~INTAKE
COLD
~ ~INTAKE
----~T~H~E~R~M~O~C~L~IN~E~-------~~~
WARM
COLD
~ /INTAKE
I
WARM
COOL
COLD
Figure 4-6. Schematic Diagram of Intake Flow Field under (a) Isothermal Conditions,
(b) Strong Stratification and a Deep Thermocline, (c) Strong Stratification
and a Shallow Thermocline, and (d) a Weak Vertical Temperature Gradient.
4-23
Downstream mainstem water temperatures have been simulated for combined dam operation using an
analytic thermal model described in Appendix H. Two cases are analyzed, one for conditions
typical of late fall/early winter and the other for mid-summer conditions. For both of these
cases, outlet temperatures estimated by the Applicant were used. Figure 4-7 shows a plot of
temperature versus downstream position from the Devil Canyon dam to the Chulitna confluence for
the late fall/early winter case. This plot indicates that the warmer discharge water [39.2°F
(4°C)] would rapidly cool with downstream location and reach 32°F (0°C) within 15 river miles of
the Devil Canyon dam. Under mid-summer conditions, water would be discharged at a temperature
near its equilibrium value, 46°F (7.75°C), and no warming between the dam and the Chulitna
confluence is predicted.
Under fall and winter conditions, the combined operation of the Watana and Devil Canyon dams
would produce insignificant changes in the downstream temperature profile of the mainstem Susitna
River. During spring and summer conditions, the thermal inertia of the reservoirs would produce
a delay in the warming of the river, and the cooler discharge temperatures would result in the
mainstem water being cooler during this entire period. It is likely that during the spring and
summer, the entire downstream reach of the river would be cooler than preoperational conditions.
Only minor temperature differences are expected downstream of the Chulitna confluence; however,
water temperatures cooler by as much as 4°F (2°C) could occur between the Chulitna confluence
and the Devil Canyon dam.
For Watana operation alone, downstream water temperatures are expected to be similar to those
anticipated under combined operation.
4.1.3.3.3 Sloughs
Three mechanisms can influence the water temperature in sloughs: surface heat transfer, ground-
water discharge, and any hydraulic connection, either surface or subsurface, with the mainstem
Susitna River. In this discussion, groundwater discharge is taken as subsurface water with
origins other than the mainstem Susitna River. Some subsurface water reaching the sloughs could
come from the river. This water would be at or near the temperature of the river water. During
the winter low flows, the upper end of the sloughs are closed, making these sloughs backwater
areas with only a weak downstream surface hydraulic connection with the mainstem. Consequently,
during the winter, changes in downstrea~ water temperatures resulting from reservoir filling and
dam operation would have little thermal impact on winter water temperatures in sloughs. The
influence of mainstem water temperature on sloughs is most significant during summer months,
when berms at the upstream ends of sloughs are overtopped. Overtopping would be significantly
reduced in frequency during project operations (see Sec. 4.1.3.1). The correspondingly reduced
river elevation could also reduce subsurface flows from the mainstem into the sloughs.
This· would enhance the influence of surface heat transfer and groundwater discharge on slough
water temperatures. Slough water temperatures tend to be increased by surface heat transfer,
but decreased by groundwater discharge. Insufficient data are available on the magnitude of
groundwater discharge and mainstem infiltration to sloughs, and, therefore, the effects of the
proposed project on slough water temperatures cannot be quantified.
4.1.3.4 Ice Processes
Operation of the proposed dams would significantly affect ice processes in the Susitna River.
Higher winter flows would delay the onset of ice formation and would likely cause a thinner ice
cover and greater ice-induced staging than under preoperational condjtions. Warmer winter
discharge water temperatures would likely cause a small portion (less than 15 river miles) of
the Susitna River immediately downstream at the Devil Canyon dam to remain ice-free. Lower
spring river flows would tend .to delay the ice breakup process, but this would be balanced by
the warmer dicharge water temperatures from the dams, which would tend to accelerate the onset
of ice breakup. As a result of the reduced spring flows, the breakup process would be consider-
ably less violent than under preoperational conditions, with the full breakup cycle occurring
over a longer period (perhaps days to weeks longer) and much of the ice cover decaying in place.
Ice breakup has a profound influence on the morphology of the Susitna River. After filling of
Watana commenced, the effect of ice breakup on river morphology would be significantly reduced.
The reduction in ice-related scour, along with reduced operational summer flows would change the
morphological character of the Susitna River--particularly between the Devil Canyon dam and
Talkeetna--rende~ng it more stable, similar to rivers in more temperate climates.
Once filling of Watana was complete, the impoundment would be expected to ice over in winter.
As air temperatures increased in the spring and summer, the ice should decay in place. Ice
formation and decay in the Devil Canyon impoundment would be similar to that expected for the
Watana impoundment.
tJ
0
=-:g_ :$-"' -~---_:__~ -=-.-';_~.. ~ -~----= ----~ i't ~ ~ -
5
4
3
2
1
0+---------~--------~--------~~------~--------~~------~------~ 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170
RIVER MILE
Figure 4-7. Predicted Downstream Water Temperature Resulting from Combined Dam Operation
under Late Fall/Early Winter Conditions.
-~--=--=.;o:____,;;l
----~---
·----'----'~------
4-25
4.1.3.5 Groundwater
Construction of the proposed dams would have no impact on groundwater. Once filling of the
reservoirs was completed, the proximity of relatively warm reservoir water to shallow permafrost
zones could result in some melting of permafrost. This water would move through the soil in a
downstream direction and would be discharged to the Susitna River downstream of the dams.
Although the magnitude of this discharge cannot be quantified, it is expected to be limited to
areas immediately downstream of the dams. Further downstream, the proposed project waul d have
no direct impact on groundwater. The reduced downstream flows during filling of the reservoirs
and during dam operation might result in a reduction in mainstem infiltration to the sloughs.
Therefore, the project would result in groundwater discharge having enhanced importance in the
thermal structure of sloughs.
4.1.4 Aquatic Communities
4.1.4.1 Plant and Invertebrate Communities
Watana and Devil Canyon facility development (including main dam and cofferdam construction,
in-channel dredging, and deforestation) would introduce additional silt into the Susitna River,
but the quantities are estimated (Sec. 4.1.3.2) to be nominal compared to already high levels in
the open-water construction season. During later stages of filling and normal reservoir ~opera
tion, the major consequences of impounding the Susitna River with Watana and Devil Canyon dams
would be reduction in summertime turbidity and stabilization of flows, changes that the Staff
judges could significantly increase benthic aquatic plant and. invertebrate productivity and thus
food availability for fish. Increased benthic algae and invertebrate production on the sub-
merged riverbed would occur concurrently with a decrease in wetted surface area due to reduced
summer flows during both filling and operation of the dams (Sec. 4.1.3.1).
Because of the overwhelming influences of the unregulated Chulitna and Talkeetna rivers on both
flow and turbidity, the Staff has concluded that no detectable change in aquatic plant and
invertebrate communities waul d result downstream of the co.nfl uences in the open-water season.
Within the reservoirs, phytoplankton production in general is expected to be moderately low due
to oligotrophic· water quality (Sec. 4.1.3.2) and seasonally high silt loading. The poorly
developed benthic invertebrate community in the Susitna and the higher populations found in
clearwater tributaries would be removed by inundation. There would be gradual replacement by
benthic species typical of reservoirs and development of reservoir zooplankton.
The zooplankton community that can be expected to develop in the reservoirs may be an important
supplement to invertebrates in the Susitna River below the dams. The reservoirs are expected to
be oligotrophic, however, so zooplankton populations may not be extensively developed. The
sparse riverine community of benthic invertebrates in the reaches of the Susitna to be inundated
by the Watana and Devil Canyon reservoirs is expected to be replaced by an equally sparse com-
munity of oligochaetes, chironomids, pisid clams, and benthic cladocerans. Biomass would be
restricted by large fluctuations in water elevation (affecting littoral zones) and heavy sedimen-
tation rates (affecting deep zones).
Increased turbidity and siltation associated with stream crossings by access routes and power
transmission facilities would result in some degradation and loss of habitat utilized by benthic
algae, periphyton, and invertebrates. Some changes in species composition might occur locally.
These impacts would occur primarily during the construction phase of the stream crossings.
4.1.4.2 Fish Communities
4.1.4.2.1 Dam Development
Project construction from site preparation through reservoir filling would impact fishery
resources primarily through additions of silt, elimination of riverine habitat for resident
species (much of which would be converted to lake habitat), changes in downstream temperature,
and reductions in summer flows. Silt addition during construction of Watana dam is judged to be
a minor increase to an already high glacial silt load in most of the open-water season
(Sec. 4.1.3.2). Entry of eroded bank materials (from which the heaviest particles would deposit
rapidly) and impacts to riverine fish populations beyond the local construction site are expected
to be minor.
Riverine habitat\now utilized by resident fishes would be permanently lost at the Watana dam con-
struction site and permanently transformed to lake habitat between the dam and just downstream
' HIIIJIIli~l
4-26
of Vee Canyon as the reservoir filled. The alteration would include lower reaches of several
tributary streams.
The FERC scoping process revealed concern that water quality alterations caused by impoundment
of the river by Watana dam (and later, Devil Canyon dam) could cause significant disorientation
of adult spawners in the years immediately following closure. Experiences at other hydroelectric
projects on Pacific coastal rivers suggest that this potential problem may be minimal, even
though quantitative methods to evaluate it are not available. Migrations into tributaries more
than a few kilometers downstream of new dams are usually not interrupted.
During filling of Watana reservoir, temperatures in the Susitna above Talkeetna might be suffi-
ciently low in June-September to retard entry of migrating adult salmon and prevent normal
access and spawning by many fish during the filling years. Pink, chum, and coho salmon spawning
areas in the mainstem are expected to be adversely affected by the flows proposed in the filling
schedule for Watana reservoir. Decreased mainstem flows would result in decreased depths and
velocities in some side-channel habitat and complete dewatering of other side-channel habitat.
This is expected to alter or eliminate the availability or suitability of some of the currently
used spawning habitat.
Slough habitats between Watana dam and Talkeetna are expected to be the spawning habitat type
most significantly affected by filling flows. In the absence of mitigative measures, filling
flows are expected to cause access problems for returning adult chum and sockeye salmon. For
salmon that did gain access, the spawning area within the sloughs would be reduced because of
lower mainstem flows. Accessibility of tributaries to adult salmon is not likely to be a problem
at the filling flows, especially at Portage Creek and Indian River, which are the two most
productive salmon tributaries upriver of Talkeetna.
Below Talkeetna, flow reductions might reduce the area of spawning habitat, since this habitat
tends to be located on the lateral margins of the mainstem and in side-channel areas. Spawning
in sloughs and tributaries below Talkeetna is not expected to be significantly affected during
filling of Watana reservoir.
During reservoir filling, the normal winter ecology of salmonids would likely persist into
summer in the Devil Canyon to Talkeetna reach of the Susitna River due to the abnormally cold
[40°F (4°C)] releases from Watana. It is likely that there would be an insignificant amount of
salmon fry growth in the Devil Canyon to Talkeetna reach during the summers of Watana filling.
Downstream of the confluence with the Chulitna and Talkeetna rivers, growth rates of juvenile
salmon and resident species would also be suppressed by cool temperatures. The Staff estimates
a reduction in accumulated June-September growth in this reach by about 50% to 60% compared to
potential growth at preproject temperatures (Table 4-2).
Numerous issues have arisen regarding maintenance of fish populations, especially salmon, in the
Susitna River in the face of operating the Susitna Hydroelectric Project. This section emphasizes
those issues. The discussions are organized according to major life stages of anadromous fish:
upstream migration and spawning of salmon, incubation, juvenile rearing, and salmon emigration.
Betwe·en Devil Canyon and Talkeetna, the primary impacts on salmon spawning during the operation
phase of the proposed project would be similar to, but less severe than, those discussed for the
construction phase. The decreased summer flows would cause passage problems for adult salmon
entering slough spawning habitats and would reduce the area of suitable spawning habitat within
the sloughs. If unmitigated, and assuming that access to and availability of suitable spawning
habitat are presently limiting salmon production, decreased summer flows would reduce the number
of chum, sockeye, and pink salmon spawning in the sloughs upstream from Talkeetna. Accessibility
of tributaries to adult salmon is not likely to be a problem during June through September
during the operation phase, especially at the two most productive salmon tributaries upriver of
Talkeetna--Portage Creek and Indian River.
Downriver from Talkeetna, operation of Watana alone is expected to have less of an impact on
spawning in all habitat types relative to upriver areas. This is because on the downriver areas
the primary water-re 1 a ted vari ab 1 es i nfl uenci ng spawning (i.e. , flow, temperature, turbidity,
and siltation) would be changed to a lesser extent relative to preproject conditions.
Review of available temperature predictions for the Susitna with Watana dam operating and the
circumstances of reported migrative effects elsewhere indicates little potential for impedance
of migration from the Susitna into tributary streams during reservoir operations.
Cone valves that are proposed for the outlet facilities to dissipate momentum should reduce·the
likelihood of supersaturation values exceeding 110%. There are no similar controls proposed for
the spillway, and its use, albeit infrequent, can be expected to cause extensive fish mortalities
4-27
Table 4-2. Change in Potential Summer Growth of Juvenile Salmon
in the Talkeetna-to-Mouth Reach Due to Filling
of Watana Reservoir and Operation of
Month
Temperature (avg. °F)
in Lower Susitna
June
July
August
September
Accumulated
June-September
growth (ounces)
Reduction from
preproject. growth (%)
Watana and Devil Canyon Damst 1
Preproject
52
52.7
52
46.5
0.19
Watana
Filling
43
44
45
42
D.063
-58
Watana +
Devil Canyon
Operator
44
45
46
43
0.070
53
t 1 Calculations were based on assuming growth at mainstem temperatures and
estimating temperatures by simple dilution. Accumulated growth was
calculated on basis of an initial 0.2 g fry that developed at weight-
specific rates published for sockeye salmon. Average monthly tempera-
tures for the reach were calculated from average temperature and flow
data for the Chulitna and Talkeetna rivers and the projected minimum
flows in the Susitna River during filling and operation of both dams.
Temperatures for the Susitna River assume maximum downstream warming
from release temperatures (4°C during filling). Warming from Talkeetna
to the mouth has not been considered, but would change little due to the
project.
in the river downstream. Supersaturation in excess of the 110% tolerance threshold for most
fish can be expected during use of the spillway. High mortalities are expected for fish of all
ages that are present in the mainstem for an indeterminate distance between the dam site and the
junction with the Chulitna and Talkeetna rivers where dilution will occur.
The conclusion was reached by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fisheries Rehabilitation
Enhancement and Development Division, that upriver expansion of anadromous salmon populations to
areas above Devil Canyon was not practicable in the absence of the Susitna project. The Staff
thus concludes that loss of upriver salmon potential would not be a significant project impact.
With Watana dam alone, reduced flows in Devil Canyon would probably allow salmon access to
several creeks previously used rarely, if at all, including Cheechako, Chinook, and Devil creeks.
The additional spawning area could be significant.
Changes in river flow and temperature during this time can be expected to have some impact on
incubation success through the mechanisms presented below.
Because the Sustina River is used for mainstem and slough spawning by all Pacific salmon species
except chinook, power peaking would put spawning areas at risk. The proposed limitation of
water releases to those of a baseload operation constitutes an effective fish conservation
measure compared to a peaking mode of operation. Some redd dewatering might occur in winter
above Sherman during reservoir operations due to reduced ice staging. The flow stabilization
would reduce stranding of fry caused by freshet flows in summer.
Considering the u~~ertainties in estimating actual incubation temperatures, the preliminary
analysis has focus~d on altered river temperatures and the potential shifts in incubation rate
patterns that they would cause. The major potential incubation impact of the Susitna project
would be acceleration of development rates by warmer temperatures in autumn and winter
(Figs. 4-8, 4-9). Under predicted river temperature regimes, corrected for warming and/or
cooling as discharges traverse the Devil Canyon to Talkeetna reach, early spawning pink and chum
salmon (mid-July) could complete development to the emergence stage by mid to late October with
Watana alone, rather than early spring. Winter survival would likely be negligible. Later-
spawning salmon would be affected only slightly.
I" I
, 'I I I
'
; I
;:
l·llil,lillil~ll
i
'
1
1,1,,
, I
1
''''.
'I'
l1'
II· '
'1!·'·''.1 II'; I
:; ';
,, .I
II I ;·'
'
,!,I
10
-u 8
0
~
w a: 6 ::>
1-
<(
a: 4 w
Q.
::I! w
1-2
0
12
10 -u
0
~
w 8 a: ::>
1-
<( 6 a: w
Q.
::I! w 4 1-
2
0
4-28
RM 101 WATANA AND DEVIL CANYON RM 116
RM 131
RM 152
RM 101
RM 116
RM 131
RM 152
NORMAL SHERMAN
(no autumn emergence)
10 20
JUL
RM 101
10 20
AUG
10 20
SEPT
RM 131
RM 101
ONLY
0 PINK SALMON
0 CHUM SALMON
DATES OF oo/ EMERGENCE
10 20
OCT
RM 116
10 20
NOV
RM 131
,-RM 152
10 20
DEC
Figure 4-8. Predicted Early Emergence of Pink and Chum Salmon. Calculated for
conditions during fa 11 i ng mai nstem temperatures (°C) in autumn from
eggs spawned on July 15 at four locations in the Susitna River between
Devil Canyon outlet (RM 152) and the Chulitna junction (RM 101) and
incubated at mainstem river temperatures.
u
0
~
w a::
::::>
1-
<(
a:: w a...
:::i: w
1-
~
z
10
8
6
4
2
0
100
0 80
1-a... a::
0
(/)
CD 60
<(
~
_J
0
>-40
w
1-w
_J
a... 20 :::i:
0 u
0
4-29
~ TEMPERATURES
Vr--PREPROJECT MAINSTEM
_ji~WATANA MAINSTEM
---;\"
1
\:'\WATANA AND D.C. MAINSTEM
I I \ I I
\ \
I \ I
I \
\ \
\ \,
\ \\ " ',, '"' '
INCUBATION RATES
WATANA AND D. C.
MAINSTEM
A S 0 N D J
"' , ,~~
...-fY
-I _ __......-I
I
I
I , ,
F M A M J
MONTH
J
Figure 4-9. Incubation Rates for Chum Salmon Embryos Spawned On August 15 under Different
Temperature Scenarios. [Preproject mainstem at Sherman, Sherman mainstem with
Watana dam alone, Sherman mainstem with Watana and Devil Canyon dams, and inter-
gravel in a slough without overtopping (1), and with two representative over-
topping dates: November (2) and February (3).] [Source: Mainstem temperatures
were developed by the FERC Staff from Application. Slough temperatures and
regression equations for incubation rate modeling from Wangaard and Burger (1983)]
,.,i ··Ill
111,irlll,ll·1
i-UI,Ii:lll.llll!
' li ll~lhll:i:..illil
I I
'1,111'"'".'" 'I IWW-111
4-30
The thermal effects on egg incubation estimated for Watana reservoir alone due to warm autumn
temperature would be somewhat reduced with both dams in operation in spite of additional pro-
longation of warmer temperatures into the late autumn by Devil Canyon dam. Early spawning pink
and chum salmon could produce emerging fry in November-December with both dams in operation
(Fig. 4-8). Later-spawning fish would be more affected than with Watana alone. Operation of
Watana and Devil Canyon dams would yield mainstem fall and winter temperatures in the Devil
Canyon-to-Talkeetna reach that approximate preproject temperatures in spawning grave 1 s of
sloughs (Fig. 4-9). This could, in conjunction with progressive elimination of silt gravels,
enhance mainstem spawning and incubation success.
Siltation is the principal nemesis of incubating eggs in river gravels, as several studies have
shown an inverse relationship between the amount of sediment in spawning gravels and emergence
success of salmon and trout fry. Winter silt loads resulting from operation of the Susitna
reservoirs would have the potential of reaching levels detrimental to downstream redds. Analogies
with existing glacial lakes such as Eklutna, however, suggest that residual turbidity from
operation in winter would not be detrimental.
The expectation of changed growth is of particular concern for juvenile salmon of all five
species that develop in the river for varying lengths of time prior to and during their seaward
migration. It is known that larger fish at time of entrance to the ocean have a higher likeli-
hood of surviving to adulthood. The results indicate little alteration of presently achievable
growth when Watana dam alone is in place (Fig. 4-10). With Watana dam alone, warming of the
river in autumn generally would compensate for somewhat delayed (but similar) summer peak tempera-
tures in determining the cumulative annual growth of those species that remain all year (chinook,
coho). If chum, pink, and sockeye salmon continued to migrate out of this reach of river by the
end of July, their growth could, however, be reduced by about one-third, with some reduction in
survi va 1. A 1 tered temperatures, and thus growth rates, in the Susi tna fo 11 owing dam construc-
tion would likely favor the species most capable of growing best in cooler water (which appear
to be sockeye and pink salmon).
Potential growth of juvenile salmon downstream of Devil Canyon and Watana dams would markedly
decrease when both dams were in operation (Fig. 4-10, Table 4-2). Annual growth potentially
might reach only about 50% of preproject levels. The species that emigrate in their first
summer might accumulate only about one-third of their normal riverine growth. Although the
modest changes in growth with Watana dam alone would probably be undetectable, the more striking
changes associated with both dams operating could have important implications for survival of
the emigrating juvenile salmon.
Major consequences of impounding the Susitna River would be reduction in summertime turbidity
and stabilization of flows, changes that could significantly increase benthic productivity and
thus food avai 1 abi 1 i ty for fish fauna (Sec. 4. 1. 4.1). Zoop 1 ankton ori gi nat i ng in an upstream
reservoir can be an important supplement to food resources for downstream salmonids, and might
become important in the post-impoundment Sus itna. However, this increase might be reduced by
De vi 1 Canyon dam deve 1 opment, due to the summer temperature reductions (Sec. 4.1. 3. 3). The
projected temperature reductions might be sufficiently severe to retard growth of benthic food
organisms.
The degree to which increased fish food availability per unit area in the Susitna during project
operation would offset the effects of a decrease in wetted perimeter and reduced water tempera-
tures is a matter of speculation. Because thermal changes with Watana alone would be relatively
small, it is likely that overall productivity of the Susitna from the dam to Talkeetna would
rise, and juvenile salmon production should increase. Undoubtedly, the reduction in turbidity
and flow stabilization offer important management opportunities for Susitna River salmon.
Woody debris (trees, stumps, logs, brush) at certain locations in the Susitna currently creates
small pools and backwater areas that are used by young salmon for resting and feeding. Blockage
of upstream sources of this debris and reductions in peak flows that erode wooded riverbanks
could lead to depletion of such debris in the river above the Chulitna confluence by progressive
washout downstream, and thus degradation of rearing habitat.
Elevation of. winter temperatures in the reaches downstream of the dams would be a project modi-
fication that might affect the behavior and survival of overwintering fishes. The temperature
alteration would be most pronounced close to a dam outlet, and it would be moderated downstream
by low air temperatures and cold tributary inflows. If a 5°C (41°F) threshold for inducing
behavioral changes that has been seen elsewhere is germane to Susitna populations (presently
untested), then even the most elevated temperatures in winter would still .be below this threshold,
and a normal annual behavior cycle would occur. The pronounced lag in autumnal cooling, however,
would delay onset of inactivity.
Generally warmer winter temperatures in the Susitna River below Watana dam might result in an
earlier breakup of river ice, warmer river temperatures earlier in the season, and potential
4-31
(a) WATANA DAM ONLY
TEMPERATURES
BEFORE (SHERMAN =RM 131)
AFTE
CUMULATIVE WEIGHT
BEFORE (SHERMAN= RM 131)
RM 116
RM 101 /AFTER
o~~~~_L_L~~~~~~~~o
14
12
-10 u
!...
IJJ a: 8
::;)
~ a: ~ 6
:IE
IJJ
1-4
2
r--.--.--.~W~A7T~A~N7A~A7N~D~D~E~V~IL~CA7N~Y~O~N~DA7M~S-,,--,--r--,6
TEMPERATURES
BEFORE (SHERMAN= RM 131)
AFTER 5
2
oL____J_ __ ..J____JL__....J.... __ ..J____J_---'-_..,~____~_--'---.L._---'----'---'---'O
30 15 31 15 30 15 31 15 31 15 30 15 31 15 30 15
MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC
·~
Figure 4-10. Temperature and Cumulative Growth for Juvenile Sockeye Salmon
in the Susitna River between Devil Canyon and Talkeetna, Before
and After the Project. (Sockeye salmon is assumed to adequately
illustrate effects on the salmon species.)
' 'I
! I'
:·'
IIIIIIJIIII<I!II
'i,
!
I',
!
4-32
advancement of the timing of smolt out-migration. It seems reasonable to conclude that advance-
ment of river temperatures in spring could result in a concomitant advancement of outmigration
of juvenile salmonids. This advancement could be detrimental for the populations involved
because of the negative effects (reduced survival) of early entrance to cold coastal waters.
Potential shifts might occur because of different directions or degrees of response to dam-
induced environmental changes. Such shifts could be important for fisheries in both the river
and in Cook Inlet. As the project impacts are better defined and quantified, and as the fish
populations are better understood, projections about relative advantages might be made. The
state of basic knowledge and ecological theory related to competitive processes does not allow
predictions beyond speculation at this point. If unanticipated shifts in relative abundance
were shown by postproject monitoring, addi t i ana 1 mitigative measures might be necessary to
restore preproject relationships.
Habitat potential for fish in Watana and Devil Canyon reservoirs would be limited by cold tempera-
tures, low productivity, high silt loads in summer months, and large drawdown that would prevent
development of a littoral zone (Sec. 4.1.3). The Applicant evaluated the annual drawdown cycle
of Watana reservoir in relation to fish spawning. Winter dewatering and spring flooding
(Sec. 4.1.3) are both of concern for successful reproduction in the reservoir.
In addition to year-round resident fishes, Watana reservoir would be expected to provide
important new overwintering habitat for fishes that occupy tributaries and the Susitna upstream
of the Oshetna River.
Kokanee (landlocked sockeye salmon) is the most abundant fish in many large subalpine lakes and
reservoirs of western North America, and it could provide a valuable salmonid fish species for
Devil Canyon and Watana reservoirs and tributaries above Devil Canyon. Chakachamna Lake currently
provides rearing for a 1 arge number of juvenile sockeye sa 1 man. Estab 1 i shment and maintenance
of a Kokanee population in Watana reservoir could provide a pelagic component of the fauna
comparable to the Scandinavian roach and a viable alternative to Alaska Department of Fish and
Game proposals to open the upper Susitna to anadromous salmon stocks through fish passage facili-
ties at Devil Canyon. Limiting factors would be the capability of the turbid Watana reservoir
to sustain zooplankton and impaired reproduction along the reservoir shoreline (although the
upper Susitna and tributaries should provide abundant spawning habitat).
Devil Canyon reservoir would offer favorable habitat to fish populations, although low produc-
tivity levels waul d be anticipated due to cool temperatures, nutrient 1 imitation, and sma 11
amount of spawning area. Dolly Varden, Arctic grayling, rainbow and lake trout, burbot, white-
fish, and longnose suckers could be expected, paralleling trends projected for Watana reservoir.
In summary, projected changes in the flow and temperature regimes downriver of the two proposed
dams have been identified above as having potentially negative impacts on the salmon stocks
utilizing the Devil Canyon to Talkeetna reach of the Susitna River for spawning and rearing.
The Staff has analyzed historical flow, temperature, and commercial catch data for the years
1950-1982 to determine if there has been an obvious influence of low flows in summer or of low
or high temperatures in summer or winter on year-class strength for any of the five salmon
species.
For each species, using the appropriate lag between year of flow when spawning occurred and year
of catch of the progeny by the commercial fishery, the mean commercial catch for low-flow years
was compared with that for high-flow years. There were no statistically significant differences,
indicating that over the range of flows occurring during July, August, and September from 1950-
1981 there is no strong evidence that year-class strength for any of the five species is adversely
affected by low flows during the spawning period. An important caveat for this analysis is that
the average flows at Gold Creek for the low-flow years were all above 12,000 cfs (340 m3 /s)
whereas the proposed project flows at Gold Creek during July, August, and September are 6,480,
12,000, and 9,300 cfs (180, 340, and 260 m3 /s), respectively. There is no sound basis for
judging the validity of extrapolating the results of this analysis to these lower flows.
Considering the potentia 1 cumulative impact of changes in flow, temperature, and turbidity
regimes on all stages of the salmon life cycle from inmigration of adults through outmigration
of smelts (and mitigation of unacceptable losses due to gas supersaturation during project
operation), the Staff expects the following changes. Sa 1 man. production above Ta 1 keetna for all
five species would be greatly reduced during the second and third years of filling of Watana
reservoir. However, the lost production in this reach for these two years would likely be at
least partially offset by increased production that would occur in other systems because salmon
that normally would have continued to migrate up the Susitna River would select the warmer water
of the Talkeetna River. All five salmon species would be expected to increase their use of the
Devil Canyon to Talkeetna reach of the Susitna River again when Watana started operating, although
the rate of return to higher production levels would vary among the five salmon species, depend-
ing on the life cycle and on the strength of the year classes returning in the years immediately
4-33
following the filling of Watana. In the case of pink salmon, no imprinted adults might be
available to come back since both odd-year and even-year stocks would be impacted during the
second and third years of filling, and thus recovery to higher production 1 eve 1 s would 1 ike ly
take longer than for the other species.
It is not possible to assess whether the Susitna Hydroelectric Project would result in an average,
long-term decrease or increase in populations of salmon presently spawning in the Susitna River
Basin. However, it is likely that there would be at least short-term decreases in salmon stock
sizes due to construction of Watana and De vi 1 Canyon dams and fi 1l i ng of Watana reservoir.
These decreases would result from substantial changes in flow, temperature, and turbidity regimes.
Based on the Staff's analysis, the magnitude of any decrease, especially in light of the various
mitigative measures to be implemented (Sec. 2.1.12), would not be great. No combination of
impacts has been projected that would reduce by as much as 50% any of the five salmon popula-
tions spawning in the Susitna River and tributaries above its confluence with the Talkeetna and
Chulitna rivers, although the chum and sockeye stocks are likely to be more affected than the
chinook, coho, and pink salmon stocks. Conversely, it is not reasonable to expect that the
proposed project, even in combination with extensive mitigative measures, would result in an
increase by as much as 50% of any of these five salmon populations.
It is not possible to quantify the direct impact of the project on the commercial, sport, or
subsistence fisheries, except that, other factors being equal, changes in catch would be approxi-
mately proportional to decreases or increases in the size of the spawning stocks. Other factors,
however, would not be equal with and without the project. As discussed in Section 4.1.8, the
project would tend to promote economic and population growth. These changes, in turn, would
inevitably increase fishing effort by the commercial, sport, and subsistence fisheries. The
effect of this increased fishing effort is relatively easy to predict based on case histories
for numerous other fish stocks all over the world. Increasing exploitation would eventually
result in decreasing fishery resources unless there was increasing intervention of fishery
management practices. This long-term and indirect impact of the project is likely to mask any
direct impacts of the project on downstream habitat and the size of the fish populations this
habitat can support.
4.1.4.2.2 Access Routes and Power Transmission Facilities
There are two environmetal impacts to be assessed for fish communities in streams and lakes in
the vicinity of the proposed access routes. The greatest source of adverse impact on fish
communities would be the increased accessibility of these streams and lakes to fishing pressure
via the network of access routes. By subjecting these streams to increased fishing pressure,
many of the larger, older fish would be removed from the population, altering the age structure
and possibly reducing reproductive potentials.
Another impact associated with access roads and railroads, as identified by the Applicant and
the various agencies concerned with fishery resources, would be the effect on resident fish
populations, grayling in particular, of increased turbidity and siltation associated with stream
crossings. The bases for this concern are that there would be approximately 100 stream cross-
ings and that increased turbidity and siltation at these crossings would likely result in degrada-
tion and loss of habitat, especially habitat presently used for spawning and rearing of juveniles.
Assuming effective mitigative actions to avoid long-term alterations of streams at crossings,
the major impact is expected to be increased fishing pressure. Cooperative regulation of fishing
activities or fish removal by project Staff and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game might
mitigate these impacts as well.
4.1.5 Terrestrial Communities
4.1.5.1 Plant Communities
Potential impacts to terrestrial plant communities and wetlands from construction of the proposed
Susitna project can be divided into three categories: (1) the direct removal of vegetation,
(2) indirect vegetation loss or damage, and (3) alteration of plant communities. The first
category generally constitutes the most severe impacts and is the most quantifiable. The second
and third categories are not mutually exclusive in that indirect vegetation loss or damage often
results in alteration of plant communities.
Construction of ·~e proposed Watana and Devil Canyon dams, impoundments, and related facilities
and of proposed access facilities would result in the direct removal of about 44,000 acres
(17 ,800 ha) of vegetation, or about l. 3% of the vegetated area within the upper and middle
Susitna Basin (Table 4-3). Of this amount, 36,000 acres (14,600 ha) would be forest. This area
represents about 4.2% of the forested areas within the upper and middle Susitna Basin. More
specifically, about one-third of the paper birch forest and 10% of the mixed conifer-deciduous
forest types in the upper and middle Susitna Basin would be lost. Less than l% of the tundra
and shrubland types in the upper and middle basin would be removed. Areal estimates of specific
"'I !,r: I
' ' 4-34 j.J
1:·., I
I II
I
I':
Table 4-3. Acreages of Permanent and Temporary Vegetation and Wetland
Removal Due to the Proposed Susitna Project and Acreages of
Vegetation and Wetland Disturbed by Proposed Power
Transmission Corridors
Affected Acreage by Vegetation Typet 1
Total
Potential
Wetland
Acreage
Facility and Type of Loss Forest Shrubland Tundra
Vegetated
Area Affectedt 1 '2
Permanent Removal
Watana Total
Dam and impoundment
Permanent village and airstrip
Devil Canyon Total
Dam and impoundment
Access
Total Permanent Removal
Percentage of Basin Totalt 3
Temporary Removalt 4
Watana Total
Camp and village
Borrow areas (A,D,E,F,H,I)
Construction work areas
Devil Canyon Total
Camp and village
Borrow areas (G,K)
Construction work areas
Total Temporary Removal
Percentage of Basin Totalt 3
Total Vegetation Removal
Percentage of Basin Totalt3
Vegetation Disturbancets
Transmission Line Corridors
27,000
27,000
0
5,700
5,700
190
33,000
(3.8%)
2,600
0
2,400
200
1,100
190
340
580
3,700
(0.4%)
36,000
(4.2%)
6,600
4,400
4,200
110
170
170
700
5,200
(0.3%)
2,400
240
1,300
840
52
0
52
0
2,500
(0.2%)
7,700
(0.5%)
3,400
210
210
0
27
27
210
440
(<0.1%)
190
0
190
0
0
0
0
0
190
(<0.1%)
640
(0.1%)
1,700
31,000
31,000
110
5,900
5,900
1,100
38,000
(1. 1%)
5,200
240
3,900
1,000
1,200
190
390
580
6,400
(0.2%)
44,000
(1. 3%)
12,000
28,000
28,000
130
4,200
4,200
740
33,000
(1. 5%)
4,200
240
3,200
720
450
0
140
310
4,600
(0.2%)
37,000
(1. 7%)
7,600
t 1 Values rounded to two significant figures; acreages do not add up to totals due to
rou_nding errors.
t 2 Extremely liberal estimates based on correlation of vegetation types to wetland types
of Cowardin et al. (1979) as presented in Appendix J, Table J-5 (see also
Sec. J.1.2.1.5).
t 3 Acreage of vegetation or wetlands lost converted to percentage of that vegetation
or wetland type for the upper and middle Susitna Basin (see App. J, Tables J-7 and
J-12).
t 4 The use of the word temporary implies that the area would eventually be rehabilitated.
t 5 Acreages presented are areas that would be crossed by the corridors.
Conversion: To convert acres to hectares, multiply by 0.405.
4-35
vegetation types that would be removed for each dam and impoundment, related facilities at each
site, and the various access routes are presented in Tables J-18, J-19, J-22, J-23, and J-26 of
Appendix J.
Areas cleared for construction camps and villages, construction roads, contractor work areas,
and borrow areas at both sites would cover a total of about 6,400 acres (2,600 ha), or 15% of
the total 44,000 acres (17,800 ha) of vegetation removed (Table 4-3). Estimates of the total
acreages of specific vegetation types that would be cleared for construction of these facilities
are presented in Tables J-19 and J-23 (App. J). Because these facilities would only be required
during construction of the dams and impoundments, the potential for establishment and growth of
vegetation on the areas occupied by these facilities would only be temporarily lost. According
to the schedule presented in Exhibit E (Vol. 6A, Chap. 3, pp. E-3-276-E-3-277), temporary
facilities and borrow areas would be removed and/or regraded and rehabilitated by the end of the
construction and reservoi r-fi 11 i ng peri ad. Genera 1 rehabilitation procedures p 1 anned by the
App 1 i cant have been described in Appendix J (Sec. J. 3.1. 3) and Ex hi bit E (Vol. 6A, Chap. 3,
pp. E-3-279 -E-3-281).
If soils can be adequately restored on rehabilitated areas, it is likely that at least some
vegetation would reestab 1 ish rather rapidly because of the disturbance-adapted nature of sub-
arctic plant species and communities (Chapin and Chapin, 1980; Van Cleve and Viereck, 1981).
However, in most (if not a 11) instances, it would be readily apparent for some time that the
area had been disturbed. The rate at which plant communities in rehabilitated areas replace the
original pattern of lost vegetation or blend in with surrounding communities would depend on the
rates of p 1 ant reestab 1 i shment and succession on the rehabilitated site and in surrounding
areas, and these rates can vary with numerous factors (see App. J, Sec. J. 2 .1.1.1). Based on
the rates of plant succession reported for floodplains and glacial moraines and those observed
following fires (Viereck, 1966; Viereck and Schandelmeier, 1980; Van Cleve and Viereck, 1981),
it might be 150 years or more before the ori gina 1 vegetation types removed from some areas
(generally those occupied by later success i ana 1 stages) were replaced with similar plant com-
munities. On the other hand, replacement of later successional stands by earlier seral stages
might be beneficial for wildlife because early seral stages generally provide more high-quality
forage than do later seral stages (Wolff, 1978; Wolff and Zasada, 1979).
Many of the vegetated areas that would be cleared can be considered wetlands. However, it is
difficult to accurately predict the actual acreages of various wetland types that would be
removed because the App 1 i cant has not conducted a detai 1 ed wet 1 ands mapping program. Lacking
better information, the Staff has made extremely liberal estimates of potential wetlands that
would be lost (Table 4-3) by correlating vegetation types to the wetland types of Cowardin
et al. (1979) (see App. J, Table J-5 and Sec. J.1.2.1.5). About 24,000 acres (9,700 ha) of the
potential wetlands that would be removed are palustrine forested, needle-leaved evergreen types;
this acreage represents over 3% of that type within the upper and middle Susitna Basin. Only
about 300 acres (120 ha) of palustrine or lacustrine emergent, persistent, and less than 50 acres
(20 ha) of palustrine forested, broad-leaved deciduous wetland types would be removed, but these
areas account for about 2.5% and over 4%, respectively, of these types within the upper and
middle Susitna Basin. Areal estimates of specific wetland types that would be removed for each
dam and impoundment, related facilities at each site, and the various access routes are presented
in Tables J-20, J-21, J-24, J-25, and J-27 in Appendix J.
Although the land areas where temporary construction facilities and borrow areas had been located
would be physically rehabilitated, it is impossible to predict whether wetlands that originally
occurred in these areas would be restored. (See App. J, Tables J-21 and J-25, for areal
estimates of specific wetland types that would be cleared for construction of these facilities.)
Since localized drainage patterns and terrain might often be affected or purposefully changed
during construction of project facilities and access roads and during excavation of borrow
areas, the potential for and the feasibility of reestablishing wetland conditions must be
considered on a case-by-case basis. Conversely, construction-related changes in local drainage
patterns might also result in creation of new wetland areas nearby (Berg, 1980). The Applicant
has indicated that efforts would be taken to avoid wetlands wherever possible during construc-
tion activities and to minimize potential major alterations to drainage patterns through proper
engineering design (Exhibit E, Vol. 6A, Chap. 3, pp. E-3-256 and E-3-290).
The 12,000 acres (4,900 ha) of vegetated area to be crossed by the proposed power transmission
corridors (Table 4-3) represent a worst-case estimate of vegetation that would be impacted. The
Applicant has ind}cated that clearing of vegetation from the rights-of-way would be selective,
with total removal~Tienerally confined to tower sites, access trails, and temporary construction
facilities. Vegetation within the rights-of-way would be cleared to various maximum heights,
but in general at least ground-layer vegetation would be left intact. Herbicides would not be
used (Exhibit E, Vol. 6A, Chap. 3, pp. E-3-270 -E-3-271). Thus, because of their overstory
layer heights, forest and tall shrub types (representing about 60% of the vegetation that would
be crossed by the corridors) would be most impacted by clearing. (See App. J, Tables J-28,
J-30, J-32, and J-34, for more specific estimates of vegetation types that would be crossed by
each corridor.) As a worst-case estimate, 7,600 acres (3,100 ha) of potential wetlands would be
.. , .. 'II 11.
l1· ·' I':
:! I .
,.,1·.
1
'. ·.'.' '
'
I
;d!li.,,
I II
'
4-36
crossed by the proposed transmission corridors (App. J, Tables J-29, J-31, J-33, and J-35).
However, the Applicant has indicated that site-specific adjustments would be made in the corridors
during detailed alignment studies in order to minimize wetland and floodplain crossings (Exhibit E,
Vol. 6A, Chap. 3, p. E-3-290).
Additional areas would be subjected to indirect damage (or loss) of vegetation and alteration of
plant communities during project construction. However, it is impossible to quantify the acreage
and identify specific vegetation types that would be thus affected. The nature of these types
of impacts has been described in more detail in Section J.2.1 (App. J); the types of potential
indirect effects are only briefly mentioned here.
Vegetation loss or damage could occur as a result of erosion and slumpage on slopes surrounding
the impoundments (especially Watana) or other facilities (Baxter and Glaude, 1980). More
localized erosion would probably occur as a result of construction-related factors, such as
altered drainage patterns, blowdown of trees by increased winds due to greater fetch across
cleared areas, and destabilization of soils exposed by clearing (especially in permafrost areas
and in non-permafrost areas where the organic layer has been removed) (Van Cleve, 1978; Berg,
1980; Todd, 1982; Aldrich and Slaughter, 1983). Changes in drainage patterns and surface hydro-
logy would be caused by such construction activities as clearing, ditching, road building, soil
stockpiling, and borrow site excavation (Berg, 1980). Some soils might become waterlogged;
others might accumulate less moisture. Soil aeration and nutrient cycling processes could also
be affected. The active layer of permafrost areas might change, and cleared soils might freeze
and thaw deeper and earlier than when insulated by vegetation. All such changes could foster
erosion and alter the composition or productivity of nearby plant communities. Erosion-and
permafrost-related impacts would be minimized, however, by the use of balloon-tire and flat-
tread vehicles in construction areas and along transmission corridors (Rickard and Brown, 1974).
Fugitive dust from cleared areas and borrow sites could accumulate on vegetation, cause abrasive
damage, or affect the rate of snowmelt, all of which could affect plant phenology (Everett,
1980; Drake, 1981). Clearing and indirect vegetation damage might also affect the abundance of
insects, decay organisms, and disease-causing agents; these changes could in turn further affect
vegetation.
Although fire is a natural factor affecting plant community distributions in the region (Viereck
and Schandelmeier, 1980), the frequency, duration, intensity, and area of fires might change as
a result of increased human activity in the area, thereby affecting vegetation. Nonessential
disturbance of vegetation due to increased human activity cannot be totally avoided. Also, use
of off-road and all-terrain vehicles (ORV/ATV) would probably increase as a result of increased
access and human activity in the area. Damage or alteration of plant communities due to ORV/ATV
usage would probably be most severe as a result of summer use and in areas with permafrost, in
wetlands or areas with high soil moisture content, on deep gravel-free soils, on slopes, and in
tundra vegetation types. Plant recovery waul d be less likely if the organic layer was severely
disturbed and root systems destroyed (Rickard and Brown, 1974; Gersper and Challinor, 1975;
Challinor and Gersper, 1975; Sparrow et al., 1978).
Operation of the proposed project facilities would result in continuation of some indirect
impacts to vegetation caused by increased incidence of fires; increased human access, activity,
and ORV/ATV usage (especially near access roads and along transmission corridors); tree blowdown
near the reservoirs; erosion and permafrost thaw, particularly near the reservoirs and access
roads; and fugitive dusting along access roads. In addition, Watana and Devil Canyon operation
would affect vegetation through regulation of downstream flows and mesoclimatic changes.
The regulated flows associated with project operation would affect the development of riparian
plant communities downstream of the dam sites. Specific effects are difficult to predict or
quantify since they would vary at particular locations depending on river morphology and distance
from the dams. The following discussion of potential impacts is based on predictions of river
staging, water temperatures, and ice regimes presented in Exhibit E (Vol. SA, Chap. 2). In
general, regulated flows would be higher than preproject flows in winter and lower than preproject
flows in summer, and increased temperatures of water released from the dams would affect ice
formation downstream of the dam sites.
With only Watana in operation, it is expected that ice formation would not occur in the Watana
to Devil Canyon reach. Since summer flows would be reduced by comparison to preproject flows,
vegetation would gradually establish on newly-exposed areas al-ong banks and on islands. However,
the actual areas involved would probably be relatively small because of the steep banks in this
reach. With the elimination of ice scouring and major flooding events, succession of existing
and newly established vegetation stands would proceed with relatively little interruption toward
mature balsam poplar and white spruce forest until clearing and inundation of the Devil Canyon
reservoir was begun.
In the Devil Canyon to Talkeetna reach, ice would be expected to form, although its formation
would likely be delayed by several weeks, and the exact location of the end-of-winter ice front
4-37
has not been predicted with certainty. Above this end-of-winter ice front, vegetation develop-
ment would be similar to that in the Watana to Devil Canyon reach of the river. Where ice
formation occurred, however, reduced summer flows would expose more area capable of being
colonized. However, higher ice staging associated with increased winter flows could extend into
these areas, affecting not only the newly deve 1 oping communities but, in some 1 a cations, even
some existing vegetated areas. It is difficult to predict what effects this ice staging would
have because under unregulated conditions ice staging levels are often below rather than above
the water surface elevations that occur during summer flows. Thus, until clearing and inunda-
tion of the Devil Canyon reservoir was begun, the width of area occupied by early-to mid-
successional stages might either increase over preproject conditions or remain similar to pre-
project conditions.
With both Watana. and Devil Canyon dams in operation, ice formation is considered unlikely between
Devil Canyon and Talkeetna. Since summer flows would be reduced by comparison to preproject
flows and since ice-staging effects associated with operation of Watana alone would be eliminated,
an increase in vegetated area over preproject conditions would probably occur. The width of
area occupied by early-to mid-successional stages would probably increase over preproject
conditions initially. With time, however, succession would proceed towards mature balsam poplar
and white spruce forests, and the width of area occupied by early-to mid-successional stages
might eventually be decreased below preproject conditions since fewer events capable of causing
vegetative recession to earlier seral stages would occur.
In the Sus itna reach from the confluence of the Sus itna, Chulitna, and Ta 1 keetna rivers to the
Yentna River, the channel is braided, and the Susitna contributes only 40% of the total flow.
The importance of ice processes in vegetative succession is reduced except in localized areas,
and the magnitude of increased Susitna winter flows would be diluted. Regulated and reduced
summer flows would have some effect on the frequency and severity of flooding in this reach, but
the effects would be attenuated by flows from the other rivers. Thus, early-and mid-successional
stands might develop sufficiently in some areas to provide some stabilization against later
floods. Although reduced summer flows and perhaps increased winter flows would probably have
some effect on vegetation in this reach, it is impossible to predict whether the net effects
would be increases or decreases in vegetated area or in succession rates.
In the reach from the Yentna River to Cook Inlet, bankfull flows and flooding would probably be
the major factors affecting vegetative succession rates. Because of the dilution effect of the
other rivers (the Susitna contributes only 20% to bankfull flows), as well as the tidal influence
up to RM 20, any changes in vegetation would be difficult to attribute solely to operation of
the proposed project.
The large volume of water in the reservoirs, especially Watana, would warm more slowly in spring
and cool more slowly in fall than surrounding land masses. Resultant seasonal changes in air
and soil temperatures near the reservoir (particularly on the southern side of Watana due to
prevailing northeasterly winds) would probably affect plant phenology and perhaps cause altera-
tion of plant communities. Moderation of diurnal temperature fluctuations by the reservoir
might also affect local rainfall patterns and humidity, possibly having some effect on nearby
vegetation (Baxter and Glaude, 1980).
The presence of the reservoirs also could cause increased occurrences of fog and rime ice accumu-
1 at ions on vegetation in surrounding areas, especially during breakup and freeze up peri ads
(Baxter and Glaude, 1980). When rime ice accumulations are thick, branches and twigs can break,
damaging vegetation. However, if plants are not severely damaged, this could have a beneficial
effect for wildlife if succulent new growth is induced. Similarly, ice fogging and rime ice
accumulation would be expected along the downstream floodplain in the section of the river where
formation of ice would be prevented by dam outflow temperatures.
4.1.5.2 Animal Communities
A variety of impacts to wildlife would result from construction and operation of the Susitna
project. Installation of facilities such as the dams, reservoirs, airstrip, and roads would
permanently withdraw habitat from future use by wildlife (Table 4-3). In addition, about 50% of
the habitat along the transmission line route would generally be altered from forest/woodland to
early successional shrubland stages. Alteration of flow regimes below the dams would also
result in alteration of riparian habitat in the floodplain of the Susitna River. The impoundments
might impede mov~ent of wildlife, especially during spring ice breakup. To a lesser degree,
access routes and~he transmission line right-of-way might also interfere with wildlife movements.
Noise and human activities associated with project construction and maintenance might disturb
species sensitive to human presence and cause them to avoid the project area, effectively
restricting the amount of available habitat. Conversely, some wildlife might be attracted to
centers of human activity and become nuisances.
Indirect impacts might accrue through increased accessibility of the project area and increased
human presence even after the construction phase. Increased accessibility might cause increased
,,
•
1
,,,11 ull• ·.
I
'
i
!''
I
I ,,
I
"' 1:.1
:!J. I'''
ii' !1 1
1
II I
4-38
hunting pressures along the Susitna River relative to the peripheral areas where current high-
ways exist. Increases in hunting pressure would further exacerbate the ·negative impacts of the
project upon wildlife resources. ·
More detailed discussions of potential project-related impacts follow.
Moose: Approximately 2,200 moose now range through the area of the Devil Canyon and Watana
impoundments. These moose would be most directly impacted by construction, filling, and opera-
tion of the reservoirs, and another 9,000 moose might be affected indirectly due to interactions
with the directly affected individuals (Ballard et al., 1983a). Moose displaced from the inunda-
tion areas and other project areas could compete more intensely for food and cover habitat in
areas outside the directly impacted zones. This increased competition among moose could lead to
indirect effects such as reduced nutri t i anal status or increased morbidity and marta 1 i ty of
moose not directly affected by loss of habitat. Other specific impacts related to habitat loss
would include:
Loss of potential winter carrying capacity equivalent to 540 moose, about 5% of the basin-
wide capacity (preliminary estimates) (App. K, Sec. K. 3).
-Loss of about 10% of the major wintering and spring calving habitat within 10 mi (16 km) of
the impoundment area (Figs. 4-11 and 4-12).
Increases in hunting pressure and take would likely occur as a result of increased access to the
Susitna River basin above Gold Creek. The Applicant projects that a doubling in big-game hunting
would result from the proposed Susitna Hydroelectric Project (Exhibit E, Vol. 8, Chap. 7,
Table E-7-13). The magnitude of this impact cannot be quantified. However, increased hunting
take waul d result in a net increase in marta 1 i ty and 1 ead to further reduction in the moose
population size unless hunting regulations became more restrictive.
Construction activities would likely result in the generation of noise and visual stimuli that
could disturb individual moose in the immediate vicinity of project features. These disturb-
ances would be short-term, occurring during the period of construction (about 10 yr). During
operation of the project, human use of the area would be expected to increase fourfold compared
to preproject use (Exhibit E, Vol. 8, Chap. 7, Table E-7-13). This increased human presence
could lead to further, longer-term disturbance of individual moose as a result of casual noise
or visual stimuli as well as direct harassment. Additionally, avoidance by moose of areas of
human activity could effectively reduce habitat availability. These effects would further
exacerbate impacts from habitat loss and hunting pressure.
Other likely impacts would include:
Delays of spring plant emergence due to later snowmelt and warming adjacent to reservoirs,
reducing the availability of nutritious, early plant growth as forage when post-wintering
moose move to the reservoir areas to recover nutritional balance in early spring.
Impediments to movement through and across the impoundment zone, particularly during spring
ice-breakup.
Impediments to reaching riverine islands below Devil Canyon used for calving during. late
winter/early spring due to presence of open but frigid waters over winter. Normally these
islands ·are accessible across ice. However, the open waters that would result from the
project would generally be avoided because of the likelihood of cold stress.
-Increased mortality due to vehicle use (about 500-600 vehicles per day) of access roads
during peak construction phases.
-Losses (for 10 to 30 years) of habitat to temporary project features. Rehabilitation might
provide an increase in suitable forage for a period of 1 to 25 years prior to development
of mature forests.
Clearing of forested areas for transmission lines and access routes might enhance moose forage
availability by a factor of 5 to 20 over approximately 6,600 acres (2,700 ha). However, studies
in Interior Alaska indicate that only an average of 20% of this available forage would be used
by moose (Wolff and Zasada, 1979). Indeed, even with abundant available forage, moose usage
might be effectively zero. During severe winters, deep snows in a cleared right-of-way could
make this forage unavailable and could also restrict moose movement.
Caribou: Caribou are not abundant in most areas of the principal project features (Pitcher,
1982, 1983). Most habitat affected by the project would be forested, whereas caribou are charac-
teristically found in more open habitats. A small number of caribou might be affected by project
activities such as habitat clearing and reservoir filling. Transmission line rights-of-way
might inhibit movement of caribou, but probably not on a large scale.
z
0
1'1
<D
z
0
N
<D
150° w
MOOSE
~.
o\V..ee\"(\o
~,..
14 w
17 Miles
4-39
~
"' > ir
" '<.<'0
os'<'e •
Lake
Louise
~
148 w 14 w
F====l Upstream Wintering
Figure 4-11. General Ranges for Moose Overwintering in Upper and
Middle Susitna Basin, 1977-1982. [Source: Ballard
et a l. , 1983a]
w
' I I ' ''
I 'i
' '
lm;;m~~~~~ ~~~~lfillllri
I
iinll~lllllllill
'
I
I
z
0
I')
co
z
0
4-40
Lake
Louise
~1!5-o;,-w--------------~w----------------~w----------------~w----------------~w
17 Miles
MOOSE
~ Upstream Calving
Figure 4-12. General Ranges for Moose Calving in Upper and Middle
Susitna Basin, 1977-1982. [Source: Ballard et al.,
1983a]
4-41
The Denali-Watana access route would bisect a migratory pathway from summer range to winter/
calving range for a portion of the Nenana-Upper Susitna caribou subherd, which constitutes about
2,000 individuals and 10% of the basinwide herd (Fig. 4-13). The access road could:
-Impede movement between summering and wintering range, thus reducing the flexibility to
effectively respond to varying availability of suitable habitat.
-Increase mortality (road kills) substantially during the peak construction period, when
500-600 vehicles per day might pass over the road.
The improved accessibility of the central basin would likely
tribute the areas of harvest away from current access routes.
management and regulatory policy toward caribou harvest.
increase hunting demand and redis-
This might necessitate changes in
Effects upon movements of the main Nelchina caribou herd in the basin would be less predictable
than for the local subherd. Movements from the wintering grounds to calving grounds currently
tend to skirt the projected impoundment zones. However, historical wintering ground occurs
north of the Susitna River (Hemming, 1971) and future movements across the impoundments could be
restricted. Thus, the impoundments caul d effectively restrict expansion into winter ranges
north of the Susitna River by those cow caribou traditionally calving south of the river.
Dispersing male caribou might also be more restricted in their ability to range into habitat
north of the Susitna after wintering in the Lake Louise area, southeast of the proposed impound-
ment zones.
Dall 's Sheep: Project features would not directly impact habitat of Dall 's sheep except along
Jay Creek, where the Watana impoundment would inundate the lower portion of a mineral lick
(Ballard et al., 1982; Tankersley, 1983). Because the lick is heavily used by sheep even though
it is outside of more typical sheep habitat, this lick is likely of major import to the Watana
Hills sheep population. Although impoundment wave action might accelerate exposure of mineral
soil materials, flooding would lead to extensive leaching of the lower portions of the lick,
which are most heavily used by sheep at this time. Boating and float plane use of the reservoir
near Jay Creek could further reduce the suitability of this lick for sheep use.
Sheep in areas around project features might also be affected by construction activities,
particularly overflights by aircraft. This might be a problem principally along the proposed
transmission line route through the rugged terrain south of Healy. Clearing activities near Jay
Creek might affect use of the mineral lick during spring. Sheep are especially sensitive to
human disturbance (Geist, 1980), but these effects would be temporary unless prolonged disturb-
ance occurred during operation.
Brown Bear: Although brown bear range through all the habitat types of the proposed project
area, they are typically found in open shrubland; thus, loss of about 39,000 acres (16,000 ha)
of forested habitat probably would not represent a critical loss to brown bear. However, after
emerging from overwintering dens, brown bear do use lowland habitat that would be inundated by
filling of the reservoirs. This habitat apparently pro vi des an early source of spring plant
growth, overwintered berries, and moose prey concentrations due to earlier warming and snowmelt
than occurs in the uplands (Miller and McAllister, 1982; Miller, 1983). Additionally, delay of
warming and snowmelt caused by the influence of the reservoirs might further reduce the suit-
ability of lowland habitat adjacent to the impoundments. Loss of such habitat would negatively
impact the brown bear population within the upper and middle Susitna Basin because the early
spring new growth provides a high-quality food source for recovering nutritional balance during
the post-denning period.
Because many brown bear cross the projected impoundment zones as they move in response to food
availability, the impoundments would impede, to some degree, bear movements. This would be most
likely to occur during early spring ice breakup when bear would be moving into the reservoir
areas after emerging from their dens. Movement restrictions could prevent some bear from moving
into areas of high-quality food and thus lead to nutritional stress.
Brown bear might also be impacted by disturbance during construction and operation as a result
of increased human presence in and access to the project areas. This could result in bears
avoiding areas of high-quality food. Disturbance during winter denning could result in den
abandonment; thi.s would be most likely to occur along the Denali-Watana access route. Increased
accessibility of\the area would also alter the patterns of human harvest and increase hunting
demand.
Although the slough fisheries resource from Talkeetna to Devil Canyon might be enhanced during
project operation, brown bear fishing success below Devil Canyon could be severely restricted
for the three years after initiation of filling the reservoirs. Increased accessibility to the
Stephan Lake/Prairie Creek area might also reduce the suitability of this area as a bear fishery
(Miller, 1983). Additionally, reduction of moose abundance would reduce the availability of
prey in the basin and could result in a reduction in brown bear numbers.
1
111·.''1" I, II
II. I'·'
I
i ::
I
I:
II l!i'
'i;
,, '
(j
I 'I!
1
1 'i ,, '
I
Jll''''"
I I
~~ll,ROII~~
~·1~11"1'1.
! i
,~~llillll
~illiillltil.!
.,,,,,,:111
I ,iii
I
' '
I ' I
'.1 '·'.''" '" I'
z
0
I')
CD
z
0
4-42
Lake
Louise
~s!o~·~w~------------~w---------------c-w---------------c-w------------~~'w
17 Miles
CARIBOU rnmmn Movement
Figure 4-13. General Pathways for Seasonal Movement of the
Nenana-Upper Susitna Subherd of Caribou.
[Source: Pitcher, 1983]
4-43
Black Bear: Black bear would likely be one of the most severely impacted species in the upper
and middle Susitna Basin. The availability of suitable habitat above Gold Creek is restricted
to the lowland forest adjacent to the Susitna River, particularly spruce forest habitat (Fig. 4-14).
Inundation of this lowland area would remove about 10% of the suitable black bear habitat within
10 mi (16 km) of the Susitna River (Table 4-3). Carrying capacity for black bear would be
reduced accordingly. Loss of this carrying capacity could increase competition for the already
limited habitat that would remain available to black bear in the upper and middle basin.
Increased competition could result in indirect impacts such as reduced nutritional status and
increased aggressive encounters. Although unquantifiable, these indirect effects would further
exacerbate impacts from habitat loss.
About 55% of the known black bear dens would be inundated by reservoir filling (Miller, 1983).
Availability of suitable denning locations appears to be limited, as evidenced by the high rate
of reuse of dens from previous years. Loss of such a large proportion of den location would
have a marked impact upon overwintering survival of the bear in the upper and middle basin.
Dens pro vi de the necessary therma 1 environment for reducing energy useage during overwintering
when little food is consumed. Other impacts that could exacerbate these losses include:
Delays in availability of early spring forage adjacent to the reservoirs and consequent
reduction in capability to recover nutritional balance after winter.
-Increased hunting pressure and take due to the increased accessibility to the habitat along
the Susitna River, resulting in increased avoidance by bear of the area of activity and
mortality.
Increased human/bear interactions, resulting in occurrence of nuisance bear and avoidance
by bear of areas with disturbing human activity.
Reduction in availability of slough fisheries for at least the duration of reservoir fill-
ing (Sec. 4.1.4.2).
Restriction of movements required for black bear to take advantage of geographical variance
in food availability.
-Increased aggressive interactions with brown bear if black bear move to more upland habitat
to compensate for losses of lowland habitat.
Clearing of forest habitat along the access routes and transmission line rights-of-way would
enhance forage availability. However, as with moose, it is likely that black bear would not or
could not make full use of this increase.
Gray Wolf: Wolf would be principally impacted in the upper and middle Susitna Basin due to loss
of more than 10% of the range of two wolf packs, affecting up to about 30 individuals. About
45% of the wolf observations for these two packs were within this 10% of the range (Ballard
et al., 1983b). Thus, the impoundments would probably result in disruption of the home range of
at least one pack and dispersal of pack members to areas where they would come into competition
with members of other packs. The principal wolf pack that would be affected appears to be the
least hunted pack in the basin (Ballard et al., 1983b). This pack probably is a source of new
individuals recruited into surrounding packs. Thus, impacts would be manifested in the basin-
wide wolf population.
Other impacts include:
Reduction in availability of prey, particularly moose. Although availability of prey is
not currently limiting wolf populations in the basin, reduced prey availability could in
turn reduce overall potential carrying capacity for wolf in the basin.
-Increased disturbance and harvesting pressure due to increased access ibi 1 ity and human
activity in the basin. This would result in increased wolf mortality.
Furbearers: Impacts to furbearers might be expected to result in (Gipson et al., 1982):
-Reduction in ,the rate of overwinter survival among 5 to 10 muskrats due to loss of over-
wintering habi~at in borrow areas D and E.
-Disturbance of beaver and red fox and habitat alteration along the Denali-Watana access
road during construction due to vegetation removal and alteration of drainage patterns.
-Loss of carrying capacity for the equivalent of about one wolverine due to inundation.
11.·111
I .I
·.I 'I : 1;:
•.. ·jl ,,
I · ~ . I
~~il:l!lii!Ji
"'i'':l,
~~.~~~flill;l. I
'I, lli:~~''!!lii I
tll·1~11l.lll,
'·
! :
I 'I,
I
I I
4-44
Louise
z
w 14 w 14 w 148 w 17 Miles
~Black Bear
Figure 4-14. General Extent of Suitable Black Bear Habitat in Upper and
Middle Susitna Basin. [Source: Miller and McAllister, 1982;
Miller, 1983]
w
4-45
Loss of habitat for about 150 pine marten due to inundation.
Loss of forest habitat for other furbearers--including red fox, mink, river otter, lynx,
and weasels--due to inundation.
-Increased trapping pressure and harvest due to increased accessibility of the area.
-Enhancement of beaver and muskrat habitat downstream from Devil Canyon as a result of
stabilization of river flow.
Raptors and Ravens: The principal impacts to raptors and ravens would be loss of nesting loca-
tions due to impoundment construction and filling and disturbance during construction and main-
tenance of facilities. Specific impacts would include:
-Loss of 12 to .14 golden eagle, 4 bald eagle, 1 gyrfalcon, 2 goshawk, and 13 raven nesting
locations (Exhibit E, Vol. 68, Chap. 3, Table E-3-161).
-Disturbance of 4 golden eagle, 1 goshawk, and 6 raven nesting locations (Exhibit E, Vol. 68,
Chap. 3, Table E-3-16).
-Loss of approximately 50% of high-quality, cliff nesting habitat above Portage Creek (Kessel
et al., 1982).
-Loss of some riverine foraging habitat for bald eagle and of open foraging habitat for
other raptors.
-Creation of some new open foraging habitat for raptors along access and power transmission
rights-of-way.
Potential for electrocution of large raptors along transmission lines would be precluded by
state-of-the-art design of facilities (Benson, 1982).
Waterbirds: The major project features would be in areas of low use by waterbirds and thus
there would be few impacts to such birds (Kessel et al., 1982). The transmission line below
Willow would extend through areas of high densities of waterfowl, and the potential for
collisions with conductors and structures would be highest along this portion of the route.
However, collisions of this type make up only a small fraction of reported non-hunting mortality
of waterfowl (Stout and Cornwell, 1976; Banks, 1979). Thus, collisions would be unlikely to
have major impacts to regional populations. Nesting of some trumpeter swans along the trans-
mission line route might be disrupted if construction and maintenance activities occurred during
spring. Disruptions could be avoided by appropriate scheduling of activities to avoid disturb-
ing trumpeter swans in the spring or summer.
Small Mammals and Birds: Although habitat for several thousand small mammals and birds would be
affected, only a small fraction of the total populations in the region would be impacted.
4.1.6 Threatened and Endangered Species
Currently no plant taxa known to occur in Alaska are officially listed as threatened or endangered
by Federal or state authorities. Therefore, no impacts to threatened or endangered plant species
would occur as a result of construction and operation of the proposed Susitna project.
Among wildlife species, only the endangered American peregrine falcon might occur in the project
area. Northeast of Nenana, the proposed transmission line route waul d pass 1 to 5 mi (2 to
8 km) of habitat that is highly suited for peregrine nesting. This habitat extends along the
northern side of the Tanana River from Nenana to near Fairbanks (Fig. 4-15). The route would
not pass through any peregrine nesting location. North of Nenana, the transmission 1 i ne route
would pass within 1 mi (1.6 km) of two historical peregrine falcon nesting locations and within
2 to 5 mi (3-8 km) of several others. Although these locations have not been used recently,
peregrine in the past have occupied these sites during the summer season. Potentially, activities
along the proposed right-of-way could discourage use of this area by a recovering population of
peregrine falcon. The Applicant would be required to take measures to avoid disruptive activities
during the nesting season and to comply with conditions established by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service in order lo maintain suitable peregrine habitat. The Staff concludes that the proposed
transmission line ~auld not pose a threat to recovery of the American peregrine falcon.
4.1.7 Recreation Resources
Construction and operation of the proposed project would entail a broad spectrum of direct and
indirect impacts on recreation resources and use patterns. Project-re 1 a ted effects on white-
water resources of the Susitna Basin would constitute one of more substantial of the direct
impacts, while recreation demand induced by development of the proposed project would be an
·:
4-46
CONSTRAINTS
VEGETATION BOUNDARIES
WSG WET SEDGE GRASS
SPF WET SPRUCE/POTENTIAL PERMAFROST AREA
WILDLIFE BOUNDARIES
SAL SALMON PRESENT
··•·· PEREGRINE FALCON PRIME HABITAT S~N SWAN NEST AREA [WITH 1 MI. RAD. BUFFER ZONE J
-tjr ACTIVE NEST SITES 1980-81 [WITH 1 MI. RAD. BUFFER
GE GOLDEN EAGLE
BE BALD EAGLE
GF GYRFALCON
GH GOSHAWK
UN UNKNOWN
ZONE I
EXISTING MAJOR 11111 TRANSMISSION LINE
• •• PROPOSED INTERTIE
RECOMMENDED
.. ROUTE BOUNDARY
• CORRIDOR
BOUNDARY
0 1KM
0 1Ml NORTH
CONTOUR INTERVAL 100FT
Figure 4-15. General Location of Prime Peregrine Habitat within the
Proposed Transmission Line Corridor. [Source: Acres
American, 1982: Map M3]
"
4-47
indirect effect. Other effects would include those that are perceptual in nature. For example,
some individuals might forego recreation opportunities in the project area because of perceived
disruption of relatively undisturbed wilderness settings. In recognition of the foregoing and
other potential impacts, the Applicant proposes to implement a recreation development plan. The
plan is described in Section 2.1.11, and the implications of implementing the plan are discussed
in the latter part of this section.
Developed recreation resources in the vicinity of the dam sites and impoundment areas are essen-
tially limited to three private lodge complexes and scattered cabins. Virtually all such struc-
tures are used as base stations for dispersed recreation, primarily hunting and fishing, and to
a lesser extent for river travel and trail-related activities. Thus, project development would
primarily impact dispersed recreation activities in a relatively undisturbed wilderness setting.
Construction activities at the Watana and Devil Canyon dam sites would result in destruction of
habitat and displacement of wildlife to adjoining undisturbed areas. Similar, but more exten-
sive, effects would result from clearing of vegetation for the 38,000-acre (15,380-ha) Watana
reservoir and the 7,800-acre (3,155-ha) Devil Canyon reservoir (Exhibit A, Vol. 1, Sees. 2 and
8). Construction activities would also adversely affect fish resources. Construction of coffer-
dams and river diversion tunnels and dredging of the river would damage and kill fish, reduce
fish reproduction, and destroy fish habitat. Additional information concerning effects on fish
and wildlife resources is presented in Sections 4.1.4 and 4.1.5, respectively. In terms of
effects on recreation resources, the foregoing construction impacts would entail preemption of
sport hunting area and fishing sites, decreases in hunting and fishing opportunities, and
increases in pressure on wildlife and fish populations in adjacent areas.
Much of the demand for increased recreation opportunities would be attributable to project
personnel living in onsite housing at the Watana and Devil Canyon sites. Accommodations at both
sites would include a wide range of developed recreation facilities that might somewhat alleviate
pressures on local recreation resources. Further, the Applicant proposes that access routes to
the dam sites not be open to the public during project construction. Thus, increased levels of
sport hunting, fishing, and other recreation activities would primarily involve off-duty personnel
of the work force. Nevertheless, marked competition could occur between local residents and
project personnel for use of local recreation resources, particularly during the years 1988 to
1992 and 1997 to 2000, the peak construction periods for Watana and Devil Canyon, respectively
(Exhibit E, Vol. 7, Chap. 5, Table E.5.25). Such competition for recreation resources would not
likely be limited to the immediate project area. Some construction personnel would undoubtedly
elect to commute from nearby communities. Thus, commuting personnel would compete with community
residents for local recreation facilities, opportunities, and services. Tourist activities
could be affected in some instances where project personnel lease or rent all available housing
(see Sec. 4.1.8).
The nearest major public recreation site to the project area is Denali State Park, at closest
distance about 10 mi (16 km) from the Devil Canyon project boundary. A rail spur would be built
from Gold Creek to a railhead near the Devil Canyon site to support construction activities at
the Devil Canyon site. Since the rail spur would not be a particularly convenient commuter
route, it is likely that most construction personnel would opt for onsite housing at Devil
Canyon. It is also likely that project personnel would not appreciably disrupt recreation use
patterns at Denali State Park or other major recreation resource areas. However, competition
for use of small recreation sites such as the Brushkana Campground would be severe.
The closure of the Watana dam in 1991 and the Devil Canyon dam in 2001 (Exhibit C, Vol. 1,
Figs. C.1 and C.2) and the subsequent filling of the two impoundment areas would result in
impacts on recreation resources and activities both up-and downstream of the dams. The remain-
ing wildlife in the impoundment areas would be displaced, resulting in increased pressure on
adjacent habitats and hunting opportunities. Ten recreation cabins would be inundated. The
filling of the Watana impoundment would inundate the Vee Canyon rapids, which is a significant
white-water resource. In addition, Vee Canyon is a recognized scenic resource (Sec. 4.1.9).
Prime sport fishing areas where clearwater streams such as Deadman, Watana, and other creeks
flow into the Susitna River would also be inundated (Exhibit E, Vol. 6A, Chap. 3, Sec. 2. 3).
Downstream effects of Watana reservoir filling (1991-1993) would include the interruption of
free flow of the Devil Canyon rapids, and the noteworthiness of this white-water resource would
be diminished. Complete filling of the Devil Canyon impoundment in 2002 would inundate the
rapids, and this notable (Class VI water) white-water resource would be eliminated. There are
few comparable j:hite-water runs in the world. Important fishing area and spawning habitat for
Arctic grayling and other species at the confluences of Tsusena and Fog creeks with the Susitna
River would also be inundated (Exhibit E, Vol. 6A, Chap. 3, Sec. 2.2). Controlled releases of
water, first from the Watana dam and later the Devil Canyon dam, would affect recreation resources
and activities downstream from the Devil Canyon site. For example, boating and other river
recreation activities that are possible only during high river flows would be curtailed or
foregone, particularly during periods of low precipitation and runoff. The quality, schedule,
and temperature of water releases from the dams would create a potential for changes in sport
·.'I r ! I
:I
'I
jlll:l"''i
J ~ . : I I
~~1~'1~1~11
' n~r,;~~r.iil
ii
,.,1111 .11
Jur,1ildll.il
I I~II•III!~~~J
' I
!j'
4-48
fish populations and angling success rates in downstream stretches of the river and interconnec-
ted waterways (see Sec. 4.1.4).
The proposed operating scheme for the Watana and Devil Canyon facilities would result in substan-
tial seasonal fluctuations in water levels within the reservoirs; this condition would limit the
potential for development of recreation facilities at the land-water interface. Fluctuations in
the Watana reservoir would range up to 110ft (34m) (Exhibit E, Vol. 5A, Chap. 2, Sec. 4.2.3),
and exposed mud flats at low water levels would induce unsightly bank sloughing that could limit
or restrict access along the shoreline. Drawdowns in the Devil Canyon reservoir would be less
severe; water levels during August and September would be 50 ft (15m) lower than for the
remainder of the year.
The proposed access road for the Watana site would entail upgrading a 21-mi (34-km) segment of
the Denali Highway extending east from Cantwell and the construction of a 42-mi (68-km) road
south to the Watana site. Construction activities during upgrading of the Denali Highway would
adversely affect highway travelers, including touring sightseers and recreationists. In addition
to being subjected to disrupted traffic patterns and other short-term inconveniences, travelers
would view the disrupted terrain, which would detract from the aesthetic qualities of the high-
way route. Comp 1 eti on of the upgrading of the Dena 1 i Highway would 1 ike ly induce increased
traffic that could result in overutil ization of Brush kana Campground and other recreation
resource areas along the highway.
Recreation use in the vicinity of the proposed 42-mi (68-km) access road between the Denali
Highway and the Watana dam site currently consists of dispersed recreation activities, primarily
hunting and fishing. Road construction and subsequent traffic would result in displacement and
disturbance of game species (Sec. 4.1.5), which in turn could affect sport hunti.ng. Assuming
that the Dena 1 i Hi ghway-Watana access road would be opened to the pub 1 i c fo 11 owing Watana
construction (1994), recreation use patterns in the project area would be expected to change
substantially. The access road waul d faci 1 i tate increased part i ci pat ion in a wide range of
recreation opportunities. Concurrent with the increased recreation benefits, pressure on game
and fish resources would increase. Participation in trail-related activities would likewise
increase, thus risking overutilization of the more accessible areas, as well as degradation of
sensitive remote areas.
The proposed Watana-to-Devil Canyon access road and the Watana-to-Devil Canyon transmission
1 ines would be essentially parallel over most of the 37-mi (60-km) access route between the
Watana and Devil Canyon sites. The rights-of-way of the access road and transmission lines
would traverse remote terrain with the exception that the lines would pass within 2 mi (3.2 km)
of the High Lake Lodge and the access road would pass a slightly closer distance (Exhibit E,
Vol. 8, Chap. 7, Sec. 3.1.4). The lodge is currently accessible by aircraft; thus, the proposed
access road could benefit the lodge owner by providing developed overland access to the lodge.
On the other hand, the presence of the road, construction noise, and road traffic would detract
from the relatively undisturbed landscapes surrounding the lodge. The transmission lines would
also be visible to lodge residents, as well as recreationists in the Susitna River and Tsusina
Creek areas.
Railway access to the Devil Canyon site would consist of a 14-mi (23-km) railroad spur off the
Alaska Railroad at Gold Creek, extending easterly along the southern bank of the Susitna River.
The De vi 1 Canyon-to-Go 1 d Creek transmission 1 i nes would generally para 11 e 1 the rai 1 road spur.
Clearing for, and construction of, the two facilities would result in reduced success rates of
sport hunting and fishing and would cause adverse visual effects for participants in trail-
related activities. Operation of the railroad would continue to impact game animals throughout
the project construction period, which in turn would adversely affect sport hunting opportuni-
ties.
The Gold Creek-to-Fairbanks transmission line would not encroach on any dedicated recreation
areas, but owners of several isolated recreation cabins would be affected by short-term construc-
tion impacts. ·Construction of the line could also have minor effects on sport hunting and
fishing opportunities. However, the principal and enduring impacts would be of a visual nature.
The lines would variously parallel and/or intersect major tourist routes (George Parks and
Denali highways, and the Alaska Railroad), major river recreation corridors (Nenana, Tanana, and
Susitna rivers), and local roads and trails. Visual impacts would be incremental for the Gold
Creek-to-Healy segment, since the route would parallel an existing line.
Visual impacts would also be significant for the proposed Gold Creek-to-Anchorage transmission
lines. Major tourist routes paralleled and/or intersected would include the George Parks,
Glenn, and Davis highways, and the Alaska Railroad. Major river recreation corridors would
include the Talkeetna, Kashwitna, and Little Susitna rivers, and Willow Creek. The lines would
parallel and/or intersect numerous recreation trails (including the lditarod Trail), particularly
in the vicinity and south of the Nancy Lakes area. Numerous lakeside recreation cabins would be
within viewing distance of the lines. Since a number of these cabins are accessed via float
plane, the lines would pose a degree of hazard for local cabin owners. Visual impacts for the
1
4-49
Gold Creek-to-Willow transmission line segment and in the Anchorage area would be incremental
since the proposed lines would parallel existing facilities. Lastly, the proposed lines would
traverse the Susitna Flats State Game Refuge for 5 mi (8 km), as well as a proposed expansion of
the Willow Creek State Recreation Area.
The Applicant has proposed to implement a recreation development plan to compensate for public
recreation opportunities foregone as a result of developing the proposed Susitna project and to
accommodate recreation demand induced by the project. The recreation p 1 an consists of phased
development and entails monitoring and periodic analysis of recreation demand prior to succes-
sive phases of development (Sec. 2.1.11). A key element of the recreation plan is the monitor-
ing program, which would entail collection of recreation use and demand data. Analysis of the
data would provide guidance to establish the scope and pattern of future recreation develop-
ments.
It is pertinent to note that implementation of the recreation plan would in itself generate
impacts on existing recreation resources and opportunities. For ex amp 1 e, the deve 1 opment of a
given hiking trail could result in diminished remoteness of an accessed area, a condition that
some individuals might consider as a diminution in the primary recreational attractiveness of
the affected area. Further, the developed access would tend to induce recreation demand for
successive extensions of access to other remote areas. In this respect, a public survey reported
by the University of Alaska is relevant (Exhibit E, Vol. 8, Chap. 7, Sec. 5.1.2). Selected
residents of Anchorage, Fairbanks, and the genera 1 Rai 1 be 1 t area were requested to indicate
preference for management of recreation resources in the project area, assuming development of
the proposed project. The predominant response indicated preference for managed wilderness with
limited access. This preference was factored into the design of the Applicant's proposed recrea-
tion plan (Exhibit E, Vol. 8, Chap. 7, Sec. 5.1.2). The foregoing illustrates the utility of
the monitoring aspect of the proposed plan. Given development of the proposed Susitna project,
public attitudes concerning local recreation opportunities would likely change appreciably in
subsequent times; such changes in attitude would be detected by analysis of monitoring data.
4.1.8 Socioeconomic Impacts
The principal socioeconomic impacts related to the proposed Susitna project would be of the
kinds commonly ca 11 ed 11 boomtown 11 phenomena--caused by sudden, rapid growth in population in a
rural area, followed by a decline or 11 bust 11 period. For the Watana Dam and Devil Canyon dam
developments combined, the ratio of peak construction work force to operation work force would
be 21: 1, i ndi cat i ng a 1 arge difference between peak and 1 ong-term, postproject demands for
housing and other community resources. These potential impacts are discussed below.
Population: As described in Section 3.1.8, baseline population projections for the project area
vary greatly, reflecting the conditions prevalent when the projections were made. It is a
complex task to allocate the project workers and support workers, and the household members
accompanying both groups, to population centers in the project area. Research has indicated
that projected impacts of large-scale construction projects often have been underestimated
because of unexpected delays in construction schedules caused by, for example, work stoppages or
delays in receiving equipment or materials (Denver Research Institute et al., 1982). However,
total population growth has generally been overestimated. The projections made here for the
Susitna project should be considered in light of these findings.
A model was used by the Applicant to predict the size of project-induced population for both
Watana and De vi 1 Canyon phases and to all ocate that i nmi grating population to the region 1 s
population centers. In general, the Applicant's predictions of project-related population have
been used by the FERC Staff as part of their analysis. However, in the FERC analysis, these
project-related inmigration figures have been added to the 1983 baseline population projections
made by the Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER) at the University of Alaska. As
discussed in Section 3.1.8, the ISER projections are considerably lower than the Applicant's
base 1 i ne projections. The net result of adding the App 1 i cant's project-re 1 a ted i nmi grat ion
values to the ISER baseline projection is that the values for total population increases
(project-related plus baseline) used in this document are lower than those cited by the Applicant
in Exhibit E (Vol. 7). It should be kept in mind that project-related population growth and
associated impacts could vary widely, depending on the transportation plans developed to permit
workers to commute to the site and depending on shift and leave plans (Metz, 1983). Such plans
have not yet been developed.
The Applicant ha\ made several assumptions that lead to conservative projections of project-
induced growth. It was assumed that all single workers would live in the construction camps or
temporary villages at the dam sites, thus minimizing population impacts in surrounding communi-
ties. It also was assumed in the Applicant's model that onsite housing would be used to capacity.
The model allocates inmigrating workers who are expected to reside (temporarily or permanently)
offsite according to time of travel from distance of the community to the project site. Although
transportation time ·iS a crucial factor, it is not the only factor considered in a decision to
establish a residence. Further, it is assumed by the Applicant that only 10% of project workers
• il I,
. I
I
4-50
who would be hired from the Railbelt, Fairbanks, or Cook Inlet regions (about 350 workers) would
move closer to the project area, e.g., to Talkeetna, Trapper Creek, or Cantwell. Since the
Applicant projects that only 7% of the work force would come from the Matanuska-Susitna (Mat-Su)
Borough, in which the Susitna dam sites are located, this is probably a low estimate of inmigra-
tion. Additionally, a characteristic of population influxes related to large-scale Alaskan
construction projects is that a large number of unemployed workers come to the project area
looking for work. This potential factor increases the probability of underestimating project-
related inmigration.
The Applicant did not include Healy, Nenana, or Paxson when projecting the distribution of the
inmigrating population. Therefore, the projected distribution was adjusted by the FERC Staff to
include these additional communities, which are as accessible from the project site as are many
of the communities in the Mat-Su Borough. The Applicant's original projections and the Staff's
revised version are shown in Table 4-4. Projections used for Cantwell are those of the Applicant 1 S
high case, which was made based on the assumption that the Native Corporation AHTNA, Inc., would
allow residential development of their land in the Cantwell area .
Mat-Su Borough planners have made population projections for the borough both with and without
Sus itna project effects. Both the App 1 i cant's and borough's projections of project-induced
population impacts are shown in Table 4-5. Borough planners assumed a more stabilized, but
still growing, baseline population--particularly in the area north of Anchorage--and assumed
greater project-induced growth impacts in communities near the site than did the Applicant. The
borough projection has been used by the Staff to provide a high bound to the range of projected
impacts.
In their projections, borough planners distributed population to Borough Planning Districts,
which may include one or more communities and a large amount of relatively unpopulated land.
The Applicant allocated project-related populations to specific communities. Thus, the geo-
graphical areas used for distribution are not identical. In Table 4-5, the "Other" category for
Mat-Su Borough covers the interior of the borough--in which the Susitna project, but no popula-
tion centers, are 1 ocated. This category includes the population projected to 1 i ve in project
housing at the dam site. For the App 1 i cant 1 s projections, the 11 0ther 11 category includes any
part of the borough not specifically listed separately, and excludes the population housed at
the dam sites. Comparison of the two population projections (and the other impacts based on
them) thus should be based on relative estimates and distribution rather than absolute numbers.
Precise or even narrowly-bounded estimates cannot be made with confidence.
The two sets of projections for overall with-project growth are shown in Table 4-6. They provide
a wide range of growth projections for Mat-Su Borough. The lower set [Applicant (revised)] is
that made by combining ISER baseline projections with the Applicant's project-induced (direct
and support workers and their accompanying household members) population projections redistri-
buted s 1 i ght ly to include Healy, Nenana, and Paxson. This set a 1 so includes projections for
Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Cantwell. The projections made by the Mat-Su Borough planners are the
higher set. These show higher total borough population growth due to the project, but it is
concentrated in communities close to the project. Mat-Su Borough projections are used as the
basis for any borough preparations in progress or anticipated.
Both sets of projections indicate substantial population growth by 1990 in Talkeetna (45%),
Trapper Creek (20%), and Cantwell (900%). The population of the areas included in the "Other"
category, primarily the central, sparsely populated area of Mat-Su Borough, would increase by
between 25% (Applicant) and 2000% (borough) (Table 4-7).
The severity of "boom-bust•• impacts that would occur in the project area after completion of
construction would depend on the stability of the population, i.e., the percentage of the peak
project-induced population that remains in the area. Many assumptions must be made about how
much of the population inmigrating during the 11 boom 11 period would remain after construction and
to what extent existing community services and facilities could be expanded or stretched to
handle the peak, yet not be left with unused capacity during the bust period that followed.
Mat-Su Borough planners project far more volatility in the population than does the Applicant.
Thus, borough planners have expectations that the borough would experience these 11 boom-bust 11
planning problems.
The De vi 1 Canyon construction period waul d create a second, more moderate boom-and-bust cycle.
Smaller communities like Talkeetna, Trapper Creek, and Cantwell would experience the greatest
increases again. Additionally, an influx of job-seekers beyond the number that could be hired
might recur. Impacts on the area would be similar to, but not as severe as, those that would
have occurred earlier during construction of the Watana Dam. The decreased severity would be
because adjustments to rapid growth would have been made previously. Few, if any, additional
population impacts would occur from operation of project facilities. This is because the small
work forces would reside principally at the permanent village at the Watana dam site.
4-51
Table 4-4. Cumulative Distribution (Applicant's and Staff's revised) of
Projected Project Population to Impact-Area Communities for
Alternate Years, 1990 (peak year), and
2002 (end of construction)t 1
Community/
Planning
District 1985 1987 1989 1990 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2002
Talkeetna
Applicant 25 174 267 335 323 250 222 240 257 230 209
Revised 25 174 267 335 323 250 222 240 257 230 209
Trapper Creek
Applicant 32 241 378 475 451 288 227 278 314 256 212
Revised 32 241 378 475 451 288 227 278 314 256 212
Houston
Applicant 4 23 35 44 42 37 35 36 37 35 33
Revised 3 15 23 29 28 25 23 24 23 23 22
Wasilla
Applicant 5 31 47 59 57 48 44 46 48 44 42
Revised 3 21 31 39 38 32 29 31 32 29 28
Palmer
Applicant 5 26 39 49 48 39 35 37 39 36 33
Revised 3 17 26 33 32 26 23 25 26 24 22
Other
Applicant 40 226 341 427 415 351 327 338 352 328 308
Revised 40 226 341 427 415 351 327 338 352 328 308
Mat-Su
Borough Total
Applicant 110 721 1,107 1,389 1,337 1,013 891 975 1,047 930 837
Revisedt 4 105 694 966 1,338 1,288 972 852 936 1,006 891 801
Cantwell
Applicant 430 638 843 999 984 920 785 785 796 767 744
Revised 430 638 843 999 984 920 785 785 796 767 744
Healy
Applicant NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Revised 2 11 16 20 20 16 16 16 16 16 14
Nenana
Applicant NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Revised 2 11 16 20 20 16 16 16 16 16 14
Paxson
Applicant NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Revised 1 5 9 11 9 9 7 7 9 7 8
Anchorage Census
Division
Applicant 435 325 537 663 556 -219 -523 -219 -36 -333 -532
Revised 435 325 537 663 556 -219 -523 -219 -36 -333 -532
Fairbanks Census
Division
Applicant 82 -89 -136 -173 -171 -280 -323 -295 -271 -309 -341
Revised 82 -89 -136 -173 -171 -280 -323 -295 -271 -309 -341
t' "Applicant" values are from Exhibit E, Vol. 7, Chap. 5, Table E.5.35. "Revised" values have
been adjusted by the FERC Staff to include Healy, Nenana, and Paxson in the distribution. To
accomplish this, one-third of the population allocated to each of Houston, Wasilla, and Palmer
were subtracte~ and then reallocated: 40% each to Healy and Nenana, 20% to Paxson.
NA = Not available.
~------_j ___ f_J_-_f-__ -_: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
Oistrictt 1 1985 1986 1987
Ta 1 keetna
Applicant 25 33 174
Borough NA NA NA
Trapper Creek
App 1 i cant 32 43 241
Borough NA NA NA
Houston
Applicant 4 5 23
Borough NA NA NA
Wasilla
App 1 i cant 5 7 31
Borough NA NA NA
Palmer
Applicant
Borough
Other
Applicantt3
Borough
Mat-Su
Borough Total
Applicantt 3
Borought 4
5
NA
40
393
110
393
6
NA
52
1,542
146
1,542
26
NA
226
4,296
721
4,296
1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
237 267 335 323 294 250 233 222 229 240 253 257 251 230 209
882t 2 854 826 796 551 302 265 295 385 405 244 90 60 65 NA
337 378 475 451 387 288 250 227 247 278 306 314 302 256 212
588t' 570 550 530 368 202 177 196 256 270 162 60 40 42 NA
31 35 « ~ W TI 36 35 35 36 TI 37 36 35 33
M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g % « % 46 g g ~ « ~
M M M M M M M NA M M M M M M M
35
NA
303
5,013
985
6,483
39
NA
341
5,059
1,107
6,483
49
NA
427
5,107
1,389
6,483
48
NA
415
5,157
1,337
6,483
44
NA
390
3,519
1,210
4,438
39
NA
351
2,600
1,013
3,104
37
NA
336
2,649
937
3,091
35
NA
327
2,652
891
3,143
36
NA
331
2,920
924
3,561
37
NA
338
2,884
975
3,559
39
NA
349
1,840
1,032
2,246
39
NA
352
1,107
1,047
1,257
39
NA
346
1,025
1,021
1,125
36 33
NA NA
328 308
1,066 NA
930 837
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 2 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
11 0ther11 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: Applicant•s 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.
""' ' "' N
' 4-53
Table 4-6. Cumulative Projections of Total Population Including Susitna Project-Induced
Population, as Made by Applicant (revised)t 1 and Mat-Su Borought 2 for Alternate Years,
1990 (peak year), and 2002 (end of construction)
Community/
Planning
District
Talkeetna
Appl. Rev.
Borough
Trapper Creek
Appl. Rev.
Boro••gh
Willow
Appl. Rev. t 3
Borough
Houston
Appl. Rev.
Borought4
Wasilla
Appl. Rev.
Borough
Palmer
Appl. Rev.
Borough
Other
Appl. Rev.
Borough
Mat-Su Borough
Total
Appl. Rev.
Borough
Cantwell
Appl. Rev.
Borough
Healy
Appl. Rev.
Borough
Nenana
Appl. Rev.
Borough
Paxson
Appl. Rev.
Borough
Anchorage Census
Division
Appl. Rev.
Borough
Fairbanks Census
Division
Appl. Rev.
Borough
1985
648
1,209
247
172
NA
1,073
583
3,874
2,085
13,709
2,472
6, 722
1987
833
1,463
468
208
NA
1,298
628
4,687
2,225
16,942
2,630
7,779
16,555 18,600
(15,538)t5 (16,629)
542
22,588
(21,571)
32,927
527
NA
427
NA
531
NA
NA
NA
198,264
NA
63,643
NA
4,476
25,384
(23,413)
44,103
739
NA
454
NA
572
NA
NA
NA
208,271
NA
66,659
NA
1989
955
2,577
615
815
NA
1,528
664
5,518
2,334
20,363
2, 756
8,742
20,465
(17 ,483)
5,271
27,690
(24,708)
53,558
948
NA
477
NA
611
NA
NA
NA
215,139
NA
68,836
NA
1990
1,035
2,687
716
815
NA
1,650
681
5,959
2,381
22,217
2,809
9,216
21,824
(17 ,857)
5,336
29,447
(25,480)
57,254
1,106
NA
490
NA
633
NA
NA
NA
218,786
NA
69,887
NA
1991
1,046
2,806
700
816
NA
1, 782
701
6,436
2,456
24,237
2,898
9,710
21,883
(18,411)
5,404
29,685
(26,213)
61,205
1,093
NA
499
NA
651
NA
NA
NA
224,114
NA
71,510
NA
1993
975
2,582
538
526
NA
2,021
700
7,300
2,457
28,041
2,901
10,461
20,126
(18,402)
2,880
27,698
(25,974)
64,617
1,033
NA
515
NA
685
NA
NA
NA
230,079
NA
72,841
NA
1995
948
2,833
477
556
NA
2,249
699
8,125
2,457
31,824
2,901
11,029
19,454
(18,399)
2,964
26,937
(25,882)
71,511
902
NA
535
NA
726
NA
NA
NA
233,860
NA
73,720
NA
1997
967
3,151
528
659
NA
2,433
700
8, 788
2,462
35,085
2,907
11,265
20,195
(18,430)
3,221
27 '759
(25,994)
77,494
906
NA
556
NA
769
NA
NA
NA
238,793
NA
74,559
NA
1999
1,092
3,050
567
481
NA
2,631
709
9,506
2,491
38,667
2,941
11,467
20,838
(18,555)
1,471
28,540
(26,357)
80,782
921
NA
578
NA
815
NA
NA
NA
243,142
NA
75,734
NA
2001
977
3,149
514
478
NA
2,736
719
9,886
2,529
40,960
2,988
11,551
20,122
{18,937)
1,404
27,850
(26,665)
84,175
898
NA
600
NA
864
NA
NA
NA
249,203
NA
77,281
NA
2002
913
3,278
472
498
NA
2,845
724
10,281
2,551
42,600
3,013
11,626
19,475
{19,089)
1,460
27,199
(26,813)
87,205
878
NA
610
NA
887
NA
NA
NA
252,380
NA
78,165
NA
t 1 Projections were made using JSER baseline projections as shown in Table 3-4 and Revised Applicant's project-related population projection
from Table 4-4.
t 2 OOWL Engineers (1983), pp. IV-18 -IV-19, except for Mat-Su Borough totals. Totals are updated, higher projections made in light of more recent
census data. However, these new figures were not distributed to Planning Districts. Thus, total population in any year exceeds the sum of the
Planning Districts above.
t 3 Applicant did not make projections specifically for Wi11ow, but instead included the Willow area in the "Other" category.
t 4 Borough's projection for Houston Planning District includes Big Lake.
t 5 Number outside parentheses includes residents of onsite villages and construction camps; number inside parentheses excludes those residents.
NA = Not Available.
I I 'I
I
!, . '
I'
·!'
'I !i
'I
I
:11·1·' 'I,!
l·i
i',l
i!:
I
I i'
II I
''
1
'1 i ,,1:'
4-54
Table 4-7. Percentage over Baseline ISER Projections of
Population Growth Projected with Susitna Projectt 1
Community/
Planning District
Talkeetna
Appl. Rev.
Borough
Trapper Creek
Appl. Rev.
Borough
Houston
Appl. Rev.
Borough
Wasi 11 a
App l. Rev.
Borough
Palmer
Appl. Rev.
Borough
Othert 2
Appl. Rev.
Borough
Mat-Su Borough
Totalt2
App l. Rev.
Borough
Cantwe 11
Appl. Rev.
Healy
App l. Rev.
Nenana
App l. Rev.
Paxson
App l. Rev.
Anchorage Census
Division
App l. Rev.
Fairbanks Census
Division
App l. Rev.
1985
4
0
15
0
<1
0
<1
0
<1
0
7
(<1)
263
5
(<1)
1
443
<1
<1
NA
<1
<1
1990
48
44
197
208
4
0
2
0
1
0
25
(2)
2,230
22
(6)
ll
934
4
3
NA
<1
<1
1995
31
ll
91
54
3
0
1
0
1
0
8
(2)
850
8
(3)
4
671
3
2
NA
<1
<1
1999
35
3
124
14
4
0
1
0
1
0
14
(2)
304
l3
(4)
2
637
3
2
NA
<1
<1
2001/2002
28
2
82
9
3
0
1
0
1
0
4
(2)
271
5
(3)
1
555
2
2
NA
<1
<1
t 1 The bases for selection of the years included in the table are: 1985 is the
beginning of Watana construction; 1990 is the peak employment year for Watana
construction; 1995 is the year Watana is operational and the lowest employment
year; 1999 is the peak employment year for Devil Canyon; 2001/2002 is the last
year of Devil Canyon construction or the year in which projections were made
(see Exhibit E, Vol. 7, Chap. 5, Table E.5.28). No projections were ·,de by
the Applicant after 2002; none were made by the borough after 2001.
t 2 Number outside parentheses includes residents of onsite villages and construc-
tion camps; number inside parentheses excludes those residents.
NA = Not Available.
Sources: Calculated from Tables 3-4, 4-4, and 4-5.
4-55
The rail extension proposed for construction from Gold Creek to the Devil Canyon camp for trans-
port of materials and supplies might induce population inmigration to Gold Creek. Additionally,
because of its location at the head of the proposed rail spur and at the head of an access road,
Gold Creek (and the surrounding area) might be selected for permanent or long-term temporary
residence by inmigrating Devil Canyon dam construction workers if they were allowed to commute
to the site by rail. Even a small influx of population would mean a substantial increase in
this very sparsely populated area.
Negligible socioeconomic impacts would occur at any of the alternative borrow sites, as they are
far from population centers and residences.
Institutional Issues and Quality of Life Impacts: Faced with increasing demands to provide
planning and services for project-induced population influxes, Mat-Su Borough would have to
expand its administrative operations before property tax revenue was available to pay for the
expansions. Based on a ratio of about six borough staff employees in the Palmer office per
1,000 borough residents, the office staff would have to nearly double by the end of the project.
Additional administrative duties would be taken on by the Mat-Su Borough School District to
administer the onsite school. Because of greatly increased population, desire for greater local
control, and potential need for larger tax revenues, Talkeetna, Trapper Creek, and Cantwell
might find it practical to incorporate.
Many residents of the project area fear that project-induced growth would interfere with their
rural way of life. Even slight increases in population would greatly affect the nature of small
communities such as Talkeetna, Trapper Creek, Cantwell, and Gold Creek for those who now live
there. The quality of life for these people who value their isolation and the wilderness would
change--be reduced, in the eyes of most (Acres American, undated; Braund and Lonner, 1982).
These fears are supported by experience in other rapid-growth areas. Greater formalization of
activities and larger numbers of residents have changed the nature of small-town cultures reliant
on personal trust, community soci a 1 contra 1 mechanisms, and face-to-face contact. Crime,
alcoholism, and other social problems increase. Shortages of housing and services raise prices
(Cortese and Jones, 1977; Finsterbusch, 1980; Freudenburg, 1981; Payne and Welch, 1982). On the
other hand, many long-term residents who have already seen many changes in the area and many
Native Alaskans are not so opposed to the project, because of the economic and employment oppor-
tunities that they believe would result (Braund and Lonner, 1982).
Increased growth and development could interfere with subsistence activities particularly in
Native Alaskan communities. Subsistence activities are protected by law for 11 rural Alaska
residents" (Alaska Board of Game, undated; see also App. N, Sec. N.l.l.3). Project activity,
population growth, and improved access to hunting, fishing, and trapping areas could increase
competition for subsistence harvests and drive fish and animals to new areas. Although subsis-
tence activities are protected by law, the availability of resources in traditionally used areas
is not. Subsistence activities are usually carried on by Natives. Because of lack of training
and because they are not members of construction workers unions, Natives are not expected to be
hired for the project in great numbers. Thus, they will remain dependent on subsistence
activities to supplement their food and other resource supplies. In addition to filling resource
needs, subsistence activities are a part of a cultural heritage for Native Alaskans and for
others who select to live at least partially "off the land" in remote areas of Alaska. Disrup-
tion of those activities could reduce the preservation of that culture (Justus and Simonetta,
1983).
Economy and Employment: Labor demand for Watana construction activities would start in 1985 at
1,100 workers, build to a peak of 3,498 workers, and then drop to a low of 649 workers in 1995
(Table 2-1). The project would provide many job opportunities, although these would be seasonal
and short-term, as different skill needs in construction pass quickly. Because hiring would be
through union halls in Anchorage and Fairbanks, project area residents who are not union members
or skilled workers would not be likely to obtain project work. Thus, direct project work oppor-
tunities may help to reduce the already fairly low unemployment rates in Anchorage and Fairbanks,
but may do little to reduce the much larger unemployment in Mat-Su Borough. Opportunities in
support jobs generated by the increased demand for services would more likely be available to
people residing in the local area, particularly women. However, current Mat-Su residents would
have to compete with household members of inmigrating workers for these positions. Counter-
balancing tHe expansion of job opportunities would be the fact that large-scale construction
projects in Alaska (particularly the Trans-Alaska Pipeline) have historically attracted a larger
group of job-see\ers than could be hired.
The project-related construction activities and improved access to the project area could provide
an opportunity for subsidiaries of AHTNA, Inc., to expand their experience and businesses.
Expansion could take the form of catering, housekeeping, and maintenance for construction facili-
ties; developing more Native-owned and operated tourist-related businesses; and creating a
demand for development of Native lands held by several village corporations. Other tourist-
related businesses would also prosper. However, some current residents feel increased access
would detract from the tourist, recreational, and residence value of the area as a remote,
relatively undeveloped wilderness.
I' 'I I ,
,, 'I'
i 1.1'
'II' I , I
' ': I '
~~iil-111.1.~1 , .,.u~
' ~~~UI~IIIU
J··•
1~1~11~10111~
~ ' i I
'""'·II II ~~li:rJJ ~ ~~~
; :1
·~J~II~I~~~
• !
I
I
'
(,
I'
I
4-56
Local commercial operations and new businesses would benefit from increased sales to the larger
population and from subcontracting for the project. Increased accessibility to remote wilder-
ness areas for tourists and for recreational and commercial hunters, trappers, and fishermen
would increase visitors' expenditures. However, some guiding businesses would also be displaced
by the construction and operation of Watana and Devil Canyon facilities. Shortages of housing,
services, and supplies would increase prices.
After the Watana construction peak in 1990, demand for goods and services would drop as construc-
tion efforts were completed and workers left the area. The Devil Canyon construction work force
peak in 1999 would be only about half the size of the Watana work force (Table 2-1). Local
businesses might be left with large inventories and too many workers. Some might have to close,
unable to continue at the reduced level of demand, at least until Devil Canyon construction
brought in more inmigrants. Additionally, rapid growth periods, such as would occur in communi-
ties near the site, are often accompanied by inflation and difficulty in getting financing and
supplies (Gilmore and Stenejhem, 1980; Scrimgeour, undated), creating difficulties for buyers
and sellers alike. Residents with lower or fixed incomes would have their buying capabilities
reduced (Clemente, 1973, 1975; Cortese and Jones, 1977). However, businesses and workers alike
could perhaps profit from use of the period between construction peaks to adjust and stabilize
operations and to plan for the bust period after the year 2000.
Unemployment would also increase in the lull period between Watana and Devil Canyon construction
peaks. Devil Canyon construction would employ only slightly more than half the number of workers
of the peak employment year on the Watana phase. Thus, even if the same skills and workers
could be used on both, over half would not be needed after 1995. Unless plans for new large-
scale construction projects in Mat-Su Borough develop in the next decade, workers remaining in
the area might cause increased unemployment, placing more financial and administrative burdens
on the social service systems of local and state governments.
Financing a large proportion of the Susitna project would add to the state's problems of
decreasing revenues, diminishing the proportion of its funds the state could provide for local
governments, private industrial development, housing mortgages, and income for its citizens.
Maintenance activities for Denali Highway and the access road would also add to state expenses.
Additional impacts to the economy and employment from operation of all project facilities would
be minimal once the area recovered from the decline in population between 1990 and 1995.
Housing: On the basis of the population projections shown in Table 4-6, the Staff has estimated
the number of households that would be expected in the area of population impact. These
estimates, shown in Table 4-8, provide an indication of the increased demands that would arise
for housing. Demand for housing in Talkeetna, Trapper Creek, unincorporated areas of Mat-Su
Borough, and Cantwell would rise dramatically between 1980 and 1995 as a result of project-
related inmigration: 50%, 200%, and 900%, respectively (Table 4-7). Unincorporated and
sparsely settled areas in the 11 0ther11 categories would also have large housing needs.
Vacant and seasonal housing would quickly be filled because the greatly increased housing need
would begin suddenly and rise rapidly over about five years. Because vacancy rates are already
low in the area, a substantial number of more short-term lodging units, trailer facilities, and
multi-family units, as well as permanent residences, would be needed in the communities and
unincorporated areas near the site, especially if the higher borough population projections
proved correct. Approximately 50% of the housing demand could be for temporary units and would
be highest in summer, when workers would be competing with tourists for the limited facilities.
Considerable planning, development, financing, and construction of housing would have to occur
before and during the early years of Watana construction to avoid a housing shortage, even under
the more conservative revised App 1 i cant • s growth projections. Overcrowding and sanitation
problems, rent gouging, displacement of current residents, and hasty construction of substandard
housing, as occurred during construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline and in other boom situa-
tions, would also be likely to occur in the Susitna project area.
Demand for housing would decrease after the Watana construction peak, increase again until the
Devil Canyon construction peak in 1999, and then decline. Some housing and community services
constructed during the Watana period, if retained, would serve for the Devil Canyon construction
period. However, initial overbuilding would be difficult to control, especially in light of the
many uncertainties about housing and location preferences of workers.
Most, if not all, the small operations work force for Watana and Devil Canyon facilities would
live in the permanent village constructed onsite, causing few additional impacts at surrounding
communities. ·
4-57
Table 4-8. Cumulative Projected Number of Households in Impact Area Communities for
Alternate Years, 1990 (peak year), and 2002 (end of construction)t1
Community/
Planning District 1980t2
Talkeetna 209
Appl. Rev.
Borough
Trapper Creek 74
Appl. Rev.
Borough
Houston
Appl. Rev.
Borough
Wasilla
Appl. Rev.
Borough
Palmer
Appl. Rev.
Borough
197
708
B39
5,436
1985
212
395
B1
56
191
1,266
681
4,480
BOB
2,197
1987
272
478
153
6B
205
1,532
727
5,537
B59
2,542
1989
312
B42
201
226
217
1,803
763
6,655
901
2,857
1990
33B
B78
234
266
223
1,947
778
7,260
91B
3,012
1991
342
917
229
266
229
2,103
B03
7,921
947
3,173
1993
319
B44
176
172
229
2,386
B03
9,164
94B
3,419
1995
310
926
156
1B2
229
2,655
B03
10,400
948
3,604
1997
316
1,030
173
215
229
2,874
B05
11,466
950
3,681
1999
357
1,000
185
157
232
3,107
B14
12,636
961
3,747
2001
319
1,029
16B
156
235
3,231
B26
13,386
976
3,775
2002
29B
1,071
154
163
237
3,360
B34
13,922
9B5
3, 799
Othert3
Appl. Rev. 5,410 6,078 6,688 7,132 7,151 6,577 6,358 6,600 6,810 6,576 6,364
Borough
Mat-Su
Borough Totalt3
Appl. Rev.
Borough
Cantwell
Appl. Rev.
Healy
Appl. Rev.
Nenana
Appl. Rev.
Paxson
Appl. Rev.
Anchorage
Census Division
Appl. Rev.
Fairbanks
Census Division
Appl. Rev.
7,283
20
105
14B
NA
61,791
20,763
(5,078} (5,434) (5,713) (5,836} (6,017) (6,014) (6,013) (6,023) (6,096) (6,189) (6,238}
528 1,897 2,222 2,283 2,348 1,602 1,704 1,848 1,351 1,353 1,407
7,382 8,295 9,049 9,623 9,701 9,052 8.803 9.072 9,327 9,101 8,889
(7,049) (7,651) (8,075) (8,327) (8,566) (8,488) (8,458) {8,495) (8,613) (8,714) (8,762)
10 '760 14,413 17,503 18,710 20,002 21,117 23,389 25,325 26,399 27,508 28,498
166 232 29B 34B 344 325 2B4 2B5 290 2B2 276
134 143 150 154 157 162 168 175 182 1B9 192
167 1BO 192 199 205 215 22B 242 256 272 279
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
70,809 74,383 76,835 78,138 80,041 82 '171 83,521 85,283 86,836 89,001 90,136
24,478 25,638 24,584 24,960 27,504. 26,015 28,354 26,628 29,128 27,600 27,916
tl Based on the household sizes used in Table 3-7 (see footnote 2} and Table 4-6.
t 2 From Table 3-7. Values are for communities only, not for planning districts, so they are more comparable to the Revised
Applicant's projections. Willow and Big Lake are included in "Other" category.
t 3 See footnotes 2 and 3 in Table 4-6.
lj
'' I·.
, I
'"1 ~1,1'' ~n1lll .ll
4-58
If the proposed transmission line route went through existing residential areas or areas planned
for development, controversies over reductions in property values near the right-of-way would be
expected. Temporary losses in property values and permanent changes in development due to
siting of transmission line rights-of-way have been documented in some cases.
Community Services and Fiscal Status: The large numbers of inmigrants would change the way some
community services are provided and severely stress current capacities. Additional service
needs for project-induced population alone have been estimated by the Staff and are shown in
Table 4-9. The years when existing capacities would be equalled or exceeded by total population
growth are shown in Table 4-10.
In situations of rapid growth, greater centralization and formalization of community services
usually occurs. These effects occur because of greater needs for coordinated planning, higher
and more consistent quality, greater efficiency in resource use, and more cost-effective construc-
tion or provision of services. Under Mat-Su Borough baseline population projections (Table 3-5),
many services are already at or near capacity (Table 3-10). Individual provision of services
(e.g., individual wells and septic tanks) may no longer suffice. Additionally, demand for
services would decline after the two peaks in construction work force in 1990 and 1999. Services
supplied for the Watana period could, if retained, be used for the Devil Canyon peak population.
However, careful planning, particularly for Talkeetna, Trapper Creek, and Cantwell, would be
needed to supply peak demand, yet not overbuild and be left with maintenance costs for unused
capacities.
Because project-induced population increases projected for Fairbanks and Anchorage are slight,
service and fiscal impacts are expected to be negligible. The Applicant has already projected a
project-induced population or inmigration to Anchorage of about 650 people (Table 4-4). If a
transportation plan provided for commuting between the project sites and those cities, it is
assumed that Fairbanks would receive about 10% of the workers and their households (200 people
for Fairbanks under Applicant's projections and 650 people to each city under Mat-Su Borough
projections) (see App. N, Sec. N.2.1.1.7).
Communities like Talkeetna, Trapper Creek, and Cantwell would likely be faced with expectations
of and demands for centralized water supplies and sewage treatment. Because these communities
are currently unincorporated, Mat-Su Borough would be responsible for these services for Talkeetna
and Trapper Creek and the state for Cantwell. The larger communities of Palmer and Wasilla are
now facing shortages in water and sewer service, respectively, according to borough growth
projections.
Anchorage's water and sewer system needs would be only slightly accelerated by the projected
population increase of 200 to 650. Fairbanks is already in need of expanded water facilities,
although sewer facilities are expected to suffice until after 2000. Using 10% of borough project-
induced projections for the higher Watana peak (650 persons) the city would need expanded sewer
facilities a year or two earlier and would have to expand capacities for its new water systems.
Little accommodation would have to be made assuming the increase would be 200 persons, as indi-
cated in the Applicant's projections (as revised).
Solid waste disposal is the responsibility of the borough in Mat-Su Borough. According to
borough projections, existing landfills would suffice only until 1985. Plans are underway to
develop new centralized landfills near Palmer and Houston that would have sufficient capacity to
last 100 years. The remaining problem of transporting the wastes from Talkeetna and Trapper
Creek would be further exacerbated by the Susitna project.
Based on the borough's growth projections, there would be impacts to the school system in Mat-Su
Borough. Because of the Susitna project, schools serving people living outside established
communities would require 18 additional classes for elementary students and 18 for secondary
students--a total of 36 additional classes (equivalent to about two new schools). Under Borough
projections, Talkeetna, Trapper Creek, Houston, and Wasilla schools would need to be expanded
very soon or new schools added. Under App 1 i cant 1 s projections (as revised), Sus itna-re l a ted
population increases would add only about 10 to 12 children each to the school populations in
the towns of Palmer, Houston, and Wasilla. Because the school for children of families living
at the construction sites would be in Mat-Su Borough, the borough School District would prefer
to have responsibility for its operation, adding to other project-induced service impacts.
Under the Applicant's population projections (as revised), if 10% of the peak Watana and Devil
Canyon work forces living offsite commuted to Fairbanks and Anchorage to live, about 150 and
45 children, respectively--or the equivalent of approximately two extra classes and teachers--
would be added to the elementary and secondary school populations of those cities by 1990.
Under borough projections, about 150 children, or five classes, would be added to each of the
city school systems.
Police forces would have to be expanded to maintain adequate officer-to-population ratios and
possible increases in crime and to deal with the appearance of new kinds of crimes that often
Table 4-9. Addition a 1 Community Services Requirements over Baseline for Project-Induced
in 1990 (peak Watana construction work force)t 1
Population
Solid Schoolst 2
Community/ Waste Secondary Hospital
Planning Distr1ct Water Sewers Disposal Elementary (Jr/Sr) Fire Police Facilities
Talkeetna
Appl. Rev. Individual Individual Rely on 1 class 1 class Would need 1 officer Would need
Borough sources may septic tanks borough 3 classes 3 classes additional 2 officers full-time
not be may not be landfills staff and health care
adequate adequate full-time professionals
employees
Trapper Creek
Appl. Rev. Individual Individual Rely on 2 classes 2 classes Would need 2 officers Would need
Borough sources may septic tanks borough 2 classes 2 classes community 2 officers full-time
not be may not be 1 andfi ll s based health care
adequate adequate faci 1 ities professionals .,.
Houston ' "' "' Appl. Rev. Individual Individual Rely on No additional No addition a 1 No additional No addi-No addition a 1
Borough sources may septic tanks borough needs needs needs tional needs
not be may not be 1 andfi ll s needs
adequate adequate
Wasilla
Appl. Rev. No addi-Individual Rely on No additional No additional No additional No addi-No additional
Borough tional needs septic tanks borough needs needs needs tional needs
may not be 1 andfi ll s needs
adequate
Palmer
Appl. Rev. No addi-No additional Rely on No additional No additional No addition a 1 No addi-About 25%
Borough tional needs borough needs needs needs tiona 1 additional
needs 1 andfill s needs facilities and
staff
-~---------ts-i'j---ji--~---s_-·--~·----== ____ ._~,.A"~~· ~--if-~ -~-TI~:.t.:r-;;::-
Table 4-9. (Continued)
Solid Schoolst 2
Community/ Waste Secondary Hasp ita 1
Planning District Water Sewers Disposal Elementary (Jr/Sr) Fire Police Facilities
Other
Appl. Rev. Individual Individual Rely on 2 classes 2 classes Would need 1 officer Rely on Palmer
Borough sources may septic tanks borough 18 classes 18 classes or additional 7 officers not be may not be 1 andfi ll s or staff and
adequate adequate 1 school 1 school full-time
employees
Mat-Su Borough
Totalt 3
Appl. Rev. NA NA Landfill/area 5 classes 5 classes Would need 3 officers see Palmer
Borough NA NA needed several 5 classes 5 classes additional 11 officers entry
years earlier staff; and
than currently + 1 school + 1 school full-time
planned employees ..,.
Cantwell ' en
0
Appl. Rev. Individual Individual Private 4 classes 4 classes No additional 2 officers Would need
sources may septic tanks 1 andfi ll need full-time
not be may not be may not be health care
adequate adequate adequate professionals
Healy
Appl. 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
Nenana
Appl. 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 add it 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 4-5 and standards from Stenehjem and Metzger (1980).
t2 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
(Includes service requirements for project-related population)
Solid Schoolst 1
Community/ Waste Secondary Hospital
Planning District Water Sewers Disposal Elementary (Jr/Sr) Fire Police Facilities
Talkeetna·'
Appl. Rev. Individual Individual Rely on 1990 2002+ 2002+ Covered None exist
Borough sources may septic tanks borough 1985 1986 2002+ by
not be may not be landfills borough
adequate adequate
Trapper Creek
Appl. Rev. Individual Individual Rely on 2002+ (80 students )t2 May need Covered None exist
Borough sources may septic tanks borough 2002+ (90 students)t2 to acquire by
not be may not be l andfi 11 s own borough
adequate adequate facilities
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 l andfi 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 l andfi 11 s borough
adequate
Palmer
Appl. Rev. 2002+ 2002+ Rely on 2002+ 2002+ 1985 2002+ 2002+
Borough 2002+ 1983 borough 1989 1990/2002+ 1983 1983 1985 l andfi 11 s
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 fires by
not be may not be l andfi 11 s districts borough
adequate adequate
Mat-Su Borough Totalt 3
Appl. Rev. NA NA 2002+ 2002+ 2002+ NA 1985 Provided
Borough NA NA 1985 1985 1985 NA 1985 in Palmer
Community/
Planning District Water Sewers
Cantwell
Appl. Rev. Individual Individual
Borough sources may septic tanks
not be may not be
adequate adequate
Healy
Appl. Rev. Individual Individual
Borough sources may septic tanks
not be may not be
adequate adequate
Nenana
Appl. Rev. Individual Individual
Borough sources may septic tanks
not be may not be
adequate adequate
Paxson
Appl. Rev. Individual Individual
Borough sources may septic tanks
not be may not be
adequate adequate
Table 4-10. (Continued)
Solid
Waste
Disposal
Private
1 andfi 11
services
may not be
adequate
Rely on
private
1 andfi 11
Rely on
private
1 andfi 11
Rely on
private
1 andfill
Schoo 1st 1
Elementary
1985
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Secondary
(Jr/Sr)
1985
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Fire
2002+
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Hospital
Police Facilities
Covered None exist
by
state
Covered None exist
by
state
Covered None exist
by
state
Covered None exist
by
state
t 1 Projection for Mat-Su Borough is based on the borough's planning value of 22.8% of population in school-aged children; for
Cantwell 18% school-aged children assumed (Frank Orth & Associates, 1983: 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 3-8 and 4-6, and standards from Stenehjem and Metzger (1980). 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.
.,.
' "' N
4-63
accompany boomtown conditions. There would also be a need to expand fire department staffs and
to hire full-time paid fire professionals, rather than continuing to rely on volunteers.
Estimates of personnel needs would depend on the number and distribution of fire stations and
trucks. Expenses for. the new staff would be incurred by the borough, adding to increased burdens
from project-related growth.
Expansion of hospital facilities in Mat-Su Borough would be needed soon to meet baseline growth.
The Susitna project would accelerate this need considerably. Besides hospitals, full-time
health professionals, including social and mental health counselors, would be needed in clinics
in many of the communities. The incremental increase in population in Anchorage and Fairbanks,
assuming commuting plans to these cities, would probably not further stress existing health care
facilities and services.
In rapid growth situations, community services must be planned and constructed in advance of
population inmigration. Before a project is underway, many uncertainties exist as to its scale,
schedules, timing of approval by licensing agencies, size, and nature of work force, and where
inmigrants would settle. The borough may not have adequate staff to adjust and implement plans
quickly. In boomtown situations, increased revenues are co 11 ected only after expenditures are
required to provide increased services for the new population. Thus, large deficits, which may
be difficult to repay, would be accrued before 1985 and during the first two years or so of
project construction.
If the borough chose to increase services in anticipation of inmigration, it could be respon-
sible for building and staffing a school and fire and police stations in the Talkeetna/Trapper
Creek area, expanding landfills, establishing and extending sewer and water systems, and estab-
lishing a library, community recreation facilities, and health clinics. Financing of these
items would severely strain already limited borough resources. The state, already facing declin-
ing revenues, would be responsible for planning and financing expansion of services in Yukon-
Koyukuk Borough communities, and might have to compensate for shortfalls in Mat-Su Borough
revenues in advance of the inmigrating population.
Transportation: All transportation modes and routes--roads, rails, and air fie 1 ds--woul d be
used more heavily during construction of all project structures. Highway use, particularly on
the Denali and Parks highways, would experience the largest increase. Because the Parks Highway
is currently used at only about 10% capacity, few difficulties would be anticipated along most
of this highway. However, congestion could occur during peak tourist seasons, particularly at
the intersection of the Parks and Denali highways, and at intersections with the site access
road and railhead access roads. The Denali Highway would be paved and cleared in winter between
Cantwell and the project access road, increasing use by recreation and tourist vehicles and
increasing maintenance expenses for the State Department of Transportation. Traffic volume on
this highway could increase to twice the projected baseline volume. Some disruption of normal
rail activities may occur at the intersection of the main rail line and the spur at Gold Creek.
Unless deliveries and transfers of materials are scheduled around routine rail traffic, some
delays may occur. Increased populations in area communities would necessitate improvement and
expansion of local road systems. The responsibility for planning and financing construction and
maintenance of these roads would rest with private developers or with Mat-Su Borough and the
state.
Human Use of Wildlife Resources: Human uses of wildlife resources of the upper and middle
Susitna Basin would be affected by the increased accessibility that would result from the
proposed project. Access by personal ground vehicles would become possible in an area that
currently has limited access. Recreational demand in the northern half of Game Management
Unit 13 would be expected to increase two-to fourfold as a result of the Susitna development.
Both consumptive and nonconsumptive uses of wildlife would be involved.
Nonconsumptive uses in the basin (e.g., wildlife viewing, bird watching) would increase drama-
tically, and consumptive uses would be expected to increase up to twofold as a result of the
project (Exhibit E, Vol. 8, Chap. 7, Table E-7-13). Wildlife populations in the basin interior
would be subject to higher harvest pressure and increased take. In combination with increased
mortality and decreased productivity due to other project impacts, increased harvesting would
likely result in wildlife populations stabilizing at lower, perhaps much lower, sizes than
currently exist.
The makeup of the bfsin's user population would probably change (Exhibit E, Vol. 8, Chap. 7,
Table E-7-13). The average per-user-day dollar value would probably decline in the basin
because of the presence of a less expensive access alternative and an increase in use types that
carry lower dollar values. The proportion of high-dollar-value, out-of-state users would likely
decline, whereas in-state user proportion would likely increase. The absolute number of out-
of-state users might also decline in the basin because these users might not wish to pay high
value for the hunting/wilderness experience in an area of higher user competition and more human
development.
:·,1:1111':
111·1~1.1,~11'1
•
1
,.,,urr
'1111
ll~i!lil~llili
·••I
:I""''''
'!!
:'I
;!
4-64
The development of the area would markedly alter the character of the hunting/wilderness
experience for users in the basin. The consequences of altering that character would depend
upon individual user tastes. Compared to conditions in the absence of the project, postproject
users would probably encounter more human activity, suffer a lower take per effort or success
rate, and perhaps view less game. For many users, these conditions would lower the quality of
the hunting/ wilderness experience. Thus, users would be more likely to be those who prefer not
to expend large sums of money to use areas with lower human development and possibly higher
harvest success rate.
Subsistence users would be the group most severely impacted. Decreased wildlife productivity
and increased competition for the harvest would result in decreased success rates. Decreased
success rates would be detrimental to the extent that further effort could not be expended to
maintain an absolute rate of take per season and to the extent the user is dependent upon sub-
sistence for his or her own well-being. Unfortunately, this cannot be quantified at this time.
Human use and wildlife management policy and strategy for the upper and middle Susitna Basin
would likely need to be reviewed and revised in order to meet goals for wildlife conservation,
subsistence maintenance, and other uses.
4.1.9 Visual Resources
Construction of the Watana dam and associated facilities and filling of the reservoir would
produce a significant change in the image and character of the upper and middle Susitna River
Basin area, especially within and adjacent to the Susitna River Valley and the southern portion
of the Wet Upland Tundra area north of the Susitna River. The currently remote and largely
undisturbed Susitna River Valley would become an area of increased human activity and develop-
ment, and visual resources would be altered accordingly. Temporary visual impacts during
construction of the Watana dam would include the presence of construction personnel, heavy
equipment, and materials, and the physical disturbance and alteration of the landscape. Land-
scape alterations that are not inundated by the reservoir would remain visible during the entire
operational lifetime of the project, as discussed below.
The geometric lines and forms of the 885-ft (270-m) high, 4,100-ft (1, 750-m) crest-length Watana
dam and associated structures would be in dramatic visual contrast to the natural form, color,
and texture of the river valley (see Fig. 4-16). The spillways would be positioned in deep rock
cuts on the river valley slopes and would be highly visible to operation personnel and visitors
as they crossed the access road bridge. This rock cut and grading would be inconsistent with
the natural landforms and vegetation in the area. The visual scars created by construction of
the access road to the powerhouse and tailrace tunnel areas would remain highly visible from the
vicinity of the dam. The form, lines, and color of the electrical equipment within the Watana
switchyard would predominate in an area where there is little vegetation screening. The elec-
trical equipment and structures would be silhouetted against the skyline from various vantage
points, such as along the access road. The dam facilities would be viewed by project personnel,
support staff, recreationists in the area, and people flying over or near the project area.
When filled, the Watana impoundment would be about 54 mi (90 km) long, more than 5 mi (8 km)
wide, and have a water surface area of 36,000 acres (14,600 ha). The landforms, waterforms, and
vegetation within the valley of the Susitna River would be inundated. The impoundment also
would inundate portions of major tributaries, including Deadman, Watana, Kosina, and Jay creeks.
The Deadman and Watana creek waterfalls and much of the highly scenic Vee Canyon area would be
inundated. Deadman Creek Falls is one of the largest and most scenic waterfalls in the project
area. Vee Canyon includes a double hairpin bend, a deeply cut channel, and a stretch of white-
water rapids. Various rock formations, steep ridges, and varied coloration (rock interlaid with
marble and green schist) make the area an important visual resource. The partial inundation of
the canyon area would detract from its significance as a natural scenic feature.
It is anticipated that during operation, the maximum reservoir drawdown of 120 ft (35 m) would
be in the spring (April and May) and would result in exposure of substantial areas of mudflats.
These mudflats, expected to be more than 1 mi (1.6 km) wide, would be visually obtrusive to any
recreationists near the reservoir (although snow cover may obscure the view of the mudflats in
early spring). The mudflat areas would continue to be visually obtrusive to recreationists on
or near the reservoir throughout the summer months until the reservoir was filled (completely
covering exposed mudflat areas) in September. Extensive slumping, scaling, and landsliding would
be expected to occur along steep slopes of the newly created· reservoir. Such slumping caul d
extend hundreds of feet up the sides of the slope and would result in unsightly scars visible to
recreationists using the reservoir and adjacent areas.
Long-term visual impacts would occur at those borrow sites not inundated by the reservoir. Such
areas would include islands in the river below the dam, the low north river terrace below the
4-65
Figure 4-16. Artist's Rendition of the P.roposed Watana Dam and Reservoir.
(Does not include permanent town, access roads, transmission
lines, substation, or aircraft landing strip.) [Source:
Application Exhibit E, Vol. 8, Appendix EBb]
\
'!I' I
I
,:l,ljj;!•
11111111~1;11
••• uu
"' llt~I~I~Oilll
: '"i ·1'"'"1
lllllli,'~hl
!.'
i ',,,I
, ,I
I
' .['
'' ! I
''
4-66
dam (near the mouth of Tsusena Creek), and along the 640-acre (256-ha) borrow site located on
the high north terrace adjacent to Deadman Creek. The borrow sites along the river below the
dam would be in full view from the dam area. Borrow sites upstream of the dam might create
rigid angular forms along the shoreline of the reservoir; these features would be visible to
visitors in the area.
The proposed 300-acre (120-ha) temporary construction camp and village would cause long-term
visual impacts that would extend into the operation phase of the Watana project. Visual impacts
would include the presence of areas devoid of vegetation where the camp structures were removed.
In these areas denuded of vegetation, mud and water ponding would result from soil compaction
and would be visible to residents of the permanent town who traveled through the area and who
lived adjacent to the construction village site. The 90-acre (36-ha) permanent town site would
visually contrast with the natural landscape character of the area. The town would consist of a
village center with approximately 20 buildings, a hospital, 125 dwelling units, and a water and
sewage treatment plant. Extensive human activities in and around the permanent town would
degrade the visual character of the existing wetland setting.
Temporary visual impacts during construction of the Devil Canyon dam project would be similar to
those for the Watana project. The Devil Canyon project area would be viewed by project personnel,
recreationists, and individuals flying over or near the area. The line, form, and color of the
645-ft (195-m) high, 1,300-ft (394-m) span concrete arch dam would visually contrast with the
natural form, color, and texture of the Devil Canyon area (see Fig. 4-17). The electrical
equipment and structures at the site would be silhouetted against the skyline from various
vantage points, such as along the access road.
The operation of the Devil Canyon dam and the filling of the reservoir would produce an impound-
ment approximately 32 mi (53 km) long and a maximum of 1,800 ft (549 m) wide near the dam. The
surface area of the reservoir would be about 7,800 acres (3,120 ha), and the water impoundment
would reach upstream almost as far as the Watana dam. The reservoir would inundate Devil Canyon
and the white-water rapids that extend through it. The unusual geology, hydrology, and aesthetic
character of the canyon makes it a notable Alaskan natural feature. The canyon is a steep-
sided, nearly enclosed gorge that constricts the Susitna River channel and results in over 10 mi
(16 km) of turbulent (Class VI) white-water rapids. The impoundment would also inundate minor
portions of Devil and Fog creeks.
The 1,000-ft (300-m) long Devil Canyon saddle dam that would be adjacent to the main arch dam
would dominate the small-scale plateau-type landscape. The texture and color of the saddle dam
would will be in sharp contrast to the surrounding vegetation and small pond area. Extensive
clearing of vegetation and rock cutting for 2.5 mi (4 km) of road access during the construction
of the powerhouse tunnel would leave large visual scars on the steep northern slopes. These
would be visible from the access road and from the visitor center.
The development of the 200-acre (80-ha) temporary construction village and camp sites would
cause long-term visual impacts that would extend into the operation phase of the Devil Canyon
project. Large areas devoid of vegetation would be visible where the camp structures were
removed. This lack of vegetation and the presence of ponds of mud and water created by soil
compaction would be visible to persons who traveled through the area.
Temporary visual impacts during construction of the proposed Denali Highway-to-Watana dam access
route site, the Watana dam-to-Devil Canyon dam access route, and the Devil Canyon rail spur
would consist of the presence of workers, equipment, and materials along the routes. These
impacts would be similar in nature to those previously discussed.
Visual impacts along the 42-mi (67-km) long Denali Highway-to-Watana access route would consist
of views of large cut and fill areas, areas where vegetation had been removed, and areas of
erosion. All these features would detract from the aesthetic character of the area. Large
borrow pits would be located adjacent to the road and would result in long-term visual impacts
from scarification caused by removal of vegetation, erosion, and the presence of partially
water-filled depressions. On the positive side, the highway would also provide new access to
scenic views for visitors, recreationists, and persons from the permanent Watana village. These
would include panoramic views toward the Alaska Range, Clearwater Mountains, and the Talkeetna
Range. However, recreationists in the area around the proposed route might consider the road a
visual intrusion detracting from their enjoyment of the natural landscape.
As with the Denali Highway-to-Watana dam access road, the visual character of the 34-mi (56-km)
long, Watana-to-Devil Canyon access road would be in contrast to the existing natural environ-
ment, but at the same time, the route would provide views of the surrounding area previously
seen only by persons on foot. One of the more visually prominent features of the access road
would be a 2,600-ft (785-m) steel bridge suspended 600 ft (180 m) above the Susitna River to the
west of the Devil Canyon dam. Construction of this high-level suspension bridge would require
extensive grading and disruption of land forms and vegetation for the bridge approaches. These
alterations would continue to be visible after construction ceased. A clear view of the dam
4-67
Figure 4-17. Artist's Rendition .of the Proposed Devil Canyon Dam and Reservoir.
(Does not include construction camp and village, access roads,
transmission lines, or substation.) [Source: Application
Exhibit E, Vol. 8, Appendix EBB]
I IIIII
i! ,,
il
'
' ' '•.l:,l•i
''.' "~ "'ll:li .,,.~.n, ,
~~~il
Jjllil~r;l:uil
' •Mil
:''''"'I ~li:I~IUUilif
1111;1 11:1~;11 11~111~1!1:1'
', ' "l~,,~qll j; .~1~1•·· 1
::·:II
. I ! ~
I :.1
4-68
would not be possible from the bridge, and the proposed structural style and form of the bridge
would do little to complement the form and line of the surrounding Devil Canyon landscape.
The presence of a 14-mi (23-km) long rail spur between Gold Creek and the Devil Canyon dam site
would result in visual impacts along the Susitna River. The rail alignment would result in cut
and fill operations that would contrast with the color and texture of the naturally forested and
vegetated areas along the river valley. Recreationists using the Susitna River would be able to
view the scarification on the slopes adjacent to the rail spur. At present, there is no inten-
tion of using the spur for public transportation; thus the line would not provide members of the
public with new opportunities to view remote areas in the Susitna River Valley.
The temporary visual impacts that waul d occur during construction of the Sus i tna transmission
line facilities would be similar for all segments of the proposed corridor. These impacts would
consist of the presence of workers, equipment, and materials during construction of associated
access roads, transmission line towers, substations, and the stringing of the conductors. These
visual disturbances would be viewed by construction personnel, individuals flying over the
transmission line route, recreationists, persons at various vantage points along project access
roads and on highways and rail lines in the vicinities of the transmission line segments, and'
residents of communities a 1 ong the various corri dar segments. In addition to these temporary
impacts, the development of the transmission facilities would create long-term visual impacts.
The transmission towers along 345-kV transmission line segments would consist principally of
100-ft (30-m) high, guyed, steel-pole, X-frame structures with some single steel-pole structures
used for angles and areas with steep slopes. The width of the cleared right-of-way would vary
from 300 to 510 ft (90-155 m). The distance between tower structures a 1 ong a 1 i ne typically
waul d be 1, 300-ft (390-m); adjacent towers a 1 ong para 11 e 1 1 i nes waul d be about 115-ft (35-m)
apart.
Along the Dams-to-Gold Creek segment [45 mi (72 km) long] the transmission line towers and
conductors would be silhouetted against the skyline from various viewpoints along the Watana-
to-Devil Canyon access road (including the High Lake area) and rail spur and at the dam sites.
Through wooded areas, the cleared right-of-way [300 to 510 ft (90 to 155 m) wide] would be
highly visible from the air.
Between Gold Creek and the Healy and Willow substations, the transmission line would essentially
parallel the Anchorage-to-Fairbanks Transmission Intertie. Therefore, visual impacts caused by
the tower and line placement along this portion of the Gold Creek-to-Fairbanks and Gold Creek-
to-Anchorage segments of the Susitna transmission line would be only incremental in nature.
From the Healy substation to the terminus point at Ester near Fairbanks and from the Willow
substation to the Anchorage terminus, completely new right-of-way would be required.
Areas of major visual resource impacts along the 185-mi (298-km) line extending between Gold
Creek and Fairbanks would include the Broad Pass area, where the transmission line would extend
across Denali Highway and be in full view of motorists. This area has been recommended by the
state for designation as a scenic highway area. The transmission line would be from 200 ft
(60 m) to about 2 mi (3 km) away from the George Parks Highway (Route 3) in this highly scenic
region. The transmission line would also be visible at two Alaska Railroad crossings and from
portions of the planned remote parcel land disposal areas between Gold Creek and Hurricane.
Between Cantwell and the Yanert Fork, the transmission line would again extend close to the
George Parks Highway. In the Alaska Range landscape, the transmission line would be highly
visible along the Indian River. The transmission line corridor also would be visible from
various vantage points along the eastern boundary of Denali National Park and the George Parks
Highway. The Healy substation near the Alaska Railroad would be highly visible. From Healy to
Fairbanks, the transmission line would extend through the forested Tanana Ridge and the Nenana
Uplands landscapes, while paralleling the road near Healy.
Major visual resource impacts between Gold Creek and Anchorage (a line length of 145 mi, or
233 km) would include those in the Talkeetna Mountains area, where the transmission line would
be in full view from Curry Ridge in Denali State Park and would be highly visible as it extended
across the Talkeetna River, considered to be an important recreation resource. In the Chulitna
River landscape area, the transmission line would be visible from the George Parks Highway.
Between Willow and Anchorage, the transmission line corridor would be visible mainly from the
air. Within . the greater Anchorage area, from the Kni k Arm to the terminus point, the corridor
would essentially parallel an existing transmission line and would not significantly affect the
visual resources of the area.
4.1.10 Cultural Resources
Eight archeological sites would be directly impacted, and six would be indirectly impacted by
the construction of the proposed Watana dam and associ a ted faci 1 it i es (App. 0, Sec. 0. 2. 1).
4-69
The inundation of the impoundment area would directly impact 37 archeological and 3 historic sites
and indirectly impact (due to increased slope instability and erosion) 18 archeological sites and
1 historic site. Most impacts to significant cultural resources would be mitigated by investiga-
tion, the results of which would almost certainly make a substantive contribution to knowledge of
Alaskan prehistory. Currently, 19 of these sites have been tested for significance, and all but
one have been assessed as significant. A number of additional sites are likely to be judged as
significant.
During the operation phase, 53 archeological sites would be exposed to potential impact due to
increased access to the area. Avoidance and protection (through a monitoring program), with
investigation of significant sites when necessary, would mitigate most impacts. To date, three
sites have been tested and assessed as significant.
No cultural resource sites occur in the immediate vicinity of the proposed Devil Canyon dam and
associated facilities, but five archeological and two historic sites would be directly impacted
by inundation of the impoundment area. One archeological site on the reservoir margin would be
indirectly impacted. Investigation would mitigate most impacts to significant sites, and would
be 1 ike ly to contribute to knowledge of A 1 askan pre hi story. At present, three sites have been
determined to be significant.
During the operation phase, two archeological and one historic site would be subject to poten-
tial impacts due to increased access to the area. Avoidance and protection (through a monitor-
ing program), with investigation of significant sites when necessary, would mitigate most impacts.
None of these sites has been assessed for significance.
During the construction of the proposed Denali Highway-to-Watana access road, four archeological
sites would be directly impacted by excavation of proposed borrow pits, and four archeological
sites would be indirectly impacted by greatly increased access to the area. Another eight
archeological sites would be exposed to potential impact as a result of increased access. Most
impacts to significant sites would be mitigated by avoidance and protection (through a monitoring
program) or by investigation in cases of unavoidable direct or indirect impacts. No sites have
been assessed for significance at present, and it does not appear likely that many will be
termed significant. Any uninvestigated sites would continue to be subject to potential impacts
during the operation phase.
A total of nine archeological sites would be directly impacted during the construction of the
proposed Watana-to-Devil Canyon access road by borrow area excavation, while three more archeo-
logical sites would be subject to potential impacts due to increased access. Most impacts to
significant sites would be mitigated by avoidance and protection (through a monitoring program)
and by investigation in cases of unavoidable direct or indirect impacts. No sites have been
assessed for significance at present, and it does not appear likely that many will be termed
significant. Any uninvestigated sites would continue to be exposed to potential impacts during
the operation phase.
Two historic sites are presently known along the proposed rail access to Devil Canyon. These
sites would be exposed to potential impacts during both the construction and operation phase.
Impacts would be mitigated by avoidance.
Nine cultural resource sites are presently known along the proposed transmission corridor, at
least two of which are historic. All but one of these sites would be subject to potential
impacts during the construction phase due to increased access. One archeological site (which is
located in the direct impact zone of the proposed Watana camp and associated facilities) would
be directly impacted by construction activity. Avoidance and protection (through a monitoring
program during construction) would mitigate most impacts to significant sites, except in the
case of the directly impacted site, which has been· assessed as significant and would require
mitigative investigation. Although the remaining known sites have not been evaluated for signi-
ficance, it is likely that several of them will be termed significant.
4.2 SUSITNA DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES
4.2.1 Land Resources
4.2.1.1 Geology ,and Soils
Impacts of the wa\ana I development would be similar to impacts for the proposed Watana dam
(Sec. 4.1.1.1). The smaller Watana I dam would require less borrow material, thereby reducing
impacts related to borrow sites, and .less land would be inundated by the smaller Watana I
reservoir. Because the shoreline elevation of the Watana I reservoir would be located mid-slope
on many of the bordering hills, slope failure would be expected to be higher for the Watana I
reservoir than for the proposed Watana development. Impacts of the Modified High Devil Canyon
and Reregulating dams would be similar to impacts for the proposed Devil Canyon development.
Reservoir slope failure would be expected to be less for the alternative Reregulating dam and
'• ,,,
i!
'
4-70
for the Modified High Devil Canyon alternative than for the proposed project. Borrow material
requirements would be somewhat less for the Reregulating dam alternative, and substantially less
land would be flooded by the Reregulating dam alternative (see App. E, Sec. E.2.2.1).
Impacts related to the alternative access routes would be similar to impacts for the proposed
access routes (Sec. 4.1.1.1). Extensive sidehill cutting would be required in the Portage Creek
Valley for the northern access corridor and in the mountainous area between Devil Canyon and
Watana for the southern access corridor. Erosion losses could be high in these areas even with
the use of erosion-control measures (see App. E, Sec. E.2.2.2).
Impacts along alternative transmission routes would be similar to impacts for the proposed
transmission routes (Sec. 4.1.1). In the Wi ]low-to-Anchorage segment, impacts associated with
access road development and right-of-way clearing would be minor for Corridor ABC' (Fig. 2-15)
(although almost twice as long as the proposed corridor) because of the presence of existing
transmission lines and highways along the route. In the Dams-to-Gold Creek segment (Fig. 2-14),
Corridors ABCD, ABECD, AJCF, ABCF, AJCD, and ABECF are among the shortest routes and are located
in a hilly area where moderate erosion would be expected. Corridors ABCJHI, ABECJHI, CBAHI, and
CEBAHI are intermediate in length, and portions of these corridors extend through the most
mountainous terrain of the area. Despite steep slopes, erosion losses in this area could be
moderate because of the shallow bedrock and absence of soils. Corridors CBAG, CEBAG, and CJAG
are the longest routes and cross gently sloping areas where erosion would be moderate because of
the presence of extensive unconsolidated deposits and permafrost (see App. E, Sec. E.2.2.3). In
the Healy-to-Fairbanks segment (Fig. 2-16), impacts of access road develoment, right-of-way
clearing, and associated activities would be greater for the alternative corridors AEF, AEDC,
and ABDC than for the proposed corridor, which follows an existing transmission corridor for
much of its length.
4.2.1.2 Land Use and Ownership
For the alternative dam locations and designs, access routes, borrow areas, and power transmis-
sion routes, land use impacts of construction and operation would be of the same types discussed
in Section 4.1.1. 2. The Modified High Devil Canyon alternative waul d inundate 6,800 acres
(2,750 ha) of land; the Watana I and Reregulating dams would inundate 28,300 acres (11,450 ha)
and 4,000 acres (1,600 ha), respectively. Also, the northern and southern alternative access
routes would impact additional lands between the community of Hurricane and the dam sites.
4.2.2 Climate, Air Quality, Noise
The impacts on climate, air quality, and noise from the alternative Susitna developments would
be very similar to those described in Section 4.1.2 for the proposed project. The Modified High
Devil Canyon alternative would involve dam construction at a nearby location. The Reregulating
dam alternative would involve construction of a reregulation dam downstream of the Watana I dam.
For all dam configurations and alternatives, fugitive dust emissions might extend beyond site
boundaries as indicated from the calculations discussed in Section 4.1.2 for the proposed Watana
dam.
4.2.3 Water Quantity and Quality
The major differences between the proposed Watana-Devil Canyon dams and the three Susitna develop-
ment alternatives are in total storage volume of the reservoirs, surface area, and length of
mainstem Susitna River that would be inundated (Table 4-11). All alternatives include Watana I,
a modified design that would have a crest elevation 100 ft (30 m) lower than the proposed Watana
dam. This reduction in dam height would result in a 30% reduction in both the storage volume
and surface area of Watana reservoir. Combining Watana I with the Modified High Devil Canyon
dam or the Reregulating dam would further reduce these parameters.
The Susitna development alternatives also would move the location of the downstream dam progres-
sively upstream: Devil Canyon dam would be at RM 152, Modified High Devil Canyon would be at
approximately RM 158, and the Reregulating dam would be at RM 168.2. With the Modified High
Devil Canyon design, three tributaries would no longer be inundated, including Cheechako Creek.
With the Reregulating dam design, nine tributaries or side sloughs would not be flooded, includ-
ing both Cheechako and Devil creeks.
The flow regimes in the main channel below Devil Canyon would be similar to the postproject
hydrographs described in Section 4.1.3. However, because live storage of the reservoirs would
be reduced by each of the Susitna development alternatives, the magnitude of potential flow
alteration would be corresponding less. Other impacts, such as reductions in habitat availa-
biity in side sloughs and stabilization of the channel, would also be similar to, but of lesser
magnitude than, those discussed in Section 4.1.3.
The differences in water quality, relative to preproject conditions, between that resulting from
construction, filling, and operation of the three Susitna development alternatives and that due
to the Susitna project as proposed are predicted to be relatively minor. The largest difference
4-71
Table 4-11. Comparison of Storage Volume, Reservoir Area, and Miles of
Stream Inundated for In-Basin Hydro Alternatives
Total Surface Flooded
Volume Area River Channel
Alternative (106 acre-feet) (10 3 acres) (miles)
Watana 9.8 40.0 48
Watana I 6.7 28.0 47
Devil Canyon 1.1 7.8 32
Modified High Devil Canyon 0.96 6.8 26
Reregulating Dam ' 0.35 3.9 16
Watana-Devil Canyon 10.9 47.8 80
Watana I-Devil Canyon 7.8 35.8 79
Watana !-Modified High Devil Canyon 7.66 34.8 73
Watana I-Reregulating Dam 7.05 31.9 63
Conversion: To convert acre-feet to cubic meters, multiply by 1233; to convert acres to
hectares, multiply by 0.405; to convert miles to kilometers, multiply by
1.61.
would be in suspended solids, with the construction of Watana I plus the Reregulating dam requir-
ing less work in the river channel, thus resulting in less of an increase in suspended solids in
the Sus itna River during construction compared to that for Devil Canyon construction. The
Reregulating dam, however, would have a lower trapping efficiency than the Devil Canyon dam.
The result would be that suspended solids downstream of the Reregulating dam would be greater in
both summer and winter than with Devil Canyon as proposed. None of the Susitna development
alternatives would be expected to have a significantly greater adverse or positive impact on
water quality than the Susitna project as proposed, with the possible exception of the adverse
impact of the Watana I/Reregulating dams alternative on suspended solids in the Susitna River,
particularly during winter.
Ice formation and break-up under the Susitna development alternatives would be qualitatively
similar to the proposed project. Since discharge flows for these alternatives would be expected
to more closely parallel baseline flows, changes in ice processes could be slightly reduced as
compared to the proposed project.
The most important parameter influencing the thermal structure of an impoundment is the residence
time of a water mass. For a short residence time, a water mass will quickly pass through the
impoundment with minimal opportunity for surface heat exchange. Thus an impoundment with
extremely short residence time will have a thermal structure that deviates only slightly from
free-flowing conditions. Increasing the residence time will allow greater surface heat transfer,
resulting in a more pronounced reservoir vertical temperature structure. The thermal structure
of Susitna development alternative reservoirs as compared to the proposed reservoirs would be
proportional to the relative change in water mass residence time. This factor, in turn, would
be proportional to changes in the active storage volume of the reservoir.
The Watana I reservoir would likely have a lower active storage volume than Watana, resulting in
a weaker summer thermal structure. Deep areas of this reservoir would be at 39°F (4°C) year-
round, but summer surface water temperature would be cooler, perhaps by 2°F to 4°F (1°F to 2°C),
than Watana. This would result in a reduced vertical temperature gradient. The weaker strati-
fication would be a reduced barrier to vertical motion, so that the Watana I reservoir would
exhibit greater mixing than the proposed Watana reservoir.
The active volume of the Modified High Devil Canyon reservoir would be comparable to the Devil
Canyon reservoir and consequently their thermal structures would be quite similar as described
in Section 4. 1. 3. The active volume of the Reregul at i ng dam would be so small that the river
reach between th\' dam and the Watana I dam would exhibit a free-flowing thermal regime.
In the mainstem Susitna, the relative changes in downstream water temperatures resulting from
operation of the Susitna development alternatives would be related to changes in dam discharges
and outlet temperatures as compared to the proposed project. For Watana I-Devil Canyon, dif-
ferences in downstream temperatures would reflect differences between the Watana I reservoir and
the Watana reservoir. Outlet water temperatures would depend strongly on the design and opera-
tion of the intake gate system. A well-designed system for Watana I could produce outlet water
temperatures that would more closely parallel preoperational conditions than Watana. Due to the
1.
II
ll
II
I' ,i
i
! I
'l~l
Ill!"~!.. I
,1.1:jt~ I
•lr~J.I ""'~I "' i'"'-11
~IUJII:jll
i
I'
I
,.
I
!
4-72
expected reduced active storage volume of the Watana I reservoir, discharge flows would be
constrained to more closely parallel preoperat i anal flows than Watana. These differences in
outlet temperature and discharge are slight, and would slightly reduce the differences between
baseline and operational water temperatures downstream of the Devil Canyon dam as compared with
the proposed design. Downstream mainstem water temperatures resulting from the operation of the
Watana !-Modified High Devil Canyon alternative would be essentially identical to the Watana !-
Devil Canyon alternative.
For the Watana 1-Reregulating dam alternative, the Reregulating dam would have an active storage
volume sufficiently small that its presence would have negligible impact on downstream tempera-
tures. Changes in downstream water temperatures, for this alternative, would be almost completely
influenced by Watana I operation. The major difference between this alternative and the others
is the addition of more than 20 river miles (32 km) at near free-flowing conditions. This
distance would offer additional hours for river water to exchange heat with the atmosphere and
approach baseline conditions. For this reason, the Watana I-Reregulating dam alternative would
be expected to result in water temperatures downstream of the dams that were closer to baseline
conditions than the proposed project or the other two Susitna development alternatives.
During peri ads when the berms at the upstream end of s 1 oughs are overtopped, s 1 ough water
temperature would be the same as the mainstem. It is likely that all the alternatives would
offer greater summer discharge flows than the proposed project. Therefore, under the Susitna
development alternatives, berms would be overtopped slightly more frequently. In addition, the
increased stage associated with increased flows would produce mainstem infiltration closer to
baseline conditions. These changes would be slight; however, they could result in slough water
temperatures that were closer to baseline conditions than the proposed project.
Groundwater impacts would be slight for all the Susitna development alternatives and similar to
impacts of the proposed project.
4.2.4 Aquatic Communities
Under the Watana !-Devil Canyon alternative, lowering the maximum elevation of Watana dam to
2,100 ft (640 m) above mean sea level, with other aspects of the project remaining the same,
would not change downstream impacts significantly. The smaller storage volume would be expected
to yield slight reductions in magnitude of temperature changes and flow regulation that are
within the margins of error of our ability to predict ecological effects associated with the
proposed project. There would be reduced flooding of reservoir tributary reaches, with propor-
tional reduction in local impacts to these stream ecosystems.
Selection of the Watana !-Modified High Devil Canyon alternative would affect aquatic communities
through (1) placement of the dam in Devil Canyon, (2) reduction in volume for water storage
(that would alter water temperature and flow regimes and their effects on aquatic life), and
(3) reduction of reservoir flooded area compared to the proposed project. Placement of the dam
in Devil Canyon at a more upstream site would preserve several miles of freely flowing river
habitat downstream. The reach is not especially valuable habitat, however, for it does not
contain anadromous fish except in exceptionally low-flow years, and the high velocities and
turbulence are not conducive to developing large populations of resident fish. Smaller changes
in flow and temperature would be favorable for maintaining downstream aquatic life in a condi-
tion more like that before the project. Both upstream placement of the dam in Devil Canyon and
a lower Watana dam would reduce flooding of reservoir tributary reaches, with a proportional
reduction in local aquatic impacts. The Modified High Devil Canyon dam waul d avoid one major
tributary completely, Cheechako Creek, which is habitat for resident species. At a maximum of
12,000 cfs (340 m3 /s) summer flow, more salmon might be able to penetrate Devil Canyon and
utilize such tributaries for spawning on a more regular basis.
The combination of a lower Watana dam (Watana I) and a Reregulating dam for peaking power hydro-
electric releases at Watana would reduce aquatic impacts when compared to the two-dam proposed
project. Reduced flooding of tributaries by a Watana reservoir elevation of 2,100 ft (640 m)
waul d reduce local stream impacts proport i ana lly. Downstream effects of flow and temperature
changes on aquatic life would be most comparable to having Watana alone (App. I, Sec. 1.2.1.1),
although the magnitudes would be reduced somewhat due to smaller storage volume. Differences
would be within the margin of error of predictions for the Watana-only case.
4.2.5 Terrestrial Communities
4.2.5.1 Plant Communities
The types of impacts to plant communities from use of alternative designs for the proposed dam
sites and for related facilities would be essentially similar to those impacts described in
Section 4.1. 5.1 for the proposed project. However, in some cases the magnitude of the impacts
would be different.
4-73
Construction and operation of the Watana I alternative would result in impacts similar to those
described for the proposed Watana dam site (see Sec. 4.1.5.1, and Sec. J.2.1.1 of App. J),
although in most cases the extent of both direct and indirect impacts would be reduced somewhat
due to the smaller impoundment size and because regulated flows would be more similar to pre-
project flows. The Watana I impoundment would inundate about 28,300 acres (11,450 ha), of which
about 24,000 acres (9, 700 ha) are expected to be vegetated. Specific vegetation types that
would be lost should be similar to those quantified in Table J-18 (App. J) except that the
relative proportions of each type might change slightly.
Construction and operation of the Reregulating dam and Modified High Devil Canyon alternatives
would result in similar, but probably less extensive, impacts (both direct and indirect) than
those described for the proposed Devil Canyon· dam site (see Sec. 4.1.5.1, and Sec. J.2.1.2 of
App. J). The Reregulating dam alternative would inundate less area [about 4,000 acres (1,600 ha)]
and less vegetation [about 3,000 acres (1,200 hall than Devil Canyon. Vegetation located in the
5 mi (8 km) between the Modified High Devil Canyon alternative dam site and the proposed Devil
Canyon dam site (primarily mixed conifer-deciduous forest) would not be inundated by the Modi-
fied High Devil Canyon alternative. However, the higher reservoir elevation of this alternative
would cause inundation of vegetation higher up the canyon slopes than would occur with the
proposed Devil Canyon impoundment. The Modified High Devil Canyon alternative would inundate an
estimated 6,800 acres (2,750 ha), of which approximately 5,100 acres (2,100 ha) would be vege-
tated. For both the Reregulating dam and Modified High Devil Canyon alternatives, specific
vegetation types that would be lost should be similar to those quantified in Table J-22 (App. J),
although the relative proportions of each type might change slightly.
Construction of the northern or southern access alternatives (see Sec. 2.2.2.4 and Fig. 2-13)
would result in clearing and permanent loss of about 810 acres (330 ha) or 980 acres (400 ha) of
vegetation, respectively (see Table J-36, App. J, for specific vegetation types). On the basis
of worst-case estimates (see Sec. 4.1.5.1, and Table J-5 and Sec. J.1.2.1.5 of App. J), about
510 acres (210 ha) of potential wetland types might be cleared for the northern access alterna-
tive; whereas only 420 acres (170 ha) of potential wetland types would be cleared for the
southern access alternative (see Table J-37, App. J, for specific wetland types). Potential
indirect construction effects to vegetation as well as potential operational impacts to vegeta-
tion would be similar to those described in Section 4.1.5.1 (see also Sec. J.2.2.2, App. J).
The acreages of various vegetation types that would be crossed by alternative power transmission
routes were estimated only for the technically and economically feasible alternatives, as identi-
fied in Exhibit E (Vol. 9, Chap. 10, Table E.10.24). In the northern study area (Fig. 2-15),
the right-of-way for alternative power transmission route ABDC would cross about 3,100 acres
(1,250 ha) of vegetation. In the central study area (Fig. 2-14), the rights-of-way for the six
transmission route a 1 ternat i ves waul d cross varying acreages of vegetation, ranging from
1,300 acres (530 ha) for corridor AJCF to 3,000 acres (1,200 ha) for corridor CJAHI. In the
southern study area (Fig. 2-16), 3,300 acres (1,300 ha) of vegetation would be crossed by the
right-of-way for alternative ABC'; whereas 1,900 acres (770 ha) of vegetation would be crossed
by alternative AEFC. These areas represent a worst-case estimate of vegetation to be impacted,
since only the forest and tall shrub types (because of their overstory heights) would require
major clearing (see Sec. 4.1. 5.1). Worst-case estimates of potential wetland types (see
Sec. 4.1.5.1, and Table J-5 and Sec. J.1.2.1.5 of App. J) that would be crossed by the alterna-
tive transmission line rights-of-way indicate that none of the alternatives except for alterna-
tive ABC' in the southern study area would cross significantly fewer potential wetland areas
than the proposed corridors. Specific vegetation and wetland types that would be crossed by the
technically and economically feasible alternative transmission routes have been quantified in
Tables J-38 through J-41 of Appendix J. Additional possible alternative transmission line
corridors in the northern and southern study areas (as identified in Wakefield, 1983) would
cross similar types of vegetation as the technically and. economically feas i b 1 e alternatives
identified in Exhibit E (Vol. 9, Chap. 10, Table E.10.24), although the specific proportions of
various vegetation types contributing to the total acreage would be different. Other potential
impacts to vegetation from construction and operation of the alternative power transmission
routes would be similar to those already discussed in Section 4.1.5.1.
With the exception of borrow site J, which is contained within the Susitna River (Fig. 2-2), use
of the alternative borrow sites would result in the temporary removal of vegetation from these
sites. Vegetation and soils would be cleared prior to excavation, and the areas would be
rehabi 1 ita ted as\ out 1 i ned in Section 4.1. 5. 1. The acreages of vegetation cleared for borrow
sites B and L (flig. 2-2) would be relatively small; whereas, about 1,500 acres (610 ha) of
vegetation would be cleared for borrow site C (Fig. 2-6).
4.2.5.2 Animal Communities
Reconfi gurat ion of dam-or construction-facility features might alter the area 1 extent and
distribution of habitat types to be affected by the proposed project. However, these altera-
tions would not result in a substantive change in impacts to wildlife because these alternatives
would not alter the major effects attributable to the impoundments, borrow areas, access routes,
I
!
I•
4-74
and transmission lines, which make up more than 95% of the habitat that would be affected
(Table 4-3). Alternative operation scenarios would alter downstream flow dynamics to a different
extent than would occur under the proposed flow regime. Wildlife impacts downstream from Devil
Canyon would be reduced to the extent that alternative flow regimes more closely resembled
natural fluctuations in river flow.
Alternative use of borrow areas would result in temporary loss of habitat in the areas actually
used, except where the borrow areas would be inundated by the reservoir. No major reductions in
impacts to wildlife would be achieved by selecting one area over another, except by using areas
that would be inundated or affected by construction anyway, such as areas A, 8, D, E, I, J, L,
and G (Figs. 2-2 and 2-6). Excavation of borrow areas C and F would likely have additional
impact on browse habitat for moose and other wildlife over and above reservoir filling, although
the areas could be rehabilitated to regain at least a portion of the browse productivity.
Borrow areas H and K are situated in more rugged, cliff habitat which would be suitable for
raptor nesting.
Differences in impacts among alternative access routes (Fig. 2-13) are substantial. The access
route from Hurricane on the Parks Highway to Devil Canyon would cross wetland habitat of high
value to aquatic furbearers such as beaver and muskrat. Because of the nature of the terrain,
development of this route could result in substantial erosion impacts (Sec. 4.2.1) to several
wetland areas, as well as to the fisheries resources of Indian River and Portage Creek, which
are used by bear. The area is also productive moose and bird habitat. This route would affect
wildlife habitat of higher value than would a route from Gold Creek. Because the route would
connect to the Parks Highway, the mainstem middle Susitna River would become readily accessible
to Railbelt residents. Because the Parks Highway is more traveled by Railbelt residents, acces-
sibility would be much higher than for a route from Gold Creek and, to a lesser extent, than for
a route from the Denali Highway.
A southern access route from Devil Canyon to Watana would pass through extensive wetland habitat
in the Stephan Lake/Fog Lakes area, which is used by large numbers of moose, furbearers, and
waterfowl. Greater access to the Stephan Lake area could lead to increased human disturbance
and hunting in the vicinity of Prairie Creek. This could severely degrade the suitability of
the Prairie Creek area as a fishery for brown bear in the region (Miller, 1983). It could also
affect the suitability of the area for use by bald eagle that nest in lowland forests along the
Susitna River.
A decision to eliminate access from the Denali Highway to Watana would reduce impacts to beaver
along Deadman Creek, as well as to brown bear denning in adjacent uplands. Under this alterna-
tive, caribou would continue to freely move across the area without the potential impediment of
a road. Vehicular mortality would be reduced by reliance on rail transport of personnel rather
than persona 1 vehicles. Lack of 1 i nkage to a major highway would markedly reduce the accessi-
bility of the area in comparison to either a Denali or a Parks Highway connection.
Selection of alternative transmission line routes would variably affect wildlife relative to the
proposed routes, depending upon length of line, amount of clearing of forest habitat required,
proximity to raptor or swan nesting locations, and amount of waterfowl habitat traversed.
Qualitative impacts would be the same as discussed previously. The amount and distribution of
impacts would vary among alternatives.
The alternative routes from the dam sites to the Railbelt are fundamentally similar except in
length (Fig. 2-14). Several are twice or more the length of the proposed route and would be
expected to have greater impact to wildlife habitats. Routes passing from Fog Lakes to Stephan
Lake could have substantially higher potential for waterfowl collisions, albeit such mortality
would still be a small fraction of overall mortality. Routes passing through the uplands north
of the Susitna River could impact brown bear denning habitat. Selection of any route not associ-
ated with a selected access route would further enhance accessibility of the region. The pro-
posed route would traverse the shortest length of habitat among the alternatives and would
follow the proposed access route from Gold Creek.
Alternatives for the Healy-to-Fairbanks segment are basically similar except in length (Fig. 2-15).
Only alternatives that swing south of the Tanana River and extend to the southern side of
Fairbanks would avoid the prime peregrine falcon habitat located along the northern side of the
river from Nenana to Chena Ridge. Impacts to the peregrine habitat can be avoided by proper
scheduling of construction and maintenance activities. Therefore, the extra mileage required to
avoid the area would not be warranted. From Willow to Anchorage, the principal difference among
alternatives would be the length of the route (Fig. 2-16). Alternative routes around Knik Arm
would be nearly twice the length of routes to Pt. MacKenzie. No particular advantages would be
gained by selecting the longer alternatives.
The alternative dam configurations (Fig. 2-17) would result in an impact to wildlife at a level
lower than would be expected under the proposed two-dam configuration. Reduction in the height
of the Watana dam (Watana I configuration) would affect about 37,000 acres (15,000 ha), about
4-75
85% of the projected area for the proposed project. A considerable amount of forest habitat
would still be lost to the wildlife in the basin. Some black bear dens and some raptor nesting
locations would be inundated under this alternative. The reservoir would still serve as an
impediment to wildlife movement.
Impacts from the other two dam configurations would be less than those of the Watana !-Devil
Canyon because of the lower area of inundation for the downstream dam. Habitat areas lost would
be about 36,000 acres (14,000 ha) for a Watana !-Modified High Devil Canyon configuration, and
33,000 acres (13 ,000 ha) for a Watana I -Reregul at i ng dam configuration. Anticipated impacts
would be similar to those described earlier for the proposed project, but the magnitude of
impact would be proportionately smaller.
4.2.6 Threatened and Endangered Species
No impacts to threatened or endangered species would be expected to occur as a result of construc-
tion and operation of any of the Susitna development alternatives.
4.2. 7 Recreation Resources
The sites of the Susitna development alternatives are within the general area of the proposed
project. Further, recreation use patterns are a 1 so similar. Thus, impacts associ a ted with
implementation of the alternatives would be similar to those discussed in Section 4.1.7, with
the following exceptions. The reduction in the height of the proposed Watana dam (Watana I
alternative) would result in a marked decrease in the land area preempted for energy production
(App. J, Table J.45) and currently used primarily for dispersed recreation. Opting for the
Watana 1-Reregulating dam would result in a further reduction in preempted land area. This
alternative is of further significance with respect to river recreation, i.e., free flow of the
Devil Canyon rapids would cease, but the rapids would not be inundated, as would be the case for
other alternatives.
Recreation potentials associated with the three alternative access routes are essentially indis-
tinguishable; current recreation use patterns along these routes are characterized by dispersed
recreation act i viti es. Based on public and agency meetings and discussions, the Applicant
states that recreation potential was essentially eliminated as an evaluation criterion for
access route selection (Exhibit E, Vol. 9, Chap. 10, Sec. 2.3.6).
The four principal alternatives selected for routing the Dams-to-Gold Creek transmission lines
traverse remote terrain. Recreation use patterns are characterized by dispersed recreation
activities, including trail-related activities and river touring. A few recreation trails might
be temporarily obstructed or displaced; however, the principal effects of the transmission line
development on recreationists would be of a visual nature. The alternative corridors for the
Healy-to-Fairbanks transmission lines also traverse remote areas. Features common to the three
alternative corridors include a few isolated cabins and several recreation trails. One of the
corridors parallels a short segment of Healy Creek used for river touring, and all three corridors
cross the Wood and Tanana rivers. The Tanana is a major river recreation corridor; however,
adverse effects would essentially be limited to visual impacts. The alternative corridor for
the Willow-Ft. MacKenzie transmission lines traverses Nancy Lake State Recreation Area for 9 mi
(15 km) (Exhibit E, Vol. 9, Chap. 10, Fig. E.10.10). Transmission facilities would likely be
aligned to avoid encroachment on developed recreation sites; however, visual impacts would
prevail. A number of lakeside recreation cabins also are located along the corridor. Several
of the lakes in the area are accessed by float plane; thus, the lines would create a degree of
hazard for the local recreati oni sts. The alternative Will ow-Anchorage corridor traverses the
Palmer-Wasilla area. Assuming that the relatively numerous public and private recreation areas
caul d be avoided during final alignment, the transmission lines waul d canst i tute significant
visual impacts.
No specific recreation resource areas or activities are identifiable with the alternative borrow
areas. Thus, opting for use of one or more of the borrow sites would not meaningfully affect
recreation resources.
4.2.8 Socioeconomic Factors
A number of assumRtions have been made to assess impacts relative to Susitna development alter-
natives. To estim~te population growth, one-half the construction work force was assumed to be
unaccompanied by household members. Construction workers not in construction camps and the
total population were assumed to have household ·sizes of 3.0 persons.
Because the facilities under each of the three alternative Susitna development hydropower plants
would be located in the same socioeconomic environment as the proposed project, the impact area
would be the same. The construction work forces for the alternatives would be slightly smaller
and the construction period shorter. Thus, impacts of the alternatives would be only less than
(particularly for the Watana 1-Reregulating dam alternative), but substantially of the same type
as, impacts of the proposed project (Sec. 4.1.8).
:I
j: i
I!
i
i
!
4-76
As with the proposed access route, both alternative routes would increase accessibility of the
project area for tourists and for recreational and commercial hunting, fishing, and trapping.
Native Alaskans could develop commercial operations on their land in the project area more
easily than presently. Other residents waul d view increased accessibi 1 ity as reducing the
rural, isolated nature of the area which they value. Because of the easy commute to the dam
sites, the northern alternative route would cause growth in Hurricane, the tiny unincorporated
community where the access route would intersect the Parks Highway. Even a few new households
in the community would change the nature of the setting and invite commercial and residential
deve 1 opment. Service faci 1 iti es, funded by the borough, waul d have to be built to accommodate
new residents.
The southern alternative access route would make Gold Creek attractive to construction workers
and to commercial and residential developers. Impacts to Gold Creek would thus be increased
beyond the levels described for the proposed project in Section 4.1.8.
Impacts of alternative power transmission routes would be the same as those described for the
proposed transmission routes (Sec. 4.1.8). All alternative borrow sites are located in unpopula-
ted areas. Therefore, no socioeconomic impacts would occur as a result of the use of any of
them.
4.2.9 Visual Resources
Use of the alternative dam locations and designs, access routes, borrow areas, and alternative
power transmission routes would result in the same type of visual resource impacts discussed in
Section 4.1.9. In addition, the Modified High Devil Canyon alternative would inundate Tsusena
Falls. The northern alternative access route would parallel the scenic Portage Creek area. The
souther·n access route would result in visual resource impacts because of a number of sidehill
cuts that would be required in the mountainous terrain between the Devil Canyon and Watana dam
sites. Two alternative borrow areas (near Tsusena and Fog Creeks) would require the construc-
tion of extended haul roads, further degrading views of the surrounding natural features. An
alternative transmission line segment extending through the Fairbanks landscape area would be
viewed by a substantial number of persons. Several of the alternative transmission route
segments between Willow and Anchorage would be visible to a substantial number of people in the
more populated areas around Wasilla and Palmer and the Glenn Highway area (Route 1) north of
Anchorage.
4.2.10 Cultural Resources
The area of the Watana I reservoir would be subject to the same impacts on cultural resources as
under the proposed Watana development (Sec. 4.1.10), except that 5 archeological sites would
occupy indirect or potential rather than direct impact zones, and 17 archeological sites would
occupy potential rather than indirect impact areas. In all cases, most impacts to significant
sites would be mitigated by investigation in the case of direct or indirect impacts, or by
avoidance and protection (through a monitoring program). Two of the sites shifted from direct
to indirect or potential impact zones, and one site shifted from an indirect to a potential
impact area have been evaluated as significant. Some of the remaining sites mentioned above
also appear likely to be evaluated as significant. Impacts to cultural resources for the Modi-
fied High Devil Canyon development would be identical to those described for Devil Canyon
(Sec. 4.1.10).
The Reregulating dam alternative also would have the same impacts on cultural resource sites as
the proposed project Devil Canyon development (Sec. 4. 1. 10), except that there waul d be no
impact (rather than a potential impact) on one historic and one archeological site located on
Portage Creek and Devil Creek, respectively.
A number of cultural resource sites along the alternative access routes would likely be subject
to direct, indirect, and potential impacts due to road construction, borrow site excavation, and
increased access in Corridor 1 (North) and Corridor 3 (Denali-North). Most impacts to signifi-
cant sites would be mitigated by avoidance and protection (through a monitoring program), with
investigation where necessary. Few sites in these two corridors appear to be significant. No
cultural resources are presently known in Corridor 2 (South), which appears to be an area of
limited potential for significant sites.
Impacts to cultural resources presently known along the various proposed alternative transmission
line routes would not differ significantly from impacts described for the proposed project
transmission corridor (see Sec. 4.1.10). Archeological and historic sites would be subject to
potential impacts due to increased access during the construction phase. Impacts would be
mitigated by avoidance, coupled with construction-phase mOnitoring to determine whether investi-
gation of any significant sites would be necessary. Although no sites along the alternative
routes have been evaluated for significance, it appears likely that several will be termed
significant.
4-77
Development of three of the alternative borrow sites (C, E, and F) would have impacts on cultural
resources. Development of borrow site C would directly impact 15 archeological sites during
excavation, and indirectly impact five archeological sites due to destabilization of slopes and
increased erosion. The excavation of borrow site E (which would be within the proposed Devil
Canyon impoundment area) would directly impact two archeological sites and one historic site.
Use of borrow site F would have direct impacts on eight archeological sites and one historic
site, and indirect impacts on two archeological sites due to destabilization of slopes and
increased erosion. Most impacts to significant sites would be mitigated by investigation, the
results of which would be likely to make a substantive contribution to knowledge of Alaskan pre-
history. Two of the archeological sites (one each in borrow sites C and E) have been assessed
as significant, and it appears likely that others will be termed significant as well.
4.3 NATURAL-GAS-FIRED GENERATION SCENARIO
4.3.1 Land Resources
4.3.1.1 Geology and Soils
A total of about 50 acres (20 ha) of land would be required for the natural-gas-fired generation
scenario. Accelerated soil erosion and soil compaction would be the primary impacts of site
construction activities. Erosion 1 asses might be greater for the Chui tna and Anchorage 1 oca-
tions. where the terrain is more sloping. No permafrost or mineral resources are known to exist
in the vicinity of the proposed sites. Areas of agriculturally suitable soils are present near
the Lower Beluga River and Kenai sites, but because of the small areal extent of the units,
these features could be avoided with proper siting.
4.3.1.2 Land Use and Ownership
Land use impacts due to the construction and operation of natural-gas-fired plants would be
minimal at the alternative site locations. Land requirements would be about 5 acres (2 ha) per
plant for the ten combined-cycle and combustion-turbine units. It is estimated that over
9,000 acres (3,600 ha) of land would be required for transmission line facilities under this
scenario. However, depending on final plant siting, significant land use impacts could occur if
extended access or transmission stubs were required to reach the plant site or if a plant was
constructed adjacent to an area supporting a land use that is not considered to be compatible
with industrial development (e.g., dispersed recreation or residential area).
4.3.2 Climate, Air Quality, Noise
Climatic impacts of the eight 200-MW combined-cycle gas units and the two 70-MW combustion-
turbine units would be negligible. Impacts would involve changes in surface albedos and heat
capacities over ·small areas due to land clearing, paving, and erection of buildings. Also
involved would be very slight temperature and humidity increases in the local area of the plants.
The visible plume from the wet/dry cooling towers would extend approximately 0-350 ft (0-100 m)
downwind, depending upon atmospheric temperature and relative humidity.
Pollutant emissions from the gas units and combustion turbines would be very small except for
NOx emissions from the combined-cycle units. The NO release rate from a 200-MW unit varies
from 138 grams per second (g/s) (no steam injection)xto 34 g/s (steam injection). A standard
200-MW coal-fired plant emits 151 g/s of NO . Without steam injection to reduce NO emissions,
the three units (600 MW) located on the ChOitna River would emit 414 g/s of NO . The Chuitna
plant might be designed to have three identical 200-MW units, one stack per uniC.
Calculations made with the EPA screening model PTPLU revealed that the maximum 24-hr ground-
level concentration for NO would be 23 micrograms· per cubic meter (~g/m 3 ), with this maximum
concentration reached at axpoint 2.9 mi (4.7 km) downwind. The Alaska air quality standard is
100 ~g/m 3 on an annual arithmetic mean basis. Since the predicted maximum 24-hr average concen-
tration is less than the annual average limitation, it is clear that the annual limit for NO
should be met. Other pollutants released from combined-cycle gas units are at very low level~.
PSD limits on S0 2 and TSP should be satisfied due to the very low emission levels from such
natural-gas units. Although the combined-cycle plant stacks would only be 65 ft (20m) high,
the very high temperature at plume exit (approximately 370°F, or 190°C) would lead to a very
buoyant plume andc\high plume rise. As a result, low concentrations are predicted at ground
level. ·
Because of the low pollutant emission levels and the large distances between any of these units
and the Class I areas of Alaska, no significant impact on Class I areas would be expected.
Carbon monoxide emissions from the 200-MW unit southeast of Anchorage should be sufficiently
diluted during transport to Anchorage to have no significant impact on the Anchorage nonattain-
ment area. Ground-level concentrations predicted by PTPLU at Anchorage were found to be signi-
ficantly below the Alaska standard for impact on a carbon monoxide nonattainment area.
I ·,'I
' I, I,
I
II: I
i I
'II
''·.I
,, ,,
i
4-78
Climatic and air quality impacts of the 70-MW combustion turbines would be negligible because of
the small heat, moisture, and pollutant releases. Noise impacts should be insignificant if the
turbines are sited at least 0.5 to 1.5 mi (0.8 to 2.4 km) from the nearest noise-sensitive
areas.
4.3.3 Water Quantity and Quality
The gas-fired, combined-cycle generators with wet/dry mechanical cooling towers would have very
low consumptive water requirements (<2 cfs or 0.05 m3 /s). At the four sites considered, there
would be no problems meeting these water demands from base flows in the Beluga and Chuitna
rivers, from groundwater sources in alluvial aquifers, or from the small lakes in the vicinity
of the Kenai site. Plant construction might require the localized destruction of wetland habitats,
but this would not exceed 10 acres (4 ha) per site.
Sources of water pollution from natural-gas-fired power plants include cooling system blowdown,
wastewater from regeneration of demi nera 1 i zers, re 1 eases of cleaning solutions, acci denta 1
spills, and domestic water use. Releases to surface waters from these gas-fired units would be
required to meet appropriate state (Alaska State Water Quality Statutes, Alaska Dept. of Environ-
mental Conservation, 1979) and Federal (Clean Water Act-NPDES permits) water quality and effluent
1 imitation guide 1 i nes. No si gni fi cant adverse impacts from construction and operation of the
natural-gas-fired power plants would be anticipated.
No thermal impacts, groundwater impacts, nor changes in ice processes would be expected with
this alternative.
4.3.4 Aquatic Communities
Construction of the eight 200-MW combined-cycle units and the two 70-MW combustion-turbine units
would impact aquatic communities in the immediate vicinity of the facilities and along access
routes. Aquatic habitat (e.g., wetlands) would be lost wherever the facilities were sited.
Increased siltation and turbidity would adversely affect aquatic communities in the vicinity of
construction sites and where access routes and power transmission corridors crossed streams.
The spatial extent of these impacts should be limited to the immediate vicinity [e.g., 300ft
(90 m)] of construction activities. Adverse effects should be less during operation of these
units than during construction. The increased dissolved solids discharged from cooling systems
into streams or other surface waters might cause some local changes in distribution of plant,
invertebrate, and fish communities. Both construction and operation impacts are expected to be
proportionally greater for the 200-MW combined-cycle units as compared to the 70-MW combustion-
turbine units.
The greatest source of adverse impact on fish communities is likely to be the increased accessi-
bility of streams, rivers, and lakes to sport and subsistence fishing pressure in the vicinity
of the facilities and along access routes and transmission line corridors. Direct construction
and operation impacts are likely to be limited to fish species in the streams and lakes directly
affected by construction and operation. The indirect impacts due to increased accessibility,
however, could also affect salmon populations migrating up nearby rivers, such as the Beluga and
Chuitna. Increases in accessibility are more likely to be associated with the combined-cycle
units than the combustion-turbine units, since the combustion turbines would tend to be located
in or adjacent to already existing population centers, whereas the larger combined-cycle units
would be located in more remote areas.
4.3.5 Terrestrial Communities
4.3.5.1 Plant Communities
Construction of facilities associated with each of the 200-MW combined-cycle units and the 70-MW
combustion-turbine units in the natural-gas-fired generation scenario would result in the
permanent removal of 5 acres (2 ha) of vegetation. Thus, a total of about 50 acres (20 ha) of
vegetation would be permanently lost as a result of the implementation of this scenario. Place-
ment of gas pipeline spurs to the plants would probably require temporary removal or disturbance
and subsequent rehabilitation of relatively narrow and short corridors of vegetation. Relatively
short [1 ess than 10 mi (16 km)] transmission 1 i ne stubs waul d probably be constructed to the
plants, resulting in vegetation impacts similar to those described in Section 4.1.5.1. If, in
addition to transmission line stubs to the plants, it is assumed that transmission of the power
to the Rail belt waul d require at 1 east (1) construction of two 345-kV 1 i nes from Wi 11 ow to
Anchorage and from Healy to Fairbanks and (2) upgrading of the existing Intertie between Healy
and Willow to two 345-kV lines, then at least 9,000 acres (3,640 ha) of vegetation might be
disturbed by construction and operation of power transmission facilities. No impacts to even
sensitive plant species from S0 2 or NO emissions would be likely (Dvorak et al., 1978). Impacts
to wetlands would probably be minimalxif the facilities were sited so as to avoid critical or
sensitive wetland areas.
4-79
4.3.5.2 Animal Communities
The two combined-cycle plants situated along the Beluga River would occupy about 10 acres (4 ha)
of upland spruce-hardwood forest. Moose congregating in the area during winter might be dis-
turbed by human activities during construction and operation and might tend to avoid the plant
area. However, this would affect only a minute fraction of their winter range. Along the
Chuitna River, the three combined-cycle plants would occupy about 15 acres (6 ha) of upland
spruce-hardwood habitat. Plant construction and operation might disrupt b 1 ack bear denni ng
areas along the Chuitna River. However, the area affected would represent less than 1% of the
available habitat. Some fishing areas used by brown bear during salmon spawning might also be
impacted. No other areas of known wildlife sensitivity would be affected by these alternative
thermal deve 1 opments. The area is a 1 ready accessi b 1 e by road, and a 1 ternati ve deve 1 opments
would not increase accessibility.
Near Kenai, two combined-cycle plants would occupy about 10 acres (4 ha) of lowland spruce-
hardwood habitat. Although a variety of wildlife range through the area, no known sensitive
areas exist in the vicinity of these possible alternative developments. The affected habitat
would be a small fraction (<<1%) of available range. The area is already developed with roads,
and petro 1 eum industry acti viti es are extensive throughout the area. Thus, the a 1 ternative
developments would not materially increase human presence.
The 15 acres (6 ha) needed for the three combined-cycle plants in the Anchorage area would be
situated in more urbanized habitat and would not substantively affect wildlife resources.
4.3.6 Threatened and Endangered Species
No impacts to threatened or endangered species would be expected to occur as a result of con-
struction and operation of facilities included in the natural-gas-fired generation scenario.
4.3. 7 Recreation Resources
There are no dedicated or significant developed recreation resource areas in the Beluga and
Chuitna river areas (Bechtel, 1983). Essentially all recreation use patterns result from dis-
persed recreation, primarily sport hunting and fishing, but also including trail-related and
water-based recreation activities. Given judicious siting procedures, it is unlikely that
developing five combined-cycle gas plants requiring a total of 30 acres (12 ha) would appre-
ciably impact existing recreation patterns. Similarly, the development of two 200-MW combined-
cycle units near Kenai would not appreciably impact recreation opportunities, provided that
developed recreation sites of the Kenai Nati ana 1 Wi 1 dl i fe Refuge and 1 oca 1 state parks and
recreation areas were avoided. Assuming that Chugach State Park and municipal recreation areas
in Anchorage were avoided, the development of a 200-MW combined-cycle unit and two 70-MW
combustion-turbine units requiring a total of about 20 acres (7 ha) would not meaningfully
affect recreation resource areas or activities in the Anchorage-Turnagain Arm area.
4.3.8 Socioeconomic Factors
Tyonek is the community that would be nearest to the five combined-cycle units on the lower
Beluga and Chuitna rivers. In general, construction of one of these units would require a work
force of about 45 persons over a period of two to five years; operation would require about
six persons per unit (Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, 1982 p. 5-19). Assuming successive
construction periods, a maximum total of 108 new workers would be in the area at once, for a
total maximum inmigrating population of about 200, excluding inmigrating support workers--almost
equal to the current population of 239. Few, if any, Tyonek residents would likely be hired on
the projects. No vacant housing is available in Tyonek, with the exception of 24 rooms in the
Shirleyville Lodge. Thus, housing would have to be built or lots for trailers developed. The
school building would have enough capacity for many inmigrating children, but another teacher
might be needed. The Kenai Peninsula Borough would bear the planning and funding responsibili-
ties for expanded services.
Tyonek is a Native Alaskan community whose residents rely a great deal on subsistence activities
for their livelihood. Development of commercial interests in response to the expanded popula-
tion would be outweighed by conflicts between the cultures of the Natives and of construction
workers, and by,potential interference of the new population with traditional subsistence activi-
ties. A constrll~tion camp to house workers near the site would reduce these impacts considerably.
Roads would have to be built to the sites of the combined-cycle units. Better road connections
with Anchorage would be beneficial but would .increase access to the area. Permission to build
some access roads might be difficult to obtain from the Tyonek Native Corporation.
Under this scenario, two combined-cycle units would be constructed in an area within commuting
distance of the more substantial communities Kenai and Soldotna. If the two units were built in
succession, a maximum of approximately 100 inmigrants might be expected at one time. This would
I'
,, I
:.I
I •
II
,1.1,1
I I
4-80
be approximately a 2% increase over the 1982 population. Minor impacts would be mainly in the
form of increased access to the area north of Kenai and slight disruption of the rural lifestyle
of those who live nearby.
One combined-cycle unit and two 70-MW combustion-turbine units would be built near Anchorage.
The work force needed for construction of a combustion-turbine unit would be approximately
30 persons. Since most workers could commute from Anchorage, impacts would be minor and limited
to slight increases in road traffic and increased access to the site areas.
4.3.9 Visual Resources
Specific visual resource impacts for each of the 200-MW combined-cycle units and the 70-MW
combustion-turbine units would depend on the actual location of the plant facilities within the
proposed Beluga, Kenai, and Anchorage areas. Potential viewers impacted might include highway
motorists, recreationists, or local residents. Impacts might occur from views of the plant
structure, smokestack (about 75-ft, or 23-m high), any hazard warning lights (e.g., strobes)
located on the stack, and, depending on cooling tower design and atmospheric conditions, water
vapor plumes emanating from the cooling towers. If wet-dry cooling towers were used, no signifi-
cant vapor plumes would be anticipated. In addition, visual resource impacts might occur along
the gas pipeline and power transmission line right-of-ways that would be necessary to connect
the power plant with existing utility facilities.
4.3.10 Cultural Resources
Potential for impacts to cultural resources in the designated locations for the natural-gas-
fired generation scenario would appear to be limited. Most impacts to significant sites would
probably be mitigable by avoidance and protection (through monitoring). Site-specific surveys
and significance assessments would be necessary to determine the extent of needed mitigation.
4.4 COAL-FIRED GENERATION SCENARIO
4.4.1 Land Resources
4.4.1.1 Geology and Soils
Development of the five coal-fired units would disturb approximately 350 acres (140 ha) of land
at Willow and 450 acres (180 ha) at Nenana, and would result in increased rates of erosion,
sedimentation, and runoff; soil compaction; and increased 1 eve 1 s of potentially hazardous
materials in soil. Both areas are located in relatively level terrain where such erosion losses
could be more easily controlled. Impacts from permafrost thaw would be expected at the Nenana
sites only.
Approximately 110 million tons [97 million metric tons (MT)] of coal would be used consumptively
over the 30-year life of the five 200-MW plants. Approximately 2,250 acres (910 ha) of land
would be disturbed by mining associated with the operation of the five 200-MW plants. Surface
mining impacts would include increased sedimentation and wind erosion of soils from spoil piles,
modification of surface drainage and topography, slope failures due to excavation, and perma-
frost thaw resulting from vegetation stripping.
The ten 70-MW combustion-turbine plants that would be located around the Cook Inlet would appro-
priate a total of 50 acres (20 ha), and the construction-related impacts would be highly site-
specific.
4.4.1.2 Land Use and Ownership
The construction and operation of coal-fired generation plants could produce significant land
use impacts at all the plant sites. Land requirements for each of the two plants would be
approximately 200 to 300 acres (80-120 ha) for plant and associated structures, coal unloading
facilities, and coal storage piles, and an additional 1. 5 acres (0. 6 ha) of land per year for
waste disposal. In addition, it is estimated that operation of a 200-MW coal-fired power plant
would require 450 acres (180 ha) of land to be strip mined for coal over the 30-year life of the
power plant. The five 200-MW coal-fired units located at Nenana and Willow and the ten 70-MW
gas-combustion turbines under the co a 1-fi red generation scenario would require a total of
600 acres (240 ha) of land for plant-site facilities, 225 acres (90 ha) of land for waste-
disposal sites, and about 2,250 acres (910 ha) of land for surface mining of coal during the
30-year operating life of the facilities. Similar to the natural-gas generation scenario, it is
estimated that over 9,000 acres (3,600 ha) of land would be required for transmission line
right-of-way. As discussed in Section 4.3.1.2, significant land use impacts could also occur if
extended access or transmission line stubs were needed to reach the plant site or if the site
were located adjacent to an existing noncompatible land use.
4-81
4.4.2 Climate, Air Quality, Noise
The climatic and air quality impacts of siting various combinations of 200-MW coal-fired units
at Nenana and Willow are described in this section. The cases of most significant interest (and
impact) involve siting five units at Nenana or, alternatively, three units at Nenana and two at
Willow. These plants would be too small to significantly affect the climate in the Nenana and
Willow areas. The effect of land clearing, paving, and erection of buildings would involve a
change in the surface albedos and heat capacities over small areas. A small vapor plume from
0 to 300ft (0 to 100m) long would be expected from the wet/dry cooling towers; only very small
increases in temperature and humidity would be expected, and these changes would occur only in
small areas near the tower structures. A visible vapor plume would extend from the plant stacks
tens of feet in the summer and hundreds of feet in the winter.
The major air quality issues involving the coal-fired plant stack releases include: (a) maintain-
ing Alaska ambient air quality standards, (b) meeting PSD increments not only in the Class II
area in which Nenana and Willow are located, but also at the Class I Denali National Park approxi-
mately 60 mi (95 km) south of the Nenana site, (c) ensuring no significant impact on the nearby
nonattainment area for carbon monoxide (CO) at Fairbanks, and (d) ensuring no visibility impair-
ment at the Denali National Park.
To investigate these four issues, the Staff made numeri ca 1 computations using EPA-approved
models. First, the EPA screening model PTPLU was used to evaluate compliance with PSD Class II
increments for the vicinity of Nenana and Willow. Calculations revealed that for sulfur dioxide
(50 2 ) and particulates, maximum 3-hr and 24-hr concentrations for 50 2 and maximum 24-hr concen-
trations for total suspended particulates (TSP) would be well within PSD Class II increments
when flat terrain is impacted. Alaska ambient air quality standards would be met as well for
50 2 , TSP, and NOx. Willow and Nenana are not near major industrial sources and, as a result,
ambient levels are very low. Increments contributed by the new coal-fired plants would be
sufficiently small that when added to the background, the total would fall far below Alaska
standards.
An example of the numerical values obtained is the prediction for three units at Nenana. The
maximum 3-hr S0 2 concentration predicted was 90.3 ~g/m 3 and the maximum 24-hr TSP concentration
was 2.8 ~g/m 3 . PSD Class II increments for these pollutants are 512 ~g/m 3 and 37 ~g/m 3 , respec-
tively. All predicted maxima would occur 0.88 mi (1.4 km) downwind of the stacks.
Supplementary calculations were prepared to evaluate the impact of one to five units sited on
the elevated terrain just to the northeast of Nenana. A simplified version of the VALLEY Model
was used to evaluate concentrations at elevated terrain 5 mi (8 km) northeast of the plant
stacks. Twenty-four-hour averaged S0 2 concentrations were predicted to be 68 ~g/m 3 for two
units, 102 ~g/m 3 for three units, 136 ~g/m 3 for four units, and 170 ~g/m 3 for five units; the
PSD Class II limit on 24-hr averaged concentrations is 91 ~g/m3 • Although more detailed
analyses than a screening analysis is required to confirm that regulatory violations would
occur, the present predictions reveal a sma 11 exceedence for three units and si gni fi cant
exceedences for four and five units.
Next, the simplified version of the VALLEY Model was used to predict maximum incremental concen-
trations under a worst-case scenario at the Denali National Park. These calculations revealed
acceptable S0 2 and TSP increments at this Class I area for two units at Nenana or Willow.
However, maximum 24-hr concentrations of 50 2 at Denali were predicted to be 4.1 ~g/m 3 for three
units at Nenana, 5.4 ~g/m 3 for four units, and 6.8 ~g/m 3 for five units, compared with a PSO
Class I increment of 5 ~g/m 3 • Here again, the siting of four or five units at Nenana would lead
to a potential violation of PSD Class I increment requirements.
Calculations with the simplified VALLEY Model for carbon monoxide revealed an extremely small
increment (1.1 ~g/m 3 , maximum 24-hr average) at Fairbanks, the nearest nonattainment area from a
five-unit Nenana coal-fired plant. This predicted increment should not involve any violation of
standards (5,000 ~g/m 3 for maximum 8-hr average and 2,000 ~g/m 3 for maximum 1-hr average) and is
not within significant levels for CO for a nonattainment area.
Finally, a Level-l screening analysis was performed to assess potentia 1 vi si bi 1 i ty impacts on
Denali National Park caused by operation of one to five coal-fired units at Nenana and two units
at Willow. Section 169A of the Clean Air Act requires visibility protection for mandatory
Class I Federal ·~reas where it has been determined that visibility is an important value.
Furthermore, the State of Alaska assesses visibility impacts on a case by case basis (Alaska
Dept. of En vi ronmenta 1 Conservation, 1983). The purpose of this Level-l screening analysis is
to estimate the worst-case visual impacts that might occur at the National Park. The results of
the analysis indicated significant visibility impairment due largely to the NO emissions from a
plant at Nenana with three, four, or five units. Chemical conversions duringxtransport of the
Nenana plume would result in a visible plume over Denali. This plume is revealed through three
1:11
1 1l
!'II!
4-82
contrast parameters, one of which contrasts the plume with the sky (rather than with terrain
features). The value of this parameter, C1 , exceeded its limit of 0.1 in the Staff's calcula-
tion for three, four, and five Nenana units. The large background visual range at Denali [100
to 240 mi (170 to 390 km)] is a contributing factor in this visibility impairment. Level-2 and
Level-3 analyses would likely lead to the same results due to the extreme meteorology in that
area; i.e., large frequency of inversions and poor mixing of pollutants in the general region
about Fairbanks. Application of the Level-l screening analysis with one and two coal-fired
units at Nenana or Willow revealed no visibility impairment, although some plume contrast with
the sky would still be noticeable at Denali.
Control technology applied to NO might assist in the siting of three units at Nenana by mitigat-
ing the potential visibility pr6blem. Another possibility is the placement of three units at
Willow and two at Nenana. This latter alternative would not lead to either PSD or visibility
impairment problems at either Nenana or Willow.
Construction and operational noise impacts from the coal-fired plants should be minimal if
siting was at least 0.5 to 1.5 mi (0.8 to 2.4 km) from the nearest residences. The major noise
sources in the operation of the plant should be the coal-handling equipment, the cooling tower,
and the transformers. An in-depth treatment of noise impacts requires a precise location of the
plant with respect to nearest noise-sensitive areas, ambient baseline noise data, and an identi-
fication of specific equipment to be used in plant construction and operation.
4.4.3 Water Quantity and Quality
The coal-fired power plants at Willow and Nenana would have negligible impacts on surface water
resources. The consumptive water use estimated for a 200-MW facility with wet/dry mechanical
draft cooling towers is only 4 cfs (0.11 m3 /s). Because of the performance of the cooling tower
design, makeup water would be required only during the warmest months of the year (June, July,
and August). This demand could be easily satisfied from available flows in the Susitna River at
Willow, the Tanana or Nenana rivers at Nenana, or from local groundwater in alluvial aquifers.
Sources of water pollution from coal-fired power generation include cooling system blowdown,
wastes from regenerating demineralizers, chemical cleaning solutions, ash pond overflow, coal
pile drainage, and domestic water use (Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, 1978). It is
expected that all point-source discharges to surface waters from the coal-fired power plants
would meet appropriate state and Federal water quality and effluent limitation guidelines and
that no adverse impact on surface water quality would occur from discharges at these plants.
Closed-cycle cooling (cooling towers) would be required, and thus no significant adverse changes
in water temperature would result from operation of the coal-fired power plants.
No significant changes in ice processes should occur. Local ice-free areas could exist in the
vicinity of thermal discharges.
Thermal impacts that could occur as a result of coal-fired power generation would be associated
with the discharge of b lowdown from the cooling water system producing a thermal plume in the
receiving water body. For all the units considered in this scenario, thermal loading, if any,
would be minor with adequate flow available for dilution. As a result, any thermal impacts
would be minor and limited to a small thermal-plume mixing zone.
Groundwater contamination of shallow, unconfined aquifers could occur as a result infiltration
of coal-pile runoff, accidental spills and leaks, and seepage from solid and liquid waste
disposal areas. Such impacts could be eliminated or reduced to acceptable levels through proper
facility design, operation, and maintenance.
4.4.4 Aquatic Communities
Construction of the five 200-MW coal units and the ten 70-MW combustion-turbine units would
impact aquatic communities in the immediate vicinity of the facilities and along access routes.
Aquatic habitat (e.g., wetlands) would be lost where the facilities were sited. Increased
siltation and turbidity would adversely affect aquatic communities in the vicinity of construc-
tion sites and where access routes and power transmission corridors crossed streams. The
spatial extent of these impacts should be limited to the immediate vicinity [e.g., 300ft
(90 m)] of construction activites. During operation of the combustion turbines, adverse affects
would be expected to be less than during construction. During operation of the coal units,
however, there would be additional impacts associated with coal piles and fly-ash disposal
areas. Sites for these areas would likely in.clude additional aquatic habitat (most likely
wetland), and during operation there would likely be some change in the composition and distri-
bution of aquatic plant, invertebrate, and fish communities in the immediate vicinity of runoff
from 'these areas. The increased dissolved solids discharged from cooling systems into streams
or other surface waters might cause some local changes in composition and distribution of plant,
invertebrate, and fish communities. Both construction and operation impacts are expected to be
proport i ana lly greater for the 200-MW coal units than for the 70-MW combustion-turbine units.
4-83
The greatest source of adverse impact on fish communities would likely be the increased accessi-
bility of streams, rivers, and lakes to sport and subsistence fishing pressure in the vicinity
of the facilities and along access routes and transmission line corridors. Direct construction
and operation impacts are likely to be limited to fish species in the streams and lakes directly
affected by construction and operation. The indirect impacts due to increased accessibility,
however, could also affect salmon populations migrating up nearby rivers such as the Susitna,
Nenana, and Tanana. Increases in accessibility would be more likely to be associated with the
coal units than with the combustion turbines, since the combustion turbines would be located in
or adjacent to already existing population centers, whereas the larger coal units would be
located in more remote areas.
4.4.5 Terrestrial Communities
4.4.5.1 Plant Communities
Construction of facilities associated with the five 200-MW coal units and the ten 70-MW
combustion-turbine units of the coal-fired generation scenario could result in the permanent
removal or disturbance of 600 acres (240 ha) of vegetation. Over the 30-year life of the coal
units an additional total of about 225 acres (90 ha) of vegetation would be temporarily removed
for solid waste disposal at the plant sites, and a total of about 2,250 acres (910 ha) of vegeta-
tion would be temporarily removed during surface mining of coal. It would be expected that the
waste disposal and surface mine sites would eventually be rehabilitated. If soils could be
adequately restored on these areas, rehabilitation should be no more difficult than the rehabili-
tation of borrow sites or other temporary facilities planned for the proposed Susitna project
(see Sec. 4.1. 5.1). Temporary removal or disturbance of vegetation would be associated with
construction of transmission line stubs or gas pipelines (see Sec. 4.3.5.1). As with the
natural-gas-fired generation scenario, transmission of power to the Railbelt would require
construction and operation of power transmission facilities that could disturb about 9,000 acres
(3,640 ha) of vegetation (Sec. 4.3.5.1).
Localized alteration or damage of plant communities might result from fugitive dusting near coal
mine pits, along transportation routes, near coal storage piles, and near waste disposal sites.
Trace e 1 ements in runoff or seepage from so 1 i d waste di sposa 1 areas might have some 1 oca 1 i zed
effects on vegetation surrounding the site, although the probability of this would likely be low
(Dvorak et al., 1978). No impacts to vegetation from particulates or trace element combustion
emissions would be expected. Under worst-case fumigation conditions (see Sec. 4.4.2; Sec. G.2.4,
App. G; and Sec. J.2.3.2, App. J), S0 2 -sensitive species would probably not suffer acute injury
or damage, except perhaps at specific locations under certain conditions (see Sec. J.2.3.2,
App. J). Although the potential for S0 2 -induced chronic or long-term injury or alteration of
plant communities near the coal units exists, it is impossible to predict whether or not such
effects would actually occur because very little information on chronic or long-term injury
threshold levels exists in the literature. It is unlikely that vegetation in the vicinity of
the coal units would be directly affected by NO emissions, but NO together with other pollut-
ant emissions might cause greater injury than l!ny one of the poll'utants would alone (Dvorak
et al., 1978). Impacts to wetlands would probably be minimal if the facilities were sited to
avoid critical or sensitive wetland areas.
4.4.5.2 Animal Communities
The 400 MW of coal-fired generating capacity sited near Willow would require approximately
350 acres (140 ha) of habitat for plant facilities and waste storage. Principally, lowland
spruce-hardwood habitat would be impacted. The plant would be located in an area of high
densities of moose and black bear. However, suitable habitat for these species occurs through-
out this portion of the Susitna Basin. The area is lightly developed for recreational purposes,
and access might be enhanced to some degree by development of the coal-fired units. This
development could also result in increased disturbance to nesting trumpeter swans and bald
eagles.
The three Nenana coal units would be located mainly in bottomland spruce-hardwood habitat and
require about 450 acres (180 ha). Moose do concentrate in the area during winter, but the
generating facilities would occupy only a small fraction of the habitat available. Some
trumpeter swan nesting might be disturbed. Historical peregrine nesting locations would poten-
tially be within 5-.mi (8 km) of the plant. Because the area is located on the Parks Highway, no
additional accessifi~lity would result.
Coal mining near Healy would necessitate disturbing about 2,250 acres (910 ha) of upland spruce-
hardwood and tundra habitat. Brown bear, caribou, and moose would be most impacted by this
habitat loss. Reclamation of the mined land would recover some of the lost productivity.
Mortality of big game along the Alaska Railroad could increase dramatically, particularly during
winter when coal shipments could require two to three times the current rail traffic.
'I I
! II
: i
I,
II . r
i
' '
i-1
·:
il
'I,
r: !
I ,
'
,· ,'1.
'. i.·. I .·
I
4-84
Use of approximately 50 acres (20 ha) for combustion-turbine plants would have effects similar
to those described in Section 4.3.5.2, but the exact nature and magnitude of the impacts would
depend upon precisely where the plants were located.
4.4.6 Threatened and Endangered Species
No impacts to threatened or endangered species would be expected to occur as a result of construc-
tion and operation of facilities in the coal-fired generation scenario.
4.4. 7 Recreation Resources
Several dedicated recreation areas are located in the vicinity of Willow. The Willow State
Recreation Area is proposed to be expanded by 3,450 acres (1,396 ha) (Park Planning Section,
1983). Additionally, the area has been the scene of a "recreation cabin boom" in recent years
(U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1981). Patterns of dispersed recreation are also well established,
especially with respect to fishing and boating activities associated with Willow Creek. Given
that two 200-MW coal-fired units would be developed in a least sensitive area, outdoor recrea-
tionists would be subject to visual impacts involving stack emissions, coal transport activities,
and other related effects. Aside from the George Parks Highway and the Alaska Railroad, which
are major tourist routes, recreation patterns in the Nenana area consist of low-density dis-
persed recreation. Development of three coal-fired units in the Nenana area would result in
considerably less impacts on recreation activities than would be the case in the Willow area.
Development of the ten combustion-turbine units associated with the coal-fired scenario in the
Tyonek-Beluga, northwest Kenai, and Anchorage areas would result in minor impacts on recreation
resource areas and activities.
Based on the assumption that the Nenana coal field would be the fuel source for the Nenana and
Willow coal-fired plants, recreation opportunities in the Healy area would be altered due to
increased mining activity. Competition among inmigrating mine personnel, tourists, and local
residents would likely generate the strongest recreation demand for accommodations and services
of establishments in Healy (see Sec. 4.4.8), as well as those located along the Parks Highway.
However, mining personnel would also compete for dispersed recreation opportunities, such as
hunting and fishing. The demand for use of developed recreation facilities would be somewhat
alleviated by the proximity of Denali National Park and, to a lesser extent, Denali State Park.
4.4.8 Socioeconomic Factors
It is assumed that all the coal for the coal-fired units that would be built under this scenario
would come from the Nenana coal field near Healy. To supply the fuel for five 200-MW coal-
burning power units and maintain current supplies to existing markets [about 700,000 tons
(630,000 MT) per year], production would have to increase by over fivefold, to about 3.8 million
tons (3.4 million MT) per year.
Current operation at the Usibelli Mine now employs about 90 persons in the summer and 70 in the
winter. It is assumed here that a total of 300 workers (about 210 new) would be needed to meet
the new production levels. Because mining operations would require a permanent work force, most
of these workers would probably settle in the area. This would add a total of about 1,100 people
to the existing population (see App. N, Sec. N.2.3.2.1).
An influx of 1,100 persons (300% increase) would create severe difficulties in Healy. Many
services would be required--new and perhaps centralized water and sewer services; schools; fire,
police, and health facilities; and new and upgraded roads. The state would be responsible for
planning, financing, and administering the new services. Cultural difficulties between Native
residents and non-Native i nmi grants, interference with subsistence activities, and dramatic
changes in lifestyle for current residents accustomed to the small-town setting would occur.
Economic opportunities might expand, but these would be of more benefit to new developers and
inmigrating support workers and their households than to current residents who could not ade-
quately provide the services and skills.
Currently, all coal is shipped from the Usibelli Mine to Fairbanks by rail on 75-ton cars in
about 3-1/2 unit trains per month in the summer and about 10 unit trains per month in winter, an
average of about 1.8 trains per week. Approximately 2.3 million tons (2.1 million MT) per year
would be shipped to the generating units in Nenana. This would.bring the number of unit trains
to about one (two trips) per day. Using 100-ton cars on 100-car unit trains (the more common
size of unit trains in the lower 48 states), the number of unit trains needed would be reduced
to about three trains every four days, more in the winter than in the summer, or about three
times the current number.
Shipping coal to the Willow units would require about seven unit trains every two weeks if
75-ton cars were used, or about five trains of 100 cars every week, if 100-ton cars were used.
4-85
Currently, the Alaska Railroad is only used at 20% of freight capacity. A maximum average
increment of about 14 trips per week between the mine and Nenana may not strain the line.
Additional trips would be needed to transport equipment needed for mining and for operation of
the power plants, and perhaps to transport goods to the greatly expanded populations in Healy
and Nenana. More frequent maintenance of the line would be required, particularly in winter.
Each of the three generating units located in Nenana would require about 600 workers two to five
years to construct and about 100 persons to operate. If built in succession, at peak construc-
tion of the third unit, the work force required would be at a maximum 800 persons. In the worst
case, if all construction workers chose to live in Nenana rather than commute from Fairbanks
[about 50 mi (80 km) away], population inmigration could reach a first peak of about 2,600 persons,
drop off to as low as about 500, increase to a second peak of about 3,100, drop back to about
1,000 residents associated with operation of the two completed units, and increase once again to
a final peak of about 3,600 persons, finally dropping to about 1,500 permanent residents related
to all three operation w_ork forces.
A population influx in the worst case of about 2,600 persons over only two or three years would
cause severe impacts to the community. Population increases related only to the operation work
force would still almost triple the size of the town; increases related to peak construction on
the third plant (3,600 persons) would total seven times the current population of 470. In
Nenana, shortfalls in housing and community and commercial services would occur, and the classic
planning and financing "boom-bust" problems discussed in Section 4.1.8 would develop. The state
would be responsible for the costs of planning and constructing new services. Native Alaskan
culture and subsistence activities in Nenana would be overwhelmed by non-Native activities.
Construction of two units in the Willow area could have substantial impacts, altaough not as
severe as those in Nenana. Peak inmigration of project and support workers and their households
could be about 2,600 persons for the first unit, and 3,100 for the second, followed by a total
permanent operations population of about 1,000. However, because of the existing support and
service operations in the area, inmigration of support-worker-related population might be less,
reducing these projections. Willow itself is a very small community, but larger communities--
such as Houston, Wasilla, and Palmer--as well as unincorporated residential developments are
located within reasonable commuting distance. If a large proportion of the inmigrants chose to
reside in Willow, boom-and-bust impacts would be similar to those described in Section 4.1.8.
To accommodate half of the influx, Willow would need a school, police and fire stations and
staff, health care facilities, improved roads, and between 800 and 1,200 housing units to meet
demands during peak construction periods. Mat-Su Borough would be responsible for these public
services, and until extra tax revenue were collected, construction to prepare for the growth
might present financial difficulties.
Palmer, Wasilla, and Houston would have to expand their service facilities, particularly the
smaller Houston, to accommodate the proportions of construction and operation work forces that
chose to settle within the boundaries of these communities. However, the scale of growth impacts
would be less than those in Willow.
Because of the greater access to natural gas near Tyonek, a large proportion of the ten combus-
tion turbines would be located in that area. Others would probably be located north of Kenai,
and near Anchorage. A construction work force of 30 persons for nine months, possibly spread
over two summers, would be needed for each unit. No operations work force would be necessary.
Accommodations of work forces for even two or three units built in succession would be minimal
in the Anchorage and Kenai areas. For the short construction period, it is likely that a con-
struction camp could be built to house workers for the Tyonek area plants. This would limit
impacts to those resulting from use of Tyonek's limited commercial operations by project-related
personnel.
4.4.9 Visual Resources
Coal-fired generation plants would produce many of the same visual resource impacts as discussed
in Section 4.3.9. Furthermore, each plant would require additional plant structures, coal
unloading facilities, reserve coal piles, and waste disposal areas. The stack at each plant
would be between 400 and 500 ft (120-150 m) high and very visible from nearby areas. Depending
on atmospheric conditions, the visible plume emanating from the stack would vary from being
nonexistent to se~eral hundred feet long during the summer and up to 1 mi (1.6 km) long during
the winter. Vi sii>i l ity downwind from the plant would be adversely impacted by haze layers
created from stack emissions. Additional visual impacts might occur as the result of strip
mining of coal to fuel a plant.
In particular, the five 200-MW coal-fired units (three in Nenana and two in Willow) would probably
be visually obtrusive in relation to their surrounding environment and because of their proximity
to scenic highways, waterways, and recreation areas. Because of the proximity of Denali National
Park and Preserve and other scenic resources, the visual resources of the Nenana area would be
significantly impacted by the operation of three 200-MW coal-fired units. The residential and
i
,I ' ,,,
1!/
I
4-86
recreational areas surrounding the Willow area would also be adversely impacted by views of plant
facilities and the associated haze layer created by the operation of two 200-MW coal-fired units.
4.4.10 Cultural Resources
Impacts to cultural resources in the designated locations for units that would be developed
under this scenario would probably be limited. Most impacts to significant sites would probably
be mitigable by avoidance and protection (through monitoring). Site-specific surveys and signi-
ficance assessments would be necessary to determine the extent of needed mitigation.
4.5 COMBINED HYDRO-THERMAL GENERATION SCENARIO
4.5.1 Land Resources
4.5.1.1 Geology and Soils
Generally, impacts re 1 a ted to deve 1 opment of the non-Susitna hydropower projects would be
similar in nature to those described for the Watana project in Section 4.1.1.1.
Due to the flat terrain in the site area, the Johnson reservoir would inundate 84,000 acres
(34,000 ha) and result in the loss of areas of potentially good agricultural soils. The uncon-
solidated deposits and areas of permafrost on the low slopes surrounding the reservoir might be
susceptible to flow and slump failures. Beach erosion would be expected to be extensive.
Slumping and slope failure would be expected in the glacial deposits forming the shoreline of
the Keetna reservoir. Impacts of permafrost thaw would also be possible at this site. No
agricultural soils or mineral resources-waul d be 1 o,st by reservoir inundation.
The small areal extent (2,600 acres, or 1,050 ha) of the Snow reservoir and its location in a
bedrock gorge would minimize both the length of shoreline subject to erosion and the potential
for slope failures. Soils that would be flooded by the reservoir are agriculturally unsuitable.
No known mineral resources would be inundated, although there are numerous mineral claims north-
east of the area.
In the area of the Browne alternative, extensive slope failure and beach erosion might be expec-
ted to occur in the soft Tertiary sedimentary rock and unconsolidated deposits present through-
out the reservoir area. Permafrost thaw impacts would also be probable in this area. Areas of
agriculturally suitable lands and subbituminous coal reserves of the Nenana coal field would be
inundated by the Browne reservoir, although the magnitude of these losses cannot be determined
at this time.
No additional areas would be inundated through the use of the existing Lake Chakachamna.
Changes in the rates of lake drawdown for this power generation plan might affect slope stabili-
ties along the lake shoreline, however. Reactivation of the Mt. Spurr volcano could jeopardize
the power facility, but failure of the lake would not be made more or less likely by the develop-
ment of the lake-tap for the power plant. ·
Impacts that would be expected for the thermal units that would be constructed under this
scenario have been outlined in Sections 4.3.1.1 and 4.4.1.1.
4.5.1.2 Land Use and Ownership
In general, land use impacts at the various alternative dam sites under the hydropower portion
of the combined hydro-thermal scenario would be similar in nature to those discussed in
Sec. 4.1.1.2. These dams would inundate about 102,000 acres (41,300 ha) of land; additional land
would be required for access routes, power transmission rights-of-way, borrow areas, and support
facilities. In particular, the Browne project would inundate 10,640 acres (4,310 ha), including
portions of the existing George Parks Highway and Alaska Railroad. Development of the Johnson
site would result in inundation of 84,000 acres (34,000 ha), including a portion of the Alaska
Highway (Route 2) and an aboveground pipeline. Land use impacts would be minimal at the
Chakachamna site since no dam and associated reservoir wou.ld be required. Land use impacts of
the thermal (coal and gas) portion of the combined hydro-thermal scenario were discussed in
Sections 4.3.1.2 and 4.4.1.2.
4.5.2 Climate, Air Quality, Noise
The thermal portion of this generation scenario has been discussed previously (Sec. 4.1.2,
4.2.2, 4.3.2, and 4.4.2). The impacts of the non-Susitna alternatives would parallel those of
the Susitna development alternatives. Depending upon the extent of site boundaries for construc-
tion and operation of Johnson, Keetna, Snow, and Browne, fugitive emission and noise impacts
might extend beyond those boundaries. No noise impacts would be expected if no noise-sensitive
areas were within 0.5 to 1.5 mi (0.8 to 2.4 km) of the plant sites.
4-87
Fogging and icing effects at the 84,000-acre (34,000-ha) impoundment at the Johnson site might
occasionally extend beyond the reservoir. However, such effects should be confined to within
150ft (45 m) of the shoreline.
4.5.3 Water Quantity and Quality
Impacts on surface water resources from the natural-gas-fired and coal-fired thermal generating
facilities are discussed in Sections 4.3.3 and 4.4.3. Impacts to surface water resources from
the five non-Susitna hydropower projects would range from minor at the Snow site to major at
Lake Chakachamna.
At the Snow site, natural streamflow would be diverted out of the original channel to a power-
house on Kenai Lake. Approximately 8 mi (13 km) of the Snow River would be dewatered, the lower
4 mi (6.5 km) of which would parallel Highway 9 and the Alaska Railroad before entering the
southern end of Kenai Lake.
The Johnson and Browne .sites would involve construction of large mainstem reservoirs on the
Tanana and Nenana rivers north of the Alaska Range. The maximum storage volume of Johnson
reservoir would be 65,000 ac-ft (80 million m3 ); the volume of Browne reservoir has not been
determined. The Keetna hydro project would include construction of a dam and mainstem reservoir,
with an estimated reservoir capacity of 1 million ac-ft (1 billion m3 ) on the Talkeetna River.
The Chakachamna hydro project would involve the most severe hydrologic modifications of all the
non-Susitna hydropower alternatives. It would affect two large river systems: (1) the
Chakachatna River, which drains Lake Chakachamna, and (2) all the McArthur River, on which the
powerhouse would be located. The natural flow regime of the lower 15 mi (24 km) of the
Chakachatna River waul d be s i gni fi cantly reduced as the outflows from Lake Chakachamna were
diverted into the McArthur River powerhouse. Daily outflows from Lake Chakachamna ranged from
10,500 cfs (300 m3 /s) in September 1982 to less than 600 cfs (17 m3 /s) in March and April 1983.
Flows in the McArthur River for the same period ranged between 1,500 cfs (42 m3 /s) in September
and 29 cfs (1 m3 /s) in March. A maximum of 7,200 cfs (204 m3 /s) would be diverted out of the
Chakachatna River into the McArthur River. Fish passage facilities are planned to transport
salmon up to Lake Chakachamna. The proposed minimum release through these facilities would be
343 cfs (10 m3 /s).
The potential impacts of these five hydropower alternatives on surface water quality are similar
to those for the Susitna project described in Section 3.1.3. These include (1) changes in the
suspended solid and turbidity regimes downstream of the projects, resulting from construction
activities and from the retention and release of suspended solids retained within the reservoir,
(2) changes in the thermal regime of receiving waters downstream of the project, and (3) super-
saturation of water due to entrainment of air at discharges. Temporal changes in turbidity
regimes, similar to those predicted for the Susitna project (Sec. 3.1.3.2), would occur at the
hydropower sites, particularly those at which glacial flour dominates the suspended solid load
(e.g., Browne, Johnson, Chakachmna). The Chakachmna project would result in.temporal changes in
the suspended solid load in the McArthur River from the diversion of water from Lake Chakachamna,
with the concentration increasing during the fall-winter period and decreasing during the spring-
summer period relative to preproject levels. Similar temporal changes in suspended solid concen-
trations would occur for the other hydropower alternatives. Although the magnitude of such
changes cannot be estimated without information on the predicted reservoir hydrology and on
water quality in the existing environment, adverse impacts on water quality from changes in the
concentration of suspended solids would not be anticipated for any of the hydropower
alternatives.
Nitrogen supersaturation at high-head dams can be prevented with appropriate design and mitiga-
tive measures. It is assumed that such measures would be implemented and that nitrogen super-
saturation in excess of the Alaska water quality statute (110% of saturation) would not occur
downstream of these alternative hydropower sites.
No major changes in ice processes would be expected at the Snow hydropower site. Changes in ice
processes would be expected in the Chakachatna River and the McArthur River as a result of flow
diversions associated with Chakachamna project operations. Changes in downstream flows result-
ing from the operation of the Johnson, Browne, and Keetna hydro facilities could produce changes
in ice processes in the Tanana, Nenana, and Talkeetna rivers.
Relative to th~mal conditions, the Snow project would not impound any water and, therefore,
upstream of the diversion point the Snow River would maintain preproject conditions. The 8-mi
(13-km) reach of the Snow River from the diversion point to Kenai Lake would be dewatered.
Water diverted from the river could produce local and minor temperature changes to Kenai Lake,
but would have no impact on the large-scale thermal structure of the lake.
The Chakachamna hydropower project would be expected to have no thermal impacts on Lake
Chakachamna; however, the diversion of water from the Chakachatna River to the McArthur River
could result in temperature changes to both rivers.
.I ,,
I ,
I
II ,, ,, ,,,
p;
:'1
I!'
:j .,
li
I
il' ' .. · .. ·1· I
4-88
The Johnson, Brown, and Keetna hydro projects would result in the creation of reservoirs on the
Tanana, Nenana, and Ta 1 keetna rivers, respectively. In the impounded portion of these rivers,
the. thermal character waul d change from free-flowing isothermal to more static, with seasonal
vertical thermal structure. Temperature changes waul d be expected downstream of these dams.
The extent of these changes would depend on dam design and operation.
No significant groundwater impacts would be anticipated from any of the non-Susitna hydropower
projects.
4.5.4. Aquatic Communities
Whereas the Snow, Browne, and Johnson sites would affect few fisheries resources, the Keetna
site (Talkeetna River) and Chakachamna site (Chakachatna River) are important for anadromous
salmonids (Sec. 3.5.4). Salmonid runs to the Talkeetna River have been incompletely charac-
terized, but comparisons of data on upstream migrants in the Susitna mainstream at the Sunshine
(below the confluence) and the Talkeetna (above) stations indicate numerous fish using either
the Talkeetna or Chulitna rivers. Both Keetna and Chakachamna dams would block migrations to
upstream spawning areas. These blockages could result in salmon losses greater than those due
to the proposed Susitna project. The Chakachamna project has the additional potential to markedly
impact anadromous fish downstream as a result of dewatering or decreasing flows in the upper
Chakachatna River. There would be some impacts to aquatic life downstream of both projects due
to alterations in water quality; changes in the food base, and access to lower river spawning
sites under changed flow regimes. Diversion of the Chakachatna River flows to the McArthur
River could affect the success of fish in that system through increased flows and altered water
quality.
4.5.5 Terrestrial Communities
4.5.5.1 'Plant Communities
Construction of the various dams, impoundments, diversions, lake taps, and associated facilities
at the Johnson, Keetna, Snow, Browne, and Chakachamna sites, and the various thermal facilities
of the combined hydro-thermal generation scenario would result in the permanent or temporary
removal of about 103,000 acres (41,700 ha) of vegetation either with or without Lake Chakachamna.
Additional indirect vegetation losses plus damage and alteration of plant communities as a
result of construction and operation of these hydropower sites and associated access roads and
transmission lines would likely occur and would be similar in type to those impacts described in
Section 4.1.5.1. As with the natural-gas-and coal-fired generation scenarios, transmission of
power to the Railbelt would require construction and operation of power transmission facilities
that could disturb about 9,000 acres (3,640 ha) of vegetation (see Sec. 4.3.5.1). In addition,
construction and operation of transmission line stubs to each of the dam sites and thermal units
(as described in Sees. 2.3.3 and 2.5.3) could potentially disturb another 4,800 acres (1,940 ha)
of vegetation with Lake Chakachamna or another 3,500 acres (1,420 ha) without Lake Chakachamna.
Thus, a total of about 12,500 to 13,800 acres (5,060 to 5,580 ha) of vegetation could be dis-
turbed by transmission facilities for this scenario. Impacts to wetlands caused by development
of the hydropower sites would be similar to those described in Section 4.1.5.1, but might vary
depending on site-specific conditions. Non-transmission related impacts to vegetation from the
thermal facilities of this scenario have been described in Sections 4.3.5.1 and 4.4.5.1.
4.5.5.2 Animal Communities
Implementation of either combined hydro-thermal alternative (with or without Chakachamna) would
result in inundation of over 115,000 acres (46,500 ha) of habitat, ranging from tundra to forest.
The Keetna development would eliminate the salmon runs to Prairie Creek. Loss of this fishery
could have a severe impact to brown bear and bald eagle in the upper and middle Susitna Basin.
The Chakachamna development could affect brown bear fisheries downstream. Winter range for
caribou and moose would be affected by the Browne and Johnson developments. Mountain goat and
Da ll 's sheep might be disturbed by construction activities at the Snow development. Increased
accessibility would likely occur at the Keetna, Snow, and Chakachamna sites. Other impacts
would be similar in nature to those described for the Susitna development. The magnitude of
impacts would vary with size of the development, value of wildlife habitat affected, and numbers
of wildlife affected.
4.5.6 Threatened and Endangered Species
No impacts to threatened or endangered species would be expected to occur as a result of
construction and operation of facilities in the combined hydro-thermal generation scenario.
4.5.7 Recreation Resources
Development of the Johnson site would preempt an extensive area [84,000 acres (40,000 ha)]
currently used for a variety of dispersed recreation activities. Both private and commercial
river touring of the Tanana River would be curtailed (Alaska Northwest Publishing, 1983), and a
4-89
segment of the Alaska Highway--a major tourist route--would be displaced. Impacts on recreation
resources of the Keetna alternative would include curtailment of sport fishing for anadromous
species in Prairie Creek and the Talkeetna River, inundation of a major trail used primarily for
accessing prime hunting and fishing areas, and inundation of significant white-water resources
(Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources, 1982). Construction of an impoundment at the Snow site
would inundate some developed facilities maintained by the U.S. Forest Service, as well as an
area used extensively for dispersed recreation activities. Development at the Browne site would
curtail river touring on the Nenana River; inundate 10,640 acres (4,305 ha) used primarily for
low-density dispersed recreation; and cause displacement of segments of the George Parks Highway
and the Alaska Railroad, which are major tourist routes. Effects on recreation resources associ-
ated with the Chakachamna site would be similar to those discussed in Section 4.3.7 with respect
to the Beluga and Chuitna river areas. Impacts related to development of a coal-fired plant at
Nenana are discussed in Section 4.4. 7, and effects of developing gas-fired units in the Chuitna
area and near Anchorage are identified in Section 4.3.7.
4.5.8 Socioeconomic Factors
For this analysis, the Staff assumed that construction of the Snow, Browne, and Keetna hydro-
power plants would require construction periods of four years and work forces of 200 persons;
300 workers would be required for Johnson; and 400 for Chakachamna. The operations work force
was assumed to be 10 persons for the smaller plants, 25 for Johnson, and 50 for Chakachamna.
The Johnson hydropower facility would be the first to be built under this scenario. In the most
extreme case that no construction camp or onsite housing was provided, the sparsely populated
area between Tok and Delta Junction would experience severe impacts during peak construction. A
population influx of as many as 1,300 persons during the peak period would almost double the
current population of the area (see App. N, Sec. N.2.3.3.1). As many as 400 new households
would require temporary or permanent housing. Tok and Delta Junction would receive the majority
of the inmigrants. Community services would have to be expanded considerably--at the cost of
the state for Tok and of the community for Delta Junction. Boomtown impacts would occur in both
communities (see Sec. 4.1.8). Existing commercial operations might be expanded and new ones be
opened. However, these benefits might be offset by the decrease in the rural, undeveloped
nature of the area and the change in the quality of the setting for current residents.
If construction camps or onsite housing were provided for the construction period, allowing
workers to maintain permanent residences elsewhere [e.g., 140 mi (230 km) away in Fairbanks),
impacts would be limited to greater demand on commercial operations from workers at the camps.
The Native Alaskan.communities of Tanacross and Dot Lake might experience cultural conflicts
with the inmigrants. Subsistence activities might be interfered with as a result of increased
competition for fish and game. Movement into the area by the operations work force of 25 persons
and their families caul d result in 75 new permanent residents near the site. Impacts of this
small population would be limited to increased business at existing commercial operations.
The impoundment created by the Johnson dam would inundate a portion of the Alaska Highway. It
is assumed that construction of a new segment of the highway around the impoundment would occur
concurrently with plant construction, further increasing population inmigration and boom-bust
impacts. If the State of Alaska had to bear totally or partially the cost of this construction,
this could be a substantial addition to expenditures.
Chakachamna. would be the second hydroelectric plant to come on line in the scenario with
Chakachamna and would be located in the sparsely populated, Native Alaskan, Tyonek area. The
peak work force of 400 would mean a peak population increment of about 2,000 persons (including
families and support personnel). The permanent operations work force of 50 persons could result
in inmigration of up to about 250 persons (see App. N, Sec. N.2.3.3.2). Impacts to Tyonek would
be of types similar to, but at substantially greater levels than, those described in Sec-
tion 4.3.8.
Sewer and water systems, fire and police protection personnel, and local medical facilities
would have to be added, and the school would have to be expanded by 50%, at least for the period
of construction. Planning and construction of the services would be funded by the Kenai
Peninsula Borough. Native Alaskan culture and subsistence activities would be interfered with
if not dominated by the lifestyle of the inmigrants. Commercial operations would also expand
and diversify. )f project developers chose to establish workforce camps or a temporary
community near tJie site and distant from Tyonek for construction .and operation, impacts to
Tyonek would be reduced to expansion of commercial operations and interference with culture and
subsistence activities. Permits from the Tyonek Native Corporation to construct roads to the
site might be difficult to acquire.
Construction and operation of the Snow hydropower plant would affect the Eastern Kenai Peninsula
and the City of Seward. Inmigration at the construction peak would be about 900 persons,· or a
25% increase over the 1982 population of the Eastern Peninsula. Some Seward residents might be
hired to work on the project, possibly commuting from their residences in Seward, thus reducing
y
1r1
11:·.1·
'1'1'1'.' . '
li
'I
1
'. ·': ' .
i
I·'
il
'' :,
4-90
the high unemployment there. Up to 300 new permanent or temporary housing units would have to
be provided; sewer, water, and other community services expanded; and additional school staff
hired at City of Seward expense. Traffic volume on transportation routes in the Eastern
Peninsula would increase with project-related travel and deliveries.
If workers chose to 1 i ve near the site, housing waul d be needed. lndivi dual wells and septic
tanks might suffice for water and sewer services, but schools, fire and police protection, and
health facilities would have to be added at the expense of the Kenai Peninsula Borough. The
small operations work force necessary would have negligible impacts on the area.
The Browne hydropower plant would cause impacts on Healy and Nenana similar to, ·although at a
lesser scale and over a shorter time period than, those from the coal-fired alternative
(Sec. 4. 4. 8). The Keetna p 1 ant waul d cause impacts in Ta 1 keetna and Trapper Creek of a type
similar to (but of a lesser magnitude and for a shorter period) than those projected for the
proposed project (Sec. 4.1.8). In the scenario without Chakachamna, the effects would occur
separately because construction peri ads waul d be ten years apart. However, with Chakachamna,
the two plants would be constructed concurrently, and impacts might be increased and spread
beyond these communities because of overlapping project-related demands.
4.5.9 Visual Resources
Visual resource impacts at the various non-Susitna hydropower and thermal generation scenario
sites would be similar to those discussed in previous visual resource impact sections (Sees. 4.1.9
through 4.4.9). In particular, the Browne site would detract from the visual resources of the
Nenana River valley. Two scenic areas, Sentinel Rock and Granite Gorge, would be inundated at
the Keetna site. Although the Snow and Johnson sites would not impact any designated scenic
areas, their development would result in the presence of man-made facilities in an area of high
aesthetic quality and essentially natural, undisturbed areas. Long-term visual impacts at the
Chakachamna site would be minimal since no dam structure would be constructed.
4.5.10 Cultural Resources
Development of the combined hydro-thermal generation scenario would probably have a number of
impacts (direct, indirect, and potential) on significant cultural resource sites. The Browne
dam location contains at least two known cultural resource sites that would be directly impacted
and over a dozen other sites that would be indirectly or potentially impacted by the construc-
tion of a dam and reservoir. Further survey would almost certainly produce numerous additional
sites. It seems likely that many of these sites would be termed significant. Although no sites
are currently kno'wn at the remaining designated dam sites and reservoir areas, surveys would
probably yield significant sites in direct and indirect impact areas of the Johnson site, and
possibly others as well. Most impacts to significant sites would probably be mitigable by
investigation and avoidance. Site-specific surveys and significance assessments would be
necessary in all areas that would be affected under this scenario in order to determine the
extent of needed mitigation.
4.6. NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE
From the viewpoint of FERC, the no-action alternative amounts to denial of a license to construct
and operate the Susitna Hydroelectric Project as proposed. The Applicant would need, then, to
implement alternative methods for meeting 1 oad-growth requirements. These alternatives caul d
include power generation scenarios as discussed in Sections 4.2 through 4.5, other conventional
centralized sources of power generation, non-conventional centralized sources of power genera-
tion, dispersed sources of energy, efforts to limit power consumption and reduce demands, or no
further effort to keep up with load growth.
Unless alternative Susitna developments were adopted, environmental impacts to the upper and
middle Susitna Basin would be avoided by these alternatives to the proposed action. The environ-
ment of the basin waul d cant i nue to maintain the baseline status outlined in Section 3.1.
Factors other than power generation would continue to affect the environment of the basin, but
the larger, stepwise effect of reservoir development would be avoided.
Adoption of alternative power sources would have potential for-impacting the environment of the
Railbelt and adjoining regions. Some of these impacts are discussed in Sections 4.3 through
4.5. The nature and magnitude of impacts would vary with location, type of facility, and extent
of the facilities required for power generation. Coal-fired facilities would require large
acreages for coal mining and waste disposal whereas natural-gas facilities would not. Tidal
power development .caul d affect oceanograp.hi c dynamics in Cook Inlet, altering fisheries resources.
Reliance on dispersed use of diesel or wood fuels could have serious impacts on local air
quality, particularly in the urban centers of Anchorage and Fairbanks. Even conservation efforts
to limit energy use caul d have impacts to the socioeconomic development of Alaska. Specific
discussion of impacts cannot be undertaken until specific no-action alternatives are proposed.
r
I
I
I
I
I
I
4-91
4.7 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
4.7.1 Land Resources
4.7.1.1 Geology and Soils
Each of the alternative Susitna dam configurations considered would inundate less land than the
proposed Susi tna project. From a geo 1 ogi c and soi 1 s perspective, however, the increased area
that would be flooded by the proposed project is insignificant, as neither unique nor valuable
mineral or soils resources would be inundated by either the proposed or alternative develop-
ments. The total areas that would be affected by reservoir slope instabilities could be similar
for the proposed and alternative projects. Detailed geotechnical evaluations would be required
to substantiate this conclusion, however.
Although the alternative access routes would not cross the potentially erodable and permafrost-
rich area between the Denali Highway and the Watana dam site, the alternative access routes
would cross areas of more rugged and erodable terrain between the dam sites and Hurricane and/or
Gold Creek.
In the Willow-to-Anchorage segment, the proposed transmission route and Corridor AEFC (Fig. 2-16)
would have similar impacts. Corridor ABC', although almost twice as long as the proposed route,
would follow existing right-of-ways, and access route construction impacts might be less for
Corridor ABC' than the proposed route. Between Gold Creek and the dam sites, the proposed route
waul d cross less rugged topography than the a lte.rnati ve routes. The transmission line route
also would parallel the access route, thereby reducing access route requirements and related
impacts. In the Healy-to-Fairbanks segment, the proposed route (unlike the other alternative
routes) would follow existing rights-of-way, thereby minimizing impacts.
The gas-fired and coal-fired generation scenarios would disturb insignificant amounts of land
relative to the proposed project. With proper construction practices, the erosion losses related
to power unit construction would be minimal for these scenarios and would be insignificant in
comparison to the proposed alternative. Although no known mineral resources would be impacted
by the proposed project, these alternative scenarios would require substantial consumptive use
of regional natural gas··or coal reserves. Siting of the gas-or coal-fired units might impact
very small areas of agriculturally suitable land. No such impacts would be expected for the
proposed project.
Under the combined hydro-thermal generation scenario, the development of the various reservoirs
would have varying advantages and disadvantages over the proposed project. The Johnson project
would inundate twice the area of the proposed project. Much smaller areas of land would be
inundated by the Snow, Browne, and Keetna alternatives, and no land would be inundated by the
Chakachamna alternative. Unlike the proposed project, varying amounts of potentially suitable
agricultural land might be inundated or disturbed by the Johnson and Browne alternatives.
Reservoir slope failures might be expected to be greater than the proposed project for the
Johnson alternative, and significantly less for the Snow and the Chakachamna alternatives.
Permafrost-thaw impacts would be expected for those alternatives outside the Cook Inlet lowland.
Some subbituminous coal reserves of the Nenana coal field might be inundated by the Browne
reservoir. No known mineral resources would be impacted by the other alternatives or the pro-
posed project. The fewest geologically related construction impacts waul d be associ a ted with
the Chakachamna alternative, although this alternative would have the greatest geologic hazard
risk due to the proximity of the active Mt. Spurr volcano. The seismic risk for all alterna-
tives might be expected to be similar to the that of the proposed project.
4. 7.1.2 Land Use and Ownership
In general, the construction and operation of the Susitna development alternatives and use of
alternative access routes, transmission lines, and borrow areas would result in similar types of
land use impacts as discussed for the proposed project in Section 4.1.1.2. In particular, the
access route alternatives would promote greater land use activity and development between the
dam sites and Hurricane (located along the George Parks Highway) and in the Gold Creek area.
Several of the Healy-to-Fairbanks transmission line alternatives would impact the Healy Creek,
Wood River, and open flat land areas south of Fairbanks. Alternative AEF (Fig. 2-16) would
extend across the. Blair Lake Air Force bombing range. Several transmission line alternative
routes in the upper and middle Susitna River Basin would adversely impact natural and recreation
lands within or ne~r the Chulitna Mountains and the Denali Highway area used by recreationists
for scenic road touring (see also Sec. 4. 7. 7). In the Willow-to-Anchorage transmission line
corridor area, several of the alternative route segments would impact residential and recrea-
tional areas (e.g., Palmer, Nancy Lake State Recreation Area). All of the above-mentioned
transmission line segments would result in greater impacts to land use than the proposed trans-
mission line route. -
Regarding the various alternative power generation scenarios, the natural-gas-fired generation
scenario would require the least amount of land and would have fewer direct land use impacts
' I'
i ,I
I
I' i
4-92
than the proposed project, the coal-fired generation scenario, or the combined hydro-thermal
generating scenario. The alternative coal-fired plants that would be located at Nenana and
Willow could adversely impact the surrounding residential and recreational land use. The
combined hydro-thermal generation scenario would require the greatest amount of acreage for
project facilities. Additionally, the Browne and Johnson sites would significantly impact
transportation and utility corridors by inundating portions of the George Parks and Alaska
highways and a petroleum products pipeline.
4.7.2 Climate, Air Qual.ity, Noise
The proposed Susitna project has only one air quality impact of significance: fugitive dust
emissions during construction. Left uncontrolled, the TSP concentrations outside the site
boundary might exceed Alaska ambient air quality standards. Mitigative measures such as sprin-
kling of water or the use of chemica 1 stabi 1 i zing agents might be app 1 i ed. A 11 air qua 1 ity
impacts of the Susitna project would be limited to the vicinity of the dam and town sites.
Impacts of the coal-fired generation scenario would depend on the number and location of 200-MW
generating units. All combinations of one and two 200-MW units sited at Willow or Nenana would
satisfy Alaska ambient air quality standards and PSD regulations for Class I and Class II areas.
The siting of three, four, or five 200-MW units at Nenana would almost certainly lead to periodic
significant impairment of visibility at the nearest Class I area, Denali National Park. The
implementation of NO control technology or the siting of only two units at Nenana (and three at
Willow) are reasonable alternatives for consideration. In addition to visibility degradation,
operation of three, four, or five units at Nenana also would lead to exceedences of the PSD
Class II increments for S0 2 (24-hr averaged concentrations) at elevated terrain 5 mi (8 km)
northeast of the plant. Also exceeded would be PSD Class I increments for S0 2 (24-hr averagea
concentrations) for four and five units at Nenana. Additional S0 2 scrubbing beyond the manda-
tory 70% reduction could result in acceptability of these three, four, or five units at Nenana.
Further analysis is required, however.
For the eight combined-cycle gas units proposed for the natural-gas-fired scenario, all appli-
cable standards should be satisfied (Alaska ambient air quality and PSD regulations). NOx, is
the only pollutant with significant emission rates. The stack heights would only be 65 rt
(20m) for these plants (two stacks per unit); however, plume rise would be very high due to
elevated plume exit temperatures. As a result, plume impact with the ground would be delayed,
leading to very low.concentrations when ground impact did occur.
The 70-MW gas turbines proposed in all alternative generating scenarios would have very low
pollutant release levels; their air quality impacts would be effectively nil.
Noise impacts for all alternatives would be negligible provided that the coal-and gas-fired
plants were sited 0.5 to 1.5 mi (1 to 2 km) away from noise-sensitive areas.
In terms of air quality impacts, the Susitna proposed project, Susitna development alternatives,
and out-of-basin hydro alternatives would provide the least climate, air quality, and noise
impacts. The coal-generation scenario would provide the greatest impact. However, all alterna-
tives would provide acceptable impacts (in terms of regulatory standards) except for the scenario
with three, four, or five coal-fired plants at Nenana. These latter coal-fired scenarios in
their present form are unlikely to be acceptable to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, and the National Park Service. Climatic
impacts would be negligible for all alternatives considered.
4. 7.3 Water Quantity and Quality
Impacts to water quantity and quality resulting from the Susitna project hydro alternatives
would be similar to those projected for the-~roposed action. Total impacts would likely be a
function of the size of the action, with smaller projects anticipated to have smaller impacts.
Access impacts would likely be similar for any in-basin alternative. Based on the size of the
projects and the areas affected, the order of severity--from greatest to least--among the in-
basin alternatives would be as follows: Proposed project, Watana I-Devil Canyon, Watana !-
Modified High Devil Canyon, and Watana I-Reregulating dam.
The thermal alternatives would involve little or no water quality impacts, with only minor water
consumption. Water quality changes due to coal mining and gas extraction are a function of
controls employed, and are not presently a problem in Alaska.
The non-Susitna hydropower alternatives would involve modifications to rivers. The Snow project
would result in relatively small changes, but the Chakachamna project would reroute a river,
with large changes in flows and temperatures in both the Chakachatna and McArthur rivers. The
Keetna pr~ject would strongly modify the Talkeetna River, while the Johnson dam would affect the
Tanana River, and the Browne project would modify the Nenana River. The Chakachamna project
r 4-93
would have greater impacts than the proposed project, whereas the Johnson, Browne, and Keetna
projects would have impacts similar to but smaller than the proposed action. The water quantity
and quality impacts of the Snow project would be significantly less than the proposed project or
any Susitna basin development studied.
4.7.4 Aquatic Communities
Because it would increase the accessibility of the streams and lakes north of the Susitna River
that are presently not readily accessible to large numbers of people, the proposed access plan
would likely have the greatest aquatic resource impacts of all the access plans examined. The
access alternative that would have the least impacts to aquatic resources would be rail and road
access from Gold Creek to the Watana site. Under this alternative, fewer stream miles would be
made readily available and access control would be more easily accomplished.
Susitna development alternatives would result in impacts similar to those of the proposed project,
but on a smaller scale. The impacts for the development alternatives would be less because of
reduced reservoir surface area, which would affect less tributary and mainstem habitat in the
impounded reach, and because of reduced storage volume, which would result in decreased flow and
temperature alterations from the present situation. Access impacts would be similar for any of
the Susitna Basin developments, and would be a function of the controls placed on access by the
Applicant and the regulatory agencies.
Based on the size of the projects and the areas affected, the order of severity--from greatest
to least--among the Susitna alternatives would be as follows: Proposed project, Watana I-Devil
Canyon, Watana I-Modified High Devil Canyon, and Watana I-Reregulating dam.
The nature and magnitude of aquatic impacts of the thermal alternatives would depend on the
exact location of the project and the design and operation of the facilities. In the general
locations selected for analysis, the likely aquatic impacts would be trivial. Consumptive use
of water is assumed to be small for the combustion facilities, and no major thermal or chemical
impacts should occur. Construction impacts could be successfully minimized, and access to
presently unused areas would be a function of the actual locations chosen for the facilities and
the transmission routes. The aquatic impacts of coal development and gas extraction are not
presently severe in Alaska, and careful development could ensure that impacts remained small.
Because of the species affected, the non-Sus i tna hydropower alternatives would likely have
smaller aquatic impacts than the Susitna Basin development alternatives, with two exceptions.
The Keetna dam would intercept salmon migrations on the Talkeetna River, which could be a
function of facility design. On the assumption that the impacts on the sockeye salmon run could
not be averted, impacts at Chakachamna would exceed those of the Susitna alternatives, including
the proposed project. Impacts at the Snow site would likely be small, due to the species present
and the project envisioned at the site. Because of the fisheries affected, the impacts of the
Johnson and Browne developments would likely be smaller than the Susitna alternatives. The
design and operation of the alternative projects would have a major effect on the nature and
magnitude of aquatic impacts.
4.7.5 Terrestrial Communities
4.7.5.1 Plant Communities
Comparison of the access alternatives (see Sec. 2.2.2.4 and Fig. 2-13) indicates that the
proposed route would be the longest and would, therefore, di$turb more vegetation. The proposed
route would also disturb more potential wetland area than the two alternatives. The Applicant
has indicated, however, that wetlands between Hurricane and Indian River in both the northern
and southern alternative routes would have a relatively high potential for causing drainage
alterations and might cause excessive settlement of the road in some areas (Exhibit E, Vol. 9,
Chap. 10, Supp l. Information, June 30, 1983, pp. 10-15-1 and 10-15-2). The Applicant also
indicated that the proposed Denali Highway-to-Watana route does not have any wetland areas with
as high a potential for drainage alterations. However, the proposed route could provide increased
access to greater land areas than either of the alternatives, thereby increasing the potential
for increased human-use impacts to vegetation unless measures were taken to limit or prevent use
of the access roads after construction of the project was completed.
A comparison of \he alternative power transmission routes (see Figs. 2-14 to 2-16) indicates
that the proposed\routes would cross neither the most nor the least vegetation. However, in
most cases, the proposed corridors would cross less forest and tall shrub communities (which
would be subject to the greatest disturbance due to their overstory layer heights) and less
potential wetlands than would the alternatives.· The exceptions to this are alternatives ABDC in
the northern study area (forest and tall shrubland), ABC' in the southern study area (wetlands),
and AJCF in the central study area (both).
! I'
ll
I
I ~I
l
't:
!',' II','
I i ~
i I I I.
, I
•'
4-94
Relative to impacts to vegetation, alternative borrow areas (see Figs. 2-2 and 2-6) that would
be inundated by the impoundments would have the least additional effects. Those borrow areas
sited along the banks of otherwise undisturbed creeks might present more difficulties in
rehabilitation. Depending upon the depth of the sites and provisions made for regrading steep
slopes, quarry sites A, B, K, and L might be more difficult to rehabilitate than borrow sites C,
D, E, F, G, H, I, and J.
A comparison of the impacts to vegetation for the various alternative power generation scenarios
(including the Susitna project as proposed and the alternative Susitna developments) is presented
in Table 4-12. This comparison indicates that the alternative Susitna developments would remove
or disturb less vegetated area (about 82% to 88%) than would the proposed project. However, the
natural-gas-fired and coal-fired generation scenarios would have the least effects on vegeta-
tion. Vegetation removed or disturbed by the natural-gas-fired and coal-fired scenarios would
be about 16% and 22%, respectively, of the vegetated area that would be affected by the proposed
project. Furthermore, each of these thermal scenarios would have fewer indirect effects on
vegetation than would any of the alternative scenarios with hydropower sites. Due to the very
large impoundment area estimated for the Johnson site [84,000 acres (34,000 ha)], the combined
hydro-therma 1 scenario would probably disturb over twice as much vegetated area [more than
115,000 acres (46,500 ha)] as the proposed Susitna project.
4.7.5.2 Animal Communities
Differences among alternative borrow areas are only substantive for those that would not be
inundated by reservoir filling--areas C, F, H, and K (Figs. 2-2 and 2-6). Alternative trans-
mission 1 i ne routes are all 1 onger than the proposed routes, and a few cross more sensitive
wildlife habitat (Figs. 2-14 to 2-16). The access alternative with least impacts to wildlife
would be rail/road access from Gold Creek to Watana, south of the Susitna below Devil Canyon and
north of the Susitna above Devil Canyon (Fig. 2-13). This route would avoid the sensitive
Stephan Lake area, avoid the movement pathway of the Nenana-Upper Susitna caribou, and maintain
more· restricted access than is now proposed.
Alternative power generation configurations differ substantively in impacts. On the basis of
amount of habitat lost, the combined hydro-thermal alternative is the least desirable for wild-
life considerations; this alternative would affect twice the amount of habitat that would be
affected by the proposed project. However, the value of the affected habitat might be lower for
the combined configuration; although the Keetna development would eliminate the fisheries of the
Prairie Creek area, which are used by brown bear.
The thermal alternatives would affect fewer wildlife resources than would any of the hydropower
alternatives or the proposed project. Natural-gas configurations would affect about six to
twelve times fewer acres of wildlife habitat, and coal-fired configurations would affect about
five to ten times less acreage than hydropower developments (Table 4-13). For the most part,
these alternatives would be developed in habitats of low sensitivity or affect only a small
fraction of sensitive habitat. Additionally, thermal developments would generally occur in
areas with some degree of existing human development.
The natural-gas configuration would be more compatible with wildlife management goals because
far less land would be required than for other alternatives.
4.7.6 Threatened and Endangered Species
Since no impacts to threatened or endangered species would be expected to occur as a result of
construction and operation of the proposed Susitna project or any alternatives, potential impacts
to threatened and endangered species have no bearing on a comparison of alternatives.
4.7.7 Recreation Resources
Effects on recreation resources associated with the Watana I-Devil Canyon and Watana I-Modified
High Devil Canyon alternatives would be essentially similar, but development of the Watana I-
Reregulating dam alternative would result in significantly less area being withdrawn from dis-
persed recreation use. Also, this alternative would result in curtailment of free flow in the
Devil Canyon rapids, but the rapids would not be inundated as would be the case for the two
other alternatives. In comparison, the proposed impoundments would entail preemption of more
land area than would be required for any of the aforementioned alternatives (Table 4-12), and
the Devil Canyon white-water run would be inundated. No meaningful differences in impacts on
public recreation resources would result from selecting between the proposed and alternative
access routes or borrow areas. However, the proposed access route would pass within 1 mi
(1.6 km) of the High Lake Lodge.
Selecting among the four alternatives considered in the final phase of route selection (includ-
ing the proposed route) for the Dams-to-Gold Creek transmission lines would not differ with
respect to impacts on recreation resources, with the following exceptions. Transmission
Table 4-12. Comparison of Estimated Quantifiable and Unquantifiable Disturbance to
Vegetation Among the Power Generation Scenarios
Permanent or Long-Term Temporary Vegetation
Vegetation Removal (acres) Removal (acres)t 1
Vegetated Area Total Quantifiable #',.-
Dams, Impoundments, Temporary Facilities, Disturbed by Vegetated Area
Construction of Borrow Areas, Waste Transmission Disturbed
Scenario Permanent Facilities Access Disposal, Mining Facilities (acres)t2 (acres)
Pro~osed Susitna Project
Watana-Devil Canyon 36,9DO 1,100 6,400 11,700 56,100
Alternative Susitna Develo~ments
Watana I -Devil Canyon 29,900 1,100 6,400 11,700 49,100
Watana I-Reregulating Dam 27,000 1,100 6,400 11,700 46,200
Watana !-Modified High Devil Canyon 29,100 1,100 6,400 11,700 48,300
Natural-Gas-Fired 50 N.D.t 4 N.A.ts 9,000+ 9,050+t 6
Coal-Fired 600 N.D. 2,475 9,000+ 12,075+
Combined H~dro-Thermal
Johnson, Keetna, Snow, Browne, Chakachamna 102,040 N.D. N.D. 13,600 115,640+
Thermal Units 230 N.D. 495 200+ 925+
Total 102,270 N.D. 495+ 13,800+ 116,565+
Johnson, Keetna, Snow, Browne 102,040 N.D. N.D. 12,300 114,340+
Thermal Units 235 N.D. 495 200+ 930+
Total 102,275 N.D. 495+ 12,500+ 115,270+
t 1 The use of the word temporary implies that the area would eventually be rehabilitated.
Potential
Unquantifiable
Indirect
Effects to
Vegetationt3
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
t 2 For natural-gas-fired, coal-fired, and combined hydro-thermal scenarios, assumes (1) construction of two 345 kV lir.es 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; D =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.
ts 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.
""' I
I.D
(J'1
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 -!'>
I
Natural-Gas Generation 9,000 Low None Low Low Low Low Low Low <.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
w/o Chakachamna
Combined Hydro-Thermal 116,000 Moderate Low High Low NO NO Low Low-Moderate
w/ Chakachamna
Conversion: To convert acres to hectares, multiply by 0.405.
T 4-97
facilities constructed within the alternative corridor that traverses the Susitna River near the
Watana dam site would be observable from private recreation developments in the Stephan and Fog
Lakes areas, and the proposed corridor would pass within 2 mi (3.2 km) of High Lake Lodge. The
proposed and alternative corridors for the Healy-Fairbanks transmission line traverse remote
areas and recreation use patterns are characterized by low-density dispersed recreation. Over-
all, the shorter of the three alternatives would likely result in the least impacts on recrea-
tion resources. Of the two alternative corridors for the Will ow-Anchorage lines, the Will ow-
Pt. MacKenzie corridor segment traverses some sensitive areas, including Nancy Lake State
Recreation Area. However, the other alternative also traverses sensitive sites in the Palmer
area and is almost twice the length of the Willow-Pt. MacKenzie segment. The proposed Willow-
to-Pt. MacKenzie corridor segment bypasses Nancy Lake State Recreation Area and traverses fewer
sensitive areas than the Willow-to-Pt. MacKenzie alternative.
In comparisons among alternative generation scenarios, the gas-fired alternatives would appear
more compatible with existing recreation patterns. The relatively innocuous emissions and minor
area requirements [about 5 acres (2 ha)] of individual gas-fired generation units would allow
considerable flexibility in siting facilities to avoid sensitive areas with high intrinsic
recreation potential. Although more extensive, the area requirements for the coal-fired scenario
are also relatively modest. An estimated 600 acres (240 ha) would be required for developing
all generating facilities related to the coal-fired scenario (Table 4-12). Mining and waste
disposal activities would result in additional disturbed areas, but to some extent, the recrea-
tion potential of such areas would be restored by reclamation (Sec. 2.6.5.1). The coal-fired
generation units located at Nenana would be within an area characterized by low-density, dis-
persed recreation, as opposed to the coal-fired facilities at Willow, where participation levels
in recreation activities are relatively high. The intensity of impacts on recreation resources
would vary depending on the actual siting of the coal-fired generation plants; however, the
total area affected by the coal-fired scenario would be markedly less than that ·for the proposed
project wherein more than 64,000 acres (26,200 ha) of land and water would be preempted for
energy production (Exhibit A, Vol. 1, Sees. 1.1 and 7.1).
The combined hydro-thermal generation scenario would entail inundation of significantly more
land area than for the proposed project. Development of the Johnson River site would preempt a
large area [84,000 acres (34,000 ha)] that currently supports a wide variety of dispersed recrea-
tion use. The Snow and Keetna impoundments would inundate relatively small areas; however,
recreation use levels are comparatively high. Additionally, the Talkeetna River (including the
Keetna site) has been proposed for state recreation river status. Recreation use levels in the
vicinity of the Browne site are relatively low, but development of the site would inundate an
estimated 10,640 acres (4,300 ha), as well as segments of the George Parks Highway and the
Alaska Railroad, which are major tourist routes. Development also would disrupt touring of the
Nenana River.
4.7.8 Socioeconomic Factors
Construction and operation of Susitna development alternatives would have socioeconomic impacts
generally similar in nature and magnitude to those of the proposed project. The small communi-
ties of Trapper Creek, Talkeetna, and Cantwell would be the locations affected most by these
hydropower alternatives. The Susitna Basin alternatives also would have greater socioeconomic
impacts than the non-Susitna Basin alternatives because the former would require larger con-
struction work forces for longer periods than would the other alternatives. Thus, boom-and-bust
phenomena would be greater for the communities near the sites of the Susitna Basin alternatives.
Each alternative access route would increase accessibility to a different section of the project
area, thus increasing possibilities for recreational, tourist, and commercial uses of the area.
Additionally, the northern access route alternative would cause growth in Hurricane, and the
southern alternative would cause growth in Gold Creek. Both settlements are currently very
small and would experience boomtown types of impacts. Thus, the alternative access routes are
comparable in terms of socioeconomic impacts.
Each alternative power transmission route would have essentially comparable socioeconomic impacts.
The alternative borrow sites would have negligible socioeconomic impacts.
The coal-fired and natural-gas-fired generation scenarios each would have socioeconomic impacts
on the small Native community of Tyonek. Each of these alternative facilities would require
inmigration of p~ject workers to the area. Development of separate construction work force
communities could reduce impacts, as would successive construction periods for the ten combustion-
turbine units (requiring a total of about ten years) under the coal-fired generation alternative
(see Sec. 4.4.8). About 1.5 times as many construction workers (45 workers) would be needed for
about ten years for the natural-gas-fired generation alternative than for the coal-fired genera-
tion alternative. Construction camps and successive construction periods would reduce impacts.
However, even if construction worker communities were developed, inmigration of project workers
and their households could result in as much as a 100% increase in the present population of
Tyonek (Sec. 4.3.8). With or without these camps, impacts to Tyonek and its citizens would be
significantly greater under the natural-gas-fired generation scenario than the coal-fired scenario.
:.:1 i:
I
r!,
1)
I .
4-98
Except for impacts to Tyonek, the natural-gas-fired generation scenario would create fewer
impacts to other communities than would the coal-fired generation scenario. Under the natural-
gas scenario, other combined-cycle and combustion-turbine units would be located near Anchorage
and the Kenai-Soldotna area. Both of these sites are within commuting distance of existing
communities large enough to provide a source of the workers needed for construction and opera-
tion of the units.
Under the coal-fired generation scenario, however, other small communities besides Tyonek would
experience significant population inmigration. Healy and Nenana, in particular, would grow
considerably (by 300% and 700% at peak, respectively) due to inmigration of workers and their
households for the coal mine operation and for construction and operation of the 200-MW units.
This new population would significantly affect supplies of services and the lifestyle and sub-
sistence activities of the largely Native populations of these communities. The area around
Willow is better equipped to accommodate a workforce influx for construction of the two 200-MW
coal units under this scenario. However, some boomtown effects would be experienced there also.
Thus, with the exception of significant impacts to Tyonek, the natural-gas-fired generation
scenario would have fewer overall socioeconomic impacts than would the Susitna Basin or coal-
fired generation scenarios.
The hydro-thermal generation scenario with Chakachamna would have more severe impacts than the
scenario without Chakachamna because of the significant socioeconomic impacts to Tyonek from
construction and operation of the Chakachamna facility. As many as 2,000 persons could move to'
the area during peak construction--almost ten times the current population (Sec. 4.5.8). Addi-
tionally, under the scenario with Chakachamna, concurrent construction of the Keetna and Browne
facilities might exacerbate independent effects of the two projects on nearby Nenana, Healy,
Cantwell, Trapper Creek, and Talkeetna. Either with or without Chakachamna, thermal units would
be constructed near Nenana ahd Tyonek, causing additional substantial growth impacts in these
areas.
Other small communities would experience socioeconomic impacts from construction of the non-
Susitna hydropower facilities. The sparsely settled area along the Alaska Highway between Tok
and Delta Junction would be affected significantly by inmigration of as many as 1,300 people
during peak construction. Dot Lake and Tanacross, two small Native Alaskan communities near the
site, would be particularly stressed by even minor population increases (Sec. 4.5.8).
Development of the Snow facility could cause an increase in the population of the Seward area by
as much as 25%. Development of the Browne hydropower facilities would affect Healy, Nenana, and
Cantwell; the Keetna facility would affect the Trapper Creek and Talkeetna areas. The impacts
that would be experienced in all cases would be shortages of services and changes in lifestyle
and subsistence activities. However, the impacts would not be of the magnitude of those created
under other scenarios.
Based on the assumption that construction camps would be built for projects in the Tyonek area,
the natural-gas-fired generation scenario would appear to the Staff to have fewer overall socio-
economic impacts than any of the other scenario (including the proposed project). Substantial
population growth from project-induced inmigration in presently small communities would occur to
some degree under all scenarios. This growth would cause shortages in all community services,
changes in lifestyles, and disruption of subsistence activities. The combined hydro-thermal
scenario with Chakachamna and all the Susitna Basin developments (includfng the proposed project)
would have the greatest socioeconomic impacts. The coal-fired generation scenario would have
more substantial impacts than the natural-gas-fired scenario, but less than the other alternatives.
4.7.9 Visual Resources
The construction and operation of alternatives involving Watana I, the Reregulating dam, and
Modified High Devil Canyon would essentially result in the same types of visual resource impacts
as would the proposed Watana and Devil Canyon dams. The dam structures, associated facilities,
and reservoirs would modify the visual character of the area from that of a remote and largely
undisturbed river valley and canyon area to one of greater human activity, development, and
disturbance. Construction activities along the northern and southern alternative access routes
would result in similar visual disturbances as the proposed access route. All access routes
would require cut and fill operations, vegetation removal, excavation of borrow areas, and
construction of high-level suspension bridges that would degrade the natural character of the
region and be visible during the long-term operation phase of the project. None of the alterna-
tive access routes or the proposed route are clearly preferable from a visual impacts stand-
point.
In the northern study area (Fig. 2-15), alternative routes AEF and AEDC have more potential for
disrupting backcountry views because of their length, extending through the Healy Creek and Wood
River valleys, and extending across the extensive open, flat area south of Fairbanks. In general,
the transmission line corridor segments within the central study area (Fig. 2-14) extending
along Deadman Creek and the Denali Highway, Tsusena Creek and Jack River, and Devil Creek and
l
~
I
I
4-99
Jack River would produce greater significant visual impacts within the Chulitna Mountains and
tundra uplands than the proposed and alternative corridor segments extending west from the dam
sites to the Gold Creek area. Within the southern corridor area (Fig. 2-16), alternative route
segments ABC' and AEFC would produce s i gni fi cant ly greater vi sua 1 impacts than the proposed
route. Of the ten alternative borrow site areas (Figs. 2-2 and 2-6), four (B, I, J, and L)
would be completely inundated and would not cause any long-term visual· impacts. The six remain-
ing alternative borrow site areas would be visible over the long term. Borrow sites C and H
would require extensive haul roads, further degrading the views of the surrounding natura 1
features and resulting in greater visual resource impacts to the Susitna River Valley area than
the other eight sites.
Visual resource impacts for the various power generation scenarios are highly dependent on the
actual siting location of the project alternatives with respect to the visual quality of the
area, established viewpoints and viewshed areas, and the number of persons residing or traveling
through such areas. In general, natural gas-fired generation plants would be visually less
obtrusive and result in fewer visual resource impacts than the larger coal-fired plants or dam
alternatives for the reasons discussed in previous sections. In particular, the urban Anchorage
area would be best suited for additional natural-gas-fired powerplant development in relation to
minimizing visual resource impacts. The five 200-MW coal-fired units (three in Nenana and two
in Willow) would be visually obtrusive in relation to their surrounding environment and proximity
to scenic highways, waterways, and recreational areas. Under the combined hydro-thermal alterna-
tive, Lake Chakachamna would not produce significant long-term visual impacts; however, the
remaining hydro units and coal-fired plants in Nenana would produce significant visual resource
impacts.
4.7.10 Cultural Resources
Of the Susitna development alternatives, the Watana I-Devil Canyon and Watana I-Modified High
Devil Canyon alternatives would have the same reduced impacts to cultural resources (5 archeo-
logical sites in indirect or potential rather than direct impact areas, and 17 archeological
sites in potential rather than indirect impact areas) compared with the proposed project. The
Watana I-Reregulating dam alternative would have even less impact than the other alternatives,
by excluding one archeological and one historic site from any impacts.
Among alternative access corridors (Fig. 2-13), Corridor 2 (South) would appear to have the
least impact on cultural resources. No sites are presently known in this area, and it seems to
have limited potential for significant localities. Corridors 1 (North) and 3 (Denali-North)
would have similar impacts on archeological sites (directly or. indirectly impacting eight and
nine sites, respectively, along with potential impacts to several other sites each). However,
most impacts would probably be mitigable by avoidance.
The alternative transmission routes would not appear to vary significantly with respect to
impacts on cultural resources. Several segments would potentially impact fewer currently known
sites, but additional survey would undoubtedly produce new sites, making comparisons difficult
at this time. Most impacts would probably be mitigable by avoidance.
Only borrow sites C, E, and F (Figs. 2-2 and 2-6) would have impacts on significant sites.
Borrow site C would have the heaviest impact (20 archeological sites directly or indirectly
impacted), followed by F (10 archeological and 1 historic site directly or indirectly impacted),
and E (2 archeological and 1 historic site directly impacted). Many of these sites seem likely
to be signifi_cant, and mitigation would require investigation in these cases.
Among the three non-Susitna power generation scenarios, the combined hydro-thermal scenario
seems likely to have the greatest impact to cultural resources. This is due to the inundation
of the designated Browne reservoir, and possibly other alternative reservoir locations as well,
which would probably directly and indirectly impact several significant archeological and
historic sites. The gas-fired and coal-fired scenarios would be less likely to have unavoidable
direct or indirect impacts on sites, due to limited land disturbance; few cultural resource
sites are known in the designated siting locations. Site-specific surveys and significance
assessment would be necessary for a reliable comparison of alternatives.
4.8. RELATIONSHIP TO RESOURCE PLANS AND UTILIZATION
The Alaska Board ~!Game establishes policy for the management of wildlife in the Susitna project
area, and this pol<icy is administered by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. The game and
furbearing wildlife of the region are managed such that populations are maintained at a viable
level that can sustain a continued human harvest for subsistence and recreational use. Manage-
ment goals and s~rategies of implementation within each game management unit are functions of
harvest pressures in the unit, wildlife population productivity and growth potential, sustain-
able carrying capacity of the habitat, and conservation principles.
~ < I
4-100
The proposed project would reduce habitat carrying capacity and alter the productivity of game
animal populations, as well as change patterns of harvest pressure, principally in Game Manage-
ment Unit 13, the Nelchina-Upper Susitna Basin. These effects would probably be sufficient to
require changes in management strategies. In general, the strategy changes could result in a
more restricted harvest sufficient to balance the negative impacts of the proposed project and
maintain current population levels in habitat not lost to the project. Management goals might
also be altered so as to allow population sizes to stabilize at lower levels than are currently
present.
The Alaska Division of Parks is charged with numerous functions, including planning for future
recreation needs. Current recommendations for acquisition, planning, development, and manage-
ment are projected through 1992. Planned development pertinent to the proposed Susitna project
includes the expansion of the Wi 11 ow Creek State Recreation area. The proposed expansion
[3,450 acres (1,395 ha)] would extend to the west of the existing Willow Creek State Recreation
Area, paralleling either side of Willow Creek to the Susitna River.
4.9 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS
4.9.1 Proposed Project
Construction and operation of the proposed Susitna Hydroelectric Project would result in the
following unavoidable and significant adverse impacts:
Localized and temporary generation of noise and fugitive dust during construction of dams,
access roads, and other project features.
Large population increases in small communities near the project area during project con-
struction, with subsequent growth-related impacts, including housing shortages, cultural
conflicts, interference with subsistence lifestyles, and shortfalls in some community
revenues and services.
Dedication of about 56,000 acres (22,700 ha) of vegetated land to project features during
the life of the project [approximately 6,000 acres (2,400 ha) of the total 56,000 acres
(23,000 ha) could be rehabilitated].
Large-s~ea~lf! impacts to wi 1 dl i fe habitat, with subsequent :;i gni fi cant and permanent reduc-
tions in populations of some important big game species within certain parts of the Susitna
River Basin.
Essentially permanent impacts on recreational and subsistence hunting and fishing in some
parts of the Susitna Basin.
Permanent substantial impacts upon visual resources due to the presence of large and visually
obtrusive project structures in what is presently a remote and largely undisturbed area.
4.9.2 Alternatives
Development of alternatives discussed in this document would have the following unavoidable
impacts:
Any of the alternative Susitna project designs and configurations would result in impacts
generally similar in type to those identified in Section 4.9.1 above. The magnitude of
impacts for the various alternatives would differ somewhat from the proposed project.
These impacts for the various Susitna project alternatives are compared in Section 4.7.
Of the thermal alternatives considered, only the coal-fired generation scenario would
result in significant adverse impacts. While land disturbance for the coal scenario would
total less than 25% that of the proposed project, it would nonetheless be considered a
significant impact in an absolute sense. Additionally, Staff analyses suggest that siting
of more than two 200-MW coal units at Nenana could result in signficant degradation of air
quality in the vicinity of Nenana due to S0 2 emissions, and unacceptable visibility impacts
at Denali National Park.
The combined hydro-thermal scenario would result in dedication of over 115,000 acres
(46,500 ha) of land to project features for the life of the various hydro components of the
alternative (84,000 acres, or 34,000 ha, for the Johnson project alone).
The Chakachamna hydro project would have severe adverse impacts on an existing salmon
fishery. Lesser, but significant, fishery and wildlife impacts could also be associated
with development of the Keetna and Johnson projects.
' -
.
I'
I
4-101
Sociological, recreational, and visual quality impacts qualitatively similar to those
identified in Section 4.9.1 would be associated with development of any of the alterna-
tives. Severity of impacts would be project-specific.
4.10 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES
4.10.1 Proposed Project
Land features in the project area would be permanently changed or lost due to construction of
dams, access routes, and other project features, Land features, cultural resource sites, vegeta-
tion, fish and wildlife habitat, visual resources, and recreation patterns in the proposed
inundation areas would be irretrievably lost or altered because it is unlikely that dams and
accumulated sediment in reservoirs would be removed after project retirement. Areas within the
proposed reservoir sites [a total of about 45,000 acres, (18,000 ha)] presently afford oppor-
tunities for dispersed recreation, such as fishing, hunting, sight-seeing, kayaking, and hiking.
These opportunities would be lost following filling of the reservoirs. Additionally, previously
undisturbed areas adjacent to project lands would likely be affected due to shifts in recreation
patterns as a result of unavailability of project lands and increased access to adjacent lands
via project access routes. These types of impacts would essentially be permanent.
Some socioeconomic impacts would also be considered irreversible; e.g., permanent changes in
subsistence and rural life styles in areas near the project would result due to increased popula-
tions and differing attitudes among newcomers.
Fish and wildlife populations destroyed or displaced by dam construction and reservoir filling
would be irretrievably lost in the affected areas, creating irreversible recreation-related
impacts in the project area.
4.10.2 Alternatives
Development of any of the alternative Susitna project designs and configurations would result in
qualitatively similar, but somewhat less severe, irreversible and irretrievable commitments of
resources to those discussed in Section 4.10.1. However, one alternative project configuration,
Watana I with a downstream reregulation dam, would not inundate Devil Canyon, which is
considered to be a high-quality visual resource and unique white-water recreation area.
The combined hydro-thermal alternative would very likely permanently alter a land area of about
100,000 acres (40,000 ha). Secondary effects of this alternative would be similar in type to
those of the proposed project. Both the coal and gas alternatives would result in large irre-
trievable commitments of fossil fuel resources.
4.11 SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
4.11.1 Proposed Project
The project environment and the waters of the Susitna River would be used to provide a source of
electrical power that would in turn meet the majority of electric power demand for the Railbelt
well into the next century. There would be no consumptive use of Susitna River waters. The
Applicant would sell the generated power to utilities operating in the region, and thereby pay
for project construction and operation.
Construction and operation of the project would include many short-term uses of the environment.
For purposes of this discussion, "short-term" refers to the life of the project, estimated to be
at least 50 years. Project structures and reservoirs would preempt lands previously devoted to
fish and wildlife habitat, recreation, timber production, and subsistence hunting and fishing.
Inundation of nearly 100 mi (160 km) of river channel would reduce significantly the amount of
free-flowing aquatic and riparian habitat in the middle and upper Susitna River, and changes in
stream hydraulic patterns below the dams would adversely affect fish and possibly wildlife
populations in downstream reaches of the river. The increase in populations of nearby communi-
ties due to influx of construction workers would cause alterations of the human environment, as
well as accelerated short-term uses. Increased access to areas adjacent to project lands would
cause increased use of these areas.
Because it would be unlikely that dam structures of the magnitude proposed for this project
would or could be ~emoved after the useful life of the project, many of the major environmental
uses outlined above would also be long-term, essentially permanent uses. It is conceivable that
the large reservoirs would eventually fill with sediment and a new river channel would develop
in what had been the reservoir area. This would restore the terrestrial habitat for use by
animals, but it would not resemble either in physical appearance or use the preproject environ-
ment. Following abandonment, flows and channels downstream of the dams would stabilize and
possibly return to preproject conditions, but one cannot predict if fish and wildlife use of the
area affected by the project would return to preproject productivities. Secondary uses of the
l
I'
I
l:
4-102
environment related to increased access and human populations would also persist over the long
term. Environments used for some project features, e.g., transmission lines, could probably be
returned over time to essentially preproject conditions.
4.11.2 Alternatives
Most and possibly all descriptions of short-and long-term uses of the environment outlined in
the preceeding section would also apply to the various hydropower alternatives considered in
this EIS. It is poss i b 1 e that with the sma 11 er-sca 1 e hydro deve 1 opments, some dams and
reservoirs could be removed after project abandonment, with the environment possibly being
returned to something resemb 1 i ng preproject uses. This would certainly be true for the
Chakachamna project area, which would not be markedly affected by even long-term use of the
project environment, with the possible exception of downstream fisheries which may not return to
preproject conditions.
Environments used for thermal generating facilities could more easily be restored to preproject
conditions following retirement and dismantling. This would be particularly true for the natural-
gas-fired facilities, which disturb very limited areas and do not require the large fuel storage,
mining, and disposal areas of coal-fired units.
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 4
Acres American, Inc. Undated. Susitna Hydroelectric Project, Feasibility Report. Vol. 7.
Appendix D: Coordination and Public Participation. Final Draft. Prepared for Alaska
Power Authority. Anchorage.
Acres Am2ri can, Inc. 1982. Sus itna Hydroe 1 ectri c Project. Transmission Line Se 1 ected Route.
Final Draft. Prepared for Alaska Power Authority. Anchorage.
Alaska Board of Game. Undated. Alaska Hunting Regulations. No. 24. Regulations effective
July 1, 1983 -June 30, 1984. pp. 70-71.
A 1 as ka Department of En vi ronmenta 1 Conservation. 1979. Water Qua 1 i ty Standards. Juneau.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. 1983. Air Quality Control Regulations 18 AA 50.
October.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 1983a. Synopsis of the 1982 Aquatic Studies and Analysis
of Fish and Habitat Relationships. Appendix E: Effects of Mainstem Susitna Discharge on
Total Wetted Perimeter and Blackwater Surface Area at Selected Study Sites. Prepared for
the Alaska Power Authority. Anchorage. 46 pp.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 1983b. Synopsis of the 1982 Aquatic Studies and Analysis
of Fish and Habitat Relationships. Appendix B: Timing and Passage of Adult Salmon in the
Mainstem Susitna River and Access into Selected Sloughs Upstream of the Chulitna River
Confluence. Prepared for the Alaska Power Authority. Anchorage. 49 pp.
Alaska Department of Natural Resources. 1982. Land Use Issues and Preliminary Resource Inven-
tory. Vol. 1. Planning Background Report. 199 pp.
Alaska Northwest Publishing Co. 1983. The Milepost 1983. Alaska, Western Canada. 35th ed.
Anchorage. 496 pp.
Aldrich, J.W. and C.W. Slaughter. 1983. Soil erosion on subarctic forest slopes. Journal of
Soil and Water Conservation 38:115-118.
Ballard, W.B., J.H. Westlund, C.L. Gardner and R. Tobey. 1982. Susitna Hydroelectric Project
Phase I Final Report, Big Game Studies. Vol. V. Dall Sheep. Alaska Department of Fish
and Game, submitted to the Alaska Power Authority. Anchorage.
Ballard, W.B., J.S. Whitman, N.G. Tankersley, L.D. Aumiller and P. Hessing. 1983a. Susitna
Hydroelectric Project Phase II Progress Report, Big Game Studies. Vol. HI. Moose -
Upstream. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, submitted to the Alaska Power Authority.
Anchorage.
Ballard, W.B., J.S. Whitman, L.D. Aumiller and P. Hessing.
1982 Annual Report, Big Game Studies. Vol. V. Wolf.
submitted to the Alaska Power Authority. Anchorage.
1983b. Susitna Hydroelectric Project
Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
Banks, R.C. 1979. Human Related Mortality of Birds in the United States. Specific Scientific
Report -Wildlife No. 215. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, DC.
y
1··.· 4-103
Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories. 1978. The Impact of Increased Coal Utilization in the
Pacific Northwest. Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy.
Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories. 1982. Candidate Electric Energy Technologies for
Future Application in the Railbelt Region of Alaska. Volume IV. Prepared for the Office
of the Governor, State of Alaska.
Baxter, R. M. and .P. Glaude. 1980. En vi ronmenta l Effects of Dams and Impoundments in Canada:
Experience and Prospects. Canadian Bulletin of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, Bulletin 205.
pp. 1-34.
Bechtel Civil & Minerals, Inc. 1983. Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility
Assessment Report. Vol. II. Appendix to Section 6.0. Prepared for the Alaska Power
Authority. 239 pp.
Benson, P.C. 1982.
Project 1002.
Prevention of Golden Eagle Electrocution. Final Report. EA-2680; Research
Brigham Young University for Electric Power Research Institute. Palo Alto, CA.
Berg, R. L. 1980. Road performance and associated investigations. pp. 53-100, In: J. Brown
and R.L. Berg (eds.), Environmental Engineering and Ecological Baseline Investigations
along the Yukon River-Prudhoe Bay Haul Road. CRREL Report 80-19. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH.
Braund, S.R. and T.D. Lonner. 1982. Alaska Power Authority Susitna Hydroelectric Project
Sociocultural Studies. Submitted to Acres American Inc.
Brune, G.M. 1953. Trap efficiency of reservoirs. Transactions of the American Geophysics
Union 34:407-418.
Challinor, J.L. and P.L. Gersper. 1975. Vehicle perturbation effects upon a tundra soil-plant
system. II: Effects on the chemical regime. Soil Science Society of America Proceedings
39:689-695.
Chapin, F.S. III and M.C. Chapin. 1980. Revegetation of an arctic disturbed site by native
tundra species. Journal of Applied Ecology 17:449-456.
Clemente, F. 1973. Effects of industrial developments on heads of households: Comment.
Growth and Change 14:20-21.
Clemente, F. 1975. What industry really means to a small town. Farm Economics. Pennsylvania
State University and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. University Park, PA. ·
Cortese, C.F. and B. Jones. 1977. The sociological analysis of boomtowns. Western Sociological
Review 8(1):76-90.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. U.S. Department of the Interior,
Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Services Program. Washington, DC. 103 pp.
Denver Research Institute and Browne, Bortz & Coddington. 1982. Socioeconomic Impacts of Power
Plants. EA-2228, Research Project 1226-4. Prepared for Electric Power Research Institute.
Palo Alto, CA.
DOWL Engineers. 1983. Matanuska-Susitna Borough Comprehensive Development Plan. Draft.
Prepared for Matanuska-Susitna Borough.
Drake, J.J. 1981. The effects of surface dust on snowmelt rates. Arctic and Alpine Research
13:219-223.
Dvorak, A.J., et al. 1978. Impacts of Coal-Fired Power Plants on Fish, Wildlife, and Their
Habitats. FWS/OBS-78/29. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, prepared by Argonne National
Laboratory. 261 pp.
Everett, K.R. ~80. Distribution and properties of road dust along the northern portion of the
haul road. ·pp. 101-128, In: J. Brown and R.L. Berg (eds.), Environmental Engineering and
Ecological Baseline Investigations along the Yukon River-Prudhoe Bay Haul Road. CRREL-
Report 80-19. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Labora-
tory, Hanover, NH.
Finsterbusch, K. 1980.
Sage Publications.
Understanding Social Impacts.
Beverly Hills, CA. 309 pp.
Assessing the Effects of Public Projects.
1:
I'' i:
:
1'
I 1::
4-104
Frank Orth & Associates, Inc. 1983. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Subtask 4.5: Socioeconomic
Studies. Draft Final. Projection Assumptions, Methodology and Output Formats. Prepared
for Harza-Ebasco and the Alaska Power Authority. 94 pp.
Freudenburg, W. R. 1981. A social social impact analysis of a Rocky Mountain energy boomtown.
pp. 287-290, In: J.E. Carlson, W.R. Lassey and M.L. Lassey (eds.), Rural Society and
Environment in America. McGraw Hill. New York.
Geist, V. 1980. Behavior. pp. 297-304, In: J.L. Schmidt and D.L. Gilbert (eds.), Big Game of
Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, PA. North America. Ecology and Management.
Gersper, P.L. and J.L. Challinor. 1975. Vehicle perturbation effects upon a tundra soil-plant
system: I. Effects on morphological and physical environmental properties of the soils.
Soil Science Society of America Proceedings 39:737-744.
Gilmore, J.S. and E.J. Stenehjem. 1980. Oil shale development: The need for and the problems
of socio-economic impact management and assessment. Presented at a conference on Oil
Shale--The Environmental Challenge, sponsored by the Oil Shale Task Force and the
U.S. Department of Energy, Vail, CO, August 11-14.
Gipson, P.S., S.W. Buskirk and T.W. Hobgood. 1982. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Furbe'arer
Studies, Phase I Report. Alaska Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, submitted to Terres-
trial Environmental Specialists, Inc.
Harvey, H. H. 1967. Supersaturation of 1 ake water with a precaution to hatchery usage. Trans-
actions of the American Fisheries Society 96:194-201.
Hemming, J. E. 1971. The Di stri but ion and Movement Patterns of Caribou in A 1 aska. Game
Technical Bulletin No. 1. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Juneau.
Justus, R. and J. Simonetta. 1983.
schemes and the Indian interest.
Social, Economic, and Cultural
August 25-27, 1982.
Social pollution: Impact mitigation and compensation
pp. 216-226, In: S. Yarie (ed.), Alaska Symposium on the
Impacts of Natura 1 Resource Deve 1 opment, Anchorage,
Kessel, B., S.O. MacDonald, D. D. Gibson, B.A. Cooper and B.A. Anderson. 1982. Alaska Power
Authority Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies, Phase I Final Report.
Subtask 7.11. Birds and Non-Game Mammals. University of Alaska Museum. Fairbanks.
Leopold, L.B. and T. Maddock. 1953. The Hydraulic Geometry of Stream Channels and Some Physio-
graphic Implications. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 422-A.
Metz, W.C. 1983. Industry initiatives in impact mitigation. pp. 239-252, In: S. Yarie (ed.),
Alaska Symposium on the Social, Economic, and Cultural Impacts of Natural Resource Develop-
ment, Anchorage, August 25-27, 1982.
Miller, S.D. 1983. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Phase II First Annual Progress Report, Big
Game Studies. Vol. VI. Black Bear and Brown Bear. Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
submitted to the Alaska Power Authority. Anchorage.
Miller, S.D. and D.C. McAllister. 1982. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Final Phase I Report,
Big Game Studies. Vol. VI. Black Bear and Brown Bear. Alaska Department of Fish and
Game, submitted to the Alaska Power Authority. Anchorage.
Newbury, R.W., K.G. Beaty and G.K. McCullough. 1978. Initial shoreline erosion in a permafrost
affected reservoir, Southern Indian Lake, Canada. pp. 834-839, In: Proceedings, Third
International Conference on Permafrost. Vol. I. Edmonton, Alberta.
Parker, G. 1981. A prediction of the downstream response of Pop 1 ar Creek, Ca 1 iforni a, to the
Dutch Gulch Dam. pp. 128-162, In: D.B. Simons, R.M. Li, P. Lagassee and R.M. Milhouse
( eds.), Proceedings of a Workshop on Downstream River Channe 1 Changes Resulting from
Diversions or Reservoir Construction. FWS/OBS-81/48. U.S. Department of the Interior,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, DC. 347 pp.
Park Planning Section. 1982. Alaska State Park System: South Central Region Plan.
153 pp.
Alaska
Division of Parks, Department of Natural Resources.
Park Planning Section.
Division of Parks.
1983. Master Plan for the Proposed Willow Creek State Recreation Area.
Alaska Department of Natural Resources. 85 pp.
l
r
I
4-105
Payne, B.A. and C. Welch. 1982. An Assessment of Energy-Related Development in the Western Oil
Shale Region. Vol. II. An Assessment of the Socioeconomic Impacts of Energy Development
in Northwestern Colorado. Unpublished report by Division of Environmental Impact Studies,
Argonne National Laboratory.
Peratrovich, Nottingham, and Drage Consultants, and I.P.G. Hutchinson. 1982.
Sedimentation and Water Clarity Study. Prepared for Acres American, Inc.
Susitna River
Buffalo, NY.
Peterson, L.A., and Associates and R&M Consultants, Inc. 1982. Water Quality Affects Resulting
from Impoundment of the Susitna River. Prepared for Acres American, Inc. Buffalo, NY.
Pitcher, K.W. 1982. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Phase I Final Report, Big Game Studies.
Vol. IV. Caribou. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, submitted to the Alaska Power
Authority. Anchorage.
Pitcher, K.W. 1983. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Phase II 1982 Annual Report, Big Game
Studies. Vol. IV. Caribou. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, submitted to the Alaska
Power Authority. Anchorage.
R&M Consultants, Inc. 1982a. Susitna Hydroelectric Project, River Morphology. Prepared for
Acres American, Inc. Buffalo, NY.
R&M Consultants, Inc. 1982b. Susitna Hydroelectric Project, Tributary Stability Analysis.
Prepared for Acres American, Inc. Buffalo, NY.
R&M Consultants, Inc. 1982c. Susitna Hydroelectric Project, Hydraulic and Ice Studies.
Prepared for Acres American, Inc. Buffalo, NY.
Rickard, W. E., Jr. and J. Brown. 1974. Effects of vehicles on arctic tundra. Environmental
Conservation 1:55-62.
Scrimgeour, D.P. Undated. Mitigating the Social and Economic Impacts of Oil Shale Development.
Prepared for Quality Development Associates, Inc. Denver, CO.
Stenehjem, E.J. and J.E. Metzger. 1980. A Framework for Projecting Employment and Population
Changes Accompanying Energy Development. Vols. I and II. Report ANL/AA-14. Argonne
National Laboratory. Argonne, IL.
Smith, V.H. 1977. User's Guide for the Estuary Hydrology and Water Quality Models. Department
of the Army, Alaska District, Corps of Engineers. Anchorage.
Smith, V.H. 1982. The nitrogen and phosphorus dependence of algal biomass in lakes: An
empirical and theoretical analysis. Limnology and Oceanography 27:1101-1111.
Sparrow, S.D., F.J. Wooding and E. H. Whiting. 1978. Effects of off-road vehicle traffic on
soils and vegetation in the Denali Highway region of Alaska. Journal of Soil and Water
Conservation 33:20-27.
Stout, I.J. and G.W. Cornwell. 1976. Nonhunting mortality of fledged North American waterfowl.
Journal of Wildlife Management 40(4):681-693.
Tankersley, N.C.
Vol. VIII.
Authority.
1983. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Phase II Progress Report, Big Game Studies.
Dall Sheep. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, submitted to Alaska Power ·
Anchorage.
Todd, A.M. D. 1982. Natural regeneration: Policies, procedures and practices in the Pri nee
George forest region. pp. 5-15, In: Forest Regeneration at High Latitudes: Experiences
from Northern British Columbia. University Of Alaska, Fairbanks and U.S. Forest Service,
Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Misc. Report No. 82-1.
Trihey, E.W. 1983.
Indian River.
Preliminary Assessment of Access by Spawning Salmon into Portage Creek and
Prepared for the Alaska Power Authority. Anchorage.
U.S. Department ~f Agriculture. 1981. Willow Subbasin-Susitna River Basin Study-Alaska.
Final Report. U.S. Department of Agriculture in cooperation with Alaska Department of
Natural Resources, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and U.S. Department of the Interior.
144 pp.
U.S. Geological Survey. 1982. Water Quality Annual Report for Alaska. U.S.G.S. Water Data
Report.
4-106
Van Cleve, K. 1978. Recovery of disturbed tundra and taiga surfaces in Alaska. pp. 422-455,
In: J. Cairns, Jr., K. L. Dickson and E. E. Herricks (eds.), Recovery and Restoration of
Damaged Ecosystems. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville.
Van Cleve, K. and L.A. Viereck. 1981. Forest succession in relation to nutrient cycling in the
boreal forest of Alaska. pp. 185-211, In: D.C. West, H.H. Shugart and D.B. Botkin (eds.),
Forest Succession: Concepts and Application. Springer-Verlag. New York.
Viereck, L.A. 1966.
Glacier, Alaska.
Plant succession and soil development on gravel outwash of the Muldrow
Ecological Monographs 36:181-199.
Viereck, L.A. and L.A. Schandelmeier. 1980. Effects of Fire in Alaska and Adjacent Canada - A
Literature Review. Alaska Technical Report 6. BLM/AK/TR-80/06. U.S. Department of Interior,
Bureau of Land Management. Anchorage. 124 pp.
Wakefield, W.C. II. 1983. Memorandum from W.C. Wakefield II, FERC Susitna Project Manager, to
Susitna Advisory Committee. Potential Refinements for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project.
(Dated 18 October 1983).
Wangaard, D.B. and C.V. Burger. 1983. Effects of Various Water Temperature Regimes on the Egg
and Alevin Incubation of Susitna River Chum and Sockeye Salmon. U.S. Department of the
Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Fishery Research Center, Alaska Field Station.
Anchorage.
Wolff, J.O: 1978. Burning and browsing effects on willow growth in Interior Alaska. Journal
of Wildlife Management 42:135-140.
Wolff, J. 0. and J. C. Zasada. 1979. Moose habitat and forest succession on the Tanana River
floodplain and Yukon-Tanana upland. Proceedings of the North American Moose Conference and
Workshop 15:213-244.
5. STAFF CONCLUSIONS
5.1 SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
5.1.1 Proposed Project
5.1.1.1 Land Resources
5.1.1.1.1 Geology and Soils
Accelerated slope erosion and slope failure along the shorelines of the Watana and, to a
lesser extent, Devil Canyon reservoirs.
Possible reservoir-induced seismic events.
Possible substantial seepage losses in the Watana relict channel following reservoir
development.
Increased erosion and impacts related to permafrost with clearing of vegetation from reservoir
areas and development of borrow areas, access routes, transmission lines, and construction
facilities.
Soil compaction, erosion, and disturbances along access routes, transmission lines and at
construction camps, as well as in areas subject tQ off-road vehicle traffic.
5.1.1.1.2 Land Use and Ownership
The remote, highly inaccessible, largely undisturbed Upper and Middle Susitna River Basin
would become an area of increased human activity and development with the construction and
operation of the project.
The proposed Watana and Devil Canyon dams would inundate about 36,000 acres [14,600 hectares
(ha)] and 7,900 acres (3,200 ha) of land, respectively, within the Susitna River Valley.
The Watana and Devil Canyon construction camps and villages would require 435 acres (180 ha)
of land, while the Watana permanent settlement and airstrip would require 130 acres (53 ha).
Approximately 1,100 acres (450 ha) of land would be required for access routes, and
11,700 acres (4,730 ha) would be required for transmission line rights-of-way.
The State of Alaska would be required to purchase or acquire right-of-way easement for
substantial areas of Federal, Native, and private lands for the project. Lands required
would include dam and reservoir areas, borrow areas, access routes, and transmission line
corridors totaling more than 64,000 acres (25,900 ha).
Land va 1 ues within the upper and middle Sus i tna River Basin would increase over time,
especially for lands adjacent to the access routes, permanent settlement, and along the
reservoir. Residential and recreational lands adjacent to the transmission line corridor
could decrease in value.
Recreation use would be adversely impacted where the proposed transmission line would be
viewed by recreationists within the Denali National Park and Preserve and the Denali State
Park.
5.1.1.2 Climate, Air Quality, Noise
During construction, fugitive emissions could exceed Alaska standards for total suspended
particulates (TSP) within and just beyond the project boundaries at the Watana dam site.
The largest sources would be road dust raised by truck traffic and wind-blown dust from
storage piles.
5.1.1.3 Water Quantity and Quality
The Susitna River would be altered from an uncontrolled glacial river to a controlled flow.
Turbidity levels would be reduced in the summer and increased in the winter.
5-1
5-2
Water temperatures in the mainstem would be reduced in the summer and increased in the
winter.
The river channel between the dams and Talkeetna would be narrowed and stabilized.
Onset of ice cover would be delayed in the autumn and ice breakup would be slowed in the
spring between the dams and Talkeetna.
5.1.1.4 Aquatic Communities
Access to sloughs used for spawning by adult chum and sockeye salmon would be restricted by
reduced summer flows. The impacts would vary according to the site-specific topography of
the sloughs.
Timing of salmon egg incubation would be altered by changes in river temperature, resulting
in premature emergence of fry from early spawns.
Survival rates of salmon spawned in the Devil Canyon-to-Talkeetna reach would be reduced
due to lower accumulated growths by the smolts as a result of altered temperatures.
Improved access to the Basin would result in increased fishing pressure on the fisheries
resource of the entire area.
Alteration of flows would cause a loss of suitable salmon spawning habitat.
Loss of tributary and river habitat would occur in the reservoir zones.
Relative abundance of salmon species would shift due to changes in habitat, flows, and
temperatures.
5.1.1.5 Terrestrial Communities
5.1.1.5.1 Plant Communities
Construction of the proposed Watana and Devil Canyon dams and impoundments, related facili-
ties, and access roads would result in the direct removal of about 44,000 acres (17,800 ha)
of vegetation, or about 1.3% of the vegetated area within the upper and middle Susitna
Basin. More specifically, about 4% of all forested areas, about 10% of mixed conifer-
deciduous forest types, about one-third of the paper birch forest stands, and less than 1%
of the tundra and shrubland types within the upper and middle Susitna Basin would be removed.
More than 80% [37,000 acres (15,000 ha)] of the vegetation that would be removed could also
be considered potential wetland areas. This represents about 1.7% of the potential wetland
areas within the upper and middle Susitna Basin.
Following completion of the proposed Watana and Devil Canyon dams and impoundments, about
6,400 acres (2,600 ha), or about 15% of the total vegetated area removed during construction,
would require rehabilitation to prevent future erosion, vegetation and wildlife habitat
loss, and visual and recreational impacts.
In addition to the areas described above, about 12,000 acres (4,900 ha) of vegetation (of
which almost two-thirds might also be considered potential wetlands) would be crossed by
the proposed power transmission corridors and would be subject to selective clearing.
Forest and tall shrub types, which represent almost 60% of the vegetation crossed by the
corridors, would be most impacted by clearing because of the height of overstory vegetation.
The regulated flows and changes in ice processes associated with Watana and Devil Canyon
operation would variously affect the development of riparian plant communities downstream
of the dam sites, but specific effects are difficult or impossible to reliably predict or
quantify.
An additional unquantifiable acreage of vegetation would be indirectly lost, damaged,
and/or altered due to factors such as erosion, permafrost thaw, slumpage, wind, fugitive
dust, alteration of drainage patterns, mesoclimatic changes, and increased human activities
and usage caused by construction and operation of the proposed project.
5.1.1.5.2 Wildlife
Reduction of the Susitna Basin's moose population due to loss of about 60 square miles
(mi 2 ) [150 square kilometers (km 2 )] of important habitat, a twofold increase in hunting
pressure, and increased mortality.
Severe reduction in the basin's black bear population ·due to loss of about 60 mi 2 (150 km 2 )
already-limited habitat, loss of 50% of available denning sites, and a twofold increase in
hunting pressure.
Reduction in the basin's brown bear population due to .loss of some spring habitat, reduced
availability of prey (moose and some salmon), and a twofold increase in hunting pressure.
5-3
Reduction in the basin's gray wolf population due to loss of about 10% of the home range of
the central-most pack, reduced availability of prey (moose), and a twofold increase in
hunting pressure.
Possible reduction of the Watana Hills group of Dall's sheep due to reduction in the suit-
ability of the Jay Creek mineral lick as a result of inundation and leaching of soluble
minerals.
Possible restriction of the movement of caribou in the basin.
Loss or disturbance of 4 bald eagle and 16 to 18 golden eagle nesting locations.
Loss of 50% of the cliff-nesting habitat along the middle Susitna River.
Possible need to alter wildlife management plans and goals within the basin.
5.1.1.6 Recreation Resources
Aside from construction sites and access and transmission line corridors, the development
of the proposed project would disrupt current recreation use patterns on more than
45,000 acres (18,200 ha) of land and water that would be inundated (Exhibit A, Vol. 1,
Sec. 2.8)*, thereby intensifying the demand for comparable wilderness recreation experiences
in adjoining areas.
The filling of the Watana impoundment (1991-1993) (Exhibit C, Vol. 1, Fig. C.1) would
inundate the Vee Canyon rapids, which constitute a significant white-water resource and
recognized scenic area.
The filling of the Devil Canyon impoundment (2001-2002) would inundate the Devil Canyon
rapids, recognized as one of the few Class VI white-water runs in the world (Exhibit E,
Vol. 8, Chap. 7, Sec. 3.1.2).
Off-duty construction personnel opting to reside in onsite housing would compete among
themselves and with local residents for recreation opportunities; this could jeopardize
recreation resources in and adjacent to the project area, particularly during peak con-
struction periods; i.e., 1988-1992 for the Watana site, and 1997-2000 for the Devil Canyon
site (Exhibit E, Vol. 7, Chap. 5, Table E.5.25).
Project development would result in some diminution in the quality and success rates of
sport hunting and fishing opportunities within and downstream of the project area.
Project access waul d create opportunities for successive extensions of access, thus
jeopardizing wilderness settings and wilderness recreation activities in otherwise remote
areas.
5.1.1.7 Socioeconomic Factors
Significant population increases would result from inmigration of project workers, support
workers, and their families (particularly in Trapper Creek, Talkeetna, and Cantwell),
followed by large decreases in population after construction at the Watana site was com-
pleted.
The boom-and-bust pattern would be repeated with the construction and operation of the
Devil Canyon facility.
Population growth would be accompanied by housing shortages; cultural conflicts; inter-
ference with subsistence use in the project area; and shortages of community water, sewer,
solid waste disposal, fire, police, and health services.
Shortfalls would occur in Mat-Su Borough revenues due to the need to finance expansion of
community services prior to population inmigration.
Greater accessibility of the area would cause conf1icts with subsistence users and sub-
sistence activities.
Human-use patterns in the Susitna River Basin would be altered due to a fourfold increase
in number of users, possibly leading to lowered game-harvest success rates, reduction in
the quality of the hunting experience, and a change in the makeup of users of the basin.
With rapid population growth, communities in the project area would lose their rural,
small-town, isolated character, thus changing the quality of life for residents.
\
*Throughout this document, references to specific "Exhibits" are to the exhibits submitted to
FERC as part of Alaska Power Authority's Susitna Hydroelectric Project License Application.
References to specific "Appendices" (App.) are to the appendices provided in Volumes 2 through 7
of this Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
5-4
5.1.1.8 Visual Resources
The geometric lines and forms of the Watana and Devil Canyon dams and associated structures
would be in significant visual contrast to the natural setting of the Susitna River Valley
and Devil Canyon landscapes.
The Watana reservoir would inundate the scenic Deadman and Watana Creek waterfalls and much
of the highly aesthetic Vee Canyon area, detracting from its significance as a natural
scenic feature.
The Devil Canyon reservoir would inundate the highly scenic and remote Devil Canyon and the
Class VI white-water rapids that extend through it.
It is anticipated that during maximum Watana reservoir drawdown (April and May), substantial
areas of mudflats more than 1 mi (1.6 km) wide would be exposed along the shore of the
impoundment and would continue to be visually obtrusive to recreationists on and near the
reservoir throughout the summer months until the reservoir was filled in September.
Extensive slumping, sealing, and lands l i ding would be expected to occur along the steep
slopes of the Watana reservoir, resulting in significant visual impacts for recreationists
boating on, or using land adjacent to, the reservoir.
Extensive human development and activities around the Watana and Devil Canyon construction
camp and village and the Watana permanent settlement would degrade the visual character of
the existing natural settings.
The project access routes would visually detract from the natural character of the area
because of road surfacing, cut and fill operations, vegetation removal, erosion, and develop-
ment of borrow areas.
Along the transmission line corridors, cleared right-of-way and the 100-foot (ft) [30-meter
(m)] high, guyed, steel-pole, x-frame towers would be visible from various vantage points
within the upper and middle Susitna River Basin. These rights-of-way and towers also would
be visible from points along the George Parks Highway, Alaska Railroad, and Denali Highway
at various locations in Railbelt communities, Denali National Park and Preserve, and Denali
State Park; and from aircraft flying overhead.
5.1.2 Alternatives
5.1.2.1 Land Resources
5.1.2.1.1 Geology and Soils
Coal-and natural-gas-fired generation scenarios would result in significant consumptive
use of regional coal and gas resources.
Coal mining activities would result in topographic disturbances and possible increased
erosion and sedimentation.
Areas of soils potentially suitable for agriculture would be disturbed by construction of
coal-fired units at Willow and Nenana.
All but the Chakachamna hydropower alternatives would inundate extensive areas, and reservoir
slope failures could be substantial for all but the Chakachamna and Snow alternatives.
The Johnson and Browne hydropower alternatives would inundate potentially suitable agri-
cultural land, and the Browne alternative would inundate unknown amounts of coal reserves.
5.1.2.1.2 Land Use and Ownership
Significant land use impacts resulting from development of alternative Susitna Basin dam
locations and designs, access routes, borrow areas, and alternative power transmission
routes would be similar in scope to those discussed in Section 5.1.1.1.2. Because of the
smaller reservoir areas, less acreage would be required for the alternative dams than for
the proposed project.
The combined hydro-thermal generat i·on scenario would inundate more than 102,000 acres
(41,300 ha) of land and result in similar land use impacts as described for the proposed
project. In particular, the Browne hydro site alternative would significantly impact land
use within the Alaska Railbelt by inundating 10,640 acres (4,310 ha) of land, including
portions of the George Parks Highway and Alaska Railroad. The Johnson hydro site alterna-
tive would inundate a land area of 84,000 acres (34,000 ha), including a portion of the
Alaska Highway and an above-ground pipeline.
The coal-fired generation scenario would require more than 3,000 acres (1,200 ha) of land,
including 600 acres (240 ha) for site facilities' 225 acres ( 91 ha) for waste disposal
sites, and 2,250 acres (910 ha) (over 30 years) for surface mining of coal. An additional
9,000 acres (3,600 ha) would be required for transmission line rights-of-way. In addition,
operation of coal-fired generation plants (such as those that would be located at Nenana
5-5
and Willow) is often incompatible with use of surrounding natural, recreational, residential,
or commercial lands.
5.1.2.2 Climate, Air Quality, Noise
Under the coal-fired generation scenario in which three to five coal units were assumed to
be sited at Nenana, three significant impacts could result:
Impaired visibility could occur at the Class I area at Denali National Park because of
the operation of three or more coal units at Nenana. Mitigation might involve applica-
tion of NO controls for these Nenana plants. No Class I visibility impairment would
occur if t~ee units were placed at Willow and two at Nenana.
The PSD Class II increment for 50 2 (24-hour average) at elevated terrain northeast of
Nenana would be violated with the operation of three, four, or five units at Nenana.
The PSD Class I increment for 50 2 (24-hour average) at Denali National Park would be
violated with four or five units at Nenana.
5.1.2.3 Water Quantity and Quality
Adoption of any of the alternative Susitna Basin dam designs or configurations would result
in modification of the basin in a manner similar to, but to a lesser degree than, the
proposed project.
Development of non-Susitna hydropower alternatives would result in modification of the
rivers upon which dams would be constructed. The Chakachamna project would divert the
Chakachatna River into the McArthur River drainage.
Development of coal-fired generating units could result in increased turbidity in streams
near coal mining operations.
5.1.2.4 Aquatic Communities
Improved access would result in increased fishing pressure in presently remote areas of the
Tanana, Talkeetna, Nenana, and Susitna river basins.
Adoption of the Chakachamna project would result in the loss of a major sockeye salmon
fishery at Lake Chakachamna.
Adoption of the Keetna project would result in a major impact on a salmon run on the
Talkeetna River.
5.1.2.5 Terrestrial Communities
5.1.2.5.1 Plant Communities
Impacts to vegetation from alternative Susitna dam locations and designs, access routes,
power transmission routes, and borrow sites would be similar in type and magnitude to
impacts of the proposed project.
The combined hydro-thermal generation scenario would result in the direct removal or dis-
turbance of more than 115,000 acres (46,500 ha) of vegetation (or more than twice the
vegetated area that would be affected by the proposed project), as well as other types of
impacts similar to those identified for the proposed project.
5.1.2.5.2 Wildlife
Several alternative transmission routes would double the amount of wildlife habitat crossed
in comparison to the proposed routes.
A Parks Highway access connection would increase accessibility of the basin even more than
would the proposed plan.
An access route to Watana south of the river could reduce the suitability of Prairie Creek
as a fishery for brown bear.
Adoption of the combined hydro-thermal generation configuration would result in twice the
habitat lo~ as the proposed project, as well as loss of the Prairie Creek fishery.
5.1.2.6 Recreation Resources
The Watana I-Devil Canyon and Watana I-Modified High Devil Canyon alternatives would involve
inundation of the Devil Canyon white-water run, as does the proposed project. In contrast,
development of the Watana I plus Reregulating dam alternative would result in controlled
flows through Devil Canyon, but the rapids would not be inundated.
5-6
The alternative Willow-to-Pt. MacKenzie transmission line segment would traverse Nancy Lake
State Recreation Area for about 9 mi (15 km) (Exhibit E, Vol. 9, Chap. 10, Fig. E.lO.lO).
Installation of two 200-MW coal-fired units would significantly degrade environmental
settings in the vicinity of Willow, where recreation resources include public, private, and
commercial developments, and where participation levels in dispersed recreation activities
are relatively high (App. L, Sec. L.l.4.2.2).
The Johnson site alternative would entail inundation of 84,000 acres (34,000 ha) and elimi-
nation of dispersed recreation opportunities on that acreage. A segment of the Alaska
Highway, which is a major tourist route, would be inundated. Commercial and private recrea-
tion touring of the Tanana River would also be disrupted (App. L, Sec. L.1.4.3.2).
Development of the Browne alternative would disrupt a major river touring route and inundate
10,640 acres (4,300 ha), including segments of the George Parks Highway and the Alaska
Railroad, which are major tourist routes (App. L, Sees. L.1.4.2.2, L.l.4.3.5).
Development of the Keetna impoundment would inundate prime moose harvest areas, notable
white-water resource areas, a segment of a major off-road vehi c 1 e access route, and
established hiking trails. The Talkeetna has been proposed for State Recreation River
status (App. L, Sec. L.1.4.3.3).
5.1.2.7 Socioeconomic Factors
Under the Susitna Basin hydropower alternatives, population would increase significantly,
causing shortages in housing and services similar to those described for the proposed
project. These initial population increases would be followed by large decreases in popula-
tion and service demands upon completion of construction.
For the gas-fired generation scenario, significant population increases would occur in
Tyonek as a result of inmigration of construction and operation workers and their households.
Population increases would be accompanied by shortages of housing and all community services
and conflicts with Native Alaskan culture and subsistence activities.
Under the coal-fired generation alternative, the population in and around Healy, Nenana,
Willow, and Tyonek would increase significantly due to the influx of workers, their families,
and support workers needed for the expansion of the Usibelli Coal Mine and construction and
operation of the 200-MW coal-fired units and the 70-MW combustion turbines. Shortages of
housing and all community services, and possible conflicts with the large Native Alaskan
component of current residents, their culture, and their subsistence activities would
occur.
Under the combined hydro-thermal scenario, the population would increase significantly in
the Tok-to-Delta Junction area along the Alaska Highway, and in and around Talkeetna,
Seward, and the southeastern Kenai Peninsula, Healy, Nenana, and Tyonek due to inmigrating
project workers, support workers, and their households. Population increases would be
accompanied by shortages of housing and all community services. After the peak construction
period passed, the population would decrease, potentially leaving these communities with
excesses of housing and services. Possible conflicts with Native Alaskan culture and
subsistence activities might also occur in Healy, Nenana, Tyonek, and in small Native
Alaskan communities between Tok and Delta Junction.
5.1.2.8 Visual Resources
Development of alternative Susitna Basin dam locations and designs, access routes, borrow
areas, and power transmission routes could result in significant visual resource impacts
similar in nature to those discussed in Section 5.1.1.8 for the proposed project. Of
particular note, the Modified High Devil Canyon alternative would inundate Tsusena Falls.
Construction of the Keetna hydropower alternative would result in the inundation of two
scenic areas, Sentinel Rock and Granite Gorge.
Development of the Browne alternative hydropower site would detract from the visual resources
of the Nenana River Valley.
Development of the Snow and Johnson alternative hydropower sites would detract from the
natrual and high aesthetic quality of these areas.
Significant visual resource impacts could result from the siting of coal-fired generation
plants near Nenana and Willow due to the need for a 400-to 500-ft (120-to 150-m) smoke-
stack at each plant and the degradation of visual resources in the downwind area because of
the presence of vapor plumes and haze from stack emissions.
5.1. 3. No-Action Alternative
Under the no-action alternative, the nature and magnitude of impacts would depend on which
specific actions the Applicant would take should the license for the proposed action be denied
(see Sec. 4. 6).
r
I
5-7
5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
5.2.1 Power Generation
The approach taken by the Staff in evaluating alternative means of meeting projected power
generation requirements for the Railbelt region was to assess the economic, engineering, and
environmental costs, feasibility and effects of a range of representative generation scenarios,
each primarily based on an abundant available source of energy that could be developed to meet
projected power needs. It was not possible to specifically analyze the large number of combina-
tions of sites and generation technologies that could result from integration or mixing of the
four power generation scenarios considered. Clearly, a tremendous number of mixed hydro or
hydro-thermal scenarios could be conceived that would, before detailed study, appear likely or
realistic candidates for meeting future energy needs in terms of cost, engineering feasibility,
and environmental impacts. However, because the Staff assessment of representative, alternative
power generation scenarios examined a variety of resonable sites for each technology, and because
a range of technologies was included, it can be readily inferred from Staff's discussion that
certain economic, engineering, and environmental characteristics of individual sites and tech-
nologies make them obviously preferable to others. It is on this basis that the following
general recommendations are offered.
Based on considerations of engineering feasibility, economic characteristics, and environmental
effects, the FERC Staff finds that~ mixed thermal-based generation scenario, supplemented with
selected non-Susitna basin hydropower facilities would be the most effective approach to meeting
the projected generation requirements of the Railbelt area. Such an approach would provide
flexibility in systems planning and efficient fuel use to cope with the uncertainties in popula-
tion growth and generation requirements delineated in Section 1.
The thermal-based generation scenario with selected hydropower facilities would consist of a
mixture of coal-and gas-fired plants sited throughout the Railbelt area, combined with hydro-
power projects developed after independent evaluation and determination of merit from an economic
and environmental viewpoint. The benefits of this approach include economic and environmental
factors. As demonstrated in Section 1 of this document, thermal generation with selected hydro-
power is less costly than the proposed Susitna development as a means of meeting the projected
load growth of the Railbelt. Thermal generation costs for the median load forecast are approxi-
mately 75% of the cost of the proposed Susitna development on a levelized, total annual cost
basis. Further, levelized capital outlays associated with the development of several plants,
versus the single large capital commitment for the Susitna project, would reduce the impact of
energy costs to the consumer. From an environmental perspective, the adverse impacts projected
for the alternative hydro and thermal scenarios are generally less than those projected for the
proposed Susitna project. Specifically, properly sited and sized coal-and gas-fired power
units would result in minimal impacts to land, water, and air resources, while the selection of
the most environmentally acceptable non-Susitna hydropower projects would also lessen impacts
compared with those expected with full development of hydropower resources in the Susitna Basin.
Additionally, the regional dispersion of impacts related to several coal, gas, and hydropower
developments would dilute and decentralize adverse effects and would provide more opportunities
and greater flexibility for optimization of mitigative features.
Although the Staff finds that the thermal-based scenario, with selected non-Susitna hydropower
development, would be the most reasonable alternative, should any hydroelectric development be
authorized in the Susitna Basin, it should be licensed and constructed in stages, responding to
generation requirements. The first stage of this development in the Susitna Basin would be the
Watana I alternative described in Section 2.
Staging the licensing and construction of any Susitna Basin development, rather than the pro-
posed action of complete development of the basin, would require each increment of development
to meet the economic, environmental, and load requirements existing at the time of licensing.
Incremental development in the Susitna Basin would attempt to take advantage of some of the
concepts expressed above in that costs and environmental impacts would be staged, matching the
near-term load growth in a stepwise fashion. The first s~age under this concept would be Watana I
[normal pool elevation 2,100 ft (640 m)]. The second stage would be one of the following:
Modified High Devil Canyon, Devil Canyon, or the reregulating dam included in the Applicant's
tunnel No. 3 alternative scheme. The selection of the second stage would depend on load growth.
Staging the Susitpa Basin development would result in incremental capital outlays that would
have the advantag~ of levelizing the increases in energy costs to the consumer. Environmen-
tally, this staged approach, due to the reliance on the lower Watana I, would significantly
reduce the area of inundation, when compared to the proposed Susitna project, thus decreasing
the level of terrestrial and aquatic impacts as discussed in Section 4. Further, staged develop-
ment would ensure that unavoidable environmental impact would occur only when absolutely essential.
Watana I with a downstream reregulation dam would be the most environmentally and economically
sound Susitna Basin development. Ultimately, should development in the Susitna Basin go forward,
rather than the previously recommended thermal and selected non-Susitna hydropower scenario, the
Susitna Basin development should be staged to conserve both economic and environmental resources.
5-8
5.2.2 Flow Regulation
The Applicant considered a range of flow release scenarios. The m1mmum flow during salmon
spawning (August 1 to September 15) is proposed to be 12,000 cubic feet per second ( cfs)
[340 cubic meters per second (m 3 /s)], which will subject an estimated 50% of side slough habitat
to acute access 1 i mi tat ions. To reduce these access restrictions, the Staff has recommended
that spiking flows of 20,000 cfs (566 m3 /s) be implemented during the salmon spawning season.
These spike releases should occur for at least three continuous days, and should occur during at
least three different periods between August 1 and September 15.
Minimum flows during salmon emergence, outmigration, and rearing (May, June, and July) should
also be reevaluated in light of presently ongoing studies. All phases of the life cycles of
salmon should be provided for in the minimum flow regimes for the project.
5.2.3 Access Plan
The Applicant considered three basic alternative access routes: from Denali Highway, from Gold
Creek, and from Parks Highway (Exhibit E, Vol. 9, Chap. 10, Sec. 2.3). The Applicant adopted an
access plan consisting of a road link from Denali Highway to Watana and Devil Canyon dams and a
rail link from Gold Creek to Devil Canyon (Fig. 2-11). Access from Denali Highway would require
construction of a new railhead at Cantwell, upgrading of about 20 mi (30 km) of the Denali
Highway, and construction of about 40 mi (60 km) of new road to the Watana dam site (Sec. 2.1.7).
Access from the Denali Highway would have severe impacts upon wildlife resources in the upper
and middle Susitna River Basin (Sec. 4.1.5.2). The road would bisect a major path of movement
for the Nenana-Upper Susitna subherd of caribou, impact beaver habitat along Deadman Creek, and
provide ready access for personal vehicles into the central basin. This access would likely
result in a major shift in patterns of human use within the upper and middle Susitna Basin and
increased wildlife mortality due to hunting and trapping (Sees. 4.1.5 and 4.1.8). These changes
would necessitate a review, and possibly alteration, of current wildlife management goals and
practices.
Access from Gold Creek alone would markedly reduce the potential for impacts to the Nenana-Upper
Susitna caribou subherd and allow greater control of access into the project region. Access
from Gold Creek alone also would markedly reduce overfishing of grayling habitat north of the
project area. Greater control of access would lead to a reduction in the potential for impacts
due to increased fishing, hunting, and trapping pressure on fish and wildlife resources. In
addition, patterns of human use of the basin's fish and wildlife resources would not be altered
as much as under the proposed access plan. Thus, impacts to wildlife management goals would be
substantially less than under the proposed conditions.
Based on these considerations, the Staff recommends that the Applicant adopt an alternative to
the Denali Highway access plan that incorporates access from Gold Creek only.
5.3 MITIGATIVE MEASURES
5.3.1 Land Resources
5.3.1.1 Geology and Soils
The mitigative measures proposed by the Applicant to address geologic-and soil-related impacts
are discussed in Section 2.1.12.1. Based on currently available site information, these measures
would for the most part be effective in minimizing impacts. Because more site-specific informa-
tion would become available during the Applicant's proposed geotechnical studies, the Staff
suggests the involvement of the state and Federal soil conservation agencies and geological
resource agencies in reviewing construction and mitigation plans so as to ensure the suitability
of the proposed mitigative measures. Approval of the Applicant's erosion-control mitigative
measures should be obtained from these state and Federal agencies (including FERC) prior to
project development and upon completion of relevant geotechnical investigations.
Many of the significant impacts related to the proposed project, e.g., the loss of land due to
reservoir inundation, reservoir slope instability, and seismically induced slope failures or
liquefactions, would be essentially unmitigatable; however, the Staff suggests that the Applicant
continue to evaluate the magnitude of such impacts as relevant geotechnical information arises
from ongoing studies. Mitigative measures appropriate for the alternatives are discussed in
Section 2.7.1.
5.3.1.2 Land Use and Ownership
At present, no single comprehensive land management plan exists for the entire upper and middle
Susitna River Basin. In order to control unwanted development, conflictive land uses, and
unlimited off-road access into the region, the Applicant must continue to coordinate with the
various Federal, state, Native, and local governing agencies and with private landholders. The
5-9
applicant should assist in the development and implementation of appropriate land management
practices through land use and comprehensive plans, special purpose functional plans, zoning
ordinances, and other pertinent land use controls. Agency coordination that has begun in the
planning and design stage of the Susitna project should continue through the construction and
operation phases. The Applicant also should continue to monitor the land status and ownership
changes within the proposed project area and keep the new landowners and managers informed of
project status and of any changes in design, construction methods, access requirements, and
operational procedures.
To minimize conflictive land use along the power transmission line corridor, the Applicant
should avoid, to the extent feasible, recreation lands, residential areas, and areas of exisiting
or planned agricultural use. If a transmission line tower is located on agricultural land, the
use of guyed, x-frame towers should be avoided if feasible. The amount of land removed from
crop production can be minimized by using self-supporting H-frame or single-pole towers. Wherever
possible, any tower structures in an agricultural area should be located along the edge of an
agricultural field to lessen the probability of operational damage to farm equipment and/or to
the transmission line tower and to minimize the amount of cropland (existing or potential)
removed from production. Where feasible, the transmission 1 ine should be placed adjacent to
existing transmission line corridors to minimize the amount of new right-of-way required.
Measures to mitigate impacts to recreational land use are discussed in Sections 2.1.12.6
and 5. 3. 6, whi 1 e mitigative measures to minimize aesthetic impacts to 1 andowners and others
adjacent to project facilities are described in Sections 2.1.12.8 and 5.3.8.
5.3.2 Climate, Air Quality, Noise
The potential problem of offsite exceedences of Alaska ambient air quality regulations due to
fugitive dust emissions may be solved through implementation of mitigative measures. For example,
stabilizing agents can be used on storage piles to maintain a crust that would hold down fugitive
emissions. Roads can be watered during dry periods. Restrictions can be placed on vehicle
speeds, and unauthorized vehicles can be kept off unpaved roads in order to minimize dust impacts.
The Applicant lists methods such as these in the Application; however, there is no commitment by
the Applicant to carry out any specific mitigative measure.
The Applicant should prepare a detailed plan for the mitigation of fugitive dust emissions.
Such a plan should be based on an evaluation of which areas of the project are more likely to
lead to exceedences of Alaska ambient air quality standards outside the site boundary. Mitiga-
tive measures should be chosen and criteria defined to determine when and how often the mitiga-
tion should be applied. A combination of the methods listed in this section may be satisfactory.
5.3.3 Water Quantity and Quality
The selection of appropriate constraints on reservoir releases would be a critical element in
the mitigation policy for the proposed project. These constraints include not only a minimum
flow regime to protect downstream fisheries, but also limits on maximum releases, limits on the
maximum rate of change of releases, allocation of excess reservoir volume when it is available,
and the need for short-term spike releases to compensate for the loss of preproject floods. A
policy for spiked releases is necessary because both the fluvial dynamics and the biology of the
Susitna River are controlled by the magnitude and frequency of occurrence of high-flow events.
Although a significant amount of information is now available on these subjects, the definition
of release constraints should be negotiated after current field studies have been completed. A
schedule for these negotiations is an integral part of the mitigation policy.
Accessibility to preproject salmon spawning habitat in the side sloughs would be severely limited
under the proposed minimum flow regime. At the 12,000 cfs (340 m3 /s) minimum flow during salmon
spawning (August 1 to September 15), an estimated 50% of side slough habitat would be unavailable
(i.e., subject to acute access limitations). Mainstem flows of approximately 13,000 cfs (368 m3 /s)
provide unrestricted access to half of the side slough habitat utilized by salmon in 1981 and
1982. Acute access limitations to the second half of preproject spawning habitat persist until
mainstem flows reach 18,000 cfs (510 m3 /s). Unrestricted access to the second half of the
spawning habitat does not begin until flows exceed 20,000 cfs (566 m3 /s). This second half of
the spawning habitat includes highly utilized sloughs such as Slough 9 (RM 129.2) and Slough 21
(RM 142).
Therefore, the S~~ff recommends that spike flows in excess of 20,000 cfs (566 m3 /s) be imple-
mented, along with the minimum release, during the salmon spawning period. These increased
releases should occur during at least three different periods between August 1 and September 15,
with each peak being held for at least three days. Some overtopping of sites such as Slough 9
would begin to occur if these peak flows reached 23,000 cfs (680 m3 /s). Nine days of spiked
releases of 24,000 cfs (680 m3 /s) represent an additional 107,000 ac-ft (1.32 x 10 8 m3 ) over the
minimum flow regime, or 3% of the live storage of Watana reservoir. A strategy for allocating
reservoir volume of this magnitude, especially in wet years, should be developed as part of
project mitigation.
5-10
The m1n1mum flows for May, June, and July should also be reconsidered. No evidence has yet been
presented by the Applicant to support the assumption that the 6,000 cfs (170 m3 /s) minimum flows
during this period adequately protect salmon emergence, outmigration, and rearing. The results
of current studies should be evaluated to ensure that all phases of the life cycles are provided
for in the minimum flow regime. For example, access becomes a moot point if the spawning areas
are subsequently dewatered or no suitable rearing habitat is provided. The negotiations for
release constraint policy will resolve these outstanding issues.
Minimum release policies should be required at all hydropower alternatives. Information available
for the proposed project would be sufficient to evaluate instream flow needs for the in-basin
alternatives. However, site-specific studies would have to be conducted at the out-of-basin
alternatives, especially Johnson and Browne, where baseline information is limitied.
The implementation of a water-resource modeling program within the Susitna River Basin should be
included in mitigation planning. The objectives of such a program should be to achieve state-of-
the-art forecasting of streamflows within the basin and to improve reservoir operation by allocat-
ing streamflows in excess of power demands to optimize fisheries production below the dams.
Recent studies have concluded that forecasting and reservoir optimization modeling can achieve
significant improvements in the operating efficiency of water-resource developments (Office of
Technology Assessment, 1982). The State of Alaska has not yet implemented these methodologies
(Office of Technology Assessment, 1982). For a major project such as the Susitna project, such
a program could help ensure that adverse impacts were minimized. Habitat response information
and species requirements obtained from past field studies and future monitoring should be designed
to improve the allocation of reservoir releases. This can be achieved through existing simulation
or optimatic modeling (e.g., Sale et al., 1982).
5.3.4. Aquatic Communities
The conceptual mitigation plan for fisheries provided by the Applicant (Sec. 2.1.12.3) is
generally appropriate. Based on additional data presently being collected, specific recommenda-
tions to mitigate problems will be developed~
The Applicant's objective of providing habitat sufficient to maintain naturally productive
salmon populations downstream from the project is superior to reliance on hatchery production.
Hatchery experience over severa 1 decades has not been totally successful in other 1 ocat ions
(e.g., the Columbia River). The mitigative steps of avoiding, minimizing, rectifying, and
compensating impacts, with monitoring over time to allow identification of unanticipated impacts,
are appropriate and conceptually sound. The species selected for evaluation (e.g., chum, chinook,
coho and pink salmon, and Arctic grayling) are generally those for which interest is most intense
and which can be expected to be most suscept i b 1 e to impacts. Alternative species might be
considered that could provide management opportunities, especially in the reservoirs (e.g.,
Dolly Varden, Kokanee strains of sockeye salmon, or lake trout).
The Applicant's major premise that improved conditions in the Susitna River mainstem resulting
from project operation would provide replacement habitat to mitigate for potential loss of
sloughs is inadequately substantiated. Important impacts identified in Section 4.1.4 need to be
integrated. For example, gravel cleaning in side channels and sloughs to provide substrate for
spawning would be of little benefit when mainstem temperatures in winter are too low to allow
incubation to progress at a normal rate (App. I, Fig. I-15). Piping of mainstem water into
sloughs would similarly be of little advantage when analyses show overtopping of slough berms to
cause detrimentally low temperatures.
Priority attention should be given
areas that currently have abundant
winter) but deep, muddy sediments.
for incubation through the winter.
to providing adequate quality of spawning gravel in slough
upwelling (as determined by observations of open water in
Temperatures typical of groundwater would thus be available
Impacts of filling Watana reservoir would require mitigation in addition to those measures
proposed by the App 1 i cant. There would be major alterations of river flow and temperature
during the three-year filling of Watana reservoir, but less significant changes when Devil
Canyon Reservoir was filled (Sec. 4.1.3). These alterations would be expected to have important
effects on access to slough spawning areas by adult chum and sockeye salmon in all three years,
and on growth rates of juveniles of all salmon species, especially in the second and third years
(Sec. 4.1.4). Although the applicant has selected a flow regime that is planned to minimize
flow-related impacts, there are no specific plans to mitigate losses in fish growth due to low
temperatures in summer or to rectify or compensate lost spawning area in the filling years.
Mitigation measures for impacts during operation are planned to be initiated during the filling
period, and some may be effective during the filling years if begun earlier.
Management of the potential fishery resources in Watana and Devil Canyon reservoirs is likely to
provide a mitigation opportunity beyond that planned by the Applicant. Experiences in Scandinavia
suggest that good fisheries can be developed in impounded glacial rivers when species like lake
/"
I 5-ll
trout and Arctic char (Dolly Varden) are used. In the United States, Kokanee salmon have pro-
vided new runs to upstream tributaries blocked by dams. Emphasis on management of these species
would seem more appropriate than developing a hatchery for Arctic grayling.
Cone valves planned for both dams and water management in the reservoirs to reduce the likelihood
of gas supersaturation in discharges seem appropriate. As plans develop further, their deployment
on the dams can be more carefully addressed to avoid ancillary impacts.
The long-term effectiveness of mitigation measures remains unclear, principally because the
uncertainty of predicting fundamental effects such as river temperatures and groundwater flow
remains high (Sec. 4.1.3). As these effects are clarified and translated quantitatively into
biological impacts (Sec. 4.1.4 and Appendix 1), then the overall effectiveness (or necessity) of
mitigative measures will be more evident.
5.3.5 Terrestrial Communities
As noted in Section 2.1.12, the Applicant has been developing an extensive mitigation plan that
would be implemented during construction and operation of the proposed project. This plan has
been developed in cooperation with the major Federal and state resource agencies in Alaska.
Resource agencies' formal comments on proposed mitigation plans have tended to be general
critiques of the mitigation plan in its current state. General recommendations include:
(1) continued close interaction with the resource agencies; (2) continued monitoring of the
status of botanical and wildlife resources, and associated mitigative actions in the basin; and
(3) establishment of the feasibility of planned mitigative actions.
The Staff concurs that continued, close interaction with the resource agencies is a necessity
for developing and implementing mitigative measures. The Applicant also acknowledges the
necessity of such interaction. Continued interaction would ensure development of a plan that is
more definitive than the current one. The current lack of definitiveness is due, in large part,
to a lack of sufficient information as to the feasibility of mitigation proposals.
Continued monitoring of plant and wildlife populations and their responses to the project and to
mitigative measures would be necessary (1) to devise future mitigation or alter the approach to
mitigation if needed, and (2) to quantify the extent to which mitigation is compensating for
losses. The Staff agrees that such studies should be an integral part of the mitigation plan.
There is some concern on the part of the agencies with regard to feasibility of the proposed
compensation measures. The State of Alaska, Office of Management and Budget, has expressed
concern that habitat enhancement efforts could be risky and, therefore, favors compensation with
replacement lands. Conversely, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has indicated support for the
Applicant's chosen option of compensation through habitat enhancement, but noted that selection
and development of lands for habitat enhancement must also include consideration of other habitat
characteristics affecting wildlife habitat values, including (1) location with respect to wild-
life-use patterns and (2) interspersion with vegetation types providing cover and protection.
There is also concern on the part of the agencies and the Staff about the feasibility and specifics
of habitat-enhancement measures. Although it is fairly well documented that disturbances such
as fire generally effect an increase in browse production, there are uncertainties as to selec-
tion of methods and the specific effects of factors such as soil and environmental conditions,
the species composition of vegetative communities to be modified, and the composition of surround-
ing communities. Thus, at present it would be difficult in many locations to predict with
confidence the precise results of enhancement manipulations on changes in vegetative community
structure and productivity. Furthermore, it would be even more difficult to predict the responses
of wildlife populations to various enhancement manipulations. Therefore, several agencies have
indicated that additional studies are required to determine more precisely (1) what important
habitat areas would be lost due to construction and operation of the proposed project, (2) whether
it is possible or feasible to replace these areas, and (3) how and where to best attempt replace-
ment manipulations. It is for these reasons that resource agencies have recommended vegetation
and wetland studies and mapping that are oriented towards quantification and understanding of
plant communities from a wildlife habitat perspective. The Applicant has acknowledged these
concerns and has stated that efforts are being made to pursue such studies with the help and
consultation of appropriate resource agencies during the mitigation plan refinement process:
Because the Applicant has not documented the likelihood of success for its rehabilitation and
enhancement proposals, nor documented the amount of compensation that could be attributed to the
enhancement effor~, the Staff has assumed in its analysis that impacts to wildlife would not be
compensated for by enhancement techniques. The Staff concurs that the Applicant should further
study the efficacy of proposed rehabi 1 i tat ion and enhancement techniques with the goa 1 of
implementing feasible mitigative actions that have a likelihood of success.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has stated that several of the wildlife species which it has
identified as evaluation species fall within its criteria for requiring "in-kind" compensation.
This requires compensation for loss to a given species by replacement or enhancement of the
/
5-12
affected species. This approach contrasts with "out-of-kind" mitigation of one species to
compensate losses to another species.
Concerning the Applicant's approach to rectification of vegetation impacts, the agencies and the
Staff concur with the general rehabilitation procedures proposed by the Applicant, recognizing
that more specific details of procedures, locations, schedules, and costs are planned for the
detailed design phase of the proposed project development and should also be covered in greater
deta i 1 in the App 1 i cant's p 1 an ned Revegetat i on/Rehabi 1 itat ion Manual. However, the Staff
recommends that the Applicant, where feasible, consider the use of engineering practices to
stabilize erosive areas either in addition to or in lieu of seeding with native grasses. For
example, terracing would not only reduce erosion but would help collect moisture that might be
critical to rapidly achieving successful revegetation. As another example, properly placed
water-control diversions would minimize erosion while allowing surface drainage of excess water.
Since seeding with grasses (even native species) might inhibit later invasion by other native
species, the judicious use, where feasible, of such erosion-control measures in lieu of or to
minimize seeding with grasses might allow development of a more typical native community than
would otherwise occur.
The State of Alaska has noted that the Applicant cannot rely upon the Alaska Board of Game to
mitigate the project-induced changes in patterns of human use and effects from these changes.
The state argues that the Applicant should take every step possible to mitigate impacts prior to
any need for the Board of Game to review and revise management strategies. The Staff agrees
with this view and considers that any Board review and revisions necessitated by the project
would be impacts resulting from the project and not a part of mitigative activities.
Several agencies suggested alterations in proposed project plans in order to reduce or avoid
impacts. The Staff has considered these suggestions in its discussion of alternatives to proposed
project features.
5.3.6 Recreation Resources
The Staff considers that the appropriate imp 1 ementat ion of the App 1 i cant's recreation p 1 an
(Sec. 2.1.11) would constitute reasonable mitigation for losses of recreation resources and
opportunities related to the development of the proposed project, as well as for accommodating
recreation demand that would accrue from construction and operation of project facilities.
Accordingly, no additional mitigation appears warranted at this time.
Although not specifically identified as mitigation, several recommendations have been proposed
by concerned resource agencies with respect to project-related, public recreation needs (Exhibit E,
Vol. lOB, Chap. 11, App. llJ). For the most part, the recommendations entail additional develop-
ment at sites other than those identified in the Applicant's recreation plan. However, the
future need for the recommended developments is subject to varying degrees of uncertainty. One
such example is the recommendation that consideration should be given to providing public access
from the project transportation corridor to Portage Creek for fishing and/or kayaking. As
presently planned, the construction of the appropriate segment of the project transportation
corridor would be completed in 1994, but would not be available for public use before completion
of construction at the Devil Canyon dam site in the year 2002. Accordingly, the need for the
recommended public access to Portage Creek in 2002 is not foreseeable with meaningful certainty
at the present time. Additional discussion of other recommendations concerning project-related
recreation developments is presented in Appendix L, Section L.3.
5.3.7 Socioeconomic Factors
The Staff and Alaska state agencies concur on the need for development of the following additional
mitigation strategies:
Development of definitive transportation plans, including prov1s1on of low-cost transRortion
options from the site area to the Fairbanks and Anchorage areas, to discourage inmigration
to local communities and to preclude or limit mobility by private vehicles.
Development of definitive shift and leave schedules that encourage workers to establish or
maintain permanent residences outside th2 project area, e.g., extended periods of work
followed by extended leaves.
Training and hiring of local subcontractors, the local labor force, and unemployed resi'dents
and inmigrants seeking employment so as to reduce local unemployment and welfare needs.
Development of incentives (e.g., low rents, low-interest mortgages) to encourage workers
(and their households) to live in onsite housing and thus reduce inmigration to small
communities in the project area.
Development, in cooperation with the affected agencies, of clear definitions of responsi-
bilities by the Applicant, state, borough, or local authorities for administration and
5-13
funding of project-area facilities and services (e.g., power and telephones, roads, the
onsite school) so as to reduce uncertainties in planning.
Definition of legal responsibilities for access to the site during construction and opera-
tion to clarify funding and workforce needs and sources.
Active, project-funded participation by state, Federal, and local agency representatives in
developing mitigation strategies and monitoring of impacts. These representatives should
have legal authority to approve mitigation plans and to recommend changes in implementation
of plans in light of monitoring studies and information on effectiveness of the plans so as
to ensure mutually satisfactory efforts and reduce future conflicts.
Reimbursement of guides displaced by project structures and activities for losses of invest-
ments, losses from transfers to another area, and costs of reestablishing their businesses.
Establishment of controls to limit fishing, hunting, and trapping by onsite personnel,
particularly in areas used for subsistence activities, based on studies of effects of
restricted and open access and of permitting.
Coordination with state, Federal, and local agencies on specific plans for and administration
of the construction camp/village, and for access options.
Financing the development of community and borough land use plans to adapt to project-
induced growth in an orderly fashion, in line with community goals.
Provision of funds by the Applicant to the state, the borough, and local communities to
finance construction of community services (e.g., water and sewer systems, counseling
services, local roads) in advance of population inmigration. The amount and nature of
funding (e.g., grants, loans, payments-in-lieu-of-taxes) should be determined in consulta-
tion with the government agencies, and adjusted as ongoing impact monitoring revealed
effectiveness and shortfalls. ·
Quarterly or on-demand, communication to local, borough, and state agencies of project
schedules, delays and changes in schedule, workforce sizes and projected needs, and of
shift and leave schedules to aid planning by these agencies.
Financing of residential construction through loans and other incentives to local developers,
recruiting developers when local ones are not available, and buying land for temporary or
permanent housing so that (1) construction could begin prior to inmigration of workers and
(2) difficulties of acquiring backing would be reduced. Such financing could be provided
as investments by the Applicant.
Provision of salaries and of equipment for community and service-area fire and police
personnel.
Cooperation with local, borough, and state transportation planners to plan and construct
new traffic-control facilities at intersections (e.g., intersection of the Parks and Denali
highways) and other areas of traffic congestion in the transportation network.
Provision of incentives (e.g., salary increases, transportation costs) for workers laid off
over the winter to return the following summer and for those employed on Watana to work on
Devil Canyon in order to reduce the total number of inmigrants and the rate of population
turnover.
Provision of information about the local area, especially about Native Alaskan communities,
culture, and subsistence activities, to inmigrating workers so as to reduce cultural and
other conflicts with long-time residents.
Analysis to determine what areas would be flooded should one of the dams fail, followed by
development of land use restrictions in those areas.
Development of a recruitment program to obtain physician and health care professionals for
project-area communities.
5.3.8 Visual Resources
The Applicant's mitigation plan for visual resources is described in Section 2.1.12.9 and in
Appendix M, Section M.4. The Staff agrees with all the measures stated. In addition, where
road and stream crossings occur along the proposed transmission line route, shrubs and trees
should be planted and/or retained to the extent possible to prevent a view into the corridor
from along suc~.crossing points. To minimize the viewing time and length of the line seen from
roadways, cross\ngs should be made at right angles to roadways wherever possible. H-frame
and/or single-pole towers should be used to reduce tower dominance in sensitive viewing areas.
Low-profile tower structures should be used (if feasible) in highly visible areas where towers
of standard height could be viewed above the treetops. Tower structures should be set as far
back from roadways and stream banks as feasible. All transmission line structures should be
colored to blend in with the natural background vegetation.
Visual impacts in forested areas can be minimized by selective clearing, leaving as much low
growth in the right-of-way as possible, and through additional planting. Tapered clearing of
'II
II
I' :I
'
'·.'1 "
1:1
1
··.!·. ,!1
1
\
::1'
1
'1,
!::
l'ii:
I
·' 1,:! :i!
1'1i
5-14
the right-of-way (through tree topping, etc.) would soften the edges of the right-of-way, thus
reducing the visual impact. A right-of-way clearing pattern should be developed where feasible
to reduce the strai ght-1 i ne corridor effect. The proposed 1 i ne should be routed so that it
follows and conforms to natural topographic lines as much as possible. In addition, lines
should be sited to one edge of a valley or draw and parallel a landform change. Skylining of
the line and towers should be minimized. If a hill must be crossed, it should be crossed at an
angle (e.g., side or shoulder of the hill rather than the top). If the line traverses a prominent
viewing area, the line should be located between the viewing area and a vegetative or topo-
graphical screen if feasible.
At the proposed substation locations, any existing trees, and vegetation should be left standing
to the extent possible to screen the terminal facilities. The building and associated facili-
ties should be painted a color that would best blend in with the background vegetation. The
height of the transmission line terminating structures should be kept to the minimum safe and
practical height.
5.3.9 Cultural Resources
Archeological and historic sites that possess significance (as defined in 36 CFR 60.4) and are
eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places require appropriate mitigative
measures. The two chief forms of recommended mitigation are investigation, in the case of
directly or indirectly impacted sites, and avoidance, in the case of potentially impacted sites.
The full extent of the mitigation necessary cannot be determined until the inventory of cultural
resources and assessment of their significance is completed.
The proposed Watana and Devil Canyon developments would directly or indirectly impact 75 archeo-
logical and 6 historic sites. Twenty-two of these sites have been assessed as significant, and
it appears likely that a high proportion of the remaining sites will be termed significant as
well. The recommended mitigation for these cultural resources is investigation through excava-
tion. Most of these sites occur in relatively shallow sedimentary contexts and appear to be of
restricted areal extent, thus limiting the scope of investigation. Nevertheless, their excava-
tion and analysis will almost certainly make a substantive contribution to knowledge of Alaskan
prehistory. The remaining 55 archeological sites and 1 historic site (3 of which have been
judged significant) in this proposed project area would be subject to potential impacts. The
recommended mitigation for these sites is preservation through avoidance and protection (a
monitoring program involving periodic site inspections by the appropriate land-managing agency).
Site-specific lists of recommended mitigation measures are presented in Tables 0-1 and 0-2 of
Appendix 0.
The proposed access routes would directly or indirectly impact 17 archeological and 2 historic
sites, and potentially impact 11 archeological sites (none of which has been assessed for
significance). Avoidance and protection (through monitoring) of significant sites are recommended.
It appears unlikely that many of these sites will be termed significant. A site-specific list
of recommended mitigation measures is presented in Table o~3 of Appendix 0.
'
The proposed transmission lines would potentially impact 11 archeological and historic sites.
Although none of these sites has been evaluated for significance, it appears likely that several
will be termed significant. For these sites, avoidance and protection (through construction-
phase monitoring) are recommended. A site-specific mitigation list is presented in Table 0-4 of
Appendix 0.
5.4 RECOMMENDED AND ONGOING STUDIES
5.4.1 Land Resources
5.4.1.1 Geology and Soils
The Applicant proposes to continue geotechnical studies to determine the site-specific foundation
c6nditions for transmission tower, construction camp, and access road foundations. Such studies
would be designed so as to match construction techniques and foundation designs to the existing
conditions. Such studies would ensure the stability of the various facilities and, as a conse-
quence, should also allow the Applicant to adapt construction techniques to the specific environ-
ment, thus minimizing soil erosion and impacts related to permafrost thaw. Seepage channel
investigations would be continued to ensure the safe functioning of the reservoir system.
5.4.1.2 Land Use and Ownership
It is recommended that the Applicant continue to monitor ongoing land ownership changes, manage-
ment plan revisions, and land value information for the proposed project area.
5-15
5.4.2 Aquatic Communities
The extensive field studies in fisheries and aquatic resources being conducted for the Applicant
by several groups, including the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, are appropriate and extremely
valuable. The Staff recommends that these studies be continued. Increased attention to the
interactions between intragravel water (supply, temperature, and quality) and incubation rates
and success in sloughs is warranted. Since growth dynamics of young salmon appear to be important
impacts, and since both negative influences (low temperature, slough dewatering) and positive
ones (water clarification, increased benthic productivity) have been identified, additional
study of growth dynamics may be important for issue resolution .
•
Staff recommends additional attention to defining aquatic (especially fisheries) resources in
two areas of the Susitna drainage that are not well characterized: (1) the Talkeetna-to-Cook
Inlet reach and (2) the Chulitna and Talkeetna rivers. The lower reach of the Susitna River may
be influenced by the Susitna project to a larger extent than initially anticipated, especially
as habitat for rearing and overwintering of juvenile salmon. The numbers of spawning salmon
that use the Chulitna and Talkeetna rivers are not characterized except by subtraction of the
Talkeetna Station numbers from those of Sunshine Station. Relative suitability of habitats in
these two rivers is germane to estimating impacts of project-caused alterations in the Susitna
River.
5.4.3 Terrestrial Communities
The Staff recommends that ongoing studies oriented towards quantification and understanding of
plant communities from a wildlife habitat perspective as well as those designed to evaluate the
responses of plant communities and wildlife populations to various habitat manipulation options
be completed. These studies should include direct mapping of wetlands for all areas that would
be affected by construction and operation of the proposed project (including the Healy-to-Willow
transmission line segment) using classification categories sufficiently specific to assess
losses of high-value wetland types.
The Staff also recommends that studies be conducted to determine the effects of long-term (five
to ten years) soil storage on rehabilitation success. Although there is evidence that replace-
ment of mineral and/or organic-layer soils can significantly improve revegetation of disturbed
sites, long-term storage of soil (mineral or organic-layer) could affect seed or vegetative
propagule viability and/or the chemical, physical, and microbial properties of the soil. These
effects could reduce rehabilitation success compared to areas where replaced soils were stored
for less than a year or two. Even more importantly, it should be determined whether specific
storage methods or practices (e.g., controlling moisture content or compaction levels, depth of
stockpiles, or mixture of organic and mineral soils) can enhance the potential for rehabilita-
tion success when replacement soils must be stored for long periods.
5.4.4 Recreation Resources
The Applicant proposes to prepare a recreation master pian for Phase One development of public
recreation facilities (Sec. 2.1.11), to be completed in September 1985. Information included in
the master plan relative to final site selection and site-specific information would be used as
a basis for Phase Two engineering design specifications to be finalized in 1986. Development of
public recreation facilities would be initiated during the 1986 construction season (Schedule B,
Supplemental Items Vol. 2, Sec. 7, Response to Comment 11).
5.4.5 Socioeconomic Factors
The Applicant states that studies are being conducted to:
Update baseline and project-induced population projections;
Develop and update a mitigation plan;
Plan the location of the proposed townsite and provision of services and facilities; and
Revise all socioeconomic impact analyses.
Studies recommended in addition to those ongoing are:
Analysis of\the impacts of the location, type, and administration of the onsite camp and
village on fish and wildlife resources;
Analysis of the impacts of the proposed project on commercial fishing, including changes in
the number of jobs, in dollar values of catch, in lifestyle of fishing families, and in
subsistence catches;
Evaluation and monitoring of subsistence, recreational, and commercial hunting, fishing,
and trapping in the project area;
5-16
Monitoring of the availability of labor and skills in the local area, both among the current
resident population and among the inmigrant population attracted by the prospect of employ-
ment on the project, in order to reduce local unemployment and welfare programs;
Surveying of workers to communicate to government agencies and local interests information
on where the workers have their permanent residences; on the fishing, hunting, and trapping
activities of the workers; and on use by the workers of local community facilities so that
mitigation and planning can be updated; and
Surveying (in cooperation with Native Corporations and Councils) of subsistence activities
in Cantwell and in the vicinity of the project site so as to provide a basis for adjusting
project activities to avofd any potential interference with such subsistence activities.
5.4.6 Visual Resources
The Applicant has stated that an interdisciplinary design team would be assembled during the
Phase II detailed design process to resolve identified visual resource impact problems through
(1) additional studies, (2) proper development practices, (3) alterations in engineering design,
and (4) modification to structures and landscape using the visual concepts of form, line, color,
and texture.
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 5
Office of Technology Assessment. 1982. Use of Models for Water Resource Management, Planning,
and Policy. OTA-0-159. Congress of the United States, Office of Technology Assessment.
Washington, DC. 242 pp.
Sale, M.J., E. Downey Brill, Jr. and E. E. Herricks. 1982. An approach to optimizing reservoir
operation for downstream aquatic resources. Water Resources Research 18(4):705-712.
6. LIST OF PREPARERS
The following staff members of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Argonne National
Laboratory, and Oak Ridge National Laboratory were responsible for preparation of this Draft
Environmental Impact Statement:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
B.E. Biggerstaff (B.S. civil engineering, completed courses for M.S. in industrial engineer-
ing). Almost 30 years of experience in power system planning, operations, and economics.
Philip L. Essley, Jr. (B.S., M.S. petroleum engineering, M.B.A.). Twenty years of experience
in engineering, 12 years in energy forecasting and regulation.
James Fargo (B.S., M.S., civil engineering). More than nine years of experience in civil
engineering in nuclear and hydroelectric project design and analysis.
Jerry L. Foster, P.E. (B.S.C.E). Eight years of experience designing water resources
structures and buildings with the Corps of Engineers, six years experience with FERC.
Edward J. Fowlkes, P.E. (B.S. E. E., M.E. electric power engineering). Twenty years of
experience in electric power system engineering and analysis.
David B. Hatcher (B,A., M.A., Ph.D. economics: Ph.D. ·Dissertation on Demand for Electricity).
Nine years of,experience as an energy economist, principally electrical energy.
Melvin Kofkin (B.S. electrical engineering, M.S. economics). Twelve years of experience as
government economist.
Clifford M. Lane, Jr., P.E. (B.A. mathematics, B.S. E. E., M.S. E. E.). Thirty-two years of
experience in electric power system engineering and analysis.
J. Mark Robinson (A.B., M.S. biology). Six years of experience in the fields of aquatic
ecology and impact assessment.
Wade P. Sewell (B.S. engineering, M.S. economics, ABO for Ph.D. in economics). Six years
of experience teaching economics at the university level, 29 years in economic and
econometric analysis.
Martin J. Thorpe (B.S. electrical engineering). Fourteen years of experience in electric
power system planning in the electric utility industry, 15 years with the government
in regulatory analysis of electric power system planning and operation.
Gerald R. Wilson (B.S.E.E.). Twenty-six years of experience in hydropower licensing with
FPC/FERC.
Argonne National Laboratory
John D. DePue (B.A. government, M.S. biology). Seventeen years of experience in technical
editing and journalism.
John F. Hoffecker (B.A. archeology, M.A. and Ph.D. candidacy, anthropology). Ten years of
experience in archeological research.
Julie D. Jastrow (B.S. agricultural science, M.S. agronomy). Six years of experience in
plant sciences and revegetation research, three years in assessment of environmental
impacts on terrestrial ecosystems.
Darwin D. Ness (B.A. biology, B.S. and M.F. forestry, Ph.D. forest ecology). Six years of
experience as supervisor of state recreation and farm forestry programs, 12 years in
assessment of environmental impacts on recreation resources and terrestrial ecosystems.
Richard D. Olsen (B.S. biology, Ph.D. botany-microbiology). Twelve years of experience in
1 imnological and aquatic ecology research and environmental impact assessment,
eight years as project leader.
Barbara A. Payne (A.B. psychology; M.A. education, M.A. sociology, Ph.D. sociology).
Seven years of experience in social and economic research and evaluation.
\
6-1
6-2
Argonne National Laboratory (Cont'd)
Anthony J. Policastro (B.S., M.S., Ph.D. civil engineering). Nine years of experience in
meteorological research and environmental impact assessment.
Mary A. Snider (B.S., mathematics). Fifteen years of experience in computer data management
and computer-graphics development.
Lars F. Soholt (B.S., Ph.D. biology). Fifteen years of research experience in wildlife
ecology and environmental physiology, six years in assessment of impacts to terrestrial
ecosystems.
Ronald C. Sundell (B.S. business administration, M.U.P. urban and regional planning).
Seven years of experience in research and assessment of land use, socioeconomic, and
aesthetic resource issues.
R. Gary Williams (B.A. sociology, M.Ed. social science education, Ph.D. sociology).
Eight years of experience in social and economic impact assessment and research into
effects of rapid population change on communities.
Margery C. (Bynoe) Winters (B.A. geology, M.S. physical geography). Four years of experi-
ence in assessment of impacts relative to geological resources.
Albin J. Zielen (A.B. chemistry, Ph.D. chemistry). Eighteen years of experience as a
research chemist, 13 years as a computer scientist.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Charles C. Coutant (B.A., M.S., Ph.D. biology). Twenty-five years of experience in
fisheries and environmental impact analysis.
Jerry W. Elwood (B.S. fisheries, Ph.D. ecology). Seventeen years of experience in
fisheries and aquatic ecology.
Francis C. Kornegay (B.S., M.S. meteorology). Eight years of experience in environmental
impact assessment, four years in project management.
Donald W. Lee (B.S. mechanical engineering, M.S. engineering science, Ph.D. applied mechanics).
Eight years of experience in fluid mechanics and environmental assessment.
MichaeLJ. Sale. (B.S. zoology, M.S. biology, Ph.D . .environmental engineering). Six years of
experience in instream flow analysis and environmental impact assessment.
Webster Van Winkle, Jr. (B.A. history, Ph.D. zoology). Seventeen years of experience in
aquatic sciences and environmental impact analysis.
Alan J. Witten (B.S. mechanical engineering, M.S., Ph.D. mechanical and aerospace sciences).
Nine years of experience in fluid mechanics and environmental impact analysis.
7. LIST OF RECIPIENTS
The following agencies, organizations, and individuals are being provided copies of the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement:
Federal
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service
Department of Army, Corps of Engineers
Department of Commerce
Department of Energy, Alaska Power
Administration
Department of Health and Human Services
Department of the Interior ·
Department of Transportation
Environmental Protection Agency
Rural Electrification Administration
Local
Mayor, City of Anchorage
Mayor, City of Fairbanks
Matanuska-Susitna Borough
Community of Cantwell, Inc.
Alaska Resources Library
Anchorage Municipal Library
Elmer E. Rasmauson Library--
University of Alaska at Fairbanks
Fairbanks North Star Borough
Public Library and Regional Center
Palmer Public Library
Susitna Valley High School Library
Talkeetna Public Library
University of Alaska at Anchorage Library
Applicant
Alaska Power Authority
State
Alaska Public Utilities Commission
Alaska State-Federal Coordinator
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic
Development
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
Alaska Department of Natural Resources
Alaska Department of Public Safety
Office of the Governor
Office of Coastal Management
State Historic Preservation Officer
Others
Senator Ted Stevens
Senator Frank H. Murkowski
Representative Donald E. Young
Cook Inlet Region, Inc.
Tyonek Native Corporation
AHTNA, Inc.
Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association
Cook Inlet Native Association
Sierra Club
Northern Alaska Environmental Center
Trustees for Alaska
Alaska Center for the Environment
National Wildlife Federation
Alaskan Survival
7-1
II
l .. i.', ,, ,,
''::
,,
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION.ORDEB. 'l&.C
(l.ued Oecembw 18, 1972)
ITATEMENT OF GENERAL POLICY TO IMPLEMENT
PROCEDtrRES FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT
OF 1869
§ 2.80 De&allld EnYizoamen\al Staeemmt,
(e) It lball be the lnenl policy of tbe Fldenl Power
Comm181loll \0 adopt and to adhere \0 Ute oblecUYH and
.US.. of the Natloll&l EDYizoamental Polley Act of ltel
(Act) lzl Ita ntl&laUoll uacler Ute Feclenl Power Act and
tbe Na&unl Gu Act. Tbe NaUoll&l EDYizolllll•ntal PoUc7
Act of 1988 requlnoa, amoq otber tbiqa, all F.a.tal
a&tiiCdn \0 lzlclude a de&alled mYizoDmen\al ltatament
In ..,ery ncommenda\ion or report on propoala few litp
latloll and otber maJor Feclenl acUoD.t llplflcan&ly affect.
illl tbe Quli\7 Of tbe b\IIDUl 81lvUolliZIID&o
(b) TbaNfore, In compliance wtth tM National Environ-
mental Polley Act of 1961 tbe Commlalon ltaff lball make a
de&alled enYizoamental ltatament wbc tbe Nll&la\Ory
lictloll lakeD b7 ua UDder the Fedenl Power Act and
NaNni Gu Act wiU bave allillllfic:allt ell¥iroDmentallmpact,
A "de&alled atatement" prepare<~ In compUance wttb Ute
requlnmenta of h 2.81 tbrolllb 2.82 of tbla Pan lball fllll1
develop tbe five fac\Ore 1lete4 bereiD.attar In tbe coldext
of IUdl colllidenUoD.t u tbe propo..cl ..,t!Ytty'• diJoect and
lzldlnct effect Oil tbe air and water eDYiroamat of the
proJect or nablral au plpeUne facUlty: oa the laad, air, and
water b\Ota: on el&abillbed park and recnatlonal -:
and on lites of natunl, hinoric, and ecenlc values and
reeolUCfl of tbe &reL Tile ltatement oball .U.CU. tbe
extant of tbe conformity of tbe propoeecl acUvltr wttb
all appliuble nYizoammtal atandarclL Tbe ltatement
oball aleo flllly deal witb altarnative counea of acUon \0 the
propol&l and, \0 the maximum extent pracUcable, tl:e
tDYizoDmtD\al effec:ta of eacb alternative. Further, It eball
opedflcaJiy dlacuae plallt fw future development related
\0 the application UDder colllllderaUon.
Tbe above f&c:\Ore are· 1lete4 to merely iU-ta the
ldDda of valua tbat mua& be considered lzl the ltatemat.
Ill no -ect ia tbla 1laUq to be co...uued u coverllll all
Nle¥ant facmrs.
TIM five fac\Ore wbicb mill& be -cl.fically cllecllaed
iD tbe detailed ltatement an:
(1) the mYizoDJDen\al impact of tbe propoeed
action,
(2) any advn. envlronmen\al effects wbicb
cannot be avoided obould &be propoaal be
Implemented:
(3) altemaUvea \0 &be propoMd IICtion,
(') &be relatiollll>ip between local short-tum
u.aes of ma.a.'s environment and the mainte-
nance and enbancement of lona-tenn pro-
ductivity, llDd
(II) my Irreversible and Irretrievable commit-
<Dtlllts of reeourcea which would be lzlvolved
IZI tbe proPOiecl action obollld It be Imple-
mented.
(c) (I) To the maslmWD extent practicable no final admini-
atn.tiw action Ia \0 be taken eooner than ninety day1 aiCer a
draft environmental ltatement h.... been c:Ucl&lated for com·
mat or thirt7 days after the final text of an enYizoDiften\al
ltatemat baa been made avalleble to the CoiiDCIJ on EnVI-
roDJDtllltal Quality and the public:.
(c) (11) Upon a ftndinl tbat It Ia nece...ay and appropriate
lzl &be public IDternt, the Commlaolon mar d~ wttb
an, time period opeetfied ID § § 2.80-2.82.
\.
8. ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT I
8-1
§ 2.8J CompUance willa tbe National En¥UunmentalPoU.:,
Act of 1969 IIDder Pan I of tbe Feclornl Power Act .
(a) AU applications for ma1or proJec:ta (those iD ex-of
2,000 bonePOWer) or tor reMrYotn only provicliD& ...,._
letory flo-to 4ow~Utnam (major) bydroelec:tnc -proJects
UDder Pan I of the Fecleral Power Act for UceD.ta cw
rtllceDa, llball be accomPADltd by Exbibtt w, the appUcant's
de&alle4 report of the en..VOnmental facton meclfled
1D ~ 2.80 &Del '-41. AU applic:atioD.t for ....,.Dder or
amendment of a Ucnae propoalnc cq-..actlon, or opera-
till~ cbanl:e of a proJect obal1 be accompanied by &be
applicant'• d"&alled report of the environmental fac\Ore
..ule4 1D § 2.80. Notice of all 111ch appUc:a&loD.t lba11
contimae\0 be made u preecrlbed b• law.
(b) Tbe steff shall make an Initial review of &be appUcant'o
report and, il i>eceMary. require applicant to cornet deft·
eienclee 1D the report. If the proposed acl:lon ia d-
IIIIDecl to be a maicn F .a.r.J _action aiiDlflcanU, dfecUq
tbe quality of the bWDaD envtzonment. tba atatf lball
condllct a detalled IDdepeadent analyu of the action and
prepan a draft envtzonmental Impact ltatemnt whicb oball
be made available \0 the CoiiiiCU on EnYizonmea\al QualUy,
tbe EDYizonmen'-1 Protee&lon Alene,, otber appropriate
1ovemmeotal bodlea, and to the public, for comment.
Tbe ltatement shall aleo be MrVtd on all parUee to &be
P1'0Bte41111. The Secretary of the Fecleral Power Commlaolon
ebaU ca.... prompt publication ID the Fedenl Realater of
notice of the avallebWt7 of tbe etaff'l draft envlroftlllental
ltatemeat. Written commnu llball be mada witbin 'II daYI
of the date the notice of availability appeaq ID &be Federal
:a..a.tv. If any lovtrDIDIDtal tll<y, Fldenl, ltate, • Joe.a,
or any member of tbe pubU., falle \0 comment wltbiD &be
time provided, It lball be -•d, ebeent a NQIIIR for a
-"lc exteDiion ot time, tbat 111cb enUt7 or -D bae no
aommat \0 make. Extallliona of time lba11 be anntecl only
for lood c:au• obown. AU entitles flliaa commenta wttb
tbe Commlulon will 111bmlt tall coplee of 111cb commnu
\0 the CouncU on EnYizoamtllltal Quallty, Upon expilralloa
of the time for comment tbe steff oball colllid~ com•
menu received &Del revlee u nec-.y and fiDa1laa Ita
ea¥tronmmtal Impact ltatemat wblcb, toaether wttb tbt
commenta rec<Hved, shall accompany tbe propoaal tbroulh
the &~encr review and 4ect.ion·maldn& proc:eee end lba1l
be made available to &be perllea to tbe proceediDI. &be
COWidl on Environmental Quallt7, and till public. Ill the
tftllt tbe propol&l ia tba a~blect of a llolalnl tbe ateff'e
tll¥iroDJDental Ita-at wm be pieced ID nidance at tbat
baariD&.
(c) Any penon may fllit a peU&Ion to Intervene on the
balls ot tbe steff draft enYizoDJDtlltal ltatement. AD
IDtervmen ta1<iD& a poal.tloil on enYizonmn'-1 matten
lba11 tile timely commenta, ID accordance wttb pan&mpb (b)
ot tbla eectlon, on &be draft atetemat wttb tbe Commlaion
IDcludiDa, but aot llmltecl to, .., Ulal7all of t.bm envtron-
meo\al poliUoa ID the context of the faeton enWDeratecl ID
2.10, and apec:lfyizla an7 dlff-wl&b at&ff'• poai.Uon
upon wblch Intervener wUbta to be htald. Notbllll baeiD
lball preclllde an Intervener bom flliDI a detaile4 ea¥tron-
-teltmp..,t ltatement.
(d) In U.e cue of each conlened applic:aUon. U.e appllcut.
l&aff. ud all inkrvenen taldnl a position on envtrolllllental
maUna aha11 offer evidence for U.a reeold In oupport of Uaeir
enviroJUDenUI pollition. Tbe appllcut and aU such lncer-
venen aball IPe<:lfy uy clifferencn wiU. U.e atatf'o polltion.,
and shall Include, amon~ oU.er relevant fadon. a dioeuei!On
of Uaeir pollition In U.e context of U.e lac-enumerated In
§2.80.
(e) In Uae .,_ of each conterled aPPlication., the Initial
and reply briefo fiJed by Ula ~Ucut. U.e l&aff and aU
IDterftllen taJtin1 a polltion on environmental maUen
muet -ifically analyze and evaluale U.e evidence in the
li&ht of U.e environmental criteria enumerated In § 2.10.
Funhenaore, U.e lniUal Decloion of the Prellidlnc Adminl-
etrative Law Jud1e In such cues. and the final older of the
Commiellon deailnl with . the application on the merits In
all cases. shall include an evaluation of the environmental
facton enumerated In § 2.80 and the vlewo and <ommento
exp..-d In conjunction therewiU. by U.e applicant and
aU U.ooe makinc formal comment punuAIIt to the pro-
vlalona of thil oectlon.
§ 2.82 Compliance wiU. Uae NaUonal Bnvtaonmen&al Polley
Act of 1989 Under the Natuftl Gaa Act.
(a) All certillcate applicationa flied Wider Section 7(c:)
of U.e Natural Gu Act (11'> U.S.C. 717f(c)) for Uae aoa-
muction of p1peline factlitieo, except abbreviated appll-
cationa filed punuant to Sectiona 1117.7(b). (c) aDd (d)
of Commlulon Reculationo and producer appllcationa for
the aale of cas filed punuant to Sectiona 11'>7 .23·29 of
Commiellion Re&ulations. oball be aceompanled by the
applicant's detelled report of the envtronmen&al fac-
II"Cifled in § 2.80. · Notice of aU such appllcaUono oball
continue to be made u preocribed by law.
(b) Tbe l&aff obaU rll&ke an ln!Ual review of the appllcu&'o
report and, 1f n~ce.ary. require appllcan& to correet defi.
cienc:in in the report. If the p:rop.....t action .. deter-
mliMd to be a m~r Fedenl Mtioa llplftcuttly aftwtllll
U.a q\lallb of tlw bum.a environment, til• Nit lbaU
oollduot a deWiaG llldapendant IAaiylll of Uae act1o11 Uld
prepan a clntt envtronmenl&l llftpact eteteaaent wbleh
8lal1 M IIDIIda •aUebla to tile CouncU OD lnvtroDinen&al
Qllal.l1y, lite lattlolllllenl&l l'rotH&lon AIUOY, Olitll appro·
paaw 10-1&1 bcldlaa, end &o tbe public, for oonur~ent.
The NMIII•t lllall a1eo be •rved on aU partlea to U&•
proeaedina. Tile leon&ary of the Ftderal Power Commillloll
lhall oa1111 prompt pubUaation In the Ptdenl Re111&1r of
aolkle of 11M O¥aUebWty ot the atetf'a dntt environmental
NMI!Ient. Wrttwn oomma111e llhall be made within 4& dal!l
of lite date tlla notaae ol ••aUebWty appean In &he Ftdual
&~~Ute~. It MY IOWftlllltlltallnUty, Ftdanl, elate, or!Jooel.
or MY member Of U.e pUlllle, falle to COIUDIDI wtlhill lite
lime provided, lt 111&11 M Ulllllle4, ab-1 a nqum for a
IPecUIC aawDit011 ot U!lle, lbat lllch enllty or -n hu
110 OODUDtll& to aaka, Batei\IIODI of time lball be panted
only for 1oocl oa\181 lbown. All anllll• fWnl eommenk
wtU. lite CoiNIIilldon aball 111bmlt ton copleo of lllch com•
menu &o tbe CollDCill Oil Ellvi:rolllllentel QualltJ. Upon
exp~aUon of Uae U!lle for coml!lent U.e l&aff lbaU eonlldar
all OOIIIIDIIIto ncelvtd and I'Wi8e u Dae.-y uad ftn.ail&e lie
.mro-e11&al lmpeot etet.Dtllt wbloh, to~~eU.a wtU. 11M
-••u I90eiYed, 111&11 -0111pany lite propoal lbrolllh
\!at .,_,. llvi8w and deollllon-maldnl p~ and ebaU
M IllUde 8ftiWIIe to lite pertiu &o lite PIOIUdiDI, tlw
Co1UICI1 Oil laftlollllll•l&l Q\aalltJ, and U&e public. 111 U.e
-t tlw PI'O~ II tlw 111blHt of a b..SO,, 11M Ntt'e
-s--UJ I&&MIIInt wUi 'be plaoed Ill evtd11101 at lbet .........
(c) AnJ penon _,. 11M a pe&IUoll &o lllterYma on 11M balll
of \be l&aff draft mwllonm .. Ul Ntemellt. AU IDMI"'
-&aldDI a PQilUon on envtro11111en&al menan lbaU Ill•
limelJ -te, Ill uoordulee wt&h panpapb (b) of tllla
.etto11., 011 11M Uaft l&at.nenl wi&h tbe Comlllbo&oll
IDolladllll. 'but not liiiiUed &o, Ul llllalylll of Uaalr &IIYiron·
lllaGUI poiu&on Ill tlw eontut of tlw fac-enumaated ID
f 1.110, Uld ll*lltJIDI MY 41ft--wtU. l&aff'a polllUoa
upga wbleb ..._.., wt.IMI to M beard. l'loUallll benla
lbaU JmOIUde u ·ID._.._ from fiiiDI a deWltd 111YIIo1P
..sal UllpUt NMmlllt.
8-2
(d) In 11M eue of .acb coawetod appUcatlun, U.e appU.
oaR&, l&aff, and all 111'-n takinl a poll&loo on envtro.,.
mute! mat&era lbaU offer e¥tc1ance for U.e raeord In 111pport
of U.e~ eDvl:rolllllental poaiUon. Tbe applicant and all ouch
1Durve11en 8lal1 -'fJ' any clifferenoea with the •l.ll!f't
paaltioll., ud lball Include, amonc oU.er rdevo.nt factor.. a
clUeulllon of U&elr poll&loll Ill the COiltext of U.e f~on
enumaated iD§2.80.
(a) Jn the .,... of eaoh conteeted appUoaUon. the lniUal
aDd reply bltafe fUtd. bJ U.e appUcant, the l&aff. ud all
ID'-"n.,a UI<.IDI • poaiUon on eavl:ronmen&al mat&an
muet opecillcaUy aaaly&e and avalua1e tba evtdeDOe Ill the
lllbt of the envtroamaa&al criteria enumaated In § 2.80.
~-. the lrllUal Dadalon of Uae Pnlldinl Admlnl·
matt.e Law Judie Ill lllch euea, end the flllal older of U.e
Collllllilelo11 deallnl wl.U. tbe applillation on 11M mariti
Ill aU --. aball Include en evaluallon ot U.e en'rironmea&al
fao&on anumented ID § 2.10 aDd Uae vlewe ud commenu
apnaed Ill ~WicUon tbuewiU. by tbe applicant and
aU U.oae maldDI f-.1 oo-ent p-t &o tbe PIOvW<Hu
ot t111a MOMon.
FID&RAL POWEll. COMMlSSIOif·
JI.ULU OF PRACTICE AND PJI.OCBDURE
11 Cl"JL 1.1 JA&erventloa
"(a) lnlti&Uon of ln&ervntion. Participation ID a pro-
oeedibl 11 u lllterYener may be Initiated u foUowc:
(1) By the tillnl of a notiee of lnterventioft by •
State Commiallon, IDcludlnl any felllla&ory body ot U.e
State or mlllliclpallty bavln& juriadlctioft to rquilte zatae and
ebarlll for &he ltle of electric enftll'. or natural IU. u U.e
-may be, to conouman wiUaln the IDterYanlnc S&e&e or
municipality.
(2) By order of U.e Commlaolon upon petition to
ID&arnna.
(b) Who may p.Uticm. A petition to Intervene may
be ftild by uy penoo cla1mlDc a rilht to ID&ervene or an
Ia-of 111cb aawn &hat IDterwntlon II naeu.ry or
appropnatt to lbe adllllnifti.aUoll of &he .. tuw Ulldat wi!Nb
~· PtVceed.ll:ol. II bl'llulbt. llucb rtaht or llltenet Ill&)' "1111
(1) A rilbl oonfarnd by NNW Of the UIIIMd
(2) An lntereot whlcb may be ciiNotly atfeo\ld
aru! whlob II not ad~uately repreaei\Led by aa11Un1 partlea
anc! u to which petltionon may be bound by the Coaami.t-
ll<>n'a ecuon In the proeeedlnJ (the toUow .... may llave~~&ob
an ln"rert; ennNmen eer¥ed by &he appUcant, defendant,
nr raopooc\ent: holclare ot IICI&ftloiaa ot U.o appUoant, dtftnd•
ant. or HIPOndent: and oompeti&on of the appllcaat,
defendant. or NIPOndtnt).
(I) Any other lnteallt of NOh utun lbet
peUUoner'o participation may be Ill lite l"lbllc lnwreet.
(c) Form and eontenu of petitions. PeUtiono &o lll&erwne
lhaU eet out clearly ud concillely the facto from wllleh U.a
nature of U.e petitioner'• alleled rtlht-or lnwreet can M
deurmiDtd, the II:Oundo ot U.e propoeed llltervention, Uld
U.e position of the petitioner In U.e prooatdllll, eo u fully
and completely. to advioe the pU1:1aa ud U.e Cornmilllon 11
to tbe -lftc blllft of fact or lew &o M ral8td or -110-
vertad, by admlttinl, dell)'IDI OJ oU.vwilt -IIIDIIIPHI&-
caUy and ID detail, eacb aaa&arial a!MaaUon of teet c. law
-rted Ill U.e proctodlnl. aDd oitlll& by AJIPI'Dpda\1 •i•
taco U.e etetu&ory provllllona or o&her authority l'lllled oa:
Prorided, &hat where the Plli1IO• of &ha PIOPa.d 111-..
Y&Dtioll b &o obUin u .u-uoa of natural IU tc. _.. 1111111
dbtribllUon by a -n 01' mllnlc1pallty •IIIIAPd Di' lllallJ'
auU.ozhaG to lllltle Ill U.e 1ooa1 clietrlhulloa of DldUnl or
erWida1 IU &o U.e public, U.e petitloa lball -PlY wUb lite
nqulrelnanu of Part 1&6 of t111a ebap\er (Le., RIIUIAUono
Uncia U.. Natural Gu Aot). Such patlUou ..a ill oiiMr
-ok oomPb' wtU. lite reqllinlllnau of §§l.U to 1,17,
tnclllllva.
(d) l'llinl ud 11rvice of patitlona. PatiUona to ID'-
and noUcle of lll&erwntion may be fUtd at uy &llllt foDo-
lnc &ha fWnl of a Dolloe of nu or tariff olwllt, or ot u
appUeaUoo., petillon. oomplalllt, or oUia dooumnat -ldal
Co.....u.l'>n aclloo., but Ill no "allt lewr than U.. dew fixed
for &he fillnl of peUUona &o Intervene Ill uy ordll or DOtloe
with nopaet &o &bfl proaeadinp '-ued by \be COIIUIIblloa or
1&1 s-&uy, u.nlau, In extraordinary ellaum....._ foJ 1ood
.,.,.. lbowa, $ho ComlllbiAon au$horia" a Ia" ft11a1.
Sen'loo llba1l be made u proYideclill t1.17. When a p-a
bu botoa permltwei '<> lnterveoe aotwlu..taadllll bla fail\lft
to file bla petition wl$hln tho time preaaribecl ill $Ilia pu.
popb, tbe CoiiUilioolloo or offlcor dulcnaaed to ~e -Y
wbeH $he elzcumotancel warrant, pOlllll\ the walftr of U..
nqu.lnmaa" of §1.26(c)(ll) wlt.b rupee! to eopias of exlllbtta
for aaeb IDterv&Dor.
(e) A.uwen to petltionL Any party to the PMC~ or
11&!1 c:owla<l may fUe an &DrNor to a petitioo to iD"I'YIIDe,
and ill default \bereof, may be dee~r.ed to have watv.cl aay
obleatloa to $he IP&D&IDI of ouch pet.it.lon. It mode, .......n
oball be filed within 10 dan after the date of ..viae of tbe
peUtloll, but aot later thaD !I daya prior to the cia" oet for
the coauneocement of tbe beaz!Da, U aay, unle8 for oauoe
$ho CoiDJillMioo with or without mot.ioa oball penadbo a
dUferent lime. Tbey llba1l In all otb..,. -ta ooatona to
$he nqldnm&Dta of~ §1.111 to l .17, iDdwdve.
(f) M otice and actloo oa petl&loaa
(1) Not.lce aod eerYice. PaUUono to Ia..,_
wboo tondlftd to the Commlaioa for tiiiD&. oball llbow
oervice $hereof upoa all ponielpaal& to the ptOCMCIID& Ia
conformity wltb §l.l7(b).
(2) Action on petlt.lonL Ao ooon u pmcUcable
after $he uplratl<>n of the tlme for flliDI ....,.ora to ~
petltloaa or default $horeof, u provided In PllftiiiiPb (e) of
tbla oecUoa. the Commlolloa wW IP&Dl or doay .. eb peUUoa
In whole or In part or may, U fowad to be appropna",
eutboriao llmited partlclpatlon. No petiUono to Ill-
mar be fllecl or wW be acted upoa durtac a bout.DI ~
perm.lctod by the CoiDJillMioa after opportUAlty for all
partlea to object tbereto. Only to avoid detriment to $he
public ill&eroot wUJ any preoidiDc officer "atatlvely permit
partlclpatloa iD e bearixlc 1D odvaaco of, and $hen only
oulriect to, $he p:antiaa by $he CoiDJillMioa of a potltioa to
ln\e!'Vone.
(I) Limitation In hearin&a. Where there are two or more
tn<erveDera havin& oubotaot.ialJY W..e lnterell& aad pollltioaa,
the CommiM:ion or prelidi.Di officer may. iD order t.o U·
pedite $he hearin&, arrao&• appropriate llmitatioDO oa $he
number of attorneya who wW be permitted to ..-:umlae
aad make and UIUO moUOIU and objectlollll oa bebalf of
IUCh iD.-nrD:en..,
8-3
~
•\1 ..
,,
I I
8-4
ATTACHMENT II
Form L-2
(Revised October, 1975)
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF LICENSE FOR UNCONSTRUCTED MAJOR PROJECT
AFFECTING LANDS OF THE UNITED STATES
Article 1. The entire project, as described in this order of the Commission, shall be
subject to all of the provisions, terms, and conditions of the license.
Article 2. No substantial change shall be made in the maps, plans, specifications, and
statements described and designated as exhibits and approved by the Commission in its order as a
part of the license until such change shall have been approved by the Commission: Provided,
however, That if the Licensee or the Commission deems it necessary or desirable that said
approved exhibits, or any of them, be changed, there shall be submitted to the Commission for
approval a revised, or additional exhibit or exhibits covering the proposed changes which, upon
approval by the Commission, shall become a part of the license and shall supersede, in whole or
in part, such exhibit or exhibits theretofore made a part of the license as may be specified by
the Commission.
Article 3. The project works shall be constructed in substantial conformity with the
approved exhibits referred to in Article 2 herein or as changed in accordance with the provi-
sions of said article. Except when emergency shall require for the protection of navigation,
life, health, or property, there shall not be made without prior approval of the Commission any
substantial alteration or addition not in conformity with the approved plans to any dam or other
project works under the license or any substantial use of project lands and waters not author-
ized herein; and any emergency alteration, addition, or use so made shall thereafter be subject
to such modification and change as the Commission may direct. Minor changes in project works,
or in uses of project lands and waters, or divergence from such approved exhibits may be made if
such changes will not result in a decrease in efficiency, in a material increase in cost, in an
adverse environmental impact, or in impairment of the general scheme of development; but any of
such minor changes made without the prior approval of the Commission, which in its judgment have
produced or will produce any of such results, shall be subject to such alteration as the Commis-
sion may direct.
Upon the completion of the project, or at such other time as the Commission may direct,
the Licensee shall submit to the Commission for approval revised exhibits insofar as necessary
to show any divergence from or variations in the project area and project boundary as finally
located or in the project works as actually constructed when compared with the area and boundary
shown and the works described in the license or in the exhibits approved by the Commission,
together with a statement in writing setting forth the reasons which in the opinion of the
Licensee necessitated or justified variation in or divergence from the approved exhibits. Such
revised exhibits shall, if and when approved by the Commission, be made a part of the license
under the provisions of Article 2 hereof.
Article 4._ The construction, operation, and maintenance of the project and any work
incidental .to additions or alterations shall be subject to the inspection and supervision of the
Regional Engineer, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, in the region wherein the project is
located, or of such.other officer or agent as ~he Commission may designate, who shall be the
authorized representative of the Commission for such purposes. The Licensee shall cooperate
fully with said representative and shall furnish him a detailed program of inspection by the
Licensee that will provide for an adequate and qualified inspection force for construction .of
the project and for any subsequent alterations to the project. Construction of the project
8-5
works or any feature or alteration thereof shall not be initiated until the program of inspec-
tion for the project works or any such feature thereof has been approved by said representative.
The Licensee shall also furnish to said representative such further information as he may require
concerning the construction, operation, and maintenance of the project, and of any alteration
thereof, and shall notify him of the date upon which work will begin, as far in advance thereof
as said representative may reasonably specify, and shall notify him promptly in writing of any
suspension of work for a period of more than one week, and of its resumption and completion.
The Licensee shall allow said representative and other officers or employees of the United
States, showing proper credentials, free and unrestricted access to, through, and across the
project lands and project works in th~ performance of their official duties. The Licensee shall
comply with such rules and regulations of general or special applicability as the Commission may
prescribe from time to time for the protection of life, health, or property. ·
Article 5. The Licensee, within five years from the date of issuance of the license,
shall acquire title in fee or the right to use in perpetuity all lands, other than lands of the
United States, necessary or appropriate for the construction, maintenance, and operation of the
project. The Licensee or its successors and assigns shall, during the period of the license,
retain the possession of all project property covered by the license as issued or as later
amended, including the project area, the project works, and all franchises, easements, water
rights, and rights of occupancy and use; and none of such properties shall be voluntarily sold,
leased, transferred, abandoned, or otherwise disposed of without the prior written approval of
the Commission, except that the Licensee may lease or otherwise dispose of interests in project
lands or property without specific written approval of the Commission pursuant to the then
current regulations of the Commission. The provisions of this article are not intended to pre-
vent the abandonment or the retirement from service of structures, equipment, or other project
works in connection with replacements thereof when they become obsolete, inadequate, or ineffi-
cient for further service due to wear and tear; and mortgage or trust deeds or judicial sales
made thereunder, or tax sales, shall not be deemed voluntary transfers within the meaning of
this article.
Article 6. In the event the project is taken over by the United States upon the termi-
nation of the license as provided in Section 14 of the Federal Power Act, or is transferred to a
new licensee or to a non-power licensee under the provis~ons of Section 15 of said Act, the·
Licensee, its successors and assigns shall be responsible for, and shall make good any defect of
title to, or of right of occupancy and use in, any of such project property that is necessary or
appropriate or valuable and serviceable in the maintenance and operation of the project, and
shall pay and discharge, or shall assume responsibility for payment and discharge of, all liens
or encumbrances upon the project or project property created by the Licensee or created or
incurred after the issuance of the license: Provided, That the provisions of this article are
not intended to require th~ Licensee, for the purpose of transferring the project to the United
States or to a new licensee, to acquire any different title to, or right of occupancy and use
in, any of such project property than was necessary to acquire for its own purposes as the
Licensee.
Article 7. The actual legitimate original cost of the project, and of any addition
thereto or betterment thereof, shall be determined by the Commission in accordance with the
Federal Power Act and the Commission's Rules and Regulations thereunder.
Article 8. The Licensee shall install and thereafter maintain gages and stream-gaging
stations for the purpose of determining the stage and flow of the stream or streams on which the
project is located, the amount of water held in and withdrawn from storage, and the effective
head on the turbines; shall provide for the required reading of such gages and for the adequate
rating of such stations; and shall install and maintain standard meters adequate for the deter-
mination of the amount of electric energy generated by the project works. The number, charac-
ter, and location of gages, meters, or other measuring devices, and the method of operation
thereof, shall at all times be satisfactory to the Commission or its authorized representative.
The Commission reserves the right, after notice and opportunity for hearing, to require such
alterations in the number, character, and location of gages, meters, or other measuring devices,
and the method of operation thereof, as are necessary to secure adequate determinations. The
installation of gages, the rating of said stream or streams, and the determination of the flow
thereof, shall be under the supervision of, or in cooperation with, the District Engineer of the
United States Geological Survey having charge of stream-gaging operations in the region of the
project, and the Licensee shall advance to the United States Geological Survey the amount of
funds estimated to be necessary for such supervision, or cooperation for such periods as may be
mutually agreed upQn. The Licensee shall keep accurate and sufficient records of the foregoing
determinations to the satisfaction of the Commission, and shall make return of such records
annually at such time and in such form as the Cpmmission may prescribe ..
8-6
Artic~e 9. The Licensee shall, after notice and opportunity for hearing, install addi-
tional capac~ty_6r make other changes in the project as directed by the Commission, to the
extent that 1t 1s economically sound and in the public interest to do so.
_Article 10. The Licensee shall, after notice and opportunity for hearing, coordinate the
operat1on of_the project, electrically and hydraulically, with such other projects or power
syste~s.and 1n ~uch manner as the Commission may direct in the interest of power and other
bene~1c1al publ1: uses of wa~er resources, and on such conditions concerning the equitable
shar1ng of benef1ts by the L1censee as the Commission may order.
Article 11. Whenever the Licensee is directly benefited by the construction work of
~nother licensee, ~ permittee, or the United States on a storage reservoir or other headwater
1mprovement, the L1censee shall reimburse the owner of the headwater improvement for such part
of the annual charges for interest, maintenance, and depreciation thereof as the Commission
shall ~ete:mine to_be equitable, a~d shall pay to the United States the cost of making such
determ1nat~on as f1xed by the Comm1ssion. For benefits provided by a storage reservoir or other
headwater 1mprovement of the United States, the Licensee shall pay to the Commission the amounts
for which ~t i~ billed from time to time for such headwater benefits and for the cost of making
the determ1nat1ons pursuant to the then current regulations of the Commission under the Federal
Power Act.
Article 12. The operations of the Licensee, so far as they affect the use, storage and
discharge from storage of waters affected by the license, shall at all times be controlled by
such reasonable rules and regulations as the Commission may prescribe for the protection of
life, health, and property, and in the interest of the fullest practicable conservation and
utilization of such waters for power purposes and for other beneficial public uses, including
recreational purposes, and the Licensee shall release water from the project reservoir at such
rate in cubic feet per second, or such volume in acre-feet per specified period of time, as the
Commission may prescribe for the purposes hereinbefore mentioned.
Article 13. On the application of any person, association, corporation, Federal agency,
State or municipality, the Licensee shall permit such reasonable use of its reservoir or other
project properties, including works, lands and water rights, or parts thereof, as may be ordered
by the Commission, after notice and opportunity for hearing, in the interests of comprehensive
deve 1 opment of the~waterway or waterways -i nvo 1 ved a:nd the conservation and uti 1 i zat ion of the
water resources of the region for water supply or for the purposes of steam-electric, irriga-
tion, industrial, municipal or similar uses. The Licensee shall receive reasonable compensation
for use of its reservoir or other project properties or parts thereof for such purposes, to
include at least full reimbursement for any damages or expenses which the joint use causes the
Licensee to incur. Any such compensation shall be fixed by the Commission either by approval of
an agreement between the Licensee and the party or parties benefiting or after notice and oppor-
tunity for hearing. Applications shall contain information in sufficient detail to afford a
full understanding of the proposed use, including satisfactory evidence that the applicant
possesses necessary water rights pursuant to applicable State law, or a showing of cause why
such evidence cannot concurrently be submitted, and a statement as to the relationship of the
proposed use to any State or municipal plans or orders which may have been adopted with respect
to the use of such _waters.
Article 14. In the construction or maintenance of the project works, the Licensee shall
place and maintain suitable structures and devices-to reduce to a reasonable degree the liabil-
ity of contact between its transmission lines and telegraph, telephone and other signal wires or
power transmission lines constructed prior to its transmission lines and not owned by the Licensee,
and shall also place and maintain suitable structures and devices to reduce to a reasonable
degree the liability of any structures or wires falling or obstructing traffic or endangering
life. None of the provisions of this article are intended to relieve the Licensee from any
responsibility or requirement whcih may be imposed by any other lawful authority for avoiding or
eliminating inductive interference.
Article 15. The Licensee shall, for the conservation and development of fish and wild-
life resources, construct, maintain, and operate, or arrange for the construction, maintenance,
and operation of such reasonable facilities, and comply with such reasonable modifications of
the project structures and operation, as may be ordered by the Commission upon its own motion or
upon the recommendation of the Secretary of the Interior or the fish and wildlife agency or
agencies of any State in which the project or a part thereof is located, after notice and oppor-
tunity for hearing.
8-7
Article 16. Whenever the United States shall desire, in connection with the project to
construct fish and wildlife facilities or to improve the existing fish and wildlife facilities
at its own expense, the Licensee shall permit the United States or its designated agency to use
free of cost, such of the Licensee's lands and interests in lands, reservoirs, waterways and '
project works as may be reasonably required to complete such facjlities or such improvements
thereof. In addition, after notice and opportunity for hearing, the Licensee shall modify the
project operation as may be reasonably prescribed by the Commission in order to permit the
maintenance and operation of the fish and wildlife facilities constructed or improved by the
United States under the provisions of this article. This article shall not be interpreted to
place any obligation on the United Stdtes to construct or improve fish and wildlife facilities
or to relieve the Licensee of any obligation under this license.
Article 17. The Licensee shall construct, maintain, and operate, or shall arrange for
the construction, maintenance, and operation of such reasonable recreational facilities,
including modifications thereto, such as access roads, wharves, launching ramps, beaches, picnic
and camping areas, sanitary facilities, and utilities, giving consideration to the needs of the
physically handicapped, and shall comply with such reasonable modifications of the project, as
may be prescribed hereafter by the Commission during the term of this license upon its own
motion or upon the recommendation of the Secretary of the Interior or other interested Federal
or State agencies, after notice and opportunity for hearing.
Article 18. So far as is consistent with proper operation of the project, the Licensee
shall allow the public free access, to a reasonable extent, to project waters and adjacent
project lands owned by the Licensee for the purpose of full utilization of such lands and waters
for navigation and for outdoor recreational purposes, including fishing and hunting: Provided,
That the Licensee may reserve from public access such portions of the project waters, adjacent
lands, and project facilities as may be necessary for the protection of life, health, and prop-
erty.
Article 19. In the construction, maintenance, or operation of the project, the Licensee
shall be responsible for, and shall take reasonable measures to prevent, soil erosion on lands
adjacent to streams or other waters, stream sedimentation, and any form of water or air pollu-
tion. The Commission, upon request or upon its own motion, may order the Licensee to take such
measures as the Commission finds to be necessary for these purposes, after notice and oppor-
tunity for hearing.
Article 20. The Licensee shall consult with the appropriate State and Federal agencies
and, within one year of the date of issuance of this license, shall submit for Commission approval
a plan for clearing the reservoir area. Further, the Licensee shall clear and keep clear to an
adequate width lands along open conduits and shall dispose of all temporary structures, unused
timber, brush, refuse, or other material unnecessary for the purposes of the project which
results from the clearing of lands or from the maintenance or alteration of the project works.
In addition, all trees along the periphery of project reservoirs which may die during operations
of the project shall be removed. Upon approval of the clearing plan all clearing of the lands
and disposal of the unnecessary material shall be done with due diligence and to the satisfac-
tion of the authorized representative of the Commission and in accordance with appropriate
Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations.
Article 21. Timber on lands of the United States cut, used, or destroyed in the con-
struction and maintenance of the project works, or in the clearing of said lands, shall be paid
for, and the resulting slash and debris disposed of, in accordance with the requirements of the
agency of the United States having jurisdiction over said lands. Payment for merchantable
timber shall be at current stumpage rates, and payment for young growth timber below merchant-
able size shall be at current damage appraisal values. However, the agency of the United States
having jurisdiction may sell or dispose of the merchantable timber to others than the Licensee:
Provided, That timber so sold or disposed of shall be cut and removed from the area prior to, or
without undue interference with, clearing operations of the Licensee and in coordination with
the Licensee's project construction schedules. Such sale or disposal to others shall not
relieve the Licensee of responsibility for the clearing and disposal of all slash and debris
from project lands.
Article 22. The Licensee shall do everything reasonably within its power, and shall
require its employees, contractors, and employees of contractors to do everything reasonably
within their power, both independently and upon the request of officers of the agency concerned,
to prevent, to ma'e advance preparations for suppression of, and to suppress fires on the lands
to be occupied or used under the license. The Licensee shall be liable for and shall pay the
costs incurred by the United States in suppressing fires caused from the construction, opera-
tion, or maintenance of the project works or of the works appurtenant or accessory thereto under
the license.
~ I,,,
i
.I
I ~ I
I
8-8
Article 23. The Licensee shall interpose no objection to, and shall in no way prevent,
the use by the agency of the United States having jurisdiction over the lands of the United
States affected, or by persons or corporations occupying lands of the United States under
permit, of water for fire suppression from any stream, conduit, or body of water, natural or
artificial, used by the Licensee in the operation of the project works covered by the license,
or the use by said parties of water for sanitary and domestic purposes from any stream, conduit,
or body of water, natural or artificial, used by the Licensee in the operation of the project
works covered by the license.
Article 24. The Licensee shall be liable for injury to, or destruction of, any build-
ings, bridges, roads, trails, lands, or other property of the United States, occasioned by the
construction, maintenance, or operation of the project works or of the works appurtenant or
accessory thereto under the license. Arrangements to meet such liability, either by compen-
sation for such injury or destruction, or by reconstruction or repair of damaged property, or
otherwise, shall be made with the appropriate department or agency of the United States.
Article 25. The Licensee shall allow any agency of the United States, without charge, to
construct or permit to be constructed on, through, and across those project lands which are
lands of the United States such conduits, chutes, ditches, railroads, roads, trails, telephone
and power lines, and other routes or means of transportation and communication as are not incon-
sistent with the enjoyment of said lands by the Licensee for the purposes of the license. This
license shall not be construed as conferring upon the Licensee any right of use, occupancy, or
enjoyment of the lands of the United States other than for the construction, operation, and
maintenance of the project as stated in the license.
Article 26. In the construction and maintenance of the project, the location and stan-
dards of roads and trails on lands of the United States and other uses of lands of the United
States, including the location and condition of quarries, borrow pits, and spoil disposal areas,
shall be subject to the approval of the department or agency of the United States having super-
vision over the lands involved.
Article 27. The Licensee shall make provision, or shall bear the reasonable cost, as
determined by the agency of the United States affected, of making provision for avoiding induc-
tive interference between any project transmission line or other project facility constructed,
operated, or maintained under the license, and any radio installation, telephone line, or other
communication facility installed or constructed before or after construction of such project
transmission line or other project facility and owned, operated, or used by such agency of the
United States in administering the lands under its jurisdiction.
Article 28. The Licensee shall make use of the Commission's guidelines and other recog-
nized guidelines for treatment of transmission line rights-of-way, and shall clear such portions
of transmission line rights-of-way across lands of the United States as are designated by the
officer of the United States in charge of the lands; shall keep the areas so designated clear of
new growth, all refuse, and inflammable material to the satisfaction .of such officer; shall trim
all branches of trees in contact with or liable to contact the transmission lines; shall cut and
remove all dead or leaning trees which might fall in contact with the transmission lines; and
shall take such other precautions against fire as may be required by such officer. No fires for
the burning of waste material shall be set except with the prior written consent of the officer
of the United States in charge of the lands as to time and place.
Article 29. The Licensee shall cooperate with the United States in the disposal by the
United States, under the Act of July 31, 1947, 61 Stat. 681, as amended (30 U.S.C. Sec. 601,
et seq.), of mineral and vegetative materials from lands of the United States occupied by the
project or any part thereof: Provided, That such disposal has been authorized by the Commission
and that it does not unreasonably interfere wi.th the occupancy of such lands by the Licensee for
the purposes of the license: Provided further, That in the event of disagreement, any question
of unreasonable interference shall be determined by the Commission after notice and opportunity
for hearing.
Article 30. If the Licensee shall cause or suffer essential project property to be
removed or destroyed or to become unfit for use, without adequate replacement, or shall abandon
or discontinue good faith operation of the project or refuse or neglect to comply with the terms
of the license and the lawful orders of the Commission mailed to the record address of the
Licensee or its agent, the Commission will deem it to be the intent of the Licensee to surrender
the license. The Commission, after notice and opportunity for hearing, may require the Licensee
to remove any or all structures, equipment and power lines within the project boundary and to
8-9
take any such other action necessary to restore the project waters, lands, and facilities remain-
ing within the project boundary to a condition satisfactory to the United States agency having
jurisdiction over its lands or the Commission's authorized representative, as appropriate, or to
provide for the continued operation and maintenance of nonpower facilities and fulfill such
other obligations under the license as the Commission may prescribe. In addition, the Commis-
sion in its discretion, after notice and opportunity for hearing, may also agree to the surren-
der of the license when the Commission, for the reasons recited herein, deems it to be the
intent of the Licensee to surrender the license.
Article 31. The right of the Licensee and of its successors and assigns to use or occupy
waters over which the United States has jurisdiction, or lands of the United States under the
license, for the purpose of maintaining the project works or otherwise, shall absolutely cease
at the end of the license period, unless the Licensee has obtained a new license pursuant to the
then existing laws and regulations, or an annual license under the terms and conditions of this
license.
Article 32. The terms and conditions expressly set forth in the license shall not be
construed as impairing any terms and conditions of the Federal Power Act which are not expressly
set forth herein.
\
::5" I ov
'Z!n)
~s·
s:;-z )11
)LJ.-.
Figure 3·16
0 20 40 miles
0 10 20 30 40 50 kilometers
D Glaciers and lcefields
Coastal Western Hemlock-Sitka Spruce Forest
Bottomland Spruce-Poplar Forest
Upland Spruce-Hardwood Forest
l(il~ Lowland Spruce-Hardwood Forest
~High Brush
Low Brush Bog and Muskeg
~ Moist Tundra
Wet Tundra
~ Alpine Tundra and Barren Ground
General Vegetation Distribution in Southcentral Alaska and
Locations of Proposed Dam Sites, Non-Susitna Alternative
Hydropower Sites, and Alternative Thermal Unit Sites.
[Source: Adapted from Selkregg, 1974; 1977]
Propos•ed Hydropower Sites
,&watana
£Devil Canyon
Alternative Hydropower Sites
£Joh nson
~Browne
&.,Kaetna
,&snow
£Lake Chakachamna
Alternative Thermal Sites
QJ Lower Beluga River
0 Chuitna River
[2JKanai
0 Southeast Anchorage
0wnlow
0Nenana