HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA2975INTERIM FEASIBIUTY REPORT
SOUTHl L RAILBELT AREA ALASKA
UPPER SUSITNA RIVER BASIN
.i1:J
TK
1425
.S8
A23
no.2975
ROELECTRIC POWER
RELATED PURPOSES
•~·.CORPS Of E~
~*I:)III:-
C *Z~I *I 5?,05I 1-I .;
'".....Z eft....-~....
·...".Al·177 ,
12 DECEMBER 1915
APPENDIX II
PERTINENT CORRESPONDENCE
AND
REPORTS OF OTHER AGENCIES
Table of Contents
Tl<
1~'2..S
.~td
A23
n .29tS
Letter from:Date Page------_.__.-
Alaska Power Administration 20 November 1975 1
Alaska Power Administration 10 December 1975 5
Alaska Railroad 10 June 1975 10
Bureau of Indian Affairs 3 November 1975 11
Bureau of Land Management 13 March 1975 12
Bureau of Land Management 15 July 1975 13
Department of Transportation 11 November 1975 14
Federal Power Commission 12 August 1975 16
Federal Power Commission 20 August 1975 21
Federal Power Commission 4 December 1975 22
U.S.Weather Bureau Undated Draft 27
<0 Alaska Energy Office 6 October 1975 43<0
N Division of Parks 4 April 1975 44r--Division of Parks 4 June 1975 46-=t0 State Policy Development and Planning 9 June 1975 47
0 State Policy Development and Planning 12 September 1975 520
0 Stan Justice 29 May 1975 53I.!')
I.!')Matanuska Electric Association 10 June 1975 55
"John L.Cerutti,P.E.13 June 1975 57M
M Barbara Winkley 7 October 1975 58
Mountaineering Club of Alaska 7 October 1975 59
Fairbanks North Star Borough 13 October 1975 60
T.R.Slaton.P.E.15 October 1975 62c.H.Swanson,Jr.,M.D.21 October 1975 63
Anchorage Chamber of Commerce 22 October 1975 64
Knik Kanoers and Kayakers 17 November 1975 65
Report of U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service,10 October 1975
Ala,a HI"urrf',
Library {I;InFor nl ('}Il'enices
An -110 age Ala I a
AplJend i x II
i
IN lIEPLY REFUl TO:
700
AIRMAIL
United States Department of the Interior
ALASKA POWER ADMINISTRATION
P.o.BOX 50
JUNEAU.ALASKA 9Gl6JOX 99802
November 20,1975
Colonel Charles Debelius
Corps of Engineers
Alaska District
Box 7002
Anchorage,AK 99510
De ar Colonel Deb elius:
This covers several items discussed in telephone conversations of
November 11 and 12,1975,with Eric You1d and Gary Flightner of your
office.Subjects discussed included:
1.Consideration of adding an additional skeleton bay at both
Watana and Devil Canyon powerplants for future peaking capacity.
2.A request for AP A views on any benefits that might be associated
with interconnecting Railbelt area power loads.
3.Revisions in the designs and estimates for Devil Canyon and
Watana which resulted from internal Corps review,specifically a require-
ment for capability to evacuate Watana Reservoir in a short period
of time which would require a large increase in outlet capacity and
costs .
We do not have the details on items 1 and 3,but it is apparant that
these changes could have significant impact on power marketability.
Therefore,we would like to offer comments on the changes as well
as furnishing the requested views in interconnection benefits.
Append;x II
1
.,"1:.~,.~.,('"•••".-,~4 ~.
2
1.Additional Peaking Capacity
The plan included in your draft report is premised on a 50 percent annual
plant factor with provisions of a skeleton bay in each powerplant for
future additional peaking capacity.The 50 percent figure is as recommended
by APA;we understand the additional skeleton bays are judgement additions
by the Corps.The costs and benefi ts associated with the provisions for \
added peaking capacity are not identified in the Corps draft reports.
Our draft power market appendix (September 1975)includes some of
the reasoning behind our recommendations for a 50 percent plant factor.
This is premised on rather simplistic assumptions relative to the role of
a major hydro plant in the Railbelt area.Our data and studies have not,
at least thus far,given any indication that markets would exist for addition-
al peaking capacity at this project until well beyond the year 2000.
We do not object to including the single skeleton bay for peaking addi tions
at the twopowerplants.However,we do not have any support for assign-
ing b enefi ts to this future added cap aci ty .
It is our suggestion that the incremented costs for the skeleton bays including
waterways be identified and excluded from your basic benefit-cost comparison.
This would amount to:0)demonstrating feasibility based on the 50 percent
plant factor,and (2)demonstrating costs for providing the future option
separately.
We do not concur in the concept of adding a second skeleton bay at each of
the two plants,since we believe that any potential markets for such
additional capacity are too remote to be considered in a feasibility
determination.'
2.Interconnection B enefi ts
A number of previous studies by APA and others provide good indication
that a Railbelt intertie would be justified eventually without development
of the Upper Susitna Project.Possible situations that would bring about
the justification include:
1.Bulk power supply to the Interior from a future large thermal
station (coal or nuclear).
2.Any new sizable power demands at points between Anchorage and
Fairbanks.An example is the concept of electric drive for pipeline
pumping stations.or a possible new community in Susitna drainage.
Appendix II
2
"-;--------------------------.'..--lQi:~:
3
The existing studies indicate advantages associated with load diversity
and shared reserves would be relatively minor.For example,as
between the Anchorage and Fairbanks areas there is not a great diversity
on a seasonal or hourly basis,and any advantages in reserve sharing
would be limited by reserve requirements imposed because of transmission
reliability .
A further limit on intertie advantages is disparity in size of market.
Anchorage area loads are several times larger than Fairbanks area
loads.
Areas of potential intertie benefits include added flexibility in day
to liay scheduling of generation,increased flexibility in selecting
new power sources,and added flexibility in power sale and interchange
arrangements.
We believe it would be consistent with your procedures for benefit
evaluation to examine intertie benefits on the basis of alternative costs
for achieving the intertie benefi ts.The APA evaluation of alternati ve
power costs (power market study)and the FPC benefit determination
assmne separate coal fired plants for the Anchorage and Fairbanks
areas.Location assumptions of Beluga and Healy for the plants are
consistent with the evaluation,with aggregate plant capacity equivalent
to the Susitna plan.
Following this lfalternati"\Telf,it would be logical to asSume that the
next major power addition for the Railbelt would be a large thermal
plant in the Beluga area with an intertie between ~eluga and Healy.
For your benefit evaluations,you might assume a completion date
of around 1995 and a construction cost of around $60 million as the
alternative cost of achieving the intertie benefits.This is premised
on rough estimates of costs of a 230 kv intertiebet\.veen Beluga and
Healy including necessary substation costs.
3.Requirement for Rapid Evacuation of Watana Rese.rvoir
We understand that the requirement under consideration is essential
evacuation of active capacity over afour month period assuming record
high inflows for the period.We also understand that this is now a
standard design criteria for Corps reservoirs subject to exception
on an individual basis.
Appendix II
3
--------"'--------------
4
It occurs to us that such a requirement would be essentially infeasible
for most large reservoir projects,but may very well be desirable
for many structures in and near populous areas.
From the viewpoint of project operation,including structural safety,
we do not see a requirement for the suggested rapid evacuation of
Watana Reservoir.The long winter period and very large hydraulic
capacity of the powerphmt would appear thoroughly adequate as provision
for reservoir draw down .
4.Fuel Conservation Aspects
The existing evaluation procedures do :r:ot provide specific recognition of
fuel conservation aspects of water power development except as purchase
cost of fuel is included in the evaluation of alternative costs or benefits.
From the viewpoint of the nation's energy economy,the development of
the hydro project provides a new source of power which is recognized
under NED objectives.It results in a net increase in national fuel supplies
because less energy would be taken from thermal plants over the life
of the hydro project.The actual fuel savings would include substantial
amounts of oil and natural gas immediately on completion of the project
and longer term savings of coal.
We believe it is quite well established that current and near future fuel
prices are generally below the probable long-term value of these fuels
to the nation,and to this extent the project benefits are understated.
In its benefit evaluation,FPC used coal prices of 60¢and 50¢per million.
Btu for the Fairbanks and Anchorage areas,respectively.In the APA
alternative power cost evaluation,the assumption is made of a price
range of $1.00 to $1.50 as 1985 coal cost in 1974 dollars (no inflation).
If the higher values are appropriate,and assuming no further increase
in real value of the fuels after 1985,project benefits will likely be on
the order of 5 to 10 mills per kilowatthour higher than indicated by the
FPC estimates.
We recognize that FPC procedures require use of current cost levels
in their benefit determinations.However,I am sure that all involved
recognize that the procedures were developed during a period when
fuel prices and real cost of energy in the economy were on a long-:term
down trend relative to other prices.
Sincerely yours,
Appendix II
4 ev{(fL~
Rob ert J.Cross .
Acting Arlministr3tor
I~~t:PLY REtLR 11"0:
700
United States Dcpartmen~of the Interior
ALASKA POWER ADMlt'lJSTRATJON
P.O.BOX 50 i
JUNEAU.ALASKA 99802
December 10 #1975
Oolonel Charles A.Debelius
Dilstrict Engineer
O:)rps of Engineers
BI:)x 7002
Aln.chorage.AK 99510
Dear Colonel Debelius:
The enclosed reports cover the Alaska Power Administration1s studies·
on power markets #operation and maintenance requirements,trans-
mi.ssion systems,and transmission sye tem environmental assessment
for the proposed Upper Susitna hydroelectric development.We
understand the AP A reports are to be included as portions of Technical
Appendix I for the Corps of Engineers report on the proposed project
with the following designation:
Appendix I,Part G.Report on Power Markets (including
estimates of proj ect operation.maintenance,and replacement
requirements).
Appendix I.Part H.Report on Project Transmission Systems.
Appendix I,Part I.Transmission System Environmental Assessment.
Authority
The AP A studies were prepared in support of the Corps of Engineers
evaluation of hydroelectric development of the Upper Susitna River
Bal;in in Alaska under a January 1972 study resolution by the U.S.
Senate Public Works Committee.Authorization for the AP A work includes
Sec:tion 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 concerning Interior Department
resiponsibilities for transmission and marketing of,power from Corps of
AppendiX II
5
Save Energy and You Serve A merical
2
Engineers projects,and the Act of Au gus t 9,1955,concerning Interior
Department investigations of Alaska water and power development
potential.The project plan was formulated in accordance with the
Alaska provisions of the Army-Interior Agreement of March 14,1962.
Plan of Development
The proposed plan of development includes the Watana dam and power-
plant with installed capacity of 792,000 kilowatts,followed by the
Devil Canyon dam and powerplant with installed capacity of 776.000
kilowatts,for a total capacity of 1,568,000 kilowatts.The Corps of
Engineers studies indicate the plan would have annual firm energy
potential of 6.149 billion kilowatt hours based on evaluation of critical
period water supply.Average annual energy production would be
6.85 billion kilowatt hours.The plan includes transmission lines to
the Anchorage-Cook Inlet area,and Fairbanks-Tanana Valley area,
and necessary switchyard and substations.The transmission facilities
are described below:
Transmission System Studies and Transmission
Environmental Assessment
The main elements of these studies were evaluation of alternative
corridors for locating proj ect transmission facilities,considering
environmental.engineering,reliability and cost aspects,and prepara-
tion of designs and cost estimates for transmission systems needed
for alternative project development plans.The corridor studies
concern general locations of facilities with actual route locations to be
determined in the more detailed studies following proj ect authorization.
It was concluded that the most desirable corridor locations would follow
existing surface transportation sys terns,rather than pioneering new
corridors for the transmissi~n facilities.
The transmission plan and cost estimate for the proposed hydro
development plan includes the following features:1)two single-circuit
Z3Q-kv lines from \'iatana to Devil Canyon (30 miles);2)two single-
circuit 230-kv lines from Devil Canyon to Fairbanks (198 miles),with an
intermediate switching station at Healy;3)two single-circuit 345-kv
lines to points on the North Shore of Knik Arm (136 miles),with an
intermediate substation in the vicinity of Talkeetna;4)switchyards at
the two powerplants;and 5)substations at Fairbanks.and in the Point
Mackenzie area.Estimated construction costs for the transmission
Appendix II
6
system are $256 million based on January 1975 price levels.It is esti··
mated that three years would be required for construction following
completion of the detailed route studies,final designs,and acquisition
of necessary rights-of-way.
The most serious conflicts in the final route selection will likely be
encountered in the Nenana Canyon route through the Alaska Range.The
Fish and Wildlife Service has recommended that a route west of the Parks
Highway be selected through the Nenana Canyon to minimize possible
conflicts with raptor habitat.Any route through the Canyon area would·
ilwolve lines visible from portions of 1.fount McKinley National Park and
the FWS proposal would place portions of the route within park boundaries.
A'PA considers use of the corridor through the Nen.ana Canyon will result
ill substantially less environmental damage than would the pioneering of
nlew corridors through the Alaska Range.
Additional conflicts are anticipated in final route selection along the
approaches to Anchorage because of the Knik Arm,.and topography,and
land use and ov-rnership patterns on possible routes around Knik Arm.
Cost estimates presented in this report assume delivery of project power
to points on the CEA transmission system north of Knik Arm.It is
rf~cognized that the detailed studies following authorization would need to
consider several alternative plans to transmit power across or around
Knik Arm to Anchorage.
Based on informal consultations with the State Archeologist,the corridors
Ulnder consideration involve known and potential archeological sites.
Archeological surveys would be needed as part of the final route studies.
Inadvertent discovery of an unsuspected site at a later stage would entail
either relocation of a line segment or salvage of the site under applicable
laws and regulations.
The initial plan does not include transmission facilities to serve the Copper
Valley area.Such facilities may be justifiable as a future stage of the
system.
Operation,Maintenance,and Replacement
APA's evaluation of annual costs,operation,maintenance,and replace-
ment are summarized on Exhibit 2 of the report on power markets.The
elstimates cover the full range of operations and marketing activities.
Annual "OM&R II costs for the proposed plan are estimated at $2,400,000
based on 1975 price and wage levels.
Appendix II
7
4
Power Market
The P;P A power market report includes our estimates of future area power
requirements,the portion of the requirements that might be served from
the Susitna Project.a review of available alternatives to hydro develop-
ment,and evaluation of repayment requirements.
As indicated below.we estimate that an average rate for firm energy
delivered at wholesale in the Fairbanks and Anchorage areas at 21.1
mills per kilowatt hour would be needed under present Federal repay-
ment criteria:
Devil Canyon Watana Total System
WS.Elevation
Completion date
Installed Capacity,MW
Annual Firm Energy,
billion kwh
Annual Secondary Energy,
billion kwh
Construction Costs.$1,000
Interest During Cons truc1i.on
$1,000
Total Investment,$1,000
Total Annual Costs,$1000
1,450
1990
776
3.05
432,000
2,200
1986
792
3.10
1,088.000
1,568
6.15
0.7
1,520,000
248,000
1,768,000
115,612
Assumed rate for secondary energy,mills/kwh
Required average rate for firm energy,mills/k-wh
10
21.1
These computations are premis.ed on January 1975 price levels and future
cost increase would be reflected in higher cost for project power.
Our review of alternative power sources indicates that the Susitna power
would be substantially more expensive than present power from natural
gas in the Cook Inlet area.but less expensive than alternative power
supplies from new coal-fired plants.It is APAls view that alternative
costs for power from coal-fired steamplants is an appropriate measure
of relative merit of the Upper Susitna proposal.
AppendiX II
8
5
Conclusions
This letter reflects the findings of the Alaska Power Administration and
does not represent a position by the In.terior Department on the Susitna
Project.
AP A considers the general corridor locations,the transmission plan and
estimates.and the operation.maintenance and replacement evaluations
appropriate for purposes of determining feasibility of the Upper Susitna
Pr~ject.From the viewpoint of power markets.the proposed development
plaJ'l including the Watana and Devil Canyon units appears feasible and
relCltively more attractive than the other alternative hydro development
plaJ'ls considered in the Corps studies.
We are not in agreement with the Corps'appraisal of the potential Denali
unit..and we believe that future studies may demonstrate that Denali is
a d«~sirable future addition to the proposed plan.
It is APArs view that the proposed plan of development,including Watana
and Devil Canyon units,is feasible frem the viewpoint of power market-
ing and repayment requirements.
Sincerely yours,
Acting Administrator
Enclosures
Appendix II
9
-----~-----,---~~----,--~~--;-------_......._----
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION
THE ALASKA RAILROAD
P.O.Box 7-2111
Anchorago.Alaska 99510
June 10,1975
Mr.Charles Welling
Economic Section,Corps of Engineers
Box 7002
Anchorage,AK 99510
Dear Mr.Welling:
You have requested information from us concerning possible benefits
that could be derived by the Railroad as a result of the construction
of a dam on the Susitna River.
One direct benefit would be a reduction in periodic damage to roadbed
and track during break up.Large ice jams would be eliminated,which
on previous occasions have caused flooding and washing out of grade
with a subsequent interruption in train service to Fairbanks.Average
damage of such a washout has run about $50,000.
A controlled flow of the Susitna would also reduce bank protection
work.It is estimated that a yearly expenditure of $50,000 is cur-
rently required to provide the necessary rip rap and revetment work.
Sincerely,
'J.t-qVf~t!4~
T.C.Fuglestad
Chief Engineer
Appendix II
10
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
.klneau Area Office
P.O.Box 3·8000
Juneau,Alaska 99802
IN REPLV REFER TO:
November 3)1975
Memorandum
To:O"istrict Engineer)Department of the Army
Anchorage
From:Alrea Di rector
Subject:Review of draft environmental impact statement for Hydroelectric
Development)Upper Susitna River Basin)Southcentra1 Rai1be1t
Area tAl as ka (ER 75/942)
General Comnents:
The document is presented in a good format so the document is readable
and easy to follow through.There appear to be provisions made to avoid
any future land conflicts under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.
Specific Comments:
We have no further comments.
Appendix II
11
United States Department of the Interior
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
State Office
555 Cordova Street
Anchorage.Alaska 99501
IN ~EPLV ~EFER TO
2650.11 (931)
MAR 13 1975
Mr.Lee Thompson
U.S.Army Corps of Engineers
Real Estate Divi~ion
P.O.Box 7002
Anchorage,Alaska 99510
Dear Mr.Thompson:
Since your telephone inquiry of February 19,1975,we have done some
research on the relationship between power site reserves and Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act withdrawals and have come to the following
conclusion.A 25-township withdrawal under section 11(a)(1)of the act
(PL 92-203,85 Stat.688)predominates over all other withdrawals except
National Park System and National Defense withdrawals.A deficiency
withdrawal under section ll(a)(3)of the act does not.
The reason for this difference is found in the differing authprities
under which the two types of withdrawals are made.The 25-township
withdrawals are by direct act of Congress "the following public lands
are withdrawn ••.II The deficiency withdrawals,however,are public
land orders signed by the Secretary of the Interior under a restricted
authority from Congress,"The Secretary shall withdraw three times the
deficiency from the nearest unreserved,vacant and unappropriated public
lands."J/(Emphasis added).The land within the power site reserve is
segregated from a deficiency withdrawal under ANCSA because it is "reserved
public land"and Congress did not give the Secretary the authority to make
deficiency withdrawals from reserved lands.
Whatthis all means is that Native villages and regions may select power
site land if it lies within their section ll(a)(l),25-township withdrawal,
but they may not se1ec~power site land from within a section 11(a)(3)
deficiency withdrawal.
Sincerely yours,
Append;x II
1211PL92-203,§ll(a)(l)II PL 92-203,I ll(a)(3)(A)
United States Department of the Interior
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
Anchorage District Office
4700 East 72nd Avenue
Anchorage,Alaska 99507
IN REPLY AEFEfit TO:
1780 (110)
JUL 1 5 1975
Mr.Henry Nakamura
Department of the Army
Alaska District
Corps of Engineers
P.O.Box 7002
Elmendorf AFB,Alaska 99510
Dear Mr.Nakamura:
Impacts of the proposed Devils Canyon,Watana Creek and Denali hydroelectric
power project on BLM lands,resources and programs is difficult to
access.The information necessary to do a thorough analysis of these
projects,simply isn't available.The reports of the impacts onthe
various resources drafted by our staff,briefly summarizes the basic
data that is available,recognizing that more detailed information is
necessary.
Management of the recreation activities which would be generated by
development of the proposed projects will also be an important con-
sideration.If the lands adjoining the future reservoirs go into·
private ownership,the on-the-ground recreation management responsi-
bilities may better be handled by an agency other than the BLM;the
State may be a good choice.However,in order to insure public access,
it is strongly recommended that the BLM,through whatever means pos-
sible,retain ownership of public access points to the lake.The actual
management,operation and/or ultimate ownership could rest with another
public agency after a more detailed cost effectiveness analysis were
undertaken.Naturally,if the adjacent lands remain in Federal ad-
ministration,we would be interested in developing and managing a
recreation program.With the present land status situation,it is
impossible to determine whether or not the adjoining lands will remain
in public ownership.
A more thorough analysis will be made during the impact statement review
process.
M
Sincerely,.
\...f 01.•~/.-
.t1t#.~Jt4 ~;fv~l'r
Donovan Yingst
Acting District Manager•Appendix II
13
.tlNITED ~JATES GOVERNMENT,
MemorandulJl
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
SUB.iECT,
FROM ,
TO
DATE:
Hydroelectric Pm"er Develo[Jment,Upper In reply
Susitna River Basin,Southcentral Railbelt Area,reler to,
Alaska
Secretarial Representative,Region 10
District Engineer
Corps of Engineers
Anchorage,Alaska
November 11,1975
Attached is the only comment received from DOT agencies on the
subject EIS.
~P .Regional Representative of the
Department of Transportation,Region 10
Attachment
Appendix II
14
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES COAST GUARD
MAIL-INO ADDRESS,
COMMANDER (do lJ
17TH COAST GUARD ISTRICT
FPC SEATTL.E "'7'
1 October 1975
From:Commander.Seventeenth Coast Guard District
•To:Secretarial Representative.Region 10,Seattle,~IA.
Attn:CAPT R.T.BROWER
Subj:Review of EIS for Hydroelectric Power Development,Upper
Susitna River Basin.Southcentral Railbelt Area.Alaska;
comment concerning
1.Subject EIS has been reviewed and the only significant Coast
Guardl impact would be the i'ncrease in recreational boating activity
on the newly created lakes behind the dams.No other areas of
Coast Guard interest were revealed.k __
&GRANTHAM
By di rl:!cti on
Appendix II
15 ~\~1li
CC'
----~------rl-·-------·-
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION
REGIONAL OFFICE
555 SATTERY STREET,ROOM 4 t 5
SAN FRANCISCO.CAL./F.9411 t
August 12,1975
Colonel Charles A.Debelius,District Engineer
Alaska District,Corps of Engineers
P.O.Box 7002
Anchorage,AK 99510
SUbject:Power Values for Devil Canyon -
Watana Project (Your NPAEN-DB-HY)
Dear Colonel Debelius:
In response to your letter o£17 April 1975 requesting subject
power values,we are furnishing the values shown following.The
power values are based on a January 1,1975 price level and public
non-federal and federal financing,the latter at 5-7/8%interest
rate.Public-nonfederally financed values were estimated using the
same methodology employed in c9mputed federal values except that
fixed charges were calculated using composite REA-municipal finan-
cing derived on the basis of the weighted-average of REA and
municipal electric utility net energy for loads in 1974.This
composite financing was computed at 6.25%interest rate for the
Anchorage-Kenai market area and 5.95~interest rate for the Fairbanks
market area.
HYdroelectric power values in both the Fairbanks and Anchorag~
Kenai markets delivered at the respective 138-kV receiving station
bus were estimated for average annual capacity factors of 45%and
51.8~.These capacity factors correspond to the peaking capability
and average annual energy output for Devil Canyon without upstream
storage and Devil Canyon with Watana.Peaking capability is esti-
mated to be 15 per:cent higher than the installed nameplate capacity.
As shown in our letter of l~rch 7,1975 regarding power values ·for
the Devil Canyon-Denali project,it was asswned that the output of
the proposed subject project would be delivered to the two market
aress,in 1985 and thereafter,in the ratio ot:25'f;to the Fairbanks
load area and 7510 to the Anchorage-Kenai load area.This approximate
division ot:load requirements is based on projected future power
requirements,using a mid-range growth rate,as shown in Table 12,
Total Power ReqUirements by Regions,1972-2000,of the May 1974
Report of the Alaska Power Survey Technical Advisory Committee on
Economic Analysis and Load Projections.This estimate was used in
sizing alternative steam-electric capacity.
Appendix II
16
-2-
As previously mentioned in our letter of May 9,1975,we
relriewed all of the factors which affected the subject study.
Da''-a which you,the Alaska Power Administration,utilities,and
ellectric equipment ma.nufacturers furnished were thoroughly analyzed
to determine ma.terial and construction costs in the Southcentral
arlee of Alaskb.
Fuel costs used &re based upon the best 1nf'orltk:J.tion available
pertaining to contrlict prices as 0"£the pricing level date.Among
the sources of inf'ormation are:the 19'(4 Alaska Power ~urvey Heport,s
of the Executive Aavisory Committee and the Technical Advisory Com-
mittee on Resources and Electric Power Generation;Southcentral
electric util1tyreports,datG,and personal contacts;various State
agencies;and several natural gas and coal producing companies.
The at-market power values eire shown below.The total value
is the sum of the value of project's dependable capacity and its
us,able energy.
VALUE OF PCMEll
~e of Financ!ng
Public-nonfedera1 11 Federal
(Price level of 1/1/75)
Market Area
45~Annwal Capacity Factor
Dependable Usable Dependable Us~hle-
Capacity Ener,y Capaci tY__~J1el'c-~~_
$!kw-yr.mills kWh $/kw-yr.rd.1l0\:\lh
Fairbanks
Anchorage-Kenai
Coal-fired Alternative
Combined Cycle Alternative
21.8'i'Annual Capacity Factor
Fairbanks
Anchorage-Kenai
Coal.-fired Alternative
Combined Cycle Alternative
11 Co~)osite REA and MUnicipal
96.95
86.15
46.89
7.84
5.36
6.37
87.54
74.14
41.14
88.88
75.12
42.00
5 .1~2
6.1;'3
.(.34
5.36
6.37
Appendix II
17
-3-
!'airbanks Power Values
The at-market power values for the Fairbanks area are based on
estimated costs of power from an alternative steam-electric source
described as follows:A coal-fired generating plant vith 150 MW total
capacity consisting oftvo 75 MW units;heat rate,12,000 Btu/kWh;
capital cost,$640 per kilowatt;service life,35 years;and coal cost
of 6o¢per million Btu.
For the Fairbanks area neither a combined cycle nor combustion
turbine alternative plant was considered due to:1)uncertain future
availability of natural gas and/or oil in sufficient quantities to use
as an operating fuel,and 2)the relatively abundant source of coal in
the Healy area.The power values include a 10%hydro-steam adjustment
made to at-market estimated capacity costs to credit the hydroelectric
plant with its greater operating reliability and fleXibility.
Anchorage-Kenai Power Values
The at-market power values for the Anchorage-Kenai area are based
on studies of the estimated costs of power from two alternative sources
as described folloving:
(l)Coal-fired generating plant with 450 1~total capacity
consisting of three 150 ~M units;heat rate,9800 BtU/kWh;
capital cost,$595 per kilowatt;service life,35 years;and
coal cost of 50¢per million Btu.
(2)Combined cycle generating plant with 450 1'<M total capacity
consisting of four 112.5 MW (100 MW nameplate)units (one
combustion turbine and one steam turbine per unit);heat rate,
8500 Btu/k\f.b;capital cost,$235 per kilowatt;service life,
30 years;and natural gas (operating)cost of 70¢per million
Btu and distillate oil (standby)cost of $1.75 per million Btu.
The estimates include 5'{,and 10'"hydro-steam adjustments made to
at-market estimated costs for the combined cycle and coal-fired
alternatives respectively.These adjustments credit the hydroelectric
plant with its greater operating reliability and flexibility.
Although for the Anchorage-Kenai area the combined cycle alter-
native plant is the more economically feasible of the two considered,
it is desirable to provide values for both alternatives.The Alaska
Power Survey indicates that natural gas could supply sufficient energy
to meet total State power requirements through the year 2000 and beyond.
Some utilities,gas producing companies,and state agencies question
the amount of natural gas reserves but acknowledge that reserve potential
exists.It is the policy of this Commission to discourage use of
AppendiX II
18
-4-
natural gas ~s an operating fuel for power generation in the
contiguous United States.Due to changes in requirements,other
Federal ~nd/or State agencies may impose restrictions on the fUture
usage of n~tural gas or oil for electric power generating purposes in
Ala.l:lka.Due to the uncertcdnty of the future availability of natural
gas after 19($5 for new generating capacity,the unf'oreseen possibility
of its restrictive use if available,and its sensitivity to worldwide
economic pressures,coal may be the most likely alternative fuel for
therml-electric plants to be constructed after 1985.The extensive
coal deposits near Cook Inlet are attractive future alternative sources
of energy for this region anp,could lel:id to options to convert from
oil and natural gas to coal as the major power source during the 1980's.
In fHlmmary,it is not readily apparent whether future generating plants
viD~use natural gas or coal as a primary fuel.Assuming either fuel
is f~uf'ficiently available,its use would then be dictated by not only
economics but future environmental constraints.Therefore,we are
prmriding power values for two alternate fuels -natural gas and coal.
DepEmdable Capacity
Dependable capacity of the project has been estimated ~sing
sUb~lect project critical period energy output as supplied in the
atulchments to your letter of 17 Apr:Ll 1975 and assuming power first
bec()mes available in 1985.On a calendar year basis,December was
detE~rmined to be the criticEll month -the month when maXimum other
capacity is required.Our load-resource studies show that the Devil
Ca~ron project without upstream storiage can be absorbed by the combined
Anchorage-Kenai and Ftdrbanks loads in 199::>.Devil ~nyon vi th Watana,
avajLlable in 1990,wouJ.d be usable in meeting combined ares loads
in 1993.Our estimate of the dependable capacity or the Devil Canyon-
Watsna project is shown on the attached table.
Very truly yours,
~._~~J~
K.Frank Thomas
Regional Engineer
At~:!chment
cc:North Pacific Div.
Corps or Engineers
Appendix II
19
------.-~--~---r__--'.---,--------
DEVIL CAHYON-WA~ANA PROJECT,ALASKA
Capacity Dependable on
Combined Anchorage-Kenai
and Fairbanks Axea Loads
Mfl
~985
86
87
88
89
1990
91
92
93 to end of
service life
117
21.3
328
449
575
765
932
lilO
1233 11
11 Equals 1l5~(600 +472)Mol
Appendix II
20
,(
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION
REGIONAL O,FFICE
555 BATTERY STREET,ROOM 415
SAN FRANCISCO.CALIF.94 t l'
August 20,1975
Lt.Colonel Joseph W.Hurst
Acting District Engineer
~skaD1strict,Corps of Engineers
P.O.Box 7002
Anchorage,AK 99510
Su"!Jject:Power Values for De vi.1 ~nyon-Watana
Project (Your NPAEN-DB-HY)
Dear Colon~l Hurst:
In response to the request in sour letter of August 11,1915,
pover IItllues for the Devil Canyon-Hatana Project based on Federal
Interest Rate or 6-1/8%are furnished below.The pri~e level of
January 1,1975 and all other considerations described in our
J.etter of August 12,1975 remaj~n unchanged.
At-Market Value of Hydroelectric Power
Federal Financh
Market Area
45!Annual Capacity F;;actor
Fairbanks
bIlchortlge-Kenai
Coal-fired Alternative
Combined.Cycle nlternaGive
51.8~Annual Capacit;r Factor
Fairbanks
Anchorage-Ktnai
Coal-fired Alternative
Combined CYcle Alternative
Price .Level of
Dependable
Capacity
~/lf.W-yr.
90.84
16.11
42.79
Appendix II
21
Yours very truly,
"':hv~:r~~~
M.Frank Thomas
Regional Engineer
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION
REGIONAL.OFFICE
555 BATTERY STREET,ROOM 415
SAN FRANCISCO,CALIF.94111
December 4,1975
Colonel Charles A.Debelius
District Engineer
Alaska District,Corps ofE;ngincers
P.O.Box 7002
Anchorage,Alaska 99510
Dear Colonel Debelius:
We have reviewed your Draft ~nvironmental Impact statement on the
HYdroelectric Development Upper Susitna River Basin,Southcentral Railbelt
Area,Alaska,dated September 1975.
These comments of the San Francisco.Regional Office of the Federal
Power Commission's Bureau of Power are made in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969,and the August 1,1973,Guidelines of the
Council on Environmental Quality.
Our comments are primarily directed toward the need for power that
would be produced by the Upper Susitna Development,the alternative power
sources,and the fuel situations relative to non-hydroelectric power
alternatives.
The recommended plan is to construct dams and power plants at the
Watana and Devil Canyon sites and electric transmission facilities to the
Railbelt load centers.The proposed plan for the Watana site would include
the construction of an BIO-foot high earthfill dam and power plant which
would contain three Francis turbines with a nameplate capacity of 250 Mif
each.'Ihe firm annual generation would be 3.1 billion kWh.Development of
the Devil Canyon site would include a 635-foot high thin-arch dam and power
plant with four Francis turbines,each rated at 180 MW.The firm annual
generation would be 3.0 billion kWh with regulated streamflow from Watana
storage.The electrical power generated would be transmitted to the
Fairbanks -Tanana Valley and the Anchorage -Kenai peninsula areas.The
recommended development is shown to be economically feasible.
Appendix II
22
- 2 -
,....-'(l)'Ihe Need for Power
We agree with and endorse the subject report's assertion in Section 2.04
that substa.ntial amotmts of new generating capacity will be needed to meet
future power requirements of the Southcentral Railbelt area.Recent studies
of the Southcentral and Yukon region (which includes the Southcentral Rail-
belt as its main component),as defined in the 1974 Alaska Power Survey Report
of the Executive Advisory Committee,indicate that rapid rates of increase
in power requirements will continue at least for the balance of the 1970's,
reflecting economic activity associated with.North Slope oil development
and expansion of commercial and public services.Estimates beyond 1980
reflect a range of assumptions as to the extent of future resources use and
industrial and population growth.All indications are that accelerated
growth will continue through the year 2000,with economic activity generated
by North Slope oil and natural gas development being a major factor -but
only one of several important factors.It is generally considered that the
Southcentral-Yukon regional population will continue to grow at a faster
rate than the national and state averages,that future additional energy
systems and other potential mineral developments will have a major effect,
and that there will be notable expansion in transportation systems.Signi-
ficant economic advances for all of Alaska and especially for the Alaska
Native people should be anticipated as a result of the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act.Other influencing factors could be cited,but the general
outlook is for further rapid expansion of energy-and power requirements in
the Southcentral-Yukon area.
A ranf;e of estimates for future power requirements of the Southcentral
and Yukon regions is presented in the 1974 Report of the Alaska Power Survey
Technical Advisory Committee on Economic Analysis and Load Projections.The
range of estimates attempts to balance a myriad of controlling factors
including costs,conservation technologies,available energy sources,types
of Alaskan development,et cetera.The higher growth range anticipa.tes
significant new energy and mineral developments from among those that appear
more promising.The lower growth range generally assumes an unqualified
slackening of tIle pace of development follo~nng completion of the Alyeska
pipeline and,in our opinion,is not considered realistic.'Ihe mid-range
growth ratE!appears to be a reasonable estimate which we adopt as most repre-
sentative based on recent manifestations and our assessment of future condi-
tions.It should be noted that there are several responsible advisory committee
members who feel that recent acceleration of mineral raw material shortages
.of all kinds indicates a possibility that even the high range estimates
could be e~:ceeded.Table 1,which is a condensed extract of information
contained in the a.forementioned advisory corrnnittee report,summarizes load
estimates f~r the Southcentral and Yukon Regions.Indicated load increments
by decade ~~e as follows:
Appendix II
23
- 3 -
Increments of Southcentral-Yukon Power Requirements
1972-1980
Peak Annual
Demand Energy
H'iv GWh
1980-1990
Peak Annual
Demand Energy
Jv1W ffifu
1990-2000
Peak Annual
Demand Energy
MW Gltlh
1972-2000
Peak .Annual
Demand Energy
MW GWh
l~460 28 110
Righer
Estimate
M:l.d-Range
888
638
4 623
3 093 930 4 570
2 800 13 070
1 950 10 240
8 148 45 803
3 518 17 903
According to the SUbject report,a total of 6100 GWh of firm annual
energy would be produced by the combined Devil ca.nyon-Watana system which
would have a nameplate capacity of 11~70 Mll.Although the report does not
indicate proposed commercial operation dates,based on information in our
files the project would be staged and the initial Devil canyon installation
(3000 GWh and 720 IvlW)could become operable in 1985 and the ultimate installa-
tion in 1990.Under this timetable it is apparent that there is a need for
power in the Southcentral-Yukon Region by 1985 and 1990 in the order of mag-
nitude of at least as much as the proposed subject development.Therefore,
operation of the proposed project would help meet the po~~r needs of the
Southcentral Railbelt area by 1985 and beyond.
(2)Alternative Power Sources and ~uel Situation
Our recent estimate of power values for the Devil Canyon-Watana project
indicates that the most economical alternative to the project's output would
be power from a combined cycle generating plant using natural gas as an operat-
ing fuel.We ac1mowledge the SUbject report's premise that there are many
questions concerning future availability and costs of natural gas and oil
for power production.It is the policy of this Commission to discourage use
of natural gas as an operating fuel for power generation in the contiguous
United states.Due to changes in requirements,other Federal and/or stat.e
agencies may impose restrictions on the future usage of natural gas and oil
for electric power production throughout Alaska.Recognizing the undertainty
of the future availability of natural gas and oil after 1985 for new generat-
ing capacity,the possibility of its restrictive use if available,and its
sensitivity to worldwide pressures,coal may be the most likely alternative
fuel for thermal-electric plants to be constructed in the mid-1980'S and beyond.
Essentially,we agree with the discussion of alternative sources of power in
paragraphs 6.02.1 -6.02.10 of the subject report.
AppendiX II
24
- 4 -
(3)other Alternatives to the Proposed Action
The Corps I DElS discusses several.potential alternative hydroelectric
developments within the Southcentral Railbelt Area.All of these alternativE
either have a greater adverse environmental impact than the proposed plan,
or are not considered feasible at the present time.
Very truly yours,
j:(~,?/t/~f!f/JZYd-eI::(;/(Deputy)
M.~'RANK THOMAS
(Acting)Regional Engineer
Attachment
(1'able 1)
Appendix II
25
.,,,,,,,,,lb'
<,.
TAGLE 1
Total PO\.;cr RcClu;rcmcnts
Southcentra1 and Yukon RGg;ons l!
)::>
"'0
"'0
I'D
::::::;
No..
O'l ~.
X
Actua 1 Requi rements,Estimated,Future Requ;rements____
1-1
1-1
Region
'.19.12
Pea~"AnnuaT
D2m~nd'Energy
r,jl,'!"G'~/h'--
1980
Peak Annual
Demand Energy
~·~'l G\-!h
1990
Peak Annual
Demand Energy,
!\i\~GI'lh
2000
Peak Annual
Demand Energy
~I\~G\'fh
Higher Rate of Growth __
31 7 1 4·65 990 5 020
330 1..610 1 390 7 000
7 190 40 810
47 8108·580
5 020 30 760
760 _ 3 980
5 780 34 7406630..1 320
542
2 007432
115Yukon(Interior)
Tota 1
SCl1thcentra1
Likelx Mid-Range Growth Rate
Southcentra1 790 3 790 ·1 530 7 400 3 040 1:;3r)nv.......J
.4."
Yukon (I nteri or)280 1 310 470 2 270 910 t.''1'''''.0 ',J
Tota 1 1 070 5 100 2 000 9 670 3 950 1"0'''';;'"I J
11 As defined in the 1974 Alaska PO\I/er Survey
TO:.
FROM:
SUBJ:
DRAFT---
Mr.Vernon K.Hagen
Office of Chief of Engineers
Corps o~Engineers
Forrestal Bldg.,Rm.5-F-039
Washington,D.C.20314
John T.Riedel
Chief,Hydrometeorological Branch
Tentat:i.ve Estimates of Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP)and Snowmelt
Criter:i.a for Four Susitna River Drainages
Introd\JLction
The Office of Chief of Engineers,Corps 0'£Engineers requested PMP and
snowmelt criteria for the subject drainages in a memorandum to the
Hydrometeorological Branch,dated December 12,1974.The Alaska District
requested the study be completed by February 1,1975i however,a more
realistic date for completing a study in which ~e have'confidence is
June 1,1975.Because of the Deed to soon begin hydrologic studies
based on meteorological criteria,the Branch has concentrated on the
probl~n and has determined the general level of criteria.A range of PMP
values are given in this memorandum within ·,..hich we believe values from
a more comprehensive study will fall.The sequences of snowmelt winds,
temper.!tures,and dew points should be checked ~ith additional studies.
In addItion,if we knew in detail hoW'sno.....~elt will be computed,we could
give em.phasis to the more important elements.
PMP estimates for four drainages
A range of estimates of P}W for 6,24,and 72 hours for four
drainages outlined on the map accompanying the December 12,1974 memorandum
a-re listed in table 1.These are nuobered from 1 to 4 (smallest to largest).
Appendix II
27
r-~-------------
-2-
The estimates are for the months of August a=C September -the season
of greatest rainfall potential.For the sn~~lt season.multiply the
estimates by 70 percent.
The estimates take into account numerous cocsi~erations including several
methods of modifying PMP estimates made preYi~~ly for other Alaska
drainages.and PMP estimates from the Weste=.n :~ited States for areas
with similar terrain.
Appendix II
28
-)-
Temperatures and Dew Po~~ts for Snowmelt.
A.During PMP Storm
1.Dew point for PMP centered on June 1.5 ...56°F (assume maximum I-day PMP
i,n middle of 3-day storm).
2.Flor PMP placement prior to June 15 s-~tract 0.8°1"for each 3-day
period prior to June 15 (e.g.the ~dew point for June 12 will be
55.2°p).This ~0.8°F per 3-days may be applied to obtain the maximum
I-day dew point during the PMP back to as early as May 15.
3.For first day of PMP storm,subtract 1°F from criteria of ~for 3rd
day of PMP storm subtract 2°F.
4.Add 2°F to each of the three daily cev points to get daily temperatures
for the 3-day PMP period.
B.TempE!ratures and Dew Points Prior to 3 4 .:;)ay PMP Storm (High dew point case)
Day I)rior
to PMP----
2ci
4:th
Adjustment to teroperature and dew point on
day of max.bcJa p~
~
Temperature (°F)
-2
-1
o
+1
Dew point (el)
-2
-4
-4
-5
Appendix II
29
-4-
c.Temperatures.Dew Points Prior to 3-day PMP
(High temperatu=e case)
Adjustment of temperature and dew point on
day of maximu:a PMP
Day prior
to PMP
1st
2d.
3rd
4th
Temperature (oF)
+1
+2
+4
+7
-12
- 9
- 7
- 6
Elevation Adjustment
c-:"e.
For the 3 days of PMP and for the high dew point~\apply a -3°F per 1000 ft
to the temperatures and dew points.The basic criteria are considered applicable
to 1000 mb or zero elevation.
For the high temperature criteria apply a -4 D F per 1000 ft increase 1n
elevation.
Half-day Values
If half-day values are desired for te~eratures and dew points.the
following rules should be followed:
1.For the hi~h-temperature sequence,apply an 18°F spread for
temperatures and a 6°F spread for dew point.Por example,for a mean
daily dew point of 50°F.the half-day values woulc be 41°F and 53°F.
2.For the high dew point case.apply a 12 D
:spread for temperature
and a 4°F spread for dew point.
Appendix II
30
-~
3.In no case,however,should a 12-=:d~.point be used that exceeds
the I-day value for that date.For examp'~,the value not to be exceeded
for June 15 is 56°F,for June 3 (four 3~?eriods before June 15)is
Appendix II
31
-6-
Uind Criteria for Snowmelt
Since two sets of criteria (one emphasizing high temperature and the
other high dew point sequences)are given for snowmelt prior to PMP.
two sets of wind criteria are also necessary since the pre-PliP synoptic
situation favoring high temperatures differs from the criteria favoring
high dew points.The recommended winds.tables 2 and 3.are given by
elevation bands.In the high dew-point case,table 2.(where synoptic
exist
conditionsAfavoring maritime influences prior !£PMP),the same wind
for 4-days prior to PMP is appropriate.
All of the winds presented in tables 2 and 3 have been adjusted for
applicability over a snow surface.Although a seasonal variation in the
high dew point wind criteria is realistic for the present tentative
criteria.they are considered applicable to May and June.
Snowmelt Winds During the PMP
Wind criteria for the 3-day PMP are the same for both the high
temperature and high dew point sequences.They are shown in table 4.
Appendix II
32
"'''''.....-------......-_............-------------_....-.........._...-------_.....;,..,,;;..;.;,;..;.;,----
-7-
Snow Pack Available for Melt
Some work was done in determining the m,ean and maximum October-April
precipitation of record for the available precipitation stations.
These stations and other data are tabulated in table 5.The drainages
and available stations are shown in figure 1.
Table 5 also shows the years of record available for October-April
prec:f.pitation,as well as a column labeled "synthetic October-April
precipitation.rr This gives the sum of the greatest October,greatest
Novenmer,etc.,to the greatest April preci?1tation total from the
available record.These synthetic October-~rU precipitation values
and the means are plotted on figure 1.
Apprc)ximately 9 years of snow course data ce available for 14 locations
in and surrounding the Susitna drainage.From these records,the greatest
watel~equivalents were plotted on a map.'!"::ese varied from a low of
6 inc::hes at Oshet~a Lake (elevation 29.50 ft)to an extreme of 94.5 inches
at Gulkana Glacier,station C (elevation 6360 ft).A smooth plot of all
maxilna against elevati.on gave a method of deter.rlning depths at other
elevations.Figure 2 shows resulting smooth water equivalents based on
smoothed elevation contours and this relation.
Some additional guidance could be obtained ==oa mean annual precipitation
maps.One such map available to us is in ~\OAA Technical Memorandum NWS
AR-IO,"Mean Monthly and Annual Precip1tath--n,Alaska.rr The mean annual
of this report covering the Susitna drainage is shown in figure 3.
Appendix II
33
-----"'--_._------,-------
-8-
Also on this figure is shown the mean runo=f for three portions of
the Susitna River drainage based on the years of re~ord shown.No
adjustment has been made for evapotranspirarion or any other losses.This
indicates that the actual mean annual prec~?itat~~n is probably greater
than that given by NWS AR-IO.
Conclusion.Time hasn't allowed checks,e7a1uation,and comparison of
~
the several types of data summarized here.It appears the "synthetic
October-April precipitation"generally is ?-~ss tr--an the maximum depths
over the drainages based on snow course neasur~cs.There depths,or
figure 2,would be considered the least that couli be available for melt
\
in the spring.
Further Studies
The variation of precipitation with terrai~feat~~es in Alaska is important
but yet mostly unknown and unstudied.Mor~effor:should be placed on
attempts to develop mean annual or mean seasonal ?recipitation maps,at
least for the region of the Susitna River.S~e 10 years of data at about
a dozen or so snow courses could be used ~this attempt,as well as
stream runoff values.
Some work has been done toward estimating ~~depth-area-duration
values in the August 1967 storm;an important in~t to the present
estimates.Attempts should be made to car=y out a complete Part I and
Part II for this storm,although data are S?arse ~d emphasizing the use of
streamflow as a data source.
Appendix II
34
-9-
The objective of these two studies with regard to the Susitna drainages
is to attempt a better evaluation of to~aphic effects,and to make
a better evaluation of snow pack avai~la for melt.
Stud)'of additional storms could give ~~e important conclusions and
guid~~ce on how moisture is brough~u?~e Cook Inlet to the Talkeetna
Mountains and how these mountains effect the moisture.
Sno~!elt criteria in this quick study is licited to 7 days.Considerably
more work needs to be done to extend tl1is to a longer period.Then we
would need to emphasize compatability 0=a large snow cover and high
templ!ratures.More known periods of b.:l.~snowmelt runoff need to be
stud:led to determine the synoptic val~es of the meteoroloKical parameters.
Appendix II
35
--------~-""-------~-----~--"_.-T
-10-
Table 1
General level of PMP est~tes for 4
Susitna River drainages
Drainage
Number
1
2
3
4
Area
(S9 mi)
1260
4140
5180
5810
12-hr PMP
(in.)
9-12
7.5-10.5
7';'9
7-9
For 24-hr PMP,multiply 72-hr value by 0.60.
For 6-hrPMP,multiply 72-hr value by 0.30.
PMP for intermediate durations may be obt~ed from a plotted smooth
curve through the origin and the 3 values ~cified.
Table 2
Snowmelt \-.rinds precedingl'MP for Susi::la Basins
for high dew point sequenee
Elevation
(ft)
sfc
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10,000
Dai1y ~~d speed.
(::roh)
8
9
U
18
25
34
36
31
39
40
42
*For each of the 4 days preceding the 3-eay ~.
Appendix II
36
@$£
-11-
/~;,
Table 3
Snowmelt winds preceding ~)for Susitna Basins
for high temperature sequence
Daily Yind speed (mph)
Elevation (ft)~prior to 3-day PMP
1st 2nd 3rd ~
sfc 10 13 4 4
1000 10 13 4 4
2000 11 14 5 5
3000 12 16 5 5
4000 13 16 6 6
5000 13 17 6 6
6000 14 18 6 6
7000 15 20 6 6
8000 16 20 7 7
9000 16 20 7 7
10,000 17 21 7 1
Table 4
Winds during 3-day PMP
'Wind speed (mph)
Day of Day of 2nd Day of 3rd
E1ev2Lt ion (ft)maximum p~highest PMP highest PMP
sfc 12 9 8
1000 14 10 9
2000 19 14 12
3000 29 21 18
4000 ·42 31 27
5000 56 42 36
6000 58 44 38
7000 62 46 40
8000 64 48 41
9000 68 51 44
f"""""10,000 70 52 45
Appendix II
37
Table 5
Stations with Precipitation Records in and surrounding the
:t:>
Susitna Drainage
u
l:l Mean Number(0
~Yrs of record for Maximum of months for Synthetic ..Meanwe..co -'.complete Oct.-Apr.obs.Oct-Yr of synthetic Oct.-Oct.-Apr.Oct.-Apr.x
......Station Elevation precipitation Apr.prec •Maximum hR,r.season precipe Precipe......(ft.)(in.)(in.)(in.)
Susitna Meadows 750 4 17.18 70-71 4 23.18 13.77
Gu1kana 1572 18 6.77 56-57 18 12.68 4.19
Paxson 2697 2 8.42 43-44 6 14.25 7.64
Trims Camp 2408 3 23.26 59-60 5 35.82 15.3
Summit 2401 19 14.09 51 ...52 20 26.59 7.93
Tolkoctnn 3/15 35 21.17 29-30 37 40.59 12.26
Sheep Mountain 2316 13 11.91 59-60 12 18.42 4.78
....
N.
)
/
))
Figure l.--Drainage outlines and October-April precipitation in inches.
(Upper values -synthetic October-April precipi~ation;
Lower •mean October-April precipitation.)-------------
1"I,j?.
fRZ$~'1
7°.'
rr·-.1~Afl,e
11.,7)0,1 -,I,
(JII!.-t If,,",lit
4-•.z...,.;..~",.ff-.l,
]).8
-(it",.s C.
/.1",J
(4:-(,
'-r'c,"
"1...1
r)
I
,/
(I
~(
"--"
I \-
.("'->',.__..(.i
/ \....t i ,.!
--;/
t {t.'*.}
/..,.",'Pi cr
I~(?+,.,
.............
1)~".\,1-\
(J /,.1,'JV',I)
f"
)::0
U
U
CD
~
(.oJ 0-
1.0 ......
X
I-
-."Ol~I...}f\~
1'tII\fll
,,;..'
Appendix II
40
~
~
........
J
,.,)'-t
~
0 i+
r1
"t
\j"
\~
~
()
..........
"
t:t
~
.
i('-
..
CIl
..
~
CLI.c:
~u;;
'"
t.':~
':)
...
~
).
-
r'
lI-l
lI-l
0
§
501
~
CLI
501
I.J
CO
"'Cl
J:::
I
III
\
J:::
0
'"!
...
III...
'"~
'"U
CLI,...
~
.-I
III
:J
J:::
fa
\
~
oS
\
.....
• II
I
.
M
CLI
501
='~
~
4Ol.
'"'»00\~,,)
-'"....
'"
'-...J.:.
~~,+
Appendix II
41
~.........--------~--"',--'---
TEN NOST SEVERE STOR."1S IN UPPER SUSITNA
BASIN SINCE 1961
Year
1962
1963
1964
1965
1967
1971
Date of Storm
June 13-15
July 16-18
*June 10
i<June 20-27
*June 26-28
*July 12-15
July 18-22
Aug 9-16
June 29-30
July 12-17
Aug 1-10
Date of Flows Over
35,000 cfs at Gage
June 11 to June 24
July 7 to 18
June 1 to 22
June 1 to 22 .
June 28 to June 29
July 13 to July 14
July 20 to 22
Aug 13 to 19
June 23 to July 1
July 15 to 16
Aug 8 to 15
NOTES:(1)Heather Stations
The Gr:lcious House
Summit fAA
HcKinely P.ark
Trims Camp
(3)*=Used SurnriJit FAA only
Appendix II
42
(2)U.S.G.S.Gage
Susitna River at Gold Creek
(,
I I i;\\
I
I !(~
'I I /J'\\I I
I \I i 1 ,\1 I ,,.~,,;\\i \,JAY S.HAMMOND,GDYERNDR:I I I \I i I I .),Ii\!I }\,\,\I j I !J \
Olr.'ICE 01-'TilE t.OVEUNOll /
I
ALASKA CNCRGY OFfiCC /
6 October,1975
Colonel Charles A.Debelius
u.s.Army Corps of Engineers
Gentlemen:
338 OCNAli STREET -ANCHORAGE 99501
PHONE:907272·0527
The Alaska State Energy Office,within the Office of the Governor,
appreciates the importance of the possible development of the
Upper Susitna River hydro-electric potential.We also appreciate
the opportunity to express a point or two concerning this matter.
Before final approval of the two dams now being considered,the
Devil's Canyon and the Watana,is made we feel quite strongly that
a net-energy-benefit analysis should be prepared and circulated for
study and corrUllent.How much energy will be consumed in the con-
struction,operation,and maintenance of these dams,including the
entire system and other costs such as rerouting highways?How
does that compare with the energy it will produce?Is that ratio
worth attaining?These questions need to be addressed and answered.
Sincerely
w~(.tn~e~
William C.McConkey -:-
Director
WMc/mgf
Append;x II
43
323 E.4TH A\'fNUE
AHOfORAGE 99501
DEI-AIITMENT OF NATUIIAL JIESOtJlICES
DIVISION OF PARKS
April 4,1975
RE:2425
Colonel Charles A.Debelius
Corps of Engineers,Alaska District
Department of the Army
P.O.Box 7002
Anchorage,N(99510
Dear Colonel Debelius:
/
JAY S.HAMMOND,Covernor
Reference is made to your letter of March 18,1975 and our response
dated March 19,1975 concerning the cooperative aspects of the planning
and development of a recreation program for the proposed Devil's Canyon
Hydroelectric Project and related impoundments.This letter will serve
as a declaration of intent on our part to provide the necessary local
participation at said project,as required under the Federal Hater
Project Recreation Act,Public Law 89-72,to the extent set forth
hereafter:The State of Alaska would:
1.Administer project land and water areas for recreational
purposes.
2.~vith legislative approval,contribute in kind,pay,or repay
with interest,1/2 of the separable cost for recreation facilities
and specific recreation lands,in accordance with the Federal
Hater Project Recreation Act of 1965.
3.Operate and maintain said recreation facilities.
At this very preliminary stage of planning,we recognize that the
proposed projects have the potential for fulfilling a portion of the
significant deficits of recreation facilities within the Southcentral
and Interior regions of Alaska.Furthermore,we recognize the very
general and tentative nature of the recreation program identified here
with respect to congressional authorization for further study and
funding,and the capability of future state budgets to support such
endeavors.
It is our understanding t~t more definitive yecreation a~ea and site
planning would follow project authorization by congress,and based on
this,formal contract agreement could become possible between our
Appendix II
44
1
Colonel Charles A.Debelius
April 4,1975
Page 2
respective agencies.Furthermore,it is our understanding that this
letter of intent does not bind the State of Alaska to any future formal
contract agreement with the Corps of Engineers.
Due to the very limited staff of the Division of Parks,we can provide
only limited comment and input during this pre-authorization stage of
planning.However,if authorized,the project will be of great interest
to the state and at that time we would wish to discuss a formal recreation
contract agreement.
Sincerely,
f~\I~
Direc:tor
cc:Guy R.Hartin,Commissioner
Department of Natural Resources
NCJ:krm
Appendix II
45
DEI•.;\.IlT~IEN'T 01:X.;\.TIJIl.;\.I~IU':SOIJIU~I~S
OWlS/ON Of PARKS
June 4,1975
Re:2425
Colonel Charles A.Debelius
Corps of Engineers,Alaska District
Department of the Army
P.O.Box 7002
Anchorage,Alaska 99510
Dear Colonel Debelius:
JAr S.HAMMOND,GOVERNOR
121 E.4TH AVENIlE -ANCHORAGE 99501
../
The Division of Parks has reviewed the April 1975 draft copy of the
"Recreation Resource Appendix for Devil's Canyon Interim Feasbility
Study",by Don Geil,and we offer the following comments.Generally,
the report appears adequate;however,it should be pointed out that
Section 5.01 (Basic Assumptions)is not an accurate statement of the
intent of the Division of Parks.
Although the Division of Parks is interested in operating the recreational
aspects of the Devil's Canyon Project,we do not consider the area as
"an extension of Denali State Park".We see Devil's Canyon more as an
independently operated State Recreation Area.Undoubtedly there will be
a close relationship between Denali State Park and Devil's Canyon,but
the purposes of a state park are different from those of a Recreation
Area.It is our feeling that since Devil's Canyon will be subject to
significant man-made disturbance that the classification of Recreation
Area is the only definition which can be applied to this project.
The projected visitor use and recommended development plan for the pro-
ject,although in a very conceptual stage,appear reasonable.
We appreciate the opportunity to review this draft document and look
forward to continuing communication with the Corps of Engineers on this
project.
Sincerely,
I I ,.l C L1'·-r '.
RUSSELL W.CAHILL
Dire<;,tor \{~'\.\<'\...>('-;.\\}j\\C -1'\•.
, \,~r>."VI \i •(~"/'"""C r -~l...,,\,:\/,v \.,'\.-..e.A/__._..._....
By:Neil:,C.Johannsen
Park Planner I
NCJ:cb
AppendiX II
46
~VmV[@w ml~~~m /MrUA'M~U_
OFFICE OF TilE GO'9EUXOn I
SrArr I'OliCY DEVElDPMCNT AN'O PLANNINC /POUCH AD -JllftlCAU 99811
June 9,1975 fW#tIf •.,,6rP
H.W.HolHday
Chief,En~lineering Divi sion
Department of the Army
Alaska District
Corps of Engineers
P.O.Box 7002
Anchorage,Alaska 99510
Subject:Southcentral Rai Ibelt Hydroelectric Power Study
State I.D.No.75041804
Dear Mr.Holliday:
The Alaska State Clearinghouse has completed review on the subject project.
The following agencies were invited to review and comment:
State of Alaska
Department of Community &Regional Affairs
Department of Economic Development
Department of Envi ronmental Conservation
Department of Fi sh &Game
Department of Highways
Department of Law
Department of Natural Resources
Division of Lands
Division of Parks
Department of Public Works
Alaska Energy Office
Office of Comprehensive Health Planning
Seven of the above agencies responded.
The Department of Community &Regional Affair's stated:
In short,the brochure is designed to be a pUblic opinion questionnaire andan"imnouncement that a study is in progress.The information presented is
mSlJffieient to warranCcomments on the quality'of the study or on the effects the
proposed Upper Susitna River hydroprojiect will have on this Department's
operations.We do have some study content recommendations.
The!Corps has conducted an II inventory and evaluation of the cnvi ronmental,
esthetic and recreational resources of the Susitna Riverll •Howlwer,this
lnfolrmation is only avai lable for review at the Anchorage office.A task team
AppendiX II
47
------r-~~----------------
Mr.Holliday -2-June 9,1975
has also been organized to "evaluate environmental,economic,engineering
and social aspects of hydropower development of the Upper SusitnaRiver
as well as possible alternatives".This team is responsive to questions,but
there is little published information for review and comment.
We welcome,indeed request,an opportunity to review and comment on a draft
and final copy of the study.For this Department to determine the quality of the study
and the possible effects of the proposed hydropmjects on our operations,
at least the following concerns must be addressed in detai I:
I.Effect on Community Growth and Development:
Development or nondevelopment of additional electric generation capacity
is a policy issue which must be resolved at all levels of government.A
decision not to expand generation capacity will tend to slow population
growth and community development.Whereas the amount of power developed
and construction schedule can be varied to meet existing and anticipated
needs or to serve as a catalyst for increased population and industry growth.
Information on the impacts of the various power development and construction
schedule alternatives should be available to decision-makers.Direct
impacts such as population changes and increased traffic associated with
project construction as well as secondary impacts such as housing shortages,
demand for municipal services and changes in the natural envi ronment due
to community growth (or Jack of growth).
2.Alternatives to the Devi I Cany -.')j ects:
The U.S.Senate Public Works Committee resolution specifica Ily requested
the study on the Devil Canyon and associated projects.Thus,there is an
inherent pro-hydroelectric bias which may overshadow other alternatives.
This bias can be seen in the brochure.The only detailed information presented
is related to the Devil Canyon projects.The quality of the final study will
depend on how much consideration is given to alternatives.To adequately
comment on the Devil Canyon projects,we need to see more information on
the 'alternatives.
The Department of Economic Development stated:
Hydropower is one of several energy resources available to the Southcentral
region.If developed,it can free fossil fuels far export or for their petro-
chemical values.The total energy equivalent of capital costs and materials
for dam construction should be evaluated.Net energy production should
be positive and preferebly high.
Sauthcenta-al Alaska has both the energy potential and the developed frame
work for surface transportation to market.The threat of over production
of energy seems highly unlikely,especially if hydropower and fossi I fuel
energy can be interfaced to provide for both industrial and residential
needs.The region compares well with many industrial nations.
Appendix II
48
Mr.Holliday -3-June 9,1975
ThE!final decision should depend on careful study of the total energy
equivalent of the investment in capital and materials.The proposal area
appears to be favorable with conside.-ation for game crossing and phased
construction.An optimum energy -envi ronmental mix should be feasible.
A series of low dams may yield a bettet-balance with lower drawdown re-
quirements and more niodest construction costs.The sequence could develop
over time to grow with requirements and market --with the plan with the
best total b~lance.
Cost estimates should be supplied to give the public a better idea of the funding
pro1blem and a compat-;son of this··between planning choices.(As against
Btu equivalents of the power potential.)
The Depalrtment of Environmental Conservation stated:
We have no comments on the reiterated infol-mation in this study.
The Department of Law stated:
Thl:!corps should be commended for developing and using this means of
incorporating public and outside opinions into its planning at an ear-Iy
date.
The Department of Public Works stated:
We are firmly on record in favor of this project and its impact oli public
wOlrks.
The Alas~(a Energy Office stated:
The Alaska Energy Office fully supports the Southcentral Railbelt Hydroelectric
Power Study now being conducted by the Army COI-pS of Engineers.Focusing
on the hydropower potential of the Upper Susitna River,this feasibility study
also provides an excellent opportunity to investigate other energy resource
alternatives in the area.
In 1985,the estimated demand for power in the railbelt area,which contains
OVE~r 75%of the state's population will be around 7,000 million kilowatt hours
per'year.Existing power plants are not capable of meeting this demand;
therefore,in order for these future needs to be met,it is imperative that
consideration and advance planning take place now.The feasibility study
by the Corps provides an excellent oppourtunity to evaluate notonly hydropower
bUll other energy resource options available in the region as well.
Th,e Alaska Energy Office is fi rmly committed to the premise that the policy
of ~=ontinued Alaskan dependence on "non-renewable"fossil fuels must be
reE!valuated.This is because the present traditional energy resources
(coal,oil,and natural gas).are not unlimited and we must learn to use
the~m wisely and in the most efficient wa,;_~;:;ossible if the United States
is Ito ever achieve "energy independence".
Appendix II
49
Mr.Holliday -4-June 9,1975
Although the statels fossil fuels remain virtually untouched,we Alaskans
must also realize that the demand for use of these fuels outside will become
more and more intense as these energy resow-ces in the Lower 48 become
depleted.
Today hydropower is the most attractive n renewable ll resource available
in the state.A proven technology and economic practicability make it
commercially competitive with the fossil fuels when generating large
blocks of electricity.
Perhaps the greatest hindrance to hydropower development is the potential
negative impact upon the land,fisheries,and wildlife of the area.Un-
fortunately,little detailed information on these possible consequences
is available.Before construction of any hydroelectric sites on the Upper
Susitna River can be endorsed by the Alaska Energy Office,a thorough
environmental impact evaluation of the region must be completed.
At the present time geothermal,wind,solar,and tidal power are not
practical enel"gy a Iternati ves for large sea Ie power plants.Future
technological advances and changing economics,however,may help these
energy sources play an instrumental role in Alaska1s long range energy
picture.Nuclear power may also have a significant impact in the years ahead,
but at this time little is known about the statels uranium reserves.
We do recommend that a detailed inventory of these alternative sources be
taken for the region now.This valuable information would then be on
hand when evaluation of the long range power needs of the area takes place.
Of course,attention must also be given to possible use of our lInon-renew-
able"fossil fuels.Continued use of natural gas from Cook Inlet,tapping
off a natural gas pipeline from the North Slope,construction of additional
refineries to process Alaskan oil and building production facilities at the
Susitna and Nenana Coal Fields are ali possible short term options which
must be considered.Further depletion of coal,oil,and gas reserves in the
Lower 48,the possible deregulation of natural gas,and the volatile Middle
East situation make the future use of these fuels for power generation
questionable.There are many other more efficient and required uses for
these resources.As always all environmental considerations must be
analyzed before new projects can be condorsed by this office.
In conclusion,the Southcentral Raitbelt Hydroelectric Power Study is
an Important first step toward what,we hope,will become a coordinated
and systematic state and federal effort aimed at meeting Alaska's future
energy needs.
The Office of Comprehensive Health Planning stated:
This office has no comment.
AppendiX II
50
Mr Holliday -5-June 9,1975
In reviewing the comments received,and from conversations with those agencies
not responding to this public brochure,there is not enough information in this
document to fo/-m any sort of state position on this project at this time.However,we
hope these:comments will be of some assistance to you in the development of
the draft envi ronmental impact statement.
Sincerely.
/~/"",/"';
~~J~~J;V.';,Zs,;C~",.'
State-Federal Coordinator
cc:Robert Weeden,DPOP
Robert LeResche,F&G
Appendix II
51
OFFICE OF TilE GOVEllNOn
JAr t HAMMOND,SOVIINOI
-.~.
STATE POLICY DEVELOPMCNT AND PlANNING /POUCH AD-JUNEAU 99811
PHONE 465-3512
September 12,1975
Colonel Charles A.Debelius
District Engineer
Corps of Engineers
Alaska District
P.O.Box 7002
Anchorage,Alaska 99510
Dear Colonel Debelius:
In response to you August 28,1975 letter the State of Alaska definitely
sees a need to reserve lands for public recreation and fish and wildlife
purposes within the proposed Devil Canyon-Watana power project,if
concerned agencies and Congress approve the project.
More extensive studies should be conducted by the State and Federal
agencies on land use in the upper Susitna River area before any decision
is made on the boundaries of the proposed power project.We would like
to be involved in any future studies on land use in this area.
If we can be of further assistance,please advise.
Sincerely,
~~/UI.~
aYrfi nd W.Estess
Sta e-Federal Coordinator
Appendix II
52
NSTITUTE OF WA TEB RESOURCES
UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA
COLLEGE.ALASKA 99701
29 May 1975
Southcentra1 Railbelt Task Team
Corps of Engineers,Alaska District
Box 7002
Anchorage,Alaska 99510
Dear Sirs:
Thle comments I make here are my own a.nd don't necessarily represent
the opinions of the Institute of Water Resources.
The Susitna River Hydro-electric project stirs mixed reactions with
me.It is easy to recommend the project on it I S merit of saving oil,but
will that really happen or will it attract industrial development and
leave the domestic market still reliant on oil fired generators?Before
I would support this project I would have to be convinced that the power
will be used by Alaskan home owners and not for stimulation of industrial
development.
I feel there are better solutions to our energy problem which should
be tried before building hydro projects.Energy conservation measures
could be used to decrease demand.This should be tried through a combina-
tion of 1)public awareness campaigns,2)raising fuel prices,and 3)giving
tax incentives for insulating and other energy saving measures.
I""',P
Development of alternate energy sources should also be given priority to
dam construction on the Susitna River.Solar.wind,tidal and refuse burn-
ing eire all viable energy sources which could easily be developed.
Another area that I am concerned about is water quality and for the last
year I have studied the effect of reservoirs ~n water quality extensively.
The following is the conclusion of my masters special topics paper,a copy
of which is included.
"In a reservoir the processes of stratification,eutrophicatioh,
evaporation,sedimentation,ice cover and leaching all cause
changes in water quality to occur.Examination of the processes
and their inter-relations is essential to a complete understand-
ing of what changes will take place in impoundment water quality.
The results may be an improvement in water quality although often
times the water is degraded.
In general,reservoirs are documented to cause increases in the
concentrations of color,total dissolved solids,electrical con-
ductivity,alkalinity,hardness,iron,manganese,chlorides,nit-
rogen,phosphorus,and carbon.The concentrations of suspended
matter,dissolved oxygen and bacteria usually decrease as water
passes through a reservoir.
PLEASE REPLY BY AIRMAIL
Appendix II
53
UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA
Southcentral Railbelt Task Team
May 29,1975
Page 2
The literature shows that removal of organic material prior
to reservoir site inundation results in improved water quality
characteristics.The various methods of aerating the hypolimnion,
withdrawing only selected layers of water and applying chemicals
have all met with some degree of success in alleviating reser-
voir problems."
I recommend,if the project is built,that it include the following
operational and design features.
1)The reservoir sites should be cleared of all trees and brush.Areas of
deep organic material should either be covered with inorganic material or
removed.~c':,
2)The dam should be designed with multiple outlets at different eleva-
tions so as to allow for the controlled release of specific water layers.
3)Aeration devices should be installed for use in controlling strati-
fication and low dissolved oxygen.
4)A sound water quality management plan should be developed to protect·
downstream fisheries and water uses.
In closing I emphasize my point that the project should be for replacement
of oil and gas use and not for stimulation of industrial development with
cheap power.
Sincerely,
Stan Justice
Environmental Engineer
Appendix II
54
PLEP.SE REPLY BY AIRMAiL
MATANUSKA ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION,INC.
P.O.Box nG"
PALMER,ALASKA 99645
TELEPHONE
(907)745·3231
June 10,1975
District Engineer
Alaska District,Corps of Engineers
Box 7002
Anchorage,Alaska 99510
The Board of Directors and t,janagement of r~atanuska Electric Association,Inc.
wish to go on record as being in full support of the full development of the
Upper Susitna River hydroelectric potential to be brought on line on a schedule
that will be paced to the needs of the rai1be1t area.
l'lEA's service area extends from Eagle River northerly to include the Knik River,
Matanuska River,and much of the Susitna River valleys.It is our firm belief
that the development of Susitna hydro is the most realistic solution to the areas'
growing nE~eds.I~EA's projections indicate that its system requirements could
easily exceed 100 megawatts by the time the first Devil Canyon units could
come on the line.
We are much in favor of the development of this renewable resource which,in a
moderate ~"ay,can help to conserve fossil fuels for other than boiler fuel to
generate needed electricity.
The South Central Railbe1t Area continues to grow at a rapid rate with its
demand for electric energy steadily rising.The need cannot be met by such
interesting sources of energy such as wind,solar,tidal,or geothermal on any
kind of real istic schedule.Gas and oil should be conserved.Coal could be
used as it is in abundance in this area;however,we see some serious environ-
mental objections to large scale mining and coal burning electric generation
plants.
We see no reason to consider development of nuclear energy when we have the
Susitna potential at our doorstep with its minimal environmental impact.Of
the several alternate plans it would be our opinion that the final decision
should rest on the combination that \",i11 most efficiently harness the full
potential of the river system for the production of hydroelectric energy.
We predict that the construction of the project and the availability of an
abundance of electric energy will impact the rail belt area and hasten its
AppendiX II
55
~i.4SKA'S FIRST REG-INCORPORATED 1941-ENERGIZED 1942
~."..
'./
J .
District Engineer
Alaska District,Corps of Engineers
Page 2
June 10,1975
~'.
occupation and development in many ways,such as farming,mining,commercial,
industrial,and residential activities.
It's our fear that without the earliest possible availability of Susitna hydro
energy in the railbelt area we will see utilities,of necessity,turning to
less efficient,less desirable environmentally,and more costly alternates that
will not be to the maximum benefit of the region and its people.
~~/~.f~
I
Willard H.hnson,P.E.
General Manager
cn
Appendix II
56
~~~l ,,'t"st '5th "\'~n~
l\l\chor:\~'C.!\lM\&~)9S01
Junp B,1915
Col.Charles A Debelius,
Alaska District Engineer
U.S.Army,Corps of Engineers
P.O.Box 7002
Anchorage,Alaska 99510
Sir:.
Your presentation,yesterday,of the nevils Canyon hydro-electric.complex,
to the Anchorage Chapter of the Alaska Society of Professional Engineers,
was most interesting.
I have one complaint.You stated that the Benefit/Cost ratio ,,,as slightly
better than lU1ity,and that it had been developed with alternative thenn.al
systems fired by fossil fuels.Further,as I asked you,the basis for com-
paring the cost of electricity generated from using natural gas did not in-
clude the obvious escalation in the cost of this fuel.In addition,I
liould venture to say that natural gas ,~ill become so costly as a fuel by the
end of the century its use for such purposes will becOJ'!1e prohibitively cost-
ly.In fact,at our present rate of consumption,I ,.,rou1d expect the mown
gas fields in Alaska to be depleted ",i thin t\'10 or three decades.
Thus,comparison of costs based upon present prices of a fuel which will
incre:ase in price concor.tl!1i.tantly with a rising demand for electricity ,and,
in all likelihood lvill not even be available at the halfway point in the
ltfift:y year"life of the project,is patently absurd.
AI thoug.lt AI aska has vas t depos its of coal,the cos ts for this fue I also
must be·expected to rise during the rest of the century.I had not asked
if cost escalation had been taken into acc01IDt.I assume that,as for gas,
it hadn't been.Since the supply of coal is so large,there is no reason to
question its <;lvailability well heyond the end of the century,and,according-
ly,the cost should not increase as sharply as for gas.TIle plethora notwith-
standing,the crucial necessity for environmental conservation will have to
pay for restoration of mined lands,removal of sulfur and other atmospheric
cont::mrl.nants,disposal of ashes,and dispersal of waste heat -all subject
to inflationary pressures -if the B/C ratio.is to be logical.
l'later is a renewable resource;fossil fuels are not.
Very truly yours,
~~G:&
Appendix II
57
,----------"-------------_.~----,..--
410 Skarland Hall
University of Alaska
Fairbanks,Alaslm 997:)1
Oct 7,1975
Alas1ca :listric t
:orns of ~n'inecr3
P.O'~::'oz 7082
Anchora:::-e,Alas~~a 9951(',
D'3ar Sir:
I attpnded your l::3.:'ir~~:s r..cLl tv::::,,:,in Fsirb:m'-:::s in October,~;iith
:~reat intcr'?st CI.::'.c1 concorn for the :uturo clC:V(;101~,:'(;nt of tho::proposed.
sa::Js on t1F'~~i -,3usitna '-(i'ier.
I '-r8S .3 O!i;o'::JEl t :=;'1 r'7:'i8 c d ':-'hen Co lone1 '::0 bC"1ius '~;cntionc d that the re
mi:ht still hp a ~os3ibility o~additional da~construction such
a.s the ~~av~:n.3.rt.';?:en tnc Corls tries to resurrect such sl:018tons
of this ma~nituj~~f ~iolo:ic~l bblnder,it ~~~cs ene ~onder about
sO'V of ~;~l:r-:-83:::12.':..'Ce;hincl !,resC'nt stuc'.ic's.
,~l thol.t.:::;h I ':'CI')~_':-::tl:'::first tc aC.":~it that the ~-vil'S Can~'on arGa
"''-''ttl r :1:':1"to''"'.....~~..,-:--:',tl,,·hc--'-1""catl'o'1 .r'op '"-~2"e -i+-e l'n "'h~.-,J"ate I'I '"...-,.')'':.....::Y'f1-...:...-'.:.........-J~~'.~-',',:=J '-'V t 1._-.:...,.J,".l_l.Q v -::Lt _~='J l,..,
fee-I that It is :.·::c-sssary to evalua:'?all of Alao'::a's rcoourc8s,
anr''::i3C lan'~'112 --::;lannin:,'::i tl1 the best 8:1d '::iscs-;;us~of rosources
in8t~a~of ct0~~~~~in=in a ~i2C~deal style.
I f 0 s1 that t~c ~~~s:ion should be rais(d as to the ~£cossity of
a (,a'~'~.f'",.....,,.....h r .....;,.....--__....,,"",....-:-'Y'l;..............O~·~::-,-Ja ~L 1-1 l·~'~l~,-,1--r-~~'11 t::';.........-:.:1.-_n ('-p./l';:;.S {:~n"'v'1 '.j.........v,....:1..'._.~-"_~'-'_~"".~.,""'7 v 1.,._•."-...._.l..It ---_--.--~v
''"!an~y I:;rlf:"r;"'~l :r(..:'~·;.:'C>~S be'ill,=:':,'as~c:;.in :\.laG~:a.?lal'i:1:~of :iatu~C1.1
"'as haG oC·C':<1..~?:'~ic:J_cu.t :cr 1Jvcr a ;'-lo::a.~~..~in,cco~-_Il'll·::;t.1\8.9-
st~J(~,8r1.\,~Gll <:a.-.~-'·J_::~-:tr~c ,Un.iv·c!'si-i::l of ~'llaG1~.a c..t GcJ_l~;~~c;J I ','Iit:asss
rntire floo~s ~l~:~~crssarily burni~~:clcc~ri~i~~y 2L hours a day,alld
cC'nml::~)tic:l is at 3.:::a:-i~~lUr1.
~hr fact that ~b~CO~?S o~=n~inc~rs is ~lan~lin~'·this ]rcjrct at
::118 ti'"1C I :}!'iQr te:.~:n()·:ilc;.1~8 c-f ~hr:'rOlltc tIle -'6.3 ~i2Jclin(~::r5_11
:3.;~",-i_'1.[~"_'~Qtr-:2 <:Ul atLi_tudr;of ":::r:vslop!:'l2Ylt for ::l-~,vclo]::'':ntfS 88':0"
t(;!)Cr11aI~0 q'J.C ~.~C a -;;cll ~:nc-\'j:l .~las~.~:3,rL inv"2rs·~'1::'.
If infact the ~iorth Slope ~o.s T'i:;eline does ::0 throu~'h 1\.las):a,it
~Quld a]prar to ~c to bo cztrc~cly short siChtod o.t thia ti~p to
Co ahc'ad ';r=-th r:O?1struction ~lans,as ':;011 as cYlcoura",in~'".orc ';:astc
of Alasl~a's rCDo'::ab1c and non rcnc\':ablc resources.
Yours sincerely,,~~.,/d:J..tf
Barbara '.!int:ley
cc:Governor Ha':l:::ond
Appendix II
58
Col.Charles A Debelius
DepartmEmt of the Army
Alaska District Corps of Engineers
P.O.Box 7002
Anchorage,Alaska 99510
Dear Colonel Debelius:
BOX 2037 ANCHORAGE,ALASKA
October 7,1975
The Mountaineering Club of Alaska is a recreational organization located
in Anchorage,Alaska and has approximately two hundred fifty mamberships
representing a slightly larger number of individuals.
Two primary interests of the club are mountaineering and wilderness
backpacking and exploration.
We oppose the proposed construction of the Upper Susitna Hydroelectric
Project because of its intrusion into an area 6f wilderness close to
Anchorage.We are concerned not only with the inundation of a scenic:
white-water river but also with the establishment of a permanent access
road and other recreational projects which would enC'.ourag~motorized
. . h \recreatlon 1n t e area.
The Mountaineering Club supports creation of the Talkeetna Mountain
State Park to the south of the area in question and is concerned that
the dams project and related recreational development in the adjoining
region would detract from the wilderness aspect of the northern portions
of the Talkeetna Mountain State Park.
We are particularly concerned with the potential for heavy off road
vehicle (ORV)use in the immediate area of the access road and perhaps
spilling into even further reaches of this wilderness.In this regard
we are reminded of the ORV problem along the Denali Highway during
hunting season.I'
Thank you for this opportunity to express our concerns.
Yours truly,
~/[~~fi4
Fritz R1eger G7 .
President
.--.._.---------
Append;x II
59
FAIRBANK~l'AJI OROUGH
Bo 6Jr iib s,A ~9707
October 13,1975
Col.Charles A.Debelius
Col.Corps of Engineers
District Engineer
Box 7002
Anchorage,Alaska 99510
Dear Col.Debe1ius:
As stated at the public hearing held on October 8th,the Fairbanks North
Star Borough is supporting development of the hydro-electric potential of
the Upper Susitna River as a means of meeting future needs for energy in
Interior Alaska.
Only through utilization of a natural renewable resource can we best use
our non-renewable resource.
Interior Alaska is well along is its development as a service area for
petroleum and gas fields to the north.The need for electric power is
critical now and will become more critical as industrial and tommercia1
development takes place.
Long range planning is necessary,but time is slipping by and the energy
needs will soon be upon us.It is important that funds be made available
for the pre-construction planning for hydro-electric power.We will add
whatever support we can;
Very truly yours,
I2LJtI!~~~~.CARLSON
Borough Mayor
JAC:1sa
cc:U.S.Senator Ted Stevens
U.S.Senator Mike Gravel
U.S.Representative Don Young
Appendix II
60
economical power be provided for Interior Alaska:
By:John A.Carlson
Introduced:10/9/75
Adopted:10/9/75
RESOLUTION NO.75-40
A RESOLUTION URGING THAT THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
CONTINUE THE UPPER SUSITNA RIVER BASIN PRE-.
CONSTRUCTION PLANNING.
WHEREAS,the Corps of Engineers has been doing preliminary studies
of the Susitna River Hydro-Electric power potential,and
WHEREAS.reports indicate this as a feasible source of energy to
generate electricity.and
WHEREAS,use of hydro power would conserve natural non-renewable
resources such as petroleum,natural gas and coal.and
WHEREAS.energy demands are increasing as Interior Alaska develops.
and
WHEREAS.it is important that a source of dependable,reliable,
\
\
NOW.THEREFORE.BE IT RESOLVED by the asseTIbly of the Fairbanks North
Star Borough that the Corps of Engineers continue the Upper Susitna River Basin
(Southcentral railbelt area),Alaska pre-construction planning.
PASSED AND APPROVED THIS
".IIiIIl11IrI1r,
.•.•...).1 i:I ~"'"~....,\..lnr'Jt'~"";"1 "~
(''.'...."".)'\.,.'.,""
,..'•'j.'\).,
",.)I I I '0'.)• .I (J \ " •I I .J
.i ~TJESl;:.):-?::',.../ '.,:'.•.:)'J
.....>••/:I,\l.•.••.~./
j J"~'"",,"/;"',',~•••~~
'."I ( \"•"'\~'~\\\\'.~~
rl .....,...1 .r I I _..."'i •1
9th DAY OF o_c_t_o_b_e_r 1975.
Appendix II
61
lo)5/7~
&,'~~~])~
Appendix II
62
STILLWATER CILINIC
BOX 8
COLUMBUS,MONTANA
October 21,1975
Alaska District Corp of Engineers
Anchorage,Alaska
99500
Re:Upper Susitna Basin Hydro-Electric Power Development.
Dea.r Sirs:
It comes to my attention that a power development
including a dam or several dams in the upper Susitna
and Devil's Canyon is still being proposed.It is my
feeling that very little thought has been given to the
environmental impact that such a project would have,and
the permanent loss of some tremendous river floating and
boating in the future years.Thi.s particular stretch ()f
river is as magnificent,as far as rivers go,as McKinley
is when one considers its relationship to other mountains.
I feel that any measure to change or deface this river
should be as carefully considered as would a proposal to
change or dei"ace Mount Mc Kinle:~I'.
I wish you would enter this statement in the hearing
record as evidence that there is strong opposition to the
Devil's Canyon fum that will permanently destroy the marvels
of this canyon.
Sincerely yours
(!!il-f;V7W.P-A,-A 4~
C.H.Swanson Jr ••M.D.~j
CHS/ch
Appendix II
63
Greater Anchorage
CHAMBER of COMMERCE
October 22,1975 Crossroads of the Air W'
Colonel Charles A.Debelius
District Engineer
Corps of Engineers
P.O.Box 7002
Anchorage,Alaska 99510
Dear Colonel Debelius:
On behalf of the Board of Directors and membership of the Anchorage Chamber
of Commerce,I wish to express our total support for the development of hydro-
electric power in the Upper Susitna River area.
The Chamber would like to offer its services in helping to promote the con-
struction of the Devil's Canyon and Watana dams as soon as possible.Please
callan us for any further help we may provide.
Sincerely yours,
d~~IJ;;G(~u
Loren H.Lounsbury
President
sww
Appendix II
64
r;REATER ANCHORAGE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE -612 F STREET,ANCHORAGE,ALASKA 99501 -(907)27:'."
Knik Kanoers &Kayakers J Inc.
3014 Columbia
Anchorage,Alaska 99504
17 November,1975
Col.Charles A.Debelius,District Engineer
Alaska District,Corps of Engineers
Department of the Army
P.O.Box 7002
Anchorage,Alaska 99510
Dear CoL Debclius:
The Knik Jillnoers &Kayakers wish to go on record as opposing
the construction of any dams on the Susitna River.Such
development would destroy a major wilderness whitewater river,
termed lithe biggest in North America"by its first paddler,
Dr.Halter Dlackadar.
In the 'fifties·and 'sixties the Corpa dammed a number of
the nation's finest whitewater rivers in the name of "progress."
Yet each new dam served only to spur on further profligate
use of energy.In other words,these beautiful rivers were
sacrificed to no useful purpose.Nowadays such economic
boondog~les would never win approval,yet the Corps ~s attempt-
ing to start the same destructive,wasteful process here with
one of the country's most spectacular),wildest,loveliest
rivers.The Susitna must be left to I'un free for future
generations.
Sincerely yours,
)•~.,11 \,
Ed Swanson
President
Appendix II
65
Alaska R~§g\.\rC~~brary &Inforr~(~,1\;~i'D;,s~;r¥W&%
Anchorage)Alaska