Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA1771ARLIS.AlaskaResourcesLIbrary&InformatlOnServices'\.nchorage,Alaska11J~l-1]'1J~J]]J~]]J]1NN0')(0(0JM00010J10r--MMJ...'JFEDERALENERGYREGULATORYCOMMISSIONSUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTPROJECTNO.7114ALASKAPOWERAUTHORITYCOMMENTSONTHEFEDERALENERGYREGULATORYCOMMISSIONDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTOFMAY1984Volume2ATechnicalComments-NeedforPower-AlternativesAugust1984SusitnaFileNo.6.4.6.211<,tf~5.SaF41;LV\D.\'111 1JCross-ReferenceIndexVOLUME2ATABLEOFCONTENTSTheattachedBibliography1SfortheenclosedTechnicalCommentsonly.NFPOOl-NFPl08ALTOOl-ALT08lARLISAlaskaResourcesLibrary&InformatlonServlcesAnchorage.AlaskaSubjectIndexBibliographyTechnicalCommentsNeedforPowerAlternativesNote:J l-...LL iI-.--~~'------l....-..i L....L...,;:......-.J L.....:'----'~~~l-J , ----.J 1 ----.J CROSS-REFERENCE INDEX This Index organizes the Technical Comments by the Section in the DEIS to which they refer.Each Technical Comment is listed by its alphanumeric code opposite a Section of the DEIS.If a Technical Comment deals with more than one Section,it is listed opposite each Section with which it deals. DEIS SECTION 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 1.2.4.2 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 49702 840820 SEE COMMENT NOS. NFPOOl,NFP002,NFP003, NFP004,NFP005, NFP006,NFP007 ALTOOI AQROOl,AQR002 NFP008,NFP009,NFP010,NFPOll NFP012,NFP013,NFP014 NFP015,NFP016, NFP017,NFP018,NFP019,NFP020,NFP021 NFP022 NFP023,NFP024,NFP025 NFP026,NFP027, NFP028,NFP029,NFP030,NFP031 NFP032,NFP033,NFP034,NFP035 NFP036,NFP037 ~~L-.J I :: '-----''---L-l--J 1 ---'L..-.-J L-J L-J or , L--...:L.J ,., L--...:L-J L-J -----!L.J ----J DEIS SECnON 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 Susitna 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 1.4.5.2 Thermal Scenarios 1.4.5.3 Combined Scenarios REFERENCES 49702 840820 2 SEE COMMENT NOS. ALT002,ALTO03,ALTOO4 ~ NFP038,NFP039 NFP040,NFP04l,NFP042,NFP043 NFP044 NFP045 NFP046 NFP047 NFP048 NFP049 NFP050,NFP05l,NFP052,NFP053 NFP050,NFP053 NFPO 54,NFPO 55 NFP056,NFP058,NFP059 NFP057,NFP059 NFP060,NFP06l NFP063 NFP063 NFP062,NFP063 _:_-~r '---L....L.-;\..-.....J '------""L-....:....--L..J r·'-- ,1 L--.J ~~----J "-----..j 1 ----.!-----..j ----.J DEIS SECTION SEE COMMENT NOS. 2.PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 2.1 PROPOSED PROJECT 2.1.1 Location 2.1.2 Facilities 2.1.2.1 Watana Development 2.1.2.2 Devil Canyon Development 2.1.2.3 Construction and Permanent Site Facilities 2.1.3 Construction Schedule 2.1.3.1 Watana 2.1.3.2 Devil Canyon 2.1.4 Construction Workforce Requirements 2.1.5 Operation and Maintenance 2.1.5.1 Operation 2.1.5.2 Maintenance 2.1.6 Safety Inspections 2.1.7 Access Plan 2.1.8 Transmission Line Electrical Effects 2.1.9 Compliance with Applicable Laws 2.1.10 Future Plans 2.1.11 Recreation Plan 2.1.11.1 Inventory and Evaluation of Potential Recreation Development Areas 2.1.11.2 Implementation and Description of the Proposed Recreation Plan 2.1.11.3 Recreation Monitoring Program 2.1.12 Mitigative Measures Proposed by the Applicant 2.1.12.1 Land Resources 2.1.12.2 Water Quantity and Quality 2.1.12.3 Fisheries 2.1.12.4 Terrestrial Communities NFP064 NFP066 NFP065 ALT005 AQR003 AQR004 49702 840820 3 L-.....L...:...:L--...L-..::....--L-......J ------'~~LJ '----''---'L.-....i _ '----<I ------'---J ----' DEIS SECTION 2.1.12.5 Threatened and Endangered Species 2.1.12.6 Recreation Resources 2.1.12.7 Socioeconomic Factors 2.1.12.8 Visual Resources 2.1.12.9 Cultural Resources 2.2 SUSITNA DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES 2.2.1 Alternative Facility Designs 2.2.1.1 Applicant's Studies 2.2.1.2 Alternative Watana Facilities 2.2.1.3 Alternative Devil Canyon Facilities 2.2.2 Alternative Access Corridors 2.2.2.1 Applicant Studies 2.2.2.2 Corridors Studied 2.2.2.3 Development of Plans 2.2.2.4 Description of Most Responsive Access Plans 2.2.3 Alternative Transmission Line Corridors 2.2.4 Alternative Susitna Development Schemes 2.2.4.1 General 2.2.4.2 Watana I-Devil Canyon Development 2.2.4.3 Watana I-Modified High Devil Canyon Development 2.2.4.4 Watana I-Reregulating Dam Development 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 49702 840820 4 SEE COMMENT NOS. TRROOl SSCOOl,SSC002,SSC003 NFP067 NFP068 NFP068 NFP068 NFP068 NFP069 ALT006,ALT007,ALT008 NFP069 L.-l..--:L.-;''----''---~~L.J r '---'~-----I '~----.....L-.J ---...J '~---..J ----'~ DEIS SECTION 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 Ch~kachamna 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 49702 840820 5 SEE COMMENT NOS. NFP069 NFP069 ALT009,ALTOIO NFP070 ALTOIl,ALT012,ALTOI3,ALTOl4 ALTO 15 ,ALT016 ALTOI7,ALT018 ALT019 TRR002 ALT020 SSC004,SSC005 ~LL r '-----L-, '-----' , ,r I.---'-----''-- r-----...i........--,;I ------~~ ." ~----...J DEIS SECTION 3.AFFECTED ENVIROHHENT 3.1 PROPOSED PROJECT 3.1.1 Land Resources 3.1.1.1 Geology and Soils 3.1.1.2 Land Uses and Ownership 3.1.2 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 Line Corridors 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 3.1.8.2 Institutional Issues and Quality of Life 3.1.8.3 Economy and Employment 49702 840820 SEE COMMENT NOS. SSC006 ALT02l AQR005.AQR006.AQR007.AQR008.AQR009.AQROl3 AQROlO.AQROll.AQROl4 AQROl2 TRR003.TRR004. TRR005.TRR006.TRR007.TRR008.TRR009 TRRO 10.TRRO 11 SSC007 SSC008 SSC009 6 , Le--'~~'--- r "; ~---''---~'~----~:L.-.;'-----'"'----oJ ---.J '---_...;~---'~ 3.1.8.4 3.1.8.5 3.1.8.6 3.1.8.7 DEIS SECTION Housing Community Services and Fiscal Status Transportation Human Use and Management of wildlife Resources 3.1.9 Visual Rsources 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 49702 840820 SEE COMMENT NOS. SSCOIO SSCOll SSCOI2,SSCOl3 ALT022 SSCOI4,SSCOl5 7 L-J i-L L----L..-....l-.-..;-.....-.-.l....-..~~I--......J L.J """---' ," ----..J L-......"~----..J I-----....-----.J ------.J DEIS SECTION 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 Threa~ened 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 49702 840820 SEE COMMENT NOS. ALT023 TRR012,TRR013 SSCOl6 SSCOl7 ALT024 SSC018 SSCOl9 8 l-...,'---I'----r-......-.'"-----'~'----I ( '--L..J LJ r 1--.-'----'~-----.-'I '"---'----J ----J -----J DEIS SECTION 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 3.5.6 Threatened and Endangered Species 3.5.7 Recreation Resource,s 3.5.8 Socioeconomic Factors 3.5.9 Visual Resources 3.5.10 Cultural Resources REFERENCES 4.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 4.1.3.2 Water Quality 4.1.3.3 Temperature 4.1.3.4 Ice Processes 4.1.3.5 Groundwater 4.1.4 Aquatic Communities 4.1.4.1 Plant and Invertebrate Communities SEE COMMENT NOS. ALT025 SSC020 ALT026 ALT027,ALT028 ALT029, ALT030,ALT03l,ALT032 ,ALT033 TRROl4 TRROl5,TRR016,TRR017 TRR018 SSC021 SSC022 SSC023 ALT034,ALT035 AQROl9 ALT036, ALT037,ALT038 NFP071,NFP072,NFP073.NFP074.NP075.NP076 AQR015, AQROl6,AQR017,AQROI8.AQR020,ACR02.,ACR022,AQR023, AQR024 ,AQR025,AQR026,AQR027,AQR028,AQR029, ALT039 AQR030, AQR031, AQR032,AQR033, AQR034,AQR035,AQR036.AQR037,AQR038 49702 9 840820 L.-~L-L-I , ~rL-.....! I L--,I-..-..-J i----LJ LJ ~~L..-;~........~i '----.-oJ i i-J DEIS SECTION 4.1.4.2 Fish Communities 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 49702 840820 SEE COMMENT NOS. AQR039. AQR040.AQR041,AQR042.AQR043. AQR044.AQR045. AQR046.AQR047.AQR048,AQR049.AQR050.AQR05l,AQR052. AQR053.AQR054.AQR055 TRR019.TRR020 TRR02l.TRR022.TRR023.TRR024. TRR025. TRR026.TRR032, TRR029.TRR027.TRR028,TRR030 •.TRR03l SSC024.SSC025.SSC026,SSC027,SSC039 SSC028, SSC029,SSC030,SSC03l.SSC032,SSC033 SSC034,SSC035,SSC036 SSC037.SSC038 ALT040 TRR033 SSC039 SSC040.SSC04l.SSC042.SSC043 10 L..-.;LiJ L_~~", L.-.....L.J .r I..-.....i L.J L.J L..J r '----'rT '"'-- , ----..J ~r I "------I , ----..J ~ DEIS $ECTION 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 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 49702 840820 SEE COMMENT NOS. ALT04l,ALT042 AQR071 TRR034 SSC044,SSC045 SSC046 ALT043,ALT044,ALT045 TRR035 SSC047,SSC048 SSC049 SSC050 ALT046 SSC051 11 L....r L--...;~r 1 L--...;r ~--L-J '------'L-J L-J L-J L....J ~----'-----' 1 ~~:I '-----.J ~----J DEIS SECTION 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 Cultur~l Resources 4.8 RELATIONSHIP TO RESOURCE PLANS AND UTILIZATION 4.9 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 4.9.1 Proposed Project 49702 840820 SEE COMMENT NOS. ALT047,ALT048 ALT049 TRR036,TRR037 TRR038 SSC052 SSC053,SSC054 SSC055 ALT050 ALT05l,ALT052 ALT053 ALT054 TRR039 TRR040 SSC056 SSC057 SSC058,SSC059, SSC060, SSC061, SSC062,SSC063 ALT055,ALT056 12 L.-.J L-;~L-.:L.-L..J L-.-J L..J L...J r 1-----.:L...i ~..,..I L.-J : 1-----.:1 ~:-J :-J 1 ----1 DEIS SECTION 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 5.STAFF CONCLUSIONS 5.1 SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 5.1.1 Proposed Project 5.1.1.1 Land Resources 5.1.1.2 Climate,Air Quality,Noise 5.1.1.3 Water Quantity and Quality 5.1.1.4 Aquatic Communities 5.1.1.5 Terrestrial Communities 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 5.1.2.2 Climate,Air Quality,Noise 5.1.2.3 Water Quantity and Quality 5.1.2.4 Aquatic Communities 5.1.2.5 Terrestrial Communities 5.1.2.6 Recreation Resources 5.1.2.7 Socioeconomic Factors 5.1.2.8 Visual Resources 49702 840820 SEE COMMENT NOS. ALT056 TRR041 SSC064 ALT057 ALT058 ALT058,ALT059 ALT060 AQR056,AQR057 TRR042,TRR043,TRR044 ,TRR045 ALT061,ALT062 NFP077 ALT063 ,ALT064 ALT065 TRR046 SSC065 13 L..J L..J L..-.,r 1i,......;.-.J L..J ~L.-J L.J LJ L.J L-J L..J L..;L-J i.-..J 1 '----J ~---i -----.J DEIS SECTION 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 APPENDIX A.LOAD GROWTH FORECAST:THE ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY FORECASTS A.1 METHODOLOGY A.2 LOAD PROJECTION 49702 840820 SEE COMMENT NOS. NFP078 ALT066 ,ALT067 TRR047 NFP079,NFP080 AQR058,AQR059 ALT068 SSC066 ALT069 NFP08l,NFP082 AQR060,AQR06l,AQR062 AQR063, AQR064,AQR065,AQR066 TRR048 SSC067,SSC068,SSC069,SSC070 SSC071 NFP083, NFP084,NFP085 NFP086 14 r~L-i----~l-~L.-:l-J L.-!L..J (I L-...-..i L.....I---.....i'-----L.-J ----.....1 -.i ~~1 ~ DEIS SECTION A.3 WORLD OIL PRICE A.3.1 Some Current Views A.3.2 Masking Effect of Inventory Changes A.3.3 Some Recent Trends and Their Meaning A.3.4 APA Oil Price and Load Projection A.3.5 FERC Projections REFERENCES APPENDIX B.FUTURE ENERGV RESOURCES B.l INTRODUCTION B.2 PETROLEUM FUELS B.3 NATURAL GAS B.3.1 Reserves/Resources B.3.2 Pricing of Natural Gas B.3.3 Future Price of Natural Gas B.3.3.1 Completion of the ANGTS B.3.3.2 Completion of Gas Pipeline to Alaskan Gulf and Construction of LNG Export Facilities B.3.3.3 Construction of Facilities to Export Additional Volumes of Cook Inlet Gas B.3.3.4 No Additional Facilities for Export of Cook Inlet Gas B.3.3.5 Future Gas Prices B.4,COAL B.5 PEAT B.6 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY B.7 TIDAL POWER B.8 SOLAR ENERGY REFERENCES 49702 SEE COMMENT NOS. NFP087, NFP088, NFP089,NFP090 NFP092 NFP091,NFP094,NFP095 NFP096 NFP097 NFP098 NFP099,NFPlO 1 NFPlOO NFPI02, NFPI03,NFPI04 NFPI05 NFP106 NFP107 15 ~LJ L.....:~LJ L.....:r I , , I..-...-.,.;I..-...-.,.;L...;LJ I..-...J ! , "---'L..J L-J -.J l.-.J , :...---!l-J ----..J DEIS SECTION APPENDIX C.ENERGY CONSERVATION C.l ENERGY CONSERVATION AND THE NATIONAL ENERGY ACT OF 1978 C.2 CONSERVATION OF OIL AND NATURAL GAS--THE POWERPLANT AND INDUSTRIAL FUEL USE ACT OF 1978 C.3 THE PUBLIC UTILITY REGULATORY POLICIES ACT OF 1978--RATE DESIGN,LOAD MANAGEMENT,AND REDUCTION OF THE GROWTH RATES IN THE DEMAND FOR ELECTRIC POWER C.4 RATE DESIGN AND LOAD MANAGEMENT--THE NARUC RESOLUTION NO.9 STUDY APPENDIX D.345-kV TRANSMISSION LINE ELECTRICAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS D.l INTRODUCTION D.2 OZONE PRODUCTION D.3 AUDIBLE NOISE D.4 RADIO NOISE D.5 ELECTRIC AND MAGNETIC FIELDS D.5.1 Electric Fields D.5.2 Magnetic Fields D.6.ELECTRICAL SAFETY REFERENCES APPENDIX E.GEOLOGY AND SOILS E.l AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT E.l.l Proposed Project E.l.l.l Upper and Middle Susitna River Basin E.l.l.2 Lower Susitna River Basin 49702 SEE COMMENT NOS. NFP108 16 r L-....i r , '------'L-:( I..-~L.J L-.-J '-----'LJ L.J ('1 '----'LJ ( 1 '----'L..J LJ ~ :1~~, -----.J DEIS SECTION SEE COMMENT NOS. 17 E.I.I.3 Power Transmission Line Corridors E.I.2 Susitna Development Alternatives E.I.2.1 Alternative Dam Locations and Designs E.I.2.2 Alternative Access Routes E.I.2.3 Alternative Power Transmission Routes E.I.2.4 Alternative Borrow Sites E.I.3 Non-Susitna Generation Alternatives E.I.3.1 Natural-Gas-Fired Generation Scenario E.I.3.2 Coal-Fired Generation Scenario E.I.3.3 Combined Hydro-Thermal Generation Scenario E.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT E.2.1 Proposed Project E.2.1.1 Watana Development E.2.1.2 Devil Canyon Development E.2.1.3 Access Routes E.2.1.4 Power Transmission Facilities E.2.2 Susitna Development Alternatives E.2.2.1 Alternative Dam Locations and Designs E.2.2.2 Alternative Access Routes E.2.2.3 Alternative Power Transmission Routes E.2.2.4 Alternative Borrow Sites E.2.3 Non-Susitna Generation Alternatives E.2.3.1 Natural-Gas-Fired Generation Scenario E.2.3.2 Co~l-Fired Generation Scenario E.2.3.3 Combined Hydro-Thermal Generation Scenario E.2.4 Comparison of Alternatives E.2.4.1 Susitna Development Alternatives E.2.4.2 Non-Susitna Generation Alternatives E.3 MITIGATION REFERENCES 49702 840820 ALT070)ALT071 r----r L-........I l.-.-.-L....;L....;LJ 1 -----..)r.....-L.J L-J ,1-r 1---I '"""- r~'I 1....-.-1 L....-;1 ---.I 1----' 1 '---'~ DEIS SECTION APPENDIX F.LAND USE F.I AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT F.I.I Introduction F.l.2 Proposed Project F.l.2.l Upper and Middle Susitna River Basin F.I.2.2 .Power Transmission Line Corridor F.l.3 Susitna Development Alternatives F.I.3.l Alternative Dam Locations and Design F.l.3.2 Alternative Access Routes F.I.3.3 Alternative Power Transmission Routes F.I.3.4 Alternative Borrow Sites F.I.4 Non-Susitna Generation Alternatives F.I.4.1 Natural-Gas-Fired Generation Scenario F.I.4.2 Coal-Fired Generation Scenario F.l.4.3 Combined Hydro-Thermal Generation Scenario F.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS F.2.1 Proposed Project F.2.1.1 Watana Development F.2.1.2 Devil Canyon Development F.2.1.3 Access Routes F.2.1.4 Power Transmission Facilities F.2.2 Susitna Development Alternatives F.2.2.1 Alternative Dam Locations and Designs F.2.2.2 Alternative Access Routes F.2.2.3 Alternative Power Transmission Routes F.2.2.4 Alternative Borrow Sites F.2.3 Non-Susitna Generation Alternatives F.2.3.1 Natural-Gas-Fired Generation Scenario F.2.3.2 Coal-Fired Generation Scenario 49702 840820 SEE COMMENT NOS. SSC072,SSC073 SSC074,SSC075 SSC076 18 ~L-L-L-..:~I...----..J ~-----...~, -------- L.J l...-.-'"-----..,.;'----..J eL--'--'~--.J , '~~ DEIS SECTION F.2.3.3 Combined Hydro-Thermal Generation Scenario F.2.4 Comparison of Alternatives F.2.4.l Susitna Development Alternatives F.2.4.2 Power Generation Scenarios F.3 MITIGATION F.3.l Mitigative Measures Proposed by the Applicant F.3.l.l Dams and Impoundment Areas F.3.l.2 Construction Camps and Villages F.3.l.3 Recreational Use F.3.l.4 Access Route Corridors F.3.l.5 Transmission Line Corridors F.3.2 Additional Mitigative Measures Recommended by the Staff REFERENCES APPENDIX G.CLIMATE,AIR QUALITY,NOISE G.l AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT G.l.l Proposed Project G.1.1.l Climate G.l.l.2 Air Quality G.l.l.3 Noise G.l.2 Susitna Development Alternatives G.l.3 Natural-Gas-Fired Generation Scenario G.1.3.l Climate G.l.3.2 Air Quality,Noise G.l.4 Coal-Fired Generation Scenario G.l.4.l Climate G.l.4.2 Air Quality G.1.4 .3 No is e G.l.5 Combined Hydro-Thermal Generation Scenario G.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 19 49702 SEE COMMENT NOS. SSC077 SSC078 ALTO 72 ALTO 73 c \"----'~L-:.I , '----'l.--....i ~'~'r .:......-r 1--L..j L-l '----"~'----"'~'-----''-----1 1 ~ DEIS SECTION G.2.1 Proposed Project G.2.1.1 Climate G.2.1.2 Air Quality G.2.1.3 Noise G.2.2 Susitna Development Alternatives G.2.3 Natural-Gas-Fired Generation Scenario G.2.4 Coal-Fired Generation Scenario G.2.5 Combined Hydro-Thermal Generation Scenario REFERENCES APPENDIX H.WATER RESOURCES H.l BASIN CHARACTERISTICS H.l.1 River Morphology H.l.2 Ha~itat Types H.2 FLOW REGIMES H.2.1 Pre-Project H.2.2 Post-Project H.3 HABITAT ALTERATION H.4 WATER TEMPERATURE H.5 WATER QUALITY H.5.1 salinity H.5.2 Suspended Solids H.5.3 Nitrogen Gas Supersaturation H.5.4 Nutrients REFERENCES APPENDIX I.FISHERIES AND AQUATIC RESOURCES 1.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 1.1.1 Plant and Invertebrate Communities 1.1.2 Biology and Habitat Suitability Requirements of Fish Species 49702 840820 SEE COMMENT NOS. ALT074,ALT075 ALT076,ALTOn ALT078,ALT079.ALT080 AQR067,AQR068 AQR069 AQR070,AQR072,AQR073 AQR074 AQR075 AQR076 20 '-~ rL_I L-..:,'-~r )---r "----' ,...........l-J L....,'----" 'T ''~ , ----...------..I , ----.J DEIS SECTION SEE COMMENT NOS. 1.1.2.1 Pad fic Salmon AQR077,AQR07B,AQR079,AQROBO,AQROBI,AQROB2,AQROB3, AQROB4,AQROB5, AQROB6,AQROB7,AQROBB,AQROB9,AQR090, AQR091,AQR092, AQR093, 1.1.2.2 Other Anadromous Species AQR094,AQR095 1.1.3 Resident Species AQR096 1.1.4 Habitat Utilization 1.1.4.1 Upstream of Devil Canyon 1.1.4.2 Devil Canyon to Talkeetna AQR097,AQR09B 1.1.4.3 Talkeetna to Cook Inlet 1.1.4.4 Streams of Access Routes and Transmission Corridors 1.1.5 Fisheries 1.1.5.1 Commercial Fishery 1.1.5.2 Sport Fishery 1.1.5.3 Subsistence Fishery 1.1.5.4 Salmon Enhancement Plan 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1.2.1 Watana Development AQR112 1.2.1.1 Plant Communities 1.2.1.2 Invertebrate Communities 1.2.1.3 Fish Communities AQR099,AQRIOO,AQRIOI,AQRI02,AQRI03,AQRI04,AQRI05, AQR106, AQR107,AQRlOB,AQRI09,AQRIIO,AQRIIl,'AQRI13, AQRl14, AQRl15,AQRl16,AQRI17,AQRIIB.AQRlI9,AQRI20, AQRI21, AQRI22, AQRI23, AQRI24, AQRI25,AQR126,AQRl27, AQRl2B,AQRl29,AQRI30,AQRI31. AQRI32,AQRl33 1.2.2 Devil Canyon Development 1.2.2.1 Plant Communities 1.2.2.2 Invertebrate Communities 1.2.2.3 Fish Communities AQRI34,AQR135,AQRI36.AQR137,AQR13B,AQR139,AQRl40 AQRl4l,AQRl42, AQRl43,AQRl44 1.2.3 Access Routes 49702 840820 21 ,,,----L-J r '-----'L...-:L-J r ' L.-.-....; ,r r L-.-'~'~'---'l-J ~'---'U-..J :..-.J , 1 '-----'------..J '-----" DEIS SECTION 1.2.3.1 Plant Communities 1.2.3.2 Invertebrate Communities 1.2.3.3 Fish Communities 1.2.4 Power Transmission Facilities 1.2.4.1 Plant Communities 1.2.4.2 Invertebrate Communities 1.2.4.3 Fish Communities REFERENCES APPENDIX J.TERRESTRIAL BOTANICAL RESOURCES J.l AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT J.l.l Introduction J.l.2 Proposed Project J.l.2.1 Upper and Middle Susitna River Basin J.l.2.2 Lower Susitna River Floodplain J.l.2.3 Power Transmission Corridor J.l.2.4 Threatened and Endangered Species J.l.3 Susitna Development Alternatives J.l.3.1 Alternative Dam Locations and Designs J.l.3.2 Alternative Access Routes J.l.3.3 Alternative Power Transmission Routes J.1.3.4 Alternative Borrow Sites J.l.3.5 Threatened and Endangered Species J.1.4 Non-Susitna G~neration Alternatives J.1.4.1 Natural-Gas-Fired Generation Scenario J.1.4.2 Coal-Fired Generation Scenario J.1.4.3 Combined Hydro-Thermal Generation Scenario J.l.4.4 Threatened and Endangered Species J.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS J.2.1 Proposed Project 49702 840820 22 SEE COMMENT NOS. TRR049 TRR049 ~L.-..-:L......L.--I...-,-r '---"~'----'r I-r , -.........J i...------L-J ~-..J I----..I ~ DEIS SECTION J.2.1.1 Watana Development J.2.1.2 Devil Canyon Development J.2.1.3 Access Routes J.2.1.4 Power Transmission Facilities J.2.1.5 Threatened and Endangered Species J.2.2 Susitna Development Alternatives J.2.2.1 Alternative Dam Locations and Designs J.2.2.2 Alternative Access Routes J.2.2.3 Alternative Power Transmission Routes J.2.2.4 Alternative Borrow Sites J.2.2.5 Threatened and Endangered Species J.2.3 Non-Susitna Generation Alternatives J.2.3.1 Natural-Gas-Fired Generation Scenario J.2.3.2 Coal-Fired Generation Scenario J.2.3.3 Combined Hydro-Thermal Generation Scenario J.2.3.4 Threatened and Endangered Species J.2.4 Comparison of Alternatives J.2.4.1 Susitna Development Alternatives J.2.4.2 Power Generation Scenarios J.2.5 Conclusions J.2.5.1 Proposed Project J.2.5.2 Alternatives J.3 MITIGATION J.3.1 Measures Proposed by the Applicant J.3.1.1 Avoidance J.3.1.2 Minimization J.3.1.3 Rectification J.3.1.4 Reduction J.3.1.5 Compensation 49702 840820 23 SEE COMMENT NOS. TRR050 TRR05l i'--.- , ~r1...--'~'L.J L.-J rL--...-i r '~r , "-----'L..-J r .~ ,\ I.-.-'"----i n 'W--i -----..J -----..J ~~ DEIS SECTION J.3.2 Evaluation of Proposed Measures J.3.3 Recommended and Ongoing Studies REFERENCES SEE COMMENT NOS. APPENDIX K.TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE RESOURCES K.l BACKGROUND K.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT K.2.1 Proposed Project K.2.1.1 Upper and Middle Susitna River Basin K.2.1.2 Lower Susitna River Basin K.2.1.3 Power Transmission Line Corridor K.2.2 Susitna Development Alternatives K.2.2.1 Alternative Dam Locations and Designs K.2.2.2 Alternative Access Routes,Power Transmission Line Routes,and Borrow Sites K.2.3 Non-Susitna Generation Scenarios K.2.3.1 Natural-Gas-Fired Generation Scenario K.2.3.2 Coal-Fired Generation Scenario K.2.3.3 Combined Hydro-Thermal Generation Scenario K.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT K.3.1 Proposed Project K.3.1.1 Watana Project K.3.1.2 Devil Canyon Development K.3.1.3 Access Routes K.3.1.4 Power Transmission Facilities K.3.2 Susitna Development Alternatives K.3.3 Non-Susitna Generating Alternatives K.3.3.1 Natural-Gas-Fired Generation Scenario K.3.3.2 Coal-Fired Generation Scenario TRR052,TRR053,TRR054 ,TRR055,TRR056, TRR057,TRR058 TRR059,TRR060,TRR062 TRR06l,TRR063 TRR064,TRR065, TRR066,TRR067,TRR068,TRR069 TRR070,TRR071 ,TRR072,TRR073 TRR074,TRR075 TRR076,TRR077 49702 840820 24 '------'~rL-..,;'-'---''-----'L-....:L.....;l..--.J r I.....-..i r ,~\.-...J l-J r " I.....-.-: rr , Uo....--!---...:'I-----.---l ~ DEIS SECTION K.3.3.3 Combined Hydro-Thermal Generation Scenario K.3.4 Comparison of Alternatives K.4 MITIGATIVE ACTIONS K.4.1 Proposed Mitigation K.4.2 Recommended Mitigation K.5 SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS K.5.1 Proposed Project K.5.2 Alternatives to the Proposed Project REFERENCES APPENDIX L.RECREATION RESOURCES L.I AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT L.I.I Introduction L.I.l.1 Historical Perspective L.l.l.2 Statewide Overview L.I.2 Proposed Project L.l.2.1 Regional Setting L.I.2.2 Upper and Middle Susitna River Basin L.l.2.3 Lower Susitna Basin and Cook Inlet Area L.I.2.4 Transmission Line Corridors L.I.3 Susitna Development Alternatives L.l.3.1 Alternative Dam Locations and Designs L.l.3.2 Alternative Access Routes L.I.3.3 Alternative Power Transmission Routes L.I.3.4 Alternative Borrow Sites L.I.4 Non-Susitna Generation Alternatives L.l.4.1 Natural-Gas-Fired Generation Scenario L.I.4.2 Coal-Fired Generation Scenario 49702 840820 SEE COMMENT NOS. TRR078 TRR079.TRR080.TRR081 SSC079 25 L-:'---- r L--.!L..L L-L-i...-.....I l..-.J L-J L-J L..-J L-J ,. -----...:'---i ,.1-------'-----.i _J ,--I DEIS SECTION L.1.4.3 Combined Hydro-Thermal Generation Scenario L.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS L.2.1 Proposed Project L.2.1.1 Watana Development L.2.1.2 Devil Canyon Development L.2.1.3 Access Routes L.2.1.4 Power Transmission Facilities L.2.1.5 Proposed Recreation Plan L.2.2 Susitna Development Alternatives L.2.2.1 Alternative Dam Locations and Designs L.2.2.2 Alternative Access Routes L.2.2.3 Alternative Power Transmission Routes L.2.2.4 Alternative Borrow Sites L.2.3 Non-Susitna Generation Alternatives L.2.3.1 Natural-Gas-Fired Generation Scenario L.2.3.2 Coal-Fired Generation Scenario L.2.3.3 Combined Hydro-Thermal Generation Scenario L.2.4 Comparison of Alternatives L.2.4.1 Susitna Development Alternatives L.2.4.2 Non-Susitna Generation Alternatives L.3 MITIGATION REFERENCES APPENDIX M.VISUAL RESOURCES M.1 VISUAL RESOURCE ANALYSIS CRITERIA M.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT M.2.1 Proposed Project M.2.1.1 Upper and Middle Susitna River Basin M.2.1.2 Power Transmission Line Corridor SEE COMMENT NOS. SSC080 SSC081.SSC082 SSC083 SSC084.SSC085.SSC086 SSC087 SSC088.SSC089 SSC090 SSC091 SSC092 SSC093, SSC094,SSC095 49702 840820 26 L-,L-I '-----'~L-L-J L....-i L..-: r ~, i---i i..--J r 'I....-i ~L........,I...-J :.....-.J l-..J '-----'-l --.J DEIS SECTION M.2.2 Susitna Development Alternatives M.2.2.I Alternative Dam Locations and Design M.2.2.2 Alternative Access Routes M.2.2.3 Alternative Power Transmission Line Routes M.2.2.4 Alternative Borrow Sites M.2.3 Non-Susitna Generation Alternatives M.2.3.I Natural-Gas-Fired Generation Scenario M.2.3.2 Coal-Fired Generation Scenario M.2.3.3 Combined Hydro-Thermal Generation Scenario M.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS M.3.I Proposed Project M.3.I.I Watana Development M.3.1.2 Devil Canyon Development M.3.1.3 Access Routes M.3.1.4 Power Transmission Facilities M.3.2 Susitna Development Alternatives M.3.2.I Alternative Dam Locations and Designs M.3.2.2 Alternative Access Routes M.3.2.3 Alternative Power Transmission Line Routes M.3.2.4 Alternative Borrow Sites M.3.3 Non-Susitna Generation Alternatives M.3.3.I Natural-Gas-Fired Generation Scenario M.3.3.2 Coal-Fired Generation Scenario M.3.3.3 Combined Hydro-Thermal Generation Scenario M.3.4 Comparison of Alternatives M.3.4.I Susitna Development Alternatives M.3.4.2 Power Generation Scenario M.4 MITIGATION M.4.I Mitigative Measures Proposed by the Applicant M.4.I.I Additional Study 49702 840820 SEE COMMENT NOS. SSC096 SSC097 ALT08l SSC098 SSC099 SSClOO SSClOl 27 L.-- ( l..-..-....L-:r'---'~~L.-...J r~r I '---I ("I~L.-,L.J L-.:! '-----'~! '----..I ~~---J DEIS SECTION M.4.1.2 Best Development Practices M.4.1.3 Creative Engineering Design M.4.1.4 Use of Form,Line,Color,or Textures M.4.2 Additional Mitigative Measures Recommended by the Staff REFERENCES APPENDIX N.SOCIOECONOMICS N.I AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT N.I.I Proposed Project N.I.I.I Introduction N.I.I.2 Population N.I.I.3 Institutional Issues N.I.I.4 Quality of Life N.I.I.S Economy and Employment N.I.I.6 Housing N.I.I.7 Community Services and Fiscal Status N.I.I.8 Transportation N.I.2 Susitna Development Alternatives N.I.2.1 Alternative Dam Locations and Designs N.I.2.2 Alternative Access Routes N.I.2.3 Alternative Power Transmission Routes N.I.2.4 Alternative Borrow Sites N.I.3 Non-Susitna Generation Alternatives N.I.3.1 Natural-Gas-Fired Generation Scenario N.I.3.2 Coal-Fired Generation Scenario N.I.3.3 Combined Hydro-Thermal Generation Scenario N.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS N.2.1 Proposed Project N.2.1.1 Watana Development N.2.1.2 Devil Canyon SEE COMMENT NOS. SSC102 SSC103,SSClOS SSCl04 SSCl06, SSCl07,SSCl08,SSCl09,SSClIO,SSClll 49702 840820 28 L-:L-.;LJ L..J L-L..J '----i L..J L..J L..J L-.J L-J L..J L..J ~~L..J 1 '---oJ L..J DEIS SECTION SEE COMMENT NOS. N.2.1.3 Access Routes N.2.1.4 Power Transmission Facilities N.2.1.5 Alternative Borrow Sites N.2.2 Susitna Development Alternatives N.2.2.l Alternative Dam Locations and Designs N.2.2.2 Alternative Access Routes N.2.2.3Alternative Power Transmission Routes N.2.2.4 Alternative Borrow Sites N.2.3 Non-Susitna Generation Alternatives N.2.3.l Natural-Gas-Fired Generation Scenarios N.2.3.2 Coal-Fired Generation Scenario N.2.3.3 Combined Hydro-Thermal Generation Scenario SSCll2 N.2.4 Comparison of Alternatives N.3 MITIGATION N.4 RECOMMENDED AND ONGOING STUDIES SSCll3 REFERENCES SSCll4,SSCll5,SSCll6 SSCll7 SSCll8,SSCll9,SSCl20,SSCl2l,SSCl22,SSC123,SSCl24, SSCl25,SSCl26 SSCl27,SSCl28, SSCl29, SSCl30,SSCl3l SSCl32,SSCl33,SSCl34 SSCl35, SSCl36,SSCl37 29 0.1.1.5 Transmission Corridors 0.1.2 Susitna Development Alternatives 0.1.2.1 Alternative Dam Locations and Designs 0.1.2.2 Alternative Access Routes APPENDIX O.CULTURAL RESOURCES 0.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 0.1.1 Proposed Project 0.1.1.1 Introduction 0.1.1.2 Geoarcheology 0.1.1.3 Regional History and Prehistory 0.1.1.4 Middle and Upper Susitna Basin 49702 840820 L..-.:L-J L.-.;r r, 1.-.-...1 '-----'LJ L--.J L..J L-J LJ L.J L-J L..J L-J L--.J :..-J l.-J LJ .~ DEIS SECTION 0.1.2.3 Alternative Power Transmission Routes 0.1.2.4 Alternative Borrow Sites 0.1.3 Non-Susitna Power Generation Alternatives 0.1.3.1 Natural Gas-Fired Generation Scenario 0.1.3.2 Coal-Fired Generation Scenario 0.1.3.3 Combined Hydro-thermal Generation Scenario 0.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 0.2.1 Proposed Project 0.2.1.1 Watana Development 0.2.1.2 Devil Canyon Development 0.2.1.3 Access Routes 0.2.1.4 Power Transmission Facilities 0.2.2 Susitna Development Alternatives 0.2.2.1 Alternative Dam Locations and Designs 0.2.2.2 Alternative Access Routes 0.2.2.3 Alternative Power Transmission Routes 0.2.2.4 Alternative Borrow Sites REFERENCES 49702 01.(\Q ')i, SEE COMMENT NOS. SSC138 ,SSCl39 SSCl40,SSCl4l SSCl42, SSCl43, SSCl44, SSCl45,SSCl46,SSCl47,SSCl48, SSCl49,SSCl50,SSCl5l SSCl52 SSCl53,SSCl54, SSCl55, SSCl56,SSCl57 SSCl58, SSCl59, SSCl60,SSCl6l,SSCl62 SSCl63,SSCl64 SSCl65,SSCl66,SSCl67,SSCl68 SSCl69 SSC170,SSCl71 30 SUBJECTINDEXoppositeeachsubjectwithwhichitdeals.discussedintheDElSanditsaccompanyingTechnicalComment.IfaTechnicalCommentdealswithmorethanonesubject,it~slisted1TechnicalCommentislistedbyitsalphanumericcodeoppositeasubjectThisIndexclassifiestheTechnicalCommentsbysubjectmatter.EachTECHNICALCOMMENTSUBJECTREFERENCENUMBERSAccessRoadsALT068TRROO5,TRR024,TRR027,TRR058,TRR073,TRR074SSC060,SSC066,SSC085,SSC092,SSC135,SSCI36,SSCl37,SSCI53,SSCI65,SSCI66,SSCI67,SSC168AestheticResources(SeeVisualResources)AestheticImpacts(SeeVisualImpacts)AirQualityALTOO5,ALTOO6,ALTOO7,ALTOO8,ALTOI5,ALT016,ALT020,ALT021,ALT022,ALT023,ALT024,ALT026,ALT036,ALT037,ALT038,ALT040,ALT041,ALT042,ALT043,ALT044,ALT045,ALTOS1,ALTOS2,ALTOS3,ALTO54,ALTOS5,ALT060,ALT069,ALT072,ALT073,ALT074,ALT075,ALT076,ALTOn,ALT078,ALT079,ALT080SSC094AlternativesNFPOOI,NFPOO2,NFPOO3,NFPOO4,NFPOO5,NFPOO7,NFP047,NFP050,NFP051,NFP053,NFP054,NFP055,NFP056,NFP057,NFP060',NFP067,NFP068,NFP069,NFP070,NFPOn,NFP078,ALTOOI,ALTOO2,ALTOO3,ALTOO4,ALTOO9,ALTOIO,ALTOIl,ALTOI2,ALT013,ALTOI4,ALT017,ALTOI8,ALTOI9,ALT020,ALT02S,ALT027,ALT028,ALT029,49712RLd'lR?O"]]~ll~J'-]]~J]]]]~J'1,JJJJJ ~1lTECHNICALCOMMENT.SUBJECTREFERENCENUMBERS]AlternativesALT030, ALT031,ALT032,ALT033,ALT046,ALT047,]ALT048,ALT049,ALTO50,ALT053,ALTO54,ALT055,ALT056,ALT059, ALT061,lALT062,ALT064,ALT065,ALT066,ALT067,ALT070,ALT071TRR014,TRR015,TRR016,JTRR017,TRR018, TRR033,TRR036,TRR037, TRR038,TRR039,TRR040, TRR046,'JTRR047,TRR061,TRR062,TRR063,TRR078SSC016,SSC020,SSC021]SSC022,SSC023, SSC039,SSC041,SSC042,SSC049,SSC051, SSC052, SSC053,SSC054,SSC055,SSC056,JSSC063,SSC064,SSC065,SSC076,SSC077,SSC079,SSC091,SSC092,SSC093,]SSC095,SSC096, SSC099,SSC100,SSCI0lBearTRR005,TRR006,TRR007,]TRR015,TRR027, TRR028,TRR029, TRR044,TRR053,TRR054,TRR055,TRR056,TRR062,TRR066,TRR071,'JTRR073,TRR075,TRR079BeringCiscoAQR094,.AQR095CaribouTRR004,TRR025,TRR052,'1TRR068",:1'~1]J]J497122J840820 1"]TECHNICALCOMMENT]SUBJECTREFERENCENUMBERSChinookSalmonAQR079,AQR081ChumSalmonAQR091]ClimateALT021,ALT024TRR019CoalPlantsNFP006,NFP057,NFP060,lALT006,ALT007,ALT008,ALT015,ALT016,ALT051,ALT052,ALT079JSSC018,SSC047,SSC048,SSC050,SSC090,SSC099CoalPriceNFP006,NFP040,NFP041,]NFP042,NFP043,NFP057,NFP059,NFP062,NFPI02,NFP103,NFPI04CoalResourcesNFP018,NFP057,ALT079]CohoSalmonAQR089,AQR090,AQR097ConeValvesAQROOl,AQR031,AQR075ConservationNFP048,NFP094,NFP108JConstructionCostNFP037,ALTO04CulturalResourcesSSCOOl,SSC002,SSCOO3,SSC004,SSC005,SSC012,]SSC013,SSC014,SSC015,SSC017,SSC023,SSC037,SSC038, SSC040,SSC041,SSC042,SSC043,SSC046,JSSC050,SSC059, SSC060,SSC061,SSC062,SSC063,SSC067,SSC068,SSC069,]SSC070,SSC1l4,SSCl15,SSC1l6,SSC1l7, SSC1l8,SSC119,SSC120,SCC121,JSCC122,SSC123,SSC124,SSC125,SSC126,SSC127,SSC128,SSC129, SSC130,SSC131,SSC132,SSC133,'-)SSCl33,SSC134,SSC135,JSSC136,SSC137,SSC138,SSCl39,SSC140,SSC141,JSSC142, SSC143,SSCl44,SSC145,SSC146,SSC147,SSC148,SSC149;SSC150,]SSC151,SSC152, SSC153,SSC154,SSC155,SSC156,SSC157,SSC158, SSC159,SSC160,SSC161,SSC162,]SSC163,SSC164,SSC165,SSC166,SSC167,SSC168,SSC169,SSC170,SSC171JSSC058DallSheepTRR026,TRR069,TRR080JDevilCanyonAQR135,AQR136497123~Ld'IR?O ~-J~-lJTECHNICALCOMMENTSUBJECTREFERENCENUMBERS]DiscountRateNFP052EaglesTRROO8,TRR030, TRR031,]TRR045,TRR057,TRR067,TRR072,TRR076,TRR081EmploymentNFPOllJSSCI05EndangeredSpeciesTRROO2,TRROIO,TRROll,TRR018,TRR032,TRR038,]TRR040,TRR058EnergyConsumptionNFP012,NFP013, NFP014,NFP015,NFP020EnergyProductionNFP036,NFP037,NFP074,~JNFP075,NFP076,ALTOO4,]EscapementAQR012,AQR080,AQR085,AQR089,AQR091,AQR092AQRI06]ExistingSystemsNFPOI9,NFP021,NFP022,NFP032ExpansionPlansNFPOOl,NFPOO2,NFPOO3,NFPOO5,NFPOO7,NFP050,JNFP051,NFP053,NFP054,NFP055,NFP056,NFP057,NFP060,NFP063,NFP068,JNFP069, NFP070,NFP078ExportMarketNFP040FillingALT07lJAQROI5,AQR042,AQR054AQR055,AQR063,AQR099AQRIOO,AQRI03,AQRI04AQRI05,AQRI08,AQRllO]AQRlll,AQR131,AQR142AQRI44TRROO8,TRR028,TRR057,]TRR072FlowRegimeNFP066,NFP071,NFP072,NFP073,NFP074,NFP075,JNFP076,NFP079,NFP080,NFP081,NFP082,ALTOI7,ALTOI8AQROO5,AQROO7,AQROO8JAQROI5,AQR017,AQROI8AQROI9,AQR021,AQR027AQR028,AQR029,AQR039JAQR053,AQR058,AQR059AQR060,AQR062,AQR14IForecastingAQR062JFuelswitchingNFP093,NFP094FuelUseActNFP047FurbearersTRROI6,TRR063J4971248Li.0820 1-1TECHNICALCOMMENTSUBJECTREFERENCENUMBERS']GasPriceNFP039,NFP056GasPriceResourcesNFPIOO]GeographicNFPOO8GeothermalNFP045,NFPI06~.~GoldCreekStationAQROO8,AQROI7,AQR069_1GroundwaterAQROII,AQROI4,AQR035AQR036,AQR066,AQRI05-JAQR1l8,AQRl34HabitatAQR019,AQR027,AQR050AQR053,AQR068,AQR08IAQR084,AQR087,AQR090-JAQR097,AQRI04,AQR113AQRlI5,AQR134,AQR140AQR14I]TRROO3,TRROO6,TRROO9,TRROl3,TRROI7,TRR033,TRR035,TRR039,TRR048,]TRR059,TRR061,TRR078HEC-2ModelAQR067HEC-5ModelNFP036HousingSSCllO--JHydraulicsAQROO7,AQR020,AQR022AQR028,AQR040,AQR044AQR070,AQR071,AQR073JAQRI04,AQRI13,AQR136HydroelectricNFP053,NFP067,NFP077,ALTOO2,ALTOO3,ALTOO4,--]ALTOO9,ALTOIO,ALTO11,ALTOI2,ALTOl3,ALTOI7,ALT018,ALTOI9,ALT025,ALT029,ALT030,ALT031,]ALT032,ALT033,ALT046,ALT047,ALT048,ALT049,ALT050,ALT061,ALTO62,-]ALT064,ALT065,ALT070,ALT07lSSC021,SSC022,SSC053,JSSC054,SSC055,SSC076,SSC077,SSC091,SSCIOOIceCoverAQR038,AQR1l6,AQRI2ITRR068JIceModelAQR029IceProcessesAQROO9,AQR037,AQR05IAQR071,AQR098,AQR120JImpactsALTOOI,ALT022,ALT035,ALT047,ALT052,ALT053,JALT054,ALT055,ALT056,ALT057,ALT058,ALTO59,J497125840820 Cl]TECHNICALCOMMENT'lSUBJECTREFERENCENUMBERSImpactsALT064,ALTO65,ALT068,AQR143'-1TRROO8,TRR021, TRR023,TRR025,TRR026,TRR030,TRR031,TRR033,TRR034,lTRR035,TRR036,TRR037,TRR039,TRR040, TRR041,TRR042,TRR043,TRR044,]TRR045,TRR046, TRR051,TRR057,TRR064,TRR065,TRR067,TRR069,TRR070,TRR072,TRR076,TRRon,]TRR078,TRR079,TRR080,TRR081SSCOO3,SSCOO7,SSC015,]SSC017,SSC023,SSC024,SSC025,SSC026,SSC028,SSC030,SSC031, SSC037,]SSC039,SSC041,SSC042,SSC043,SSC044, SSC045,SSC046,SSC047,SSC048,SSC050,SSC051,SSC052,'1SSC053,SSC054, SSC056,SSC058,SSC059, SSC060,SSC061, SSC062,SSC063,]SSC064,SSC067,SSC069,SSC076,SSC077,SSC081,SSC082,SSC083,SSC084,~JSSC085,SSC086,SSC087,SSC088,SSC089,SSC090,SSC091,SSC093, SSC094,]SSC095,SSCI06,SSCI08,SSCI09,SSC142,SSC144,SSC146,SSC149,SSC150,SSC153,SSC155,SSC156,]SSC157,SSC159,SSC160,SSC161,SSC162,SSC163,SSC166,SSC168,SSC169,1SSC170~JIncubationAQR045,AQR047,AQR048AQR056,AQR077,AQR116]AQR1l7,AQR1l9,AQR120AQR121,AQR137InstreamFlowAQR059,AQR062,AQR067LandManagementSSCOO6,SSC072,SSC078JLandUseALT046,ALT050,ALT062SSC020,SSC032,SSC051,SSC053,SSC054, SSC073,JSSC074,SSC075, SSC076,ssconJ497126IVd1>l?n '-1'1--1]']]'1]-1]'JJ]-1]JJc1c1SUBJECTLevelizedCostsLoadForecastMAPModelMainstemMitigationMJSENSOModelMonopolyProfitMooseMultilevelIntakeNaturalGasPlantsNaturalGasPriceNaturalGasResourcesNetBenefitsNitrogenSupersaturationOGPModel497128408207TECHNICALCOMMENTREFERENCENUMBERSNFP053,NFP055,NFP060,NFP061,NFP062,NFP068,NFP069,NFP070NFP013,NFP023,NFP024,NFP025,NFP027,NFP028,NFP029,NFP030, NFP031,NFP061,NFP083,NFP084,NFP085,NFP086,NFP096,NFP097NFP029,NFP083,NFP097AQR019,AQR027,AQR035AQR039,AQR041,AQR045AQRI05,AQRl15,AQRl17ALT019AQR063,AQR064,AQR065TRR002,TRR048SSCOOl,SSC004,SSC005,SSC069,SSC078,SSCI02,S~C142,SSC149,SSC159,SSC160NFP083NFP088,NFP090TRR003,TRR021,TRR022,TRR023,TRR024,TRR034,TRR064,TRR065,TRR070,TRR074,TRROnAQR003,AQR032NFP055,ALT007,ALT008TRR012,TRR034,TRR076,TRROnSSC017,SSC044,SSC045,SSC046,SSC088,SSC089NFP004,NFP015,NFP016,NFP058,NFP099,NFPIOO,NFPIOINFP015,NFP016,NFP017,NFP038,NFP047,NFP098NFP055,NFP060,NFP062,NFP063ALT039AQROOl,AQR004,AQR031AQR075NFP002,NFP003,NFP005,NFP050,NFP051,NFP054,NFP063 ~l··1TECHNICALCOMMENT1SUBJECTREFERENCENUMBERSOil(SeeWorldOil)OPCOSTModelNFPOO2,NFP050,NFP051,--jNFP053,NFP063,NFP070,PeatNFP044,NFPI05:JPeregrineFalconTRROOl,TRROO2,TRROIO,TRROII,TRR018,TRR032,IRR058]PinkSalmonAQR055,AQR092,AQR093AQR13I,AQRI44PlanningHorizonNFP050PopulationTRROO4,TRR025,TRR052:JSSCOO8,SSCOIO,SSC028,SSC030, SSC057, SSC066,SSCI06,SSCI09,SSClll,]SSC1l2PopulationProjectionsSSCOO8,SSC029,SSC033,SSC071,SSCI03,SSCI07,]SSCll3PRODCOSTModelNFPOO3, NFPOO5,NFP050,JNFP054,NFP055,NFP060,NFP062,NFP063,NFP068,NFP069,NFP070ProposedProjectALT057,ALT058,ALT059,JALT066,ALT067AQR021TRROIO,TRR041, TRR046,]TRR047,TRR064SSCOO6,SSCOO7,SSCOO9,SSCOll,SSC024,SSC025,]SSC026,SSC033,SSC034,SSC035,SSC074, SSC075,SSC078,SSC080,SSC081,SSC083,SSC086, SSC097,"1SSCI04,SSCI08,SSClll,SSC1l2RailbeltEconomyNFPOO9,NFPOIO,NFPOll,]RaptorsTRROO8,TRR030,TRR031,TRR045,TRR057,TRR067,TRR072,TRR076,TRR081JRateDesignNFP049RearingAQR081,ACR087,ACR097ACRI08JRecreationResourcesSSCOO7,SSCOI8,SSC021,SSC024,SSC026,SSC039,SSC044,SSC045,SSC047,.JSSC048, SSC052,SSC056,SSC064,SSC065,SSC079,SSC080,SSC081,SSC082,J497128RL...OR?O ']rlTECHNICALCOMMENT]SUBJECTREFERENCENUMBERSRecreationResourcesSSC083,SSC084,SSC085,SSC086,SSC087, SSC088,]SSC089,SSC090,SSC091,SSC092,SSC093,SSC094,SSC095]REDModelNFP084,NFP085ReliabilityNFP034,NFP035ReservoirNFP065,NFP071,NFP073,~JNFP074,NFP075,NFP076AQROO2,AQR032,AQR038AQR052,AQR061,AQR062AQR064,AQR065,AQR076]AQRI09,AQR13l,AQR132AQR133,AQR143TRR019,TRR058,TRR068"JReservoirTemperatureModelAQR030,AQR038RetirementScheduleNFP032RimeIceTRR020,TRR050]RiverTemperatureModelAQR033,AQR046,AQR066AQR074,AQR098,AQRI09AQR122,AQR124SalmonALT019,ALT030,ALT031,]ALT032,ALT033,ALT049AQR012,AQR013,AQR053AQR054,AQR056,AQR063JAQR078,AQR080,AQR096AQRIOO,AQRI06,AQR1l5AQR1l9,AQR126,AQR127~JAQR129,AQR137,AQR141AQR142SalmonAccessAQR025,AQR058,AQR060~JAQR072,AQRI03,AQRI07AQRl12,AQRl14,AQR135SalmonGrowthAQR042,AQR043,AQR046AQR049,AQR050,AQR057.1AQR082,AQR086,AQRIOIAQRlO2,AQR110,AQRlllAQR123,AQR125,AQR138'jAQR139SalmonOutmigrationAQR05l,AQR088,AQR128SedimentAQROO6,AQROlO,AQR023jAQR025,AQR026,AQR028AQR121SideChannelAQR04lSideSloughAQROO7,AQR023,AQR068JSloughAQR011,AQR014,AQR020AQR022,AQR029,AQR035AQR036,AQR047,AQR058JLJ497129~Ldl~?n --1]TECHNICALCOMMENTSUBJECTREFERENCENUMBERSlSloughAQR070,AQR071,AQR072AQR073,AQRI03,AQRI04lAQRI05,AQRl12,AQRl13AQR1l5,AQR1l6,AQR1l8AQR120]SloughAccessAQR020,AQR024,AQR040'AQR044Sockeye(Kokanee)SalmonAQR052,AQR065,AQR083~JAQR084,AQR085,AQR086AQR087,AQR088,AQR133SpawningAQR013,AQR014,AQR039'~JAQR040,AQR041,AQR048AQR079,AQR080,AQR083AQR084,AQR085,AQR089'~JAQR090,AQR091,AQR092AQR093,AQR095,AQRl04AQRI07,AQR1l3,AQR1l5]AQR130,AQR132SpeculativeIn-migrationSSC030SpikingReleasesNFP079,NFP081AQR002,AQR060,AQR061]SubsistenceALT029SSC009,SSCOI0,SSC031,']SSCI04,SSC108SunshineStationAQR005,AQR016SusitnaRiverAQR005,AQROO6,AQROO8]AQROO9,AQR012,AQR018AQR033,AQR034,AQR037AQR074,AQR094SusitnaStationAQR069.JTemperatureAQROO3,AQROll,AQR032AQR034,AQR035,AQR036AQR042,AQR043,AQR045JAQR047,AQR048,AQR049AQR051,AQR056,AQR057AQR066,AQR077,AQR082]AQR086,AQR088,AQR099AQRIOO,AQRlO1,AQR102AQR107,AQR108,AQR109AQRllO,AQRll1,AQR1l7-JAQR1l8,AQR1l9,AQR120AQR123,AQR124,AQR125AQR127,AQR128,AQR129JAQR134,AQR137,AQR138AQR139,AQR140,AQRl41J]1049712840820 ""1']TECHNICALCOMMENT~lSUBJECTREFERENCENUMBERSThermalALT020,ALT061TRR059]SSC016,SSC019,SSC049,SSC063Threatened/EndangeredSpecies(SeeEndangeredSpecies)]TidalPowerNFP046,NFPI07TransmissionLinesandCorridorsNFP033, NFP056,NFP068NFP069,NFP070JALT012,ALTO13,ALT014,ALT034,ALT035,ALT08lTRROOl,TRROO2,TRROO9,TRROll,TRR024,TRR029,JTRR032,TRR05l,TRR074,TRR075SSC027,SSC032,SSC036,]SSC039,SSC06l,SSC072,SSC073,SSC087,SSC098,SSClO2,SSC129,SSC169,]SSC170TributaryAQR025,AQR026,AQRI07AQRl14,AQR1l5TurbidityAQROlO,AQR030,AQR076]AQR126VegetationTRR014,TRR019, TRR020,TRR024,TRR035,TRR042,]TRR046,TRR049,TRR050,TRR05l,TRR074VisualImpactsALT020,ALT045]SSC027,SSC034,SSC035,SSC036,SSC049,SSC055,SSC096,SSC097,SSC098,SSC099,SSClOO,SSClO2"}VisualResourcesSSCOll,SSC016,SSC019,SSC022,SSC027,SSC099,SSClOl"]WatanaNFP064,NFP071,NFP072,NFP073,NFP074,NFP075,NFP076"1ALT039AQROO2,AQR015,AQR032cJAQR099,AQR1l4,AQR135AQR136]SSC082,SSC144WaterQualityNFP066,NFP077,NFP08l,"JNFP082"JALT028,ALT047,ALT063AQROO4JWaterQuantityNFP066,NFPon,NFP08l,NFP082,ALT027,ALT063"}cJ4971211RL..OR?O ~1]lJ]J]J]]'J<1.JJ]J]SUBJECTWetlandsWildlifeResourcesWoodWorkForceWorldEconomyWorldOilPriceWorldOilProductionWorldOilResources49712lV.nQ.')n12TECHNICALCOMMENTREFERENCENUMBERSTRR043TRR012,TRR013,TRR017,TRR020,TRR033,TRR035,TRR036,TRR037,TRR039,TRR041,TRR047,TRR050,TRR059,TRR060,TRR061,TRR078NFP020SSC1l2NFP089NFP023,NFP024,NFP026,NFP027,NFP042,NFP087,NFP088,NFP089,NFP090,NFP091,NFP092,NFP093,NFP094,NFP095,NFP096,NFPI02NFP087,NFP095NFP092 l]]J]]]]]]]]]JJTechnicalCommentNFPOOlSUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:Alternatives,ExpansionPlansLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.1PagexxiiiSummaryParagraph2ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:AlternativeDevelopmentsTECHNICALCOMMENT:IntheDEIS'studyofalternativedevelopments,theperiodofanalysisandcomputermodelsuseddifferforthethermalandhydroelectric~lternatives.ThedifferingperiodofanalysisandcomputerapplicationsusedacrossalternativeplansdoesnotensurethattheelectricgenerationplansintheDEISsystemwidestudiesprovideequivalentcapacityandenergy,equalreliability,andcomparablesystemcosts.InAppendixI,ofthisdocumenttheApplicanthasupdatedfuelprices,OGPexpansionplanningstudiesandtotalsystemcostcomparisonsfortheWith-andWithout-Susitnadevelopmentplans.TheresultsoftheupdatedstudieshaveconfirmedthattheproposedSusitnaProjectiseconomicallymoreattractivethanalternativethermalplans. ll]]]]]J]]]J]]JTechnicalCommentNFP002SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORKTOPICAREA:Alternatives,OPCOST,OGP,ExpansionPlansLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.1PagexxiiiSummaryParagraph3-6ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:DevelopmentSchemeswithintheSusitnaRiverBasinTECHNICALCOMMENT:IntheDEISSusitnaRiverBasinstudies,theperiodofsystemexpansionanalyzedwithOPCOSTwasnotsufficientlylongtopermitfullutilizationofthepowerandenergycapabilityoftheSusitnaRiveralternatives.Therefore,equivalentcapacityandenergyandequalreli-abilitywerenotobtainedintheSusitnaandNon-SusitnaBasinhydroelectricOPCOSTevaluation.Inaddition,theevaluationwasperformedwithSusitnaBasinandNon-SusitnaRiverhydroelectricprojectconstructioncoststhatarenotdevelopedtothesamedetailandlevelsofconfidence.Therefore,thealternativesarenottrulycomparablesincetheconstructioncostsoftheNon-SusitnaRiverhydroelectricalternativeswereunderstated.ProperpowerandenergyandcostcomparisonshavebeendevelopedandareshowninAppendixIIofthisdocument. l:lTechnicalCommentNFP003SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:Alternatives,PRODCOST,OGP,ExpansionPlans]LOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.1PagexxiiiSummaryParagraph7and8ofthe]J]]]JJ]J.J]J]JpageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:Gas-firedDevelopmentPlanTECHNICALCOMMENT:IntheDEISthePRODCOSTproductioncostingmodelwasusedtoevaluatethegasscenario.ComparisonofthePRODCOSTsimulation-modelwiththeOGPoptimization"modelshowsPRODCOSTtobeinferiorbecauseitisasimulationmodel,whileOGPisanoptimizationmodel.AlthoughtheDEISmentionsaneedforreinforcingtheAnchorage-FairbanksIntertietoserveload,notransmissionfacilitiesandtheirassociatedcostsarein-cludedinthelevelizedtotalannualcostsofthegasscenario.Thissigni-ficantlyunderstatesthecostsoftheplans.Insummary,thedifferenceinperiodsofanalysisandsimulationtoolsacrossalternativeplansdoesnotensurethattheelectricgenerationplansthathaveresultedfromthesystemwidestudiesintheDEISprovideequiva-lentcapacityandenergy,equalreliability,andassociatedtotalsystemcosts. "1lJJ'J]JJ].JJTechnicalCommentsNFP004SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:Alternatives,NaturalGasPriceLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.1PagexxivSummaryParagraph7and8ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:Gas-firedDevelopmentPlanTECHNICALCOMMENT:IfDEIShadusedcurrentcontractsasrepresentativeofthegaspriceforincrementalsupplyintheshortterm,itwould,attheDEIS'soilprice,yieldapricein1985-95below$2perMMBtu.Butfollow-ingtheDEIS'ssteeppricedeclineinthemid-1980'sandoutlookthereafter,thelongtermforeclosureofexportmarketswouldresultinalowernegoti-atedpricethanachieved.TheDEISoffersnoinsightastoitsassumedcostsofgasexplorationintheCookInlet.Actualcostsarerelativelyhigh,depositsfoundtodatehavebeenrelativelysmall,anditisprudenttoanticipatethatanynewdepositsfoundwillbesmaller.ArelativelyhighReserveLifeIndexmustalsobeanticipatedwhichalsoraisesthecostperMcfofproduction,whichinrecentyearshas'beenhigh.Overall,thecostperMCFofproductionmustbeconsideredasrelativelyhigh.Withhighcosts,limitedmarketsconsistingofveryfewbuyers,andanuncertainpotentialfornewdiscoveries,itisunwarrentedfortheDEIStoassumelowgaspricesandsupplyadequacyfornewpowerplants.AdditionaldataonCookInletgasproductionandpricesareprovidedinAppendixIofthisdocument• l]]]J]]]]]]JJJJTechnicalCommentNFP005SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMEN':rALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:Alternatives,PROnCOST,OGP,ExpansionPlansLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.1PagexxiiiSummaryParagraph9ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:Coal-firedDevelopmentPlanTECHNICALCOMMENT:SincethecoalexpansionplanningstudiescontaintheirregularitiesanderrorsdiscussedforthehydroelectricandgasstudiesandarebasedontheuseofthePRODCOSTmodel,whoseimprop~rdataassump-tionandinadequacieswerediscussedabove,theDEIS'conclusionsarenotvalid. ~l']~l]~-J]]]]]]J.JJTechnicalCommentNFP006SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:CoalPlants,CoalPriceLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.1PagexxivSummaryParagraph1ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:CoalplantlocationandcoalpriceTECHNICALCOMMENT:TheDEISassumesthatallcoalforthecoalgenerationscenarioswouldbesuppliedfromtheNenanacoalfieldandburnedinNenanaorWillow.TheApplicantagreesthatthefirstcoalfiredplantshouldbebasedonNenanafieldcoal,andshouldbeinstalledintheNenanaregion,forreliabilityreasons.ThesecondRailbeltcoalplantalsowouldbelocatedintheNenanaregion,asatwintothefirstunit,inordertocap-tureavailablecapitalandO&Mcostsavings.Beyondthesetwoplants,the-Applicant'sstudieshaveindicatedthattheminemouthplantsintheBelugaregionwouldbemorecosteffectivethanplantsinNenanaorWillow.Thecostcomparisonsarebiasedinfavorofcoalscenarios.Thecoalfuelpricesusedintheanalysisof$19.00/tonplusrailnetoutto$1.55/MMBtuwithoutescalation.Currently,FairbanksMunicipalUtilitySystem(FMUS)ispaying$25.56/ton($1.68/MMBtu)foritscoaltoUsibelliCoalCo.plus$7.80/ton($O.51/MMBtu)totheAlaskaRailroadfortransportation(telephonecalltoChenapowerstationAugust15,1984)oratotalof$2.19/MMBtu.Underestimationofcoalprices,whichareaninputtothePRODCOSTmodelusedintheDEIS,resulti~underestimationofthepresentworthandlevelizedannualcostsforcoalscenarios.AppendixIofthisdocumentcontainstheApplicant'supdatedcoalproductionandpricingstudies. ~1]J]]]]]'1J]]]]J],JJ.JTechnicalCommentNFP007SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:Alternatives,ExpansionPlansLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.1PagexxivSummaryParagraph2-10ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:DevelopmentSchemesNon-SusitnaRiverHydroelec-tricProjectsTECHNICALCOMMENT:Sinceequivalentcapacityandenergyandequalreliabi-litywerenotobtainedintheDEISSusitnaandNon-SusitnaBasinhydroelec-tricevaluationsthealternativesarenottrulycomparable.IntheevaluationperformedintheDEIStheSusitnaBasinandNon-SusitnaRiverhydroelectricprojectconstructioncostswerenotdevelopedtothesamelevelofconfidence.Inadditions,withthedispersedlocationsofthehydroelectricprojectslongtransmissionlineswouldberequiredtoconnecttheprojectstotheAnchorage-Fairbanksinterticandtheloadcenters.Thecostsofthesefacilitiesarenotincludedintheprojectcosts.Sincethehydroelectricevaluationwasnotperformedonanequivalentpowerandenergybasis,theconstructioncostsdonotreflectsimilarlevelsofdetailandconfidence,andthecostoftransmissionfacilitieshavenotbeenaccountedfortheDEISSusitnaandNon-SusitnaBasinhydroelectriccompari-sonandconclusionsarenotvalid.Technical,cost,andenvironmentalcom-parisonsoftheSusitnaandNon-SusitnahydroalternativesarepresentedinAppendixIofthisdocument. ]Jl]l]]'~j]~]]'--1l....•.~l]JJ:J]]TechnicalCommentNFP008SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:GeographicLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.1Page1-1Section1.2.1.1.Paragraph2and4ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:PerspectiveonGeographyandEconomyoftheRailbeltRegion-"Theso-calledSouthcentralportionoftheRailbeltrunsfromtheMatanuskaandSusitnavalleysnorthofAnchoragetothesouthernterminusoftheAlaskaRailroadatSewardontheKenaiPeninsula(SeeFigure1.1)•••FairbanksisthetransportationandbusinesscenteroftheinteriorsectionoftheRailbelt".TECHNICALCOMMENT:TheDEISconfusesterminologyusedbytheU.S.CensusBureauindesignatingtheregionsofAlaskawithRailbeltgeographicalterms.Forexample,thelabel"Southcentral"isnotnormallyusedtorefertoareasoftheRailbelt.ItisratheraU.S.CensusDivisionoftheStateofAlaska.Moreover,Fairbanksisnotlocatedinthe"interior"sectionoftheRailbeltasstatedintheDEIS,butrathertheuppernortheastsectionoftheRailbeltasshownintheDEIS'sFigure1-1.Fairbanksis,however,locatedinthe"Interior"divisionoftheStateofAlaskaasdesignatedbytheU.S.CensusBureau. TechnicalCommentNFP009SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:EconomyoftheRailbeltRegion-"Alaskaneconomicdevelopmentduringthe20thCentury,includingthatoftheRailbeltarea,canbecharacterizedasasequenceofboomperiodsandstagnations."oproductionofgoodsandserviceshadgrownmorethan6%ayear;opopulationgrewatarateof2.8%ayear;andorealpersonalincomegrewatarateof7%ayear.Section1.2.1.1.Paragraph5oftheTOPICAREA:RailbeltEconomyLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.1Page1-1pageTECHNICALCOMMENT:TocharacterizetheAlaskaeconomyasmerelyasequenceofboomperiodsandstagnationsisanunsupportedoversimplification.AlthoughtheAlaskaeconomyhasbeensubjecttoupswingsanddownswingsinvarioussectorssuchasfisheries,forestproducts,andminingfromtimetotime,thereisnodiscernible"periodicity"orspecificsequentialrelation--shipthatcanbeestablished.Also,theeconomyofAlaskahasmaturedgraduallyduringthe20thCentury,enablingittoavoidoverallstagnation,althoughcertainsectorsmayexperienceunemploymentandreduceddemandforoutputduringcertainperiods.Forexample,from1961to1973theeconomyofAlaskaexperiencedconsiderableoverallgrowthinspiteofadeclineinminingemploymentfrom1969to1973asshownbythefollowingindicators(Kresgeetal.,1977).l1']]]lC]]]]]J]]-1JJJThustheDEIScharacterizationoftheAlaskaeconomyasasequenceof"booms"and"busts"misrepresentstheactualhistoricaleconomicrecordandexaggeratesthedegreeofinstabilityintheeconomy.Thisfailstoacknow-ledgethesustainedgrowthintheAlaskaeconomypre-andpost-pipelineconstructionperiod.J] ]']']]-]]J,]]J1JJJJJJTechnicalCommentNFPOI0SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:RailbeltEconomyLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.1Page1-1Section1.2.1.1.Paragraph5ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:PerspectiveonGeographyandEconomyoftheRail-beltRegion-"Sincethepaucityofregion-specificdatapreventsexclusivetreatmentoftheRailbelt,itisnecessarytodiscusstheeconomyofthestateasawhole,ratherthanconfinethedescriptiontojusttheRailbelt".TECHNICALCOI1MENT:TheconclusioninthissectionthatthereisapaucityofdataontheRailbelteconomywhichmandatesevaluationofthewholestate,economyisunwarrantedbecause,inmostcases,aconsiderableamountofeconomicandsocio-demographicdatacanbeobtainedatvariouslevelsofaggregationpertainingtotheRailbeltregion.TheextensivereferencesourcescitedintheLicenseApplication,Volume2BaswellasthedatabasemaintainedbytheInstituteofSocialandEconomicResearch(ISER)demon-stratetheexistenceandavailabilityofeconomicdatasufficienttocharac-terizetheRailbeltregionofAlaska.TheuseofStatewidefigurestorepresenttheRailbeltasdoneintheDEISdistortsthepictureofactualeconomicactivityintheregionbymaskingimportantregionalandsectoraldifferencesthatexistbetweentheRailbeltandAlaskaasawhole. l]J]]J]]]]]]]JJJTechnicalCommentNFP011SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:RailbeltEconomy,EmploymentLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.1Page1-3Section1.2.1.1.Paragraph3ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:EconomyoftheRailbeltRegion-"Theconstruc-tionboombroughtaboutbythebuildingoftheoilpipelinetransportationsystemfromtheNorthSlopealteredthestateandRailbelteconomiesappreciably."TECHNICALCOMMENT:Althoughthepipelineconstructionperiod1974-77wasindeeda"boom"period,theeconomyofAlaskadidnotexperienceasubse-quentperiodofstagnationbutratherenteredamajornewgrowthphasefocusedondevelopingitspetroleumresources.Becauseofthemagnitudeoftheconstructioneffort,anumberofAlaskaresidentworkershadtofindalternativeoccupations.Admittedlythisadjustmenttooksometimeandmayhaveaffectedcertainoccupationsmoreseverelythanothersbutoverall,theeconomyofAlaskareachedanewplateauofgrowthwhichgeneratedmoreincomeandemploymentopportunitiesthaneverbeforeinthestate'shistory.TheDEISfocusestoonarrowlyonconstructionemploymentchangesrelatedtotheoilpipelinesystem.Asaconsequence,itoverlooksthelargerexperi-enceoffUrthersustainedeconomicgrowthanddevelopmentwhichoccurred.TheDEISdoesnotdescribeinanysignificantdetailtheindustrialandcommercialactivitiesintheprivatesector.Agriculturaldevelopmentisbrieflydiscussedbutfishing,oil/gasandmineraldevelopments,shipping,tourism,refiningoperations,andotherimportantindustrial/commercialorsupportactivitiesarenotgivenproperattention.Volumes2Aand2BoftheLicenseApplicationprovidediscussionandextensivedataonemploymentinagriculture,construction,fishharvesting,manufacturing,mining,andtransportationsectorsfortheRailbeltregion.Inaddition,thereareotherdatasuchasthenumberoftourists,grossproductinmanufacturing, TechnicalCommentNFPOllPage2wagesandsalariesbysectorofemploymentwhichcouldhavebeenusedintheDEIStoadequatelydescribetheRailbelteconomyandtheprivatesectorinparticular.Ifthesedatahadbeenemployed,thediversificationoftheRailbelteconomyaswellasthediminishingroleofthepublicsectorwouldhavebeendemonstrated.Also,thegrowthinemployment,income,andoutputfortheoverallRailbelteconomy,aswellasoutputonasectoralbasiswouldhavebeenestablished.llJlJ]]]JJJJJJ lJl]JJ]J]]J]J]JJJJTechnicalCommentNFP012SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:EnergyConsumptionLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.1Page1-4,Section1.2.1.2.Paragraphs1and2ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:EnergyConsumption(1970-1980)TECHNICALCOMMENT:TheDEISpresentsdataonresidentialelectricityexpendituresbetween1970and1980andotherstatisticsrelatedtoenergyconsumptionfortheresidential'sector.Thehouseholdorresidentialsectorisnottheonlysourceofdemandforenergy.Energyconsumptionandrelatedstatisticsforcommercial,industrial,government,andothersectorsmustbeevaluatedinordertocomparethesectorsofdemandandobtainatotalviewofhistoricalenergydemand.Onlybyevaluatingtotalhistoricalenergydemandcananoptimumgeneratingsystembedeveloped.Autilitysystemisnotdesignedsolelytomeetresidentialdemand.Itmustbedesignedtomeetthecombinedcharacteristicsofitstotalload.Volume2AoftheLicenseApplication,pagesB-5-2toB-5-6provideelectricconsumptiondatabycustomerclassin1982foreachofthemajorelectricutilitiesintheRailbeltloadcenters.Althoughtheresidentialcustomersrepresentthemajorityofindividualcustomersonautility'ssystemintheRailbelt,theydonotaccountformostoftheelectricsales(kWh).Table1,presentedbelow,denotestheimportanceofnon-residentialcustomersintermsofelectricenergyconsumptionasreflectedby1982electricstatistics.TheDEISfailstopresentthe.electricconsumptionorenergydemandsofnon-residentialsectorsalthoughthesesectorsaccountfor79%,66%,83%,and55%of1982energysalesforAMLP,CEA,FMUS,ANDGVEArespectively.Over-all;non-residentialsalesrepresented69%oftotalenergysalesin1982bythemajorRailbeltutilities,andinconsequencenon-residentialdemandisakeyconsiderationinplanningfuturegeneration. Table1RAILBELTELECTRICENERGYSALES(1982)lTechnicalCommentNFP012]Page2SectorResidentialNon-residentialRailbeltUtilityAMLPCEAFMUSGVEATOTALEnergy EnergyEnergyEnergyEnergySalesSalesSalesSalesSalesNumber(GWh)Number(GWh)Number(GWh)Number-(GWh)Number(GWh)14,74512946,5605474,6632816,17615082,1448543,2294824,9071,0831,1951352,10218311,4331,883--TOTAL17,97461151,4671,6305,85816318,27833393,5772,737 llllJ]JJ]]]]]J]-t~JJTechnicalCommentNFPOl3SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:EnergyConsumption,LoadForecastLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.1Page1-4Section1.2.1.2Paragraphs1and2theofpageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:EnergyConsumption(1970-1980),NeedforDisaggregationTECHNICALCOMMENT:TheDEISpresentsenergyconsumption,expenditure,andotherstatisticsfortheRailbeltorAlaskaasawhole.MoredetaileddatapertinenttotheAnchorage-CookInletandFairbanks-TananaValleyareasforthe1970-1980periodhavebeenprovidedtoFERCbythePowerAuthorityinVolume1,AppendixDandVolumes2A,2B,and2CoftheLicenseApplication;e.g.Tables13.2-13.5ofVolume2C,TableN.llofVolume2BandTablesB.84-B.85ofVolume2A.ThisinformationbetterestablisheshistoricalenergyconditionsandtrendsaswellasdifferencesbetweentheloadcentersoftheRailbeltregion.TheusebyFERCstaffofenergydatadisaggregatedbyloadcenterandcon-sumersectorovertimeintheDEISwouldhavedemonstratedtherelativeimportanceofsectorsindeterminingenergydemands,fuelmodes,trendsinconsumptionbyfueltype,andchangesinthestateofutilizationofvariousenergyformsinthetwoloadcenters.Volumes2A,2B,2C,andVolume1,AppendixDaresourcesofavailabledatatoanalyseenergyconsumptionintheRailbeltregiononadetailedlevel.ThereisaneedtodisaggregateenergyconsumptiondataintheRailbelttoaccuratelycharacterizeelec~ricloadgrowthintheregionandtoanalysetheforcesthatdeterminedoraffectedenergyconsumptionovertheperiod1970-1980.BecausetheloadcentersintheRailbeltdifferinanumberofsignificanteconomic,social,andclimaticwaysthecausalfactorsbehindenergyprices,energyresourcedevelopment,andenergydemanddifferaswell.Theexistingelectricsystemsweredesignedtomeettheseelectric TechnicalCommentNFP013Page2loadsandtheinterconnectedpowersystemmustalsobedesignedtoadequate-lymeetthefutureenergyandpeakloadsintheseparateloadcenters.Theuseofaveragestatisticstocharacterizehistoricalenergyconsumptionmaydistorttheactualexperienceby..smoothing"outimportantdifferences;forecastingorfurtheranalysisbasedonsuchaveragestatisticswouldthenbeflawed.lJJJ"l..JiI..J]"·l-II,uJ lJJJ]]J]]]]JJJJJJTechnicalCommentNFP014SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMEN'l;ALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:EnergyConsumptionLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.1Page1-4Section1.2.1.2.Paragraphs1and2onpageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:EnergyConsumption(1970-1980)TECHNICALCOMMENT:TheDEIShasrelieduponundisclosed,uncitedsourcesfortheenergystatisticsusedinitsanalysisandhasoverlookedtheexten-siveinformationprovidedbythePowerAuthorityonthissubject.SuchdataarecontainedinVolumes2A,2B,2CandVolume1AppendixD-1.HadtheybeenproperlyusedasthebasisforFERCstaff'sDEISanalysisamorecomprehensiveandaccurateappraisalwouldhavebeenmaderelatedtorela-tiveenergyprices,consumptionbyfueltypeandsectordemand,fuelmodeschanges,andsourcesofenergysupplyfortheRailbeltloadcenters. ll.J]J]JJJJJJTechnicalCommentNFP015SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:EnergyConsumption,NaturalGasResources,NaturalGasPriceLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.1Page1-5Section1.2.2.Paragraph2ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:CurrentEnergyConsumption-"Whereagasdistri-butionpipelinesystemmakesnaturalgasavailabletoconsumers,thisfuel\...clearlyismorecosteffect1vetouse(onacostperBtubasis)thanthealternatives-electricity-distillateoilorliquidpropane-asshowninTable1-2."TECHNICALCOMMENT:ThestatementthatnaturalgasviapipelinesismorecosteffectivethanelectricityisappropriateforexistinggasdistributionsystemsunderpresentorneartermconditionsintheAnchorageandMatanuska-areas,butnotfortheFairbanksareawhichispresentlyunserved.ThisstatementisincorrectinthecaseofpotentialfuturegaspipelinesystemssuchasTAGSorANGSTwherethecostofconstructingthesystemandtransportingthegaswouldbegreat.(SeealsoFuelUseActdiscussioninNFP047).TheApplicanthasshownthatNorthSlopegaswouldbeuneconomicwhencomparedtoelectricityinVolumeIAppendixD-l,TableD-l.10oftheLicenseApplication,andinafeasibilitystudyperformedfortheApplicntwhichconsideredNorthSlopeGasprojectsforheatandelectricityintheRailbelt(Ebasco,1983).Further,AppendixIofthisdocumentcontainsmorerecentdatapertinenttoNorthSlopegasanditsprojecteddeliveredpriceintheRailbelt. ]lJ]]JJ]]]JJTechnicalCommentNFP016SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:NaturalGasResources,NaturalGasPriceLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.1Page1-5Section1.2.2.Paragraph3ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:CurrentEnergyConsumption-"Naturalgasisex-ceptionallyinexpensiveduetothebountifulsuppliesassociatedwithpetro-leumproductionintheCookInletarea,coupledwiththelackofanexten-siveexportmarket.TECHNICALCOMMENT:Thestatementthatnaturalgasis"exceptionallyinex-pensive"atCookInletdueto"bountifulsupplies•••coupledwiththelackofanextensiveexportmarket"ismisleadinginthesensethatalthoughpresentdemandfornaturalgasintheAnchorage-CookInletAreaisnotpressingonthecapacityofthesupplysystem'norexhaustinglocalnaturalgasresources,thismaynotbethecasearoundtheye~r2000andafterwards.Inthecontextoflongtermenergyneeds,CookInletreservescannotbecharac-terizedas"bountiful"because,astheApplicanthasshowninTableD-L3ofVolumeIAppendixD-1,provenreserveswillbeexhaustedin1998andprovenbutundiscoveredreserves,in2007.Therefore,CookInletnaturalgaswillnotbeavailabletoservedomesticrequirements.ForfurtherinformationonthispointseeTechnicalCommentNFP038. TechnicalCommentNFP017SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:NaturalGasResourcesLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.1Page1-6Section1.2.2.Paragraph2ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:CurrentEnergyConsumption-"Naturalgastakesarealmostevenlysplit,at50Bcf(1.4billionm3)peryeareach,betweentheselattertwouses(LNGexportsandammonia/ureaproduction)."TECHNICALCOMMENT:ThisstatementisnotconsistentwithdatafurnishedbytheApplicantandprovidedtoFERCinVolume1AppendixD-1,TableD-1.2oftheLicenseApplication.TableD-1.2showsannualgasconsumptionofLNGsalesandammonia/ureaproductionof62and52Bcfrespectively. ~l]]TechnicalCommentNFP018SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:CoalResourcesLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.1Page1-6Section1.2.2Paragraph3ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:MajorCoalfieldsandtheirresourceswithintheRailbeltTECHNICALCOMMENT:IntheApplicantLicenseApplication,Volume1,ExhibitDApendixD-1,thefollowingestimatesofprovenreservesandindicatedresourceswereprovided.]J]ProvenReservesIndicatedResourceNenana457MillionTonslJ7BillionTonsBelugaNotStated1.8-2.4BillionTons]]]]ThereferencesforthesedataaretheDepartmentofEnergy(DOE,1980)andEnergyResourceCompany,(ERC,1980).TheDEISoffersestimatesofprovenreservesandindicatedresourcesthatdifferfromtheApplicant'sandsupportingdocumentationisnotprovided.InadditiontoNenanaandBelugaresourcestheMatanuskacoalfield,although'notasextensiveastheBelugaorNenanafields,hassufficientreservestosustaina200MWcoal-firedpowerplant.1/2,000lbs.perton. TechnicalCommentNFP019c-]]~lTOPICAREA:SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMExistingSystem]JJ]LOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.1Page1-6Section1.2.2Paragraph4ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:1982installedcapacity(nameplaterating)forRailbeltutili~ies.TECHNICALCOMMENT:TheApplicanthassuppliedinformationontheexistinggenerationsysteminitsLicenseApplicationinTableD-13,TotalGeneratingCapacityWithintheRailbeltSystem-1982andinTableD-14,ExistingGene-ratingPlantsintheRailbeltRegion.BothofthesetablesareinVolume1,ExhibitD,datedJuly11,1983.TheApplicanthasupdateditsrecordsofexistinggeneratingplantdata(SeeTechnicalCommentNFP032)andsuggeststhattheDEISbeudatedtoreflectthismorecurrent,andaccuratedata.BasedontheApplicant'sdatarefinementsthe1982installedcapacity(name-platerating)inTable1-3shouldbeasfollows:Thecombustionturbinetotalincludesgasturbines,oilturbines,andcom-binedcyclecombustionturbines.Also,capacityatmilitaryinstallationsshouldbe95MWnot96MW.]]C]]JJJJ]J.Hydro-MWDiesel-MWCombustionTurbines-MWSteamTurbine-MWTotal46.046.8923.168.01,083.9 l']J"]JJ]]J'JJJTechnicalCommentNFP020SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:Wood,EnergyConsumptionLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.1Page1-6Section1.2.2.Paragraph6ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:CurrentEnergyConsumption-"Whileanumberofso-called"renewable"sourcesofenergyarediscussedinasubsequentsec-tionaddressingnon-hydroelectricalternatives,aswellasAppendixB,onesuchfueldeservesmentionasasignificantcomponentofthepresentenergypicturewithintheRailbelt.Thatresourceiswood.Currently,firewoodfindwidespreaduseasasecondaryfuelforspaceheatinginresidences.IntheMatanuskaValleyareaoftheRailbelt,15%ofthehomesusedwoodastheprimarymeansofheating."TECHNICALCOMMENT:TheDEISgaveconsiderableattentiontowoodfuelasanalternativefuelsource.Anyconclusionthatwoodfuelcouldbeconsideredaviablelongtermfuelsourceisnotsupportedbythefacts.Onpage11-38oftheStateofAlaska1983LongTermEnergyPlan(AKDCED,1983),itisstatedthat"Currentpricesforwoodareinthevicinityof$100to$120percordintheurbanareasofAlaska;thiscomparesfavorablywithfueloilcostsof$1.30pergallon.Insomecases,however,accessibilitytowood-landandharvestingcostsmayraisethecostofwoodresourcesbeyondlevelscompetitivewithoi1."Theserelativeprices,assuming138,000Btu/galforoiland22x106Btu/cordforwood,are$9.42/Btux106foroiland$5.70/Btux106forwood.BothsuchpricesaresignificantlyinexcessofthecostofcoalornaturalgasinAlaska.In",ad4ition,the1983LongTermEnergyPlancitesmajorproblemswiththeuseofwoodassolidfuelforelectricity.Problemsassociatedwithwoodfiredpowerplantsincluderelativelysmallsizes.ThetwolargeststandalonepowergenerationunitsoperatingintheU.S.areinBurlington,Vt.andKettleFalls,Wa.Theseare45-50MWinsize.Suchunitsarenotthemostcosteffectivethermaloption,particularlyinareaswhichlack '1']]]]]r}-,J]~]]~]]]]]]]JTechnicalCommentNFP021SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:ExistingSystemLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.1Page1-8Section1.2.2COMMENTINREFERENCETO:Table1-4,HydroelectricPlantsintheRailbeltTECHNICALCOMMENT:TheApplicanthasupdateditsrecordofexistinggene-ratingplantdata(SeeTechnicalCommentNFP032)andsuggesttheDEISbeupdatedtoreflectthismorecurrent,andaccuratedata.InTable1-4theEklutnaHydroelectricProjectaverageannualenergygenerationshouldbe154GWhnot148GllliandthenameplatecapacityoftheCooper LakeHydroelec-tricProjectshouldbe16MWnot15MW. l]JlJ]]]]~-l~lJ]]lJJJJJTechnicalCommentNFP022SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:ExistingSystemLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.1Page1-8Section1.2.3COMMENTINREFERENCETO:Table1-5,ScheduleofPlannedUtilityAdditionsTECHNICALCOMMENT:Table1-5oftheDEIScontainsanincorrectvalueforaverageenergyoftheGrantLakeHydroelectricProject.Thecorrectesti-mateofaverageannualenergygenerationforGrantLakeis25GWhnot33GWh.WiththiscorrectionthetotalaverageenergyinTable1-5wouldbe372GWhnot380GWh. JJJJTechnicalCommentNFP023SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPAr:I:STATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:LoadForecast,WorldOilPriceLOCATIONINDEIS:'Vol.1Pages1-8Section1.2.4.1Paragraph4ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:Applicant'sLoadForecastsTECHNICALCOMMENT:TheDEIShasincorrectlycharacterizedtheApplicant'spositionashavingsubmitted"anumberofalternativeloadforecastsfortheRailbelt."Morepreciselystat"ed,theApplicanthassubmittedoneReferenceCaseloadforecast.Inaddition,threeloadforecasts;DORMean,DRI,andthe-2%/yrgrowthrate;werecarriedthroughtheeconomicanalysistotestthesensitivityofworldoilpriceontheneedforpower.The-2%/yrloadforecastwasanalyzedattherequestofFERCStaff.TheFERCStaffalsosuggestedsensitivityanalysesofworldoilpriceontheneedforpowerwith-1%,0%,+1%,and+2%growthperyearinworldoilprice.SincetheRefer-enceCaseandDORMeanforecastsresultedinoilpricetrajectoriessimilartothe-1%,0%,+1%,and+2%,theseFERCStaffloadforecastsuggestionswerenotcarriedthroughtheeconomicanalysis.FigureB.99,Volume2A,ExhibitBoftheLicenseApplicationcontainsaplotofthealternativeworldoilprojectionsconsideredinLicensingstudies,.AppendixIofthisdocumentcontainstheApplicant'sstudiesonrecentworldoilpricefore-casts.TheresultingloadforecastwassubstantiallysimilartotheLicenseApplicationforecast. ll~l1J]JJTechnicalCommentNFP024SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:LoadForecast,WorldOilPriceLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.1Pages1-9Section1.2.4.1.3Paragraph3ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:Applicant'sOilPriceandLoadForecastTECHNICALCOMMENT:IndescribingtheReferenceCaseashavingbeenassignedonlya35%probabilityofoccurrence.TheDEIShasnotprovidedacompleteperspectiveontheforecasts.Actually,theApplicantdevelopedthreeoilpricescenarios,eachwithanassignedprobabilityofoccurrence,assum-marizedinthefollowingtable.WhiletheassignedprobabilityofoccurrenceoftheReferenceCaseis35%,theprobabilityofoccurrenceofanoilpricescenariothatisashighorhigheris75%.TheprobabilityofoccurrenceofanoilpricescenariolowerthantheReferenceCaseisonly25%.J]JJ]JScenarioBaseCaseNoSupplyDisruption(ReferenceCase)ZeroEconomicGrouthYear2010WorldOilPrice($/bbl)75.7550.3945.11AssignedProbabilityofOccurrence(%)403525100]JJFurther,theApplicanthashadoccasiontoupdatetheseforecastsasshowninAppendixIofthisdocument.IntheApplicant'supdatedanalysis,theNSDcaseisnowconsideredtorepresentthemostlikelysetofassumptionsandisdesignatedasSHCA's1984basecase. lll1Jl__J]]]]]]TechnicalCommentNFP025SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:LoadForecastLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.1Pages1-10andt-12Section1.2.4.1.3COMMENTINREFERENCETO:Tables1-6, 1-7,and1-9,Applicant'sLoadForecastsTECHNICALCOMMENT:TherearecomputationerrorsinDEISTables1-6and1-9.InTable1-6,theannualrateofchangeinworldoilpricefortheperiod1989to2010shouldbe3.1inst'eadof2.6.YInTable1-9,theannualloadgrowthfortheDORMeanforecastfortheperiod1995to2000shouldbe1.88%insteadof3.80%.~ItshouldbenotedforpurposesofclarificationthatinTable1-7energyandpeakdemandsareshownassalesatpoint-of-use(customer).Also,transmissionlinelossesof10percent(SeeTechnicalCommentNFP033)shouldbeaddedtoenergyrequirementsandpeakdemandtoyieldnetgenerationrequirementsatsources.TheelectricsalesdatapresentedwiththesuggestedcorrectionwouldagreewithTablesC.27andC.28containedinVolume2CoftheLicenseApplication.y2/(50.39)1/2126.30100x(879)1/5801-1 l]]JJ]]J]JJJJJJJTechnicalCommentNFP026SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMEN1ALIMPACI:STATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:WorldOilPriceLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.1Pages1-9and1-15Section"1.2.4.2COMMENTINREFERENCETO:FERCStaffProjectionsTECHNICALCOMMENT:TheFERCstaffpresentationhingesontheprojectionofoilpricesthatareforecasttodeclinesignificantlythrough1990andtoincreasegraduallyafter1990,butonlytothe1983level($29/bb1)by2010.ThisworldoilpricescenarioismuchlowerthanSHCA-NSDscenariousedintheLicenseApplicationasthebasisoftheApplicant'sReferenceCase.Forexample,intheyear2010theDEISprojectsaworldcrudeoilpriceof$29/bb1versus$50/bb1fortheSHCA-NSDcase.ThescenarioprojectedbytheDEISdoesnotrepresenta"middleground"inthespectrumofacceptedworldoilpriceprojectionsbutratherrepresentsanextremecase.Indeed,the1983NationalEnergyPolicyPlanpreparedbytheDepartmentofEnergy(DOE)showsaloweconomicscenariowhichcontainsa2010oilpriceof$60/bb1(1983$;escalating1982pricesby6%).TheDEISidentifiesfactorsofconsumption,fuel-switching,andstagnantworldeconomicconditions,whichitconcludeswillcombinetolowerworldoildemandinthefutureatpotentiallythesameannualrateexperiencedsince1979.Thiscontinuedreductionwill,inturn,presspricesdownward.TheDEIS'sassumptionsaboutfutureworldoildemandandpricedonotwithstandscrutiny.TheApplicanthasprepareddetaileddiscussiononthepertinentfactorsusedtoprojectworldoilpricesinitsreviewoftheDEIS'sVol.2AppendixA.Thesefactorsandthe"correspondingTechnicalCommentareasfollows: l~ll]J]J]~1JJ]]J]]1JTechnicalCommentNFP027SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:WorldOilPrice,LoadForecastLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.1Page1-15Section1.2.4.2Paragraph2ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:FERCStaffLoadForecastsTECHNICALCOMMENT:TheFERCstaffmediumloadandhighloadprojectionsshowninFigure1-6implylittledifferenceintheassumptionsmadeabouttheworldcrudeoilpricetrajectoriesandthedegreeofuncertaintyaboutthosepricepredictions. ]]1]]]]]]]]]]J]J]TechnicalCommentNFP028SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:LoadForecastLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.1Pages1-9to1-16Section1.2.4.2COMMENTINREFERENCETO:FERCStaffLoadForecastsTECHNICALCOMMENT:AlthoughtheDEISmediumoilscenarioissimilartotheDORMeanscenario,theDEIS'resultingloadforecastislowerthanthatpro-ducedbythePowerAuthorityusingDORmeanprices,asshownatVolume2AoftheLicenseApplication.Forexample,in2010FERCStaffprojectsloadtobe5,234GWhversus5,399GWhundertheDORMeanscenario.Thisdiscrepancyisunexplained.TheusebyFERCstaffof,moreappropriateeconomicassump-tionsascontainedinAppendixD-1andVolume2AoftheLicenseApplicationwouldhaveresultedinmorereasonableandhigherloadforecastsconsistentwiththeresultsofusingtheDORMeanforecast. ~lJl]J]]]]]J]JJ]JTechnicalCommentNFP029SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:MAPModel,LoadForecastLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.1Page1-15Section1.2.4.2Paragraph3ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:FERCStaffLoadForecastsTECHNICALCOMMENT:IntheDEISanalysis,modificationsorchangeswereattemptedtothenetmigrationequationoftheMAPmodel,butwereunsuc-cessfulandthereforeabandonedbyFERC.However,theDEISconcludesthatthemodel"couldnotbeimproveduponinthetimeallottedwhichsuggeststhattheMAPModelistosomeextent"inadequateordeficient."ThediscussionerroneouslyimpliesthattheMAPmodelcouldbeimprovedifmoretimewereavailable.TheMAPmodeluses"state-of-the-art"modelingapproachesandestimationtechniquesinconjunctionwiththebestavailabledataandprovidesreasonableeconomicprojections.TheDEISfailstoiden-tifyanyspecificproblemwithMAP.Therefore,themodelshouldbeaccepted"asis." ~1~-JJJJ]]J]]]]J]]J.JJJTechnicalCommentNFP030SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:LoadForecastLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.1Pages1-15Section1.2.4.2Paragraph3ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:FERCStaffLoadForecastsTECHNICALCOMMENT:Thefootnoteatthebottomofpage1-15assertsthatnoprojectionscouldbegeneratedthatwouldbeconsistentwiththePERCstafflowworldoilpricepath.HoweverTables1-19and1-20inconsistentlyrefertoa"lowloadforecast",andTable1-22showsenergyandpeakloadfore-castsfortheFERCStafflowworldoilpricescenario.IftheFERCStaffmadepreliminaryloadprojectionsbasedontheApplicant'slowworldoilpriceforecastsratherthanStaff'slowworldoilpricetrajectoryitshouldbesoindicatedintherelevanttablesandanexplanationofthemethodologyemployedmustbeincludedintheFEIS. le-llJlJ]]']JJ]]OJTechnicalCommentNFP031SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMEN'.rALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:LoadForecastLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.1Page1-16Section1.2.4.2COMMENTINREFERENCETO:Tables1-10and1-11,FERCStaffLoadForecastsTECHNICALCOMMENT:Tables1-10and1-11intheDEISshowenergyandpeakdemandprojectionsfortheyears1983to2022forbothFERCStaffmediumandhighworldoilpricescenarios.Table1-22intheDEISshowsenergyandpeakdemandprojectionsfortheyears1983to2040fortheFERCStaffhigh,mediumandlowloadforecastsusedinthealternativesevaluation.REDModelprojectionsareonlymadethrough2010,therefore,theabovefore-'castswereextrapolatedbeyond2010.ItappearsthatFERCstaffhaveextrapolatedbeyond2010usingdifferentcomputationmethodsinTable1-10and1-11asopposedtoTable1-22.TheApplicantprovidesloadforecaststo2010basedontheREDModel.ForpurposesofcomparingthermalalternativeswiththeSusitnaHydroelectricProject,theApplicantextrapolateselectricloadbeyond2010basedontheaverageannualgrowthrateoverthelasttenyearsofprojectedloads(2000to2010).Thismethodise~plicitystatedinVolume1oftheLicenseAppli-cationandistechnicallycorrectbecauseitgivesgreaterweighttothelatteryearprojectionswhicharemorelikelytoindicatetrendsforthefuture.InTable1-22oftheDEIStheFERCStaffhaveemployedtheextrapolationmethodusedbytheApplicantinextendingtheirloadprojectionsto2040.InTables1-10and1-11theFERCStaffhaveusedadifferentmethodofextrapolatingtheloadsto2022.IftheFERCStaffhadusedtheApplicant'sapproachinTables1-10and1-11forextrapolatingloadsitwouldhaveresultedingreaterloadrequirements.Thefollowingtabulationshowselec- TechnicalCommentNFP031Page2tricloadprojectionsfor2010and2020fortheDEISmediumcaseandtheApplicant'sReferenceCase.PeakDemand(MW)TheDEISenergyforecastis5234GWhfor2010andusingthemethodofextra-polationadopted,it-isprojectedtobe6424GWhin2020.HoweveriftheApplicant'sextrapolationmethodisemployed,theprojectedloadfor2020wouldbe6573GWhwhichisapproximately2.3%greaterthanthe6424GWhfigure.BecauseofthemultiplicativenatureofapplyingaconstantgrowthratethegapbetweentheDEISforecasts"with"and"without"theApplicant'smethodwouldcontinuetoincrease.Asimilardemonstrationisalsomadeforpeakloads.Year20102020DEIS(Medium)WithoutApplicant'sApproach52346424Energy(GWh)DEIS(Medium)WithApplicant'sApproach52346573Applicant'sReferenceCase58587481DEIS(Medium)WithoutApplicant'sApproach10861332DEIS(Medium)WithApplicant'sApproach10861362Applicant'sReferenceCase12171552~l~ll]l,1I,--..J--lJ.,JJJ 'I-1'lJJJTechnicalCommentNFP032SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:RetirementSchedule,EXistingSystemLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.1Page1-18Section1.2.5COMMENTINREFERENCETO:Tables1-12and1-13SystemGenerationCapabilityandScheduleofRetirementTECHNICALCOMMENT:TheDEISreflectsincorrectdatainbothitsTable1-12,SystemGenerationCapabilityandinTable1-13,ScheduleofRetirements.NotealsothattheretirementscheduleinTable1-13isapplicabletoSusitnaandNon-Susitnaalternatives.ThetitleofTable1-13shouldbethereforerevisedtostatethatitisascheduleofRailbeltSystemRetire-ments.TheApplicanthassuppliedinformationontheexistinggenerationsysteminitsLicenseApplicationinTableD.13,TotalGeneratingCapacityWithintheRailbeltSystem-1982andonretirementschedulesinTableD.14,ExistingGeneratingPlantsintheRailbeltRegion.BothofthesetablesareinVol-ume1,ExhibitD.InadditiontoTablesD.13and14,Section4.2-RetirementSchedule,ofVolume1,ExhibitDdiscussestheassumedlifetimesforthevarioustypesofgeneratingunits.Also,inJuly1983theApplicantsub-mittedtoFERCSupplementalAttachment18-19(4)(SA18-19(4»,whichin-cludedcopiesofOGP6inputdataa~doutputresultsandprovidedinforma-tionontheexistinggeneratingsystem.Subsequenttofilingtheabovedocuments,theApplicanthascontinuedtorefineandrevise,whennecessary,basicdatarelatedtotheexistingRail-beltgenerationsystem.Thechangeshaveincludedupdatedretirementpoli-ciesandeliminationofinconsistenciesbetweenthegeneratingplantdatainTableD.14andintheOGP6datacontainedinSA18-19(4). TechnicalCommentNFP032Page2Currentretirementpolicyfortheexistinggeneratingunitsisbasedonseveralsources,includingtheApplicant'sfeasibilitystudyguidelines,theFERC'sguidelines(FERC,1979)andtheBattelleRailbeltAlternativesStudy(Battelle,1982A).ThefollowingperiodsofeconomiclifetimehavebeenadoptedbytheApplicant.Coal-FiredSteamTurbine:30yearsOil-FiredCombustion.Turbine:20yearsGas-FiredCombustionTurbines:20yearsDieselGeneration:20yearsCombinedCycleCombustionTurbines:30yearsHydroelectricProjects:50yearsTheinconsistenciesidentifiedbetweenTableD.14andtheOGP6datacontainedinSupplementalAttachment18-19(4)areasfollows:FMUSDieselNo.1,2.8MW,listedinSA18-19(4)asaGas-firedCTisactuallyaDieselIC.Chena·No.4,7MW,listedinSAI8-19(4)asaDieselICisactuallyanOil-firedCT.ChenaNo.6,listedinSAI8-19(4)asaGas-firedCTisactuallyanOil-firedCT.Also,ChenaNo.6generatingcapacityis28.8MWnot23MWasshowninTableD.14andSAI8-19(4).Basedontheadoptedretirementpoliciesanddata'refinementstheApplicanthasrevisedandattachedthefollowingtables:l-J:]I~._...JJ J~1~lJJ~l~jJ.~JJ~J~JJJ~JTechnicalCommentNFP032Page3LicenseApplication:TableD.13-TotalGeneratingCapacityWithintheRailbeltSystem-1982TableD.14-ExistingGeneratingPlantsintheRailbeltRegionDElS:Table1-12-SystemGenerationCapabilityTable1-13-ScheduleofRailbeltSystemRetirementTheApplicanthasupdateditsrecordofgeneratingplantdataandsuggeststhattheDElSdatabeupdatedtoreflectthismorecurrent,andaccuratedata.Withthisrevision,theprojectedDElSreservemarginswouldshrinksignificantlyasshowninthelastlineofTable1-12attached.Forexam-ple,insteadofthereservecapacityof302MWin1993projectedbytheDElSunderitsmediumoilpricescenario,thesystemwillhaveareservecapacityofonly74MW.By1995,insteadofareservecapacityofaprojected203}IW,thesystemwouldhavea32MWshortfall• lTechnicalCommentNFP032]Page4lRevisedDEISTable1-12~jSystemGenerationCapability(MW)-SelectedYears~1(mediumoilpricelevel)Jeo-~lYearParameter1993199419952000201020202022ExistingGenerating.r-1Capacity(1992)848 848848848848848 848i~JPlannedAdditions'J(1988)97 97 9797979797AvailableCapacity,-,(1992)945945945945945945 945JRetirements53.53118356624802802"1INetAvailable.JCapacity892892827589321143 143PeakLoad(as"lgenerated)818845859945118414521513.Jr-lMarginI() =deficit7447(32)(356)(863)(1309)(1370)cJ ,J'-1]C~jl]Year]199319941995'-]1996199719981999J200P20012002]200320042005J2006200720082009]201020112012J201320142015-1TotalcJJJJJ1JTechnicalCommentNFP032Page5RevisedDElSTable1-13ScheduleofRailbeltSystemRetirementsCapacity(MW)RetiredCombustionTurbineCombinedAnnualCoalGasOilDieselCycleTotalCumulative5353535358765118949421225659030226263281132921627356356116116472472472472472472472139 13961113624624178178802802802802 RevisedAugust,1984(a)Source:Volume1,ExhibitD,July11,1983IIInstalledcapacityasof1982atOaF.21ExcludesNationalDefenseinstalledcapacityof95.0MW.AbbreviationsANCHORAGEAREAAPAdAMLPCEAMEAREASESFAIRBANKSAREAGVEAFMUSUofATOTALTechnicalCommentNFP032Page6RevisedLicenseApplicationTableD.13TotalGeneratingCapacityWithintheRailbeltSystem-1982(a)RailbeltUtilityInstalledCapacityllAlaskaPowerAdministration30.0AnchorageMunicipalLight&Power311.6PowerDepartmentChugachElectricAssociation463.5MatanuskaElectricAssociation0.9HomerElectricAssociation2.6SewardElectricSystem5.5GoldenValleyElectricAssociation221.6FairbanksMunicipalUtilitySystem74.2UniversityofAlaska18.61128.5Yl~l~l~l~l]]J']']]]J]]JJJJ L..J ('\ I.....-~r '------' r I......-.- ,II,'---r: '-----' r I '---'i..--.I L...i r " '--..i L..J ~L-....C-J (-\ ,---,...,I ~L...J ~I '----I Technical Comment NFP032 Page 8 Revised License Application Table D.14 (Sheet 2 of 6) EXISTING GENERATION PLANTS IN THE RAILBELT REGION Nameplate Generating Prime Fuel Installation Retirement Capacity Capacity Heat Rate Plant/Unit Mover Type Date Date (MW)@ O°F (MW)(Btu/kWh) Chugach Electric Association (CEA)(Continued) Cooper Lake(g) Unit 111,2 I-I --1961 2051 16.0 Unit 111 SCCT NG 1964 1984 14.0 14.0 15,000 Unit 112 SCCT NG 1965 1985 14.0 14.0 15,000 Unit 113 SCCT NG 1970 1990 18.5 18.0 15,000 Bernice Lake Unit 111 SCCT NG 1963 1983 7.5 8.6 23,400 Unit 112 SCCT NG 1972 1,992 16.5 18.9 23,400 Unit 113 SCCT NG 1978 1998 23.0 26.4 23,400 Unit 114 SCCT NG 1982 2002 23.0 26.4 12,000 Knik Arm(h) Unit 111 ST NG 1952 --0.5 '0.5 Unit 112 ST NG 1952 --3.0 3.0 Unit 113 ST NG 1957 --3.0 3.0 Unit 114 ST NG 1957 --3.0 3.0 Unit 115 ST NG 1957 --5.0 5.0 Matanuska Electric Association (MEA) Talkeetna Uni t 111 D 0 1967 1987 0.9 0.9 15,000 I ~____J J I 'J I 1 ~~~~___.J L............--------.J -','----' L.-L-.J 1 1..--L-...:L-:L----L....J L-:,' '.--1 I'~L-:r '---........J --'i...--i :..-.J -I , ----....: Technical Comment NFP032 Page 10 Revised License Application Table D.14 (Sheet 4 of 6) EXISTING GENERATION PLANTS IN THE RAILBELT REGION Nameplate Generating Prime Fuel Installation Retirement Capacity Capacity Heat Rate Plant/Unit Mover Type Date Date (MW)@ O°F (HW)(Btu/kWh) Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA) Healy Coal ST Coal 1967 1997 25.0 25.0 13,200 Healy Diesel D 0 1967 1987 2.8 2.8 10,500 North Pole Unit 111 SCCT 0 1976 1996 64.7-65.0 14,000 Unit /12 SCCT 0 1977 1997 64.7 65.0 14,000 Zendher Uni t 111 SCCT °1971 1991 18.4 18.4 14,000 Unit /12 SCCT 0 1972 1992 17.4 17.4 14,000 Unit 113 SCCT 0 1975 1995 2.8 3.5 14,000 Unit 114 SCCT 0 1975 1995 2.8 3.5 14,000 Combined Diesel D 0 1960...,70 1985 21.0 21.0 14,000 Fairbanks Municipal Utilities System (FMUS) Chena Unit /f1 ST Coal 1954 1984 5.0 5.0 18,000 Unit 112 ST Coal 1952 1982 2.5 2.5 22,000 Unit 113 ST Coal 1952 1982 1.5 1.5 22,000 Unit 114 SCCT 0 1963 1983 5.3 7.0 15,000 Unit 115 ST Coal 1970 2000 21.0 21.0 13,320 Unit /f6 SCCT 0 1976 1996 23.1 28.8 15,000 Diesel 111 D °1967 1987 2.8 2.8 12,150 Diesel 112 D 0 1968 1988 2.8 2.8 12,150 Diesel If3 D 0 1968 1988 2.8 2.8 12,1,)0 L ___~~L___~L--.:,r ,'I I L-J L.-J L-J L-.,l__.J :.-J ~~I :-J"----''---.J -'-'~"""'----' L-..:~r ,r l--J L-J L..J L-J L-J L-J L-J r 1 L.J L..J ~L-J L.J L.JL-.......1-_,....'--'----J Technical Comment NFP032 Page 11 Revised License Application Table D.14 (Sheet 5 of 6) EXISTING GENERATION PLANTS IN THE RAILBELT REGION Nameplate Generating Prime Fuel Installation Retirement Capacity Capacity Heat Rate Plant/Unit Mover Type Date Date (MW)@ O°F (MW)(Btu/kWh) University of Alaska -Fairbanks (U of A) Sl ST Coal 1980 2010 1.50 1.50 12,000 82 8T Coal 1980 2010 1.50 1.50 12,000 83 8T Coal 1980 2010 10.0 10.0 12,000 D1 D 0 1980 2000 '2.8 2.8 10,500 D2 D 0 1980 2000 2.8 2.8 20,500 Military Installations -Fairb~nks(j) Eielson AFB 81,S2 8T 0 1953 --2.50 83,84 8T 0 1953 --6.25 Fort Greele y ( )0 3.0 10,500D1D2D3i D ------,, D4,DS D 0 ----2.5 --10,500 Ft.Wainwright 81,82, 83,8T Coal --1953 20 --20,000 84,85(i)8T Coal --1953 2 TechnicalCommentNFP032Page12RevisedLicenseApplicationTableD.14(Sheet6of6)llEXISTINGGENERATIONPLANTSINTHERAILBELTREGIONLegendNotesHDSCCTRCCTSTCCCTNGoHydroDieselSimplecyclecombustionturbineRegenerativecyclecombustionturbineSteamturbineCombinedcyclecombustionturbineNaturalgasDistillatefueloilJ(a)AverageannualenergyproductionforEklutnaisapproximately154GWh.(b)AllAMLPSCCTsareequippedtoburnnaturalgasoroil.Innormaloperationtheyaresuppliedwithnaturalgas.Allunitshavereserveoilstorageforoperationintheeventgasisnotavailable.(c)Theseareblack-startunitsonly.Theyarenotincludedintotalcapacity.(d)Units#5,6,and7aredesignedtooperateasacombinedcycleatplant.Whenoperatedinthismode,theyhaveageneratingcapacityatO°Fofapproximately139MWwithaheatrateof8500Btu/kHh.(e)Jetengine,notincludedintotalcapacity.(f)BelugaUnits#6,7,and8operateasacombined-cycleplant.Whenoperatedinthismode,theyhaveagenerating.capacityatO°Fofabout178~~withaheatrateof8500Btu/kWh.Thus,Units#6and7areretiredfrom"gasturbineoperation"andaddedto"combine-cycleopera-tions."(g)AverageannualenergyproductionforCooperLakeisapproximately42GWh.(h)KnikArmunitsareoldandhavehigherheatrates;theyarenotin-cludedtheintotalcapacity.(i)Standbyunits.(j)NationalDefenseinstalledcapacityisnotincludedinRailbeltgeneratingcapacityusedinOGPmodel.]JJ]JSource:BattellePacificNorthwestLaboratories.ExistingGeneratingFacilitiesandPlannedAdditionfortheRailbeltRegionofAlaska,VolumeVII,September,1982;updatedbyHarza-EbascoSusitnaJointVenture,August,1984.J l~JJl]]]]J]]J]J]]JJJJTechnicalCommentNFP033SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:TransmissionLinesandCorridorsLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.1Page1-15Section1.2.5Paragraph4ofthispageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:TransmissionLoss-"Thepeakloadsarethepoint-of-usefiguresgiveninTable1-10increasedbyanaverage9%transmissionlosstorepresentloadsatthegeneratorbusbars.~TECHNICALCOMMENT:TheDEISoffersnosupportforusinganaverage9%transmissionlossfactorinsteadofthe10%factorusedbytheApplicantinitsstudies.TheApplicant'suseof10%isareasonableassumptionandissupportedbythefollowingcircumstances.TheREDModelforecastsofpeakpowerdemandandenergyrequirementsarecomputedatthecustomerorpoint-of-uselevel.Thegenerationrequiredtosupplythecustomerloadsatthepointofgenerationshouldexceedtheloadsbybulktransmissions,distribution,andunaccountedlosses.IntheAppli-cant'sexpansionplanning(OGP)studiestheREDModelforecastsofpeakpowerandenergywereincreasedby10percenttoreflecttheselosses.Linelossesweredividedintotwotypes,capacityandenergy;andtwosys-tems,thebulktransmissionsystembetweenmajorUtilitysubstations,andthedistributionsystembetweenUtilitysubstationsandthecustomerswithintheUtility'sarea. TechnicalCommentNFP033Page2TheApplicant'sestimateofbulktransmissioncapacityandenergylossesbetweenUtilitysub-stationsfortworepresentativeloadlevelswerepre-paredusingloadflowoverthetransmissionlineconfigurationpresentedintheLicenseApplication.TheApplicant'sestimatesofdistributionsystemcapacitylosseswerebasedonavailablecablesizes,linelengths,andlinevoltagesforthedistribu-tionsystemintheAnchoragearea.TheenergylossesatthedistributionsystemlevelwereestimatedbycomparingutilitynetgenerationandsalesfiguresincludedinAlaskapowerstatistics.TheApplicant'slossfactoranalysisincorporateseachofthecomponentsoftheoveralltransmissionsystemandestimateseachcomponentscontributiontothetotallossfactor.Thetotallossfactorfromtheforegoing,whichwasappliedtobothenergyandpeakdemandascomputedintheREDmodelanalysis,was1.10.lll~lJi- I.J-1j-1 llllJ]JJ]JJ]]]JJTechnicalCommentNFP034SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:ReliabilityLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.1Page1-15Section1.2.5Paragraphs4ofthispageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:"Inthecaseofhydropowergeneration,energylimitations(watersupply)maynotpermitaunittodevelopitsfullpowercapabilityforeachsuccessivedailypeakinthepeakloadperiod,thusrestrictingtheload-carryingabilityofaunittolessthanitsrating."TECHNICALCOMMENT:TheApplicant,initsLicenseApplication,hasadequatelyacountedforthepossibilityofrestrictedload-carryingabilitywiththeSusitnaProject.TheamountofreliablegeneratingcapacityavailabletoservetheRailbeltsystemloadsiscomputedusingaLossofLoadProbability(LOLP)modelwithintheOGPProgram.Theload-carryingabilityoftheSusitnaProjectissimulatedbyschedulingtheestimatedaveragemonthlyfirmenergyoftheproject.Firmenergyisdefinedasthemaximumhydroelectricenergythatcanbeproducedduringtheyearofmostcriticalstreamflowconditions. l]l]]]J]]J']]JTechnicalCommentNFP035SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:ReliabilityLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.1Page1-15,Section1.2.5Paragraph5ofthispageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:ReliabilityEvaluation-"Theload-carryingcharacteristicsofthevariousformsofexistingandplannedRai1be1tgene-rationwereexaminedintermsoftheshapeoftheRai1be1tloaddurationcurvetodeterminethepointatwhichfurthergenerationadditionswillbeneeded.ThisanalysisshowedthatadditionalRai1be1tgenerationwillbeneededin1994tolimittheprobableunservedsystemenergyrequirement."TECHNICALCO~1ENT:TheDEISdoesnotdocumentthesystemgenerationreli-abilityapproachorcriteriathatareusedinthestudy.However,theDEISimpliesthatexpectedunservedenergyisthecriteriaconsideredindecidingthetimingofnewgeneration.TheApplicantreviewedmodeldescriptionsofOPCOSTandPRODCOST,thesimu-lationprogramsusedintheDEISsystemplanningstudies.TheOPCOSTmodeldescriptiondidnotcontainanyexplanationof,orreferenceto,aprocedurethatwouldensuresystemreliability.ThePRODCOSTmodelcomputesbothexpectedunservedenergyandlossofloadprobabilityusingsystemloadcharacteristics,generatoravailability,andapre-specificiedsystemexpan-sionplan.Themodelisnotcomprehensiveenoughttoacceptasinputareliabi1i1ityindexandexpandthegenerationsystemwhilemeetingthereli-abilitycriteriaimposed.FortheApplicant'sgenerationplanning,asinglecapacityexpansionoptimi-zationmodel(OGP6)wasusedtodevelopequivalentexpansionplans.TheOGPmodelisasuperiormodelandispreferableforprojectevaluationbecauseithasthreemajorfunctions;1)reliabilityevaluation,2)capacityexpansionoptimization,and3)electricityproductionsimulation. TechnicalCommentNFP035Page2Withrespecttoreliability,theLossofLoadProbability(LOLP)methodisusedintheOGPprogram.LOLPistheindustryacceptedmeasureofgenera-tionsystemreliability(AlEE,1960).TheLOLPtechniqueisaprobabilisticmeasurementoftheexpectednumberofdaysperyearonwhichtheavailablecapacitycannotmeettheloaddemand.TheApplicanthasselectedanLOLPindexof1dayin10yearsforitsreli-abilityindex.Thisindexprovidesaconsistentandsensitivemeasureofgenerationsystemreliability.TosupportitsselectionoftheLOLPapproachtheApplicantreviewedthecriteriainusebytheninereliabilitycouncilsthatmakeuptheNationalElectricReliabilityCouncil(NERC)(IEEE,1977).Attachment1summarizestheninecouncils'capacityplanningcriteria.Oftheninereliabilitycouncils,MAACandNPCCmakespecificreferencetoLOLPandthe1dayin10yearcriteria.ERCOT,MARCAandSPPrequirethataspecificpercentreservebemaintained.Industryliterature(IEEE,1982,1975)showsthatthepercentreservemaintainedbyutilitiesemployingthatcriteriaisequivalenttotheLOLPof1dayin10years.ECAR,MAIN,SERC,andWSCCrequirethatgenerationcapacityoutageaspartofasingleormultiplecontingencycasebetakenintoaccount.NoneoftheCouncilsuseexpectedunserved-energyastheirsystemreliabilitycriteria,aswasdoneintheDEIS.IntheApplicant'sstudiesoftheRailbeltsystem,theLOLPapproachanda1dayin10yearindexhavebeenadoptedasthemostappropriatemethodof-ensuringsystemreliability.TheDEISlackssufficientdiscussionofapproachestoensuringsystemreli-abilityanddoesnotclearlystatethelevelofreliabilityassumedforthelllJJ.J~l~JJJJJ"'JJ.1J J]l]J]]]]]JJJJJJJTechnicalCommentNFP035Page3simulationmodelsinthecapacityplanningstudies.InadditionthemethodofreliabilityevaluationadoptedbytheDEISisnotcommmonlyusedbytheninereliabilitycouncilsthatmakeuptheNERC.Therefore,theDEISsystemexpansionanalysismaynotbeadequateinrela-tiontoacceptedindustrypracticeandarenotconsistentwithstateoftheartindustryapproach. Attachment1TechnicalCommentNFP035Page4NORTHAMERICANELECTRICRELIABILITYCOUNCILCAPACITYPLAJ.'l'NINGCRITERIAThefollowingcontainsasummaryofthoseportionsofeachCouncil'srelia-bilitycriteriaastheypertaintothesubjectofgenerationplanning.EastCentralAreaReliabilityCouncil(ECAR)ll]Nospecificnumericalvalueisspecifiedf.orreservecapacity,LOLP,orunservedenergy.However,thecriteriaforsimulatedtestingimposeteststhathavetheeffectofestablishingreservecapacityorLOLP.Thecriteriarelatingtocapacityare:oooooSuddenoutageofanytransmissioncircuitatatimewhenacombinationofanythreegeneratingunitsisoutofservice.Suddenoutageofanydouble-circuittransmissiontowerlineatatimewhenacombinationofanytwogeneratingunitsisoutofservice.Suddenoutageofanygeneratingunitatatimewhenanytwoothergeneratingunitsareoutofservice.Suddenoutageofanygeneratingcapacityatanygeneratingplant.Suddenoutageofanytransmissionstation,includingallgenerat-ingcapacityassociatedwithsuchastation.JJ,JElectricReliabilityCouncilofTexas(ERCOT)"Sufficientgeneratingcapacitywillbeprovided,asnearlyaspracticable,toensureareserveofatleast15percentoftheforecastedmaximumhourdemandoftheInterconnectedSystem."JJ-1J l]]JAttachment1TechnicalCommentNFP035Page5Testingcriteriarelatingtogenerationcapacityincludethefollowing:oLossofanytwogeneratingunits.]]]oooLossofallgeneratingcapacityatanygeneratingstation.Outageofanycircuitorgeneratingwitduringscheduledmain-tenanceonanyothertransmissionlineorgeneratingwit.Outageofanysingleordoublecircuittransmissionline,generat-ingunit,transformer,orbus.]]]]]Mid-AtlanticAreaCouncil(MAAC)TheMAACreliabilitystandardsareasfollows:"Installedgeneratingcapacityrequirement:SufficientMegawattgeneratingcapacityshallbeinstalledtoinsurethatineachyearfortheMAACsystemtheprobabilityofoccurrenceofloadexceedingtheavailablegeneratingcapacityshallnotbegreater,ontheaverage,thanonedayintenyears••"Testsoftheadequacyoftheplanincludethefollowingspecificreferencetogeneration:JoSuddenlossoftheentiregenerationcapacityofanystationforanyreason.JMid-AmericanInterpoolNetwork(MAIN)ThereisnospecificcriterionfortheapplicationofareservecapacitycriteriasuchaspercentreserveorLOLP.Theextremedisturbancetestingcriteriainlcudethefollowingspecificreferencestogeneration.]JJoSuddenoutageofanytransmissioncircuitatatimewhenacombi-nationofanythreegeneratingunitsareoutofservice. ooooAttachment1TechnicalCommentNFP035Page6Suddenoutageofanydouble-circuittransmissiontowerlineatatimewhenacombinationofanytwogeneratingunitsisoutofservice.Suddenoutageofanygeneratingunitatatimewhenanytwoothergeneratingunitsareoutofservice.Suddenoutageofallgeneratingplant.Suddenoutageofanytransmissionstation,includingallgeneratingcapcityassociatedwithsuchstation.l~lJJNortheastPowerCoordinatingCouncil(NPCC)"Generatingcapacitywillbeinstalledandlocatedinsuchamannerthatafterthedueallowanceforrequiredmaintenanceandexpectedforcedout-ages,eacharea'sgeneratingsupplywillequalorexceedarealoadatleast99.9615percentofthetime.Thisisequivalenttoaloss-of-loadprobabi-.Jlityofonedayintenyears."Mid-ContinentalAreaPowerPool(MARCA-MAPP)Thesystemdesignstandardsongeneratingcapacityrequirements"Eachparty'sinstalledgeneratingcapac!ty(netcapability)foranymonth,adjustedforpowerpurchasesandsales,shallbenotlessthanitsmaximumintegratedhourdemandforthatmonthplusareserveof12%(10%forahydrosystem)ofsuchdemandforthetr.Y'elvemonthperiodendingwiththecurrentmonth.TheCouncilshallperiodicallyreviewthisreservecriteriabyhavingreserverequirementstudiesconducted.Thesestudiesshallconsidertheeffectsoftheprobabilityofforcedoutagesofgeneratingunits,deviationsfromloadforecast,scheduledmaintenanceofgeneratingunits,powerexchangearrangementswithnon-membersystems,andtransfercapabilities." ~llll]J]]]]J]~J~J]~JJ.JJAttachment1TechnicalCommentNFP035Page7SoutheasternElectricReliabilityCouncil(SERC)SERChasnospecificrequirementforcapacityreserveorLOLP.Therequirementstoavoidcascadingbreakupoftheinterconnectedsystemdoesmakethefollowingspecificreferencetogeneration."I-A.Suddenlossofentiregeneratingcapabilityinanyoneplant.III-C.Suddenlossofasubstation(limitedtoasinglevoltagelevelwith-inthesubstationplustransformationfromthatvoltagelevelwithinthesubstationplustransformationfromthatvoltagelevel),includinganygen-eratingcapacityconnectedthereto."SouthwestPowerPool(SPP)TheSPPcriteriaforgenerationcapacityareasfollows:"PlanningofcapacityadditionsmustprovidethatthetotalgeneratingcapacityavailabletoeachGroupintheSouthwestPowerPoolsystemshallbesuchthatthecapac!tyavailableshallexceedthepredictedannualpeakloadobligationbyamarginof15%,orasanalternative,aprobabilitystudymadesoastoinsurethattheprobabilityofloadex-ceedingcapacityavailabletosuchGroupshallnotbegreaterthanoneoccurrenceintenyearsprovidedthatinnocaseshallthereservebelessthanthepeakloadobligationby12%." Attachment1TechnicalCommentNFP035Page8"Themethodofcalculatingtheprobabi~ityofloadexceedingavailablecapacityshallincludeconsiderationofuncertaintyinpredictionofloadandshallemploythebestavailablestatisticaldataongeneratorforcedoutagerates.Themethodwillalsoconsiderhour-by-hourcha-racteristicsoftheload,availablilityofquick-startgenerationandeffectsofinterconnectionsandagreementswithneighboringcompaines.Thereshallbenogreaterdependenceuponinterconnectionswithadja-centareasthanisagreedtobysaidareasorisdeemedprudentbygoodengineeringjudgement.Themaximumcapabilityassignedtoanygenerat-ingunitshallbethatwhichhasbeen-demonstratedbyactualtestunderthemostadverseconditionsthatmightexistduringtheloadingperiodbeingconsidered."WesternSystemCoordinatingCouncil(WSCC)Thisreliabilitycouncilcoversabroadgeographicalarea,andincludesanextremlydiversegroupofelectricutilities.Inviewofthis,thereliabi-litycriteriaconcentrateontransmissionsystemreliability.Thereisnospecificmentionofgenerationcapacityplanningcriteria,how-ever,theDisturbancePerformancetableliststheoutageofagenerator,twogenerators,andtheentireplantascontingencyeventstobeplannedfor.~l1ll]J]J]]]],1JJ lJ]]]]]]J]]]]JTechnicalCommentNFP036SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONME~ALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:HEC-S,EnergyProductionVOLUME/PAGE/PARAGRAPH:Vol.1Page1-22Section1.3.1.3Paragraph6ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:HEC-SProgram-"TheHEC-SprogramwasusedtoevaluatetheenergypotentialoftheSusitnaalternativesbysimulatingthehydrooperationofeachprojectusing33yearsofSusitnaRiverflowrecordsatGoldCreekandrulecurvestosimulatepoweroperations.Theconstraintsmodeledwere:minimumflowrequirementsatGoldCreekandtandemoperationconstraintsofcombinedalternativessuchasWatanaandDevilCanyon.Thetandemconstraintsincludedhydraulicbalanceoftheturbinesandusablereservoirstorageoftherespectivereservoirs."TECHNICALCOMMENT:TheHEC-Sprogramisusefulinanalyzingriverdis-chargesandpowerproductionthatcanbeobtainedfromvariousmethodsofreservoircontrol.However,theHEC-Sprogramprimarilyisintendedtocomputereservoiroperationforfunctionssuchasfloodcontrolandlow-flowaugmentation,withenergyproductionbeingsecondary.Theresultsobtainedfromtheprogramdependupontheprograminputconditions.Energyisavail-ableaccordingtothewatersupply,thegeneratingcapability,andtheabilityofthepowersystemtousetheenergyandcapacity.Energyproduc-tionbasedontargetmonthlyplantfactorsmayrestrictenergyproductionunnecessarilyandreducecomputedenergyproduction.UnlesstheproductionofelectricalcapacityandenergybythevarioushydroelectricplantsthatwerestudiedwasrelatedtothemonthlyandannualsystemelectricloadrequirementsintheLicenseApplication,ExhibitB,Volume2A,TablesB.74,B.7S,B.76,B.77,andB.100,theresultsobtainedprobablyareerroneous.Thestatement"hydraulicbalanceoftheturbinesandusablereservoirstor-ageoftherespectivereservoirs"doesnotprovideclearinformation.The TechnicalCommentNFP036Page2hydraulicprobleminanalyzingaseriesofhydro~lectricplantsalongasingleriveristodeliverthedischargerequirementfromthedownstreamplantwhileproducingmaximumusableenergyfromalloftheplantsinvolved.SimulatingreservoirsindividuallyasintheDEISwillnotobtainthisobjective.Incontrast,theLicenseApplicationinVolume2,ExhibitB,Chapters2,3,and4presentedanalyseswhichdescribeandprovidesupportingdocumentioningreatdetailforthesubjectsandcomputationsdescribedabove.TheDEIS,ingivingdifferingresults,without·providinganyfoundationorsupportdoesnotgiveareliablealternativetotheLicenseApplictionanalysis.Therefore,theLicenseApplicationcalculationsoftheSusitnaenergypotentialshouldhavebeenadopted.:1l.1IJ TechnicalCommentNFP037TOPICAREA:SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMConstructionCost,EnergyProduction]~1LOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.1Pages1-20and1-24Section1.3.1.3COMMENTINREFERENCETO:Table1-14and1-15,SummaryofFERCstaffstudiesofUpperSusitnaBasinTECHNICALCOMMENT:ThecomparisonofalternativescenariosformeetingthefutureRailbeltenergydemandsisprimarilydependentuponthecapitalandoperatingcostofthealternativesandthequantityofenergytheyproduce.Thus,itisimportantthatthebasisforanyestimatedcostsandenergyoutputsusedintheanalysisofalternativesbesupportedbyadequatedata.AcomparisonoftheDEISandApplicant'scostestimatefortheproposedprojectisshownbelow:PlantWatanaWatanaplusDevilCanyonApplicant'sCostEstimateExhibitDTableD-1$million3,5965,150DEISCostEstimateTable1-:-15$million4,0625,565I~JTh!constructioncostestimatefortheproposedprojectusedintheDEISistheEbascocheckestimatepresentedinTableD.9,Volume1,ExhibitDoftheLicenseApplication.TableD.9wasanimproperestimatetousebecausetheEbascoestimatewaspresentedonlyasanindependentcheck,orverifica-tion. TechnicalCommentNFP037Pqe2ThelistingofprojectcostsandenergyproductionsinDEISTable1-15doesnotproducecorrectresults.AcomparisonofDEISTable1-15withApplica-tionTablesD.1,B.55andB.56.showsthefollowing:Theestimatewhichshouldhavebee~usedintheDEISispresentedinVolume1,ExhibitD,TableD.1.TableD.1isasummaryofTablesD.2,D.3,andD.4.TablesD.2,D.3,andD.4obviouslyprovidethegreatdetailwhichisthenecessaryformulationofareliablecostestimate.InDEISTable1-15,theabovecostof$0.85perannualKWhfortheproposedProjectislessthanforanyothersingledamorcombinationinthetable,exceptforWatanaIplusDevilCanyon,whichcomputesat$0.82.Thediffer-enceof$0.03isinsignificantandwoulddisappearintheDEISifevaluatedinconjunctionwithusefulnessoftheenergy.Theabovereductionfrom$0.85forWatanaplusDevilCanyonto$0.74demonstratestheattractivenessoftheproposedProjecttotheotheralternatives.Withthe$320millionconstructioncostsavings($4,830millionasopposedto$5,150million)fromtheApplicant'sdesignrefinements,whichweresubmittedtotheFERCinAugust1984,theproposedprojectismoreattractive.PlantorPlantsDEISTable1-15ProjectCost$millionAnnualenergyGWhProjectcostperannualKWhLicenseApplicationTableD.1Projectcost- $millionTableB.55orB.56Annualenergy-GWhProjectcostperannualKWhWatana4,0623,260$1.253,5963,499$1.03WatanaPlusDevilCanyon5,5656,574$0.855,1506,934$0.74J~j]JJJ~jJJJ JJ1J--j--]'J.J.JJTechnicalCommentNFP037Page3DiscussionofthederivationofthecostsestimatesfortheotherplantsinTable1-15shouldbeprovidedintheDEISandadiscussionoftherelativelevelsofconfidenceinthecostestimates.WithreferencetoTable1-15,thefourthentry,H.Devil-Canyonpresentsinconsistentcapacityandenergydata.The800MWinstalledcapacitycorrespondstoH.DevilCanyon,however,the2034G~fuenergyproductionappearstocorrespondtoModifiedHighDevilCanyon. ]]]TechnicalCommentNFP038SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:NaturalGasResourcesLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.1Page1-30Section1.3.3.2Paragraph6ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:ProvenGasReservesTECHNICALCO}~NT:DEISstatesthatthereare3.4TcfofprovengasreservesintheCookInletandquotesUSGSestimatesof1.3to13Tcfofadditionalgasasyetundiscovered.Onthisbasis,Staffconcludesthat"thereshouldbemorethanadequategastomeettheRailbelt'spowerneedsforthenexthalfcentury."ThisconclusionintheDEISisseriouslyinerrorforseveralreasons.Withrespecttoreserves,theDEISiscorrectthatprovenrecoverablereserveswere3.4TcfasofDecember31,1982.Butbytheendof1983,reserveshaddroppedto3.2Tcf,continuingasteadydeclineforthepastthreeyears.Annualreservesadditionsversusproductionhavetrendedasfollows(AKO&GCC,1983):JJ:J.JJ]J198219821983Average1981-3ReservesAdditionsBcf13.544.038.432.0ProductionBcf181.5216.0196.4198.0 TechnicalCommentNFP038Page2Demandisexpectedtoincreasebecauseofgrowinghighpriorityrequire-ments,andifallp,owerneedsweretobemetbygas,demandwouldincreaseappreciablyoverthenexthalfcentury.Butevenifproductionwereheldattherecentlevel(approximately200Bcf/yr),thepresentprovenreserveswouldbeexhaustedin16years(1999).Iftherecentrateofreservesadditionsweremaintained(32Bcf/yr),productioncouldbeextendedonlyanother3years.Inactualpractice,evenwithreservesadditionscontinuingattherecentlevel,productionwillhavetocommencedecliningbytheearly1990's.TheU.S.G.S.estimateoftheundiscoveredresourcewasmadein1980,andthe13TcfestimateshouldnothavebeenreferredtoatallbecausetheU.S.G.S.appliedonlya 5percentprobabilitytoit.Themeanestimateis5.7Tcf;nohigherestimateshouldhavebeenused,particularlyinviewofrecentexperienceinreservesadditionsandamorerecentestimateoftheundiscoveredresource.Assumingthatthe5.7Tcfmeanestimatewerestillreaslistic,annualreservesadditionsshouldnotbeexpectedtoexceed200Bcfperyearforthenext20years(4Tcftotal),withannualadditionsgraduallydecliningthereafterandspreadoverthefollowing20years.Withgrowinghighpriorityrequirements,andassuminggrmvingpowergenerationmetbygas,productionwouldhavetoincreaseto250-300Bcf/yrearlyinthenextcentury;butbythen,provenreserveswouldbedownto2.0-2.5Tcfandthereservelifeindexwouldbedownto10yearsorless.Productionwouldinfactbeforcedintotheultimatedecline.Thus,evenusingtheU.S.G.S.estimate,itwouldbeaseriousmistaketoplanforanynewgas-firedpowerplants.Buttheoutlookforgasavailabilityisevenmoreseriousthanthis.Reservesadditionshavebeenlowforthepastthreeyears.DrillingsincetheU.S.G.S.madeitsestimatehasbeendisappointingandhasreducedtheexpectations.TheAlaskaDepartmentofNaturalResourcesmadeanestimateoftheundiscoveredresourcebasein1983;theirestimatewasonly2Tcf.l]]]lJ~]-1~JJJ lClOJ]]J]]J]JJJJTechnicalCommentNFP038Page3Atthismagnitude,annualreservesadditionscouldnotbeexpectedtoexceedanaverageof100Bcf/yr.forthenext10years--threetimesashighasinthepast3years--withtheremaining1Tcfaddedoveratleast20addit-ionalyears,onagraduallydecliningbasis.Overthenext10years,andassumingaconstantrateofproductionof200Bcf/yr.insteadoftheDEIS'sexpectedincrease,thetrendswouldbeasfollows:ReservesAdditionsProductionReservesllRLI,yrs.BcfBcfBcf19831002003.21619841002003.119851002003.01519861002002.919871002002.81419881002002.719891002002.61319901002002.519911002002.41419921002003.319931002002.2112/December31Onthisbasis,bythemid-1990'sifnotearlier,CookInletproductionwillhavetocommencedeclining,andthisisthebasisthatshouldhavebeenusedforassessinggasavailabilityforpowergeneration.TheconclusionthatshouldhavebeendrawnintheDEISisthatgasfromtheCookInletcannotbecountedonfornewpowergeneration. 'l'll']]J']J]J]]]JTechnicalCommentNFP039SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:GasPriceLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.1Page1-33Section1.3.3.2Paragraph2ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:GasPriceProjectionsTECHNICALCOMMENT:RecentcontractsforthesaleofCookInletgasareatapricethatisasignficantincreaseforthelocalmarket.ThebasepriceasofNovember1982was$2.72perMMBtuversusanaverage1982powerplantpriceof$0.71perMMBtu.AsshowninAttachmentAtothiscomment,thepriceofLNGdeliveredtoJapanequatesessentiallytothepriceofcrudeoil,andwasapproximately$5perMMBtuin1983.WiththeDEIS'soilpriceprojections,theLNGdeliveredpricein1990,1995,and2000willbe,respectivelyin1983dollarsperMMBtu:$3.45, $3.79,and$4.14.Atthesedeliveredprices,thepriceintotheliquefactionplantintheCookInletwouldbeabout50centsto$1perMMBtuandthenetbackatthewellheadwouldbenegativetobarelypositive--fortheexistingLNGproject.TheDEISadoptedprojectionsofgasprice,asshowninTable1-23,showadeclineinpriceforthenextdecadeanditisabout16yearsfromthepresentbeforepricesriseabovethecurrentlevel.Thispriceprojectionprojectionisveryextremeandwouldnotensureexploration,butratherwilldiscourageexploration. PERTINENT OIL AND GAS PRICES RELATED TO DEIS ADOPTED CRUDE OIL PRICES (1983 Dollars) 1983 -2050 Attachment A Technical Comment NFP039 Page 2 Marker Crude per Deis Dollars Dollars per Barrel per MMBtu Loser 48 (dollars per MMbtu) High Sulfur Average City Gate Fuel Oil Field Price*Price+ Japan (dollars 'per HMBtu) LNG Delivered Actual 1983 1984 DEIS 1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 $29.00 $5.00 $4.50 $2.92 $4.23 27.62 4.76 4.30 2.75 4.00 24.00 4.14 3.80 2.25 3.50 20.00 3.45 3.00 2.00 3.00 22.00 3.79 3.30 2.30 3.30 24.00 4.14 3.80 2.80 3.80 29.00 5.00 4.50 3.50 4.50 36.00 6.21 5.70 4.70 5.70 44.00 7.59 7.10 7.00 7.10 54.00 9.31 8.80 8.50 8.80 66.00 11.38 10.88 9.30 10.88 $5.00 4.76 4.14 3.45 3.79 4.14 5.00 6.21 7.59 9.31 11.38 *Interstate. +East North Central (Chicago). Source:Developed by SHCA. L.~L~L-J l__,L __~L-...-i , '------'"-'--'L.-.-J '----'I.......-...J L-J ~ ,,-----~--.J ..........J ll]JJJ,]]JJJJTechnicalCommentNFP040SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:ExportMarket,CoalPriceLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.1Page1-33Section1.3.3.3Paragraph2ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:ExportMarketProspects-"Theoutlookfor(exportmarket)expansionismixed."TECHNICALCOMMENT:TheanalysisofexportmarketsconductedbytheAppli~cantindicates,tothecontrary,thattheoutlookfortheexportmarketisquiterobust.CoalcanbeproducedfromnewminesintheBelugacoalfieldatacostwhich-willbehighlycompetitivewiththecostofproductionatsteamcoalexportminesinAustralia,CanadaandtheLower-48.Whileitistruethatrealgrowthinoilpricesmaybenegativeforthenextfewyears,thisdoesnotimplyadimprognosisforAlaskacoalexports.First,theoilpriceanaly-sispreparedfortheLicenseApplicationandsubsequentlyupdated,asdis-cussedinAppendixIofthisdocument,indicatesthatverysignificantoilpriceincreases(andconsequentlygaspriceincreases)willoccurinthiscenturyandintothenext.Asaresult,oilwillcontinuetolosemarketsharetocoalinsomeapplications.AstheDEIScorrectlypointsout,coalisfarfrombeingaperfectsubstituteforoil.However,oilisstillbeingusedinsignificantquantitiesforelectricpowergenerationandindustrialsteamraisinginthePacificRimindustrializedcountries(Japan,Korea,Taiwan).Eventuallymanyoftheseoiluseswillbereplacedwithcoal,eitherthroughdirectconversionofexistingfacilitiestocoalorthroughconstructionofnewreplacementunits.Second,ofevenmoreconsequenceintermsofpotentialcoalmarkets,isthecontinuingeconomicgrowthofthePacificRimnations.Thiseconomicgrowth,evenunderaregimeofhighenergyprices,willnecessitatetheuse TechnicalCommentNFP040Page2ofmoree~ectricpowerandindustrialsteam.Asaresult,overthelongterm,thatisbetween1990and2050,atremendousgrowthinthecoalrequirementsofJapan,Korea,Taiwanandemergingenergyusers,suchasHongKong,Singapore,Malaysia,andthePhilippinescanbeexpected.AnalysisconductedbytheApplicantshows(1)thatAlaskacoalwillberela-tivelylowcosttoproduce,and(2)thatlargeandgrowingmarketwilldevelop.Thus,thereiseveryreasontobelievethatAlaskacoalfromtheBelugafieldcouldbesoldinlargevolumesinthePacificmarket.ThisprojectionwasdevelopedusingconservativeassumptionsondemandgrowthandonthemarketpenetrationofAlaskacoal.Forexample,ourprojectionsassumethat,duetothelowcalorificvalueofBelugacoal,itcanbeusedonlyinnewpowerplantswhichwouldbespecificallydesignedtoburnsubituminouscoal.Thisisaconservativeassumptionbecauseinadditiontothislimiteduse,plantreplacementsforolderplants,blendinginexistingplants,anduseinindustrialapplicationwouldincreasethedemandforAlaskacoalevenbeyondthatprojected.ll.JJlJJJ lJ]JJJ]JJJJJJJ-1JTechnicalCommentNFP041SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATENENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:CoalPriceLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.1Page1-33Section1.3.3.3Paragraph2ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:ProductionCostBasisforCoalValue-"Thus,thevalueofthecoal.••withintheRailbeltislikelytobethecostofextract-ingandtransportingittothegenerator."TECHNICALCOMMENT:Thelogicforthisconclusion(SeealsoDEISVol.2,atSectionB-4,SectionB.3.1)restsontheDEIS'sviewofdecliningrealoilprices,hencethelackofexpansionmarketsforcoal.Thebasicflawoftheoilpriceoutlook(SeeTechnicalCommentNFP087through095)isthattheDEISlong-termfossilfuelanalysisiscloudedbyitsnear-termperspective.Theoilpricegrowthprojectioncarriesintothedistantfuturetheexistingnear-termcharacteristicsofoilmarkets.Thesenear-termcharacteristicssuggestthatcoalintheRailbeltmarketmightonlybesoldatacosttocoverproductionandtransportation.However,thefirstcoalplantswouldberequiredinthemiddle1990'saccordingtotheLicenseApplicationandbythenfossilfuelmarketswillhavechanged.TheApplicant'sanalysis(SeeTechnicalCommentNFP-040andAppendiXIofthisdocument)showsthatbytheendofthecentury,therewillbeasigni-ficantandgrowingPacificRimcoaldemandthatcanbemetmosteconomicallybyAlaskaexports.Anexportmarketwilldevelop,beginningintheearly1990s.AdoptingtheDEISlogicthusimpliesthat"theexportpricethatcoalcommandswillconstitutetherealcostofconsumingcoallocally"(SeeVol.2App.BpageB-8,para.2).StudiesconductedbytheApplicantindicatethatthemosteconomicalcoalgenerationmixforthethermalalternativewouldincludeamixofcoalfromtheNenanacoalfieldandtheBelugacoalfield(foruseinmine-mouthplant).ThisanalysisshowsthatcoalfromtheUsibellimineorothermines TechnicalCommentNFP041Page2whichcouldbedevelopedintheNenanafieldwillprobablynotbecompeti-tivewithBelugafieldcoalinthePacificcoalmarketduetothehighrateschargedbytheAlaskaRailroadforshipment(fromtheSuntranaload-out)toSewardforexport.Therefore,minimumpricesofcoalfromtheNenanacoalfieldwouldbedeter-minedbythecostofproduction,plustransportationtoasuitablepowerplantsite.MaximumpricesforbothNenanaandBelugacoalwouldbedeter-minedbyinsideAlaskafuelalternativesandPacificcoalmarketforces.lJ]JJJJ~JJ]]J~l TechnicalCommentNFP042LOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.1Page1-33Section1.3.3.3Paragraph3ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:CoalPriceRelationshiptoCrudeOilPrices-"Coalasanenergysourceisnotlinked...tothepriceofcrudeoil•••[because]coalisnotaclosesubstituteforoil."TECHNICALCOMMENT:ThisassumptionregardinglackofaneconomiclinkagebetweenoilandcoalpricesintheDEISisnotborneoutbyhistoricdataandisinconsistentwithotherpriceassumptionsmadeintheDEIS.Researchhasdemonstratedapositivecross-priceelasticitybetweenthepriceofoilandthelongrundemandforcoal;i.e.,arise(fall)inthepriceofoilwillcauseanincrease(decrease)inthedemandforcoal.TheDEISvali-datesthispreciseconceptonpage1-33(SeealsoVol.2,App.BpageB-3,para.2andpara.3).SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMCoalPrice,WorldOilPriceTOPICAREA:'1JJJJ]J]J]]JJThemotivatingfactorforthediversificationawayfrompetroleumandintocoal•••hasdiminishedmeasurablydur-ingthelast18monthsastheoutlookforrealescalationinworldpriceshasmoderatedandtheprospectsforfall-ingcrudepriceshavebecomereality.Apositivecross-priceelasticityconfirmedbytheDEISlogicquotedaboveindicatesthatifoilpricesresumetheirupvardmovementthedemandforcoalandcoalpriceswillriseaswell.JJThisisconfirmedaswellintheDEISinVol.2,App.B(lasttwosentences,pageB-7andfirstsentence,pageB-S).J TechnicalCommentNFP042Page2Initiatives•••todiversify•••relianceonalternativeenergysources•••representthemajorlinkbetweencoalmarketsandthepriceofcrudeoil.Ifcrudepricesclimb,thentheeconomicpotentialforsubstitutionwillcontinuetoincrease;themarketforcoalwillexpand,andtherewillbeupwardpressureonthepriceofcoal.Clearly,theDEIS'sassertionregardingtheunrelatednessofoilandcoalpricesisinconsistentwiththeirassertionsonthesamepageaboutthemarketrelationship.TheSusitnaProjectFeasibilityReport(Acres,1983)showsthatcoalandoilpriceshavecorrelationcoefficientsgreaterthan0.90since1950.Thisisahighvalue,insofarasaperfectcorrelationwouldhaveacoefficientof1.0.Althoughcoalisnotasubstitutefortransportationfuelsinthelongrun,coal-firedpowerplantscan(andwill)bebuilttoreplacefueloilorgas-firedplantsifcoal'srelativeabun-danceactstolessentherelativerateofadvanceincoalprices.1~lJJJJJJJJJl~jJJJ ooooooo·0ooDoooooTechnicalCommentNFP043SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:CoalPriceLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.1Page1-33Section1.3.3.3Paragraph4ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:CoalPriceEscalation-"Giventhevastsuppliesavailabletoservebothdomesticaswellexportmarkets,thereisnopersua-sivereasontoanticipatethattherealcostofsupplyingthecoalwillescalate."TECHNICALCO~~NT:ThesizeofAlaskacoalreservesisnotthedeterminingfactorofwhethertherealcostofsupplyingthecoalwillescalate.Realcostswillescalateifrealcostsoffactorsofproductionescalate,orifforcesexogenoustocoalmarketsoccur,suchasrapidlyrisingoilpriceswhichwillratchetupcoalprices.EstimatesdevelopedbytheApplicantindicatethatvariableproductioncostswillescalateat1.2%annuallybasedonlaborrates,fueloil.prices,andelectricityprices.RealcostswillalsoescalateasafunctionofincreasedminingdifficultyandhaulagedistanceifAlaskareservesevidenceincreasingstrippingratios.Thesecostescalationsaretypicallypassedontoutilitiesthroughcostofserviceclausesincoalsupplycontracts.(SeeAppendixIofthisdocument). ooooo0-ooooooooooooTechnicalCommentNFP044SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:PeatLOCATIONINDEIS:.Vol.1Page1-33Section1.3.3.4Paragraph5ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:UnconventionalSourcesofEnergyTECHNICALCOMMENT:ItisrecognizedthatAlaskaingeneral,andtheRail-beltregioninparticular,containsignificantresourcesofpeat.HowevertheDEISisincorrecttosuggestthat'peatcouldbeeconomicallycompetitiveat$2.00permillionBtu.TheApplicant'sdatainsupportofthelicenseapplicationshowspeattobesignificantlyhigherincost.(Battelle,1982B).Thedataavailablesuggeststhateconomicallyusefulpeatshould.be'availableinbogsof80-320acres/mi2,withinthirtytruckmilesofanyproposedpowerplant,andwithinfivemilesofamajorroad(Ekono,1980).GiventhelimitedrailandroadinfrastructureinAlaska,theavailabilityofcommerciallydevelopablepeatmaybelimited.Furtherthedataconcern-ingpeatavailabilityintheAnchoragearea(e.g.TheSusitnaValley)indi-catehighlyvariableashcontentsrangingfrom13.4%to74.2%,withmostvaluesinexcessofthethreshold25%ash(Ekono,1980).Giventheissuesoffuelvariability,plantsizing,andotherrelatedcon-cerns,Battelle(Battelle,1982)foundthatpowergeneratedfromthecombus-tionofpeatwouldcost40-70%morethanpowerfroma20MWplantbaseduponNenanaorBelugacoal. oooooJooooooooooooTechnicalCommentNFP045SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:GeothermalLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.1Page1-33Section1.3.3.5Paragraph6ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:UnconventionalSourcesofEnergyTECHNICALCO~lliNT:TheApplicantagreeswiththeconclusionintheDEISthatgeothermalenergyisnotanalternative,orcomponentofanalterna-·tive,totheSusitnaProject. ooooTechnicalCommentNFP046SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:TidalPowerLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.1Page1-33Section1.3.3.6Paragraph1ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:UnconventionalSourcesofEnergyTECHNICALCOMMENT:TheDEISidentifiestheCookInletareaasamajorpotentialresourcefortidalpowerenergy.TheDEISincorrectlyattemptstopresentcapacityandenergynumbersfromatidalfacilityasiftheyarecomparabletothecapacityandenergynumbersfromaconventionalhydroelectricproject.Theyarenotcomparableforthefollowingreasons:ooooo1.2.Tidalfacilitiesarecyclical,producingpowerinrelationtotidalactionratherthanenergydemand;andtidalfacilitiesonlyproducedependablecapacityandenergywhenretimingandstorage(e.g.pumpedstorage)isincorporatedintothedesign;andTidalfacilitieshavecontiuouslychangingcapacities,producingatthepeakonlywhenthetidesareattheirpeak.oi)Uooooo~llienthesefactorsaretakenintoconsideration,thetotaltidalcapacityavailablefromthefourmostattractivesitesintheRailbeltappearstobeonly4.5GW.Further,thepowercosts.fortidalpowerfacilityaresigni-ficantlyhigherthanthoseassociatedwithSusitna,particlarlywhenstorageandretimingareconsidered(Battelle,1982B). oooo[]oooooooooTechnicalCommentNFP047SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:Alternatives,NaturalGasResources,FuelUseActLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.1Page1-34Section1.3.4Paragraph3ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:NationalEnergyActof1978TECHNICALCOMMENT:TheStateofAlaskaispresentlyexemptfromtheprovi-sionsoftheFuelUseAct(FUA)whichrequireutilitiestopresentaplantotheu.S.DepartmentofEnergy(DOE)forconvertingexistinggasoroilplantstocoaloranotherfuel.Therefor:,utilitiesinAlaskacancontinuetouseexistinggas-firedplantsuntiltheirretirementdate.ChugachElec-tricAssociationsoughtanamendmenttotheFUAthatallowedathree-yearwindowfornewincrementsofgas-firedgeneration.TheAlaskaPublicUtilitiesCommission(APUC)hasconsideredthePURPAstandardsandthereportingrequirementsunderSection133aswellasSection210ofPURPA.TheAPUCregulatesCEA,theonlyutilitywithsuffi-cientelectricsalesthatitmustsatisfythePURPASection133reportingrequirements.TheAPUCissuedanordertoutilitiestopromotecogenerationandsmallpowerproductionandtonegotiatepurchaseagreementsbasedontheutilites'fullavoidedcostasdictatedbyPURPA.TheeffectoftheseimplementationactivitiessuchasadoptingthevariousPURPAstandards,settinguploadmanagementandresearchprograms,utilitysigningofcon-tractswithcogeneratorsforelectriccapacityandenergy,etchavebeenconsideredintheLicenseApplication.However,Alaska'suniqueconditionsmustberecognizedandtheapplicabilityofcertainstandardsandprogramsaimeqatenergyconservationshouldbeputinaproperperspective.TheactsundertheNationalEnergyActof1978arerelevanttoAlaskaandtheLicenseApplicationtakesthisfullyintoconsiderationintheanalysisofconservationimpactsontheelectricloadforecasts,aswellas,inthedevelopmentofthermalgenerationalternatives. ooooooooooooooooooTechnicalCommentNFP048SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:ConservationLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.1Page"1-34Section1.3.4.1Paragraph4ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:"Todate,mostconservationmeasureshavebeenvoluntaryandhavebeenencouragedthroughpubliceducationorFederalPrograms."TECHNICALCOMMENT:WhilemuchconservationinAlaskahasbeenachievedthroughpriceorpubliceducationimpacts,notallconservationprogramshavebeenvoluntaryinnature.Forexample,in1977GoldenValleyElectricAssociationplacedamoratoriumonall-electrichomehookupswhichhasnotbeenrescindedtodate.TheimpactofthismoratoriuminconjunctionwithelectricpriceincreasesandotherfactorsonelectricenergysavingswasdemonstratedinTableB.82ofVolume2AoftheLicenseApplication.Thedatashowareductionfrom17,332kWhperhouseholdin1975toaloadof9,080kWhperhouseholdin1981.ItistruethateducationalprogramsandrelianceonmarketforceshavebeenstronglypursuedbyutilitiesandpublicbodiestoencouragetheadoptionofcosteffectivemeasuresintheRailbeltbuttheseeffortshavebeenbolsteredbyelectricratedesignssuchastime-of-useratesforcustomersonelectricspaceheating,loadmanagementratesforcommercialcustomers,citystreetlightconversions,weatherization.programsforlowincomefamilies,etc.AlthoughtheApplicantagreeswithFERCstaffthatfutureelectricpriceswillbetheprimemoverdrivingelec-tricenergysavings,thisdoesnotmeanthatprogrammaticconservationhasnotbeenpromotedextensivelyinAlaska'sRailbelt.TheseprogramsweresummarizedonpagesB-5-l0toB-5-l5ofVolume2AoftheLicenseApplica-tion.Inaddition,AppendixBofVolume2CcontainsdataandanalysisofprogrammaticconservationintheRailbelt.TheDEIShasprovidedanoverallviewofprogrammaticconservationwhichunderstatestheeffortsoffederal,state,andlocalgovernmentandparticularlytheelectricutilitiestoachieveelectricenergysavingsoverthelastdecade. TechnicalComm$ntNFP048Page2TheimpactsofmarketforcesonenergyconsumptionaretakenintoaccountintheREDmodelthroughthepriceelasticityequations.ItisthePowerAuthority'sviewthatprogram-inducedconservationwouldyieldlittleenergysavingsabovethosewhichwillbeachievedinresponsetomarketforces.Thisassumptionaboutlowsavingsyieldfromconservationprogramsisbasedonthefollowingconsiderations.Firstthemostpromisingareaforenergyconservationisthespaceheatingmarket,inwhichinsulation,blanketingofwaterheatersandweatherizationcanbeimplemented.Electricity,however,accountsforarelativelysmallshareofthismarket.MostthermalenergyintheRailbeltiscurrentlysuppliedbyfossilfuelsand,therefore,mostprogrammaticconservationeffortswouldaffectfossilfuels.Second,becauseconservationmeasureshavebeenimplementedandhavebeenongoingintheRailbeltareaforsometime,thesavingsbenefitsfromtheseprogramshavebeenlargelyrealizedalready,orwillbeachievedinthenextthreeyears.ThePowerAuthorityobtainedthesedataandinsightsconcern-ingRailbeltutilityandstateconservationprogramsbyconductingaseriesofpersonalinterviewsofutilityandstateofficialsin1983.Theconser-vationprogramsandtheirimpactsintheRailbelt,asstatedabove,arepro-videdinVolume2Aand2CoftheLicenseApplication.JJJJJJJJoJJJJQJJJJJ oooooooooooooooooooTechnicalCommentNFP049SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:RateDesignLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.1Page1-35Section1.3.4.2Paragraphs1,2and3ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:EffectsofRateRevisionsonDemandTECHNICALCOMMENT:TheApplicantagreeswiththeDEISthatinnovativeratedesignsencourageconservationbutresultsinpracticehavebeenuncertain.TheRailbeltuti1iteshaveinnovativeratesineffectsuchas&~p'sexperi-mentaltime-of-dayratesforcustomersdependentonelectricspaceheating;GVEAoffersreducedratestocommercialcustomersmaintainingspecifieddemandlevelsuswellasratesforcogeneratorsandsmallpowerproducers.TheseratesandtariffstructuresaswellasotherrevisionssuchasdemandchargesandinterruptiblerateshavehelpedsomewhattoreduceelectricdemandintheRai1be1t.Howevertheseeffortsaimedatreducingsystempeakdemandandsubstitutingforutilitygenerationplantsarenotlikelytohaveanysignificanteffectontheneedforadditionalgeneratingcapacityinthenearfuture. nUonJooo[]ooooooooooooTechnicalCommentNFP050SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:Alternatives,ExpansionPlans,PlanningHorizon,OPCOST,PRODCOST,OGPLOCATIONINDEIS:Volume1Pages1-35and36Section1.4.1,1.4.2COMMENTINREFERENCETO:PlanninghorizonandsystemexpansionanalysisTECHNICALCOMMENT:TheuseofOPCOSTintheDEIStosimulateonly20yearsofexpansionwiththeSusitnaandNon-Susitnahydroelectricalternativesdoesnotensureequivalenceacrossalternatives,negativelyeffectstheSusitnaprojectseconomics,andfavorstheselectionoftheNon-Susitnahydroelectricandthermalcombination.IntheOPCOSTanalysis,systemexpansionandcostsaresimulatedfrom1993to2013.Long-termsystemcostsfrom2014to2042arecomputedbyextendingthe2013annualcostsassumingconstantloadsandconstantrealfuelprices.Duringthesystemexpansion,periodloadrequirementsaresuchthatthehydroelectricdevelopmentsintheSusitnabasinarenotsufficientlyabsorb-edinthesystemtoaccuratelyreflecttheSusitnaprojectsultimateeconom-ics.TheApplicant'sproposedSusitnaDevelopmenthas1,620MI,ofcapacity(SeeTable1-15pg.1-24)whilethe'With-Chakachamnaalternative,whichincludesacoalplant,has1,043MWofcapacity(SeeTable1-18and1-20).Intheyear2013theFERC'sMid-loadforecastpeakdemandisabout1,200MWandtheWith-Chakachamnaalternativeisinthemorefavorablepositionofhavingitsoutputusable,whereasSusitnaisnotutilizedby2013.IftheDEIShydroelectricexpansionstudieshadbeenperformedthrough2022,likethePRODCOSTthermalstudies,theSusitnaandNon-Susitnahydroplanswouldhavebeencomparedonanequivalentbasis.TheWith-Chakachamnaalternativewouldrequire810MWofadditionalthermalcapacity(3-200MWcombinedcycleunitsand3-70MWcombustionturbines,seeTable2-6pg.2-45)andtheassociatedcostsofthesedevelopmentswouldbefactoredintotheanalysis. TechnicalCommentNFPOSOPage2Duringtheperiod2013to2022theApplicant'sSusitnaalternativewouldonlyrequire200HI?ofthermalcapacityandsubstantiallyreducedcoststomeetthesameloadsastheI?ith-Chakachamnaalternative.Incomputingthelong-termsystemcosts2042wasselectedasthelastyearofthelong-termcosts.Theperiodoverwhichlong-term-costsareestimatedshouldreflectthefulleconomiclivesofthegenerationresources.TheplanninghorizonsandprojectevaluationproceduresusedintheDEISindeterminingtheeconomicjustificationofalternativeexpansionplansarecontrarytotheFERC'spublishedguidelinesfortheeconomicjustificationofnon-federalhydroelectricprojects(FERC,1979).AccordingtotheFERCreport:"Theobjectiveofeconomiccomparisonsistodeterminewhethertheproposedhydroelectricprojectoritscompetingalternativeswillproducethetotalelectricenergydemandedbytheconsumersatthelowesttotalcostthroughouttheentireperiodofanalysis.Forthisreason,asystemwidestudyofproductioncostswiththeproposedhydro-electricprojectandwitheachofthelikelythermal-electricalterna-tivesgenerallyshouldbemadeforatrueeconomiccomparison•••Theeconomicjustificationstudyusuallyrequiresthatthetotalannualcostofoperatingtheproposedprojectbecomparedwiththetotalann-ualcostofobtainingequivalentcapacityandenergy,withequalrelia-bility,fromapracticalalternativesource•••Theeconomicanalysisofapotentialhydroelectricdevelopmentmaybebasedonaperiodof100yearsortheestimatedservicelifeoftheproject,whicheverisshorter.Damandreservoirfacilitiesofamajorprojectwillnormally]JJJo]]JJ1J ooooooLlooooooooooooTechnicalCommentNFP050Page3haveservicelivesofatleast100years.Specificpowerfacilities,whichcompriseprincipallythepowerhouseandgeneratingequipmenttherein,willusuallyhaveservicelivesintherangeof50to75years.IITheInternationalBankforReconstructionandDevelopment(IBRD)regularlyperformsanalysesrequiringtheapplicationofeconomicprincipals.IBRDstudiescommonlyrequiredecisionsbetweenlargeinvestmentsinhydroelec-tricpowernoworaseriesofsmallerinvestmentsinthermalpowerlater.AspartofcontinuingworkintheIBRDEconomicsDepartmenttheIBRDpub-lishespapersthatdocumentthepracticeofsoundeconomicapproachestoprojectdevelopment(VanderTak,1966).TheIBRDdefinedtheperiodofanalysisforprojectevaluationascomprisingtwoparts:"Thefirstperiodcoverstheyearsof.expansionofthesystem.ItcontinuesuntiltheyearwhereaftertherelativecostsofalternativewaysoffurtherexpandingthesY$temarenolongersignficantlypre-judicedbytheinvestmentdecisionnowtaken.Thisperioddefinesthealternativesystemdevelopmentstobecompared.Oftenitwillendintheyearoffullutilizationofthepowercapacityofahydrodam.Forthepurposeofcalculatingthereturnonadditionalhydroinvestment,expansionofthesystemstopsinthatyear.Thecashflows,however,shouldbefurtherextendedforasecondperiOdwhichextendsuntildifferencesincostsofoperatingthealternativesystemsattheconstantlevelreachedbecomeinsignificantintermsoftheirdiscountedpresentworth". TechnicalCommentNFP050Page4IncontrasttotheDEISapproachtheApplicanthasevaluatedthetotalsys-temcostsofthealternativesovertheestimatedfullservicelifeoftheprojector50yearsfrom-thecompletionofDevilCanyon.TheApplicant'splanninghorizonwasdefinedastheperiodoverwhichloadforecastsweredevelopedandenergysupplyplanswereformulatedandcompared.FortheApplicant'selectricgenerationplanning,asinglecapaci-tyexpansionoptimizationmodelwasusedtodevelopequivalentexpansionsplans.TheApplicant'sprojectevaluat.ionprocedurecoverstheusefullifeoftheSusitnaProject,reflecting~heFERC'spublishedeconomicjustificationguidelinesaswellasVanderTak'sdefinitionofprojectevaluationproce-dures.UsingtheOptimizedGenerationPlanning(OGP)program,~heApplicantdevel-opedalternativeexpansionplansfortheperiodfromJanuary1993toDecember2020toestablishtheleast-costsystemforthatperiodwithandwithouttheSusitnaProject.IntheWith-Susitnacase,itwasassumedthatWatanawouldstartoperationin1993andDevilCanyonin2002.AlloftheSusitnaProject'senergywouldbeabsorbedinthesystembyabouttheyear2020.IntheWithout-Susitnaalternativeplan,coal-firedandgas-firedthermalgenerationareaddedtotheexistingunits.ThetotalcostsforthealternativesincludeallcostsoffuelandtheO&Mcostsofthegeneratingunits.Inaddition,theproductioncostincludestheannualizedinvestmentcostsofanyplantsandtransmissionfacilitiesaddedduringtheperiod.Theannualcostsfrom1993through2020aredevelopedbytheOGPmodelandareconvertedtoa1982presentworth.Thelong-termsystemcosts(2021-2051)areestimatedby>extendingthe2020annualcosts,withnoloadgrowthandfuelpricesadjustedforrealfuelpriceescalation,forthe30-yearperiod.Theselectionof2051asthelast]JJJJJJoJJJJlLJJ [JooooooDoooooooouooTechnicalCommentNFP050Page5yearoftheplanninghorizonreflectsthefull50-yeareconomiclifeofDevilCanyonprojectwhichisaddedtotheWith-Susitnaplanin2002.Thisextendedperiodoftimeisnecessarytoensurethatthehydroelectricoptionswereoperatedfortheirfulleconomiclivesandthattheirfullimpactonthecostofthegenerationsystemaretakenintoaccount.TheWith-SusitnaandWithout-Susitnaexpansionplansarethencomparedonthebasisofthesumofpresentworthsfrom1993to2051.Inthesystemplanningstudies.andeconomi~analysesperformedbytheAppli-cantlong-termworldoilandfuelpriceprojectionshavebeenperformedbecausetheState'seconomyislinkedtopetroleumproductionandrevenuesandtheanalysisofhydroelectricandthermalalternativesmustreflectlong-termoperatingcosts.Inaddition,theperiodofanalysisfortheSusitnaProjectextendstotheyear2051,thelastyearintheeconomiclifeoftheDevilCanyonProject.Itisthereforeappropriatethatrealcostescalationbeincludedtothatyearintheanalyses.TheApplicanthasprovidedacompleteexplanationofthederivationoflong-term(1982-2040)worldoil·pricesandalternativefuelpricesandrealesca-lationratesforcoal,naturalgas,andfueloilinitsLicenseApplicationdatedJuly11,1983.Also,theApplicanthasupdateditslong-term(1983-2050)oilandfuelpricesandrealescalationratesinAppendixItothisdocument.TheApplicant'slong-termprojectionsareconsistentwithobservableeventsinworldeconomicsandareappropriatelyconservativeforecastsoffuelpricesandrealescalationrateswhencomparedtoprojectionspreparedbyothers.Therefore,theApplicanthasincludedrealfuelpriceescalationinitssystemcostsbeyondthesystemexpansionperiod. TechnicalCommentNFP050Page6IntheDEIS,systemexpansionanalysisandeconomiccomparisonoftheSusitnaBasinandNon-SusitnaRiverhydroelectricalternativeswerenotperformedonanequivalentbasis.SystemexpansionandassociatedcostsfortheSusitnaBasinandNon-SusitnaRiverhydroelectricalternativesshouldbedevelopedthrough2020,andcostsshouldbeevaluatedthrough2051,toen-surethatthesealternativesarecomparedonanequivalentcapacityand.energy,equalreliabilityandtotalcostbasis.InAppendixI,tothisdocumenttheApplicanthasupdatedOGPexpansionplanningstudiesandtotalsystemcostcomparisonsfortheWith-andWithout-Susitnadevelopmentplans.TheresultsoftheupdatestudieshaveconfirmedthefactthattheSusitnaProjectiseconomicallymoreattractivethanthermalalternativeplans.JJJJJ1wJ'1oJ'll~ILJl'lu oooooooooo[JooooooooTechnicalCommentNFP051SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:Alternatives,ExpansionPlans,OPCOST,OGPLOCATIONINOEIS:Vol.1Page1-35Section1.4.1Paragraphs5and6ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:TheOPCOSTmodeldescriptionTECHNICALCOMMENT:ThesystemexpansionperiodforOPCOST,1993through2013,isnotconsistentwithestablishedguidelinesandinappropriateforthereasonsdescribedinTechnicalCommentNo.NFP050.Further,Applicant'sreviewoftheOPCOSTprogrammodeldescriptionprovidedbyFERC(letterdatedJuly17,1984fromFERCtoApplicant'sCounsel)indicatesthattheunitloadingorderadoptedfortheOEISexpansionsimulationsissuspect.OPCOST'sOrderSubroutinedevisestheorderofprioritywithwhichgenerat-ingunitsarecommittedtomeetsystemloads.TheuserhastwoloadingOrderoptions.Oneoptionisfortheusertospecifytheloadingorder.ThesecondoptionistoallowtheOrderSubroutinetoestablishaloadingorder.IftheOrderSubroutineoptionisused,thermalunitsclassifiedasbaseloadandintermediateloadareorderedbytheirminimumloadportionsfromlowestgeneratingcosttohighestcost.Afterthegeneratingunitminimumloadingshavebeensatisfied(byfillingthelowerpositionintheloadingorder),conventionalhydroplantsareconditionallyloadedsubjecttothesystemload.Eventhoughtheloadingorderpositionsofconventionalhydroimmediatelyfollowstheminimumloadportionsofbaseandintermediatethermalunits,hydrowillnotautomaticalybeloadedduringprogramexecu-tion.IftheOrderSubroutinewasusedasdescribed,thenhydroelectricgenerationwasnotgiventhecorrectpriorityintheloadingorder.ExistinKhydro-electricgeneration,whichhaszerofuelcosts,shouldbegivenpriorityontheloadingorderandusedtodisplacehigher-costthermalgeneration. TechnicalCommentNFP05lPage2BasedonthedescriptionofOPCOST,itappearsthatthemodelsimplysimu-latestheoperationofapre-determinedexpansionschedule,andhasnoeconomiccapacityoptimizationcapability.TheOGPmodelusedbytheAppli-cantisasuperiormodelandispreferableforprojectevaluationbecauseithasthreemajorfunctions;1)reliabiliityevaluation,2)capacityexpansionoptimization,and~3)electricityproductionsimulation.~Themodelauto-maticallyselectsthemosteconomicalexpansionplanfromtheuser-specifiedbasiccriteria.OGP'soptimizationisperformedonayear-to-yearbasis·withalook-aheadfeaturethat.comparesdifferentexpansionalternativesusingcostslevelizedoverthenumberofyearsspecifiedinthelook-aheadperiod.ThustheOGPmodelprovidesasystematicevaluationoftiming,type,andsizeofnewthermalcapacity.TheDEISfailstoadequatelydocumenttheselectionofthesystemexpansionalternatives.TheDEISshoulddiscussinmoredetailhowthealternativesweredeveloped,includingthereliabilitycriterionadopted,andtheyear-by-yearexpansionplanswhichresultedforallofthealternativesanalyzed.TheOPCOSTModelsimulatesthehourbyhouroperationofasystem.ThehourlyloadsusedintheDEISstudyweresynthesizedfromtheOGP-6hourlyloadmodelprovidedbytheApplicantanddataonRailbeltelectricdemand{Woodward-Clyde,1980)accordingtoadescriptionprovidedbyFERC(letterdatedAugust7,1984fromFERCtoApplicant'sCounsel).ThesynthesizedhourlyloaddatausedfortheDEISstudiesandadetailedexplanationofthederivationofthesedata,havenotbeenprovidedintheDEIS.IncontrasttotheDEIS,theLicenseApplicationprovidesadetaileddiscus-sionoftheApplicant'sevaluationofsystemexpansionplans(Vol.1,Exhi-bitD,Section···4);TheApplicant'suseoftheOGPoptimizationmodelen-suresthataconsistentevaluationofoptimizationsub-alternativesismade,andthattheselectedalternativeisoptimal.TheDEISapproach,whichmanuallyspecifiestheexpansionalternativetobeevaluated,issubjectiveanddoesnotguaranteethatthemostattractiveexpansionplanisdeter-mined.JJJJ'1,JJ1url'IL..:1rl oo88oooooooooooooooTechnicalCommentNFP05lPage3InAppendixItothisdocumenttheApplicanthasupdatedexpansionplanningstudiesandtotalsystemcostcomparisonfortheWith-andWithout-Susitnadevelopmentplans.TheresultsoftheupdatestudieshaveconfirmedthefactthattheSusitnaProjectiseconomicallymoreattractivethanthermalalternaiveplans. oooooooooooooo[]oooTechnicalCommentNFP052SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:DiscountRateLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.1Pages1-35Section1.4.1Paragraph7ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:DEISrangeofrealdiscountratesTECHNICALCO~1ENT:TheeconomicanalysisintheDEISwasperformedusingthreerealdiscountrates;3.5,5.2,and7.0percent.Thereisnodiscus-sionofhowthecapitalcostsandreplacementcostswerecomputedinthelevelizedtotalpowercosts.Inperformingeconomiccomparisonsitisstan-dardpracticetoselectandsupportwithanalysisonediscountrate.Thisdiscountrateisusedtocomputethetotalcostsofthebroadrangeofalternativesandselectthemostattractivealternative.Sensitivityanalyseswouldthenbeconductedforthepreferredalternativeandthenextbestalternative,inwhich,thediscountrateisallowedtovary.Thesen-sitivityanalysesprovideanindicationoftheprojectsmarginofattrac-tivenessbymonitoringthechangeinnetbenefitsasafunctionofthediscountrate.SincetheDEISdidnotselectands·upportadiscountrate,butpresentedresultsforthreerates,analysisandcomparisonofsystemcostsacrossalternativesiscumbersomeandwithoutfocus.Supportforanddiscussionofthetreatmentofcapitalcostsinthelevelizedtotalpowercostanalysisisanecessitytoallowproperunderstandingofthecosts.IncontrasttotheDEIStheApplicant'sLicenseApplicationstudieswereperformedwitharealdiscountratewas3.0percentanddiscountratesensi-tivitywastestedusing2.0percentand5.0percentrates.IntheAppli-cant'supdatedeconomicstudiescontainedinAppendixItothisdocumentacurrentassessmentofappropriaterealdiscountratesresultsintheselec-tionof3.5%andinvestmentcostsintheApplicant'sstudywereannualizedusingfixedchargerates•. ooooJonuoooooooooo[JoTechnicalCommentNFP053SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:Alternatives,ExpansionPlans,Hydroelectric,OPCOST,LevelizedCostsLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.1Pages1-36and37Section1.4.1and1.4.2COMMENTINREFERENCETO:Tables1-19and1-20OPCOSTModelResultsTECHNICALCOMMENT:DEISTables1-19·and1-20containlevelizedtotalpowercostsforFERC'spreliminaryhighloadandlowloadforecastsforSusitna·andNon-Susitnahydroelectricexpansionplans,andnodataonthemidforecast.Since,themidforcastdataareavailable(LetterdatedAugust7,1984fromFERCtoApplicant'sCounsel)itshouldbeincludedsothethermalalternativescanbecomparedforthemidforecast.TheDEISexaminedseveralSusitnaBasinandNon-SusitnaRiverhydroelectricalternatives.However,theevaluationwasnotperformedonanequivalentenergyandcapacityandequalreliabilitybasis(SeeTechnicalCommentsNFP035and050),andtheconstructioncosts(SeeTechnicalCommentNFP037)usedinthecomparisondonotreflectsimilarlevelsofconfidence.TheDEISindicatesthatthethreepreferredalternativesforSusitnaBasinhydroelectricdevelopmentincludeWatanaI(Watersurfaceelevation2100feet).Thechoiceofreservoirelevationissensitivetothe~conomicparametersandmethodologyusedtoperformtheanalysis.AsstatedinTechnicalCommentsNFP050and051,theApplicanthasseriousreservationsabouttheuseoftheOPCOSTmodelandtheplanninghorizonselected.ThesefactorscouldleadtoanincorrectchoiceoftheWatanareservoireleva-tion. TechnicalCommentNFP053Page2Applicant'sstudiesoftheWatanareservoirlevelpresentedintheLicenseApplicationExhibitB,SectionB2.2describethemethodologywhichwasusedtoselectEl.2185asthelevelforWatana.Specifically,TableB.25andFigureB.19showaminimumpresentworthoflong-termproductioncostsintherangeofEl.2140toEl.2180.GeotechnicalconsiderationslimitedthemaximumreservoirleveltoEl.2185.Sincetheeconomic-evaluationwasrelativelyinsensitivetoreservoirelevation,andsincetheapplicantwishedtomaximizetheuseoftheresource,areservoirlevelof2185was-selected.SincetheHydroelectricstudiespresentedinTable1-19and1-20containtheirregularitiesanderrorsdiscussedaboveandarebasedontheuseoftheOPCOSTmodelwhoseimproperdataassumptionsandinadequacieswerediscussedinTechnicalCommentNFP051theDElSconclusionsarenotvalid.ooo1lj1L~oorLrLL r]JoooooooooooooooTechnicalCommentNFPOS4SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:Alternatives,ExpansionPlans,PRODCOST,OGPLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.1Page1-37Section1.4.3.1Paragraphs2and3ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:PlanninghorizonandthePRODCOSTmodel:"Thegasscenariowasevaluatedbydeterminingtheannualoperatingcostsassociatedwiththescenario,asdevelopedbythePRODCOSTproductioncostingmodeloverthe3D-yearperiod1993-2022."TECHNICALCOMMENT:IntheDEIStheplanninghorizonandselectionofpro-ductionsimulationmodelaredifferentforthethermalscenariosthanforthehydroelectricalternatives.ThisapproachisinvalidforthereasonsdiscussedinTechnicalCommentNFPOSO.Forthethermalalternativesthesystemexpansionperiodwasdefinedfrom1993to2022andtheproductioncostsimulationwasperformedwithPRODCOST.FortheSusitnaBasinandNon-SusitnaRiverHydroAlternativessystemexpansionperiodsweredefinedfrom1993to2013andtheproductioncostsimulationwasperformedwiththeOPCOSTprogram.Ineachcase,thecostsinthelastyearofsystemsimula-tion(i.e.2013and2022)wereextendedto2042assumingconstantloadandconstantrealfuelcost(SeeTechnicalCommentNFPOSO).Thedifferingplanninghorizonsandproductionsimulationtoolsusedacrossalternativeplansdoesnotensurethattheelectricgenerationplans.thathaveresultedfromtheDEISsystemwidestudiesprovideequivalentcapacityandenergy,equalreliability,andcomparablesystemcosts.TheDEISshowsthatthePRODCOSTproductioncostingmodelwasusedtoeval-uatethegas(alsocoal,andonalimitedbasistheproposedproject)scenario.ComparisonofthePRODCOSTsimulationmodelwiththeOGPoptimi-zationmodelshowsPRODCOSTtobeinferiorinthatPRODCOSTisasimulationmodel,whileOGPisanoptimizationmodel. TechnicalCommentNFP054Page2WiththePRODCOSTsimulationmodel,theanlaysisisperformedonapre-determinedsystem.Themodelerisforcedtoanalyzeanumberofsub-optimalexpansionplansinordertoestablishtheoptimum.TheOGPmodelusedbytheApplicantisasuperiormodelandispreferableforprojectevaluationbecauseithasthreemajorfunctions;1)reliabilityevaluation,2)capacityexpansionoptimization,and3)electricityproductionsimulation.Themodelautomaticallyselectsthemosteconomicalexpansionplanfromtheuser-specifiedbasiccriteria.OGP'soptimizationisperformedonayear-to-yearbasiswithalook-aheadfeaturethatcomparesdifferentexpansionalterna-tivesusingcostslevelizedoverthenumberofyearsspecifiedinthelook-aheadperiod.ThustheOGPmodelprovides·asystematicevaluationoftim-ing,type,andsizeofnewthermalcapacity.Thesystemexpansionalternativesarepre-determinedoutsideofPRODCOST,buttheDEISfailstodiscusshowthealternativesweredeveloped.Nojustificationhasbeenprovidedforthereliabilitycriterionadopted,ortheyear-by-yearexpansionplanswhichresulted.InitsapplicationofPRODCOST,theDEIShasusedaplanninghorizonof50years(1993to2042).CriticismoftheselectionoftheplanninghorizonhasbeenaddressedearlierinthiscommentaryandindetailinTechnicalCommentNFP050.InAppendixItothisdocumenttheApplicanthasupdatedOGPexpansionplanningstudiesandtotalsystemcostcomparisonsfortheWith-andWithout-Susitnadevelopmentplans.TheresultsoftheupdatestudieshaveconfirmedthattheproposedSusitnaProjectiseconomicallymoreattractivethanalternativethermalplans.JooJoor,..ILLLrf', ILrL [JJoooJooJo[]ooTechnicalCommentNFP055SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:Alternatives,ExpansionPlans,PRODCOST,NaturalGasPlants,PRODCOST,NetBenefits,LevelizedCostsLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.1Page1-37Section1.4.3.1Paragraphs3and4ofthepageandTable1-21COMMENTINREFERENCETO:SummaryofGasAnalysisResultsinTable1-21."Totalpowercostsofeachyearincludetheoperatingandmaintenancecostofthatyearplustheplantinvestmentsmadeinthatyear•••Costswereexaminedforhighandmediumdemandlevels,withbothhighandmediumfuelescalationrates.ResultsoftheanalysisareshownTable1-21."TECHNICALCOMMENT:ItisunclearfromtheDEISdiscussionifcapitalcostsaretreatedintheyeartheyareincurredoriftheyareannualizedusingfixedchargeratesasintheApplicant'sanalysis.Ifcostsaretreatedintheyeartheyareincurredreplacementcostsmustbeaddedduringtheextensionperiod(through2042).SupportforanddiscussionofthecapitalcostingapproachshouldbeprovidedintheDEIS.ThereisanerrorinTable1-21.Atthe7.0%discountrate,theLevelizedAnnualCost(LAC)forthegasscenariounderthehighforecastandmidfuelescalationrateshouldbe$117.60millioninsteadof$178.62.Table1-21containslevelizedtotalpowercostsfortheFERC'spreliminarymidloadandhighloadforecasts,butnodataforthelowloadforecast.Sincethehydroelectricalternativeswereevaluatedwiththelowloadforecast,comparisonamongscenariosforthelowloadforecastcannotbemade.SincethegasstudiespresentedinTable1-21containtheirregularitiesanderrorsdiscussedaboveandarebasedontheuseofthePRODCOSTmodelwhoseimproperdataassumptionsandinadequacieswerediscussedinTechnicalCom-mentNFP054theDEISconclusionsarenotvalid. ooooooooooooonLJooooTechnicalCommentNFP056SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:A1terantives,ExpansionPlans,TransmissionLinesandCorridors,GasPriceLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.1Page1-39Section1.4.3.2Paragraphs1and2ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:TechnicalDataandTransmissionRequirements:"AsdidtheApplicant,theStaffassumed••••thatthesitingflexibilityofgas-firedcombustionturbinesandgas-firedcombinedcyclefacilitiesjustifiedanalysiswithoutconsiderationoftransmissionrequirementsforunitadditions.LocationofgeneratingresourcesintheCookInletareawouldprobablyrequirereinforcementofintertietransmissiontoserveloadintheFairbanksarea."TECHNICALCOMMENT:TheDEISstatesthattheAnchorage-FairbanksIntertiewouldprobablyrequirereinforcement,however,costsfordoingsoarenotincludedintheevaluation.Thiswastheresultofanincorrectinterpreta-tionoftheApplicant'sanalysisanddocumentation.TheApplicant'sassump-tionregardingflexibilityofsitinggas-firedgenerationwasmadewithinthecontextofamixedcoal/gasNon-Susitnascenario.Inconjunctionwiththefirstinstallationofacoal-firedplantin1993,$220millionwascon-sideredtobeexpendedtoconnectthestationtotheintertie,upgradetheinitialAnchorage-Fairbanksintertielinefrom138kVto345kV,andcon-structasecondindependent345kVline.Inconjunctionwiththeinstalla-tionofthethirdcoal-firedplantanadditional$117millionwasexpendedtoconnectthestationtotheintertieandprovideincreasedcapacitywithinthetransmissionsystem.Therefore,havingmadethecapitalinvestmentsrequiredtoupgradetheintertie,connectthecoal-firedplants,andincreasetransmissioncapacitywithinthesystem,theassumptionregardingtransmissionrequirementsforgas-firedplantsisrealisticandreasonable.Intheabsenceofsuchinvestments,theassumptionisnotvalid.Therefore,theDEISstudiesmustassumeinvestmentsintransmissionfacilitiesforthegas-firedalternative.Doingsowillresultinhigher1eve1izedtotalpowercostswhichreflectnecessarytransmissions. TechnicalCommentlWP056Page2IntheDEISGasScenario,significantinstallationsofcombined-cyclegen-erationaremadeatBelugaandKenai,yetnocostsforupgradingtheinter-tieareincluded.Sincethemaximumloadwhichcanbetransferredoverthe138kVintertieisabout70MW,theFairbanksloadcannotbemet.There-fore,notonlyarethecostsoftheDEISGasScenarioincorrect,buttheGasScenarioistechnicallyinfeasibleinitspresentform.-Table1-22intheDEISstatesthatforitsOPCOSTandPRODCOSTanalysesloadgrowthisconstantafterthelastyearofsimulationor2013and2022,respectively.Fromaexpansionplanningstandpointitseemsirreve1anttopresentloadforecastsbeyondthelastyearofsimulation.InTable1-23itappearsthattheDEISisbasedononegaspriceforallgas-firedgeneration.TheApplicantusedabasepriceforgas-firedgenerationlocatedintheBelugafield,atthesourceofthegas.Ahigherpricewasusedforgas-firedgenerationlocatedinAnchoragetoreflecttheadditionalcostoftransportingthegas(viapipeline)fromBelugatotheplants.Thetransportationcostusedwas$0.30/MMBtu.Thisadditionalcostwhichshouldbeincludedforgas-firedgenerationinAnchoragewouldincreasethe1eve1izedtotalpowercostsofthedevelopmentplans.JJJJJnilunuonrLrLrLrLL olJooJooooooTechnicalCommentNFP057SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:Alternatives,ExpansionPlans,CoalResources,CoalPrice,CoalPlantsLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.1Page1-39Section1.4.4Paragraph3ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:Nenana/WillowCoalScenarioTECHNICALCOMMENT:TheDEISstatesthatthecoal-firedgenerationscenarioswouldutilizeNenanafieldcoal,withthreepowerplantsbeinglocatedinNenanaandtwoinWillow.TheDEISnotesthatthisarrangementwould"•••increasethecoalscenarioslightlybutwouldnotalterthegeneralcostcomparisonwiththeSusitnaproject."InorderforthecoalpriceprojectionsintheDEIStobevalidforaNenanacoalfieldonlysupplycase,theprojectionswouldhavetoinclude:RailtransportationcostsfromHealytoNenanaorWillowandrealescalationofthesecosts;ooo2.3.ProductioncostsforopeningnewminingareasintheNenanafieldandassociatedinfrastructureexpenditures;andExpansionintohighercostofproductionreservesintheNenanafieldthanarepresentlybeingmined.oooooAsnotedinTechnicalCommentNFP059inconnectionwithTable1-23,theseconditionsarenotsatisfied.AlthoughtheDEISdoesnotsubstantiatethebasisforinitialcostsbelowthesellingpriceplustransportation,itisapparentthattheabovelistedfactors(1)and(2)arenotfullyaccountedfor.Furthermore,thezeroorlowcostescalationrateassumedintheDEISdoesnotallowforhighercostproductionaslesssuitableNenanafieldreservesaremined.Therefore,thestatementthataNenana-onlycoalscenariowould"•••notalterthecostcomparison..."isnotvalid. TOPICAREA:NaturalGasPriceTechnicalCommentNFP058COMMENTINREFERENCETO:Table1-23,FuelPriceProjectionsLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.1Page1-40Section1.4.3.2'Price($/MMBtu)2.682.392.16Year198319851990SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTheactualpricetopowerplantswasabout75centsperMMBtuin1982(1983dollars)andlessthan$1in1983.Themid-1984priceisabout$1.30perMMBtu(1983dollars).IftheDEIShadusedtheEnstarcontractasrepresentativeofthepriceforincrementalsupplyintheshortterm,itwould,attheDEIS'soilprice,yieldapricein1985-95below$2perMMBtu.ButfollowingtheDEIS'ssteeppricedeclineinthemid-1980sandoutlookthereafter,thelongtermfore-closureofexportmarketswouldresultinalowernegotiatedpricethanShellandMarathonachievedwithEnstar.TECHNICALCOMMENT:Table1-23providesgaspriceprojectionsfordifferentscenarios.Statisticsforthemediumgaspriceforecastfor1983,1985,and1990areasfollows:TheDEISoffersnoinsightintoitsassumedcostsof~gasexplorationanddevelopmentintheCookInlet.AnalysisconductedbytheApplicantandprovidedinsupportoftheLicenseApplicationinVolume1AppendixD~lsuggeststhatcostsarerelativelyhigh,depositsfoundtodatehavebeenrelativelysmall,anditisreasonabletoanticipatethatanynewdepositsfoundwillbesmall.ooooJoooooooooooooo TechnicalCommentNFP058Page2Withhighproductioncosts,limitedmarketatthepresenttimeconsistingofveryfewbuyers,andanuncertainpotentialfornewdiscoveries,itisun-warrantedlyoptimisticforFERCStafftoassumesupplyadequacyfornewpowerplantsinatimelymanner.Itismorelikelythathighproductioncostswhencombinedwithuncertainpotentialforsuccess,andlimitedmarketswillbeadisincentiveforsignificantexplorationanddevelopmentofsupply.JJoJJJJooo11LJu oJJJ[]o[]D[]o[]oooTechnicalCommentNFP059SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:CoalPriceLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.1Pages1-40and43Section1.4.3.2and1.4.4COMMENTINREFERENCETO:Table1-23,CoalPriceandPriceProjectionsTECHNICALCOMMENT:ThecoalpriceprojectionsshowninTable1-23arebelowcurrentmarketconditionsandnotsubstantiatedbyquantitativedocumenta-tion.Theprojectionsstartwithoutdocumentationfromaninitialprice.correspondingto$19/tonplusrailfeeswhichislowerthanthecurrentsellingprice.FMUSforexample,nowpays$25.68/tontoUsibellliCoalCo.and$7.SO/tontotheAlaskaRailroadfortransportationtotheplant.TheDEISpriceof$1.55/MMBtuiseitherheldconstantthrough205Q(inthe"MediumPriceScnario")orescalatedatanaveragerealrateof0.33percent(inthe"HighPriceScenario").AnalysisconductedbytheApplicantsub-stantiatesa1.2percentrealescalation,basedonvariableproductioncost(SeeAppendixItothisdocument).Furthermore,factorsotherthanproduc-tioncostescalationwilloperatetodrivecoalpricesabovetheescalatingcostofproduction.BecausethecoalpriceprojectionsinTable1-23drivetheeconomicanalysiscontainedintheDEIStoitsconclusionthattheNenanacoalscenarioispreferredtoSusitna,thecoalpriceprojectionswillbeaddressedindetail.ApparentbasisforDEISPriceProjections:TheonlyreferencetothecoalpricesinTable1-231sthestatementonpage1-43,"thestaff'selectricpowerdemandprojectionsareshown.inTable1-22andfuelcostsinTable1-23."Subsequentinquiryhasshownthattheprice1sbaseduponaquotetoFERCSaffbyUsibelliCoalCo.Frompage5,1-39,itisclearthatonlycoalfromNenanaisconsidered.Fromthestatementonpage1-33, TechnicalCommentNFP059Page2.••.Thusthevalueofcoalavailableforelectricitygenerationwithintherailbeltislikelytobethecostofextractingitandtransportingittothegenerator.itcanbeassumedthatthepricesonTable1-23includeproductioncostandtransportationcosts.Althoughitmaybearguedthat"value"and"price"equalproductioncostonlyunderaveryrestrictivesetofcircumstances,itcanbedemonstratedthatevenundertheDEISassumptions,thepricesinTable1-23areunderestimated.InitialPrices:Theaverage1983tipplepriceforUsibelliminecoal(theonlyexistingproducer)was$1.50permillionBtu(MMBtu).Accordingtoinformationobtainedfromtheproducer,thenext1milliontonexpansiontotheexistingUsibellimineoperationwouldresultinaproductioncostof$1.40(1983$)perMMBtu.The1983AlaskaRailroadtariffsfromHealytoNenanaandWillowwere$0.36and$0.60perMMBtu,respectively•.YThisyieldsFOBpriceof$1.76to$2.00forcoaldeliveredtoNenanaorWillow.Thesepricesarebetween14and29percenthigherthanthe$1.55priceindi-catedonTable1-23andconsistentwithFMUScostsdisucssedabove.Furthermore,the$1.40perMMBtuproductioncostonlyappliestothefirstincrementalonemilliontonperyearproductionincrease,likelytobecon-sumedbycoalexportstoKoreaundertheSuneelcontract.AccordingtodetailedestimatespreparedbytheApplicant(SeeAppendixItothisdocu-ment),anincremental2milliontonsofproductionfromreservesheldbyUsibelliadjacenttothepresentworkingminewouldcost$1.50perMMBtuinconstant1983dollars.Thisassumesthattheincrementalcoalwillshareexistingfacilitieswiththecurrentlyoperatingmine.Further,additionalproductionfromtheNenanafieldwouldnecessitateopeninganewmineina~Assuming'coalwhichhasaheatvalueof15.2millionBTUsperton.oJJ1-ooooo1uoo oooooooooooo1ooooooTechnicalCommentNFP059Page3newarea.Thiswouldinvolveadditionalfacilitiesandlongerroadhauls.AccordingtoTheApplicant'sestimatesanewNenanafieldminewouldcost$1.73perMMBtuFOBHealy(Suntrana).RailcoststoaNenanaorWillowplantsitewouldfurtherincreasethisamount.CostEscalation:Table1-23sssumesthatcoalpriceswillremainconstantfrom1983to2050underthemediumfuelpriceprojectionorthattheywillescalateatanaverageannualrateoflessthan0.4percentunderthehighpriceprojection.Bothofthe~eescalationratesaresignificantlylowerthanthepriceescalationestimatesdevelopedbytheApplicant.TheAppli-cantestimatesthatthecostofcoalproductionwillescalateatarealannualrateofapproximately1.2percentasafunctionofthecostofpro-ductionfactorssuchaslabor,dieselfuelandelectricity.Laborcosts,whichaccountforabout60percentofproductioncostshave,overthepast80years,exhibitedarealgrowthrateof1.5percent.Thesecostsaretypcia11ycontainedinthepriceescalationclausesinutilitycoalsupplycontracts.Labor,coupledwithprojectedincreasesindieselandelectri-citypricescontainedintheLicenseApplicationresultinanannualescala-tionratewhichismorethanfourtimesaslargeasthatusedinthe"HighPriceScenario"oftheDEIS.Accordingtoananalysisofcoaltransporta-tion(ascontainedintheU.S.ProducerPriceIndex),costshaveescalatedatarealannualrateof1.8percentoverthepastdecade.Inselectingtheverylowprojectedescalationrateforitsanalysis,theDEISignorestheneedforarealisticescalationcomponentwhichfactorsinlikelyincreasesinalltheabove-identifiedareasofcost.ProductionCostPricing:Costofproduction,thebasisuponwhichtheDEIS'scoalpriceswereapparentlyestimated,providestheminimumvalueorfloorforareasonablepriceprojection;thatis,itshouldbeassumedthataproducerwouldnotreasonablysellhisproductoverthelongtermforlessthanhisfullproductioncosts.Otherbasesexistforestimatingfutureprices,includingnet-backpriceforexportmarket,andthecostofthe TechnicalCommentNFP059Page4lowestcostalternativefuels(residualoilornaturalgas).Thesebasesresultinsignificantlyhigherpriceestimates.UpdateddataofthesebasesforcostestimationareprovidedinAppendixItothisdocument.Conclusion:TheentireanalysisofcoalalternativescontainedintheDEISisflawed,becauseitisbasedonunsubstantiatedandunderestimatedcoalprices.The1983initialpricequotedintheDEISiswellbelowcurrentactualprices.Thisproblemiscompoundedbyassumingazerorealescala~tionrate,aratewhichissignificantlybelowhistoricaltrends.Finally,marketpricingforceswhichwouldtendtoraisecoalpricesabovethecostofproductionandtransportationareapparentlyignored.oooooooooo]ooilr1I',L oooooooooooooooooooTechnicalCommentNFP060SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:Alternatives,ExpansionPlans,CoalPlants,PRODCOST,NetBenefits,LevelizedCostsLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.1Page1-42Section1.4.4.2COMMENTINREFERENCETO:Table1-24TECHNICALCOMMENT:ThecostcomprisonscontainedinTable1-24arebiasedinfavorofcoalscenarios.Thecoalfuelpricesusedintheanalysisareunderestimated.Underestimationofcoalprices,whichareaninputtothePRODCOSTmodelusedintheDEIS,resultinunderestimationofthepresentworthandlevelizedannualcostsforcoalscenariosshowninTable1-24.SincethecoalstudiespresentedinTable1-24containtheirregularitiesanderrorsdiscussedaboveandarebasedontheuseofthePRODCOSTmodel(whoseimproperdataassumptionsandinadequacieswerediscussedinTechnicalCommentNFP054)theDEISconclusionsarenotvalid. oTechnicalCommentNFP061LOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.1Page1-43Section1.4.4.2Paragraphs2ofthepageTECHNICALCOMMENT:ThelateststaffloadprojectionsareshowninTables1--10and1-11,notinTable1-6(Table1-6isoilpriceprojections).Inyear2020,themediumormidenergydemandforecastsdifferby6.5per-cent(Table1-10vs.1-22.lJ).Forthehighforecasts,the2020energydemandsdifferby12.8percent(Table1-11vs.1-2~).Thesedifferencesmaybesignificant.COMMENTINREFERENCETO:"TheforecastdemandsshowninTable1-22arepreliminaryfiguresusedforcomputeranalysisofthevariousscenarios,Theyaresomewhathigherinthelateryearsthanthelateststaffprojec-tionsshowninTable1-6andresultinslightlyhighertotalcostsforthermalgeneration.However,theslightdifferencehasnoimpactontheconclusionsreachedbytheStaffintheiranalyses."SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMLoadForecast,LevilizedCostsTOPICAREA:ooooooooooooooo68441.0651/--=6424Y7437--=1.1286591ooo ooooooooooooooooooJTechnicalCommentNFP062SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:PRODCOST,CoalPrices,NetBenefits,LevelizedCostsLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.1Page1-44Section1.4.5.3COMMENTINREFERENCETO:Table1-26,CoalFuelPricesUsedinPRODCOSTAnalysisTECHNICALCOMMENT:AsnotedincommentswithregardtoTables1-23,coal-fuelpricesusedintheDEISareunderestimated.Theseunderestimatedprices,wheninputtothePRODCOSTmodelyieldunderestimatesofthelevelizedtotalpowercostsforallcoalorcoalandgasmixedscenariosshowninTable1-26. oooooooooooTechnicalCommentNFP063SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:ExpansionPlans,OPCOST,PRODCOST,OGP,NetBenefitsLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.1Page1-43,Sections1.4.5.1,1.4.5.2,and1.4.5.3COMMENTINREFERENCETO:SummaryTables1-25and1-26andconclusionsdrawntherefromTECHNICALCOMMENT:TheDEISexaminedseveralalternativepowerresourcedevelopmentscenariosfortheRailbelt.ReviewofAttachment1whichshowstheplanninghorizonsandexpansionplanningtoolsasusedbytheApplicantandintheDEIS,demonstratestheinconsistentapplicationofplanningmethodologyintheDEIS.ThecomparisonofSusitnaandNon-SusitnaBasinhydroelectricplansaresumarizedinTable1-25onpage1-44oftheDEIS.Discussionofthehydro-electriccomparisonscontainedinTechnicalCommentsNFP050through053aresummarizedhereforeasyreference.oooooooooThesystemexpansionperiod(1993-2013)wasnotsufficientlylongenoughtopermitfullutilizationofthepowerandenergycapabilityoftheApplicant'sproposedSusitnaProject.EquivalentcapacityandenergyandequalreliabilitywerenotobtainedintheDEISSusitnaandNon-SusitnaBasinhydroelectricevaiuation,whichwasstudiedwiththeOPCOSTsimulationprogram.Therefore,alternativesarenottrulycomparable.WithreferencetoDEISTables1-19,1-20and1-25,theevaluationisperformedwithSusitnaBasinandNon-SusitnaRiverhydroelectricproj-ectconstructioncoststhatarenotdevelopedtothesamelevelofconfidence.Therefore,thealternativesarenottrulycomparablesincesincetheconstructioncostsoftheNon-SusitnaRiverhydroelectricalternativesareunderstated. oJTechnicalCommentNFP063Pqe20ooWiththedispersedlocationsoftheNon-SusitnaRiverHydroelectricalternativeslon~transmissionlinesoperatingatlowvoltageswouldberequiredtoconnecttheprojectstotheloadcenters.Thecostsofthesefacilitiesarenotincludedintheprojectcosts.Therefore,thealternativesarenottruelycomparablebecauselevelizedtotalpowercostsareunderstated.Sincethehydroelectricevalutionwasnotperformedonanequivalent.basis,andtheconstructiqncostsdonotreflectsimilarlevelsofdetailandconfidence,andthecostoftransmissionfacilitieshavenotbeenaccountedfor,theDEISSusitnaBasinandNon-SusitnaRiverhydro-electriccomparisonandconclusionsarenotvalid.JooooTheevaluationintheDEISofcoal,gas,andacoal/gasmixissummarizedinTable1-26onpage1-44ofDEIS.TheApplicant'sdetailedcommentsonthethermalscenariostudiesarecontainedinTechnicalCommentsNFP054through062andaresummarizedhereforeasyreference.ooooTheplanninghorizonintheDEIShasbeendefineddifferentlyforthehydroelectricandthermalalternatives.Therefore,thedevelopmentplansandlevelizedtotalpowercostsarenotcomparable.ThesystemwidestudiesoftheDEISusedtwoproductionsimulationpro-grams.OPCOSTwasusedtoevaluatethe·SusitnaandNon-Susitnahydro-electricalternativesandPRODCOSTwasusedtoevaluatethethermalalternatives.Therefore,theplanswerenotdevelopedandanalyzedonacomparablebasis.oooooo TheApplieanthasavoidedtheaboveineonsisteneiesanddistortionsinitsexpansionplanningandeeonomieanalyses.TheApplieant'splanninghorizonwasdefinedastheperiodover~hiehloadforeeastsweredevelopedandenergysupplyplanswereformulatedandeompared(1993through2020).AlloftheproposedSusitnaProjeet'senergywouldbeabsorbedinthesystemabout2020.FortheApplieant'se1eetriegenerationplanning,asingleeapaeityexpansionoptimizationmodelwasusedtodevelopequivalentexpan-sionplans.Thelong-termsystemeosts(2021-2051)areestimatedbyextendingthe2020annualeosts,withadjustmentsforfuelesealation,forthe3O-yearpeirod.Theseleetionof2051asthelastyearoftheplanninghorizonrefleetsthefull50-yeareeonomielifeofDevilCanyonprojeetwhiehisaddedtotheWIth-Susitnaplanin2002.Thisextendedperiodoftimeisneeessarytoensurethatthehydroeleetrieoptionswereoperatedfortheirfulleeonomielivesandthattheirfullimpaetontheeostofthegenerationsystemaretakenintoaeeount.TheWith-SusitnaandWithout-Susitnaexpansionplansaretheneomparedonthebasisofthepresentsworthsfrom1993to2051.oooooooooooooooTeehniealCommentNFP063Page3AlthoughtheDEISmentionsaneedforreinforeingtheAnehorage-FairbanksIntertietoserveload,notransmissionfaeilitiesandtheirassoeiatedeostsareineludedinthelevelizedtotalannualeostsofthegasandeoalseenarios.Thissignifieantlyunderstatestheeostoftheplans.oooooInasummary,thediffereneeinplanninghorizonsandsimulationtoolsaerossalternativeplansdoesnotensurethattheeleetriegenerationplansthathaveresultedfromthesystemwidestudiesintheDEISprovideequiva-lenteapaeityandenergy,equalreliability,andassoieatedsystemeosts.Also,theseleetionof2042asthelastyearofthehorizondoesnotrefleet TechnicalCommentNFP063pqe4thefulleconomiclifeoftheDevilCanyonhydroelectricprojectwhichisaddedtotheproposedSusitnaalternativein2002.Table1-25doesnotcontainlevelizedtotalpowercostsforthepreliminarymidforecastandTable1-26doesnotcontainlevelizedtotalpowercostsforthepreliminarylowforecast.Sincemidforecastdataareavailalbe(SeeTechnicalCommentNFP053)forthehydroelectricalternativesitshouldbeincluded.Lowloadforecastpowercostsforthethermalalternativessho.uldbeprovided.TheDEISconclusionfavoringtheuseofNon-SusitnaRiverhydroelectricprojectssupplementedbythermalgenerationisnotvalid.InAppendixItothisdocumenttheApplicanthasupdatedfuelprices,OGPexpansionplanningstudiesandtotalsystemcostcomparisonfortheWith-andWithout-Susitnadevelopmentplans.TheresultsoftheupdatestudieshaveconfirmedthefactthattheSusitnaProjectiseconomicallymoreattractivethanthermalalternativeplans.JrrLLrLLrLLLLrLLLLLLLrL C::J Cd r-,C-l ---1 ,--,--,,-l _,--,r-,r-,_J"',,----,r-,~. APPLICANT'S STUDIES (OGPI,ALL ALTERNATIVES I ~I I ~1993 2020 I 20511---;,I·····11 DEIS STUDIES (OPCOSTI,SUSITNA BASIN &NON·SUSITNA RIVER HYDRO ALTERNATIVES 1993 2013 I J 12042 ~---l-----"'-i ....1-....••.....~ DEIS STUDIES (PRODCOST),THERMAL ALTERNATIVES AND PROPOSED PROJECT 1993 If I ~22 112042I••••~•••••~~ 1993 2013 2022 2042 2051 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 STUDY PERIOD,YEARS SYSTEM EXPANSION PERIOD ••••••CASH FLOW EXTENSION PERIOD HARZA·EBASCO Susitn.Joint Venture -August 1984 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT COMPARISON OF PLANNING HORIZONS "-;'""<C 0 "::r~'"_.o !!'. ("):r>o -; 3 -; 3 :r>"(");;:r: z s:-n m "Zg-; w TOPICAREA:WatanaCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:ProposedProject,WatanaDevelopmentTechnicalCommentNFP064LOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.IPage2-2Section2.1.2.1andFigure2~4WatanaMainDamSectionWatanaMainDamProfileandDetailWatanaMainSpillwayGeneralArrangementWatanaPowerFacilitiesGeneralArrangementSUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMPlateF6PlateF7PlateF12PlateF21TECHNICALCOM}lliNT:FigureB.7-WatanaHydroDevelopmentFillDamfromExhibitBoftheApplicationwasmistakenlyselectedtorepresenttheWatanaFacilities--Sections,(Figure2-4)intheDEIS.ThefiguresthatshowthecrosssectionfortheWatanadevelopmentasproposedintheLicenseApplica-tionarecontainedinExhibitFoftheApplicationandareasfollows:Figure2-4intheDEISshouldbereplacedbyPlatesF6,F7,F12andF21-asappropriate,dependingonthelevelofdetailtobepresentedintheDElS.ooooooooooooooooooo TOPICAREA:ReservoirTechnicalCommentNFP065COMMENTINREFERENCETO:QuotedactivestoragevolumesandWatanadrawdownSUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMWatanaDevilCanyonReservoirReservoir218514559.47xl061.09xl0612050206514053.74x1060.35xl06ParameterLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.1Page2-8Section2.1.5.1.2Paragraph2·ofthepageReservoirStorageatNormalMaximumOperatingLevel(acre-ft)NormalMaximumOperatingLevel(ft)MaximumDrawdown(ft)MinimumOperatingLevel(ft)TECHNICALCOMMENT:WithreferencetotheDEIS,Volume1,MainText,inparagraphs2and3onpagexxiofthesummaryandthelastparagraphofSection2.1.5.1.2onpage2-8ofthetext,thefollowingquantitiesshouldbeusedindescribingtheproject:ReservoirLiveStorage(acre-ft)Anyotherquantitiesincludedinthetextshouldeitherbeconsistentfromonepointofusagetothenextorthedifferenceshouldbeexplained.ooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooTechnicalCommentNFP066SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:FlowRegime,WaterQuantity,WaterQualityLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.1Page2-23'Section2.1.2.2Paragraph6ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:SelectingAppropriateFlowRegimeforReservoirOperationTECHNICALCOMMENT:Astheparagraphiswritten,thedischargequantitiesthatarestatedcouldbeconstruedasbeingmeasuredateitherWatanaorDevilCanyontailraces,whichisnotfactualandcouldbemisleading.ThedischargescontrollingprojectoperationforfisheryhabitatreasonswillbemeasuredatGoldCreek,pertheApplicationstatementinExhibitE,Chapter'3,Volume6A,Section2.4.4(a)(iii),pageE-3-162.Applicant,inco-operationwithStateofAlaskaenvironmentalagencies,iscontinuingtostudytheflowregime,asstatedonpageE-3-163oftheApplication(SeealsoTechnicalCommentsAQR059and061).Thus,whilethedischargesstatedrepresentedtheApplicant'sassessmentofthefisheryhabitatflowrequirementswhenpreparingtheLicenseApplica-tion,thedischargeswillbesubjecttothecontrolandmitigationplansfinallyadopted,andtheplanswillbesumbittedtotheFERCforappropriatereviewandapproval. ]]]]]]]JJ]]]]]JJTechnicalCommentNFP067SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:Alternatives,Hydroelectric.LOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.1Page2-33Section2.2.4COMMENTINREFERENCETO:WatanadevelopmentTECHNICALCOMMENT:Section2.2.4oftheDEISbrieflydescribesthreealternativedevelopments,shownbelow,whichincludeWatanaI(watersurfaceelevation2100feet).Thechoiceofreservoirelevationissensitivetotheeconomicparametersandmethodologyusedtoperformtheanalysis(SeeTechnicalCommentNFP053).WatanaI -DevilCanyonWatanaI -ModifiedHighDevilCanyonWatanaI -ReregulatingDamThediscussionofSection2.2.4.2states:"Thisdevelopmentwouldbeidenticaltotheproposedproject,withtheexceptionthatWatanadamwouldbescaleddowntohaveacresteleva-tionof2,125ft(648m)andanormalreservoirlevelof2100ft(640m),[versus2,210ft(674m)and2185ft(666m),respectively,fortheproposeddam]."ThechangeinWatanaDamappliestoallthreecombina-tions.Thestatementisincorrectandismisleading.ForexampleinDEISTablel-15,thetotalinstalledcapacityattheIlatanasiteisshownnottobeiden-tical,buttobereducedfrom1020MWto900MW.,Also,theDEISappearstoattempttoobtainthesamedegreeofriverregulation(andhenceenergyproductionproportionaltothegrosshead)whichwouldrequirethatthereservoirdrawdownwouldhavetobeincreasedfromtheproposed120fttoapproximately180ft.Withsuchenlargeddrawdown,averageheadwouldbe TechnicalCommentNFP067Page2reducedtolessthantheproportionofgrossheads,andtheenergyproduc-tionfromWatanaIwouldbereducedtoasmallerratioofWatanaproductionthanisimplied.Withthedamcrest85feetlower,damsitetopographywouldrequirerevisiontolayoutsofthedamandthespillway.IfturbinedischargecapacityofWatanaIisintendedtoequalWatana's,thecapacityhastobeprovidedatlowerhead.Thisenlargesphysicaldimensionsandcostofturbines,gen~rators,powerstation,andmajorappurtenances.Numerousotherlesssignifi-cantchangeswouldberequiredintheWatanageneralarrangementforadamwithacrestelevationof2125ft.Consideringthemagnitudeofthechangesintheprojectgeneralarrangementnecessarytoaccommodatean85ftlowerdamattheWatanasite,ablandstatementthattheSusitnaProjectandthealternativehaveidenticalcharacteristicsisunwarrantedandincorrect.JJl~1J~lJ~lJJJ~lJ ]J]]JJ."1J]-1~J-1JTechnicalCommentNFP068SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:Alternatives,ExpansionPlans,PRODCOST,LevelizedCosts,TransmissionLinesandCorridorsLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.1Page2-37Sections2.3.1, 2.3.2,2.3.3and2.3.4COMMENTINREFERENCETO:AlternativeGenerationFacilities1)PlanninghorizonandPRODCOSTmodel2)Table2-43)TransmissionsystemTECHNICALCOMMENT:RefertoTechnicalCommentNFP054.Table2-4:Theplannedoutagerateforacombustionturbineshouldbe3.2%insteadof32%.Theunitcapitalcostswithinterestduringconstruction·(IDC)arebasedona3%discountrate.Foranalysesperformedwithdifferentdiscountrates,theIDCcomponentshouldbebasedonthediscountratebeingused.ItisnotapparentfromsupportingdocumentationifIDCwascomputedproperly.TheuseoftheincorrectinterestrateintheIDCcomputationwillleadtoincorrectlevelizedtotalpowercosts.RefertoTechnicalCommentNFP056.TheDEIShasnotadequatelyaddressedtransmissionrequirementsandcostsforthegasscenario. lJJJ]J]JJ]]]]J]]JJJTechnicalCommentNFP069SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:Alternatives,ExpansionPlans,PRODCOST,LevelizedCosts,TransmissionLinesandCorridorsLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.1Page2-39Sections2.4.1,2.4.2,2.4.3and2.4.4COMMENTINREFERENCETO:AlternativeGenerationFacilities"Thetechnicalparametersandeconomicassumptionsforcapitalcost,opera-tionandmaintenancecosts,andeconomiclifearelistedinTable2-5.""Thecoalscenarioanalysisindicatedthatfive200-~1Wcoal-firedunitsandtencombustionturbineswouldberequiredtoserveanticipatedloadgrowththroughtheyear2022."LastparagraphofSection2.4.3.TECHNICALCOMMENT:InTable2-5,theunitcapitalcostswithinterestduringconstruction(IDC)arebasedona3%discountrate.Foranalysesperformedwithdifferentdiscountrates,theIDCcomponentshouldbebasedonthediscountratebeingused.Itisnotapparentfromsupportingdocu-mentationifIDCwascomputedproperly.TheuseoftheincorrectrealinterestrateforIDCwillleadtoincorrectlevelizedtotalpowercosts.RefertoTechnicalCommentNFP054forcommentsonexpansionplansimulationwithPROnCOST.Section2.4.3providesamoredetaileddiscussionoftransmissionrequire-ments·thanforanyoftheotherplans.However,thecostsofthetransmis-sionfacilitiesdiscussedinSection2.4.3havenotbeenincludedintheDEISbasicanalyses. TechnicalCommentNFP069Page2Thecoalscenariowithtransmission(Table1-24)wastreatedasasensiti-vitycase.Coalscenarioswithoutsuchtransmissionfacilitiesaretechni-callyinfeasible.(SeeTechnicalCommentNFP056).lJ~jJclJ-~iI~lJ~I~J lJlJJ]]]JJJ]]]]]JJJTechnicalCommentNFP070SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:Alternatives,ExpansionPlans,OPCOST,PRODCOST,LevelizedCosts,TransmissionLinesandCorridorsLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.IPages2-41and45Section2.5.2COMMENTINREFERENCETO:ThermalUnitsinCombinedHydro-ThermalScenario.....themostprudentRailbeltgenerationexpansionplanwouldbeamixofnon-Susitnahydroelectricresourceswithacombinationofgas-firedcombinedcyclegeneration"intheCookInletareaandcoal-firedgenera-tionintheNenanaarea."TECHNICALCOMMENT:Section2.5discussesthisplaningreaterdetail.Table2-6showsthethermalplantrequirementsforamixedthermalandNon-SusitnaRiverhydroelectricplanwithandwithoutChakachamna.Nowherearethe"presentworthandlevelizedtotalpowercostsofthemixedthermalandNon-SusitnaRiverHydroelectricplanpresented.Transmissionrequirementsforthisplan,especiallyasrelatedtotheNon-Susitnahydropowersites,arediscussedingeneral.However,voltagelevels,numberoflines,andassociatedcostsarenotindicatedorincludedintheanalysis.RefertoTechnicalCommentNFP056fortransmissionrequirementsandcostsforthermalscenarios.TheDEISanalysisofthedevelopmentplanincludingNon-SusitnaRiverhydroelectricprojectssupplementedbythermalgenerationwasnotsimulatedbyeithertheOPCOSTorPRODCOSTmodels,theconstructioncostsusedfortheNon-Susitnahydroarenotatthesamelevelofconfidenceastheotheralternatives,andtransmissionfacilitiesandtheircostshavenotbeenincludedintheplan.Therefore,theDEISconclusionfavoringthisplanisnotvalid. TechnicalCommentNFP070Page2InAppendixIIofthisdocumenttheNon-SusitnaRiverHydroelectricprojectsiarediscussedindetail.ThisAppendixconcludesthattheWith-Susitnaalternativeisthepreferreddevelopmentplan.~Jc1JJ lJlJJJ]]]]]JJJJJJJTechnicalCommentNFP07lSUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:FlowRegime,Reservoir,WatanaLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.1Page4-6Section4.1.3.1.1Paragraph9ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:Post-projectflows"TheWatanareservoirwouldbeoperatedinastore-and-releasemode,resultinginageneralincreaseinlow-flowsduringthewintermonths(November-April)andadecreaseinpeak-flowsduringthesummermonths(May-October)."TECHNICALCOMMENT.:ThegeneralstatementintheDEISdoesnotrepresentprojectedflowpatternsprecisely,andcouldbeinterpretedinaccurately.MoredetailisavailableintheLicenseApplicationandSupplementalmaterials.ThebasicdatafordischargesatGoldCreekundertheflowregime,arepresentedintheLicenseApplicationinExhibitE,VolumeSA,TableE.2.4S.ThedatashowthefollowingeffectsofWatanaoperationonmonthlymeandischarges(allfiguresincfs): WinterMonths-(November-April)MinimumSummerMonths(May-October)NovemberDecemberJanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberIncreased1,215to6,742.Increased866to7,679Increased824to7,179Increased768to6,437Increased713to6,577Increased745to5,811MinimumIncreased3,745to6,061Reduced15,530to6,000Reduced18,093to6,484Reduced16,220to12,000Increased6,881to12,000Increased3,124to6,222MeanIncreased2,577to9,186Increased1,807to10,693Increased1,474to9,708Increased1,249to8,951Increased1,124to8,324Increased1,362to7,740MeanReduced13,240to10,405Reduced27,815to11,420Reduced24,445to9,185Reduced22,228to13,378Reduced13,321to9,840Increased5,771to8,014TechnicalCommentNFP071Page2MaximumIncreased4,192to11,980Increased3,264to13,380Increased2,452to11,342Increased2,028to10,344Increased1,900to9,412Increased2,650to9,354MaximumReduced21,890to18,135Reduced50,580to26,092Reduced34,400to15,152Reduced38,538to26,494Reduced21,240to13,506Increased8,212to11,782lJJJlJ]]J]]JJ]JJJJJ llJJ]JJJ]]]JJJJJ'JJJTechnicalCommentNFP071Page3Inthewintermonths,highandmeandischarges,aswellaslowdischarges,areincreased,andinthesummermonths,withafewexceptionsdiscussedbelow,smallandmeandischarges,aswellaspeakdischarges,arereduced.EffectsofWatanaonOctoberdischargearesimilartotheeffectsonwinterdischarge,sothathydrologicallyOctobershouldbecharacterizedasa"wintermonth".Also,Watanaoperationincreasesmonthlyminimumflowsintwo"summermonths",MayandSeptember,ratherthandecreasingthem,asindicatedintheDEIS.Ingeneral,Watanaincreasesriverdischargesthatnaturallyweresmallandreducesdischargesthatnaturallywerelarge.TheabovetableshowschangesindischargeaspresentedintheLicenseApplicationanddepictsthegeneraleffectsofreservoiroperation,althoughthereispotentialforadjustmentstothechangesasaresultofmitigationstudiesnowunderway(SeealsoTechnicalCommentsAQR059and061). ]J]JJ]JJJ]]]JJJ]JJ]TechnicalCommentNFP072SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:FlowRegime,WatanaLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.1Page4-6Section4.1.3.1.1Paragraph10ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:Constructiondiversion"Allflowslessthan30,000cubicfeetpersecond(cfs)[850cubicmeterpersecond(m3/s)]wouldberoutedthroughdiversiontunnelswithoutimpoundment.ThiswouldcausethedewateringofaI-mi1.6-km)sectionofthemainstemoftheSusitnaRiver."TECHNICALCOMMENT:ThereferencetodewateringaI-milesectionofriveris·unclearandmaybemisleading.TheLicenseApplicationdescribeddewateringanditsfutuereffectsinVolume1,ExhibitA,Section1.3;VolumeSA,ExhibitE,Section4.1.2;andVolume6A,ExhibitE,Section2.3.1.Thecofferdamsaretemporaryandtheywillcauseareachofapproximatelyonemileofrivertobede-watered.However,thede-wateringisthebeginningofapermanentcondition.Theriverbedareadewateredbythecofferdammostlywillbefilledwithfillmaterialinthemaindam,asstatedintheLicenseApplication,ExhibitE,Chapter3,Volume6A,Section2.3.1(a)(i),pagesE-3-73andE-3-74.Themaindam,ofcourse,isapermanentstructure.Upstreamfromthedam,theriverbedandtheupstreamfaceofthedamwillbeunderthereservoir.Downstreamfromthedam,eitherthecofferdammaybebreachedtoformapermanentsmallpoolbetweenthecoefferdamandthedownstreamfaceofthemaindamortheareaotherwiseoccupiedbythesmallpoolmaybebackfilled. TechnicalCommentNFP073COMMENTINREFERENCETO:SusitnaRiverflowsduringWatanafillingLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.1Page4-7Section4.1.3.1.1ParagraphofthepageFigures4-1SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMFlowRegime,Reservoir,WatanaTOPICAREA:]JJJJJ]J"FillingofWatanaReservoirwouldrequiretheimpoundmentof9.47millionacre-feet(ac-ft)[11.7billioncubicmeters(m3)]frommain-stemSusitnaRiverflowsovera28-to30-monthperiod.OnlyflowsbetweenMayandOctoberwouldbeusedinfilling.Thisprocesswouldresultinamajorreductioninnaturalflowsduringthesummermonths(Fig.4-1)."TECHNICALCOMMENT:Figure4-1intheDEISisanextractfromanddevelop-mentbasedontheApplication,ExhibitE,Chapter2,Volume5B,FigureE.2.138.]]ApplicationFigureE.2.138containsgraphsshowingriverdischargeatGoldGreekduringWatanareservoirfillingunderdryweatherconditions(90%exceedanceprobability),medianconditions(50%exceedanceprobability),andwetweatherconditions(10%exceedanceprobability).DEISFigure4-1repro-ducesthe50%probabilitydischargesatGoldCreek.Byomittingprobabili-tiesotherthan50%,theDEISdoesnotprovideaclearpictureoftheflowconditionsthatcouldoccur.J.JJJComputationofthereservoirfillingandresultantriverflowsdownstreamiscomplex.Itisnecessarytoplanreservoirfillinginadvanceeventhoughthereisnowayofknowingwhatthereservoirinflowwillbe.TheApplica-tion,ExhibitE,Chapter2,VolumeSA,TableE.2.8showsthatin32yearsofdischargesthereneverwasasituationinwhichreservoirinflowhadthesameprecentageofexceedanceforany2or3successiveyears.Hence,itis] TechnicalCommentNFP073Page2necessarytopresentthedatainthemannerofLicenseApplicationFigureE.2.138.ThesignificantinformationontheFigureistheenvelope,orouterlimits,ofGoldCreekriverdischargesandWatanareservoireleva-tionduringtheWatanareservoirfillingperiodratherthanthemedianquantitieschosenforFigure4.1.TheenvelopeofpossibleriverdischargesandWatanaelevationsdefinestheexpectedlimits.Figu~e4-1wouldbemorevaluableifithadpresentedthedatainthemannerofApplicationFigureE.2.138.SpecialnoteshouldbetakenofthesignificantstatementintheLicenseApplication,ExhibitE,Chapter2,VolumeSA,Section4.1.2(a)(i),PageE-2-78;"Duringsummer,runoffwillbecapturedandstoredinthereservoirinamannersimilartothatwhichwilloccurduringProjectoperation.There-fore,thedownstreamflowrequirementsselectedforprojectoperationfromMaythroughSeptemberwereadoptedfortheWatanareservoirfillingperiod".ThesummerflowrequirementsreferredtoaretheMay-Septemberminimumdis-chargesatGoldCreekinApplicationExhibitE,Chapter2,Table2.34,CaseC.TheminimumrequirementsforriverdischargesatGoldCreekareundercontinuingstudyincooperationwithagenciesoftheStateofAlaska.TheimportantoverallpointistheApplicant'sintenttoobserve,duringreservoirfillingandsubsequentplantoperation,.reasonablerequirementsforspecifiedminimumriverdischargesatGoldCreek.Thelackofreferencetothelocationwherethedischargesaretobepro-videdisdiscussedinTechnicalCommentNFP066.StudiesarecontinuingandtheeffectsifthefinalflowregimemaybechangedalsoarediscussedinTechnicalCommentNFP066.1]]l]J]]]]'lJ l]JJ]]]]]]]"J]JJJ]TechnicalCommentNFP074SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:FlowRegime,Reservoir,Watana,EnergyProductionLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.1Page4-7Section4.1.3.1.1Paragraph2ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:Watanaoperation"WatanadamwouldbeoperatedforbaseloadpowergenerationuntiltheDevelCanyondevelopmentwascompleted.Dailyoperaionwouldbedeter-minedbytheproposedrulecurveforthereservoir,minimumflowrequirements(Table4-1),andpowerdemands.Flowsinexcessoftheminimumflowrequirementandthepowerdemandwouldbestoredinthereservoirtmlessitsvolumewasgreaterthantherulecurve."TECHNICALCOMMENT:ToalargeextenttheDEISstatementsintheparticularparagrapharesupportedbytheLicenseApplication;however,itisimportanttoclarifycertainpoints.WatanaisdescribedasbeingoperatedforbaseloadpowergenerationuntilDevilCanyoniscompletedintheLicenseApplication,ExhibitB,Volume2,Section3.7,pageB-3-11andinVolume2,Section4.3(c),pagesB-4-7andB-4-8.Theterm"base1oadpowergeneration"reflectsthestatusofreservoirandpoweroperationstudiesasofthedateofthe,LicenseApplication,andtherelationshipofthosestudiestoenvironmentalstudies.Theimportantconceptisdailyandhourlydischargecontrolwithinaweek.ThereareoperatingconditionscausedbyenvironmentalreleaserequirementsorthereservoirbeingfullinwhichallofthewaterreleasedfromWatanacouldproducemoreenergythanthepowersystemcanuse.IfthedischargefromWatanacansupplypowerexceedingsystemminimumload,Watanacanpro-videpartofthesystempeakloadrequirementjustbyhourlytransferof TechnicalCommentNFP074Page2waterbetweenturbinesandconevalves.Suchoperationmayormaynotbetermed"baseload",butitdoesaccompanyabasedischargeanddoesnotinvolvehourlyfluctuationintheamountofwaterbeingdischarged.Likewise,thereisindicationfromcontinuingenvironmentalstudiesincooperationwithAlaskaagenciesthatWatanadischargecanbevariedhourlyduringadaywithinprescribedlowerandupperlimitsinresponsetosystempowerrequirements.Therealsoisindicationthat,withinprescribeddailylowerandupperdischargelimits,hourlyrateofchangelimitsondischargemaynotbeneeded.IntheLicenseApplicatio~,ExhibitB,Volume2,Chapter4,Section4.2(b),pageB-4-5statesthatattainmentofcertainoperatingobjectivescanbeaidedbyareservoirelevationrulecurve.TheDEISchangesthisto"Dailyoperationwouldbedeterminedbytheproposedrulecurve••.".TheLicenseApplicationreflectsthestatusofreservoiroperationstudiesasofthedateoftheLicenseApplication.Reservoircontrolisundercontinuingstudyanddetailsoftherulecurvesremaintobedetermined.NotethatthereferenceintheApplicationtoFigureB-68containsatypo-graph~calerror;thecorrectnumberisB-69.ThestatementintheDEIS"unlessitsvolumewasgreaterthantherulecurve"isunclear,andgenerallycontrarytotheLicenseApplication.InExhibitB,Chapter4,Volume2,Section4.2(b),PageB-41-4theApplicationstates:"Inwetteryearswhenthereservoirlevelsurpassesthetargetlevel,energiesgreaterthanfirmenergycanbeprovided,butonlyasgreatasthesystemdemandallows."Thereisnostatementorimplicationthatwaterinexcessofsystemenergydemandwillbereleasedjustbecausethereservoirlevelisabovetherulecurve.Theintentis,asstatedonLicenseApplicationpageB-4-5,toretainwatertoproduceenergyinthewinter.l]...__J J]lJ]J]JJJ]'-1....-]J]1I~JJTechnicalCommentNFP075SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:FlowRegime,Reservoir,Watana,EnergyProductionLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.1Page4-7Section4.1.3.1.1Paragraph3ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:Meanannualfloods"AllestimatesofoperationalflowsarebasedontheApplicant'sproj-ectedelectricaldemandfortheyears2002and2010(ExhibitE,Vol.5AChap.2,p.E-2-55).ItisexpectedthatoperationoftheWatanadeve-lopmentalonewouldresultinareductioninmeanannualfloodsatGoldCreek,Sunshine,andSunshineStationof60%,32%,and19%,respec-tively(ExhibitE,Vol.5A,Chap.2,p.E.2.108)."TECHNICALCOMMENT:ThenumbersquotedappeartobederivedfrommeanannualflooddataExhibitE,Chapter2,Volume5A,Section4.1,pageE-2-108oftheLicenseApplication.Thenumbersquotedrepresentgeneralmagnitudes,althoughpercentagereductioninflooddischargesdependsuponmagnitudeandtimeofoccurenceoftheflood.Thefactthatthenumbersrepresentsgeneralapproximationsshouldbeemphasized•Thetypographicalerror"SunshineStation"shouldbecorrectedto"SusitnaStation." J]]]l]-]]]]]]]'1]JJTechnicalCommentNFP076SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:FlowRegime,Reservoir,Watana,EnergyProductionLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.1Page4-7Section4.1.3.1.1Paragraph5ofthepage),andFigure4-2COMMENTINREFERENCETO:Post-projectflows"AlthoughmonthlyflowsunderthecombinedoperationwouldbeverysimilartothoseforWatanaalone,therewouldbeageneraldecreaseinthemeanflowsduringthemonthsMaythroughAugustandareductionintheyear-to-yearvariabilityinflows(Fig.4-2)."TECHNICALCO~mNT:ThereferenceinDEISFigure4-2toLicenseApplication-TableE.2.24isincorrect.TheerrorevidentlyistypographicandreferenceshouldbetoTableE.2.34.However,therealsoshouldbereferencetoLicenseApplicationTableE.2.45,(ExhibitE,Chapter2,Volume5A),sincethattableisthesourceofmostofthedataonDEISFigure4-2.TheshadedareainSeptemberforminimumflowisincorrectonDEISFigure4-2.Table2-2intheDEISandLicenseApplicationTablesE.2.34andE.2.36showthatinSeptembertheminimumGoldCreekdischargereducesfrom12,000cfsto6,000cfsfromSeptember14toSeptember20,holdsat6,000cfsuntiltheendofSeptember,andthendropstotheOctoberminimumof5,000cfs.Footnote2ofTable4-1isalsoincorrectinthisregard.TheFigureandTableshouldbecorrectedasnoted.Figure4-2issubjecttothesameprinciplesasotherDEISreferencestoregulateddischarges.Thedatadepictedgenerallyarecorrect,butcontinu-ingstudiesmayresultinchanges. lll]]JTechnicalCommentNFP077SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:Alternatives,Hydroelectric,WaterQuantity,WaterQualityLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.IPage5-5Section5.1.2.3Paragraph3ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:WaterquantityandqualityimpactsJJ]]1)2)"AdoptionofanyofthealternativeSusitnaBasindamdesignsorcon-figurationswouldresultinmodificationofthebasininamannersimi-larto,buttoalesserdegreethan,theproposedproject.""Developmentofnon-Susitnahydropoweralternativeswouldresultinmodificationoftheriversuponwhichdamswouldbeconstructed.TheChakachamnaprojectwoulddiverttheChakachatnaRiverintotheMcArthurRiverdrainage."J]-I~JJJTECHNICALCOMMENT:Thestatementin1)generallyistrue,butthewords"toalesserdegreethan"areambiguous.Differencesinresultsofflowregula-tionbetweenthevariousalternativescouldbemajor.Forexample,foralternativeschosenbytheApplicantwithreservoirssmallerthanWatanawaterreleasedotherthanthroughtheturbineswouldbeincreased.Topre-ventmorespillwaydischarge,moreconevalvedischargewouldbeneeded.Iftheconevalvescouldbeprovidedpracticably,nitrogensupersaturationwouldbesimilartoWatana's.Iftheconevalvedischargecouldnotbeincreasedsufficientlybypracticalmeans,thenmorewaterwouldbedis-chargedthroughthespillwayandthealternativewouldbelessfavorablethanWatanainthatparticularinstance.InParagraph2)theeffectsofthenon-SusitnahydroalternativeseithershouldhavebeenstatedinmoredetailoraconvenientreferenceshouldbeprovidedtoexplanationsintheDEIS. lJlJJ]]]]JJ]]J]JJJJTechnicalCommentNFP078SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:Alternatives,ExpansionPlansLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.1Page5-7Section5.2.1COMMENTINREFERENCETO:PowerGenerationRecommendationsTECHNICALCOMMENT:ThecomparisonofSusitnaandNon-SusitnaBasinhydroelectricplansaresummarizedinTable1-25onpage1-44oftheDEIS.Discussionofthehydroelectriccomparisons,arecontainedinTechnicalCommentsNFP050through053.TheevaluationintheDEISofcoal,gas,andacoal/gasmixissummarizedinTable1-25onpage1-44ofDEIS.TheApplicant'sdetailedcommentsontheThermalscenariostudiesarecontainedinTechnicalCommentsNFP054through062.AspreviouslystatedintheApplicant'stechnicalcommentsreferencedabove,thedifferenceinplanninghorizonsandsimulationtoolsacrossalternativeplansdoesnotensurethattheelectricgenerationplansthathaveresultedfromthesystemwidestudiesintheDEISprovideequivalentcapacityandenergy,equalreliability,andassociatedsystemcosts.Also,theselectionof2042asthelastyearofthehorizondoesnotreflectthefulleconomiclifeoftheDevilCanyonhydroelectricprojectwhichisaddedtothepropos-edSusitnaalternativein2002.Therefore,theDEISconclusionfavoringtheuseofNon-Susitnariverhydroelectricprojectssupplementedbythermalgenerationisnotvalid.InAppendixIofthisdocumenttheApplicanthasupdatedOGPexpansionplanningstudiesandtotalsystemcostcomparisonsfortheWith-andWithout-Susitnadevelopmentplans.TheresultsoftheupdatestudieshaveconfirmedthefactthattheSusitnaProjectiseconomicallymoreattractivethanthermalalternativeplans. Jl]]]]J]]J]J]JJJTechnicalCommentNFP079SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:FlowRegime,SpikingReleasesLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.1Page5-8Section5.2.2Paragraph1ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:Minimumflowreleases"TheApplicationconsideredarangeofflowreleasescenarios.Theminimumflowduringsalmonspawning(August1toSeptember15)ispro-posedtobe12,000cubicfeetpersecond(cfs)[340cubicmeterspersecond(m3/s)],whichwillsubjectanestimated50%ofsidesloughhabitattoacuteaccesslimitations.Toreducetheseaccessrestric-tions,theStaffhasrecommededthatspikingflowsof20,000cfs(566m3/s)beimplementedduringthesalmonspawningseason.Thesespikereleasesshouldoccurforatleastthreecontinuousdays,andshouldoccurduringatleastthreedifferentperiodsbetweenAugust1andSeptember15."TECHNICALCOMMENT:The12,000cfsminimumflowattheGoldCreekGageisquotedfromtheApplicationbut,asstatedinTechnicalCommentNFP071,073and076,studiesofdischarge.regimearecontinuing.DischargefiguresintheLicenseApplicationrepresentinformationdevelopedtothedateoftheLicenseApplication,anddischargesshouldnotbeestablishedintheDEIS.TheDEISoffersnospecificderivationtosupportthedischarges."Spike"dischargesareamongthesubjectsbeingstudiedcooperativelywithAlaskaagenciesand,untilthestudiesarecompleted,nospecificnumbersshouldbeadvocated(SeealsoTechnicalCommentAQR059). lllJJJJJJ]J~lJJJJJTechnicalCommentNFP080SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:FlowRegimeLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.1Page5-8Section5.2.2Paragraph2ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:May-June-Julyminimumflows"Minimumflowsduringsalmonemergence,outmigration,andrearing(May,June,andJuly)shouldalsobereevaluatedinlightofpresentlyon-goingstudies.Allphasesofthelifecyclesofsalmonshouldbepro-videdfortheminimumfloWregimesfortheproject."TECHNICALCOMMENT:Applicantagreeswiththeparagraph.ThedischargesarebeinganalyzedaspartoftheApplicant'scontinuingstudyprogram. ]JlJJ]J]J]]]JJ]JTechnicalCommentNFP081SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:FlowRegime,WaterQuantity,WaterQuality,SpikingReleasesLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.1Page5-9Section5.3.3Paragraphs6-8ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:ReleaselimitationsTECHNICALCOMMENT:Studiesofthesubjectsrecommendedareunderway,asstatedelsewhereintheseresponses.Thestudiesalsoincludeeconomiceffectsofflowregimesandmitigationmeasures.Untilthestudiesarecomplete,statingnumbersintheDEISispremature.Inparagraph1,thethirdsentencestates"spiked"releasestobenecessary.Thesubjectisunderstudyanduntilstudiesarecompletetheconclusionisunwarranted,asstatedinTechnicalCommentNFP079(SeealsoTechnicalCommentsAQR059and073).TheApplicantconcurswiththeDEISstatementthat.....thedefinitionofreleaseconstaintsshouldbenegotiatedaftercurrentfieldstudieshavebeencompleted.Ascheduleforthesenegotiationsisanintegralpartofthemitigationpolicy."TheApplicantisproceedingwiththesesuggestions,includingalsotheassociatedimpactsonprojecteconomics.Thebasisforthesecondparagraphof5.3.3isnotstated.Thenumbersandsomeoftheprinciplesinitmayormaynotbecorrect~Inanyevent,asstatedabove,thesubjectisunderstudy.The"spiked"dischargenumbersanddurationsarediscussedinTechnicalCommentNFP079. J]]JJ]J]]]J]JJJTechnicalCommentNFP082SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:FlowRegime,WaterQuantity,WaterQualityLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.1Page5-10Section5.3.3.Paragraph1-3ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:MinimumflowsforMay,June,andJuly"TheminimumflowsforMay,JuneandJulyshouldalsobereconsidered.NoevidencehasyetbeenpresentedbytheApplicanttosupporttheassumptionthatthe6,000cfs(170m3/s)minimumflowsduringthisperiodadequatelyprotectsalmonemergence,outmigration,andrearing.""Minimumreleasepoliciesshouldberequiredatallhydropoweralternatives.Informationavailablefortheproposedprojectwouldbesufficienttoeval-uateinstreamflowneedsforthein-basinalternatives.However,site-specificstudieswouldhavetobeconductedattheout-of-basinalterna-tives,especiallyJohnsonandBrowne,wherebaselineinformationislimited.""Theimplementationofawater-resourcemodelingprogramwithintheSusitnaRiverBasinshouldbeincludedinmitigationplanning.theobjectivesofsuchaprogramshouldbetoachievestate-of-the-artforecastingofstream-flowswithinthebasinandtoimprovereservoiroperationbyallocatingstreamflowsinexcessofpowerdemandstooptimizefisheriesproductionbelowthedams.TECHNICALCOMMENT:TheApplicanthasthesubjectofminimumflowsunderstudy,asstatedelsewhereinthesecommentaries.TheApplicant'sproposed6,000cfswasintendedonlyasaworkingnumbertobeuseduntilabetteronecouldbeestablished(SeeTechnicalCommentAQR059). TechnicalCommentNFP082Page2ItispresumedthatthefirstsentenceappliestoalternativestotheSusitnaProjectandnottohydroelectricplantsingeneral;sinceWatananeednothaveaminimumreleaseafterDevilCanyoniscompleted.ApplicantissatisfiedthatitsevaluationstodateinExhibitE,Chapter10andExhibitB,Volume2,Sections1and2andVolume2AhaveeliminatedthealternativesselectedintheDEIS(SeealsoAppendixIItothethisdocument).Inanyevent,whenstudiesshowahydrositetobeuneconomicalortootherwisecontainsome"fatalflaws"thereisnoneedtoperformdetailedenvironmentalstudies.Thisstatementrecommendswaterresourcemodelingusingflowforecastingandallocatingstreamflowsinexcessofpowerneeds.Adiscussionofstream-flowforecastingincontainedinTechnicalCommentAQR062.Nearlyallofthestreamflowcanbeusedforpower,sothereisverylittlestreamflowinexcessofpowerneeds.Currentoperationstudiesinvolveanoverallsmallamountofreleasethatcouldnotbeutilizedthroughtheturbinesafterthereservoirfillstoensurethatthereservoircontainsasmuchwateraspossibleforthefollowingwinterseason.ll]JJJ~~JJJJJJJJJJJJ l]JJ]JJ]]]]JJJJJTechnicalCommentNFP083SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:LoadForecast,MAPModel,MJSENSOModelLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.2PageA-3SectionA.lParagraph3ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:"Whilethemanysimultaneousandrecursiverela-tionships,aswellasthelargenumberofequations(morethan1,000)con-tainedinMAP,suggestahighlycomplexforecastingsystem(whichitis),itisalsothecasethatagreatdealofcriticalinformationconcerningtheRailbelteconomyhastobeforecastexogenoustotheMAPmodel.Forinstance,employmentprojectionsforthemostimportantsectorsoftheeconomyhavetobeassumed.Similarly,largecompomentsofthestate'sprojectedrevenues--adominantinfluenceintheRailbelteconomy--havetobeassumedinordertogenerateforecastwithMAP."TECHNICALCOMMENT:Mostregionaleconomicmodelsaredrivenpartiallybyexogenouslydevelopedforecastsofeconomicactivityinthosesectorswhosemarketsarecontrolledbyforcesoutsidetheregion.Insomemodelsthseexogenousforecastsarederivedthroughadisaggregationprocessinwhichnationalforecastsarebrokendownintostatesotregionsforuseinthestateorregionalmodel.Thedisaggregationprocessisconductedbyevalua-tingthemarketshareofeachstateorregionandexpectedshiftsinthosesharesovertime.IntheMAPModeltheexogenousprojectionsofemploymentinbasicindustriesarederivedfromanindustrybyindustryassessmentofthepotentialfordevelopmentinlightofthestate'sresourcesandnationalandinternationaleconomicconditionsandexpectations.ItisnotfeasibletodisaggregatenationalforecaststothestatelevelinAlaska'sbasicindustriesarerela-tivelysmallandyoung,andtheirdevelopmentisnotdirectlyrelatedtonationaltrends.Forexample,developmentinseveralimportantindustries,timber,fising,coal,andtourism,islinkedcloselytointernationaleconomicanddemographicforces.Forthesereasonsindustrialdevelopmentscenariosmustbeformulatedonthebasisofthebestavailableinformationforeachofthesesectors. TechnicalCommentNFP083Page2Futurestaterevenuesfrompetroleumroyaltiesandseverancetaxesareafunctionprimarilyofoilproductionandoilprices,sotheleveloffuturerevenuesdoesnotdependuponothereconomicdevelopmentsinAlaska.RevenueforecaststhereforemustbeforecastedexogenouslytotheMAPModel.ThistaskisconductedbytheMJSENSOrevenueforecastingmodel,whichtakesintoaccountallthevariousfactorsthateffectthelevelofroyaltiesandseverancetaxesthatthestatecollects.TheuseofinformationonfutureeconomicconditionsinbasicindustrialsectorsdevelopedexogenouslytotheMAPModelisaconventionalandnecessaryforecastingprocedure.lJ]l]]]]]]]]J,1JJF"--l,J Jl]J]]r·.l"'-.]]]J]]]J]]TechnicalCommentNFP084SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:LoadForecast,REDModelLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.2PageA-3SectionA.IParagraph6ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:"ThebusinessconsumptionportionoftheREDmodelactuallyencompassesthecommercial,smallindustrial,andgovernmentsec-torsoftheRailbelt.Aggregateelectricityconsumptionintheabsenceofanychangeinfuelpricesisforecastasafunctionofregionalcommercialfloorspace,whichisderivedfromanadhocassumptionregardingfuturetrendsintherelationshipsbetweenfloorspaceandtotalemployment."TECHNICALCOMMENT:Thestatementthatregionalcommercialfloorspaceisderivedfroman"adhoc"assumptionregardingfuturetrendsintherelation-shipsbetweenfloorspaceandtotalemploymentisinaccurateandmisleading.Althoughtheestimationapproachissimple,themethodisnotuncommoninpracticeandthereforecannotbeconsideredarbitraryorwithoutfoundationforthesolepurposeofforecastingfloorspaceintheRailbelt.Thisapproachwastakenforanumberofreasons.Firstly,becauseofthediverseandlesswellknownendusesofelectricityinthecommercial,smallindustrialandgovernmentsectorsrelativetotheresidentialsector,theBusinessConsumptionModeloftheREDmodelforecastselectricuseonanaggregatebasisratherthanbyenduse.Also,alternativemethodstofore-castchangeinfloorspacestockwereattemptedbutasatisfactorystatisti-calrelationshipsforpredictingfloorspacewasnotobtained. ]]]]]]]JJ]J]]JJJJTechnicalCommentNFP085SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:LoadForecast,REDModelLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.2PageA-4SectionA.lParagraph2ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:"Inadditiontotheresidential,business,andmiscellaneoussectors,afourthcomponentofelectricityconsumptionisappendedtoeachyears'skWhprojection.Thiscomponentisidentifiedas"exogenousindustrialload."ThekWhloadprojectedforthiscustomercategoryisanadhocforecastbasedonthejudgementofaconsultingfirmthatparticipatedinthepreparationoftheLicenseApplication".TECHNICALCOMMENT:Again,theDEISinappropriatelyusestheterm"adhoc"tocharacterizeforecastmethods.TheexogenousindustrialloadswerebasedonacompletesurveyofmilitaryinstallationsintheAnchorageandFair-banksareastoascertainfutureloads.Thissurveywasconductedincon-junctionwiththeadoptionofthepreliminarylargecommercialloadforecastpreparedbyBurns&McDonnellforHomerElectricAssociation(REA).Thefinalforecast,preparedbyBurns&McDonnell,whichwasincorporatedinREA'sofficial1983PowerRequirementsstudy,wasmuchhigher.ForFERCtoassertthattheforecastis"adhoc"beliesthefacts.Itwasbasedonadetailedsurveyandpowerrequirementsstudy. ]]J]-1J]]TechnicalCommentNFP086SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:LoadForecastLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.2PageA-4SectionA.2Paragraph4ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:"TheApplicanthaspreparedloadprojectionsfor1983-2010underawiderangeofalternativescenarios."TECHNICALCOMMENT:TheApplicanthasoneReferenceCaseforecasttosupporttheLicenseApplicationandothersforsensitivityanalysis,severalofwhichwerepreparedatFERCstaffrequests(SeeTechnicalCommentNFP023.TheotherforecastswereprovidedtotestthereasonablenessoftheReferenceCaseforecast.TheDEISmaycharacterizeorviewtheforecastsasprovidinga"widerange",buttheApplicantdoesnotconsidertheotherforecastsashavingthesamesignificanceasdoestheReferenceCasefore-cast. ]]]]]].J]]TechnicalCommentNFP087SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:WorldOilPrice,WorldOilProductionLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.2PageA-4SectionA.3.1Paragraph6ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:CurrentpriceofoilandOPECoilproductionTECHNICALCOMMENT:TheDEISworldoilpriceforecasthasalreadyproventobelow,byseveraldollarsperbarrel.AsshowninAttachment1,thespotpriceformarkercrudewasquitestablefromApril1983throughMay1984,generallyrunning25centstoSOcentsperbarrelbelowthepostedprice.Therecanbeaseasonalsummerdeclineinspotpriceduetoaseasonaldeclineindemandandafailureofproductioninthesecondquartertoanti-cipatethesummerdeclineindemand.Thespotpriceisnowabout$1.30belowpostedbutisexpectedtofirmagaininthefalltowithinplusorminus50centsofposted.Thepostedpriceremainsat$29perbarrelandthemostrecentmeetingsofOPEC'sofficialcommitteehaveaffirmedboththeexistingproductionquotasandthepostedprice.Thus,DEISassumptionsaboutneartermmarketorOPECbehaviorhavenotbeenrealized.Neitherspotnorpostedpricehasfallenby$3or$4perbarrel,asprojectedbytheDEIS,noristhereneedforOPECtosearchforalowerpricelevelatwhichtheirmarketwillstabilize.Althoughproductionshouldandprobablywilldropto15millionbarrelsperday(MMBD)to16MlmDforthenextseveralmonths,theaveragefortheyearshouldbe18MMBD,plusorminus0.5MMBD,veryclosetolastyear'saverage.In1985,theirproductioncouldbemarginallyimproved,butitwillmostprobablynotbeseveralMMBDlowerastheDEISseemstoindicate•TheminimumproductionquotasassumedforOPECarestrictlyanassumption,andtheproduction/pricebalancesarepredictedonadistortedevaluationofeconomicgrowth,oildemand,andnon-OPECproduction.Changingthesefac-torstoprobabletrendscanresultinOPECproductionatalevelof18to20 TechnicalCommentNFP087Page2MMBDwithessentiallynochangeinthepresentrealprice.Asforthe"minimmns"thatOPECcantolerate,OPEChasalreadydemonstratedthatitcanfunctionatanoutputlevelof14MMBD,whichisnotnecessarilytheminimmn.Theminimmnsassmnedarestrictlyspeculation,andnofoundationforjudgementindeterminingsuchthresholdshasbeenestablished.ThereferencecaseoilpriceforecastsarebasedonneartermdevelopmentsinoilpricingandsupplyquitesimilartoconditionsastheyareevolvingratherthantheconditionspostulatedintheDEIS,whichhaveneitheroccurrednorshouldbeexpectedtooccur.Evenneartermevents,therefore,supportthereferencecaseforecastsandtheirapplicationineconomicanalysesoftheSusitnaHydroelectricProject.]]]']]J]]]J]J]1J L_1--..1 r'----L.......,rL--..:r '"-----'r :--( \...-......i (,-r 1 ----'L.J ~r "'--,1 '---'1 -....-....I (,----.;:...-.J 1 '-...--1 1....--I Attachment 1 Technical Comment NFP087 Page 3 SPOT VERSUS POSTED PRICE OF MARKER CRUDE (Dollars per Barrel) April 1983 -June 1984 Mideast Light --34°Saudi Arabia Light --34°Saudi Arabia,Arab Light --34° Posted Spot*Difference Posted Spot**Difference Posted Spot***Difference 1983- April $29.00 $28.70 $+0.30 $29.00 $29.05 $-0.05 $29.00 $28.71 $+0.29 Nay 29.00 28.50 +0.50 29.00 28.65 +0.35 29.00 28.57 +0.43 June 29.00 28.75 +0.25 29.00 28.98 +0.02 29.00 28.83 +0.17 July 29.00 29.00 +0.00 29.00 29.13 -0.13 29.00 28.98 +0.02 August 29.00 28.90 +0.10 29.00 28.98 +0.02 29.00 28.91 +0.09 September 29.00 28.60 +0.40 29.00 28.61 +0.39 29.00 28.66 +0.34 October 29.00 28.60 +0.40 29.00 28.56 +0.44 29.00 28.57 +0.43 November 29.00 28.30 +0.70 29.00 28.28 +0.72 29.00 28.29 +0.71 December 29.00 28.25 +0.75 29.00 28.26 +0.74 29.00 28.28 +0.72 1984- January 29.00 28.60 +0.40 29.00 28.64 +0.36 29.00 28.63 +0.37 February 29.00 28.55 +0.45 29.00 28.61 +0.39 29.00 28.50 +0.50 March 29.00 28.50 +0.50 29.00 28.57 +0.43 29.00 28.49 +0.51 April 29.00 28.39 +0.61 29.00 28.40 +0.40 29.00 28.38 +0.62 May 29.00 28.43 +0.57 29.00 28.39 +0.39 29.00 28.41 +0.59 June (prel.)29.00 28.45 +0.55 29.00 28.14 +0.14 29.00 28.18 +0.82 *Petroleum Intelligence Weekly,various issues. **OPEC Bulletin,tfuy 1984 through April 1984.Wall Street Journal,April through June. ***Platt's Oilgram Price Report,various issues. Source:SHCA. llcJl]]]]f~lJJJJ]JJ]]JJTechnicalCommentNFP088SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:WorldOilPrice,MonopolyProfitLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.2PageA-4SectionA.3.1Paragraph6ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:MarginalcostofoilTECHNICALCOMMENT:TheterminologyusedbyFERCStaff--marginalbarrelcostandrevenue--issomewhatambiguous,becauseitisreallytheincremental(i.e.,additionaltopresentproduction)barrelthatisofconcern.Thecostrelationshipbetweenthemarginalandtheincrementalbarreldependsontheslopeofthesupplycurve--iftheslopeissteep,thecostoftheincre-mentalbarrelwillexceedthecostofthemarginalbarrel,oftenconsidera-bly;iftheslopeisflat,asFERCStaffassumes,thecostoftheincremen-talbarrelwillbesimilartothatofthemarginalbarrel.Consideringthegrowingdifficultyencounteredintheproductionofincrementalquantitiesofoil(duetosuchfactorsasincreasingshareofoffshoreproduction,greaterwaterdepth,greaterdepthoftheformationitself,moredifficultgeologicalstructuresinoraroundtheformation),arelativelysteepslopeofthesupplycurveappearstobemoreprudentassumption.FERCStaffclaimsthat thatrelationshiptodayisoneof$15costand$29price.Thisrelationshipisexaggerated.Marketpricesofoil(i.e.,spotprices)declinedtotoday'slevel($28to$29perbarrel)forthefirsttimeinFebruaryof1982andhaveremainedatthatleveloraboveitforthelast27months,asshownbelow(SaudiArabianLightCrudeSpotPriceindollarsperbarrel): TechnicalCommentNFP088Page2JanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugust1982$33.8829.9228.4331.0133.3732.6831.7331.441983$30.3628.9828.0028.7128.5728.8328.9828.911984$28.6328.5028.4928.3828.4128.31]]llJ~lFromtheApplicant'sperspective,coststofind,devel~p,andproducetheincrementalbarrel,wouldappeartobemorereasonablebenchmarkofmarginalcoststhanthe"asstDnption"madebytheDEIS.Thisdoesnotprecludeagradualdeclineintherealpriceofoilinthenearterm,suchasthenexttwoyears,butitdoesprecludethemajordecline(byalmost20%from1983to1985,andbymorethan30%from1983to1990)thatFERCStaffpostulates.TheconfusionexpressedintheDEISaboutmarginalcostsofproductionandrelatedpricingisduetocertainmisconceptions.Thefirstoneisequatingaccountant'scostswitheconomist'scosts.ThelatterincludesanominalrateofreturnbutallofthecostsquotedbytheDEISarecostswithoutanycapitalrecovery,i.e.,norateofreturnisincluded.Inaddition,theindustrygenerallyexcludesindirectcostssuchasoverheadand"rents"suchasleaseacquisitioncosts.TheDEIS'ssecondmistakeisequatingcostsperbarrelofreserveswithcostsperbarrelofproduction.Asindicatedabove,thecostsareonanaccountingbasisandincludenorateofreturn,butmostfrequentlytheyarealsoquotedasacostperbarrelofreservesadded.Expressedin1983 '1.1l]~1J]J]JJ]JJJJJTechnicalCommentNFP088Page3dollars,theLower48costperbarrelofreservesadditionswas$11perbarrelin1982,andtheaveragefor1980-82was$8perbarrel.ButintheLower48thereservesaddedinagivenyearareproducedoveraperiodof10to20yearsandthefirstyear'sproductionisperhaps10%ofthosereserves.Withtheearlycostsmostlycapital,theadditionofthenominalrateofreturncangreatlyincreasethetotalproductioncostsabovethecostsofreservesadded.PracticallyallofthelowestcostresourceisconcentratedintheMiddleEastandaccountsfortwo-thirdsofthefreeworldfsreservesandperhapsahigherpercentageoftheremainingconventionalresourceinplace.Thecostperbarrelofproductingthisoilmaybe$3perbarreltodaybutcouldbeaslowas$ 1perbarrel.Attheotherextremearelargeknownresourcesnotyetdeveloped:heavycrude,tarsands,shaleoil,oilthatmightbeproducedfromcoal,andthelastincrementsofcrudeoilinplaceinfieldsnowbeingproduced.Thecostsfortheseresourcesvarywidelybutformostoftheseresourcesthecostcanbeexpectedtobe$60perbarreluptomorethan$100perbarrel.TheprojectsbeingsupportedbytheU.S.SynfuelsCorporationandtheirgenerallackofeconomicfeasibilityclearlydemon-stratethisrangeofcosts.TheDEISforecastsa5%peryearincreaseinnonOPECproduction,whichon22MMBDofnon-OPECcrudeproductioncurrentlywouldyeld37.6M}1BDby1995.Presumably,thisrateofincreasewouldbemaintainedevenat$20perbarrelbecausethispricewouldyieldveryhighprofitsandpermitlargecapitalbudgetsforexplorationandproduction.Incontrast,SHCAestimatesthatnon-OPECproduction--at$29perbarrel--willsoonpeakatcloseto22MMBDandwillbesomewhatbelowthatlevelby1995.Atapriceof$20perbarrelthrough1995,SHCAwouldforecastthedeclineinnon-OPECproductionsoonerandproductionin1995woulddropbelow20MMBDratherthantheDEIS'sprojectionof37MMBD--forthesamepricetherangeisalmosttwotoone. TechnicalCommentNFP088Page4Finally,theDIESfailstospecificallyrecognizethe"rent"components,asthrough"perfectcompetition"weregoingtoleadtoaneliminationofallrentsinthisindustry,atleatinnon-OPECcountries.Thefactisthatallsummerofrentisfirmlyentrenchedinthisindustry.Inthepre-embargoperiodatpricesof$4perbarrelorless,therewasroyalty,FIT,variousstatetaxes,andleaseacquisitioncosts.Thewind-fallprofitstaxhasbecomelaw,addinganotherelementtothepricefooilalthoughthistaxwoulddroptozeroatalowenoughprice.Everyothercountrytaxesoilatevenhigherrates;theseratesmaybeadjustedforchangesinpriceandcostbutthepracticeisneverthelesswellentrenched,andoftenresultsina"rent"dragonexplorationanddevelopment.Onaverage,thisisamajorfactorintheproducers'totalcoststructurebutingeneraliteliminatesmostchangesof"windfall"profits,resultsinlowerratesofexploration,andcanbeattributedprimarilytothefundamen-talcharacteristicoftheindustry.]]l']l TechnicalCommentNFP089TOPICAREA:WorldOilPrice,WorldEconomyCQr.1MENTINREFERENCETO:FreeWorldEconomyLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.2PageA-5SectionA.3.1Paragraph2ofthepage1984PercentGrowthRate1983PercentofTotalFreeWorldEconomySUSITRAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMUnitedStates27.5%5.9%Canada2.65.0Japan11.53.9WesternEurope36.42.0Indonesia0.85.0Nigeria0.70.0Israel0.22.0SouthKorea0.78.0.Taiwan0.59.0Australia1.55.0Thailand0.46.5Total82.8%3.8%Restofworld17.2%0.0%TECHNICALCOMMENT:TheDEIS'sloweconomicprojectionforfreeworldeconomiesisnotconsistentwithactualgrowthexperiencedin1984.lUthalmostsixmonthsofactualdataavailable,economicgrowthestimatesfortheyear1984areasfollows(SHeA,1984):l]JJ]JJJJ]]]J]JJJJJ TechnicalCommentNFP089Page2Almost83%ofthefreeworldeconomyisaccountedforintheabovelistingandtheaverage1984growthrateisestimatedat3.8%.Evenifthesecountriesexperiencezerogrowthin1984,theaveragefreeworldgrowthratewillbeinexcessof3%.ThefreeworldhasinfactbeengrowingforthepasthalfyearatabouttwiceasfastarateasadoptedbytheDEIS.Thereiseveryindicationthatthefullyear1984willbeatanaverageratebetween3%and4%.Indeedeconomicorganizationsthatforecastfreeworldeconomicactivitytogetherwithcompaniesengagedinworldtradethatformallypreparefreeworldeconomicforecastsdemonstratethatnoneoftheseforecastsarebelowanaverageofabout3%for1984-90:JJJJ]]JJJoHighrealinterestrateswillbereducedoverthenextfewyears.DEIS'sanalysisoftheworldeconomynotonlyignoresthehigheconomicgrowthcountriesbuttreatsthedepressingforcesasbeingunreasonablewheninfacttheyreresolvable:~IWhartonStandardOilofCaliforniaExxon3.3%/yr3.03.53.0J]JJooWithadeclineininterestrates,thevalueofthedollarwillfall,andoilpricesinmostforeigncurrencieswillfallappreciably,sothecostofenergyasapercentofGNPwillbedecliningoverthenextfewyears.Withadeclineininterestrates,theinternationaldebtwillbecomemoremanageableandactionscanbeanticipated,tolessentheimpactofworlddebtoneconomicgrowth.Itisamistaketoassigntoomuchweightonalongtermbasistotheconditionsprevailingduringthismaneuveringperiod.FERCstaffhascon-JJJJJ lJ]lJJJJ]]]J]JJJJTechnicalCommentNFP089Page3vertedthepossibleoutlookofveryloweconomicgrowthintotheprobableoutlook.Theforecastsidentifiedabovetaketheobviouseconomicproblemsfacingtheworldintoaccountandstillarriveatforecastsof3%peryeargrowthorhigher.IftheDEIShadusedamorereasonablerateofworldeconomicgrowth,itsentireenergyframeworkwouldhavebeenstrikinglydifferent,withahighergrowthinenergydemand,higheroilandgasprices,exportmarketsdevelop-ingforAlaskagasandcoalwhichinturnwouldresultinhighergasandcoalprices,higherAlaskapowerdemand,andhigherstateoilrevenue. ]llJJJ]]]JJJJJ]JJTechnicalCommentNFP090SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHRICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:WorldOilPrice,MonopolyProfitLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.2PagesA-5SectionA.3.1Paragraph2ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:OPECmarketpowerandmonopolyprofitTECHNICALCOMMENT:TheDEISanalysisattributestheoilpriceincreaseoverthelastdecadetotheascendancyofOPEC"marketpower"thathasallowedOPECtosetoilpricesataleveltoincludeahugh"monopolyprofit";con-sequently,itisarguedintheDEISthatthelossofthat"marketpower"andthesubsequentreductionoreliminationofthe"monopolyprofit"willresultinthepredicteddeclineofoilpricesduringtheremainderofthisdecade.OPEC'sbehaviordoesnotbearouttheDEIStheoryofaprofitmaximizingmonopolistorperfectcartel,however.OPEC'seffortstosetproductionceilingsformemberstatesandtosetmarkerpricesoncrudemayinfluenceprices,buttheDEISoverstatesOPEC'seffect.ItwasnotsolelytheascendancyofOPEC"marketpower"thatcausedthehugeriseinworldoilpricessince1973butratherthedestructionoftheformermarketstructureandpowerthatdeterminedoilpricedevelopmentpricesto1973.Before1973themajorinternationaloilcompaniescon-trolledvirtuallyallaspectsoffreeworldproduction,transportation,processing,anddistributionofoil;probablyanexcessof90%offreeworldoilcanbeconsideredtohavebeencontrolledbytheseoilcompanies.Intermsofthepurchaseofcrudefromtheproducersthemajorinternationaloilcompaniesrepresentedatrueoligopsony. TechnicalComment~ITP090Page2Aftertheoilembargoin1973themajoroilcompaniescouldnolongercon-troloilproductionandapriceadjustmentprocesstookplacewhichin-creasedpricesrapidlytotheirmarketlevel;however,asisoftenthecasewithveryrapidadjustment,thecorrectlongtermlevelwassome¥hatover-shot,andacorrection(i.e.,norealincrease)tookplaceduringtheensu-ingfouryears.Whendemandforoilwasstillgrowingtoorapidly,asuddenreductioninoilsupply(theIranianrevolution)triggeredanotheradjust-ment.Thelongtermequilibriumpricelevelwasagainovershot,andacor-rectionbeganwhichisstillongoing.Alltheseadjustmentsandcorrec-tionsweremarketinducedandnottheresultofOPECmarketpower.Tobesuretheabovereasoningdoesnotindicatethatcurdeoilpriceswilnotdecline,however,itdoesindicatethatthereisnocompellingreasonforpricestodeclineastheDEISassumes.Apricedeclinewilnotauto-maticallyfollowareductioninOPEC"marketpower",astheDEISprojects,becauseOPEChasneverhadtheabsolutemarketcontrolinthepastwhichtheDEISattributedtoit.l]JJJJ]]]J]JJJJ'1J lJ]JJ]]J]]]J]JJJJJTechnicalCommentNFP091SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHBICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:WorldOilPriceLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.2PagesA-5SectionA.3.3Paragraph6ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:CurrentViews/InventoryCharges/RecentTrendsTECHNICALCOMMENT:Thereducedshareofoilrelativetototalenergycon-sumptionreflectstheintendedandexpectedeconomicadjustmentofhigheroilpricessince1974and1979.Thelevelingoutofoilpriceshasretardedfurthermovementtoalternativefuels,suggestingperhapsanewequilibriuminworldenergymarkets.Therefore,theDEISstatementthattherapidlossinmarketshareindicatesthatoiliscurrentlyoverpricedrelativetootherfuelsisinaccurate.Also,thefiguresonproductionpercentages(7%vs.2%)arenotsynonymouswithmarketsharebecausetheformermayfluctuateinresponsetopriceanddemandwhereasthelatterisrelevantinthecontextofimperfectmarketsandsuggestscollusion. ]]]J]J]]]]TechnicalCommentNFP092SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORKTOPICAREA:WorldOilPrice,WorldOilResourcesLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.2PageA-5SectionA.3.2Paragraph3ofthispageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:Effectofoilinventorychangesand"---thetruedemandforOPECoilstillappearstobedeclining"TECHNICALCOMMENT:TheInternationalEnergyAgency(lEA,1984),SHCA,andotherssuchaBritishPetroleum(BP,1984)engagedinassessingoiltrendsadjustforinventorychangesindevelopingestimatesofoilconsumption.BasedontheApplicant'sknowledge,noneoftheseorganizationshasclaimedthatoilconsumptionincreasedin1983orevenheldconstant.Althoughspecificestimatesvarysomewhat,1982and1983estimatesbythreedifferentorganizationsoffreeworldoilconsumptionaretabulatedbelowinmillionofBID:Theissueisnotwhetheractualconsumptiondeclinedin1983butratherwhetherconsumptionisstilldecliningin1984andwhetheritwillcontinuetodeclinethereafter.TheDEISappearstoconcludethatconsumptionisstilldecliningandwillcontinuetodoso.ToresearchthisconclusiontheDEIShassimplyextrapolatedtheexperiencein1980-1983andindoingsohasmissedthebasicchangeintrendthathasbegun.Inventorychangehasnotmaskedconsumptiontrends,rathertheDEIS'sanalysishasfailedtoassesstheimpactoftheoilpricereductionthathasalreadybeenexperienced.TheDEIShasaccordingly,beenundulypessimisticonworldeconomicgrowthinassessingworldoildemand.]]']]19821983Declinein1983SHCA45.845.0-0.8lEABP--'45.5 45.244.444.7-0.8-0.5 TechnicalComment~~P092Page2ThelEAestimatesthatconsumption--afterallowingforinventorychanges--willincrease1millionBIDin1984;SHCAestimates0.5millionBID.ThelEAstatedthatactualconsumptiontodatein1984hasincreasedbyseveralpercentoveractualusageinthecomparableperiodin1983.Therefore,inventoryshiftsthatoccurredduring1982and1983shouldnotbeviewedasanindicationthatoildemandwillcontinuetofallanddepressoilprices.]]~llJ~l]JJJJJ ]]J]J"JJTechnicalCommentNFP093SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:WorldOilPrice,FuelSwitchingLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.2PageA-5SectionA.3.3Paragraph8ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:MarketShare,Oil,Gas,CoalTECHNICALCOMMENT:Oilcannotbeexpectedtomaintainaconstantshareofenergydemand.In"FutureWorldOilPrices,"(PapercitedinDEISassourceofilpriceanalysis)Figure3,totalenergyincreasesat2.5%peryear.Ifoilweretoincreaseatthatrate,demandin2000wouldbe68MMBDandin2010,.83MMBD.Precedentfrom1973and1978experiencehasdemonstratedthatifdemandforOPECcrudereaches30MMBDormore,thepricewillhaveincreasedsharply.Thisislikelytohappeninthefutureevengivenlowerratesofproduction.WithOPECproductionlimitedtoroughly25MMBD,non-OPECproductionin2000wouldhavetobeabout40MMBDandin2010,about55MMBD.Thisisfarbeyondanyrationalexpectationfornon-OPECproductionatanyprice,letaloneapricemaintainedat$20to$25perbarrel.Atsuchpricelevelsthefollowingenergydevelopmentsarelikelytooccur.TheDEIShasalsototallyignoredtheimpactofitsoilpriceongassupplyandtheresultingimpactoninterfuelcompetition,aswellasthecoal/oilpricerelationshipsrequiredforconversiontocoalandequivalentcompeti-tivepositioninthenewmarket.OildoesnothavetobepricedattheBtuequivalentofcoaltobecompetitive,evenfornewfacilities.TheDEIShassimplyevaluatedoil'smarketsharetrendin1975-78andextrapolatedfromthatexperience.But1975-78wasatotallydifferenteraforgas,ascom-paredwith1985-2010,andthepriceelasticityeffectsin1975-78--afterthefirstmajoroilpriceincrease--ontransportationandotherapplicationsarequitedifferentfromwhatcanbeexpectedin1985-2010attheDEISoilprices.TheDEIS'sasumptionsleadtoadistortedoutlookforinterfuelcompetition. TechnicalCommentNFP094l~l,-JTOPICAREA:SUSITRAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMWorldOilPrice,Conservation,FuelSwitching]]]'JJ.JJLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.2PageA-5SectionA.3.3Paragraph9ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:ReductionofOilConsumptionTECHNICALCOMMENT:TheDEISidentifiesfactorsofconsumption,fuel-switch-ing,andstagnantworldeconomicconditions,whichitconcludeswillcombinetolowerworldoildemandinthefutureatpotentiallythesame2%annualrateexperiencedsince1979.Thiscontinuedreductionwill,inturn,presspricesdownward.TheDEIS'sassumptionsaboutcontinuedreductionofworldoildemanddonotwithstandscrutiny.TheDEIShasapparentlyassumedconservationtobethemajorfactorrespons-ibleforthereductionofenergyconsumptionduringthelastdecade,andfurtherassumesthatconservationwillcontinueatthesameintensityinthefutureeventmdertheDEISoilpricescenarios.Thisoverlooksthefactthatthemajorforcebehindconservationispriceelasticityofdemand,i.e.,thecostofenergyexceededitsutilizationvalueincertainapplica-tionsorinvestmentsinenergysavingprocessesordevicesbecameeconomi-cal.Withcostofenergydeclining,basedontheFERCStaffforecast,thetrade-offbetweenenergypriceontheonehand,andenergyutilizationorinvestmentinenergysavingprocessesordevicesontheotherwillshiftbackagain.Whileinvestmentsoncemadewilllikelynotbeundonebyreducedenergycost,newinvestmentsinenergysavingprocessesordeviceswilloccuronlyatamuchreducedlevel.Also,someenergyconservationthattookplaceinthepastbecauseenergypricesexceededitsutilizationvaluewillbeundone.YettheDEISassumes,basedonthepaper"FutureWorldOilPrices--WillTheyRiseOrFall?"(FWOP)thatconservationwillcontinueunabated(p.10ofFWOP)attherateof2%,thoughthepriceofoilisassumedtodeclinetothelevelthatexistedpriortotheexperiencedconservation.Thecontinuationofthe2%rateofconservationinlightofdecliningoilpricesisnotexplainedintheDEIS. TechnicalCommentNFP094Page2TheDEISmayhaveerroneouslyattributedapastfalloffinworldoildemandtoconservationorfuelswitching,whenthatcrophasactuallybeencausedbyatemporaryreductioninworldindustrialproduction.Dataonfreeworldoilconsumptionindicatesthatconsumptiondeclinedfrom52.8MMB/Din1979to45.1MMB/Din1982,orby7.7MMB/D.Ofthistotaldeclineinoilconsumption,thedevelopedcountries(theUnitedStates,Canada,WesternEuropeandJapan)accountedforsome5.7MMB/D,oralmost75%.Analysisoftheoilconsumptioninthedevelopedcountriesbyenduserevealsadistinctlydifferentpatternoffuelswitchingand/orconservationdependingonenduse(inMMB/D):19791982ChangeResidentialandcommercial6.65.31.3Industrialandpowerplant11.07.73.3Transportation17.416.31.1Total35.029.35.7]]]]]]]Thecompositereductionof16.3%oftheoilconsumptionduringthethreeyearperiodconsistsofa20%reductioninresidentialandcommercialcon-sumption,a30%reductioninindustrial(includingpowerplant)consumption,andonlya6%reductioninthelargestconsumingsegment,transportation.uPortionsofthereductioninoildemandareattributabletogeneraleconomicconditions,otherportionsareattributabletofuelswitching(mostlyintheresidential/commercial/industrial/powerplantsectors),andothersareattributabletoconservation(mostlyinthetransportationsector).Duringthe1979-1982periodtheindexofindustrialproductioninthedevelopedcountriesdeclinedby4%.Thistrendisnotanticipatedtocontinue(SeeTechnicalCommentNFP089).Asindustrialproductionregainsstrength,energyconsumptionwillaccordinglyrise.r-lI:,,-_.JLJ JJ~l~]1~JJJ~JJJJJJJTechnicalCommentNFP094Page3AlthoughtheDEISissomewhatvaguewithrespecttotherateofeconomicgrowthassumedfortheworld,somesuchgrowthisnotpredicted.Ifwethereforeassumethatindustrialprductioninthedevelopedworldwouldincreaseby4%duringthethreeyearperiod1982-1985insteadofadeclineby4,suchreversalofeconomicgrowthwouldhavetobereflectedintheoilconsumptionoftheindividualsectors.TheDEIS,however,assnmesareduc-tionbyover30%between1983and1990whichallconsidered,mustbejudgedunappropriate. ]]]]J]]]]JJ]JJ:J]TechnicalCommentNFP095SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:WorldOilPrice,WorldOilProductionLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.2PageA-6SectionA.3.3Paragraph1ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:NonOPECOilProductionTECHNICALCOMMENT:TheApplicantagreeswithDEISthatnon-OPECproductionhasbeenincreasingforaboutthepastdecade.However,theApplicantdis-agreewiththeDEISanalysisofnon-oPECproduction.FERCStaffseemstohavetakenthe5.3%compoundannualgrowthrateexperienceinoverallnon-OPECproductionsince1976,andprojectedacontinuationofthisgrowthrateintotheindefinitefuture.Thisapproachismsupportedandignoresindi-cationsthatnon-OPECproductionwillpeakin1984or1985,andwillcom-mencetodeclinebeforetheendofthisdecade--evenifpresentpricesaremaintained.Thosewhopredictrisingproductionrelysolelyonthetrendofthepastdecadeandsimplyextrapolateit,and/orciteMexicoandtheNorthSeaasprimaryexamplesofsourcesofgrowingproduction.Thisoverlooksthefactthatthe5.3%overallgrowthhasbeenachievedbyspectacularin-creasesinproductioninafewcountries,notablyMexico,Brazil,andtheNorthSea,andisnotcharacteristicofnon-OPECsourcesasawhole.Oncetheseneverproducingareasbegintostabilizeproduction,growthinnon-OPECproductioncannotbemaintainedunlessothernewlargereservesarediscovered.ItisnotrealistictoexpertMexicoandtheNorthSeatokeepupthegrowthrateinproductionforwhichtheyhavebeenresponsibleinthepast.Mexicohasmaintainedanessentiallyconstantrateofproductionforthepast18months.Severalsourcesindicateapeakingofproductionin1984or1985forNorthSeaproductionorfortheUnitedKingdomoutlookalone. TechnicalCommentNFP095Page2Productioninmostothernon-OPECcountrieshasbeenessentiallystaticforyears,andthereisnoindicationofanymaterialchangeahead.Also,theclaimthatlargeprofitswillcontinuetodrawlargecapitalfundsforexplorationandproductioninnon-OPECcountriesiscontrarytothefacts.IntheLower48,oilexplorationanddevelopmentexpendituresdeclinedbyone-thirdin1983,andfootagedrilleddroppedbyroughly20%,from193millionfeetin1982to169millionfeetin1983.Expendituresandfootagedrilledarenotlikelytochangemateriallyin1984.Abroad,thelatestindicationsarethatdrillingisstilldeclining. ]JJJJ]]]]]JJ]JJJTechnicalCommentNFP096SUSITNA.HYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:WorldOilPrice,LoadForecastLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.2PagesA-6toA-13SectionA.3.4COMMENTINREFERENCETO:APAoilpricesandloadprojectionsTECHNICALCOMMENT:TechnicalCommentsNFP023through025providedonSection1.2.4.1oftheDEISshouldbeconsultedastheyarepertinenttothistopicarea.AlthoughtheassumptionmadebyDRIandSHCAconcerningtheinfluenceofOPECorwouldoilmarketsandU.S.economicgrowtharesimilar,theseassumptionsare,ofcourse,nottheonlyonesuponwhichtheforecastsarebased.Asaconsequence,onewouldexpecttheDRIandReferenceCaseworldoilpriceforecaststodiffer.TheDEISassertsthatthereisanoticeabledifferencebetweenDRI'sforecastandtheReferenceCasescenario,showninTableA-3.Toconsidertheforecastsas"noticeablydifferent"isasubjec-tiveview,apparentlyheldbyFERCstaff.ItshouldbenotedthatsuchacomparisonishamperedbytheuseofdifferentyearclassificationsforoilpricesandannualratesofchangeinpriceforApplicant'sReferenceCaseasshowninTableA-IandtheDRI"BaseCase"asdepictedinTableA-3.TheApplicanthasoneloadprojectionwhichisbasedontheReferenceCaseworldoilpricescenario.Otherworldoilpriceforecastshavebeenprovid-edfor"sensitivityanalysis."Itisexpectedthatsuchforecastswouldtendtobecloseintheearlyforecastyearsforwhichmoreinformationisavailableanduncertainitylessthanforthelatteryearsoftheforecast.OnpageA-9,theDEISstatesthat"By1990,however,significantdifferenceexistintheforecast."TheDEISstaffprovidesnoanalysistosupportthenotionof"significance." J]J]]]J].]]]JJ]JJJJTechnicalCommentNFP097SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:LoadForecast,MAPModelLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.2PagesA-13toA-17SectionA.3.5COMMENTINREFERENCETO:FERCProjectionsTECHNICALCOMMENT:CommentsprovidedonSection1.2.4.2shouldbecon-sulted,asrelevanttothistopicarea.TheDEISreferstoloadprojectionsbasedonhighworldoilpriceassump-tionsonpageA-13,paragraph4,butdoesnotidentifytheoilpricesnorassumptions.Also,thedifferencesbetweenoilpricetrajectories(highandmediumFERCcases)arenotdisclosed.IncomparingthealternativeoilpriceforecaststheDEIScharacterizedloadforecastsasexhibitingan"insulation"betweenelectricityandoilpricesthatisinappropriate.TheMAPmodelprovidesforreasonableeconomicmeasurestooffsetdownswingsinthestateeconomyduetoreducedpetroleum.relatedrevenues.TheDEISusestheterm"insulation"onpageA-IS,paragraphs2and4,whichhasapejorativemeaningandtaintsthereadersimpressionofthemodel.TheMAPmodelissimplyattemptingtoconsiderexplicitythepossibleeffectonthestateeconomyoffiscalpolicymeasuresimposedtoadjustforsignificantchangesineconomicconditionsanticipatedinthefuture.TheDEISconsiderstheannualaveragerateofpercapitausage(kWh)of0.6%over1985to2010torepresenta"significant"upwardtrendbutdoesnotmeasureorexplainitsnotionof"significance."WhenviewedinthelightofanticipatedenergymarketsintheRailbeltoverthisperiod,thesigni-ficanceoftherateofincrease,isquestionable. ~lJl]]]JJTechnicalCommentNFP098SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:NaturalGasResourcesLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.2PageB-4SectionB.3.1.Paragraph2of.thepage.COMMENTINREFERENCETO:ProvenGasReservesTECHNICALCOMMENT:DEISstatesinSectionB.3.1thatthereare3.4TcfofprovengasreservesintheCookInletandquotesUSGSestimatesof1.3to13Tcfofadditionalgasasyetundiscovered.Onthisbasis,Staffconcludesthat"thereshouldbemorethanadequategastomeettheRailbelt'spowerneedsforthenexthalfcentury."ThisconclusionintheDEISisinerrorforseveralreasons.Withrespecttoreserves,theDEISiscorrectthatprovenrecoverablereserveswere3.4TcfasofDecember31,1982.Butbytheendof1983,reserveshaddroppedto3.2Tcf,continuingasteadydeclineforthepastthreeyears.Annualreservesadditionsversusproductionhavetrendedasfollows(OGeC,1983):]]]JJJJ198219821983Average1981-3ReservesAdditionsBcf13.544.038.432.0-ReferenceProductionBcf181.5216.0196.4198.0]JStateofAlaska,AlaskaOilandGasConversationCommission(OGcc),"StatisticalReport",1983. TechnicalCommentNFP098Page2Demandisexpectedtoincreasebecauseofgrowinghighpriorityrequire-ments,andifallpowerneedsweretobemetbygas,demandwouldincreaseappreciablyoverthenexthalfcentury.Butevenifproductionwereheldattherecentlevel(approximately200Bcf/yr),thepresentprovenreserveswouldbeexhaustedin16years(1999).Iftherecentrateofreservesaddi-tionsweremaintained(32Bcf/yr),productioncouldbeextendedonlyanother3years.Inactualpractice,evenwithreservesadditionscontinuingattherecentlevel,productionwillcommencedecliningbytheearly1990's.TheU.S.G.S.estimateoftheundiscoveredresourcewasmadein1980,andthe13Tcfestimateshouldnothavebeenreferenced,inasmuchastheU.S.G.S.appliedonlya 5percentprobabilitytoit.Themeanestimateis5.7Tcf.Assumingthatthe5.7Tcfmeanestimatewerestillrealistic,annualreser-vesadditionsshouldnotbeexpectedtoexceed200Bcfperyearforthenext20years(4Tcftotal),withannualadditionsgraduallydecliningthereafterandspreadoverthefollowing20years.Withgrowinghighpriorityrequire-ments,andassuminggrowingpowergenerationmetbygas,productionwouldhavetoincreaseto250-300Bcf/yrearlyinthenextcentury.Bythen,provenreserveswouldbedownto2.0-2.5Tcfandthereservelifeindexwouldbedownto10yearsorless.Productionwouldinfactbeforcedintotheultimatedecline.Thus,evenusingtheU.S.G.S.estimate,itwouldbeaseriousmistaketoplanforanynewgas-firedpowerplants.Buttheoutlookforgasavailabilityisevenmoreseriousthanthis.Reser-vesadditionshavebeenlowforthepastthreeyears.DrillingsincetheU.S.G.S.madeitsestimatehasbeendisappointingandhasreducedtheexpec-tations.TheAlaskaDepartmentofNaturalResourcesmadeanestimateoftheundiscoveredresourcebasein1983;theirestimatewasonly2Tef.AtthisJJ]JJJJJJJJJ-,i.JJ~-1 JJ111]]JJ]J]]JJ]JJJTechnicalCommentNFP098Page3magnitude,annualreservesadditionscouldnotbeexpectedtoexceedanaverageof100Bcf/yr.forthenext10years--threetimeswhatwasaddedasinthepast3years--withtheremaining1Tcfwouldbeaddedoveratleast20additionalyears,onagraduallydecliningbasis.Overthenext10years,andassumingaconstantrateofproductionof200Bcf/yr.insteadoftheDEIS'sexpectedincrease,thetrendswouldbeasfollows:ReservesAdditionsProductionReserve~/RLI,yrs.BcfBcfBcf19831002003.21619841002003.119851002003.01519861002002.919871002002.81419881002002.719891002002.61319901002002.519911002002.41419921002003.319931002002.2112/December31ofeachyear.Onthisbasis,bythemid-1990'sifnotearlier,CookInletproductionwillcommencedeclining,andthisisthebasisthatshouldhavebeenusedforassessinggasavailabilityforpowergeneration.TheconclusionthatshouldhavebeendrawnintheDEISisthatgasfromtheCookInletcannotbereliedonfornewpowergeneration. :l]JJJ]]J]]J]]JJJJJJTechnicalCommentNFP099SUSITNA.HYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECmo:CALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:NaturalGasPriceLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.2PageB-5SectionB.3.3Paragraph2ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:EnstarRateIncrease,MarketPowerTECHNICALCOMMENT:TheShellandMarathoncontractswithEnstarareatapricethatisasignificantincreaseforthelocalmarket.ThebasepriceasofNovember1982was$2.72perMMBtuversusanaverage1982powerplantpriceof$0.71perMMBtu. ]J11]J]J]JJ]]J]]]JJTechnicalCommentNFPIOOSUSITBAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECBRICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:GasPriceResources,NaturalGasPriceLOCATIONINOEIS:Vol.2PageB-7SectionB.3.3.5Paragraph3ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:OEISGasPricesandExplorationTECHNICALCOMMENT:TheOEIS'sadoptedprojectsshowadeclineinpriceforthenextdecadewithpricesnotrisingabovethecurrentleveluntilabouttheyear2000.Thispriceprojectiondoesnotensureexploration,butratherwilldiscourageexploration. ]l]JJ]]]J]JrJ~~C~J--~]JJJJ]TechnicalCommentNFP101SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:NaturalGasPriceLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.2PageB-6SectionB.3.3.3Paragraph3ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:LNG,PACAlaskaProjectTECHNICALCOMMENT:AsshowninAttachmentAtothiscomment,thepriceofLNGdeliveredtoJapanessentiallyequatestothepriceofcrudeoil,andwasapproximately$5perMMBtuin1983.WiththeDEIS'soilpriceprojec-tions,theLNGdeliveredpricein1990,1995,and2000willbe,respectivelyin1983dollarsperMMBtu:$3.45,$3.79,and$4.14.Atthesedeliveredprices,thepriceintotheliquefactionplantintheCookInletwouldbeabout50centsto$1perMMBtuandthenetbackatthewellheadfortheexistingLNGprojectwouldbenegativetobarelypositive.ForthePACAlaskaprojectwhichrequiresuseofU.S.tankers,thewellheadpricewouldbenegativein1990-2000.Itwouldbe2010orlaterbeforethePACAlaskaprojectcouldpossiblybefeasible.InsectionB.3.3.1-B.3.3.4oftheDEIS,FERCstaffevaluatesthepotentialforthecompletionofANGTSandTAGSandexportofCookInletgas,conclud-ingthattheoutlootisuncertain.ButInfact,thereisnouncertaintyatall.GiventheDEISoilpriceprojections,noexportprojectwouldbebuilt,untillongafterthedecisionsonnewpowerfacilitiesin1990-2010weremade.TheexistingLNGcontractwouldnotberenewedasthenetbackpriceswouldbetoolowtobeeconomic.Theonlysituationprevailingwouldbealocalsupplyforthelocalmarket. PERTINENT OIL AND GAS PRICES RELATED TO DEIS ADOPTED CRUDE OIL PRICES (1983 Dollars) 1983 -2050 Attachment A Technical Comment NFP101 Page 2 Marker Crude per Deis Dollars Dollars per Barrel per MMBtu Loser 48 (dollars per MMbtu) High Sulfur Average City Gate Fuel Oil Field Price*Price+ Japan (dollars per MMBtu) LNG Delivered Actual 1983 1984 DEIS 1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 $29.00 $5.00 $4.50 $2.92 $4.23 27.62 4.76 4.30 2.75 4.00 24.00 4.14 3.80 2.25 3.50 20.00 3.45 3.00 2.00 3.00 22.00 3.79 3.30 2.30 3.30 24.00 4.14 3.80 2.80 3.80 29.00 5.00 4.50 3.50 4.50 36.00 6.21 5.70 4.70 5.70 44.00 7.59 7.10 7.00 7.10 54.00 9.31 8.80 8.50 8.80 66.00 11.38 10.88 9.30 10.88 $5.00 4.76 4.14 3.45 3.79 4.14 5.00 6.21 7.59 9.31 11.38 *Interstate. +East North Central (Chicago). Source:Developed by SHCA. IL ~~L L L'L]LJ r L--[~:L L c~.~L-J ~J ~~ J]]]]JJ]JJ]]JJ~J.JTechnicalCommentNFPI02SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTBCHRICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:CoalPrice,WorldOilPriceLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.2PageB-7SectionB.4Paragraph4ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:CoalPriceRelationshiptoCrudeOilPrices-"Coalasanenergysourceisnotlinked•••tothepriceofcrudeoil•••[because]coalisnotaclosesubstituteforoiL"TECHNICALCOMMENT:Thisassumptionregardinglackofaneconomiclinkagebetween01andcoalpricesintheDEISisnotborneoutbyhostoricdataandisinconsistentwithotherpriceassumptionsmadintheDEIS.Researchhasdemonstratedapositivecross-priceelasticitybetweenthepriceofoilandthelongrundemandforcoal;i.e.,arise(fall)inthepriceofoilwillcauseanincrease(decrease)inthedemandforcoal.TheDElSvalidatesthispreciseconcept(SeealsoVol.1page1-33).Themotivatingfactorforthediversificationawayfrompetroleumandintocoal•••hasdiminishedmeasurablydur-ingthelast18monthsastheoutlookforrealescalationinworldpriceshasmoderatedandtheprospectsforfall-ingcrudepriceshavebecomereality.Apositivecross-priceelasticityconfirmedbytheDEISlogicquotedaboveindicatesthatifoilpricesresumetheirupwardmovementthedemandforcoalandcoalpriceswillriseaswell.ThisisconfirmedaswellintheDEISinlasttwosentences,pageB-7andfirstsentence,pageB-8. TechnicalCommentNFP102Page2Initiatives•••todiversify•••relianceonalternativeenergysources•••representthemajorlinkbetweencoalmarketsandthepriceofcrudeoil.Ifcrudepricesclimb,thentheeconomicpotentialforsubstitutionwillcontinuetoincrease;themarketforcoalwillexpand,andtherewillbeupwardpressureonthepriceofcoal.Clearly,theDEIS'sassertionregardingtheunrelatednessofoilandcoalpricesisinconsistentwiththeirassertionsonthesamepageaboutthemarketrelationship.TheSusitnaProjectFeasibilityReport,(Acres,1983)showsthatcoalandoilpriceshavecorrelationcoefficientsgreaterthan0.90since1950.Thisisahighvalue,insofarasaperfectcorrelationwouldhaveacoefficientof1.0.Althoughcoalisnotasubstitutefortransportationfuelsinthelongruncoal-firedpowerplantscan(andwill)bebuilttoreplacefueloilorgas-firedplantsifcoal'srelativeabun-danceactstolessentherelativerateofadvanceincoalprices.lJ~l]]]j ]]J~1]'-1i,J]],1]]],JJ:JTechnicalCommentNFP103SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:CoalPriceLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.2PageB-8SectionB-4Paragraph3ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:ProductionCostBasisforCoalValue-"Thus,thevalueofthecoal.••wi~hintherailbeltislikelytobethecostofextract-ingandtransportingittothegenerator".TECHNICALCOMMENT:Thelogicforthisconclusion(SeealsoDEISSection1.3.3.3)restsontheDEIS'sviewofdecliningrealoilprices,hencelackofexapnsionmarketsforcoal.ThebasicflawoftheoilpriceoutlookisthattheDEISlong-termfossilfuelanalysisiscloudedbyitsnear-termperspective.Theoilpricegrowthprojectioncarriesintothedistantfuturetheexistingnear-termcharacteristicsofoilmarkets.Thesenear-termcharacteristicssuggestthatcoalintheRailbeltmarketmightonlybesoldatacosttocoverproductionandtransportation.However,thefirstcoalplantswouldberequiredinthemiddle1990'saccordingtotheLicenseApplicationandbythenfossilfuelmarketswillhavechanged.TheApplicant'sanalysis(SeeTechnicalCommentNFP104andAppendixIofthisdocument)showsthatbytheendofthecentury,therewillbeasigni-ficantandgrowingPacificRimcoaldemandthatcanbemetmosteconomicallybyAlaskaexports.Anexportmarketwilldevelop,beginningintheearly1990s.AdoptingtheDEISlogicthusimpliesthat"theexportpricethatcoalcommandswillconstitutetherealcostofconsumingcoallocally".(SeeVol.2App.BpageB-8,para.2).StudiesconductedbytheApplicantindicatethatthemosteconomicalcoalgenerationmixforthethermalalternativewouldincludeamixofcoalfromtheNenanacoalfieldandtheBelugacoalfield(foruseinmine-mouth TechnicalCommentNFPI03Page2plant).ThisanalysisshowsthatcoalfromtheUsibellimineorothermineswhichcouldbedevelopedintheNenanafieldwillprobablynotbecompeti-tivewithBelugafieldcoalinthePacificcoalmarketduetothehighrateschargedbytheAlaskaRailroadforshipment (fromtheSuntranaload-out)toSewardforexport.Therefore,minimumpricesofcoalfromtheNenanacoalfieldwouldbedeter-minedbythecostofproduction,plustransportationtoasuitablepowerplantsite.MaximumpricesforbothNenanaandBelugacoalwouldbedeterminedbyinsideAlaskafuelalternativesandPacificcoalmarketforces. TechnicalCommentNFPI04LOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.2PageB-8SectionB-4Paragraph3ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:ExportMarketProspects-"Theoutlookfor(exportmarket)expansionismixed."TECHNICALCOMMENT:TheanalysisofexportmarketsconductedbytheAppli-cantindicates,tothecontrary,thattheoutlookfortheexportmarketisquiterobust.SUSITlIA.HYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECBRICALCOMMENTFORMCoalPriceTOPICAREA:Second,ofevenmoreconsequenceintermsofpotentialcoalmarkets,isthecontinuingeconomicgrowthofthePacificRimnations.Thiseconomicgrowth,evenunderregimeofhighenergyprices,willnecessitatetheuseofCoalcanbeproducedfromnewminesintheBelugacoalfieldatacostwhichwillbehighlycompetitivewiththecostofproductionatsteamcoalexportminesinAustralia,CanadaandtheLower-48Whileitistruethatrealgrowthinoilpricesmaybenegativeforthenextfewyears,thisdoesnotimplyadimprognosisforAlaskacoalexports.First,theoilpriceanaly-sispreparedfortheLicenseApplication(andsubsequentlyupdatedinAppen-dixItothisdocument),indicatesthatverysignificantoilpriceincreases(andconsequentlygaspriceincreases)willoccurinthiscenturyandintothenext.Asaresult,oilwillcontinuetolosemarketshareinsomeapplicationstocoal.AstheDEIScorrectlypointsout,coalisfarfrombeingaperfectsubstituteforoil.However,oilisstillbeingusedinsignificantquantitiesforelectricpowergenerationandindustrialsteamraisinginthePacificRimindustrializedcountries(Japan,Korea,Taiwan).Eventuallymanyoftheseoiluseswillbereplacedwithcoal,eitherthroughdirectconversionofexistingfacilitiestocoalorthroughconstructionofnewreplacementunits.J]J]]J]]J]']]]]]]]]] TechnicalCommentNFP104Page2moreelectricpowerandindustrialsteam.Asaresult,overthelongtermthatisbetween1990and2050,atremendousgrowthinthecoalrequirementsofJapan,Korea,Taiwanandemergingenergyusers,suchasHongKong,Singapore,Malaysia,andthePhilippinescanbeexpected.AnalysisconductedbytheApplicantshows(1)thatAlaskacoalwillberela-tivelylowcosttoproduce,and(2)thatlargeandgrowingmarketwilldevelop.Thus,thereiseveryreasontobelievethatAlaskacoalfromtheBelugafield,couldbesoldinlargevolumesintothePacificmarket.ThisprojectionwasdevelopedusingconservativeassumptionsondemandgrowthandonthemarketpenetrationofAlaskacoal.Forexample,ourprojectionsassumethat,duetothelowcalorificvalueofBelugacoal,itcanbeusedonlyinnewpowerplantswhichwouldbespecificallydesignedtoburnsubituminouscoal.Thisisconservativeassumptionbecauseinadditiontothislimiteduse,plantreplacementsforolderplants,blendinginexistingplants,anduseinindustrialapplicationwouldincreasethedemandforAlaskacoalevenbeyondthatprojected.l___JJl= ll]l]]'1J]J]J']]1JJ]JJJTechnicalCommentNFP105SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHBICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:PeatLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.2PageB-8SectionB.5Paragraph4ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:UnconventionalSourcesofEnergyTECHNICALCOMMENT:ItisrecognizedthatAlaskaingeneralandtheRailbeltregioninparticular,containsignificantresourcesofpeat.HowevertheDEISisincorrecttosuggestthatpeatcouldbeeconomicallycompetitiveat$2.00permillionBtu.TheApplicant'sdatainsupportofthelicenseapplicationshowspeattobesignificantlyhigherincost.(Battelle,1982).Thedataavailablesuggeststhateconomicallyusefulpeatshouldbeavailableinbogsof80-320acres/mi2,withinthirtytruckmilesofanyproposedpowerplant,andwithinfivemilesofamajorroad(Ekono,1980).GiventhelimitedrailandroadinfrastructureinAlaska,theavailabilityofcommerciallydevelopablepeatmaybelimited.FurtherthedataconcerningpeatavailabilityintheAnchoragearea(e.g.TheSusitnaValley)indicatehighlyvariableashcontentsrangingfrom13.4%to74.2%,withmostvaluesinexcessofthethreshold25%ash(Ekono,1980).Giventheissuesoffuelvariability,plantsizing,andotherrelatedcon-cerns,Battelle(1982)foundthatpowergeneratedfromthecombustionofpeatwouldcost40-70%morethanpowerfroma20MWplantbaseduponNenanaorBelugacoal. l]J]JJ]]JJ]JJ]TechnicalCommentNFPI06SUSITHA.HYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:GeothermalLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.2PageB-8SectionB.6Paragraph5ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:UnconventionalSourcesofEnergyTECHNICALCOMMENT:TheApplicantagreeswiththeapparentconclusionintheDEISthatgeothermalenergyisnotanalternative,orcomponentofanalternative,totheSusitnaproject. J]l]J]]J]TechnicalComment~WPI07SUSITRAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHRICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:TidalPowerLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.2PageB-8SectionB.7Paragraph6ofthepageCO~1ENTINREFERENCETO:UnconventionalSourcesofEnergyTECHNICALCOMMENT:TheDEISidentifiestheCookInletareaasamajorpotentialresourceforTidalpowerenergy.TheDEISincorrectlyattemptstopresentcapacityandenergynumbersfromatidalfacilityasiftheyarecomparabletothecapacityandenergynumbersfromaconventionalhydroelectricproject.Theyarenotcomparableforthefollowingreasons:1.Tidalfacilitiesarecyclical,producingpowerinrelationtotidalactionratherthanenergydemand;andtidalfacilitiesonlyproducedependablecapacityandenergywhenretimingandstorage(e.g.pumpedstorage)isincorporatedintothedesign;andWhenthesefactorsaretakenintoconsideration,thetotal tidalcapacityavailablefromthefourmostattractivesitesintheRailbeltappearstobeonly4.5GW.Further,thepowercostsfortidalpowerfacilityaresigni-ficantlyhigherthanthoseassociatedwithSusitna,particlarlywhenstorageandretimingareconsidered(Battelle,1982).]]]JJJ]JJ2.Tidalfacilitieshavecontiuouslychangingcapacities,producingatthepeAkonlywhenthetidesareattheirpeak. lJJJJJJ]JJJJ]]]J-1JJJTechnicalCommentNFP108SUSITNA.HYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:ConservationLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.2PagesC-4andC-5SectionC.4COMMENTINREFERENCETO:C-4RateDesignandLoadManagementTECHNICALCOMMENT:The"ElectricUtilityRateDesignStudy"conductedbytheEPRIsummarizedthetheoryandpracticeofmarginalcostpricingofelectricity;loadresearchandloadmanagement;andnumerousissuesandrelatedtopicssuchasselectingratingperiod,surveyingcustomerresponsetoloadmanagementandloadcontrolequipment.EPRIstudiesbeganbeforePURPAbutaddressedissuesraisedbytheNEAof1978.EPRIisacenterdevotedtothepursuitofresearchtosolvetechnicalproblemsandissuesfacingtheelectricutilityindustrypresentlybutmoreimportantlyintheyearsahead.Itisaresearchinstitutewhichisfinanciallysupportedbymemberelectricutilities,primarilyinvestorownedutilities.The"RateDesignStudy"wasaspecialprojectwhichwassponsoredbyawiderrangeofelectricutilitygroupsbecauseofthenationalconcernbypublicandpri-vateutilitiesintheadventofPURPAlegislation,withconservationandloadmanagementissuesingeneral.TheseresearchstudiesdonothavedirectrelevancetotheApplicant'sLicenseApplication.However,electricutilitieswhichhaveadoptedtime-of-useratesandconsideredloadmanagementandtheratestandardsofPURPAhavefactoredtheinformationcontainedintheresearchreportsintheirratedesignefforts.TheuseofsuchstudiesisvoluntaryonthepartofallelectricutilitiesandtheNARUCResolutionrecognizedaneedintheindustryforinnovativeratedesignandmethodstolimitpeakdemand. ]JlJJ]]J]]]]]]JJJTechnicalCommentALT001SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:Impacts,AlternativesLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol1Pagexxv~SummarySectionParagraph2ofpageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:SignificantimpactsofimplementingalternativesTECHNICALCOMMENT:Byfailingtoprovideacompletesummaryofcomparativeimpactsamongallthealternatives,thissectionsignificantlyunderstatesthecombinedpotentialimpactsofthealternativestotheProposedProject.Toass.ist~nmakingsuchadirectcomparison,thePowerAuthorityhaspreparedmoredetailedanalysesonthehydroelectricandthermalalternativestotheProposedProject.Theseanaylsesaredescribed~nAppendicesIIandIIIofthisdocument.TheattachedtablesprovidecomparisonsofresourcesandimpactsoftheProposedProjecttothoseofthenon-Susitnahydroalternativesforthefollowingcategories:socioeconomics,landuse,cultural,recreation,aesthetics/visual,terrestrialandaquatic.TheApplicantrecommendsthatthesummarycomparisonscontainedthereinbeincorporatedintotheDEIS.44321 IMPACTSAMONGNON-SUSITNAHYDROALTERNATIVESANDTHESUSITNAPROJECTSheet1of2ALTERNAT IVESSNOWCHAKACHAMNATOTALNON-SUSITNAHYDROSUSITNA•Seward,EasternPeninsulaofKenaiPeninsulaBorough.•Tyonekandsurroundingsmallcommunities.•TrapperCreek,Cantwell,andTalkeetna.~rCreekwouId•Peakconstructionin-migrationwouldbe900persons.•Peakconstructionin-migrationwouldbe•Theprojectwouldincreasepopulationsinanumberof•Communitiesreceivingmajorin-migrationwouldapproximately2,000persons.smallcommunities;insomecases,theimpactswouldincludeTrapperCreek,Cantwell,andTalkeetnabesubstantial.PopulationimpactsarelikelytobeImpactsareexpectedtopeakin1990.underestimatedbecauseoflittleornoconsiderationtoconstructionofancillaryfacilities(roads,railroad,transmissionlines)inaddition,togreaterpopulationsduetoincreasedaccess.iidents'qualityof•Rapidgrowthimpactswouldalterresidents'qualityof•TheprojectwouldinterferewiththeNativecultureand•ImpactswouldbesimilartoSusitnaanddispersed•TherurallifestyleofTrapperCreek,Cantwell,and(tolifeandtheruralnatureofthearea.subsistenceactivitiesofTyonekandsurroundingamongalargernumberofcommunities.Communitiesalesserdegree)Talkeetnawouldbechanged.Cantwellcommunityresidents.suchasDotLakeandTyonekwouIdexperiencemayexperienceincreasedculturalconflict.potentiallysevereculturalandsubsistenceinterference.Jnitiesfor•SomeSewardresidentsmaybehiredleadingtoa •Commercialoperationswouldexpandanddiversify.•Existingcommercialestablishmentsinmost•Somelocalresidentswouldgainemployment,resultingnandtouristreductioninSeward'shighumployment.communitieswouldexperienceanincreaseinbusinessinminorreductionofunemployment.Sometourist,andsomewouldexpand.Newopportunitiesrelatedtoconstruction,andservice-relatedindustrieswouIdbetourismandrecreationwouldbecreatedinsomeareascreatedorexpanded.Someguidingbusinesseswouldandlocalresidentsfromafewcommunitiesmayfindbedisplaced.Periodsbetweenpeakemploymentcouldproject-relatedemployment.increaseunemployment.romtheSusitna•Upto300housingunits(permanentortemporary)•Considerablehousingdevelopmentwouldberequired•Asmallnumberofcommunitieswouldrequire•HousingdemandwouldrequireexpansioninTalkeetna,wouIdbeneeded.toaccommodatethein-migrationof2,000personsconsiderablehousingdeveloPlllentforpermanentTrapperCreek,Cantwell,andunincorporatedMat-Susincelittle'ernovacanthousingiscurrentlyavailable.and/ortemporaryproject-relateCfin-migrants.Boroughareas.Demandwouldbelikelytoexceedsupplyintheshort-term.romtheSusitna•Sewer,waterandothercommunityserviceswouldbe•Sewer,water,fire,policeandhealthfacilitieswould•Mostcommunitieswouldrequireanexpansionof•ServiceswouldrequireexpansioninTalkeetna,Trapperneeded.Schoolsarelikelytobeabletoabsorbnewhavetobeadded.TheTyonekschoolwouIdhavetocommunityservicesincludingsewerandwater,policeCreek,Cantwell,andunincorporatedMat-SuBoroughstudentsbutmoreteacherswouldbeneeded.beexpandedby50%.andfire,healthfacilitiesandpersonnel.areas.Mostnotableneedswouldbeinschools,firedepartments,policedepartmentsandhealthservices.ftheMat-Su•Planning,financing,andconstructioncostsforSeward•Constructionandplanningofserviceswouldbe•Fundingforplanningandconstructionofexpanded•Responsibilityforcommunityserviceexpansionwouldwouldbefundedbythecity.fundedbytheKenaiPeninsulaBorough.communityserviceswouldberequiredfrommanybewiththetowns,borough,orthestate.townsandcitieswhilethestatewouldincurcosts'foranumberofunincorpoaratedplaces.accessthesite•Additionalroadswouldbeneededtoaccessthesite•Additionalroadswouldbeneededtoaccessthesite• Anumberofnewroadswouldberequiredtoaccess•Alltransportationmodesandroutesleadingtothelaseontheseandandtrafficvolumewouldincrease.andtrafficvolumeswouldlikelyincreaseontheseandthe5hydrosites.Additionally,theinundationofprojectareawouldbeusedmoreheavily.Onlytheothernearbyroads.milesofexistinghighway,railroad,pipelineandhighwayjunctionatCantwellthesiteaccessroadrights-of-waywouldrequireconstructionofnewjunctionwiththeDenaliHighway,andtherailaccessroutesconcurrentwithproposedprojectconstruction.junctionandthemainraillinecouldbecomeconjested.Generallytrafficvolumeswouldincreaseonallroadsinandaroundimpactedcommunities,severalroadswouldlikelyreachcapacity.Table4COMPARISONSOFSOCIOECONOMICRESOURCESANDIMPACTSAMONGNON-SUSITNAHYDROALTERNATIVESANDTHESUSITNAPROJECT Table4-COMPARISONSOFSOCIOECONOMICRESOURCESAND.IMPACTSAMONGIAISUBJECTJOHNSONBROWNEKEETNA1.COMMUNITIESANDAREASAFFECTED•Tok,Tanacross,DotLake,IfTheLivingWord"atDryHealy,andNenana.•TalkeetnaandTrapperCreek.•Seward,E;CreekandDeltaJunction.•Duringthepeakconstructionperiod1,300persons•Peakconstructionin-migrationwouldtotal660•In-migrationtoTalkeetnaandTrapperCreekwould•Peakconstwouldin-migratetothearea.persons.Constructionworkforcesontheroadsandtotal880persons.railwaywouldaddsubstantiallytoin-migrationand2.POPULATIONcompoundotherimpactsofBrowneconstruction.• Adecreaseintherural,undevelopednatureofthearea•Theprojectwouldinterferewithculturaland•RapidgrowthimpactswouldalterresidentsIqualityof•Rapidgrovmayoccur.withchangesinscenicquality.TheNativesubsistenceactivitiesofNenanaresidents.lifeandtheruralnatureofthearea.lifeandthl3.INSTITUTIONALIQUALITYOFLIFEcommunitiesofTanacrossandDotLakemayexperienceculturalconflictsandsubsistenceinterference.•Existingcommercialoperationsmightexpandand•Commercialoperationsmayhaveincreasedbusinessin•Increasedaccesswouldcreateopportunitiesfor•SomeSew,othersopen.CommercialexpansionandrecreationlocalcommunitiesandFairbanks.commercialdevelopmentofrecreationandtouristreduction·opportunitiesattheimpoundmentmayencouragefacilities.4.ECONOMYIEMPLOYMENTtourism.Somelocalresidentsmayfillsupportjobs.•About400householdswouldrequiretemporaryor•Considerablehousingdevelopmentwouldbeneededto•SubstantialimpactssimilartothosefromtheSusitna•Upto3005.HOUSINGpermanenthousing;mostin-migrantswouldsettleinaccommodate300newhouseholds.Projectwouldoccur.wouldberTokandDeltaJunction.•Communityserviceswouldhavetobeexpanded•Schools,sewerandwater,policeandfire,andhealth•SubstantialimpactssimilartothosefromtheSusitna•Sewer,wat6.COMMUNITYSERVICESconsiderably.facilitiesandfull-timepersonnelwouldneedtobeProjectwouldoccur.needed.Scadded.studentsbl•DeltaJunctionwouldfinancethecostsofcommunity•Planning,financingandconstructionofadded•Improvementswouldbeatexpense-oftheMat-Su•Planning,fi7.FISCALSTATUSexpansionneeds.ThestatewouldfinancethecostsofcommunityservicesinNenanawouldbefundedbytheBorough.wouldbeflcommunityexpansionforTok.town;inHealysuchfundingwouldbebythestate.•Theimpoundmentwouldinundateportionsofthe•10milesoftheParksHighway,AlaskaRailroad,and•Additionalroadswouldbeneededtoaccessthesite•AdditionalAlaskaHighway,ahighwaymaintenancestation,transmissionlineright-of-waywouldbeinundated.andtrafficvolumeswouldlikelyincreaseontheseandandtraffic3gravelpits,2streamgagingstations,apipeline,othernearbyroad.8.TRANSPORTATIONtelephoneline,lodge,andtwocommunities(DotLakeandIfTheLivingWordlfatDryCreek). MPACTSAMONGNON-SUSITNAHYDROALTERNATIVESANDTHESUSITNAPROJECTSheet2of2ALTERNA T IVE SSNOWCHAKACHAMNATOTALNON-SUSITNAHYDROSUSITNA•Constructionworkforce=200•Peakconstructionworkforce=400•Peakconstructionworkforcein1990=3,500Constructionperiod=4yearsConstructionperiod=5yearsstingpopulation•Duetothisproject'sconcurrencewithBrowne's•Tyonekwouldexperiencesignificantimpactsfromthe•Populationimpactsusedinthiscomparisonarethoseconstruction(200milesaway)populationimpactsin-migratingconstructionpopulation.entitled"Applicant(Rev,)"intheDEIS.InMarchwouldincrease, shortagesofsuppliesexacerbated,and•Permitstoconstructroadstothesitemaybedifficult1984theapplicantsubmittedrevisedprojectionsthatsupplyroutes(highwaysandrailroads)mayhavedecreasedtheimpactsonTalkeetnabutincreaseddifficultieswithcarryingcapacity.toobtainfromtheTyonekNativeCorporation.impactsonHealyandMcKinleyPark.,Table4COMPARISONSOFSOCIOECONOMICRESOURCESANDIMPACTSAMONGNON-SUSITNAHYDROALTERNATIVESANDTHESUSITNAPROJECT Table4-COMPARISONSOFSOCIOECONOMICRESOURCESANDIMPACTSAMONGNO,AL 1SUBJECTJOHNSONBROWNEKEETNA•Peakconstructionworkforce=300•Peakconstructionworkforce=200•Constructionworkforce=200•ConstructionIiConstructionperiod=7yearsConstructionperiod=4yearsConstructionperiod=4yearsConstruction~9.ASSUMPTIONSItisassumedthatintheworsecaseonly75%oftheconstructionworkforcewouldcommutefromFairbanks.•Duringconstructionifthereisnocampon-sitehousing,•Browne'slocationbetweenHealyandNenanawould•In-migrationwouldalmostdoubleexistingpopulation•Duetothisprethensevereimpactswouldoccurintheareabetweenleadtoconstructionandoperationimpactsmainlyinsoimpactswouldbesignificant.construction(TokandDeltaJunction.thosetowns.wouldincreasE10.COMMENTS•Themostseriousimpactswouldbetheinundationof•Duetotheproject'sconcurrencewithKeetnasupplyroutesItwocommunitiesDotLake(population:67)and"Theconstruction(200milesaway)populationimpactsmaydifficultieswitLivingWord"(population:200).beincreased;shortagesofsuppliesexacerbated,and• Alodgemayalsobeinundated.supplyroutes(highwayandrailroads)mayhavedifficultywithcarryingcapacity.•TherapidgrowthimpactstoTokandDeltaJunctionwouldbeexaggeratedbyroadandpiperineworkforces. AMONGNON-SUSITNAHYDROALTERNATIVESANDTHESUSITNAPROJECTALTERNATIVESSNOWCHAKACHAMNATOTALNON- S USilT N AHYDROSUSITNAItelandused•Accessduetonewprojectroadsandthereservoir•The-ruggedterrainsurroundingthesiteisused•Accesstorecreationlandswouldbegreatlyincreased•Intheprojectareawheredispersedrecreationisthe~ationpurposes.wouldincreasebackcountryuse,impactsonvegetationprimarilyforrecreationincludinghunting.Increasedleadingtoincreasedpressureonvegetation,wildlifeprimarylanduseincreased increasedpressuresfromIsfordisposalbyandwildliferesources,andaffectthenaturalsettingofaccesswithroadsandatransmissionlinecorridorresources,andthequalityoft~eremotenaturalpossibleresidential,commercial,andnaturalresources,andremotetheforestlands,particularlyinareasclosesttothewouldsignificantlyincreasesuchusesofthearea.setting.Comparedtorecreationlands,theeffectsondevelopmentandrecreationalactivitiescoulddisturbroject'saccesshighway.Approximately2,600acresoflandwouldbe•Sincetheprojectcallsforalaketap,anegligiblesettlementandagriculturallandswouldbesignificant.vegetationandwildlifeandfisheriesresources.'ouldsignificantlyremovedfromexistinguses.Also,acombinedtotalof115,640acreswouldbelosteasingtraffic,amountoflandwouldberequiredandoveralllandusefromcurrentuses.•Approximately36,000acresand6structureswould,dbyreducingimpactswouldbeminimal.beinundatedwithWatana;7,900acreswithDevilting.Canyon.acresfromtheir•TheconstructioncampsfortheproposeddamsandlitfromthedamthetemporaryvillageandairstripwouldcoverIstateownership.approximately425acres.ndimpoundment•ThelandatthesiteisfederallandwithintheChugach•The.Iandatthesiteisstateland.Landtotheeast•Landownershipiscomplexandvariedatmanysites•LandsatthedamandimpoundmentsitesareownedsownthelandtoNationalForest.However,nearbysitesthroughwhichthroughwhichaccessroadsandtheutilitylineswouldparticularlywhereaccessroutesandtransmissionbythestateandvariousNativeentitiesincludingthe)andutilitiesthetransmissionlinewouldrunareinprivaterunincludeNative,boroughandstatelands.corridorsoccur.DifficultiescouldresultwhenCookInletRegionNativeCorporation.ownership.negotiatingpurchasesoreasementsacrossprivateland.Idsand•Nationalforestareusuallymanagedformultipleuse•Duetothemultipleownershipoflandsthroughwhich•Wheremultipleownershipexists,particularlyalong•Sincelandmanagementplansfortheprojectareacallndsmaycreateallowingforsomedevelopmentwhichcouldincludetheaccessroadsandtransmissionlinecorridorwouldaccessandtransmissionlineroutes,conflictsmayoccurformultipleuseandactuarmanagementisessentiallynds.constructionsimilartothatoftheproject.run,conflictswithmanagementplansmayoccur.withexistingorintendedmanagementplans.passive,theprojectwouldnotappeartopresem.conflicts.Table5COMPARISONSOFLANDUSEANDIMPACTSAMONGNON-SUSITNAHYDROALTERNATIVESANDTHESUSITNAPROJECT Table5-COMPARISONSOFLANDUSEANDIMPACTSAMONGNON-SUSITNSUBJECTALTJOHNSONBR'OWNEKEETNA•Thelandinandaroundthesiteisprimarilyforest,•Thelandatthesiteisbeingdisposedbythestateto•Thelandinandaroundthesiteisstatelandused•Accessduetorwildlifehabitat,andrecreationlandwithiso~atedprivateindividualsforsettlementandagriculturaluses.primarilyforhuntingandotherrecreationpurposes.wouldincreasesettfements,.mineralandgravelextractionareas,andSignificantimpactswouldoccurfromincreasedLandstothewestaresettlementlandsfordisposalbyandwildliferestransportationandutilitycorridors.Theseuseswoulddevelopmentpressures,increasedcompetitioneforthestateashomesteads,subdivisions,andremotetheforestland!begreatlyimpactedbytheinundationofrecreationandwildliferesourcesanddisturbanceofparcels.Impactsresultingfromtheproject'saccesshighway.Appn1.LANDUSEapproximately84,000acresoflandandbyaccessintothenatural,remotesettingduetonewaccessbyroadandtransmissionlinecorridorwouldsignificantlyremovedfromInewareasopenedbyprojectroads,thetransmissionprojectroadsandutilitycorridors.impactthesesettlementareasbyincreasingtraffic,linecorridor,andreroutingofthehighwayandpipeline.•PortionsoftheGeorgeParksHighwayandAlaskarecreationpressuresonstatelands,andbyreducing•PortionsoftheAlaskaHighwayandanoilpipeline,aRailroadwouldbeinundatedalongwithapproximatelythequalityoftheremotenaturalsetting.highwaymaintenancestation,3gravelpits,2stream5,000acresoftheHealyAgriculturalSubdivision,•Theinundationwouldremove4,800acresfromtheirgagingstations,atelephonelineand2communities(Dototherprivatetractsandatleastoneminingclaim.presentuses.FewimpactswouldresultfromthedamLakeandanotheratDryCreek)wouldbeinundated.andimpoundmentsinc,ethelandisinstateownership.•Landownershipat thesiteandthroughwhichaccess•Landinandaroundthesiteisownedprimarilyby•Thestateownsthelan~atthedamandimpoundment•ThelandatthEwouldoccurincludesstateforestlands,Nativelands,privateindividualsandthestatewhichintendstosites.ThestateandprivateindividualsownthelandtoNationalFores2.LANDOWNERSHIPandprivatelandsacquiredfromstatelanddisposaltransfertheirlandstoprivateownershipthroughthewestthroughwhichprojectroadsandutilitiesthetransmissi<programs.disposedprograms.wouldrun.ownership.•Theinundationcouldgreatlyaffectthemanagement·•Sincethelandhasbeen,orisbeingdisposedof,bythe•Thelocationoftheprojectaccessroadsand•NationalforeS!3.MANAGEMENTPLANSplansofthevariouslandowners.stateforprivateuse,projectusesmaybeinconflicttransmissioncorridoroverdisposallandsmaycreateallowingforscwiththoseofavarietyofprivateowners.conflictswithprivateusesofthoselands.constructions' ~-]]]lJ]]JJ]]]JJ]]JJ]Table6-COMPARISONSOFCULTURALRESOURCESANDIMPACTSAMONGNON-SUSITNAHYDROALTERNATIVESANDTHESUSITNAPROJECTALTERNATIVESSUBJECTTOTALSUSITNAJOHNSONBROWNEKEETNASNOWCHAKACHAMNANON-SUSITNAHYDRO1.NUMBEROF•None•50+•None•Presentbutnot•None•50+.250+KNOWNquantified.CULTURALRESOURCESINAREA2.LIKELIHOODOF•Verylikely;numbers•Verylikely;not•Verylikely;not•Verylikely;not•Possible,butfewerthan•Likelytoexceedthose•Possible,butnotlikely.PREVIOUSLYmayexceedSusitnaquantifiableatthisquantifiableatthisquantifiableatthisatothersites.knownattheSusitnaUNKNOWNProjectduetosizeoftime.time;probablyfewertime;probablyfewersite.RESOURCESprojectandlocationthanSusitna.thanSusitna.BEINGnearamajorriverDISCOVEREDcorridor.3.SCOPEOF•Verylarge-scalefield•Large-scalefield•Large-scalefield•Large-scalefield•Moderate-scalefield•Majorundertaking•Onlysmall-scaleNEEDEDstudiesnecessary.studiesnecessary.studiesnecessary.studiesnecessary.studiesnecessary.necessary,exceedingadditionalstudiesADDITIONALstudiesdonefortheneeded.IDENTIFICATIONSusitnaProject.STUDIES4.SCOPEOF•Likelytoexceedthat•Likelytobelessthan•Likelytobelessthan•Likelytobelessthan•Likelytobelimited•Mayexceedthat•Large-scaledataNECESSARYrequiredforthethatrequiredforthethatrequiredforthethatrequiredfortheandmuchlessthanrequiredfortheprogramnecessary.MITIGATIONSusitnaProject.SusitnaProject.SusitnaProject.SusitnaProject.othersites.SusitnaProject.Table6COMPARISONSOFCULTURALRESOURCESANDIMPACTSAMONGNON-SUSITNAHYDROALTERNATIVESANDTHESUSITNAPROJECT PACTSAMONGNON-SUSITNAHYDROALTERNATIVESANDTHESUSITNAPROJECTALTERNATIVESSNOWCHAKACHAMNATOTALNON-SUSITNA HY DR0SUSITNA1finestwhiteInofwhichisrboats.eranditsificantamountsateRecreation•ProjectsitelocatedwithinChugachNationalForest.•Areausedforhunting,camping,fishing,andwildernesshiking.•ForestservicerecreationalcabinlocatedonParadiseLakewithinimpoundmentzone.•SewardHighwayandAlaskaRailroadpasswithin3milesofdamsite.•ProjectsitelocatedwithinMerrillPass- amajoraircorridortoLakeClarkNationalPark.•LakeChakachamnausedasstagingareaforaccesstosurroundingareaforhiking,fishing,andhunting.•HeavyfishinguseinMcArthurandChakachatnaRivers.•WaterfowlhuntinginTradingBayStateGameRefuge.•Heavyboatinguseonthreerivers.•Projectsincloseproximitytothreemajorhighways,railroad,andamajoraircorridor.•Tworivers,onestream,andthreerecreationareaswithinprojectareasarerecommendedforStateprotection.•Projectscoverlargeareasusedforhuntinganddispersedrecreationalactivities.•OneprojectwithinaNationalForestandtwonearNationalParks.~•Largeareawithlowlevelofdispersedrecreationaluse(duetoremoteness).•ModerateamountsofboatingusebelowDevilCanyonandaboveVeeCanyon.•LimitedwhitewaterboatingofDevilandVeeCanyonRapids•DevilCanyonRapidsconsideredworldclasswhitewaterresource.•Lowlevelsoffishinguseinareastreamsandlakes•Scatteredcabinsalongrivercorridorusedforhuntingandtrapping.•Areareceivesmoderateamountofuseforhunting.•Twolodgeswithinprojectareausedforhuntingandfishing.upstreamofdam.•LossoffishingopportunitiesinlowerParadiseLake;noreplacementbyimpoundmentexpectedduetownewouldbeturbidwaters.irmayoccur.•Lossof46,00acresofbiggamehuntingarea.•Increaseinhuntingandfishingpressureduetonewaccesstoremotearea.•Existingfisheryintheimpoundmentzonewouldbelost;somereplacementmaybepossible;turbidreservoirsmayreduceopportunities.•NewaccesscouIddecreasefisheryresourcesbyallowingoverfishingofareastreamsandlakes.•DevilCanyonRapidsandVeeCanyonRapids•inundated-significantwhitewaterboatingopportunities.•Lossofpotentialriverboatingopportunities.•Newopportunitiespossibleonreservoir;butlimitedduetowind,turbidwaters,anddrawdowns.Lossoflandusedfordispersedrecreationalactivities.•Increasedinrecreationdemandduetonewaccessandinfluxofpeopleduringconstructionandoperation.•Newaccesstothreeremoteareasincreasinghuntingpressure.•Fishingpatternsalteredatallsites.Somereplacementmaybepossiblebynewimpoundment;however,turbidreservoirswouldreducetheopportunities.•Significantfishingareaslost.•Notablerapidslostonfourrivers.Significantlossofwhitewaterboatingononeriver.•Impactstoboatingopportunitiesonfiverivers,significantimpactstoboatingonthreerivers.•Lossoflargeareasoflandusedforland-basedrecreation.•Inundationoftworiversandonestreamrecommendedforstateprotectionandnumeroussmallsitesrecommendedforstaterecreation.•Impactstosightseeingfromthreemajortravelroads,railroad,twoNationalParks,andoneNationalForest.•Substantialincreaseinrecreationdemandduetofiveprojectsindifferentareasofthestate;project-inducedpopulationincreasesandproximityofsitestomajortravelroutes.•Fishingpatternsalteredduetochangesinexistingflowpatternsanddiversions.•LossofboatingpotentialinChakachatnaRiver.•IncreasedusetoLakeClarkNationalParkbynewaccessintowilderness.•Increaseduseofareaduetoincreaseinproject-inducedpopulation.•IncreaseinhuntinginTradingBay-StateGameRefuge.•Lossofover110,000acresofhuntingland,someheavilyused.•Increaseincompetitionbyhuntersduetoaccesstoremoteareas.•3,200acresofmoderatelyusedmoosehuntingareainundated.•Increaseddemandonhuntingandfishingresourcesduetoincreaseinaccesstoremotearea.•LossofforestservicecabinlocatedonParadiseLake.•Newboatingopportunitespossibleonreservoir,butlimitedduetoturbidwaters,windanddrawdowns.•IntrusiononwildernesshikingexperienceinChugachNationalForest.•ImpactstoviewsfromSewardHighwayandAlaskaRailroad.•Potentialtoincreaseuseoftheareaviaincreasedaccess.oftheareaviatodownstreamwhichisalsondprivateltingareaisrecommendedIterboating1reservoir,butjdrawdowns.tedanddispersedingresourcesIrea.nproject-inducedTable7COMPARISONSOFRECREATIONRESOURCESANDIMPACTSAMONGNON-SUSITNAHYDROALTERNATIVESANDTHESUSITNAPROJECT Table7 -COMPARISONOFRECREATIONRESOURSESANDIMPACTSAMONGNISUBJECTAJOHNSONBROWNEKEETNA,•TananaRiverheavilyusedforprivateandcommercial•NenanaRiverheavilyusedforrivertraveland•TalkeetnaRiverconsideredoneofthefinestwhite•Projectsiboating.moderatelyusedforrecreationalboatingandfishing.waterraftingareasinState.•Areausee•CharterboatservicelocatedatDotLake.•ParksHighwayandAlaskaRailroadaremajortourist•TalkeetnaRiverusedheavily(aportionofwhichiswildernel•TananaRiverproposedbytheStateasamultiple-useroutes.withinimpoundmentzone)bycharterboats.•Forestselriver.•Developedrecreationfacilitieswithinimpounament•HeavyfishingoccursinTalkeetnaRiveranditsLakewitl•TananaRiversupportsmoderatelevelofsportfishing.areaincludetrails,restarea,andscenicoverlookstributaries.•SewardI-RECREATIONRESOURCES•Intensivefishingoccursinnumberofsmalllakesin•Moderatelevelsofhunting,fishing,andhikingoccur•TalkeetnaRivercorridorreceivessignificantamountsmilesofeinprojectarea.ofhikingandhuntinguse.projectarea.•Significantamountsofhuntinginprojectarea.•Impoundmentapproximately3milesfromDenali•TalkeetnaRiverrecommendedasaStateRecreationNationalParkboundary.River.•Numerousmultiple-usetrailsthroughoutprojectarea.•Threeareaswithinprojectareaarerecommendedas•AlaskaHighway(aportionofwhichwithinStaterecreationsitesandreserve.impoundmentzone)ismajortouristroute.•94,500acresoflandusedforbigandsmallgame12,500acresofmoderatelyusedhuntingareas,.5,500acresofheavilyusedmoosehuntingarea•3,200acrhunting,inundated.inundated.inundated.inundate«•Increasedemandonhuntingandfishingresourcesdue•FishingopportunitieslostinNenanaRiver.•Increaseddemandonhuntingandfishingresources•Increasedtoincreaseinaccesstoremoteareas.•Potentialnewopportunitiesintheimpoundmentforduetoincreaseinaccesstoaremotearea.toincreal•FishingopportunitieslostinTananaRiverandlakessubsistencefishingbutnotrecreationalfishingdueto•Fishingopportunitieslostforsalmonupstreamofdam.•Lossoffiwithintheimpoundmentzone.turbidwater.•ExistingfisheryintheimpoundmentzonewouldbenoreplacturbidWe•Potentialnewopportunitiesintheimpoundmentfor•Salmonabovethesitethatcontributetodownstreamlost;potentialreplacementbyreservoirmayoccur.subsistencefishingbutnotrecreationalfisheryduetofisheriesmaybelost.•Salmonabovethesitethatcontributetodownstream•Lossoffcturbidwater.•Popularintermediatelevelkayakingcourseinundated.fisheriesmaybelost.•Newboat•Salmonabovethesitethatcontributetodownstream•LossoffreeflowingsectionofNenanaRiverwhichis•Damwouldblocksignificantwhitewaterboatinglimiteddlfisheriesmaybelost.intensivelyusedforrivertravelbyallboaters.corridor.•Intrusion•LossofTowerBluffrapidsandwhitewaterboating.•Limitedreservoirboatingopportunitiesavailabledue•LossofexistingpopularcommercialandprivateNationalRECREATIONIMPACTS•Lossofpopularcommercialandprivateboatingtowind,turbidwater,andextensivedrawdowns.boatingopportunities.•Impactstlresourceandtransportationcorridorwithcharter•Lossoflandusedfordispersedrecreationalactivities.•Newboatingopportunitiespossibleonreservoir,butRailroad.boatsonTananaRiver.•Lossofrecommendedstaterecreationareas(Junelimitedduetowind,turbidwater,anddrawdowns.•Potential•Limitedreservoirboatingopportunitiesavailabledueaccess.towind,turbidwater,andextensivedrawdowns.Creek,BearCreekandKobeHill).•Lossoflandusedheavilyfortrail-relatedanddispersedrecreationalactivities:•Lossoflandusedfordispersedrecreationalactivities.•LossofrestareaonGeorgeParksHighway.•InundationofTalkeetnaRiverwhichisrecommended•TananaRiver,recommendedasstatemultiple-useriver•RelocationofpartsofGeorgeParksHighwayandasaStateRecreationRiver.willbeinundated.AlaskaRailroadeliminatingexistingviewsandprovidingviewsofproject.•InundationofDisappointmentCreekwhichisalso•InundationofportionofAlaskaHighwayandlossofIncreaseinrecreationdemandduetolossofexistingrecommendedforprotection.relatedrecreationactivitiessuchascamping,sightseeing,andwildlifeviewing.facilities/areasandincreaseinproject-induced•Potentialtosubstantiallyincreaseuseoftheareaviapopulation.airandroadaccess.•Increaseincompetitionforexistingfacilitiesand•Increaseduseofareaduetoincreaseinproject-induceddemandforadditionalfacilitiesduetoprojectinducedpopulation.population. ~CTSAMONGNON-SUSITNAHYDROALTERNATIVESANDTHESUSITNAPROJECTALTERNATIVESSNOWCHAKACHAMNATOTALNON-SUSITNAHYDROSUSITNAofTalkeetnaIs.ecreationRiver.tine.1Rockand•Veryhighscenicvalue.•ModeratevisualsensitivityduetoSewardHighwayandAlaskaRailroadpassingclosebyandrecreationaluseofthearea.•NotablescenicattractionsincludetheSnowRiverGorge,ParadiseLakes,andParadisePeak.•Highscenicvalue.•ModeratevisualsensitivityduetositebeingwithinMerrillPossaircorridor.•NotablescenicattractionsincludeChakachatnaRiverCanyon,ChakachamnaLake,andsurroundingmountains.•Threesiteslocatedinareasofhighscenicvalue,twositesinareasofmoderatetohighscenicvalue,•Twositeslocatedinareasofhighvisualsensitivityandthreesitesinareasofmoderatevisualsensitivity.•Projectsitesincludeanumberofnotablescenicattractions.Moderatetohighscenicvalue.•Moderatetolowvisualsensitivityduetolimitedrecreationalactivitiesinareasaccessedviaplane,orboat.•NotablescenicattractionsincludeDevilandVeecanyons,DeadmanandDevilCreekfalls,andBigandDeadmanlakes.•Projectfacilities,excepttransmissionlines,wouldonlybevisiblefromprojectaccessroad.Mudflatsandbeacherosionwouldbevisibletousersofreservoirs.•3,800acresoflandwouldbeinundatedinareasofmoderatescenicvalue.•Twodams(DevilCanyon-646foothighandWatana-385foothigh)wouldbevisibleinasceniccanyonareaandwouldcontrastwiththesurroundinglandscapesetting.•DevilandVeecanyonswouldbepartiallyinundated.•DeadmenCreekFallswouldbeinundated.•Constructionoffacilitiesinanareathatispredominantlywilderness.•Projectfacilitiesandtransmissionlineswouldbevisible•Viewsofprojectfacilitiesandreservoirswouldbetorecreationalusersandairtrafficinamajorairextensiveduetodisturbanceoffourmajortraveltrafficcorridor.routes.•102,000acresoflandwouldbeinundatedinareasofmoderatetohighscenicvalue.•Approximately280milesoftransmissioncorridorroutedinareaswithhighvisualsensitivity.•Significantvisualimpactswouldoccurduetorelocationofexistingtravelroutesandutilities.•Directandindirecteffectswouldoccurtoseveralareasofscenicvaluelocatedalongsceniccorridors.•Directandindirecteffectswouldoccurtoseveralstateandnationallysignificantareas.•Projectfacilities,includingtransmissionlinesandthedam,wouldbevisiblefromSewardHighwayandAlaskaRailroad.•Minoramountoferosionandmudflatsvisibletousers.•Someshorelineerosionandmudflatswouldbevisibletousers.•SnowRiverGorgewouldbeinundated.•VisualimpactswouldoccurinNationalForestWildernessAreas,•90milesoftransmissionlinewouldbeconstructedinhighlyscenicvalleys.•50milesoftransmissionlinewouldbeconstructedina310fd d'df'I"Id'dhighlyscenicareawherenolinescurrentlyexist.•ootamanassociateaCIItleswouInunatepartofascenicvalleythatispredominantlywilderness.•AsignificantreductioninflowthroughChakachatnaH'hi'Soh F k S VIIIdbRiverCanyon,woulddiminishthescenicappealofthe• .IgYscemcutornowaeywouearea.Inundated.RockandngTalkeetnabletolocalusers.wouldinundate~nificant:entlanddisposal::;reek,i,wouldbeTable8COMPARISONSOFAESTHETICRESOURCESANDIMPACTSAMONGNON-SUSITNAHYDROALTERNATIVESANDTHESUSITNAPROJECT Tablea-COMPARISONSOFAESTHETICRESOURCESANDIMPACTSAMONGNSUBJECT~JOHNSONBROWNEKEETNA•Moderatescenicvalue.•Highscenicvalue.•Moderatetohighscenicvalue.•Veryh•AlaskaHighwaycorridorrecommendedbystatefor•VeryhighvisualsensitivityduetopresenceofParks•ModeratevisualsensitivityduetouseofTalkeetna•Moderascenicprotection.Highway,AlaskaRailroad,riveruse,andproximitytoRivercorridorandrecentlanddisposals.Alaska•HighvisualsensitivityduetopresenceofAlaskaDenaliNationalPark.•Talkeetna.RiverproposedasaStateRecreationRiver.ofthecAESTHETICRESOURCESHighwayinprojectarea.•SegmentsofParksHighwayrecommendedforscenic•Notabhhighwaydesignation.•NotablescenicattractionsincludeSentineJRockandGorge,•NotablescenicattractionsincludeTowerBluffRapids.GraniteGeorge.•Notable,scenicattractionsareKobeHill,astaterecommendedscenictrail,andnumerousoverlooksonParksHighway.•Projectfacilitiesanddamwouldbehighlyvisiblefrom•ProjectfacilitieswouldbehighlyvisiblefromDenali•Projectfacilitieswouldbevisibletosignificant•ProjectAlaskaHighway.NationalPark,GeorgeParksHighway,andAlaskanumbersofrivercorridorusersandrecentlanddisposaldam,w•TransmissionlineswouldbevisiblefromhighwayandRailroad.ownersinthearea.AlaskaotherviewsfromTananaValley.•TransmissionlineswouldbevisiblefromDenali•TransmissionlinewouldbevisiblealongTalkeetna•Minora•ShorelineerosioncouldbeextensiveduetoopennessNationalParkandNenanaValley.River.•90mileandsizeofreservoir.•ExtensivemudflatswouIdbevisiblefromParks•Someslumpingandbeacherosionvisibletolocalusers.highly~LargemudflatswouldbevisiblefromAlaskaHighwayHighwayandAlaskaRailroad.•415footdamandassociatedfacilitieswouldinundate•310focandtootherrecreationalusers.•Additionalvisualimpactscouldoccurduetorelocationpartofahighlyscenicvalley.partof•Icefoggingcouldreducevisibilityinvalley.ofexistingtransmissionline.•TalkeetnaRiverandDisappointmentCreek,•Highly!"•210footdamandassociatedfacilitieswoulddominate•265footdamandassociatedfacilitieswoulddominaterecommendedasscenicrivercorridors,wouldbeinundatthevalley'svisualcharacterandstronglycontrastwithinundated.thevalley'svisualcharacterandstronglycontrastwiththesurroundinglandsacpe.•SnowAthesurroundinglandscape.•NotablescenicattractionsofSentinelRockandAESTHETICIMPACTS•Crestlengthofdamwhichis3,000feetwouldbeGraniteGorgewouldbeinundated.•Visuali•Crestlengthofdamwouldbe6,400feetandwouldbehighlyvisible.Wildernhighlyvisible.•ExtensivecutsduetorelocationofAlaskaHighwayCutsandfillsfromrelocationofParksHighwayandwouldbevisible.AlaskaRailroadwouldbevisible.•AlaskahighwayhasbeenrecommendedforscenicPortionsofNenanaRiverhavebeenreommendedasaStateRecreationRiver.protection.•TananaRiverhasbeenrecommendedasamultiple-usePortionsofGeorgeParksHighwaywhichhasbeenrivercorridorthatprovidesforprotectionofvisualrecommendedasascenichighway,wouldbeinundated.resources.DamabutmentwouldbeconstructedonKobeHill,•TowerBluffRapids,whichisofnotablescenicquality,recommendedasascenicstatetrailandPublicRecreationReserve.wouldbeinundated.•LandinTananaValleywhichhasmoderatescenicquality,wouldbeinundated. -ACTSAMONGNON-SUSITNAHYDROALTERNATIVESANDTHESUSITNAPROJECTALTERNAT IVES,SNOWCHAKACHAMNATOTALNON-SUSITNAHYDROSUSITNA,•4,110.1,870.123,370•57,620•Importantspring,fall,andwinterrange.•Importantwinterareasinriparianhabitatabovelake•Importantyear-roundhabitat'(especiallycalvingand•Approximately1.5moose/mi2.Importantandinriverdrainages.winteringareas).Johnsonprojectwouldsubstantiallyyear-roundhabitatespeciallywinterrangeandimpactlocalmoosepopulationicalvingarea.IIlocalizedherds.•Caribounotpresent.Dallsheepandmountaingoats•Littlecaribouuseofarea.Dallshe~pmainlyathigher•Littleuseofareabycaribou.Littleuseofareasby•Caribouspringandfallmigrationcrossingarea.;insurroundingmainlyathigherelevationsinsurroundingmountains.elevationsnorthoftheChilliganRiver.Dallsheep.Increasedaccessmayresultinlong-termImportantsitespecificareaforDallsheep(ie.lick).Itinlong-termIncreasedaccessmayresultinlong-termimpactsonimpactsonlocalwildlifepopulations.Increasedaccessmayresultinlong-termimpactsonlocalwildlifepopulations.localwildlifepopulations.)wnbearuseof•Blackbearuseoffloodplainarea.Brownbearuseof•Highaltituderiparianzonesimportanttobrownbear.•Nodataondenninginareas.Keetnaprojectwillimpact•Importantyear-roundhabitatforblackbearincludingltensivebrownhighaltituderipariancommunities.Highblackbearuseofriparianzonearoundlakeandinintensivebrownbearuseofcriticalsalmonstreams(eg.denning.Importantspringhabitatforbrownbear.hatwouldberiverdrainages.BrownbearseasonalspecificuseofPrairieCreek).Lake Chakachamnaprojectwillimpact.drainageduringsalmonruns.brownbearuseofChilliganandChakachatnaRiversisalmonfisheries.Allsitescontainimportantyear-roundblackbearhabitat(especiallyriparianzones).:Itsalongriver.•Importantriparianhabitatalongriverandon•Importantriparianhabitataroundlakeandalong•Importantriparianhabitatalongrivers.•Importantriparianandforestedhabitatsalongriver.floodplain.river.Ifluse.•Baldeaglenestingarea.Waterfowlnestingandmolting•Trumpeterswannestingareasindrainages.Molting•Nestinglocationsatallsitesforraptors(especiallybald•Nestinglocationsforbaldeagles,goldeneagles,andarea.areaforTulewhite-frontedgoose.Drainagesinmajoreagles).PeregrinefalconnestlocationsatJohnsonsite.goshawks.Lowwaterfowluse.migrationcorridor.ImportantwaterfowlnestingandrestingareasatJohnsorandLakeChakachamnasites.TrumpeterswannestingareasassociatedwithLakeChakachamnaproject.Table9COMPARISONOFTERRESTRIALRESOURCESANDIMPACTSAMONGNON-SUSITNAHYDROALTERNATIVESANDTHESUSITNAPROJECT Table9-COMPARISONOFTERRESTRIALRESOURCESANDIMPACTSAMONGNOSUBJECTAIJOHNSONBROWNEKEETNA1.AREAINUNDATEDORAFFECTED(Acres)98,160·13,090·6,140.4,110•Approximately1moose/mi2.•Approximately1-1.5moose/mi2.•Importantyear-roundhabitat.•Important2.MOOSEImportantyear-roundhabitatespeciallywinterrangeImportantyear-roundhabitat.andcalvingarea.•Littleuseoftheareabycaribouexceptinsevere•Cariboufrequentthefoothillsnearimpoundment.•Littleuseoftheareabycaribou-smalllocalizedherds.•Caribounc3.OTHERBIGGAMEwinters.OallsheepmainlypresentathigherelevationsOallsheepmainlypresentathigherelevationsinOallsheepmainlyathigherelevationsinsurroundingmainlyatIinsurroundingmountains.surroundingmountai'1s.mountains.Increasedaccessmayresultinlong-termIncreasedcimpactsonlocalwildlifepopulations.localwildli•Brownbearuseinearlyspring.Highuseofvalley•Importantbrownbearhabitatinsurroundingfoothills.•Blackbearuseoffloodplainarea.Brownbearuseof•Blackbearbottomsbyblackbears.Lowblackbearuseofarea.highaltituderipariancommunities.IntensivebrownhighaltitUl4.BLACK/BROWNBEARbearuseofanadromousfishstreamsthatwouldbeblockedbyproject.5.FURBEARERS•Importantriparianhabitatalongriverandinwetland•Importantriparianhabitatalongriver.•Importantriparianandforestedhabitatsalongriver.•Importantandforestedareaswithinthefloodplain.floodplain.•Importantnestingareaforbaldeagles,goldeneagles,•Littleraptororwaterfowldataavailable.•Baldeaglenestingarea.Lowwaterfowluse.•BaldeagleI6.RAPTORS/WATERFOWLandred-tailedhawks.Fourperegrinefalconnestarea.locations(threeactive)alongshorelineofimpoundmentarea.Importantwaterfowlnesting,molting,andrestinghabitat.Majormigrationcorridor. 'ACTSAMONGNON-SUSITNAHYDROALTERNATIVESANDTHESUSITNAPROJECT1.ALT ERNATI VESSUSITNASNOWCHAKACHAMNATOTALNON-SUSITNAHYDROresent,spawning•Nospawningaboveimpoundmentzone.•Largenumbersofsockeyespawnintributariesabove•Salmonfoundupstreamofallsites(exceptSnow).•Nonerecorded;passageessentiallypreventedbyDevilveandsupportsathesite;escapementestimatedat40,000adults.~IHighlysignificantnumbersareknowntoexistCanyon..certainperiodsupstreamofKeetnaandChakachamnasites.intment·Creek•Reportsindicatethatsockeyearepresentinlower•Somesockeyespawningareascouldbewithinthe•Salmonpresentin allimpoundmentzones;Johnson•Noneexceptforafewchinook;passagetothisareaisParadiseLake(seetextfordetails).drawdownzone;juvenilesockeyeuseChakachamnaandKeetnaimpoundmentsencompassknownessentiallypreventedbyDevilCanyon.forrearing.spawningsites.Iydownstreamof•SockeyeandcohospawninlowerSnowRiver;allfive•Allfivesalmonspeciesutilizedownstreamareasineither•Allsiteshavesignificantsalmonhabitatdownstream.•Allspeciesutilizeeitherdownstreamareasorrtreamareasorspeciesutilizeeitherdownstreamareasortributaries,theChakachatnaorMcArthurRivers.Totalnumbertributaries.particularlyintheKenaiRiver.ofadultsintheseriversareapproximately60,000."tandcommercial•Significantandhighlyimportantsportandcommercial•Believedtobesignificantandimportanttosportand•Salmonfromallsitespotentiallycontributeto•Significantandhighlyimportantsportandcommercial)werSusitnafisheriesintheKenaiRiverandCookInlet.commercialfisheriesdownstreamandinCookInlet.significantandhighlyimportantcommercialfisheriesfisheriesinlowerSusitnaandCookInlet;noandinsomecasestohighlyimportantsport(e.g.,contributionbyareaupstreamofDevilCanyon.KenaiRiver)andsubsistencefisheries.byinundation.•Tentativedisruptionofupstreamanddownstream•Lossofspawningandrearinghabitatbyimpoundment•Lossofsignificantspawningandrearinghabitatby•Changesindownstreamrearingandspawninghabitat.passage(seetextforclarification)levelchahges.inundation.~ampassage.,Irearinghabitat.•Tentativelossofspawningandrearinghabitatby•Disruptiononupstreamanddownstreampassage,•Disruptionofupstreamanddownstreampassage.inundation.particularlyfordiversionfromoneriversystemtoamofsite.another.•Extensiveareasofdownstreamspawningandrearing•Changesindownstreamspawningandrearinghabitat.habitatchanged.•Extensivechangesindownstreamspawningandrearing•LossofchumsalmonresourceaboveJohnson,Browne,habitat.andKeetnasites.Table10COMPARISONSOFAQUATICRESOURCESANDIMPACTSAMONGNON-SUSITNAHYDROALTERNATIVESANDTHESUSITNAPROJECT Table10-COMPARISONSOFAQUATICRESOURCESANDIMPACTSAMONG~SUBJECTJOHNSONBROWNEKEETNA•ChumsalmonspawnasfarupstreamastheChisana•Coho,chum,andchinookpresent;cohospawninCoho,chum,sockeye,andchinookpresent,spawning•Nosp.1.ANADROMOUSFISHUPSTREAMOFRiver;escapementfiguresunknown.PanguingneCreek;escapementfiguresunknown.bychinookinPrairieCreekisextensiveandsupportsaIMPOUNDMENT/PROJECTSITEsignificantbrownbearpopulationforcertainperiodsoftheyear.~/•Chum,coho,chinookpresent;chumspawning•Coho,chum,andchinookpresent;escapementfigures•ChumandchinookspawninDisappointment·Creek•Repor2.ANADROMOUSFISH/IMPOUNDMENTZONEobserved;escapementfiguresunknown.unknown.andpotentiallythemainstem.Paradi•Allfivespeciesutilizeeitherdownstreamareasor•Allfivespeciesutilizeeitherdownstreamareasor•Chumspawninmainstemimmediatelydownstreamof•Socke3.ANADROMOUSFISH/DOWNSTREAMtributaries.tributaries.damsite;allfivespeciesutilizedownstreamareasorspecietributaries.partie•Extensivelyandextremelyimportantcommercial,•Extensiveandextremelyimportantcommercial,•Significantandhighlyimportantsportandcommercial•Signif4.UTILIZATIONOFANADROMOUSFISHsubsistence,andsportfisheriesinthelowerTananasubsistence,andsportfisheriesinthelowerTananafisheriesinthelowerTalkeetnaandlowerSusitnafisherandYukonrivers.~/andYukonrivers.~/riversandCookInlet.•Lossofspawningandrearingareasbyinundation.•Disruptionofupstreamanddownstreampassage.•Lossofspawningandrearinghabitatbyinundation.•Tenta•Disruptionofupstreamanddownstreampassage.•Changesindownstreamspawningandrearinghabitat.•Disruptionofupstreamanddownstreampassage.passa!•Changesindownstreamspawningandrearinghabitat.•Lossofchumsalmonresourceupstreamofsite.•Changesindownstreamspawningandrearinghabitat.•Tentc5.POTENTIALIMPACTSOFPROJECTONinundANADROMOUSFISH•Lossofchumsalmonresourceupstreamofsite.•Lossofchumsalmonresourceupstreamofsite.•Chan!1/Thismatrixonlyconsidersanadromoussalmon-residentspeciesarediscussedinthetext.DistributionsfortheanadromousspeciesaretakenfromtheAlaskaDepartmentofFishandGame'sAnadromousWatersCatalogue(1983).1/Source:Bentz,Jr..R.W.1982.InventoryandcatalogingofthesportfishandsportfishwatersinupperCookInlet,Table8,page102.~/Source:BechtelCivilandMinerals,Inc.1983.Chakachamnahydroelectricprojectinterimfeasibilityassessmentreport.~/Source:AlaskaDepartmentofFishandGame,1983.AnnualManagementReport1983-Yukonarea.DivisionofCommercialFisheries. TechnicalCommentALT002llSUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTECHNICALCOMMENT:ThejustificationforincludingtheJohnsonProject1nthealternativehydroscenarioisnotapparent.TheDEISstatesthatitis"appropriatetoconsiderthe18sitesthatremainedaftertheApplicant'sfourthiteration."DEISTable1-16,whichsummarizestheresultsofthescreeningprocess,indicatesthatonly10sitespassedthescreening(not18)andthattheJohnsonsitewasnotincludedinthese10sites.Johnsonwaseliminatedinthefourthiteration.TOPICAREA:Alternatives,HydroelectricSelectionofnon-SusitnahydroalternativesParagraphs2and3ofpageSection1.3.2Vol1Page1-30COMMENTINREFERENCETO:LOCATIONINDEIS:]]]J]]JJ44131 ]]TechnicalCommentALT003SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:Alternatives,HydroelectricLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol1Page1-30Section1.3.2Paragraph3ofpage]JJCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:Constructioncostsusedforthenon-Susitnahydroelectricalternatives]]]]]]]JJ')JTECHNICALCOMMENT:ReferringtoDEISTable1-18,theestimatedcostsinthetablearethosedevelopedbyAcresin1980(updatedto1982costs),duringthescreeningprocess.ThesecostsarecomparabletothoseonDEISTable1-14(i.e.Watanaatacostof$1860million)andshouldnotbecomparedtoWatanaat$4062million(seeTable1-15)asFERCStaffhasdoneintheiranalysis.Also,thecostforChakachamnaof$905millionislowerthanpreviouslyreported.Thesecostswouldincreasebyafactorof2or3ifthesameunitpricesusedbytheApplicantfortheProposedProjectwereusedtoestimatethecostsofthealternativehydrodevelopments.Inaddition,theinstalledcapacityandaverageannualenergyvaluesshowninDEISTable1-18differfromthoseshowninTableE.10.13andTableD.18oftheLicenseApplication.SeeAppendixIIofthisdocumentforfurtherdiscussionofthecostcomparison.49821 ]]l]]]JJJJ]]JJJTechnicalCommentALT004SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:Hydroelectric,Alternatives,ConstructionCost,EnergyProductionLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol1Page1-30Section1.3.2Paragraph3ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:Estimatedtotalcost,installedcapacity,andaverageannualenergyofhydroelectricalternativesTECHNICALCOMMENT:Thereisnoapparentbasisforthe1982costspresentedintheDEISjallareconsideredtobeunrealisticallylow,givingthefalseimpressionthatthenon-SusitnahydroalternativesconsideredintheDEISmayhaveaneconom~cadvantageoverSusitna.Areasonable1982levelcostevaluation,basedonacommonescalationof1981pricesevaluatedintheDevelopmentSelectionReport(Acres1981),~spresentedinAppendixIIofthisdocument.Thiscostevaluation(Table10)showsthealternativehydroprojectstobemuchmoreexpensivethanSusitna.TheinstalledcapacitiesandenergyproductionofthehydroalternativespresentedinTable1-18areincorrect.TheinstalledcapacitiesofChakachamnaandSnoware33MWand37MWless,respectively,thanshown~nDEISTable1-18.Theenergyproductionandseasonalregulationofflowsbythealternativehydroprojectswillbelimitedbythelowsummerdemandcoupledwithhighminimumflowrequirements.Whenthefivealternativehydroprojectsareconsideredasasystem,theiraverageannualenergyproductionis21%lessthanthatestimatedbyHEC-5intheDEIS.ThefollowingtableshouldbeusedtoreviseTable1-18oftheDEIS.49851 TechnicalCommentALT004Page2TotalInstalledAverageAnnualAlternat iveCapacityofEnergyofInvestigatedAlternativeAlternative(MW)(GWh)Johnson210423Chakachamna1_13001,152Snow63266Keetna100429Browne100444I_IAlternativeD(Bechtel1983)Thedependablecapacityofthealternativehydroprojectswillalsobeseverelyhamperedbythehighminimumsummerflowrequirements.Forexample,theChakachamnadependablecapacity,asestimatedbytheApplicant,isonlyabout110MW.Documentationoftheforegoing1.SpresentedinChapter9ofAppendixIIofthisdocument. '(1l]]J]TechnicalCommentALT005SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:AirQualityLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol1Page2-13Section2.1.9Paragraph3ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:Airqualitypermitsrequiredfortheproposedproject.TECHNICALCOMMENT:ThelistofrequiredairqualitypermitsdescribedintheDEISisnotcorrect.TheEPSnolongerconductsairqualitypermittinginAlaska.AllairqualitypermittinginthestateisconductedbytheAlaskaDept.ofEnvironmentalConservation,undertheAlaskaAdministrativeCode,Title18,Chapter50.ConstructionoftheWatanadamwouldrequirecompliancewiththefollowing.:1ooPermittoOperate,~naccordancewith18AAC.50.300(a)(1);PreventionofSignificantDeterioration(PSD)review,~naccordancewith18AAC.50.300(a)(6).~-.Jc-,]]J.-],-.-1Thelistofpermitsonpage2-13oftheDEISshouldberevisedtoreflectthesechanges.45411 ]]]TechnicalCommentALT006SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:Specificationsforcoal-thermalunitsarenotcomplete.TOPICAREA:AirQuality,CoalPlants]LOCATIONINDEIS:Vol1Page2-39Section2.4.1Paragraph8ofpageJ]~lJ]TECHNICALCOMMENT:TheDEISdoesnotdescribetheproposedcoal-firedpowerplantsinenoughdetailtoallowthereadertoassessthetechnical,environmentalandeconomicfeasibilityofthisalternative.ThefollowingengineeringdatashouldbeprovidedintheFEIS.TheseengineeringissuesarediscussedinAppendixIIIofthisdocument.1.Howthecoalwillbetransportedfromthem~nestothepowerplants.2.Forfugitivedustcalculations,howlargethecoalstockpileswillbe.]J3.4.5.6.Thequantityofflyash/bottomashthatwillbeproduced,andwhereitwillbedisposedof.Whatthequalityofthecoaltobeusedis.Whetherornotthecoalqualitywillbeconstantforthelifeoftheproject.Thequantityoflime/limestonetobeusedintheS02scrubber,itssourceandhowitwillbetransported,stored,andprocessed.Thequantityofspentlimestone/sulfursludgethatwillbegenerated,andhowitwillbediposedof.J49861 TechnicalCommentALT006Page27.HowNOxemissionswillbecontrolled.8.Forpreventionoficefogformation,howthewatervaporfromthecoolingtowersandboileremissionswillbecontrolled.49861 ll_JJ]]rJ.]]]]]I~JTechnicalCommentALT007SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:AirQuality,CoalPlants,NaturalGasPlantsLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol1Page2-39Section2.4.1Paragraph8ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:CoalunitparametersandcostsTECHNICALCOMMENT:TheFEISshouldprovideamuchmoredetaileddescriptionofthethermalpowerplants.Manyoftheenvironmentalimpactsoftheplantswilldependonthespecificunitsandoperationsused.Adetaileddescriptionofthegas-firedandcoal-firedplantsisprovided1nAppendixIIIofthisdocument.TheexpandedprojectdescriptionsintheFEISshouldaddressthekeypointsnotedinTechnicalCommentALT006.AsdiscussedinTechnicalCommentALT015,it1SpossiblethattheS02controlefficiencythatwouldberequiredtomeetBACTwillrequireuseofawetlimestoneS02scrubberinsteadofthedryscrubberassumedintheDEIS.TheFEISshouldthereforedescribeboththedryS02scrubberandthewetlimestonescrubber.TheFEISshouldalsoprovideacostcomparisonofthetwoS02scrubbertypes.46521 l]TechnicalCommentALT008SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:AirQuality,CoalPlants,NaturalGasPlants]]LOCATIONINDEIS:Vol1Page2-39Section2.4.1Paragraph8ofthepage(Table2-5)]J]JJCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:AdditionalinputdatarequiredtointerpretTable2-5TECHNICALCOMMENT:TheFEISshoulddiscusstheengineeringassumptionsthatareneededtointerprettheeconomicdatainTable2-5andAppendixTableG-8.Theeconomicanalysesandtheenvironmentalimpactsofthecoal-firedpowerplantalternativesdependverystronglyontheengineeringassumptionsused.ThefinalFEISshoulddiscussthetopicslistedbelow,manyofwhichareaddressedindetailinAppendixIIIofthisdocument.]]]J1.2.Thecostandenvironmentalimpactsofthecoal-firedpowerplantswilldependonthelong-termcoalquality.TheFEISshouldpresentdatacomparingthecoalqualityofthemajorcoalfieldsinthecentralAlaskanregion.Thefollowingcoalpropertiesshouldbediscussed:coalreserves;heatcontent;ashcontentandsulfurcontent(SeeTechnicalCommentALT079).SeeAppendixIIIofthisdocumentforadescriptionofcoalquality.TheS02andNOxcontrolequipmentusedintheeconomicanalysesarebasedonlyonmeetingtheFederalNewSourcePerformanceStandards(NSPS)forthosepollutants.TheNSPSareinfacttheminimumallow-ablelevelsofcontrol.TherequiredlevelsofemissioncontrolwouldactuallybespecifiedbytheAlaskaDepartmentofEnvironmentalCon-servation(ADEC)duringtheBestAvailableControlTechnology(BACT)analysisthatisrequiredforthePSDpermitfortheplants.TheBACT49871 TechnicalCommentALT008Page2requirementforS02controlefficiencyhasnotyetbeenestablishedbyADEC(MacClarence,1984).ItwillnotbeestablisheduntilaPSDpermitapplicantsubmitsadetailedcosteffectivenessanalysisforvariouspollutioncontrolequipment.Itcouldrequiremorethanthe70%controlsassumedintheDEIS(SeeTechnicalCommentALT01S).TheS02controlequipmentneededtocomplywithamorestringentBACTrequirementmaywellbemorecomplexandexpensivethanwouldthedryS02scrubbersspecified~ntheDEIS.ADECwoulddecidewhetherthereductioninS02emissionsattainedbyswitchingtowetlimestonescrubberswouldjustifytheirhighercost.TheengineeringandeconomicaspectsofmorestringentS02andNOxcontrolrequirementsshouldbeaddressedintheFEIS.SeeAppendixIIIofthisdocumentforatechnicaldescriptionofwetlimestoneS02scrubbers.49871 lllTechnicalCommentALT009TOPICAREA:Alternatives,HydroelectricLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol1Page2-41Section2.5.1Paragraph1ofthepageSUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMlJJJJCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:alternativehydrosites.Sitedescriptionsandavailableinformationon]]J]]JJJJTECHNICALCOMMENT:AlthoughtheinformationthatisavailablefortheBrowne,Johnson,KeetnaandSnowsitesislessdetailedthanfortheChakachamna(andSusitna)site,thereissufficientinformationtorejectthesesitescomparedtotheProposedProjectsite.ThePowerAuthorityhasdetailedthisinformation1nAppendixIIofthisdocument.ThisAppendixprovidestherationalefortherejectionbythePowerAuthorityofthenon-SusitnahydroalternativesproposedbytheDEISandestablishesthattheyshouldnotbepreferredalternativestotheProposedProject.44131 JTechnicalCommentALTOlO]JJSUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTECHNICALCOMMENT:Therecommendedprojectlayout(Bechtel1983,RecommendedLayoutE)isnotreflectedintheDEISfigure.Asignificantlyhighertotalconstructioncostandcostperkilowattwillberealizedbytherecommendedplanbecauseoftheinclusionofbothanembankmentdamandfishtransferfacilitiesinvolvinga930-ftlongapproachchannelanda3,000-ftlongtransfertunnelbetweenLakeChakachamnaandtheChakachatnaRiver.Inaddition,regulationofminimumdischargetotheChakachatnaRiverwillresultinalowerinstalledcapacitythanoriginallyintended,from500MWto330MW.ThisrecommendeddesignwasapartoftheLicenseApplication,andisdiscussedfurtherinAppendixIIofthisdocument.TOPICAREA:Hydroelectric,AlternativesCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:ProjectlayoutforChakachamnaParagraph3ofthepageVol1Page2-41Section2.5.1(Figure2-20)LOCATIONINDEIS:J]JJJ]J]]]]JJJJ49631 JlJJ]TechnicalCommentALTOIISUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:Alternatives,Hydroelectric,TransmissionLinesandCorridors,Impacts]LOCATIONINDEIS:Vol1Page2-45Section2.5.3J]J]]J]]]]]JJCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:Discussionoftransmissionlinesforalternativeplantsites.TECHNICALCOMMENT:Ingeneral,thealternativesdiscussionlacksdetailregardingthesitingandconstructionofthetransmissionlines.SuchlackofdetailmakesitdifficulttoadequatelyevaluateandcompareimpactsofthealternativestotheProposedProject.RefertomapsandtextofAppendixIIofthisdocumentformoreinformation.47361 ]lJJ]TechnicalCommentALT012SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:Hydroelectric,Alternatives,TransmissionLinesandCorridorsCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:Requiredtransmissionfornon-Susitnahydroelectricalternativesl___JJLOCATIONINDEIS:VolIPage2-45Section2.5.3AllParagraphs]J]J]J]JJ]TECHNICALCOMMENT:Thesectiondiscussestransmissionalternativesforthenon-SusitnahydrositestoexistingsubstationsinthevicinityofeitherAnchorageorFairbanks,ortothe"Intertie".TheDEISdoesnotdiscussindetail(orincludeintheconstructioncosts)theIntertieupgradingneedsforhandlingthealternativehydrogeneration.ExaminationoftheissuebytheApplicantindicatesthatIntertieupgradingneedsarecomparabletothoserequiredforSusitnabothinextentandconstructioncost.InclusionoftransmissioncostsandIntertieupgradingcosts,whichareomittedintheDEIS,wouldhaveasignificanteffectontheeconomicsofthenon-Susitnahydroelectricalternatves.SeeAppendixIIofthisdocumentforadiscussionofthenon-Susitnahydrotransmissionrequirements.49831 lJ]TechnicalCommentALT013SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:TransmissionLinesandCorridors,Alternatives,Hydroelectric]JJTOPICAREA:LOCATIONINDEIS:Vol1Page2-45Section2.5.3Paragraph6ofpageTransmissionlinedistanceofBrowneandKeetnasites.]TECHNICALCOMMENT:Thedistancesgiven1ntheDEIS(5and20miles)forconnectingtheBrowneandKeetnatransmissionlinestotheIntertiearemilesfromtheIntertie.]J]JJJJreversed.TheFEISshouldstatethatBrowneis20milesandKeetnais5J44411 ]TechnicalCommentALT014SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMLOCATIONINDEIS:]TOPICAREA:TransmissionLinesandCorridors,AlternativesVol1Page2-46Section2.5.3Paragraph2ofpage]JJJJCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:Transmissionlinesrelatedtogas-firedcombined-cycleandcombustionturbineunits.TECHNICALCOMMENT:Applicant'sstudiesassumedthatgas-firedcombustionturbineunitswouldbelocatedinmetropolitanareasand,thus,wouldutilizeexistingtransmissionanddistributionfacilities.However,such~snotthecaseforcombined-cycleplants.Theseplantsarelarger,wouldbelocatedinremoteareas,andwouldrequirenewtransmissionlinesofvaryinglengths.Theimpactsofthelines,regardlessoftheirlengths,couldbesignificantrelativetosocial/culturalresources.Theselineswouldpresentvisualimpactsandpotentiallanduseandownershipconflicts.Newaccesscreatedbythelinescouldalsoleadtoresourcedegradationthroughoveruse.44421 Summary of estimated salmon escapement by waterbody and drainage for 1982. CHAKACHATNA RIVER ORArNl\GE Chakachatna Straight Bridge Chakachatna Chakachatna Straight Creek Creek Side Channels Canyon Tributary IgHna Chilligan Straight Clearwater Drainage Species Mouth and Sloughs Sloughs (CI)River River Creek Tributary Total - Sockeye Salmon 203 1.193 392 238 2.781 38.576 0 254 43.637 Chinook Salmon 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.422 1.422 Pink Salmon 0 59 279 0 0 0 0 7,925 8.263 Chum Salmon 152 1,482 121 165 0 0 0 0 1,920 Coho Salmon 76 1,560 608 183 0 0 0 172 2,599 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~--------,------- MCARTHUR RIVER DRAINAGE Streamsll:l-----~--fz:-2-------lz:-3----12-:T------n~5SpeciesMcArthurCanyon Sockeye Salmon 666 Chinook Salmon 0 Pink Salmon 60 Chum Salmon 1 Coho Salmon 1,182 Stream 13X 5.416 452 4.225 o 1,378 Stream 13U 1,213 1.633 5.402 23 32 16,711 o 8.499 4 2.000 6.085 22 1.566 o 46 2,512 o 4 o 89 2,328 ·0 18 1 o o o 3 o o Drainage Total 34.933 2.107 19.777 29 4,729 '1;j I-i III CD OQ n CD ::r ::I.po .....n III..... (") i CD ::I l"1' ~ I-io..... 1.0 Source:Bechtel 1980 L-J L-:~~r 1i...--.I L-J L....J L...J L.J l-l r 1 ~~L.J L.J.L.J L.J L.J L.J L.J ]TechnicalCommentALT019Page3lcJ1982SUMMARYEstimatedChakachamnaSalmonEscapementbyWaterbodyandDrainageSource:Bechtel1983ChakachatnaUpstreamofDownstreamRiverTotalDamsiteofDamsiteDrainage41,3572,28034,93378,570------2,1072,107---19,777 19,777---2929---4,7294,72941,3572,28061,575105,212McArthurRiverRiverOverallTotalSpeciesSockeyeChinookPinkChumCoho]JJl~_JJ]]J]]J~l.JJJJ44341 TechnicalCommentALT019Page22.Adultcoho,chum,andchinooksalmonmigrateupstreamoftheBrownedam-site(ADF&G,1983i)andwouldbeblockedbytheBrownedam.Therefore,fishpassagefacilitiesmayberequiredaspartofthemitigationplansfor.thisproject.Thesuccessofsuchfacilitiesisuncertain.Ona'worst-casebasis,allanadromousspeciesupstreamofthesitewouldbeeliminated.Existingresidentfishhabitatinriversandlakeswithintheimpoundmentzonewouldbelost.3.ThereissomeuncertaintywhetherornotsalmonmigrateupstreamoftheSnowRiversite.Theuncertaintyarisesprimarilybecauseofapotentialblockagecausedbyavelocitybarrierwhichmayexistjustdownstreamfromthedamsite(McHenry1984).Onareasonableworst-casebasis,fishpassagefacilitieswouldbeneeded.Existingfishhabitatforgraylingandrainbowtrout10LowerParadiseLake,whichlieswithintheinundationzone,wouldbeeliminated.4.TheKeetnareservoirwouldinundatechumandchinookspawninghabitatandblockthepassageofchinook,chum,cohoandsockeyesalmontoandfromupstreamspawningareas.Theanadromousfishresourcesabovethedamaresignificantnotonlytothedownstreamfisheriesbutalsofortheextensiveutilization(particularlyofchinooksalmon)inPrairieCreekbybrownbears.Thesuccessoffishpassagefacilitiesforthishigh-headdamisuncertain.Onaworst-casebasis,noneofthefishwouldsuccessfullypassthroughthesefacilities.5.AttheChakachamnasite,thepotentiallossof40,000adultsockeyeupstreamofthedamsiteishighlysignificant.FishoccurringdownstreamofthedamsiteandintheMcArthurRivercouldalsobeimpacted,particularlybythediversionofwaterfromoneriversystemtoanother.Thepopulationestimateforthesefish~sapproximately64,000(seeattachedtables).Overall,thenumberofadultspawningsalmonthatcouldbedirectlyaffectedbythisprojectisover100,000.44341lJJJ]JJ]]JJJ]JJJ l'lI.J]l.JTechnicalCommentALT019SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:Mitigation,Salmon,Alternatives,HydroelectricCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:Mitigationforalternativehydrosites"JLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol1Page2-47Section2.7.4Paragraph5ofpage]J]]]]IJJJTECHNICALCOMMENT:Mitigationforimpactstofisheriesresourceswillmostlikelyberequiredforallofthenon-Susitnahydroalternatives,notonlyfortheKeetnaandChakachamnasitesasstatedinthissection.ThedetailsoftheApplicant'sevaluationofimpactsandpotentialmitigationforthoseresourcesatallsitesareprovidedinAppendixIIofthisdocumentandsummarizedbelow.1.TheJohnsonprojectwouldinundatechumsalmonspawningareasandwouldblockupstreammigrationsforchum,chinook,andcohosalmon(ADF&G1983i).Mitigationforimpactstothesespeciesaregenerallyrequired.Thisrequirementwouldmostlikelybethatafishpassagefacilitybeincorporatedintothedamdesign.Theeffectivenessofsuchafacilityisuncertain,especiallyforchumsalmon.Onaworst-casebasis,allofthesefishwouldbelost.Iffishpassagewerenotrequired,itwouldonlybebecausethatlosswouldbemitigatedbysomeothermeans.Residentfishhabitatinriversandlakeswithintheimpoundmentzonewouldalsobelostandmitigationwouldprobablyberequired.44341 ]l]]]]]]J]]]rJ~]JJJJJ ]J]JTechnicalCommentALT018SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:Alternatives,Hydroelectric,FlowRegimeLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol1Page2-47Section2.73Paragraph3ofpage(Table2-7)]'1~J~1JJJJ]J,JJJCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:InconsistencybetweenflowsproposedintheeconomicmodelversusthosepresentedinTable2-7.TECHNICALCOMMENT:TheDEISshouldclarifywhichflowregimeswereusedfortheeconomicanalysisfortheSusitnaandnon-Susitnahydroalternatives.Onpage1-22,Paragraph7,theDEISindicatesthatCaseC(ExhibitB,TableB.54)minimumflowswereusedintheanalysisoftheProposedProjectoutput.However,onpage1-30,paragraph3,theDEISindicatesthattheaverageannualenergyofthealternativesiteswasbasedonhistoricstreamflowdataforeachriverbasin,alongwith"appropriateminimumflowcriteriaforfisheryhabitatmaintenance".These"appropriateminimum"flowsarenotpresentednoraretheyreferencedonDEISpage1-30.However,theminimumflowsarepresentedinTable2-7andthetextonpage2-47paragraph3statesthatthesevalueswereused~ntheeconom~canalysis.ThedifficultyarisesinthatthevaluespresentedinTable2-7form~n~mumflowforSusitnaforthesummer(18,000cfs)andothermonths(2,700cfs)arenottheCaseCscenariovalues.TheCaseCflowsarelowerinsummer(12,000cfs)andhigherinothermonths(5,000cfs)thantheflowsinTable2-7.Therefore,itisunclearwhethertheDEISusedtheCaseCscenarioorthevaluesonTable2-7foritseconomicanalysisoftheProposedProject.44331 ]]l]TechnicalCommentALT017SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:Hydroelectric,Alternatives,FlowRegimeLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol1Page2-47Section2.7.3Allparagraphs:-JCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:Minimumflowsforthealternativehydrosites]]]]JJJJJJTECHNICALCOMMENT:Thespecifiedm~n~mumflowrequirementswillseverelyimpacttheeconomicsandoperationofthenon-Susitnahydroalternatives.RefertoAppendixIIofthisdocument.49631 4.5.6.TechnicalCommentALT016Page2Thehigh-efficiencyparticlecontroldevicesand802scrubberswouldconsumeasignificantfractionofthepowerplantelectricalcapacity,andwouldaddtothescheduledandforcedoutages.Adetailedcompar1sonofthecapitalandoperatingexpensesassociatedwithincreased802andNOxcontrolshouldbepresented.Thecostsof802scrubbersludgedisposalmustbeaddressed.TheproposedmethodsforreducingNOxem1SS1onstobelowtheN8P8levelsmustbedescribed.111JTheseissuesarediscussedinAppendixIIIofthisdocument.46551JJJJJJJJJ ]]]]]]]J]TechnicalCommentALT016SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:AirQuality,CoalPlantsLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol1Page2-46Section2.7.2Paragraph8ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:ThehighNOxandS02mitigationcostsarenotpresented.TECHNICALCOMMENT:TheDEISindicatesthattheverysignificanta~rqualityandvisibilitydegradationimpactscausedbyS02andNOxemissionscanbemitigatedbyinstallingmoreefficientscrubbersonthepowerplants.TheDEISshouldthereforealsoaddressthetechnical,economicandenvironmentalproblemsassociatedwithairpollutioncontroloncoal-firedpowerplantsoperatinginseverenorthernclimates(seeCommentALT007).Specifically,theFEISshoulddiscussthefollowingtopicstoallowathoroughcomparisonofalternatives.]]]JJJ]465511.2.3.ReducingS02em~ss~onsbelowthelevelsspecifiedintheDEISwouldprobablyrequireuseofmorecomplexandmoreexpensivewetlimestonetypescrubbers,ratherthanthedryscrubbersassumedintheDEIS.Thewetlimestonescrubberswouldgenerateacalciumsulfatesludgethatwouldbeexpensiveanddifficulttodisposeofduringthewinter.Disposaloftheflyashandscrubbersludgewouldcreatepossibleenvironmentalproblems. TechnicalCommentALT015Page211unacceptable.BasedontheBACTanalysis,ADECruledthattheproposed~..'.l98.5%S02control(theNSPSlevel)wasunacceptableandimposeda99.90%S02.controlrequirement.BasedontheexampleoftheTesororefinery,itisclearthatADECcouldimposeaBACTS02controlrequirementthatwouldbemorestringentthanthe70%controlsthatwereassumedintheDEIS.TheFEISshouldthereforediscusstheS02controltechniquesthatwouldbeusedtomeetamorestringentBACTrequirement.AppendixIIIofthisdocumentdiscussestheengineeringaspectsofwetlimestoneS02scrubbers.463511J1JJ~J]JJJJJJ ]l]TechnicalCommentALT015SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:AirQuality,CoalPlantsLOCATIONINTHEDEIS:Vol1Page2-46Section2.7.2Paragraph7ofpageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:"Noauqualitymitigationswouldbe"]required•••II]]]]J]]JTECHNICALCOMMENT:TheDEISstatesthatnoadditionalS02orNOxcontrolswouldberequiredforcoal-firedpowerplantsofuptotwounits.TheDEIShasassumedthattherequiredS02andNOxcontrolswouldbeestablishedbytheAlaskaDepartmentofEnvironmentalConservation(ADEC)afteradetailedBestAvailableControlTechnology(BACT)analysis.TheBACTanalysis~spartofthePSDpermitapplication,andisasite-specificcost-effectivenessevaluation.ThePSDapplicantwouldprovideADECwithdetailedcostestimatesforvariouslevelsofpollutantcontrol.Foreachpermitapplication,ADECwoulddecidewhatlevelofcontrolistechnicallyandeconomicallyfeasible.TherehavebeennoPSDpermitsinAlaskaforcoal-firedpowerplants,sonoBACTrequirementsforS02controlatpowerplantshavebeenestablished(MacClarence,1984).However,itislikelythatBACTwouldrequiremorethanthe70%S02control(theNSPSlevel)thatwasassumedintheDEIS.ADEChasrecentlydemonstratedthatBACTcanbemuchmorestringentthanNSP8.ADECreviewedaBACTanalysisfor802controlattheTesorooilrefineryatNikinski.Tesoroproposedinstalling802equipmentfor98.5%802control.AtthatcontrolleveltheNSPSlimitswouldbemet,andtheambientS02wouldconsumeroughly25%oftheavailableP8DClassIIincrement.However,ADECruledthatthe25%incrementalconsumptionwas46351 l]]l]]]TechnicalCommentALT020SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:AirQuality,Thermal,Alternatives,VisualImpactsLOCATIONINTHEDEIS:Vol1Page2-48Section2.7.8Paragraph5ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:PowerplantplumemitigationsTECHNICALCOMMENT:TheDEISstatesthatpotentialdegradationofvisualresourcescausedbythevisibleplumesfromthethermalpowerplantswillbecontrolledbyusing"stateoftheart"emissioncontroldevices.Suchdeviceswouldhavethefollowingimpactonthethermalpoweralternatives:]Jl~j]]1.2.3.Sophisticatedemissioncontrolscouldaddsignificantlytoboththecapitalcostsandoperatingcostsofthethermalpoweralternatives.Theemissioncontroldevicescouldreducethenetgeneratingcapacityofthepowerplantsandcanaddtothescheduledandnon-scheduleddowntimeoftheplants.ThedryS02scrubbersthatwereassumedintheDEISwouldonlyprovideapproximately70%S02removal,whichprobablywouldnotbeanacceptablelevelforADEC.AdditionalS02reductionbeyondthe70%controlassumedintheDEISmightrequireswitchingtowetlimestonescrubbers.Thesewetscrubberswouldgeneratesludgesthatwouldhavetobedisposedofinanenvironmentallyacceptablemanner.JJTheengineeringandenvironmentalproblemsassociatedwithsophisticatedpollutioncontrolequipmentarediscussedfurtherinAppendixIIIofthisdocument.46361 l_1]]JTechnicalCommentALT02lSUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMME-NTFORMTOPICAREA:AirQuality,ClimateLOCATIONINTHEDEIS:Vol1Page3-4Section3.1.2.1Paragraphs5and6ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:LackofdataonseasonalvariationstosupportconclusionsTECHNICALCOMMENT:TheinformationpresentedinthissectionshouldsupportinformationispresentedinAppendixG,noreferenceismadeinthetext.ItisunclearwhethertheDEISincludeddataonextremeandnormalmeteorologicalparameters,theoccurrenceofextremeinversions,therepresentativenessofavailabledata,andtheeffectsofthesurroundingtopography.AdditionaldataonwindspeedanddirectionarealsorequiredTherequiredmeteorologicaldataare]J]J]]JJJtheconclusionsofChapter4,EnvironmentalImpacts.toevaluatethepowerplantimpacts.giveninAppendixIIIofthisdocument.46371Althoughsome ll1_11~jJJJ]J]]]~l.)JJTechnicalCommentALT022SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORKTOPICAREA:AirQuality,ImpactsLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol1Page3-53Section3.2.2Paragraph8ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:Microclimaticdifferences~nthedataarenotaddressed.Onsitedataarenotutilized.TECHNICALCOMMENT:Althoughthedistancesbetweenthealternativesitesaresmall,microclimaticdifferencesinwindspeed,winddirectionandairpollutionpotentialcouldbesignificant.TheDEISshouldconsiderthedifferencesinsite-specificdataavailableintheProcessedClimaticDatafortheWatanaandDevilCanyonstations(R&M1982j-1982m).Pre-operationalrelatedimpactswillvarybyconstructionlevel-of-effort.TheDEISshouldconsiderimpactsfromsite-specificconstructionactivities.SitespecificclimaticfactorshavebeenusedbytheApplicanttoestimatetheairqualityimpactsofthethermalpowerplants.SeeAppendixIIIofthisdocument.46451 l]JJTechnicalCommentALT023SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORKLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol1Page3-58Section3.3.Z.2Paragraph4COMMENTINREFERENCETO:Additionaldataonbackgrounda1rqualityareneeded.]JJTOPICAREA:AirQualityJ]TECHNICALCOMMENT:TheDEISdoesnotsufficientlydescribetheexistingbackgroundconcentrationsofkeypollutants(e.g.SOZandNOZ)thatareimportantinevaluatingtheairqualityimpactsofthethermalelectricalgeneratingalternatives.ThefollowingdatashouldbeaddressedintheJ]FEIS:1.TheaveragevaluesandseasonalvariationsofbackgroundNOZandSOZneartheproposedpowerplantsites.J]]J]2.3.Theseasonalfluctuationsinthebackgroundconcentrationsrelatedtoclimate(e.g.inversions).Forthosepollutantsforwhichnoonsitebackgroundconcentrationshavebeenmeasured,the"typical"referencedbackgroundvaluesapplicableforpristineareas.JJ46461 lJ]]]]J]J]]]]JJTechnicalCommentALT024SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:Air'Quality,ClimateLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol1Page3-62Section3.4.2.1LastparagraphofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:"Theselocations•••shouldhavesimilarclimaticfeaturesastheproposedSusitnaprojectarea."TECHNICALCOMMENT:Thisstatement~squestionable.AlthoughtherangeoftemperaturesbetweentheProposedProjectandthealternativelocations~ssimilar,theclimateatWillowandNenanacanbeexpectedtobequitedifferentfromtheclimateattheSusitnasite,primarilybecauseoftopographicconsiderations.BothNenanaandWillowareinflatnorth-southfloodplains.TheSusitnasitesareinanarroweast-westconfiningvalley.TheDEISshouldconsiderpatternsofprecipitation,wind,andpotentialfora~rqualityimpactthatareaconsequenceofsitespecificclimatology.Thesectionona~rqualityshouldincludevaluesofbackgrounddata.Thesedatawillbeusefulfortheairqualityimpactanalysis.MeteorologicaldataforvariouslocationsalongtheRailbeltaregiven~nAppendixIIIofthisdocument.46381 ]JJTechnicalCommentALT025SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:Alternatives,HydroelectricCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:Johnsonalternativedescription]]LOCATIONINDEIS:pageVol1Page3-65Section3.5.1.1Paragraph1ofthe]]]J]]JJJJTECHNICALCOMMENT:ThereareinconsistenciesinthetextregardingtheJohnsonsitelocationdescription.TheDEISstatesthatthesite1SontheJohnsonRiver.Thisisincorrect.ThedamsiteislocatedontheTananaRiverjustdownstreamfromtheconfluenceoftheTananaandJohnsonRiversasitiscorrectlypresentedonpagexxivoftheDEISSummary.ThedescriptiononpagexxivshouldbeusedthroughouttheDEIStoavoidconfusion.44301 J]]J]]]]J]J]]J]J]TechnicalCommentALT026SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:AirQualityLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol1Page3-66Section3.5.2Paragraph1ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:"•••shouldhavesimilarclimate,a~rquality,andnoisefeaturesastheSusitnaprojectarea."TECHNICALCOMMENT:ThelocationsofthealternativehydroandthermalsitesrangefromtheKenaiPeninsulatoover300milesinland.Thesitesarelocatedintwodifferentclimaticregimes,andinnumeroustopographicalsettings.ThefinalEISshouldaddressclimaticdifferencesbetweenthepossiblehydroelectricsitesandpowerplantsites.46471 TechnicalCommentALT027]lSUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTECHNICALCOMMENT:TheflowdatapresentedinTable3-11isinconsistentwiththatofTable2-7.OnTable2-7,minimumflowsforthevariousalternativeswerepresentedbasedonahistoricalQ90valueforsummerand30%ofthemeanannualflowforothermonths.ThesameQ90valuesarepresentedforTable3-1.However,theflowsarenotalwaysthesameforeachsiteasthosepresentedinTable2-7.Forexample,fortheBrownesiteTable2-7shows9,300cfswhileforTable3-11,thevaluegivenis9,100cfs.Therationaleforthisdifference1nvaluesshouldbepresentedorthecorrectvaluepresentedinallsections.TOPICAREA:WaterQuantity,AlternativesCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:Paragraph2ofthepageInconsistency1nnumberspresentedforflowVol1Page3-66Section3.5.3(Table3-11)LOCATIONINDEIS:J]J]]]JJ]JJ.J44131 TechnicalCommentALT028SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPIICAREA:WaterQuality,Alternativesl~lLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol1Page3-66Section3.5.3Paragraph3ofthepage]COMMENTINREFERENCETO:WaterqualityforSnowRiversiteJ]J]]]JJ]TECHNICALCOMMENT:AlthoughwaterqualitydataarenotavailablefortheSnowRiver,thesystemisextensivelyinfluencedbymeltwaterfromglaciersinthebasinaswellassnowmelt.Therefore,thewatertobeimpoundedwouldbeexpectedtobehighlyturbidthroughoutmostoftheyear.Thishighturbiditywouldlimitproductivityinthereservoirarea.]44131 JlJ]JTechnicalCommentALT029SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORKTOPICAREA:Alternatives,Hydroelectric,SubsistenceJLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol1Page3-66.Section3.5.4Paragraph5ofthepageJ]]]J]]JJ]JJJCOMMEENTINREFERENCETO:JohnsonsitefishresourceTECHNICALCOMMENT:InadditiontothesportfishharvestthatoccursdownstreamoftheJohnsonsite(andBrowne),highlysignificantcommercialandsubsistencefisheriesforthesespeciesalsoexist(ADF&G1983j).SubsistencefishingforsalmonisparticularlyimportanttotheEskimoandIndianpeoplethatliveinvillagesdispersedalongthecoastandmajorriversystemsoftheYukon.ThecontributionoffishpotentiallyimpactedbytheJonsonandBrownesitestothesefisheriesisunknownatthistime.AreaswithintheJohnsonimpoundmentareextensivelyusedforsubsistencefishing,mainlyforwhitefishbythelocalresidents.44131 l]llTechnicalCommentALT030SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:Alternatives,Hydroelectric,SalmonJLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol1Page3-66Section3.5.4Paragraph5ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:Johnsonsitefishresource]]JJJ]]JJJJJTECHNICALCOMMENT:SpawningbyanadromousfishoccursbothdownstreamandupstreamoftheJohnsonsite.ChumsalmonspawninghasbeendocumentedwithintheimpoundmentzoneandinareasasfarupstreamastheChisanaRiver.Chinookandcohosalmonhavebeendocumentedasoccurringwithintheimpoundmentzone(ADF&G,1983i).Noinformationisavailableastothenumbersoffishpresent.Atypographicalerrorexistsinthisparagraph;" sheepfish"shouldbesheefish.44131 ]]]TechnicalCommentALT031SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:Alternatives,Hydroelectric,Salmon~JLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol1Page3-67Section3.5.4Paragraph6ofthepageJCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:FishresourcesoftheKeetnasite.]JJJ~..Jc.J]JJ]JTECHNICALCOMMENT:AttheKeetnasite,spawningareasforchinookandchumspawningoccurwithintheimpoundmentzoneinDisappointmentCreekandpossiblyforchinook,chum,andsockeyewithinthemainstem(ADF&G1983i).Actualnumbersofadultspresentarenotknown.However,spawninggroundcountsinindexareasforchinooksalmoninPrairieCreekarethehighestofanyeastsideSusitnatributary(Bentz1983).Thesalmonresourcesupstreamofthesiteareconsideredhighlysignificant,particularlyconsideringtheutilizationbythecommercialandsportfisheriesdownstream,(Watsjold1984),andbythebrownbearpo.pulationsinPrairieCreek(Miller1983).ThemouthofDisappointmentCreekalsosupportsaknownrecreationalfisheryforrainbowtroutandDollyVarden.Accesstothislocation~smadebyriverboatfromthetownofTalkeetna•.,44131 lllTechnicalCommentALT032SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:Alternatives,Hydroelectric,Salmonl~JLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol1Page3-68Section3.5.4Paragraph2ofthepageTECHNICALCOMMENT:Thestatementthatnoanadromousfishareknowntooccur~ntheSnowRiverisincorrect.BothcohoandsockeyespawningandrearingaredocumentedtooccurintheSouthForkandbelowtheconfluenceoftheNorthand'J]COMMENTINREFERENCETO:FishresourcesoftheSnowRiverpresent.ResidentspeciesofinterestforthissitearethegraylingandrainbowthatareknowntooccurinLowerParadiseLakewhichwouldbewithintheinundationzone.Also,graylingarefoundinUpperParadiseLakewhichisjustupstreamoftheinundationzone.]]]'-J]J]SouthForks(ADF&G1983i).NoinformationisavailableonnumbersoffishJ44131 l']]lTechnicalCommentALT033SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORKTOPICAREA:Alternatives,Hydroelectric,SalmonTECHNICALCOMMENT:ThestatementthatnoanadromousfishoccurattheBrownesiteisinerror.ADF&G(l983i)hasdocumentedthatchinook,coho,andchumsalmonmigrateupstreampastthisprojectsite.Noinformationisavailableonthenumbersoffishpresent.FishresourcesoftheNenanaRiverattheBrownesite.COMMENTINREFERENCETO:Section3.5.4Paragraph3ofthepagePage3-68Vol1LOCATIONINDEIS:lJJ]J]J]JJJ]J44131 ]]]]]TechnicalCommentALT034SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:TransmissionLinesandCorridorsLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol1Page4-4Section4.1.1.2Paragraphs2ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:Recreationalandresidentiallandvaluesdecreasingduetoproximityofthetransmissionline.TECHNICALCOMMENT:Whilelandvaluesinproximitytotransmissionlinesmaydecreaseinmorepopulatedareas,thismaynotbethecasefortheproposed]]transmissionlinewhichtraversesmostlyunpopulatedregions.Inthese]]J,1J'1J]Jlocationsthetransmissioncorridorcouldbeviewedasaccesstoremoteparcelsandsubdivisions,andasutilitiesenablingdevelopment,thusincreasinglandvalues.44441 ]lJ]TechnicalCommentALT035SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:TransmissionLinesandCorridors,ImpactslLOCATIONINDEIS:pageVol1Page4-4Section4.1.1.2Paragraph6ofthe]]]J]JJJJ"~lJCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:Transmissionlinecouldimpactmilitarytraining,maneuvers,security,flightactivities,andcommunications.TECHNICALCOMMENT:Transmissionlineimpactsofconcerntothemilitarywillbeavoidedorsignificantlyreducedbecausetheproposedtransmissionlinewillparallelanexistingtransmissionlineacrossmilitaryland.Impactsfromanadditionalline,therefore,wouldbeexpectedtobeincrementalatmost.44431 ll'l.Jll]]J~l]J]J]JTechnicalCommentALT036SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:AirQualityLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol1Page4-5Section4.1.2Paragraphs3and4ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:"fugitiveemissionsmightbetransportedoutsidethesiteboundary•••".TECHNICALCOMMENT:TheDEIStextimpliesthatfugitivedustimpactsduringtheWatanaDamconstructionwouldbewidespread,andwouldextendbeyondthe"siteboundary".Infact,theupdatedfugitivedustanalyses(APA1984)indicatethattheconcentrationsoffugitivedustbeyondthesiteboundaryupriverfromtheWatanadamsiteshouldbewellbelowtheallowablelimitsestablishedintheAlaskaAmbientAirQualityStandards(18MC50.020).ThefugitivedustemissionrateswereestimatedusingEPA-approvedemissionfactors.Fortherevisedcalculations,thewindwasassumedtoflowupriver,underconservativelypooratmosphericconditions.The"siteboundary"wasassumedtobethe"ProjectBoundary"showninExhibitGoftheFebruary1983FERCLicenseApplicaton.SeeTechnicalComment.ALT037foradetaileddescriptionoftherevisedfugitivedustanalyses.45421 l_J]lJJJJJ]J]JJJJJJTechnicalCommentALT037SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:AirQualityLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol1Page4-5Section4.1.2Paragraph4COMMENTINREFERENCETO:FugitivedustimpactsduringWatanaconstructionTECHNICALCOMMENT:TheDEISindicatesthatwindblownfugitivedustduringtheWatanadamconstructionwillcauseexceedencesoftheambientairqualitystandards.Thisconclusionisnotsupportedbyrefinedanalyses.Theworst-casefugitivedustanalysisdescribedintheDEISwasofaverypreliminarynature,anditutilizedunrealisticassumptionsthatresultedinveryconservativelyhighestimatesofambientdustimpacts.AmoresophisticatedfugitivedustanalysiswillbepreparedbytheAlaskaPowerAuthorityforitssubmittalofaPreventionofSignificantDeterioration(PSD)permitapplicationtotheAlaskaDept.ofEnvironmentalConservation(ADEC)•EmissionEstimates:Thefugitivedustemissionratespresented1ntheDEISwerebasedonworst-caseestimatesofgravelexcavationrates,gravelsiltcontent,gravelstoragepileconfiguration,andhaultruckspeeds.TherequiredfutureestimatesforthePSDapplicationwillutilizeupdateddesigndatafortheseparameters.TherevisedcalculationswillprobablyshowalowerfugitivedustemissionratethandidthepreliminarycalculationsusedfortheDEIS.FugitiveDustMitigations:ThecalculatedemissionratesusedfortheDEISanalysiswerebasedonverylimitedcontrolofwindblowndust.ThefutureestimatesforthePSDapplicationwillreflectpossiblemitigationstoreducewindblowndustfromhaulroadsandgravelstoragepiles.Thesemitigationswillincludethefollowing:reducedhaultruckspeed;placement TechnicalCommentALT037Page2ofgravelstoragepilesinaconfigurationthatwillminimizewindblowmdust;andapplicationofdustsuppressantsonlong-termstoragepiles.DispersionModelingTechniques:Thedispersionmodelingtechniquesdescribed1.ntheDEISassumedthatthewindsblewdirectlyacrosstheSusitnaRivervalley.Thisassumptioniscommonlyusedasanextremeworst-casescreeningtechnique,whichisnotgenerallymeanttoapproximateactualimpacts.ItisclearlyunrealistictoassumethepresenceofpersistentcrossvalleywindsinthenarrowSusitnaRivervalley.Thecalculatedfugitivedustimpactsattheprojectboundaryaremuchloweriftheprevailingwindsareassumedtobloweitherupriverordownriver.Ifrequiredforsubmittaloftheupcomingpermitapplication,onsitewinddataatthevalleyfloorwillbemeasured.Thesemeasuredwinddatawillthenbeusedtosupportmoresophisticateddispersionmodels,whichwillprobablyshowmuchlowerfugitivedustimpactsthanwerereportedintheDEIS.ResultsofPreliminaryRevisedAnalyses:PreliminaryrevisionsofthefugitivedustanalyseshavebeenpresentedtotheAlaskaDept.ofEnvironmentalConservation(APA1984).TheconservativelyhighfugitivedustemissionratesusedfortheDEISanalysiswerealsousedintherevisedanalysis.However,therevisedanalysisassumedthatthewindblewupriverinsteadofacrossthevalley.Therevisedanalysisshowedamaximumfugitivedustimpactofonly55ug/m3,ascomparedtothe627ug/m3impactdescribedintheDEIS.Thecalculated55ug/m3impactiswellbelowtheallowable150ug/m3ambientlimitspecifiedbyADEC,butisabovethe37ug/m3PSDClassIIincrement.Hence,themorerealisticanalysisdemonstrateslessimpact.Basedontheresultsoftherevisedfugitivedustanalysis,thedetailedPSDanalysisthatwillberequiredinthefuturewilldemonstratethatthefugitivedustimpactswillbebelowallapplicableairqualitylimits.46391JJ]]]]]J]]]]JJJ l]JJJ]TechnicalCommentALT038SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:AirQualityLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol1Page4-5Section4.1.2Paragraphs6-8ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:DieselgeneratorsemissionsotherpointsourceshavebeenrevisedandpresentedtotheAlaskaDept.ofJTECHNICALCOMMENT:Theairqualityanalysesforthedieselgeneratorsandconsideredwerethedieselgenerators,theWatanarefuseincinerator,theoilheatersatthecampsites,theconcretebatchplantsandtheaggregatescreeningplant.Theestimatedemissionratefromthedieselgeneratorsareasfollows:]]]]]EnvironmentalConservation(APA1984).Particulates900tons/yrS02207tons/yrN022,193tons/yrCarbonMonoxide626tons/yrHydrocarbons232tons/yrThekeypointemissionsourcesshouldbeincorporatedintotheFEIS.Theworst-caseambientimpactscausedbythepointsourceemissionswereestimatedusingthesimplifiedVALLEYmodelcalculationsprescribedbytheEPA(EPA1977).Theworst-caseimpactsforallpollutantswereallwellbelowtheapplicableairqualitylimitsforbothambientconcentrationsand]]]JPSDClassIIincrements.TheserevisedemissionratesandambientimpactsJ46401 lll]J]]]JJl,Jl,1]JJJTechnicalCommentALT039SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMEliTFORMTOPICAREA:NitrogenSupersaturation,WatanaLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol.1Pages4-18and19Section4.1.3.2.1Paragraph7ofpage4-18andParagraph1ofpage4-19COMMENTINREFERENCETO:Term"emergencyspillways"usedincorrectlyTECHNICALCOMMENT:Theterm"emergency"spillwaysasusedintheDEIStextshouldbe"mainservice"spillways.Thisisanimportantdistinction.ThemainserV1cespillwaysaredesignedtopassfloodslargerthanthe50-yearevent,uptothelO,OOO-yearevent.Thesespillwayswouldbeusedtosafelypassthemajorityoffloodsexperiencedthroughoutthelifeoftheproject.Theemergencyspillwaysprovideincrementaldischargecapacitysothat,undertheextremeProbableMaximumFlood(PMF)event,thestructuralintegrityoftheprojectwillbemaintained.RefertotheLicenseApplication,ExhibitBforfurtherdiscussion.45781 ]llJJ'1'--__J]J]]J]]]JJJJTechnicalCommentALT040SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:AirQualityLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol1Page4-70Section4.2.2Paragraph5ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:Inconsistency1na1rqualityimpactsfromSusitnabasinalternatives.TECHNICALCOMMENT:Onpage4-69,inthelastparagraph,it1Sstatedthat"ThesmallerWatanaIdamwouldrequirelessborrowmaterial,therebyreducingimpactsrelatedtoborrowsites•••".However,onpage4-70itisstatedthattheairqualityimpactsfromthealternativeSusitnadevelopments"wouldbeverysimilartothosedescribed•••fortheproposedproject."Thesetwostatementsarenotconsistent.Theairqualityimpactsofthedamconstructionwilldependonmanyfactors,oneofwhichmaybetheamountofborrowmaterial.Intheabsenceofanalysis,theFEISshouldsimplystatethattheimpactshavenotbeenevaluatedforthealternativehydroelectricsites.46481 llll]1]JJTechnicalCommentALT041SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:AirQualityLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol1Page4-77Section4.3.2Paragraphs4and5ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:Water-vaporplumefromthepowerplants.TECHNICALCOMMENT:TheFEISshoulddiscussthewatervaporplumesandpotentialicefogformationinmoredetail.Thefollowingitemsshouldbeaddressed:]]1.2.Theseasonalrelativehumiditypatterns1ntheCookInletandRailbeltareas.ThebasisforestimatingthevisibIewater-plumelengthtobe0-350feet.]]]J]JJJSeealsoTechnicalCommentALT076.46491 llll]]]]]J]JJJJJJTechnicalCommentALT042SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORKTOPICAREA:AirQualityLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol1Page4-77Section4.3.2Paragraph7ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:NOxemissionsfromgas-firedplantsTECHNICALCOMMENT:TheFEISshouldaddressthepossibleambientvisibilitydegradationcausedbyNOxemissionsfromtheproposedgas-firedcombined-cyclepowerplants.Also,eml.SSl.onsfromproposedsimple-cyclecombustionturbinesshouldbequantified,ratherthanbeingdismissedas"verysmall".AdetailedanalysishasbeenprovidedinAppendixIIIofthisdocument.46511 ll]J]]]]]JJJTechnicalCommentALT043SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:AirQualityLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol1Page4-81Section4.4.2Paragraph3ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:Assumptionsusedtomodelpowerplantimpacts.TECHNICALCOMMENT:Thea1rqualityscreeningcomputermodelPTPLUusedfortheDEISyieldsmaximumpredictedone-hourgroundlevelconcentrations.Itisunclearhowthe3-hourand24-hourvaluesweredeveloped.Ifstandardadjustmentfactorswereused,thentheirvalidityinAlaskashouldbediscussed.ItisnotclearwhethertheDEISconsideredfugitivedustimpactsrelatedtothecoal-firedunits.Fugitiveemissionscanbegeneratedbyminingactivities,coal-trains,constructionofthecoal-firedunits,aswellasoperationofcoalhandlingfacilitiesatthecoal-firedunits.TherelativedurationoftheairqualityimpactsoftheProposedProjectandthecoalplantsshouldbeaddressed.ItisnotclearwhatassumptionsandmeteorologicaldataFERCstaffutilizedfortheairqualityimpactanalysisforthecoal-firedunits.Didtheanalysisconsiderstrongwinterinversions?Didtheanalysisconsiderfumigation?These1ssuesareaddressed1nfurther1nAppendixIIIofthisdocument.46411 TechnicalCommentALT044'·1JSUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEHENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMJTOPICAREA:AirQuality]LOCATIONINDEIS:Vol1Page4-81Section4.4.2Paragraph5ofthepage]COMMENTINREFERENCETO:Theimplicationsofviolatinga1rqualitystandardsshouldbediscussed.permitspecificallyforbidstheprojectfrombeingconstructed.DenialofthePSDimplytosomereadersthatairqualityThis1Snottrue.APreventionofpermitwouldberequiredforeachoftheEachPSDapplicantmustdemonstratethattheIfairqualitymodelspredictanexceedenceofanya1rqualitystandard,thenthePSDpermitmustbedenied.TECHNICALCOMMENT:TheDEISfailstoemphasizethesignificanceofthefactthatseveralofthecoal-firedpowerplantscenarioscouldcauseexceedencesofthePSDClassIandClassIIairqualityincrements.TheverybriefdiscussionintheDEISmightviolationscanbenegotiated.SignificantDeterioration(PSD)thermalpowerplantsproposed.projectwillnotcauseexceedencesoftheallowablepollutantconcentrations.]]]]JTheFinalEISshouldthereforeemphasizethatfailuretodemonstratefuturecompliancewithairqualitystandardswouldpreventthepowerplantinvolvedfrombeingconstructed.]J]JJ46541 ]]]]]]]]]JJJJJTechnicalCommentALT045SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:AirQuality,VisualImpactsLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol1Page4-81Section4.4.2Paragraph8ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:Discussiononvisibility1Sinsufficient.TECHNICALCOMMENT:TheDEIShasmisinterpretedtheroleoftheNationalParkService(NPS)andthegeneralpublicregardingevaluationofvisibilityimpairmentintheDenaliNationalParkClassIArea.TheDEISusedthesimplifiedLevelIvisibilityscreeninganalysis(EPA1980)toevaluatetheimpacts.TheDEISmistakenlyimpliesthatanyofthecoal-firedscenariosthatpasstheLevelIscreeningtestareenvironmentallyacceptable.Thatconclusionisnotcorrect.TheFEISshoulddiscussthecomplexissuesinvolvedwithvisibilityprotectioninClassIareas.Someofthoseissuesaredescribedbelow:LimitationsoftheLevelIAnalysisThisscreeningprocedurewasdevelopedbytheEPAforuseasapreliminarytestofvisibilityimpairmentcausedbyasingleemissionsource(EPA1980).Ithasgeneral,built-inassumptionsregardingtopography,meteorologyandplumechemistrythatmightnotalwaysbevalid.Themodelisbasedonviewingofadiscreetemissionplumeata900angleduringanassumedatmosphericdispersioncondition.ThemodelcannotaccountfortheextendedinversionsandcalmperiodsthatareprevalentinAlaska(seeCommentALT078).Themodeldoesnotconsideranyimportantviewsheds,sunangle,etc.Finally,theactualevaluationcriteriafortheLevelImodelarethreecoefficients:C1,whichindicatestheplume/skycontrastcausedbyparticlesandN02;C2,whichindicatesdecreasedsky/terraincontrastbasedonblackterrain;andC3,whichindicatesreducedvisiblerangeor"haziness"causedbyparticles.46531 TechnicalCommentALT045Page2LevelIanalysisisnotalwaysappropriate1nthatagivenemissionsourceisassumedto"pass"thescreeningtestifallthreecoefficientsarelessthan0.1,signifyinglessthana10%contrastchange.Inreality,a10%contrastcanbenoticeabletomostpeopleandcouldthereforebeunacceptable.InalocationsuchasDenaliPark,wherevisitorsexpectpristineconditions,theLevelIscreeninganalysisisprobablynotavalidtestforjudgingwhetheremissionsourceswouldcauseunacceptablevisibilityimpairment.RoleoftheNPSinVisibilityPermittingTheCleanAirActspecificallymandatesthatthestatesmustprotectvisibilityinClassIareas.VisibilityevaluationsareincludedaspartoftheAlaskaPSDpermitprocess,under18AAC50.021(c)and18AAC50.300(c).TheregulatorymechanismsforvisibilityevaluationsaredescribedintheFederalRegister(45FR,No.233,80084,Dec.12,1980).TheNationalParkService(NPS)woulddesignatetheFederalLandManager,whowouldhaveamajorroleinthePSDprocess.TheFederalLandManagercanrecommenddenialofthePSDpermitbasedsolelyonpredictedvisibilityimpairment,evenifthepermitshowsthatnootherairqualitystandardswouldbeexceeded(40CFR52.21(p)(3)).RecognizingtheimportanceofprotectingvisibilityintheNationalParks,theNPShasfundedresearchtodevelopstandardprocedurestopredictvisibilityimpairmentcausedbyindustrialemissionsources.Theproposedmethodsareexpectedtobedistributedforcommentwithinseveralmonths(MaIm1984).Theproposedmethodsaredescribedinthefollowingsection.ProposedMethodstoEvaluateVisibilityImpairmentPredictionoftheperceivedvisibilitydegradationcausedbyanygivenproposedemissionsourcegenerallywillconsistofthreeinterrelatedsteps(Middletonetala1983):1.Predictionofdownwindplumephysical/chemicalproperties;2.Identificationofhowpeoplewillphysicallyperceivetheplume;and3.Applyingapsychologicaljudgmentonhowmuchvisibilityimpairmentwillbeallowed.Thesethreestepsaredescribedbelow.46531l]l.i,..-. ']]l]JJTechnicalCommentALT045Page3Extensiveresearchregardingphysical/chemicalplumemodelinghasbeenconductedtopredicttheconcentrationsofN02andsubmicronparticlesformedbyNOxandS02emissions.Unfortunately,itisgenerallyrecognizedthatnoavailablemodelsareveryaccurate(MaIm1984).Inparticular,fewmodelscanpredictregionalhazeformedduringinversions.Thephysicalperceptionofa1rpollutionhasbeenstudiedbyhavingpeoplenumericallyratephotographsofkeyvistaswithvaryingdegreesofairpollution(MaIm1980,MaIm1981,Latimeretale1981).ThedevelopedIndexofPerceivedVisualAirQualitywasfoundtoberelatedtoairpollutantconcentrations,sunangle,cloudcover,andthecolorationofthescenery.ThepsychologicalandregulatoryjudgmentonhowmuchvisibilitydegradationwillbeallowedintheparkwouldbebasedonNPSinspectionofphotographsofkeyvistas.TheproposedNPSmethodstoevaluateallowablevisibilitydegradationcausedbyemissionsfromaproposedindustrialfacilitywillconsistofathreestepprocess:(MaIm1984)]]J]]JJ]JJ1.2.3.Aser1esofbaselinephotographswithconcurrentbaselinea1rqualitydatawouldbetaken,todocumenthowexistingvariationsinairqualityinfluenceexistingvisibility.Basedonthosephotographs,theNPSwouldestablishwhatlevelsofvisibilityimpairmentareacceptable.TheallowablepollutantconcentrationscorrespondingtothatacceptablevisibilityimpairmentwouldthereforebeknownbasedonthecorrelationsinStep1.Physical!chemicalplumemodelswouldthenbeusedtodeterminethemaximumallowabIeS02andNOxemissionstoensurethattheambientpollutantconcentrationsintheparkwouldnotexceedtheallowablelevelsestablishedinStep2.JJ46531 TechnicalCommentALT045Page4,1ImplicationsofVisibilityEvaluationsTherearenumerouscaseswherevisualresourceanalysishasplayedakeyroleinthedesignandpermitting]cases.Twoapplicableexamplesaregivenbelow:ofmajorindustrialprojects.TheFinalEISshouldaddresssomeofthese]0VisualresourceanalysiswasincorporateddirectlyintotheengineeringdesignoftheAnchorage-FairbanksTransmissionIntertie(GilbertCommonwealth1983).Appropriatedesignstepsweretakentoensurethatvisualimpactsoftheintertiewouldbeminimized.l]oPotentialvisibilityimpactswere,unfortunately,notconsideredduringthedesignoftheproposedGreeneCountyNuclearPowerPlantinNewYork.TheNuclearRegulatoryCommissionrecommendeddenialofthatplantIsconstructionpermit,basedprimarilyonJunacceptablevisualimpacts(Petrich1979).Conclusion]ItisapparentthattheproposedNPSproceduresforevaluatingfuturevisibilityimpairmentarefarmorecomplexthanisindicatedintheDEIS.TheFEISshouldthereforemakeitclearthatvisualresourceimpairmentcouldbeamajorconstraintonconstructingcoal-firedpowerplantsnearDenaliNationalPark.46531J]JJ'lJJj'1J ]]]TechnicalCommentALT046SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORM]TOPICAREA:Alternatives,Hydroelectric,LandUsel]]]]]]]]]"1JLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol1Page4-86Section4.5.1AllParagraphsCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:CitedS1zeofalternativehydroreservoirs,consequencesoffoundationconditions.TECHNICALCOMMENT:SubsequenttotheDEIS,projectandreservoirlayoutswerepreparedbytheApplicantforuseinsiteevauations.Fromtheselayouts,reservoirinundationareasweremeasuredbyplanimeter.Johnsonwasfoundtoinundatenot84,000acres,but94,500acres.Also,Snowwouldinundate3,200acresinsteadof2,600acres;Browne12,500acresinsteadof10,640acres;andKeetna5,500acresforatotalcombinedinundatedareaof115,700acresinsteadof102,000acres.The50-yearsedimentdepositionatJohnson,Browne,andKeetnawouldbeapproximately400,000acre-feet,150,000acre-feet,and65,000acre-feet,respectively,resultingindecreasedstoragecapacityandmudflatsattheupstreamendofthereservoirs.Deep(inexcessof75feet)foundationexcavationswouldlikelyberequiredatJohnsonandKeetnadamsites.Excavationsintheneighborhoodof50-feetdeepwouldberequiredforChakachamna,Snow,andBrownedamstoremovepervious,frozen,looseorunconsolidatedmaterialsfromthefoundations.InadditiontomassiverelocationsandschedulingimplicationsassociatedwiththeJohnsonandBrowneprojects,thetotalcombinedadditionallandrequisitionrequiredforaccessandindividualstubtransmissionsystemswouldbe6,800acresforthealternativesascomparedwithonly2,400acresforSusitna.Alloftheaboveincreasescouldsignificantly1ncreasethecostofthenon-Sustinaalternatives.RefertoAppendixIIofthisdocumentforprojectdescriptionsandlayoutsbytheApplicant.49631 ']lTechnicalCommentALT047SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:Alternatives,Hydroelectric,WaterQuality,Impacts]LOCATIONINDEIS:Vol1Page4-87Section4.5.3AllparagraphsCOMMENTH~REFERENCETO:surfacewaterqualityPotentialimpactofthehydroalternativesonTECHNICALCOMMENT:Thestatementsmaderegardingtheimpactstosurfacewaterresourcesfromthefivenon-Susitnahydroprojectsarespeculativeandbasedonavirtuallynon-existentdatabase.Whilesomeofthestatementsmadecouldbelogicallyargued,themajorityofstatementswouldrequireadditionalinformationbeforeconclusionsontheseverityofimpactscouldbemade.Unsupportedconclusionsincludethefollowing:49631]]'JJJJJ1.2.3.Thedewateringof8miles(13kilometers)oftheSnowRiverrepresentsaminorwaterqualityandquantityimpact."AIthoughthemagnitudeofsuchchanges[insuspendedsolidconcentrations]cannotbeestimatedwithoutinformationonthepredictedreservoirhydrologyandonwaterqualityintheexistingenvironment,adverseimpactsonwaterqualityfromchangesLntheconcentrationofsuspendedsolidswouldnotbeanticipatedforanyofthehydropoweralternatives".Thisisspeculative."Relativetothermalconditions,theSnowprojectwouldnotimpoundanywaterand,therefore,upstreamofthediversionpointtheSnowRiverwouldmaintainpreprojectconditions."Snowreservoirwouldactuallyhaveatotalstorageof179,000acre-feet.Thiscorrespondstoanaverageretentiontimeoffourmonths.ItthusseemspermaturetostatethattheSnowreservoirwouldmaintainpreprojectthermalconditionswithoutconductingthermalstudies. 4.5.TechnicalCommentALT047Page2"Nosignificantgroundwaterimpactswouldbeanticipatedfromanyofthenon-Susitnahydropowerprojects."TheDEISacknowledgesthattheJohnson,Browne,andKeetnahydrofacilitiescouldproducechangesiniceprocessesintheTanana,Nenana,andTalkeetnarivers,butbecauseofalackofdatanoqualitativeorquantitativeassessmentwasundertaken.Changesin1ceprocessescouldhavesignificanteffectsonthedownstreamfisheriesorcouldpotentiallycausefloodingatdownstreamcommunities.However,theseeffectscouldonlybedeterminedthroughadditionalanalysis.]]Thespeculativestatementssuggestingnosignificantimpacts,andtheminimaltreatmentofimpactsthroughabsenceofanalysestodeterminetheseimpacts,implythatthenon-SusitnahydroelectricalternativeshavelessimpactonwaterqualityandquantitythanSusitna.Ifacomparabledatabasewereobtainedforthenon-Susitnahydroalternativesandacomparablelevelofanalysisundertaken,theanalysescouldleadtotheconclusionthattheSusitnaprojecthasalessereffectonwaterqualityandquantitythanthecumulativeeffectsofthenon-Susitnahydroalternatives.SeeAppendixIIforamoredetaileddiscussionofwaterqualityimpactsofthealternativehydrosites.49631,~,- I'-.J,.,io-.JJ]J ]J,J]]TechnicalCommentALT048SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:Alternatives,HydroelectricLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol1Page4-87Section4.5.3Paragraph3ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:SnowalternativedescriptionTECHNICALCOMMENT:ThetextdescribesthelocationoftheSnowprojectpowerhouseasbeingonKenaiLake.Thisisincorrect.ThepowerhousewouldbelocatedontheSnowRiverapproximately4milesdownstreamofthedamandapproximately4milesupstreamfromKenaiLake.SeeAppendixIIforApplicant'sdescriptionofhydroalternatives.44311 ]']]J]]JJ]]]TechnicalCommentALT049SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:Alternatives,Hydroelectric,SalmonLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol1Page4-88Section4.5.4Paragraph3ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:AquaticresourcesofalternativehydrositesTECHNICALCOMMENT:Althoughthere1SlittlequantitativeinformationavailableonfishresourcesfortheSnow,Browne,andJohnsonsites,there1Sastrongpotentialthatsignificantresourcescouldbeaffected.ForboththeBrowneandJohnsonsites,ADF&G(1983i)hasdocumentedthatanadromoussalmoneitherspawnwithintheproposedimpoundmentzone(Johnson)orpassupstream(bothsites).Thesefishcontributetohighlysignificantcommericalandsubsistencefisheriesdownstream(ADF&G1983j).Inaddition,residentfisherieswouldbeimpacted.TheresidentfishattheJohnsonsitesupportasignificantsubsistencefisheryforlocalresidents.TheSnowsite1S1ntheupperKenaiRiverdrainage.TheKenaiRiverhasextensiverecreationaldevelopmentandsupportsthelargestsportfisheryforanadromousfishinthestate(Mills1983).Therefore,anyproposeddevelopmentintheupperreacheswouldreceiveextensivescrutinyandreviewfromadiversegroupofpeopleincludingsportfishermen,commercialfishermen,andfisheriesbiologists.AllsitesexcepttheSnowsitewouldblockupstreammigrationsbyanadromousfishandcausepotentialdifficultiesfordownstreampassage.Allmitigationmeasures(e.g.fishwaysforupstreampassage,screen1ngforoutmigrants,andotherbypassfacilities)incuracertainriskforsuccess.Intheoriginalscreeningofsites,thePowerAuthorityincorporatedasoneoftheirmajorcriteria,whetherornotanadromousfishpassthesite.Asiteatwhichanadromousfishareknowntoutilizeupstreamareaswasrankedbelowothersites.44351 ]]]J]JJ]]]1.JJTechnicalCommentALT050SUSITRAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:Alternatives,Hydroelectric,LandUseLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol1Page4-91Section4.7.1.1Paragraph5ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:ComparisonoftheProposedprojecttothecombinedhydro-thermalgenerationscenarioTECHNICALCOMMENT:Thisparagraphcomparestheadvantagesanddisadvantagesoftheproposedprojectwiththeindividualhydroprojectsofthecombinedhydro-thermalgenerationscenario.Thecomparisonshouldbemadeusingworstcaseassumptionswiththeentiregroupof5proposedhydroprojects.Statementslikethefollowingcanbemade:Ifinundationisthebasisofcomparison,thealternativereservoirsalonewillimpactorinundate2.5timesasmuchlandastheproposedproject.Impactsduetoaccessroadsandtransmissionlinesarenotincludedbecausethescarcityofinformation.ThealternativereservoirswillinundatevaluableagriculturallandwhereastheProposedProjectwillnot.AreassubjecttosLopefailurewillbegreaterforthealternativesthantheProposedProject,principallybecauseofthegreaterperipheryinvolvedandthemorerapidflucationsinthereservoirlevels.Byvirtueoftheincrease1nimpactedareaandmoresevereclimaticconditioninsomeoftheprojects,permafrost-thawimpactsareexpectedtobegreaterwiththealternativesthantheProposedProject.CoalreservesintheNenanacoalfieldwillbeinundatedbythealternatives,whereas,nomineraldepositswillbeimpactedbytheProposedProject.SeeAppendixIIofthisdocumentforfurtherdiscussion.45811 l'J~'lJ]JJ]]J]JJJ]JJJTechnicalCommentALTOS1SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:AirQuality,CoalPlantsLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol1Page4-92Section4.7.2Paragraph3ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:Feasibilityofmitigativemeasures.TECHNICALCOMMENT:TheDEISstatesthattheadverseimpactscausedbyS02emissionscouldbemitigatedbyadditionalS02scrubbing.TheFEISshouldemphasizethatfurtherS02reductionscouldrequ1reswitchingtoawetlimestonetypescrubber.SuchachangeinS02controlequipmentwouldhavethefollowingimplications:oIncreasedcapitalandoperatingcosts;oSlightreductionsinnetgeneratingcapacityfortheplant;opossibleincreasedplantoutagescausedbyproblemswiththeS02scrubber;oProductionoflargequantitiesofcalciumsulfatesludge,whichmustbedewateredanddisposedof.TheFEISshoulddiscusstheseimplications.AdetaileddescriptionsofboththedryS02scrubbersandthewetlimestoneS02scrubbersaregiveninAppendixIIIofthisdocument.46591 JJl]]]]]JJJ]JJJJJJTechnicalCommentALT052SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:AirQuality,Impacts,CoalPlantsLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol1Page4-92Section4.7.2Paragraph7ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:Acceptabilityofthecoal-firedscenariosTECHNICALCOMMENT:TheDEISimpliesthatthosecoal-firedthermalalternativesthatdonotcauseexceedencesoftheairqualitystandardswouldbeacceptabletothestateandfederalairqualityagencies,andwouldalsobeacceptabletotheNationalParkService.Thatconclusion1Snotnecessarilytrue.TheNationalParkServicecouldrecommenddenialofanyplant'sPreventionofSignificanceDeterioration(PSD)airqualitypermitifitruledthatemissionsfromtheplantwouldcauseunacceptablevisibilitydegradationinDenaliNationalPark,evenifthatplantIsemissionsweremodeledtopassthesimplifiedvisibilityscreeningtest(EPA1980).SeeTechnicalCommentALT045foradetaileddiscussionofthecomplexissuesregardingtheroleoftheNationalParkServiceinairquality/visibilitypermitting.46601 lJlJl]JJJ]]]]]JJJJTechnicalCommentALTOS3SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:Alternatives,Hydroelectric,ImpactsLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol1Page4-92Section4.7.3LastparagraphofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:WaterqualityandquantityimpactsofalternativesTECHNICALCOMMENT:Therelativecomparisonsmadethat:1)theChakachamnasitewouldhavegreaterimpactsthantheSusitnaProject;2)theJohnson,Browne,andKeetnasiteswouldhavesimilarimpacts;and3)theSnowsitefewerimpacts;aremisleadingbecausetheFERChasnotpresentedthescalebywhichtheserelativestatementsweremade.Theimpactswouldbehighlydependentonprojectlocation,designandoperation,energyproduced,andexistingwaterresources.Also,impactsarerelativetoeachsite.Forexample,dependingonfinaloperationalflowschedules,thepercentagechangeinflowatanyonesitefromexistingflowscouldbequitesimilarbetweenprojects.Therefore,theimpactsonwaterquantityamongtheprojectswouldbesimilar.Onewaytoexaminerelativeimpacts~stolookattheamountofareaimpactedcomparedtothepowerproduced.TheattachedTable1presentssuchcomparisons.Thesecomparisonsareanestimatebecausetheydonotexaminequalityofhabitatnortheresourcesthatareassociatedwiththosehabitats.TheseareexaminedinmoredetailbytheApplicant~nAppendixIIofthisdocument.However,thecalculationsdoillustratethat,forthepowerproduced,theProposedProjectaffectssubstantiallysma'llersurfaceareasfortheimpoundmentandfarfewermilesofriverupstreamanddownstreamthandotheotherprojectswhencombined.44361 TechnicalCommentALTOS3Page2Evenwhentakensingly,theratioofinstalledcapacitytobothstreammilesimpactedandtoimpoundmentareaislessforSusitnathanforalmostalltheothersites.Therefore,basedonthesecomparisons,therelativeimpactsofeachalternativehydrositearegreaterthanSusitna.Theonlyexception~stheratioofreservoiracreagetopowerproductionfortheChakachamnaproject.Thereasonforthisisthattheimpoundmentisessentiallytheexistinglake.However,theprojectwouldimpactChakachamnaLakeinthattherewouldbeasignificantincrease~nthefrequencyandseverityofwater-levelfluctuationsofthelakesurface.InthecaseoftheBrowneandJohnsonsites,impactstowaterquantityandqualityoftheindividualsitesandthecombinationofbothsitesmustalsobeconsidered.4436111JJJ]J~l~JJ]]]]]JJJJJ JlJJJJJ]JTechnicalCommentALT053Page3Table1.RelativeComparisonofpowerproductionversusimpactedareafortheSusitnaandnon-Susitnahydroprojects.ABCImpound-ApproximatementInstalledImpactedRatioSurfaceRatioCapacityStreamMiles~IofB/AareaofCiA(MW)(acres)SnowSite63140.223,20032KeetnaSite100290.295,50055BrowneSite100410.4112,500125JohnsonSite2102291.0994,500450ChakachamnaSite330500.150SummaryWithChakachamna8033630.45115,700144WithoutChakachamna4733130.66115,700245Susitna1,6201100.0745,80028JJJ]]J1.Impactareasofmostsignificanceareassumedasfollows:Snowsitetoimpactapprox.14mi.(fromdamtoKenaiLakepluslengthofreservoir)Keetnasitetoimpactapprox.29m1.(damtoSusitnaRiverpluslengthofreservoir)Brownesitetoimpactapprox.41m1.(damtoTananaRiverpluslengthofreservoir)Johnsonsitetoimpactapprox.229m1.(damtoNenanaRiverpluslengthofreservoir)Susitnasitetoimpactapprox.110m1.(damtoChulitna/Susitnaconfluencepluslengthofreservoir)Chakachamnasite(Alt.E)toimpactapprox.50mi.,thedistancethatflowchangeswouldbeexpectedinboththeChakachatnaandMcArthurRivers.thisillustrationarebelievedtobeappropriate.Ingeneral,theimpactedreachwasconsideredtobethedistancefromtheproposedprojecttonearestmajordownstreamtributaryorbodyofwater,belowwhichpotentialprojectimpactswouldbeexpectedtobeattenuatedbythetributaryinput.Extensivestudiesmightberequired]J]44361toclearlydefinethesedistances.However,thedistancesassumedfor J]lJJJJJ]]]]]r1.JJJ]JTechnicalCommentALT054SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:Alternatives,Hydroelectric,ImpactsLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol1Page4-93Section4.7.4Paragraph6ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:Impactsofalternativenon-SusitnahydrositesonfisheriesresourcesTECHNICALCOMMENT:ThePowerAuthoritydisagreeswiththestatementthat"thenon-Susitnahydroalternatives[withtheexceptionoftheKeetnaandChakachamnasites]wouldlikelyhavesmalleraquaticimpactsthantheSusitnabasindevelopmentalternatives."ThePowerAuthoritydoesagreewiththeportionofthestatementthattheKeetnaandChakachamnasitescouldpotentiallyhavesignificantlygreaterimpacts.However,thePowerAuthorityalsobelievesthattheimpactstofisheriesresourcesoftheBrowneandJohnsonsites,eitherindividuallyorincombination,wouldhaverelativeimpactsatleastasgreatorgreaterthantheProposedProject.Thereasonsforthisare:1.AnadromousfishutilizeareasupstreamoftheBrowneandJohnsonsitesandanadromousfishhavebeendocumentedasspawningintheproposedimpoundmentareaoftheJohnsonsite(ADF&G,1983i).Incomparison,almostnoanadromousfisharefoundaboveDevilCanyonontheSusitna.2.BoththeBrowneandJohnsonsitesmayrequ~repassagefacilitiesforbothupstreamanddownstreammigrantswithsomeriskassociatedwithsuccessofthepassage.Thesefishcontributetodownstreamcommercialandsubsistencefisheries.NosuchfacilitiesareneededfortheSusitnaproject.44371 TechnicalCommentALTO54Page23.Areasofresidentfishhabitatwouldbealteredbyinundation,particularlyfortheJohnsonsite.AlthoughtheSnowprojectwouldberelativelysmallcomparedtotheotherprojects,therelativeimpacttofisheriesresourcesofthisdrainagealsowouldbesignificant.Forexample,LowerParadiseLake,presentlyaclearlakethathasanexistingrecreationalfisheryforgraylingandsomerainbowtrout,wouldbecompletelyinundatedandlost.Also,theKenaiRiverdownstreamofKenaiLake(towhicohSnowRiverisatributary)supportsthelargestsportfisheryinAlaska.Assuch,anyalterationsofflow,watertemperature,orwaterqualitywithintheKenaiwatershedwouldrequireverycarefulscrutinyasthisprojectcouldpotentiallyaffectanextremelyeconomically(viathemoniesgeneratedbybothcommercialandsportfishing)andenvironmentallysensitivearea.44371lJ.J ~-l]JJ]]J]]J]JJ]JJJJJTechnicalCommentALT055SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:Alternatives,Hydroelectric,ImpactsLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol1Page4-100Section4.9.1Paragraph4ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:Summaryofunavoidableadverseimpactsofalternativenon-SusitnahydrositesonfisheriesresourcesTECHNICALCOMMENT:TheApplicant'sevaluationoftheseimpacts(TechnicalCommentALT019)shouldbeincludedintheFEIS.44381 lJJ]J]]J]JJJ]J]JTechnicalCommentALT056SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:Alternatives,ImpactsLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol1,Pages4-100&4-101Sections4.9.1and4.10.1COMMENTINREFERENCETO:Projectcomparisons1nthetwosectionsTECHNICALCOMMENT:TheDEIShasselectedfivealternativehydroprojectstocomparewiththeProposedProject.TheDEISfailstocompareeachalternativeonthesamebasesasthatwhichhasbeenusedfortheProposedProject.TheDEIScomparesaprojectthathasbeenstudiedatgratlengthtoalternativesthathavebeendevelopedonpaper,basedlargelyontopographicmapsandlimitedinformation.Forexample,thenoiseandfugitivedustlevelsfortheProposedProjectarecomparedtotheimpactsofthealternativeswhichhavenotbeensited.Therefore,aworst-casescenarioshouldbeassumed,i.e.assumeasitinginanoise-sensitivearea.Impactstoculturalresources,andarcheologicalandhistoricsitesarelargelyunknownforthealternativesandwithoutasurveynocomparisonoftheimpactsshouldbeconsidered.45841 JJ]]]]]]]JJTechnicalCommentALT057SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:ProposedProject,ImpactsLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol1Page4-101Section4.11COMMENTINREFERENCETO:Shorttermusesandlong-termproductivitywiththeProposedProject.TECHNICALCOMMENT:ThissectionimproperlyimpliesthatiftheProposedProjectwerenotconstructedtherewouldbenoshort-andlong-termchangestotheenvironmentduetoresourceuse.Theconditions50yearsfromnowcannotbethesameasnow.Thestatementthat"streamhydraulicpatternsbelowthedamswouldadverselyaffectfishandpossiblywildlifepopulationsindownstreamreachesoftheriver"isinaccurateifnotquantitifiedtoindicatetherelativeimportanceintheecosystems.InformationpresentedinresponsetoFERC'srequestsforsupplementalinformationandAgencycommentsontheLicenseApplication,aswellasongoingfieldstudies,indicatethattheprecedingstatementisanexaggeration.45851 ]]]]]']]]]]]J]]]TechnicalCommentALT058SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:ProposedProject,ImpactsLOCATIONINDEIS:VollPages4-101and4-102Sections4.11.1and4.11.2COMMENTINREFERENCETO:AbandonmentofProposedProjectTECHNICALCOMMENT:TheApplicantdisagreeswithFERCStaff'scontentionthatitisunlikelytheProposedProjectwouldorcouldberemovedafteritsusefullife,butthatsuch1Spossiblewiththealternativehydrodevelopments.Afterabandonmentitisunlikelythatanyofthehydrositeswillundergoremedialworktoassure·thatconditionswillbethesameaspre-projectconditions.Thereareanumberofsmallhydroelectricdevelopmentsthathavebeenabandonedwithnoefforttorestorethesitetopre-projectconditions.Inmanycasestheyhavebeenclassifiedas"historicalsites."Thereisnorecordoflargeprojectsbeingretiredaftertheirusefullife,principallybecauseprojectsofthismagnitudewereonlyconstructedinthe1930's.Theeconomicinputintolargeprojectsandthepowerandenergyoutputwilljustifyfurtherexpenditurestotheirutilizationwellbeyondthe50-yearlifeusedineconomicevaluations.45851 ]1J]TechnicalCommentALT059SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol1Page4-102Section4.11.2Paragraph2ofthepageJ]TOPICAREA:ProposedProject,Impacts,Alternatives]]]J]J]]]JJJJCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:ProposedProjectliftimeversusthermalplantlifetimes.TECHNICALCOMMENT:Thelifeofthethermalfacilitiesarenotequivalenttothoseofthehydroelectric.Theeconomiclifeofthermalplantsrangesfrom20to30years,whereas,hydroelectricprojectlifetimesarecommonly50to100years.Therefore,thermalplantswillberetiredandreconstructedseveraltimesduringthelifeofahydroelectricplant.BoththeeconomicandenvironmentalimpactsofthisrepeatedconstructionactivityshouldbeconsideredinthecomparisonofthermalscenariostotheProposedProject.45851 ]]]]]]J°1~JJ]]JJTechicalCommentALT060SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:AirQualityLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol1Page5-1Section5.1.1.2Paragraph3ofpageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:Comparisonofauqualityimpactsismisleading.Fugitivedustanalyseshavebeenupdated.TECHNICALCOMMENT:TheinformationpresentedinSection5.1ismisleading.Theimpactsofallalternativesarelistedwithoutconsideringtheseverity,significance,durationorarealextentoftheimpacts.Theimpactswouldbemoreclearlyexpressedbyrankingthesignificanceofeachenvirornnentalissueforallofthealternatives.Thiswouldallowanobjectivecomparisonofthesignificanceofeachalternative.TheFEISshouldemphasizethattheal.rqualityimpactsofthecoal-firedplantswouldbelong-termandwouldaffectalargearea.TheanalysesoffugitivedustfromWatanaconstructiondescribedintheDEISwereofaverypreliminarynature.Extremeworst-caseassumptionswereusedtoestimatefugitivedustemissionratesandambientdustimpacts.Basedontheseworst-caseassumptions,theDEISanalysisindicatedprobableexceedencesoftheambiental.rqualitystandardsandPSDClassIIincrements.However,revisedanalyseshaveshownthatthefugitivedustimpactswillbemuchlowerthandescribedl.ntheDEIS.SeeTechnicalCommentALT037foradetaileddescriptionoftherevisedanalyses.TheFEISshouldemphasizethatthemitigatedfugitivedustimpactsoftheProposedProjectwouldbetemporaryandofverylimitedarealextent.46501 ]ll_JJ]l]J]TechnicalCommentALT06lSUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:Alternatives,Hydroelectric,ThermalLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol1Page5-4Section5.1.2.1.1Paragraph2ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:Conclusionsongeologyandsoilsrelativetothecombinedhydrothermalgenerationscenario.TECHNICALCOMMENT:Forthecombinedhydrothermalgenerationscenario,thefollowinghavenotbeenincludedintheconclusions:]JJJ]Jooa)b)45871Noassessmentofthereservoir-inducedseismiceventshasbeenmadeNoassessmenthasbeenmadeofthefollowing;(ofwhichitisevidentfromthelayoutsandclimaticandterrestrialinformationpresentedwouldbesignificant).Increasederos~onandpermafrostimpactsrelatedtoclearingofvegetationfromreservoirareasanddevelopmentofborrowareas,accessroutes,transmissionlines,andconstructionfacilities.Soilcompaction,eros~on,anddisturbancesalongaccessroutes,transmissionlinesandatconstructioncamps,aswellas~nareassubjecttooff-roadvehicletraffic. l'lj]lJ]J]JJ]JjJ"1JTechnicalCommentALT062SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:Alternatives,Hydroelectric,LandUseLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol1Page5-4Section5.1.2.1.2Paragraph3ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:Conclusionsregardinglanduseandownershiprelativetothecombinedhydro-thermalgenerationscenarioTECHNICALCOMMENT:Forthecombinedhydro-thermalgenerationscenar~o,thequantityoflandaffectedwouldbeinexcessof120,000acres,morethantwicetheamountaffectedbytheProposedProject.TheBrowneandJohnsonsiteswouldsignificantlyimpacttransportationandutilitycorridorsbyinundatingportionsoftheParksandAlaskaHighwaysandapetroleumproductspipeline.Theseareimportantfactorsintheconsiderationofthealternativescenarios.45881 lJJJJTechnicalCommentALT063SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:WaterQuantityandQualityLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol1Page5-5Section5.1.2.3Paragraph3ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:Non-SusitnahydropoweralternativesandtheassessmentofthemodificationsoftheriversChakachamna,andJohnsonprojectshavebeensitedareglacierfed.Therefore,thefollowingobservationsmaybemadeabouttheimpactstowaterquantityandqualityoftheriversdownstreamoftheprojects.J]JJTECHNICALCOMMENT:Ther1versonwhichtheBrowne,Keetna,Snow,]]JJJJJJJa)Theriverswillbealteredfromanuncontrolledglacialrivertoacontrolledflow.b)Turbiditylevelswouldbereduced1nthesummerandincreased1nthewinter.c)Watertemperaturesinthemainstemwouldbereduced1nthesummerandincreasedinthewinter.d)Ther1verchanneldownstreamofthedamsmaybenarrowedandstabilized.e)Onsetoficecoverwouldbedelayedintheautumnand1cebreakupwouldbeslowedinthespringdownstreamofthedams.f)TheSnowProjectissubjecttobreakoutfloodseverytwotothreeyears.Chakachamnawouldexperiencethesamephenomena,butatlongerintervals.SeeTechnicalCommentALT019concern1ngassessmentoffisheriesimpacts.45901 lJ]J]]]J]JJJ]c,JJJJTechnicalCommentALT064SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:Alternatives,Hydroelectric,ImpactsLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol1Page5-5Section5.1.2.3Paragraph3ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:WaterqualityandquantityimpactsofalternativesTECHNICALCOMMENT:ThePowerAuthoritydisagreeswithFERCStaffconclusionsregardingthewaterqualityandquantityimpactsofhydroalternativestotheProposedProject.FERCStaffshouldconsiderthepointsraised1nTechnicalComemntALT053andreV1setheirconclusionsaccordingly.44391 llJJ]l~J]]TechnicalCommentALT065SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:Alternatives,Hydroelectric,ImpactsLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol1Page5-5Section5.1.2.4Paragraph4ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:Conclusionsregardingimpactsofalternativesonfishresources.TECHNICALCOMMENT:BaseduponthematerialpresentedinAppendixIIofthisdocument,thefollowingadditionalconclusionsshouldbeincludedintheFEIS:]JJ]~J'.J]]J1.2.3.4.44401AdoptionoftheBrowneProjectwouldresultinmajorimpactsonanadromousfishrunsupstreamanddownstreamofthesite.AdoptionoftheJohnsonsitewouldinundateexistingsalmonspawn-ingareasandwouldhaveamajorimpactonanadromousfishrunsupstreamanddownstreamofthesite.TheSnowRiverProjectwouldinundateLowerParadiseLake,alakethathasanimportantexistingrecreationalfisheryforgraylingandrainbowtrout.Thesitewouldalsopotentiallyhaveamajorimpactonanadromousfishrunsdownstreamofthesite.Cumulatively,theimpactsofallalternativenon-SusitnahydroelectricfacilitiesonfisheriesresourceswouldbesignificantlygreaterthanthoseoftheProposedProject. ]l]JJ]]J]]J]J~..J~.JJTechnicalCommentALT066SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:ProposedProject,AlternativesLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol1Page5-7Section5.2.1Paragraph1ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:FERCstaff'sapproachtoassessthe"•••econom1C,engineeringandenvironmentalcosts,feasibilityandeffectsofarangeofrepresentativegenerationscenarios•••"TECHNICALCOMMENT:Thema1ntextandthesupportingappendicesdonotsupporttheabovestatement.Forexample,thenon-Susitnahydroelectricdevelopmentsingeneral(withtheexceptionofChakachamna)haveabareminimumofbasicdataavailable.Nogeologicalorsoilsexplorationspecifictothesiteshasbeenpresented.Therefore,foundationconditions,andmaterialavailabilityandquality,cannotbeascertained.ThedataonwaterresourcesislimitedandisnotpresentedinDEISAppendixH,WaterResources.Thebasicdatarelativetothenon-Susitnahydroelectricdevelopmentsforfisheriesandaquaticresources,terrestrialbotanicalresources,terrestrialwildliferesources,recreationresources,visualresources,socioeconomicsandculturalresourceshavenotbeencovered1nthesupportingDEISAppendices.Thereforeit1SnotunderstoodhowtheFERCStaffcandeterminethefeasibilityofthisscenario.Theengineeringandenvironmentalcostswhichenterintothedeterminationofeconomicviabilitycannotbeevaluatefromthedatapresented.Becauseofthelackofdataconcerningalternatives,theDEISdiscussionofalternatives1Sseriouslydeficient.Further,impactsofindividualsprojectsofthealternativesshouldbeassessedona"worst-casebasisll•45911 l]lJ]TechnicalCommentALT067SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:ProposedProject,AlternativesLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol1Page5-7Section5.2.1Paragraph2ofthepagefeasibility,andenvironmentaleffects,theFERCstafffindsthatamixedthermal-basedgenerationscenario,supplementedwithselectednon-SusitnabasinhydropowerfacilitieswouldbethemosteffectiveapproachtomeetingtheprojectedgenerationrequirementsoftheRailbeltarea."]JCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:"Basedonconsiderationsofengineering]JTECHNICALCOMMENT:ThedatawhichhasbeenpresentedintheMainTextandAppendicesoftheDEISdoesnotsupportthisdetermination.AsisrequiredbyNEPA,theDEIShasnotevaluatedthealternativesonthebasisofworst-amongalternativescannotbemade.]caseassumptions.Untilsuchananalysisisperformed,areasonedchoice,J]JJSeeTechnicalCommentALT066forexamplesofDEISdatashortcomings.45921 ]JJlJJJ]]]'J,-]]JJJJTechnicalCommentALT068SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:AccessRoads,ImpactsLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol1Page5-8Section5.2.3Paragraphs3to5ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:AccessfromtheDenaliHighwaywouldhavesevereimpactsonthewildliferesources.etc.,andthatstaffrecommendsadoptionofarail-onlyaccessfromGoldCreek.TECHNICALCOMMENT:The1.ssuessurroundingtheselectionofapreferredaccessroutearecomplexfromeconomic,environmental,andengineeringperspectives.ThepreferredplandescribedintheLicenseApplicationwasselectedafterathoroughstudyofthe18alternateplans.TheApplicantperformedadetailedanalysisofthecosts,schedules,andvar1.OUSenvironmentaladvantagesanddisadvantagesof18differentalternateaccessroutesandmodes(Acres1983).ThepreferredplanshownintheLicenseApplicationhasbeendesignatedPlan18(Denali).TheplansuggestedbytheFERCStaffintheDEISisdesignatedPlan8(GoldCreek).Whiletherail-onlyaccess(Plan8)wouldhavelessoverallenvironmentalimpactthantheproposedDenaliaccessroute,rail-onlywasconsideredunacceptablefromanengineeringperspectiveforreasonsoflogistics,deliveryflexibility,cost,andconstructionscheduling.Thepr1.marypurposeofaccess1.Stoprovideandmaintainanuninterruptedflowofmaterialsandpersonneltothedamsitesthroughoutthelifeoftheproject.Arail-onlyaccesswouldjeopardizethisfundamentalobjectivebynotprovidingtheflexibilitytomaintaincostsandschedulecontrolortoensureoperationforemergencyorothersituationswhenrailaccessisnotpossible.Anadditionalconcernoftherail-onlyaccess1.StheneedtoconstructamajorbridgeacrosstheSusitnaRiverneartheDevilCanyondamsite.This TechnicalCommentALT068Page21Samajorengineeringdisadvantageofthatplanfromaconstructionschedulingperspective.Theneedtobuildthismajorbridgeaddsatleasttwoyearstotheconstructionperiodwhencomparedwiththeproposedaccessroute.TotaltimetoconstructinitialaccesstoWatanaundertherail-onlyplanisestimatedat3to4years.Incomparison,theroutefortheproposedaccessroadtraversescomparativelyflatterrainwithnomajorstreamcrossingsorengineeringobstacles.IthasbeenestimatedthatinitialaccesstoWatanafortheproposedroutecouldbeachieved1noneyearorless(Acres1983).AdelayinaccesswillnegativelyimpacteconomicsoftheProposedProject.Also,alongerconstructionperiodforaccesswouldworsenconstructionimpacts.It1Srecognizedthattheproposedaccessroutetraversesanareathat1Spresentlyrelativelyinaccessibleandconsideredtobevaluableforwildlife.Withactivemanagementanduserestrictions,however,itwillbepossibletoreducenonconstruction-relatedsecondaryimpacts.CurrentplanscallforrestrictedaccessfromtheDenaliHighwaytothedamsiteduringconstruction.Eliminatingpublicaccessduringconstruction1Salsopreferredfromaconstructionmanagementviewpoint.Suchapolicypreventssafety-relatedproblemswhichwouldariseifthepublicwereallowedtotravelfreelytotheconstructionsite.Arestricted-to-constructionaccesspolicyalsoprovidesenvironmentalbenefitsbyminimizingimpactstoallspeciesandbypreventinghabitatloss.ThePowerAuthoritywillworkwithagenciestodevelopaccesspoliciesbothtocontrolaccessduringconstructionandforroadusefollowingthecompletionoftheProposedProject.44451lJ l]]]]J]]]TechnicalCommentALT069SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:AirQualityLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol1Page5-9Section5.3.2Paragraphs4&5ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:Requiredmitigativemeasuresforfugitivedust.TECHNICALCOMMENT:ThefugitivedustanalysesthatwerepresentedintheDEISwerebasedonverypreliminaryestimatesoftheexcavationquantities,haulroadconfigurationsandgravelhandlingpractices.AmuchmoredetaileddescriptionoftheconstructionpracticeswillbesubmittedtotheAlaskaDept.ofEnvironmentalConseration(ADEC)aspartofthePreventionofSignificantDeterioration(PSD)permitapplication.ThePSDapplicationwillincludedetailedestimatesofthefugitivedustemissionrates,ambientdustimpacts,andthemethodsthatwillbeusedtominimizethegenerationofwindblowndust.Thefugitivedustcontrolmeasuresthatcouldbeusedincludethefollowing:oWateringofhaulroads;]J]]ooooSurfacingofhaulroads;Limitingvehiclespeedonhaulroads;Configurationofgravelstoragepilestominimizewindblowndust;Applicationofstabilizingagentstolong-termstoragepiles.]JJUseofacombinationofthesemitigationswouldreducefugitivedustemissionsenoughtoensurecompliancewithallairqualitystandards.SeeTechnicalCommentALT037.45361 lllTechnicalCommentALT070SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol3PageE-55SectionE.2.3.3.1TOPICAREA:Hydroelectric,AlternativesAllParagraphs]]]]]JJ]]J]JCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:Impactofpermafrost10TananariverbedandsiesmicpotentialonfoundationofJohnsondam.TECHNICALCOMMENT:TheTananaRivervalley~sknowntocontaindeep,permeable,unconsolidatedsedimentswhichcouldcontainpermafrost.Toinsureseismicstability,thesedepositswouldhavetoberemovedsotheembankmentcouldbefoundedonbedrock.TheextentofthisexcavationcouldgreatlyaffecttheJohnsonProjectconstructioncost.RefertoAppendixIIofthisdocumentforadiscussionoftheJohnsonProject.49631 ]]TechnicalCommentALT071SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:Hydroelectric,Alternatives,FillingLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol3PageE-55SectionE.2.3.3.3AllParagraphs"]COMMENTINREFERENCETO:stabilityofreservoirrimImpactofglacier-dammedlakeatSnowproject,]]]]]J]JJ]]TECHNICALCOMMENT:Slopessurroundingthereservoirarerock,whichcouldbesusceptibletoblockslidesandslopeinstabilityduringreservoirfilling.Inaddition,athinlayerofoverburdenmantlesportionsoftheupperleftabutment.Theoverburdencouldbesusceptibletoinstabilityuponreservoirfillingduetoincreasedpore-waterpressureandreducedslidingresistance.Releaseofwaterfromanice-dammedlakeabovetheSnowRivervalleyhasproducedfloodflowsofapproximatelythesamemagnitudeasstorms(the1967outburstfloodwasestimatedat20,000cfs).Historicalrecordsindicatethattheseglacialoutburstfloodshaveoccurredevery2-3years~ntheSnowRivervalley.Shouldoutburstfloodingoccursimultaneouslywithanon-outburstflood,acombinedflowof40,000cfscouldberealized.SpecialprovisionswouldhavetobeincorporatedintotheSnowprojectdesigntoallowforthesepossibilitiesandtheresultingreservoirsurchargelevels.TheseprovisionswouldhaveasignificantimpactontheSnowprojectconstructioncost,andcouldcomplicatetheoperationandintensifythemaintenancerequirementsoftheproject.TheSnowprojectisdiscussedinmoredetailinAppendixIIofthisdocument.49631 ]~]]]JJ]JJJJJJTechnicalCommeentALT072SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORKTOPICAREA:AirQualityLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol3PageG-3SectionG.I.I.IParagraph3ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:Rainfalldata.TECHNICALCOMMENT:Moredetailonrainfall/snowfallprofilesisneededtoevaluatefugitivedustattheSusitnaprojectsite.TheavailableonsitemeteorologicaldatafortheWatanasiteshouldbedescribed.Thefollowinginformation1Savailable(R&M1982j-1982m),andshouldbeincludedintheFEIS:oMonthlyprecipitationprofiles;oMonthlynumberofdayswithnoprecipitation;oMonthlysnowacccumulation.46631 ]TechnicalCommentALT073SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:AirQuality]]J]]]-JJLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol3PageG-3SectionG.1.1.2LastparagraphofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:Needforatmosphericstabilitydata.Needforpresentationofonsitedata.TECHNICALCOMMENT:Onsitedataarecriticaltoadiscussionofairquality,especiallyforaregionwheremeteorologyconditionsaresevere.TheFEISshould:1.Presentavailableonsitedata.2.Considerseveremeteorologicalconditionsinthea~rqualityimpactanalysis.3.Considerlocaltopographiceffectssuchaschannelingandvalleybreezes.4.Discusshowstrongwinterinversionswillaffecttheproposedproject.5.Ensurethattheestimatedambientairqualityvalues,presented~nthesecondparagraphofpageG-5,arerealistic.6.Statetheassumptionsthatwerethebasisofthecalculations.7.VerifythatthoseassumptionsareapplicabletotheAlaskaninterior.ThemeteorologicalconditionsatvariouslocationsalongtheRailbeltaredescribedinAppendixIIIofthisdocument.46421 C·)1]J'J~]]]JTechnicalCommentALT074SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:AirQualityLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol3PageG-I4SectionG.2.I.2.IParagraph2ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:DispersionmodelingprocedureshavebeenrevisedTECHNICALCOMMENT:Amorerealisticfugitivedustimpactanalysishasbeenperformed.SeeTechnicalCommentALT037.46431 ]]'1,J]]TechnicalCommentALT075SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONHENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:AirQualityLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol3PageG-15SectionG.2.1.2.1Paragraph2ofthepage(TableG-4)COMMENTINREFERENCETO:Dieselgeneratorem1SS1onshavebeenrevisedTECHNICALCOMMENT:Theimpactsofemissionsfromtheproposedtemporarydieselgenerators,residentialheatersandtherefuseincineratorlocatedattheWatanaCamphavebeenre-evaluated(APA1984).TherevisedemissionratesfromthedieselgeneratorswerebasedonthesameassumptionsregardingfuelusageaswereusedintheDEISanalysis.Theimpactsofthepointsourceem1SS10nsontheelevatedterrainsurroundingtheWatanasitewereestimatedusingthesimplifiedVALLEYcalculationprocedures(EPA1977).Theestimatedmaximum24-hourimpactscausedbythedieselgeneratoremissionsareasfollows:]JParticulatesHydrocarbons11.811.116636.213.3ug/m3ug/m3ug/m3ug/m3ug/m3,OJJJJTheseworst-caseimpactsareallwellbelowtheallowablea1rqualitylimitsandthePSDClassIIincrements.ThesecalculatedairqualityimpactsshouldbeincorporatedintotheFEIS.45371 lTechnicalCommentALT076]towers.TOPICAREA:AirQualityCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:Ground-levelfoggingandicingunlikelyfromSUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMVol3PageG-17Section6.2.3Paragraph3ofthepageLOCATION:l]']]~1J]JTECHNICALCOMMENT:Since1cefogisconsideredtobeasignificantprobleminmanypartsofAlaska,aremeteorologicalconditionsintheCookInletareawellenoughestablishedtosupportthestatementonpageG-17oftheDEIS,"Groundlevelfoggingandicingwouldbeveryunlikelywiththistypeoftower."?TheFEISshouldemphasizethaticefogformation1Sacomplexphenonmenonandprovidemoreinformationonhowicefogwillbeavoidedatthepowerplants.J]]J1Jc1JJ46491.1 ]]TechnicalCommentALT077SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol3PageG-17SectionG.2.3Paragraphs7to9ofthepage]TOPICAREA:AirQualityCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:Computermodelsarenotappropriate.estimatethegroundlevelpollutantimpactsmaynotbeappropriatefortheseanalyses.Thesemodelsarenotwellsuitedformodelingpollutantdispersionduringsevereinversionandextendedcalmperiods,bothofwhichareprevalentinAlaska(seeTechnicalCommentALT078).AmoredetailedairqualityanalysisispresentedinAppendixIIIofthisdocument.Thisdetailedanalysisincludesdiscussionsoninversionsandcalmperiods.TheEPA-approvedISCSTandCOMPLEXcomputermodelshavebeenusedfortherevisedanalyses.Thewinddataforthesemodelshavebeenadjustedtoaccountforcalmperiods.]]]JJTECHNICALCOMMENT:ThePTPLUandVALLEYmodelsusedbyFERCStafftoJJTheresultsofthisdetailedanalysisindicatethefollowing:ThefinalparagraphofpageG-17g1vesafalsesenseofthevalidityofthescreeningcalculations.Thisparagraphshouldberevisedtostresstheneedtoevaluatesite-specificmeteorologicalconditionspriortousingthescreeningmodels.Coalm1ne]]JJo46611however,limits.expansionwouldcreatelong-termfugitivedustimpacts;thedustconcentrationswouldgenerallybebelowambient ooooTechnicalCommentALT077Page2Fugitivedustfromthecoal-firedpowerplantsmightexceedthePSDClassIIincrementsandwouldcreatelong-termimpactsnearthepowerplants.Stackemissionsfrompowerplantswouldcauselong-termimpacts~nalargeareaaroundeachplant.SOemissionswouldcreatethemost2significantimpact.However,thecalculatedworstcaseimpacts~nDenaliNationalParkwouldnotexceedtheallowablePSDClassIincrements.ThevisibilitydegradationcausedbythepowerplantplumeswouldbelongtermandwouldaffectmanykeyvistasthatareconsideredavaluableculturalresourceinAlaska.Icefogandsteamplumeformationfromgas-firedpowerplantscouldbeasignificantsitingconstraint.TheplantsnearAnchoragecouldhaveasignificantimpactoncarbonmonoxide,nitrogendioxide,andozoneconcentrationsintheurbanarea.J]J]JJ]J]J]]46611 l]]]JJJTechnicalCommentALT078SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMTOPICAREA:AirQualityLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol3PageG-20SectionG.2.4Paragraph3ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:Modelingmethodsareinappropriateconsideringtheearlierdiscussionson"severe"inversions.dispersionmodelstoestimatetheairqualityimpactscausedbythecoal-JTECHNICALCOMMENT:TheDEISusedtheEPA-approvedPTPLUandVALLEYNeitherofthosemodelsareappropriatefor]firedpowerplantem~ss~ons.calculatingimpactsduringcalmperiodsand. .severe~nvers~onsthatarethecoal-firedpowerplantswouldcausemuchgreaterairqualityimpactsthanarepresentedintheDEIS.Thelimitedavailabledataindicatethatsurfaceinversionsareextremelycommonduringthewintermonths,inboththeInteriorandCoastalregions'ofAlaska(Bilello,1966).Basedon9yearsofdata,theaveragefrequencyofoccurrenceandaverageinversionthicknessmeasuredduringthewinteratFairbanks(InteriorAlaska)andYakutat(CoastalAlaska)areasfollows:JJJ]commonduringthewinterincentralAlaska.ItisthereforeprobablethatJJJJJJFairbanksYukatatFrequencyofInversionFrequencyofInversionMonthOccurrenceThicknessOccurrenceThickness(%)(m)(%)(m)Jan8169062210Feb5648040210March3019015160Oct2823026180Nov664404418046441 TechnicalCommentALT078Page2Becausethesedatashowthatinversionsarecommon~nboththeInteriorandcoastalregions,it~slikelythatinversionswouldbecommonatthethermalpowerplantsites.MuchofAlaskaalsoexperiencesextendedperiodsofcalmwinds,especiallyduringthewinter.Themonthlyoccurrenceofcalmperiodsatvar~ouslocationsisshowninthefollowingtable:llJJJComparisonofWindDataforLocationsintheAlaskaRailbelt1JCalms(%)48.228.921.310.35.93.94.86.47.714.028.635.6Anchorage1WindNenanaFl~lJ.J"li~j1J(%)12.911.08.54.94.43.96.58.012.38.68.212.3Talkeetna3WindCalmsSpeed(mph)6.26.16.77.28.28.57.16.86.16.66.15.92(%)29.233.430.134.633.328.833.642.544.939.231.835.3WindCalmsSpeed(mph)6.56.05.84.94.94.74.53.63.44.25.65.6(%)34.133.729.620.520.523.426.928.925.025.833.540.4CalmsSpeed(mph)6.15.46.06.76.77.05.38.510.410.65.54.9Fairbanks1WindSpeed(mph)2.54.15.47.18.37.66.96.76.45.54.13.6MonthJanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecemberAnnualAverage5.618.05.828.54.934.86.88.51.Source:2.Source:3.Source:NOAA1979aU.S.AirForce1983Batelle196646441 46441Thesemajortopicsarediscussed~ndetail~nAppendixIIIofthisdocument.Thesevereinversionsandextendedcalmperiodsmustbecarefullyconsideredduringtheimpactsanalysis.Thefollowingtopicsmustbeaddressed:TechnicalCommentALT078Page3Howwouldthereducedmixingheightsthatoccurduringinversionsinfluencethegroundlevel802concentrationsaroundtheplantsandinDenaliNationalPark?Howwouldtheoccurrenceofextendedcalmperiodsinfluencethegroundlevel802concentrationsaroundthepowerplants?Howwouldplumefumigationcausedduringinversionbreakupsaffectshort-term(l-hrand3-hr)pollutantconcentrationsaroundtheplant?HowwouldtheoccurrencesofinversionsaffecttheformationofregionalhazeinDenaliNationalPark?ooooThecombinedinverionsandcalmperiodswouldresult~nthepoorestdispersionpotentialduringthewintermonths,whenthetotalelectricaloutput(andhencepollutantemissions)fromthepowerplantswouldbethehighest.ExactlytheoppositesituationwouldoccurattheProposedProject.Thehighestfugitivedustemissionsduringthedamconstructionwouldoccurduringthesummermonths,duringwhichtimetheoccurrenceofinversionsisataminimum.JllJlJJJ]J]]]]J]JJJ Jl]TechnicalCommentALT079SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORMLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol3PageG-20SectionG.2.4.Paragraph4ofthepage(TableG-8)]JTOPICAREA:AirQuality,CoalPlants,CoalResourcesJJJCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:Coalcompositionshouldtobedocumented.TECHNICALCOMMENT:TheS02emissionratesthatwereusedfortheDEISa1rqualityanalyseswerebasedoncontinuousburningofcoalwiththefollowingproperties:Thesevalue'Sareapparentlytheaverageofmeasuredcoalqualityforthemajorcoalfields1ncentralAlaska.TheDEISassumedthatthecoalpropertiesatalloftheproposedpowerplantswouldremainconstantforthelifeoftheproject.Site-specificcoalproperties,andchangesovertime,shouldbeconsideredintheFEIS.JJJJHeatingValueSulfurContentAshContent(BTU/lb)(%)(%)-8,000-0.3-9.9]J]JJTheDEISshouldhaveevaluatedthepotentialimpactscausedbyvariations1ncoalquality.Itisreasonabletoexpectthatroughlyhalfofthecoalburnedinthepowerplantswouldbeoflowerqualitythanthe"averagecoal"assumedfortheDEIS.SincetheDEISindicatedpotentialairqualityprob1emscausedbyburningthe"averagecoal",extendeduseofalowerqualitycoalcouldcauseevenmoreunacceptableproblems.AcompilationofcoalqualitydataforthethreemajorcoalfieldsisshownintheattachedTable1.ThecoaldataisbasedonanalysesconductedbytheAlaskaDepartmentofNaturalResources(ADNR1984).Asisexpected,thereisawiderangeinthemeasuredcoalpropertieswithinallofthe46571 TechnicalCommentALT079Page2fields.Toevaluatetheimpactsofpotentialcoaldegradation,twokeycoal-qualityscenariosareshowninthetable;the"representativescenario"thatrepresentsADNR'sbestjudgmentontheaveragecoalqualityineachcoalfield,andthe"worst-casescenario"thatrepresentsADNR'sjudgmentonthe·worstcoalqualitythatcouldreasonablybeexpectedforatleastaone-yearperiod.Therearetwomajorimplicationstothesevariationsincoalquality.First,thecoalmineownerwouldhavetoconductextensivecoalblendingtomeettheminimumcoal-qualitystandardsthatwillbesetbythepowercompanies.Second,evenwithcoalblendingitispossiblethatsomelowerqualitycoalwouldhavetobeburnedforanextendedperiod,whichwouldcauseincreasedpollutantemissionsduringthatperiod.Thesetwomajorimplicationsarediscussedbelow.~JCoalblendingatthem1nesitewouldbeneededtoproduceacontinuoussupplyofcoalwithconsistentproperties(heatingvalue,ash,sulfurcontent,etc).Itwouldbedifficultforthepowerplantstooperateusingacoalsupplythatfrequentlyvariedinquality.Theindividualpowercompaniesthatpurchasethecoalwouldthereforespecifyanallowablerangeofcoalquality.Themineownerwouldberesponsibleforensuringthatthecoalthatwasdeliveredtotheplantsconsistentlymetthosestandards.Ifthecoalthatwasminedfromaparticularseamdidnotmeetthosestandards,thenitwouldhavetobetemporarilystockpiledandlaterblendedwithcoalthatwasbetterthantheminimumstandards.Thesecoalblendingoperationswouldaddtothecostandenvironmentalimpactsofthemine.Theblendingoperationswouldrequ1readditionalequipmentandmanpower,sotheywould1ncreasethecoalcost.TheactivecoalstockpilesandcoaltransferLoperationswouldbemajorfugitivedustsources.Surfacerunofffromtheactivecoalstockpilescouldalsoincreasethewaterqualityimpactsofthemine.IncreasedS02emissionscausedbyburninglowqualitycoalcouldaddtotheairqualityimpactsnearthepowerplants.TheestimatedS02emissionsandtotalashproductionthatwouldresultfromburningcoalfromthethreefieldsareshownintheattachedTable2.TheassumedplantparametersarethesameasthoseusedintheDEIS:200MWe,10,000BTU/kWhheatingrate,46571 r]]JJ]JJJJJ]]]]]JJJ]TechnicalCommentALT079Page3and13.7%totaloutages.Asshowninthattable,theS02emissionratethatwasassumedintheDEISdoesindeedrepresenttheaverageratethat~scalculatedforthethreemajorcoalfields.However,thetablealsoshowsthattheS02emissionratewhenburninglowerqualitycoalcouldbemuchhigherthanthevalueassumed~ntheDEIS.ThesemajorS02emissionincreaseswouldcausehigherambientS02concentrationsnearthepowerplants.TheFEISshouldaddresstheimplicationsofvariations1ncoalqualityattheNenanacoalfield.Itshouldpresentdataonthevaryingcoalquality.Thenecessityforcoalblendinganditseconomicandenvironmentalimpactsshouldbediscussed.TherevisedairqualityanalysesintheFEISshoulddiscussS02impactscausedbyburningoflowqualitycoal.AllofthesetopicsareaddressedinAppendixIIIofthisdocument. TechnicalCommentALT079lPage4Table1JComparisonofCoalQualitylfromAlternativeCoalFields(1),(2)]RepresentativeRepresentativeWorst-CaseCoalSourceParameterRangeScenarioScenario(3)JSusitnaLowlands,BTU/lb6,500-9,5008,2007,800lIincl.BelugaFieldSulfur(%)0.1-0.70.30.5J(66samples)Moisture(%)10-301520rlAsh(%)3 -301520I~JNenanaBasin,BTU-!lb6,500-9,8007,9007,700.-]~Jincl.NenanaFieldSulfur(%)0.2-0.70.30.5(70samples)Moisture(%)10-302023JAsh(%)3 -301220MatanuskaFieldBTU/lb10,400-14,30010,70010,000J(58samples)Sulfur(%)0.3-0.70.50.7JMoisture(%)3- 9615Ash(%)4 -252022lu(1)Source:AlaskaDept.ofNaturalResources,1984.(2)Allvaluesuseonas-receivedbasis.(3)"Worst-CaseScenario"istheADNRjudgmentontheworstcoalpropertiesthatwouldbeencounteredforextendedperiods.46571 ]TechnicalCommentALT079Page5Table2]JJCoalSourceComparisonofS02andAshEmissionsforAlternativeCoalSources(l)S02Emissions,g/secUncontrolled70%ControlTotalAshProduction,tons/yrJAssumedValues~nDEISr-NenanaFieldJa.RepresentativeScenariob.Worst-caseScenario(2)JBelugaField]a.RepresentativeScenariob.Worst-caseScenarioJMatanuskaFieldJa.RepresentativeScenario~b.Worst-caseScenario18816728716228320630956.550.286.048.684.961.992.775,000115,000196,000138,000194,000141,000166,000J](1)Basedon200MWeplant;13.7%outages;coalpropertiesfromAlaskaDept.ofNaturalResources(ADNR1984).JJJ"Worst-caseScenario"istheADNRjudgmentontheworstcoalpropertiesthatwouldbeencounteredforextendedperiods.]46571 JJJJJ]J]]J]JrJ]~1JJ]JJTechnicalCommentALT08lSUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTTECHNICALCOMMENTFORM.TOPICAREA:TransmissionLinesandCorridorsLOCATIONINDEIS:Vol6PageM-53SectionM.3.1.4.2Paragraph5ofthepageCOMMENTINREFERENCETO:ProposedtransmissionlinefromHealytoFairbanksterminuswouldbenewright-of-way.TECHNICALCOMMENT:TheproposedtransmissionlinebetweenHealyandFairbankswillparalleltheexistingGoldenValleyElectricAssociationISlineforapproximately25milesofthe94-milelength,andwouldnotbeconsiderednewright-of-way.Therefore,impactsintheseareaswouldbeonlyincremental.47521 Jl]'lJ]BIBLIOGRAPHYForAlaskaPowerAuthorityCommentsontheFederalEnergyRegulatoryCommissionDraftEnvironmentalImpactStatementofMay1984ThisBibliographyisorganizedaccordingtothefivecategoriesoftheTechnicalComments.Withineachcategory,thereferencesarelistedalphabeticallybyauthor.Forbrevity,thefollowingacronymsareusedinthecitations.]]J]]]]J]JJ]AcronymAcresADF&GADNRAEIDCAlEEAI<ALUCAPAASLBattelleBLMBPCOEDeEDDOEEBASCOEPAFERC28052840820AffiliationAcresAmerican,Inc.AlaskaDepartmentofFishandGameAlaskaDepartmentofNaturalResourcesArcticEnvironmentalInformationandDataCenterAmericanInstituteofElectricalEngineersStateofAlaska(General)AlaskaLandUseCouncilAlaskaPowerAuthorityAlaskaStateLegislatureBattellePacificNorthwestLaboratoriesBureauofLandManagementBritishPetroleumCorpsofEngineersAlaskaDepartmentofCommerceandEconomicDevelopmentU.S.DepartmentofEnergyEbascoServices,Inc.U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgencyFederalEnergyRegulatoryCommission ~l,.J]]]]]J]J]JJ]J]J]AcronymFNSBFOAHElEAIEEEISERNOAANPSO&GCCPNDR&MSHCASHPTESUAMUSBRUSDASCSUSGS28052840820AffiliationFairbanks'-NorthStarBoroughFrankOrthandAssociatesHarza-EbascoSusitnaJointVentureInternationalEnergyAgencyInstituteofElectricalandElectronicsEngineers,Inc.InstituteofSocialandEconomicResearchNationalOceanicandAtmosphericAdministrationNationalParkServiceoilandGasConservationCommissionPeratrovich,Nottingham&Drage,Inc.R&MAssociatesShermanH.ClarkAssociatesSusitnaHydroelectricProjectTerrestrialEnvironmentalSpecialistsUniversityofAlaska-Museumu.S.BureauofReclamationu.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,SoilConservationServiceU.S.GeologicalSurvey ]lllJJJJJ]]JJJJJJNEEDFORPOWERCitationAcres1983.SHP-FeasibilityReport,Chapter18.1983.AlEE1960.AlEECommitteeReport,ApplicationofProbabilityMethodstoGeneratingCapacityProblems,Paper601185presentedattheAlEEFallGeneralMeeting,Chicago IL,Oct.1960.AKDCED1983.AlaskaDepartmentofCommerceandEconomicDevelopment(DCED).1983.StateofAlaskaLongTermEnergyPlan1983.AKO&GCC1983.StateofAlaskaOilGasConservationCommission,StatisticalReport,1983.Battelle1982a.ExistingGeneratingFacilitiesandPlannedAdditionsfortheRailbeltRegionofAlaska.VolumeVI.September,1982.Battelle1982b.CandidateElectricEnergyTechnologyforFutureApplicationintheRailbeltRegionofAlaska.RichlandWA.VolumeIV.October,1982.BP1984.StatisticalReviewofWorldEnergy1984.BritishPetroleum,London.June1984.DOE1980.DemonstratedReserveBaseofCoalintheUnitedStatesasofJanuary1,1980.EBASCO1983.UseofNorthSlopeGasforHeatandElectricityintheRailbelt.1983.EKONO1980.PeatResourceEstimationlonAlaska.FinalReport.Vol.1.Bellevue,WA.August1980.28052TechnicalCommentNumbersNFP042NFP035NFP020NFP038NFP098NFP032NFP044NFP046NFPl05NFPl06NFPl07NFP092NFP018NFP092NFP015NFP044NFP105 llll]JJ]J]JJ],1JJJNEEDFORPOWER(cont.)CitationEnergyResourcesCo.1980.LowRankCoalStudy:NationalNeedsforResourceDevelopment.WalnutCreek,CA.Vol.2.(ForU.S.DOE,ContractDE-AC-108-79FCl006).FERC1979.HydroelectricPowerEvaluation.DOE/FERC-0031.Washington,D.C.August1979.lEA1984.OilMarketReport-MonthlyOilMarketandStocksAssessment.July1984.IEEE1977.SymposiumOnReliabilityCriteriaforSystemDynamicPerformance.77CH122l-l-PWR.NewYork,NY.pp.32-42.IEEE1982.PowerSystemReliabilityEvaluation.TutorialCourse,Publication82EHO195-8-PWR.pp.54, 56.Kresge,D.T.,T.A.Morehouse,andG.W.Rogers1977.IssuesinAlaskaDevelopment.ISER,Univ.ofAK.Univ.ofWashingtonPress,Seattle1977.Mabuce,E.M.,R.L.Wilks,S.B.Boxerman1975.GeneratingReserveRequirements-SensitivitytoVariationsinSystemParameters.IEEEPaperPG-75-65l-0presentedatthe1975JointIEEE/ASME/ASCEPowerGenerationTechnicalConference.Portland,Oregon.Sep.28-0ct.1,1975SHCA1984.1984GNPForecastscompiledfromtheliterature(WallStreetJournal,Fortune,andBusinessWeek)•VanDerTak,H.G.1966.TheEconomicChoiceBetweenHydroelectricandThermalPowerDevelopments.WorldBankStaffOccasionalPapersNumberOne,JohnHopkinsPressBaltimore.1966.Woodward-ClydeConsultants,Inc.1980.ForecastingPeakElectricalDemandforAlaska'sRailbelt.December1980.28052TechnicalCommentNumbersNFP018NFP032NFP050NFP092NFP035NFP035NFP009NFP035NFP089NFP050NFP051 lJJ]]J]JJ]JJ]]JJJJALTERNATIVESCitationAcres1981.SHP-Task6,DesignDevelopment.DevelopmentSelectionReport.December1981.Acres1983.SHP-FeasibilityReportSupplement,Vol.1,EngineeringandEconomics.April1983.ADF&G1983i.AnadromousWatersCatalogue.DivisionofHabitatProtection,Juneau,AK.ADF&G1983j.AnnualManagementReport,1983,YukonArea.DivisionofCommer-cialFisheries.ADNR1984.LetterfromR.MerrittofADNRtoJ.WilderofHarza-Ebasco.June22,1984.APA1984.LetterfromJ.FergusontoMr.R.MartinofAlaskaDept.ofEnvironmentalConservation.February24,1984.BattelleMemorialInstitute1966.TalkeetnaJointFrequencyDataSummarizedfromTape-DeckTD1440(NOAA)byPacificNorthwestLaboratory.Richland,WA.1966.BechtelCivilandMinerals,Inc.1983.ChakachamnaHydroelectricProjectInterimFeasibilityAssessmentReport.Vol.II.AppendixtoSection6.0andEnvironmentalAppendixAI.A.SAlaskaPowerAuthority,Anchorage,Alaska.TechnicalCommentNumbersALT004ALT068ALT019ALT030ALT031ALT032ALT033ALT049ALTOS4ALT029ALT049ALT079ALTO36ALT037ALT038ALT075ALT078ALT010ALT019 JJ]lJ]]]J]~J]]]JJALTERNATIVES(Cont'd)CitationBentz,R.1983.InventoryandCata-logingofSportFishandSportFishWatersinUpperCookInlet,Vol.24.ADF&G.FederalAidinFishRestorationandAnadromousStudies.Bilello,M.A.1966.SurveyofArcticandSubarcticTemperatureInversions.U.S.ArmyMaterialCommand,ColdRegionsResearchandEngineeringLaboratory.October1966.EPA1977.GuidelinesforAirQualityMaintenance,PlanningandAnalysis.Volume10.EPA450/4-77-001.October1977.EPA1980.WorkbookforEstimatingVisibilityImpairment.EPA450/4-80-031.November1980.GilbertCommonwealth1983.TheAnchorage-FairbanksTransmissionIntertie.Latimer,D.A.,H.Hogo,andT.C.Daniel1981.TheEffectsofAtmosphericOpticalConditionsonPerceivedScenicBeauty.Atmos.Environment15(10/11),1865-1874.MacClarence,W.1984.PersonalCommunication.AlaskaDept.ofEnvironmentalConservation.June28,1984.Ma1m,W.C.1980.HumanPerceptionofAirQuality.J.AirPollutionControlAssociation30(2),122-131.February1980.MaIm,W.C.1981.HumanPerceptionofVisualAirQuality(UniformHaze).Atmos.Environment15(10/11),1875-1890.MaIm,W.C.1984.PersonalCommunication.NationalParkService,Ft.Collins.June1984.TechnicalCommentNumbersALT031ALT078ALT038ALT075ALT045ALT052ALT045ALT045ALT008ALT015ALT045ALT045ALT045 Jl:lJ]ALTERNATIVES(cont.)CitationTechnicalCommentNumbersMcHenry,T.1984.PersonalCommunication.ADF&G.ALT019Seward,AK.Middleton,P.,StewartT.R.,DennisR.L.,andElyD.ALT0451983.ImplicationsofNCAR'sUrbanVisualAirQualityAssessmentMethodforPristineAreas;ManagingAirQualityandScenicResourcesatNationalParksandRecreationAreas,editedbyR.D.RoweandL.G.Chestnut.WestviewPress.1983.]JJ]JJ]J]OJJMiller,S.1983.PhaseIIProgressReport,BigGameStudies,Vol.VI-BlackBearandBrownBear.AlaskaPowerAuthority.Mills,M.1983.ADF&GStatewideHarvestStudy.SportFishDivision1983.NOAA1979a.ClimatographyoftheUnitedStates,No.90.1965-1974.AirportClimatologicalSummaryforFairbanksInternationalandAnchorageAirports.NationalClimaticCenter,Asheville,N.C.1979.Petrich,D.H.1979.AestheticImpactofaProposedPowerPlantonanHistoricWildernessLandscape.ProceedingsofOurNationalLandscape:AConferenceonAppliedTechniquesforAnalysisandManagementoftheVisualResource.USDAForestServiceGeneralTechnicalReportPSW-35.1979.R&M1982j.SHP-ProcessedClimaticData,Vol.5,WatanaStation.March1982R&M1982k.SHP-ProcessedClimaticData,Vol.6,DevilCanyonStation.March1982R&M19821.SHP-ProcessedClimaticData,October1981thruSeptember1982Vol.5,0650WatanaStation,December1982R&M1982m.SHP-ProcessedClimaticData,October1981thruSeptember1982Vol.6,0660DevilCanyonStation,December1982ALT031ALT049ALTO78ALT045ALT022ALTOnALT022ALTOnALT022ALTOnALT022ALTOn l]JJJ]JJ'-1L]]JJ]JALTERNATIVES(cont.)Citationu.S.AirForce1983.RevisedUniformSummaryofSurfaceWeatherObservations.EnvironmentalTechnicalApplicationsCenter,NationalWeatherService,ScottAirForceBase,Illinois,1983.Watsjold,D.1984.PersonalCommunication,ADF&G.Anchorage,AK.28052TechnicalCommentNumbersALT078ALT031