HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUS169·~ . · ..
',;
·.~· •
\.,
Mr. Eric Yould
AlaskA Power Author!·
34 West 5th Avenue
An chora9e , Alaska I
Subject: Applicatio
for the 1111.
Dear Mr. Yould :
SuJ/69
/}l}ti!Lt ',.,.)(J }1, /~ Hhl~~ ~) I'll' 3
1(1Qv,&o~r <:y?l r .. :-.-'d.'l ft' I 't .. .~, .se
Jt.lb}!] fl ... u· -t r~A"C /)J ;:/t:/'a c' I 7" _.,! IYJ'3
/ u .t/., (it J £1 J • ..1 /' ~ L/ '1 Cl!.;> •' eit { II , ( ~}r6;c. or
1 1f:.. ?t!ld CtJ.e, ~~ frt; a/,~L CtoJ;r~?rfJ .Jc
£,.,c l/tXLftJ-Jr 1:>Jj;_... 11u...'-l, ,/.Ju;r/a.~k.> / , ''?
Jl1 U26 1~ ,J}l( .110).
1-0 0 0
Your a pplication for the subject project has been reviewed by the staff. The
application is not in c0111plete conformance vith the r.J.evant requiremenu of the
Commissi on• a reCJulationa. A list of those non-conformi n9 J.taa. ia enclosed u
Schedule A.
Fun:her, in order for at.atf to be able to fully evaluate your application,
please submit the supplemantal. inforllllltion described in Schedule a. 'Ih e supple-
•ental information need not be included in the copies of the application but .. y be
sub~tted separately.
section 4.31(d) of the reCJUlations provides that an applicant vhose applica-
tion for a licenH fails to conform to the require.a:ants of the Ccmlllission's reCJUla-
tions may be qiven up to 90 days in vhicb to correct those items.
/h>J l'-
JiccordiDCJlY, you have 90 days from the date ot this lett;i..t'o correct the non-
conforminCJ items in your application. U you fail to correct your application vithin
that ti~~~e, it vill be rejected. A:!ditioo&l.ly, please file the supplemental informa-
tion vithin 90 days. If you cannot provide the supplUlental. in.formation vithin 90
daya, please provide a schedule, fC?r Cc::IIIIIDission approval, vi thin 30 days for filin9
that i~formation.
If you have any questions concernin9 this letter or th• fil :tng of your appli-
cation, please contact William Wakefield at (202) 376-1911.
'
!nclosur ..
d;;::cc~~
Lawrence R. Andereon
Direc =or, Office of Electric
Power ReCJul ation
llN!VERSJ TV OF ALASI<A
ARCTJC ENVIR0' • 'F r,,, INFO RMA TIO
AND .;, I,.. ~ ... H ER
70 7 A SfliEET
ANOtOiAGt. AK 99.501
.,• . •• •
~ '
\ ,, ~•; •
\,
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Mr. Eric Yould
Alaska Pover Authority
34 West 5th Avenue
WASHINGTON 2042&
IN lllll''l.'f 1111r1111 \'Oo
OEPR-DHL
Project No. 7114-000
Anchoraqe, Alaska 99 5 01 ( tiL
,to
Subjf!ct : Application for license submitted on February 28, 1983
for the SUsitna Hydroelectric Project No. 7114.
Dear Mr. Yould:
Your application for the subject project has bee."l reviewed by the staff. The
application is not in ccmplete confoi"'IIAnce vith the relevant requirements of the
Colllm.isaion's regulations. A list of those non-con forminq items is enclosed u
Schedule A.
FUrther, in order for staff to be able to fully evaluate your application,
plea .. submit the supplemental infor~~~~~tion described in Schedule B. The aupple-
aental. infomation need not be included in the copies of the application but may be
submitted aeiBrately.
Section 4.31(d) of the requlationa provides that an applicant vbose applica-
tion for a license fails to conform to the rtquireiii8.Dta of the Commission's requla-
tiona aay be qiven up to 90 days in vhich to correct those items.
~...).\"\..
k:cordinqly, you have 90 days from the date of this lettei-~ correct the non-
con.forminq i te:ma in your application. U you fail to correct your application vi thin
that time, it vill be rejected. Mditionally, please file the supplemental informa-
tion vithin 90 days. If you cannot provide the supplemental information within 9 0
days, please Fovide a achedUl.e, for Ccmmiaaion appro•&l, vit.hift 30 daya for filiftCJ
that information.
If you have any questions concerninq this letter or the filinq of your appli-
cation, please contact William Wakefi eld at (202) 376-1911.
Enclosuru
~=cc~~ Lawrence R. Ander.on
Director, Office of !1e~ric
Pover Re17Ulation
UNIVERSITY 0 ~ ALASKA
ARCTIC EN VIAO '.!r TA • INFOAMATIO I
AN D Dl\ II .... :. TEA
70 7 A sn~nr
ANOtORAOE. AJC 99501
' . ' .. • .. " r
Schedule A
Exhibit B
GENERAL
1. The applicant doea not provide a aufficient documentation of the load
t o . ecast modelinq effort or A sufficiently broAd and comprehensive se n -
sitivity analyse• thAt would enable a reasonable evaluation of the impact
of critical variAbles, ••9• current world crude oil prices.
Staff"• preliainary anAlyaea of docuaents aada available
as part of the application for licenae indicate recant
chanqes in world crude oil pricinq will have a aiqnificant
iapact in reducinq the forecasts included in Exhibit B of
the application. Siqnificantly reduced world crude oil
price and power requirement forecasts could cbanqe the
development of and the proposed financinq for the alter-
native plAna for the raqion that are shown in the applica-
tion, and would alter the related cost analyses used in
evaluatinq these plAna, thereby affectinq both Exhibit B
and D.
2. The applicant does not provide documen t ation thAt will allow replication
of the mod eli nq effort de acr ibed in the applicAtion and, there for a, in for-·
mation that can fully support the reaaonabl eness of the 1 oad forecast
modeling effort and the credibility of ita output.
3. The documentation that ia provided doea not include data to explain and
aupport the forecast uaed in the coat analysis of alternate plans and
related aensitivity Analyaea (i.e., the forecaat shown in Table 8 .73.)
The follovinq items are keyed to the numberinq ayatem used in the pre-
f il i ng rev i ev.
Provide qeneration capability of the Suaitna project
considerinq the various minimum releaaes propgaed by
the fiahery Agenciea. Provide an eatiaate of the
dependable capacity and average annual anergy pro-
duction baaed upon minimum flow releAaea recommended
by the appropriate atate and federal Aqencie •· The
rel eAae achadul ea pr oYided in Exhibit a, are estimates
and do not reflect state and federal neqotiationa.
Ev idence of aqency consultation ahould be provided.
~
Item S a Include an aaseaament of the i mp act the Susi~na project
would have on aystem reliability, at leaat in terma of
generation reaerve marqins and appropriate reliability
criteria.
.. ·.· . • . • . f
-2 '
Specifi c ally, provide all atudies , reports, analyses and aurveys which
were relied upon establish the reliability c riterion aelected for the evalua-
tion of the Susitna project . Is there any information which establ ishe s the
level of reliability of electric service which cuatomers in the state of
Alaska are willing to pay for? If ao, please provide copies of all such infor-
mation. Since Suai tna ia projected to auppl y an unua ually lar qe portion of
total system power, include an assessment of the reliability of transmission
and to what extent the vari oua ra ilbel t utili ti ea vill be required to aaintain
standby thermal capacity as a precaution against transmission or other power
out ages?
Ite• 6: Include a sensitivity analyaia on the impact
that the crucial variable, vorld oil pricea,
baa on the Reed for Power .
Specifically, for
prices (from January
-2,,
19 82),
-1', 0\,
aubm.it
+\1
the
and +2'
following
real growth
projections
in
1. State oil revenues (royalty and severance taxes).
2. State gas revenues.
l· State general fund expend i ture.
4. State population.
s. State employ•ent.
6 . Railbelt population.
1. Railbelt employment.
a. Railbelt-No. of households -by type household.
9. Railbel t-electr ici ty demand per houaehold -by type.
10. Railbelt-electricity demand, by area, (l"airbanka,
Anchorage, etc.), aector (residential, commercial,
and induatrial), and uae (lighting, power apace bent).
11. Railbelt-peak demand .
12. Ra ilb elt-generating capacity required.
world oil
by years.
In addition, lia~ projections of any other variables, not liated abov e ,
that were uaed in predicting demand or capacity r equi r ements.
Provide a complete explanation of the derivation of alternative fuel
price projections for the time period 1982-2040. Limit the response to
price proj ectiona of coal, natural gaa and rea idual and diat illate fuel oil.
If the vorld o i l price were to decline at a rate of 1' per annwa, hov wou l d
this alter the assumptions about the price• for natural gas, coal and resi -
dual and di ati l late fuel oil in Alaska over that same time period?
Finally, include analysis of the
crude oil price reflecting the moat
world oil price a.
!mpact on the d eaand
current i nf ormation
forecast
a vailable
Item 7r Combine or relate the aensitivity analysia on Need
for Power requested above to one performed in the
cost benefit an a lyaia.
of a base
regarding
Speci fie ally, for the BB, M, and LL projection• used in tbe coat benefit
analysis s u bmit the data requeate4 in projection• 1-12 li st ed in Itea (6) •
above, for the •with Su ai tna• and •th erma l altern ative• plan ~.
. . • .. ••
• • . .
Item B.
- 3 -
Provide calibration data, comparing computer outputs
to actual hiatorieal performances, on the econometric
aodela used in the Need for Power analyaia.
Specifically, (1) present 1961-1982 data for projections 1-12 li sted
in Itea (6), above.
( 2) Provide equation•
the extent such equation•
basic deaand aodel.
or ·coefficients
or· eoeff iei ents
relating projections 1-12,
were uaad in e al ibrati ng
to
the
(3) ror projection (10), present data by area (FaJ.r))anks, Anehoraqe,
etc.), by sector (reaidentJ.al, eoaaereial, industrial), and by end use
(liqhtinq, power, and apaee-heatinq).
(4) Provide the results of any aodel runs aade startinq at some prior
point in tiae which compared predicted '9aluea vith actual data. If no
historical comparison runs were aade to cheek aodel calib ration, so s tate.
ror instance, the ISZR ReqJ.onal Allocation Model, aa doeuaented in ileetrie
Power Consumption For the Railbelta A Projection of Requirements Technical
Appendices (May 1980) paqes B-18 to B-19, presents reqression equations
estiaated vith data endinq in 1976---hov well have those equations predicted
actual values for the dependent variables ira the years subseque:1t to 19767
Al ternati'9el y, if actual values vhieb have beeoae available sub sequent to
the oriqinal estiaation of the aodel have been used to reestimate the co-
efficients in these equations, bov do those nev eatiaatea compare with the
old values? Provide all information available to establish the stability
of the eoeffie1ent estiaates, or necessary to determine nev coefficients.
Item 9: Provide a comprehensive and integrated explana-
tion of hov the aeveral modeling efforts were
coabin ed to develop the final forecast! nq aod el,
inc ludinq bow the aodela work, how exogenous
variables were selected, ~ow sensitive the deaand
forecasts are to assuaptions and variables and hov
the various models are linked, e.q., the Inatitute
for Social and Econoaie Research (ISER) model linkaqe
to Man in the Arctic Prograa (MAP) which is used to
qenerate input aasu~ptions.
The draft application vaa modified to a considerable degree vitb regard
to this deficiency and additional inforaation vas aade available in separate
reports which were not available at the time of the prefilinq review. How-
ever, the noted chanqea and additional reports do not provide a sufficiently
comprehensive compilation of the information needed to aake a reasonable
r evi ev of the forecasts included in Exhibit B of the tiled appl !cation.
Evaluation of a load forecast modelinq effort should involve evaluation
of the structure of the forecasting model, includinq ita internal consistency,
J. ta correspondence vi th common aenae and good practice and the ease vi th which
modeling assumptions can be iaplimented and understood. It ahould also in-
volve identificat i on and evaluation of the required exogenous variable
• • • •
-4 -.
forecasts, the paraaet er values ua ed in the mo d eli n9 effort and the response
of the 111edel to varia ti o n s in e.xo9enoua and endogenous variables.
A lar9e nuaber of choieea of parameter values and exogenous variable
forecasts are neceaaary for each forecast, but all the par amet ers appearin9
in the aodeli nq of the Susi tna forecast! n9 effort cannot be identif 1 ed from
the application and ataff cannot be sure all the neceuaary ex 09enoua fore-
casta are even aention ecS 1-n the appl !cation. In addition, little documenta-
tion is available re9ardin9 the ISER/KAP model . Accordingly, vith regard tc
the Exhibit B , itea 9 deficiency please:
Snecifically, (1) Clearly identify!!! models and submodels
used in preparin9 the econoaic projection rnd sensitivity
analyses filed, from the point of initial assumptions
through t h e demand projections to the final economic
proj e ctions. Cl•arly identify hov the models relate and
identify all break pcints in the syste• vhere data froa
one aodel, or aeta of aodels, aast be loaded into another
model. At each breakpoint, includin9 the initial point,
identify !!! input variables by name into the dovnstream
model and the source of data (i.e. o utput froa an upstream
model, or exo9enoua variables and assumptions). Include
only those models uaed to 9enerate the input data used in
the filed economic projections and sensitivity analyses,
or that 9enerated input into any subsequent model vhich
9enerated Input data used In the filed economic projection~
and sensitivity analyses. For each aodel or aubmo~el
clearly identify all output variables and their tiae aeries
form (i.e. by years, total onl~, etc.). Our purpose here
is to clearly understand the details of information flov
froa the various points of info rmatio n i n put to the final
output. If various models supply input to one forecast
(i .e. hi9h mediua, lov, etc.) but not another, clearly
identify the forecasts in vhich a 111odel output is used.
(2) For each model identified in (1) above, supply the
version of the model used to provide input to the filed
e co nomic projections and sensitivity analyses in suffici ent
detail that it can be programmed. Supply the values for
each parameter or coefficient used vithin the modele.
State vhether any parameter or coefficient values are
chan9ed in alternative model runa. If parameter or
c~efficient values chan9e, clearly identify the parameter or
coefficient values used in different caaea and •tate the
reaaonin9 used to justify such changes. Supply ~ data,
atudiea, and other material relied upon to aupport the choice
of parameter values or re9reaaion coefficients used.
(3) For the lov, moderate (base caae) and bi9h projections
(including the •vith Suatina• and •vithout Suaitna•
v ariations) u sed in the application for the economic
analyses list the valuea of ~ exogenoua variables,
. . . . .. • •
5 -
data, and assumptions used as input into each model (by
year, if input is by year). Clearly identify the output
values (by year) from any model that are used as input into
any subsequent model throu9h the final economic projections.
Clearly show the output values by year from the overall demand
aodel that is used as the basis for economic projections.
For each model also a how the ind ividu&l data or projected
tiae aeries that each model generates internally and
uses to generate the final model output. The information
presented should be sufficiently detailed to allow us to
trace the pTojection fro• initial data and assumption• used
aa input through ~ model• to the final demand projection
used in the filing, by area , sector, and end-use.
(4} Identify, or supply, all data, studies, or
other aaterial relied upon to support the choice of
values for each exogenous variable and assumption
used as inpnt in~o the various aodels. Where input
values are primarily judgemental, so state.
(5} Economic and coat benefit data arc computed
through the year 2051. The various demand models
and sub-aodels ·were apparentl7 terminated at some
earlier date. Clearly identify all assumptions used
in extrapolating demand and system coats beyond the
end period f r om model projections.
Item 10: It appears that the MAP model produces population
forecasts only to 2000 thereby requirin9 extra-
polation to 2010. Modify the model to produce
forcaata up to 2010.
Specifi cally, where models vhich are used to 9enerate input into other
nodels that do not generate data for the same time period as the final demand
model, specify th ~ extrapolation methods and values used. Provide sufficient
examples to clearly demonstrate the procedure. Provide at least one plot of
gene r ated data and extrapolated data as an illustrative example. Identify
all point~ v he re the time eerie s differ be tween models and extrapolation, or
interpolation, is necessary.
Item 20: Specific details need to be included about :
(A} the data and forecaoting assumpt1onar
(B) the •price adjuatinq int•naity• (p. 5-6)r
(C) conservation ~djustaenta ••• (G) revisions
of Battelle forecasts in 1982.
Item 25: The 2-4' reduction in heatinq consumption due
to eonaervation seems to be very low. Provide
the anal yai • justif yinq this reduction in • heating enerqy use.
.. . . .
• • •
... - 6 -
Itea 27: There is aabiquity concerning the forecast used
to i ncorporate load redu c tion aeasures. It is
unclear why the ISER deaand forecasts were chosen
over the RED forecasts after modifications were
aade in the RED model to handle this. Explain
this apparent inconsistency .
Specifically, provide all studies, reports and analyses that were relied
upon in formulating the assess~ent of the iapact of r.onservation (bo~ price
and non-price 1 nduc ed conae rvation) in the projections of energy con~apa6aa
you have made . Explain vhich of these· aateriala vere judged to be relevant
to the calculations of conservation iap.cts and vhich vere judged to be of no
direct consequence to the cal cul a tiona. Reconcile and explain hov the con-
servation iapacta vere quantified baaed upon the aaterial of relevance in
those studies, reports and analyses that vere relied upon.
Clearly identify hov price sensitivity, load reduction aeaaurea and
conservation impacts affect the actual demand projections (Table B. 73) used
as a basis fo r economic coaparisona. The Onited States and the World as a
whole have expe rien ced a significant reduction in total ener;ry demand and
demand per capita in the past fev Je&ra aa a result of the recent energy
price increases. Please explain to vbat extent, if any, Alaska aay differ
froa this very pronounced pattern. Also, identify and discuss the possible
affects of the revisions made in the Battelle forecasts in 1982, i.a. after
completion of the feasibility st u dy generation planning.
Exhibit D
Exhibit E
INTEREST DORING CONSTROCTION
Provide line items, preferable in Table D.1 or Tables
D.2 and D.l, for AFODC and escalation. This is
n ecessary to deteraine tbe actual coat of the project
vhen it is brought on line and to determine the total
amount of financing required for construction.
WATER OSE AND QUALITY:
FISH, WILDLIFE AND BOTANTICAL RESOORCES
P• E-24,
P• E-2-17,
P• E-3-83
Provide incremental flow analyses, beginning at
1000 cfs and increasing in 2000 cfa incrementa
up to 31,000 cfs, as well as additional analysis
at 12,000 eta, deaonstr~~ing the relationship
between main channel flova at Gold Creek and
changes ~~hysical habitat variables in selected
sl ou hs (!.JJ in the ·Devil Canyon to Talkeetna reach
and b in t e Talkeetna to Cook Inlet reach.
The •boald include wetted •urface areas -
--
' . ....
Exhibit F
-7 -
1· Stabilitv and Stress Analyses
Provi de summaries of atability and stress analyaea for the follow-
i nq structures J Watana Dam, Devil CAnyon Arch Dam and thrust block abutement a,
Devil Canyon Saddle dam, Watana and ~e v tl Ca n yon main spillway qate structure,
and the Watana and Devil Canyon emergency spillway fuse plugs.
2. Spillway Design Flood (SDF)
Provide the basis for the determination of the SDF and tbe Proba:)le
Max i 111um Flood CPMF), for botb the Devil Canyon and Watana developmenta, in
sufficient detail to permit an independent staff evaluation. If thia infor-
mation is avail able in a separate re terence, it should be i ncluded (by
reference) in the SupportinCJ Desiqn Report and a summary provided whicb is
aimilar to th Mt shown for the seismic loads in Section 3.2(h).
: : ..
Schedule B
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
CO NTENTS
Exhibit E
, .
2.
3·
4.
s.
6·
'· s.
g.
1 o.
1 1 •
General Description of the Locale •• •••••
Wate r Uae and Quality •••••••••••• •••• ••••• •••••
Fish, Wildlife, and Botanical Resource•
Aquatic Re•oureea •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
T errestrial Botanical Resources •••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Terre s trial Wildlife Resources •••••••••••••••••• •••••••
Historic a nd Archaeolo9ical Resources • • •• • • • • ••••••
Socioeconomic• •••••••••••••••• ••••••••
Geol o9i t a l and Soil Resources ••• ••••••••••
Recreational Resource& •••••••••• •••••• ••••• ••••••
Aesthetic Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Land Oae ••••••••••••••••••••••
Alternative L oc ations, Desi9ns ,
Ener9y Sources ••••••••••••
List of Literature •••••••••
and
. . . . . . ..... . ........ .
. ........ .-
Transmi ssion Facilitie s
1 2.
13.
Status of Facilities . .......................... .
~l ectrical Envi ron mental Effects . . . .
Engineering
, 4 .
15.
16 .
General
Exhib it
Exhibit
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
F and Supporting Deai9n Report
G . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Need for Pover
1 7 . Exhibit B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 e . Exhibit D • • 4 ••••••••••••••• . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . ........ .
. .......... . ................... . ..... . .......
.............. . .........
1 9. Additional Suppleaental Reports Required . . . . ..........
2 o. Financial Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...........
·----------------------~--~~ .. ~-·=
1
2
8
9
12
1C
15
20
22
24
26
27
30
32
33
34
34
37
38
39
41
41
. :. . . . -
- 1
EXHIBIT E
1. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE LOCALE
No additiona l information or clarification is required for this section.
·-.·-..• -·-·-----··-·--------·--·-··--·----·· ... -·-··-·--.. ··---· ..
. . . . .
/
• •
1. p. E-2-S
2. p. E-2-S,
Figs. ·E.2.l2-
E.2.20
3. p. E-2-1?, t 1
4. p. E-2-17, t S
5. p. E·2-20, t 1
6. p. E-2-28, t 4 ·
7. p. E-2-28, t 4
~ p. E-2-28, E"2-181
9. p. E-2-29
10 • p. E-2-29, t 4
u . p. E-2-32 , t 2 .. . . .
- 2 -
• I
2. WATER USE AND QUALITY
Provide copies of the original photographs, wi th
dates, and an estimate of •ainstem flow at Gold
Creek when the aerial photographs in Figs. E.2 .1l
to E.2.20 were taken. Provide similar sets of
photographs at high, •edium, and low flows to
document channel stability, wetted surface areas,
etc., in future Aquatic Studies.
Provide complete references to all cross-section
data and staff gage data for locations indicated
in these figures.
Provide stage-discharge diagrus for all gauging
stations on both mainstem and tributaries.
Provide data used to prepare Figure E.2.66 and a
detailed discussion (including input data) of this
use of HEC·2.
Provide data on particle size distribution for
suspended sediments co 11 ected over the annua 1
range of discharges for the Susitna River.
Provide data on the contribution of organic matter
to suspended sediatent concentrations at each
sampling station in the Susitna River on a seasonal
basis.
The discussion presented here suggests the existence
of data (10 mg/L, 2620 mg/L, 5690 mg/L) beyond
that given in Table E.2.20. Provide these data.
Provide the quantitativa criteria that were used
to determine that the proposed minimum flows were
adequ1te to allow access to slough spawning grounds .
·Provide the hab1tat suitability criteria used to
evaluate flows for adequacy of upstream migration,
spawning, rearing, overwintering, and out-migration.
Provide data on suspended sediment concentrations
in sloughs on a seasonal basis. ~ ..
Clarify reference provided on Ffgure E.2. 79 and
explain procedure used to create this figure •
Provide data on biologically available and tottl
soluble phosphorus concentrations in the Susitna
River water for each water quality sampling station.
.. -.. -.: . ._-.:.·---···-··--·· .. . . . •
12. p. E-2-32, t 5
13. p. E-2-40, t 3
14. p. E-2-40, t 5
15. p. E-2-41
16. p. E-2-42, t 4
17. p. E-2-46, t 2
18. p. E-2-57,
Fig. E. 2. 23
19 . p. E-2-58,
Table E-2-34
20. p. E-2-66, t 2
21. p. E-2-67, t 3
22. p. E-2-67, t 3,
p. E-2-143
-------.,--..,., ____ ---
. . . . .... ... ···-·· --..
- 3 -
. --·-· .... . -···
Provide references for , or data on, anrnoni um
concentrations (means and ranges) in water at
monitoring stations on the Susitna River.
Provide water levels as a function of observation
time for each well. Provide data associated with
core drillings and piezo~neter installations.
Provide bathymetry for sampled sloughs.
Provide CDrrelations between observed slough
groundwater parcuneters and local mainstem water
elevations and flows .
Describe or reference the technique that has been
deve 1 oped for 111easuri ng upwelling in s 1 oughs.
Provide the date and 111a 1 nste.m f1 ow at the time
groundwater flaw vas estimaud.
Provide the following information for tributaries
at their ,onfluenca with the Susitna River:
bathymetJ':f, morphology, and stage discharge relation-
ships.
Provide the basis for extrapolating HEC-2 vater
surface profiles outside the ran~e of calibration
flows (9700 to 52,000 ·cfs at Gold Creek) listed
in the R&MI 11 Hydrau11c and Ia St~dies" report.
Provide references to any additional calibration
data sets for the HEC-2 model. Provide methodology
and supporting data used to derive the estimated
HEC-2 accuracy of ±1 foot.
Provide a complete description of the curve-
fitting technique used to generate this frequency
analysis.
Pr ovide a table of proposed mini~num flows 'llhich
resolves the apparent contradiction between this
table (Table E-2-34) and Exhibit B (Table 8.54),
especially for the months of lowest pos t -project
flows (October-May).
Provide data and observations on changes in the
Susitna River morphology during freeze ove l' and
ice breakup .
Provide estimates of the magnitude of increase in
suspended sediments in Watana, Devil Canyon, and
the Susitna River associated · with vege t ation
removal in the impoundment zones.
Provide quantitative estimates of incM!ases in
suspended sediment concentrat i ons in winte ~ and in
summer and the downstream ~tent of s uch increases
during construction of Watana and Dev i l Canyon Dams.
'~·-~---------------------------------------------
·. ·-· ·····---·~·-· ·--·--·----··-·------·---·----·-------·-··---· .....
• .. ·~ •
23. p. E-2-67, , 4
24. p. E-2-69, , 3
25. p. E-2-70, , 1
26. p. E-2-75, t 4
27. p. E-2-77, t 1 e p. E-2-87., 1
29. p. E-2-89, t 3
30. p. E-2-90, t 3
31. p. E-2-91, t 2,
· p. E-2-170
- 4 -
Provide envi~nmental criteria used for selection
and elimination of borrow sites.
Provide data on the quantity and particle size
distribution of materials lost through entrainment
and erosion fro• borrow sites at other construction
sites in Alaska (e.g., lake Eklutna Hydro Project).
Provide description of methods for preventing
entrain~~ent of backfill materials in river water
and erosion of such uterials into the river.
Provide coefficient values used in regression
analysis and how they were determined.
Provide details of regression analysis used for
Deadman Creek including derivation of coefficients
and input data.
Provide longitudinal profiles of pr•dicted weekly
average temperatures downstream of Watana Dam and
Devil Canyon/Watana using the DYRSEM and HEATSIM
models. Simulations for stations with pre-project
temperature data should be provided with Watana in
operation and Devil Canyon/Watana in operation
using data for an average water year and for
condi~ions of •inimum releases (i.e., using data
for a •i ni111.111 flow year) from Watana and frota
Devil Canyon. Listings of inputs used and assump-
tions 111de in each simulation sflould also be
provided. Outflow temperatures from each reservoir
used in the HEATSIM 11odel should include the
temperatures that would have to be available at
the •ultilevel intakes in order to •atch pre-du
temperatures . Meteorological conditions used as
model parameters should be provided. These simulated
average weekly temperatures should be compared to
pre-project temperatures 11easured during low-flow
and average flow years. Provide parameter value~
used in each simulation and document the source of
the va 1 ues used. , . .-... ·
~rovide river stage and flows at which overtopping
and scouring of sloughs was observed.
Provide estimates of the magnitude of increase in
suspended sediment concentrations and in turbidity
in winter in the Susitna River compared to pre-
project levels. . . ~ . :. • !-: .. ' . •.
Provide quantitative esti111ates of increases in
suspended sediments resulting fro11 skin slides,
bi o1110dal flow type slides, and shallow rotational
~lides in the Watana and Devil Canyon impoundment
.. ~.----no·--
·-·-· -·· ..... ·-. ·--~ ... ----··· -·. -· ... -·-···-. ... .. -··· .. -·-.. -, ... ··-..• -· .. . ·--· .. --.... ---. -·--------
• . •f • ~ •
32. p. E-2-92, t l
33 . p. E-2-96, t 2
34. p. E-2-97
35. p. ·E-2-100, t 4
~ p. E-2·ll2, f 2
37 . p. E-2-112, t 6
- 5 -
zones. Document locations where each type ot
slide is likely to occur in each of the impoundment
zones.
Provide analysis of the effects of filling and
o~~ratian of Watana on suspended sediment concen-
trations and suspended particle sizes passing
downstrea. through Watana Reservoir.
Provide quantitative estimates of nutrient adsorp-
tion on suspended sediments (e.g., glacial flour)
that will be transported into Watana Reservoirs.
Provide data on levels of exchangeable phosphorus
1 n soi 1 s in the Watana and De vi 1 Canyon i mpoun~nt
zonu.
Provide data on the seasonal fluctuations of
groundwater levels for various river stages for
the aquifers adjacent to the ·river and upgradient
from the river aainsta. Provide data on the
seasonal variations in groundwater discharge to
the sloughs. Provide data on the areal extent and
seasonal variability of upwelling in the sloughs
for various river flows. Provide data on the
areal extent of the allu\'ial aquifer in the reservoir
area. . the Sl~onal fluctuation of the de.pth of
the penaafrost.
Provide real and simulated salinity da~ \. ich
show the accuracy of the Corp of Engineers salinity
1110del for predicting salinity fn Cook Inlet at
different locations (e.g., Node 27) under different
flow conditions. Also, provide parameter values
used in these simulations and document the source
of the va 1 'Ues used.
Estimate the probability and magnitude of super-
saturated water passing through Watana and Devil
Canyon reservoirs . Include specific estimates for
water entering Watana reservoir, the likelihood of
supersaturated conditions persisting through the
reservoirs to the intake structures, any differences
between saturation values of water entering outlet
facilities and the turbine intakes, potential for
air entrainment at both outlet facilities and the
turbine intakes, and a description of the processes
affecting supersaturation at the turbine outlet
facilities.
Provide data on the seasonal variability of bedload
transport in the Susitna River at available cross
sections.
I • •. •
-... . . -------··-·----· ·--· .. ---··--.·· -· ---. --··-
. .
38. p. E-2-117. , 2
'\ /'39.1 p . E-2-118. t 1, \..._..t Fig. £.2.170 ,
Fig. E.2.1n
p. E-2·121. t 5,
Fig. E.2.179
p. E-2-124, t 2
42. p. E-2·126
43. p. E-2·128 , t 2
44. p. E-Z-132, , 2
45. p. E-2-133, t 3
46. p. E-2-136, , 4 ·
47. p. E-2-165. t 4
tG p. E-2-187. !·2
-6
Describe the uncertainties associated with data
collected during this period.
Provide lstimate of the error/uncertainty for la~e
Elc.lutna DYRSEH simulations by •onth and season.
Also provide data on model parameters used in the
simulations fn Figs . £.2 .170 and £.2.171. Expla i n
why the DRYSEM s i mulation run was restarted on
August 19 (Ffg. £.2 .170).
Provide parame t er values used 1n the DYRSEMIHEATSIM
simulation of river temperatures in Fig . E.2.179
and document the so~rce of parameter values used.
Provide documentation for ICESIM model. Provide
validation of ICESIM model by comparing 11odel
predictions with fee observations on the Susitna
River .
Provide sensitivity analysis to estimate cumulative
uncertainty in ice cov er predictions by cDns i dering
uncertainties 1n the sequence of 110dels used.
Frovide colll'parisons of trap efficiencies for
Watana based on the Brune curve with those estimated ,
using other 11ethods.
Provide list of all discharges where cone val~es
will be used and a list of discharges where cone
valves will not b~ used for Watana and for Devil
Canyon.
Provide data for each fraction of nitrogen and
phosphorus used in the calculation of the N:P
ratio 1n Susitna River water.
Provide data on water qua H ty, including nutrients,
dissolved oxygen, and trace metal concentrations
in Alaskan reservoirs of similar depths and in
simi 1 ar c 1 i mato 1 ogi ca 1 regimes during and after ·
filling.
Provide 1 list of differences and si11i larities
among Lake Eklutna, Watana, and Devil Canyon,
including physiographic characteristics (e.g.,
depth, area, aspect, shoreline development) known
to affect responses of reservoirs to meteorological
changes and thermal characteristi cs.
Provide bathymetry and su bstrate dat~ for sloughs
identified as candidates for remedial action.
•• -... #. ,_ .... -. -.. -. ··-·-.. ---· ··---· ···-•:--.. ·-~--···-.. ---. ···-·~._,;. ·---.·. . •. . .,. ' ....
49. Fig. E.2.63,
Fig. E.2.64
50. Fi g. E.2.65
51. Table E.2.2,
Table E.2.4
-7 -
Provide clarification of the term 11 water depth 11
used fn these figures (i.e., maximum depth , mean
depth, or hydraulic radius).
Provide a description of the modeling procedures
used to generate the water surface elevations in
this f i gure . Provide the appropriate reference to
Trfhey's vork (Trihey 1982 is ambiguous) and other
ADFG or R&M reports containing data used in this
analysis.
Provide tables of monthly average flow data at
Gold Creek, Chulitna River, Talkeetna River, and
Susitna Station for water years 1950 through 1981.
Provide corresponding monthly average temperatu~e
data at these four stations for e ve~ month during
water years 1950 through 1981 for which this 1 s
possible.
..
·. -. ..
• - 8 -
3. FISH, WILDLIFE, AND BOTANICAL RESOURCES
FISH RESOURCES
1. p. E-3-92, 1 2,3
2. p . E-3-96, t 3
3. p. E-3-110, t 3;
p . E-3-lll, t 2;
p. E-3-115,1 2
4. p. E-3-112, t 3
5. p. E-3 -113, t 3
6. p. E-3-120, t 2
7. p. E-3-128, t 1
Provide criteria that require use of cold (4°C),
deepwater re 1 eases through dhers ·: .ln tunne 1 s in
t.he second sUDner of Watana fi 111 ng . Provide
reasoning why war~~er surface water cannot be used
when i t will, according to Table £·3.25, Plate F-17,
and Figure C.1, be accessible to t.he outlet
1aci1 fties.
Provide the depth-of-passage criteria used in the
analysis of Slough 9 that led to the conclusion of
unrestricted access at flows over 18,000 cfs but
acute access problems at flows less than 12,000 cfs.
Provide quantitative biological criteri a for suit·
able water depths 1n sloughs for access and spawning .
Provide doc umen tation, quantative if possible , from
other hydroelectric projects in glacial areas that
decM!ased open-water turbidity and reduced silt
load downstream of Watana will improve benthic:
producti on and thus fish rearing.
Provide docum entation of successful egg incubation,
as well as overwintering in areas downstream of
hydropower reservoirs where glacial silt loads an d
turbidity continue into winter months, e.g., below
Eklutna lake.
Provide your quantitative estimate and ana lysis of
chang es in growth rates and outmigration times of
juvenile sa 1 mon 1 n the Sus 1 tna 11a ins tream and
, maj or side ch ann el s that could result from a ltere~
an nual temperature and flow regimes such as those
given in Figures E-2.174 through E. 2.183, E. 2.193
and E.2.194, or others if justified. Do for
\latana and Devil Canyon scenarios •. . ..
Pr ovide a spe cies l ist of impo rtant r esident finfish
and shell fish 1n Upper Cook Inlet. Indicate the
most dominan t species and any species of comme rcial
value . ·
Provide references from other project s or fro11
experimental studies that form the basis for the
.................. . ~ ..
--------------
'
8. p. E-3-130, t 6,
p. E-3-187, t 6
9. p. E-3-164, t 4
10 . p. E-3-110, t 5
11. p . E-3-178
12. p. E-3-119, Aquatic
Studies Progru
13. Table E. 3.8
14 . Table E.3.17
15. Fi gures E.3.8
and E.3 .9
- 9 -
statement that turbidity and si l tation of the
Sus1tna River from gravel mining in the riverbed
and tributaries for Watana and Devil Canyon Dams
will not result in adverse impacts to fish .
Prov i de water quality criteria used to determine
suitability of Oevil Canyon and Watana Reservoirs
for f1s~ production, especially for the decision
to stock and manage rainbow trout only in Devil
Canyon reservoir.
Provide references to studies at other sites where
spring flows were manipulated at the tin of ice
breakup in order to stimulate out-•igratian of
sa lllOn fry.
Provide operating criteria for deter~~ining how the
selective withdrawal capabilities of the multi-level
intakes to the Watana and Devil Canyon powerhouses
wi 11 be contra 11 ed to atui n pre-estab 1 i shed
thermal objectives far fish populations.
Provide the data and analysis procedure used to
detaraine the •a.ximum esti mated s!)awning habitn
(approxiataly 245,000 ftl) required by sal1110n
spawning in sloughs upstream fro~~ Talkettna in
1981 and 1982.
Provide the current work plan f or the Aquatic Progr111
for 1983 and 1984.
Provide an eva l uati on of or reference t hat descri bes
the correlation between helicopter suneys versus
on-foot surveys as methods far estimating chinook
salmon escapement (number live and dead).
Provide estimates for each tributary listed in
this table of the total length of tri butary presently
uti lized by Ar ctic grayling.
Provide papu l ati on es timates and percentages of
·adu l t salmon 111 i gr ating past t he Sunshine Station
(see Ffgs . E.3.8 and E.3.9) that enter the Talkeetna
River, the Chulitna River, or stay in the Susitna
River between the Sunsh i ne Station and the Talkeetna
Sbtion.
Tt RREST RIAL BOTAN I CAL RESOURCES
1~ p. E-3-195, t 3 Prov i de an estima te of the amount and kinds of
timber currently removed from the project are~ for
subs i ste nce use .
.. . .
2 . p. E-3-202, 1 4
3. p. E-3-206, t 1
4. p. E-3-208, t 4, to
p. E-3-210, t 1
5. p. E-3-219, 1 5, to
p. E-3-220, t 1
6. p. E-3-221, t 4
7. p. E-3-2.25, t 2;
p. E-3-240, t 2;
p. E-3-244, 1 3;
p. E-3-245, , 3;
p. E-3-246, t 5;
p. E-3-247, 1 2-4;
p. E-3-252, t 5;
p. E-3-253, t 1;
p. E-3-270, t 1;
p. £-3-280, , 5
8. p. E-3-226, 1 4
-10 -
Estimate the average elevational limit for trees
in the project area (and/or ~stimate the range for
tne line).
Indicate whether the percentage of tota 1 area
covered by open sprur.e is !% as stated in this
paragraph or 7% as shown in Table £.3.51.
Define sedge-shrub tundra and mat and cush i on/sedge-
grass t undra as used in Tables E.3.51 and £.3.52.
Indicate (e.g., as in Table E.3.87) how the
vegetation types that were used by Convnonwealth
Assoc. (1982) and presented 1n Table E.3.79 correlate
with the vegetation types used by Mc Kendrick et
al . (1982).
Provide clarification of the statements concerning
11odified 11apping of wet sedge-grass and black
spruce forest as wetlands 1n the Healy-to-Fairbanks
and Willo~ta-Cook Inlet tran~mission corridors.
Were all the areas covered by th:!se vegetation
types considered wet l ands, or were portions of
each type selected en the basis of defined criteria?
Check anrl correct, as necessary, all calculations
of land areas to be impacted or mitigated. Dis-
crepancies have been found withi n tables {e. g.,
Table E.3.83 totals for impoundment and for shrub-
land over th~ entire Watana facility) and be tween
the text and calculations made from the tables .
Far example, on p. E-3-225 total direct vegetation
removal due to Watana construction is given as
16,582 hi, but this figure should take into account
the 2128 ha of unvegetated area; on p, E-3-245,
the percentage of total ~et 1 ands occupied by
palustrine forested areas is not consistent with
calculations made from Table E.3.82. Indicate
whether unvege tated or disturbed areas were included
in the calculations for vegetation removals and
whether unvegetated rocky areas we re treated
·differently than river. lake, or .ice a r e as.
! •
Provide a more detailed desc ri ption of fugitive
du s t emissions and impacts. Include calculations
and/or discussions to support conclusions on the
fmpacts of fugitive dust. Show on an appropriate
map of the project area locations wheTe significant
fugitive dust emissions are expected during con-
struction. Provide the time periods for construc-
tion activ ity a~eac h l cc ation of expected signi-
ficant fugitive emissions; prov ide mitigation ·
measures.
.. . . ..
. -... ·-· ... ·----·-·-------.. ____ .. _. ·----
9.
. 10.
11. p . E-3·230, Y 2.;
p . E-3·242, f 2
12. p. E-3-246, , 2
13. p. E-3-25 6, f 1
14. p. E-3-259, f 3
15. p. E-J-m, , 4
16. p. E-3-272, t 2
17. p. E-3·274, f 4, to
p. E·3-27S, T 1
-11 -
Provide estiaates of pollutant emiss i on l evels for
the temporary diesel power generati on f acil i ties
and t he peri ad of us e during the cons tructi on
period. What air qua lity impacts will result?
Provide numerical values, explain their derivation,
and provide a numerical estimate of the air quality
impact.
Were ~~~eteoro 1 ogi ca 1 11easurements 11ade 1 n the
vicinity of the propose~ dam sites? If so, provide
data an frequence of occurrena of wind speed,
stability class, wind direction , and inversion
depths.
Indicate whether the area affected by the dravdown
zone has been fnc:luded in esti 111tes of direct
vegetation removal dut to the impoundments and/or
in Tables E. 3. 83 and E. 3.84. If not, provi de
estimates of the areas affected by drawdown for
both Watana and Devil canyon.
Provide estimates (using tables similar to
Table E.l.82) of the number of hectares of different
wet 1 and types that wi 11 be crossed by each of the
tranSIIfssion corridors (includi ng the intertie)
and areas that will be clea red for access.
Describe how partially or completely excavated
barrtJW areas for the access roads will be N . !bil-
itated.
Indicate how the area of wet sedge-grass tundra in
the access and transmission corri dors vas calculated
to be 195 ha using Tables E.3.80,· E.3.8S, and
E.3.86, ~d indicate i f the intertie (Table E.3 .79)
has been included in the calculations.
Indi cate ~hether, and in ~hat situations, ~i nter
cons t ruction of transmi ssi on lines will be used as
a mitigation measure (si nca the usa of he licopter
constructi on is not cu r rently planned).
I ndicate whether the usa of balloon-tire or fl at·
tread vehicles as required for •ccess to the
Watana-to-Gold Creek corri dor wi11 also be requi red
for the other transmiss i on corr idors.
Expla i n ~h e re the numbers in the examples in these
twa paragraphs came from ; they do not correspond
with prev i ously stated numbers s uch as those on
p. E-3-253 .
.. . .
--· ·--------------·---. ------· -··---·· ....
18. p. E-3-275, f 3, to
p . E-3-291, f 3
19. p . E-3-279 , f 1, to
p. E-3-280, f 4
-12 -. '
Provide a •or e detailed description of possible
•iti gation options for wetlands where avoidance
cannot be used as the •ethod of •itigation. For
example , describe special construction ·.ethods
that could be used in wetland areas, and provide
examples of the techni ques or aethods that could
be used to 11itigat.e potential alterations to
wetland drainage patterns.
Provide examples of reclamat1(3n plans and pro-
cedures that could be used for various types of
areas (e.g., slopes, flat areas) and ujor vegeta-
tion types.
IDRESTRIAL WILDUFE RESOU~CES
1. p. E·3-3U, f 4
2. p. E-3-337, t 3
3. p. E-3-411 , t 1
4. p. E-3-450, t 2
5. p. E-3-494 to
p. E-3-495
6. p. E-3-499, 1 2
7. p. £~3-524, f 3
8. p. E-3-536, f 4
9. p. E-3-540, f 1
10 . Table E.3.92 and
Tab l es £.3.83,
E.3.7l
11. Table £.3 .143 .
Provide a complete description of criteria for
stratifying census area into low, ftedium, and high
density strata.
Provide a schedule of when results from ongoing
studies will be available.
Provide an estiaate of the numbers of 110ose using
the aineral lick and the number of other licks
used by the local •oose population.
Indicate the availability of bald eagles nest
si t es relative to food availability.
Descri be the potential for impacts of operating
transm i ssion lines on wi l dlife use of rights-of-way.
Indicate the criteria for deteraining • ••• suffi-
cient magnitude to influence mitigation planning.•
Provide assays for soluble cations and salts as
well as for total elemental levels.
Indi cate if a f t i gation by shi fting the road al i g-
nment also i ncludes avo i di ng the use of borrow
materi al near the nest &s well as other sensiti ve
areas identi fied in Figures E.3.80 through E.3.82.
Indicate if transmission lines were sited so as to
reduce or avoid potential for collisions.
I ndicate which is the value to be used for the
&r e&l extent of low-mi xe d-shrubland. :
Oeffne the number fn parentheses next to each
species name.
-. --. ----· --·-----------------·--·-·---
. . . . . .
12. Table E.3.165 and
Tab l es E.J.n.
E.3.83, E.3.S4
13. Table E.3.165
-13 -
Indicate vhich va l ues for areal extent o! vege t ation
types are to be used .
Define 11 total %of other projects".
..
.. ... ...,.----
-14 -
4. HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The following archaeological field work 11ust be completed during the
1983 field season. The order of the list indicates the priorities that should
be placed on the completion of each task.
1. Completion of the reconnaissance survey of the proposed access roads,
railroad, Watana and Devil Ca~on dam sites, construction camp areas,
usociated impact. areas, and reservoirs, including the resurvey of defined
locales that have potential for containing sites.
2. Completion of aerial reconnaissance survey and on--ground reconnaissance
survey as necessary to complete sensitivity maps of all proposed trans-
mission corridors and recreation facility sites as may have been defined
indicating the potential of these areas for containing archaeological and
histori cal sites.
3. Completion of reconnaissance survey of any additional direct imp act areas
that •ay be defined prior to the 1983 field season.
4. Completion of systematic testing of archaeological and historical sites
in the direct impa ct areas of t t:e access roads and raihoad, and the
vi cinity of the construction camp areas and the proposed s ites of the
Watana and nevi1 Canyon dams and associated facilities.
The following field ~ork should be completed in the 1984 field season
and according to the following priorities.
1. Completion of systematic testing of sites in the reservoirs.
2. Completion of reconnaissance survey along the proposed transmission
corridors , recreation facility sites, and indirect and potenti al imp act
areas •.
3. Completion of systemati c te.sting of sites in these areas as 11ay be necessa ry.
A prel imin ary ~port on the results of the 1983 field season shou l d be
filed at the conclusion of f iel d -.ork. no later than Septemb er 1, 1983. A
draft final report on the 1983 field season must be provided by December 1,
1983, fol lowed by the final report by January 1, 1984 . The final report on
the 1984 season should be filed after completion of all field ~ork., no late~
than January 1, 1 985 . The 1985 report should contai n a site-specific cultural
resources management plan. All ~ork ~d final reports, including a cultural
resources mana gement plan, should be undertaken and prepared in consultation
with the Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer, the National Park Service,
and appropriat.e federal land-managing agenci es . Five copies of each r eport
(i nc luding five cop ies of the fi nal reports on the 1980, 1981, and 1982 f i eld
~rk) shou ld be filed ~ith the Commission.
..... ~--· ···-. --··· ----· -·-------.............. ·-. .
1. p . E-5-8, t 4,
through
p. E-5-26, t 1
2. p. f.::-5-27,, 1,
p.
through
E-5-52, t 4
3. p . E-5-30, 1 2;
p. E-5-38, 1 1;
p. E-5-40, t 5;
p. E-5-64, t 4
4. p. E-5-34, t 1;
p. E··S-86, t 2
5. p. E-5-37, t 2
6. p. E-5-39, t 5,6;
p. E-S-42, t 3,4;
p . E-5-48, t -1,2
7. ~· E-5-42, 1 3,4,
p. E-5-48, t 1,2.
8. p. E-5-45, t 2
,.
9. p. E-5-47, t 2,3
-15 -
• r
5. SOCIOECONOMICS
Provide data on the distribution of temporary and
renta 1 housing or 1 odgi ng un i tt> throughout the
project region . Prov i de date when supplemental
information will be available.
Provide 1 discussion of impacts related to deve-
lopment of the proposed project on Native Alaskans.
Provide date when supplemental information will be
available.
Explain the discrepancy between t he ratios of
· direct workers plus dependents to support workers
plus dependents (3:1, 1:1, 4:1) and the multi-
pliers used to generate population projections
(rangi ng from 1:1.2 to 1:2.4).
Provide information on how expenses of the school
onsite will be shared by APA and the Borough.
Document that the state will assume responsibility
for ~aintenance and winter plowing of the Denali
Highway and maintenance of the project access road
during and after project construction, whether or
not the road is eventually closed ~ public access.
Discuss the conditions unde r ~hich •a strain on
this informal system" will be defined as occurring,
as well as a plan or alternatives f~r who will
provide these services . Provide date when $upple-
mental information will be provided.
Provide infonnation on the composition of the
· onsite medical and hospital staff and where that
staff will come from (e. g., housed onsite or
commute). ·
Provide an estimate of how many of the railhead
construction workers would be emp loyed at the
Watana and Devil Canyon sites after the railhead
facilities are c omp let~d.
Provide date that information will be available on
road surface fo r the Denali Hig hway and on naviga-
tional and traffic aid needs in Cantwell. Provide
description of these studies.
···--·-·--· -------.... ··----·-----·· ' .. . · .--:--.... :.· ·----........ . .. .. -.... -. . .. . .
. . . .
. ..,
.
. ..
10. p. E-5-55, 1 5,
through
p. E-5-56, t 2
11. p. E-5-59, t 1
12. p. E-5-60, t 4,
and
p. e-s-n, t 1
13. p. E-5-63, t 2-4
14. p. E-5-70, I 1
through
p. E-5·78, t 4
15. p. E-5-78, t 6
16. p. E-5-79, t 1
17 . p. E-5-81,. t 3,
through
p. E-5-82, I 6
18. p. E-5-86, , 4;
p. E-5-90, t 2;
p. E-5-93, 1 Z
19 . p. E-5-95, 1 7
-16 -
Provide information on whether the payroll figures
include payments for housing, on whether meals will
be included for all single workers 1 iving in
onsite housing, and on how workers wi ll qualify to
live in onsite housing, both single and family
units.
Describe the local hire program planned.
Provide the number of workers who will be housed
at the railhead camp and whether they are included
in these figures on settlement patterns for the
Mat-Su Borough . Describe the railhead camp.
Provide date when supplemental information will be
provided.
Provide information on other projects proposed for
the region during the same time period as this
project.
Inc 1 ude the capacity of and impacts to 1 odges ,
other temporary lodging units, and trailer parks.
Provide date when supplemental information will
be pro vi de d •.
Provide information on the location and numbers of
these isolated residences that would be displaced
by the project. Provide date when supplemental
information wi ll be provided.
Descr i be existing housing and commercial operations
and potential project impacts along the proposed
ra i 1 1 i ne . Describe the ongai ng study of 1 and
i mprovements . Provide a date when 'this study and
the supplemental information on housing and commercial
operations will be provided.
rrovide quan t ified es t imates of project-related
subcontracting expenditures.
Discus s how short fa 11 s in Borough revenues will
be resolved. Provide date when supplemental
information will be provided.
Provide explicit discussion of · the relationship
be t ween the recreation plan and the exacerbation
and management of i ncreased competition within
this user gr oup . In add i tion, explicitly relata
the establishment of a permarent vi~lage t o effects
upon this use r group.
•
. . . ·-·-------· . -...... -· .. ..
2b. p. E-5-102, t 2,
and
p. E-5-104, f S,
through
p. E-5-105, 1 1
21. p. E-5-104, t S
22. p . E-5-110, 1 2
23. p . E-5-116, 1 4
24 . p. E-5-117, t 2
25. p. E-5-120, 1 4,
through
p. E-5-121, t 3
26 . p. E-5-125
27. p. E-5-125
28 . p. E-5-125, 1 1,
t i .l ., .. ,h
p. e-s-u~. , s
29 . p. E-5-126, t 3
30. p . E-5 ~128, t 2-S
!
31. p. E-5-129, t 3
-17 -
Describe the •onitoring program and provide dat~s
when data viii be available.
Provide estimates of the current level of permit
violations ~nd non-permit hunting , especially in
accessible areas, and of effects of increased
demand upon these levels.
Provide dates when these data will be available.
Relate doubling of hunter demand indicated in
Table E. 7.13 to current use of GMU 13E, the u in
area of impact.
~~ current ADFG management regulations for
Indicate impacts to trapping activity because
of incr eased accessibility provided by project
roads and structures.
Identify options for reducing impacts to the fish/
wildlife user group .
Describe procedure.s that vill be followed in
optimizing the resoluti on among conflicting ~nterests
for mitigating impacts to recreation, fish/~.ldlife
users, and the fish/wildlife supply.
Indicate spec i fic applicant-proposed and committed
monitoring and aitigation plans. Discuss role of
local community and regional officials. Provide
date when supplea~ental information on these plans
will be provided. Provide plans for the railhead
construction camp in Cantwell after the railhead
is coa~pleted.
Describe studies and monitoring programs and give
· dates when data will be available.
Provide specific plans for adjusting project
schedules with reference t o other projects; ti mi ng
of workforce demand; leave, shift, and shift
rotation sche dules.
Provide detailed plans for "siti.ng, type , quality,
and.administration of housing and related facilities
for workers" when avafiable.
. . . ..
32. p. E-5-129, 1 4,
through
p. E-5-131, 1 4
33. p. E-5-132, 1 3
34. p. E-5-133, 1 5,
tnrough
p. E-5-134, 1 6
35. p. E-5-137, 1 3
36. Figure E.S .l
37 . p. E-58-3, 1 6,
through
p. E-SB-4 ~ t 1
--··· ---. ···-··. .,. -· .
-18 -. '
Indicate specific applicant-proposed 111itigation
plans on transportati on, including rail, pooling,
and air alternatives , and funding (e.g., conditions
for payment of travel expenses for workers). Cite
sourcu of 1nfonaation on other projects (p. E-5-130,
1 S). Provide date when supplemental information
~11 be provided.
Indicate specifically how thresholds .of •fnadequately-
.et deaand• and of cost-effectiveness of aitigation
aeasures will be determined.
Provide descriptions of data and nthods of data
collection and analysis to be used in monitoring
and updating i11pact assessments. Provide dates
supplemental information on the 1110n1toring plan
and assessnents ~ 11 be provided.
Provide date informati on w111 be available on the
study of the poss i ble new location for th~ permanent
townsite.
Provide a map showing aajor transportation routes
plus all comunities refernd to in this chapter
(e. g., Wasilla, Trapper Creek, which do not appear
on other ups in the application).
The standards of 25 students per class for primary
schools and 20-22 for sec ondary schoo l ' for the
Borough are not the samt:! ones which appear on
Table 5.8.1, p. E-58-7. ldentit,y which were used.
In addition to the above items from Chapter 5, the following specific
information requests are made based on the responses to agency comments which
appear in Appendix EUJ, "Coaments Received from Agencies Concarning the Draft
License and the Power Authority's Response to these Comments.•
38. Response.s to Alaska Department of Nat ural Resources Letter of January 13,
1983:
•· Cement 9
b. Cement 10
Provide reference.s of TAPS studies reviewed.
Provide descTi ption of how impact mode l will be
updated and dates when up nates vi 11 be available.
39. Responses to Al aska Depar tment of Fi sh and Game Lett er of January 13,
1983 : Chapter S, Sp ecific Comments.
'·
a. G-5-001 E-5-6/1
b. G-5-008 E-5-68
and
G-5-017 E-5·7115
-19 -
Provide description of study 11ethods and plan,
data on the "importance of the natura 1 resource
harvest to the local impact area" to be co l lected
in 1983 "through interviews vith residents of
selected communities,• and date vhen data will be
available.
Provide data that will be collected on fi sh and
wildlife user groups in Cantwell and other commu-
nities in the project region, and indicate dat e
when these data will be available . Provide descrip-
tion of study plan and methods.
. --.------·---. . .. .
1. p. E-6·1 to
p. E-6-42
2. p. E-6-3, t 1
3. p. E-6-4 , t 4
4 . p. E-6-11
S. p. E-6-lS
6. p. E-ti-20, t Z
7. p. E-6-25, 1 1 . . . .
8. p. E-6-28
9. p . E-6-30, t 4
---· ... ---· ---.. --..
-20 -
6. GEOLOGICAL AHO SOIL RESOURCES
Include a detafled description of soils, including
the types of occurrence, physical and chemical
characteristics, erodab111ty, and potential for
eass soil •ovement for impoundment areas, Access
routes, transmission line routes, bor~ areas,
construction camps • and other project features.
If kn«Nn, provide the geologic name~ of the strati-
graphic units in the area.
Complete the last sentence in the paragraph.
Provide 1 tabulation of significant seismic events
and their intensities at the site. Also provide 1
plot shoving cumulative magnitude-recurrence
frequency for each seismic source area identified
tn the study.
Document any studies that describe the origin of
•the Fins• feature. Descr i be any investi gations
underway to discover other unide ntified shear
zones beneath the other incised porti)nS of the
relict channel. Indiate the scope of these
fnve~t igations, prov i de s~aries of these findi ngs,
and esti mate completion dates f or th ~se studies.
Describe in greater detail the presence of stress
relief joints 100 ft back from the Devil Canyon
dam sfte gorge ~a l ls and ~h e large de t ac he d rock
blocks measu r ing 25 by SO ft on the l eft ab utment
as de scribed in the Acres Am erican 1982 Geotechnical
Report Vol. 1 (e .g., depth of joints, probability
· of failure of block. during 11a.xia11.n intensity
quake. probable se i che effects) • ..
Estimate t he numb er of hec t ares exp ected to be
affected by each type of sl ope fai l ure for each
reservoir. -· • :. "% ,. • • ••
·:.·· ..
Analyze how the previous substantial glacial
'loading and unload i ng of t he reg i on 01ay affect the
prob ability and magn i t ude of ant icipated IUS.
Provide estima tes of the amo unt of piping of the
r elict channel north of the Watana site ex it point
on Tsusena Creek t hat may be expected as a result
. . .
10. p . E-6 -34
U. p. E-6-35, t 3
12. p . E-6-40, t 3
13. p. E-6-41
14. p. E-6-41, t 8
lS. genera 1 ct~ament .
- 21 -
of seepage . Di scus s the nat ure of fut ure investi-
gations to ass ess t he seepage problem and the
criteria to be used in determining mitigation
•easures.
Esti~nate the potential for slope failure and
erosion to extend beyond the project boundaries .
Identify areas where this may be aost likely to
occur and estimate the number. of hectares to· be
affected.
Provide an analysis of the effects and probabilfty
of seis•i cally induced seiches. Estimate the
water-level fluctuations due to sei ches.
Provide the criteria whereby the •itigation 11easures
to reduct the 1 eakage through the relict channe 1
will be chosen. Provide an analysis of the impacts
of each of thes• alternative ~~easures.
Estimate the liquffacti on potential for all uncon-
solidated alluvial and glacial deposits within the
river valley and access and transmis s ion line
routas. ·
If the excavati on of the buried channe 1 area is
required, estimate the amounts of additional
bLlrrow -aaterial that would ba required and indi cate
which borrow areas would be used.
Indicate what potential impacts would be assoc i ated
with construction of access roads, transmission
towers, an d temporary and permanent CDnstruction
villages on pel"'llafrost and what mitigation measures
will be used during such construction. Document
other studies that have analyzed such impacts and
mitigati on measures in similar regions.
. .
1. p. £-7-lZ, , '
2. p. E-7-17, , 5
3. p. E-7-18, t 4
4. p. E-7-19, t 1
s. p. E-7-30, t 2;
p. E-7-97, t 4; ~
p. E-3-422, ! 3
. ."'·
6. p. E-7-34, t 3
..
7. p. E-7-44, t 8
-22 -
1. RECREATION RE SOURCES
Provide documents and other ava11abe information
supporting the conclusion that the aiddle Susftna
River lasfn h unsufUble for inclusion fn the
State Park System.
No structures are apparent fn Figures E.7 .6, E.7 .7
and £.7.8. Are the structures referred to those
that are shown in Figure E. 7.4? .
Verify that there are U structures at High lake
Lodge; e.g., seven structures are shown in Fig-
ure E.7.4. Table E.9.5 and Figure E.9.9 indicate
the presence of ntne structures and tw~ cabin
foundations at High Lake Lodge. Info1"114Uon
concerning structures as presented 1n Figures E.7 .4
and E.9 .9 and Table E.9.5 should be compared and
the discrepancies corrected. For example, the
Tsusena Lake lodge is located more than five aileJt
from Tsusena Lake fn Figure £.9.4. ·
Provide copies of an.y regulations developed by BUM
for management of public trails located ~n local
lands selected by Native Corporations. Are the
six easements identified fA the st"u~ area shown
fn Figure E. 7.4? If not, provide a aap shoving
locations of the easements. . r ·· ................. _,
Provide an explanation of the b~ts for ant tct-..
patfng that all game hunting by p~ject personnel
would be prohibited and provide a rationale as to
how such a prohibftton would be justified and
enforced. · · · ~ . . t 4
· Specify target dates for completion of studies and
submi ssion of the recreati on development pl an for
transm i ssion line corridors •
Provide details demonstrating how this calculated
recreation de.mand [Sec. 3.2.3(a}] was factored
·.nto develop ment of t he Recreation Plan, as pr esented
tn ·Sec t ion 5. For example, ~hfeh of t he prop osed
recr eation s ites wou l d be r equf"d to satisfy
demand at the year ~000? How wou l d visi tation to
vi sitors centers at dam sites be factored into
demand estimates?
. ,
. . . . .
8 . p. E-7-67 , t 2
9. p. E-7-69,
Section 5.4.1
10. p. E-7-97, t 3
11. p. E-7-10 1 , t 3
12. p. E-7-101, , 5
13. p. E-7-101, t 5;
p. E-7-110, 'f 4;
p. E-7-113, t 3
14. p.· E-7-105, 1 1
... -·--. . --. . . -.-... ·.
-23 -
Pro vi de a copy of the 1974 document by the
U.S. Department of Agriculture that was used as a
basis for calculating carrying capacity of the
various recreation sites. Also provide details as
to how the methodo 1 ogy presented i n the document
was 11modified11 for use in calculations of carrying
capacity as presented.
Compare information common to Secti on 5.4.1
through Section 5.4.5, Section 6.1.6, Ta bles E.7.17
and E.7.l8, and Figures E.7.7 through E.7 .17 and
correct all discrepancies with respect to (1) phasi 1g
of development, (2) proposed f aciliti es to be
pr ovided, and (3) estimated costs of 11 recreation
plan project features." Provide more specific
information f or proposed recreation sites D (Tyone
confluence with Susitna), B (Butte Creek/Su$itna
River), A (Middle Fork-Chulitna River), and H
(Tsusena Creek), i.e., information comparable to
that s hown for other proposed recreation areas in
Figures E. 7. 7 through E. 7.17 (inc 1 ude addition a 1
~ps as appropriate).
Indicate if the proposed airfield will be available
for general publi c use during project construction
and/or operation.
Provide target dates for finalizing plans and
submission of information relative to Phas ·Two
engineering design specifications, final s1te
selection, and site-specific data for all Phase-one
racreat'on developments identi fied in the Recreation
.P lan.
Prov ide utypical or similar facility design standan~
for the Susitna project,11 as proposed in the text.
Copies of · any existing agreements, as we 11 as
any future arrangements between the app 1 i cant
and cooperating entities ralative to implementation
o f the proposed recreation plan, mus t be submitted
to the Federa 1 Energy Reg ulatory Commission.
Aside from APA, t he Divi s ion of Parks, and directly
affected 1 and owners, s pecify how other 1 oca 1
residents wou ld be involved in decis ·ions concerning
scheduling and implementation of increased recrea-
tional developments .
...
1. p. E-8-~0. 1 1, to
p. E-8-31 , 1 4
2. p. E-8-33, 1 1-8
3. p. E-8-36 to
p. E-8-41
4. p. E-8-39 to
p. £-8-40
5. p. E-8-41
6. p. E-8-50, 1 3-5;
p. E-8-53 to
p . E-8-59
7. p. E-8-61, 1 l, to
p. E-8-68, 1 3
24 -
·-.
8. AESTHETIC RESOURCES
Indicate 1f the four natural features of Clear
Valley (p. E-8-22). Watana Creek Falls, Watana
lake (p. E-8-24), and Tyone River are considered
e.xceptional in relation t.o the project a~a. If
so, describe them in the Exceptional Natural
Features Section 5.2; include photos in the appendix,
and sho~ their locations on Figure E.8.S.
Provide 1 brief description (e.g., viewer vantage
point, view ing distance, number of potential
vie~ers, duration of view) of those significant
views that are indicated on Figure E.8.8 and
~ntioned in the charts of Appendix 8.F . Provide
a similar level of information for the the trans-
•isiion line corridor, including the intertie.
Indicate if there 1s 1 d istinction betwel!n use
of the terms "medi wn" and "110derate". which are
used interchangeably 1n the Aesthetic Value and
Absorption Capability Rating Charts and on the
Composite Rating Matrix.
Indicate whether the absorption capability rating
for the landscape character type of Tanan a Ridge
is ulow" (p. E-8-39) or "rnoderat.eu . (p. E-8-40).
Indicate it the absorption capab11 ity rows have
similar high, atedium, and low designations as
shown for the aesthetic value rating colUII'I ns.
Indicate 1f all (or which) 11it i gation op t ions
r::entioned within the text will be undertai(en.
Provide a similar level of description and analysi s
to that used for the project area, access roads,
and transR!ission li ra e stubs (including photos,
map ping, and descriptions of landforms, waterforms,
vegetation, and views) for the 1ntertie transmissi on
line corridor l a ndscape types of Talkeetna lowlands,
Chulitna River, Broad Pa!:s, Alaska Range, and
Yanert River Valley (Step 3). Br iefly describe
and indicate on maps (Step 4) all signifi cant
viewpoints, view s heds, distances, and potential
numbers of viewers along the entire transmission
line corridor (e. g •• at road crossings, river
---~-:--. -· .. -----------··-·· ... . . . . . .
8. p. E-8-61, t 1 to
p. E-C-68, t 3
-25 -
crossings, skylined areas, etc.). Provide aesthetic
value and absorption capabil i ty ratings for the
intertie landscape character types (Steps 5 & 6)
and determine t he project feature impacts (Steps 7
& 8). Finally, provide proposed mitigat ion measures
for the intertie project feature (Step 9).
Indicate the potential ~tent of visual impacts
to the Denal i National Park and Denali State Park
due to the location of the proposed trans~iss1on
line. Dis cus s the significance of these impacts
in relation to viewpoints, distances , du ration,
and numb er of vie'll'e rs . Indicate how any visual
1~pacts to these areas wi l l be mitiga~d .
. ·-----------
. . . '• .
. ...
1. p . E-9-9, 1 2, to
p. E-9-13, t 2
2. p. E-9-13, 1 3
3. p. E-9-27, t 3, to
p. E-9-29, t 6 •
4. p. £-9-31, , 2 , to
p. E-9-52, 1 2
5. p. E-9-3l, 1 2, to
p. E-9-52, t 2
6. p. E-9-49 , f 3 , to
p. E-9-51, t 4
7. p. E-9·50, 1 1
-26 -
9. l.A.'ID USE
Describe the existing land status fo• the intertie
portion of the proposed transmission line corridor.
Indicate if Tables E.9.1 and E.9.2 include data
for the fnte~tfe. If they do not, please in ~lude
land status/ownership information for the intertie.
Provide figures (similar to figures E. 9. 4-E. ~-6
and E.9.10-E.9.12) indi cating l and status and land
use development maps for the intertie section of
the proposed transmission 1 i ne corridor. land
ownership should be provided for the intertie
portion of t he transmission line corridor in
Exhibit G, plates 34-37 and 41-45.
Indicate the existing land values for the project
area, transmission line corri dor {including the
intertie), and adjacent lands to assist in sub-
stanti ating statements in Section 3 of the Land
Use chaohr conce rni ng changes in l and va lues .
Include a projection of future land values . If
land values cannot be precisely determined for the
project area or t ransmission line corridor, include
so me indication or exampl es of typical land values
for t he types of land in the project area4
Describe existing land use manag ement plans for
the proposed tran~ission line corri dor, includi ng
the intertie.
Estima te impacts to land values within and adjacent
to the project area and t r3nsmission line corridor.
Indicate how proposed land uses within and ad jacent
to the project area and along t he entire transmi s-
sion line corridor will affect existing wetland
a nd floodplain areas.
Estinmte i nduced land use changes (development and
activity) for the intertie sec~1on of the transmis-
sian line corridor. .·
lndicatl if there are a~y other proposed agricultural
sales along the entire transmission line corridor
other than the Point Mackenzie ag ricultural sale.
. . . ·. . . -27 •
10. ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS, DESIGNS, AND ENERGY SOURCES
'
1. p. E-10-6, t 5
2. p. E-1D-7
3. p. E-10-7 to
p. E-10-12
4 . p. E-10-ll, t S
s. p. E-10-11, 1 5 ~
through
p. E-10-12, , 10
6. p. E-10-12, , 10
1. p. E-10-13, t 1
8. p. E·lD-23, t 6
9. p. E-10-24, 1 3ff
10. p. E-10-26, , 5, to
p. E-10-28, t S
11. p. E-10.27. t 6
Provide the basis for deten~infng the "cut-off
points• for rating the 16 sites and a descripUon
of how partial and total score ~ were integrated to
yield selections.
Describe what, if iny, geologic constraints were
analyzed in assessing the alternative damsite
il'llpacts.
Provide available tnformation describing the
potential for slope failure that may be expected
at the three alternative dam sites, as well as
their potential for RIS, the extent of permafrost
soils, location of major fault systems, the extent
of mineral resources in the area, and the projected
reservoir sizes.
Provide .a brief description of what is considered
"typical scenic q~ality• for the Snow Site region.
Provide a brief description of the socioeconomic
environment of the Snow and Keetna sites.
Pro vide a ori ef description of the identified land
us es for the Keetna site.
Provide estimates of the acreage of vegetation
that would be lost by construction of the
Chakachamna, Snow, and Keetna sites.
Provide a co mparison of socioe-conomic factors
·(e.g .• housing, transport ation. community attitudes)
in the comparison of alternative plans .
Indicate what weighting was assigned to economic,
environmental, and social attributes.
Prov i .;te estimates of the acreage of vegetation
that would be lost by r.onstructi'>n of the High
Devi l Canyon-Vee dam s 1te~ • ..
Prov i de docume ntation for i ~portance of Vee r eservoir
area to key furbearers .
--------·--· --~ .... ·.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
1 9.
20.
21.
p. E-1 0-38 , t 5
p. E-10 -40, 1 2
p. E-10-42, t 1, to
p . E-10-43 , t 2
p. E-10-42, t 1 , to
p . E-10 -43, t 2
p. E-10-42 to
p. E-10-BJ
p. E-10-49, t S
p. E-10-54, t 4
p. E-lD-61, t 1
p . E-10-61, t 3 , to
p. E-1o-n. t 2
p. E-10-69 to
p . E-10-79
-28 -
Des cri be the crit~ria used for evaluating respons-
iveness of access plans .
Explain how aestheti c reso urce issues were factored
into the evaluati on and compa rison of a lternative
access plans.
Indicate wheth er the alternati ve access ro ute
corridors "ill follow t he alignments shown in
Figures E.10.7 and E.l0.8 or those in Figures E.3.42-
E.3.47. If the alignments shown in Fi~ures E.l0.7
and E.l0.8 ~ill be us ed, then provi de ve getation
and ~etlands maps for these 11 ~rnative rout.es .
Also provide estimates of the numb~r of hectares
of vegetation types that would be cleared for the
alternative access routes .
Estimate the acreage of wPtlands to be impdcted by
eac h of the three alternative access routes, and pro-
v;de a brief comp arison among routes of the extent
of access route effects on wetland drai nage patterns.
Indicate 1f the imp acts associated with excessive
slope, pe rm afrost, erodable or problem so il s ,
landslides or slumps will be any more (or less)
s evere wi t h in the alter~tive transmission corridors
than within the preferred co r ridor. Also i ndicate
whether construction zateri a 1 requirements are
expected to be s i~ilar and if agricultural soils
wi ll be crossed to the s~t extent in the alterna-
ti ve and preferred routes. Document t hese conclu-
sions by citing applicable studies.
Oescri be weighting factors gi veo to the cri t e ri a
us e d !n making the final choice.
Provide a descripti on of the s e lection process for
routing from Hea l y to Willow.
Provide the cri teri a for assigning rati ngs to each
alterna t ive co r ridor.
Provi de estimates of t he number of hectares of wet-
, lands wi th1n each of the alternative transmission
corridors in t '•e Northern and Southern Study Areas
and each o f the techn i cally and economically
acceptable al t ernat i ves in the Central Study Are a.
Provide s i milar est im ates for vegetation types
that will require extensive clearing.
Indic3te if any transmission line alternative is
expected to require more (or less) constructi on of
acc ess r·oads.
. . . . ·. . .
22. p. E-10 -80 , f 1, to
p. E-10-83, f 3
23. p. E-10-83 to
p . E-10-104
24 . p. E-10-83, 1 4,
p. E-10-104, 1 4
25. p. E-10-129
26. p . E-10-143, 1 4,
through
p. E-10.-172 , f 2
to
-29 -
Explain how ae sthetic resource issues were
factored 1 nto the eva 1 uat ion pro cess for the
transmissicn line corridor to link t he dam s ites
with the intertie.
Docum ent whether the surface soils at the alternative
borrow sites are exo ect.ed to be similar to or
different from those .in the proposed project area .
Provide a bri ef discussion of how aesthetic
resources were used in the evaluation pro ces s of
determining borrow site alternatives.
Provide es t imates of the ag gregate and rock require-
me nts and the acreages that would be disturbed by
the construction of new ac cess roads associated
wi th the Tidal Power alternative. Indicate if
there will be t opographi cal, permafrost, or slope
stabi li ty constraints associated wi t .h thesa roads.
Pr o vi de a generic descripti on of socioeconomic
impac t s of thermal al ternatives other than coal,
nuc lear ste~n electric generation, biomass, geo-
thermal, wind, and solar alte rnati ves.
·. .. . .. . . .. 30 -
. 11. LIST OF LITERATURE
Provide ade~ua te reference information for the following:
1. p. E-3-232, t 4
2. p. E-5-129, ,r 2
3. p . E-7-87, t l
4. Table E.7.9
5. p. E-8-71 to
p . E-8-72
6. p. E-10-120
7. p. E-10-121
8. Table E.7.13
9. Table E.7.16
Wood et a l . {1975).
Provide references for statement on commuting
experiences of workers on similar projects.
National Recreation & Park, Open Space Standards.
Frank Orth & Assoc., 4/82.
Borough Planning Departm ent, 10/Zl/82.
Al l references listed in the Aesthetic Resources
References Section should be appropriately cited
within the written text of the application. If
these listi ngs are not citations, please indicate
that ~~ey constitute a bibliography.
CIRI/Placer 1981.
Battelle 1978.
EDAW e s ti~te.
EDAW Inc.
·.
-31 -
Provide copies of the following:
1. p. E-2-195
thro\Jgh
p. E-2-202
2. p. E-3-198, f 2
3. p. E-3-198, f 2
4. p. E-3-205. f 1
5. p. E-3-230. f 4
6. p. E-3-279. f 2
7. p . E-3-284, f 1
8. p. E-3•551
through
p. E-3-556
9. p. E-5-6, f 5
10. References.
Chapt'!r S
11. p. E-6 -7 . f 4
12 . p. E-6-11, , 3
13. p. E-10-115, f l
Acres American 1982c, 1983; Acres Am. Consulting
Serv ice ltd. 1980; Alaska De partmen t of Fish
and Game 1982a, 1982c, 1983 ; Alask: Department of
Na t ural Resources 1982 ; Dwight 1982; Peratrovich,
Nottingham and Drage 1982, 1983; Peterson and
Nichols 1982; R & H Consultants, Inc ., l981a,
1981c, l981d, 198le, l98lf, l98l g, R & H Consul-
tants, Inc., Harrison, W.O •• 1982a, l982c, 1982e,
1982f, 1982g, 1982h, 1982i , 1982j; Resource
Management Associates, 1983; Schmidt, 1981; Trihey,
1982a. l982b, 1982c.
Commo ~ealth Assnc. 1982.
Joint Fe deral-State land Use Planning Co mmissi on
for Alaska 1973.
Hettinger and Janz 1974.
Kerr 1973.
Pamplin 1979.
Foote 1979.
ESSA/WELUT/LGL 1982; Alaska Department of Fish and
Game 1982d , 1982e, 1982f, 1982g, 1983 ; Arctic Environ-
l!lental Info rm ation a. j Data Center 1982; Bell
1973; Burger et al. 198 2; Edfelt 19e1; Fr i ese
1975 ; Hill~ 1975 , 1980 , 1981, 1982; R&M Consultants
l982e, 1982f; Trihey i982b, 1982c, 1982d, 1983.
Stephen R. Braund & Associates, Inc. March 1982.
Policy Ana lysts, Limited and Or. Richa rd End er
Hay 1980.
Wooo~~r ~-C l yde Consultan ts ' 1980 repo rt.
Woodwa rd-C lyde Consultants' 1982 re port.
Batte l le rep orts on power alternatives (Battelle
1982) an d coa l consumption (Battelle, no date,
BNWL-RAP-Z1 , UC -11).
. . . . . . . . -32 -
TRANSMISSION FACILITIES
12. STATOS OF FACILITIES
Load flov plots and electrical transmission data co!"'tained respectively
in Enqineerinq Report, R-2423, •sy•tem Studies of the Anchorage-Fairbanlca
Intertie,• March 1982 and •Anchoraqe-Fairbanlcs Transmission Intertie Trans-
mission System Data (Revised June 1981)• provides 1983-1984 system loads and
230/138 /69 kV network configurations for the five Anchorage/Fairbanks, A~aska
utility systems following implemelltation of the 138 leV Anchorage-Fairbanks
Intertie. With the installation of Susitna gene ration, the Intertie, desiqned
for 345 leV operation, vill become p&rt of the Railbelt 345 kV transmission
syste m. At that time, 345 kV step-dovn substations (E ster, Willow, ~nik Arm ,
and Oniveraity) vill be established •• shovn on Exhibit F, Plate F74. There-
fore, information ia needed, and vas requested, on the integration of the
Anchorage /Fairbanks area utility systems' 230/138/115kV facilities via the
Ester, Willow, ~nile Arm and Oniversity s u bstations, for 1995 a nd 2002. The
years correspond respectively to the proposed Watana plant ( 1020 MW) and
Devil Canyon pl ant (600 HW) in-service availability dates -
The follovinq informa t ion should be provided for the 1994 and 2002 Alaska
interconnected system.
(a) Por 1995, elec tric sinqle-line sche=atic diaqrama shovin g
the electrical con n e:tion o f lines and substation facil-
i ties from:
(1) the Ester 345/13 8 kV substation to the Golden Valley
Electric Association, Fairbanlcs Municipal Otility
or other area systems;
(2 ) the Willov 345 /138 leV a nd Knik Arm 345 /115 leV sub-
stati ~na to the Hatanus lca Electric Associati on or
other area ayatems1 and,
(3) the University 345/230-1,5 k~ substation to the
Anchor a ge Municipal Light ' Power, Chugach Electr ic
Aesociation or oth e r area systems.
(b) Similar information for tbe 2002 systems shou ld b e pro-
vided, when available.
The information ahoul d be pr o vided in the format used in the APA document
•Anchorag n-Fairba nlca Transmission Intertie Transmission System Data (Revision
June 1981).•
.
• • •
-33 -
13. ELECTRICAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFF~CTS
I. Engineering Report R-2394, June 1982, vas provided containing a discussion
and data on the electrical environmental effects associated with the
Anchorage-Fairbanks (Willow-Healy) 345 kV transmission intertie. The
folloving additional information associated vith this analy o is should be
prov !.~ ed:
(a) Audible noise and radio frequency noiae levels wherein three
345 xv transmiasion lines vill ultimately be in the right-of
vay (ROW) were calculated •using methods developed at Project
OHV 1/, • where 1/ refer a to the first edition of Transmission
.;;;L;.;;i;.;n=e-'R"'"e.;;....;;f....;e;...r;;......;;.e..;.n;...c;;......;;.e_....;B;..o;;...;;o..;.k;...,:.,_..;;;J_4;..5;;;._..;.k;...V;..._..;;a..;.n;..;d;.._..;.A;;;b;...o;..v..;...;;.e d a ted 1 9 7 5 •
( 1) Indication should be given of the apecif ic equations
and/or deaign curves uaed in the reference book.
(2) Provide the method used
multiple linea on the same
to
ROW .
ace ount for the effects of
(b) Provide the predicted levels of Television Interference (TVI)
at a me a suring frequency of 7 5 HHz and a meter bandvidth of
150 kl:lz, specifying the calculation method uaed includinq
hov multiple linea on the same ROW are accounted for.
(c) Give the method uaed to calculate the electric field
strength lR-2394, Ta.ble 7).
(d) Provide the method used to calculate induced currents
(R-2394, Page 12).
(e) Ambient audible noise level data on the intertie ROW
route should be provided.
II. Communication interference, audible noise generated by corona formution
and qround-level electric and magnetic field intensity data for all 345
JcV transmission line ROW sections to be constructed as part of the
Susitn a P roje ct vas requested. As indicated in I, Engineer i ng Report R-
2394 only addresses the Willov-Bealy section. Therefore, similar infor-
mat ion should be provided, aa augmented by I (b) and (e), fo r the
following other 345 JcV overhead transmission line ~OW sections:
ROW Section
Healy-Ester
Gold Creek-Watana
Will ov-Xni )c Arm
Xnix Arm-University
Aporox i mate ROW Hiles
96
8
44
19
. . ' • ~
-34 -
ENGINEERING
1 4. GENERAL
1. In Section 1.3(b) on pa9e A-1-6, provide a statement of the flood fre-
quency which va a used to determine the 9 feet of freeboard for wave
runup and ice protection at the upatreaa cofferdaa.
2. In Section 7. 4 C b) on pa9e A-7-7 provide a detailed discussion of the
thermal studies conducted to determine that water flowing throu9h Devil
canyon will be at 34•r. The 2• difference between freezi:a9 and the
anticipated water t eaperat ure baa been us e4 as the basis for not provid-
inc:J freeboard allowance for ice. This assumption requires a hi9h
de9ree of anal yais accuracy. Demonstrate the accuracy of the computer
model by submittin9 calibration studies using known data. Also, provide
a statement of the flood frequency uaotd to determine the wave runup
freeboard allowance.
3. Provide Ebasco• s detailed cost estimate in support of Table D. 8, shoving
unit coats and quantities.
4.
s.
6.
Provide the 19 81 Bechtel report tit~ ed, •chalcachamna
Report, Interim Report, • prepared for APA and cited on
Provide the 19 83 Bechtel Report titled, • Chakachamna
Report, • Draft
Pro'"ide the o.
Alternatives for
pa9e E-1 0-12.
repor t prepared for APA and cited on
s. Department of Energy report
the Alas lea Rainbel t, • prepared
title,
by llA
EXBIBIT F AND SUPPORTING DESIGN REP ORT
Bydroelec ".;.ric
paqe E-1 o-7.
Bydroel ectric
pac:Je E-1 o-9.
•Hydroelectric
and cited on
1. Provide wave run-up calculations ahovi ng the me t hod c a nd a ssumpti L DS
used to determine the 3 and 5 feet freeboard allowances built into the
Devil Canyon and Watana Dams respectively (Exhibit F, Supportinq Design
Report SDR).
2. Provide the results of model teats, or calculations, used to determine
(or verify) the modes of failure for the proposed fuse plugs used in
the Watana and Dev il Canyon eaergency spillways. ( Dvqs F18 and FSB).
These tests, or calculations, should show the failure times under
adverse conditions such as freezi n9 weather. Submit examples of similar
des iqn a, used at other 1 ocation a, under comparable weather c:ondi tiona.
Also, submit details of coat comparison studies conducted in suppf?rt of
the decision to utilize the fuse pluq design rather than increase the
size of the emergency and main se r vic e spill ways to handle the PHF
(Exhibit F, SDR).
'"l #.: • ..
3.
4.
5.
6.
'·
e .
g.
1 0.
'0
• •
-35 -
Provide calculations and criteria in support of the hydraulic design ,,f
t)le Wa~ana and Devil Canyon aain apillwaya ( Dwga F12 and F54). Speci-
fically, show calculations to support the proposed location• of the
a reation al ot a and. the design of the energy dis&i pati ng flip bucket •.
In addition , provide a ~.:.·cuasion of the extent of hydraulic aodel
testing propoaed to verify the hydraulic designa ot the spillway• and
flip bucketa (Exhibit F, SDR).
Provide a discussion in the report of the type a of hydraulic aodel ter:ts
(including tboae requeated in Bo. 3 above) which are proposed for t :he
Watana and Devil Canyon developaents. Areas of concern areJ the Wat.&na
right abutaent area where t.bree intake atructurea are located and ·:b•
Watana aain spillway tail race area where the diveraion t •;nnel porta La,
outlet facilities and power tailraces are located (Exhibit F, SDR).
Provide a discusaion of the geology and the foundation and excavation
treatment propoaed for the Watana main spillway taillace area. '%his
area is located near the •t ingerbuster• geologic feature and is hiqhly
congested vl.th aeversl undergroun d and surface structures. Adverse
joint orientation, shear :onea or weak rock in thia area would af1ect
the design and conatruction. The ateep alopea, deep cuta and eccavat.ion
required could have an impact upon the stability and aafety of these
structures, especially the spillway flip buckf!t structure (rxhibit F,
SDR Section 4.1(c)).
Cite a reference for tbe e:quation proposed for the at-rest earth pres•·uze
coeff ici ent, i.e. k 0 •1 -Sin~ (~xhibit F, SDR, Section 3.2(b)).
In new designs, a cracked base is a c c e ptable only for ~arthqu,~e loading.
The second paragraph ahould be reviaed to indicate that cr .. .=ld ng will
only be allowed under earthquake loading (Exhibit F, SDR, Section 3.2(g),
page F-3-4).
Clarify the earthquake loading wh ich wil l be used . for mass concr• te
reta.ini ng structure a by a howi ng the static aei amic coefficients propoand.
Also, show the seismic loading which wi ll be used for the Watana 1.nd
Devil Canyon Sadcll e Dam embankments and discuss the methods of anal y1 ia
which will be used . Submit the analysis referred to in 4.1(g)(vii).
(Exhibit F, SDR, Section 3.2(h), page F-3-5.)
Discuss the parameters considered in the selection of the ice l\)ad ( 10
kips /l i n. ft.), such aa winds, currents, and thermal atrains as we...l
as the geometric co nfigurati o n .! of the various dams. Cite the referenc •ta
used where applicable (Exhibit F, SDR, Section J.J(j), page F-3-6 .•
The overturning criteria shown in Sec tion J.J(c)(i) ahould be baa1d
upon the location of the resultant for all loading conditions. Tke
Factora of Safety against Overturninq ( FSOT) shown a~e not consistent
with the compression s afety factors e :ited, and, in all caaea (except
the nor111al condition) allov the resultant to fall ou tsid o the middle•
half of the base. For unusual conditions, the resultant should b 1
inside the middle-third. This require• that the PSOT be greater tha:t
~ ..
' "'
~.
•
-36 -
1.5 if the resultant of the resitinq force :~ ia at the tvo-thirda point
of the baae (as measured from the toe). The criteria in Section 3.3(c)
should be revised as outlined above (Exhibit F, SDR, Section 3 .3(c),
pa9e F-3 7) •
11. Submit stability and stress analyses for the follovin9 atructurear
Watana Dam, Devil" Canyon Arch Dam and thruat block abutmenta, Devil
canyon Saddle dam, the Watana and Devil Canyon main apillvay gate
atructu~es, and the Watana and Devil Canyon emergency apillvay fuae
plu9s. The analyses should include: sample co111puter input and output,
names of the computer pro9rama uaed, and a aummary of the material
stren9th assumptions uaed in the analyaea (Exhibit F).
12. submit SDF and PMF s ·tudiee for ataff review. Theae studiea ahould in-
clude : sample computer input and output, namea of the computer pro9rama
used, and a aWDmary of the assumption• used in the analyaea (Exhibit F).
13. Borin9s are necesaary alon9 the Watana Daa centerline and under the
dam base upatre am and d ovnatre am of the centerline to properly aaseaa
the suitability of the watana aite for the propoaed dam. The aeiamic
profiles deve:oped at the Watana aite are inadequate to determine
foundation conditione and top of rock elevationa without borin9•• The
need for theae borin9a vaa pointed out by Staff Geoloqiat Barry Thoaas
in a preliminary review of the licenae application in the aprin9 of
19 82. The deficiency vas again pointed out in Staff commenta on the
pre-filing review of the draft application in the January 11, 1983
letter on Paqe 65. The lack of boringa at the watana aite caat aerioua
doubts on the adequacy of the coat eatimate (Exhibit F).
1 4. Clarify the discrepancy concern! ng the upatre am a hell material to be
used for the Watana Dam. Page F-4-9 indicate a that tinea lea a than
1/2 inch will be removed, but on Pa9e F-4-10, it ia eta ted that the
processed upstream ahell material will have DO aore than 10\ of the
IDA ter i al leas than 3/8 inch in aize (Exhibit F, SDR.) •
1 s. Provide additional information on the propoaed impervioua borrow area
to en ahl e a determination on the avail ahili ty of auff icient quanti ties
of impervioua materials .consistent with the deai9n intent of tbe imper-
vious zones of the proposed Watana Dam and Devil Canyon aaddle dam embank-
menta. This information shall include the typea, range of gradationa,
plasticity index, and other pb::sic al cbaracteriati ca of the materials to
be placed in the core of the embankment~. The hiqhly plaatic clays that
exiat in the propoaed borrow pit shall be discuaaed with respect to
their effect on the expected excavation methode needed to control the
bl encU nq of var i ou a 9r ada tiona of materi ala that will be encountered and
any effects this miqht have on developin9 the quantitiee of impervioue
material required for the proposed embankment• (Exhibit P, SDR) •
•
------------
•• _,
-37 -
16. EXHIBIT G
Plate G6
Com~lete boun~ary for PSC 443 in Sec. 6, T .31 N., R. 1E.
Delete reference to •ELEVATION 1500 MsL• from leqend.
Plate G12
Shov location of transmission line vith reference to
appropriate G sheet.
Plate G30
Identify the project boundary for the Xnik Substation.
(If the project areas are aliquot parts of the public
land survey, simply delineate the areas accurately.)
Plates GlO throuah G37, and G39 throuah G52
Identify meridian (Savard or Fairbanksi.
Plates G35 through G38, and G4 1 throuqh G45
Add corodinates of the Alaska State Plane Coordinate System
at anqle points of the transmission line.
Plate G38
Indicate purpose of the 180 acre project area in Sees. 16,
20 and 21, T. 31 N., R. 2 V.
Plates G38 and G39
Shov loction of railroad access corrid or vitb reference
to appropriate G sheet.
Plate G40
correct Devil Canyon project boundary in Sec. 35, T. 32 N.,
R. 4 E., (compare vith G12), and Watana project boundary in
Sees. 3, 4, and 5, T. 31 N., R. 5 E., (compare vith G13).
Pl~te GS2
Identify the project boundary for the Eater Substation. (If
it coincides vitb an approved Federal survey, simply identify
the survey.)
Shov the ovnezship status of the project land in Sec. J, T. 1
S. 1 R. 2 W.
-:. "'t . ~ .. •
-38
WEED FOR P OWER
1 7 • EX H I B IT B
The foll o vinq itema are keyed to the nulllberinq ays t em used in th~
prefilinq reviev .
Item 17: Unreferenced Information Reauirementa, Exhibit B.
3. A description of the assumptions embeddec! in the
above methodoloqiea specifically includinq but
not limited to:
A· The atudiea vhicb vere ex~mined to determined
ela•ticitiea of demand.
B . The rationale for the particular values
choaen in the ranqe of elasticity values
examined .
7. A more complete explanation of the methodoloqy uaec!
to qenerate the future electricity price• uaed in the
demanc! forecaata.
9. A senaitivity analyaia of explanatory variables and
model assumptions includinq tboae that c!rive tbe
MAP model'• econoaic anc! population projection••
1 o. The hourly loada for the combine<! Suaitna market
area for the moat recent available year .
Item 18: Suooleaental Reports
1. Provide a deacription of t~e Alaska Residential
Conaervation Survey Audita and a description of
bov thia aurvey baa been uaed.
2. Provide the BNW Railbelt End Oae survey anc! a .
description of hov it h as been uaed.
The follovinq item vaa included iu Schedule A of the prefilinq reviev.
Item 26 : The claim of no enerqy reduction du ' to retrofittinq
in the commercial/industri~l aectors should be veri-
fie<!. Provide iniormation on the ISER demand model
aaaumptiona regardinq this claim.
Specifically information provided should attempt to verify the assuap-
tiona made regardinq energy reduction due to retrofitti n q in the com~ercial/
induatrial sectora.
. .. ""
• /rt • •
• ...
• -39 -
18. EXB IBIT D
The following items are keyed to the numbering system used in the
prefiling review.
IteQ 2(c): Provide the annual c"ost for the Suaitna Project in
actual dollars includingz (a) escalation of project
coat~' (b) coat of capital including financ~ charges
and (c) interest during construction. Project annual
coats should be presented for all the years included
in the life cycle analysis.
Item 5: Page 1-11, Section 1.5, specify allowance for funds
used during construction (AFDC).
Item 31: Table D.8 and D.9, state interest during construction
and provide copies of the references, i.e., Table 1,
5 R. L. 5 21, etc.
Specifically, for items 2(c), 5, and 31 provide additional information
that will expand on a nd clarify the treatment of AFDC throughout the appli-
cation.
Item 22: Pages 4-25 and 4-26, section 4.7. Furnish details
of the base period coal price estimations of $1.66/aBtu
for Beluga, and $1.75/aBtu for Healy. Show details of
the res idu ally derived annual esc alation rate a of 2. 6
percent and 1.2 percent during the intervals 1982 to
2000, and 2000 to 2040, respectively.
Specifically, provide details of the residually derived annual escalation
rates.
Item 26: Paqe 4-31. Equal Environmental Coats -Provide details
on analysis.
Specifically, provide information to aupport the premise that the treat-
ment of env ironmental cost used in the Susitna analyses ia in fact conserva-
tion with regard to evaluation of the Susitna project.
Item 19: Exhibit D
1. Pg. 1-6, section 1.1. Some estimates should be made
of possible escalation in nominal •• well aa real
termc for both direct and indirect costa.
4. Pg. 4-15. Provide copies of all input data and all
output results of the OGP5 runs and a brief explana-
tion of all data entry for each alternative ..case
study discussed in Section 4.7 and 4.8.
•
.. -•
-40
!tem 19 : Ex hibit D (continued) ~~--~~--~~~~-
s.
6 .
1 1.
P9• 4-17, Se c tion 4.6. Provide Belu9a coal costs
assumi nq commercial developmen t d o es not take place.
Diacu g a the relativ e economics of mi nin9 coal speci-
fically for electric pover 9eneration, and its likeli-
hood under this scenario.
Pq. 4-18, Section 4.7. There ia currently a disparity
betveen incremental, domestic market, and opportunity
(ahadov) values of natural qaa prices. Quantify "the
sensitivity of uainq current incremental prices, assumin9
escalation vill track vorld prices a n d eventually eq u al
the international value# in the OGP~ runs.
Pq. 4-19, Paraqraph 2. If feasible, ve vould also like
to aee analysis conducted in nominal terms (including
inflation.)
Pq. 4-30, On IRR -vhat is IRR for next larqest ~ask&
project (pover or non-pover)?
Pq. 4-33, Section 4.7. In the sinqle variable sensitivity
analysis, a 5\ discount rate resulted in a neqative net
economic benefit. Perform a multivariate sensitivity
analysis usinq discount rates in lieu of capital coats
as a key issue, assigned probabilities, and discuss
results. Construct probability treca aimilar to Fiqurea
D.l7 and D.lB.
12. Pq. 4-35, Paraqrapb 1. It might be h e l p ful to model the
interactions. section 4.9
•
• t •
•""t.• ~r I~ -
• I
• -41
19. ADDITIONAL SUPPLEM~NTAL REPORTS REQUIRED
, . B~ttelle Pacific Northwest Laboratorie,
itv and Price Forecast, May 1981.
Alaska Coal Future AvaJ 1 abil-
2. ISZR. Alaska Economic Projections For Zst1matinq Reauirements Pnr_
The Railbelt. Prepared for Rattelle Pacific Northwest Laboratorial
(Oct. 19 81)
3. Energy Probe, An Evaluation of the ISER Electricity Demand Foreeaa~,
July 19 eo.
4. Review of the University of Alaska Institute of Social and EeonomJ£_
Research Report •Electrical Consumptinn for the Railbelt Regionr ~
Proj eetion of Reaui rements. • WoodwardCl yde Consultants, San Prlonciseo,
19 eo.
5. Institute of Social and Economic Research • a ( ISER) model documuntation
report !/
6. ISER summary report on their economi c development proj ection !/
7. DEPD'a 19e3 Long Term Energy PlaD !I
20. FINANCIAL PLAN
As a minimum financial plan, please provide us with letters 1'roa the
various • Rail belt • utili ties e,;preasing eondi tiona under vhi ch they wou~d
be interested in purchasing P · ver troa Suaitna. We also need some type of
expression from the Alaskan legislature which vill pro•ide us with l .t least
a reasonable expectation that the •expected• State appropri&.tiona will be
forthcoming if the project is approved and that neeeaaary additional funds
vill be committed in the event of coat overruns. Also, please submit a
1 etter fro• an inve ::tment banker (or groups of bankers) of sufficient size
and reputation to handle the sale of revenue bonds on a project of this
magnitude, vhieh sets forth thei'r •iev of the conditions required to aarJr.et
revenue bonds. Their letter should specifically address the projections of
expected demand and revenue vhieh you expect us to act upon in the filin9
(e ~ther the current projections on file or re•ised projections) and contain
a statement concerning whether or not aueh projections provide a baaLa that
would allow sale of rev enue bonds to finance the project. Pinally, please
provide us vi th a atateme nt concerning what voul d happen if Suaitna :.a con-
structed and energy costa of alternativ .. options do not rise aa you oapect,
or if coat overruns oeeu~. W~uld additional State funds be appropriated, or
would eonauaera be requi7ed to bear the burden of high coat energy?