HomeMy WebLinkAboutSuWa129Alaska Resources Library & Information Services
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Document
ARLIS Uniform Cover Page
Title:
Railbelt large hydro evaluation : preliminary decision document
SuWa 129
Author(s) – Personal:
Author(s) – Corporate:
Prepared by Alaska Energy Authority
AEA-identified category, if specified:
Energy Planning Documents
AEA-identified series, if specified:
Series (ARLIS-assigned report number):
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project document number 129
Existing numbers on document:
Published by:
[Anchorage, Alaska : Alaska Energy Authority, 2010]
Date published:
November 23, 2010
Published for:
Prepared for Alaska Energy Authority
Date or date range of report:
Volume and/or Part numbers:
Final or Draft status, as indicated:
Document type:
Preliminary decision document
Pagination:
[51] p.
Related work(s):
Pages added/changed by ARLIS:
Notes:
All reports in the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Document series include an ARLIS-
produced cover page and an ARLIS-assigned number for uniformity and citability. All reports
are posted online at http://www.arlis.org/resources/susitna-watana/
Railbelt Large Hydro Evaluation
Preliminary Decision Document
November 23, 2010
Prepared By
Alaska Energy Authority
Railbelt Large Hydro Evaluation
Preliminary Decision Document
November 23, 2010
Railbelt Large Hydro Evaluation
Preliminary Decision Document
November 2010 Table of Contents i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. 1
Chapter 1 Project Descriptions .......................................................................................1-1
1.1 Susitna River Hydroelectric Project (Low Watana Non-expandable
Alternative) ......................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project ................................................................... 1-2
Chapter 2 Engineering Issues .........................................................................................2-1
2.1 Access ................................................................................................................. 2-1
2.1.1 Susitna Project ....................................................................................... 2-1
2.1.2 Chakachamna Project ............................................................................ 2-1
2.1.3 Access Comparison ............................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Transmission ....................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2.1 Susitna Project ....................................................................................... 2-1
2.2.2 Chakachamna Project ............................................................................ 2-2
2.2.3 Transmission Comparison ..................................................................... 2-2
2.3 Geologic Hazards ................................................................................................ 2-2
2.3.1 Susitna Project ....................................................................................... 2-2
2.3.2 Chakachamna Project ............................................................................ 2-2
2.3.3 Geologic Hazards Comparison .............................................................. 2-3
2.4 Estimates of Probable Project Development Costs ............................................. 2-3
2.4.1 Susitna Project ....................................................................................... 2-3
2.4.2 Chakachamna Project ............................................................................ 2-4
2.4.3 Cost Comparison ................................................................................... 2-5
Chapter 3 Environmental Issues .....................................................................................3-1
3.1 Fisheries .............................................................................................................. 3-1
3.1.1 Susitna Project ....................................................................................... 3-1
3.1.2 Chakachamna Project ............................................................................ 3-2
3.1 Wildlife Impacts ................................................................................................. 3-3
Railbelt Large Hydro Evaluation
Preliminary Decision Document
November 2010 Table of Contents ii
3.1.1 Susitna Project ....................................................................................... 3-3
3.1.2 Chakachamna Project ............................................................................ 3-4
3.2 Environmental Flow ........................................................................................... 3-4
3.2.1 Susitna Project ....................................................................................... 3-4
3.2.2 Chakachamna Project ............................................................................ 3-5
3.2.3 Environmental Flow Analysis ............................................................... 3-6
Chapter 4 Preliminary Energy Estimate ..........................................................................4-1
4.1 Evaluation of Average Annual Energy and Firm Winter Capacity .................... 4-1
4.1.1 Susitna Model Assumptions and Data Sources ..................................... 4-1
4.1.2 Chakachamna Model Assumptions and Data Sources ........................... 4-1
4.2 Results ................................................................................................................. 4-2
Chapter 5 Permitting ........................................................................................................5-4
5.1 Overview – Regulatory Processes ...................................................................... 5-4
5.2 Regulatory Issues – Chakachamna Project ......................................................... 5-4
5.2.1 Licensing Schedule ................................................................................ 5-5
5.3 Regulatory Issues – Susitna / Low Watana Project ............................................ 5-5
5.3.1 Licensing Schedule ................................................................................ 5-5
5.4 Total Project Development Timeline .................................................................. 5-6
Chapter 6 Development Schedule ...................................................................................6-1
Chapter 7 Financial ..........................................................................................................7-1
Chapter 8 Cost of Power ..................................................................................................8-1
Chapter 9 Operational Uncertainty .................................................................................9-1
Chapter 10 Summary and Conclusions .......................................................................... 10-1
Railbelt Large Hydro Evaluation
Preliminary Decision Document
November 2010 Table of Contents iii
Chapter 11 Recommendations ........................................................................................ 11-1
Chapter 12 References .................................................................................................... 12-1
12.1 Reference Lists ................................................................................................. 12-1
Tables
Table 2-1 Susitna, Low Watana Project Cost Summary .................................................................. 2-3
Table 2-2 Chakachamna Project Cost Summary Table .................................................................... 2-4
Table 3-1 Potential Environmental Impacts of the Low Watana Hydroelectric Project on the
Susitna River .................................................................................................................... 3-3
Table 3-2 Estimate of Probable Environmental Flows..................................................................... 3-6
Table 3-3 Comparison of Potential Environmental Impacts Resulting from Chakachamna
Lake Hydro Alternatives .................................................................................................. 3-7
Table 4-1 Firm Capacity and Average Annual Energy Estimates ................................................... 4-2
Table 5-1 Development Schedule Comparison ................................................................................ 5-6
Table 6-1 Considerations / Assumptions ......................................................................................... 6-1
Table 6-2 Licensing, Engineering, and Construction Schedule Comparison ................................... 6-2
Table 8-1 Cost of Power Comparison .............................................................................................. 8-1
Table 9-1 Operational Uncertainties Issue Comparison ................................................................... 9-1
Table 10-1 Comparison Summary ................................................................................................... 10-1
Figures
Figure 1-1 Locations of the Susitna Project (Low Watana Alternative) and the Chakachamna
Project .............................................................................................................................. 1-3
Figure 1-2 Vicinity of the Chakachamna Project .............................................................................. 1-4
Figure 3-1 Susitna River monthly mean flow at Gold Creek. ........................................................... 3-5
Figure 3-2 Chakachamna Lake Elevation by Month ......................................................................... 3-8
Figure 3-3 Chakachatna River Flows (Downstream of Lake) by Month .......................................... 3-1
Figure 4-1 Energy Distribution by Month ......................................................................................... 4-2
Railbelt Large Hydro Evaluation
Preliminary Decision Document
November 2010 Table of Contents iv
Terms and Acronyms
AEA Alaska Energy Authority
ALP Alternative License Process
APA Alaska Power Authority
cfs cubic feet per second
Chakachamna Project Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
FPA Federal Power Act
GWhrs Gigawatt hours
HB House Bill
ILP Integrated License Process
IRP Integrated Resource Plan
KWhrs Kilowatt hours
MW Megawatt
NOI Notice of Intent
NP National Park
PAD Preliminary Application Document
Railbelt The region of Alaska served by the railroad, stretching from
Seward to Fairbanks
RIRP Regional Integrated Resource Plan
SNW Seattle Northwest Securities
Susitna Project Susitna Hydroelectric Project, Low Watana Non-expandable
Alternative
TBM tunnel boring machine
TLP Traditional License Process
November 2010 Executive Summary 1
Executive Summary
There are two proposed major hydroelectric projects in the Alaska Railbelt Region: the Susitna
Hydroelectric Project, Low Watana Non-expandable Alternative (Susitna Project) and the
Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project (Chakachamna Project). The purpose of this document is to
identify which of these is most likely to successfully meet the long term energy needs of the
railbelt at reasonable cost. This preliminary evaluation also considers the possibility to permit a
project in its presently proposed configuration and to be able to do so in a reasonable time frame.
The 2010 AEA Regional Integrated Resource Plan (RIRP) is a 50-year long range plan that
identifies combinations of generations and transmission capital improvement projects in the
railbelt region (Black and Veatch 2010). The RIRP documented the need for a large amount of
new annual generation for the railbelt within the next 10 to 15 years. The type of generation
constructed will be influenced by declining Cook Inlet natural gas production, legislative
environment, financing, and ability to permit or license and construct a project in a timely
manner.
The 2010 Alaska legislature passed House Bill (HB) 306 which declares a State energy policy.
This bill directs the State to receive 50 percent of its electrical generation from renewable and
alternative energy sources by 2025. The only way to achieve this goal is for a new large
hydroelectric project to be built in the railbelt region. The project sites, one on the Susitna River
at Watana and one at Lake Chakachamna, are shown on Figure 1-1. The energy generated by
one of these two projects would provide roughly one fourth (Chakachamna) to roughly one half
(Susitna) of the current electrical energy demand.
Alaska Energy Authority received funding from the Alaska Legislature in 2010 for the
preliminary planning, design, permitting and field work for the Susitna and Chakachamna
Projects, as well as Glacier Fork Hydroelectric Project and other hydroelectric projects along the
Railbelt. Most of the funds were allocated to the Susitna and Chakachamna Projects. There are
a variety of alternatives on the Susitna River as documented in the HDR Report (2009). The
Susitna Project chosen for this comparison is the Low Watana Non-expandable alternative. It
was chosen because it offers a combination of greater winter storage capacity while still
maintaining a low overall cost and low cost of power generated.
Permitting and licensing of a large hydroelectric project is regulated by the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) and is a lengthy, complex and costly process. For this reason,
the two projects must be evaluated at an early stage to determine if either has a fault that would
prevent it from being licensed and constructed. As substantial research has already been done on
each project, this document summarizes existing information on the projects, and uses this
information for evaluation and comparison. Additional detailed information is available in the
referenced documents. By using existing information to choose a primary project, resources can
be concentrated on its development, with the goal of satisfying future railbelt energy demand and
compliance with the legislative intent that the State receives 50 percent of its electric generation
from renewable and alternative energy sources by 2025.
Railbelt Large Hydro Evaluation
Preliminary Decision Document
November 2010 Executive Summary 2
The ultimate goal of developing a project is to provide a cost-effective and long-term energy
source to the railbelt region. Therefore, the cost, potential environmental impact, engineering
issues and energy production potential of both projects were evaluated. This evaluation
highlights key elements of each project that affect the cost of resulting energy, timeliness of
energy contribution, and long term environmental and the projects’ socioeconomic operational
effects.
The results of this comparison show that the Susitna Project should be the Alaska’s primary
hydroelectric project; the Chakachamna Project should be considered as an alternative.
Although the design, permitting and construction of the Susitna Project would cost
approximately 50 percent more than it would for the Chakachamna Project the Susitna Project
would produce more than twice the annual amount of energy as the Chakachamna Project. In
addition, risk of cost overruns with the Chakachamna Project would be much greater than with
the Susitna Project because of the extensive underground work required and its location in steep
terrain.
The environmental impact of the Chakachamna Project would also be greater because it would
require a cross-basin water transfer in a river system with salmon migration. Significant salmon
runs travel to and through Lake Chakachamna. To allow enough environmental flow to protect
fisheries, energy from the Project would have to be substantially reduced.
Additional conclusions that can be drawn from the comparison of the two projects include:
As indicated above, in terms of energy production, the Susitna Project would produce
more than two times the amount of the Chakachamna Project. The Susitna Project
would have the added advantage of sufficient storage for significant energy production
in the winter.
The licensing, permitting and construction process for the Chakachamna Project would
take roughly 3.5 years longer than for the Susitna Project because of the complex
environmental studies required for the cross basin transfer and the time for the tunnel
construction.
The State would need to contribute substantial equity and be the licensee for either
project. The ability to finance the projects is equal in either case.
There are relatively less long term operational uncertainties for the Susitna Project.
Both projects have some seismic risk; however the dams and powerhouses could be
designed to withstand major seismic events as long as a fault does not pass through the
structure. The Chakachamna Project has a relatively greater risk of damage to the
power tunnel or fish passageway during a seismic event or volcanic eruption.
The Susitna Project would be a larger construction project and have greater impacts on
electrical rates than the Chakachamna Project along the railbelt and Statewide, in the
form of lower rates in the long term.
Railbelt Large Hydro Evaluation
Preliminary Decision Document
November 2010 Executive Summary 3
The Susitna Project would allow the State to achieve the State Energy policy goal of 50
percent renewable by 2025. The Chakachamna Project would not accomplish this goal
by itself.
Overall, the Susitna Project would have a relatively lower cost of energy, fewer likely
environmental effects, could start sooner, a reduced licensing/permitting schedule, less
construction and long term operational risk, and greater positive impacts on the Alaskan
economy than the Chakachamna Project.
A year of field studies at Lake Chakachamna would not be sufficient to determine an definitive
environmental flow, would not predict project energy outcomes, or substantially change the
economic factors that make the Susitna Project more desirable. Thus, Chakachamna Project
field work should not proceed in 2011. Instead it may be prudent to perform some additional
studies to confirm conceptual size optimization and cost.
Much of the information in this document came from reports prepared by HDR (HDR 2010),
R&M Consultants/Hatch Associates Consultants (R&M Consultants/Hatch Associates
Consultants 2010), and Seattle-Northwest Securities Corporation (SNW 2010). In addition,
R&M Consultants/Hatch Associates provided Operational Uncertainty evaluation in Chapter 9.
The referenced documents should be read for the full assumptions. Referenced documents and
other important documents regarding these projects are available on the Alaska Energy
Authority’s Railbelt Large Hydro webpage.
November 2010 Project Descriptions 1-1
Chapter 1
Project Descriptions
Each of the potential projects is described in the following section.
1.1 Susitna River Hydroelectric Project (Low Watana Non-expandable Alternative)
A two dam scheme was developed for the Susitna River Hydroelectric Project initially by the
Corps of Engineers in the late 1970’s for which a feasibility study was completed by Acres
American Inc. for the Alaska Power Authority (APA) in 1982 (Acres 1982) and a license
application was filed with FERC. An amended license was prepared in 1985 (Harza Ebasco
1985) and the project was cancelled in early 1986. Extensive site work including surveying, deep
rock drilling as well as soil drilling and sampling was conducted at the Watana site. In addition
environmental studies including fish and wildlife studies were conducted throughout the basin
and included instream flow studies in the side channel sloughs downstream of Portage Creek.
In the two dam scheme developed in the Acres feasibility study (Acres 1982) the upper dam was
at Watana (Figure 1-1) and was to be an 885 foot high earthfill embankment with a 1040 MW
underground powerhouse. It was to be constructed first. The amended license (Harza Ebasco
1985) proposed to develop the project in three stages instead of two with an expandable 700 foot
high embankment at Watana as the first phase with an installed capacity of less than 500 MW.
A number of hydroelectric generation alternatives were studied recently on the Susitna River
(HDR 2009), of which the Low Watana Non-Expandable Alternative is the selected Susitna
Project discussed in this document. The Low Watana Alternative, a 700 foot high dam with a
600 MW powerhouse was chosen because the best combination of winter storage, less
environmental impact and low overall cost in addition to meeting the 50 percent renewable goal
by 2025. The expandable version of a dam at this location was not chosen because it is more
expensive initially relative to power output and the ultimate raised dam would have more
environmental impacts related to terrestrial habitat as well as other technical challenges. The
location of the Susitna Project as chosen for this review is the same location as the Watana dam
in the two dam scheme as proposed in the 1980’s (Acres 1982, Harza Ebasco 1985).
The Susitna Project would be located approximately half-way between Anchorage and
Fairbanks. It would create a dam on the Susitna River at river mile 184 above the mouth of the
Susitna River. The dam would be located within a steep sided river valley approximately 15
miles upstream of Devil’s Canyon. The 700 foot high dam would have a 557 foot difference
between tail water and maximum pond elevation, with a maximum pond level of 2014 feet. The
reservoir would be 39 miles long and a maximum of 2 miles wide. Installed capacity would be
600 MW with the average annual generation determined to be 2600 GWhrs (HDR 2009). A
final decision has not been made on the type of dam or the type of powerhouse (underground or
surface) that would be used. The location of the Project is shown in Figure 1-1.
Railbelt Large Hydro Evaluation
Preliminary Decision Document
November 2010 Project Descriptions 1-2
1.2 Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project
The Chakachamna Project was studied in detail in the 1980’s as reported in the Bechtel report
(Bechtel 1983). The project developed in that report consisted of an intake under the lake, and a
12 mile tunnel to an underground powerhouse on the McArthur River. At that location, the best
alternative had a small regulating dam on the Chakachatna River and was estimated to produce
1,300 GWhrs of electricity annually although the report indicated that the maximum power could
be generated by eliminating environmental flows and producing 1664 GWhrs of electricity
annually with an installed capacity of 400MW. This latter alternative was identified to have
adverse impacts on the fishery resources which use the Chakachatna River. Chapter 4 of this
document; Preliminary Energy Estimate, further addresses the energy potential of the
Chakachamna Project in light of environmental flows in the Chakachatna River.
The 1983 report (Bechtel 1983) also included an extensive environmental study which included
environmental hydrology, aquatic biology, terrestrial vegetation and wildlife as well as human
resources.
The Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project (Chakachamna Project) currently has a Preliminary
Application before FERC (FERC No. 12660). In its Pre-Application Document (PAD) filed
with FERC, the applicant, TDX Power described the Project to have 300 MW installed capacity
and generate 1300 GWhrs hours of annual energy (TDX Power 2009).
The Chakachamna Project is located approximately 85 miles west of Anchorage at the south base
of Mt. Spurr. Chakachamna Lake drains into the Chakachatna River, which flows downstream
through a complicated system, ultimately flowing into Cook Inlet. That flow is partially joined
to the McArthur River flow by way of the Noaukta Slough. The Chakachamna Project is
essentially the same as the original scheme in the Bechtel study and involves diverting water
from Chakachamna Lake through an 11 mile tunnel to an underground power plant near the
McArthur River. The power plant would discharge its tailrace flow to the McArthur River and
the flow would not rejoin the Chakachatna River until a point much further downstream,
reducing flow in a portion of the Chakachatna River, and the Noaukta Slough and Middle River
as well. The location of the Project is shown in Figure 1-1. The Project and vicinity are shown
in Figure 1-2. The current scheme does not have a dam on the Chakachatna River as it exits the
lake.
Railbelt Large Hydro Evaluation
Preliminary Decision Document
November 2010 Project Descriptions 1-3
Figure 1-1 Locations of the Susitna Project (Low Watana Alternative) and the Chakachamna Project
Railbelt Large Hydro Evaluation
Preliminary Decision Document
November 2010 Project Descriptions 1-4
Figure 1-2 Vicinity of the Chakachamna Project
November 2010 Engineering Issues 2-1
Chapter 2
Engineering Issues
Engineering issues associated with each potential project are discussed in the following section.
2.1 Access
2.1.1 Susitna Project
The Susitna Project could be accessed both from the Denali Highway by a new road and from
Gold Creek (existing railroad bridge over the Susitna River) by a new rail line. Access via two
modes of transportation provides the Project with advantages; the most significant of which is
that the road could be built quickly, allowing early on site construction work. The rail link
would allow materials from outside the State to be transported directly to the site by rail without
having to off load to trucks.
2.1.2 Chakachamna Project
The Chakachamna site requires access from tidewater to the lake, the tunnel adits, and the
McArthur River powerhouse location. Construction of a large dock to handle heavy equipment
at Tyonek would be necessary. Access routes needed for construction and operation would be
challenging. The construction access road could not cross the Trading Bay Game Refuge, and
would therefore require crossing the braided Chakachatna River delta and wetland, as well as
traversing high on steep mountain slopes to access the area near the lake
2.1.3 Access Comparison
Both projects would require roads and/or railroad to be constructed to handle very large and
heavy equipment. Constructing access into both projects is likely to require two years. The
advantages of access to the Susitna Project are that a major bridge is not required and that the
routes cross less steep terrain compared to the Chakachamna Project. The bridge (or two) over
the Chakachatna River will be large, expensive structure(s) with capacity to handle the heavy
equipment. It is questionable whether a road built to handle heavy equipment could be
constructed to the fish passageway location. If a road could not be constructed to handle a tunnel
boring machine, drill and blast construction of the fish passageway would be required.
2.2 Transmission
2.2.1 Susitna Project
The Susitna Project would connect to the north-south intertie near Gold Creek. The cost of that
transmission from the Susitna power plant to the intertie is included in the Susitna Project cost
Railbelt Large Hydro Evaluation
Preliminary Decision Document
November 2010 Engineering Issues 2-2
estimate. A conceptual study of the transmission needs in the railbelt if the Susitna Project was
constructed was completed by EPS (EPS 2009). Upgrades to the existing intertie and substations
would be required to transmit energy to Anchorage and Fairbanks.
2.2.2 Chakachamna Project
The Chakachamna Project transmission costs were estimated in today’s dollars based on the
original 1980’s scheme. The cost of the transmission from the power plant to the Beluga Power
plant was included in the cost estimate. It is believed a triple circuit would be required for the
segment of the powerplant to Beluga, as well as additional changes in the railbelt transmission
system. If the Chakachamna Project was constructed, transmission upgrades from Beluga plant
to the intertie and an upgrade of the intertie upgraded would likely be necessary.
2.2.3 Transmission Comparison
Transmission line construction beyond the two projects will be needed. Because the Susitna
Project will be located centrally between Anchorage and Fairbanks, it will require less total
length of new line construction, but because of the larger power output will require more actual
circuits. Chakachamna Project will likely require some new line construction from Beluga to
Anchorage and changes if energy is to be transmitted north to Fairbanks. Overall there is not a
significant difference between the two projects due to transmission needs.
2.3 Geologic Hazards
2.3.1 Susitna Project
The design earthquake for the Susitna Project would likely be a based on consideration of a
Denali fault event somewhere in the range of magnitude 8.0, a local crustal earthquake and a
subduction zone earthquake with a magnitude of roughly 8.5. The original Project design
considered all of these earthquakes in the design. Excellent recent data exist on the Magnitude
7.9, 2002 Denali fault earthquake. A review of the earthquake design requirements for a Susitna
Project was made by R&M Consultants (R&M 2009).
Subsurface conditions at the Susitna Project site are well known due to considerable rock drilling
in the 1980’s at the site. At the time, it was considered feasible to construct both diversion
tunnels, power tunnels and an underground powerhouse.
There have been recent earthfill dams designed for large earthquakes, the most significant being
the Seven Oaks Dam in Orange County, California, which is designed for a magnitude 8
earthquake from a distance of 1.2 miles away.
2.3.2 Chakachamna Project
The design earthquake for the Chakachamna Project would likely be from the Castle Mountain
fault, which is approximately 6 miles from the power plant location. Proximity to the fault
would likely mean that smaller connecting faults would be encountered during tunneling, which
Railbelt Large Hydro Evaluation
Preliminary Decision Document
November 2010 Engineering Issues 2-3
could cause delays and increased cost during construction. Subsurface geologic conditions along
the tunnel alignment are not known. The frequency of any significant faulting and associated
zones of fractured rock are not known, and could affect tunnel construction.
The Chakachamna Project also has other geologic hazards due to its proximity to Mount Spurr
and Barrier Glacier. The most recent eruption at Mount Spurr was in 1992. If the volcano were
to erupt again, ash fall and mud flows have the potential to block or partially block the
powertunnel intake, fish passageway, or natural outflow of the lake. Facilities would need to be
located or designed to minimize risk from an eruption. Also, at Lake Chakachamna, Barrier
Glacier, which partially dams the lake, is a geologic risk. The glacier does not appear to be
currently moving, is covered with debris, and has an ice core. A partial release of the lake
occurred in 1971 when the outlet was eroded. The lake level dropped 10 to 15 feet. Facilities
would need to be designed to accommodate a change in the glacier, which could cause the lake
level to go up or down and substantially affect Project energy production and fish passage.
2.3.3 Geologic Hazards Comparison
Overall geologic hazards are somewhat greater at the Chakachamna site due to the close
proximity of the castle Mountain fault and Mount Spurr.
2.4 Estimates of Probable Project Development Costs
A comparison of cost estimates for development of both project are provided in the following
Section.
2.4.1 Susitna Project
2.4.1.1 Cost Estimate History
In 1982 to 1983, a detailed cost estimate to develop the complete Watana/Devil Canyon project
was prepared. This estimate was revised in1985 to 1986, and again in March 2009. The latest
estimate, prepared in November, 2009, is for a Low Watana Non-Expandable alternative. The
estimate for this project in 2008 dollars is $4.5 billion as detailed in Table 2-1 below.
Table 2-1 Susitna, Low Watana Project Cost Summary
FERC Line # Line Item Name
Low Watana
(2008 Dollars
Millions)
71A Engineering, Environment, and Regulatory (7%) $ 236
330 Land and Land Rights $ 121
331 Power Plant Structure Improvements $ 115
332.1-.4 Reservoir, Dams and Tunnels $ 1,538
332.5-.9 Waterways $ 590
Railbelt Large Hydro Evaluation
Preliminary Decision Document
November 2010 Engineering Issues 2-4
Table 2-1 Susitna, Low Watana Project Cost Summary
FERC Line # Line Item Name
Low Watana
(2008 Dollars
Millions)
333 Waterwheels, Turbines and Generators $ 297
334 Accessory Electrical Equipment $ 41
335 Misc Power Plant Equipment $ 21
336 Roads, Rails and Air Facilities $ 232
350-390 Transmission Features $ 224
399 Other Tangible Property $ 16
63 Main Construction Camp $ 180
71B Construction Management, 4% $ 135
Total Subtotal $ 3,746
Total Contingency $ 749
Total (Millions of Dollars, rounded) $ 4,500
2.4.2 Chakachamna Project
2.4.2.1 Cost Estimate History
In 1982, a detailed cost estimate was prepared for developing the Chakachamna Project. In 2008
and 2009, re-evaluations of this original estimate were made to take into account potential new
alternative arrangements. In 2010, the detailed 1982 was updated with unit prices modified to be
consistent with the estimated costs for the Susitna Project. The estimate for the Chakachamna
Project in 2008 dollars is $2.9 billion, as detailed in Table 2-2 below.
Table 2-2 Chakachamna Project Cost Summary Table
FERC Line # Line Item Name
Chakachamna
(2008 Dollars
Millions)
71A Engineering, Environment, and Regulatory (7%) $ 151
330 Land and Land Rights $ 75
331 Power Plant Structure Improvements $ 105
332.1-.4 Reservoir, Dams and Tunnels $ 1,147
332.5-.9 Waterways $ 123
333 Waterwheels, Turbines and Generators $ 181
334 Accessory Electrical Equipment $ 20
Railbelt Large Hydro Evaluation
Preliminary Decision Document
November 2010 Engineering Issues 2-5
Table 2-2 Chakachamna Project Cost Summary Table
FERC Line # Line Item Name
Chakachamna
(2008 Dollars
Millions)
335 Misc Power Plant Equipment $ 15
336 Roads, Rails and Air Facilities $ 172
350-390 Transmission Features $ 232
399 Other Tangible Property $ 0
63 Main Construction Camp $ 90
71B Construction Management, 4% $ 86
Total Subtotal $ 2,400
Total Contingency $ 480
Total (Millions of Dollars, rounded) $ 2,880
2.4.3 Cost Comparison
Although capital cost is greater for the Susitna Project, the evaluation in Chapter 9 will show that
the cost to repay the financing of the project relative to energy production will be lower for the
Susitna Project. Since the financing cost is a major portion of the energy cost, and since
operation and maintenance and utility cost will be roughly equal regardless of the power source,
overall, the Susitna Project cost per unit of energy will be relatively lower.
Detailed Susitna costs can be found at Susitna Hydroelectric Project Alternatives Design Report
2009 located on the AEA Railbelt Large Hydro webpage.
Detailed Chakachamna costs can be found at Susitna and Chakachamna – Preliminary Decision
Document 2010 located on the AEA Railbelt Large Hydro webpage.
November 2010 Engineering Issues 3-1
Chapter 3
Environmental Issues
Development of a hydroelectric project would face a variety of issues over the design lifetime.
The design lifetime for a modern hydroelectric facility is anticipated to be greater than 100 years.
The following discussion is not all inclusive but highlights the likely major areas of concern
regarding both projects. Botanical and cultural resource issues are not discussed in this
document since they have not been fully explored and tend to have less overall impact on
whether a project is licensed and constructed.
3.1 Fisheries
3.1.1 Susitna Project
Fish resources have the highest potential to be impacted by the project. Most of the potential
impacts would occur in the reservoir and the middle Susitna River downstream of the reservoir.
There would be impacts due to changes in water quality, thermal regime, suspended sediment
load, reservoir draw-down fluctuations, impoundment zone inundation, flow regime, and fish
habitat. Not all impacts to fish populations would be negative. For example, an increase in
winter water temperatures could lead to the enhancement of overwintering habitat and thus
greater fish survival; however, the cooler spring water temperatures could slow fish growth.
The majority of the salmon production occurs in tributaries outside the area of anticipated
effects. Devil Canyon acts as an effective passage barrier to upstream migration of salmon.
Radio telemetry studies of Susitna drainage conducted by ADF&G (Yanusz et. al., 2007)
observed no sockeye salmon moving above Portage Creek near the entrance to Devils Canyon.
A few (less than 100) adult Chinook salmon have been observed above the Devil Canyon dam
site (FERC Amend Nov 1985). Electrofishing surveys conducted by ADF&G in 2003 (Johnson,
2010) documented Chinook salmon rearing in Kosina Creek and the Oshetna River, both located
above the Watana Dam site.
In the Watana impoundment zone, approximately 40 river miles of the Susitna River would be
inundated and transformed into reservoir habitat. An additional 15 miles of four named tributary
streams (including Kosina Creek) and numerous smaller unnamed tributaries and eight small
lakes would be inundated. There are nine species of fish occurring in the proposed impoundment
zones: Arctic grayling would lose approximately nine miles of spawning habitat and would not
likely populate the impoundment zone (ENTRIX 1985). River habitat would be transformed into
lake/reservoir habitat that may be occupied by a different array of fish species. Lake drawn
down may limit spawning of species dependent upon these areas for reproduction. Table 3-1
shows the possible fisheries impact of the Susitna Project.
Railbelt Large Hydro Evaluation
Preliminary Decision Document
November 2010 Engineering Issues 3-2
3.1.2 Chakachamna Project
Chakachamna Project has fish issues of concern to resource agencies. Since this document is a
summary, only the three that most affect project economics and licensing ability will be
discussed.
3.1.2.1 Lake Level Fluctuations
Chakachamna Lake and the surrounding tributaries support abundant salmon and freshwater
fisheries resources. Five significant tributaries and numerous minor drainages empty from the
surrounding mountains into Kenibuna and Chakachamna Lakes. Of these, the Chilligan and
Igitna Rivers provide significant sockeye salmon spawning habitat. The lake tributary streams
also provide habitat for Dolly Varden.
Studies in 1982 showed significant numbers of adult sockeye salmon milling along the north
shore of Chakachamna Lake and spawning was suspected but not confirmed. Chakachamna
Lake also provides habitat for resident lake trout, Dolly Varden, and round whitefish. Life
histories of lake trout, Dolly Varden, and whitefish have not been investigated in Chakachamna
Lake.
Under the proposed operational structure (base case), the lake level would fluctuate
approximately 60 feet from the normal maximum pool elevation of 1,142 feet to the normal
minimum pool elevation of 1,082 feet. If sockeye salmon spawn along lake shoals, it is likely
that their spawning timing would coincide with the maximum pool elevation. The resulting eggs
might subsequently be exposed and killed when the lake level drops to the minimum pool
elevations in March or April. Similarly, lake trout spawning areas may be affected by the winter
lake drop in lake level.
An additional impact relating to lake level drop is the potential for down-cutting of the channel
between Kenibuna and Chakachamna Lakes and the fluvial fans of lake tributaries such as the
Chilligan River. If down cutting occurs and as a result effects the level of Kenibuna lake (within
Lake Clark National Park) then project can not be licensed by FERC. Down cutting may also
effect fish passage into the tributaries particularly during periods of low lake level.
3.1.2.2 Reduced Flows into the Chakachatna River
The proposed operation of the Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project involves diverting a portion
of the natural flow out of Lake Chakachamna to the powerhouse located in the McArthur River
valley. In the base case, the average flow in the Chakachatna River will be reduced by
approximately 50 to 80 percent from June through November.
The Chakachatna River provides a migration corridor, spawning habitat, and rearing habitat for
salmon. The lower Chakachatna River splits into three branches: Middle River, which flows
southeast to Cook Inlet, the Chakachatna River, which flows south and joins the McArthur River
near its mouth, and a third braided section called Noaukta Slough which joins the middle part of
the McArthur River. Hydrologic ties to the Chakachatna and McArthur rivers appear important
in supporting the lower elevation wetlands north of Noaukta Slough and in the Trading Bay State
Railbelt Large Hydro Evaluation
Preliminary Decision Document
November 2010 Engineering Issues 3-3
Game Refuge. Reduced river flow may cause floodplains, wetlands, and riparian habitats to dry.
Drying of these wetland would effect fish populations in the Trading Bay State Game Refuge.
3.1.2.3 False Attraction
Transfer of water from Chakachamna Lake to the upper McArthur River may cause false
attraction of adult salmon to the powerhouse tailrace during their spawning migration. The
tailrace is proposed to be located approximately 15 miles up the McArthur River from the
Noaukta Slough (Chakachatna River) confluence. The mixture of Chakachamna Lake water from
the tailrace may confuse salmon migration and could prevent or delay the movement of salmon
to spawning areas in Chakachamna Lake and its tributaries.
Critical months for salmon passage into and out of the lake occur between May and September,
when a majority of the lake’s discharge will be diverted to the upper McArthur River. Adult
salmon return to their natal spawning areas by using olfactory cues (chemical “smells”). For
Lake Chakachamna sockeye salmon, these cues are imprinted at the smolt stage when juvenile
salmon migrate from spawning and rearing areas in the lake out the Chakachatna River to salt
water. Because the majority of the Lake Chakachamna water is being discharged from the
powerhouse into the McArthur River a substantial number of the adult salmon may be falsely
attracted to the powerhouse in the McArthur River.
3.1 Wildlife Impacts
3.1.1 Susitna Project
There are currently no known listed endangered species in the project area. The most significant
effect on wildlife would be on the species that live in the spruce forested valley walls. Impacts
on each species would be different based on species abundance and use of the habitat; however,
major threats common to most species have been identified. Downstream of the Watana
reservoir there may be an increase in preferred moose browse, thus increasing the moose
population (Harza Ebasco 1985b). The Susitna Project development would impact mink and
otter in the middle river by increasing the winter turbidities which would reduce the value of the
mainstem as feeding habitat. Open water in the winter would have a positive effect on mink and
otter (Harza Ebasco 1985b). Other impacts to animals downstream of the reservoir would be
negligible (Harza Ebasco 1985b).
A summary of the potential environmental impacts of the Susitna Project is provided in Table 3.1
below.
Table 3-1 Potential Environmental Impacts of the Low Watana Hydroelectric Project on the Susitna River
Impacts Issues
Reservoir - Impacts
River Habitat & Fisheries Impacts Approximately 40 river miles of the main stem of the Susitna River and 15 miles of tributary streams
will be converted from riverine to reservoir environment.
Arctic grayling are the most abundant fish species in the impound zone and will have the greatest
Railbelt Large Hydro Evaluation
Preliminary Decision Document
November 2010 Engineering Issues 3-4
impacts with the loss of approximately nine miles of spawning habitat.
A significant portion of lower Kosina Creek used by rearing Chinook salmon will be lost to inundation.
Fish passage Fish passage may be blocked for a small number of Chinook salmon that travel above the site.
Drawdown impacts The annual drawdown and refilling of the reservoir will affect an estimated 10 miles of river that will
alternate between river and reservoir habitat.
Terrestrial Impacts An estimated 20,000 acres of habitat will be flooded. Reservoir may alter traditional migration routes.
Downstream Impacts
Flow change impacts to fish Lower summer flows may reduce access to side channel fish habitats and reduce the amount of
rearing habitat for salmonids.
Increased winter time flows may provide more rearing habitat benefiting overwinter survival.
Dampening of flows may alter streambed movement and affect side channel habitats.
Temperature impacts to fish Lower than natural water temperatures in spring/early summer may cause a delay in the onset of
favorable summer rearing conditions for salmonids.
Warmer than normal fall water temperatures may extend the summer rearing period later into fall.
Overwinter survival for salmonids may be benefited by warmer water temperatures and a delay in ice
formation.
Higher main stem discharges in winter may maintain higher rates of warm groundwater upwelling in
side sloughs affecting incubation of salmon eggs.
3.1.2 Chakachamna Project
Wildlife impacts from the Chakachamna Project have not been studied in detail. Reduction of
salmon traveling to Lake Chakachamna tributaries would reduce the food source for bears and
eagle in Lake Clark National Park. Drying of Trading Bay State Game Refuge would potentially
alter wildlife habitat effecting birds and mammals in the refuge.
Increased flow down the McArthur River may cause some increased flooding and wetlands south
of Trading Bay State Game Refugee. The net effect of the changes in food source and habitat
over a large area (Lake Clark NP, Trading Bay, and McArthur River) has not been studied.
3.2 Environmental Flow
3.2.1 Susitna Project
Environmental flow requirements are met by water being used for energy production passing
through the generating units and then being released into the natural stream channel. The effect
of environmental flows is to change the timing of the energy production but not necessarily the
average annual amount of generation.
A preferred environmental flow regime in the 1980’s was developed to have high late summer
flows for maintenance of rearing habitat for Chinook salmon juveniles. However, peak summer
flows would be reduced and winter flows (within limits) would be increased to generate more
power. A comparison of the 1980 selected environmental flow and of the existing Susitna River
flows are shown in Figure 3-1 below.
Railbelt Large Hydro Evaluation
Preliminary Decision Document
November 2010 Engineering Issues 3-5
Figure 3-1. Susitna River monthly mean flow at Gold Creek.
3.2.2 Chakachamna Project
The preliminary environmental flow recommendations suggested for the Chakachatna River in
the PAD are based on the Montana Method (Tennant 1972) as presented in the Bechtel report on
the project in 1983. The Bechtel report assumed environmental flows during the months of April
to September of 1094 cfs or lake inflow, whichever was less. During the months of October
through March, the minimum environmental flow was assumed to be 365 cfs or lake inflow,
whichever was less. These amounts of discharge are rated as “fair to degrading” flows in the
Montana Method. This method was developed for and has primarily been used on rivers in the
lower 48 states, which show little similarity to the glacially driven and highly seasonal flows of
the Chakachatna River. Winter time flows using this method drop below historic average
monthly flows, potentially resulting in freeze-out of spawning beds located outside the main
river or in side channel areas. Summertime flows provided may not be sufficient to attract adult
spawners confused by the discharges into the McArthur drainage or to provide for upstream
passage through the canyon area located below Chakachamna Lake. Additionally, this
environmental flow method does not take into consideration the groundwater hydrology feeding
wetlands of the Trading Bay Game Refuge.
While it is outside of the scope of this document to complete the environmental flow analysis
needed to adequately address all of the environmental issues in the Chakachamna watershed,
Table 3-2 below provides an estimate of environmental flows that may be more likely to be
viewed favorably by permitting agencies. It should be noted, however, that these flows have not
been reviewed or endorsed by any permitting agencies. Determination of environmental flows
for the project will ultimately be the result of a detailed analysis of instream flow data by
conducted by a multiagency review team over a multi year time period.
Railbelt Large Hydro Evaluation
Preliminary Decision Document
November 2010 Engineering Issues 3-6
Table 3-2 Estimate of Probable Environmental Flows
Month
Historic
Natural
Flow
(cfs)
Base Case
Flow
(cfs)
Minimum
Probable
Flow
(cfs)
Notes
October 2468 402 1,250 50% of mean monthly flow: provides water to Noaukta Slough to attract adult
coho spawners and protect historic side channel spawning habitats.
November 1206 365 600 50% of mean monthly flow: provides water to Noaukta Slough to attract adult coho
spawners and protect historic side channel spawning habitats.
December 813 363 600 75% of mean monthly flow: protects incubation in Chakachatna/Noaukta Slough
spawning beds.
January 613 365 500 100% of mean monthly flow: protects incubation in Chakachatna/Noaukta Slough
spawning beds.
February 505 357 500 100% of mean monthly flow: protects incubation in Chakachatna/Noaukta Slough
spawning beds.
March 445 358 500 100% of mean monthly flow to protect incubation in Chakachatna/Noaukta Slough
spawning beds.
April 441 582 500 100% of mean monthly flow: protects incubation in Chakachatna/Noaukta Slough
spawning beds.
May 1042 1,094 750 75% of mean monthly flow: protects juvenile rearing in Chakachatna/Noaukta
Slough areas and provides for outmigration of smolts from lake.
June 5,875 1,094 2,000 33% of mean monthly flow: provides water for outmigration of smolts from lake
and feeds groundwater to Trading Bay Refuge wetlands.
July 11,944 1,421 4,000 33% of mean monthly flow: provides water to attract spawning adults to
Chakachatna/Noaukta as opposed to McArthur, provides adequate flow for adult
passage through canyon below lake outlet, and feeds groundwater to Trading Bay
Refuge wetlands.
August 11,996 5,599 4,000 33% of mean monthly flow: provides water to attract spawning adults to
Chakachatna/Noaukta as opposed to McArthur, provides adequate flow for adult
passage through canyon below lake outlet, and feeds groundwater to Trading Bay
Refuge wetlands.
September 6,042 2,164 2,000 33% of mean monthly flow: provides water to attract spawning adults to
Chakachatna/Noaukta as opposed to McArthur, provides adequate flow for adult
passage through canyon below lake outlet, and feeds groundwater to Trading Bay
Refuge wetlands.
3.2.3 Environmental Flow Analysis
To evaluate the effect of increased minimum environmental flow requirements in the
Chakachatna River and/or the effect of lake level fluctuations, two alternatives to the base case
were also evaluated. Environmental issues surrounding project operations generally revolve
around three main issues: 1) habitat affected by flows in the bypass reach; 2) upstream and
downstream fish passage; and 3) habitat affected by lake level fluctuations. The alternatives to
the Base case evaluated were:
Railbelt Large Hydro Evaluation
Preliminary Decision Document
November 2010 Engineering Issues 3-7
Alternative #1 – Base case with probable environmental flow. Alternative 1 is the
same as the base case except that:
Environmental flow requirements are revised as described in Table 3-2 above.
The lake level fluctuations are not restricted.
Alternative #2 – Base case with probable environmental flow & minimization of lake
fluctuation. Alternative 2 is the same as the base case except that:
Environmental flow requirements are revised as described in Table 3-2 above.
The maximum lake level fluctuation would be 15 feet below the weir outlet.
A comparison of potential environmental impacts resulting from each alternative are presented in
Table 3-3.
Table 3-3 Comparison of Potential Environmental Impacts Resulting from Chakachamna Lake Hydro
Alternatives
Issue Base Case Alternative 1 Alternative 2
Lake Level Fluctuation
Impacts to shoal spawning areas for sockeye salmon
and lake trout
Significant impacts to
incubating eggs due to
draw down
Significant impacts Least significant case but
impacts may still occur
Access to inlet streams (Chilligan and Igitna) for sockeye
spawners
Not likely to be impacted Could be impacted due
to drawn down
Not likely to be impacted
Adult salmon passage into lake Minor to moderate,
passage via natural
outlet 87% of time
Significant, dependent
upon using fish tunnel
91% of the time
Minor to moderate
passage via natural
outlet 87% of time
Smolt outmigration from lake Unknown, smolts 100%
dependent on fish
passage tunnel
Unknown, smolts 100%
dependent on fish
passage tunnel
Unknown, smolts 100%
dependent on fish
passage tunnel
Chakachatna / McArthur Issues
False attraction of Chakachamna sockey spawners to
the McArthur powerhouse
Likely to occur Least likely case but may
still occur
Least likely case but may
still occur
Noauktna Slough and Chakachatna side channel
spawning and rearing habitats
Moderate impacts
possible from winter
freeze-out
Lower impacts than Base
Case
Lower impacts than Base
Case
Trading Bay Wildlife Refuge
Groundwater fed wetland habitats Moderate impacts Lower impacts than Base
Case
Lower impacts than Base
Case
Under the Base Case and Alternative 1 the lake level would fluctuate approximately 60 feet from
the normal maximum pool elevation of 1,142 feet to the normal minimum pool elevation of
1,082 feet. Spawning of adult salmon and Lake Trout may be effected and down cutting to
tributaries may occur.
Railbelt Large Hydro Evaluation
Preliminary Decision Document
November 2010 Engineering Issues 3-8
Lake level affects adult salmon passage into the lake in Alternative 1, where the natural outlet is
not available to spawning adults 91 percent of the time. In this alternative, fish will be
dependant upon using the two mile long fish passage tunnel. There is uncertainty whether fish
will be willing to use the tunnel. In all cases the fish passage tunnel will be required for smolt
outmigration.
In Alternative 2, the lake level is minimized to 15 feet below the outlet. While this amount of
drawdown may exceed natural lake level fluctuation, it is the scenario offering the least impact to
lake habitats.
For Chakachamna, limiting lake fluctuation (Alternative 2) to minimize the affect on upstream
spawning will decrease the amount of runoff that can be captured, thereby decreasing the
average annual generation. Figure 3-2 shows the post-project lake elevation by month for the
base case and the two alternatives.
Figure 3-2 Chakachamna Lake Elevation by Month
Flows in the Chakachatna River during Project operation will be comprised of environmental
flow releases and spill as shown in Figure 3-3. Since the powerhouse discharges return to the
McArthur River, the net flows in the Chakachatna River are reduced in all cases.
Detailed Chakachamna environmental discussion can be found at Susitna and Chakachamna –
Preliminary Decision Document, Environmental-Energy-Cost November 12, 2010 located on the
AEA Railbelt Large Hydro webpage.
Adult Fish passage
minimum
1111 ft
Outlet, 1142 ft
November 2010 Engineering Issues 3-1
Figure 3-3 Chakachatna River Flows (Downstream of Lake) by Month
November 2010 Environmental Issues 3-1
November 2010 Preliminary Energy Estimate 4-1
Chapter 4
Preliminary Energy Estimate
4.1 Evaluation of Average Annual Energy and Firm Winter Capacity
The amount of energy that can be produced from hydroelectric projects is a function of the
amount of available water and, in the case of storage projects, how the available water can be
regulated (systematically released). In addition to the average annual energy, the firm capacity
attainable during winter months is of particular importance. For hydroelectric projects, the firm
capacity is almost always lower than the installed generation capacity for a project. For the
purposes of this study work, firm capacity is defined as:
“The amount of power the project can generate on a continuous basis from November 1 through
April 30 with 98 percent reliability.”
It should be noted that this is only one manner of regulation. The water can be regulated in a
variety of different means in order to achieve other objectives, such as peaking, spinning reserve,
or backup capacity. Major assumptions used to develop the estimates average annual energy and
winter plant capacit y are presented below.
4.1.1 Susitna Model Assumptions and Data Sources
This potential project consists of the construction of a large storage reservoir on the Susitna
River at the Watana site with a 700-foot-high dam and a four-unit powerhouse with a total
installed capacity of 600 MW. This “Low Watana non-expandable” alternative is described in
detail in Susitna Hydroelectric Project, Conceptual Alternative Design Report (HDR Alaska
2009b).
4.1.2 Chakachamna Model Assumptions and Data Sources
This potential project consists of the inter basin transfer of water from a lake tap near the outlet
of Chakachamna Lake through an approximately 10.8-mile-long tunnel to an underground
powerhouse that would discharge to the McArthur River. The powerhouse would have a total
generating capacity of 300 MW. The Base case (as proposed) and two alternatives were
evaluated. Alternatives, described in Section 3.1.3, show how alternative operational constraints
on the project would affect project energy. These alternatives are as follows:
Base Case for analysis was the project as described in the PAD (TDX Power 2009).
This project used environmental flow recommendations for the Chakachatna River
based on the Montana Method (Tennant 1972).
Alternative #1 – Base Case with Probable Environmental Flow. Alternative 1 is the
same as the Base Case except that higher environmental flows are required.
Railbelt Large Hydro Evaluation
Preliminary Decision Document
November 2010 Environmental Issues 4-2
Alternative #2 – Base Case with Probable Environmental Flow & Minimization of
Lake Fluctuation. Alternative 2 is the same as the Base Case except that higher
environmental flows are required and lake level drop would be limited.
4.2 Results
Firm capacities and average annual energy estimates are presented in Table 4-1.
Table 4-1 Firm Capacity and Average Annual Energy Estimates
Alternative 98% Winter Capacity
(MW)
Average Annual Energy
Production (GWhrs)
Susitna 245 2,600
Chakachamna, Base Case 170 1,300
Chakachamna, Alternative 1 140 1,100
Chakachamna , Alternative 2 30 860
The energy distribution by month for each of the above alternatives is shown in Figure 4-1
below.
Figure 4-1 Energy Distribution by Month
As can be seen by these results, the firm winter capacity and average annual energy production
estimates can vary significantly based upon the assumed environmental constraints placed upon
the project. For the Chakachamna Project, increased environmental flow requirements
(Alternatives 1 and 2) reduce the amount of water that is available for generation, thereby
Railbelt Large Hydro Evaluation
Preliminary Decision Document
November 2010 Environmental Issues 4-3
lowering the annual energy. Reduced use of reservoir storage greatly limits the amount of
energy that can be produced during the winter months (Alternative 2).
Detailed Chakachamna environmental discussion can be found at Susitna and Chakachamna –
Preliminary Decision Document, Environmental-Energy-Cost November 12, 2010 located on the
AEA Railbelt Large Hydro webpage.
For the Susitna Project, environmental flow requirements are met by water passing through the
generating units and then being released into the natural stream channel. The effect of changed
environmental flows is to change the timing of the energy production but not necessarily the
average annual amount of generation.
Railbelt Large Hydro Evaluation
Preliminary Decision Document
November 2010 Environmental Issues 5-4
Chapter 5 Permitting
5.1 Overview – Regulatory Processes
While pursuant to the Federal Power Act (FPA), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) has exclusive authority to issue licenses for most non-federal hydropower projects, there
are several federal and state agencies that are authorized under several federal statutes to submit
mandatory and recommended terms and conditions to be included in a FERC-issued license.
FERC’s licensing process options – Applicants may propose to use one of three
options: the Integrated (ILP), Alternative (ALP), or Traditional (TLP). The default is the
ILP, unless FERC approves use of either the ALP or TLP.
Pre-filing consultation – extensive pre-filing meetings and exchange of information
required.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission – Application for License required; Draft
submitted for review & comments; Final filed.
Federal and State resource agencies consultation & terms & conditions – File
mandatory & recommended terms and conditions; most become License Articles and
require compliance.
Numerous other State & Federal approvals & permits are required – Applicants are
required to provide evidence of consultation with agencies in an Application for License,
and provide copies of permits and/or approvals.
Please also see R&M Consultants/Hatch Associates Consultants report (2010) for a detailed
presentation of the various agencies and their authorities who would shape the content of any
issued license.
5.2 Regulatory Issues – Chakachamna Project
TDX received its first Preliminary Permit on November 14, 2006. The purpose of a Preliminary
Permit is to reserve priority to conduct studies for a period of three years, and if the effort
results in filing an Application for License. A successive (second) permit was issued on February
25, 2010. This permit expires on January 31, 2013. FERC noted in issuing the permit that “a
successive permit can warrant a greater standard of Commission oversight.” “If the permittee
fails to make significant progress toward developing a license application, the permit may be
subject to cancellation.”
Railbelt Large Hydro Evaluation
Preliminary Decision Document
November 2010 Environmental Issues 5-5
On July 17, 2009, TDX filed its Notice of Intent to File an Application for License (NOI),
Request to Use a Traditional Licensing Process (TLP), and Pre-Application Document (PAD).
By letter dated July 27, 2009, FERC requested that they consider which licensing process it
wishes to use and to refile its request noting that there would not be a need to refile the PAD.
TDX met with FERC on August 5, 2009 to discuss the proceeding. On September 21, 2009,
TDX requested to rescind its PAD. TDX stated that “this Project may be best served by an
Integrated Licensing Process (ILP). TDX stated its intent to implement a field season in 2010
and to hold a study plan review and workshop in February 2010. TDX has a website for the
Project and there is no evidence that work is proceeding as noted in their September 21, 2009,
correspondence to the FERC. Nor has any further information been filed with the Commission.
Under TDX’s current development schedule, a third FERC Permit would be necessary.
5.2.1 Licensing Schedule
Once the pre-filing process restarts the schedule could be:
Prepare and File Final Application for License – 4.5 years
FERC Processing and License Issuance – 2.5 years
5.3 Regulatory Issues – Susitna / Low Watana Project
At present, there is no FERC Preliminary Permit in effect. While a FERC Permit is not required,
it would be prudent for an entity representing the State to secure priority to study the Project. As
discussed above, the Alaska Power Authority (APA), now known as AEA prepared and filed an
application for license in February 1983. That application was withdrawn and APA revised the
Project schedule to realize benefits identified with a three, as opposed to two-year construction
schedule in 1985. In 1986, APA abandoned pursuit of a FERC license for numerous reasons,
including financial feasibility.
In 2008, AEA began an update of the project, including preparation of the Railbelt IRP to
evaluate the ability of the Susitna Project, and other resources, to meet long term demand in the
Railbelt Region.
5.3.1 Licensing Schedule
Table 5-1 shows a Licensing, Engineering and Construction Schedule Comparison for the two
projects. For the Susitna Project, based on information available at this time, the FERC schedule
could be:
Prepare and File Final Application for License – 3.5 years
FERC Processing and License Issuance – 2 years
Railbelt Large Hydro Evaluation
Preliminary Decision Document
November 2010 Environmental Issues 5-6
5.4 Total Project Development Timeline
Table 5-1 provides a Development Schedule Comparison for the two projects. Based on
information available at this time, the comparative total schedule from start of the FERC process,
in the case of the Chakachamna a restart of their pre-filing process, could be:
Table 5-1 Development Schedule Comparison
Major Task Chakachamna Susitna Low Watana
FERC Pre-filing Process 4.5 years 3.5 years
FERC Processing – DC 2.5 years 2.0 years
FERC Processing - Portland 2.0 years 1.0 years
Construction through Start up 5.5 years 4.5 years
TOTALS 14.5 YEARS 11 YEARS
Detailed Susitna and Chakachamna Licensing and permitting information is found at Susitna-
Low Watana & Chakachamna Projects, Large Hydro Evaluation of Two Projects, Preliminary
Decision Document, Environmental & Regulatory Issues November 14, 2010 located on the
AEA Railbelt Large Hydro webpage.
November 2010 Development Schedule 6-1
Chapter 6
Development Schedule
The following tables (Table 6-1 and Table 6-2) show the major tasks associated with hydro
project development, and the estimated preliminary schedule for completion for the
Chakachamna Project compared to the estimated preliminary schedule for completion for the
Susitna Project. Special considerations and assumptions for each are listed below.
Railbelt Large Hydro Evaluation
Preliminary Decision Document
November 2010 Development Schedule 6-1
Table 6-1 Considerations / Assumptions
Chakachamna Project Susitna Project
TBM est. 14-16 months to order and deliver to site
4.5 year pre-filing process assumes studies underway in 2011 (one year behind schedule in
TDX PAD, 2009)
2.5 years for FERC Processing and License Issuance, and 5.5 year construction schedule
based on PAD (Appendix 2-1)
FERC-PRO processing and some procurement must be accomplished before field work can
begin
Longer construction schedule due to significant underground work, with higher risk profile
and greater uncertainty
Project “access” to require 2 yrs to construct
Chakachamna has higher risk that the schedule to Project Startup will extend beyond 14.5
years.
Significant, extensive and valid environmental studies performed in 1980’s to be updated
and used to develop FERC documents
Significant geotechnical investigations performed previously
FERC-PRO processing and some procurement must be accomplished before field work
can begin
More surface features and work carries more schedule certainty, less risk
Project “access” to require 2 yrs to construct
Engineering schedule based on “Low Watana Non-Expandable Development” (HDR, 2009)
Susitna has lower risk that the schedule to Project Startup will extend beyond 11 years.
Railbelt Large Hydro Evaluation
Preliminary Decision Document
November 2010 Development Schedule 6-2
Table 6-2 Licensing, Engineering, and Construction Schedule Comparison
Regulatory / Environmental Major Tasks Engineering / Construction Major Tasks
Pre-License
Issuance
Preliminary Permit
Scoping
Draft Application
Final Application
Chakachamna Susitna
Feasibility
Engineering Design
Specifications, Drawings & Bid Documents
Chakachamna Susitna
4.5 yrs 3.5 yrs
FERC Processing (DHAC)
License Order Issued 2.5 yrs 2 yrs
Post-License
Issuance
License & Permits Compliance
FERC Processing (Portland Regional Office)
Procurement
2 yrs 1 yr
Construction
Testing & Commissioning
Project Startup
5.5 yrs 4.5 yrs
Reg/Env Estimated Schedule 7 yrs 5.5 yrs Eng/Const Estimated Schedule 7.5 yrs 5.5 yrs
ESTIMATED TOTAL TO STARTUP 14-15 years 11 years
November 2010 Financial 7-1
Chapter 7
Financial
Based on project risk for investors, the two projects, Susitna and Chakachamna, are similar.
Project financing for either project, where the costs of the project is paid for solely by the sale of
power produced from the project, is assumed to be unavailable. Without State participation these
project are unlikely to proceed. State participation of whatever form it takes place will enable
these projects to occur and lower the cost of the energy to ratepayers.
Large projects have financing that is structured on some amount of government participation.
Government participation is normally required because of the following risks generally
associated with large hydroelectric projects make project financing unattainable:
Timeline: Project may take 10-20 years prior to first power sales. Private investors do
not like to spend substantial funds for an extended time when the payoff is a long time
or may not occur.
Licensing and Permitting Risk: Significant funds can be spent only for the project to
have long delays in licensing and in operation constraints placed on project.
Construction Risk: Estimating the cost of a project many years out has risk of the
prices changing for materials and labor. In addition, the demand for a product can
change.
The “Bradley Model” has been discussed as a way that a new large hydroelectric facility can be
financed for construction with State assistance. Licensed and constructed in the 1980’s and early
1990’s it is Alaska’s largest hydroelectric project. Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project (Bradley
Project) is located southeast of Homer, Alaska and is a 125-foot high concrete faced rock filled
gravity dam. The project has 126MW of installed capacity and produces approximately 9
percent of the railbelt’s annual energy. The state paid for licensing and much of the cost of the
project. Approximately 50 percent of the project’s licensing and construction cost was paid by
the State. The railbelt utilities purchase all the power for the projects and pay all the costs of the
project (bond financing, Operations and maintenance). Once the debt service is retired then the
utilities will continue to pay the State the same amount as the debt service.
Detailed information on State participation and Bradley financing is available at Hydroelectric
Project Risk Analysis & the Bradley Lake Funding Model Summary Report, November 15, 2010
located on AEA’s website at the Railbelt Large Hydro webpage.
November 2010 Cost of Power 8-1
Chapter 8
Cost of Power
The cost of power from the Susitna and Chakachamna Projects is addressed in this chapter. A
simple calculation of the cost of power, which assumes 50 percent State equity in either project,
a financing rate of 6 percent, and annual energy from sections above results in the generation
costs shown in Table 8-1 below.
Table 8-1 Cost of Power Comparison
Project Finance Amount
(50%)
Rate Term
(years)
Annual
Energy
(GWhrs)
Cost per
kWhr
Susitna 2,250,000,000 6% 30 2600 $0.063
Chakachamna Alt 1 1,440,000,000 6% 30 1100 $0.09
Chakachamna Alt 2 1,440,000,000 6% 30 860 $0.12
This simple table gives an idea of how the two projects compare in the cost of power. Interest
during construction is excluded from this comparison.
The estimated construction cost of Chakachamna Alternative 1 would need to decrease by 30
percent to have a comparable cost of power with the Susitna Project. Or, assuming no changes
in the cost the energy of the Chakachamna Project, annual energy would need to be 1600 GWhrs.
This could only be achieved by having zero environmental flow.
An alternative way of analyzing cost comparisons is to estimate State contributions needed if
generation costs are held at $0.06 kWhr. From this perspective, the State required contribution
would be $2.35 B for the Susitna Project (2,600 GWhrs) and $1.96 B for the Chakachamna
Project (1100 GWhrs) or $2.17 B (860 GWhrs). Assuming state participation would be based on
providing $.06 cost per kWh, the Susitna project would cost 20% more than Chakachamna
project Alternative 1; however, it will provide approximately 136% more energy and compared
to Alternative 2, an 8% greater cost with 200% more energy.
November 2010 Operational Uncertainty 9-1
Chapter 9
Operational Uncertainty
Table 9-1 presents a summary of the comparative operational uncertainties associated with
developing the Chakachamna and Susitna Projects.
Railbelt Large Hydro Evaluation
Preliminary Decision Document
November 2010 Operational Uncertainty 9-1
Table 9-1 Operational Uncertainties Issue Comparison
Issue and likelihood of
occurrence within next 100
years
Chakachamna Project Susitna Project
Issue Notes/Requirements Issue Notes/Requirements
Earthquake Risk
Immediate damage due to
fault movement
Studies show 700-year return
period for significant
earthquakes (magnitude 6 to
7), last such earthquake
approximately 650 years ago.
Castle Mountain fault, approximately 11 miles from the lake, magnitude 7+,
displacements of up to 6 ft, only 4500 ft from powerhouse site.
Infrastructure near the fault include; powerhouse and bridge over Chakachatna
River.
Power tunnel intersects numerous smaller faults. Seismic event may cause
localized collapse in the fault zone if not lined. Lack of information about
whether movement could occur on any of these smaller faults.
Castle Mountain Fault located 65 miles from powerhouse, intake, lake,
magnitude 7+,
Denali Fault located 45 miles , magnitude 8.0,
Inter-plate subduction zone located 40 miles, magnitude 9.2
Dam could experience high seismic loads (known seismic zone, EQ design
case should consider loading)
Secondary effects Landslide and avalanche potential into lake and onto access road. Potential landslides and avalanches along access roads.
Hydrological Risk
Generation USGS record at site 11 years of data, correlation with 4 streams.
Understanding of the hydrology
There is potential during events such as floods or glacial activity for down
cutting of the glacial moraine at the end of the lake which could reduce head
and storage in the project
Smaller basin will cause greater deviations from average hydrological flow and
energy generation.
Drought (Not sure if needed, see above)
Tunnel roughness may increase with time due to wear which will reduce
generation.
USGS record at site 54 years of data on Susitna River.
Understanding of the hydrology vis a vis climate change effects.
Climate Change
Glacier recession Increase in flows as the glaciers melt (>100 yrs), followed by reduced and more
“flashy” flows at the project.
Increase flow for a period with glacier recession (>100 yrs) followed by
decreased flow.
Volcanism
Railbelt Large Hydro Evaluation
Preliminary Decision Document
November 2010 Operational Uncertainty 9-2
Table 9-1 Operational Uncertainties Issue Comparison
Issue and likelihood of
occurrence within next 100
years
Chakachamna Project Susitna Project
Issue Notes/Requirements Issue Notes/Requirements
Effects on Project Facilities
and Features
Mt Spurr is located immediately adjacent to the project, Redoubt volcano is
approx. 50 miles to the west.
Explosive eruption at Mt. Redoubt 2009
Previous eruption on Mt. Spurr was a side blowout.
Debris flows similar to those that occurred in 1953 and 1992 eruptions of Crater
Peak could dam Chakachatna River. The debris dams might erode
progressively or may burst abruptly.
Lava flows could dam the Chakachatna River and raise Chakachamna Lake.
Large floods would be produced by surging and melting of glacial ice during an
eruption.
Glacier movement (melting at base) is probable. Ice flow on Barrier Glacier may
surge, dam the lake, raise water level and erode through, typically below the
glacier in material.
Access road may become blocked or destroyed by mud or erosion (high flows in
river from melting glacier or glacial dam breakout).
Effects on river bridges from debris flow
Ash effects on transmission
Poison gas cloud could affect the powerhouse (unlikely with distance &
powerhouse location)
Communications may be disrupted by volcano.
Mt Wrangell is located to the more than a hundred miles to the East and is
closer to Watana. Mt Wrangell is in a non-eruptive active state at present
but with history of 9 reported possible eruptions since 1760, most recently
1930; steaming at present. Ash could reach the Watana project and
transmission lines depending on wind conditions. Pyroclastic flows are
unlikely to affect Watana due to distance and intervening terrain.
Tunnelling and Foundation Conditions
Dam Small structure on rock foundation.
Material of the natural dam, believed to be moraine, could contain significant
quantities of ice, lahar material, or volcanic ash that could affect the
permanence of the natural dam.
Geotechnical exploration indicates favorable foundation conditions on
bedrock.
Foundation (permafrost). Melting permafrost in the rock could lead to
increased permeability of foundation that may require additional grouting
associated with project site.
Railbelt Large Hydro Evaluation
Preliminary Decision Document
November 2010 Operational Uncertainty 9-3
Table 9-1 Operational Uncertainties Issue Comparison
Issue and likelihood of
occurrence within next 100
years
Chakachamna Project Susitna Project
Issue Notes/Requirements Issue Notes/Requirements
River diversion tunnels.
Large spillway.
Power tunnel(s) Extensive underground construction will be expensive to shut down for
inspection and repair if necessary.
Very hard rock along tunnel alignment – more than 35,000 psi, which is
extremely hard and could present difficulty for a tunnel boring machine resulting
in slow progress.
Competent rock conditions for dam and tunnel construction, studies date to
1982.
Very short power tunnel(s) – 1.0 mile max, and shallow and surface power
tunnel, therefore less risk of delay in construction.
Limited number of geotechnical fault zones to pass through, due to location
and short length of tunnels, provided “Fingerbuster” and “Fin” zones are
avoided.
Glacier Activity
Dam and Intake Unpredictability regarding the interaction of glaciers with the volcanic activity,
including possible melting at the base of the ice that would cause glacial pulses
or surges.
An advance of Barrier Glacier at the Chakachamna Lake outlet, initiated by heat
from below the ice, could dam the outlet and raise the lake level. When the ice
nose decayed, a large volume of water would be released that could erode the
lake outlet and lower the lake below its present level. There is potential during
events such as floods, glacial activity for down cutting of the glacial moraine at
the end of the lake which could reduce head and storage in the project.
Lowering the lake would reduce the submergence of the power inlet below what
is acceptable. Breakout in 1971 one of Alaska’s largest recorded floods.
N/A
Powerhouse Blockade Glacier has been identified as a source of outburst floods on McArthur
River
N/A
Surging Glaciers Four glaciers in the Chakachamna study area have been identified as surging
glaciers. They include Pothole Glacier and Harpoon Glacier in the Nagishlamina
River Valley and Capps Glacier on the eastern slope of Mt Spurr.
N/A
Railbelt Large Hydro Evaluation
Preliminary Decision Document
November 2010 Operational Uncertainty 9-4
Table 9-1 Operational Uncertainties Issue Comparison
Issue and likelihood of
occurrence within next 100
years
Chakachamna Project Susitna Project
Issue Notes/Requirements Issue Notes/Requirements
Outburst Glaciers Glacier damming of the Nagishlamina Valley by a surging glacier may result in
outburst conditions at the outlet from Chakachamna Lake. A sudden influx of
water into Chakachamna Lake could produce significant changes including
lowering of the lake outlet.
N/A
Other
Intake Lake tap would need fish screens
Volcano eruption may affect power tunnel intake.
N/A
Access Road Landslide, avalanche danger part of the route. Avalanche danger over a portion of the route.
Transmission Line 42 miles of new transmission line to Beluga Sub Station.
Submarine cable across Cook Inlet subject to marine environment risks such as
currents, scour, dragging anchors.
58 miles of new transmission line.
Operation & Maintenance
Operations & Maintenance Long tunnel intersecting numerous faults susceptible to rock-falls over time and
maintenance requirements
Rock entrained in tunnel flow could damage turbines
Long tunnel has higher risk of collapse, blockage
Long tunnel will require planned outages for inspection and maintenance over
life of project, higher risk of interruption.
Multiple short tunnels allows for more regular inspection and maintenance
without prolonged outages and impact to operations
Load Stability
Powerhouse location with
respect to load centers
Off the end of the railbelt load center, not easy to stabilize (brown-out/black-out). Location between Anchorage and Fairbanks means project is closer to
center of load, easier to stabilize grid using reactive potential.
Hydrological Risk - Water Shortage
Drought Small catchment mainly fed by meltwater from glaciers, which make this site
more susceptible to water shortages and less dependable as a source of
energy.
Catchment is less susceptible to drought.
November 2010 Summary and Conclusions 10-1
Chapter 10
Summary and Conclusions
This document compared two large hydroelectric projects to determine which would better meet
the needs of the railbelt population and the State of Alaska now and into the future. The
following table shows a comparison summary of the two projects.
Table 10-1 Comparison Summary
Criteria Susitna (Low Watana) Project Chakachamna Project
Engineering (Cost) $4.5B $2.9
Environmental Same basin, modified flows, little to no
salmon present.
Cross basin drainage, substantial concern
regarding fisheries and Trading Bay State
Game Refuge.
Energy 2,600 GWhrs annual average. About 50% of
existing railbelt annual electrical energy.
Meets and exceeds State energy policy
without other projects.
Most likely to be less than 1,100 GWhrs
annual average. About 20% of existing
railbelt annual electrical energy. Does not
provide substantial winter power.
Start-up Date Approximately 11 years Approximately 15 years
Licensing/Permitting Substantial site knowledge likely to reduce
licensing/permitting delays.
Significant unknowns on environment,
geology, and hydrology likely to slow process
Finance Requires State financial support Requires State financial support
Cost of Energy Simple calculation using cost & energy
numbers above, 50% State equity, and 6%
interest yields $0.06 /khr
Simple calculation using cost & energy
numbers above, 50% State equity, and 6%
interest yields $0.09-0.12 /khr
Operational Uncertainty Less long term operational risk from seismic.
Central location helps to stabilize grid.
Greater long term operational risk from
seismic events, volcano eruption, & glacial
changes. Energy more variable on an
annual basis. Harder to stabilize.
Notes River system has potential to expand
generation by going upstream, downstream,
or raise dam height. Transmission lines
could connect to other areas of the State.
The Susitna Project would produce more energy and at a lower cost per MW. Historically the
flow has varied little year to year so that the amount of energy can be better estimated. Most of
the Project is anticipated to be above ground so that geotechnical unknowns that influence
construction cost risk are minimized. Produced energy during summer would be greater than
desired so that flows would remain high for salmon downriver. However, the reservoir area
would give the Project the ability to still generate substantial power during the winter critical
months.
Railbelt Large Hydro Evaluation
Preliminary Decision Document
November 2010 Summary and Conclusions 10-2
The Chakachamna Project would not be able to divert flow as was used for estimating energy in
the early 1980’s. The reduced flow would have substantial effects on the Trading Bay State
Game Refuge down river and would cause false attraction to return adult salmon so that they are
not able to find their way to the lake. In addition, the smolt salmon in the lake need substantial
outlet flow to enable them to find the exit to the lake. Drawing down the lake during the winter
would cause mortality of shallow spawners and may prevent salmon from ascending up the
rivers at the head of the lake during early summer. If the Project is operated to provide
significant environmental flows and restrict the lake drawdown then the cost of energy increases
significantly and would produce minimal energy during the critical winter months. Because of
the complex two drainage system hydrology and rich fisheries determining the environmental
flow and conditions will require many years and millions of dollars. The substantial number of
multi-year studies would delay the licensing and start-up date.
The Susitna Project is thought to be a licensable project without a fatal flaw. Geotechnical
information indicates bedrock is suitable for construction. Environmental information indicates
that impacts would be minimal. The Chakachamna Project has many fisheries concerns that will
restrict the Project operation, increase the cost, and decrease the energy output of the Project.
Some of the issues may not be able to be mitigated.
The Susitna Project provides a lower cost per unit of energy, the least environmental impact, a
greater total amount of energy, and the anticipated startup date is sooner.
Based on the projects economics and impacts Susitna Project (Low Watana non-expandable
alternative) should be the primary Project to pursue with Chakachamna Project as the alternative.
November 2010 Recommendations 11-1
Chapter 11
Recommendations
We recommend that field studies and engineering evaluations be conducted on the Susitna
Project preparing for a Final Decision Document scheduled to be released on November 15,
2011. In addition, we also recommend that a FERC license application be initiated on January 1,
2012 for the selected Project. In order for the process to move forward it is recommended that a
Preliminary Permit be filed with FERC for the selected Project by December 31, 2011.
Specific studies to be completed in 2011 include:
A complete review of the 1985 Susitna environmental study plan and the conduct of
critical studies from that plan. Changes to the river system and the environment need to
be documented.
Field work to verify Susitna environmental conditions.
A detailed cost estimate of the Chakachamna Project including changes to the Project
introduced by environment constraints such as downstream flow releases (size
optimization).
A final determination of the type dam to be used at the Susitna site and the access plan
and a revised cost estimate of the overall scheme.
Detailed engineering studies on transmission needs, design drawings, and geotechnical
review.
It is anticipated based on the schedule discussion in preceding Section 6.0 that the data gathered
in the 2011 field season can be used for both the primary and alternative project. The FERC
Preliminary Permit for the Susitna Project should be filed by December 2011.
November 2010 References 12-1
Chapter 12
References
12.1 Reference Lists
Acres 1982. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Report.
Bechtel 1983. Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Assessment Report, Vol. I, II, and
III. Bechtel Civil and Minerals Inc. Alaska Power Authority.
Black & Veatch 2010. Alaska Railbelt Regional Integrated Resource Plan (RIRP) Study. Final Report.
February 2010. Available online:
http://www.aidea.org/aea/regionalintegratedresourceplan.html
EPS. 2009. Susitna Hydro Transmission Study. Report to AEA dated October 22, 2009
Harza Ebasco. 1985. Introduction to the Amendment to the License Application before the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission. Chapter III Project Description.
_____. 1985. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Draft License Application. Volume 1. Exhibit A Project
Description. Sections 1- 15.
_____. 1985. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Draft License Application. Volume 15. Exhibit F Project
Design Plates.
_____. 1985. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Draft License Application. Volume 16. Exhibit F Supporting
Design Report.
_____. 1985. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Draft License Application. Volume 2. Exhibit B Project
Operation and resource Utilization. Section 3 Description of Project Operation.
_____. 1985. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Draft License Application. Volume 2. Exhibit B Project
Operation and resource Utilization. Section 4 Power and Energy Production.
_____. 1985. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Draft License Application. Exhibit D Project Costs and
Financing. Section 1 Estimates of Cost.
_____. 1985a. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Draft License Application. Volume 9. Exhibit E Chapter 3
Sections 1 and 2 – Fish, Wildlife and Botanical Resources.
_____. 1985b. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Draft License Application. Volume 10. Exhibit E Chapter 3
Section 3 – Fish, Wildlife and Botanical Resources.
_____. 1985c. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Introduction to the Amendment to the License Application.
Railbelt Large Hydro Evaluation
Preliminary Decision Document
November 2010 References 12-2
_____. 1985d. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Draft License Application. Volume 11. Exhibit E Chapter 3
Sections 4, 5, 6 & 7 – Fish, Wildlife and Botanical Resources.
_____. 1985e. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Draft License Application. Volume 12. Exhibit E Chapter 4,
5, and 6. – Cultural Resources, Socioeconomic Resources, and Geological and Soil
Resources.
HDR 2010. Susitna and Chakachamna Preliminary Decision Document Energy-Cost-Environmental.
Prepared for Alaska Energy Authority
HDR Alaska. 2008. Field Reconnaissance Interim Summary Report, Chakachamna Hydro Project.
Prepared for TDX Power, Inc.
_____. 2009. Susitna Hydroelectric Project, Project Evaluation, Interim Memorandum, Final, March
2009.
_____. 2009. Susitna Hydroelectric Project, Conceptual Alternatives Design Report, Final Draft.
November 2009.
Johnson, J. and P. Blanche. 2010. Catalog of waters important for spawning, rearing, or migration of
anadromous fishes – Southcentral Region, Effective June 1, 2010. Alaska Department of
Fish and Game, Special Publication No. 10-06, Anchorage.
R&M Consultants/Hatch Associates Consultants 2010. Susitna-Low Watana & Chakachamna Projects
Large Hydro Evaluation of Two Projects Preliminary Decision Document Environmental &
Regulatory Issues.
R&M Consultants 2009. Susitna Project Seismic Setting Review and Geologic and Geotechnical Data
Reports Review. Prepared for Alaska Energy Authority.
SNW 2010 Hydroelectric Project Risk Analysis & the Bradley Lake Model, Summary Report. Prepared
for Alaska Energy Authority
TDX Power 2009. Pre-Application Document. Chakachamna Project (FERC No. 12660), July 2009.
Tennant, D.L. 1972. A method for determining instream flow requirements for fish, wildlife and aquatic
environment. In: Pacific Northwest River Basin Commission Transcripts of Proceedings,
March 15-16, 1972, Pacific Northwest River Basin Commission, Portland, Oregon. 3-11.
Yanusz, R., R. Merizon, D. Evans, M. Willette, T. Spencer and S. Raborn. 2007. Inriver Abundance and
Distribution of Spawning Susitna River Sockeye Salmon, 2006. Alaska Department of Fish
and Game Fisheries Data Series No. 07-83. Anchorage.