arlisakenergyinventory.org/hyd/ssh-1973-0287.pdfarlis alaska resources library & lpformation...

ARLIS Alaska Resources

Library & lpformation Services Anet .. {~ .. ~ k.iSka

Water Power Aspects of the National Conservation System Study Areas Under Section 17(d)(2) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Alaska Power Administration

July 1973

IN REPLY REFLR TO:

700

AI Ri"1AIL

United States Department of the Interior ALASKA POWER ADMINISTRATION

P. O. BOX 50 JUNEAU. ALASKA 99801

July 13, 1973

To: Assista.nt Secreta.ry--Energy and

From: ~ctin9 Administrator

Subject: Water power aspects of the National Conservation System study areas under Section 17(d)(2) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.

This memorandum and the enclosures summarize our input on the subject to the Federal-State Land Use Planning Commission through its Resources Planning Team, and to the agency teams that are preparing the conservation system studies.

Our purposes are to make thi s i nformati 011 avail ab 1 e to you for . appropriate use during formulation of the Secretary's recommendations concerning the l7(d)(2) lands, and to provide a general statewide perspective of the relationship between these lands ancl the State's hydro potential.

In addition, this will serve as partial response to Under Secretary ~~hitaker's memorandum of fvlarch 9, 1973, concerning information provided to the Joint Federal-State Land Use Planning Commission.

Background

A great deal of \~ork has been accomplished by all involved in studies of the potenti a 1 new conservati on system uni ts under terms of the Alaska Nati ve Cl aims Settlement Act (AHCSA). Thi s incl udes major studies of the many individual proposals by the National Park Service, Forest Service, Fistl and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. and Bureau of Land Nangement. This has probably been the largest single work item for the Joint Federal-State Land Use Planning ConTi1ission and its Resources Planning Tearn--compiling resources information for the areas, developing and studying management alternatives, extensive public hearings, and so forth. It involves significant study contributions by many other agencies, such as tile Bureau of f1ines and the Geological Survey, to provide resources data. A 11 recogni ze that tremendous 1 and. envi ronmenta 1, energy and

mineral resources are involved. All recognize the very wide range of views as to how the lands should be managed, and that the decisions on the lands will have many important long range impacts.

The Section 17(d)(2) withdrawals involve a number of significant hydroelectric potentials; thus it has been appropriate to develop information on the potential projects for consideration in the conservation systems studies. The enclosures summarize our input:

Appendix A is a set of brief reports prepared by APA in response to requests by the various study teams for information on hydroelectric potentials of their study areas.

Appendix B is the report of the Task Force on Hydroelectric Resources of the Technical Advisory Committee on Resources and Electric Power Generation for the Federal Power Commission's current Alaska Power Survey. Til; s was prepared by APA with input from the Corps of Engineers, and others.

Appendix C is a brief statement by former APA Administrator \~ard, furnished to the Commission in response to their request for views on the Commission's planning programs.

Appendix D is a partial cross reference to agency study areas and the hydroelectric projects. In some cases. study boundaries and the nature of the proposal is not yet known, so the appendix is incomplete.

Land status indicated on the maps is taken from the September 1972 Bureau of Land Management statewide land status map. We understand there are a number of minor changes and corrections since the September 1972 map was published--such changes are not reflected on our maps.

Reservoir outlines on the maps generally reflect optimum scale of development for power as determined in project and inventory studies. Smaller scale of development may be more appropriate in many cases, but the multiple purpose studies to show this have not been made.

Statewide Hydroelectric Potential

Alaska has little in the way of comprehensive water resources studies, but considerable work has been accomplished on evaluations of the hydro potential. Appendix B is a reasonably complete and current summary of the potential.

Appendix B is largely premised on the statewide inventory originally compiled as a part of the Interior Department's investigation of

3

power markets e alternatives, and natural resources aspects of the Rampart Canyon proposal. The inventory was subsequently refined and published in the 1969 FPC Alaska Power Survey_ This was accomplished by a task force composed of the Bureau of Reclamation, Corps of Engineers, and Alaska Uepartment of Natural Resources. It consisted of revievl of all previous studies and summarization in a list of 76 projects which appear most favorable based on size, physical feasibility and cost. Appendix B gives locations and data on the projects.

Detailed studies are available for only a few of the projects through studies by the Corps, the Bureau of Reclamation, and APA. The others are evaluated on the basis of inventory grade or preliminary reconnaissance studies. Literally hundreds of other potential projects were screened out in the inventory process.

Appendix B reports that most of the potential is inc1uaed in a list of 15 key projects representing 77 percent of the total energy potential of the 76. The 15 include those projects \'Ihich appear to have the greatest likelihood of near future development, plus those which have the greatest potential in terms of long range State and National needs. Appendix B includes notes on each of the key projects.

110st of the subsequent remarks concern the key projects. The other projects identified in the inventory are generally smaller and more costly. and probably of only local or regional importance as energy resources. Many could not be justified as single-purpose hydroelectric developments under current evaluatiol1 criteria.

It is clear that Alaska's hydroelectric potential is large enough, and that costs are sufficiently attractive, to establish that hydropower is a major long-range energy alternative for the State.

Re1ati onshi p to Conservati on System Study Areas

The reports of Appendix A and the maps of Appendix E cover 27 potential projects included in the statewide inventory, and bJO

projects not on the inventory. They are 1 isted on the table which follows on pages 4 and 5.

The listing includes ten of the fifteen key projects identified in Appendix B. Nine of these involve Section 17(d)(2) lands: (1) Agashashok in the Noatak basin; (6) Holy Cross, (11) Ruby, (20) Rampart, (21) Porcupine, and (22) Woodchopper in the Yukon basin; (33) Chakachamna and (50) Bradley Lake. which are both on Cook Inlet tributaries; and (54) Wood Canyon in the Copper Ri ver bas in.

I

====~

Appendix A Inventory No. and Appendix E ReEort No. and Name Project Name NaE No. 02 Studl Areas l!

1. Noatak River ( 1.) Agashashok 5. 02-3 ( 2.) r~i sheguk 5. 02-3 ( 3.) Nimiuktuk 5. D2-3

2. Kobuk Ri ver ( 4.) Kobuk 6. D2-4

3. Tuksuk Channel ( 5.) Tuksuk 7. 02-13

4. Yukon River Basin ( 6.) Holy Cross 12. 02-11 , 15, 16 ( 7.) Oul bi 9. 02-11 ( 8.) Hughes 9. None ( 9. Kanuti 9. 02-10 ( 11 • ) Ruby 10. 02-8, 17 and Wild and Scenic River

Corridors (20. ) Rampart (Hap not prepared) (21. ) Porcupine 8. D2-B (22.) Woodchopper B. D2-9 and Wild and Scenic River

Corridors ( 2j) Kaltag 11. 02-11,16,17 and Wild and Scenic

River Corridors

5. Fortyrni le (23.) Fortymi le s. Wild and Scenic River Corridors

6. Kuskokwim River Basin (25. ) Crooked Creek 13. None (FS Kuskok\'1im Study Area)

7. Nuyakuk Ri ver (26. ) Nuyakuk 4. None (Diversion and Wild and Scenic River Study Area)

8. Lake Iliamna (27. ) Lake Iliamna 3. 02-21

9. Tazimina River & Lakes (28. ) Tazimina 2. None (Lake Clark Study Area)

10. Ingersol Lake (29. ) Ingersol 2. . 02-20

L

Appendix A Inventory iio. and Appendix E Reeort No. and Name Project Name t~aE No. 02 Stud~ Areas 1I

11. Kukaklek Lake (30. ) Kukaklek 2. D2-24

12. Kontrashibuna Lake ( 3/) Kontrashi buna 2. 02-21

13. Naknek Lake (31.) Naknek· 4. 02-24, 25

14. Crescent Lake (32. ) Crescent Lake 4. 02-20

15. Chakachamna Lake (33. ) Chakachamna 2. D2-20

16. Bradley lake (50. ) Bradley Lake 4. 02-30

17. Copper/Chi ti na River (52. ) ~lill i on Dollar 1. 02-36 (53. ) Cleave (Peninsula) 1. 02-36 (54. ) t~ood Canyon 1. 02-36

1/ study area numbers designated by Resources Planning Team of Joint Federal-State land Use Planning Commission.

Y Not included in inventory summary, but considered a significant alternative for lower Yukon Ri vert

3/ Not included in inventory. but considered of possible significance for lake Clark area.

6

A tenth key project--( 25) Crooked Creek in the Kuskokwim basi n-involves some Section 17(d)(l) lands included in one of the ne\'1 national forest study areas.

The Yukon-Taiya Project and the four units of the Upper Susitna Project--l.)evil Canyon, Watana, Vee, and Denali--are not involved in present conservation system studies under ANCSA.

Seventeen other inventory projects are included in the listing, plus Kaltag and Kontrashibuna which are not on the inventory summary. Kaltag is considered a. significant alternative for the lower Yukon basin. Kontrashibuna is considered of possible local importance for the Lake Clark area.

The maps show the extent of ; nvol vement ranges from Illi nor to very large for some of the 1 arger reservoir projects. From the view .. point of potential water resources development, the Yukon basin and Copper River basin appear to be most critical.

No new materials were prepared for the Rampart Canyon Project, which has received very extensive study by Interior and the Corps, and others. The follm'ling materials are from the Department of the Interior1s Harch 20, 1972, comments on the Corps of Engineers I most recent Rampart report:

"l~e Department of the Interior concurs with the findings set forth that improvement of the Rampart Canyon site in the interest of hydroelectric power and other water uses is not advisable at this time. We share your concern regarding the impact of this proposal on the fish and wi 1 dl i fe resources and other aspects of the envi ronment. II

"~e believe that a comprehensive framework plan which identifies the best long-term use of water and the related land resources is needed before we make water resource development commitments of this size. To illustrate, future studies for water power development may accord a priority to developments upstream from Rampart Canyon and this could result in a major change in the scope of the present plan of development. A definition of the \'1ater and related land resource needs accompanied by an orderly and phased plan of implementation is certainly warranted and it is consistent with the comprehensive planning concept now employed in the water resource planning interests of the State and Federal Government.

"In summary I the Department of the Interi or supports your recommendation to defer development of the Rampart Canyon project at this time. We also recommend that any subsequent evaluation of this project give consideration to the issues

Irbn

7

cited in the foregoing paragraphs of this letter. The Department believes that any water resource development program for this area should stem from a comprehensive framework plan. We also recommend the retention of the Power Site Classification. No. 445, (Yukon River near Rampart, Alaska) Public Land Order 3520."

Report iio. 4 of Appendix A. IIYukon River Basin," covers the other major potentials identified in the Yukon basin and advances our views that the Woodchopper, Ruby, and Porcupine Projects ~muld become particularly important in terms of long range basin plans should development of the Rampart site become limited. The report also covers potentially significant developments on the Koyukuk River and lower Yukon (main stem) which involve lands withdrawn for the conservation system studies.

Absence of a multipurpose basin plan is particularly critical for the Yukon. There appears to be relatively few significant storage sites; alternative plans and scales of development have not been tested.

The Wood Canyon site on the Copper River is discussed in report no. 17 of Appendix A. Several previous studies including the Department's 1967 report, "Alaska Natural Resources and the Rampart Project,1I advance Wood Canyon as one of the four or five most i mporta nt hydro potenti a 1 s of Alaska.

The authorized Bradley Lake Project and the Chakachamna Project are smaller. but are considered reasonably attractive potential povJer sources for the Cook Inlet area.

Each of the other projects has potential significance ranging from "minor. local" for some smaller projects to "major, statewide" for a number of the larger ones. Generally, the multipurpose studies needed to define resource values other than power potential and envi ronmenta 1 aspects have not been done.

Existing Powersite I~ithdrawals

Tables 4 and 5 of Appendix B reference existing land withdrawals for several of the key projects and other projects considered to have significant local and regional power values, including the following projects involved in the conservation system studies under ANCSA:

i ! '

-8

Inventory No. and Project Name Land Withdrawal 11

( 5.) Tuksuk PSC 403

(20. ) Rampart PSC 403, 455

(28. ) Tazimina PSC 463

Y Kontrashibuna PSR 485

(33. ) Chakachamna PSC 395

(50. ) Bradley Lake PSC 436

(53. ) Cleave PSC 403

(54. ) Wood Canyon PP 2138, 2215; PSC 403

17 psc = Department of Interior powersite ,classification PSR = Department of Interior powersite reserve PP = Federal Power Commission power project

2/ Not included in inventory summary.

Ui scussi on

The materials on hydroelectric resources have been furnished to, and are being considered by, the various Federal study teams and the Joint Federal-State Land Use Planning Commission in developinq their reconunendations for the (d)(2) lands. Their specific recommendations are not yet available.

The Bureau and Commi ssi on reconU1lendations wi 11 be compl eted shortly, and MCSA provides very little time for completing review and preparation of the Department's recommendation to Congress. Thus it is appropriate to consider possible impacts at this time.

Bradley Lake and Chakachamna

The authorized Bradley Lake Project and the Chakachamna Project are of interest because of favorable size and location with respect to Cook Inlet power requirements, and favorable outlook on environmental aspects. These projects. along with the Upper Susitna Project, are important Railbelt alternatives in a context of near future requirements.

In our vie~/. the Chakachamna and Bradley Lake Projects are compatible with conservation system objectives for their respective areas.

I I I '. I

s

9

Yukon and Copper Uasins

We indicated above that the Yukon basin and Copper River basin are probably the critical areas for impact of the conservation system proposals on water development potential.

A combination of new conservation system units in the Yukon basin could very easily preclude future consideration of any significant water development in that basin. depending on types of use and development permitted.

Such a non-development decision would in our view be reached if Ruby, Rampart, and Woodchopper Projects are precluded. We feel the Woodchopper site is particularly important in this context, and that other projects such as Ruby and Porcupine would assume new importance if development at Rampart is limited.

The Wood Canyon site on the Copper River clearly ranks as one of the best undeveloped hydro projects remaining in the nation.

Taken together. the Yukon and Copper hydro potentials amount to about 94.5 bi11ipn kilowatthours per year, or roughly 55 percent of the total energy potential identified in the 76 "inventory" projects.

Timing, order of priority, and scale of development for these projects are all open questions. It seems possible that one or more of the projects would receive serious consideration for development before the year 2000, but they are basi cally very 1 ong range considerations.

We believe that options to consider these projects should be retained at least until such time as comprehensive plans are available for the respective basins.

Other Bas i ns

Crooked Creek and Agashashok Projects are the most attractive hydro potentials of their respective regions and basins, but their importance in statewi de and nati ona 1 terms is substanti ally less than the Yukon and Copper basin potentials.

Crooked Creek is the only identified major water development potential of the Kuskokwim basin. Size of the power potential, relatively favorable costs, and possibly significant navigation and flood control aspects are the positive aspects. Depending on scale of development. environmental costs could be very significant.

10

We do not have additional comments on the other projects discussed in Appendix A at this time.

Recap

~Je believe it is established that Alaska's hydroelectric potential is a very important alternative for future power supplies. Resources are 1 arge enough to meet foreseeable demands with consi derab 1 e room for unforeseen future needs, and perhaps export. This situation does not exist in any other region of the country. It is clear that the current national energy situation. and particularly national needs to conserve oil and gas, upgrade the relative importance of major alternatives such as the Alaska hydros.

Few projects are 1 ikely to be proposed for development within the next two to three decades, so any actual near future confl i ct \'Jl th conservation system objectives is limited.

t'10st projects are very long range considerations; many may never be needed. Multipurpose studies might indicate substantially different scales of development than the present studies, which are premised mostly on power values. At this time it seems prudent to keep the energy opti ons open.

In our vie~'J, the projects identified as key resources are sufficiently important to merit attention in any conservation system proposals that affect the projects. Ten of the fifteen key projects are involved in the conservation system studies under ANCSA. We urge that options to consider future development be retained for these projects ;n the Secretary's recommendations concerning the (d)(2) lands, at least until such time as comprehensive basin plans are available for the various basins.

The conservation system study areas involve several other identified hydroelectric potentials which are believed to have potential local or regional significance. We favor retaining options for future consideration of these projects, except where they are found to be clearly incompatible with conservation system objectives for their respective areas.

~Je also favor retention of existing powersite withdrawals for the eight projects listed previously.

11

Enclosures:

Appendix A - Project Statements prepared as input to conservation system studies.

Appendix B - Alaska Power Survey--Report of Hydroelectric Task Force. Technical Advisory Committee on Resources and Electric Pm'ler Gene ra ti on. i1ay 1973.

Appendix C - APA letter of January 9, 1973. to Joint FederalState Land Use Planning Commission.

Appendix D ;.. Cross reference: hydro projects and conservation system study areas.

Appendix E - Maps at scale 1:250.000. "Hydro Potentials and the D2 Lands. II

cc: Joint Federal-State Land Use Planning Commission Resources Planning Team

Federal Study Team: National Park Service Bureau of Sports Fisheries and Wildlife Bureau of Outdoor Recreation U. S. Forest Service

State Di rector. Bureau of Land ,'lanagement

:,

Project Statements prepared

as input to Conservation

Systems Studies


1972-1973

Appendix A

Appendix A. Project Reports

This appendlx consists of brief reports prepared by Alaska

Power Administration as input on hydroelectric potentials to the

conservation system studies of the National Park Service, Forest

Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Outdoor Recreation.

A list of the reports and a table referencing the individual

projects and study areas follow.

All of the material has been furnished to the Resources Plan

ning Team of the Joint Federal-State Land Use Planning Commission

for Alaska.

In addition to the reports, overlay maps at scale 1 :250,000

identifying lands involved in the projects were furnished to the

agency study teams and the Resources Planning Team.

With two exceptipns--Kaltag and KontrashibunaProj~cts--the

projects covered in the reports are included in the summary listing

from the statewide inventory of hydroelectric potentials.

Ka ltag Project (see report on Yukon Basi n) is considered as an

alternative to the Holy Cross Project for storage, river regulation,

and power on the lower Yukon River .. Kontrashibuna is a relatively

minor potential in the Lake Clark area.

The materials on Rampart and Bradl ey Lake Project are based on

detailed projetti.nvestigations. Limited reconnaissance study has

been accomplished for Chakachamna and Wood Canyon Projects. Data

for the other projects covered in the reports is strictly of inventory

grade and based primarily on office studies and brief field examin

ations of the sites.

Appendix A Inventory No. and Appendix 0 Report No. and Name Project Name Map No. 02 Study Areas 11

1. Noatak River ( 1.) Agashashok 5. 02-3 ( 2p) Misheguk 5. 02-3 ( 3.) Nimiuktuk 5. 02-3

2. Kobuk Ri ver ( 4.) Kobuk .. 6. 02-4

3. Tuksuk Channel ( 5.) Tuksuk 7. 02':'13

4. Yukon River Basin ( 6.) Holy Cross 12. 02-11 , 15, 16 ( 7,,) Oul bi 9. 02-11 ( 8.) Hughes 9. None ( g.) Kanuti 9. 02-10 (1 L) Ruby 10. 02-8, 17 and Wild and Scenic River

Corridors (20. ) Rampart (Map not prepared) (21.) Porcupine 8. 02-8 (22#} Woodchopper 8. 02-9 and Wild and Scenic River

Corridors ( 2j) Kaltag 1l. 02-11, 16, 17 and Wild and Scenic

Ri ver Corri dors

5. Fortymile (23.) Fortymile 8. Wild and Scenic River Corridors

6. Kuskokwim River Basin (25.) Crooked Creek 13. None (FS Kuskokwim Study Area)

7. Nuyakuk River (26.) Nuyakuk 4. None (Diversion above Wild and Scenic River Study Area)

8. Lake Il; amna (27. ) Lake Il i amna 3. 02-21

9. Tazimina River & Lakes (28. ) Tazimina 2. None (Lake Clark Study Area)

10. Ingersol Lake (29.) Ingersol 2. 02-20

Appendix A Inventory No. and Appendix 0 Re~ort No. and Name Project ~Iame MaQ No. 02 Stud~ Areas 1J

11. Kukaklek Lake (30. ) Kukaklek 2. 02-24

12. Kontrashibuna Lake ( l/) Kontrashibuna 2. 02-21

13. Nakn.ek Lake (31. ) Naknek 4. 02-24, 25

14. Crescent Lake (32. ) Crescent Lake 4. 02-20

15. Chakachamna Lake (33. ) Chakachamna 2. 02-20

16. Bradley Lake (50.) Bradley Lake 4. 02-30

17. Copper/Chiti na River (52. ) Million Dollar l. 02-36 (53. ) Cleave (Peninsula) l. 02-36 (54.) Wood Canyon 1. 02-36

11 Study area numbers designated by Resources Planning Team of Joint Federal-State Land Use Planning Commission.

~ Not included in inventory summary~ but considered a significant alternative for lower Yukon Ri vera

l/ Not included in inventory, but considered of possible significance for Lake Clark area.

r ! f

I I I I

Report No. 1

Noatak River

Projects:

(1.) Agashashok (2.) Misheguk (3.) Nimiuktuk

November 28, 1972

Noatak River

1. Relationship to River Basin and Regional Plans

The Noatak is one of three major Al aska river systems north of

the Yukon basin and the only one of the three that appears to have

significant water development potential.

Inventory grade studies, which involve only the power aspect,

indicate three potential developments that may be favorable. These

are the Agashashok, Nimiuktuk, andf.tsheguk sites which have a

combined firm power potential of about 500,000 kilowatts (50 percent

annual load factor) with firm energy of about 2.3 billion kilowatt

hours per year.

The Agashashok Project would involve the lowest unit power

costs and have the most favorable location for access for construc

tion and operation. It is considered the most favorable of the

three.

The summary tabulation for the statewide water power inventory

presents comparative data concerning the power aspects of the

three sites.

Studies have not been made of benefits which might result. from

development of the projects under appropriate multiple-purpose

plans. In this regard, the Agashashok Project may have particular

significance as one of very few potentials for developing large

water supplies in Northwest Alaska.

Potential values for water supply, storage and power indicate

the Agashashok site may have both regional and national significance

especially in view of the limited range of alternatives in North

west Alaska.

2. Project Descriptions and Objectives

Agashashok Project

The enclosed map identifies the project features and outlines

the reservoir area. The project would involve a concrete gravity

dam raising the water surface elevation to 150 feet, or about 145

feet above the present river level. This would create a reservoir

with a total volume of 28,500,000 acre feet and a surface area of

445 square miles, and provide full regulation of the Noatak River

at the site. The plan would involve relocation of the village of

Noatak.

Estimated firm power potential is 186,000 kilowatts (50 percent

load factor) with annual energy production of 820 million kilowatt

hours.

Preliminary observations indicate the project would have signi

ficant fish and wildlife, transportation, and sediment control

aspects.

Misheguk Project


the reservoir area. The plan involves a concrete dam and two earth

dikes which would create a reservoir with water surface elevation

at 550 feet, or about 245 feet above the present river elevation.

This would create a reservoir with a total volume of 3,900,000

2

r

acre feet and a surface area of about 76 square miles. The reser

voir would be about 46 miles long and confined in the Noatak Canyon.


load factor) with annual energy production of about 670 million

kilowatt-hours.

Likely effects on fish and wildlife and other resources have

not been evaluated.

Geologic conditions in the dike area on the right abutment of

the Misheguk damsite may restrict development to a somewhat smaller

scale.

Nimiuktuk Project

The project features and reservoir area outline is shown on

the enclosed map. The plan involves a concrete dam and a reservoir

with water surface elevation at 750 feet, or about 205 feet above

the present river elevation. The reservoir would be confined to the

canyon and extend 42 miles up the Noatak River and 12 miles up the

Nimiuktuk River. The reservoir volume is estimated at 5,700,000 acre

feet, with a surface area of about 83 square miles.


load factor) with annual energy production of about 613 million

kilowatt hours.

Likely effects on fish and wildlife and other resources have

not been evaluated.

3

F

3. Current Status, Costs, and Benefits

The studies to date have been sufficient only to give rough

estimates of the probable project costs and confirm the engineer

ing feasibility of the project power features. Value of the

three projects for power probably exceeds $20,000,000 per year.

Any decision to develop the Noatak River potentials would of

course depend on future patterns of development and needs of

Northwest Alaska.

Because of its relatively favorable costs and location, and

the opportunity to develop sizeable year-round water supplies,

the Agashashok Project is considered to have significant regional

and national resource values. The project merits consideration in

any long range plans for the Noatak and the Northwest region.

The Misheguk and Nimiuktuk projects, though identified as

among the more favorable hydro potentials of Alaska, appear to

have relatively less importance. They may be justifiable as

future stages following development of an Agashashok Project.

Because of less favorable location and costs, they do not appear

justifiable as single-purpose hydroelectric projects.

As indicated previously, studies have not been made of the

benefits that might accrue under appropriate multiple-purpose

plans.

4. Project Operation

The project studies to date have related solely to establish

ment of the power potential. With power operation, inflows to the

4

reservoirs would be stored and released as required to meet power

demands. The project operation would be shaped to minimize adverse

fish and wildlife effects, facilitate fishery enhancement oppor

tunities, facilitate water-borne transportation, maximize the

outstanding recreational opportunities, minimize downstream bank

erosion, and otherwise maximize the project benefits.

The large reservoir capacity at Agashashok permits achieve

ment of the full power potential with normal reservoir drawdown

of about 22 feet. Minimum levels would be expected in spring,

and maximum levels in late summer and fall. The minor reservoir

fluctuation would be favorable to maximum utilization of the

reservoir for recreation and other related purposes.

5. Transmission Lines

Specific transmission routes have not been established.

6. Access

Primary construction access to the Agashashok Project would

be via barge on the Noatak River. Approximately 110 miles of road

along the foothills east of the Noatak River would be required to

reach the two upstream sites.

5

Report No. 2

Kobuk River

Project:

(4.) Kobuk

p

Kobuk Project

1. Relationship to Regional and River Basin Plans

1-29·73 720

APA Draft

The Kobuk. one of Alaska's major rivers. drains roughly one

third of the southern slope of the Brooks Range. The Kobuk Project

is the only identified water development potential in the basin

meriting continued interest. This project might be considered to

have regional significance in future power planning for the State.

Multiple-use studies have not been made, but it is possible

this project may have some significance for values other than

hydropower.

2. Project Description

Studies to date have consisted of inventory grade evaluations

of the project as a single-purpose hydroelectric development.


the reservoir area. The attached tabulation, "Summary of Alaska

Lower Priced Hydroelectric Potentials. 1I provides additional data on

the project plans.

The current plan contemplates construction of an earth dam

about 150 feet high with a crest length of about 4.200 feet. This

dam would impound 20.5 million acre-feet of water, with maximum

water surface at elevation 150. The reservoir would have a surface

area of 720 square miles. An arm of the reservoir would extend up

the Ambler River about 22 miles.

$

The active capacity thus obtained of 6.6 million acre-feet

would be sufficient to fully regulate the runoff from the 7,840-

square-mile drainage area tributary to the site. This would permit

firm power production of 120,000 kilowatts at 50 percent annual

load factor. The project could produce an annual generation of

525,000,000 kilowatt-hours per year.

Construction of the reservoir would require relocation of the

villages of Ambler, Kobuk, and Shungnak.

Project effects on fish and wildlife have not been evaluated.

A surface geological reconnaissance of the damsite has indi

cated extensive sand deposits. Subsurface exploration prior to

development would be required to ascertain the adequacy of the

foundation materials.

3. Current Status

Project Studies have been in sufficient detail to estimate

project power capabilities, and to provide a rough appraisal of

probable project costs, assuming necessary further geological

explorations establish the adequacy of foundation conditions. The

value of the project for power would be about $5 to $10 million

per year assuming average energy values of 10 to 20 mills per

kilowatt-hour.

Investigations have established the project to be a signifi

cant hydroelectric potential on the basis of estimated cost. Even

though it is one of the more favorable of Alaska's major hydro

electric resources, it would likely not be justifiable as a single-

2

purpose power development. There are no active proposals to build

this project either as a public or private development.

Current APA consideration and interest in the project has

been confined to responses to task forces requesting information

for planning purposes in conjunction with the Alaska Native Claims

Settlement Act.

The project appears to merit consideration in lonq range plans

for the Kobuk River basin.




reservoir would be stored and released as required to meet power

demands. Navigation assistance would likely also be considered.

Annual drawdown is estimated at only 5 feet. Ultimate development

would include other purposes which might be incorporated in the

project plan. The project operation would be shaped to minimize

any fish and wildlife adverse effects, facilitate fishery enhance

ment opportunities, maximize recreational opportunities, and other

wise maximize the project benefits.


Transmission line routes have not been identified.

6. Access Roads

Access for construction would likely be by barge up the Kobuk

River.

3

p

Report No. 3

Tuksuk Channel

Project:

(5.) Tuksuk

1-29-73 720

Tuksuk


The Tuksuk Project would involve construction of a dam near the

mouth of Tuksuk Channel near Teller, and a substantial reservoir in

the Imuruk Basin and surrounding areas. Studies indicate this

project is the most attractive hydroelectric resource of the Seward

Peninsula. However, the project is probably not justifiable as a

single-purpose hydroelectric project.


Studies to date consist of inventory grade evaluations of the

project as a single-purpose hydroelectric development.

The enclosed map identifies the project features, and outlines

the reservoir area. The attached summary tabulation of Alaska

hydroelectric potentials provides additional data on the project

plan.

The proposed project features include a concrete arch dam to

elevation 200, with a crest length of 1,830 feet. The reservoir

formed by this dam would have 825 square miles of surface area at

maximum water surface elevation 190, and a total capacity of

60,000,000 acre-feet. Such an amount of storage would provide full

regulation of the flows of the Kuzitrin River from the 4,275 square

miles of drainage basin tributary to the damsite. Estimated firm

energy potential is 262,000,000 kilowatt-hours per year, with an

installed capacity of 60,000 kilowatts at 50 percent annual load

factor.

ps

Project effect on fish and wildlife resources have been briefly

examined by the Fish and Wildlife Service. The findings of their

limited studies of a reconnaissance nature are contained in a letter

to the Alaska District office of the Bureau of Reclamation, dated

May 1,1964. A copy is attached.

3. Current Status

Studies to date have been sufficient only to give rough esti-

mates of rrobable project costs based uron materialization of

assumed site conditions. No active plans for development of this

proposal have been made. The value of the project for power would

be over $5,800,000 per year.

Although the Tuksuk Project has been identified as one of

the more favorable of Alaska's hydroelectric potentials based uron

estimated costs, it would likely not be justifiable as a sing1e

purpose power development.

4. Project Operatipn

Project studies to date have related solely to establishment

of the power potential. With power operation. inflows to the


demands. The project operation would be shaped to minimize any

adverse effects upon fish, wildlife and ecological aspects, facili-

tate fishery enhancement opportunities, maximize recreational

opportunities, and otherwise maximize project benefits.

2

, i !

p


Transmission routes have not been identified.

6. Access Roads

Access for construction would likely be by barge past Teller,

through Grantley Harbor.

3

','

" . I

v..,. • I",.

i': ::~ ... t..: ... .::UNITED STATES DEPARTM~NT OF THE INTERIOR 1 .I:.Fl~l:1:?w'!!? W)L!:)UFE: SERVICE

BUftL\U CT COM M £RCIAL FI~ml £S. i,-..:.:'/ ..... :-. ' .. -~:.. .. -.; ,·~"" .. ~~t

",_ .:!.~$,~! :;!!-: .. ~1~1 ~iF;CE DOX : .... , '-. aOl4:Ti~ JUS~U !USjONICAU. AL.UI<A 99801

May 1» 1964

)..,{r. Geo.ge N. District lv!anag~r _ '. Bureau of Reclamation P. O. Box 2567 "~:.~

Juneau .. ALaska

Dear Mr. Pierce:

,-: ..

" .. ".

Re£e:=ence is made to your memorandum of June 19 .. 1963 .. in which you requested information on the fish and wildlife resources that woul,d be affected by a hydroelectric project at Tuksuk Go-rge. This letter is based O!l lirnited studies of a reconnaissance natUl:e and does not constitute the re-:Jo:=t of the U. S. Fish al1,d Wildlife Service within the,rne~nrr of

- 0

Sec::'on 2 of the Fish a.::.d Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Statg 401~ as amended; 16 U. S. c. 661 et seq.). This letter ha.s been :revievled by

. ilie Alaska D eparL-:::e:::.: of Fish and Game as indicated in a letter to me from Deputy ComlY'..i.ss:'oner E. S. Marvich dated April 8" 1961,. Where applicable~ the cor.~ents of that department have been incorpor.ated in this letter.

The project would be Located on the southwestern coast of the Sev,rar0 Peninsula, about 60 miles northwest of Norn.e. Six principal strea.ms collect runoff from the 4 .. 300 square mile draina.ge basin and elis cha.rge

into Imuruk Basin (Salt Lake), an estuarine take of about 90 squaJ:e rniLes o

The Tuksuk Channel, about 7 miles in length .. drains Imuruk Basin into Grantley Harbor and Port Clarence~ the northernmost deep,",watex port in Alaska. The dam site is located in a gorge about 2 miles above the

.: mouth of Tuksuk Channel. An earth or earth and roele fill dam 210 feet hi5h has been considered that would have a crest I.ength of about 11 950 feet. It would create an impoundment of nearly 900 square mil.es with a surface elevation of 200 feet. A tunnel would convey water to a powerhouse with an ultimate installed capacity of about 90,000 kilowatts. -------------------The project is unusual in that thedamsite is situated at sea Level and a. large estuarine lake and marsh would be inundated. The basin supports

. .. :.'- --~-

;~"

.':: ' ..

-.,~.,

"

",..

c.

• I

a VCl--icty of fish and wildlifo, but data on distribution. abundance, and utilization are entireLy Lac.k:i..ng on ma.ny species and are incompl.ete on others. .. ".

'.- ;'" "

~ .. ~- ~.

}'100se are a. relatively recent arrival to the Seward Peninsula and about 20 ~~ts are now taken each yearby bunters in the project area, SuitabLe habitat is generall}: =restrlcted, particularly in -winterl' to str~~m. courses where browse growth, primarily wilLow, seLdom reaches a mite b width. The carrying capacity of the basin for moos e is not. known, bu.t: the habitat along the lower river valleys seem to be essentiaL to their survival in. the drainage. Caribou were once reported as being widely distributed on the Seward Peninsula, but are now found there onl.y rarely • .A few caribou are sometimes reported in the project area with. the. domestic reindeer herds.

:., , .

----_ .. .- -------. ----' ---_. ~ ;;,." ,J

• )0.' • • ~ .. ->~i~ .. ~ . .' Trapping effort and the ilnportance of fur animals to the locaL economy fluctuate with fur prices. ~~:nk and otter are two of the most important species, and good trappers can take in one season as many as 60 01: 70 of these furs~ aLong with a few muskrats. Data on popula~ions of these a=.d other species in the drainage~ as well as the nwnbers of pelts takens are not available. Ptarmigan and hares arG the principaL srnaU game species:. but they are usuaLLy hunted. only in areas adjacent to villages .. Although populations of these animals are subject to wide fiuctuaticm,. they have been corn.monLy available in recent years"

Extensive wetlands near the Lower Kuzitrill and Kruzgamepa. [PHgrim) . Rivers and near the mouth of the Agiapuk River are used intensively for nesting grounds by migratory waterfowL. AeriaL transects have been Hown here each year since 1957 as part of the state-wide waterfowl studies con ... ducted by the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. Howeve):~ these studies were designed to show population trends over large seglnen.1:s of the state and popuLation and production figures for the project area c.annot be derived with any degree of accuracy. The area is ranked arnong the

-----..... - ~..---------more productive habitats in the state on a unit area basis~ howevers 'Scaup~ scoter, and widgeon are the three most abundant species •. Because of later average breakup dates, the wetlands above Bunker HiLL ar.e Little used by waterfowl.

. ~ ~ .

All five s:eecies of Pacific salmon, Arctic graylingJ Arctic char, E.~t, and sev~Cies of whitefish are reported from the project c:):~~ The basin supports one of the northernmost significant runs of sockeye saln'lon

.'"

, .~-.

.';-.

.. c.

be inundated, surveys are incomplete. Because of the rigorous climate in the project area and the fact that salmon from the upper streams could have nearly 100 .miles of reservoir to travel during their migrations, detailed studies would be required to develop recommendation.s for mitigation. It is not known to what degree other fishes such as the inconnu. and Arctic char are anadromous, nor is the significance of the large block of estuarine habitat in their life histories understood. These factors would aLso have to be determined before :ce(.:omm.endaticm.s couLd be formulated. More information would also be needed on the importance and value of the subsistence and commercial fisheries an .. d thei:r. poten.tial for development during the life of the project.

We should appreciate being kept advised of the status oithis project and bemg furnished with more advanced engineering data should they become avaiLable. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the project at' this time.

;;;:;o/~ Harry L. Riet~e . Regional.Director

-4-

Report No. 4

Yukon River Basin

Projects:

(6.) Holy Cross (7.) Dulbi (8.) Hughes ( 9.) Kanuti (20.) Rampart (21 . ) Porcupi ne (22.) Woodchopper ( *) Kaltag

Alaska Power Administration Draft December 19, 1972

YUKON RIVER BASIN

HYDROELECTRIC POTENTIALS

This report provides information on identified water develop

ment potentials for hydroelectric power and other purposes in the

Yukon River Basin which involve areas under study as potential

ne\,1 units of the National Wild1 ife Refuge System under terms of

the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. It was prepared in

partial response to a request dated December 5, 1972 from the

Alaska Area Director, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife.

The report includes sections on river basin aspects, and the

following potential projects: Woodchopper, Ruby, Kaltag, and

Holy Cross on the main stem Yukon River; the Porcupine Project on

the Porcupine River; and Hughes, Du1bi and Kanuti Projects on the

Koyukuk River. Appended material includes overlays at scale

1 : 250, 000 whi ch show proj ect features and reservoi r a reas. for

these projects.

The Rampart Project, which is the best known of the potential

Yukon Basin developments, is fully covered in recent reports: "A

Report on the Rampart Canyon Project," Corps of Engineers, 1971;

and "A1aska Natural Resources and the Rampart Project," Department

of Interior, 1971.

Also appended is a tabulation and location map of the more

favorable hydroelectric potentials of Alaska based on the state-

wide inventory of water pm'ler rotentials. It includes potential

projects on the Melozitna, Nenana, and Tanana Rivers, which are

not discussed in this report since they have no apparent bearing

on the areas under study as potential units of the National

Wildlife Refuge System.

2

..

A.

B.

C.

D.

E.

F.

G.

Yukon River Basin

Hydroelectric Potentials

Contents

River Basin Aspects

Woodchopper Project

Ruby Project

Holy Cross Project

Kaltag Project

Porcupine Project

Hughes, Du1bi, and Kanuti Projects

Page

4

9

14

20

23

26

29

Appended Material

Summary of more favorable Alaska hydroelectric potentials-

tabulation and location map. Project maps at scale 1:250,000.

3

-................ --------------~ A. River Basin Aspects

The Yukon is the fifth largest U. S. river basin. It drains

nearly forty percent of Alaska. plus most of the Yukon Territory

and part of Northern British Columbia. Present water developments

include a small hydro development at Whitehorse and the basin's

first flood control project near Fairbanks which is in final

design stages.

Existing studies establish that the basin has very signifi

cant water development potential consisting primarily of a few

main stem projects (both Canada and Alaska) and a major diversion

from the headwaters (Vukon-Taiya or Yukon-Taku Project). A few

potential tributary developments are also of interest.

Timing of any major development in the basin and decisions

on type and scale depend on future needs including flood control,

water transportation, water supply, power, and other purposes.

The most favorable hydroelectric project in Alaska on the

basis of estimated costs would be the potential dovmstream Rampart

Project. With normal pool at elevation 640 feet, it would fully

regulate Yukon River flml/s with very nominal reservoir fluctuations

and would back water up to the Woodchopper damsite.

The Rampart Project and its effect upon Alaska natural resources

have received extensive study by the Corps of Engineers and the

Department of Interior, as sutmlarized in the 1967 report of the

4

Secretary of Interior entitled, "Alaska Natural Resources and the

Rampart Project," and the 1971 report by the Corps of Engineers

entitled, "A Report on the Rampart Canyon Project. 1I These reports

relate to a proposal for Congressional authorization and construc

tion of the Rampart Project to further economic development of

Alaska. The Rampart studies largely preceeded the discovery of

North Slope oil and gas resources and plans for construction of

a pipeline to deliver North Slope oil to the Port of Valdez.

Both reports recognize Rampart Project is one of the great

hydroelectric potentials of northwest North America, and would

be a very low cost power source. However, development of the

project has been strongly opposed and the two reports concluded

that construction was not merited at this time.

Should the development of the Rampart site be limited, other

major storage potentials, particularly the Woodchopper reservoir,

would be increasingly vital.

Other elements of a potential Yukon basin plan include

Porcupine, Ruby, and Holy Cross (or Kaltag) projects. Of these

only the Porcupine Project relates to potential needs to regulate

flows of the upper basin.

Rough hydrology studies indicate the Porcupine and Woodchopper

sites could provide reasonable regulation of Yukon River flows at

the Rampart site. However, should events preclude development

at both the Rampart and Woodchopper sites, regulation of the upper

Yukon River flows in Alaska would no longer be feasible.

5

p

Woodchopper would store and regulate flows from the upper

one third of the basin. It is the only feasible main stem storage

site in Alaska above Rampart Canyon. It has potential storage

capacity of 92,000,000 acre feet, with pool elevation at 1100

feet, and could provide essentially full regulation of the site.

The statewide water power inventory indicates Woodchopper is

one of the five most important hydroelectric potentials of Alaska

on the basis of size and cost. In addition to Woodchopper, this

group of projects includes Rampart and Yukon-Taiya in the Yukon

basin, Wood Canyon in the Copper basin, and the Upper Susitna

Project.

The desirable storage capacity at the site would depend, among

other things, upon the degree to which the reservoir operation

could be coordinated with other storage facilities in the basin,

and agreement with Canada concerning desirable reservoir pool

elevations.

Potential storage and river diversion works in Canada could

reduce storage requirements at the Woodchopper site, as could con

struction of a potential Rampart reservoir downstream from the

Woodchopper site.

The Ruby site is the most favorable storage potential between

the mouths of the Tanana and Koyukuk Rivers and would be a key

unit in any plan to develop the power, navigation and related

potentials of the Yukon River. It also could be a key to provid

ing flood protection on the Yukon River below the Tanana ~iver.

6

p

The studies of the Ruby Project to date have been largely

limited to considerations of the project as a single-purpose

hydroelectric development operating in conjunction with the Rampart

Proj~ct. Reservoir elevation would be at 210 feet, the tai1water

level at the Rampart powerp1ant.

However. the available topographic maps and geologic inspec

tion of the damsite indicate a Ruby Project could be developed to

fully regulate the Yukon River at the site without upstream storage.

This would require a maximum water surface elevation of about 325

feet. Thus, the Ruby Project is a key storage potential on the Yukon

River that could be developed either independently or in conjunction

\~ith any of several possible upstream storage systems. It rer-re

sents the first opportunity to regulate Yukon River flows downstream

from the Rampart site and the Tanana River. This is of additional

importance as the opportunities for regulation of Tanana River flows

on the Tanana River are not promising, and the Tanana River, with

a drainage area of about 44.000 square miles is a major flood

contributor to the Yukon River.

Between these reasonably maximum and minimum sized Ruby

reservoirs are several alternatives depending upon the degree to

which upstream regulation of Yukon River flows may be developed.

For example. rough hydrology studies indicate that, with an up

stream Woodchopper reservoir, a Ruby reservoir to elevation 280

could provide reasonable regulation of Yukon River flows at the

Ruby site.

7

l

p

The Holy Cross Project would develop the remaining power

potential of the Yukon River below Ruby Proj(~ct; the Kaltag

Project is a possible alternative to develop the power potential

below Rampart in lieu of both Holy Cross and Ruby. Studies of

these projects to date have been limited to their operation as

single-purpose hydro developments in conjunction with full

upstream regulation provided by other projects.

The following tabulation summarizes drainage area, runoff,

and potential reservoir elevations for the main stem sites dis-

cussed above.

Estimat!!d Annual Reservoir Orai nage Area, RUl10ff Elevation

Site Sguare t1iles ~~i 11 i on Acre Feet Feet

Woodchopper 122,000 58 1 ,020

Rampart 200,000 81 640

Ruby 256,000 109 210-325

Kaltag 296,000 137 220

Holy Cross 320,000 160 137

The Porcupine Project has strategic location with respect to

any plans for regulating Upper Yukon basin flows. The project also

has a favorable damsite and fairly attractive unit costs.

Three potential developments on the Koyukuk River are included

in the inventory of more favorable hydro powersites. These sites

8

1

may have importance in long range plans for the basin, but they

do not appear feasible as single-purpose hydroelectric develop

ments with current costs and evaluation criteria.

It bears repeating that essentially all studies to date of

the potential water development projects mentioned above relate

to single-purpose evaluation for hydroelectric potential. The

multipurpose studies, which could serve as a basis for evaluating

development and nondevelopment alternatives, desirable components

of a basin plan, and describe scale, priority, and timing betv/een

the various alternatives, have not been accomplished.

B. Woodchopper Project

1. Relationship to River nas;n and Regional Development

Woodchopper \vould store and regulate flov/s from the upper

one third of the basin. It is the only feasible main stem storage

site in Alaska above Rampart Canyon. It has potential storage

capacity of 92,000,000 acre feet, with pool elevation at 1100

feet, and could provide essentially full regulation of the site.

The state\'iide water power inventory indicates Hoodchopper ;s

one of the five most important hydroelectric potentials of Alaska

on the basis of size and cost. In addition to Woodchopper, this

group of ~ojects includes Rampart and Yukon-Taiya in the Yukon

basin, Wood Canyon in the Copper basin, and the Upper Susitna

Project.

9

p

The desirable storage capacity at the site would depend, among

other things, upon the degree to which the reservoir operation

could be coordinated with other storage facilities in the basin,

and agreement with Canada concerning desirable reservoir pool

elevations.

Potential storage and river diversion works in Canada could

reduce storage requirements at the Woodchopper site, as could con

struction of a potential Rampart reservoir downstream from the

Woodchopper site.

Should the development of the Rampart site be limited, other

major storage potentials, particularly the Woodchopper reservoir,

would be increasingly vital.

The studies of the Woodchopper Project have been largely


hydroelectric development operating in conjunction with the Rampart

Project. Evaluation of the project as a separate, multiple-purpose

development would greatly emphasize the importance of the site in

long range plans for the Yukon River basin.

The attached summary tabulation from the statewide water

po\'1er inventory gives comparative data on the projects mentioned

above.


The most recent project studies are premised on a concrete

gravity dam about one-half mile belO\'I \~oodchopper Creek raising

10

p

the water surface to elevation 1020 at or about 360 feet above the

present river elevation. This would create a storage capacity of

51,000,000 acre feet and develop most of the hydro potential of

the site.

The accompanying map identifies the project features and

location, and outlines the reservoir. It would involve interna

tional considerations, with a major portion of the tributary basin

and part of the reservoir in Canada.

Estimated firm power potential for this plan is 2,160,000

kilowatts at 75 percent annual load factor with annual firm energy

production of 14.2 billion kilowatt hours. For comparison, Rampart

Project has an energy potential of about 31.7 billion kilowatt

hours per year.

The reservoir under this project plan would have a surface

area of about 563 square miles, a shoreline of about 800 miles

and an active capacity of 39,000,000 acre feet. The Alaska portion

of the reservoir totals about 470 square miles, is about 115 miles

long, and includes the town and village of Eagle.

The 1965 Department of the Interior Field Report, IIRampart

Project, Alaska, ~1arket for Power and Effect of Project on Natural

Resources ll included the following points: 1) It is probable that

a substantial portion of the anadromous fish runs that pass the

Rampart site also pass the Woodchopper site. Construction of the

project would create a barrier to these runs and would require the

11

....

construction of fish passage facilities. 2) The reservoir area

also includes excellent wintering habitat for a high density

moose population. 3) Significant portions of the Steese-Fortymile

herd of caribou cross the Yukon in the reservoir area during their

migrations to and from Canada. 4) The project would have moderate

to insignificant impacts to waterfowl, furbearing and game animals

other than those mentioned. 5) Owing to its relatively small

size, construction of the Woodchopper Project would have a lesser

fish and wildlife impact than the downstream reservoir sites.

The project studies establish the engineering feasibility

and the favorable potential power values estimated at $100 to

$150 million per year on the basis of average enerqy costs of 7 to

10 lI1ills per kilo'.'latt hour. The studies are of rouCJh reconnaissance

grade. 110rc detailed, multiple-purpose studies may show consider

able changes in the project plan would be desirable to provide

optimum basin benefits.

Any decision to develop and operate the Woodchopper Project

would require joint U. S. and Canadian consideration of the

resources and long range needs and alternatives of the Yukon Basin

as a whole.

3. Current Status

Woodchopper Project is an identified major water resource

development potential. There ilre no active proposals to construct

it, and studies to date relate primarily to establishing the

12

PI'

resource values involved. Current consideration of the project

involves the merits of retaining the option to consider develop

ment of the project at some future date. This is in connection

with studies under Section 17(d) of the Alaska Native Claims

Settlement Act of potential new units of the national conservation

systems.

Because of its strategic location for regulation of basin

flows and its large energy potential, the l~oodchopper Project is

considered to have statewide, national, and international signi

ficance. The energy value of the site indicates the magnitude of

the resource--this would be $100 to $150 million per year assuming

average energy cost of from 7 to 10 mills per kilowatt hours as

stated above.

Timing and scale of development depend on long range patterns

of development in the Yukon basin.

The value of the site for storage, power and other purposes

and the absence of suitable alternatives establishes that a major

dam at the Woodchopper site would be a key unit in any long range

plans for the basin.


The extent of reservoir fluctuation would depend on the extent

to which the project is coordinated with other future developments

in the basin. Minimum reservoir levels would be anticipated at

the end of winter; maximum levels would occur in late summer and

fall seasons.

13

,....

The project would result in lower flood stages and increase

winter flows below the damsite. A reduction in ice jam problems

would be anticipated as a result of stabilized flo'tls.


Specific needs for electric transmission facilities have not

been determined. It is reasonable to assume that a project such

as Woodchopper would be tied in with both Canadian and Alaskan

power systems.

6. Access Roads

Access to the site for project construction and operation

would likely be by barge on the Yukon River and by extension of

the existing Steese Highway system from near Circle Springs.

Long range access requirements would include those for

project operation and recreation use of the reservoir.

C. Ruby Project

1. Relationship to River Basin and Regional Oevelopment

The Ruby site is the most favorable storage potential between

the mouths of the Tanana and Koyukuk Rivers, and \'lOuld be a key

unit in any plan to develop the power. navigation and related

potentials of the Yukon River. It also could be a key to provid

ing flood protection on the Yukon River below the Tanana River.

The studies of the Ruby Project to date have been largely


14

.. hydroelectric development operating in conjunction with the Rampart

Project. Reservoir elevation would be at 210 feet, the tailwater

level at the Rampart powerplant.

However, the available topographic maps and geologic inspec

tion of the damsite indicate a Ruby Project could be developed to

fully regulate the Yukon River at the site without upstream storage.

Thus, the Ruby Project is a key storage potential on the Yukon

River that could be developed either independently or in conjunc

tion with any of several possible upstream storage systems. It

represents the first opportunity to regulate Yukon River flows

downstream from the Rampart site and the Tanana River. This is of

additional importance as the opportunities for regulation of Tanana

River flows on the Tanana River are not promising, and the Tanana

River, with a drainage area of about 44,000 square miles, is a

major flood contributor to the Yukon River.

The accompanying map shows the project location, main features,

and outline of a low Ruby reservoir with water surface at elevation

210 feet (assumes an upstream Rampart Project to fully regulate

Yukon River flow at that site), and a high Ruby reservoir with water

surface at elevation 325 (assumes no upstream storage).

Between these reasonably maximum and minimum sized Ruby reser

voirs are several alternatives, depending upon the degree to which

upstream regulation of Yukon River flows may be developed. For

example, rough hydrology studies indicate that \ .... ith an upstream

15

Woodchopper reservoir, a Ruby reservoir to elevation 280 could

provide reasonable regulation of Yukon River flows at the Ruby

site.

Should the development of the Rampart site or other major

upstream storage potentials be precluded or limited, the Ruby reser

voir would be essential to regulation of middle Yukon River flows.

The 256,200 square mile drainage basin tributary to the Ruby

damsite, and average annual runoff of 109 million acre feet at the

site, emphasize the importance of the Ruby Project in planning for

regulation and development of Yukon River flows.


The attached summary tabulation of Alas~a hydroelectric poten

tials presents pertinent data concerning the low (reservoir to

elevation 210) Ruby Project operating with a reservoir at the Rampart

site. It also presents data concerning the upstream Rampart, Porcu

pine and Woodchopper hydroelectric potentials.

The following tabulation presents additional data for the low

Ruby Project, and for one with reservoir to elevation 325 (without

upstream storage). Both potentials nclude a concrete gravity dam

about 3 miles upstream from the town as noted on Figure 1.

16

lIP

Reservoir Dam

Elevation LenQth Area Storage Height Plan (Feet) (Miles) (Sq. r~i.) (Ac. Ft.) ( Feet)

Low 11 210 115 2,650 17,000,000 83

High ?J 325 298 3,360 150,000,000 198

The low Ruby Project would have an annual average energy produc

tion of 6.4 billion kilowatt hours, with installed capacity of 1.46

million kilowatts at 50 percent load factor. The comparable figures

for the high project would be 14.2 billion kilowatt hours and 3.25

million kilowatts.


Ruby Project is an identified major \I/ater resource development

potential. Tilere are no active proposals to construct it, and

studies to date relate primarily to establishing the resource values

involved.


of development in the Yukon basin.

Studies to date have been sufficient only to give rough esti

mates of the probable project costs and confirm the engineering

feasibility of the project power features.

1/ With Rampart Project 2/ vii thout upstream storage

17

p


flows and its large energy potential, the Ruby Project is con

sidered to have statewide and national significance. The energy

value of the site indicates the magnitude of the resource--this

would be about $45 to $65 million rer year for the low project,

and $100 to $140 million per year for the high project, assuming

average energy cost of from 7 to 10 mills per kilowatt hour.

No studies of fish, wildlife and recreational aspects have

been made. It is reasonable to assume that they would be similar

to other projects on the Yukon River.

More detailed alternative plans and evaluation of the oppor

tunities for multiple-purpose development would establish the plans

desirable to provide optimum basin benefits.

The value of the site for navigation, flood control, power

and other purposes, and the absence of suitable alternatives,

establishes that a major dam at the Ruby site would be a key unit

in any long range plans for the basin.


The extent of the reservoir fluctuation would depend on the

extent to which the project is coordinated with other future develop

ments in the basin. Minimum reservoir levels would be anticipated

at the end of winter; maximum levels would occur in late summer and

fall seasons. Annual drawdown would be negligible with the low

project, and 85 feet with the high project.

18


winter flows below the damsite. A reduction in ice jam problems

would be anticipated as a result of stabilized flows.

The town of Tanana would require relocation. For the high

plan, the additional villages of Rampart and Stevens Village would

require relocation.

The project operation would be shaped to minimize adverse


tunities, maximize recreational, navigation, power and flood control

opportunities, and otherwise maximize project benefits.


Specific needs and routes for electric transmission facilities

have not been determined.

6. Access Roads

Access to the site for project construction would likely be

by barge up the Yukon River. Highway access to the upper reservoir

area would be by the new road constructed in the utility corridor

from Livengood to the Yukon River.

Long range access requirements ~'1oul d incl ude those for project

operation and recreation use of the reservoir.

19

D. Holy Cross Project

1. Relationship to River Basin and Regional Development

The Holy Cross site is a downstream storage potential on the

main stem of the Yukon River that could develop the power poten

tial below the Ruby Project. The damsite is immediately upstream

from the village of Holy Cross. In addition to developing a

large block of power, the project could provide navigation and

flood control benefits to the lower 280 miles of the Yukon River.

The studies of the Holy Cross Project to date have been

largely limited to considerations of the project as a single

purpose hydroelectric development operating in conjunction with

full upstream regulation provided by Rampart, or a combination of

projects such as Woodchopper, Ruby, and Porcupine.

The accompanying map shows the project location, main features,

and outline of Holy Cross reservoir.

The 320,000 square mile drainage basin tributary to the Holy

Cross damsite has an annual runoff of 160 million acre feet at the

site. The total storage capacity of Holy Cross reservoir to eleva

tion 137 would be 140 million acre feet, which is less than the

annual flow, emphasizing the importance of upstream regulation for

this very large f10vl.


The attached summary tabulation of Alaska hydroelectric poten

tials presents pertinent data concerning the Holy Cross Project.

20

It also presents data concerning the upstream Rampart, Porcupine,

Woodchopper and Ruby hydroelectric potentials.

The plan envisioned would have an earthfill dam, with a

crest length of 57,500 feet, to form a reservoir with maximum

regulated water surface at elevation 137. The reservoir would

extend 280 miles up the Yukon River to the Ruby site, have an

area of 6,600 square miles, and a shoreline of 1400 miles.

The Holy Cross Project would have an annual average energy

production of 12.3 billion kilowatt hours, with installed capacity

of 2.8 million kilowatts at 50 percent plant factor. This is

almost one third the capability of Rampart.

The damsite is not particularly favorable due to excessive

length and anticipated foundation problems. A reconnaissance

of surface geology found exposed bedrock in the abutments. Several

hundred feet of sediments, probably with extensive permafrost, are

estimated to mantle bedrock in the valley floor. An earth dam

would likely be feasible for this site, but extensive foundation

exploration would be needed to confirm this.


Holy Cross Project is an identified major water resource

development potential. There are no active proposals to construct

it, and studies to date relate primarily to establishing the

resource values involved.

21


of development in the Yukon basin. The project appears to have

possible merit as a long range development following construction

of upstream storage on the Yukon.

Studies to date have been sufficient only to give rough

estimates of the probable project costs. Further investigation

would be needed to confirm the engineering feasibility of the

Holy Cross damsite.


flows and its large energy potential, the Holy Cross Project ;s

considered to have statev/ide and national significance. The

energy value of the site indicates the magnitude of the resource-

this would be about $80 to $120 million per year assuming average

energy cost of from 7 to 10 mills per kilowatt hour.

No studies of fish, wildlife and recreational aspects have

been made. It;s reasonable to assume that they would be similar

to other projects on the Yukon River.

More detailed alternative plans and evaluation of the oppor

tunities for multiple-purpose development would establish the

plans desirable to provide optimum basin benefits.

The value of the site for navigation, flood control, power

and other purposes establishes that a major dam at the Holy Cross

site would be a desirable unit in any long range plans for the

basin.

22

p


Current plans I"ould maintain tile reservoir essentially full,

regulation being provided by Ruby and Rampart. The powerplant

would have sufficient capacity to handle all intervening flows as

a run-of-the-river-plant. Annual drawdown would be negligible.


winter floVis below the damsite. A reduction in ice jam problems


Approximately 1200 persons would require relocation.

The project operation would be shaped to minimize adverse


tunities, maximize recreational, navigation, power and flood

control opportunities, and otherwise maximize project benefits.


Specific needs and routes for electric transmission facilities

Ila ve not been detenni ned.

6. Access Roads

Access to the site for project construction would likely be

by barge up the Yukon River.

E. Kaltag Project


The potential Kaltag Project is 8 miles downstream from the

village of Kaltag and about 60 miles downstream from the Koyukuk

23

River. It;s considered as an alternative to the Holy Cross-Ruby

Project combination to develop storage and pm'Jer potential of the

Yukon River below the Rampart site.


Studies to date, consisting of reconnaissance grade evaluations

of the project as a single-purpose hydroelectric development, are

summarized in the 1965 Department of the Interior Field Report,

"Rampart Project, Alaska, Market for Power and Effect of Project

on Natural Resources."

The accompanying map identifies the project features and out

lines the reservoir area of the plan described in the Field Report.

An earthfill dam with a maximum height above streambed of

180 feet, and a crest length of 26,000 feet, would back water 250

miles up river to the tailwater of the Rampart powerplant. The

reservoir at maximum surface elevation 220 would have a surface

area of 5200 square miles, a total storage capacity of 190,000,000

acre feet, and a shoreline length of 1830 miles.

Drainage area tributary to the damsite is about 296,000

square miles. Project water supply has been estimated at 137,000,000

acre-feet based upon streamflow records at the village of Kaltag.

The project could produce about 13.1 billion kilowatt hours of

firm energy per year. Installed capacity would be 3,000,000 kilo

watts, assuming a 50 percent plant factor.

Based on reconnaissance of surface geology, foundation condi

tions appear quite similar to the Holy Cross damsite.

24

3. Current Status, Costs and Benefits

The Kaltag Project is considered as an alternative to the

Holy Cross and Ruby sites, and as such would have possible merit

in long range plans for the Yukon basin should a development at

the Holy Cross site prove infeasible.

The value of the electrical energy potential is of the magni

tude of $90 to $130 million annually, based on 7 to 10 mills per

k il m'latt hour.




reservoi r from Rampart \'lou1 d be used to gene"ate power as they

occurred. Additional generation releases would be made to accomo

date space for flood flows from the Koyukuk River. Ultimate

development would include other purposes which might be incorpor

ated in the project plan, including navigation. The project

operation would be shaped to mitigate fish and wildlife adverse

effects, facilitate fishery enhancement opportunities, maximize

recreational opportunities, and otherwise maximize the project

benefits.



6. Access Roads

Access for construction It/ould 1 ike1y be by barge to the damsite.

25

F. Porcupine Project


The Porcupine River has a drainage area of 46,200 square

miles, or nearly 15 percent of the total Yukon basin. Roughly one

half the basin is in Canada. Based on available streamflow data,

the Porcupine contributes around 8 to 10 percent of the total

Yukon runoff.

Several potential damsites which appear to have favorable

topography and geology exist in the canyon reach within about 50

miles downstream from the Canadian border. A very substantial

storage potential exists, with most of the reservoir area in

Canada.

Stud; es prepared for the statewide hydro pmver inventory,

which are described subsequently, establish that a Porcupine

Project would have reasonably attractive unit costs as a sing1e

purpose hydro project. However, the site is potentially more

important for its strategic location with respect to any plans

for storage and regulation of flows in the upper Yukon basin.

A storage development on the Porcupine, together with a

Woodchopper Project, would substantially regulate Yukon basin

flows above Rampart Canyon.


The project i'lould provide storage for regulation of Yukon

River flows for power and other purposes. Porcupine damsite is

on the Porcupine River above the Yukon Flats, and about 12 river

26

miles below the Canadian border. Drainage area above the damsite

is about 23,400 square miles.

Inventory grade pl ans assumed a concrete arch dam \',ith a max

imum height above foundation of about 400 feet and a crest length

of about 1600 feet. Water supply is estimated at 9.1 million acre

feet per year, average.

The reservoir would affect only 7 square miles in the U. S.

and have a shoreline of 46 miles. A much larger portion of the

reservoir would be in Canada.

The project has an estimated firm energy potential of 2.32

billion kilowatt hours per year, equivalent to 265,000 kilowatts

of continuous power, or 530,000 kilowatts with a 50 percent load

factor. Annual value of the power would be around $15 to $20

million assuming a power cost of from 7 to 10 mills per kilowatt

hour.

Environmental aspects have not been examined in any detail.

3. Current Status

There are no active studies or proposals to develop the

project.

Because of its strategic location with respect to storage

of upper Yukon basin flows and indicated favorable unit power

costs, the project is considered significant in any long range

plans for the Yukon basin. At this time, the Porcupine and Wood

chopper Projects appear to be the most feasible opportunities to

develop upstream storage in the Alaska portion of the Yukon basin.

27

p

Any decision to develop or not develop the Porcupine site

would logically be made on the basis of joint U. S. and Canadian

consideration of the resources involved and long range needs and

alternatives for conservation and development within the Yukon River

basin as a whole.


The extent of reservoir fluctuation would depend on the extent

to which the project is coordinated with other future developments

in the basin. Minimum reservoir levels would be anticipated at

the end of winter; maxinlUm levels would occur in late surrmer and

fall seasons.

The project would result in 10'v/er flood stages and increase

.. linter flows below the damsite. A reduction in ice jam problems




been detennined.

6. Access Roads

Needs for access roads have not been determined. Access to

the site for project construction and operation would likely

include barge ~perations on the Yukon River.

28

------~ .............. -~--jiil!

G. Hughes, Du1bi, and Kanuti Projects


The Koyukuk River accounts for about 10 percent of the total

Yukon basin area and contributes an estimated 15 percent of the

basin runoff.

Studies for the statewide hydro power inventory identified

three potential developments on the Koyukuk as among tile 76 more

favorable hydro potentials in Alaska. The three projects have a

total firm energy potential of about 3.2 billion kilowatt hours

per year. Because of relatively high costs, it appears unlikely

that these projects would be justifiable as single-purpose hydro

electric projects. However, they may be of interest should

regulation of Koyukuk River flows for navigation, flood control,

and other purposes become desirable in the future.

2. Description of Projects

The following tabulation provides comparative data on the

three potential projects as evaluated in the water power inventory.

29

Drainage Area, square miles

Estimated Runoff, million acre feet per year

Type of Dam

Height of Dam, feet

Maximum Water Surface Elevation

Reservoir Area, 1000 acres

Reservoir Volume, million acre feet

Annual Firm Energy, billion kWh

Firm Power, 1000 kw at 50% load factor

Kanuti Project

18,000

11.9

Concrete Gravity

235

500

460

29

1.6

368

Hughes Project

18,700

12.4

Concrete Gravity

105

320

43

0.5

110

Du1bi Project

25,700

19.2

Earth

115

225

925

38

1.1

244

The Kanuti Project, on the basis of relative costs, storage

potential, and apparently favorable geologic conditions, appears to

be the most favorable of the three projects.

The Hughes Project would likely be of interest only as a second

stage development, depending upon regulation provided by the upstream

Kanuti Project.

The Du1bi Project appears to be least favorable on the basis

of geology and costs.

3. Current Status

The three projects are identified as among the more favorable

Alaska hydroelectric potentials on the basis of size and costs.

There are no active studies on proposals to build the projects, and

30

they would likely not be justifiable as single-purpose hydro

electric developments under present costs and evaluation criteria.

The Kanuti Project appears to offer the most attractive

opportunity to provide storage and regulation of flows in the Koyukuk

basin. Thus the project may have merit in long range plans for the

basin for multiple resource values, including power. Though it

is probably of lower priority because of limited storage potential,

the Hughes Project would likely receive further consideration if

the upstream Kanuti Project becomes desirable.

4, Project Operation

The extent of reservoir fluctuation at Kanuti would depend

on the extent to which the project is coordinated with other future

developments in the Yukon basin. Minimum reservoir levels would be

anticipated at the end of winter; maximum levels would occur in

late summer and fall seasons. A Hughes reservoir would likely

have minimal fluctuations.

The projects would result in lower flood stages and increased

winter flows below the damsites. A reduction in ice jam problems




been determined.

31

6. Access Roads

Requirements for access roads have not been determined.

Access to the site for project construction and operation would

likely include barge transportation on the Yukon and Koyukuk

Rivers.

32

Report No. 5

Fortymi 1 e Ri ver

Project:

(23.) Fortymile

November 28, 1972

Fortymi1e River


The Fortymi1e is one of several sizeable tributaries to the

upper Yukon River. Most of its basin ;s 1n Alaska.

The potential Fortymile Project is about six miles upstream

from the Canadian border. The project could provide a signifi

cant amount of power and furnish any water supply or flood

control that might be needed within the Fortymile basin below

the project.

The drainage area above the project is about five percent of

the Yukon basin above Eagle, thus the project's role in broader

plans for the Yukon basin would be relatively minor.

2. Project Description and Objectives

Studies to date consist of inventory grade evaluations of

the project as a single-purpose hydroelectric development.

Figure 1 identifies the project features and outlines the

reservoir area. The summary tabulation from the statewide water

power inventory provides data on the project plan.

This contemplates a concrete arch dam raising the water sur

face to elevation 1550 feet, or about 390 feet above the present

water surface. Estimated firm power potential is 166,000 kilowatts

at 50 percent annual load factor with firm energy of 723 million

kilowatt hours per year.

.,...---~ ....... .

Such a plan would involve a reservoir area of about 23

square miles. inundating about 20 miles of the Fortymi1e River

and extending 14 miles up the North Fork and 18 miles up the

South Fork. An arm of the reservoir near the damsite extends

6 miles up O'Brien Creek.

Likely project effects on fish and wildlife and other

resources remain to be evaluated. The project would involve

minor relocations. including a portion of the Taylor Highway.





project for power is probably on the order of $10 million per year.

Any decision to build would depend on future developments in the

area.

Though it is identified as one of the more favorable of

Alaska's hydro potentials. the Fortymile Project would likely not

be justifiable as a single-purpose power development.

Studies have not been made of the benefits that might result

from development of the project under appropriate multiple-purpose

plans.

The project is thus considered to have sufficient value to

merit consideration in long range plans for the Fortymi1e basin.

but of relatively low priority in terms of broader regional needs.

2





demands. Annual drawdown is estimated at 65 feet. Ultimate

development would include other purposes which might be incorporated

in the project plan. The project operation would be shaped to

minimize any fish and wildlife adverse effects, facilitate fishery

enhancement opportunities, maximize recreational opportunities,

and otherwise maximize the project benefits.



6. Access Roads

Access for construction would likely be a road from the

Taylor Highway downstream about 15 miles to the damsite shown

on Figure 1.

3

Report No. 6

Kuskokwim River Basin

Project:

(25.) Crooked Creek

Crooked Creek Project

Kuskokwim River Basin

1. River Basin and Regional Aspects

APA Draft April 1973

The Kuskokwim is the State's second largest river basin, with

a drainage area of approximately 43,600 square miles. There are

presently no major water resource developments in the basin.

The Crooked Creek Project would include a dam on the main

Kuskokwim River, approximately 270 miles upstream from the mouth.

Existing studies indicate the project ranks among the State's

largest hydro resources, with an energy potential of about 9.4

billion kilowatt-hours per year (approximately 27 percent of the

Rampart Project energy potential). Smaller plans have also been

identified.

The project would likely have significant effects on downstream

areas--river regulation for flood and sediment control, and for

navigation. It would involve a substantial reservoir area and con-

siderable impact on fish and wildlife resources.

At present, the Southwest region has few identified energy

resources. Some parts of the region are considered to have good

potential for petroleum and natural gas, but there have been no dis

coveries. Crooked Creek Project is clearly the most attractive of

the region's hydroelectric potentials.

Water resources problems associated with the Kuskokwim River

include serious flooding and erosion at Bethel, McGrath, and other

communities located along the River, plus low flow limits on river

navigation.


Two alternative damsites have been identified in Corps of

Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation studies. The lower or Crooked

Creek site is immediately upstream from the village of Crooked

Creek. The upper or Georgetown site is approximately ten miles

further upstream. Locations are indicated on the accompanying

project map.

The project plan reported in the statewide inventory of hydro

electric resources involves the Crooked Creek site, and a maximum

elevation of 500 feet. This reflects Bureau of Reclamation evalua

tions of the optimum scale of development from the viewpoint of

hydroelectric power, and is subsequently referred to as the "high"

plan.

Earlier plans reported by the Corps of Engineers involve the

Georgetown site and a reservoir elevation of 315 feet. The planning

premise is avoiding relocation of the town of McGrath, and the plan

is referred to subsequently as the "lowl! plan.

The range (315- to 500-foot elevations) is .indicathe of plan

ning alternatives that would be considered in any detailed project

investigation. Reservoir areas at the two levels are indicated on

the accompanying project map, and comparative data on the "high"

and "low" alternatives are presented below:

2

Maximum water surface elevation, feet

Reservoir:

Active volume, acre-feet

Total volume, acre-feet

"Low ll Plan

315

Surface area, square miles

Powerplant:

(Approx.) 2,000

Continuous capacity, kw

Installed capacity, kw

Annual firm energy, kwh

430,000

576,000

3,800,000,000

IIHigh" Plan

500

30,000,000

470,000,000

5,600

1 ,070,000

1 ,430,000

9,400,000,000

On the basis of 1965 price levels, estimated investment costs for

the high plan are slightly above $1 billion.

3. Current Status

All studies to date are of very preliminary nature to evaluate

the hydroelectric resource and likely costs for inventory purposes.

There are no active proposals to develop the project, and there are

no land withdrawals for the project.

The studies establish that the Crooked Creek Project is the

most important hydroelectric resource of Southwest Alaska, and one

of the State1s largest. The very substantial power potential, lack

of alternative energy resources in the region, and relatively attrac

tive costs suggest the project has statewide and national signifi

cance, and merits consideration in any long range plans for the

Kuskokwim River basin.

3

Alternate scales of development would provide annual firm

energy of from 3.8 to 9.4 billion kilowatt-hours. Value of the

power would be $40 to $100 million per year, assuming average

energy costs of 10 mills per kilowatt-hour. Other project aspects

remain to be evaluated. It is anticipated that multiple-purpose

studies would find significant environmental costs associated with

the reservoir and fish and wildlife aspects, and significant down

stream benefits for navigation, flood control, and sediment and

erosion control.

4. Fish and Wildlife and Other Aspects

Preliminary assessment of fish and wildlife aspects is included

in the January 1965 Interior Department Fi el d Report, "Rampart Project,"

Alaska, Market for Power and Effect of Project on Natural Resources."

Pertinent portions of the report are appended. This referred to a

plan with a maximum reservoir elevation some 50 feet higher than the

IIhigh" plan discussed above.

No detailed studies of transportation, access, and relocations

have been made. Primary access for construction would likely be by

water from Kuskokwim Bay up the river to the damsite. It is reason

able to assume that a project such as Crooked Creek would involve a

significant transmission network to distribute power in Southwest

Alaska, and transmission interconnection with power systems serving

Southcentral Alaska and the Yukon basin.

The IIhighll plan would involve relocation of McGrath, Nikolai

and Sleetmute.

4

, '\

Fish and wildlife aspects of Crooked Creek Project. Excerpts from:

Field Report

United States Department of the Interior

"Rampart Project, Alaska

and Effect of Project on Natural Resources"

Vol. 2, Parts VII and VIII

Fish and vildlife. Al.l five species of Pac1:t'lc salmon occur

in the Kuskokwim. River basins. FOUl" of these - chinook, chum, sockeye

(red), and coho spawn in good numbers above the damsite. Salmon are

harvested by residents for food for th~~elves and their dogs~

A commercial fishery has been conducted intermittently

since 1913. Best records are available for the period 1960-62. In

1962, 15,500 chinooks and 12,500 cohos were taken commerciaLly below

the damsite and in 1960 and 1961, 1,700 chinooks "Were taken commercially

above the damsite. There was no commercial catch above t.he damsite in

461

In the past years, the personal-use catch has been about a

half million fi~h. However, average personal-use catch figures for

1960-62 were 19,000 chinooks and 175,000 chums and sockeyes combined

below the damsite and 1,300 and 47,000 respectively of these species

above the damsite. Cohos are not taken in any numbers above the

damslte, owing to the lateness of the run which occurs after fishing

conditions have deteriorated.

It is not known whether or not the salmon fisheries of the

Kuskokwim River could sustain a greater harvest.

Resident and migratory fish of the project area are Arctic

grayling, pike, sheefish, whitefish, Dolly Varden, suckers, burbot,

and blackfish. Smelt, or eulachon, are found below the damsite. Res

ident fish are used by residents as food for themselves and their

dogs.

Moose are distributed throughout the impoundment area

with an average density roughly estimated at 1 per square mile, or

7,000 moose. Residents use the meat of these animals for food and

their hides for various articles of clothing for personal use and

for cash sale. Use of the area by caribou has been limited

in recent years to occasional movements of small herds around the

perimeter of the project area. Residents use caribou for food

when these animals are available. Both black and grizzly bear occur

throughout the area and furnish limited hunting.

462

(

Trapping of' :fUrs supplies an important source of' inccr:ne. The

area produces roughly 7 percent each of' the state's beaver and mink and

a scr:newha.t lower percentage of' muskrat. Other:fur animals such as marten,

river otter, 'Weasel, lynx, wolf', and wolverine are also important. Snow-

shoe hare~ spruce grouse, ruf'f'ed ~ouse, and ptar.migan furnish a limited

amount of' f'ood when they are abundant. ;potential

'lhe/im;poundment area is val.uable waterf'owl nesting habitat 'With

an average density of' 22 nesting ducks per square mile in spring. These

110,000 ducks, plus the 140,000 young they produce, make up an annual. f'all

flight :f'ram the area of' 250,000 ducks. The species camposit:f.on is as

f'ollows: scaup, 25 percent; scoter, 33 percent; pintail, 25 percent; and

ma)]ard, 5 percent. vlidgeon, buf'flehead, old squa:w, goldeneye, teal,

shoveler, and canvasback make up 12 percent in the aggregate. In addition,

Canada and whi tef'ronted geese nest in the area, but probably in insignif'icant '

numbers.

A dam at Crooked Creek 'WOUld block runs of' salmon above the

damsite, not only eliminating the upriver subsistence f'1shery, but also

the segments of' the downriver fishery that depend on production from

upriver spavning areas. The latter is probably a substantial portion

of' the total run, particularly of' sockeye salmon, most of' whtch spawn

above the damsite.

The preservation of' anadramous f'ish runs would present major

problems, awing to the height of' the dam and the large meandering reser-

voir. h'ven if' passage facilities were provided that would permit both

upstream and downstream migration over the dam and through the large

Drrpoundment, there would still be considerable losses caused by

463

inundation of extensive spawning gravels in the tributaries of the

pro,ject area. If passage facilities 1rere not found to be feaSible,

hatcher; facilities or artit'icial spawmng channels would be required

below the dam.

Construction of the potential Crooked Creek Project "ould

convert stream and small lake habitat to a large, cold lake, 400 feet

in maximum depth and probably mostly clear water. A lake trout-whitefish

population would probably result similar to that vThich would result :from

construction of the proposed Rampart Pro,ject.

Total production would probably be less than at the Rampart

Reservoir to the extent that the Crooked Creek Reservoir i-lOuld be smaller.

Problems of :fish harvesting :from debris-laden waters and at a competi ti ve

cost would be similar to those at the Rampart Project.

Hore than 7,000 square miles of big-game, fur-animal, vrater

fowl, and small-game habitat would be inundated. 'I"nere would be some

opportunities for mitigation of these losses by ~llprovement and creation

of habitat ad,jacent to· the reservoir. Hmrever, these would be li.mi ted

and could replace at best only a portion of the habitat lost through

inundation. Furthermore, such developments would be expensive and

of unproven effectiveness under Alaska conditions.

Recreation.--Crooked Creek Project would inundate much of the

central Kuskokvim River valley_ The lake would have h10 major basins and a

highly indented shoreline. llUlsmuch as the lake would lie immediately

to the west of the Alaska Range (an extremely rugged range of ice-capped

mountains) and in a broad valley of dense srruce, the aesthetic quality

of the area would be particularly appealing to the general recreationists.

Other than the above and a somewhat more temperate climate, the recreation

464

f

(

(

factors of access, water quality and to some extent size of the potential

area would be similar to those of the proposed Rampart Project.

There are presently no roads into this area and consequently

its recreation use is dependent upon light aircraft and river boat travel.

Other than sport fishing, hunting, and incidental camping done by the

residents of HcGrath and the several mines in the vielni ty, and by pri

vate pilots and guides (and their parties) :f'rom Anchorage and Fairbanks,

there is no recreation use of Significance made of the potential reser

voir area. It is, however, favorable to additional moose and caribou

hunting and the lakes and streams have excellent populations of' grayling,

northern pike, lake trout, and salmon.

If road access :fran Fairbanks J Anchorage, or Denali should be

provided, it is anticipated the recreation use of this area 'Would increase

considera.bly. Private cabins and headquarter sites 1-,auld undoubtedly

becane commonplace along the 'Western edge of the lake. Hovever, the

:full recreation potential 'Would not be realized until Dillj.ngham is

linked 'With the Alaska Highway System, thus circulating transients

through the area. While it 'WOuld be a 11 ttle further distant from popu

lation centers than the proposed Rampart Project, due to its scenic

qualities and con~oluted shoreline configuration, it is expected this

reservoir would be more heavily used than the Rampart Project.

Other project as;pects.--The Kuskokwim River is navigable both

above and below the damsite. Access to much of the reservoir area is

presently difficult and 'Would be improved by construction or the Crooked

Creek Pro,ject. The areas tributary to the reservoir are in regions of

high mineral value.

The improved access to this area 'Wnich would be possible through

navigation of' tne reservoir could f'acilitate development of' the Imm.rn

and indicated mineral reserves. Facilities for transfer of' cargo past

the dam woul.d bereguired.

466

,

Report No. 7

Nuyakuk Ri ver

Project:

(26. ) Nuyakuk

Nuyakuk Project


1-30-73

APA Draft

The Nuyakuk Project is a potential interbasin diversion project

that would divert the Nuyakuk River flow from the Tikchik Lakes to

the Wood River Lakes, the headwaters of the Wood River. Full develop

ment of the hydroelectric potential would increase the flow through

the Wood River chain of lakes by an estimated 5,200 cubic feet per

second, more than doubling the flow at the mouth of the Wood River.

Flow in the Nuyakuk would be reduced by a corresponding amount.


Studies to date consist of inventory grade evaluations of the


The attached map identifies the project features and outlines

the reservoir area. The summary tabulation from the statewide

water power inventory provides additional data on the project plan.

The inventory plan contemplated a concrete gravity dam at the

outlet of Lake Tikchik, raising the water surface of upstream

lakes to elevation 342 feet. Such a plan would raise the water

level in Tikchik and Nuyakuk Lakes 38 feet, and the level of

Chauekuktuli would be raised 27 feet. The powerplant would be

located on the shore of Lake Kulik. Estimated firm power potential is

127,000 kilowatts at 50 percent annual load factor, with firm energy

of 555 million kilowatt-hours per year.

Recent topographic maps give the elevations of the lakes more

exactly, and this indicates the potential energy is at least 10

percent greater than estimated for the inventory plan.

Likely project effects on fish and wildlife and other resources

remain to be evaluated.

3. Current Status

There are no active proposals to develop the project. The

studies to date have been sufficient only to give rough estimates

of the probable project costs and confirm the engineering feasibility

of the project power features. Value of the project for power is

probably on the order of $10 million per year. Any decision to

build would depend on future developments in the area.



plans. The project would be desirable only to the extent it is

proven compatible with fishery and other resources of the area.


A1aska 1 s hydro potentials, the Nuyakuk Project would likely not be

justifiable as a single-purpose power development.


merit consideration in long range plans for the Nushagak basin, but

of relatively low priority in terms of broader regional needs.




2

reservoir would be stored and released from Nuyakuk Lake to Lake

Kulik as required to meet power demands. Annual drawdown in Nuyakuk

Lake and Tikchik Lake is estimated at 38 feet. The Nuyakuk River

would receive minimum flows and flood flo\.'Js.

Ultimate development would include other purposes which miqht

be incorporated in the project plan.



6. Access Roads

Access for construction would require 70 miles of road from

Dill ingham.

3

J

Report No. 8

Iliamna lake

Project:

(27.) Iliamna

1-16-73

Lake Iliamna


Lake Iliamna, the largest lake in the State, lies in Southwest

Alaska near the base of the Alaska peninsula. The damsite lies 40

miles above the mouth of the Kvichak River, and 28 miles downstream

from the lake outlet. This potential project is one of the best

three hydropower sites in Southwest Alaska, based upon cost per

kilowatt of installed capacity.

Inventory grade studies indicate the Lake Iliamna Project has

a firm power potential of about 313,000 kilowatts (50 percent annual

load factor), with firm energy of about 1,370,000,000 kilowatt-hours

per year.

Studies have not been made of benefits which might result


plans. In this respect, this project may have additional signifi

cance as a major regional potential for water supplies, storage and

power in Southwest Alaska. The regional significance of these and

other multiple-use aspects may become more apparent at a future time

in view of the limited alternatives in this portion of the State.



the reservoir area. The attached summary tabulation of Alaska

hydroelectric potentials provides additional data on the project

plan.

The proposed plan includes an earth dam with crest at elevation

170, about 4,600 feet long, raising the surface of Iliamna Lake 103

feet. The reservoir, with a surface area of 1,090 square miles at

maximum water surface elvation 150, would contain a total of

76,450,000 acre-feet of storage. This would provide full regula

tion of the flows from the 6,440 square-mile drainage area tributary

to the site.

Several small settlements around Lake Iliamna would require

relocation from with';n the reservoir impoundment area. These

include the villages of Iliamna, Kakhonak, Newhalen, and Pedro Bay.

Preliminary observations indicate the project would have signi

ficant fish, wildlife and navigational impact.

3. Current Status

The studies to date have been made in sufficient detail to

give only rough estimates of project costs, and indicate the

engineering feasibility of the development plans. Value of the

project for power probably exceeds $20',000,000 per year.

As indicated previously, studies have not been made of the

benefits that might accrue under appropriate multiple-purpose plans.

The Lake Iliamna Project, though identified as among the more

favorable hydropower and water potentials of Alaska, is not likely

to be justifiable as a single-purpose hydropower development.

2





demands. Navigation assistance would likely also be considered.

Annual drawdown is estimated at only15 feet. Ultimate development

would include other purposes which might be incorporated in the

project plan. The project operation would be shaped to minimize

any fish and wildlife adverse effects, facilitate fishery enhance

ment opportunities. optimize recreational opportunities, and

otherwi se maximi ze the project benefits.



6. Access Roads

Access for construction would likely be by barge up the

Kvichak River.

3

Report No. 9

Tazimina River and Lakes

Project:

(28.) Tazimina

1-19-73

Tazimina River and lakes


The Tazimina lakes are among the chain of lakes and rivers in

the lake Clark and Iliamna lake area that were reserved as power

potentials in 1915. The Tazimina lakes Project has further been

identified as one of the more favorable hydroelectric potentials

in the statewide inventory of powersites.

It is unique in that it is one of only a few power potentials

in Southwest Alaska that doesn't have a major fishery problem.

Recent field surveys resulted in modifying the land withdrawals

for the project to more accurately describe the lands needed for

the power potential. It is not a resource of significant national

interest, but could be a desirable unit in meeting long range energy

needs of Southwest Alaska


Figure 1 identifies the project features, reservoir area, and

area included in the powersite classification.

This plan as outlined contemplates a dam six and one half

miles downstream from lower Tazimna lakes to raise the water surface

of lower Tazimina lake 55feet. Estimated firm power potential at

the powerplant on Pickerel lake is 52,000 kilowatts at 50 percent

annual load factor, with firm energy of 228 million kilowatt-hours

per year.

The Tazim1na Lakes are blocked to anadromous fish runs by a

falls downstream from the dams1te, according to the "Spawning

Ground Catalog of the Kvichak River, Bristol Bay, Alaska," by the

Fish and Wildlife Service. Tazimina Lakes is one of the few

power potentials in the Lake Clark-Iliamna Lake area that would

have small fishery consequences. Fishery enhancement is possibly

a function that could contribute to the economics of the project.

3. Current Status

Recent field geologic investigation and a mapping by the

U. S. Geologic Survey along with inventory type engineering cost

and estimates have resulted in locating a geologically feasible

damsite, and more clearly identifying the power potential. Subse

quently, Powersite Classification 463 withdrew land for the

geologically feasible plan. A copy is attached. Presently there

is no market for the power in that area of Alaska.


Project operations to date have related primarily to estab

lishing the power potential. Inflows would be stored and released

as required to meet power demands. Releases would flow into Lake

Clark via the natural outlet of Pickerel Lake. Any flood releases

would flow to Lake Clark via the Tazimina River channel.

Storage requirements in the reservoir would be met by tapping

Lower Tazimina Lake immediately upstream from the dam and drawing

it down 28 feet. The reservoir level would fluctuate 93 feet on

2

Lower Tazimina Lake, while Upper Taximina Lake would fluctuate only

up to 5 feet above the natural level.

Plans of operation would be shaped to maximize benefits, which

would likely take advantage of the opportunity for fishery enhance

ment.


Transmission line routes to potential market center have not

been identified.

6. Access Roads

Access for construction would likely connect with the existing

partial road system down the Newhalen River to Iliamna and to Cook

Inlet.

3

Report No. 10

Ingersol Lake

Project:

(29.) Ingersol

Ingersol Project

1. Relationship to River Basin and Regional Plan

1-30-73

APA Draft

The Ingersol Project is identified as one of the more favorable

hydroelectric potentials of Alaska in the statewide inventory

of hydro resources. The project would involve diversions from the

headwaters of the Mulchatna and the Kijik Rivers, and a powerplant

site on the shore of Lake Clark.

The power potential may be significant in terms of long-range

energy needs of Southwest Alaska, but the project is probably not

justifiable as a single-purpose hydroelectric development.


The enclosed map identifies project features and potential

reservoir areas.

As contemplated in studies for the statewide hydro resources

inventory, the project would involve: a low dam at the outlet of

Twin Lakes in the Mulchatna basin; a tunnel diversion to the Kijik

River; a second dam on the Kijik below Lachbuna Lake (formerly

Ingersol Lake); and a tunnel diversion to the powerplant site at

Lake Clark.

The estimated firm power potential is 144,000 kilowatts at

50 percent annual load factor, with annual firm energy of 630

million kilowatt-hours.

Studies of the project include a reconnaissance of surface

geology, reservoir area mapping, and inventory grade cost estimates

for power features.

,....

3. Current Status

Studies to date relate to evaluation for inventory purpose of

engineering feasibility, and likely costs of a single-purpose

hydroelectric project. Evaluations have not been made of environ

mental aspects and the benefits that might accrue under appropriate

multiple-purpose plans. There are no active proposals to develop

the project~

Estimated annual value of the power is from $6 to $12 million,

assuming energy costs in the range of 10 to 20 mills per kilowatt

hour.

The project does not appear justifiable as a single-purpose

power development, but is considered sufficiently attractive to

merit some consideration in long range planning for the affected

river basins.


Studies to date relate solely to power aspects. If operated

as a single-purpose power project, flows would be stored and

released as required to meet power demands. Maximum reservoir

levels would be expected in late summer and fall; minimum levels

would occur in early spring.

As noted previously, multiple-purpose aspects have not been

evaluated. Such consideration might include desirable minimum flows

below the two damsites and recreation and fisheries aspects of

reservoir operations.

2


Transmission routes have not been identified.

6. Access Roads

Approximately 65 miles of road would be needed to connect the

various project features. Other access requirements would depend on

long-range transportation developments in the region.

3

Report No. 11

Kukaklek Lake

Project:

(30.) Kukaklek

Kukakl ek


Kukaklek Lake, near the base of the Alaska Peninsula south of

Lake Iliamna, is one of the major lakes in the State. The damsite

is 63 miles above the mouth of the Alagnak River, and 4 miles

downstream from the outlet of Kukaklek Lake. The project is of

significance in the inventory of regional hydropower and water

supply potentials.


Studies to date have consisted of inventory grade evaluations

of the project as a single-purpose hydroelectric development.

The attached map identifies the project features, and outlines

the reservoir area. The attached sUl1111ary tabulation of Alaska

hydroelectric potentiars provides additional data on the project

plan.

The proposed plan envisions construction of a 5,000-foot long

concrete gravity dam w'lth its crest at elevation 830, raising the

surface of the lake 20 feet. The reservoir thus formed would have

a surface area of 79.6 square miles at maximum water surface eleva

tion 825, and would contain a total of 940,000 acre-feet of storage.

This storage capacity \'/ould provide full regulation of flows from

the 480 square miles of drainage area tributary to the reservoir.

Power studies have indicated the Kukaklek Project has a firm

power~ potential of 53,000 kilowatts (50 percent annual load

factor), with firm energy of about 232,000,000 kilowatt-hours.

No studies of the impact of the project on fish. wildlife,

or other aspects have been made.

3. Current Status

The studies to date have been made in sufficient detail to

give only rough estimates of project costs and indicate the engin

eering feasibility of the development plans. Value of the project

for power would probably exceed $25,000,000 per year.

Studies have not been made of the benefits that might accrue

under appropriate multiple-purpose plans.

Kukaklek Project, although identified as one of the more favor

able hydropower potentials in the State, is not likely to be justi

fiable as a single-purpose hydropower development.


Project studies have related solely to establishment of project

power potential. Project operations would require inflows to the

reservoir be stored and released as required to meet power demands.

Annual drawdown is estimated at 15 feet.

Project operations would be so shaped as to minimize any adverse

fish, wildlife and ecological effects, facilitate enhancement oppor

tunities affecting such resources, optimize recreational opportunities

and otherwise maximize project benefits.



2

6. Access Roads

Access roads from Iliamna Lake would be required.

3

Report No. 12

Kontrashibuna Lake

Project:

(3/) Kontrashibuna

......

Kontrashibuna Project

This is a small hydro potential involving Kontrashibuna lake

and the Tana1ian River above lake Clark.

It has an existing powersite withdrawal (PSR 485 dated

April 1, 1915) and has been included in some of the older hydro

power studies. The site was reviewed as part of the statewide

inventory studies, but excluded from the inventory summary because

of relatively small size and high costs.

It is considered that the project may have local significance

for water supply and power, and it is APA's view that the existing

withdrawal should be retained at this time.

The inventory studies were premised on a dam raising Kontrashi

bun a lake from the present 459 feet to 510 feet, plus a tunnel and

penstock to a powerplant site at the shore of lake Clark. Estimated

firm power potential is 18,800 kilowatts at 50 percent annual load

factor.

APA reported the following views for consideration in Forest

Service and Park Service studies of the lake Clark area:

"A1though the power potential [of Kontrashibuna Project]

is relatively small, and the development costs high, environ

mental aspects appear favorable. The site has good location

with respect to future needs for power and water supply for

possible mineral development. Therefore, APA feels the option

to consider future development of this site should be retained."

Report No. 13

Naknek Lake

Project:

(31.) Naknek

Naknek Project

Alaska Power Administration Draft December 21,1972


The potential Naknek Project damsite is essentially at tide-

water about six miles upstream from King Salmon Air Force Base,

and six miles downstream from Naknek Lake in Southeast Alaska.

The tributary drainage area is about 2,720 square miles.

The project could provide significant power supplies for

the King Salmon and Naknek areas, but it does not appear favorable

for development because of indicated adverse effects.


Studies to date consist of inventory grade evaluations of

the project as a single-purpose hydroelectric development.

The accompanying overlay at scale 1:250,000 identifies the

project features and outlines the reservoir area. The attached

summary tabulation of Alaska hydroelectric potentials provides

data on the project plan.

The plan includes an earth dam to raise the water surface

about 130 feet to elevation 150 feet. Estimated firm power poten

tial is 470 million kilowatt hours per year with an installed

capacity of 108,000 kilowatts at 50 percent annual load factor.

Such a plan would involve a reservoir area of about 560 square

miles, raise the level of Naknek Lake 116 feet, and extend the

lake about 50 miles inside the Katmai National Monument.

Likely project effects on fish and wildlife and other

resources remain to be evaluated. The project would involve

minor relocations, mainly recreation camps.




ing feasibility of the project power features. The Naknek Project

has been identified as one of the more favorable of Alaska1s major

hydro potentials on the basis of estimated power costs. Value

of the project for power would be about $5 to $10 million per

year assuming average energy values of 10 to 20 mills per kilowatt

hour. The project studies have not included evaluation of the

fishe~mitigation facilities which would be required, nor the

environmental effects of raising the level of~knek Lake. These

would appear sufficiently significant as to hazard project justi

fication.

The project thus could furnish sufficient electric power to

merit consideration in long range electric generation plans,

but is of questionable justification in terms of overall regional

values.




2

Report No. 14

Crescent Lake

Project:

(32.) Crescent Lake

Chakachamna Project


1-30-73

APA Draft

Chakachamna site is about 80 miles west of Anchorage, Alaska's

largest population center. The project is a potentially desirable

addition to the Cook Inlet hydro-thermal pm'fer systems and could

provide a substantial regulated water supply near tidewater. It

would involve minimal environmental change, with regulation of the

project water supplies achieved by drawdown of Chakachamna Lake

through a tunnel to McArthur River.

The reservoir area and lands along the Chakachatna River

downstream from Chakachamna Lake were withdrawn for power purposes

in 1948 by Powersite Classification 395.

The project could be a desirable unit in plans for meeting

the long-range power needs of Southcentral Alaska, and is of

regional and national significance.


Studies to date ccnsist of reconnaissance evaluations of the


The attached map identifies the project features and outlines the

potential reservoir area. The summary tabulation of Alaska hydro

electric potentials provides data on the project plan.

The Chakachamna Lake is a high mountain lake of glacial origin.

It is one of the larger lakes in Alaska, with a surface of about

The natural lake would become the reservoir, and would have a

small weir at the lake outlet serving as a spillway.

Possible project effects on fish, wildlife or other resources

have not been evaluated. There are no manmade features in the area

that would require relocation.

3. Current Status




project for power is probably on the order of $1 to $2 million per

year. Any decision to build would depend on future developments

in the area.


Alaska's hydro potentials, the Crescent Lake Project would likely

not be justifiable as a single-purpose power development.



plans.


merit consideration in long range plans for the immediate area,

but of relatively low priority in terms of broader Cook Inlet area.




2

l



development would include other purposes which might be incorporated

in the project plan. The project operation would be shaped to

minimize any fish and wildlife adverse effects, facilitate fishery

enhancement opportunities, maximize recreational opportunities,

and otherwise maximize the project benefits.


Transmission line routes have not been identified, but would

likely join the existing system that extends from Anchorage to the

Beluga generating station near Tyonek, a distance of about 80 miles.

6. Access Roads

Access for construction would be by a road from tidewater to

the damsite involving about 14 miles.

3

Report No. 15

Chakachamna Lake

Project:

(33.) Chakachamna

APA Draft

Chakachamna Project


Chakachamna site is about 80 miles west of Anchorage, Alaska's

largest population center. The project is a potentially desirable

addition to the Cook Inlet hydro-thermal power systems and could

provide a substantial regulated water supply near tidewater. It

would involve minimal environmental change, with regulation of the

project water supplies achieved by drawdown of Chakachamna Lake

through a tunnel to McArthur River.

The reservoir area and lands along the Chakachatna River

downstream from Chakachamna Lake were withdrawn for power purposes

in 1948 by Powersite Classification 395.

The project could be a desirable unit in plans for meeting

the long-range power needs of Southcentral Alaska, and is of

regional and national significance.


Studies to date consist of reconnaissance evaluations of the


The attached map identifies the project features and outlines the

potential reservoir area. The summary tabulation of Alaska hydro

electric potentials provides data on the project plan.

The Chakachamna Lake is a high mountain lake of glacial origin.

It is one of the larger lakes in Alaska, with a surface of about

23 square miles, a length of 17 miles, and a shoreline of

generally steep precipitous cliffs. Barrier Glacier at the lake

outlet and geologic conditions along the Chakachatna River down

stream preclude building a dam to regulate lake outflow, according

to recent U. S. Geological Survey studies. However, ample storage

capacity can be developed by drawing the lake below its natural

level. Power development would be accomplished by conveying

water from the lake through a tunnel about 11 miles long to a

powerhouse site in the McArthur River Valley where a head of as

much as 1000 feet can be developed.

Mean discharge from the lake for the 11-year period 1959-1970

was 3,559 cfs. The project plan provides for essentially full

regulation of inflows to the lake for power production through an

underwater lake tap which would permit drawing down the natural

lake surface from elevation 1,127 to elevation 1,007.

The firm power potential is estimated at 366,000 kilowatts

at 50 percent annual load factor, with firm energy of 1.6 billion

kilowattwhours per year. Transmission line distance from the

powerhouse to Anchorage would be approximately 80 miles.


The project studies to date have been sufficient only to

give rough estimates of the probable costs and confirm the project

feasibility.

2

A reconnaissance grade status report published by the Bureau

of Reclamation in March 1962 summarized field investigations of

the Bureau of Reclamation, Geological Survey, and Fish and Wildlife

Service. The report found the project feasible, but concluded a

full scale feasibility report should be deferred until additional

streamflow records became available. Subsequent streamflow records

confirm the project water supply.

The costs and other data presented in the attached summary

tabulation represent the most current project evaluations.

Lands withdrawn under Powersite Classification 395 are: "All

public lands within one-fourth (1/4) miles of Chakachamna Lake,

Kenibuna Lake, and Chakachatna River from the outlet of Chakachamna

Lake to the mouth of Straight Creek." The upper end of the classi

fied portion of Kenibuna lake extends about 2 miles into the with

drawal established under Section l7(d)(2) of the Alaska Native

Claims Settlement Act.

The Kenibuna Lake portion lies upstream from the proposed

Chakachamna reservoir area, as shown on the attached map, and is

not necessary for development of the project. It is anticipated

that the Kenibuna Lake portion of PSC 395 will be recommended for

revocation in a modification of PSC 395 scheduled as part of the

powersite review program in which Alaska Power Administration

participates as a cooperating agency.

3

The 1962 status report concluded the Chakachamna Project had

a favorable benefit cost ratio of 1.44. The annual value of power

would be about $11 to $16 million, based on a power value of 7 to

10 mills per kilowatt hour.

Environmental changes would be minor. There would be no

flooding by the reservoir and no relocations required. There is

no vegetal cover in the drainage area other than low brush and

alders that grow in the flood plains of the river bottom.

Fish and wildlife reconnaissance studies from the status

report show a run of red salmon spawn in the few tributaries of the

lake that are non-glacial and clear. Otherwise, there is only

a small amount of wildlife on the perimeter of the lake that might

be affected by the fluctuating water surface.






development would include other purposes which might be incorpor

ated in the project plan. Flows in Chakachatna River would be

limited to spills from project operation during years of high

runoff and inflow from downstream tributaries. The McArthur River

flows \'/ou1d be increased an average of 3,500 cubic feet per second.

4

The project operation would be shaped to mitigate fish and

wildlife adverse effects, facilitate fishery enhancement oppor

tunities, maximize recreational opportunities, and otherwise

maximize the project benefits.


The transmission line would extend northeastward from the

powerp1ant to join the existing utilities transmission systems

in the vicinity of Beluga River.

6. Access Roads

Access for project construction would require building 51.5

miles of roads leading from tidewater to the powerp1ant site on

McArthur River, and to the tunnel intake site on Chakachamna Lake .

•

5

Report No. 16

Bradley Lake

Project:

(50.) Bradley Lake

Bradley Lake Project


1-8-73 APA Draft

Rev. 1 - 17 -73

The Bradley Lake hydroelectric project was authorized by

the Flood Control Act of 1962. The project is located at the

head of Kachemak Bay, on the Kenai Peninsula, 25 miles north of

Homer, Alaska. The proposed plan would fully develop the hydro

potential of the small drainage basin and also use water diverted

from two adjacent watersheds.

The transmission line would serve Anchorage, but would also

tie into an existing transmission system which extends from

Anchorage to Seward and on around the coast from Kenai to Homer.

In addition to being close to the existing load center, the project

would firm up reliability of the existing system by providing gen

eration capacity at the far end of the line

Although Bradley Lake is the best hydroelectric potential on

the Kenai Peninsula, the energy is not presently marketable due to

prevailing high interest rates, and the small size of the market.


The most recent project plan is presented in a 1971 Corps of

Engineers' draft reanalysis report. Figure 1 ;s a map overlay show

ing the major features of the project. The plan contemplated a

concrete gravity dam 110 feet high with a 315-foot crest across the

Bradley River at the natural outlet of Bradley Lake, a 375,000-

kilowatt underground peaking plant, penstock, and 3.3-mi1e tail

race tunnel discharging near tidewater. The plan included

necessary transmission facilities to deliver power to the Anchorage

area. Access roads would be required across the Fox River and to

the damsite and power station. Two small diversion dams would

divert water from adjacent watersheds into the Bradley Lake drain

age, increasing the drainage area from 54 square miles to 87.8

square miles. The reservoir would approximately double the natural

lake area to 3,960 acres. The maximum water surface would be at

elevation 1,168, providing 297,000 acre-feet of active storage.

The continuous power potential of the Bradley Lake Project

is 47,000 kilowatts. The 1971 reanalysis studies considered

alternative plans for peaking installations of 187,000, 210,000,

280,000, and 375,000 kilowatts.

3. Current Status

The 1971 reanalysis contemplates marketing Bradley Lake power

in the Kenai Peninsula and Greater Anchorage market areas. The

375,OOO-kilowatt alternative was found the most feasible based on

the power benefits from FPC load projections. A lOa-year period of

analysis with a discount rate of 2 1/4 percent was assumed.

At the request of the Corps of Engineers, Alaska Power Admin

istration prepared an analysis of the marketability of the power

in 1971, which concluded that the nature of the daily peak loads in

2

the Anchorage area is a prolonged daytime peak, making it difficult

to optimize the low load factor capacity of the project. In addition,

the project power would cost too much to be marketable because of

prevailing repayment criteria of 5 7/8 percent interest and 50-year

payout.

The status of the land involved in the project is that it is

currently withdrawn for power purposes. The land was first withdrawn

in 1955 by the Geological Survey through Powersite Classification

436. Later, in 1966, the land required for project construction

and operation was withdrawn by the Army Corps of Engineers as

described in Public Land Order 3953. Copies of the two land actions

describing in detail the land withdrawn are attached as Exhibits 1

and 2.

The Bradley Lake Project has been studied extensively. The

Bureau of Reclamation did an on-the-site reconnaissance in 1953,

followed by a similar reconnaissance in 1954 by the Corps of

Engineers. Personnel of the U. S. Geological Survey did a recon

naissance and physical mapping of the site in 1955 and published

an open-file report and river sheet map in 1956. Streamflow data

on Bradley River was measured by the USGS from 1957 through 1969.

Additional geologic studies, drilling and seismic investigations

were accomplished by the Corps in 1959 and 1969.

The study that became the basis for the 1962 project author

ization was the Army Corps of Engineers' Interim Report No.2,

Cook Inlet and Tributaries, Part No.1, Hydroelectric Power, Bradley

Lake, Alaska.

3

---~--------~----

The Federal Power Commission discussed two plans using Bradley

Lake in the 1969 Alaska Power Survey. Subsequently, a reanalysis

by the Corps in 1971 presented a revised plan based on data gathered

since authorization.

Alaska Power Administration prepared the power marketing

Appendix described above. The project remains viable and subject

to development should a population increase occur, and a decrease

in interest rate.

In addition, the project would provide a sizeable regulated

water supply near tidewater.


Project operation would likely be remotely controlled with

only a few personnel full-time at the powerhouse.

Power releases would be made as the demand for energy or peak

ing capacity occurred.


The transmission line to Anchorage is planned to bypass the

Kenai National Moose Reserve as much as possible. Otherwise it

would use the existing transportation corridor routes of the exist

ing highways and pipeline. Precise location has not been made.

Existing l15-kilovolt transmission lines connect Anchorage and

Kenai with a smaller branch to Seward. A 69-kilovolt line connects

Kenai and Homer, which ;s about 25 miles from Bradley Lake.

4

6. Access Roads

An access road would be constructed from the end of the

planned state highway near the head of Kachemak Bay to the under

ground powerplant access tunnel, and to the damsite. A spur road

from the main road would lead to the tailrace tunnel outlet.

Temporary roads to a glacier outwash or a river would be required

for hauling construction material.

(r.

·0···· . . .

o •

Geologica! Survey DII~OLrr L\I~r:, AUSKA

POWI!! srrt CLASSrnCATtOl'f NO, 43.

PIlr'SUllfit Ie, ltuthorlty vest"d In m~ by the net ot Moreh J, 1879 (20 Stat. :J!H; 43 U, S. C. 311, nnd by DC'pnrtm('ntt'll Orctrr Nt! ;!~J:t or Jllne 10, 19H (43 CFR 462:1; 12 P. R. 40251, ttiC roHowlnr, dt'xl'ih"d Innd 15 hereby classiOM I\.iI.

IIOWt!r liit('~ IIlsofar a" title thrrcto U'. maIlls in th~ UnltM Stales nnd subject t.a vnlid (};ir.!.If)~ rights: nnd lhis c!n5sifico,lion ~hfin hnve full force and ctTec. und('r the Ill'ovlslolls of Sec. 24 of the I\C~ of June 10. 1920. I\.iI. amNlded by sec. :.Iii DC the nct of August :w. 1935 (16 U. S. C. 8181:

V/("H/TT v~ 11llAHCtrUTlOPf 5n,nc>I< SIIU,.

l.M It IItl" ~9'4~'3J 189", l .. m,:ltull~: 160 '6WI30l3", ,.,' (II All 1.",1. "d\hln y. mile M Dr.cUer

nhll'!'r Iru'\t HA rnou\.h to lJrJl\cU('y ( .. RICf'. (11 All 1M"" wlfhl" ~. mll~ or NOi\h Vorl; /

Drnd1ry Ri"~·'f trnlU ,t, (Onnurn,..(. crith Br:td .. I,,), Ill ... {',If n dl.l.oncc· o( :I mllr. UI'Mnl<m.

p, All 1"'1<!' wl~hln '," mil .. or BMUe. cr".1t Irom Ita mouth t'l (hI! I ~oo·(QO~ cle.. y" v"Uon I'''-'\.( lending (0 nmdlty lAl<",

(01) All lon<l. "dJIlC~llt ta DrOOl",. t.....ke ~hlelt lie lit .. n .I<vntlon oC 1.&& u.,u 1:100 r' t«'~t abovtJ liu'nn 1J(,1l level.

(5, All IfIr,d_ within " mila or N\I!cAc JlI.t'. from It •• ou". nt to" or Drndle1 Ol"~ V el .... 1.0 a IJOlnt l mile down.tream lberefrocs.

The arCtt (k~erlb('d b C'.!'t1ln1lted to Illitrcgale nbout 1 (),OOOncrcs,

Dated: AUI:u.st 29.1955.

ARTHUR A. DAKtR. Acting Director,

IF, n. Doe. ~$.-'fl77; Fllt'd, 8~I, 0, 11155: 11:41". n...,

/SoP ;; s c '1.,3 c; 8-~9"$""':;-

/

, .

: I

r"bl hhcth No,1 55

3/22/66 Vol.l 31 t'tlUOI 4793

! l"Ub\lo Lrlnd Order 30113 J IAnthorll&O OGO!HaJ

ALASKA

Withdrowo! for DrC1dlcy Lako Hydroclcdric rrojcct

PLO No. I bntc Pl~ nicned,

(b) ;:'1'01'.\ nll form:! or ap;irO;"lI'lal:on llnder i.~)~ pubHc l;\nd !O\w:., C);ccpl. th;l.t. t.:11) );:n(!s :;~:lll bo open lo o;>c,·"t!on ot t.:\C U.S. minInG' l;l.wll~-i\iTi'j.::cT'l4"tho IU'ovl:;loI13 or tho ar:t. ot J\u::u:.t. 11, lO$~ (G:J Sl:\t. GJ1; 30 U.S.C. 621-02:», An4 s!lI)!1 bJ OP~I\ t~_tr~tl!;{ under thl m1I\ernl reSIn;; TiiWJ: . . .

ny vlrt\lc or tho nuthorlty vc~tcd In tho SI.-WAl\D MQ.IIoI.AM (paO'l'llAClT'd, rrrsldrnL nno pur:;unnL to J:..'xrcuUvo. '1"." Cl •• n. 0 w.; . . , I:' Order No. IOJ55 or Mny 26. 10:>2 U'l F.R. flee. 33. ~ .' .' 4831)' It I~ ordered 1\.'1 follows: T. 6 n .• n. 0 W.. \. , •.•

I. ~\lbJrl·t to vl\lhl C'lCl:;l\nlt rlr:ht.'I. t.ho lIc(,lI. 11\11.':1: • I \ :;~e.3.:-;V •• UW\\I··

'ollowlnl: drM~rlbcd pnbllc )nnd:l In J\ filIe I;e~. '.: .: . .. . • . 'k.n nro hereby wlt.hdrnwn 1\.'1 Indlcl\tcd, Brc.:;.r.~); . " I :~",,'.; '. ··:··r

nnd rc:;crvrd under Jurl1\dleUon of tho :;(e. n.::i%: I ',: .. .' '. •••• , : .•

CorN of Enr.lnren. DCI)n.rtl1lcn~ of ~ho • ::':00.11. NY •• SEloU • ' •. ' .,.. " • ~ . " . f 'h D dl Lnkc Hydroclcc Sec. 1:1: , f' Army. or.o rn cy • 5ec.13.::-'%: '.:.' t .•.•.•

\rIc VroJcct. IU oUthorized by tho FlOOd. Sec. 19, SW~~I • . • ~ ... ! Control Act ot 11)(;2 (16 stat. 1103) : Sec. :0, Scv..: . • ., .•. ~ : ••. ,

'\, ,., I' (0) From CLlt forma of Il-pproprlntlon See. :11. S'h; . ,. ,'. ~ \dl ~h Seo.2:z.sr';~!I: .I.'::'j'"

I \., • under Lho publlo llUld lo.wa, Inc u ni a, See. :lG. s:::v..: .• .' :' ;\; .... / (._., !1'lnlng '''WI (TlI.1a 30 U.8.C., Ch. :n. bu' See,.:l7 nnd :If'!: •• ". • ..... , ,,~.,., . noITrOi_on\fclUlnrundarUl.m.lnoralle ..... ~, Sec.='.E'I,.6W',4: .~ ...

,".. '.. ~ ~."" ,a.wl: , . !I ~, :;,eel.:ll t.13:'.ll'Icl-l • -

.", .'

. , • \ ~. f See. :10. ,'IY). SEll..: • -• , , 01

\ . ; . S .. WAU JolUl:l1AW (PlI~ I • • Sec. aG, W~'J' t1IfIIItIIII" "r'! \ .' '.. _ ,'. I' T, 4 Z~II i.'":. .. 10 ''I.,

"I.

\

~ . 'l'. ~ s .. n. a w:. '. ': ,\:", ... ; ., " . I' See. :::..:;, :n'cn wut <>1 r;1l~()p Or.ok.

". ;, .. ~ 1': ,.' ...,.:c. -. I'J: I .~.,,\, ~',' ~ . /,;: .*. ¥, • Sec. 10. SW~f • . '1\. ~. ~e. !'o: WIl"; (: .: ...•. t:· . . .,' : T. ~ S .• R.. 1.0 W., . .'

.. · ... 1:. £e:c.::1.i\'V%: ,·.,,,·,,':'''J!4,.-. r

Sec".:!O :lnd U. : t·~~Y·: .... : l\~", Tho nrcns descrIbed aC;C;I'c::ato np,i)ro:d", . '. 'l'.GS",Jl.eI1\?-: ,/ .. ~.; :,;"":, ~!. m:-.tely lO,g~::c;'c5,

• Sec. ": SoW~. , . f,J '" • .. - I ' .• ', \ I. 2. Ti10 WIL,l(lr:,wal m:ldo by this order " ~~~:~:.EYI aD4mv'~1 :: ·f;}~·~'~ :1:", i:'.: docs not. :\ltcr tho nlipllc::.i>il1ty of t.ho SAC'" • to '::.' •. ,.... ,public l:md l;1ws f;ovcmln:; Lho u~c of tho ~ • u, ., of ,,, ." ." I I' .• J

.. ,.

.,' ..; .. : : i : ; '.', ' .,,' ; " ,~, . .'. '. '"

I'

Sec. n. swt,H' ',: JL,,,, ,:~ i.I • '" 1 ;mas unClc~ ,C:,&(;, lccnsc. or permU, 01" See. le, W'Ia &.Del 6l:141 . {:;":. "·f·.,"·1 ; covcrnln:; t.110 (llsposal of thclr mincr.ll !;c:e. 17~ \ .. , .: 'I~;; /. '." " 'or vc::cto.tlvo resources olhcl' thon under ~c:c·lJ. ~~~I • !' ,l.::.; . .',.~;.: :i:' : . tho mining Inws, o.s tho ,;\mo npply t.o wee •• 0,;:\ v... ., .. t ., '". "". : .. t.ho Jands descrIbed 1n 6ubparo.l;fg,PA .Eec, :.11. ::-'1/,. .'.'.; ',' I ,. .': •. ' ", l(a) ,

"'1." I'O\V .',', ··1' .. ·· ,', t.',,, • '., , ••• "'.... " • 0',. . }r R y R A I f'o:ca. 2:] t.o :l,.1no1. ; .! ~;,:t II. \. r ,/f,., .f }.A k t 'NOI:nt;:ON. I:'

',' I' '.,

: 'l'. 6 S., a.1) \'I.. '.~,' ~" ',' ',' ~. : Auldan' Sccrdtarv 01 th./nt,nor. .. ' , Sec.:I, S!;%: .. ' "1'"'' ,\' , " i,' I'·· ',' Muc:.H 15 1"00 .' .' t:!. II. -1.1. • I '10. " ,.I, .' I' II' • ' .1 ltOlec. ,,",,':" FIt • ," ':'t" .' . \ j • .,

CCti. G. 'I. nnd II ,., .,;' t' :. '. ,P.n. ~ IHOOGI l"ilod" Urot. Alt ' Utll ." ,~, tI~<.l.O.;lV,1 "*.",',', r.· ... 0 i' " ,', lItO IoAJ . :'

t;cc.l(,; '·.;'.l 'j' tIl '.J \ ....... , ...... ., .......... ' . ". , ,'.:' . -,' '.' !:ice 11 f:,\V'/ .' ' •. '/' i·· .... ' .' -.. T... .; i ". ,f .' • , ,l ,; • ~ . 1,', ~ .'.

E~. 1;), :.;~: I ~;..:~ .' o!. ", 1:;7 > ':. • , • r .. CC3 11. to· n Ind' . I ... : ,.' \I " ~ • q. ·f • .., 'f' • .b'.A t~ X" "n" "".'1/, I'''· ~., : , . ....... ,. II U w~.#'". t. '. I ! : I

:;\1<:. :0. NY, IU\4 SW~I : ,;. I ::':; , ," S~c. 21. NVJ: .; , ' .. I: .' '~;I ~t. ...

S:c.2:!.::-''' It.ndSWIL' ;) .1,., I', i " f' Af. .. ' , .• 1.. " ." . Sea. :1, 2~. And 2~: ; .. • .',. ~. l '. Sec, 2,.. ~~ It.nd 6W", ' '.1 :, , , [.ce. 2:;), ;:\\1',4;. • . • I . , &:c#:O.:-'-;:::~; " ,t •• ,

G~c. 3G. 1: VI' • •••••• '.

• I ~ '"

'; .. \. "

I ,;

:; I

. ! '.';' 'I.: ,. . '. • ~~ ~ ""; * ,"I',.

, ","',~ . . . "' ' ..

: ,

\ " T'l 5., n.l0 W.. ' •. ~ , :, f " . Sec. :1':;. ;UC.l ~rld Or ShHP Crnk:

S~c, 3:'. o.ll 'O\lU. of Kaohtmaa .)'1. ,. , i

. ,

6cc. ~G- :" . '., • . I ?:.1I5 .• n..IOW., ',"

' .. >I

" .... I , ~:U'ol ~ 4, Incl.: , ,i

• I" ...... e .• ' ... 'A: • Sea. 10 \.0 14, Inol.;

6co.1II.N'h6Z!41 Seo, :Ii. N~.

. The arenl dC$crtbc4 q~Clfat..t approXl-' f

m.t.t.eb' :aT,fIIT acrO&. ... : .. ;"~." :.; .. ", ..

• .oJ

I, I

"

'.'

". i •

:, . .' . . .

,I ' ... ;.

'.

"

, ,

. ____ .___ _":"'-, ___ ~~ __ \ ___ ~:_""~ ... -..J.~.~ ..... _' .... ,~ ...... * '."'~-~.-~'-'"~''' .-".~-.--" •.•• -._-- .~ .... _ •• , •• ",

, ,.

" j , .,

)953 3/15/66

, .

."

I

Potential (

R 11W

NOTE

Diversion

T5S

Dam ----. ........ T6S

R8W

Overlay to be used with U. S. Geological Survey 1: 2501000 scale maps.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTEF(IOR ALASKA POWER ADMINISTRATION

BRADLEY LAKE PROJECT POTENTIAL RESERVOIR

AND POWER FACILITIES

DECEMBER 1972

1 I

Report No. 1 7

Copper/Chitina River

Projects:

(52.) Million Dollar (53.) Cleave (Peninsula) (54.) Wood Canyon

Copper/Chitina River


November 27, 1972 Rev. 12-7-72

With a drainage area of 24,400 square miles, the Copper River

basin is about the size of West Virginia. There arero major

water developments at present in the basin.

An exceptionally favorable damsite exists at the head of

Wood Canyon six miles downstream from Chitina and 90 miles above

the mouth of the Copper River.

Initial interest in a power development at Wood Canyon was

a part of the worldwide search for potential alumina reduction

sites in the 1940's. More recent studies considered broader

regional power needs and established that the Wood Canyon Project

is an important possibility for long range power supplies in Alaska.

Two smaller projects, (Cleave and Million Dollar), lie down

stream from the Wood Canyon site. Both would depend on storage

and regulation provided by a Wood Canyon Project.

Long range plans for the Copper River basin could very well

include development of upstream storage on some tributaries; any such

development would enhance the multiple-purpose values of a Wood

Canyon Project.

The most recent studies of Wood Canyon Project are summarized

in two Department of the Interior reports from which most of the

data presented subsequently is drawn:

IIField Report--Rampart Project, Alaska, Market

for Power and Effect of Project on Natural

Resources," dated January 1965.

Rev. 12-7-72

"Alaska Natural Resources and the Rampart Project,"

report of the Secretary of Interior, dated June

1967.

The attached summary tabulation of Alaska hydroelectric

potentials presents comparative data on the power aspects of the

Wood Canyon, Cleave, and Million Dollar projects.


Wood Canyon Project. The following material is quoted from

Pages 28-29 of the June 1967 report:

"Wood Canyon Project

IIThis project would be located at the head of the Copper River Canyon about 180 miles east of Anchorage. It would be centrally located with respect to the Railbelt Area and the deep water ports of Valdez and Cordova. It would create a reservoir with a magnificent recreation potential in a highly scenic area, which is readily accessible by highway from Anchorage, Fairbanks, and the A1askaCanada Highway.

lilt would involve a major commercial salmon problem, and other fish and wildlife problems. The latter have been only briefly reviewed and would~quire further consideration as part of any planning directed toward authorization of the project; they are not of such magnitude as to significantly affect the overall project justification.

"Various plans of development have been advanced by the Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, and the Harvey

2

Aluminum Company for this project. The plan presented in the Field Report would provide for essentially full development of the hydroelectric potential of the Copper River at the Wood Canyon site. Previous plans for lower dams at that site were reviewed in connection with the Field Report studies and found less desirable. However, subsequent studies indicate that this matter merits further review, as a lower dam might have lower unit power costs.

liThe project is not favorable to stage development, as a major feature is the proposed arch dam which would involve more than 60 percent of the total generation costs and would need to be constructed initially to its ultimate height.

liThe fishery mitigation aspect was recognized to be of such significance as to possibly control the project feasibility. Very preliminary studies subsequent to the Field Report indicate that the mitigation facilities required to maintain the existing anadromous fishery of the Copper River would involve capital costs of $74 to $90 million and annual operation and maintenance costs of $1.04 to 1.42 million.

liThe very real recreation benefits which would be assignable to the project likely would support a significant nonreimbursable allocation of project costs to recreation.

liThe estimated bus bar unit power costs of 2.9 to 3.8 mills per kilowatt-hour presented in Table 16 includes $90 million of construction costs and $1.42 million annually of operation and maintenance costs for fishery mitigation facilities, but they do not reflect the reduction in unit power costs whichwuuld result from a nonreimbursable allocation of project costs to recreation. 1I

The plan discussed above is pr.emised on a maximum reservoir

elevation of 1400 feet. The reference to studies of a lower dam

related to an alternative plan with a maximum reservoir elevation

of 1000 feet.

Figure 1 identifies the project features and outlines reser

voir areas under the two plans. Comparative data are presented

below:

3

Maximum Water Surface, Elevation 1,000 1,400

Dam Type Concrete Arch Twin Arch Dam

Reservoir

Active Volume, Acre Feet 14,800,000 21,000,000

Total Volume, Acre Feet 17,300,000 83,100,000

Length, Copper River, Miles 52 78

Chitina River, Miles 56 83

Surface Area, Square Miles 108 534

Percent Regulation 90 100

Powerp1ant Toe of Dam Toe of dam on each side river

Continuous Capacity 1,244,000 KW 2,500,000 KW

Installed Capacity 1,800,000 KW 3,600,000 KW

Annual Firm Energy 10.3 Billion KWH 21.9 Billion KWH

Above the Wood Canyon site, the Copper and Chitina Rivers

pass through a broad and relatively level p1ain--the Copper River

Lowland. The rivers are deeply trenched below the main valley

floot'.

Under the 110w" Wood Canyon plan, the reservoir would be

narrowly confined within the immediate Copper and Chitina valleys.

It would inundate the town of Chitina, part of Copper Center, and

portions of the Edgerton Highway, including the Copper River

Bridge. The "high" plan would involve additional relocations.

4

i I ~

The 1965 Field Report included the following points concern

ing impact on wildlife:

1. Range for moose and bison would be lo~ as well as habitat

for fur animals and small game. 2. Upper sections of the river

bottoms in the impoundment are considered fair quality moose

range and capable of supporting approximately 500 animals. 3. An

introduced bison herd numbering about 175 animals is using the full

carrying capacity of the Copper and upper Chitina River bottoms.

Cleave and Million Dollar Projects. These projects would develop the

power potential of the Copper River below the Wood Canyon damsite.

They would depend on regulation provided by Wood Canyon Reservoir.

Project features and the reservoir areas for the two projects

are indicated on Figures 1 and 2. Comparative data are presented

below:

Maximum Water Surface Elevation

Dam Type

Crest length of Dam, Feet

Reservoir:

Surface Area, Square Miles

Volume, Acre Feet

Powerplant

Continuous Capacity

Installed Capacity

Annual Firm Energy

5

Cleave Project

420

Earth-fill

5,500

32

2,000,000

Million Dollar Project

200

Earth-fill

7,400

48

1 ,400,000

410,000 KW 220,000 KW

820,000 KW 440,000 KW

3.6 Billion KWH 1.9 Billion KWH

The damsites for these two potentials are not particularly

favorable due to length and foundation materials. Potential

impact on other resources has not been evaluated.


Wood Canyon damsite and the reservoir lands below elevation

1000 feet are covered by two essentially identical Federal Power

Commission powersite withdrawals. Withdrawn lands total about

165.000 acres. The first withdrawal (PP 2138 dated July 20,

1953) responded to a project proposal by Harvey Aluminum Company.

The second (PP 2215 dated August 13, 1956) related to a proposal

by the Central Alaska Power Pool.

Additionally, the Wood Canyon and Cleave damsites were with

drawn by the Department of Interior as parts of Powersite Classi

fication 403 dated March 29, 1950. The land withdrawal for each

site is described as "all lands within one quarter mile of the

Copper River for a distance of one half mile upstream and one

half mile downstreamU from the damsite.

Existing studies establish that the Wood Canyon Project is

one of the four or five most important hydroelectric potentials

of Alaska. The studies include preliminary evaluation of engineer

ing feasibility, affect on other resources, and probable costs

including facilities required to maintain the Copper River anadro

mous fishery.

The very large power potential (approximately two thirds the

potential of the Rampart Project), favorable location with respect

6

to potential power markets, and comparatively low unit cost suggest

the project has major statewide and national significance and

merits consideration in any long range plans for the Copper River

basin.

Alternative scales of development would provide annual firm

energy of from 10.3 to 21.9 billion kilowatt hours. Value of the

power would be $70 to $100 million per year for the lower plan,

and $150 to $200 million per year for the higher plan, assuming

average energy costs of 7 to 10 mills per kilowatt hour. The

recreational and other potential benefits which would likely

result from more detailed, multiple-purpose studies have not been

evaluated.

The two downstream sites--Cleave and Million Dollar which

would depend on storage and regulation provided at Wood Canyon-

are identified as being among the more favorable hydro power

potentials in Alaska, with the Cleave site being relatively more

attractive on the basis of engineering and unit power cost.


Project operation studies to date have related mainly to

establishment of the power potential. With power operation,

inflows to Wood Canyon reservoir would be stored and released as

required to meet power demands. Annual drawdown is estimated at

75 feet. As with most Alaska reservoirs, minimum water surface

would be anticipated at the end of winter with a relatively rapid

increase in storage due to spring runoff, tapering off for the

7

Kev. IC.-I-It.

remainder of the summer with maximum water surface in the autumn.

Such an operation would provide a relatively stable, nearly full

reservoir during the high use summer months.

Development of upstream storage in the Copper basin would

reduce fluctuat,ion 1n the Wood Canyon reservoir and wouif.d enhance

values of the reservoir for all uses.

The regulation provided by the Wood Canyon reservoir would

permit operation of the Cleave and Million Dollar reservoirs with

relatively minor fluctuations.


Specific transmission alignment studies have not been made.

The Wood Canyo~ Cleave and Million Dollar sites are favorably

located with respect to the major potential load centers and pop

ulation concentrations in the Railbelt Area. Transmission lines

to those load centers would likely follow the Copper River and

Edgerton Highways to Glennallen and then follow the Glenn and

Richardson Highways to Anchorage and Fairbanks, respectively.

6. Access

Access to the Wood Canyon, Cleave and Million Dollar sites

for construction would probably be from Cordova up the Copper

River along the old railroad alignment. The Alaska

Department of Highways plans for the Copper River Highway would

provide access to within forty miles of the~od Canyon damsite.

8

I\O;:;Y. It:.-I-Il.

An alternative route to the Wood Canyon site using the Richardson

and Edgerton Highways would involve longer haul distances from

tidewater at Valdez.

9

I

\ i \

ALASKA POWER SURVEY

Report of Hydroelectric Task Force

Technical Advisory Committee on

Resources and Electric Power Generation

May 1973

Appendix B

ALASKA POWER SURVEY REPORT OF HYDROELECTRIC TASK FORCE

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION • • . . • . . • • • . . . • • .

HYDROPOWER--DEVELOPED AND UNDER CONSTRUCTION .

POTENTIAL HYDROPOWER DEVELOPMENT ...,

Inventory . . • Cost Trends . . Key Resources • . Pumped Storage

. . . . . . . . . . . . 8,:J

. . . . .

. . . . . INVESTIGATION PROGRAMS

Upper Yukon • . • • . . . . • . Bradley Lake .•• . . . . . Rampa rt . • • • • . . • • • • • • • • • • . • • Upper Susitna • . . • . Alaska Water Assessment . . . • • • . • • • . .

LAND RELATIONSHIPS • . . . . •

8 8

15

18

19 21 23 23 24

21

Review of Powersite Withdrawal s • . . . • . 21 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. • . . . • • 26 Yukon-Taiya Project and Klondike Park. • .• • . . 29

SUMMARY •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . . . . 26

No.

1

2

3

4

5

Tables

Title

Hydroelectric developments, existing and under construction ...•...••.•.••

Summary of Alaska lower-priced hydroelectric potentials ••••••.••.•••.

Key hydroelectric resources of Alaska . . . . . . Existing land withdrawals for projects having significant local and regional values ••....

Land relationships - Key hydroelectric resources.

Figures

No. Ti tle

1 Hydroelectric projects, developed and under construc-t ion ... ~ . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2 Undeveloped hydroelectric resources of Alaska

3 Recent trends in construction and cost-of-living ; ndexes .••.. . • . . • . . • • . . . • . • .

4 Bureau of Reclamation cost indexes by component

5 Key hydroelectric resources of Alaska

6 Sample weekly generation curves for Anchorage area

7 Project Map - Yukon-Taiya Project ....•..•

3

7fb

12

25

28

7

9

10

13

17

20

Introduction

The data on hydroelectric resources in the 1969 Alaska Power Survey

is essentially current. Hydropower is now a significant source of

supply for utilities in the Anchorage area and several Southeast

Alaska cities. Completion of the first stage of the Snettisham

Project near Juneau will add 46,700 kilowatts, raising the State's

total installed hydro capacity to over 123,300 kilowatts.

The undeveloped hydro resources of Alaska are the largest in

the nation. Inventory results presented in the previous survey

remain appropriate as to identification of the more favorable sites,

including several projects of national significance. Recent trends

indicate sharply increased costs for development. However, this

should be viewed in context of rapidly changing costs for facilities

and fuels throughout the power industry.

Recent and pending investigation programs involve several of

the major sites, and the effects of the Alaska Native Claims Settle

ment Act on possible future developments.

Currently a cooperative State-Federal powersite review program

is analyzing the existing powersite withdrawals in Alaska. The

objective of the program is elimination of obsolete withdrawals,

modification of inadequate withdrawals, and retention of withdrawals

which adequately protect power values of the variously affected sites.

The pending Alaska Regional Water Assessment, under the aus

pices of the Water Resources Council, is expected to provide further

i

data on the relationship between hydroelectric potentials and

future multiple-use plans.

Hydroelectric Power--Developed and Under Construction

Table 1 presents a summary of the more significant hydroelectric

developments in the State. Figure 1 shows the location of these

projects.

The existing plants listed on Table 1 total 76.6 megawatts,

nameplate, and accounted for over 360 million kilowatt hours gen

eration in 1970. This represents 30 percent of the total generation

for Alaska utility systems for the year. 11

Two of the existing plants--Ek1utna and Cooper Lake--provide

45 megawatts of power to interconnected systems of the Anchorage

Cook Inlet area. Operation of Ek1utna shows increased use of the

project for system peaking and spinning reserve. The several small

existing Southeast Alaska plants total 21.6 megawatts of which 2.4

megawatts are presently inoperable.

The 1969 Alaska Power Survey lists data on several other

smaller existing hydros, most of which were fish processing plants

along the coast. The plants are of local significance, but have

essentially no bearing on future power system development.

The first phase of the Snettisham Project near Juneau is near

ing completion, with commercial power operation scheduled for

September 1973. Initial capacity is 46,700 kilowatts.

11 FPC statistics quoted in Edison Electric Institute Statistical Yearbook.

2

Table I. Hydroelectric Developments Existing and Under Construction February 1973. 11

Plant Name or FPC

Project No. Capacity Owner-

System location Kilowatts ship fI

Southeast Region:

Alaska Electric light & Power Do 3/ Do ~

A1as~ ~wer & Telephone Co. Pelican Utility Company Ketchikan Public Utilities

Do Metlakatla Indian Community City of Petersburg Sitka Public Utilities Alaska Power Administration 11

Subtotal Southeast (rounded)

Southcentra1 Region:

Chugach Electric Association


Subtotal Southcentral

Interior, Northwest and Southwest Region:

None

Tota1, Alaska (rounded)

Gold Creek Annex Creek Salmon Creek Salmon Creek 1051

420 1922 Purple lake 201 2230 Snettisham

2170

Ekl t.ttna

Juneau 1,600 Juneau 2,800 Juneau 2,800 Juneau 2,800 21 Skagway 338 Pelican 500 Ketchikan 4,200 Ketchikan 5,600 21 Metlakatla 3,000 Petersburg 2,000 Sitka 6,000 Spee1 River 46,700

(near Juneau)

Cooper landing

Ek1utna

78,300

15,000

30,000

45,000

123,300

Data from 1969 Alaska Power Survey, Table 16. Ownership designations: F=Federal; NF=Public, Nonfedera1; P=Private. Formerly owned by Juneau Hydro Electric. Under construction by U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. 46,700 kilowatts

represents first phase of construction toward ultimate capacity of 70,000 kw.

1,400 kw at Juneau and 1,400 kw at Ketchikan presently inoperable.

P P P P P P NF NF NF NF NF F

NF

F

HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS,

\ \

SUBREGIONS

\ LEGEND

HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT

• DEVELOPED CONSTRUCTION PROJECT UNDER o HYDROELECTRIC

ND UNDER DEVELOPED A

LAKES 338 KW

CONSTRUCTION

The Ketchikan Public Utility's 2,lOO-kilowatt Beaver Falls

addition (Upper Silvis Lake powerplant) went on line in September

1968. Subsequently, a disastrous mud and rock slide, triggered by

heavy rains, swept away and buried the powerhouse superstructure,

terminating operation of this project November 28, 1969. Rehabilita

tion plans are not yet firmed up.

Potential Hydropower Development

Inventory

The 1969 Alaska Power Survey presented data on 76 potential

projects considered to be the more favorable hydroelectric potentials

in the State. This summary was premised upon a statewide inventory

of hydroelectric potentials incorporating results of project

studies by various entities. The inventory was essentially limited

to factors of engineering feasibility, cost, and power potential.

The inventory initially considered over 700 potential sites.

This number was reduced to a group of 245 projects through a screen

ing to eliminate the less desirable sites. Preliminary estimates

of water supply, power potential, and construction costs were prepared

for each of the 245 sites.

The list of 76 represents the more favorable projects from the

245. It appears on Table 2, with only minor modification in format,

from the inventory summary presented in the 1969 survey. The costs

as they appear on the table are premised upon an October 1965 price

base and are discussed SUbsequently. Locations are shown on Figure 2.

II.ITII ITATI • ...... TUft Dr TIl lIlT_I • .u-.. POIlU .... 1.1ITUTlCII J._ ... J' 1."

__ ... A.I..UI.l ~ .. ICD " __ IC POTDrlA1.l

2500 kW (_U_. _) ..... I .... ~

Table 2

II .. ~ Un&Ll.U'l" At,.. L!!!!. ,_ ,t.. 1 •• t.i 1.. CO •• tnet t .. _______________ ~~.~IC .. ~ .. ~T~A~ ____________ __ Dr.t.... • ... t.t.. Actl ... .

Pr·l·" , .. _fl... t.,. ... ,., ~l

1U.J0II ..... TUIU II .... ITI011 TO I'IIIIUPI.I.IIT

(D_ 11 c..lltCr.Cia ........ eM) .v.. V.I. ,1l ••• U" .• u" .. .

(",.ai.) (f ... ) (1000.,)

...... Ie Itattc ••••

U.ot)

A..-r ... . .. ~ (h.t)

Per Ca.t .... l.U ••

CHet .... -.. (1000 kV) 1M .. " Capacity Ce.t 111

(kll'll • 10') \1000 kV) (DooIl .... ii .... kVI ( ........ .

...... , II!!!)

I. 2. ) . I.

A ••• b •• bok U.tchuk) huek I. }I 1"-4 at. D_. lart" .ike

:~;~::~!. (Upp.r G.Il.,.n) ::!:: :: 1~ .... ::' E.rtb eik ••

Kobuk lb.r Kobuk I. 11 larth D_ ~k.~k (~.~.~~~.~I"~)~ ______ ~~~'~.~.~'~Ch~.n~.~.~I __________ ~~ul ____________________________ ~D~ .. ~_

12.700 ISO 7,~ 140.\1. 132 8,7SO 'SO l,2llO 1 ... 110 I" itOOO no 4,900 200-100 li6 7,'40 :se ',000 120.90 n4

_ ______ .. ______ ~. ___ _'_1~=__~"'3..,,-= ____ _'1"'9"'0.:;1"'.=4 ____ J:..7

7._ 5,000 ".S,rOO I.NO

100 13

100 100 100

U 17 70 60 l3

120 760 613 ~l6

If"

116 174 1"11 110 .6

800 1,000 1,200 1,5410 1,100

_l .... tt •• 1' ... 11' .. t. 4.unt •• if I ......... _ttl!'te1. at_ ....... U .. l-.tlw4" .e l .. aat .rtcH "ftrulHcric: ,..tal ...... atel , .. t._l~.

15. 26. 27. 21. 29. 30.

Crook .. Cr •• k JiIu,..kvk (}(lIyakuk .. Tikebtk L.lt. Uta ....

JI.,ak"lc I .. kvlcb.k •• T.-tal .. I .. l/,j1l<.. ••

-t.. t.. ... l ~ ' ••• t_elt larth D_

·~~~--~~a;----~~~~~~:~:~;~~------~~~;!r--·~3~!~:~~~O~-----------I~~~O-·---- I.O!~ .~9~I~GS~5----~1~'f:f~7r-----'I~,i~~--------------------------------__________________________ ~ ________ ~ 120·115 114 14,600 100 In 1,370 313 1,100

t.dat ... I.rth Oaa. tv_al ••••• tock I.n. D ... ~ •• , ... t.ck • 'ttI._l , .... toet

4l.5·3U 393 72< 96 26 224 51 1,500 Inaar.ol (Lackbv •• Lak.)

I l~t~:O I,;: ::~ I:..,S ... Il?"'''.,~'''''<i!':::.'''''~:*~,,,J.l~,~,:. 31. • ftO

5OUTHC!MntAL

51. Low. (kayltou C.ayoa ..... I. J l"-200 t 0.. 1 800 410 402 .. 201 ll4 1.400 H. HtllI •• Dollar c.pp.r •• 21 Eortb D_ 24,200 200 61 ./ 89 38,000 jJ* Claave (Plait'l •• l,) Coppu a. 2/ Daa 21,}OQ 420 6/ i/ lb's 28,000 .)4. woo4 C •• ,oa Copp.r l. II l--1SO' l.co1Ullh .. a.c.. Od. '.GCU' 'p111 •• , 20,600 1,400 2l.'Ooo .80:'0.5 950 26.100

9t 100

100

97

'3

100

20 113 II 24

32 47 29 220

410 2.~OO

179 1,-

160 210

1.390

3M '06 324 368

1,0.502 1,Il9

1,000

278 410 254

1,927 l,6oo

21,900

41 J60 37 ..

{l4,5 ( H) ( tI)

'0 1&4

(J86) ( - )

63 94 sa

440 120

3,600 l!!.1

'00 600

1.100 1.000

1,000

1,100 1,100

.00 1,300

1,000 _ III 1,100 1,400 1,300

300 J.!I

;~: ~ .. ~ • .c.~!~·~:..!.§·-ro-,t ... b-Y--------------~~hO'!=!~~:~;~~:-;.:c.:;:.-----------~~fIr---...,,=""';----;oi1'oc::·;::=nn:c.~i-, • .,. •• --:.c::e-. --~:_!!: .. ::'u:::.TIa!!:";:=:.::'::.;!:::;:krT" •• "'."."I.L-!P"'."'."'ot"."'.~. ----------'11 ~P'!I~.O,,---..,2;-,742~2;----g; ·2~~: i~~ 1 Z ~ ~~ __ m 8 ,~ 1: i~ ~: ~! ~ .501. SF •• l Dhillon. Sn..ttt.haa Sp •• 1 liver 2/ r ... tbilttJ D., t.nh Dike. tallftal, P ••• toc.k 1'4 325 330 325 .. 223 27) 31 In 63 aoo )a. T .... Cr •• k T .... Cr. lL 10.. a_, T .. _.1, P •• ecack 11.4 1,100 3) 1010 ... 9.. 1,0)4 110 7' • 70 16 1," 59. S" •• thaart F.lla Cr •• k S ••• th.art '.11. Cr. 1/ 1""200 1 JIoD.. D_, Tun •• l, i.anKle B.2 684 250 i .... "4) 612 ~.sO lQ(; i4 12) 29 aoe 60. H.'lb... Un_d 2/ lin. D •• t ... d, h...... 19.2 5SO --,,3~3:l-3 __ ~5~_~l;lil~ ___ ..;'~)~1c-___ ~}+10 .... __________ 9~a~ ____ -,17} __ ,_- 1~61 __ ";JI~!~--_.I!,.,;!OO9.~f---_~-------------------------------------------61. Scaner,. Cr •• k kenery Cr.. 1/21 1"*'400' !M.. Tlo1ft •• l, .Peftatoclt 21.l 957 60 691 .. "4 620 141 90 • Y J ~ 62. 7hoaa.. a.,. (C.IC •• e Cr •• k) Catcade Cr. 1'- 1".200' F.adbUtt,. T'*ft"el, ' .. nock 18.' 1,~14 12 14'9-1l.sG 1,442 160 88 19 16' Jt 600 6J. StikiDa Rival' St1k1.na a. 31 leu... 20,000 3)0 26.000 JSO ... IH 291 45,QOCl 90 1 ~ 130 9.900 2.260 900

:~: Coat Go.t Cr. II 1"-100' .... Dea, tun •• l. h •• teek 14 .. 0 ~:~:~ 41 1091 .. 1040 1,0'" 112 90 ~: .7 _11~L_--_I-'~i~-----------------------------~6'f:6!.. --f~:u~:~:'-. C""~'!!');k ____________ -f.~;!:::"~.o~Cf:!.: --------------_ttl----11'ii.;;-2mir.'----~E:;.;:::;---------1~~=_~:~:~:"':-:;:~:;:~:~:~~:~~~----------------------f,t~:~ +lo.J.I~I'f9------~~2:~---l-i.~l~~;~:+i!g~~~'--~i.~t~b1"+5-----.!.18~2ii-----------;:~~!--------+12;-····----:H - ~: I,ta: :~: Rv4,..rd U ...... d 31 Ie.. 'ho .. l. r ••• tock 1.9 ~:~~~ 61 t~~~:~~~: ~::~:~ ~: ~ 13 19 I. 69. Punchbowl Cn.k Puncbbowl Cr. 1/ II... D_, Tua.a..l ••••• tock U.6 6'so lOG 6$0 .. S96 622 126 99 7 64 U '00

;~: ~::. Crac. ::!e:·cr. ~ 1--2001 ;:::ibiUt1 ::, i:::L :::::::: :::~ :: ;~; ~::~ !~! ~:~ :: ;i ----!I.l\~9;.4------'io~4:....----l.,1! JlI 72. Swan L.k. (lov.r Sw.n La ... ) '.111 Cr. 1/ 1--400 1 , ... t.UiJ,. D_ ••••• todt 36.4 326 112 326 .. 240 27.S 336 91 a ., l' 1 .. 1 1). K .... outof i.ivar H.tksoutof It. II 1" .. 100' I.eo_ai .... ca 2 D ... , tv. ... l. 'ann.ck 2).' 600* 100 6OO .. ,S47 510 272 93 13 117 24 toO

1/ 1--200' hu hi ... l. 'nttock 1.4 ~~.. ., )74-)00 319 114 96 3.S 31 7 :: a. 75. 1 ••

lIOT!S.

0 •• 1' T.k.ta Cr •• k Gr'." Lak.

uan ... " T.k.ta Cr" Vo40,.d I.

1/ 1--200' ' ••• ibUttl' D •• 'hI.a..l t 'en.tock 10.6 lt040 82 102].. .. 3 "1 12' 87 11 .7 20 ~:100 II 1--100' P ..... a..tack 29 400 .. 400-290 3j) 2U 84 6 '2 11

Str ... flow r.cH'. at or na ... &itt:. Int_ted frO'll .cr •• now rKOr<l. for ttaU.r drain ••••• !ui .. t •• fro. buia ,racipttation r.cord.. and jud ... "t. 1 fI"l a1. _p. unl ••• at ....... ' .. not.ct. Sltlb .. .R.coltn.i ••• ftC •• 1'.4. ""'.r •• tion ",.1 ••• otb.nth. not.d. R ..... votr h.14 .... nthlly t .. U tor op.r.t10a. wltb up.n ... ,lenu .. hU .•• ted ..... r..oir yield. .fur .Uovinl 1.)00 ctt r.l •••• froe Hoot.llnque I ••• r,"ir" Op.r.t.d t. cnJvncUon with d.OVfl.tr .... ator ••••

'1 10/ TIl TI/ Iii 14/ TI/

• ... 4 •• 1,$'1, l •• d f.ct.r. 1 ••• 4 •• 69 .. 41, lo.d fect.r. I.du.et •• of 'lib .1Hl 'WildlU. alti,.tt..,n eo.ta, ~n1a •• otb.rvia. I»tael.

!~:!::~:n '!:b y:::n~i!~!!l:l:!t~=:i;:k::·:~~::· woltlld r.ehlc.. c.antinltlo-.. powa ... ~ downltr' •• Itt ... b, tha follovina aGOunt,1 (I) Woo<lc:hopp.r 380.000 .. Ii U) Itaap.rt 610,000 II:V (3) It-.bl' 90,000 kv (4) Holy Crou 120,000 kW (5) Unav.lltl.c.d I,IaOltln~. in 00..1' r •• t:h •• of ~he 'fltlkon JiveI'.

n.p.rta ... t of the lfttuior Al.llka l'I.~ur.l .e.oure •• a1\4 the RdIp.r~ injact R.por~ Jun. 1967. p ..... pl.ot and cUv.reion COlt. far pl •• revilio" •• Ko .... DoCV1Unt Mo .. 4H, 17th COnar .... 2d S •• don, COlt uti .. c.. ind ••• d ~o Oc,tobU 196~ prieae ,1"'6 .4cUUoltal

.... r .... Q. & .. _ , ... jee" LiPN'C. J""",", I,".

.... In. Uk. cr_a ..... Ject • .,..&. J .... r7 1961. __ fo- T ...... e ..... "'joo, --." b_, I ....

.... f .... ""ta Cl'wII .... ,M& • .,...... J .... r' .....

.... , .... 'hItLau C .... PnJM& ..,.,.t. J.IN ... ,. 1"'5

~~

SUBREGIONS

NOTE Numbe:r$ refer to pro;e.cts listed on "Summary 0' AI... Lower ?ric«! HydrolllctrlC Pot.nt .... ".

DIVISION 57

eo flY Hlrg. III

GOI\T64 SPUR ee

J:/''I~.E ~fNl RUOYERO ee ,",,''! .. ~ "

UNDEVELOPED HYDROELECTRIC RESOURCES OF ALASKA

7'~ ,t-

'"11 ...... c: ) ('l)

N

With minor modifications, this list appears in FPC's "Hydro

electric Power Resources of the United States, Developed and

Undeve10ped," January 1 t 1968. This shows 84 sites with potential

capacity of 32,511,100 kilowatts and annual energy of 172.5 billion

kilowatt hours. This energy amounts to 36.2 percent of the nation's

undeveloped water power. Elimination of the smaller sites with poten

tials of less than one billion kilowatt hours per year reduces this

list to 60 major U. S. sites. Of these 60 sites, 21 are in Alaska,

with a total annual energy potential of 123.5 billion kilowatt hours

representing 55 percent of the total.

Cost Trends

Throughout the nation costs of goods and services have increased

sharply in recent years. Figure 3 gives examples of this escalation

as measured by national construction cost indexes, and overall cost

of living index. Figure 4 shows trends in the Bureau of Reclamation

composite index, which is closely related to hydro development costs,

together with several key components of the composite.

Key Resources

There are many steps between a physical inventory and a deter

mination of projects that are desirable elements of long range

plans for Alaska. The basic mUlti-purpose studies that could provide

such answers remain to be done.

8

~ <U \J C ~

1.7

I.~

1.5

1.4

1.3

1.2 ,,~,... r'o;7 ......

. ;;' ~K.""-... _ ... ,.'

1.1

1.0 .-=:;.:~~ .. ' .... ... .~.

.. " .. ,. ..... . ...... -... -... • •. ~~:*

0.9 ~ /' _ ....... __________ ~ _ ___L __ ---'-__ ___'_ __ ....J

IC3GS 19CDGio 19GP7 19"8 \9"9 1970 1971 197Z

1967 = 1.00

---- Reclamation Bureau (Composite) 1/ -----Associated General Contractors f! -.- .... , .. Bureau of Public Roads (Composite Index) '#

-'-Engineering News-Record (Construction) ~ _ ... _. Cost of Living Index (U.S. Dept. of Labor) i/

1/ Based on a hypothetical project consisting of a concrete dam, earth dam, powerplant and transmission system, canals, laterals, and drains.

f! Based on wages and materials for 12 cities combined in a 40:60 ratio. Wages are prevailing rates for hod carriers and common labor. Materials are weighted: sand, gravel, and crushed stone, 1; cement, 1; lumber, 1; hollow tile, 1/2; structural and reinforcing steel, 1/2.

'# Based on common excavation, portland cement concrete pavement, bituminous concrete pavement, reinforcing steel, structural steel, and structural concrete.

4/ Based on 25 cwt structural steel shapes, base mill price; 6 bbl portland cement, 20-cities average, bulk; 1.088 Mfbm. 2 x 4, S4S lumber, 20-cities average; 200 hr common labor, 20-cities average.

i/ Based on consumer prices, unadjusted indexes, all items.

Recent Trends in Construction and Cost of Living Indexes

1.15

1.4· X 1.3 <ll

-0 1.2 C

1.\ ...... 1.0

O.~

1.5

1.4-

X 1.3 ~

-0 1.2-C

H 1.1

1.0

0.9

1.5

1.4

:x 1.3 (U

U I.Z

..s 1.1

1.0

0.9

1.5

/.4-

)( 1.3 <U

-0 1.2 C I.f ~

1.0

~-

E.crt~ y.---1.~~ ..

L ~- leone:.

~ .. -~ .. "" ~

~ r-- I

----- ..

:::.:: ~i I 19~5. Ig<iJ~ 19(;;7 IgGPS 19(1;9 1970 1971 1972

Dams, Earth and Concrete

/ R nsh:)c:J ~5/ ,...-,

r-' V" _

/-f/

~ V .., .. ..,

,..- Tunr .15 ~- -~ .. - ..

~t---- --- .".,.-- .;

----- -- --.. ~- f-------ISlGS 19GJG 19<P7 19"'8 19<;.9 1970 1971 /<972

Water-ways" Penstocks and Tunnels

+= ",

".'" -Gpneral Prop.,.. ". v-I !I ...... ~

~ Pow •• plants

~~

----~

19"15 19"~ 19G 7 19<#8 19"9 1970 1911 lCJ7Z

General Property and Powerplants

COMf >ol5i+. I"deA' ....... I J ,-

... ..,,---

...... ~ -;;;::-.... ~( ads

.. -~

~ ~i -~ ----0.9 '-------- -

19G6 19"<# 19(#7 19(;'8 19cP9 1970 197/ 1972,

Composite Index and Roads

U.S. Bureau of' Reclamation Cost Indexes by Components

The 76 projects listed on Table 2 represent a very wide range

of resources values. Several are known to rank among the most

important undeveloped hydroelectric resources of the nation. Others

have relatively small energy potential, and are essentially of local

significance only. Many are not economically justifiable under

current costs and evaluation criteria; many would likely have signi

ficant benefits for purposes other than power.

Environmental aspects have not been evaluated for most of the

projects. Indicated scope of environmental concerns ranges again

from "minor, 10ca1" through "major, nationwide ll importance.

Table 3 reflects those of the 76 "more favorable ll projects

which appear to have the greatest importance in long range plans, and

the greatest potential in terms of long range State and national

needs. This group of 15 projects represents 77 percent of the com

bined energy potential of the longer list of 76, and includes those

projects which appear to have greatest likelihood of near future

development on the basis of location, physical feasibility, costs,

and suitability in terms of anticipated power systems development.

Locations are indicated on Figure 5.

Recent and pending investigation on Rampart, Yukon-Taiya, Upper

Susitna, and Bradley Lake are summarized subsequently. The other

projects listed on Table 3 have not received detailed investigation,

but existing studies are sufficient to establish their relative

importance, as described below:

11

Table 3. Key hydroelectric resources of Alaska

Annual Firm Energy

Project Stream kwh X 106

Agashashok Noatak River 820

Holy Cross Yukon River 12,300

Ruby Yukon River 6,400

Rampart Yukon River 34,200

Porcupine Porcupine River 2,320

Woodchopper Yukon River 14,200

Yukon-Taiya Yukon River 21 ,300 3/

Crooked Creek Kuskokwim River 9,400

Cha kachamna Chakachatna River 1 ,600

Devil Canyon) 2/ Watana ):- Susitna River 7,000 Vee ) Denali )

Bradley Lake Jj Bradley River 368

Wood Canyon Copper River 21 ,900

l! Authorized Project.

2/ Four units of Upper Susitna Project.

3/ Development of Yukon-Taiya would diminish energy potential of downstream sites on the Yukon River.

12

SUBREGIONS

l\ NOTE

Numbers. refer to projects. IiitMId on '·SI.I'M'W'Y of Alaska Lowei' Prk:ed H~'ic Potentials"

KEY HYDROELECTRIC RESOURCES OF ALASKA

.,., -'.

Agashashok Project. Based on inventory grade studies, this

appears to be the most attractive hydropower potential of Northwest

Alaska. There are few alternatives.

Yukon Basin. Table 3 lists four projects on the main stem Yukon

River (Woodchopper, Rampart, Ruby, and Holy Cross) with a combined

energy potential of 67 billion kilowatt hours per year. Rampart

has received extensive study. Woodchopper appears to have consider

able importance for regulation of upper basin flows in addition to

its power potential. Similarly, the Porcupine Project appears to

have importance in terms of basin storage and regulation needs.

Depending on scale of development, the Yukon-Taiya Project

would reduce the energy potential of the main stem sites by an

estimated 3 to 17 percent.

Crooked Creek Project. Key storage and power potential for

the Kuskokwim basin is identified in several previous reports.

Chakachamna Project. Favorably situated, relatively attractive

costs, and of appropriate size for power service to the Railbelt

area. Environmental aspects appear quite favorable.

Devil Canyon, Watana, Vee, Denali. Four units of the Upper

Susitna Project. Centrally located with respect to Railbelt; suitable

for staged development; relatively attractive costs; environmental

aspects appear quite favorable.

Bradley lake Project. Authorized project and most attractive

hydro potential of the Kenai Peninsula. Recently completed studies

summarized subsequently.

14

Wood Canyon Project. Major project on the Copper River identified

in several previous studies as one of the four or five most important

hydroelectric potentials of Alaska.

Pumped Storage

There are no existing or planned pumped storage facilities

in Alaska. The physical potential is probably quite large. There

are essentially no existing studies.

It is unlikely that Alaska pumped storage will receive serious

consideration in the near future. This is due in part to the

limited size of power markets, availability of hydro potentials,

which could be suitable for peaking source, and lack of cheap

pumping energy which would be provided by a large base10ad power

supply.

A 1971 study by Alaska Power Administration evaluated the

need for low-load factor peaking power in the Anchorage-Cook Inlet

area. It found that a powerplant operating at about 13 percent

annual load factor would fit in the upper 10 to 15 percent of the

load. The study estimated that regional demands for such power

might reach 62 megawatts in 1980, 201 MW in 1990, and 284 MW by

the year 2000. This is probably a reasonable upper limit of

pumped storage that might be considered for the period. Utility

systems in other parts of the State would have correspondingly

smaller requirements for low-load factor power.

15

Figure 6 shows weekly generation curves for the Anchorage

Cook Inlet area during June and December 1970. The daily peaks

are quite broad, giving further indication that any pumped

storage would be limited to a very small portion of the load.

16

31A9NlI6P9

WEDNESDAY DAytJ OF THE WEEK

SampJ e Weekly Generation Curves fo'r Anchorage Area

p

Investigation Programs

Since compilation of the data for the 1969 Alaska Power Survey,

additional progress has been made on several important hydroelectric

investigations. These include work in connection with the Bradley

Lake, Upper Yukon and Rampart Projects, and a Congressional resolu

tion calling for further analysis of the Upper Susitna Project, as

summarized below.

The 1969 Survey noted investigations in progress concerning

the Power Creek and Terror Lake Projects. Largely due to high

costs, both projects are now considered inactive.

The Alaska Regional Assessment of water and related land

resources, scheduled for completion in 1975 as part of the Water

Resources Council's National Assessment program, will provide

additional insight into the role of hydroelectric power in long

range basin plans for Alaska.

18

Upper Yukon

An exchange of notes December 19, 1968 between the United

States and Canada provides for !Ian exchange of data and views in

respect to storage of waters of the upper Yukon watershed, and

diversion thereof in the region for the mutual benefit of Canada

and the United States. 11 An initial study of potential power

markets has been completed, and discussions initiated as to further

studies.

United States interest relates primarily to the Yukon-Taiya

Project, illustrated on Figure 6. Alternative development plans

would provide up to 25.3 billion kilowatts annual firm energy.

Plans involving a relatively small initial stage development also

look attractive. An alternative exists for a similar development

entirely within Canada, but costs would be significantly higher.

No estimates can be given as to likely timing for such a

development. Studies to date indicate the development potential

is of such magnitude as to merit serious consideration in long

range plans.

19

I I ------ -- + _.

BIG SALMON DAM SITE

'>4'

............. ..........

< .!

: :: ":;: :.: ";: .... :::"

. . .

... ::: ": : ..

..........

. .. . ... :.: .... ::::.:::::::.:

;: ~~: .... ~:. 62'

AI·

L-________ ~~~~~~~L-______ L-~~ ________ ~~~~,:~,,~,·:~:~·:~,:~~ __ ~~~,·:ic:::::~:~:~.~~~~,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

VICINITY MAP

DRAINAGE AVERAGE DAM SITE AREA ANN UAL

(Squar. Mil ... ) RUN-OFF Acre - FeelL

Aflln Lok. 2,~20 2,310,000 .J/

Milt. Canyon 7,500 6,200,000 Y

T.slt" Rty.r I 1,700 e,740,000 y

Hoota Iinqua 25,700 16,500,000 !J

Hi g Solmon 29, 700 1',100,000 !J

J/ Bat.d upon r,eordi 19~j '0 1ge!l, .,I,n La.,

!I Ba •• d IIpon r !teord, 196~, Yukon Riv.r

V BOI.d UPII~ ricordi 194910 1960, T'IIin Riv,r

'0 , 20 '" SCALE OF MILES

UNITED STAT[S

DEPARTMENT Of" THE INTERIOR

AL.ASI(A POWlR AOMINISTRATION

YUKON-TAIYA PROJECT

PROJECT MAP

Reviled March 1969 787-906-5

to c: ..., ro

F

Bradley Lake

The Bradley Lake hydroelectric power project was authorized

by Congress in 1962 as a baseload plant with a total installed

capacity of 64,000 KW. Subsequent to authorization, the introduc

tion of low cost, gas-fired thermal generation in the Kenai Peninsula

Anchorage market area proved the authorized Bradley Lake Project

no longer competitive with the alternatives available. As a

result, Congress authorized the Corps of Engineers to undertake an

engineering and economic reappraisal of the project to ascertain

its present competitiveness with alternate sources of power. This

decision to re-evaluate the project was based on the availability

of additional water as determined from water records obtained since

project authorization and on reconsideration of Bradley Lake as a

source of peaking power to augment baseload gas plants.

The project is located at Bradley Lake on the Kenai Peninsula

at the head of Kachemak Bay. The new project plan includes the

construction of a dam (concrete spillway in the right saddle; a small

earthfill dam in the left saddle; a lake tap intake with power tunnel,

underground powerhouse and surge tank and pressurized tailrace tunnel

(Swedish scheme); a diversion dam and ditch on the North Fork of

Bradley River; and a small dam and ditch on the Nuka River. Additional

diversion systems such as Battle Creek and a second Nuka River diver

sion have been analyzed as additional drainage areas. Alternative

plan studies have included a Swiss (shallow) underground powerhouse

system with a lake tap intake, long power tunnel and short tailrace

tunnel; and a conventional lake surface intake system with a power

21

-F

tunnel, surface conduit and a surface powerhouse at tidewater. A

rockfill dam has also been considered in lieu of the concrete gravity

structure. Surficial and seismic geologic investigations confirm

the practicability of considering underground installations.

Three separate magnitudes of installed capacity--187 MW, 280

MW and 375 MW--representing plant factors of about 25%, 18% and 12%,

respectively, have been investigated. These installed capacities

are obtained with 2-93.5 MW units, 3-93.5 MW units and 3-125 MW

units (equating to 4-93.5 MW units), respectively. Potential

markets for these magnitudes of installed peaking capacity would be

Kenai Peninsula, Kodiak, Anchorage and the Fairbanks - rail belt

areas, interconnected by a transmission grid system.

Economic and comparability tests prove Bradley Lake to be

competitive with alternate sources of thermal generation over a

lOa-year project life. Competitive marketability of Bradley power

over a 50-year amortization period is closely dependent on future

availability of natural gas in Alaska for electric power generation.

22

F

Rampart Canyon Project

Exterior studies of project feasibility and likely effects on

other resources and the environment were completed in 1972, with

the recommendation that development of Rampart not be undertaken

at this time.

The studies verify that Rampart is an extremely attractive

potential source of low cost power, and recognizes that the project

would involve very substantial environmental aspects.

Primary environmental concerns are the fish and wildlife

aspects. There is an active proposal to establish a wildlife and

waterfowl refuge involving most of the reservoir area.

Details are available in reports of the Corps of Engineers

and Department of Interior, and current study proposals under

terms of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.

Upper Susitna Project

Initial feasibility studies on the Devil Canyon Project, a

key unit of the Upper Susitna Project, were completed in 1961 with

favorable findings, but recommendations were deferred pending com

pletion of the Rampart investigation. Recent resolutions by the

U. S. Senate, Alaska State Legislature, and the Alaska Rural Elec

tric Association call for further investigations.

23

Alaska Water Assessment

Plans are essentially complete for the Alaska Regional Assess

ment of water and related land resources, a part of the Water

Resources Council's 1975 National Assessment Program. Projected

start;s July 1973; the study ;s to be completed in 1975.

Regional sponsor for the assessment is the Alaska Water Study

Committee, with representation from State and Federal agencies with

water resources responsibilities, chaired by Alaska Power Adminis

tration and co-chaired by the Alaska Department of Environmental

Conservation. A small interdisciplinary study team will perform

the study under guidance of the Committee and the Water Resources

Council.

The study is to cover all water and selected land aspects, and

should provide additional insight to multipurpose river basin aspects

of the identified water development and management potentials. The

water assessment will incorporate data on the power aspects from

the current Alaska Power Survey.

Land Relationships

Review of Powersite Withdrawals

A program is underway to review existing land withdrawals for

water power. Withdrawals for approximately two hundred projects

are involved. Some withdrawals are as much as 60 years old, and

many overlap. Objectives of the review are to eliminate withdrawals

no longer needed and assure that remaining withdrawals are appropriate

Table 4. Existing land withdrawals for projects having significant local and regional values.

Subregion, Project and Location

Northwest

Yukon

Tuksuk (Seward Peninsula)

Bruskasna (Nenana River) Healy {Nenana River}

Southwest

Newhalen {Newha1en River} Tazimina {Tazimina River} Kontrashibuna {Tan1ian River}

Southcentra 1

Silver Lake (near Valdez) Power Creek (near Cordova) Cleave (Copper River)

Southeast

Lake Dorothy (near Juneau) Speel River {Port Snettisham} Tease Creek (Port Snettisham) Sweetheart Falls Creek (Port

Snettisham) Scenery Creek (near Petersburg) Thomas Bay (near Petersburg) Punchbowl Creek (near Behm Canal) Davis River (near Hyder) Lake Grace (Revil1agigedo Is.) Swan Lake (Revillagigedo Is.}

Maksoutof River (Baranof Is.) Deer {Baranof Is.} Takatz (Baranof Is.) Green Lake (Baranof Is.)

Land Withdrawal 1/

PSC 403

PSC 450 PP 2227

PSR 485 PSC 463 PSR 485

PP 138 PP 160, 162, 2178, 2505, 2656 PSC 403

PP 755, 1038, PSC 238 PP 4, 264 PP 4, 264 PP 246, 586, 698, 753, 797,

2308, PSC 221 PSC 244 PP 275,2521, PSC 9,192 PP 547, 758, 769, PSC 192 PP 917 PP 758 PP 50, 60, 140, 547, 758,

2003, 1246 PSC 264 PSC 221 PSC 221 PSC 459

17 PSC = Department of Interior powersite classification PSR = Department of Interior powersite reserves

PP = Federal Power Commission power project

Note: Withdrawals also exist for Rampart, Chakachamna, Bradley Lake, Wood Canyon Projects, and the four units of the Upper Susitna Project, as indicated on Table 5.

for the resources involved. Several State and Federal agencies are

cooperating in the program.

It should be noted that of the key projects listed in Table 3,

there are existing withdrawals for Rampart, Chackachamna, Bradley

Lake, and Wood Canyon Projects, and the four units of the Upper

Susitna Project.

Table 4 lists several additional projects with withdrawn lands

which appear of sufficient importance to merit retention of the

withdrawa 1 s.

Review criteria are:

1. Recommend revocation of withdrawals for projects on which

there is no active development interest, and for which the power

resources appear insignificant in terms of State and national

interest.

2. Recommend retention of those existing withdrawals where

the power resource is of continuing State and national interest.

This includes appropriate modification and elimination of over

lapping withdrawals so that the reserved lands actually represent

lands required for development.

The review program is scheduled for completion in FY 1974,

and will likely result in eliminating withdrawals for all but about

thirty sites.

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act

The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of December 17, 1971

brings to focus land issues of utmost importance to the State and

26

p

and the Nation. Major provisions include transfer of 40 million

acres of land to native ownership, provision for the State to

proceed with its selection of nearly 104 million acres under

terms of the Alaska Statehood Act, plus withdrawal of 80 million

acres for study as potential additions to the National Park,

Refuge, Forest, and Wild and Scenic River systems. An additional

47 million acres are withdrawn for determination of public interest

under the Claims Act.

These are land transactions of unprecedented magnitude with

a tight time schedule specified in the Act.

The Act established a Joint Federal-Sta~e Land Use Planning

Commission with very broad statewide respons{bilities to facilitate

the various land selections, and the development of land use plans.

As indicated on Table 5, most of the key hydro potentials

involve lands designated for native selection and for study as

potential new National Parks, Forests, Refuges, or Wild and Scenic

Rivers under terms of the Act.

Information concerning the hydro resources potential has been

furnished to the Commission, its Resources Planning Team, and the

teams evaluating the potential new conservation system units.

27

Table 5. Land relationship - Key hydroelectric resources.

Project Involves Lands Designated For: 1/ Conservatlon PubTl c

Native State System Study Interest Powersites Project Selection Selection (d-2) (d-l) Withdrawn

Agashashok Yes No Yes No None

Holy Cross Yes Yes Yes Yes None

Ruby Yes No Yes No None

Rampart Yes No Yes No PSC 403, 455

Porcupine Yes No Yes No None

Woodchopper Yes No Yes No None

Yukon-Taiya No Yes No y No None

Crooked Creek Yes Yes No Yes None

Chakachamna Yes Yes Yes No PSC 395

Devil Canyon Yes No No No PSC 443

Watana Yes No No No PSC 443

Vee Yes No No Yes PSC 443

Denali Yes Yes No Yes PSC 443

Bradley Lake Yes Yes Yes No PSC 436

Wood Canyon Yes Yes Yes Yes PP 2138, 2215, PSC 403

Jj Refers to land status as of September 1972, reflecting withdrawal pur-suant to Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.

y Cooperative study underway with NPS, State, and other agencies to insure compatibility of Yukon-Taiya Project with the Proposed Klondike Park.

Yukon-Taiya Project and Klondike Park

Planning is underway for an international historical park com

memorating the Klondike gold rush. One element involves the

Chi1koot Trail from tidewater at Dyea near Skagway over Chi1koot

Pass to lake Bennet. Features of the Yukon-Taiya Project closely

parallel the trail.

Work to date on the park plans by State and Federal agencies

recognize the inherent compatibility of the project and the park.

Summary

Developed hydropower provides significant power supplies in

the Anchorage-Cook Inlet area, and for several Southeast Alaska

cities. Completion of the first stage of the Snettisham Project

in September 1973 will raise to 123,000 kilowatts the total of

installed hydro capacity serving utility systems.

Alaska's undeveloped hydro resources are the largest in the

nation. The listing of 76 more favorable sites from the 1969

Alaska Power Survey remains an appropriate measure of the potential.

Recent trends indicate current costs are likely 50 percent higher

than reported in the previous survey.

Most of the potential exists in a relatively few projects. A

select list of 15 represents 77 percent of the total energy potential

of the 76. The 15 include those projects which appear to have

greatest likelihood of near future development, plus those which

appear to have the greatest potential in terms of long range state

and national needs.

29

p

The 15 projects represent an annual energy potential of

around 130 billion kilowatt-hours. Economics are sufficiently

attractive to establish that hydropower is a realistic alternative

for long range Alaska power and energy needs.

Most of the important hydroelectric potentials involve lands

designated for native selection and study as potential new units

of the national conservation system under terms of the Alaska

Native Claims Settlement Act. Information concerning the hydro

resources has been furnished for consideration in the various land

use planning efforts being conducted under the Act.

The pending Alaska Regional Assessment of water and related

land resources should provide further definition of multipurpose

and river basin aspects of potential water development including

hydropower.

30

p

APA letter of

January 9 t 1973

to

Joint Federal-State Land Use

Planning Commission for Alaska

Appendix C

I

Copy Copy Copy Copy Copy Appendix C

United States Department of the Interi0r ALASKA POWER ADMINISTRATION

,...,. Iii I'!" J('I~R 1'0:

750

f"\IRMAIL

Hr. T. G. Bingham Executive Director

P O. BOX 50

JUNEAU. ALASKA 99801

JJnuary 9, 1973

Joint Federal-State Land Use Planning Commission for Alaska

733 W. Fourth Ave •• Suite 400 Anchorage. Alaska 99501

Dear Ted:

I appreciate your December 5, 1972 letteT inviting me to appear at the December meeting of the federal-State land Use Planning Commission for AlasKa and transmitting background materials on the Commission', programs and objectives.

I regret that I was unable to attend the Commission's meeting, but I wou hI 11 ke to take this opporturli ty to respond to the questions posed 1n the December 5 letter' from the viewpoint of the Alaska Power Administration's assignments 1n water. power, and related resource matters.

First I would like to compl1Ment you and the COfmtission on the stateMent of ·Objectives and IS5ues in land Use Planning for Alaska," \"hich I feel 15 a major step toward establishing perspective and a framework for planning.

Question 1. "What do you see as the major land problem in A1 aska1"

Any answer would be inadequate.

TIle Commission 1s fully aware that it faces tasks of unprecedented scope and complexity, that only a brief time is allotted for their work. that the new Hative Corp-orations face equally demanding tasks, that immense land and r~50urce values are involved. and so forth.

2

The situation calls for an almost frightfully complex set of long range decisions in 'l'Ihich man's 1 imited insight to future r.~eds will be tested 1n the fullest. In this context~ the greatest problems may be sorting out those decisions which should take the form of providing options for futur~ generations.

Question 2. lJl~hat do you conceive as the National, State~ Native" and individual interests in the following land uses: (a) resource development (particularly nonrenewable resources); Co) parks. forests, ',111dl1fe refuges, wild and scenic rivers, and similar uses; and (c) occupancy and settlement?"

I generally support the views on these items as set out in the statement of objectives and issues, except that I believe the extent of common interest is understatef.l.

For your "occupancy and settlement!> category, I suggest the statement could include the ca:ltOOn interest in environmentally sound patterns of occupancy and settlement. This involves the "~there" and "howlt of settlement patterns, and minimiz'fng private Jnd public costs in achieving a desired quality of life.

Obtaining maximum return fo~ investment in power. water, and sewer systems. and avoiding flood damages would be specific examples.

I am not in agreement with the distinction between the IINatural Resource Development lt ilnd uParks, forests, wildlife refuges, and wild and scenic rivers, etc." land use divisions as set out in the objectives and issues statement. To me this ignores a common interest in multiple-use management for the majority of the public lunds 1n both cat~gories.

Specific examples would be basic compatibility of mineral and t-/ater development on most lands managed by the Forest Service and existing oil development on the Kenai noose Range.

There are widely diverging views on these subjects .. but I do not f2el that "controlled development of renewable resources such as tilOOer" is an accurate reflection of the State, ~Iative, and

Federal interest in development aspects of the parks and forest category. Similarly, there is much broader multiple interest than resource extraction for the resource development category.

guestion 3. "ls there anything '.'iilich should be added to or Jelete<.l from the Corrmission's proposed program and methods?"

.....

3

Again I compliment the Commission and its staff for a concise and comprehensive statement. I have no 519n; ficant C0l1ll1ents on the proposed programs and methods beyond the above comments conc2rning multiple use as they may apply to the 17(d)(2) lands.

Specific examples might be the several major vlater development potentials which involve 17(d)(2) lands.

As you are aware. APA is attempting to sr~pe its programs to facilitate work unde~ay under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. This includes our particlpation on the Resources Planning Team. furnishing information on water power und related development potentials to the NPS~ FWS~ SORt and FS study teams~ and shaping studies for the FPC Alaska Power Survey and WRC Alaska Regional Assessment to provide data for the land use planning effort.

If the Commission wishes~ I would be happy to discuss some of the water development potentials at a future Commission meeting.

I appreciate the opportunity to comment. and please be assured that my office desires to assist the Connission in anYi'lay that is appropriate.

Cross References: Hydro Projects and Conservation System Study Areas

Agency and Conservation System Study Areas

National Park Service

Mt. McKinley Addition Katmai Addition Wrangell Mountain

Gates to the Arctic Arctic Valleys Ecological

Reserve

Cape Kruzenstern Kobuk Valley and Chukchi -

Imuruk Lake Clark Pass

Yukon-Charley National Riverway

Aniakchak Caldera Brabazon Hi 11 s Harding Ice Field--Kenai Fjords Other natural and historic areas

Forest Servi ce

Fortymile

Wrangell Mountains

Lake Clark

Kuskokwim

Potential Hydroelectric Project and Inventory No.

None identified (30.) Naknek Project (52.) Million Dollar (53.) Cleave (54.) Wood Canyon None identified (1.) Agashashok

(2.) Misheguk (3.) Nimiuktuk (1.) Agashashok (4.) Kobuk River (5.) Tuksuk (28.) Tazimina (29.) Ingersol (32.) Crescent Lake (33.) Chakachamna (1/) Kontrashibuna (20.) Rampart (22.) Woodchopper None identified None identified (50.) Bradley Lake None identified

(20.) Rampa rt (22.) Woodchopper (23.) Fortymile (52.) Million Dollar (53.) Cleave (54.) Wood Canyon (28.) Tazimina (29.) Ingersol (32.) Crescent Lake (33.) Chakachamna (1I) Kontrashibuna (25.) Crooked Creek

Cross References: Hydro Projects and Conservation System Study Areas (Contid)


Forest Service (Cont'd)

Porcupine

Yukon and Koyukuk 21 National Forest Additions

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife 41

Noatak

Kobuk Selawik Kuzitrin Yukon (excluding Tanana)

Innoko Koyukuk

Nowitna

Copper

Kvichak

Bureau of Outdoor Recreation Wild and Scenic River Studles in 02 Areas

Ivishak (180) 51 Killik (105) -Ambler Noatak (425)

Unalakleet (90) Alatna (145)


(20.) Rampart (21.) Porcupine Not determined 21 None identified-lV

(1.) Agashashok (2.) Misheguk (3.) Nimiuktuk (4.) Kobuk None identified (5.) Tuksuk (6.) Holy Cross (11) Kaltag (IT. ) Ruby (20.) Rampart (22.) Woodchopper (21.) Porcupi ne (6.) Holy Cross (8.) Hughes ( 9.) Kanuti (7.) Dulbi (11.) Ruby (l/) Kaltag (54.) Wood Canyon (52.) Million Dollar (53.) Cleave (27.) Lake Iliamna

None identified None identified (4.) Kobuk (below study reach) (1.) Agashashok (2.) Misheguk (3.) Nimiuktuk None identified (9.) Kanuti (below study reach)

Cross References: Hydro Projects and Conservation System Study Areas (Contid)



Bureau of Outdoor Recreation Wild and Scenic River Studies in D2 Areas (Cont'd)

Beaver (120) Birch (140) Char1 ey (88) Delta (30.) Fortymil e (400) Nowitna (200) Porcupine (40)

Sheenjek-Koness (272) Ii nayguk (44) Wind Yukon (Upper) (150)

A1agnak (64)

Copper (Iliamna) (21) Nuyakuk (36)

Togiak (48) Ani akchak (27) Bremner (64)

Chitina (150) Copper (100)

Gu1kana

Squirrel (72) Salmon (60) Andreafsky (240)

29 rivers (3,427 miles)

(20.) Rampart (20. ) Rampart (22.) Woodchopper None identified (23.) Fortymil e (11.) Ruby (20.) Rampart (21.) Porcupine None identified None identified None identified (20.) Rampart (22.) Woodchopper (30.) Kukak1ek (diversion above

study reach) (27.) Lake Iliamna (26.) Nuyakuk (diversion above

above study river) None identified None identified (54.) Million Dollar (below study

river) (54.) Wood Canyon (52.) Million Dollar (53.) Cleave (54.) Wood Canyon (54.) Wood Canyon (below study

ri ver) None identified None identified None identified

1/ Not included in inventory summary. ~ Present study area boundaries not available; area may involve

portions of Ruby or Kaltag reservoir areas and portions of the potential Koyukuk River projects.

3/ May have minor involvement with Bradley Lake Project. 31 Areas designated in BSFW letter to APA dated Dec. 5, 1972. lV Approximate length of river in miles.

arlisakenergyinventory.org/hyd/ssh-1973-0287.pdfarlis alaska resources library & lpformation...

Documents