HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA1400<l rtY 1 '.,., ' ~ ~ ~
Attachment A.5
Amendment No. 4
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
PLAN OF STUDY ~ REVISION 4
SEPTEMBER 27, 1982
TABLE OF CONTENTS . '•
R.l-INTRODUCTION....................................................... 1
R.2-REVISIONS TO DETAILED ACTIVITY DESCRIPTIONS BY.TASK............... 1
Task 50 -Project Management...................................... 2
Task 52 -Surveys and Site Faci i it ies •.••••• ~ .• ~ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 3
Task 53 -Hydrology................................................ 5
Task 55 Geotechnica1 Exploraticn................................ 9
Task 56-Design Oe'ielopment ...................................... 12
Task 57 -En vi ronmenta 1 Studies ................. H............... 16
Task 58-Transmissio!l Line Survey ................................ 36
Task 59-Construction Cost Estimates & Schedules ................ 37
Task 60 -
. . L 1 ce n s 1 n 9. • • • • • • • • • • • ·~ .. ... • • ... • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
39
Task 61 -Marketing & Financing.,................................ 42
~ Task 63-Administration ......................................... 44
.. 1
. . . . . '· . . ~·
. . . .· . . ~-.. · -.. -'""~-. ' . . . . .. . . . ~ ~-.. .
• '!" ·: .. -~ • ..... .. :...... • -. • • -• • • :·
R.l. -INTRODUCTION
The last amendment (Amendment No. 3) to the contract extended the date for
FERC license application from June 30, 1982 to September 30, 1982 and
arranged for continuing with certain of the ongoing work through the end of
September, 1982. Since the issuance of Amendment NO. 3, the APA has
extended the 1 i cense app 1 i cation deadline from September 30, 1982 to on or
about March 31, 1983, and has directed Acres to continue with the following
ionsulting services:
Continued administration of all subcontracts and Project Manauement
Services through December 31, 1982 and the Continued Consulting
Services beyond that date toward the preparation and submital of a FERC
license through March 31, 1983.
To plan and provide for an expeditious, orderly assumption by a new
engineer for the detailed Engineering and Design phase.
Provide APA with full historical documentation of a11 pertinent files
and documents pertaining to the Susitna Feasibility Study and an
or;derly ter·mination of the Susitna Hydroelectric Feasibility Study ..
Provide continued design and development update through December 31,
1982.
R.2-REVISIONS TO DETAILED ACTIVITY DESCRIPTIONS BY TASK
Revisions to detailed activity descriptions by Task are presented in the
fo 11 owing pages.
1
i '
Task 50 -Project Managemen~
(a) Objective
To provide ongoing overall management and office support of project
activities to the end of 1982 and project manageme_nt of licensing
activities in the first quarter of 1983 ..
(b) Approach
A 11 project management time wi 11 be covered under Task 50 and wi 11
include the full time of the manager of Task 57 environmental studies
and the supervision of the preparation· of Exhibit E.
In addition a1l time and disbursements for the Project Manager,
Resident Administrative Manager, Deputy Resident Administrative Manager
and other Senior Management including secretarial support will be
provided under Task 50.
(c) Schedule
October 1, 1982 through March 31, 1983.
. 2
Task 52.01 -Provision of Field Camps and Associated LogistL~Jupport
(a) . Objective
Provide ongoing field camp and logistics support for the continuing
field studies.
(b) l'ppt"oach
During the time period from October 1 to OP.cember 31, 1982, the camp
operation will be maintained at a minimum level and fuel consumption
wi 11 be min i~11i zed through the use of the sma 11 er lOOkw generator~
During this time period the actual calculated fuel needs for camp and
helicopter operations will be supplied to the c.amp by helicopter.
By direction of Alaska Power Authority this subtask will be eliminated
December 31, 1982.
(c) Schedule
October 1, 1982 through December 31, 1982.
3
I
I
I
Task 52.02 -Access Roads
(a) Objective
To determine, along the selected access route, the preliminary
alignment -and right of way widths necessary. Preparation of the
prelim~nary access road and/or railroad exhibit for the FERC license
application.
(b) Approach
Following selection of the pr~ferred route, mdpping will be done which
will permit preliminary road and/or railroad cer,terline location to be
made. Right of way widths required for construction wi 11 be
determined. Reconnaissance of selected route will be made by an
engineer and a geotechnical engineer.. Preliminary profiles will be
prepared based on level of information available and calculations made
to place the proposed a1ignment in relationship to the Public Land
Survey or protractions of Townships and Section Lines. Access. road
exhibits for FERC license application ..
(c) Schedule
October 1, 1982 to December 31, 1982
4
•. ;J
Task 53401 -Htdrology Field Data Acquisition
(a) Objective
To continua to collect baseline climate, water quality, sediment,
discharge, ice, thermal, groundwater, stage, and snow creep data.
(b) Approach
1. Climate data wi 11 continue to be collected on a monthly basis at
each climate statfon and the data subsequently reduced.
2. Two water quality and sediment sampling field trips are planned
for the October -December, 1982 time period.
3. Detailed ice observations are planned for the fr·eeze up period
from Devil Canyon downstream to Talkeetna.
4. Groundwater data collection will be ongoing through the October -
December period. This will include collection of samples for
oxygen isotope measurements.
5. The snow creep station at Tsusena will be relocated and i\~,other
re-installed at Devil Canyon.
6. Thermal data will continue to be collected at Lake Eklutna on a
biweekly basis until freezeup and monthly thereafter. This data
will be used to validate the model currently being used to predict
the thermal regime of Watana and Devil Canyon reservoirs.
7. The results of field data acquisition will be submitted as a
report.
(c) Schedule
October 7, 1982 through December 31, 1982
5
Task 53.02-Hydrol.ogical Analysis
( a) Obj e ct i v e
To prepare reports on groundwater analyses, sedimentation, and
post project estuarine affects, and to provide assistance in the
preparation of the water quality section of Exhibit E of the
license application.
(b) Approach
Refine and update, incorporating additional field data, the water
quality and sedimentation preliminary reports submitted 30
September, 1982. To assist in preparation of preliminary report
on the post project estuarine affects, taking into consideration
fi e1 d data collected in August and September, 1982. Prepare a
groundwater report with grourv:lwater" contours of the study sloughs,
groundwater sources, and groundwater inflow rates.
As required, provide input in the preparation of Exhibit E,
Section 2 -Water Use and Quality.
(c) Schedule
October 1, 1982 through Oecember 31, 1983.
6
0
Task 53.03 -Hydrology Studies
(a) Objective
To continue reservoir and instream flow studies-to enable the
pro j e ct imp a c t s to be as s e s s ed a n d a m i t i g a t i o n p 1 a n t o b e
adopted.
To· continue agency and aquatic studies team co-ordination, and to
complete Exhibit E, Section 2 -Water Use and Quality of the
'· license application.
(b) Approach
Energy simulations will be optimized and balanced against instream
fllow requirements. The output of the simulation studies will be
used as input to the reservoir temperatur~e mode 1 • The. reservoir
temperature mo~al will be run for a seri ss of climate data and
w•ll include winter ice conditions. The interaction of
sedimentation and thermal regimes will be inc.orporated into the
modele Trophic status of the reservoir will be further refined.
-
Results from the reservoir temperature model will be used as input
to the downstream temperature model 0 Data fran this model will
then be used as input in an ice simulation model. Navigation and
estuarine affects will also be addressed.
Coordination with the appropriate resource agencies will continue~
A one ~~eek workshop wi 11 be held the first week in necemher to
discuss the aquatic studies. Agency concerns regarding potential
deficiencies in the license application will be sought and the
1 ong term study program wi 11 be discussed.. In addition, two other
agency co-ordination meetings. will be he 1 d during the October -
December ~ime frame to update the agencies on the status of the
aquatic studies program and receive agency feedback. Coordination
with R&M, Woody Trihey, Arctic Environmental Information Oata
Center ( AEI OC); Alaska o epa rtment of Fish and Game ( AnF&G),
7
"
Woodward Clyde Consultants and USGS wi 11 be continued. Exhibit E,
Section 2-Water Use and Ouality, will be cornpleted in draft form
and presented to the agencies for their review. Agency comments
obtai ned at the workshop will be incorporated in an appendix to
the license ap~ication with appropriate res~nses.
\-c) Schedu1 e
October 1, 1982 through March 31, 1982.
,,
8
\
1'
I
l
I
l
Task 55 .. 0~. -Preparation of Amendment to Geotechnical Reports
(a) Objective
To prepare an amendment -co the 19R-0-81 Geotechnical Report to
include all the geologic and geotechnical data collected during
the 1982 summer program.
(b) Approach
As steit(:u in Subtask 5.11 under Contract Amendment No. 3, all the
fie1d data will be in a draft form suitable for final r,eduction
and report preparation at the termination of the exploration J
program in September. Ouri ng the period from October to December,
additional field data will be develnped and include:
-geologic mapping;
- d r i 11 1 og s ;
-in ho 1 e testing;
-laboratory testing; and
~ seismic refraction data
Data will be assembled in a final amendment to the Geotechnica1
Report. Where appropriate, the data will be plotted on Fi1gures
developed for the report .. Cross sections;, maps and figures will
be added and/or revised to reflect this ne.w information~ Upon
finalization, the amendment will be issued to the Power Authority
for review ..
(c) Schedu1 e
October 1, 1982 to Oecember 15, 1982.
9
a
' •• • , , • t-. • ~ . ~ . . .. . . . .
"' u. --~... : ,~:: ; :-.. . .... l ... / . : . ·.· : ~.· • ' ~ .. -. : .. . .' /. '·.· ·. •. /. . I
Task 55.02 -Winter Exploration Program
(a) Objective
To initiate and perform a winter exploration program up to December
1982 .. Upon direction from APA, a new contractor will assume all duties
and responsibilities effective Jc.nuary 1, 1983.
(b) Approach
A detailed winter geotechnical exploration program has been·proposed at
the Watana site. The scope of that program has been detailed in the
11 FY-83 11 Proposed Geotechnical Exploration Programu, July 1982. In
sunmary, it will include the use of a "Becker 11 type drilliing rig and
limited seismic refraction surveys in the Susitna River.
The objective of the Becker drilling program is to further investigate
the relict channel, borrow areas D, E, and I and the river alluvium
beneath the main dam. Because of the size of the rig, it will have to
be transported during the winter. Several options ar~ currently being
assessed for demobilization. These include the possi~ility of securing .
the rig on site during the sumner if additional use of the rig is
considered warranted for the following winter.
Due to the long lead time necessary for mob i 1 i zing the Becker rig,
contracts for the program were prepared under Contract Amendment No .. 3.
The time for mobilization to the site wi 11 be dependent on weather
conditions; however, it is anticipated to occur during· mid to later
December. Drilling wil.l commence upon completion of mobilization and
continue on 24-hour seven-day a week basis through March or early
April, 1983. However, a new contractor will be assuming all duties and
responsibilities effe,ftive January 1, 1983.
10
.. " .. ..
(c) Schedule
December 15, 1982 through December 31~ 1982.
11
Subtask 56 .. 01 -Design and Development Upd.~
(a) Objective
Continue with the updating of various design aspects of project and
address those design changes necessary to meet changing environmental
criteria and improve license application.
(b) Approach/Discussion
Although not precisely defined, there will be certain proposed design
changes or investigation of various pos-sible alternativ.es to the design
which will be required to meet chaning environmental criteria.
Examples of these are, transmission li~e routing, and power intakes.
Appropriate budget has been designated for this work.
(c) Schedu1e
October 1, 1982, through December 31, 1982.
12
Subtask 56.02 -Feasibility Report Update
(a) Objective
To update Feasibility Report and address all agency, public, and other
comments concerning original issue.
(b) Justification
Subsequent to publication of the original feasibility report, a number of
changes have been made, particularly in response to public and agency
comments. These include selection of a new access plan, transmission line
routing changes, further flow studies, and similar activities. It is
appropriate to provide an update to reflect these changes as well as to
respond to various comments which have been r,eceived.
{c) Appro,1ch
It is planned that the Feasibility Report Update will be in the form of a
supplemental report. This supplemental r,eport will address all agency and
other comments concerning the original Feasibility Report issue and will
incorporate design changes resulting from the ongoing geotechnical,
environmental, and mitigation planning work. Additional field data \>lill
also be included, where appropriate. It is anticipated that 500 copies of
the F eas i b i 1 i ty Report Update wi 11 be v--equ ired.
(d) Schedule
Present plans call for report update issue by Dec-ember 1, 1982.
13
Subtask 56.03 -Assignment to New Engineer
(a) Objective
To provide for smooth and ax·peditious take-over of project by new engineer.
(b) Approach
Arrangements will be made for transfer of prcject maps, photographs, design
calculations, and relevant correspondence files developed by Acres for the
Susitna Feasibility Study to be <:opied, and originals handed ov.er to the
Power Authority by November 30, 1982.
Duplication of this material will be accomplished by utilizing microfilm.
Appropriate Acres staff will participate in briefing meetings and
consultations with the new engineer as r.equired by the Power Authority.
Relevant Task C1oseout reports, final billings, and ~ost rsports will be
pr.epar.ed, and Acres· accounting staff wi 11 participate as necessary in
auditing of these documents by Power Authority staff.
A joint inventory will be c~nducted and all Power Authority assets now
controlled by Acres will be turned over to the new engineer, or otherwise
disposed of in accordance with the terms of the contract.
A budget for demobilization of Anchorage based personnel has been included
in this subtask.
(c) Schedule
These activities will take place as required through December 1982~
14
Subtask 56.04 -Economic Analysi~ Update
7
(a) Objective
Update on an as-needed basis the economic studies and sensitivity analysis
which were.performed during the feasibility study'.
(b) Scope
The purpose of this task is to have available., on a continuing basis, Acres
servi-ce in updating the feasibility study's economic studi..es.
Acres will.maintain, on a ready basis, the -capability to update and operate
the Railbelt generation planning model on the General Electric OGP Program.
This will involve the maintenance of data files on the -computer and staff
with ready capabi 1 ity to perform the needed ana lysis ..
Updates will be performed on an "as-requested" basis and billed separately to APA. As such, no monies have been included in Amendment No. 4 for this
work.
(c) Schedule
October 1, 1982, through December 31, 1982.
15
• l'
Subtask· 57.01 -Coordination of Environmental Stt:d i es
(a) Obj.ecti ve
To provide continued coordination ar.i\mg environmental study subtasks and
subcontractors; to implement close budget management, establish and main ...
tain proper reporting schedules, continue informal agency contact, and (Jre-
pare Exhibit E.
(b) Justification
Mul·ciple subc~~ntractors are responsible for conducting continuing
investigations and analyses, ~s well as for preparing-portions of Exhibit
E. Effective management of these activites must be continued throughout
the period of study until responsibility for these subcontracts is assumed
by the selected design contractor.
(c) Approach/Discussion
An Environmenta 1 Manager, located in and directing the studies from
Anchorage, A 1 aska, wi 11 continue to assure camp leteness and correctness of
all such -contracts and will maintain dir.ect control of and accour,tability
for all 'Contractual and budgetury matters. The manager will also ensure
the division of responsib i 1 i ty for the accomplishment of sub task objectives
on a continuous basis· for the duration of the study. He will be
responsible for the implementation of necessary studies and for
establishing and maintai-ning schedules. The manager will supervise staff
functions in the Anchorage office and will conduct the all-important
informational contacts with state and Alaska-based federal agencies .. ,,
A direct :cost of $24,450 has been included to support ADF&G office and
warehouse leaseso
(d) Schedule
October 1, 1982, through December 31, 1982, and monthly thereafter as
directed by APA.
16
.. \:
Subtask 57.02 -Cultural Resource Investigations
( a) Objectives
1. To conduct a Reconnaissance Level 1 survey along the proposed trans-
mission co,rridor from fairbanks to Healy, Willow to Anchorage, and
Watana darnsite to the Intertie. (See definitions for .explanation of
survey 1 ev'e 1 s.)
2. To conduct: a Reconnaissance Level 1 survey of the 11 new 41
segment of the
proposed access route~ on the north side of the Susitna R iv.er, fran
Devil Ca!O!fOO to the Parks High\'lay ..
3. To c;Qnduct archaeological eva1uations of areas to be impacted by geo-
technica.l testing.
4. To <:onduct a Reconnaissance Level 2 survey on the proposed Tsusena
er.eek "c:at tra i 111 from the 14atana Camp ar.ea to the mouth of the Tsusena
Cr-eek.. If sites ar.e found along thfs route, which is expected to be
c<>nstructed during the wint~~r of 1982-83, it will be necessary to miti-
gate the impact of the trail on these sites. The options available are .
avoidance {via r-erouting)~ preservation, and/or excavation. It is
necessary to conduct the fi.•~ld examinatior; and submit a report to the
SHPO for his review before construction of the neat trail" can proceed
during the winter of 1982.
Preparati<>n of the cultural resource ·components of Exhibit ·E.
(b) Approach
Cultural resource~ inv.estigations for the 1982 field season are designed to
provide preliminary information on the occurrence of archaeological and
histor·ical sites along the proposed Transmission Line corridors and the new
portion of the pr·oposed access route, as well as to examine areas. to be
impacted by geotechnical testing. With the use of the original five-step
pr-ogram as discussed in the 1ga2 final report, modif:ied for the specific
tasks to be conducted during the 1982 field season, the following steps
will be implemented:
1. Preparation of Field Studies:
Apply for a State of Alaska Anti qui ties Permit (the Federal Antiquities
Permit has a'1ready been s-ecured).
Conduct a 1 iterature revie\'1 of avail able documents that pertain to the
history, prehistory, ethnology, geology, flora, and fauna of the trans-
mission corridor. Museum staff wi 11 utilize the records of the State
Office of History and Archaeology, data files of the University of
Alaska museum, 1 ibrary, and archives, and consultation with other pro-
fessionals who have worked in or have knowiedge of the area.. Aerial
photos available for the study area will be reviewed, and known sites
will be plotted.
17
..
2. Reconnaissance Level 1 Sur·vey;
The study area will be observed from the air and s.elect areas will be
examined on the ground using both surface and subsurface testing tech-
niques.
3. Systematic Testin~:
Systematic testing is not expected to be part of the 1982 field
season.
4. Analysis and Report Preparat-ion:
This step consists of synthesi-zing all recovered data and making the
appropriate recommendations fer mitigating adverse eff-ects to cultural
resources.
5. turation:
As-mandated by federal and state law, all r-ecovered material and sup-
porting documentation will be curated. The repository for thi~ mate-
rial is the University of Alaska Museum, Fairbanks, Alaska. Material
wi 11 be curated in accordance with state and federal requirements pert-
inent to the preservation of antiquities.
(c) Recommended field logistics
1. Transmission Corridors:
It is r-ecommended that, for the portion of the proposed transmission
corridor between Fairbanks and Healy and Willow and Anchorage, heli-
copter support be provided from these areas on a daily basis, since it
will be more efficient and <:{)st-effective than conducting the survey
out of the Watana Base Camp. It is estimated that survey of these cor-
ridors will require a hel i<:opter all day for t\"10 to three weeks~ with
an estimated flying time of three hours per day. rne segment of the
transmission corridor from the Watana damsite to the Intertie can be
surveyed effectively fr.om either High lake lodge or the Watana Base
Camp, with High lake lodge being the more efficient. It. is necessary,
therefore, to provide helicopter service from both Fairbanks and
Anc~orage for the above-mentioned corridors.
2. Proposed Access Route:
.~
For the new portion of the proposed access route from Devil Canyon to
the Parks Highway, it would he more effective to work out of High Lake
lodge because of the proximity of the new Lodge to the study area.
3. Geotechnical:
Beotechnical clearances could be effectively conducted ou'!." of either
High Lake lodge or the Watana Base Camp.
18
•.
(d) , Sch,edule
· It is expected that the field work wi 11 be completed by September 30, 1982.
Report preparation will be conducted between October i, 1982, and December
20, 1982. The final report will be submitted on Oecemtler 20, 1982. Prep-
aration of the cultural resource components of draft Exhibit E be by
November 1, 1982 .
.... Definitions
<'
1. Reconnaissance Level Survey 1 (preliminary surv..ey):
This surv~y level consists of a ·literature review, r.eview of records
at the State Office of History and Archaeology, review of ·i'AVailable
aerial phot.ographs, evaluation of archaeological potential, and .field
examination of a 1 imited number of areas .consisting of examining sur-
fa,ce exposures and blowouts· with a minimlJII amount of surface testing.
Purpos~:
To produce· base 1 ine data on the study area and conduct a cursory
field examination to provide data which can be used during Reconnais-
sance Leve 1 Survey 2 studies.
2. ]3econna is sar,ce Level Survey 2 ( intensive survey) :
The level of subsurface testing and the number of field personnel are
increased to provide more thorough coverage of the study area,. and
the .entire area is subject to surface rec-onnaissance.
Purpose.:.
To locate as many hist<»ric and archaeological sites as possible given
the current state of arch aeo 1 og i c a 1 method and theory. This l eve 1 of
survey will cover the .entire surveyable portion of the study area.
3. ·.systematic Testing:
This level consists of mapping a site, superimposing a metric grid
over it, and systematically excavating units using standard archaeo-
logical techniques. ·
Pur·pose:
To attempt to generate sufficient data on which to base an evaluation
of site significance as required by federal law. In most case'S, sys-
tematic testing is required to assess significance; notable excep-
tions, however, are historic cabins.
NOTE: This scope statement supersedes similar scope statement (Sub task 7. 06)
contained .in 1\n\endment No. 3. No additional costs are included in Pmend-
ment No. 4 in that Jlmendment No. 3 covers the revised scope of work.
19
Subtask 57.03 -Land Ownership and Acquisi~ion
(a) Objective
Further define land ownership and acquisition in connection with access
road and transmission line corridor and assist in preparation of Exhibit G
for FERC license application.
( b ) Approach
1. Update the ost€nsible title information now existing for the access
road and transmission line propos-~d routing. This will entail examina-
tion of the BLM records in Anchor \ge and Fairbanks; +examination of. the
state {AONR)" records in Anchorage and Fairbanks; examination of the
land r-ecords of the Mat-Su Borough and the Fairbanks North Star
Borough; examination of the land r.ecords of the appropriate native
regional corporations; examination of the land records of the appro-
priate native village corporations; and examination of the records in
the Anchorage Recording District, Palmer Recording District, Ta.lkeetna
Recording District, Nenana Recording District, and Fairbanks Recording
District to determine the ostensible ownership of the privately owned
parcels involved in the alignment.
2. Fine tune the alignuient for the access road and transmission line
-corridor. The transmission line right-of-way width wi11 be a
400-foot-wide corridor and will involve analysis of the land
constraints and their various .effects on the corridor location.
3. Formulate a pub lie and ostensible ownership schedule depicting tbe
various land interests which will be aff.ected by the road and trans-
mission line alignments.
4. Pr-epare a schedule depicting the methodology and proposed timing of ar.
acquisition schedule for. the land rights to be acquired.
5. Assist in the preparation of Exhibit G for the ·f.ERC license applica-
tion.
(c) Schedule
October 1, 1982, through December 31, 1982.
NOTE: Although this represents additional scope of work, the costs are covered
by Amendment No.3, i.e, no additional costs are included in Amendment
No .. 4.
20
Subtask 57.04 -Land Use Analysis -Mitigation of Aesthetic Impacts
(Work Package l)
(a) Objective
To further assess aesthetic impacts and develop a draft plan for mitigation
of impacts of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project on the aesthetic resources
of the Upper Susitna River Basin.
(b) Justificatiqn
f.ERC requir.es a lic.ense application to contain, in a report on aesthetic
resour.ces, 11 a description of mitig<ttive measur-es proposed by the applicant"
including architectural design, landscaping, and other reasonable treatment
to be given project works to p1r.eser·ve and enhance aesthetic and related · r~sources during construction .and operation of proposed project faci li-
ties. u
Additional \·1ork is necessary b1ecause: (1) the transmission line has been
r.elocated; (2) the intertie is now to be addressed in the FERC li<:ense
application; and {3) a new acc1ess plan has been selected by the Power
Authority. land· use analysis and mitigation planning must be accomplished
for these <:hanges.
{c) ApproachiOiscussion
The essence of this .effort wi 11 be an assessment of aesthetic impacts and
.coordination between the engineering and the environmental teams.. ihe
pr,eparation of the draft mitigation plan r.equires substantial cooperation
and written input from proj,ect architects and engineers ..
Proj-ect facilities that will be discussed with design engineers include the
architectural design and landscaping of the permanent village at Watana and
the appearance and design of other facility components. The plans for res-
toration of borrow areas, to reduce the degree of permanent visual impact~
also need further r-efinement. Further planning and design of recreation
facilities will r-equire coordination to assure that these facilities then-
selves. are compatible with the landscape and a 1 so that unattractive aspects
of project faci liti.es do not detract from the setting of the recreation
facilities.
This initial aesthetic mitigation effort should consider potential impacts
involving the proposed transmission facilities and/or access roads.
Further mitigation of the potential aesthetic impacts associated with these
facilities will eventually be required. Emphasis will be placed on the
avoidance or minimization of permanent impacts to aesthetic resources,
rather than on temporary intrusions during the construction period when
public access could be restricted.
(d) Schedule-
The product of this work package will be a draft plan in ear)y December
1982 for the mitigation of aesthetic impacts~
21
..
Subtask 57.04 -Recreation Planning (Work Package 2)
(a) Objective
Refine the recreation plan around the selected road access.
()
(b) Justificatio~
Although a conceptual r-ecreation plan has been developed, including spe-
'Cific proposed sites for r.ecreation faci 1 iti.es, many details of these
facilities r.emain to bee worked out. As plans are refined, the -cost and
schedule of recreati{)n development will be r.efined accordingly.
The r-ecreation plan must take into account recent changes in transmis$ion
route, a newly selected access pl1n, and the decision to include a
discussion of the intertie in the fERC license application.
(c·) Approach/Discussion
Refinement of the recreation p 1 an itself wi 11 consist of development ·W::.N1-
cept planning and preliminary site drawings for specific recreation facil-
ities. To avoid unnecessary expenditures, this effort will be limit~ at
this time to those facilities which form the nucleus of the recreation
plan. Such site planning will present agencies with a more detailed pro-
posal and, thus, may facilitate the approva·l process. This effort will
include, in particular, continuing and strengthening dialogue on a techni-
-eal level with AONR, Division of Parks, and is especially important in the
plan refinement stages to ensure consistency in objectives and standards.
long-term r~creational objectives of the private landholders should be gen-
erally evaluated.. Refinement of the schedule and costs associated with the
proposed recreation ·facilities will also be accomplished as additiona.'l de-
tails are developed .. This program will be coordinated with the ongoirig
socioeconomic studies.
(d) Schedule
The results of this subtask will be presented in a supplementary report on
recr'eation resources, which is scheduled to be completed in draft form. in
ear.ly December 1982. Additional site p·lanning and design of recreation
facilities will be required in subsequent Phase II studies.
NOTE: Costs for this work are included in Amendment No. 3.
22
~
" ..
Subtask 57.05 -Aguatic Impact Assessment
(a) Objective
To analyze and interpret available baseline knowledge of the Susitna River
aquatic system and examine and present in models and reports the impacts on
fishery resources of hydroelectric development in the Upper Susitna Basin,
as follows:
1. Coordinate and cooperate with the Al asi<a Department of Fish ·and Game,
Su Hydro Study Group on the fishery and aquatic habitat studies. Coop-
erate with various {)ther groups on hydrologic, suspended sediment,
riv-P.r mechanics, and other related aquatic studies. This effort is to
.ensw· e that ,continuous and accurate communications occur between study
elements so that information is developed in a timely manner for fish-
-ery impact assessment efforts and, ultimately, mitigation planning by
others. ·'Continuously identify deficiencies in all aquatic-related data
gathering or analysis programs in terms of information requirements for
accurate quantitative assessment of project effects, and suggest means
to improve data gathering and analysis efforts. Interact with the
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Su Hydro £roup, in preparation of
their procedures manuals.
2. Assemble an information management program to collect and compile
available knowledge of the Susitna River aquatic system relating spe-
cifically to the ultimate examination of project impact on fishery
resources. Review existing unanalyzed fishery/aquatic data, available
"Susitna Hydro. reports {1980-82), and other related documents on the
Susitna Basin to become familiar with the current base of knowledge in
these fields. Examine this ava i 1 able background i nformat i{}n and con-
tinuously assess newly collected data and information from the 'Ongoing
Susitna Hydro aquatic studi.es and prepare, as appropriate, synthesis
reports of this available information and ';n assessment of the effects
of the proposed Susitna Hydroelectric Project on the fishery resources
of the Susitna Basin. Part of this effort will include examination of
the 1974-78 A 1 ask a Department of Fish and -Game (AOF~{G) reports and
interaction with ADF&G on the utility of information contained in these
reports for integration into the new AOF&G Su Hydro study team computer
data base.
3. Construct a dynamic 11 model 11 of the Susitna River Bas·in which will be
used to develop quantitative reiationships between aquatic habitats and
res<>urces pursuant to various hydro operational scenarios. This model
will be built incrementally over the time and have a complex set of
components obtai ned from various elements of the over"a11 Susitna Hydro
study €ffort, including information from river temper··ature models, sus-
pended sediment models, various reservoir models, water quality inter-
pretive reports, bedload transport models, perching and scour studies,
ground water dynamics interpretive reports, and oth,ar related documents
and information. Over the short-term (early wi nterh H~fl2-83) a pre 1 im-
inary model of the aquatic system will be assembled to assess impacts
23
of the project operation on fish habitat and the dquatic system. This
short-term effort is to assist in the preparation of mit:igation meas-
ures required in the spring of 1983. The short-term and long-term mod-
eling a.ssessments will be accomplished in cooperation with all study
participants and in consultation with the Instream Flow and Aquatic
Systems Group, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort' Call ins, Colorado.
4. Establish a. format, schedule, and content of periodic briefings on
aquatic study; analysis, and impact assessment efforts to the Alaskan
resource ag.encies, presumably through the Susitna Hydro Steering Com-
mittee. Establi~h a regimen of appropriate presentations (minimun of
one presentation per month) .commencing in August 1982 and continuing
through the life of the preconstruction phase. This effort will facil-
itate communication .of study findings and interpr.etations to the appro-
priate. federal and state regulatory or commenting agencies for their
r~view and comment.
(b) Justification
Efforts are required to facilitate a smooth and accurate transmission of
data collected in the field and the documents ultimately prepared for the
licensing process required by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
This will require facilitation and accurate quantitative impact assessment
in the fishery/aquatic resources area. The effects of hydroelectric. dewel-
opment in the Upper Susitna Basin with its construction of large impound-
ments, access roads, and transmission lines will include altered downstream
riverine conditions, inundation of habitat, and other disturbances in the
aquatic system. The effects of these alterations must be considered in
terms of the interrelationships among hydrology, geomorphology, water qual-
ity, and biology. Changes in streamflows or inundation of habitat can
affect fish mitigation, reproduction, production, and quantity and quality
of habitat. Ultimately, f.ederal and state agencies will condition licenses
or permits with provisions for construction and operation of the Susitna
project. In order that this permitting and licensing process proceed in a
timely manner, it is critical that a comprehensive, accurate, and quantita-
tive assessment be undertaken in a smooth and coordinated manner.
(c) Approach/Discussion
Close communications are ~ssentia1 to the success of the interface between
data collection activities and mitigation planning. Staff will be
assembled having the appropriate expertise, manag~ent structure, and
technical/analytical capabilities for accomplishing this work. Included
will be expertise in fishery biology, instream flow assessment, and statis-
tics and water quality effects on biology. Expertise in hydrology and
hydraulic engineering, river mechanics and river modeling, temperature
modeling, and ice dynamics will also be drawn frc.xn other engineering
groups. Expertise will also be provided in graphics, cartography, informa-
tion systems managanent, and technical editing to compile and prepare suit-
able products for presentation to appr·opriate agencies or groups and for
mitigation planning efforts.
24
Assigned to the project will be a principal investigator, .assisted by
senior staff in fisheries biology, instream flow assessment, computer sys-
tems management, and other support personnel. ·This group will continuously
interact with all study team members gathering and ~nalyzing data relating
to understanding the aquatic sytem, and will prepare a dynamic model of the
functioning of the Susitna aquatic basin.. Ultimately, this model will
depend upon available information, but is expected to include several com-
ponents, including reservoir thermal and suspended sediment characteris-
tics and quantification of fish habitat relationshi-ps with streamflow and
water quality change. Various other infonnati~n reports will be integrated
including information on sediment transport, perching and scour assessment,
ground water dynamics, and other r·elated information. It is envis1oned
that these modular -components and information sources. will be integrated
into a comprehensive model or other system of information which can be used
to prepare impact assessment reports. Inc 1 uded wi 11 be assessments of the
effect of staged project development (Watana first with Devil's Canyon
second), flow peaking, access roads and transmission corridors, inundation
of habitat, reservoir filling periods, and other related effects on tbe
aquatic system and resources of the Susi tna River drainage.
The transfer of aquatic information to the wildlife study participants will
also be facilitated. Information on downstream riverine change is prereq-
uisite to the determination of impacts on riparian habitats and related
terrestrial and aquatic wildlife species.
Plans are to establish an advisory relationship with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service's Instream flow and Aquatic Systems Group {IFG) in Fort
Collins, Colorado. Assistance from the IFG wouid be requested specifically
in areas of new methodologicai modeling techniques such as in quantifica-
tion of thennal or sediment transport and channel change relationships 'With
fish habitat.
(d) Schedule
The various. tasks wi 11 be accomplished commencing July 1, 1982, and con-,
tinue through Septanber 30, 1983, as shown below. It is expected tnat en-
visioned contract negotiations for fiscal year 1984 would be conducted
during June 1983.
Date
October 1982
November 30, 1982
July 1, 1983
September 30, 1983
25
Milestone/Deliverable
Preliminary model of Susitna
aquatic system based on available
aquatic information.
Nonquantitative conceptual model of
Susitna aquatic system impacts.
Work plan for fi seal year 1984 ..
Draft impact assessment· report.
Subtask 57.06 -Fisheries Mitigation Planning
(a) Objective
The primary objective of the fisheries mitigation planning effort is to
develop a mitigation plan consisting of quantified mitigation options for
each phase of the project. The ultimate goal is to provide th.e mitigation
document r~qui red by t.he FERG for license approv a 1 . A secondary objective
is to identify informativn deficiencies and prioritize studies needed to ·
fulfill the quantification requirements of the mitigation plan ..
(b) Tasks
-Task A -Preparation of Fisheries Portion of Exhibit f
The fisheries portion of Exhibit E for the FERC application will be pre-
par~d -using existing baseline descriptions, impact anQlysis, and mitiga-
tion discuss ions such as are found in the Fe as i b i 1 i ty Report and subse-
quent documer~ts.
-Task B -P.gency and Project Coordination
The mit'igation planning will r.equire an unusual amount of coordination
and corm,unication among the various Fisheries Study Group components,
regulatory agencies and other environmenta' studies components.
-Task C -Information and Data Review
There is a considerable volume of existing fisheries and hydraulic infor-
mation and data relating to the Susitna Hydr'oei.ectri~ Project. Since
this information will form the basis of the mitigation plan, project
staff must be thoroughly familiar with it prior to initiating the mitiga-
tion planning effort. Only those project personnel directly involved in
a deci_sion-making role need to be familiar with all phases of the pro-
posed project.
-Task D -Mitigation Pl_an Outline
A mitigation plan outline must be developed early in the project to
structure the mitigation effort, allow an evaluation of the adequacy of
existing information, identify information dt~ficiencies, and prioritize
study needs. The outline will be as detailed as possible and will
address all phases of the proposed project. The draft outline wil1 be
developed with input from the Fisherie~ Study Group for review and com-
ment and the Su Hydro Steering Committee for informal review. The final
outline will allow for a structured study approach and orderly develop-
ment of a mitigation plan.
26
Subtask 57.06 -Fisheries Mitigation Planning
(a) Objective
The primary pbjective of the fisheries mitigation planning effort is to
develop a mitigation plan consisting of quantified mitigation options for
each pha!,:; of the project. The uitimate goa.l is to provide the mitigation
document requir-ed by the F£RC. for 1 icense approva 1. A second try objective
is to identify information defi-ctencies and prioritiz-e studies needed to
fulfill the -quantifi<Cation r.equirements of the mitigation plan,.
{b) Tasks
-Task A-Preparation of Fisheries Portion of Exhibit£
The fisheries portion of Exhibit E for the FERC application will be pre-
par~d using existing baseline descriptions, impact analysis, and mitiga-
tion discussions such as are found in the Feasibility Report and subse-
quent documents.
-Task B -Agency and ProJect Coor~ination
The mitigation planning will r.equir.e an unusual amount of coordination
and..comnunication among the various Fisheries Study.Group components,
r-egulatory a9~ncies and other environmental studies components.
-Task C -Information and Data Review
There is a considerabl-e volume of existing fisheries and hydraul~c infor-
mation and data relating to the Susitna Hydroelectric Project. $incc
this information will form the basis of the mitigation plan, project
staff must be thoroughly familiar with it prior to initiating the mitiga-
ti-on planning effort.. Only those project personnel directly involved in
a decision-making role need to be familiar with al'l phases of the pro-
posed project.
-Task D-Mitigation Plan Outline
A mitigation plan outline must be developed early in the project to
structure the mitigation effort, allo\v an evaluation of the adequacy of
existing information, identify information deficiencie.s, and prioritize
study needs. The outline will be as detailed as possible and will
address all phases of the proposed project. The draft outline will be
developed with input fr{)m the Fisheries Study Group for review and com-
ment·and the Su Hydro Steering Committee for informal review. The final
outline wi 11 allow for a structured study approach and orderly develop-
ment of a mitigation p 1 an.
26
-Task E -Identification and Prioritization of Study ~eeds
....... '= ~ .!'.\4
This task will be a cooperative effort with other m~iliers of the Fish·
eries Study Group with input from the Su Hydro Steering Committee. The
identification and prioritization of study needs will logically follow
from the mitigation outline. The task should be init·Iated ~arly in the
study so that field efforts can be redir~cted as necessary to provide.
information required in the mitigation plan. The task will be an ongoing
proc-ess throughout the project but is identified as a ~i.eparate task to
forma 1 i l,e and .emphasize the importance of this study component.
-Task f -Quantification of Mitigation Plan
~
This task ·consists of quantifying the various mitigation options identi ...
fi.ed in the mitigation plan outline and other appropriat~ options that
may be 1dentifi.ed. The quantification wi 11 consist of identifying ex-
pected gains .or losses of fish and/or fish habitat from various construc-
tion alternatives and mitigation techniques during the various phases of
project -development. Because {)f the time 1 ag betwe.en data collection and
data availability, the F¥83 mitigation plan wi 11 be based primari 1y on
data available prior to Septemb.er 30, 1982. The fishery census data
obtained by ADF&G during the sumner of 1982 wi 11 also be incorpor'ated in
the license application. By limiting the mitigation planing process to
data available in this time frame, the plan will be qualitative in
natur-e. Information being gathered during the 1982-83 field seasons Ni 11
be used to prepare a quantitative m·itigation plan during -CY83.
{luantification will be achieved by utilizing available pr-edictive models
and standard statistical analysis calibrated with .existing Susitna Basin
data. If the necessar-v data specific to the Susitna Basin are. not av.ai1-
ab le ~ information from other syst-ems wi 11 be utili zed, where appropri.ate,
unti 1 basin-specific information is available. The quantification effort
will be performed with input from other miti9ation experts as part of the
Fisheries Study Group.
-Task G -Preparation of Mitigation Document
The mitigation document wi 11 present the vari,ous mitigation options in a
format structured according.to construction phase. The options will be
presented in order of perceived desirability in a manner that allows easy
comparison of the alternatives. The desirability ranking will be based
on OSFWS Mitigation Policy, which prioritizes mitigations goals. These
defined goals, in order of priority, are:
1. Avoiding the impact;
2. Minimizing impact;
3. Rectifying impact;
4,. Reducing impact over time; and
5. Compensating for impact.
Liberal use of appropriate figtrres and tables will facilitate comparison
of alternatives. The narrative will thoroughly discuss alternatives~
state assumptions, and document sources of information. Although the
27
quantitative aspects of the document wi 11 he based on pre-FY83 data!J the
FY.83 studies will be considered in assessing future data needs, The
document will be prepared as an interim mitigation plan. The interim
plan can be circulated for agency review with the intent of obtaining
conceptual approval for the scope of the mitigating options and the
recommended study plan&
-Task H -Review and Assessment of FV83 Data,
rdent if i cat jon of_S;;;...t;;;..;.u_d.x..y_~.;.;..· e:;;;.,;e;;;...d_.;;s _______ _
Following pr,eparation of the interim mitigation plan, a forma 1 review and
assessment of the data ~ollected during f¥83 field season wi'll begin~
This assessment will focus on the applicability of the data to the miti-
gation plan and will be used to finalize recommendations for F¥84 studies
and update recommendations f-or continuing studies.
-Task I -Quantification and Update of Mitigation Plan
After receiving and evaluating the f'f83 field data~ study efforts will
:concentrate on quantifying and updating the mitigation plan based oo the
newly ac.quir.ed data. This tasi< will continue to fY84 and lead to a
sequential refining of the mitigation document.
{c) Approach/Discussion
In order to exp~editious ly prepar-e a fERC license app 1 i~ation it wi 11 be
necessary to:
1. P·r.epare an ctc-c.eptable scope and format for the mitigatiQn plan; 0
2.. Quantify thE! mitigation {)ptions as thoroughly as possible with a\tail-
able information;
3. .Prepare an 11nterim ·mitigation plan;
4. Obtain conceptual appr<>val for the scope and data requir.ements fr.am
appropriate agencies; and
5. finalize and\ select mitigation options as needed data become avail-
able.
An important component of this study approach is obtaining local agenc,.y
acc-eptance of the concept that the initial mitigation document submitt1~d
with the FERC license application need not be complete. This acceptan(:e
ccan be facilitated by developing a detailed interim mitigation plan, a~;
proposed here, identifying data requirements and study needs (with ager:~cy
input) and committing to provide the needed studies pri<lr to FERC license
approval.. With this commitment to support the required studies and with
agreement fr-om local agencies that these studies will address the proper
concerns, it should be possible to proceed with the FERC license applica-
tion. Conditional approval, S'Jbject to the submission of an acceptable
mitigation document, has been <Jbtained for ot-her projects.
28
..
(d) Oeliverables
-First Quarter FY83
A detailed outline of the mitigation plan will be prepared in the first
quarter to define and direct the mitigation planning effort. This out-
line will allow a review of the mitigation effort by other project com-
ponents and concerned agencies, which fn turn will provide valuable input
for directing the mitigation planning. ·
November 15, 1982 -Submission of fERC Exhibit f for fonnal agency review.
-S.econd and Third Quarter fV8~.
Draft Interim t4itigation Plan. .If a timely review can be accomplished,
the final interim plan will be completed during the third quarter; if
not, it will be completed in the fourth quarter, ff83.
-FY84
'Final Interim Plan (see com~ent und.er Third ,Quarter).
29
w
0
TASK
·A. Exhibit E
Preparation
B. Agency and Proj ~~ct
Coordination
C. Information and
Data Review
D. Mitigation Plan
Outline
E. Identification
and Priortization
of Study Needs
F. Quantification
of Mitigation
Plan
G. 1) Preparation of
Draft Mi ti gati on
Plan Oocument
2) Preparation of
Final Document
H. Review and Assessment
of 1983 Data, Iden-
tification of Study
Needs
I. Quantification and
Preparatio·n of Mit-
igation Plan Supple-melit
.,. ..
July 1982
1983 Nov
-------------------~--~----
Sub task 57 ,.07 -Sus i tna Hatchery Sit in_g Stud,x
(a) Introduction
A thorough analysis of potential impacts of the two dams propose-d for the
Susitna River in Central Alaska is nearing completion. Of part;cular con-
cerr is the potent'ial for alteration of habitat access and environmental
conditions affecting -salmoni<f populations, particularly the chum salmon
10nchorhynchus keta). lt is appr<Jpri ate that .consideration be given to the
feasibility of siting an enhancement hat"Chery to insure maintenance of the
existing stocks at or above t.tleir present population levels ..
(b) Obj.ect i ves
The purpose of the propos-ed study is to pro vi de the Power Authority. with
feasibility and budgetary information relating to the development of a chum
salmon hatche.ry.. The hatchery would be ·capable of accommodating an annual
return of 30~000 adult salmon.
fhe study will i nc1ude. the fo l~~wi ng .components:
-facility criteria information;
. -Pot-ential site(s) identification;
=-C-cnceptualilation of facility on most suitable site;
-Estimation of design, ·Construction, and 'O&M cost; and
-Development schedule.
{c) Approach/Discuss ion
Following is a brief description of each of the tasks to be performed:
-Task A -facility Criteria Formulation
A biological program for the pr<>posed facility will be developed as a
basis for reviewing potential sites. Included in the program will be:
establishment of incubation and rearing techniques; water quality and
quantity r-equirements; and building spaces needs to accommodate person-
nel, feed, storage, laboratory, and production activities. All facility
criteria wi 11 be cons is tent with ~per at ion techniques ·presently endorsed
by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
-Task 8 -Site Identification
Using the criteria established in Task A, potential sites within the
Upper Cook Inlet and Susitna Basin area will be inspectect-The purpose
of the inspections wi 11 be to identify site( s) that:
1. Have suitable building conditions and ·access to keep construction
costs to a minimum.
31
'
.. i
2. Provide easily accessible water source which meets the biological
criterias for tenperature and quality during all months of facility
operation.
3. Afford acceptable access for servicing and provisioning.
4. Pennit operation and release and return of hatchery fish without
adverse impact on indigenous species.
Initially, potential sites will be id,entified through discussion with the
various groups familiar with the basin .. These discussions will help focus
on the pr-ime ar.eas for hatchery facility development. At this time~ it is
assumed that staff will -conduct site inspections during a fiv.e-day period,
''isitin~ f-our to eight locations. Field work will include water quality
sampling and some in situ analysis, spot elevations, and site photo docu-
mentation.
At th.e conclusion of the field reconnaissance, a brief report on each of
the potential sites will be prepared~ and the most suitable site(s} will be
identifi-ed ..
-Task C -·Facility"Conceptualization
The purpose of this task is to develop a basic facility plan for the most
suitabl~ site. The conceptual plan will be detailed only to the .extent
necessary to permit estimation of construction and O&M .cost within a -25-
percent accuracy range. The conceptual plan will consist of a written
description of major components" a. site plan, and a hydraulic schematic.
-Task _0 -Cost Estimation
·Based upon the conceptua 1 ized faci 1 ity, 1983 costs for design~ construc-
tiDn, and operation and maintenance will be estimated. These will be
tailored f-or budgeting purposes. A develop11ent schedule will also be
pr-ep<H·~ed to indicate time required from project initiation to facility
oper-ation:
-Task E -Report Preparation
All findings during the performance of this study wi 11 be documented in a
-brief report. It wi 11 be submitted in dr~ft and, subsequently, in fin a 1
form to the client.
(d) Schedule
The previously described activities wi 11 be completed between Augus.t 16,
1982 and November 15, 1982 with the report being submitted on or pt"'ior to
Nov:ember 15, 1982.
· NOTE: Although this re~resents additional scope of work, the costs are covered
by Amendment No. 3, i.e., no additional costs are included in Amendment
No. 4.
32
Subtask ~7~08 -Wildlife and Habitat Impact Assessment and Mit i gatiot~ PT ann i ng
{a} Objective
Continue with ongoing data collection~ workshops, and field studies; pre-
. pare supp-3rt ing reference documents; assess vari-ous prcject impacts; and
develop final comprehensive mitigation plans for inclusion in F~RC license
application.
(b) Approach/Oi scus;s ion
A brief i:lefinition of the Scope of Work for the environmental s-tudies
follows: . .
1. Preparation of the Report of First Workshop
Following the August mode11 n~r workshop, two major tasks wi 11 be under-
taken: the refinement .of the model and the r.eporting of the workshop
and the model. The model developed during the short period of a five-
day workshop will require revision to incorporate better data and new
understandings. This will nec-essitate a series of technical meetings
with key participants and some reprogramming to integrate these ideas
and data. Once the model has been refined, it will be used to compare
difference scenarios, such as with and without the project and with and
without d·ifferent mitigation alternatives. The report will include a
complete aescription of what is and is not considered in the model and
why; as well as the functional relationships developed, the assUil_ptions
made, and the data used. This report will be -::ompleted by the first
week in December.
2. Development of Construction Mitigation Plan
The constructfon mitigation plan, v1hich will be a section of the FERC
li-cense applicatiQn, will outline mitigation measures to be implemented
during the design and construction phases of the project. Thi:s pl.an
will include mitigation measures such as controlling dust along the
roads, leaving clumps of trees for eagle nesting along the reservoir
margins, fencing construction ~amps, and minimizing aircraft disttrr-
bance to wildlife. These measures are easily defined and understood,
and many have a lr·eady been agreed upon by resource agencies. Sections
of this plan will be worked on intermittently through its comp.letion in
March 1983 ..
3. Completion of Reports Covering 1982 Field Studies
Although data analysis for most 1982 studies was completed before the
workshop in August, draft final reports will not be prepared until
fall. These reports from the principal investigators will be completed
by December 1, 1982.
33
... 4·· ... ~ .· . ·.·>U>. ' : ... ••• . . .. ·: ..... ~.~ ·~ · .. ,: . . \
" ' '" • • • I ' ._ ' ' 'I • •
... ..
4. Preparation of Impact Assessment and FERC License Application
Following a review and synthesis of existing information {to be com-
pleted by the end of September), the impact assessment and mitigation
planning will proceed systematically through a series of steps:
-Identification of habitat and population indicato.rs (.e.g.~ number of
beavers, hectares of some important habitat type, density of willow
stems);
-Quantification of impacts in terms of indicators (what will be the
changes in the indicators over the 1 ife of the project); and
-Comparison and evaluation of mitigation options.
The last step requir.es that some valuation of the indicators and the
tradeoffs between indicators he made; this will be done in coordination
with the fish and wildlife policy of the ·Power Authority. The valua-
tions can be accomp1 ished using any number of appr:oaches, including HEP
analysis. Chapters fat" the fERC 1 icense application describing the
vegetation, bird~ and m\1ffimal resources of the proj,ect area; predicting
the eff.ects of the project Dn the vegetation and wildlife resources;
and outlining plans to mitigate potential negative impacts will be pre-
pared and submitted in time for inclusion in the February 15, 1983, , ·
submittal to FERC.
5. Spring Modeling Workshop
A seco.nd workshop bringing together all of the original participants
will be held in february 1983. The purpose of the second worksh,-,p is
not to greatly modify or add to the application (which will be in the
final writing phase by this time), but rather to discuss and display
different scenarios based on the revised, improved·model aiding the
mitigation planning. This workshop wi 11 be less intensive than the
first, and should require only two or three <fays. Any change to the
model at this time will help to develop the second mitigation pl,an and
add focus on future research.
6. Development of the Final Comprehensive Mitigation Plan
The FERC application requires a detailed plan to mitigate the adverse
effects of the project on fish and wildlife resources. The final com-
prehensive plan will address complex issues that cannot be decided
prior to construction (e.g., the desirabfl ity of onsite habitat en-
hancement measures as opposed to the outright purchase of habitat
equivalent in value to that which will be lost). This plan will not be
completed at the time of the license application; however, outlines of
the relative merits of various approaches wi 11 be completed in time f.or
inclusion in the application.
:34
7. Presentation of License Application to Resource Agency Personn~l
Meetings wi 11 be held wf th resource agency personnel to present the
impact assessment and miti:gation pLans as described in the 1 icense
application. Following these meetings the ag.t:mcy corrments will be
incorporated into the application.
~ -c} S~hedu le
October 1, 1982, through March 31, 1983 ..
0
35
(}
Subtask 58.01 -Transmission Line Survey
(a) Objectives
-Provide accurate information as to the location of the exact centerline
of the transmission lines along with exact width and"location of the
right -of -way.
-Define all the points of intersection (P.I .. ) along the centerline by
measuring the station for each P. I. and its bearings ..
-Provide informati-on regarding the transmission .equipment and appurten-
ances.
-Pr.epare drawings and documentations as r.equir,ed to meet the fERC require-
ments for license appli~ation.
(b) Approach/Discussion
Transmission line routing requires thorough investigation and study to
assure that the most practical route is selected, taking into con~ideration
the technical, economic, and environmental criteria.
In order to select and identify the acceptable transmission line route, it
is necessary to identify all requirements imposed by state and federal
~egislation. State public utility commissions and departments of 11atural
r-esources may also designate avoidance and exclusion areas which must be
considered in the final routing processe
. . , ..
The lines between Willow and Healy will essentially par'allel the selected
intertie route but will require definiti.on and, to a lesser degree,.
assessment.
Other .entities will be consulted which may have previously used aerial
photographs. Such entities include borough planning agencies, pipeline
companies, county highway departments, ~md land development corpor.ations.
A preliminary field survey will also be made to locate possible new
features \-Jh ich do not appear on USGS maps or aeri a 1 photographs.
Final route selection is a matter of judgment and requires sound evaluation
of divergent requirements, including costs of easements and clearing, and
ease of rna intenance as well as what affect the 1 ine may hav~1 on the
environment. Public relations and public input are necessary in the
corri dar selection and pre 1 iminary survey stages.
Line surveys are not required for the FERC application, henc.e are not part
of this scope of work.
(c) Schedule
October 1, 1982, through December 31, 1982.
36
J
c
Subtask 59.01 -Prepare Cost Estima~e Update
(a) Objective
Update project cost estimate in connection with the elimination of the
pioneer road and the selected access route~ and other planning and design
chatig.es for inclusion in FERC license app1 ication.
{b) Approach/Discussion
-Revise the proj.ect cost estimate based on the elimination of the pioneer
road and the final selection of access. Estimate will require a breakdown
of quantities and the -development of costs for both initial and permanent
access. Estimate revisions wiri be based on comparative cost studies done
under Subtask 2.10 to prepare an access plan recommendation a
Revise costs for Watana s·ite work in 1985-86 due to the compression of
schedule resulting from the elimination of the pioneer road and the later
.expected issuing of fERC 'lic-ense. The compr,essfon of work leading up to
riv-er diversion in 1987 r4:quires a reanalysis of the labor .and equipment
r-equiranents for a number of activities. Prices for this work will have to
be revised to refl~ct the change in scheduled work periods.
Techni"Cal changes made since the issuing of the Feasif:iility Report will .
result in the revision of some quantities and. pr-ic.es.
The cash flow for the proJect will a 1 so have to. be revised to include the
above changes""
(c) Schedule
October 1 through December 31, 1982, and intermittently through March 31,
1983.
{<.1) Report
A revised project cost estimate will be prepared to supersede Appendix C of
the Feasibility Report2
37
.... .
Subtask 59.02 Update Engineering/Construction Schedule
(a) Objective
Update construction schedule in connection with the elimination of the
pioneer road and the selected access route, and other· planning and design
·changes for inclusion in FERC license application.
(b) Approach/Discussion
Similar to Subtask 59.01 ceoncerning cost estimate, revise the construction
schedule based on the elimination of the pioneer road and the selected
access route. The schedule revision will reflect the -compression of con-
struction activities leading up to river diversion. 'Changes to the power
intake 'Schedt:le will also be reviewed.
The abov~ changes will r.equire changes to the backup schedule network logic
for -the Watana development as well as the revision of S{)me activity dura-
tions. The results of the schedule review will be presented in a revised
construction schedule.
(c) Schedule
October 1 through December 31, 1982, and int-ermittently through March 31,
1983.
·(d) Report
A supplemental report wi 11 be prepared with r-evised c-onstruction schedules
for both Watana and Devil Canyon.
38
Subtask 60.02 -Coordination with FERC
0
(a) Objective
Obtain an optimal amount of r-eview and input from the F€RC staff prior to
application filing.
(b) .~pproach
The purpose of this task is to "Continue to fully coordinate the development
o1F €Xhibits of the license application with the FERC. It is intended that sE~v.eral meetings wi 11 be held between the fERC staff anct the study team to
go ov.er the format and content of information in the exhibits and to
r,E~ceive staff comments.
o.-·afts of the application exhibits, approved by the Power Authority, will
bE~ presented to FERC for their informal rev few prior to filing of the final
document. The purpose of this activity wi 11 be to minimize -the possibility
of deficiencies in the final document.
~c) Schedule
Oct<>ber 1, 1982, through March 31, 1983.
39
.... . .
Suttask 60.03 -Coordination of Exhibit Preparation _..,
(a) Objective
Continue coordination of FERC Exhibit (prior Subtask 10 .. 04) preparation by
the study team.
(b) Approach
This subtask will include the coordination of the activities lvithin the
study team producing materials fot' the final application. Included in the
scope will be in-house expediting, final incorporation of all project
inputs, and final editorial r.evi.ew.
At the request of the Power Authority, preparation o(fxhibits was deferred
from Phase I to start Ju iy 1, 1982. The scope of wtJrk is substantially as
stated in the Phase I POS modified in accordance with revised f'ERC
regulations. Funds which were not expended during Phase I of Task 10 are
made av a i 1 able for this work together with an addition a 1 expense of $50,000
for estimated printing costs.
(·c) Schedule
July l ~ 1982 through March 1983.
40
Subtask 60.04 -Finalization of Exhibit G
(a) Objective
Complete the maps delineating project boundaries for Exhibit G of the FERC
application.
{b) Approach
This subtas~ will tai<e inputs from the field mapping {1:400), recreation
plans, and access roads and transmission line route selections and produce
the final Exhibit G for filing. The maps will be produced in accordance
with Section 4.32 of the fERC r.egulations. It is anticipated that approxi-
mately 100· sheats wi 11 be necessary for inclusion in Exhibit G, "tith
separate sets of mapping for reservoirs~ transmission lines, and access
-roads.
(c) Schedule
September lS through November lS, 1982. Finalization by January 1983.
41
Subtask 61.01 -Review En~rgy Planning Studies (A. Tussing)
(a) Objective
To further review A. Tussing•s draft report uAlaska Energy Planning
Studiesu; hold meetings to resolve outstanding differences between
fussing's and Acres reports on Susitna project rfsk analysis; and prepare
appropriate r.esponses.
(b) ApproaGh
Work to be undertaken would consist of tfi~ following:
1.. Preparation of factual tracking of thurchill Falls proJect costs from
feasibility status to actual completion costs. Tussing recognizes this
is a highly relevant case of .effective capital cost-control basis on
_ which more positive C{)nclusions can be drawn to support Acres risk
analysis. '
2. Furt-her commentary will be prepared on oil and gas pricing to reinforce
the position tak-en by Batelle and Acres, particularly on the principle
of net back from export market price levels. This wi 1 l further rein-
force arguments supporting ,convergent t-rend of energy prices ft"cm -al-
ternatives and correct misunderstandings and some misleading statements
on pages 27 to 44 of Tussing's Review.
3. A paper will be prepared to present further discussions of long-term
interest rates and appropriate discount rates to emphasize the point on
which Acres agrees with Tussing that it is the cost of borrowing at the
time that financial commitrr,ent is made that is important. This should
counter Tussing• s inference that a 3 percent discount rate is incor-
n~ct.
{c) Schedule
Work to be completed by September 7, 1982 ..
42
Subtask 61.02 -Marketing and Financing Update
(a) Objective
To resolve issues concerning sources and extent of financing and annual
re:venues as the basis for pr~paring applicable portions of Exhibit 0; to
provide for continuing liaison activities.
(b) Approach
.
Continuing liaison will be conducted with the Power Authority and with
financial, legal, insurance, economic, and other professional advisors
assembled by the Power Authority. Additional runs on the Acres FEASBL
model are anticipated to examine the r-esults "Of new financing alternatives
which may be postulated and, to the extent necessary, these results wi 11 be
further subjected to rigorous financing risk analysis in a manner analogous
to that accomplished for th~ feasibility study.
(<:) Schedule
October 1, 1982, ·through December 31, .1982 and thereafter as directed by
the Pnwer Authority.
43
1/
-~-X' j.
.,... ........ $"
Subtask 63.01 -Develop Cost-Control System
(a) Objective
Continue with the necessary management tools and control systems for moni-
toring, reporting, and controlling of project costs for the period October
1, 1982, through December 31, 1982, and beyond, as requ ir.ed.
(b) Approach
The cost-control system will continue to use the expertise of both Acres
and Moo lin personnel through December 31, 1982. Frank Moo 1 in and
Associates will terminate their services as of December 31, 1982.
Both man-hours and do 11 ars expended wi 11 be reported for the extended
period and the total to date. Completion costs will be fo-recasted, and
projected overruns/underruns will be tabulated. Reports will be submitted
to the Power Authority monthly.
(c) Schedule
October 1, 1982, through March 31, 1983 as required.
44