HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA2737MAY 1985
MAIN TEXT
/"
ST AGED CONSTRUCTION
PRE-FILING CONSULTATION PACKAGE
AiLASKAPOWER AUTHORITY~-----..l
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY Ct)MMISSION
PROJECT No.7114
SUSITNA
HYDROELECTRIC PftOJECT
i~-~r~b~,~~rt\..'.
U~t
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
STAGED CONSTRUCTION
PRE-FILING CONSULTATION PACKAGE
I~
MAIN TEXT
....
-
ARLIS
Alaska Resources
Library &InformatIon Services
Anchorage,Alaska
May 1985
-
''''"'------_..------'''-,,-----------rt"f"""""""¥i oai,~-
.....
.....
PRE-FILING CONSULTATION PACKAGE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.INTRODUCTION TO THE THREE STAGE CONSTRUCTION PLAN
II.THREE STAGE PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A.PROJECT LOCATION
B.WATANA -STAGE I
C.DEVIL CANYON -STAGE II
D.WATANA -STAGE I II
III.PROJECT CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES AND SCHEDULE
IV.POWER AND ENERGY STUDIES
A.LOAD FORECAST
B.RESERVOIR OPERATION PLAN
C.POWER AND ENERGY PRODUCTION
V.PROJECT ECONOMICS
A.OPTIMIZATION OF DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE
B.CO~~ARISON OF SUSITNA AND THERMAL ALTERNATIVES
VI.PROJECT FINANCING
VII.ENVIROIDlENTAL ANALYSIS
A.INTRODUCTION AND FINDINGS
1-
2.
BACKGROUND AND SCOPE
FINDINGS
B.RESERVOIR AND RIVER PHYSICAL PROCESS ANALYSIS
425674/TC
850601
l.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
SUMMARY
DISCHARGE
RESERVOIR TEMPERATURE
RIVER TEMPERATURE
RIVER ICE
NITROGEN SATURATION
SUSPENDED SEDIMENT AND TURBIDITY
i
C.AQl~TIC/FISHERIES ANALYSIS
1.SUMMARY
2.INTRODUCTION
3.FORMAT FOR ASSESSMENT
4.ASSESSMENT METHODS
5.ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
6.RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
7.MITIGATION
D.WII.DLIFE/BOTANI CAL ANAL YS I S
1.SUMMARY
2.DELAYED HABITAT LOSS
3.BORROW AREA IMPACTS
4.BIG GAME MOVEMENT IMPACTS
5.DOWNSTREAM EFFECTS
6.OTHER SCHEDULE-RELATED EFFECTS
7.MITIGATION
E.CULTURAL RESOURCES ANALYSIS
F.SOCIOECONOMICS ANALYSIS
....
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
2.
3.
4.
SUMMARY
BORROW AREAS
INUNDATION AREAS
MITIGATION
SUMMARY
EMPLOYMENT AND POPULATION
COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES
MITIGATION
G.RECREATION RESOURCES
1.SUMMARY
2.RESOURCE USE
3.RECREATION PLAN PHASING
4.MITIGATION
H.AESTHE'.l.'ICS ANALYSIS
1.SUMMARY
2.PROJECT FACILITIES
3.MITIGATION
VIII.DISTRIBUTION OF PRE-FILING CONSULTATION PACKAGE
425674/TC
850601
ii
".".
APPENDIX A PHYSICAL HABITAT SIMULATION EXHIBITS
1.Reservoir Temperature Simulations,Stage 1
2.Reservoir Temperature Simulations,Stage 2
3.Reservoir Temperature Simulations,License Application Project
4.SiIIILulated River Temperatures,Stage 1
5.SillllUlated River Temperatures,Stage 2
6.SiIllulated River Temperatures,License Application Project
7.River Ice Simulations,Stage 1
8.River Ice Simulations,Stage 2
9.Conlparisons of River Ice Simulations for Staged Construction,
Stage 1 and License Application Project
10.Comparisons of River Ice Simulations for Staged Construction,
Stage 2 and License Application Project
11.Susitna River Exceedence Flows (1996 Energy Demand)
12.Susitna River Exceedence Flows (2001 Energy Demand)
13.Susitna River Exceedence Flows (2002 Energy Demand)
14.Susitna River Exceedence F'lows (2007 Energy Demand)
15.Sus:itna River Exceedence Flows (2008 Energy Demand)
16.Sus:itna River Exceedence Flows (2020 Energy Demand)
17.Sus:i tna River Streamflows for 2001 Energy Demand
18.Susitna River Streamflows for 2002 Energy Demand
19.St"Lge I Reservoir Operations,1996 Energy Demand
20.Stage I Reservoir Operations,2001 Energy Demand
21.St"Lge II Reservoir Operations,2002 Energy Demand
22.Stage II Reservoir Operations,2002 Energy Demand
23.St"tge III Reservoir Operations,2008 Energy Demand
24.St"lge III Reservoir Operations,2020 Energy Demand
425674!TC
850601
iii
-I
-
-
-
-
SECTION I
....
"..,.
I.INTRODUCTION TO THE THREE STAGE CONSTRUCTION PLAN
The Alaska Power Authority's (Power Authority)Application for License
before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC),submitted in
February 1983,proposed that the construction of the Susitna River Hydro-
electric Project be completed 1n two stages.The first stage called for
construction of a f~cility at the Watana site with the dam built to an
elevation of 2205 feet (see Figure 11.1),followed by construction of a
second facility at the Devil Canyon site,with the dam built to an elevation
of 1463 feet (see Figure 11.2).
At a meeting of the Power Authori ty Board on May 3,1985,the Board
confirmed it~l conclusion that this two-dam configuration optimizes the power
development {Jf the Susitna River,and on that basis the Power Authority 1S
proceeding with its efforts to pursue FERC license authority necessary to
permi t construction of the Susitna Project.However,the Power Authority
has also conduded that a number of benefits will be derived from a modifi-
cation of the plan for construction of the project to provide for the
completion of construction in three stages,rather than the two proposed in
the February 1983 license application.Accordingly,the Power Authority has
determined to amend its License Application to seek FERC approval of a
construction plan that provides for construction in three stages:first,
construction and operation of a facility at the Watana site with a dam
elevation of 2025 feet;second,completion and operation of the Devil Canyon
facility at the originally proposed dam elevation of 1463 feet;and third,
further elevation of the dam at the Watana facility to the 2205 foot level
proposed in the original License Application.
Although the three stage construction plan will not alter the character of
the fully completed project,staging construction in three steps will
accomplish certain desirable changes over the course of proiect development.
Most importantly three stage construction would reduce the costs associated
with construction time and materials in the initial stage of the project.
-425674/1
850601
I-I
,-
The development of Watana to its full height would result in concentration
of expenditur.es in the early years of the-project.Completion of Watana I
at a 2025 foot crest elevation would substantially reduce the initial
materials requirement and construction time.The result would be both a
reduction in the required state contribution t and improved opportunity for
private financing.Moreover,stretching out the pace of development of
project energy and capacity would permit a better matching of load growth
and capaci ty available,thereby ensuring greater flexibili ty in responding
to future rates of system growth.
425674/I
850601
I-2
-
SECTION II
-
.....
.....
.....
II.THREE STAGE PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A.PROJECT LOCATION
As outlined in the FERC License Application maps and land descriptions,the
Susitna Proje~ct will be located on the Susitna River approximately 120 miles
northeast of Anchorage.The Watana Dam will be located at river mile 184
and the Devil Canyon Dam located at river mile 152.For a complete descrip-
tion of the proj ect boundaries and locations of specific features,see
Exhibit G of the February 1983 Application for License.
B.WATANA _.STAGE I
The Watana Initial Dam would be built to El.2025 with a max~mum normal
reservoir elevation of 2000 (see Figure II.5).The internal zoning of the
earthfill dam would include an inclined upstream impervious core.The
inclination of the core would reduce the amount of shell material required
for stability of the Stage III dam that would be submerged by the Stage I
pool,and thierefore placed during Stage I construction (see Figure 11.6).
When the dam is being raised,all the additional fill could then be placed
in the dry during the seasonal drawdown of the reservoir.The raising of
the Watana Dam involves no adverse effects on the safety of either the Stage
I or Stage III dam,and no unusual construction operation is required during
raising.An additional five feet of freeboard is added in Stage I to
facilitate flood control with the small reservoir storage volume.
The spillway and approach channel excavation would be deepened by approxi-
mately 185 feet below that shown in the two stage project in order to accom-
modate the rE!servoir during Stage I (see Figure II.7).The rock excavated,
from these areas would be used in the construction of the dam and would
minimize or eliminate the need for opening a quarry site during Stage I.
The deeper excavation would be designed with suitable rock reinforcement and
berms.The spillway in either concept would pass the potential maximum
flood.
425674/II
850601
II-I
~-
For Stage I,there would be one outlet facility structure and two power
intake structures (see Figure 11.9).The outlet facility,in conjunction
wi th the four powerhouse uni ts in Stage I,would be designed to di scharge a
50-year flood before flow would be discharged over the spillway.The same
criterion applies to the current two stage project.
The power house in Stage I would have four generating units.With the lower
head available in Stage I,each unit would generate 130 MW for a total of
520 MW.
The construction schedule for Stage I has been shortened by one year over
that which was planned for in the two stage project.The shortening of the
schedule is a result of a decrease in the quantities of the fill material
necessary for the Stage I construction.
C.DEVIL CANYON -STAGE II
The Devil Canyon facility would be identical for either a two stage or three
stage project.
D.WATANA _.STAGE III
The Watana Ini tial Dam would be raised to El.2205 wi th a maximum normal
reservoir elevation of 2185 (see Figure II.5).During seasonal drawdown
when the Stage I reservoir elevation is below elevation 1925 (the elevation
of the upstream berm)rockfi1l would be in the dry on the upstream side of
the dam.
The concrete spillway ogee crest would
spillway gat,es rel'ocated to accommodate
Figure 11.8).
be raised .to El.2135 and the
the higher ogee elevation (see
The outlet facility structure and the two power intakes would be raised to
El.2201.A third power intake would be built in Stage III with an inlet at
El.2012 (see Figure 11.10).
425674/II
850601
II-2
-
.....
Two additiolunl units would be added to the powerhouse bringing the total
number of units to six.After completion of Stage III,the capacity of the
powerhouse would increase from 520 MW to 1020 MW because of the increase in
head on the four Stage I units and the addition of two more units at 170 MW
each.This would be the same capacity as is currently planned for in the
two stage project.
425674/U
850601
n-3
....
-
Figure 11.1
Figure U.2
Figure II.3
Figure II.4
Figure II.5
Figure II.6
Figure II.7
Figure U.8
Figure 11.9
Figure 11.10
425674/II
850601
LIST OF FIGURES
Watana Dam General Plan -1983 License Application Project
Devil Canyon General Plan
Watana Dam General Plan -Staged Dam Construction
Susitna Hydroelectric Project -Transmission Lines
Watana Dam -Staged Embankment Cross Sectons
W8tana Dam -Staged Dam Crest Details
Watana Dam -Spillway Cross Sections -Sheet 1
Watana Dam -Spillway Cross Sections -Sheet 2
Watana Dam -Stage I Intake Structure
Watana Dam -Stage III Intake Structure
II-4
J i 1 i fi II J J...•III I
WATANA DAM GENERAL PLAN
1983 LICENSE APPLICATION PROJECT
I ))1
"T1
G)
C
:tJm
~
t
j
--~--
----~--
----...........
SCALE
o 500Ft.
~----J
z
~...a.
"""...cc
...(C
II
Z
...l.LI
~
1cc....
zo-=--z_cc
I :J
...I-->w
~
.,...
--
"',,~
1/
( t
\ \
\\
P
\\
\',\
\\
\,
\\
\\
\\
\\.
\\
\,
\
\ I
\\
\\
\\
'\\~
\~
-i&.o~~J
a
FIGURE :II .2
J )J J NA IIA"~["~M ulEh~RA~~":Ah J
ST AGED DAM CONSTRUCTION
I ]J m
I I
l WATANA
INITIAL DAM
(STAGE:t)SCALE
o 500Ft.
i WATANA
HIGH DAM
(STAGE Dr)
~----._II ~,,~/,---- - -._-===::;:~~f.--.-/"
II .......:::::-_-;:':-,
~~,...,....-._--OUTLINE OF FILL FOR
-~~__----...-.....W ATAN A Ji IGH DAM ~
--~~__(STAGE-m)\--------'"-'':::':::::::::=--~'~I-::::::::::::::.:::-..L-c-_.)'-~---.::-::-\
......~./
"TI
G>c:cm
~
W
1 J J -1 i 1 1 1 --I )I 1 j i 1 j
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
TRANSMISSION LINES
---EXISTING INTERTIE
.,..,..,~WATANA INITIAL DAM-STAGE 1:
.-.-DEVIL CANYON-STAGE It
••••••••,.WATANA HIGH DAM-STAGE m
~~~o FAIRBANKS
II
II11
HEALY
-W\.DEVIL CANYON
._---~~~~.,.Z~~ZZ~WAT ANA
WILLOW
!It
ARM ~ANCHORAGEKNtK
GOLD CREEK
"T1
Q
C
JJ
m
I=t
./:>
I j 1 J J I 1 i J 1 J H !
WATANA DAM
STAGED EMBANKMENT CROSS SECTIONS
,.,.-....................
RESERVOIR ....::E~L~.~2~0~0~0~y~~~;;<";,.;(.:~...~.~..:!!.jf::L.2025.......................
........:;::.~:;;:iH!f!!':.......~••Do·....0 ..'!f:....&:~;;:J!;:!:!;i1!,"_"'"...........................
STAGE I -WA T ANA INITIAL DAM
..........................
RESERVOIR EL.2185 Y
LEL.2205
-n
C)
C
:D
m
~
01
STAGE m -WATANA HIGH DAM
i I i D 1 1 J I ]---I J j j J j
WATANA DAM
STAGED DAM -CREST DETAILS
ROCK
2.4
11 ~
RESERVOIR EL.218S'"
ROCK FILL
2200
1900
2100
2250
2150
1850
...2050
wwu.
z
;2000J ~RESERVOIR EL.2000·"
0
i=c:>w 2.4
uj 1950 ~1~
'"T1 1800-J ///0.7-C)
c
1750J
o·50'100'
JJ NOTES:SCALE i ,
m
~l.INCLUDES 5'SETTLEMENT OVERBUILD
2.1NCLUDES 2'SETTLEMENT OVERBUILD0>
WATANA DAM
SPILLWAY CROSS SECTIONS -SHEET I
RESERVOIR EL.2185
A - A
Ground
Surface
TWO-ST AGE PROJECT
B - B
Ground
Surface
STAGE I aGEE
THREE-STAGE PROJECT
--~I_..B
01
G)
C
:0rn
WATANA DAM
SPILLWAY CROSS SECTIONS -SHEET 2
STAGE I
B - B
Ground
SurfaceRESERVOIR
EL.2000
STAGE I OGEE
STAGE m"(;)
C
:0
m
RESERVOIR EL.2 185
STAGE m OGEE ----
1 I
WATANA DAM
STAGE I INTAKE STRUCTURE
SCALE 0 20 40 FEET
STAOE ll[
~If OUTLET fACL"T
--..............-:lrr---
i pOWER INlAl<E
------------------l/fV1l-7,t---------
ELEVATION -LOOKING DOWNSTREAM
,,
~~,:£.~~L !:~~~:===========f============:i=::::;===+=;=::::;--Tl
~'.IJ~~
2'00
2150
1950
..
W
W...
!
2000 ~..«>w....w
2050
2200
1900
1850
"T1-
G)
C
JJ
m
~1800
<0
-1 ---1
WATANA DAM
STAGE ill INTAKE STRUCTURE
20 40 fEETSCALE0
EL,/915
EL./800
...........
t
'----------------_.._.
-
!£POWER INTAKE
=
I -It OUTLET FACilITY
,...--tl ,....._
i :III I ,:I:::~IUII.1 I -
• "I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I i IIIIII
I I I /IIIIII
/ • I / I
I I /,I, I I II I I I,I I
I I I I I
II II I I'/
I ,t I
I ',I ,I I• •I ~
I I I I I I
I 'I I I :
iV'I\(IV I\(I i I !i!t=~~~~~==~~~==:==::::::;==:~LJ
r=I h hl n :
IW II......,
i I ,1 r' ,I,,xx XX
xx [Xx
X~x ~:x
[xx xx
XX xx
ELEVA T ION"-:--L"O-OKi'tJ'-G--O-OWN STREAM
XX [XX [XX
XX [XX XXi
fL,2Dl1'rx X
NORMAL MAX.
OPERATlHQ W.L.
!'EL.21n 1=
TOP OF BEOROCK 7
1-
1800
2200
2100
1900
...
uJ
uJu.
!
2000 Zo
i=
<>uJ......
2050
1850
1950
2150
"TI
(j)
C
::0.
m
o
-
-
-
-
-
'1!'iMII
-
-
-
SECTION III
F""
I
III.PROJECT CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES AND SCHEDULE
Feasibility level costs of the Susitna project have been estimated based on
the two stage project and on the three stage project.A cost comparison
shows that development of the three stage project is more expensive than the
two stage project,as shown below.However J'Stage I-Watana of the three
stage project is significantly less expensive than the Watana stage of the
two stage project as indicated in Table III.l.
TABLE III.1
PROJECT COSTS
($MILLION 1982)
Stage Two Stage Project Three Stage Project
I Watana $3,371 $2,528
II Devil Canyon 1,475 1,492
Subtotal $4,846 $4,020
III Raise Watana 1,270
Total $4,846 $5,290
Cost Differential +$444
!"""
Table III.2 includes a more detailed summary cost comprison of the two
stage project versus the three stage project.
Major work efforts and milestone dates for the three stage project are
outlined on the Project Schedule (see Figure III.l).
-
-425674/III
850601
III~l
1
TABLE III.2
PROJECT COSTS
($MILLIONS 1982)
Item
Land &Land Rights
Powerhouse
Dam,Reservoir &River Diversion
Power Generation Equipment
Roads,Rail and Air Facilities
Electric Transmission Facilities
Construction Facilities &Misc.
Total Direct Costs
Contingency Allowance
Subtotal
Licensing,Engineering,
&Administration
Total Project Cost
425674/II1
850601
Stage I
Watana
El.2025
32
75
947
71
191
294
279
1,889
272
2,161
367
2,528
Three Stage
Stage II
Devil
Canyon
22
72
561
67
119
113
153
1,108
160
J,267
225
1,492
1II-2
Project
Stage III
Watana
E1.2205
19
21
589
36
51
118
153
987
142
1,129
141
1,270
Total -
Stages
I to III
73
168
2,097
174
361
525
585
3,984
574
4,557
733
5,290
73
144
1,928
172
332
487
490
3,626
533
4,159
687
4,846
-n
G5c
JJ
m
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
SCHEDULE FOR THREE STAGE PROJECT
CALENDAR YEAR
h980
1 1 1985 199°1 1 1995 1 I~200°1 1 1 2005 12010
,1 I 1 I ~___J_i_~_1~-l~L1:LJFEASIBILITYSTUDY
ERC LICENSE
&KI!Y DATIa
.&.NOV 1987 *
POWER S)I ~GREEMENTS ~DEC 1985
~JUN 1986
&APRIL 1989
WATANA:&OCT 1989
LAND ACQU SITION &JUL 1991
11 JUL 1992
DESIGN AND PROCUREMENT &.&JUL 1995
&.OCT 1996
A SEPT 2002
ACCESS &SUP PORT FACILITIES CONST •.
LIh DEC 2008
~L.2027 PAM CONSTRUCTIOfI (4 UNITS)EL.2205 'ADDITION (2 UNITS)
&\~£
DEVIL CANYON:
r,J:SIGN &PROCUAEMENT
LAND ACo\'
&
SITION
ACCESS &SUPP(RT FACILITIES CONST.
g;.
DAM r.ON~TAl ~TION
I&;&
*MOST RECENT FERC SCHEDULE DATE.APPLICANT ASSUMES THAT SOME MINOR BUT UNESTIMATED
AMOUNT OF DELAY WILL OCCUR.
.....
I"-r
-
-
.....
-
-
-
SECTION IV
IV.POWER AND ENERGY STUDIES
The economic feasibility of the Susitna Project depends upon the amount of
generating capacity and energy that will be available for sale.For the two
stage and the three stage projects,operation studies are performed to
estimate the power and energy production calPability of each stage of the
Susitna Project.
Operation simulations are made using the Railbelt load forecast (discussed
below)to establish the relation of system electrical demand to energy
production from the project.In addi tion tel meeting energy requirements,
project operation 1.S designed to meet monthly or weekly instream flow
requirements.
A.LOAD FORECAST
The load forecast for the Railbelt contained in the License Application was
made by using a series of three econometric computer models:a petroleum
revenue forecasting model operated by Alaska Department of Revenue (DOR);
the Man-in-the Arctic Program (MAP)model operated by the Institute of
Social and Economic Research (ISER);and the Railbelt Electricity Demand
(RED)model operated by Battelle Northwest Laboratories.The petroleum
revenue model produces State revenue forecasts based upori petroleum price
forecasts.The MAP model converts these revenue projections into projec-
tions of state-wide economic conditions,including population,housing,and
employment.The RED model then uses MAP model output,along with additional
data,to produce an electrical energy and peak demand forecast for the
Railbelt.The load forecasts are taken from Table B.1l7 of the License
Application.
B.RESERVOIR OPERATION PLAN
Project operation is designed to meet system energy requirements along with
minimum monthly or weekly instream flow requirements.These flows are
425674/IV
850601
IV-l
referenced to the Gold Creek gag1ng station"In the License Application
Flow Regime C was used.For the present analyses,Flow Regime E-VI is used.
The development of Flow Regime E-VI was discussed in the FERC submission of
March 4,1985.
For reservoir simulation,the energy generated is compared to the system
energy demand.If the energy produced is greater than that which the system
can use,energy production is reduced.This is done by decreasing the
discharge through the powerhouse and increasing the storage or,if the
reservoir is full,diverting the powerhouse discharge to the cone valves.
Prescribed minimum instream flow requirements at Gold Creek ensure that the
project will release adequate flows for environmental purposes (e.g.,Flow
Regime E-VI).If the flow requirement is not met,more water is released
through the downstream project powerhouse in order to meet the requirement.
If the hydraulic capacity of the powerhouse is limiting,the shortfall is
released through the cone valves.
since the instream flow requirement may cause more energy to be generated
than needed by the Alaska Railbelt,the powerhouse discharge could again be
decreased.However,instead of reducing the total project outflow,'
discharge greater than that required for energy production is diverted from
the powerhouse to the cone valves.
In the event that a flood could not be passed through the powerhouse and
cone valves,because of limiting energy demand and hydraulic capacity,the
reservoir is allowed to surcharge above the normal maximum water surface
elevation.This surcharging is done to minimize spillway use and the poten-
tial for nitrogen saturation downstream.
C.POWER AND ENERGY PRODUCTION
Based on the reservoir operation plan discussed above,and using Flow Regime
E-VI,the power and energy production of the two stage and three stage
425674/IV
850601
IV-2
.....
....
projects were determined.With the three stage project the initial Watana
Dam is about 180 feet lower than that proposed in the two stage project.
This results in lower head and less flow regulation capability at Watana.
The lower head reduces the Watana power output,while the reduced reservoir
storage reduces both the Watana and Devil Canyon energy generation.After
raising the Watana project (Stage III))the power and energy generation from
the two concepts are identical.Table IV.l provides a comparison of power
and energy production for the two and three stage projects.
A distinct advantage of the three stage project is its ability to more
closely match the expected Railbelt loads without developing excess capa-
city.Figures IV.l and IV.2 demonstrate this effect.Figure IV.l shows the
relation between Railbelt peak power demand and installed capacity for the
least-cost thermal alternative.Figure IV.2 shows the power demand and
installed capacity relations for both the two stage and the three stage
projects for the Susitna case.Excess reSl:!rve capacity exists with the
Susitna Project during its early years.The reserve capacity more closely
matches system requirements under the three stage project than the two stage
project.This is especially true for the period 2002 through 2008 •
425674/IV
850601
IV-3
"""
....
....
Two Stage Project
Watana High Dam
Devil Canyon
Three Stage Project
TABLE IV.l
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
COMPARISON OF CAPACITY AND ENERGY
FOR THE
TWO AND THREE STAGE PROJECTS
Installed
Capacity
(MW)
1020
600
1620
Average Annual
Energy
(GWHR)
3500
3400
6900
Stage I -Watana Initial Dam
Stage II Devil Canyon
Stage III -Watana High Dam
425674!IV
850601
IV-4
520
600
500
1620
2470
3120
1310
6900
1
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
NON-SUSITNA ALTERNATIVE PEAK DEMAND AND CAPACITY
3000
2000 I------I-----+------f----~
NON-SUSITNA
AL TERNA TIVE
~(THERMAL)
~
1000
'-----f-RAILBEL T PEAK
POWER DEMAND
2016 2024200820001992
OL.----L...L..--L-L...-_---'
1984
'"Tl
o
C
:0
m
YEAR
-··1 ···1 1
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
COMPARISON OF PEAK CAPACITIES AVAILABLE
3000 ,---------------..........----------.
,;--TWO STAGE
PROJECT
THREE STAGE
PROJECT --+-...
2000 I-------+-----+-~~
1000 F~::::::;;:~;;;;;iii--tf~:.-i---_l--_l
RAILBEL T PEAK
POWER DEMAND
2016 2024200820001992
o "'""-.--..--L.----'
1984
"T1
(;)
C
::0m
YEAR
.....
-
....
SECTION V
""'.
V.PROJECT ECONOMICS
The econom1C analysis compares the costs of alternative means of meeting the
electrical demand of the Alaska Railbelt during the planning period 1993-
2051.Load forecasts were developed and energy supply plans were formulated
and compared over this planning period.For electric generation planning,a
capacity expansion optimization model developed by General Electric (the
Optimized Generation Planning [OGP]program)was used to develop alternative
equivalent expansion plans.
A.OPTIMIZATION OF DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE
The Power Authority used the OGP program to develop al ternative electric
generation expansion plans for the period January 1993 to December 2020 to
establish the least costly system for that period with and without the
Susitna Project.In the With-Susitna case,Stage I was assumed to start
operation in 1996.The optimum timing for Stage II and Stage III was
selected by choosing the installation year which minimized total system
costs.The analyses indicated that Devil Canyon should be on line in 2002
and Stage IlIon line in 2008.In this plan all of the Susitna Project's
energy would be absorbed in the system by about the year 2015.
For purposes of evaluating Without-Susitna generating plans.several
different plans were considered.Varying amounts of coal-fired and gas-
fired thermal generation were added to the existing units to create these
optional plans.The total costs for the alternatives include all costs of
fuel and the O&M costs of the generating units.In addition.the costs
include the annual investment costs of any plants and transmission
facilities added during the period.
B.COMPARISION OF SUSITNA AND THERMAL ALTERNATIVES
The With-Susitna and Without-Susitna expansion plan costs are used to assess
the economic benefits of the Susitna Project.Benefits are based on the
425674/V
850601
V-I
_.
....
_.
difference between the costs of the most feasible,least costly Without-
Susitna plan and the With-Susitna plan.For the Susitna Project to be
considered economically feasible,generally the benefi t/cos t ratio of the
With-Susitna alternative over the Without-Susitna alternative should be
greater than one.
The annual costs from 1993 through 2020 were developed by the OGP model,and
then converted to a 1982 present worth figure.The long-term system costs
(2021-2051)were estimated by extending the 2020 annual costs,with no load
growth,and adjusting fuel prices to reflect any real fuel price escalation
for the 30-year period.The selection of 2051 as the last year of the
planning horizon recognizes the full 50-year economic life of the Devi 1
Canyon Project,which is added to the With-Susitna expansion plan in 2002.
This extended period of time is necessary to ensure that the full economic
lives of hydroelectric plants are taken into account in the economic plann-
ing process.
Updated key variables and assumptions used in this analysis are summarized
in Table V.I.The capital costs,and operation and maintenance costs of the
alternatives have been revised since the Application for License and are
estimated at 1982 price levels.Fuel costs have also been revised since the
License Application and are at 1983 price levels.Costs incurred in future
years reflect relative price changes only.
The cost estimate of the Susitna Project has been revised in accordance with
the discussion presented in Chapter III,Table 111.1.
Studies on fuel availability and price,construction costs,operation and
maintenance costs,and heat rates of thermal units resulted in revisions to
the type of plants which would be installed in the Without-Susitna
alternative.The revised values are for fuel prices and thermal generating
plant parameters shown in Tables V.2 and V.3.
425674/V
850601
V-2
_.
_.
,...
The base year for the present worth analysis,or the year to which all costs
are discounted for comparison,is 1982.The real discount rate,which was
3.0 percent in the License Application,was revised to 3.5 percent to
reflect a change in financial parameters.
The net benefits and benefit/cost ratio of the least-cost thermal
alternative compared to the two stage and three stage projects using the
revised parameters are set forth in Table V.4.
425674/V
850601
V-3
TABLE V.1
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
STAGED CONSTRUCTION
ECONOMIC PARAMETERS
.....
Price level
Base Year Present Worth Analysis
Planning Horizon
Discount Rate
Fuel Prices
Thermal Generating Plant Parameters
Load Forecast
Economic Life of Projects
Coal-Fired Steam Turbines:
Combustion Turbines:
Combined Cycle Turbines:
Hydroelectric Projects:
Diesels:
425674/V
850601
V-4
-1982
-1982
-1993-2020 by OGP-6
2021-2051 by extension
-3.5 percent
-Table V.2
-Table V.3
-per the License Application,
July 1983,Table B.117
30 years
20 years
30 years
50 years
20 years
-.TABLE V.2
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
"""-STAGED CONSTRUCTION
~li'I.FUEL PRICES
(1983 Price Level)
~riII
~i:l Coal Price ($/MM Btu)Gas Price ($/MM.Btu)
oil Price Nenana Beluga Cook Inlet North Slope
Year ($/bbI)Delivered Minemouth Wellhead Delivered-
1983 28.95 1.87 2.47....1985 26.30 1.91 2.25
1990 27.90 2.00 2.80
....1995 32.50 2.09 3.39 4.00
2000 40.00 2.20 1.95 4.09 4.93
~~2010 60.00 2.43 2.40 7.37
2020 80.00 2.69 2.80 9.83
2030 90.00 3.00 3.35 11.00
2040 100.00 3.35 4.00 12.00
2050 110.00 3.76 4.75 13 .00
pltl.
425674/V
850601
V-5
.....
TABLE V.3
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
THREE STAGE PROJECT
SUMMARY OF THERMAL GENERATING PLANT PARAMETERS/1982 $
"".
Parameters
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)l/
Earliest Availability
O&M Costs
Combined Combustion
Coal Cycle Turbine Diesel
200 MW 228 MWl/!i./87 MW1/!i./i/10 MW
10,300 8,770 11,9QO 11,500
1992 1988 1985 1985
.-Fixed O&M ($/yr/kW)l/
Variable O&M ($MWb)l/
Outages
Planned Outages (%)
Forced Outages (%)
Construction Period (yrs)
Startup Time (yrs)
Unit Capital Cost ($/kW)I/
Beluga/Raibelt
Nenana
Unit Capital Cost ($/kW)l/
Belgua/Railbelt
Nenana
Notes:
55.60
3.89
8
5.7
6
3
2,310
2,450
2,563
2,718
12.06
0.60
7
8
2
2
564
584
7.96
0.53
3.2
8
1
I
348
354
0.55
5.38
1
5
1
1
856
871
1/
2..1
1/
!±/
i/
As estimated without AFDC based on 33°F rating for combustion turbines.
Including AFDC at 0 percent escalation and 3.5 percent interest,
assuming an S-shaped expenditure curve.
Based on 33°F rating for combustion turbines.
Includes water injection for ~~control for combustion turbines.
Actual net imput ISO is 217 MW and 237 MW (79 MW each)for combined-
cycle and simple-cycle plants,respectively.
All values reflect an assembly of three units (87 MW each)totalling
261 MW on a single site.
425674/V
850601
V-6
....'
TABLE V.4
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
STAGED CONSTRUCTION
ECONOMICS ANALYSIS SUMMARY
($million 1982)
Benefit/
F'Cumulative Present Worth Net Cost
Case Benefits Costs Benefits Ratio
~1iI Thermal $8191A.Least-Cost
~1Il B.Two Stage Project $8191 $5541 $2650 1.5
C.Three Stage Project $8191 $5716 $2475 1.4
425674/V
850601
V-7
""'.
-
....
SECTION VI
_.
.....
VI.PROJECT FINANCING
The financing plan for the Susitna Project consists of two elements,rate
stabilization funds and construction funds.
Rate stabilization funds are a contribution made by the State of Alaska to
constrain utility rates so that 1ncreases in the early years of the project
operation do not exceed rates that would be experienced under the thermal
alternative of the Without-Susitna Plan.The Susitna Project provides a
trade-off of higher initial capital cost,zero fuel cost and lower operation
and maintenance cost against the lower initial capital costs.fuel costs and
higher operation and maintenance costs of the thermal alternative of the
Without-Susitna Plan over the long life of the project.The initial cost of
energy with Susitna is higher than the thermal alternative because of the
high initial investment cost.Rate stabilization funds are the means
proposed by the Power Authority to subsidize electricity rates for Susitna
until the rates required by the Without-Susitna alternative are equal to the
With-Susitna costs.This crossover point.of costs is anticipated to occur
in 2005.
The construction funds are to be obtained from the sale of tax exempt
revenue bonds.The bond proceeds will cover construction costs (including
their escalation),interest during construction,licensing costs.financing
costs.debt service reserves,working capital,and reserves and contingen-
cies.
Bui lding of the Susi tna Project in three stages rather than two not only
provides the means to better match the load requirements of the Railbelt
utilities,but it also reduces required rate stabilization funds.With the
Watana Initial Dam.fewer bonds are required to fund the construction of
Stages I and II.When Watana is raised to its ultimate height in Stage III,
inflation and real cost increases will act to increase the overall bonding
requirements of the three stage project versus the two stage project.
425674/VI
850601
VI-I
~I
~l
-.
,~
The bond sizing analysis is based on the estimated construction cash flows
and the assumptions listed on Table VI.1.The bond issue summary is shown
in Table VL2.It is important to note that the analysis is based on the
bonds having tax-exempt status and therefore a lower interest rate.
As can be seen in Tables VI.3 and VI.4,the three-stage concept reduces rate
stabilization from over $1.1 billion to approximately $600 million if
interest earnings are retained in the fund and from $4.5 bi 11ion to $2.6
billion if they are not retained.The 1984 and 1985 Alaska Legislatures
have made the initial deposits in this fund of 100 and 200 million dollars
respectively for fiscal years 1985 and 1986.It is the Power Authority's
intention in 1986 to obtain State legislation to retain the interest in the
fund.
425674/Vl
850601
VI-2
""",
TABLE VI.l
BOND SIZING ASSUMPTIONS
o General Inflation Rate -6.5 percent
o
o
~lt
0
flJlIIi!IlIII
0
.....
o
....
.-
Bond Interest Rate -10.0 percent
Reinvestment Rates:
-short-term -9.0 percent
-long-term -11.0 percent
Amortization Period -35 years (level debt service)
Bond proceeds will be used to fund construction costs (including their
escalation),interest during construction,financing costs,licensing
costs,debt service reserve,working capital,and reserve and contin-
gency.
First bonds issued after FERC license issued and all monies expended to
date are reimbursed and deposited into the Rate Stabilization Fund •
425674/VI
850601
VI-3
-,
TABLE VI.2
BOND ISSUE SUMMARY
($MILLION -NOMINAL)
~~
TWO THREE
STAGE STAGE
~~Bond Size:PROJECT PROJECT
I WATANA $12,300 $8,600
II DEVIL CANYON 7,000 7,000
SUBTOTAL $19,300 $15,600
III RAISE WATANA 8,400
...~TOTAL $19,300 $24,000
Annual Debt Service:
I WATANA $1,280 $890
1"""II DEVIL CANYON 720 720
SUBTOTAL $2,000 $1,610
IIIl'lill!1
III RAI SE WATANA 870
TOTAL $2,000 $2,480....
....
425674/VI
850601
VI-4
TABLE VI.3
RATE STABILIZATION CONTRIBUTION
($MILLION -NOMINAL)
TWO
~~STAGE
YEAR PROJECT
1985 $100
1986 200
1987 200
1988 200~Ol 1989 200
1990 200
1991 40
$1,140
THREE
STAGE
PROJECT
$100
200
200
100
$600
....
CONCLUSION:A total state contribution in the range of $500 to $750 million
will meet rate stabilization needs for the three stage
project •
425674/vI
850601
VI-5
f""'1
TABLE VI.4
STATE CONTRIBUTION
COMPARISON OF PAY IN AND PAY OUT OF FUNDS
.....
($MILLION -NOMINAL)
~Il TWO STAGE PROJECT THREE STAGE PROJECT
RATE RATE
CONTRI-STABILI-CONTRI-STABILI-
!IQIl"FISCAL BUTION ZATION BUTION ZATION
YEAR (PAY IN)(PAY OUT)(PAY IN)(PAY OUT)
~li 1985 $100 100
1986 200 200
1987 200 200
1988 200 100
P""1989 200
1990 200
1991 40
1992
1993
1994
""'.1995
1996 250
1997 540 270
1998 550 240
1999 510 220
2000 450 180
2001 410 150
fllmllijlI!2002 740 460
2003 670 420
2004 550 380
2005 80
$1,140 $4,500 $600 $2,570
f1"l.Iillilil
",..
425674/VI
850601
VI-6
.-..
-
-~~-------~-~-'---
SECTION VII
--~--~~------
,.,..
-
VII.ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
A.INTRODUCTION AND FINDINGS
1.Background and Scope
Environmental analyses have been made for the three stage Susitna Project.
These analyses considered the potential environmental effects of the follow-
ing factors identified as the major differences from the two stage project:
o Smaller reservoir volume and reduced storage capaci ty for the
Stage I Watana Reservoir.
o Decreased flow stability for Stage I,and to a lesser extent for
Stage II,in comparison to Stage III and the two stage project.
o Lower downstream river temperatures (about 1°C)and greater l.ce
cover development with resultant water level l.ncreases.
o Reduced area of inundated land for the Stage I Watana Reservoir
which delays the loss of wildlife habitat and cultural resources
due to inundation.
o Increased total time required for completion of the project would
prolong construction-related impacts on wildlife,as well as
socioeconomic impacts.
2.Findings
In general,analyses of the differences between the two stage and three
stage projects reveal no significant impacts which would affect Susi tna's
overall environmental feasibility.As detailed below,there are both
positive and negative differential impacts associated with the three stage
425674/VII
850601
VII-1
-
-
project,most of which are judged to be insignificant.The major exception,
increased overtopping flows into side slough salmon habitats in the middle
river,is an impact already identified for the two stage project,albeit at
reduced frequency.As such,it has already been accounted for in the
project mitigation planning process and can be avoided by increasing the
extent of slough habitat protection.
In addition,the smaller Stage I Watana Reservoir would result in less
stable flows during late summer,autumn and early winter.This will result
in some dewatering of side slough and side channel habitats not anticipated
with the high Watana Dam and Reservoir.This represents a loss of project-
related benefits but for the early years of project development only,as
these flows would incrementally stabilize with the addition of Devil Canyon
and raising of the Watana Dam.
The major effect the three stage project would have on wildlife and botani-
cal resources would be to delay the inundation of some 17,000 acres of
habitat by about 10 years..This would allow wildlife displaced by inunda-
tion to be somewhat more gradually absorbed into surrounding habitat areas.
Perhaps more importantly,however,it would provide significantly more time
to develop,test and refine wildlife mitigation and enhancement programs.
For cultural resources,delay in inundation of a number of sites also would
allow more time for development and implementation of the mitigation
program.
Socioeconomic effects of the three stage project include a build up of the
construction workforce and a more prolonged construction period and more
opportunity for local communities to grow to a size where project-related
facilities and services could be easily utilized after construction is
completed.Thus,the degree to which facilities and services are overbuilt
is lessened,reducing,in turn,the financial burden incurred for under-
utilized facilities.
425674/VII
850601
VII-2
B.RESERVOIR AND RIVER PHYSICAL PROCESS ANALYSIS
1.Summary
Reservoir and river flows,temperatures and ice conditions have been S1mu-
lated for the three stage project.Reservoir operations were simulated for
the period 1950-1983 for all three stages.Case E-VI Environmental Flow
Requirements were used,(APA,1985).Temperature and ice simulations were
made for Stage I and Stage II for hydrological and meteorological conditions
represented by the period May 1981 through September 1982,which corresponds
to a wet year followed by an average year.Simulated project operations Ifor
projected energy demands for 2001 (Stage I -low Watana only)and 2002
(Stage II -low Watana and Devil Canyon)were used in the temperature and
ice model studies.The results of these simulations may be compared to
simulations for Case E-VI for the two stage project (APA,1985)and for Case
C Flow Requirements for the two stage project (APA,1984).Appendix A
contains information which may be used to compare the two and three stage
proje.cts.Addi tionally,river flows and reservoir water levels have been
estimated for filling of the reservoirs.
Appendix A,Exhibits A-ll to A-16 show high,average,and low exceedance
level flows at Gold Creek for simulated reservoir operations for all three
stages.For Stage I,because of the smaller reservoir storage volume,
summer flows are approximately 4000 cfs higher and winter flows are approxi-
mately 2000 cfs lower,on the average,than the two stage project.For
Stage II,because of the increased generating capacity,flows are generally
similar to the two stage project,slightly lower in the summer and slightly
higher in the winter.For Stage III,the three stage project is equivalent
to the final two stage project and flows are similar.
Exhibits A-4 and A-5 show that summer water tE~mperatures for the three stage
project would be similar to the two stage project.Winter reservoir release
temperatures would be approximately lOC colder for Stages I and II of three
stage project than for the two stage project.Therefore,the river ice
425674/VII
850601
VII-3
cover is simulated to extend approximately five miles further upstream,and
maximum water levels in the ice covered reaches average approximately two
feet higher in the winter with the three stage project compared to the two
stage project.
20 Discharge
Operation
Reservoir operation simulations were made for the three stage project using
projected energy demands for:
1.1996 and 2001 -Stage I,
2.2002 and 2007 -Stage II,and
3.2008 and 2020 -Stage III.
The resulting flows at Gold Creek for 97%,50%and 6%exceedance levels are
shown on Exhibits A-II to A-16.Exhibits A-I7 and A-18 show flows at Gold
Creek for 2001 and 2002 projected energy demands,respectively,for:
.....
1-
2.
30
4.
50
1964 -flood of record (June),
1967 -large flood in August,
1970 -second driest year,
1981 -wet year used in temperature simulations,and
1982 -average flow year used in temperature simulations.
Stage I of the three stage project has a smaller reservoir storage volume
than the two stage project.Less water can be stored in the reservoir for
winter operation and the reserV01r operation plan for the three stage
project at tempts to take advantage of the required higher summer flows to
generate energy.The result is that average summer flows are about 4000 cfs
higher and average winter flows are about 2000 cfs lower than with the two
stage project.Simulated reservoir operations for Stage I are summarized on
Exhibits Ao19 and A.200
425674/VII
850601
VII-4
-
For Stage II,the generating capacity of the project is significantly
increased.Winter flows are more stable in Stage II than Stage I,and aver-
age winter flows are about equal.Summer flows are less stable with
Stage II than Stage 1.Summer and winter flows for Stage II of the three
stage project are similar to the two stage project for the same energy
demands.Simulated reservoir operations for Stage II are shown on Exhibits
A-21 and A-22.
The final stage of the two stage project and Stage III of the three stage
project are similar and flows would be nearly identical throughout the year.
Simulated reservoir operations for Stage III are summarized on Exhibits A-23
and A-24.
Filling of Watana
Stage I
Filling of Watana Reservoir would commence in the spring of 1995.During
1995 the dam crest would be raised from E1.1835 to E1.2025,the final
Stage I crest level.During this period water would be impounded.The Case
E-VI flow requirements would be met by releases through the low-level outlet
works.Filling of the Stage I reservo~r would require only one summer as
opposed to three summers for the two stage project.
Filling of Watana Reservoir was simulated with the three flow sequences
defined in the License Application (Table E.2.37,E.2.38)representing low,
average,and high flows.The estimated water surface levels in the reser-
VOlr on November 1,1995 for each of the three cases are shown in the
following table.
425674/VII
850601
VII-5
Filling of Watana Reservoir
Water Levels on Nov.1,1995
Low Flow Year
Average Flow Year
High Flow Year
El.1930
El.1955
El.1970
.....
The average monthly Gold Creek flows for the three cases are shown 1n the
following table.
Filling of Watana Reservoir
Average Monthly Susitna River Flows at
Gold Creek During 1995
E-VI Low Flow Avg.Flow High Flow
Requirement Year Year Year
May 4900 4900 4900 4900
June 8800 8800 8800 8800
July 9000 9000 11400 19400
August 9000 9000 i2400 15200
September 6800 6800 6800 6800
October 5032 5032 5032 5032
The average monthly flows at Gold Creek during the first year of filling
Watana Reservoir (three stage project)would be lower than for the first
year of filling the two stage project.This is because the Stage I dam
crest would be higher than the dam crest for the two stage project during
this period and more water would be stored.
Winter flows during filling of the Watana Reserovir would be the same as
natural since the reservoir water level would be held constant.
Generating units are scheduled to come on line in March,June,September and
December of 1996.In all cases the reservoir water level will be suf-
ficiently high by this time that the discharge can be made through the
units.During the summer of 1996,flow will be passed through the operating
425674/V11
850601
VI 1-6
-
-
units to generate power and the excess will be used to fill the reservo~r.
Flows during this period will be similar to with-project operational
condi tions.
Filling of Devil Canyon Reservoir
Devil·Canyon Reservoir would be filled ~n the same manner as described in
the License Application (p.E.2.l48).
Filling of Stage III Watana Reservoir
During the summers of 2006 and 2007 the Watana dam would be raised from El.
2025 to El.2210.The multi-level power intake would be raised prior to the
year 2006 so that raising of the maximum reservoir water level may begin in
2006 and progress upward as work on the dam fill and spillway crests allows.
Placement of filIon the upstream face of the dam will begin in the spring
of 2006 when the normal water level is below the berm on the upstream face
of the dam (El.1925).The fill will progress rapidly and by the end of the
2006 construction season the dam crest will be near El.2100.
During the period when the water level in the reservoir is being allowed to
rise above El.2000,water in excess of environmental and power requirements
will be stored in the reservoir to the extent possible.Under normal
operating conditions this water is released through the cone valves.Thus
in 2006 and 2007,summer flows will be less than for normal operation.The
Case E-VI flow requirements will be observed at all times during raising of
the water level to its Stage III maximum level.
3.Reservoir Temperature
P"'"
I
Operation
Reservoir temperature simulations are presented in Exhibit A-I for Stage I,
2001 energy demands,and in Exhibi t A-2 for Stage II,2002 energy demands.
These may be compared to Exhibits G-l and H-l of the Alaska Power Authority
425674/VII
850601
VII-7
....
.....
..-
-
report on the E-VI Alternative Flow Regime (AP'A,1985)for similar hydrology
and meteorology.Hydrological and meterological conditions for the period
May 1981 through September 1982 were used in the model runs.Based on
previous simulations (APA,1984)it is believed that the simulations for
2001 and 2002 would be representative of expected outflow temperatures for
other years in Stage I and Stage II,respectively (i.e.1996,the first year
of Stage I operation and 2007,the last year of Stage II operation).Minor
differences would occur because of the increased energy demand between 1996
and 2001 and between 2002 and 2007.Summer outflow temperatures would be
expected to be slightly warmer for 2007 than 2002 because there would be
more energy generation and less water released through the cone valves.
Reservoir temperature simulations were made using the "inflow temperature
matching"policy described in the License Application of February 1983 (p.
E-2-ll4).In Stages I and II,Watana powerhouse would have four units.
Each uni t would be served by the multi-level intake wi th five levels of
ports spaced between El.1800 and El.1980.In general,the uppermost level
of this intake,below the water level,would be operated.In Stage III,the
Watana dam would be raised and two addi tional units would be installed.
These two units would be served by multi-level intakes with four levels of
ports spaced between El.2000 and El.2170.An additional four levels of
intake ports to the first four units would be constructed between El.2000
and El.2170.The first four units would have the ability to withdraw water
over a range from El.1800 to El.2170.The intake to the Watana cone
valve outlet works will be at El.1930.This is approximately 100 feet
lower than in the two stage project •
The Devil Canyon multi-level intake and intakes to the cone valves would be
similar to the two stage project.Simulations were made to determine the
effect on downstream river temperatures if the multi-level intake were
modified by reducing the size of the current proposed intake shutters and
inserting a level of shutters in between the upper and lower levels.These
simulations are included in this document.
.....425674/VII
850601
VII-8
....
Temperature simulations were not made for Stage III,since Stage III is the
same as the final stage of the two stage project for which simulations have
been made previously (APA,1984).A check was made to determine that flows
and reservoir water levels for Stage III were similar to the two stage
project.There are very minor differences in flows resulting from different
turbine and generator characteristics.Howevler,these di fferences were not
felt significant enough to warrant re-simu1ating conditions for 2020.
Exhibi t A-3 presents the resu1 ts of simulations made for the two stage
project for projected energy demands for 2020.
The Stage I reservoir outflow temperatures are similar to those for the
two stage project in the summer periods.Winter outflow temperatures are
approximately 1°C to I.5°C colder than for the two stage project.This is
because:
Higher summer flows with Stage I also remove warm water from the
reservoir leaving less heat in the reservoir for winter.
.-
2.The reservoir ice cover forms about two weeks later on Stage I of
the three stage project than on the first stage of the two stage
project.The reservoir ice cover provides an insulating layer and
prevents further near surface mixing of reservoir waters thereby
minimizing heat loss from the reservoir to the atmosphere.The
late formation of an ice cover results 1n increased wind mixing
of the reservoir and colder winter outflows for Stage I of the
three stage project.The ratio of surface area to volume of Stage
I (three stage project)is about 30%higher than for Stage I (two
stage project).
.....
Reservoir temperature simulations for Stage II were made for three different
alternatives:
425674/VII
850601
VII-9
.....
1.Devil Canyon Reservoir drawdown between El.1455 and El.1405
using the presently proposed multi-level intake for Devil Canyon
power house.This intake has two levels of ports at El.1425 and
El.1375.
2.Devil Canyon Reservoir drawdown between El.1455 and El.1405,
using a modified multi-level intake for Devil Canyon.The intake
would be modified by inserting a third level of ports at El.1400
and slightly modifying the geometry of the other two levels of
ports.
3.Devil Canyon Reservoir drawdown between El.1455 and El.1446,
using only the upper level of the presently proposed multi-level
intakes at Devil Canyon.
The results of the reservoir temperature simulations for all three cases are
presented in Exhibits A-2a to A-2c.The initial simulation for alternative
1 above indicates that the summer outflow temperatures for Devil Canyon
Reservoir may be up to 2°C colder in mid to late June than for the two stage
project as presented in Appendix H of the E-Vl Alternative Flow Regime
Report (APA,1985).This results when the Devil Canyon water level drops
below the minimum submergence level for the upper level ports.The lower
level ports,located deeper and in colder water,are then opened and outflow
temperatures are reduced.
Alternatives 2 and 3 were then simulated to attempt to increase the outflow
temperatures.Alternative 3 is similar to the policy adopted for the two
stage project and the E-Vl Flow Regime (APA,1985 pp 3-34,3-35).The simu-
lated summer outflow temperatures for this policy are similar to those for
the two stage project.Alernative 2 results in somewhat more variability of
temperatures than Alternative 3 but,~n general,the temperatures are
similar to the two stage project.River temperature and ice simulations
described later were made for all three alternatives.Evaluations of
aquatic assessments are based on Alternative 2.
425674/VII
850601
VII-IO
-
Winter outflow temperatures for Stage II are approximately the same for all
three alternatives for the winter of 1981-82 and are approximately 0.2°C to
1.0°C colder than for the two stage project.Because the Stage II flows are
similar to the two stage project 2002 flows,the cause of the differences
may be the late formation of an ice cover on the Watana Reservoir.
The Devil Canyon Reservoir forms an ice cover 1n the same period as before,
which is in early December.The ratio of surface area to volume at Devil
Canyon is about 40%higher than at low Watana indicating weather forcing
conditions may have greater influence there.
Reservoir temperature simulations for Stage III would be similar to the
two stage project.Simulations were made for Case C flow requirements (APA,
1984 Volume 6 Exhibit AH,AI,AR and AS).The simulations made for the Case
E-VI Flow Requirements (APA,1985)for 2001 and 2002 energy demands indi-
cated that Case E-VI and Case C outflow temperatures would be similar.
Filling of Watana Stage I
Reservoir temperature simulations were not made for the year of filling for
the three stage project.As noted in the License Application (p.E-2-85)
and in the Power Authority's comments on the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (Volume 6)the temperatures in the reservoir would be a composite
of the inflow temperatures and the outflow temperatures would be an average
of the existing river water temperatures.Simulations carried out for the
first summer of filling of the two stage project Watana Reservoir are shown
in the Power Authority's comments on the DEIS (Volume 6,Exhibit N).It is
believed that temperatures during the first summer of filling the Stage I
Watana Reservoir would be similar to these.
During 1996,the reservoir would be stratified and the outflow releases
would generally be made through the powerhouse,thus reservoir outflow
temperatures would be similar to operational conditions.
425674/VII
850601
VI 1-11
,...,
Filling of Devil Canyon Reservoir
Devil Canyon Reservoir would be filled 1n the same manner as described in
the License Application for the two stage project.Reservoir outflow
temperatures would be similar to the outflow temperatures for Watana Stage I
since the reservoir will be filled quickly.
Filling of Watana Stage III
Reservoir water levels would increase over a period of two years as the dam
crest is raised and the spillway is raised.Multi-level intakes near the
water level surface would always be available to allow selective withdrawal
of water.Reservoir temperature stratification would be generally similar
to the periods before and after raising of the crest.Although summer
outflows may be somewhat reduced,outflow temperatures are expected to be
similar to conditions before and after raising.
During this period there would be fewer releases through the COne valves as
the water in excess o{environmental and power requirements is stored to
increase water level.Therefore outflow temperatures may be warmer than for
normal operation.
4.River Temperature
Operation
River temperature simulations were made for Stage I and Stage II using the
reservoir outflow temperatures discussed above.Results are shown for Stage
I in Exhibit A-4 and for Stage II using the three alternative drawdown and
intake policies on Exhibits A-Sa to A-Sa.
River temperatures for Stage I are similar to those for the two stage
proj ect in the two summers simulated.For a short period in June of 1982
the river temperatures would be up to 2°C warmer with Stage I than in the
two stage project.River temperatures are generally 1°C to 1.SoC colder in
42S674/VII
850601
VII-12
-
.....
winter because of the colder outflow temperatures from the reservoir.Thus,
the OQC isotherm in winter ~s further upstream than with the two stage
project.
Summer r~ver temperatures for Stage II for the 50-foot drawdown and the 3-
level intake at Devil Canyon are also similar to the two stage project.
Temperatures for the 9-foot drawdown are similar to those for the 50-foot
drawdown with the 3-1eve1 intake.Temperatures for the 50-foot drawdown
with the 2-1eve1 intake are slightly colder in June than for the other two
alternatives.
Filling of Watana Stage I
River temperature simulations were not made for filling.River temperatures
during the year of filling Watana would follow the same trends as described
for reservoir outlet temperatures.
Since the powerhouse would begin operating in the spring of 1996,river
temperatures during the summer of 1996 would be similar to operational
conditions.Temperatures during this period would be significantly warmer
than for the second summer of filling the two stage project.
Filling of Devil Canyon Reservoir
Water temperatures during filling of the Devil Canyon Reservoir would be
similar to temperatures during operation as explained under reservoir
temperatures.
Fi1~ing of Watana Stage III
Water temperatures during filling of Watana Stage III would be similar to
operational conditions prior to and after raising of the crest as explained
under reservoir temperatures.Because of reduced cone valve di scharges,
temperatures in July and August may be warmer than for normal operation.
425674/VII
850601
VII-13
.....
5.River Ice
Operation
River l.ce simulations were made for Stages I and II using the previously
referenced reservoir and river temperature simulations and results are shown
in Exhibits A-7 and A-B,respectively.Exhibits A-9 and A-lO are compari-
sons of the simulations for staged construction and the two stage project.
The simulations for Stage I show maXl.mum progression of the ice front would
be three miles further upstream than with the two stage project.Maximum
water levels for staged construction would be similar to the two stage
project downstream of RM 113,up to four feet higher between RM 115 and RM
124,similar between RM 124 and RM 132 and up to seven feet higher between
RM 132 and Rm 137.One additional slough would be subject to overtopping.
Maximum water levels are simulated to overtop the slough 11 upstream berm by
about one foot for less than a week.
The simulations for Stage II for the three different Devil Canyon intake
policies are all similar because outflow temperature and discharges are also
similar.The maximum upstream extent of the ice front is seven miles fur-
ther upstream with staged construction than the two stage project.Maximum
water levels in the reach downstream of RM 132 are approximately 2-3 feet
higher with the three stage project.Sloughs BA and 9 are simulated to be
overtopped with the three stage project and not with the two $tage project.
Filling of Watana Stage I
River ice simulations were not made for the first winter of filling of Stage
I Watana Reservoir.However,reservoir releases and temperatures during the
winter would be similar to those for the two stage project.River ice
conditions for the winter of filling the two stage project (Alaska Power
.425674/VII
850601
VII-14
,""'"
.-,
Authority Comments on the DEIS -Volume 8.Exhibits F and G)are believed to
be representative of conditions during filling of Stage 1 Watana.
Filling of Devil Canyon Reservoir
River ice conditions during filling of Devil Canyon Reservoir would be
unchanged from the two stage project and would be similar to those for
operation of Devil Canyon Reservor.
Filling of Watana -Stage III
River ice conditions during ra1s1ng of the Watana Dam would be similar to
conditions prior to and after raising since multi-level intakes will be
available for the whole range of reservoir water levels and temperature
stratification will be similar.
6.Nitrogen Saturation
The three stage project contains flood storage capacity at Watana and cone
valve outlet works at Watana and Devil Canyon reservoirs.The flood storage
volume and cone valve capacities are similar to the two stage project.The
purposes of these features are to store and release most flood flows without
using the project spillways.This minimizes the potential for gas concen-
trations exceeding detrimental levels in the river downstream of the
project.The thirty-four years of historic streamflows were routed through
the project reservoirs for all three stages.Tables VII.B.I to VII.B.6 show
the simulated cone valve operations.In all cases the flows were routed
through the project using only the turbines and cone valve outlet works.
Downstream gas concentrations would thus be similar to the two stage
project.
425674/VII
850601
VI I-IS
.....
-
....
7~Suspended Sediment and Turbidity
Model studies of suspended sediment in the Watana and Devil Canyon Reservoir
are being made.The DYRESM model has been modified to include a suspended
sediment simulation routine.Model studies are being made for Stage I,II
and III.Suspended sediment concentrations for Stages I and II would be
somewhat higher than for Stage III and the two stage project due to the
smaller surface area and volume of the Stage I Watana Reservoir.Summer
suspended sediment concentrations would be markedly lower than for natural
condi tions,and winter concentrations would be higher than natural condi-
tions.
I~
425674/VII
850601
VII-16
REFERENCES CITED
Alaska Power Authority,1985 Susitna Hydroelectric Project,Case E-VI
Alternative Flow Regime,prepared by Harza-Ebasco Susitna Joint
Venture.
Alaska Power Authority,1984,Before the Federal Energy Regulatory Sustina
Hydroelectric Project Commission,FERC Project No.7114.
LIST OF TABLES
No.
VILB.l Susitna Hydroelectric Project,W'atana Cone Valve Operation,
Staged Construction,Stage I,1996 Simulation.
VII.B.2 Susitna Hydroelectric Project,1j.l1atana Cone Valve Operation,
Staged Construction,Stage I,2001 Simulation.
VII.B.3 Susitna Hydroelectric Project,Watana Cone Valve Operation,
Staged Construction,Stage II,2002 Simulation.
VII.B.4 Susitna Hydroelectric Project,~7atana Cone 'Valve Operation,
Staged Construction,Stage II,2007 Simulation.
VII.B.5 Susitna Hydroelectric Project,Watana Cone Valve Operation,
Staged Construction,Stage III,2008 Simulation.
.....
VII.B .6 Susitna Hydroelectric Project,Watana Cone Valve Operation,
Staged Construction,Stage III,2020 Simulation.
425674/VII
850601
VII-17
TABLE VII.B.1
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
WATANA CONE VALVE OPERATION
THREE STAGE PROJECT,STAGE I
1996 SIMULATION
....Week of Week of Duration
First Maximum of Maximum Powerhouse Total
Year Release Release Release Release Flow Release
Weeks cfs cfs ac-ft
1951 Sept 2 Sept 2 4 11 ,842 9,832 355,000
1952 Aug 12 Aug 12 5 6,521 9,040 278,000
1953 Aug 12 Aug 26 6 8,022 9,497 321,000
1954 Aug 26 Aug 26 2 6,696 9,510 114,000
1955 July 29 Aug 26 8 24,000 9,561 1,065,000
1956 July 15 July 22 10 17 ,582 8,571 1,378,000
1957 Aug 5 Aug 12 8 8,520 9,048 685,000
1958 Aug 5 Aug 12 4 8,734 9,049 297,000
1959 Aug 19 Aug 26 4 23,726 9,564 608,000....,1960 Sept 9 Sept 9 3 7,056 -10,058 201,000
1961 Aug 5 Aug 5 5 13,291 8,923 528,000
1962 July 1 July 22 11 16,094 8,565 1,603,000
1963 July 15 July 22 9 18,192 8,573 1,212,000
1964 July 1 July 8 9 14,343 8,595 901,000
1965 Aug 5 Aug 12 7 16,165 9,082 785,000
1966 Aug 19 .Aug 26 3 5,122 9,484 145,000
1967 July 22 Aug 12 8 2:4,000 9,049 1,456,000
1968 July 22 July 29 6 9,442 8,882 465,000
1969
1970
1971"Aug 5 Aug 12 6 24,000 9,101 976,000
1972 July 15 July 15 10 10 ,863 8,537 964,000
1973 Aug 22 Aug 22 3 2,188 9,532 1,584,000
1974
1975 July 22 July 29 9 11,375 8,890 769,000
1976
~1977 July 15 July 29 9 10,644 8,887 717,000
1978
1979 July 22 July 29 6 12,836 8,896 641,000
1980 July 29 July 29 6 18,303 8,926 707,000
1981 July 29 Aug 12 7 24,000 9,078 1,408,000
1982 Sept 16 Sept 16 2 6,979 10,275 114,000
1983 Aug 19 Aug 26 3 13,207 9,521 373,000
425674/VII
850601
VII-18
TABLE VII.B.2
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
WATANA CONE VALVE OPERATION
THREE STAGE PROJECT,STAGE I
2001 SIMULATION
~
Week of Week of Duration-First Maximum of Mc!lximum Powerhouse Total
Year Release Release Release R4~lease Flow Release
Weeks cfs cfs ac-ft
1951 Sept 2 Sept 16 4 4,375 11,363 195,000
1952 Aug 19 Sept 2 3 ,4.,697 10,864 117,000
1953 Aug 26 Sept 2 3 3,201 10,857 92,000
~1954
1955 Aug 5 Aug 26 6 2.3,509 10,637 900,000
1956 July 15 July 22 10 16,607 9,546 1,139,000
1957 Aug 12 Aug 26 7 7,243 10,561 470,000
1958 Aug 12 Aug 12 2 6,009 10,082 142,000
1959 Aug 26 Aug 26 2 22,276 10,636 450,000
1960 Sept 9 Sept 9 3 6,054 11 ,165 155,000
1961 July 28 Aug 5 5 13,144 9,939 484,000
1962 July 1 July 22 11 15,120 9,539 1,510,000
1963 July 15 July 22 9 17,217 9,548 1,053,000
1964 July 1 July 8 9 13,373 9,565 717,000
1965 Aug 12 Aug 12 6 11,766 10,121 531,000
1966
1967 July 29 Aug 12 7 2.4,,000 10,087 1,211,000
I"""1968 July 22 July 29 6 8,435 9,889 334,000!
1969
1970
""""1971 Aug 5 Aug 12 6 24,000 10,145 822,000
1972 July 8 July 15 11 10,178 9,505 841,000
1973
1974
1975 July 22 July 22 9 11,817 9,529 644,000
1976
1977 July 22 July 29 6 9,637 9,894 547,000
1978
1979 July 22 July 29 6 11,827 9,905 487,000
1980 July 22 July 29 7 18,215 9,935 646,000
1981 July 29 Aug 12 7 24,000 10,120 1,310,000
1982
1983 Aug 19 Aug 26 3 12,142 10,586 290,000
425674/VII
850601
VII-19
TABLE VII-B.3
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
DEVIL CANYON CONE VALVE OPERATION
THREE STAGE PROJECT,STAGE II
2002 SIMULATION
Week of Week of Duration Maximum Watana
First Maximum of Maximum Pow'erhouse Total Release
Year Release Release Release Release Flow Release During Period
Weeks cfs cfs ac-ft cfs
1950 Aug 12 Aug 19 3 7,224 9,438 192,000 16,096
1951 Aug 5 Sept 2 8 18,670 9,584 991,000 24,000
1952 July 22 July 29 10 31,395 3,135 1,142,000 24,000
1953 July 15 July 29 10 14,870 9,135 1,146,000 20,931
1954 July 29 Aug 5 8 14,462 9,161 1,062,000 23,280
1955 July 15 Aug 26 10 35,491 700 1,736,000 24,000
1956 July 1 July 15 13 23,898 6,283 2,327,000 24,000
1957 July 15 July 22 11 15,793 8,788 1,444,000 22,198
1958 July 29 July 29 5 26,020 3,371 876,000 24,000
1959 July 29 Aug 19 7 38,000 430 1,841,000 24,000
,~1960 Aug 5 Sept .9 9 16,303 10,283 1,039,000 22,570
1961 July 8 Aug 5·12 15,895 9,166 1,402,000 23,083
1962 June 24 June 24 14 20,975 8,161 2,362,000 24,000
1963 July 8 July 15 10 33,185 2,222 2,288,000 24,000
1964 June 24 July 8 11 16,189 8,820 1,318,000 22,938
1965 July 15 Aug 12 12 20,500 8,211 1,558,000 24,000
1966 July 29 July 29 8 15,626 9,153 823,000 22,511
~1967 July 15 Aug 12 10 38,000 °2,636,000 24,000
1968 July 1 July 8 11 16,504 8,821 1,172,000 22,504
1969 5,751
I"""1970 Aug 12 Aug 19 4 9,464 9,446 237,000 16,486
1971 July 29 Aug 5 7 38,000 a 1,891,000 24,000
1972 Jun 24 July 8 13 15,443 8,818 1,619,000 22,096
1973 Aug 12 Aug 26 4 12,510 9,750 415,000 20,593
If'l~1974 Sept 2 Sept 2 2 5,574 10,012 91,000 13,395
1975 July 8 July 8 12 20,910 7,526 1,602,000 24,000
1976 Aug 5 Aug 12 4 11,185 9,301 277 ,000 19,534
1977 July 1 July 15 12 15,230 8,775 1,338,000 21,740
1978 Aug 12 Aug 12 4 6,412 9,295 164,000 14,572
1979 July 15 July 22 8 25,737 5,131 1,204,000 24,000
1980 July 8 July 15 11 26,498 5,087 1,641,000 24,000
1981 July 15 Aug 12 10 38,000 °2,876,000 24,000
1982 July 22 Sept 16 10 14,207 10,505 875,000 21,010
1983 July 29 Aug 5 8 16,221 9,167 980,000 22,829
425674/VII
850601
VII-20
~TABLE VII.B.4
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
DEVIL CANYON CONE VALVE OPERATION
THREE STAGE PROJECT,STAGE II
2007 SIMULATION
~
Week of Week of Duration Maximum Wa tana
First Maximum of Maximum Powerhouse Total Release
Year Release Release Release Release lnow Release During Period
Weeks cfs l:fs ac-ft cfs
1950 June 3 Aug 19 15 13,106 3,556 701,000 10,414
1951 June 3 Sept 2 18 24,654 3,600 1,761,000 15,663
1952 June 10 July 29 18 27,142 4,273 1,916,000 23,665
1953 May 20 July 29 17 18,870 .4,,217 1,756,000 13,869
1954 May 13 Aug 19 16 20,040 3,583 1,674,000 12,684
1955 May 20 Aug 26 17 31,346 3,447 2,257,000 24,000
1956 May 20 July 15 18 25,216 4,238 3,128,000 20,360
F""1957 May 27 Aug 26 18 15,872 3,791 2,137,000 14,799
1958 June 3 Aug 5 11 23,004 3,993 1,129,000 22,021
1959 May 13 Aug 26 19 35,768 3,445 2,325,000 24,000
1960 June 3 Sept 9 18 22,621 3,965 1,677 ,000 13,802
1961 May 13 Aug 5 19 21,073 3,988 2,089,000 15,718
1962 June 3 July 22 18 21,934 ,4,,229 3,238,000 18,472
1963 May 27 July 15 15 30,095 4,402 2,711,000 24,000*'...,.1964 June 3 July 8 17 20,485 '4,524 2,231,000 16,628
1965 May 27 Aug 12 16 24,882 3,829 2,364,000 17,501
1966 May 27 Aug 19 17 17,692 3,574 1,427,000 10,955
1967 May 27 Aug 12 15 34,841 3,889 3,012,000 24,000
1968 May 20 July 15 15 20,087 ,4,,360 1,837,000 15,284
1969 July 1 Aug 19 8 2,303 5,294 114,000
1970 June 24 Aug 19 6 13,132 3,568 534,000 6,938F""1971 June 24 Aug 12 15 31,453 3,847 2,347,000 24,000
1972 May 20 July 8 18 19,741 4,520 2,362,000 15,774
1973 June 3 Aug 26 14 18,874 3,386 927,000 11 ,833
1974 May 27 Aug 26 15 7,942 °474,000 4,497
1975 May 20 July 15 20 22,586 4,371 2,427,000 17,692
1976 May 27 Aug 12 14 13,442 3,809 621,000 16,171
1977 May 20 July 15 21 19,645 4,360 2,165,000 15,301
1978 Aug 5 Sept 2 7 7,002 3,514 430,000 6,437
1979 June 3 July 22 19 26,622 4,246 1,913,000 21,484
1980 July 1 July 29 15 27,193 4,247 2,286,000 21,088-1981 Jun..:3 Aug 12 14 33,800 3,877 3,042,000 24,000
1982 June 10 Sept 16 16 20,434 4,278 1,593,000 13,244
1983 May 27 Aug 26 20 21,886 3,398 1,749,000 15,464
~
425674/VII
850601
VII-21
TABLE VII.B.5
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
DEVIL CANYON CONE VALVE OPERATION
THREE STAGE PROJECT J ST'AGE III
2008 DEMAND
Week of Week of Duration Maximum Watana
First Maximum of Maximum Powerhouse Total Re lease
~Year Release Release Release Release Flow Release During Period
Weeks cfs cfs ac-ft cfs-1950 June 10 Aug 26 11 8,375 0 447,000 4,953
1951 June 3 Sept 2 18 21,714 4,260 1,301,000 17 ,911
1952 June 17 Aug 5 16 18,134 4,438 1,554,000 15,663
"""1953 July 1 July 29 14 18,041 4,545 1 ,671,000 15,465
1954 Aug 5 Aug 19 8 19,299 4,324 1,316,000 14,290
1955 July 1 Aug 26 14 28,063 4,295 2,131,000 24,000
1956 May 20 July 22 15 24,950 4,504 2,735,000 21,734....1957 May 27 Aug 26 17 15,694 4,259 2,058,000 17,043
1958 June 3 Aug 5 12 27,210 3,154 1,402,000 24,000
1959 May 20 Aug 26 12 35,217 2,828 2,048,000 24,000
,....1960 July 1 Sept 9 14 22,578 l.,O08 1,616,000 15,518
196i June 17 Aug 5 14 20;616 l.,445 2,263,000 17,497
1962 June 10 July 22 17 21,665 4,498 3,115,000 19,669
1963 July 8 July 15 14 28,525 L.,602 2,684,000 24,000
"""'1964 June 3 July 15 19 19,024 l~,577 1,847,000 17,922
1965 July 22 Aug 12 12 24,283 4,428 2,060,000 19,488
1966 June 3 Aug 19 14 16,948 t~,318 1,125,000 12,734
.....1967 July 1 Aug 12 12 32,359 t~,455 2,702,000 24,000
1968 July 1 July 15 12 19,869 4,578 1,699,000 16,658
1969 July 1 Aug 19 10 4,154 3,443 355,000
1970
1971 July 1 Sept 2 11 17 ,226 t.,233 787,000 12,550
1972 May 27 July 8 15 19,582 4,679 2,413,000 17,106
1973 June 3 Aug 12 14 8,398 0 725,000 14,275
1974 July 1 Aug 19 11 4,557 3,636 277,000
1975 July 1 July 22 16 20,167 '~,493 1,970,000 16,921
1976 June 17 Aug 12 13 8,915 0 482,000 9,979
1977 May 27 July 29 17 16,838 ,~,534 1,878,000 14,384
1978 July 29 Aug 19 8 9,603 l~,298 651,000 8,813
1979 June 3 July 29 17 20,325 1+,542 1,69-7,000 22,945
1980 July 8 July 29 14 26,881 1+,559 2,417,000 23,072-1981 June 3 Aug ,5 16 32,951 2,956 3,290,000 24,000
1982 July 1 Sep 16 15 20,718 3,994 1,647,000 17,654
1983 June 3 Aug 26 20 21,011 4,273 1,832,000 17,243
~
"""
.....
I
425674/VII
850601
VII-22
-
-TABLE VII.B.6
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
DEVIL CANYON CONE VALVE OPERATION
THREE STAGE PROJECT,STAGE III
2020 SIMULATION
I~
Week of Week of Duration Maximum Watana
First Maximum of Maximum Powerhouse Total Release
Year Release Release Release Release Flow Release During Period
Weeks ds cfs ac-ft cfs
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955 Aug 26 Sept 2 5 11,857 5,653 420,000 8,653
1956 Aug 5 Aug 12 8 17,910 6,046 1,210,000 12,222
1957
1958
1959 Sept 2 Sept 9 5 6,411 6,938 195,000 2,362,...,1960
1961 --
1962 Aug 5 Aug 26 8 16,449 5,760 1,210,000 11 ,424
.....1963 Aug 12 Aug 19 7 15,820 5,905 728,000 12,613
1964 Aug 26 Sept 9 3 4,455 6,034 114,000 1,238
1965 Sept 23 Sept 23 2 11,276 7,213 230,000 7,403
1966
~1967 Aug 12 Aug 19 7 22,674 5,925 1,103,000 16,270
1968 Sept 2 Sept 9 2 4,335 6,136 121,000
1969
1970
1971 Aug 26 Sept 2 5 15,801 5,658 508,000 9.902
1972 May 27 Sept 9 6
11,943 5,269 422,000 5,984.
1973
1974
1975 Aug 26 Sept 9 5 13,114 5,272 572,000 5,976
1976
~1977 Sept 9 Sept 16 3 7,984 5,206 254,000 1,533
1978
1979
1980 Sept 16 Sept 16 3 4,933 6,962 142,000 1,419
i981 Aug 12 Aug 19 7 29,582 5,959 1,244,000 22,420
1982
1983
425674/VII
850601
VII-23
C.AQUATIC/FISHERIES ANALYSIS
1.SUMMARY
Effects of the physical changes presented in the preceding section were
preliminarily assessed relative to selected aquatic resources.The assess-
ment focused on chinook salmon rearing as it might be affected by predicted
changes in discharge,temperature,ice processes,and gas supersaturation.
The evaluation emphasized comparison between the staged construction project
and the two stage project with general comparisons between both construction
concepts and natural or pre-project conditions.
Differences in discharge between the two construction concepts were greatest
for Stage I of the three stage project,and resulted in higher summer and
lower winter flows than those for Stage I of the two stage project.
In an average year,the differences in flow between the two projects were
considered to be beneficial for rearing chinook salmon because of higher
Stage I flows of the three stage project relative to Stage I of the two
stage project.During dry years,both the two and three stage projects met
current minimum flow criteria for chinook rearing.
Only during wet years was it expected that Stage I of the three stage
project flows would exceed maximum Case E-VI flow constraints to a greater
extent than the two stage project.These high flows,however,were still
less than natural flows for the same period.
Three stage project temperature effects were essentially the same as those
associated with the two stage project,especially with regard to spring and
summer temperatures.Both the two and three stage proj ects resul ted 1.n
consistently cooler r1.ver temperatures in May and wanner temperatures in
October when compared to natural temperatures.
425674/VII
850603
VII-24
-
River ice simulations indicated that the 1.ce front would progress further
ups~ream with Stage I of the three stage project than with Stage I of the
two stage project,resulting 1.n overtopping of certain productive side
sloughs,with potentially negative effects.Methods to protect side sloughs
from overtopping due to altered ice problems are incl uded in mi tigation
plans.
Gas supersaturation was not expected to be a problem under the three stage
project because of proposed use of cone valves to eliminate spillway opera-
tion.The three stage project flow simulations indicated that spillway
utilization would not occur under estimated extremes in reservoir inflow and
all excess or required releases would be handled through the cone valves.
2.Introduction
Background
The three stage project described earlier in this transmittal are character-
ized by initial construction of low Watana Dam (elevation 2,000 ft above
MSL)resulting in a reservoir of significantly lesser volume than the
originally proposed Watana Dam constructed to an elevation of 2,185 ft.
The resultant change in reservoir volume was expected to affect both the
thermal characteristics in the reservoir and the downstream temperature and
di scharge regimes.The three stage project was also expected to affect
downstream ice processes and dissolved gas concentrations.
Objectives
The objectives of the assessment were:
o To demonstrate the general nature of changes in downstream tempera-
ture,discharge,ice,and gas saturation which might result from
the three stage project as opposed to both natural conditions and
conditions related to the two stage project;
425674/VII
850603
VII-25
o To preliminarily assess those changes 1n terms of effects on
aquatic resources and to alter the reservoir operations and design
specifications to minimize negative aquatic effects;and
o To assess,on a preliminary basis,the magnitude of aquatic
effects expected to result from the three stage project.
Assessments of aquatic effects were not conducted at the same level of
detail seen in other Susi tna aquatic studies.However,the assessments
were based on computer simulation of reservoir operations,reservoir temper-
ature,downstream temperature,discharge and ice.Criteria for biological
effects were drawn from literature sources or Susitna-specific data wherever
cally similar to the assessment used in the Case E-VI flow constraints
submittal (HESJV 1985).
,.,..possible.To a large extent,this preliminary assessment is methodologi-
3.Format for Assessment
Throughout this transmittal,our interition has been to provide a comparison
of the three stage project with the two stage project described in the
License Application and with natural condi tions.Prior to development of
....
the three stage project,the most recent analyses of project effects on
aquatic life was presented to FERC staff 1n a compendium of reports
documenting development of the Case E-VI flow constraints (HESJV 1985).
These reports documented both the rationale behind and the aquatic effects
of a set of downstream flow constraints designed to retain 75 percent of
natural (pre-project)chinook salmon rearing through flow regulation.
4.Assessment Methods
a.Approach
425674/VII
850603
VI 1-26
I'"""
i
'"'"
The overall aquatic assessment approach was to 1)produce comparable
simulations of the downstream Susitna River discharge and temperature
regimes associated with natural (pre-project),two stage project,and three
stage project,and 2)to assess effects of those flow and temperature condi-
tions using available aquatic studies information and relationships.
To the extent possible,this assessment wcl.S to demonstrate di fferences
between the two stage proj ect construction sequence and the three stage
project.Where possible,comparisons were made with an effort toward
holding all factors (demand level,number of generating units,temperature
regulation,maX1mum drawdown level,number of intake shutters)constant
while allowing only Watana Dam height to vary.Following are more detailed
sections describing methods used to simulate discharge and temperature and
those used to assess aquatic effects.
b.Discharge Simulation
Discharge simulations are described in the Section VIr.B on flow,tempera-
ture,and gas saturation studies.These simulations were based on mean
weekly discharges predicted for a 34-year operating period and flow indexed
to the Gold Creek gage site (Susitna RM 132).The historic 34-year
sequence of weekly flows were used to represent the preproject or "natural"
discharge conditions.Simulations of project discharges involved superimpo-
sition of various reservoir operating criteria on the natural flow regime at
the damsite(s).
Discharges related to the two stage proj E!Ct construction sequence and
operation under the Case E-VI flow constra.ints were presented in HESJV
(1985).In general,Case E-VI flow constraints require,for the period June
through September,minimum flows of 9,000 cfs during normal runoff years,
(8,000 cfs during low-flow years)and maximum June through September
discharges of 35,000 cfs.Case E-VI winter flow constraints call for 2,000
cfs weekly minimum flows and 16,000 cfs maximum flows.Transi tiona1 flow
requirements were established for October and May corresponding
425674/VII
850603
VII-27
-.
-
to the transition in reservoir operation from storage to drawdown and vice
versa.
Actual discharge simulation cases are described in the foregoing chapter on
reservoir and river flow,temperature ice and gas saturation studies.The
flow conditions analyzed in the aquatic assessment are summarized in Table
VILC .1.
c.Temperature Simulations
Detailed discussion of both reservoir and instream temperature simulation
modeling are presented in Section VII.B.In general,only instream tempera-
ture was considered in this assessment.Reservoir temperature simulations
were important,however,to serve as a basis for instream temperature simu-
lation.
The temperature simulation process involved first configuring the DYRESM
reservoir temperature simulation model (HESJV 1984)as desired to predict
weekly release temperatures below one or'both dams.These release tempera-
tures were then input to the SNTEMP instream temperature model (AEIDC,1984)
and weekly downstream temperatures were predicted.
Both the DYRESM and SNTEMP models required hydrologic and meteorologic data
as input.Both were calibrated using available data for the time period
from summer (May)1981 through fall (October)1982.Therefore,the tempera-
ture simulations differed from flow simulations in that they reflected only
a two-summer,one-winter period and not a 34-year forecast period.
The model was used to predict downstream Susitna River temperatures,under
1981-82 meteorologic-hydrologic conditions,with either natural streamflows
or those expected under two stage or three stage projects.All SNTEMP simu-
lations were performed initially for each river mile (RM)between
425674/VII
850603
VII-28
TABLE VII.C.l
DISCHARGE SIMULATIONS ANALYZED IN ASSESSMENT
OF THE THREE STAGE SUSITNA PROJECT
-
-
,~
.....
DEMAND
YEAR
1996
2001
2002
2007
2008
2020
425674/VII
850603
TWO STAGE
PROJECT
x
x
x
x
VII-29
/
THREE STAGE
PROJECT
x
x
x
x
x
x
~,
....
the mouth of Devi 1 Canyon (RM 150)and Talkeetna (RM 100).To reduce the
analytic complexity,temperatures were only analyzed for aquatic effects at
RM 150,130,and 100.
d.Aquatic Resources Selection
Habitat characteristics and seasonal habitat uses by the evaluation fish
species were evaluated in order to develop a rationale for establishing
environmental flow requirements for planning project operation.The general
approach was to find the most important species/habitat combinations,based
on densi ty of fish and frequency and duration of use,which are most
sensitive to mainstem flow.This process and its results were also reviewed
to avoid overlooking a less sensitive habitat used by other evaluation
species that would be adversely affected by project operation (APA 1985).
Once the most sensitive species/habitat combinations were defined,an
evaluation of the combinations was conducted in consultation with resource
agencies to prioritize the combinations.The purpose of the prioritization
was to select those species/habitat combinations for which adverse effects
could be avoided most easily and economically by flow allocation.For
potentially adverse effects to those species/habitat combinations which
could not be avoided by allocation of flow constraints,structural measures
to rehabilitate adversely affected combinations have been proposed.
Throughout the assessment of impacts,refin,ements to the flow allocation
will be made to avoid adverse effects to the principal species/habitat
combinations.Any refinements to the flow constraints will also be
evaluated in terms of the potential effects to all evaluation species.
In the assessment of the Case E-VI flow constraints (HESJV 1985)it was
concluded that direct streamflow effects of Susitna project operations would
be most pronounced on chinook salmon juveniles during the months of June
through September.At that time,it was considered that,while chum and
sockeye salmon side-slough access was affected by mainstream Susitna
discharge,maintenance of significant spawning habitat could not be ensured
425674/VII
850603
VII-30
by project-related flows during the spawning period.Therefore,structural
modification of selected sloughs was proposed for mitigation of project
effects on side-slough access and spawning.Overwintering of juvenile
chinook salmon and incubation of chum and sockeye salmon embryos in side
slough habitats were also considered important in the assessment of flows
duri ng the winter months.These combinations are considered generally in
relation to flow and ice process.
Temperature effects were similarly assessed only during the summer months,
again with chinook salmon juvenile rearing as the primary target resource.
Chinook salmon which reared 1n mainstem or side-channel habitats were
expected to be most vulnerable to temperature impacts,especially as they
might affect growth rates.
Temperature effects were also assessed on pink salmon adults which
inmigrated through affected main-channel habitats during periods of
expected lower water temperature in JunE!and July.Addi tionally,
outmigrating chinook salmon could encounter colder mainstem water as they
left rearing tributaries.
5.Assessment Criteria
a.Discharge
Discharge effects of the three stage project were assessed relative to the
Case E-VI flow constraint ranges.That is,if a particular stage produced
discharges which were either above or below the specified range in the Case
E-VI constraints,it was assumed that the Case E-VI criterion of retaining
75 percent of the natural chinook salmon rearing in Middle Susitna side-
sloughs and side-channels was not met.Chum salmon spawning was assessed
subjectively by focusing on flows during the August to early September
period and assuming that Case E-VI constraints for rearing would protect
side-channel spawning as well.
425674/VII
850603
VII-31
-,
....
b.Temperature
Instream temperature effects were assessed only for the period during which
the river was expected to be ice-free.For rearing chinook salmon,
predicted temperatures at RM 150, 130,and 100 were subjectively evaluated •
Temperature effects to the principal evaluation species were evaluated
primarily by noting significant monthly temperature differences between the
two and three stage projects.Significant differences were discussed in
terms of the anticipated effects on the pertinent life stages of the
evaluation species.As 1n other assessments,comparisons were made of
temperatures associated with natural,two stage project,and three stage
project conditions.
6.Results and Discussion
a.Flow
Median Flows.Median (50th percentile exceedance)flows for the three stage
project remained within the bounds of the Case E-VI flow constraints for all
demand years from 1996 to 2020 (Exhibi ts A-ll through 16).
Two distinct discharge patterns were recognized.The pattern during the
Watana only (Stage I of two stage project)stage in both 1996 and 2001
reflecting generally higher 1n the summer and lower in the winter discharges
for the three stage project relative to the two stage project (Exhibits A-II
and A-12).These higher summer flows were considered to be beneficial to
chinook salmon rearing,which has generally been shown to relate positively
to discharges up to about 20,000 cfs (ADF&G 1984).
Further,the higher median flows in August and September would be considered
more favorable than those of the two stage project in terms of maintaining
access conditions wi thout mi tigation into celrtain side-sloughs.In ei ther
425674/VII
850603
VII-32
",."
""'.
.-
"'..
case,mi tigation measures are designed to alleviate any potential access
problems.
The second discharge pattern was that seen under both the three stage and
two stage projects under 2002 through 2007 demand condi tions (Exhibi ts A-13
through A-IS).In both of these simulations,the Case E-VI flow require-
ments were consistently met.Summer flows increased rapidly to
approximately 20,000 cfs beginning in July or August (depending on reservoir
volume).Discharge remained at greater than 20,000 cfs throughout late
summer until flow to the reservoirs decresed with the onset of winter flow
condi tions.
The 2002 flow pattern with Stage II of the three stage project was generally
indistinguishable from the flows in 2002 for Stage II of the two stage
project in terms of effects on aquatic resources.The July increase in
discharge for both projects occurred before most salmon spawning activi ty
occurred in sloughs.Discharges were nearly identical during the remainder
of the year that habitat differences between the two projects could not be
discerned using currently available assessment tools.
Comparisons between the two stage and three stage projects under 2020 demand
levels indicated that no discharge regime differences were distinguishable
(Exhibi t A-16).In both cases,the di scharge patterns reflected extreme
discharge regulation,and resulting flows which remained consistently within
the Case E-VI constraints.
Dry year flows.Comparison of flows between two stage project and three
stage project for the 97th percentile exceedance level (dry year flow)
reflected the effects of decreased reservoir inflow and the requirement to
release water during the summer months to meet the Case E-VI 9,000 cfs
requirement.Only ~n the 1996 and 2001 demand simulations were summer flows
met without forced reservoir releases (Exhibits A-II and 12).In all 2002,
2007,and 2008 flow simulations,the two stage and three stage projects were
almost identical with respect to discharge levels,except for some smoothing
425674/VII
850603
VII-33
and slightly higher levels of the early winter flows with the three stage
project (Exhibits A-13 through 15).In dry years,it was concluded that the
three stage project would be either indistinguishable or slightly superior
to the two stage project in terms of potential effects on aquatic
resources.
Wet year flows.Among all flow compar1sons performed for the three stage
project,Case E-VI constraints were not met (or exceeded)only during the
wet year (6th percentile exceedance)simulations.Here,the reduced stora~e
of the low Watana Dam resulted in summer flows greater than the 35,000 cfs
maximum constraint 1n many cases (See Exhibits A-llc,12c,13c,and 14c).
Once Watana Dam is raised to El.2185 in 2008 (Stage III of the three stage
project),Case E-VI maximum flow constraints were met consistently."".
The two stage project flows for the 2002 demand level also exceeded the Case
E-VI maximum flow constraint.Three factors modify these findings:first,
the wet year simulations were of a water year composed entirely of wet
weekly periods,and,therefore,represented more runoff than is likely to
occur;second,even under these extreme conditions,flows of this magnitude
would only occur about twice every thirty-four years;third,these high
flows are still lower than the natural middle Susitna flows during the
summer months.High flow effects of the staged construction project will be
the object of reservoir operation refinements as the effects of the three
stage project are further developed.
b.Temperature
General temperature effects.Instream temperatures at river miles 150, 130,
and 100 were predicted to compare effects of the two stage project and the
three stage project.As discussed 1n Section VII.B,the temperature
simulations were made assuming 1981-82 hydrologic and meteorologic
conditions.
.....
425674/vII
850603
VII-34
-----~~mA ••_
....
....
....
Temperature differences between the two stage and three stage projects were
greatest during winter and summer months at River Mile 150 (Exhibits A-4 and
5).Stage II (2002)simulations at this river mile indicated early summer
temperatures 1.5 to 2.0°C lower and early winter temperatures 1.0 to 2.0°C
higher with the three stage project than with the two stage project (Exhibit
A-5).During the remaining months and at more downstream locations.the
differences between three stage and two stage projects were more irregular
and became more difficult to assess.Both projects reduced temperatures
relative to natural during May.June and July and increased temperatures
relative to natural in September and October.
Effects of these temperature changes on juvenile chinook rearing were
generally considered to be highly similar for both two stage and three stage
projects.As growth rate models are developed.summer temperature effects
on rearing chinook salmon will be assessed.
Other Potential Temperature Effects.Other effects to evaluation species
attributable to temperature are comparable to those discussed in other
Susitna project reports by AEIDC (1984).These include 1)delay of juvenile
salmon outmigration from the system because of cooler water during the
spring,2)early emergence of fry from spawning due to warmer water during
the winter.and 3)cooler water temperatures during adult salmon inmigration
period possibly leading to changes in timing of spawning.Except for the
winter incubation temperatures.these effects are identical for both the two
stage and three stage projects.and are in both cases somewhat speculative.
c.River Ice
Results of ice studies described in Section VII.B indicated that.through
Stages I and II of the three stage project.river ice would extend further
upstream than wi th the two stage project.Further.because of increased
winter flows resulting from the Stage I and Stage II reservoir and
generation characteristics.water surface elevation increases due to :lce
425674/VII
850603
VII-35
-
-
formation ("staging")would be greater at certain locations than wi th the
two stage project.Staging results in overtopping of side-sloughs and side-
channels and is characterized as having negative environmental effects,
especially in sloughs or side-channels which are used for incubation or
rearing.Overtopping under three stage project conditions is expected to be
greater within the middle (RM 124-135)reaches of the Middle Susitna River
than with the two stage project (Exhibits A-9 and 10).
Staging and subsequent overtopping of sloughs were addressed as a potential
problem in the Case E-VI assessment submittal (HESJV 1985).It was proposed
in both that paper and the report on mitigation practices (HESJV 1984)that
berms be constructed to protect the upstream beaching points of sloughs 8a,
9,11 and 21.To protect against overtopping of sloughs expected under
Stage I and Stage II of the three stage project conditions,berms would need
to be constructed to prevent overtopping of the sloughs during the winter
months,ranging from 1 to 4 feet higher.This increase in height is con-
sidered within feasibility limits of berm construction practices.
d.Nitrogen Supersaturation
Based on the engineering conclusion that the majority of three stage project
dishcarge regime flows,even under flood conditions,would not require use
of the project spillway,the associated nitrogen supersaturation levels
would not differ from those of the two stage project.As Stage I nitrogen
concentrations would depend somewhat on discharge-related turbulence ln
Devil Canyon,the exact Middle Susitna nitrogen concentrations could not be
predi cted.However,the generally lower peak flows resul ting from ei ther
the two stage or three stage projects could be expected to reduce nitrogen
concentrations below those associated wi th natural condi ti ons.Ni trogen
saturation problems directly attributable to project spillway operation are
not expected within the simulated range of project operations.
425674/VII
850603
VI 1-36
""'.
e.Suspended Sediment and Turbidity
As discussed 1n Section VII.B,suspended sediment concentrations during
Stage I and Stage II were expected to be higher than will ultimately result
from the Stage III Watana Reservoir.However,this is not expected to
reduce the fisheries resource benefits in the Susitna River resulting from
the project.
As was the case for the two stage project,turbidity would be increased in
winter 1n comparison to the natural state.However,as was the case of the
two stage project,the reduced turbidity during the open water season will--
be a net benefit.Summer turbidity will be high enough to provide cover for
rearing juvenile chinook slamon.Turbidity levels will not exceed the....
preferred maximum of 200 NTU's as often and will be of shorter duration than
for natural conditions.At the same time,the euphotic zone will be
increased over natural conditions.This increase in the euphotic zone in
turn would increase the primary and secondary production and availability of
food for both resident and anadromous fish.
.....7 •Mitigation
.....
.,'"
/.....
The major di fference in the potential effects between the three stage and
two stage projects requiring modification of the mitigation plans currently
being considered is the increased staging due to ice processes.The major
modification to the mitigation plans would be to increase the height of the
berms at the upstream ends of sloughs selected for habi tat enhancement or
protection.The basic mitigation plan,therefore,would be the same for the
three stage project as that described for the two stage project (wee 1984)•
425674/VII
850601
VII-37
REFERENCES CITED
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G).1984.Resident and juvenile
anadromous fish investigations (May-October,1983).Susitna Aquatic
Studies Program Report No.2.
Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center (AEIDC),Universi ty of
Alaska.1984.Assessment of the effect of the proposed Susitna Hydro-
electric Project on instream temperature and fishery resources in the
Watana to Talkeetna reach.Final Report Volume I.Prepared under
contract to Harza-Ebasco Susi tna Joint Venture for the Alaska Power
Authority,Anchorage,Alaska.130 pp.
"".
Harza-Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture (HESJV).
ture and Ice Study.Prepared for
Anchorage,Alaska.13 pp.
1984a.Eklutna Lake Tempera-
the Alaska Power Authority,
1985.Case E-VI alternative flow
Prepared for the Alaska Power
Harza-Ebasco Susi tna Joint Venture.
regime.Volume I,Main Report.
Authority,Anchorage,Alaska.81 pp.
Woodward Clyde Consultants.1984.Fish Mi tiga tion Plan.Prepared under
contract to Harza-Ebasco Susi tna Joint Venture for the Alaska Power
Authority,Document No.2466.Anchorage,Alaska.87 pp.
"'..
.....
....
425674/VII
850603
VII-38
""'.
D.WILDLIFE/BOTANICAL ANALYSIS
1.Summary
On the basis of this preliminary consideration of all the positive and
negative aspects of the three stage project,the net effect would be posi-
tive from the standpoint of wildlife and botanical resources.The slight
potential for the development of Borrow Si te F.a high qua lity wildl ife
habitat area (which would eventually be rehabilitated).is not considered to
outweigh the benefits of:1)delayed habitat loss.2)more time for local
wildlife populations to adapt to the habitat loss and movement restrictions
caused by the reservoirs,and 3)more time to refine and implement required
mitigation programs.The following sections describe changes in habi tat
loss,borrow si te impacts,big game movement impacts,downstream effects,
other schedule-related effects,and mitigation which would result from the
three stage project.
2.
a.
Delayed Habitat Loss
Vegetation
.....
One of the major advantages of a three stage project would be that 17,000
acres of habitat which would be inundated by the Watana High Dam (Stage III)
would be preserved for roughly ten years (see Figure VII.D.l).Much of this
land area consists of the forested.gentler-sloping portions of the proposed
impoundment zone.which represent higher qua lity habi tat for most wildl i fe
species than the steeper canyon walls.Extensive tracts bordering both
sides of the Watana Creek confluence on the north side of the impoundment,
and bands of land on both sides of the impoundment between Wa tana and
Deadman creeks,represent about half of the 17,000 acres.These areas
provide valuable wildlife habitat,particularly for moose,black bear,and
marten.
425674/VII
850603
VI 1-39
]11
II
\l11 I )1 j i.1 'lI~I j 1
III ~1~:~~:N~~SI~R~~~~
INUNDATED.
~
WATANA
DAMSITE
RESERVOIA
Elo 2000
FIGURE Er.D.I.LOCATIONS OF PROPOSED WATANA DAM SITE AND
RESERVOIRS.SHADED AREA INDICATES DIFFERENCES
IN AREA INUNDATED BETWEEN STAGE I AND STAGE III
OR TWO STAGE PROJECT
~0
..........-t.......-.=4 ~
10 l!)20 2!1 MILES,
10 l!t 20 2~KlLOM£HHS
E3E3F3 E I
FIGURE JlI[.0.1
P"
On north facing slopes black spruce predominates,with interspersed vertical
bands of tall shrubs.South facing slopes have greater areal extent and a
more diverse flora.White spruce is among the dominant overstory species
and woodland black spruce and open mixed forest types are abundant.Birch
shrub and mixed low shrub habitats are also present especially in the area
near the mouth of Watana Creek.Compared to the vegetation which is to be
inundated by stages I and III combined,the band of vegetation between El.
2000 and 2185 contains:proportionally more open white spruce,wet sedge-
grass,birch shrub,and mixed low shrub types;about equal proportions of
woodland spruce,open black spruce,and open tall shrub types;and pro-
portionally less birch shrub,mixed shrub,closed tall shr;ub,and willow
shrub vegetation types.
b.Moose
When compared to the two stage project,the three stage project would have a
positive impact on local moose populations by delaying for roughly ten years
the loss of several vegetation types important to moose •.On a year-round
basis elevations ranging from 2000 to 2200 were used by moose in the project
area more than expected based on availability (Ballard,et al.1984a).In
the Watana impoundment zone,much of the vegetation between El.2000 and
2185 is woodland black spruce,open black spruce,and woodland white spruce.
These three habitat types are preferred (in relation to their availability)
by moose in the study area (Ballard,et al.1984a).
It is also likely that the three stage project would reduce the possibility
that moose displaced by Watana impoundments will overbrowse areas adjacent
to the impoundment during any severe winters occurring soon after filling.
Higher densi ties of moose may occur 1.n areas near the impoundment for
several years after filling until moose numbers are reduced to carrying
capacity.The incremental nature of Watana impoundment filling under the
three stage project plus the approximately ten year lag between Stage I and
III fillings should reduce this concentration and allow the vegetation to
recover between high density years.
425674/VII
850601
VII-41
~I
""'.
....
.....
Another minor although positive effect of the three stage project upon moose
would be the creation of an island east of Watana Creek.This area,esti-
mated to be about 240 acres,will be surrounded by water as the Stage I
Watana dam fills to its maximum pool elevation of 2000.Vegetation on the
island is approximately 50 percent woodland black spruce with the remainder
consisting of equal amounts of birch shrub and low shrub.Female moose
often use islands as calving areas to avoid predators.This newly formed
habitat would be available to local moose for approximately ten years.
c.Caribou
Delayed loss of habitat between El.2000 and 2185 is not expected to have
any significant positive or negative impacts to the Nelchina caribou herd.
The proposed impoundment zone is a small portion of total caribou habitat 1n
the Nelchina Range and is generally of poor quality (Pitcher 1984)•
d.Dall Sheep
A posi tive impact of the three stage proj ect to Dall sheep would be the
delayed inundation of portions of the Jay Creek mineral lick.The Jay Creek
lick soil is currently exposed 1n several areas mostly between El.2200 and
2400 (Tankersley 1984).Sheep do occasionally utilize areas of the lick
below E1.2185.Delayed inundation of the lick would preserve these low
priority lick sites below E1.2185 for approximately ten years.
e.Black Bear
In the vicinity of Watana reservoir,acceptable spr1ng,summer and denning
habitats for black bear are largely limited to the impoundment zone and
immediate vicinity.Black bear commonly use spruce habitats throughout the
year and adjacent shrubland habitats during the August berry season (Miller
and McAllister 1982).The three stage project would delay the loss of
vegetation in a band from El.2000-2185 in the impoundment zone.Much of
this vegetation is spruce habitat with bands of shrub habitat interspersed.
425674/VII
850601
VII-42
~l
.....
.....
"...
Prolonging the availability of these habitats for black bear will also delay
possible interspecific competition with brown bear and the increased preda-
tion by brown bears which could result as black bear are forced out of their•
favored spruce forest habitat to higher elevations.Depending on how close
the habitats between El.2000 and 2185 are to carrying capacity for black
bear,the three stage project may also reduce the levels of intraspecific
and interspecific competition.
In the project area black bear den sites tend to be found in steep terrain
along the mainstem Susitna or its tributaries (Miller and McAllister 1982).
Twenty-six dens used at least once by radio-collared black bear have been
identified in the vicinity of the Watana impoundment.Fifteen of these
would be inundated by the Watana High Dam.The three stage project would
prolong the availability of five of these den sites.
f.Brown Bear
The three stage project would delay the loss of early spring green-up
habitat which is utilized by many bears after emergence from winter hiberna-
tion and by a few bears throughout the year.These habitats are the first
to be cleared of snow 1n the spring and provide bears with a forage base of
overwintered berries and early spring vegetation.Nutritionally,early
spring is probably the most critical period for bears.
Predation on moose calves by brown bear is very -common 1n early spring
(Miller and McAllister 1982).Any reduction in moose populations could have
an effect on bears.The delayed loss of moose habitat is therefore another
positive aspect of the three stage project as it pertains to brown bears •
g.Wolf
About four wolf packs would lose portions of their territories due to the
development of the Watana High Dam.The three stage project would delay
this impact for about half of the packs for an additional ten years.This
425674/VII
850603
VII-43
....
"'..
['"..
delayed loss of area would postpone some of the increased interpack strife
which is anticipated to result as packs readjust territory boundaries due to
the loss of territory area.
Any delay in loss of habitat for moose would also affect wolves ~n the
project area.The majority of the wolves'diet in this area is moose and
any decrease in prey numbers would likely be reflected in both wolf density
and distribution (Ballard,et a1.1984b).Therefore,another positive
effect of staged construction on wolves would be the ten year delay in loss
of moose habitat between El.2000 and 2185.
h.Wolverine
No significant difference ~s expected between the FERC License and staged
concepts.During Stage I,carrying capacity for wolverine would be reduced
as a result of decreased winter habitat and food supply,and shifts in home
range boundaries.This would largely be due to inundation of forested
habitats.Some areas of the habitats would remain unflooded until Stage II
filling about ten years later.
i.Other Furbearers
Stage I effects would likely affect fewer animals then either the FERC
License Concept or Stage III.
Marten are largely restricted to those portions of the basin with coniferous
or mixed forests,although some use ~s also made of shrublands.This is
largely due to the distribution of their preferred food items (predominantly
microtine rodents and fruits),and use of red squirrel middens for resting
sites (Gipson,et a1.1982,1984).Based on location data from radio-
collared marten,about two-thirds of the marten predi cted di splaced by
completion of either construction concept would be di splaced by Stage I of
the three stage project,and the remainder by Stage III (Gipson,et a1.
1984).The band from El.2000 to 2185 is generally the t1 s houlder tl area
.-
r
425674/vr I
850603
VI 1-44
"".
.....
where the steep canyon sides are leveling off to the more level uplands.
Forests and woodlands in this band are currently used by marten to a large
extent (S.W.Buskirk,project biologist,University of Alaska,1982 pers.
comm.),hence the incremental loss wi th Stage III.This assumes,however,
that marten using these areas do not requ1re lower elevation forested
habitat as well for continued presence.
Other furbearers (including beaver,muskrat,mink,otter,coyote,red fox,
and lynx)would not be significantly affected di fferently under the three
stage project than they would be under the two stage project.These species
either occur far enough from the impoundment to be unaffected by changes in
inundations or occupy the riparian forest habitat which would be inundated
during Stage I and would occur little additional loss during Stage III.
Mink and otter may benefit from a shorter reservoir length and less inunda-
tion of tributary streams for about ten years.
j.Raptors
Five of the 12 golden eagle (GE)nesting locations upstream of the Watana
damsite (GE-4,5,6,8,9)would be inundated by the Watana High Dam and one
nesting location,GE-2,would be partially lost.Staging of the project
would prevent the partial loss of location GE-2 for an addi tiona 1 ten
years •
Three of -seven bald eagle (BE)nesting locations upstream of the Watana
damsite (BE-3,4,5)would be inundated by Stage III and one nesting location,
BE-2,could be impacted whenever a maX1mum flood occurs.Staging would
eliminate any threat of flooding to nest BE-2 for an additional ten years.
Ten common raven nesting locations would be inundated by the Watana High
Dam.Staging would delay inundation of four of these nests for about ten
years.
.....425674/VII
850601
VII-45
r~
k.Other Wildlife
Since most waterfowl species use lake habitats and very few lakes would be
affected by the project,effects on waterfowl are minimal for either
project.Some breeding species utilize riverine sandbars,islands,and
_.
shorelines,and would be adversely affected due to loss of habitat.About
85 percent of the total (loa percent)riverine habitat loss for these
species would occur as a result of Stage I,with the remaining 15 being lost
in Stage III.
Other bird species most affected by the project would be those which rely on
forested habitats such as sproce grouse,hairy woodpecker,brown creeper,
Swainson's thrush,yellow-romped warbler,and northern waterthrush.Some
...-
species may use the shrublands resulting from reservoir clearing and borrow
site rehabilitation but this would be temporary due to filling and suc-
cess~on.In general,the only anticipated di fferences between the three
stage and two stage projects would be about a ten year delay in the loss of
17,000 acres including some productive breeding habitat.
Small mammals would temporarily benefit from staged construction due to a
delay in loss of habitat.
3.Borrow Area Impacts
Borrow Site E (see Figure VII.D.2),a primary source for materials for
Watana Dam in the two stage project and for Stage I of the three stage
project,would be partialiy inundated by the Devil Canyon reservoir during
Stage II construction,slightly increasing the likelihood that Borrcw Site F
would need to be used during Stage III.Current plans call for continuing
to use Site E.Use of Site F is considered unlikely for either the two
stage or three stage project.
The Oohree stage project would reduce the amount of material requi red from
Quarry Site A because all quarry material for Stage I would be obtained
through excavation of the deeper spillway required for the staged
construction concept.Although the habitat value of this area is not high,
the general level of disturbance and habitat loss in the total project area
would be less.
425674/VII
850603
VI 1-46
·,,,,,
.-'
,~
...
'"11
~~)
F""~i
f~il!I
i
i
I ...c
:I
la z
0
5u
0........
.....
.....
4.Big Game Movement Impacts
The three stage project would have a positive impact 1n terms of big game
movements across the impoundment zone.Under the current two stage project
reservoir widths at maximum pool elevation (2185 ft)would range from less
than 0.1 to 4.2 miles.The reservoir length would be approximately 48
miles.Under the staged concept plan,Stage I reservoir widths would range
from less than 0.1 mile to about 3 miles,with a typical width of less than
0.7 mile.Reservoir length with the Stage I dam would be about 40 miles.
Big game attempting to cross the impoundment zone during Stage I operation
would face less of a barrier than under Stage III dam operation.
Wildlife may become habituated to the impoundment during Stage I operation,
or may alter their movement patterns to avoid lengthy crossing.If this
subtle yet positive impact were to occur,animals might be better suited to
deal with the more extensive impacts of the Stage ~II impoundment zone.
Another positive impact would be that the monitoring of animal movements
which would be possible during Stage I could be used to aid in prediction or
mitigation of impacts realized during Stage III.
5.Downstream Effects
As a result of the proposed project's construction and operation,flows in
the Susitna River downstream of the Devil Canyon Dam would be altered •
These altered flows are expected to affect plant establishment and succes-
sional patterns along the river.Early successional plant areas appear to
last up to about 15 years from the time of the last major disturbance.The
vegetation in early successional sites five to 15 years after stabilization
of the substrate is mainly willow and balsam poplar,plant species especial-
ly useful to wildlife.Fifteen to 40 years after reduction of downstream
flows and the stabilization of the river floodplain,mid-successional plant
communities become established.These communities by then have developed
into tall shrubs or trees (McKendrick,et al.1982)•
425674/vII
850601
VII-48
~I
_.
-~
",...
....
....
The twelve year time span between the completion of Stages I and III of the
staged concept construction schedule would allow the floodplain exposed as a
result of the changes in flow due to the completion of Stage I to develop a
well advanced early successiona 1 plant community.The six year time span
between the completion of Stage II and Stage III would allow the floodplain
exposed as a result of changes in flow due to the completion of Stage II to
establish an early successional plant community.After the completion of
Stage III,an additional amount of floodplain would be available for the
establishment of an early successional plant community.The establishment
of three phases of early successiona 1 plant communities,each of a di fferent
age and at a different stage of plant development,would result in a flood-
plain community of higher diversity than would occur under the two stage
project.This increase in plant species and age diversity would be,over
the life of the project,of more benefit to wildlife than would be derived
under the two stage project.
6.Other Schedule-Related Effects
One potential disadvantage of the three stage Susitna project 1S the
expansion of the construction period in the vicinity of the Watana damsite.
This expansion would increase the length of the period that wildlife popula-
tions are exposed to construction-related disturbance and mortality
factors.
The most recent work force estimates for the two stage project for Wa tana
assume ten years of concentrated construction activity on Watana beginning
in 1989 and ending in 1997.Under the three stage project,construction
activity would start in 1989 and end in 1996 for Stage I-Watana,a total of
eight years.In 1992,the focus of construction activity would be shifted
26 mi les downstream to the Devi 1 Canyon damsite.In the year 2002
425674/VII
850603
VI 1-49
_.
_.
construction would begin on the Stage III Watana project.This period of
construction would last 6 years,to 2008.The total construction period for
the two stage project is 15 years,while that for the three stage project is
about 20 years.
It should be noted that the level of disturbance during Stage III develop-
ment would be less than during Stage I development due to the reduced
magnitude of the construction effort,and the presence of an existing infra-
structure and support facilities developed during earlier stages.As it is
presently understood,the Denali Highway-Watana access road would be closed
during Stage I and the Watana-Devil Canyon segment would be closed during
Stage II.If the Denali Highway-Watana segment is closed during Stage III,
all wildlife species would benefit from decreased public access.It is also
likely that road access to the south side of the Susitna River would not be
possible until Stage III is completed.This would likely delay any secon-
dary development on the south side of the river.
A more subtle,but real,advantage of the staged development approach is
that data collected and experience gained through the monitoring of
construction and operation effects and mitigation success during Stages I
and II would permit refinements to construction,operation,and mitigation
plans during Stages II and III so that the ultimate impacts on wildlife and
botanical resources would be lessened.
7 •Mi t i ga t ion
There would be no significant differences in mitigation measures required
for the three stage project as compared to the two stage project.The
longer construction period would result in greater temporary effects,and
could require somewhat greater temporary rehabilitation measures.However,
this might well be offset by the knowledge gained during mi tigation for
Stage I,when applied to Stages II and III mitigation.This knowledge could
include efficacy of proposed mitigation measures and methods as well as
delineating actual project effects upon target species.
425674/VII
850601
VII-50
~I
.-
I
"''''''
The extended construction schedule would cause corresponding extensions in
the rehabilitation,mitigation,and monitoring schedules.For example,
post-Stage I monitoring of caribou crossing the Watana reservoir might add
to our understanding of mitigation needs for Stage III .
425674/VII
850601
VII-51
~I
-
REFERENCES CITED
Ballard,W.B.,J.S.Whitman,N.G.Tankersley,L.D.Aumiller,and P.Hessing.
1984a.Susitna Hydroelectric Project.Big Game Studies,1983 Annual
Report,Vol.III,Moose-Upstream.Alaska Dept.of Fish and Game,
Anchorage.147 pp.
Ballard,W.B.,J.S.Whitman,L.D.Aumiller,and P.Hessing.1984b.Susitna
Hydroelectric Project.Big Game Studies,1983 Annual Report,Vol.V,
Wolf.Alaska Dept.of Fish and Game,Anchorage.40 pp.
Gipson,P.S.,S.W.Buskirk,and T.W.Hobgood.1982.Susitna Hydroelectric
Proj ect.Phase I Final Report:Furbearers.Alaska Coop.Wildl.Res.
Unit,Univ.Alaska,Fairbanks.Prepared for the Alaska Power Authority,
Anchorage.81 pp.
Gipson,P.S.,S.W.Buskirk,T.W.Hobgood,and J.D.Woolington.1984.Susitna
Hydroelectric Project.Furbearer Studies,Phase I Report Update.Alaska
Coop.Wildl.Res.Unit,Univ.Alaska,Fairbanks.Prepared for the
Alaska Power Authority,Anchorage.100 pp.
McKendrick,J.D.,W.Collins,D.Helm,J.McMullen,and J.Koranda.1982.
Susitna Hydroelectric Project.Environmental Studies -Subtask 7.12,
Plant Ecology Studies,Phase I Final Report.Alaska Power Authori ty,
Anchorage.122 pp.
Miller,S.D.,and D.C.McAllister.1982.Susitna Hydroelectric Project.Big
Game Studies,Phase I Final Report,Vol.VI,Black bear and brown bear.
Alaska Dept.Fish and Game,Anchorage.233 pp.
Pitcher,K.W.1984.Susitna Hydroelectric Project.Big Game Studies,1983
Annual Report,Vol.IV,Caribou.Alaska Dept.Fish and Game,Anchorage.
43 pp.
Tankersley,N.G.1984.Susi tna Hydroelectric Project.Big Game Studi es,
Final Report,Vol.VIII,Dal1 Sheep.Alaska Dept.of Fish and Game,
Anchorage.91 pp.
425674/VII VII-52
850601
1"""
....
E.CULTURAL RESOURCES ANALYSIS
1.Summary
The primary effects of the three stage project on cultural resources would
be to reduce,at least initially,the number of archeological sites impacted
through construction and reservoir flooding,and to allow more time for
study and implementation of mitigation plans.Both are significant
positive benefits from the cultural resources standpoint.Since staging
does not alter the schedule or design of the Devil Canyon Dam and Reservoir,
its effect is essentially neutral.
2.Borrow Areas
Staging of the Watana Dam construction would make a greater difference to
cultural resources,though on balance the effects are positive.As the
construction schedule in Stage I would be speeded up for a completion date
of 1996 instead of 1997,there would be somewhat less time available in
which to implement mi (~igation plans.However the scaled-back construction
of Stage I would require less borrow,resulting in less damage due to
removal of fill.This is particularly important in Borrow Area F (the
Tsusena Creek area),which contains a total of eight recorded archeological
sites (see Table VII.E.1)•
425674/VII
850601
VII-53
*None:No recorded archeological sites
425674/VII
850601
VII-54
.....,
....
-
3.Inundation Areas
The Stage I impoundment level of Elo 2000 of the three stage project would
result in inundation of 49 recorded archeological sites (see Table VII.E.2).
This is one-third fewer than would be flooded permanently by a reservoir
level of El.2185 in the two stage project.The 24 sites between El.2000
and El.2185 contours would be available for study for a much longer period
under the staged concept than in the two stage project.Staging would allow
additional time for implementation of mitigation plans for these 24 sites)
as Stage III construction is not scheduled for completion until 2008.
Under the two stage project,the maX1mum and minimum pool levels would be
Elo 2201 and 2075,respectively.Reservoir fluctuations during the year
could result in two types of adverse impacts on affected sites:1)cyclical
wetting and drying)which could damage organic remains present,and 2)
erosion,which could damage or destroy the site.Under the three stage
project,the Stage I maximum and minimum pools would be El.2020 and 1875.
Thus,the three stage project would expose fifteen more sites to cyclical
wetting and drying and erosion than would the two stage proj ecL On the
positive side,the three stage project provides an opportunity to study the
effects of immersion on unexcavated sites since during Stage III
construction the reservoir level would be lowered to approximately El.1875
for about six months.Thi s information would be particularly valuable,
since controlled data on reservoir effects on archeological resources are
scarce.
A final consideration concerns how the three stage project would affect
sites adjacent to but outside the actual project area.Adjacent sites are
defined as those located within one-half mile of a project boundary.Though
not affected directly,these sites could be subject to impacts due to ancil-
lary construction activity)improved access,greater likelihood of erosion,
and increased traffic.The lower Stage I Watana reservoir level would
reduce the reservoir perimeter temporarily leaving more archeological sites
outside the one-half mile zone.It should be noted,however,that the
,....
425674/VII
850601
VII-55
"".
TABLE VILE.2
SITES AFFECTED BY THE THREE STAGE PROJECT
STAGE I (El.2000 Reservoir Level)
TLM 033,040,043,050,058, 062,063,065,072,075,077,079,080,
102,104,115, 194,199,200, 216,220,221, 222,224, 225, 226, 227,
228,229,230,231, 232,233,234,235,236, 238,239,240,241,242,
243,246,247,248,249, 250,256,257 (N=49).
STAGE III (E1.2000 -2185 Reservoir Level)
I
TLM 039, 048,059,060,061,119, 126,169,171,173,174, 175,182,
184,196,204,206,215,217,218, 223,237,244,251 (N=24)•
ADJACENT SITES (Within 1/2 Mi.of E1.2185 Reservoir Level)
~Iq
TLM 026,031,032,038,042,047, 049, 064,073,074,076,120,121,
...-122,123, 124,125,127,128,129,130,131, 132,133,134, 135, 136,
139, 140,141, 142,143,145,147, 148, 159,165,166,167, 177, 183,
185, 189,190,195,198,207,219 (N=48)•
~1lI'iI
SITES OUTSIDE THE ONE-HALF MILE ZONE,STAGE I (El.2000 Reservoir Level)
TLM 026,032,038,042, 049,073, 074, 076,120, 122,159,189,195,
,,,,",198,207 (N=15).
SITES ADJACENT TO WATANA CONSTRUCTION AREA
TLM 016,018,160, 165,166,167,172,192,197 (N=9)
425674/vII
850601
VII-56
-
adjacent distance is arbitrarily defined,so that factors such as topography
may be more significant.Nevertheless,approximately 15 adjacent si tes
would fall outside the one-half mile zone for an El.2000 reservoir level.
This represents 31 percent of the sites defined as adjacent in the two stage
project.
4.Mitigation
Mitigation techniques employed for the three stage project would be
essentially identical to those used for the two stage project.Implementa-
tion,however,would vary.Data recovery (excavation)is expected to be a
principal mitigation technique under either project.However,the degree to
which it would be utilized and the actual sites involved would be different.
Preservation in place,where it involves construction of protective barriers
for sites at or near the impoundment margin,may not be considered in the
case of the Stage I Watana impoundment because these sites would eventually
be flooded by the Stage III reservoir.
The three stage project would permit the details of the mitigation plan
(research and excavation strategy)for sites located in the area between the
Stage I and Stage III maximum pools to be developed or the basis of informa-
tion recovered from sites excavated within the Stage I impoundment.This
would insure the best scientific use of these resources.
425674/VII
850601
VII-57
....
""..
F.SOCIOECONOMICS ANALYSIS
1.Summary
Through the year 2002 there are no significant differences between the two
stage and three stage projects for average yearly employment,project-
induced population,population immigration,or the magnitude of community
facility and services demand.Nor are there notable differences in the type
or magni tude of socioeconomic mi tigation measures needed to reduce the
effects of these impacts.The primary difference is that the three stage
project increases the duration of employment impacts,population impac ts,
and demand for facilities and services.
2.Employment and Population
In general,the three stage project would allow a more gradual increase in
project employment but reach the same peak yearly average (about 2,000)~n
1995.The three stage project would e~tend the length of employment by five
years,through the year 2007.The highest yearly average for these five
years would be about 1,000 in the year 2005 (see Table VI.F.l).
Extending the period of employment has the positive effect of providing jobs
for a longer time and decreasing the year-to-year variation in employment.
Associated (secondary)economic activi ties are also extended for affected
communities •
Population ~ncreases generated by the project generally follow the same
pattern as project-induced employment.The magnitude and duration of popu-
lation impacts would therefore follow the trends of employment impacts.The
duration of impact would be longer by five years under the three stage
project.
425674/VII
850601
VII-58
.....
.'",
3.Community Facilities and Services
Impacts on demand for facilities and services are a consequence of popula-
tion impacts.Since the magnitude of population impacts are similar in both
the two and three stage projects,impacts on community facilities and
serV1ces are likely to be similar through the year 2002.The major differ-
ence would be that impacts would occur more gradually and last longer for
the three stage project.Facility and service demand levels from 2002 until
2007 would be well below peak demand for either the two stage or three stage
projects.
Prolonging the duration of project-induced demand would have one positive
effect.Namely,it would delay or reduce any excess capacity of facilities
that would be built to meet the peak demand.Since most communities in the
impact area have steadily increasing baseline populations,any facilities
constructed to serve peak project-related demand would eventually be needed
after project construction ends.The period of excess capacity,between the
time peak project demand ends and baseline demand catches.up,produces a
financial burden for maintenance and operation costs for underutilized faci-
lities.The three stage project would reduce this financial burden for some
communities by extending the period of economic activity for their
residents.
4.Mitigation
If a worker transportation program is not adopted by the Power Authority,
community aid mitigation programs would be similar for both the two stage
and three stage projects.The three stage project would cause the aid
programs to extend,at reduced levels for five additional years.With an
air/bus worker transportation program,the need for community aid programs
would be reduced equally for either project.
425674/VII
850601
VII-59
TABLE VII.F.1
YEARLY AVERAGE WORK FORCE
TWO STAGE PROJECT THREE STAGE PROJECT
;mrll/Ill Watana Devil Total Stage I Stage II Stage III Total
1988 -0- -0--0--0--0--0--0-
1989 700 -0-700 376 -0--0-376
1990 1,227 -0-1,227 666 -0--0-666
~1!I;l
1991 866 -0-866 744 -0- -0-744
1992 849 77 926 822 77 -0-899
"""1993 1,160 118 1,278 1,058 118 -0-1,176
1994 1,416 203 1,619 1,225 203 -0-1 ,428
1995 1,752 342 2,094 1,733 342 -0-2,075
1996 1,295 355 1,650 1,206 355 -0-1,561
fl:*'lliil 1997 603 747 1,350 142 747 -0-889
1998 97 885 982 -0-885 -0-885
1999 -0-795 795 -0-795 -0-795
2000 -0-932 932 -0-932 -0-932
2001 -0-492 492 -0-492 -0-492
~.
2002 -0-107 107 -0-107 304 411
2003 -0--0--0--0--0-555 555....2004 -0--0- -0--0--0-741 741
2005 -0--0--0- -0--0-1,015 1,015
.....2006 -0--0--0- -0--0-943 943
2007 -0--0--0--0- -0-547 547
....2008 -0--0--0- -0--0--0--0-
425674/vII
850601
VII-60
""..,
G.RECREATION RESOURCES
1.Summary
The primary effect of the three stage project on the proposed recreation
plan would be a potential delay in the construction and public use of
recreation facilities to be located near the Watana damsite.Futhermore,
proposed project recreation sites and recreation development plans of Native
groups located south of the Susitna River could also be delayed since access
across Watana Dam would be disrupted during Stage III construction.
Moreover,boating access to the portion of Watana reservoir near the Watana
damsite may be restricted during the Stage III construction period.
Some short-term benefits would occur as a result of staging.Approximately
17,000 additional acres of land would be available for recreation use as a
result of a lower Watana reservoir during Stages I and II,and downstream
boaters may benefit from increased flow releases.These benefits would last
close to completion of Stage III.
2.Resource Use
_.
om-
-.
The three stage project would not resul t in any appreciable changes in
effects on recreation resources in the project area.Construction of Stage
III would extend the time by approximately 6 years that construction workers
would remain in the area.Thus,the use of area resources by construction
workers would be extended,particularly fishing of nearby lakes and streams.
However,the highest yearly average number of workers for Stage III would
only be about half the number estimated for the construction of Watana Dam
under the two stage project.
The three stage project would result in some short-term resource benefits as
compared to the two stage project.First,construction of Stage I would
result in approximately 17,000 acres adjacent to the Watana reservoir to be
425674/VII
850601
VII-61
available for backcountry hiking and hunting due to the lower reservoir
level.Second,grayling areas near tributary mouths such as the Oshetna
River also would not be inundated until Stage III and therefore would be
available for fishing.Third,because there would be less reservoir storage
3.Recreation Plan Phasing
,.'""
The recreation plan proposed for the two stage project would be developed in
five phases.Phases One and Two would occur during Watana construction and
operation;Phases Three and Four would be developed during Devil Canyon
construction and operation.A fifth phase is also presented,which proposes
sites to be constructed if adjustments are needed in Phases One through
Four.Thus,phased development provides flexibility in responding to
changes in recreation demand or to unexpected impacts to area resources.
Phasing of the recreation plan as proposed for the two stage project assumes
that the Watana access road would be open to the public after Watana
construction and the Devil Canyon access road would be open after construc-
tion of Devil Canyon.11
Assuming public access after completion of each stage,the three stage
project would not change the number of facilities proposed for the recrea-
tion plan.However,it could change the timing and location of facilities
proposed near Watana Dam in Stage II of the two stage project plan.The
Watana Dam visitor center and trails would either be relocated to the north
side of the dam in Phase Two or would be constructed after completion of
II The policy regard:ng public access after completion of project stages
and before completion of all construction has not yet been determined.
425674/vII
850601
VII-62
-
Stage III,S1nce the area around Watana Dam would be closed to the public
for Stage III construction.Boat access to and from both reservoirs near
the Watana damsite would also likely be restricted during Stage III
construction.
construction of Stage III may also delay development of recreation sites
proposed south of the Susitna River in Phase Five since access across Watana
Dam would be disrupted until the completion of Stage III.Development plans
of Native landowners for areas south of Susitna River could also be delayed
for the same reason.
Recreation facilities proposed for the construction work force would not
change since total work force estimates for the three stage project are not
expected to be significantly different than those for the two stage project
(see Table VI.F.I).The three stage project,however,would require the
proposed worker recreational facilities to remain in service for a longer
period of time,which would increase operation and maintenance costs.
4.Mitigation
The recreation plan proposed for the two stage project serves as mitigation
for recreation-related impacts of the project.Changes in the recreation
plan that may be required under the three stage project include the develop-
ment of a sixth recreation phase to coincide with completion of the Stage
III construction,and appropriate s1gnage placed at upper Susitna River
sites warning boaters of construction and access restrictions at the Watana
damsi te.Restrictions may include closure or some type of permi to
425674/VII
850601
VII-63
I~
......
H.AESTHETICS ANALYSIS
1.Summary
The three stage project would not significantly change the aesthetic
resource effects that would occur for the two stage project.While some
areas,such as temporary construction camps,would be disturbed for a longer
period of time because of the extended construction period,they would be
reclaimed as they would under the two stage project.Likewise,monitoring
aesthetic mitigation implementation would occur for a longer period of time
due to the extended construction period.
2.Project Facilities
Three stage construction would result in some positive short-term aesthetic
effects.Namely,a lower Watana reservoir in Stage I would result in fewer
mudflats due to reduced drawdown and confinement of the reservoir to steeper
valley slopes.The reduction in mudflats would be most apparent in the
Watana Creek drainage.
The project's transmission line system would also be built in three stages.
The transmission system would be identical to the two stage project at the
end of Stage III,but during Stages I and II fewer lines would exist than
shown in the two stage project.While the presence of fewer transmission
lines in Stages I and II would result in a short-term reduction of visual
impacts,this reduction would be offset because transmission line construc-
tion (with its associated visual impact from construction activities)would
occur in all three stages.
Visual impacts related to borrow areas are not expected to differ substan-
tially from the two stage project.The three stage project would reduce the
amount of material required from Borrow Site A because all borrow material
for Stage I would be obtained through excavation of the deeper spillway
required for the three stage project.Borrow Site A,which is located near
425674/VII
850601
VII-64
-
.-
Watana Dam and the presently proposed visitor center,would be highly
visible.Although the borrow area would still be needed for Stage III
construction,the extent of its visual impact would be lessened with
the three stage project.
3.Mitigation
No additional aesthetic mitigation beyond that proposed for the two stage
project is anticipated for the three stage project.Field monitoring
related to construction and implementation of mitigation measures,however,
would continue for a longer period of time.
The transmission system would be identical to the two stage project at the
end of Stage III,but during Stages I and II fewer lines would exist than
shown in the two stage project.While the presence of fewer transmission
lines in Stages I and II would result in a short-term reduction in visual
impacts,this reduction would be offset because transmission line construc-
tion (with its associated visual impact from construction activities)would
occur in all three stages.
425674/VII
850601
VII-65
SECTION VIII
-
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
FERC License Application-Project No.7114
DISTRIBU~ION OF PRE-FILING CONSULTATION PACKAGE
STATE AGENCIES
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
The Honorable Loren Lounsbury
Commissioner
Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development
State Office Building,9th Floor
Juneau,Alaska 99811
cc:George Matz
Special Assistant
Office of the Commissioner
Ak Dept.Commerce &Economic Develop.
State Office Building,9th Floor
Juneau,Alaska 99811
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS
The Honorable Emil Notti
Commissioner
Alaska Department of Community
&Regional affairs
Community Bldg.,Rm.215
Pouch B
Juneau,Alaska 99811
cc:Ms.Marty Rutherford
Alaska Department of Community
&Regional affairs
Municipal and Regional Assistance Program
949 East 36th Avenue,Suite 400
Anchorage,Alaska 99508
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
The Honorable William Ross
Commissioner
Department of Environmental Conservation
3200 Hospital Drive
Pouch 0
Juneau,Alaska 99802
425674/LIST
850601
1
....
cc:Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation
437 E Street,Suite 200
Anchorage,Alaska 99501
Attention:Mr.Robert Martin
Regional Env.Supervisor
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
The Honorable Don Collinsworth
Commissioner
Alaska Department of Fish &Game
Capitol Office Park
Juneau,Alaska 99802
cc:Norman Cohen
Alaska Department of Fish &Game
1255 w.8th
Juneau,Alaska 99802
cc:Alaska Department of Fish &Game
333 Raspberry Road
Anchorage,Alaska 99502
Attention:Mr.Carl Yanagawa
cc:Alaska Department of Fish and Game
333 Raspberry Road
Anchorage,Alaska 99502
Attention:Bruce H.Baker
Acting Director,Habitat Division
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
The Honorable Esther Wunnicke
Commissioner
Alaska Department of Natural Resources
State Office Bldg.,5th Floor
Willoughy Center
Pouch M
Juneau,Alaska 99811
cc:Alaska Department of Natural Resources
South Central District
3601 C Street
Pouch 7-005
Anchorage,Alaska 99510
Attention:Mr.Leroy Latta Jr.
APA Projects Manager (9 enclosures)
425674/LIST
850601
2
-
-
-
....
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Office of Management and Budget
Division of Governmental Coordination
2600 Denali.#700
Anchorage.Alaka 99503
Attention:Ms.Patty Bielawski
Project Coordinator
cc:Office of Management and Budget
Pouch AW
Juneau.Alaska 99811
Attention:Mr.Robert Grogan
Associate Director
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
The Honorable Robert Sundberg
Commissioner
Alaska Department of Public Safety
450 Whittier Street
Pouch N
Juneau.Alaska 99811
cc:Alaska Department of Public Safety
Division of Fire Protection
670 W.Fireweed Lane.Suite 238
Pouch 6313
Anchorage.Alaska 99502
Attention:Mr.Sylvester Neal
State Fire Marshal
ALASKA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
The Honorable Carolyn Guess
Chairman/Commissioner
Alaska Public Utilities Commission
420 L Street.Suite 100
Anchorage.Alaska 99501
425674/LIST
850601
3
....
.....
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES
The Honorable Richard J.Knapp
Commissioner
Alaska Department of Transportation
and Public Facilities
226 Seward Street
Pouch Z
Juneau,Alaska 99811
cc:Alaska Department of Transportation
and Public Facilities
Design and Construction Division
411 Aviation Drive
Pouch 6900
Anchorage,Alaska 99502
Attention:Mr.Keith Morberg
Chief of Design
ALASKA RAILROAD
Alaska Railroad
Pouch 7-2111
Anchorage,Alaska 99510
Attention:Mr.Bill Coghill
Manager of Planning
425674/LIST
850601
4
FEDERAL AGENCIES
ALASKA POWER ADMINISTRATION
Mr.Robert Cross
Administrator
Alaska Power Administration
P.O.Box 50
Juneau,Alaska 99802
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
Bureau of Indian Affairs
P.O.Box 3-800
Juneau,Alaska 99802
Attention:Frank Madison
Area Director
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
Mr.Michael Penfold
State Director
Bureau of Land Management
701 C Street,Box 13
Anchorage,Alaska 99513
cc:Bureau of Land Management
4699 E.72nd Avenue (016)
Anchorage,Alaska 99507
Attention:Mr.Don Hinrichsen
Area Manager
BUREAU OF MINES
Bureau of Mines
2221 E.Northern Lights Blvd.
Anchorage,Alaska 99504
Attention:Donald Blasko
Chief,Alaska Field Operations
425674/LIST 5
850601
~---------------------------------------------
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
Federal Aviation Administration
800 Independence Avenue,SE
Washington,DC 20519
cc:Federal Aviation Administration
701 C Street Box 14
Anchorage,Alaska 99513
Attention:Mr.Franklin L.Cunningham
Director
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
Federal Emergency Management Agency
500 C Street SW
Room 427
Washington,D.C.20472
Attention:Mr.Jeffrey Bragg
Administrator
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Department of Health and Human Services
200 Independence Avenue SW
Washington,D.C.20201
Attention:Margaret Heckler
Secretary
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COUNCIL
Dr.Robert Garvey
Executive Director
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Old Post Office Bldg.
1100 Pennsylvania Ave.NW
Suite 809
Washington,D.C.20004
425674/LIST
850601
6
....
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
Mr.Robert McVey
Director,Alaska Region
National Marine Fisheries Service
Federal Building,Room 453
709 W.9th
P.O.Box 1668
Juneau,Alaska 99802
cc:National Marine Fisheries Service
701 C Street,Box 43
Anchorage,Alaska 99513
Attention:Mr.Ron Morris
Western Alaska Field Officer Supervisor
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
Mr.Roger Contor
Regional Director.
National Park Service
2525 Gambell Street
Anchorage,Alaska 99503
RURAL ELECTRIFICATION ADMINISTRATION
Director Rural Electrification
Administration Western Area -Electric
14th &Independence Ave SW
Washington,D.C.20254
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
Soil Conservation Service
2221 E.Northern Lights Boulevard
Suite 129
Anchorage,Alaska 99504
Attention:Mr.Burton L.Clifford
State Conservationist
u.S.DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
u.S.Department of Agriculture
South Agriculture Building Room 3008
Independenctlr Avenue,SW
Washington,DC 20250
Attention:Chief of the Forest Service
425674/LIST
850601
7
--
....
u.s.AIR FORCE
u.s.Air Force
HQAAC/DE-l
Elmendorf Air Force Base,Alaska 99506
Attention:Lt.Col.Charles D.Sprick
Asistant Deputy cis Civil
Engineering and Services
u.S Air Force
HQAAC/Dep
Bldg.G-6-900
Elmendorf Air Force Base,Alaska 99506
Attention:Ms.Amy Wickstrom
u.s.ARMY
u.S.Army
Engineering and Housing
Fort Richardson,Alaska 99505
Attention:Colonel Harold A.Froehle
Director
u.S.Army
Hdq.172 Infantry Brigade
Director of Facilities,Engineer
(ASZT-EH-PSR)
Fort Richardson,Alaska 99505
Attention:Richard E.Davis
Chief Real Property Branch
u.s.ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
u.s.Army Corps of Engineers
North Pacific Division
P.o.Box 2870
Portland,Oregon 97208
Attention:Brigadier General
James W.Van Loben Sels,
Division Engineer
.-
425674/LIST
850601
8
".."
.-.
U.S.Army Corps of Engineers
Alaska District
Pouch 898,Bldg.#21-710
Elmendorf,Alaska 99506
Attention:Colonel Neil E.Saling
District Engineer
cc:U.S.Army Corps of Engineers
Alaska District
Pouch 898
Anchorage,Alaska 99506
Attention:Ms.Carol Gorbics
Special Actions Section
Regulatory Branch
u.s.COAST GUARD
u.S.Coast Guard
Water Resources Coordinator
Washington,DC 20590
Attention:William R.Brede1
cc:u.S.Coast Guard
17th Coast Guard District
Box 3-5000
Juneau,Alaska 99802
Atention:Commander G.J.Sepe1
District Planning Officer
cc:u.S.Coast Guard
17th Coast Guard District
Box 3-5000
Juneau,Alaska 99802
Atention:Commander E.R.Ruitta
Aids to Navigation Branch
U.s.ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
u.S.Environmental Protection Agency
Alaska Operations Office
3200 Hospital Drive,Suite 101
Juneau,Alaska 99802
Attention:Mr.Ron Kreizenbeck
Director
cc:u.S.Environmental Protection Agency
Alaska Operations Office
701 C Street,Box 19
Anchorage,Alaska 99513
Attention:Mr.Dan Robison
425674/LIST
850601
9
u.s.Environmental Protection Agency
Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle,Washington 98101
Attention:Ms.Earnesta Barnes
Regional Administrator
u.s.FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Office of The Director
u.s.Fish and Wildlife Service
18th and C Street NW
Washington,DC 20240
Attention:Gentlemen
u.s.Fish and Wildlife Service
1011 East Tudor Road
Anchorage,Alaska 99503
Attention:Mr.Robert Gilmore
Regional Director
cc:u.S.Fish and Wildlife Service
411 West 4th Avenue,Suite 2B
Anchorage,Alaska 99501
Attention:Mr.Robert Bowker
Western Alaska Ecological
Services Supervisor
u.S.GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
u.S.Geological Survey
4320 University Drive
Anchorage,Alaska 99508
Attention:Mr.Phillip Emery
District Chief
cc:U.S.Geological Survey
4320 University Drive
Anchorage,Alaska 99508
Attention:Mr.Robert Lamke
Water Resources
425674/LIST
850601
10
.....
u.s.DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr.William P.Horn
Deputy Undersecretary
U.S.Department of Interior
Environmental Compliance Division
18th and C Street NW
Washington,DC 20240
U.S.Department of Interior
Environmental Compliance Division
18th and C Street NW
Washington,DC 20240
Attention:Mr.David L.Jervis
Director
U.S.Department of Interior
Office of Environmental Project Review
18th and C Street
Washington,DC 20240
Attention:Mr.Bruce Blanchard
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Department of Housing and
Urban Development
701 C Street Module 6
Box 54
Anchorage,Alaska 99513
Attention:Mr.Ken Bowring
Environmental Officer
Department of Housing and
Urban Development
451 7th Street SW Room 5146
Washington,D.C.20410
Attention:Mr.Bernard Manheimer
Department of Housing and
Urban Development
3003 Arcase Plaza Bldg.
1321 Second Avenue
Seattle,Washington 98101
Attention:Mr.Ry Tonino
Environmental Officer
425674/LIST
850601
11
,.,..
-
u.s.DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
u.s.Department of the Treasury
Bureau of Alcohol,Tobacco and Firearms
701 C Street Box 39
Anchorage,Alaska 99513
Attention:Mr.Chris Nelson
Resident Agent in Charge
u.S.DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
u.s.Department of Transportation
3112 Federal Building
915 Second Avenue
Seattle,Washington 98174
Attention:Ms.Audrey Davis
Regional Representative
425674/LIST
850601
12
~
!
-
MUNICIPALITIES
The Honorable Tony Knowles
Mayor
Municipality of Anchorage
Pouch 6-650
Anchorage,Alaska 99502
cc:Municipality of Anchorage
Pouch 6-650
Anchorage,Alaska 99502
Attention:Mr.Gary C.Tucker
Assistant Municipal Attorney
The Honorable Bill Allen
Mayor
North Star Borough
520 5th Avenue
Fairbanks,Alaska 99701
The Honorable Bill Walley
Mayor
Municipality of Fairbanks
410 Cushman Street
Fairbanks,Alaska 99701
The Honorable Dorothy Jones
Mayor
Matanuska-Susitna Borough
Administrative Offices
632 Denali
Palmer,Alaska 99645
cc:Matanuska-Susitna Borough
P.O.Box B
Palmer,Alaska 99645
Attention:Mr.Gary Thurlow
Manager
425674/L1ST
850601
13
RAILBELT UTILITIES
Anchorage Municipal Light and Power
1200 E.First Avenue
Anchorage,Alaska 99501
Attention:Mr.Thomas R.Stahr
Manager
Chugach Electric Association
5601 Minnesota Drive
P.O.Box 6300
Anchorage,Alaska 99502-0300
Attention:Mr.Robert Martin
General Manager
Golden Valley Electric Association
758 Illinois
P.o.Box 1249
Fairbanks,Alaska 99707
Attention:Mr.Mike Kelly
General Manager
Fairbanks Municipal Utilities System
P.o.Box 2215
Fairbanks,Alaska 99707
Attention:Mr.Virgil Gillespie
General Manager
Matanuska Electric Association
248 E.Elmwood
P .0.Box 1148
Palmer,Alaska 99645
Attention:Mr.James Palin
General Manager
Homer Electric Association
P.o.Box 429
Homer,Alaska 99603
Attention:Mr.Kent Wick
General Manager
Seward Electric System
P.o.Box 167
Seward,Alaska 99664
-
Attention:Mr.Paul Diener
Utilities Manager
425674/LIST
850601
14
....
NATIVE ORGANIZATIONS
Cantwell Native Association
P.O.Box 65
Cantwell,Alaska 99729
Attention:Ms.Louise Mayo
President
Cook Inlet Region,Incorporated
2525 C Street
P.O.Box 4-N
Anchorage,Alaska 99503
Attention:Mr.Roy M.Huhndorf
President
Copper River Native Association
DWRH
Copper Center,Alaska 99573
Attention:Ms.Kathy McConkey
Knikatnu Inc.
C/O Bob Lund
Frank Moolin &Associates,Inc.
2525 C Street
Anchorage,Alaska 99503
Attention:Mr.Paul Theodore
President
Tyonek Native Corporation
4433 Lake Otis Parkway
Anchorage,Alaska 99507
Attention:Ms.Agnes B.Brown
President
cc:Mr.Bruce R.Bedard
1007 West 53rd Street
Anchorage,Alaska 99502
425674/LIST
850601
15
"..,.
Mr.Roy S.Ewan,President
AHTNA,Inc.
Drawer "Gil
Copper Center,Alaska 99573
Mr.Gary Harrison,President
Chickaloon Moose Creek Native Association
501 E.13th Street #17
Anchorage,Alaska 99501
425674!LIST
850601
16
-
OTHERS
ALASKA CENTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT
Alaska Center for the Environment
1069 W.6th Avenue
Anchorage,Alaska 99501
Attention:Mr.William Nebseksy
President
ALASKA CONSUMER ADVOCACY PROGRAM
Alaska Consumer Advocacy Program
P•O.Box 10311
Anchorage,Alaska 99510
Attention:Mr.James R.Jackson,Esq.
ALASKA PROFESSIONAL HUNTERS ASSOCIATION
Alaska Professional Hunters Association
P.O.Box 107
Talkeetna,Alaska 99676
Attention:Mr.Larry R.Rivers
Secretary
ALASKA REGIONAL ENERGY ASSOCIATION
Alaska Regional Energy Association
c/o Kana,Inc.
P •O.Box 1277
Kodiak,Alaska 99615
Attention:Mr.Thomas Peterson
Chairman
ALASKA RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION,INC.
Alaska Rural Electric Cooperative Association,Inc.
237 E.Fireweed Lane,Suite 301
Anchorage,Alaska 99503
Attention:Mr.Roger R.Kemppel
General Counsel
425674/LIST
850601
17
""'.
ALASKA SURVIVAL
Alaska Survival
Box 343
Talkeetna,Alaska 99676
Attention:Mr.Paul H.Bratton,Jr.
AMERICAN RIVERS CONSERVATION COUNCIL
American Rivers Conservation Council
Susitna Project
322 Fourth NE
Washington,DC 20002
Attention:Mr.Christopher N.Brown
COOK INLET AQUACULTURE ASSOCIATION
Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association
P.o.Box 3819
35477 Kenai Spur Highway
Soldotna,Alaska 99669
Attention:Thomas E.Mears
Executive Director
CALL,BARRETT &BURBANK
Call,Barrett &Burbank
711 Gaffney
Fairbanks,Alaska 99701
Attention:Mr.David H.Call
Attorney
CARPENTER
Mr.Charles D.Carpenter
P.o.Box 80764
Fairbanks,Alaska 99708
425674/LIST
850601
18
.,.,.,
COMMUNITY OF CANTWELL
Community of Cantwell,Inc.
Cantwell,Alaska 99729
Attention:Mr.Jerry Moberg
DINYEA CORPORATION
Dinyea Corporation
544 9th Avenue,Suite 107
Fairbanks,Alaska 99701
Attention:Mr.Davey Lacey
General Manager
FRIENDS OF THE EARTH
Friends of the Earth
530 7th Street,S.E.
Washington,D.C.20003
Attention:Mr.Dave Conrad
GERLACH
Mr.Robert Gerlach
Box 23
Talkeetna,Alaska 99676
KNIK KANOERS AND KAYAKERS,INC.
Knik Kanoers and Kayakers,Inc.
P.O.Box 101935
Anchorage,Alaska 99510
Attention:Mr.Mike Grijalva
President
MANNIX
Mr.Arthur J.&Karen I.Mannix
P.O.Box 284
Talkeetna,Alaska 99676
425674/LIST
850601
19
~-
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
P.O.Box 1668
Juneau,Alaska 99802
Attention:Mr.Ben Rosenthal
Staff Attorney
NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION
National Wildlife Federation
1412 Sixteenth Street,NW
Washington,DC 20036
Attention:Mr.David G.Burwell
NORTHERN ALASKA ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER
Northern Alaska Environmental Center
725 Christiansen Drive
Anchorage.Alaska 99501
Attention:Mr.H.Clifton Eames,Jr.
NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY
National Audubon Society
125 Christensen Drive,Suite 2
Anchorage,Alaska 99501
Attention:Mr.David R.Cline
PAGE
Mr.Joe C.Page
Box 1477
Talkeetna.Alaska 99676
POPE AND ROGERS
Pope and Rogers
526 Main Street
Juneau.Alaska 99801
Attention:Mr.Douglas Pope
SHELDON
Ms.Roberta Sheldon
Main Street
Talkeetna,Alaska 99676
425674/LIST
850601
20
-I
I
I
.-
SIERRA CLUB LEGAL DEFENSE FUND,INC.
Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund,Inc.
419 6th Street,Suite 321
Juneau,Alaska 99801
Atention:Ms.Lauri Adams
cc:Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund,Inc.
542 E 4th Ave #5
Anchorage,Alaska 99501
Attention:Ms.Sally Kabisch
TRUSTEES FOR ALASKA -SUSITNA PROJECT
Trustees for Alaska -Susitna Project
725 Christiansen Drive,Suite 4
Anchorage,Alaska 99501
Attention:Robert Adler,Esq.
UNITED FISHERMEN OF ALASKA
United Fishermen of Alaska
P.O.Box 558
Homer,Alaska 99603
Attention:Mr.Ken Castner
U.S.DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
U.S.Department of the Interior
18th and C Street,NW
Washington,D.C.20240
Attention:Solicitor
WAITE
Mr.Thomas E.Waite
Box 330
Talkeetna,Alaska 99676
WILSON
Mr.Ronald J.Wilson
810 18th Street,NW
Suite 804
Washington,DC 20006
425674/LIST
850601
21
.-
RESOURCE DEVELOPEMENT COUNCIL
Resource Development Council
Box 100516
807 G Street
Anchorage,Alaska 99510-0516
Attention:Ms.Paula Easley
Executive Director
425674/LIST
850601
22