A YCOpy - Alaska Energy Data Inventory

Transcription

RAI
023
CH2M
IIHILL
LI:.
~
engineers
planners,
economIsts
scientists
9 January 1979
K1l839.DO
A YCOpy
PFlOPEFlT
Alaska p
Y OF:
OWer A
A t.}34 W. 5f h uthority
nChorage, A' Ave.
laska
99501'
I}
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers
Alaska District
P. O. Box 7002
Anchorage, Alaska 99510
Attention:
Captain Robert Mohn
Gentlemen:
Attached are revisions to our report "Review of Southcentral Alaska
Hydropov.Jer Potenti a1 - Anchorage Area II .
As requested in your 1etter dated 24 November 1978, the fo 11 owi ng
additions or clarifications are made:
..
-
•
Ne did not use the term "transmissionareas!!. He did,
however, refer to "transmission access". This we rated as
good, moderate, or severe, depending on the distance and type
of terrain a road or transmission line would have to traverse
between the project site and the market area. This rating has
been incorporated into our uland use!! evaluation and had been
listed on the individual site sheets as an aid to arranging
the list of sites within the ranking group. (New information
on the national monuments has also been placed in the "l and
use" evaluations.)
•
Mr. Paul Lowe with the Alaska Center for the Environment reevaluated several of the proposed sites (see attached letters).
The term IItoo big" was based on two th"ings: whether the power
potential exceeded the needs of the immediate areas, and the
amount of given head at a site. In several instances, the
head had been misinterpreted (as at Strandline Lake) or was
incorrect (as at Deadman Creek). On the individual site
sheets we have indicated the updated evaluations with an
asterisk (*). This information, as well as that submitted by
the Trustees for Alaska, has been incorporated into the
"Reckoning of Evaluations"; these agencies' input had been
received too late to be fully incorporated into the preliminary report.
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers
Captain Robert Mohn
9 January 1979
K1l839. DO
Page Two
•
Evaluations from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service were
received and have been incorporated into the report.
We have appreciated this opportunity to work with you and look forward
to assisting you again in the near future.
s~ ~. {l;.J:~
Ronald J. Reiland
Project Manager
dea
enclosures
POTENTIAL ACCEPTABILITY OF SELECTED SITES
••
••
POTENTIAL ACCEPTABILITY OF SELECTED SITES
ANCHORAGE AREA
(Revised)
LIST OF RANK GROUPS
Rank
Group
1
2
Site
6 Strandline Lake
4
5
May affect native lands; access may
be difficult.
43 Tustumena
Proposed wilderness area; difficult
access.
41 Snow
Some fisheries conflict; proposed
wilderness area.
2 Chakachamna
3
Corrunents
Some fisheries problems; difficult
access; proposed Lake Clark National
Monument.
34 Hicks
Some fisheries conflict; lake size
questionable.
35 Caribou Creek
Some wildlife and fisheries conflict.
47 Nelchina River
Proposed wild and scenic river;
some fisheries and wildlife conflict.
11 Emerald
Difficult access; wildlife conflicts.
32 Coal Creek
Fisheries and wildlife conflicts;
on native selected lands; lake size
questionable.
33 Purinton Creek
On native selected land: fisheries
and wildlife conflicts; lake size
questionable.
44 Sheep Creek
Proposed wilderness area; wildlife
and fisheries conflicts.
45 Resurrection River
May be access problems; some
fisheries conflict; on boundary of
Harding Ice Fields National Monument.
31 King Mountain
On native selected lands; fish and
game conflicts; lake size questionable.
6
1 Crescent Lake
On proposed Lake Clark National
Monument; may affect native selected
land; fisheries conflict.
3 Beluga Lower·
Unacceptable sites from environmental
and land use aspects.
4 Coffee
5 Beluga Upper
7 Lake Creek Lower
9 Talachulitna River
10 Hayes
12 Yentna
13 Talachulitna
14 Skwentna
29 Palmer
30 Moose River
36 Kenai Lower
37 Moose Horn
38 Killey River
39 Stelters Ranch
40 Kenai Lake
42 Kasilof River
46 Tazlina
RECKONING OF EVALUATIONS
'i
Site #
1
•
'"
'"
Individual Evaluations
FG
NMF
ACE
F~7
LU
5
0
0
0
0
Lc. \cc..
c...~o.r-\::.. No-,,\II Mo "'LA...v-..e to
d..~~ \
c.. v-. \~
- ~;. c;,'"'e.r' e. c;
\o. .... ~s - ,?I"O~ose.~
-\.,\",\.... \0 '!:>~2
S-
5
5
~o ~e.C"o..~
\... Co
0. CLf!.
\c..c:. c..I..Co ("0
0
0
0
:;
\0
-
s- -i
S-4
se..\ec..~ \a.",~s
~o,..~ - so"", e...
\
'0.50
:
3
I.,
~o.."'\'
\:..
::l..';)
->
~
10
Nc..-\·,-.Je
-
:l.S-
C;-410
S-\o...~
0
c..o~\\2\
o...c...~e.ss
\0
" .Av ~ r-c..~~
\D
Result
Reckoning of Evaluations
TA
':r -t
.A"e.rCA~rc...:
-~o~
10"'\
\0
I.-
"V'\o.1.l . .
c...CLe<QS. -
5.~
:: "5. '6
~,s.\--.~,e.s
~~\\.c."t
0
.:,IJ..""o.cc:..-e..~\o\e.. -=-D
s-\.o--\.e. \o."'~ s
4
0
0
0
\0
\0
-
~OO~
c...c.ce.,,<> 5 -
0
\--.l c..~.. "
0
0
'0
c;-
\0
-
E!.
c:.e\ec..~.l
\0-- . . . . ~ ~
c:c..-<t...~-\-o.\o\e...: 0
~¢O ~ c..cc:..~sS
-
-
l"V'-o;C:lr-
~~\~c..,""
-\-~s\-...e.c-~€s
-'. u """ 0. C <.€ p -\-o-.l.o\~ : :.
No.-\-\ oJ e..
6
\0
\D
\D
S'
\0
-
\0.'" ~ <.:.
,,>e\ec~~
~;~'" Q.""~
' - l : \.\. \ .
~ '\I~o..
-
.rv-O~o.~
0..
0
0
cc.e ... s- ~\'I""\',~~\
Z\:
,
\0 ;\CH-\O-+':)+ 10
:. A ..,Je.r-c-..'le.::
- .l~-\-C'i.c..v..\"'"\- o...cc.ess - l.-.~o..""l
- ~or- ~ ... -::.~,ec., '-<Tv---{~',c:..\
(':)\o~ \o.,."...~
7
0
0
0
c:;
v..s~
0
~-\\'c:..\
,'. ""-",,c..
5
-( '\ ~ \--..e...r- ~ CL <::.
..tV'-~o r-
0
s-
~.c)
::~
rec..re.cx-.l..~a\
:. \)...",o.cc.e.~--\o.lo\E!. ::. 0
0
S--\-~ \Ov-r-~ - .l.~--\\. c.. u.\ '\ o..c:c:...ti!..~S- I,.....eav'l rec:...ec<-\.'~o..\
9
0
0
0
c;-
O
0
v..c:,~- ~or
--C\s \....e.c- ~es.
~--f\~c:..-t
0
: • '-\. ' " 0.
\.
s-\o..~ \0... ...... ~ - <:i~« c. \,A\\- o...C<:"~~S
10
0
0
0
S-'
S-
O
'\"" ".,.., e..
Yf'"'o"'.' - \ ';
c..c. ~ p-\ 0- 'to\e..
-- ............. ~\C)r
;:.. 0
~~~\-.e.r- __ es. a. ..... ~
c..-\-s
: . \.).. ' " 0-.
c..c...,
A-. 'o\e..
~Q
0
-
"'l
~
LV
o
o
LV
o
t\J
\.0
~
o
~
~
G
LV
~
o
N
\J\
~
~
Cl
hj
:#:
CD
cT
...,-
en
o
V\
'"
o
o
o
o
a
G
o
o
VI
V1
fr·
~
H,.
I1:j
~
I
r
~
~'
('I
f
~
ttl
P
)--
I
s:
"
~
p---
()-->
("
~
j
If,
~
Vi
~
I'
rJl
II'
rJ'I
~
:•
\II)
(1)
"
6 5
9l
Vl
vJ
vJ
vJ
JT
1:1;91
~~
.
3~
£,
J ~
V2. q
~
o
,
ifty
!}..1
9
:r:;1;
~ ~
r
fJ(J
~
0
(f>
o
-i"
r
"
..-
(0
~
p 0"
0-
,
~~ t
(b
,1
o~f'J ':/vi' 1 r
- ....-
),0
}o
:-
I'
{
I~("'''l!i
9~
~
~~
",... 'J
v;
0
~
fV~~
f
'UP
I/"
.r )
o C1 ~
) ~ r
E :.
~'~ ~
~
o
of;
Alp-" 9
II'
~
j, ~
(f>
p.-P---r
t<R.)
....-
; 3
?
?f
ir
'"
c>
~p
-~,
;P
~ ~"f ~,
n~"
'~9
t0.-,
~ "l 11loU;
fI'
~ V'~~
cJ. .,
P,
prrp
~ tJl-tJ:~
vi
<)
J)
.r-
V(
"
'th.
f'
I (
~ 3 ~ t~ ~ ~ r ~
c2P I ·'.
lc.2).
vJ
: {~
to ~
Vt
.. -rr
J', g
IS"I~;.~(\
If) fY' i
~
V/.r)
(b
~9
~
f,P {
P
IV
r~
" r If\
J
~ ~
..,
;q,
I
V'
,,~
(VII'
~f
~
1,'1
tYJl",
) L ;\
rv
If)
I
rr
,
0
a--
J. ~
....-
(J
~!
9
,/
~
I'
J'
I
(ll.r-
~ V"
J't
o
o
o
,,-
5~ ~
-f;-h~
~
o
I
/Cz.
OJ'~
~ f "
~
G
Vl
-rr
!?
.r. l..r_ ~S "'rro
)
~ ~ 'f.
~, f
o
"1
11~
~~ ~
~J_1> t
()
~f~
~-
V'
c(, J'~ t..
o
~
o
I
fI.-'
,
I'
",f
I ..
('>
p '"
0:
r
o
f) ",
~~
:f-,p..
JI
/'
~
~ ~ ~
I'
~
(I
.f
P
r
P
J ~' ~
.p
,
fJ
.0
j
0-
('
~ f9
vSI
o
r.,
.L,.
). 0-
I/'
~
;, to
i
V'-.t..
(.
)"
~
~
,."
.h
,. ~
,
o
j,
I
oJ'
}
if'
....-
0
I'
;:;
9
~
o
if'"
"f~
o
r,
(IJ
.,
-J..
l
p ~
r
r ~9
t~
£ ~ P
~
I'
~ ? ~
"
(~
,,-
),~
~P'
(I
,It
~
~r t
t~
"- (.
o
U1
~
~
')
I
•
,I
('
J
f' I"vJ
~
P
..--
&
/'
,
)~
f. '
,
~
, rf
9
)1
VI
('I
p
1~
~
p
o
~
(Y
fYt
9
)
~
If'
],
(D
f'
(Y
}
f:f
r,
"I
~,
o
d
o
,-
vJ
vJ
III
~
"1
';
t
V'
~
p...'J..
CD
0
!:t'
~
t-3
t>:I
n
>'
C
...,_
<:
0
(0
"
.Jl
,
,,-
P
)
Go
/(
!:t'
cT
.....
C
en
CD
~ ~
...,cT
~
c
.....
~
t>:I
(Q
"
.,
..,
I
t/I
t~
t-n
f1 ~ \Q::s
O:p o
- r
f
) " 8::s
(t I'
9
II
~
1~
If'
c,." ",
~
,..
v
o
\J\
t"i
en
.~
~,
::S ...
0
...,-
cT.
.....
~
<:'"
t>:I
- o
----t---t----r-------t---t--l-----+-------+----LJ;"*
o
o
o
o
o
-
o
J1
I I I o I o I I I I I~ I~~
V\
LV
N
V'.
Vl
W
LV
_.
Site #
FG
NMF
FW
.
.
LU
ACE
,
..
TA
5
S-
5
ID
D
0
\ 0.. \c-~
...c.\~\....~('" ~e .... \ O'i-S -
Result
r- e.c:..... 4Z.o..~\O~, v. c;.c. ~'• .Ie...... \ 0 c. D"\ \0..-.-
s~~ \o..",~ - ~o~ Q..ct.(2."S -
34
--\00
'i
S
,0
D
0
~\s\'" ~..,.. ~ ~c.. .......~
~c.c:.e.~s
0
0
,0
S-
O
,--,-c,e.. -
~o~
~,,~,
~oc- ~~\....
-~6.
0. ' "
0
0
\0
S"
D
*\. <o\.....
~
0
0
·0
\0
0
V
~ ~ C\. .......... IiL
~~\.~c-~
0.""'"
"'-CA.c..~ ~~b\e.. :::. 0
a. cc.e. 'C>!:. -
.e..c..r-~~~
. . .o:,
Moost:.
........ ~ ~o..
0
0
\'0
0
0
oN"--«...
""I"'o-D~o..~
~f"C\e -
~~' ___
0
0
\0
0
0
0. C.
f'A..o--\ 0
5
S-
\0
0
S-
CA.Cc...L5.s. -
0
0
\0
S-
S"
"""'0-.')or
~5\'"
:::
0
0
e.~~\e.. ~ 0
~or- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ es
c...-.-{- \. ~ c..'T
0
~c.e..
-
....,......,~r
-c-.. ~'- Q~~
~Q."""~
f!/"ot)~\~ S - proE>I)S~~
\.J\ '~e.c r-e..c;.s o.r 4to.....
4\~~e..r-'
e$
:::.0
~r-e..s.~ -~~ o..cc..e..£.!,- re..c...r ~~ ~ ,...'
S- ~ 'S""~
s~ \~~-~~ a. c.c.. e.. c:. ~
0
:::... 0
'-l.. ....... e...c.c:..~--\-o...\o\e
~.A....at.. ..... c::....~'L
42
r-
,
~c:u:-\-.. No..."\-\ 0 " .... \
t;
,
.-...""") 0
U
c..eo ...... -
:. v.",~c..c..e.p~~\e
41
-
f'I\.oO'i>e.. Qa. ..... ~e..- ~d. CAC.c:..E!.. So S - r-e..c::..~~~"'-Ooo..\ v....~ec-- ~ ~ ... \-cl..r- \ e .s. ,--,~\';.c..~
~~ \o..-~ -~~
Q
o..\. "'- 'i.e
t."-\ - p,..~t?0"o:.-«"'~ ....-', \~<otr--r-.e.~s
.'. \J...V"o..o-.c...c.
40
.......
0
~e"'o.:'
0
0
~ ~Q..........e. ~-G-\ ~ c.."-\-s
!,
39
4.~
4.~
o...c-c..-e..~~- "'~~\.... r~c....('«o..:"\';.O ....o.\
'. u.. '" o.c.t. 4iL~ 0..'0 \. e.
38
;
"-
0
S>"\-eo..;~.. \o..-.~- ~
0
e..c.. r e."",--4.. \ O .... Q, I... ...... se. - 50......-e.
A...J~ ""c...~e... ~
:. \.A
37
- r
=- .!\. ")..
10
"-~S--4-'''' 10
~"
0
~. ")..
o..~~c-~ ~
:.
36
a "",e.,..
<;.Jo';)"+t;'-\\o
s-\-.~ \Q.", ~c:, - ~o ~
5
~
1.0\)
.'. A-.Je.r"~€- ::
35
,
•
-
r
":
e...c..."~--l,....,\ e. '" 0.. \
~~\,,-T
S"
I" .. S-
10
"'- c;. e
'
5.0
:
5",0
~~ 0
...
0
:. I...l. ...... ~-\-a..\:.\.c:.. :'0
.
t
>
••
,.
~
Individual Evaluations
Site #
FG
NMF
FN
LU
ACE
~O:,
43
44
\0
5
\D
\0
5
o
o
5
o
o
45
o
o
R..~~e. -
f'l\oo c",e.
""'-0
~o.~\. \ o~~
~. u.."o-.~~c..~l.
S;e.-\v.>e....-e..('..
~-\
\o",~
c. .....
c,o ......... ~
46
o
o
o
o
~ ~-e"'..:.,
\o,~ ~"'".......-~ o..-E{c.c:.~6.
0-(-
\ ........ "c..c.~s
"""':,"'-01"'
-
~~~\~
-~~
Sc...CA'o'\.c..
r
~...,e ('"'
-
o..cc.e..ss -
("" .. "~r -
"'
to
10,7
,a ... \ 0
~(".I
So
-C, .... \-.. ~-(\.,c.;.5-1r'>~ s . . S;: ""5" ~
...
..A>oo.~l 1"\0"' ............... " " -
o-cc:.e'i.S
\0 ~
pr-c:>~OC;~6
c;
c:; + ,
+
\..ooool\
0
:.
S~u
p~\o\e ~
l? ~o,>e~ ~\\~
SO",,"~ ~, __"" 0"6. ~o. ......... Q..
\O~50
s"o
\~ Q,,,,~
~o r ~\.~ '" eA',e c:. c....c-r-.~\\. c...\
S\o...~ \o.. ...... ~- ooo~ o.c.c.e'O .... -
47
~ \0
rAoo~ ... R.c..",,\e.. - f>~OSe.~
:.\oJ.. .... o..c c..e.
o
\(.)
. . A..., ~ ... o...~ e.... =
\:\-,..~..'\ ..... ~ ::t:c..c.
~ -C'\.~~~'::>
~l""a.""""Q."\e. -\-v
\.""
:.A.JI2.~e..~
\'.J'\~e..,.",e..~~- ~~~-~ OI..c.~~~s
S-\o..~ \o..,,~ - .--.c:>c\.e..r-o.~
o
~Q..r - ~E. o..c.c..e..<; 50 - pro \"C 'S~ ck
<....J.\\~e~,...~ ...s - -Ce....J -C\S\.... o-~~c..~~
t¢o-.... ...... ~r"'1
\0
Result
TA
o
0
a .... ~ Sc.e"' . .
s- ... .,-.c:;--t\O
------::
c..
INDIVIDUAL SITE INFORMATION SHEETS
Site No.
1
------
Group Rank - 5 --Name
Crescent Lake
Stream
Tuxedni River
Power Potential (kW)
Transmission Access
41,000
Severe
U.S.G.S. Topographic Map (Scale 1:250,000)
Kenai (B-8)
COMMENTS:
EVALUATIONS:
CH2M HILL Utilizing Land Use Planning Commission Information:
Scale
o
Comments
Within Lake Clark National Monument; Crescent Lake
affects lowlands -- lowlands are village corporation selection (Crescent Lake and Tuxedni
River lowlands).
Alaska Department of Fish & Game:
Scale
5
Comments
Some fisheries habitat problems anticipated.
Crescent Lake is an important sockeye salmon
producing system.
National Marine Fisheries Services:
Scale
o
Comments
Effects on anadromous fisheries -- large red
salmon runs up Crescent River.
u.S. Fish & Wildlife Service:
Scale
o
Comments
Important sockeye salmon system.
Trustees for Alaska:
Scale
10
Comments
None.
Alaska Center for the Environment:
Scale
*0
Comments
*Distance -- undesirable due to distance from
markets, and length/cost of transmission facilities needed.
*Access -- maintenance roads, etc., would encourage
new and excessive (usually motorized) access to
remote areas, with attendant damage to wildlife
and nonmotorized recreation values.
*In Lake Clark National Monument.
Site No. - - -2 - - Group Rank - 2 --Name
Stream
Chakachamna
Chakachatna River, McArthur River
Transmission Access
366,000
Moderate
Tyonek
COMMENTS:
EVALUATIONS:
Scale
10
Comments
State land -- proposed road route.
Scale
5
Comments
Some fisheries problems anticipated. Both the
Chakachatna River and McArthur River support
anadromous fish runs.
Scale
5
Comments
Some mitigable loss of fish/wildlife habitat.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service:
Scale
5
Comments
None.
Scale
10
Comments
None.
Scale
5
*0
Comments
Distance ~- undesirable due to distance from
Less problem than with #1, but potential interference of lake and/or generating facilities with
proposed Lake Clark National Park.
*Too big given distance from market.
Lake Clark National Park.
In proposed
site No. - - -3 - - Group Rank - 6 --Name
Beluga Lower
stream
Beluga River
15,000
Transmission Access
Good
Tyonek
COMMENTS:
EVALUATIONS:
Scale
5
Comments
CIRI land selection -- proposed road route -existing power lines.
Scale
o
Comments
Major anadromous fisheries drainage; the Beluga
River supports five species of salmon.
Scale
o
Comments
Major anadromous fishery -- spawning/rearing
habitat; sport fishing area -- big game habitat.
Scale
o
Comments
None.
Scale
Comments
None.
Scale
10
Comment
Proximity ~- project is apparently desirable
because of closeness to markets for electricity or
existing corridors.
Reasonable Size -- size of project seems more in
keeping with our general views that smaller,
decentralized sources of energy are desirable.
Site No. - - -4 - - Group Rank - 6 --Name
Coffee
Stream
Beluga River
Transmission Access
37,000
Good
---------------
Tyonek
COMMENTS:
EVALUATIONS:
Scale
10
Comments
State land
power lines.
proposed road route -- existing
Scale
o
Comments
Scale
o
Comments
Major anadrornous fishery -- spawning/rearing
Scale
o
Comments
None.
Scale
Comments
None.
Scale
10
Comments
Proximity -- project is apparently desirable
existing corridors.
Site No.
5
------
Beluga Upper
Stream
Beluga River
48,000
Transmission Access
Good
Tyonek
COMMENTS:
EVALUATIONS:
.,
.
Scale
5
Comments
CIRI selected land -- proposed road route -access to existing power lines.
Scale
o
Comments
Scale
o
Comments
Major anadromous fishery -- spawning/rearing
Scale
o
Comments
None.
Scale
Comments
None.
Scale
10
Comments
existing corridors.
Site No. - - -6 - - Group Rank
_l_~ _ _
Name
Strandline Lake
Stream
Beluga River
-------------------
17,000
Transmission Access
Moderate
Tyonek
COMMENTS:
Development of Beluga Upper (5) would reduce by 12 x 10
3
kW.
EVALUATIONS:
Scale
5
Comments
Strandline Lake is state selected, Beluga Lake is
CIRI selected -- proposed railroad route -- has
access to existing power lines.
Scale
10
Comments
Minimal fish and wildlife concerns; no known
critical habitat involved.
Scale
10
Comrnents
Minimal known fish and wildlife resources; no
major impact foreseen.
Scale
10
Comments
None.
Scale
Comrnents
None.
Scale
Comments
5
*10
Distance -- undesirable due to distance from
Too Big -- sheer magnitude of project causes us to
question its desirability.
Access -- maintenance roads, etc., would encourage
*Minimal conflict.
Site No.
7
------
Group Rank -6- - - Name
Lake Creek Lower
Stream
Lake Creek
Transmission Access
22,000
Severe
Talkeetna
COMMENTS:
EVALUATIONS:
CH2M HILL utilizing Land Use Planning Commission Information:
Scale
5
Comments
State lands -- existing trail.
Scale
o
Comments
Lake Creek is a major anadromous and resident
fisheries stream.
It supports trophy class
rainbow and Arctic grayling and provides spawning
and rearing habitat for five species of Pacific
salmon.
Scale
o
Comments
Important anadromous fish drainage -- sport
fishing area~ big game habitat. Supports 5
species of salmon and several freshwater species.
Scale
o
Comments
None.
Scale
o
Comments
Heavy recreational use, fisheries conflict.
Scale
o
Comments
Fish -- project would or might impact "obvious"
fisheries resource (usually salmon).
Recreation -- Adverse impact on present or potential recreation uses (tourism, floating rivers,
rafting, canoing, kayaking, etc.).
Site. No. - - -9 - - Group Rank
6
-----
Name
Talachulitna River
Stream
Talachulitna River
Transmission Access
28,000
Severe
Tyonek
COMMENTS:
EVALUATIONS:
Scale
5
Comments
State lands -- proposed road and existing trail.
Scale
o
Comments
Drainage provides important wildlife habitat. The
Talachulitna River is a trophy fish stream for
rainbow and Arctic grayling and also, a major Cook
Inlet salmon producing stream.
Scale
o
Comments
Anadromous river with important sport fishery.
Scale
o
Comments
None.
Scale
o
Comments
Heavy recreational use; fisheries conflict.
Scale
o
Conunents
Recreation -- adverse impact on present or potential recreation uses (rafting, canoing, kayaking).
Site No.
10
Group Rank
6
Name
Hayes
Stream
Skwentna River
Transmission Access
89,000
Severe
Tyonek
--=---------
COMMENTS:
EVALUATIONS:
Scale
5
Comments
Scale
o
Comments
Important big game and anadromous fish habitat
involved.
Scale
o
Conunents
Major anadromous waterway -- game habitat losses.
U.S. Fish & wildlife Service:
Scale
o
Comments
None.
Scale
o
Conunents
Recreation use.
Scale
5
Comments
Site No. - -11
---Group Rank
4
-----
Name
Emerald
Stream
Skwentna River
37,000
Transmission Access
Severe
Tyonek
COMMENTS:
EVALUATIONS:
Scale
5
Comments
State lands
possible long access through
Skwentna River to proposed road and existing
trail.
Scale
5
Comments
Some wildlife conflicts anticipated.
Scale
5
Comments
Some loss of game habitat -- possible loss of fish
habitat.
Scale
5
Comments
None.
Scale
o
Comments
Recreational use.
Scale
*0
Comments
Site No.
12
Group Rank - - 6- - Name
Yentna
Stream
Yentna River
Transmission Access
145,000
Moderate
Tyonek
COMMENTS:
Assume operation with (13) and (14) as a system.
EVALUATIONS:
Scale
10
Comments
State lands -- accessible by trail and to proposed
road.
Scale
o
Comments
Critical anadromous fish and big game habitat
involved.
Scale
o
Comments
Anadromous river with critical big game habitat.
Scale
o
Comments
None.
Scale
o
Comments
Recreation use.
Scale
10
Comments
existing corridors.
Site No.
- -13
----
Talachulitna
Stream
Skwentna River
75,000
---'-------
Transmission Access
Severe
Tyonek
COMMENTS:
Assumes operation with (12) and (14) as a system.
EVALUATIONS:
Scale
5
Comments
Scale
o
Comments
Major migrational corridor for anadromous fish.
Important big and small game habitat area.
Scale
o
Comments
Major anadromous waterway.
u.S. Fish & wildlife Service:
Scale
o
Comments
None.
Scale
o
Comments
Heavy recreation use which will grow; fisheries
conflict.
Scale
o
Conunents
Recreation -- adverse impact on present or potential recreation uses (rafting, canoing, kayaking).
Site No.
14
------
Group Rank
6
-----
Name
Skwentna
Stream
Skwentna River
Transmission Access
98,OaO
Severe
Tyonek
COMMENTS:
Assumes operation with (12) and (13) as a system.
EVALUATIONS:
Scale
5
Comments
State lands -- by proposed road route and existing
trail.
Scale
o
Comments
Critical anadromous fisheries and wildlife habitat
involved.
Scale
o
Comments
Major anadromous waterway.
Scale
o
Comments
None.
Scale
o
Comments
Heavy recreation use.
Scale
o
Comments
Site No.
Group Rank
29
6
-----
Name
Palmer
------------
Stream
Matanuska River
16,000
Transmission Access
Good
Anchora.ge
COMMENTS:
EVALUATIONS:
Scale
10
Comments
State lands by Palmer -- existing roads and
railroad.
Scale
o
Comments
Significant anadromous and big game habitat
involved.
Nationa.l Marine Fisheries Services:
Scale
o
u.s.
Scale
o
Comments
Impact on anadromous fish and game habitat.
Fish & Wildlife:
Comments
None.
Scale
5
Corrnnents
None.
Scale
10
Comments
Proximity-- project is apparently desirable
because of- closeness to markets for electricity or
existing corridors.
Minimal wildlife, access impacts? However,
lifetime of facilities?
(sedimentation); other
factors being equal preference decreases with
distance from Palmer -- proximity.
Site No.
30
------
Group Rank
6
-----
Name
Moose River
Stream
Matanuska River
21,000
Transmission Access
Good
Anchorage
COMMENTS:
Alternative to Palmer (29).
EVALUATIONS:
Scale
10
Comments
State lands near Palmer -- existing roads and
railroad.
Scale
o
Comments
Significant anadromous and big game habitat
involved.
Scale
o
Comments
Scale
o
Comments
None.
Scale
o
Comments
Scenic drive, recreational use, commercial float
trips.
Scale
10
Comments
existing corridors.
factors being equal, preference decreases with
Site No.
31
King Mountain
Stream
Matanuska River
44,000
Transmission Access
Good
Anchorage
COMMENTS:
EVALUATIONS:
Scale
5
Cormnents
Partially selected by CIRI -- existing roads.
Scale
5
Comments
Some anadromous fisheries and big game habitat
would be lost.
Scale
o
Comments
Scale
o
Cormnents
Important anadromous fisheries and big gam habitat.
Scale
o
Comments
trips.
Scale
10
*5
Comments
existing corridors.
*Lake very big given location.
Moose habitat impacted?
Site No.
32
Group Rank - -4- - Name
Coal Creek
Stream
Matanuska River
64,000
Transmission Access
Good
Anchorage
COMMENTS:
Alternative to King Mountain (31).
EVALUATIONS:
Scale
5
Comments
Partially selected by CIRI -- existing roads.
Scale
5
Comments
Would effect several small anadromous fish streams
and some winter big game range upstream of the
impoundment.
Scale
5
Comments
Some loss of fish and wildlife habitat.
Scale
5
Comments
None.
Scale
o
Comments
trips.
scale
10
*0
Comments
existing corridors.
*Lake too big given location. Rapid sedimentation.
Long transmission lines necessary (desirability
decreases with distance from Palmer) .
Site No.
33
Purinton Creek
---------------------
Stream
Matanuska River
Transmission Access
67,OOa
--~~----------
Good
------------------
U.S.G.S. Topographic Map (Scale 1:250,OOO)
Anchorage
COMMENTS:
Alternative to Hicks (34).
EVALUATIONS:
Scale
5
Conunents
Selected by village corporation -- existing roads.
Scale
5
Conunents
Would effect several small anadromous fish streams
and some winter big game range upstream from the
impoundment.
Scale
5
Conunents
Some loss of fish a::,d wildlife habitat.
Scale
5
Conunents
None.
Scale
a
Conunents
Scenic drive, recreational use, conunercial float
trips.
•
Scale
10
*0
Comments
existing corridors.
*Lake too big given location.
Rapid sedimentation.
decreases with distance from Palmer) .
'.
Site No.
34
-----
Group Rank -3- - - Name
Hicks Site
Stream
Matanuska River
Power Potential (kW) 59,000
----Transmission Access
Good
.
Anchorage
COMMENTS:
EVALUATIONS:
Scale
10
Comments
State land
existing road -- may affect downstream native selections.
..
Scale
5
Comments
No major fisheries problems anticipated; some big
game habitat would be lost.
Scale
5
Comments
Scale
5
Comments
None.
Scale
o
Comments
trips.
scale
10
*0
Comments
existing corridors.
lifetime of facilities (sedimentation); other
*Lake too big given location.
Rapid sedimentation.
decreases with distance from Palmer).
Site No.
35
Group Rank
- -3- - - -
Name
Caribou Creek
Stream
Caribou Creek
19,000
Transmission Access --------------Good
Anchorage
COMMENTS:
EVALUATIONS:
Scale
10
Comments
State lands
access to existing road through
narrow valley.
Scale
5
Comments
No fisheries problems but some important big game
habitats involved.
scale
5
Comments
Some fish and wildlife habitat losses.
Scale
5
Comments
None.
Scale
o
Comments
Recreation use, hiking, skiing, access route.
scale
*0
Comments
Too big -- sheer magnitude of project causes us to
Recreation -- adverse impact on present or potential recreation uses (tourism, floating rivers,
etc. ) .
Loss of habitat for wildlife.
*TOO far from market.
Moose/caribou habitat?
Site No. - -36
---Group Rank
6
-----
Name
Kenai Lower
Stream
Kenai River
55,000
Transmission Access
Good
Kenai (B-3)
COMMENTS:
EVALUATIONS:
Scale
10
Comments
In Kenai Moose Range (Federal). Close to local
road and existing highway with power.
Scale
o
Comments
The Kenai River is the leading anadromous fisheries
stream in Cook Inlet.
Important big game habitat
involved.
Scale
o
Comments
Major anadromous fish drainage; important sport
fishery -- valuable game habitat.
Scale
o
Comments
None.
Scale
o
Comments
High recreation use, fisheries conflict.
Scale
5
Comments
etc. ) .
Site No.
Group Rank
37
6
-----
Name
Moose Horn
Stream
Kenai River
60,000
Transmission Access
Good
Kenai (C-2)
COMMENTS:
EVALUATIONS:
Scale
10
Comments
On state land. Close to local road and existing
highway with power, and landing area.
Scale
o
Comments
The Kenai River is the leading anadromous fisheries
stream in Cook Inlet.
Important big game habitat
involved.
Scale
o
Comments
Major anadromous fish drainage -- important sport
Scale
o
Comments
None.
Scale
o
Comments
Scale
5
Comments
etc. ) .
,""
Site No.
- -38
----
Group Rank
6
-----
Name
Killey River
Stream
Killey River
21,000
Transmission Access
Moderate
Kenai (B-2)
COMMENTS:
EVALUATIONS:
Scale
10
Comments
Kenai Moose Range.
Close to trail -- access possible though distant.
Scale
o
Comments
An important big game habitat area, particularly
for moose and bear. Some anadromous fisheries
habitat would be lost.
Scale
o
Comments
Important anadromous fish stream -- game habitat.
Scale
o
Comments
None.
Scale
o
Comments
Proposed wilderness area.
Scale
o
Comments
Si te No. - -39
---Group Rank
6
-----
Name
Stelters Ranch
Stream
Kenai River
84,000
Transmission Access
Good
-----
Kenai (B-1)
COMMENTS:
EVALUATIONS:
Scale
10
Comments
Kenai Moose Range. Very accessible -- next to
existing highway and power line.
Scale
o
Comments
Miles of critical anadromous fisheries habitat
upstream of the site. Some big game habitat
involved.
Scale
o
Comments
U.S. Fish & wildlife Service:
Scale
o
Comments
None.
Scale
o
Comments
Scale
o
Conunents
etc. ) .
.
Lake -- based on available information, dam would
create lake of excessive size, given local conditions (settlement, wildlife habitat, etc.) (?)
..,
Site No.
40
Group Rank
6
Name
Kenai Lake
Stream
Kenai River
115,000
Transmission Access
Good
U.S.G.S. Topographic Map (Scale 1:250,000}
Seward
COMMENTS:
Alternative to Stelters Ranch (39).
EVALUATIONS:
Scale
10
Comments
State land -- good access to existing highway with
power.
Scale
o
Comments
Would negatively impact anadromous fisheries
production on a major system.
Scale
o
Conunents
Scale
o
Conunents
None.
Scale
o
Comments
Scale
o
Comments
create lake of excessive size, given local conditions (settlement, wildlife habitat, etc.).
Site No.
41
------
Snow
-----'------
Stream
Snow River
63,000
Transmission Access
Good
--
COMMENTS:
EVALUATIONS:
Scale
10
Comments
Chugach Forest (Federal).
power -- existing.
Good access, good
Scale
5
Comments
No major fisheries or wildlife problems anticipated.
Scale
5
Comments
Scale
5
Comments
None.
Scale
5
Comments
May be part of trail system through Ptarmigan
Lake.
Scale
*0
Comments
Too Big -- sheer magnitude of project causes us to
Recreation -- adverse impact on present or potential recreation uses (tourism, floating river,
etc. ) •
Wildlife.
*Wildlife habitat. Extensive recreational use
(motorized and non-motorized). Proposed wilderness
area.
Distance from market.
Si te No.
42
------
Group Rank
Name
6
Kasilof River- - - - - - -
stream
Kasilof River
Transmission Access
40,000
Good
Kenai (B-4)
COMMENTS:
EVALUATIONS:
Scale
10
Comments
On state land (20% regional). Close to existing
and proposed highway and power line.
Scale
o
Comments
Major anadromous fisheries and big game problems
would occur.
Scale
o
Comments
Important anadromous fishery.
Scale
o
Comments
None.
Scale
5
Comments
Heavy recreation use.
scale
5
Conunents
etc. ) .
Site No.
43
------
Tustumena
Stream
Glacier Creek
21,000
Transmission Access
Moderate
Kenai (A-2)
COMMENTS:
EVALUATIONS:
Scale
10
Comments
Kenai Moose Range. Access difficult -- possible
to proposed highway.
Scale
10
Comments
No major fisheries or big game habitat involved.
Scale
10
Comments
No major impacts -- provided drainage to Kasilof
River is not affected.
Scale
10
Comments
None.
Scale
o
Comments
Scale
*0
Comments
*Access -- maintenance roads, etc. would encourage
*Moose habitat?
Site No.
44
Group Rank
Name
4
Sheep Creek
Stream
Sheep Creek
Transmission Access
20,000
--~~----------
Moderate
Seldovia
COMMENTS:
EVALUATIONS:
Scale
5
Comments
On line between D-l and Kenai Moose Range.
Accessible to proposed highway.
(presently quite
distant).
Scale
5
Comments
No fisheries problems. Some important goat and
sheep habitat would be lost.
Scale
5
Comments
Some fish and game habitat losses.
Scale
5
Comments
None.
Scale
o
Comments
Scale
*0
Comments
*Impact on habitat (Fox River flats transmission
lines) .
site No.
45
Group Rank
Name
5
-----
Resurrection River
stream
Resurrection River
18,000
Transmission Access
Good
U.S.G.S. Topographic Map (Scale 1:250,000) -Seward
--------COMMENTS:
EVALUATIONS:
Scale
o
Comments
Boundary of Harding Ice Fields National Monument.
proposed railroad and highway. Possible access to
existing road and power.
Scale
10
Comments
Little fisheries or wildlife problems anticipated.
Scale
5
Comments
Some fish habitat losses.
U.S. Fish & wildlife Services:
Scale
5
Comments
None.
Scale
o
Comments
Forest Service trail; access to Harding Ice Fields
National Park; Park Service headquarters.
On
Scale
*10
Comments
*Proximity ~- project is apparently desirable
existing corridors.
Site No.
Group Rank
46
6
-----
Name
Tazlina
Stream
TazlinaRiver
104,000
Transmission Access
Moderate
Gulkana
COMMENTS:
EVALUATIONS:
Scale
10
Comments
State land.
proposed.
Accessible by road -- existing and
Scale
o
Comments
Major anadromous fisheries system would be impacted.
Scale
o
Comments
Anadromous fish losses.
Scale
o
Comments
None.
Scale
o
Comments
Proposed wild and scenic river.
Scale
o
Comments
Distance -~ undesirable due to distance from
Recreation -- adverse impact on present or potential recreation uses (proposed wild and scenic
river).
Site No.
Group Rank
Name
47
------
3
-----
NelchinaRiver
Stream
Nelchina River
45,000
Transmission Access
Good
Gulkana
COMMENTS:
EVALUATIONS:
Scale
10
Comments
State land -- accessible to existing highway.
Scale
5
Comments
Some fisheries and big game habitat problem
anticipated.
Scale
5
Comments
Some fish and game habitat losses.
Scale
5
Comments
None.
Scale
o
Comments
Proposed wild and scenic river.
-
Scale
*0
Comments
*Recreation -- adverse impact on present or potential recreation uses (proposed wild and scenic
river).
CORRESPONDENCE
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
ALASKA DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 7002
ANCHORAGE. AL.ASKA 99510
REPLY
TO
ATTENTION OF:
NPAEN-CW
(
{-~.
'.
Mr. Ronald J. Rieland
CH"~ Hill
310 K Street, Suite 602
Dear Mr. Reiland:
Review of your reports entitled: "Review of Southcentral
Alaska Hydropower Potential" for Fairbanks area and Anchorage
area, has been accomplished on your Contract DACA85-78-C-0013,
Work Orders 5 and 4, respectively.
The following items need clarification or addition to the ,
reports:
a. Clarify the term "transmission areas" and define the
role it has in the evaluation.
b. Some of the smaller projects, such as Strandline Lake,
Caribou Creek, Deadman Creek, etc., have been termed "too big"
by the ~laska Center for the Environment. Recheck your
evaluation.
c. Incorporate Fish and Wildlife Service input into the
report. This information should be available in two weeks.
d. Incorporate the additional evaluation work being
accomplished by the Alaska Center for the Environment, based
upon information being collected by Mr. Paul Lowe.
NPAEN-CW
Hr. Ronald J. Rie1and
Contract completion will be extended to 16 January 1979 to
allow incorporation of above information.
Sincerely,
JAY K. SOPER
Chief, Engineering Division
2
Alaska Center for the Environment
1069 W. Sixth Ave.
Anchorage, AK, 99501
December 27, 1978
Ms. Nanette Hnrvill
CH2~~Rill
310 K Street
Dear Ms.
Harv1l~
In my October 25 letter to Corby Howell, I indicated that we
would be doing a more detailed evaluation of the 61 hydroelectric sites
proposed as possible alternatives to the Susitna Dam project. This evaluation is enclosed, and is supplemental to the preliminary version we
submitted two months ago.
We have also reviewed CH2M-Hill's summary of the preliminary evaluations, and wish to make a few comments:
1.) We share the concerns expressed by Mr. Petrie of the Alaska Department of Natural Resources in his October 20 letter, regarding the need
for more data before really meaningful evaluations are possible. Uhile
realizing that this is a "first cut" in this direction, we are particularly concerned that the proposals be examined in light of the intended
markets for the electricity generated at each one, and specific routing
of transmission lines. In s~e cases, the environmental impacts (on habitat, etc.) of the transmission lines may far exceed those of the dams
they would service ~., Sheep Creek site,C44).
2.) l~ile we have not done an extensive analysis of your summary, there
appear to be some inconsistencies. For instance:
a.) there seems to be excessive weight given to the "CH2M-Hill using
LUPC Information" evaluation in determining a site's final rating.
In several cases, scores of 10 in this area effectively offset "unacceptable" ratings for impacts on fish or wildlife habitat (~.,
sites Q 8, 53, 54, 56, 58). This is of special concern in light of
the fact that the Alaska Division of Lands was not able to participate
in the evaluation, producing a situation where "all state lands were
indicated as 'acceptable' .•• ~ Again, we realize the limitations you
had to work under, but this approach could lend itself to unrealistic,
if not inaccurate, evaluations of various sites. ADL's input seems
to be essential to this process
b.) our understanding is that jfhite within the Morton d-2 withdrawals
was put into your Group Rank 6. Teklanika (152) falls in this category ~orton McKinley Park addi tions), but is rated at 4.
.
3.) We would have preferred to see our evaluations, and those submitted
by Trustees for Alaska, used on a par with those from public agencies,
rather than as a secondary prioritizing mechanism. While the public agencies may bring greater specific credentials to bear on this, our organi-
2.
zations probably have a broader perspective. If our input is solicited,
it should be used on an equal basis ~th others'.
These comments are very definitely not directed at anyone personally,
or intended as flat criticism. loJe support this evaluation process, appreciate the opportunity to participate, and want to see it be as effective and comprehensive as possible. We strongly feel that this evaluation
process should produce a document as substantive in fact as in name.
Again, thank you for your assistance, and for the opportunity to
participate. We hope to be able to continue in this role.
S7!alY
Paul Lowe
Executive Director
Enclosures: Revised hydro site evaluations, with explanatory notes
cc: Brent Petrie
ADL/Planning & Research
"
" Classification
TO: CH2M-Hill
Corps of Engineers
Other Interested Parties
December 27, 1978
FROM: Alaska Center for the Environment
1069 W. Sixth Ave.
SUBJECT:
Revised evaluations of 61 proposed hydroelectric sites
NOTES:
1.) These are supplemental to our earlier evaluations, dated 10/25178.
2.) At that time, the onl~ata available to us was site location and
"h" (head?) figure, for each one. (There are apparent errors in some
"hit figures, such as 112S-Deadman.) Our judgements as to size of the
installations and/or lake involved were based on these data.
These revised evaluations were done using CA2M-Hill's summary of the
initial evaluations, 1:250,000 maps showing site location and lake areas,
and additional references. As a result, our initial findings have been
revised in some cases.
3.) We have not re-examined those sites in Rank Group 6 of CH2~Hill's
summary, on the assumption that those will be ruled out by reason of
other input. If this assumption is incorrect, we would appreciate notification.
4.) In light of the additional data available, we submit the attached
evaluations;
CH2M
IBHILL
engineers
planners
economists
scientists
9 January 1979
Kl1839. DO/EO
Mr. Paul Lowe
Alaska Center for the Environment
1069 W. Sixth Avenue
Dear Mr. Lowe:
Attached is a copy of the reV1Slons to the report "Review of Southcentra1
Alaska Hydropower Potential - Anchorage and Fairbanks Area", which we
submitted to the Corps of Engineers.
We have carefully considered the points in your letter of 27 December
1978 and would like to make the following clarifications:
•
In view of the lack of better information, CH2M HILL chose to
rate sites on state selected lands as good. We do not feel
that this has adversely affected this stage of the site
evaluations, since the current purpose is to eliminate the
obviously poor sites. With fewer sites remaining to be
considered, it will then be possible to do a more thorough
study from all viewpoints, including that of land use.
•
The sites in D-2 withdrawals were not automatically placed in
Group Rank 6. If a site was affected by 0-2, CH2M HILL rated
it as lunacceptab1e" in its land use evaluation. The fate of
0-2 lands is too uncertain to automatically eliminate a site
simply on that point.
•
We received the input from the Trustees of Alaska a~d the
Alaska Center for the Environment too late to include it in
the "Reckoning of Eva1uations" in the preliminary report.
However, these evaluations, as well as new data from other
sources, have been included in the revisions.
We hope this has answered any questions you have.
cooperation in this effort.
Thank you for your
Sincerely,
r
~'-~*' .L&Q
Nanette P. Harvill
Enclosure
hms
Anchorage Oifice
•
310 K Street. Suite 602 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 907/279-&491

A YCOpy - Alaska Energy Data Inventory

Transcription

Similar documents

Uchee Creek

DAYBROOK FISHERIES, INC.

The rest of the story… Small-scale gillnetter plays a big role

WSFR Art Contest Certification - Association of Fish and Wildlife

K-Bay WC`16 poster 8.5x11

Alaska ShoreZone

to see our conservation presentation outlining our Taimen

Darcy Dugan Alaska Ocean Observing System April 16, 2014

“GOUYAVE FISH FRY – BEST FISH IN GRENADA, MAYBE THE

To this: Davidsonville Wildlife Sanctuary Wetland Restoration Best