HomeMy WebLinkAboutThe National Hydropower Study Volume XXIV Alaska Region 1980HYD
057
THE NATIONAL HYDROPOWER STUDY
VOLUME XXIV
ALASKA REGION
ALASKA DISTRICT
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA
DECEMBER 1980
Susltna File Copy
File fl -----
·--fr' '7 7 ··..:. .... .; A ~
~;-2.13·
2 . 1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
3
3. 1
3.2
3.3
4
4. 1
4.2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ITH1
FOREWORD
REGIONAL OBJECTIVES
EXI ING CONDITIONS
Alaska Geographic/Hyarologic Subregions
Topography
Hydrologic Conditions
Economics of Area
Major Energy Users
Future Development
Population
Commercial and Industrial Development
EXISTING ENERGY
Transn1ission Systems
Description of Existing Energy Systems
Excluding Hydropower
Type of Energy and Magnitude
Future Potential
Impacts
Ownership
Role of Existing Hyaropower
DEMAND SUI•11v1/\f{ Y
Electrical Utility Demand -Present Conditions
Delineation of Regional Power Systems
Peak Demana
Energy Demands
Load ChardcteristlCS
Load Resource Analysis
Reserve Margins and Reyional System Reliability
Electric Utility Demand -Future Conaitions
Load Factor
Future of Electric Power Supply
Loaa Distribution Analysis
Generation Mix
Alaska Regional Summary
Specific Role of Hyaropower
Total Electrical Energy and Capacity
Future Conditions
PAGE
i
3
3
7
8
10
11
12
14
14
17
26
31
31
40
CHAPTER
5
~j. l
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
6
6. l
6.2
7
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont)
I rEM
UESCRIPTION OF METHODOLOGY FOR EVALUATl
POTENTIAL HYDROPOWER
OF
General ~9
Initial Inventot~.Y ana F1rst reening
Stage 2 Second Screening
Stage 3 fhira Screening
Stage 3 Fourth Screeniny
Stage 4 ~egional Power Plan ~4
Interpretation of tne Demand Situation for ProJ~Ction: 54
in Each Subregion of Alaska
Major Factors Consiaerea in Selecting Projects for 5
each Demand Projection and their Ser1sitivity to the
/\nalysis
Public Involvement 7
INVENTORY
General Discussion of Stages 1, 2, and 3
Size of Inventory
Capacity ana Energy
Plant Factors
Primary Locations
Potential Development
Existing Projects
New Sites
Stage 4 Inventory
Projects Retained During Stage 4
Physical Characteristics
Existing Projects
UncJeve i oped Sites
Ecc~nomic ancl Financial CharJcteristics
General Environmental ana Social Conditions
EVA!.Uil.T ION
Regional Plan Development P!~oyran:
Pt'uJeCt Listing
ite ~1ap
Transmission
Power Requirements
APPENDIXl:S
A ProJect Data
B References
58
64
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
NATIONAL HYDROELECTRIC POWER RESOURCE STUDY
ALASKA REGION
FOREWORD
Within the last generation, hydroelectric investigations in
/,laska have identified many potential projects throughout the State. Except
·n Southeast Alaska, very little was known about the extent of the State•s
hydroelectric resources prior to Worlo War II. After the war, serious
·nterest appeared, motivated by a worldwide search for large low-cost
hydropower projects that could be used for the production of aluminum, and a
desire to proviae a viable economy in the then Territory of Alaska.
Key events included government and private studies on both the
Wood Canyon and Yukon -Taiya Projects and a comprehensive inventory of the
~;outheast A 1 ask a hydroelectric resources pub 1 i shed by the U.S. Forest
~)ervice and the Federal Power Commission in 1947. The purpose of that
1·eport was to bring together the best available data assembled on hydropower
.md provide a basic listing of potential energy generating sources for the
industrial growth of the Southeast region.
The Bureau of Reclamation first conducted a statewide fiela
~-econna i ssance study of A 1 ask an hydropower projects in 1948. At tent ion was
·=ocusea on the Susitna River basin potential and other hydropower projects.
·rhat reconnaissance initiated the study which lea to the authorization and
~inal development of the Eklutna Project. Other investigations were
1:ompleted in 1953 on several smaller projects in other parts of the State.
A separate series of regional water resource stuaies by the
:orps of Engineers investigated alternative strategies and led to the
investigation of the Rampart Project on the Yukon River. Reconnaissance
;tudies on the Rampart Project indicated an immense potential of low-cost
1yaropower. Further investigations by the Department of Interior and
Feasibility reports by the Corps of Engineers recommendea that the Rampart
'roject not be developed due to environmental effects, the lack of a power
narket, and an abundant supply of inexpensive natural gas. Interim
solutions were needed and alternative options included a number of smaller
project~. One of those options, Bradley Lake near Homer, was authorized for
:onstruction earlier by the 1962 Flood Control Act.
As part of the Department of Interior investigation, the Bureau
of Reclamation prepared a comprehensive inventory of the statewide
hydropower resource between 1962 and 1967. This extensive work essentially
proviaea a complete identification of potential sites in Alaska. That
inventory benefited from a great deal of information that was previously not
available in a comprehensive inventory. The Alaska Power Administration has
updated major portions of that inventory, screening the summary to 252 of
the most favorable potential hydroelectric sites in Alaska. The initial
inventory included data on physical potential, mapping; hyarology, cost
estimates and in a few cases field checks for engineering suitability. The
results were published in the 1969 ana 1976 Alaska Power Survey by the
Feaeral Power Commission.
In June 1978 the Alaska District, Corps of Engineers initiated
a detailed, site-specific assessment of the State's hydroelectric power
resources as part of the National Hydroelectric Power Study authorized under
Pub 1 ic Law 94-587. This study ha.s produced a current and comprehensive
estimate of the feasible hydropower potential exceeding l megawatt (MW} of
power at both existing dams and at undeveloped sites in Alaska. This effort
upgradea ana refined earlier estimates of the hydropower resource potential,
defining the amount, load distribution and feasibility of utilizing this
important energy resource. Similarly 1n 1978, the Alaska District initiated
studies to determine the potential for small (less than 5 MW} hydropower
projects throughout Alaska. Reports for the Southeast and Aleutian Islands
have been completed while the report for the Southwest is scheduled for
submittal in the near future. These reports aadress or wi 11 address
potential sites that would produce less than 1 MW of power.
During this study, 695 potential hyaropower sites were
evaluated. It was found that these sites could develop approximately 33.369
million kilowatts of power and 176,200 gigawatt-hours (w1th one GWh equal to
one million kilowatt hours) of energy. By the year 2000, the Alaska Power
Administration forecasts that the demana for electrical energy could
realistically be 4,000 MW ana 15,000 GWh. Therefore, it appears that there
is sufficient hydropower potential to satisfy the neeas of Alaskans well
into the future. Realistically though, the vast majority of the potential
sites are either isolatea from the population centers, located in existing
or potential national parks and preserves, or the cost of development or end
product would be prohibitive. Notwithstanding, 59 potential sites (10
existing plants ana 49 undeveloped sites) have been identified that, if
developed, would produce as much as 3,562 MW of power and 15,432 GWh of
energy. These developments could essentially produce all of the electrical
needs for the Southeast, Southcentral, and Yukon Subregions by the year 2000.
i i
Chapter 1
REGIONAL OBJECTIVES
T1e overall objectives of this study are to identify and assess the
potencial for development of the nation's hydroelectric power resources to
help neet the short ana long term energy aemands of the nation. The study's
evalu3tion considers the physical potential, economic costs, environmental,
social, ana institutional impacts, and the marketability.
The following objectives were established:
1. To analyze ana define the nation's need for hydroelectric power.
2. To assess the potential for increasing hyoroelectric power capacity
ana Energy.
~. To analyze the current institutional policy setting practices of
hydrcelectric power planning, development, marketing, and utilization.
t To determine the feasibility of increasing hyaroelectric generation
capacity by development of new sites, by the addition of generation
faci~itles to existing water resource projects ana by increasing the
efficiency and reliability of existing hydropower systems.
: •. To assess the general environmental and social economic impacts of
hydropower development.
li. To recon1rnena to Congress a nat iona1 hydroelectric power development
progt·am and any institutional and policy modification which would increase
the 1:ffectiveness of existing and future hyoroelectric power planning.
(onsidering all of the possibilities, Alaska has an estirnatea total
unae·teloped potential of 166,000 MW of power.l/ This accounts for 47
perc·~nt of the United States undeveloped hydropower energy resources.
Howeter, most of Alaska's potential hydropower is not economically feasible
to t~ansmit to the potential users. Alaska's electrical econon~ has become
heavily depenaent upon fossil fuel energy. Diminishing reserves of these
traditional primary energy sources have prompted a national energy policy
whic1 emphasizes both conservation ana the development of new sources of
primary energy providing a valuable increment in the electrical generating
capa:ity of Alaska. Potential for developing some new hydroelectric power
sources as well as an opportunity for retrofitting existing hydropower
projects exists. While some limitations on development are obvious and were
evaluated through rather cursory examination, other constraints were
1/ 11 National Hydroelectric Power Resources Study, Preliminary Inventory of
Hydropower Resources", Institute of Water Resources and Hydrau 1 ic
Engineering Center (July 1979).
extremely complex and required detallea engineering analyses. The National
Hyoropower Study investigateo these issues, assessing the realistic
potential contribution that hydroelectric power coula make in meeting the
nation's ana Alaska's growing electric energy demands.
Chapter 2
EXISTING CONDITIONS
2.1 ALASKA GEOGRAPHIC/HYDROLOGIC SUBREGIONS
Allska is divided into six geographical/hydrological subregions which
are ba;ed on the major drainage basins within the State. These subregions,
as aet~rmined by the Interagency Technical Committee for Alaska, are shown
on FigJre 2-l. These include the Southeast, Southcentral, Yukon, Southwest,
Northw:st, and Arctic Subregions
SoJtheast. This area of Alaska stretches nearly 600 miles along the
border of British Columbia. The terrain is typified by high mountains and
small drainage basins that lead directly to the ocean. Heavy precipitation
with high runoff rates contributes to the opportunity for numerous hydropower
developments throughout the entire area. Thirteen percent of the State 1 s
population is located within the area. The State capitol, Juneau, is
situated midway within the subregion. The prime industries are government,
forest products, fishing, and tourism. Because of the steep terrain,
glaciers, and many islands, there are no interconnecting highways or power
transrrission systems. Transportation is dependent upon air travel and the
Alaska State Ferry system. Historically, electric generation for the larger
communities has been furnished by local hydropower supplemented by diesel
generation or all diesel. Most of the smaller towns are fully dependent
upon ciesel generation.
Scuthcentral. This area of Alaska is cnaracterized by much lighter
runof1, colder Climatic conditions, and less steep topography than Southeast
Alaskc. These conditions result in hydropower sites located mainly on the
large river systems such as on the Copper River and Susitna River. This
area c1f the State contains approximately 57 percent of the population.
Major industries are associated with the oil development and processing
aroun(l Cook Inlet, fishing, seafood processing, government, and trades.
Most !1f the towns in the area are inter·connected with good highway and air
trans~~ortation systems. The major portion of the electric generation in the
Anchorage-Cook Inlet area is provided from natural gas. The area is
serviced by a power transmission system between Homer at the south end of
the Kl!nai Peninsula to Talkeetna, norU1 of l\nchorage. Service in the
Ancho1·age-Cook Inlet area is provided by five separate utilities. Electric
service to other isolated communities is provided by individual utilities,
prima1·ily from diesel generation.
HYDROLOGIC SUBREGIONS
1901 -ARCTIC
1902-NORTHWEST
1903-YUKON
1904-SOUTHWEST
1905-SOUTHCENTRAL
1906-SOUTHEAST
I
I~
'
.
' '
"""·
!"'!!" .. !!'"'T
0
•' . \ .
I
r
400
,r:IC
p ,. c
CANADA
NATIONAL HYDROPOWER STUDY
AlASKA REGION
RIVER BASINS
ALASKA DISTR'Ci, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
PREPARED BY -~ ... DATE _§~J:'.L !~_89 ..... .
..,_-~~~>'~·~?''WK:ii£'<~\,"E?,'1-V'r.c~o~,"£;,·-~~-,r~;z;::_-f'J'tllBI!lt:..,_~~_,;;.~;q~W~7'W dQI'm:¥~~~~~~:1;S-a.f;¥~:.~.~--· ·---"""'·~'?:_-;;,;1;~~~~=
Yul:on. The Yukon area is the largest of the six subregions with an area
of abolrt204,000 square miles--approximately 35 percent of the area of the
State. The Yukon River System and its tributaries have the only hydropower
potential in the area. Essentially no viable sites exist north of the
Alaska Range, including the north slope of the Alaska Range, due to the lack
of sto1·age sites. The area has only a few other sites that could be
physicilly developed in the entire Yukon basin. Most of the better sites on
the mainstream river systems have been excluded by recently enacted Alaska
Lands !_egislation. Roughly 20 percent of the State's population lives in
this a'"ea with Fairbanks as the main population center. The area's primary
economic components are the State and Federal governments, the military, the
petrol1~um industry, and the University of Alaska. Fairbanks experienced
rapid Jrowth during the construction of the Alaska pipeline and severe
economic decline after pipeline completion. Fairbanks is connected to the
Anchorlge area by a highway system and to the south 48 states through Canada
by the Alaska Highway. It is also served by several airlines and the Alaska
Railro3d which connects Fairbanks to seaports on Cook Inlet and the Gulf of
Alaska. Currently, Fairbanks is supplied by two electric utilities from
coal-fired generation and oil-fired gas turbine generation. Outlying
villag!s in this area are primarily dependent upon diesel engine generation
for th!ir electrical needs.
SoJthwest. The Southwest Subregion is about 109,000 square miles in
area. The area consists of major river drainage areas of the Kuskokwim,
Nushag3k, and Kvichiak Rivers, plus the western flank of the Alaska
PeninsJla, and the Aleutian Islands. Few good hydropower sites exist within
reason3ble transmission distances of the major population centers of Bethel,
Dillin~ham, and Naknek. Roughly 5 percent of the State's population lives in
this area. The majority of the economy is based on commercial fishing and
processing, with government and recreation being other important
industries. The streams support one of the world's most productive red
salmon fisheries. Recent exploration indicates potential for significant
oil deJosits in the Bristol Bay area; however, immediate development is
being jelayed for environmental reasons. Currently, main population centers
plus t11e numerous scattered villages are dependent upon diesel generation
for meeting electric energy needs.
Northwest. This area is si~ilar to the Yukon area with the hydropower
sites being limited to the mainstream systems. This area constitutes
roughly 3 percent of the population of the State. The major towns are Nome
and Kotzebue. Primary industries in the area include commercial fishing,
fur trapping, and gover·nment, with subsistence being the primary method of
livelihood in the outlying areas. Transportation to and within the area is
restricted to air travel on a year-round basis, while during the summers,
water travel is available. Electric power is furnished entirely by isolated
diesel generation systems.
Arctic. Hydropower ootential in this area of Alaska is severely
restricted due to the lack of heao, water supply, climate, and economical
dam ard reservoir sites. The area north 8f the Brooks Range constitutes
5
roughly 2 percent of the State's population. The area•s largest sir1gle
industry is the oil development at Prudhoe Bay. Other major industries
include oil and gas exploration, construction, and government services.
Subsistence living constitutes the remainder of the economic livelihood for
this area. Transportation is restricted to air travel on a year-round basis
a~d an occasional barge or ship during the late summer. Electric generation
for the Barrow and Prudhoe Bay oil development area consists primarily of
oil and gas fired turbines and diesel generators. The outlying villages
depend entirely on diesel generation.
6
2.2 TOPOGRAPHY
Alaska has a land area of 586,412 square miles, approximately one fifth
the size of the United States. Surrounaed on three sides by waters of the
Arc1 ic ana Pacific Oceans and the Bering Sea, Alaska has 46,000 miles of
coa~.tl ine. The topography of the State is extremely diversified, high-
lighted by two vast mountain systems; the Brooks Range to the north and the
Pac·fic Mountain System to the south.
The Brooks Range, lying about 100 to 200 miles inland from the Arctic
Coa:;t, is the northern extension of the Rocky Mountain System. From the
Canadian border the Brooks Range extends westward for 600 miles to the
Arc':ic Ocean. Many peaks in the eastern part of this range exceed 9,000
fee·: in altitude; in the west, peak altitudes decrease to an average of
3,000 feet.
The Pacific Mountain System is the continuation of the Coastal Mountain
Sys :em of the conterminous United States and Canada. This system consists
of :wo parallel arcs that generally follow the coastline from Southeast
Ala;ka to and including the Aleutian Islands. The northern arc includes the
bow1dary of the Alaska and Aleutian Ranges, and the Aleutian Islands. The
sou:hern arc includes many of the islands of Southeast Alaska as well as the
Fai·weather Range, the St. Elias Mountains, the Kenai-Chugach Mountains, and
Kodiak Island. Elevations in the Pacific Mountain System range from 1,000
to ~.ooo feet, in the Aleutian Range to more than 10,000 feet, and in the
Alaska and St. Elias Mountain Ranges to over 20,000 feet (Mount McKinley).
North of the Brooks Range lies the Arctic Coastal Plain which rises
grajually from the Arctic Ocean to a maximum elevation of 600 feet at its
southern margin. This vast tundra plain is virtually without relief except
for scattered groups of low hills east of the Colville River that range in
height from 20 to 230 feet.
The intermountain plateau lies between the Brooks Range and the Alaska
Range consisting of dissected uplands and broad, alluvium-filled basins.
The basin floor ranges in altitude from over 6,500 feet in the Yukon-Tanana
uplands in the east to generally less than 1,000 feet in the Yukon-Kuskokwim
ana Bristol Bay lowlands to the west.
The majority of the people in Alaska live in proximity to the sea coast
in the Southcentral and Southeast Region of the State where they enjoy a
macerate climate due to maritime influences. These same areas include
extensive qlaciers and ice fields at elevations of 2,000 to 3,000 feet above
sei level,-exhibiting all the characteristics of a very cold Alpine climate
ecc,system. The continuous permafrost that exists over roughly the northern
th'rd of the State and the discontinuous permafrost that extends over parts
of the Southwest and Southcentral Subregions present difficult water supply
problems.
7
2.3 HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS -----··--
The highly diverse geographical features of Alaska have a significant
impact on the climate of the State. A zone of maritime influence, which
extends throughout Southeastern ana Southcentral Alaska, along the Gulf
Coast, experiences a mild wet climate with annual precipitation reaching as
high as 200 inches with higher amounts in the glaciated mountain area of
this region. Away from this maritime coastal zone the climate changes
rapidly with decreasing amounts of precipitation ana greater extremes in
temperature. Average annual precipitation in the interior is 12 inches
decreasing to 6 inches or less along the Arctic Slope. However, con-
siderably more precipitation falls in the Interior mountainous area. About
two-thirds of Alaska receives less than 20 inches of precipitation annually.
Mean annual temperatures range from 43 degrees F along the maritime
coastal zone to 10 degrees F along the Arctic Slope. The interior of Alaska
experiences the greatest extremes in temperature. In this region mean
maximum summer temperatures range between 75 degrees and 80 degrees F, while
the mean minimum winter temperatures are in the range -20 to -30 degrees F
with extremes aown to -50 degrees F and colder.
Climatological differences in Alaska resulting from its unique geography
causes a wide variation in the hydrology of streams. Low lying areas
adjacent to the Gulf of Alaska have high unit runoffs and relatively little
seasonal variation. In the mountainous areas adjacent to the Gulf, runoff
is high and in the northern part of the State runoff rates are relatively
low. The Alaska region is divided into six hydrologic subregions based on
the major drainage basins in the Stat€ as determined by the Interagency
Technical Committee for Alaska (F1gure 2-1). These include the Arctic,
Northwest, Yukon, Southwest, Southcentral, and Southeast Subregions.
All major streams in Alaska originate within the State except for the
Yukon and ?orcupine Rivers (Upper Yukon Subregion) and the Alsek, Taku, and
Stikine (Southeast Subregion) who~e heaawaters are in Canada. All of the
streams in the Alaskan Region flow into either the Arctic Ocean, Bering Sea,
or the Pacific Ocean.
The streams in the region fall into two general groups, glacial and
nonglacial. Most glacial streams are f~und in the Southcentral and
Southeast Subregions, ana the suuthcentral portion of the Yukon Subregion.
The Yukon River is the largest lrt the State and ranks fifth in discharge
among streams in the United States. The Yukon drainage that is solely in
Alaska covers about 35 percent of the State. The estimated mean annual
aischarge is 257,000 cubic feet per seconn (cfs), 32 percent of which flows
into the State from Canada. MaJor tributaries of the Yukon River include
the Koyukuk, Tanana, and Porcupine Rivers.
b
Other principal river systems in Alaska incluae the Colville (Arctic);
Kobuk, (Northwest); Kuskokwim (Southwest), and Susitna and Copper Rivers
(Sout~central).
E>tensive natural inland lakes in Alaska encompass 5.1 million acres of
the State.
T~e combination of geologic, climatic, seasonal, geographic, and other
effects often produces problems and conaitions in Alaska for which there are
no con1parable situations in other parts of the United States. Nevertheless,
Alaskc has by far the greatest potential of any state for the development of
hydroelectric power, particularily in the Southcentral and Southeast regions
where topographic conditions are favorable and streamflows are relatively
high c.na uniform. Additional potential exists in the water that is stored
in thE vast snowfields and glaciers in these regions.
Ir1 other areas of Alaska not only the intensity but the duration of cola
weathe~r produces unusual effects. The prolonged periods of cold weather and
assoc·ated permafrost preserves a significant amount of water in a non-
acces~.ible, solid state. Shallow rivers ana lakes freeze to the bottom or
develc,p several feet of ice cover and remain frozen for most of the year.
Low instream flow is the rule for most areas of the State during winter.
Alaskc1's climate and varied terrain place significant limitations on the
supplJ' of water that is available for development of hyaropower energy.
9
2.4 ECONOMICS OF AREA
Table 2-l summarizes the significant 1970 demographic ana economic data
for the Alaska Region. [Economic Area 172, as defined by the Bureau of
Economic Analysis (BEA), U.S. Department of Conmerce].
In 1970 Alaska's population was 305,000, and represented about 0.2
percent of the national total. Over the period 1962 to 1970, the population
grew at an average annual rate of 2.7 percent. The 1975 population was
estimated at 405,000, reflecting a high average annual growth of 5.8 percent
during the period 1970 to 1975. Preliminary 1980 census figures indicates a
current population exceeding 400,000.
Total earnings in Alaska have been growing at an average annual rate of
about 4.8 percent. The 1970 Alaska ear11ings represented about 0.2 percent
of the national total. By far. the largest earnings sector has been the
government, contributing about 44 percent to the Alaska area total
earnings. Construction and traae also contributed a significant portion to
the Alaska total earnings.
The 1970 Alaska per capita income of $4,202 was about 21 percent higher
than the national average. Between 1962 and 1970, the Alaska per capita
income grew at an average annual rate of 4.0 pe~cent. Figures for 1980 (not
yet available) will show a higher per capita 1ncome level, but inflation has
trimrnea the difference between the Alaskan and National standards.
Table
ALASKA ECONOMIC INDICATORS
1970
Earning Sector
Agriculture
Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Transportation Utilities
Traae
Finance
Services
Government
Total Earnings
Population (Thousanas)
Per Capita Income ($)
Per Capita Income Kelative to the U.S.
NOTES: 1/ 1967 dollars.
Earn~ 1/
TMnTfons$)
18
122
80
111
135
31
118
522
1,137
2/
305
4,202 1/
1. 209
II Laws governing mining prohibit disclosure of earnings.
2.5 MAJOR ENERGY USERS
The relative proportion of energy consumed during 1978 by the major
consumer categories (residential, commercial, and industrial) for repre-
sentative utilities in Alaska is given in Table 2-2. Energy consumption in
the State is fairly evenly divided between the residential and commercial
categories. The low rate of consumption in the industrial category reflects
the relatively low level of heavy industrial activity in Alaska.
ll
H\BLC: '2-2
J\U\SKA
ENERGY CONSUMPTION BY
CONSUMER CATEGO~lES FOR 1978
Res1-Cormne!A-Indus-
aentia i a 1 1 trial £! --·----·--·-~--···--
GWh 1, 164 l , .., 56 ~
Percent 44.7 49. 2.2
Srna 11 1 i ght ana powrr.
2/ Large light ard power.
Other }_/
87
3.3
3/ Includes street and highway lighting (13 GWh), other public
authorities (65 G~Jh), railroaa and rail~'>~ays (2 GWh), and interdepartmental
use (7 GWh). Source: Edison Electric Institute.
2.6 fUTURE DEVELOPMENT
on
Table 2-3 summarizes the significant demographic and economic pro-
jections for AlasKa, as approximateo by H economic area 172. The pro-
jections are based on the 1972 Office of siness ana Economic Research ana
Statistics (OBERS) projections. The UBERS projections forecast an average
annual population growth rate of about 1.6 percent between 1980 ana 1990,
then 1. l percent to the y~ar ?000.
Commer·cial i:'nd Industria-l
The largest portion of Alaska's earnings is likely to be generatea from
the government sector, which is expectea to supply about 40 percent of tne
region's total earnings in 2000. ~he miring sector, although small in
magnituae, has the largest portion national earnings compared to other
,Alaska industrial sectors. Total earnir:gs in ;qaska are expected to grow
about 3.7 pet~cent annually oet\.-Jt:e• 1980 and 2000.
Per capita income in ~laska is expectea to be m~ch higher than the
national average. In 1 tne Al ska per capita income is likely to be 18
percent above the national average, and decrease to 14 percent above in the
year 2000. Overall growth 1n Alask~ per capita income is expected to be
about 2.6 percent in constant dollars between 1980 and 2000.
TABLE 2-3
Projel:ted Population, Income and Major Sector Earnings (OBERS) Earnings and
Incon~ in constant 1967 Dollars
Power Service Areas
Alaska
Servil:e Area Approximated By BEA Areas:
172
********************* Year *********************
Sector Earnings 1980 1985 1990 2000
(Mill ion $)
Agriclllture 21. 23. 24. 29.
Mininq 46. 56. 68. 90.
Construction 180. 211. 247. 332.
Manuf.Kturi ng 115. 135. 159. 215.
Transpo Utilities 176. 215. 262 . 381.
Trade . 192. 229. 273. 386.
Finance 54. 69. 87. 135.
Services 204. 263. 339. 542.
Government 724. 862. 1 '026. 1 '447.
Total Earnings
(Million$) 1,713. 2,064. 2,487. 3,557.
Total Personal
Incone (Million $) 1,875. 2,289. 2,795. 4,088.
Total Population
(ThOilsands) 333. 361. 391. 438.
Per C.1p ita
I ncone ( $) 5,626. 6,340. 7, 145. 9,333.
Per c,1pita Income
Rela·:ive to U.S. l. 18 l. 17 1. 16 1. 14
NOTE: SUM OF SECTOR EARNINGS
MAY NOT EQUAL THE fOTAL
BECAUSE OF DISCREPANCIES IN
OBERS DATA.
13
a.pter 3
CXISTTNG ENERGY
3.1. TRANSMISSION SYSTEMS
The major electrical tran ss on systems n AlasKa are in the
Southcentra 1 (Anchorage-Cook In let), Southeast (.Juneau), and Yukon
(Fairbanks-Tanana Valley) areas. The remainder of the State's transmission
systems are isolated, and serve local towns, villages. and nearby environs.
The largest load concentration is in Southcentral Alaska which includes
the Greater Anchorage Area, Matanuska Valley and the Kenai Peninsula. Power
resources for these load centers are in the Beluga and Kenai natural gas
fields. The Eklutna and Cooper Lake hydropower projects also serve this
area. This region also has a nun1ber of smaller isolated power systems with
low voltage circuits.
The second largest load center is locat~d in the Yukon area. The main
source of power is furnished by coal burning steam plants in Healy and
Fairbanks. Oil-fired cmnbustion turbines in Fairbanks and North Pole
furnish the remainder. Diesel plants at Fairbanks and Healy supply standby
power.
ln Southeast Alaska separate power systems serve each community. Most
of the transmission in this area is from hydroelectric plants to the various
loaa centers. Hyaroelectric power is an important source of supply for
Juneau, Metlakatla, Pelican, Petersburg, Sitka, and Skagway. Diesel electric
plants augument the local electric distribution system. Transmission grid
systems are 1 imited or nonex is tent between these communities. The majority
of the State's population is urban and power systems are isolated, with
service generally confined to the imrnediate area. The developed areas with
complete electric service occupy less than 5 percent of the State's area.
The Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) was organized for the
purpose of providing electric service to the ren:ot•::: native villages under a
plan developed through the orts the fire of Economic
Opportunity, the Bureau of lnuiar Affa~rs, the U.S. Department of Labor, and
the State of Alaska. AVEC now serves sam~ 4,000 people in 48 remote bush
villages where regular elect~ c servic was r1ot available or adequate only 5
years ago. Most bush villaqes have populat ons of 100 to 500. Each village
owns the cooperat1ve and provides rights -way, powerplant sites, and
operators. Local diesel plants furnish power directly to distribution lines
serving the many small conmunities and villages.
A total of 1,037 miles of transmiss1on lines at 33 kV and above are
presently installed in Alaska as shown in Table 3-1.
TABLE 3.1
EXISTING TRANSMISSION LINES -33 kV AND ABOVE
By Nomina 1 Line Voltage
~fo1tage Circuit Miles
l38 kV 303
i 15 kV 348
69 161
33 225
1, 037
Table 3-2 shows a summary of the
By Ownership
Type Circuit Miles
Cooperative
Municipal
Federal
lines by regions.
15
886
63
88
1,037
TABLE 3
TRANSMISSION LINES AND MAJO~ INTERCONNECTIONS 1
1979
Anchorage-Cook Inlet Area
(and Kodiak)
Total
Fairbanks Area
Total
Southeast Region
Total
Alaska -Total
\lo t
Level
k'TtT~
138
133
115
69
33
13.8/69
138
69
33
138
138
138
138
115
'13. 69
33
Line Length
miles
128 Overhead
12 Submarine
348 Overhead
86 Overhead
153 Overhead
4 Overhead
73f
119 Overhead
71 Overhead
42 Overhead
41 Overhead
3 Submarine
30 Overhea(J
74
288 Overhead
15 Submarine
348 Overhead
161 Overhead
225
Total 1,037
nes
Nominal voltage.
rces: Alaska Public UtilitiP" Corurnission and 1\laska Power
Administration.
H)
3.2 DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING ENERGY SYSTEMS EXCLUDING HYDROPOWER
Type of Energy and Magnitude.
As of 1979 the installed electric generating capacity in Alaska was
1,867 megawatts (MW). About 84 percent of the electricity generated in the
State was produced from energy supplied by fossil fuel. Natural gas was by
far the major fuel, accounting for 56 percent of the year's output. Next
came oil (18 percent), coal (10 percent), hydro (10 percent) and wood waste
(6 percent). Most recent additions have been in oil and natural gas-fired
plants with a strong trend toward dependency on these fuels. In 1979, 4,836
gigawatt-hours (GWh) of electricity (4,380 GWh thermally) were generated in
the State. The combustion turbine, fired by gas or oil, accounts for the
largest portion of the thermal generation (60 percent) followed by the steam
turbine (24 percent) and internal combustion diesel generator (16 percent).
Table 3-3 presents a summary of the net energy produced in 1979 by types of
generation for the six subregions in the State.
Fossil-fueled, thermal-electric powerplants have, for many years, been
the mainstay of Alaska's electric power inaustry. Nearly all new installed
capacity in the Railbelt area has been combustion turbine units. This
includes new oil-fired units installed in Fairbanks and several relatively
new natural gas-firea units added by the Anchorage area utilities. In
addition, there are a number of new combustion turbine units in industrial
applications in various parts of the State.
17
Table 3-3
SUM!ViAR Y OF ALASKA ENERGY GENERATION ( GWh) -1979
ion
Arctic/ South-
Type of Energy Southeast Southcentra1 Yukon Northwest West Misc. Total
Gas 0.0 2,260.1 0.0 442.7 0.0 0.0 2. 70 2.8
Oi l 86.5 2 3 5. 8 202.5 81.6 163.7 94.5 864.6
Coal 0.0 0.0 50 6. 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 506.5
Hydro 263.9 192.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 456. 1
Pulp 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 306 0
rota 1 Reqion 709:6 5"24:3 "ffi 3. 1 94:-5-4,sS6-:-o
Comhustion inc 1 5' 1 15 2. 7 454.4 0.0 0.0 29622.3
Internal ustiun 24 i~ . ,, 49. 1 69.9 163. 7 94.5 704.3
Stearn Turbine S07. 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,053.4
Tota 1 Therma 1 7o9:·o 524:3 163.-,-· 4,379.9 co
Source: Alaska PJwer Adrninsitration.
The increased use of combustion turbines reflects the advantages of low
initial equipment cost, minimum ordering and installation loss time, and
techno ogical advances. The principal advantage in the Anchorage area,
until 1·ecently, was the availability of low cost natural gas for fuel.
Additional advantages for Alaska are in substantially increased capacity and
efficit~ncy of combustion turbines because they operate at favorable
altitudes and with low annual average air inlet temperatures.
Tht~ efficiency of combustion turbine units is considerably lower than
for conventional steam, but options do exist to improve their efficiencies.
These include regenerative cycle units, and waste heat boilers in con-
juncti'm with steam and combustion turbine units to form combine cycle
p1ants, Two combinea cycle units will soon go on line in Alaska. Future
combus:ion turbine units will have higher firing temperatures which
increa;es their efficiencies and in turn increases the efficiencies of
future regenerative and combined cycle units.
Aplroximately 49 percent of the total State thermal generating capacity
is loc3ted in the Southcentral Region. A further breakdown shows 74 per-
cent of this region's thermal capacity is produced by combustion turbines.
About 23 percent of the State's total thermal generating capacity is in the
Yukon area of which 29 percent is steam-electric. Systems in Southeast
Alaska are a mix of diesel ana hydropower plants and industrial wood waste-
fired steam plants. The rest of the State's power systems {except for
Barrow) are completely dependent on diesel generation. Generating units in
utility steam-electric plants range in size from 500 to 25,000 kilowatts.
Steam-electric generating units in national defense plants vary in size from
500 to 7,500 kilowatts.
Combustion turbine units were first installed by Alaska utilities in
1962 for baseload operation as well as for peaking. Combustion turbine
plants are presently operating to serve most of the load in the Anchorage
area but are primarily used for intermediate and peaking purposes in the
Fairbanks area. Unit sizes vary from 750 to 72,900 kilowatts. The largest
single generating station in Alaska is the Beluga plant located on the west
siae cf the Cook Inlet. The plant which consists entirely of combustion
turbires has a total capacity of 298,100 kilowatts. Internal combustion
{diesEl) engine generating plants are scattered throughout the State and are
used Exclusively in the isolated areas of the Southwest, Northwest, and
Arctic Regions. Plants vary widely in size and number of units. Individual
units of 6,450 kilowatts are in operation, but the average size is in the
range of several hundred kilowatts.
Future Potential.
The Southcentral Region, particularly the Anchorage-Cook Inlet area, has
the w·dest variety of thermal alternatives with natural gas, coal, and oil
available in close proximity. Natural gas in the Anchorage-Cook Inlet area
has bt~en the least expensive fossil fuel in the State and relatively low
19
cost power supplies are assured so long as low cost natural gas is available
for power proauction. However, there is genuine doubt that adequate natural
gas reserves exist to supply sufficient energy to meet total power require-
ments through the year 2000 ana several experts are of the opinion that
natural gas will be either unavailable or too costly for power production
beyond 1985. This is aue partly to skepticism concerning estimates of
natural gas reserves and partly because of national economic factors. There
may be better uses of natural gas (e.g., petrochemical uses and home space
heating) than generation of electrical power especially when there are
extensive coals deposits available.
Large steam-electric plants have lower per kilowatt costs than srualler
ones, but existing and immediate future forec9sted electric power require-
ments in Alaska loaa areas indicate there is no need for large units.
Higher capital costs and longer lead times required for coal, oil, and
gas-fired steam-electric plants than those for comparable sized (now in
service) oil or natural gas-fired combustion turbines and combined cycle
plants almost dictate that the latter two types will be built to meet future
power requirements until at least 1984. Utilities are seriously considering
sizeable combustion turbine and/or combined cycle installations to be added
within the next 5 years. Combustion turbine unit sizes will range from
60-70 MW and a combinea cycle plant would range from 100-200 MW. Industry
will most likely continue to add smaller s1ze (20-35 MW) combustion turbine
and/or diesel units. Based on the estimated midrange power requirements, it
appears that a baseload coal-fired steamplant in the 300-500 MW size range
could be utilized in the Anchorage area by 1985.
For the Yukon Region, the range of the~mal alternatives is essentially
the same as for the Southcentral Region except for the present use of
natural gas as fuel in the latter region. Coal-firea plants are now being
plannea to meet Fairban~s area utility loads of 1983 ana beyond. Vast coal
deposits in the Nenana field could provide adequate fuel to meet all of the
regions future power requirements. However, Jntil 1985 the region•s
utilities will probably continue to ado combustion turbine units ana
possibly, if warrantee, combined cyrle units.
The Fairbanks electric planning systen. consioers the possibi1it_\' of
using oil or natural gas from th~ A~yesk pipeline or from the proposea
natural gas pipeline. Son~ refininQ is neeaed to produce suitable fuel for
any type powerplJnt. For SF:aliet' power systems in the Southcentral ana
Yukon Reqions, no econon:ica1 alt~rnat ves to diesel generation have been
ioentif1ed to ate.
Outside the Southcentral and Yukon Regions there are fewer options.
Oil-fired diesel electric powerplants are expected to continue as the main
source of electricity ana in some areas are the only available source for
most power systems. Contrclling factors v;hich preclude other thermal alter
natives include:
(a) No access to alternate fossil fuels.
(b) Small size power market.
(cl The large investment required for conventional steam-electric
plants. It should be noted that small coal-fired plants have received
consid•!ration recently, but are not likely to be economically feasible
because of the extremely high investment costs for small capacity units.
Tht~re are no active nuclear powerplants in Alaska and nuclear power is
not cu1·rently a factor in Alaska power planning, primarily due to the
relati11ely small power requirements and the availability of other attractive
alternatives. Large nuclear powerplants would not likely fit the State
power ~;ystem needs until beyond the year 2000, unless loads develop
substantially higher than present forecasts.
ThE~re is cons i derab 1 e interest in A 1 ask a • s geotherma 1 potentia 1, and
good rE~asons exist to explore and define this resource and proceed with
deve lor•ment. Two areas in A 1 ask a are classified as 11 known geotherma 1
resources areas," the Pilgrim Springs of the Seward Peninsula, and an area
on the Aleutian Chain. These and other areas which are thought to have
relati\ely high potential are remote from main load centers. The Seward
PeninsL la geothermal potential is the most promising of the two areas and
may eventually prove usable if potential mining loads materialize or if
other electric power requirements build up to a size warranting a regional
power system.
Of the possible other electric energy sources thought to be available in
the future, wind power may have some applications in Alaska. The
opportunity to displace high cost fuels increases the attractiveness of such
an alternative. The present state-of-the-art of wind power embraces mainly
applications for small remote installations, but there are conceptual plans
for sets of very large wind generators to be used for major energy
supplies. The most likely near term future application of wind power for
Alaska appears to be as a supplement to diesel power for remote villages or
industrial sites where suitable wind conditions exist and alternative
generation options are limited. Responsible officials do expect interest to
increas2 in wind generation ana also expect several wind demonstration
projects in the next few years.
The~e is, at present, little basis for assuming solar power will be a
signifkant alternative for Alaska power systems in the future. Incoming
radiati,)n levels in the northerly latitudes are comparatively low,
especially in winter when energy demands are the highest. Solar power is
generally thought to be impractical for Alaskan electrical generation~ but
may be 1 consideration in new residential construction where energy
conserv1tion measures are being emphasizea.
21
Other potential sources power Alaska include wood and tidal
power. Alaska is enaowea with an abunaant source of wood from which steani
generation could be converted to electrical energy. Presently the high cost
of collecting and hanaling the large volumes r-equired makes wooa
uneconomical in comparision to conventional fossil fuels. The Cook Inlet
tiaal bore is one of the world's largest and could be a significant source
of power. The technology necessary to harness this source has yet to be
developeo, so Alaskan tidal power rema1ns a aistant alternative energy
source.
In the contiguous lower 48 states the adverse effects of thermal ana air
pollutants from electric powerplants have been well documented. One signif-
icant problem in Alaska is the occ~rrence of ice fog in the Fairbanks area
auring the winter caused by increased atmospheric moisture rising from the
local steam generating plant anc other sources. Due to the low level of
development in Alaska, other short term environmental problems resulting
from electrical generating plants are minor or unidentified. To date, there
has been limited monitoring of air ana water quality. If the future
baseload electrical generation is met largely by thermal generation means,
the State will be faced with very significant environmental problems
characteristic of those 1n the lower 48 states. The State of Alaska,
recognizing this, has includeCl as a Pl"irla"y oojective in plans involving
powerplant development, measures to orotect the environment.
The electric power industry in Alaska is composed of a plurality of
utility systems, some owned by private companies, some owned by governmental
agencies (Federal or municipal), ana some owned by electric cooperatives
(sponsored by the Rural Electric Administration). In addition to the
utility power systems, there are numerous self supplied (nonutilities}
inaustricd anci nationil1 defense pm;er systerns Hi the State.
Table 3-4 lists Alaskan utilities, indicates type of ownership, ana
gives the utility designation.
Table ~1-5 compares ownershi :;tility systems based on systews
recoru in 1979. As hrJHil in tr.h rahh:, tf,;; 1argest number of utilitie<.
are in the private group· i"!OW~'ver, i 19/9, percent of the more than
140,000 retail customers in Alaska were served by Alaska's 14 cooperatively
owned systems while only 8 percent were served by private utilities. By way
of contrast, the privat~ sector in the contiguous 48 states serves more than
75 percent the customers of tne total power industry. Also in contrast,
in the contiguous 48 states the total number of electric utility systems
decreased between 1965 and 1975; whereas the total number of Alaska's
utilities incr·eased ciurino this <>ame periocL
Qesignation
t.MFI
PLEL
/,NCO
PPAD-E
/.PAD-S
/.PCO
I1PTC
J1RV I
BAUI
BUCI
BLPI
:IEL
I:HEA
:OMA
!:ouu
:OEC
:RTP
CVEA
=Aco
FYUI
3HEA
GOVE
HOEA
HUGH
HLPC
KECO
KOEA
KTEA
KLEV
LBES
TABLE 3-4
Alaska Utility Systems
Utility
Ainfac Foods, Inc.
Alaska Electric Light and Power Company
Anchorage Municipal Light and Power Dept.
Alaska Power Administration-Eklutna
(Anchorage)
Alaska Power Administration-Snettisham
(Juneau)
Aniak Power Company
Alaska Power & Telephone Company
( 4 towns)
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative,
Inc. Cooperative
(48 villages)
Arctic Utilities, Inc.
Type of
Ownership
Private
Private
Municipal
Federal
Federal
Private
Private
Private
Barrow Utilities and Electric Cooperative Inc. Cooperative
Bethel Utilities Corporation, Inc. Private
Bettles Light & Power, Inc. Private
Circle Electric
Chugach Electric Association, Inc.
City of Manakotak
City of Unalaska
Cordova Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Chistochina Trading Post
Copper Valley Electric Association, Inc.
Fairbanks Municipal Utilities System
Fort Yukon Utilities
Glacier Highway Electric Association, Inc.
Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc.
Homer Electric Association, Inc.
Hu qhes
Haines Light and Power Co., Inc.
Ketchikan Public Utilities
Kodiak Electric Association, Inc.
Kotzebue Electric Association, Inc.
Klukwan Electric Utility
Larsen Bay Electric System
23
Private
Cooperative
Municipal
Municipal
Coorperative
Private
Cooperative
Municipal
Private
Cooperative
Cooperative
Cooperative
Private
Municipal
Municipal
Cooperative
Cooperative
Municipal
Private
.Designation
MEA I
MUCI
MPLM
MDEP
NEA I
NECI
NLPU
NPEC
NPLI
NKPI
NSRP
PALI
PMLP
PUCO
SESM
SESU
SIPU
TLPC
TPCO
THRE
WRL!J
WTCO
VAPI
Tl'IRLE 3 ··'t (Concluded)
Alaska Utilit terns
Type of
~1atar;uska Electric Assoc:ation, Inc.
t·1 an 1 ey Uti 1 i ty Co • , Inc.
Metlakatla Powe<~ and Light
M & 0 Enterprises
Naknek Electric Association, Inc.
Nushagal< E·lectric Cooperative Inc.
~ome Light and Power lJtilities
Northern Power & Engineer-ing Corporation,
Northway Power & Li qh t , Inc.
N i k o lsk i Power F. L i gin Co •
North Slopp Gorou9h Power and Light System
Paxson Lodge, Inc.
Petersburq Municipal Light and Power
Pelican U t i1 ity Compimy
Seward Electric System
Semloh Supp"ly (Lake Minchumina)
Sitka Electric Department
Teller Po 1-1er Company
Tanana Power Company
Tl inget -Ha ida Regional Electric
Authority Cooperative
\~range!! fvlurt ic1pa I Light & Power
Weisner Trading Co.
Yakutat Power~· l n c.
--------··--·------·-··----'"·------·
Ownersh
Cooperative
Private
Municipal
Private
Cooperative
Cooperative
Municipal
In c • P r i v ate
Private
Private
Munic1pal
Private
Municipal
Private
Municiptl1
Private
Municipal
Private
Private
ivlunicipa 1
Municipal
Private
Private
N
U'1
TABLE 3-5
ELECTRIC UTILITY SYSTEMS, PRINCIPAL OPERATIONS AND K~IAlL LUSlOMERS BY OWNERSHiP SCGMC~T
(Systems of Record-1979)
Ownership
Private
Municipal
Cooperative 1/
Federal
Total
Ownership
Private
Municipal
Cooperative 1 I
Federal -
Total
NOTE:
Systems with Generation Generating Number Retail Customers
Transmission Transmission Capacity Engaged in Served
Tot a 1 and and Percent of Distribution
Systems Distribution Wholesaling Total Only Number Percent
25
13
14
1
53
25 0 4.9 0 11,500
13 1 28.8 0 35,300
14 2 60.0 0 94,7 00
0 1 6.3 0 0
52 4 100.0 0 141 '5 00
TABLE 3-6
OWNERSHIP OF UTILITY SYSTEMS BY SIZE OF TOTAL ENERGY REQUIREMENTS
(Systems of Record - 1 975)
Number of Systems -Annual Energy Requirements
8. 1
25.0
66.9
0.0
100.0
GWh ( Mi 11 ions of Kilowatt-hours)
Over 100
0
2
4
1
7
25-99
1
2
1
0
4
1-24 Under 1 Tota 1
--,-r 10 25
6 3 13
8 1 14
0 0 1
28 14 53
1/ AVEC is listed as one system.
Table 3-6 shows tne relative size5 of electric utility systems, segre-
gatea by type of ownership, 1979. In 1379 seven utilities--two of whlch
are municipals, four cooperatives, ana one Federal--had energy requirements
in excess of 100 million kilowatt hours ana one of these exceeded 600
million kilowatt hours. The requirements of four others rangea between
and 99 million kilowatt hours in 1979.
HYDROPOWER
Most of the early hydroelectric developments in Alaska were constructed
to provide power for mining and other inaustrial uses, such as fish pro-
cessing ana were often associated with hyaromechanical installations. Uver
the years, many small hydroelectric installations were constructed in South-
eastern A 1 ask a to serve l oca -, and season a 1 needs. Some of these st i 11
remain in service toaay, although most small installations have been
replaced by diesel generators.
The largest ex-isting h.ydroeiPctnc insta"il;J.tion in the State is the
Snettisham project at Long Ldke, 28 miles southeast of Juneau. This
proJect, constructea by the Corps of Engineers ana operated by the Alaska
Power Administration, began operation in 1973 with an initial installation
of 47,160 kilowatts. Ultimate capacity planned for the Snettisham project
is 74,160 kilowatts. The Alaska Power Administration also operates the
30,000 kilowatt Eklutna plant, miles north of Anchorage. The third
largest hydropower installation 111 the State is tne 15,000-kilowatt Cooper
Lake plant of Chugach Electric Association, Ir:c., locatea on the Kenai
Peninsula, about 60 miles southeast of Anchorage.
There are more than 40 hycroelectric installations in AlasKa, ranging in
size from 1.5 to 47,160 kilowatts. Most of the plants are small ana only of
local significance. Only 14 p ants ~re larye enough ana in locations to
have an impact on the fut~re power supply of the State. These plants are
listed in Table 3-7 and their locations are shown on Figure 3-l. Twelve of
these plants are located i11 heastern ~las a and serve the cities of
Juneau. Ketchikan, Petersburg, Sicka, ana Skagway and the communities of
Metlakatla and Pelican The otrrer two plants are in southcentral Alaska and
are part of the interconnected system serving the Anchorage-Cook Inlet
area. There are no hyaropower p13rts located in the Arctic, Northwest,
Yukon or Southwest Subregiors.
All rnajoc hydroelecti~ic ceve opments in recent years have been made by
public entities. Of the five plants built in the last three decades, the
two largest, Wlth a totai capaci of 77,160 kilowatts or nearly two-thirds
of the Alaskan hydropower capaci , are federally owned and operated.
In southeast Alaska, power· is primanl_y generatea by diesel generators
or a mix of diesel generators supp1emPnting hydroelectric power when
avai1.'1ble such as in ,Juneaq and Ketch k,•,n. Only the Juneau area hJS hy<-iro-
po~ver capacity in excess c-f pn·sent rJunands, All of the hy,1ropower
generated in southeast Alaska is used locally. There are no interties
between communities; however, interties are being considered.
In southcentral Alaska, the primary service areas are supplied baseload
power generated principally by natural gas-fired combustion turbines.
Intermediate and peaking power is provided by the principal hyaropower
projects, Cooper Lake and Eklutna.
27
System
Southeast ion
Alaska Elec. Light & Power
Alaska Elec. Light &
.4 1 as .; ~ 1 L ·1 ~
l\ 11 s I( E i c: c • i g r1 t
A!ask~ Power & Te
1ican Uti llty
Ketcq :Jn 1=· iJlic til1tle
!<etcrnkat' h;b l i Jt litie:.
Ketcnikan Public Utiliti s
MeU akat 1 a. Power & L i t
Petersburg Mun. L;ght & Power
Sitka Public Utilities
Alaska Power Administration
Southcentra1 Region
Chugach Elec. Assn., Inc.
Alaska Power Administration
TABLE 3-7
Existing Hydroelectric Plants
January 1979
ation Capacity Ownershi
Gold reeK
Annex K
U ::a lr,on Crr:ek
LowE:r lmc: reek
Dewey Lakes (105
Pel i c a q k
etcr;-i!<an t~-~ ···
Bea.ver Falls
Si 1v ( 1972)
~·ur'p i Lak. e
C "dl Lake ( 1)
Blue Lake (2230)
Snettisharn
Cooper Lake ( 2170)
(Kenai)
Eklutnn
Juneau
Jur.eau
Juneau
Jur:ec.u
Skagway
Pelican
Ketchikan
Ketchikan
Ketchikan
ii1et l akat l;;
Petersourg
Sitka
Speel River
(Juneau)
Cooper
Landing
Eklutna
(AnchOrage)
-lkWT-
l ,600
3,500
21800
2 .soo
480
4,200
5,000
2' 100
3,000
2,000
6,000
4 7' 160
15,000
30,000
Total 126;f4o
Private
Private
Pr i v at1.:
Privat
Pr aLE':
Private
NonFedera
NonFedev,c;.
Federal
Public
NonFederal
Federal
Year of
Initial
Operation
1914
1916
1913
1':)14
9G!
1943
1923
1947
1968
1955
!961
1973
1961
195!:>
N
<.0
J~ SOUTH WEST
~ftj
y U K 0 N
PACIFIC
AL HYDROPOHER STUDY NATION
AL.A.SKA REGION
-... ---TF!I<:i-PLANTS EXISTING HYDROELEC
3-1 Figure
Several hydropower projects are currently under consideration in
Alaska. The proposed Upper Susitna Dam Project, as currently envisioned,
would have a total generating capacity of 1,558 megawatts, and would exceed
the combined existing State hydropower capacity by more than 13 fola. Other
hydropower projects under study or construction with a capacity of 1 MW or
greater include:
Community Served
Ketchikan
Petersburg
Wrangell
Sitka
Juneau
Klawock
Southcentral
Cordova
Homer
Kooiak
Valdez
Southwest
Bethel
Dillingham
HylirGpower
Site
Upper Nahoney
Swan Lake
Chester Lake
Tyee
Green Lake
Upper Sdlmon Creek
(Rehabi 1 it at ion)
Black Bear Lake
PoY.Jer C;· ... eek
Bradley Lake
Terror Lake
Port L 10ns
A 1 i i son Ct ... eek
lomom ! h
i(isaralik River
Lake E.l va
Installed Capacity
Megawatts
10
15
2.5
30
50
16.5
15
5
7
90
20
18
8
12
30
There are no proposals to develop hydropower in the Arct1c, Yukon ana
Northwest subregions of AlasKa.
30
Chapter 4
DEMAND SUMMARY
This chapter is divided into three principal sections. The first
section is based on studies made from the National Hydropower Report and
presents the current situation of electric power in Alaska. The section
includes a delineation of the regional power system, an analysis of the
electric power demand and supply, and a load resource analysis. The second
section, also based on studies for the National Hydropower Report, presents
future electric demands and power resources in Alaska and assesses the
potential for utilization of the new hydropower resources. The analysis, as
contained in these two sections, is based only on major utility demands.
Accordingly, to present a total picture of the electric power demand in
Alaska, data compilea by the Alaska Power Administration is analyzed and
presented in the third and final section of the chapter.
4. 1 ELECTRIC UTILITY DEMAND -PRESENT CONDITIONS
Delineation of Regional Power Systems
In this study, Alaska is considered as an independent region since it is
not directly tied into the interconnected electric system of the U.S. For
purposes of discussion the State is dividea into the six major subregions
shown on Figure 1.
Peak Demand
The noncoincidental peak loaa for the major Alaskan utilities in
1979 was about 581 MW as shown in Table 4-1. These utilities represent
about 75 percent of the total statewide demand. The demand increased at an
average annua1 growth rate of 11.4 percent over the 1965-1979 period, from
127.6 MW in 1965 to 580.8 MW in 1979. Within this period the growth rate
from 1970 to 1975 was 14.2 percent, increasing from 234.4 MW to 453.2 MW.
31
w
N
Table 4-l
ANNUAL ENERGY,
ALASKAl/
PEAK DEfvJAND AND LOAD FACTOR
1-'\n nua l En er9y2 I Dec. Peak Demand
Calendar Average Annua 1 Peak Average Annual Load
Year GWh Growth Rate-% MW Growth Rate-% Factor - % -----.l.1.r ..Ll:!. 5 yr 5 r
1965 5 78.5 12 7. 6 51.8
196 6 64 7.6 11.9 140.5 1 o. l 52.6
1967 7 11 • 9 9.9 149.3 6.3 54.4
1 96'3 798.3 12. 1 182.9 22.5 49. 7 }_!
1969 891).5 12.2 18 5.6 1.5 55. 1
1970 1,043.9 , ~ ~
,! o. n 12.5 2 34.4 26.3 12.9 50.8
FJn 1,239.9 1fl. 1 3. 9 263.0 12.2 13.4 53.8
197 1,404.:3 13~3 14.6 2 4 9.7 14. 1 55.4]/
197 3 1,54S.i 10.3 14.2 294.7 2.2 10.0 60.0
1974 1 '6 70 . .3 7.9 13.3 345.? 17. 1 13.2 55.2
1975 l ,978.3 18.4 13.6 453.2 31.3 14. 1 49.8
19 2,249.3 13 7 12.7 442.0 2.5 10.9 57.9 /].
1977 2,451.0 9.0 11 .8 532.6 20.5 13. 1 44.2
l97e 2,fil3.5 6.6 11.0 5 64.2 5.9 13.9 52.9
197 q 2' 7 00.2 3.3 1 0. 1 580.8 2.9 11 .o 53. 1
Utilities considered are from the Southeast, Soutllcentral, and Yukon Subregions,
which represent approximately 3/4 of the total statewide demand.
2 Annual energy sales,
3/ Load factor based on 8,784 houts.
Source: Alaska Electric Power Statistics, 1960-1976 and Alaska Power Administration
files.
Energy Use
As shown on Table 4-1 the energy use for Alaska utilities in 1979, was
2,700.2 GWh. As in the previous section, the utility energy shown reflects
about 75 percent of the statewide use. Energy increased at an average
annual growth rate of 11.6 percent over the 1965-1979 period, from 578.5 GWh
in 1965 to 2,700.2 GWh in 1979. The use in 1970 was 1,043.9 GWh reflecting
an average annual growth rate of 13.7 percent for the period 1970-1975, as
shown in Table 4-2.
33
•
Table 4
ALASKA ANNUAL GROWTH RATES OF ENERGY CONSUMPTION (Percentage)
Year Residential Commerc; a 2 I n d u s t r i a 1J.L Tot a 1~./ --
19n5
1966
196 7
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
197 :I
1974
1975
1976
197 7
1978
9.5 9.4 11.5
9.4 1 L9 23.5
14.9 12.5 0.0
5.2 5.5 3.6
13.9 .16 .4 6.9
11.5 9.5 7.5
l fi. 8 12.fi 9.0
3.5 4.5 11.9
32.2 28.6 17.2
3.0 3.0 7.0
9.0 14.0 2 7. 5
"17. 8 39.9 68.7
13.3 18. ::; 8.2
4.6 6.4 0.0
Source: United States Department of the Interior. Alaska
Power Administration "Alaska Electric Power Statistics
1960-1976 11 4th ed. (July 1977) and EEl Statistics.
1/ Reported in source as "Commercial and Industrial -
Large Light and Power"
2 Reported in source as ':Commercial and Industrial-
Sma 1 1 L i gh t and Power"
3/ Includes other sector·s in addition to residential~
commercial, and industrial.
34
9.6
12.7
13.3
7.0
13.7
lO. 3
15.0
5.5
28.2
4.5
7 .4
17.0
14.8
5.3
Load Characteristics
Alaska is a winter peaking region. Mean annual temperatures range from
43 degrees F in the southern areas to 10 degrees F in the northern most
Arctic areas. Table 4-3 shows the peak demand as a percentage of the annual
peak as well as the weekly load factors for the first week in April, August,
and December 1977 of five utilities representing the principal bulk power
suppliers in Alaska. These utilities are: the Fairbanks Municipal Utility
Systems in the Yukon area, the Chugach Electric Association and Kodiak
Electric Association in the Southcentral area, the Sitka Electric Department
in the Southeast area, and the Golden Valley Electric Association. Hourly
load and load duration curves for the first week in April, August, and
December for Chugach Electric Association, Inc. are shown on Figure 4-1.
35
Fairbanks ~1unicipa·l Uti1itics tem
Chugach Eiectric 1\ s soc i aLi on , Inc
Golden Va.lley [1ectric Association, Inc.
Kodiak Electric .il.ssoci3.tion, Inc.
Sitka Electric Department
J
)
Table 4-3
SYSTEM LOAD VARIATIONS IN ALASKAl
1977
First Week
of Apri 1
Peak Weekly
Demand Load
% of Factor
Annual
75.4 76.4
64.4 78.9
54.4 8L4
NA NP
NA NA
First Week
of August
Peak Weekly
Demand Load
% of Factor
Annua 1 %
68. l 7 9. l
47.0 83.6
38.8 77.9
80.2 NA
NA NA
First Week
of December
Peak Weekly
Demand Load
% of Factor Demand
Annual % MW
94.2 83.7 27.6
97.6 88. l 27.4
91.4 87. 1 89.9
90. 1 Nl\ 10. 1
NA NA 8.1?/
l/ Computations based on data from schedules 14 and 15 of 1977 FERC -Form 12.
)f Does not include December 1977.
Annual
Load
Energy Factor
Date GWh %
~--·~ .... ----
Dec 12 128.46 S3. ·:
Dec 5 I , 2 36. 54 51.5
Dec 13 353.14 45.0
Nov 5 53.6 60.6
Nov 29 44.0 NA
PEAK LOAD GRAPH
.----------------------------~---------------------
'"" I J -~--.~-ltlrrtt JJ±141 -Eit!~' r . --•-' ":-c-( t I J-~\ \1-b :~~-=A-~ -ui-~ l~ :-x
i I~-~ JF . '-, '= '' · -Jrii-+
J ~
' -~ --4 ~ -'-1 tTfft r ~~-~ , ___
--~ I
_~_ __
-~ ! -'-'-'---'--
-'=t --f----+--· -.... -
--!-l_j ---J-+r --jt i-1 -t-r t --1---Ht-f-...
I f---1--.h-Hl--:-1----f-~,-H-----1-. ~-· ,-t-t-~+-I if-I-I-
i I I
JO
1'UcS.OAY VHOI<fSDAV THURSDAY !ATUROI\V' ~UNOAY
NOTES:
! rtAO: lOAD 11 lcv.t.L TO TH[ lAI'IGCCT IY,TrM LOAO IN TilE flltJT
fULL 1'\'Hj( Of .VII!L,,&UGUU, AND OECUIIUI'I,
f ,fAll ~OAtil I THE I'IA~ IIYITUool lOAD fOil TilE COHREUON<>INO '1'1£EK
fO~ tid .V"Il, AUGUST. 01'1 DEC(MUR CURVES •
SOURCE: .
DATA OITAIHIO PIIOM FERC FOIUI HO. 12
{liCHfCUlfl U AND 111 POll U77.
1 .. ~-.·---·-·-··l--··-··~ ·--· ·-:~'.;:.• ~=u -"-=:,..":. -;::.;::-u ----~ ------·--·-•"'l• ..... _ ... _,,. .-'l··-·-....... , ..... ~1--"' .................... ___....-... _ ..
LOAD CUBVES
IH 0 I 0 N: A LA !S K A
SU8AEOIOIII: ALASKA
UTiliTY: C E A __
~-.:::,;.~rf-:J;;::.;:r:-_:-~::-~X-=-6 .
Figure 4-1 Peak Load Graph
Load Resource Anal is
The adequacy of the power supply as weli as reserve margins in Alaska
are discussed in the following section. The estimated generating capa-
bility, peak demand, and reserve rnargin for the entire Alaska Region as well
as the major areas in the State are given in Table 4-4.
Demand S Balance
The noncoincldent winter peak for Alaska utilities was 661 MW in 1978
with 463 MW or 70.0 percent being contributed by the Southcentral area. The
Southeast area accounted for 11.5 percent (76 MW), the Yukon accounted for
15.3 percent (101 MW), and the Southwest, Northwest, and Arctic areas com-
bined accounted for only 3.3 percent (22 MW).
Imports and Exports
As previously mentioned, there are no transmission lines between any of
the major geographic areas in Alaska. Thus, there is no importing or
exporting of power between the different areas. Alaska is also isolated
from the Canadian Power System, and except for Hyder, power is not
transfered into or out of the Alaska Region.
Reserve Margins and Regionaj Syst_em Reliabnity
Presently, electric resources in Alaska exceed demand requirements by
476 MW or 41.9 percent. However, since there are no interconnections,
between the major geographical areas in the State, it is more meaningful to
consider the reserve margins on an area by area basis. Reserve margins for
the major geographical areas ranged from a low of 28.0 percent in the
Southcentral area to a high of 65.6 percent in the Yukon as shown in Table
4-4.
Alaska
Southeast
Southcentral
Yukon
Tab 1 e 4-4
ALASKA ESTIMATED RESOURCES, DEMAND AND MARGIN l/
1978
Generating Peal<
Capacity Demand
(MW} (MW) (MW)
1 '137 661 476
150 76 74
643 463 180
294 101 193
Southwest, Northwest Arctic
Combined 50 22 28
ll Utilities only. Military and industrial sources are not consiaered.
Reserve
Margin
(%)
41.9
49.3
28.0
65.6
56.0
4.2 ELECTRIC UTILITY DFM~ND -FUTURE CONDITIONS
---~
Three projections of electricity demand Jre developed for use in assess-
ing the regional market for hydropower, and the 11 median 11 projection is used
in forecasting. The OBERS population forecasts are adjusted to reflect the
latest census. The future electricity demands, and adjusted population
projections for Alaska are shown on T le 4-5. The basis for the demand
forecasts are described in detail in a report prepared by Harza Engineering
Company 1 and incluCJes only dernano h·on1 the major electric utilities.
This report addresses the electrical power situation of the nine
l:egional Electrical Reliability Council~ covering the continental United
States plus Alaska and Hawaii. The methods used to develop the forecasts
presentea in this report were standardized nationwide and did not reflect
any unique conditions that could be encountered. Electrical power generated
by private industry and utilities plus mil1tary installations is not
included in these forecasts.
According to the Harza report, the future annual "median" electric
energy consumption in Alaska is expectea to grow from 2,300 GWh in 1978 to
3,700 GWh in 1985, representing a compound annuill growth rate of 7.2
percent. By the year 2000. electric energy consumption is expected to grow
to about 7,500 GWh, repr·esenting a compound annual rate of 5.6 between 1978
and 2000. The U.S. Department of Energy, Alaska Power Administration (APA),
has also developed power and energy demana forecasts which predict energy
consumption for the year 2000 to be 15,000 GWn. Inasmuch as the Harza
report is being used nat1onally for the National Hydropower Study, we are
presenting their data so that a comparison can be made with other regional
reports. However, the report, prepared in 1977, projected the energy
consumption to be 2,300 GWh. In actuality the consumption was 2,966 GWh.
Since the APA forecasts incorporate both private ana military generation
plus use as well as recent power market slides prepared by themselves and
private contractors, their data presents a more realist1c picture of demana
in Alaska. Therefore, Jl.P/J..'s data i useo later on in this chapter curing
the discussion ot Total Electrical Ener'JY and Capacity.
Peak
Alaska's peak demand is expect~o to grow trom 500 MW in 1978 to 1,700 MW
in 2000, resulting in an average annual growth rate of 5.4 percent between
l978 ana 2000.
T("The ~1agniTu7teana Regional Distt~il)ution and Need for Hydropower,
The National Hydropower Study'1 Harza Engineering Company ana Institute
of Water Resources (March 1980).
Table 4-5
ELECTRIC UTILITY POWER DEMAND STATE OF ALASKA
( 1978-2000)
22-year
7-Year 5-Year 5-Year 5-Year Over a 1 1
Grm-1th Growth Growth Growth Growth
197 8 Rate 1985 Rate 1990 Rate* 1995 Rate* 2000 Rates
Populations (thousands) 403. 2.6 483. 1.6 5 23. l.l 552. l.l 5 83. 1.7
Projection I
Per Capita Consumption (MWh) 5.6 12.3 12.6 4.2 15. 5 5.7 20.5 4.0 24.9 7.0
Tot a 1 Use (Thousand GWh) 2.3 1 5. 2 6. 1 5.8 8. 1 6.9 11.3 5. 1 14.5 8.8
Peak Demand ( GW) .5 14.6 1.4 5.7 1.8 6.9 2.6 5. 1 3.3 8.6
Projection II
Per Capita Consumption (MWh) 5.6 2.6 6.7 2.6 7.6 2.6 8.7 2.6 9.9 2.6
Total Use (Thousand GWh) 2.3 5.3 3.?. 4.2 4.0 3.7 4.8 3.7 5.8 4.3
Peak Demand (GW) .5 4.7 .7 4. 1 . 9 3.7 1.1 3.7 1.3 4. 1
..j::>
!-' Projection III
Per Caoita Consumption (MWh) 5.6 4.5 7.6 4.0 9.3 3.3 10.9 3.2 12.8 3.8
Total Use (Thousand GWh) 2.3 7.2 3.7 5.7 4.9 4.4 6.0 4.3 7.5 5.6
Peak Demand ( GW) .5 6.6 .8 5.6 1.1 4.4 1.4 4.3 1.7 5.4
Median Projection
Per Capita Consumption ( MWh) 5.6 4.5 7.6 4.0 9.3 3.3 10.9 3.2 12.8 3.8
Total Use (Thousand GWh) 2.3 7.2 3.7 5.7 4.9 4.4 6.0 4.3 7.5 5.6
Peak Demand (GW) .5 6.6 .8 5.6 1.1 4.4 1.4 4.3 1.7 5.4
Margin (Percent) 4 7. 3 50.0 50.0 50.0
Resources To Serve Demand (GW) 1.2 1.7 2. 1 2.6
Load Factor (Percent) 4 7.8 49.7 50.0 50.0 50.0
*NOTES: The growth rates are average annual compounded rates over the period.
Load ractor
Alaska presently has the lowest regional annual load factor in the
nation. The annual loao factor is expected to remain at about its present
value of 50 percent through the remainder nf the century.
This section discusses major sources of electric power supply to be
considered in developing future expansion plans for power capacity additions
in Alaska. The hydropower potential is presented, followed by a discussion
on the regional fuel availability.
-~yar:opower Potentia 1
Table 4-6 summarizes the hydropower potential at both existing dams and
undeveloped sites. Hydropower at undevelopeo sites was identified by the
Federal Power Commission, now the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC), in 1976. The identifieo sites are restricted to those with
potential installed capacity greater than 5 MW. Hydropower potential at
existing dams was estimated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute
for Water Resources (IWR) in July 1977. The IWR estimate of potential at
existing dams is unrestricted with respect to size. However, the vast
majority of the undeveloped potential sites for this power are located
within National Parks, Wild and Scenic Rivers, Wildlife Refuges, and
Wilderness Areas establishea by the Alaska Lands Bill and thus can not be
developed. In 1978, there was an installed hydropower capacity of about 130
MW in the State of Alaska.
Tab1e 4·6
ALASKA UNDEVELOPED HYDROPOWER POTENTIAL
Potential at undeveloped sites
(greater than 5 MW)
Potential at Existing Da~s
Total Potentia1
Potential
Installed
Capacity
(MW)
33,250
119
33,369
Average
Annua1
(nerg
fv1Wh)
175,665
176,200
It is well known that Alaska nas extensive hydroelectric resources.
More than 100 potential hydroelectric sites have been identified by the
Federal Power Commission, now FEkC. Tt1e project capacity of these
potential sites varies greatly from a few MW to the 5,000 MW estimated
for the Rampart site on the YukDn River.
42
Some other river basins~ such as the Noatak, Koyukuk, Susitna,
Copper, and Stikine Rivers also have large hydropower potentials. How-
ever, all but Susitna are classified as Wild and Scenic Rivers and
Susitna is under consideration for further adn1inistrative actions for
pro teet ion _!.f.
Most of the existing dams are located in the Southeast and South-
central areas, and are already developed for hydropower generation.
Load Distribution Anal~
This section discusses reserve margins, seasonal system load
characteristics, probable system generation mix, and the specific role of
hydroelectric power.
Reserve Margin and System Reliability
Due to the large distance and adverse terrain between load centers,
most Alaskan utility systems do not have transmission line
interconnections. Thus, the reliability of power within a particular
generation system relies primarily on an adequate reserve margin. For
that reason, reserve margins, as presented in Table 4-4 currently range
from very low in the Southcentral Subregion to high in the Southeast, and
are expected to remain so. Studies are currently under way to determine
the feasibility of an interconnection between the Southcentral and Yukon
areas, which would tie Anchorage and Fairbanks together. For the purpose
of this stuoy, a reserve margin of 50 percent is applied to the "median"
peak demand to compute future capacity requirements.
17 11 A Proposal for Protection of Eleven J\laskan Rivers 11 U.S. Department
of Interior, January 1980.
43
Generation Mix
This section presents futJre expansion pldns. An estimate of suggested
generation mix for base, intermediate, and peaking capacities is evaluated
for Alaska. These evaluation~ are based on existing and planned generation
facilities reported by the utilities, characteristics of electric loads, ar
analysis of regional resource availability, econornic parameters, Federal and
state regulations, and other pertinent regional factors. To reflect the
uncertainties and unforeseeable factors which can affect future generation
mixes, a range of future installed capacity is defined for each major gener
ation source. The projected future capabilities are based on the 11 median 11
demand, and the reserve margins presented in Table 4-5.
Alaska
Table 4-7 shows the most probable generation mix to the year 2000 for
Alaska. In the past, Alaska has reliea on combustion turbines as its
principal source of electric generation due to their low construction costs
ano the availability of low cost natural gas for fuel. However, this trend
is expectea to change in the future. Many coal-fired plants are now under
consideration for the future. In addition, because of higher fuel costs,
many small hydropower plants are becoming economical to serve isolated
areas. Several small hydropower developments are now unaer construction or
licensing. The Susitna Project, now in the planning stage, could provide a
large amount of the Anchorage-Fairbanks electrical needs by the end of the
century. Several other smaller hydroelectric project sites exist and could
be economically developed in the future. Although interest has been
expressed in a nuclear generating plant for· commercial use, it is considererj
unlikely that such a power plant ~ould be in operation before the year 2000
due to excessive lead time and economic competition from hydroelectric and
coal energy generation sources,
Table 4-7
ALASKA GENERATION MIX
(Percent of Total Capability)
Generation Type 1985 1990 1995 2000
% % % %
Base
Coal 15-18 18-20 20-25 20-25
0 i 1 12-14 10-12 8-10 5-8
Gas 38-42 34-36 25-27 15-18
Conv. Hydro 2-4 5-10 10-20 20-30
Intermediate
Coal 2-4 3-5 3-5 3-5
Oil 5-6 4-5 4-5 3-5
Gas 5-6 5-6 4-6 4-6
Conv. Hydro 3-4 3-4 3-8 5-10
Other 0 0-1 0-1 1-2
Peaking
Oil 3-4 2-3 2-3 1-3
Gas 3-4 3-4 3-4 2-4
Conv. Hydro 2-3 2-3 4-6 5-10
Other 0 0-1 0-1 1-2
Total Capabi 1 ity (GW) 1.2 1.7 2. 1 2.6
Specific Role of Hydropower
With a capacity of 131 MW, conventional hydropower represented about 14
percent of the total installed capacity in 1977. Only two small hydropower
projects are under construction, Solomon Gulch and Green Lake, although many
hydropower sites are available for aeve1opment. Several studies of small
and medium size hydropower developments are under way. The Susitna Project
with an estimated capacity of 1,500 MW has been the object of many studies,
and the construction of the Watana Jnd Devil Canyon Dams are under consid-
eration. If these projects are approved, it is 1 ike ly that Anchorage and
Fairbanks will be connected, greatly enhancing the reliability of the two
systems.
At this time no pumped-storage facilities are in the State and none are
planned by the utilities. While there are many conventional hydropower
sites to be developed, there is currently n0 economic incentive to develop a
pumped-storage project.
45
Present Conditions
Based on data compiled by the Alaska Power Administration the overall
installed capacity in 1979 was 1,866,864 kW a1d the overall energy use was
4,836,002 MWh. More tha~ one-half of this energy was consumed in the
Southcentral Subregion, the most heavily populated region of the State.
Statewide the total energy increased by 1.6 percent in 1979. This was down
from the 9.3 percent growth rate registered in 1978. In 1979 the greatest
increase in energy use occurred in the Southeast Subregion with an overall
growth rate of 4.1 percent followed by the Southcentral Subregion with a
growth rate of 3.5 percent. All other subregions of the State registered
negative overall growth rates .. n. regional summary of the Alaska capacity
ana net generation for the years 1977-lQ79 is presented in Table 4-8.
Tab 1 e 4-8
REGIONAL SUMMARY ALASKA CAPACITY AND NET GENERATION
1977, 1978, 1979 Preliminary
PRELH4INARY
1977 1977 1978 1978 77-78 1979 197 9 19-79
Capacity Net Gen Capacity Net Gen Growtn Capacity Net Gen Growth
REGION/Sector KW MWH KW MWH 0/ KW MWH % /0
SOUTHEAST
Utility 143,335 318,515 150' 635 332,173 4.3 156,735 355,926 7.2
Industrial 67,125 300,000 67,125 302,957 l.O 67,125 305,265 0.8
Total 210' 460 618,515 217,760 635, 130 2":7 223,860 661,191 4. 1
SOUTHCENTRAL
Uti 1 ity 556,383 1,920.710 642,883 2,052,305 6.9 717' 533 2,150,386 4.8
Nat. Oef. 55, 6 153,868 55,726 164,574 7.0 55,726 156,404 -5.0
Industrial 107.890 317,845 113,685 376,028 18.3 113,685 376,028 0
Tot a 1 i19,999 2,J92,424 812,294 2,592,907 8.4 886,944 2,682,818 -'T.5
YUKON
Utility 302,250 501.774 ,532 486,532 -3.0 295, 132 464, 1 -4.6
Nat. Def. 86,625 232,352 86,625 217,967 -6.2 86,625 207,253 -4.9
Industrial 12,000 25,677 16,825 37,853 47.4 16,825 37,853 0
Total 400,875 759;803 396,982 --742,432 -=-2.3 398,582 709,231 -4.5
ARCTIC NORTHWEST
Utility 24,579 44,905 25,746 47,701 6.2 26, 111 48,295 1.3
Nat. Def. 6,940 20,771 6, 940 19,470 -6.3 6, 190 18,254 -6.2
Industria 1 170,325 245,513 198,800 458,072 86.6 198,800 458,072 0
Tot a 1 201,844 jTT, 190 231,486 525,243 68.6 231,101 524,621 -0. 1
SOUTHWEST
Utility 22,417 42,174 24,552 47,337 12.2 24,652 47,705 0.8
Nat. Oef. 49,200 139,600 56,150 124,800 -10.6 56,150 115,936 -7.1
Total 71 ,617 181,774 80,702 172,137 -5.3 80,802 163,641
ALASKA
Utility 1 ,048, 964 2,828,079 1,137,348 2,966,129 4.9 1 ,220,163 3,066,437 3.4
Nat. Def. '198,491 546~591 205,441 526,811 -3.6 204,691 497,847 -5.5
Industrial 402,915 983,144 442,010 1,269,410 29.1 442,010 1,271,718 0.2
Tot a 1 1,650,370 4,357,815 1 '784,799 4,762,350 9:'3 1 ,866,864 4,836,002 1.6
Alaska Power Administration 3/80
Future Condit i
The Alaska Power Administration has made forecasts of the statewide
electrical capacity and energy neeas for the years 1990 and 2000 based on
high, medium and low growth conditions. The results of the APA forecasts
indicate that the total statewide demand for electrical energy including
utility, industrial and nationa1 defense demands for the medium growth case
will have increased from 4,836 GWh i 1979 to 9,000 GWh in 1990 and to
15,000 GWh in 2000 lL A summary of the demand projections broken down
into the various subregions of the State is included in Table 4-9.
TABLE 4-9
ESTIMATE OF FUTURE ELECTRIC POWER DEMAND FOR ALASKA
1979 !990 2000
Area M~~ GWh MW GWh MW Gl~n __,__, ___ ~ ----
Southcentral 887 2,683 l. 442 5,640 2,541 10,560
Yukon (Fairbanks
area) 339 709 600 1 '364 675 2,072
Southeast 224 661 296 896 349 1' 131
Southwest 81 164 lOB 252 134 358
Remainder of State 227 619 304 848 301 879 -----------
Total State 1,867 4,836 2,800 9,000 4,000 15,000
Source: Alaska Power Administration.
lL This is compared to the forecast developea by Harza Engineering Company
of an energy demand of 7,500 GWh in 2000 (See section 4.2).
48
Chapter 5
DESCRIPTION OF METHODOLOGY FOR EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL HYDROPOWER
5.1 General
The identification of sites in Alaska at which additional or new
hydropower could be feasibly developed was accomplished in four stages. The
study began with an inventory of potential hydropower sites, both existing
and undeveloped. The criteria applied to each of the successive screening
stages required a progressively more rigorous analysis to an ever decreasing
number of sites with the overall objectives being the identification of'
those sites that would warrant inclusion into a regional hydropower
development plan. Table 5-l provides a summary of the hydropower system
identification process. A discussion of the screening methodology is
proviaed in the following paragraphs.
5.2 Initial Inventory and First Screening
The objective of stage 1 was to inventory al1 water resources control
sites in Alaska including, existing developed sites and previously identi-
fied undeveloped sites with the physical potential for hydroelectric power.
Also, an appraisal of the physical potential at both developea and
undeveloped water resources control sites for hydroelectric power was
developed.
The initial study effort was directed toward identification of
undeveloped sites in Alaska with a power potential of 1 megawatt or larger
using data from previous studies and reports. Undeveloped sites with less
than 1 MW power potential were eliminated from the active file using the
formula:
Power potential (kW) = (Q)(h)(0.076)
PF
Where: Q = Average annual discharge (cfs)
h = Net power head (ft)
0.076 = Factor based on the constant 11.8 ana a plant efficiency
of about 85 percent
PF = Plant Factor (assu~r~ea 50 percent)
The average annual discharge for each undeveloped site was obtained from
actual streamgage locations and observed discharge data recorded by the U.S.
Geological Survey (U.S.G.S.) and data documented by other agencies.
The next effort of stage 1 involvea investigation of existing projects
in Alaska using data from tile Corp~ of Engineers National Inventory of
49
St e
First
Second
Thi o
rnu lt i p 1 e
i t:?.rati ons
U1
0
Fourth
Tab 1 e 5-1
SUMMARY OF HYDROELECTRIC POWER SYSTEMS IDENTIFICATION PROCESS
OBJECTIVE
Inventory total
physical hydro-
power potential
Identify physica1
potential showing
possible economic
feasibility
ldentify econom-
Z1ll.J feasible,
acceptable pro
j ects/s i
Formulate regional
system plans
1. Conventional
systems
2. Systems with
integral pumped-
storage
NUMBER OF PROJECTS
AND POTENTIAL SITES
Existing dams and
previously identified
potential sites
Projects/si s from
Stage 1 with a mini-
mum physical poten-
tia 1
Projects/si s from
Stage 2 wittl possible
economic ibility
1. Projects/sites
from Stage 3 that are
economically feasible
and acceptab1e
2. Projects/sites con-
sidered for integral
pumped-storage (if
feasible)
BASIC EVALUATION
SCREENING CRITERIA
1st Screening
installable capacity
potential
2nd Screening
Economic-powerhouse
cost vs. power
benefits
1. 1st Screening
economic feasi-
bility total power-
plant costs vs. power
benefits
2. 2nd screening power
acceptability
a. Environmental
b. Socia 1
c. Institutiona1
1. Conventional system-
match developable poten-
tial with demand.
2. Assess marketability
of development
3. Systems with integral
pumped-storage -establish
demand; physical potential;
economics
DATA
REQUIRED
1. Inventory of dams
2. Previous studies/
inventories of hydro-
power potentiai
1 . Form 1
2. Computer routines -
power potential/powerho~se
costs/power benefits
1. ·1st Screening
economic feasibility
a. Form 1
b. Farm 2 (site)
c. Total plant cost
d. Regionalized power
benefits
e. Computer routines -
costs/benefits hydrology
2. 2nd Screening
Acceptability Form 2
(environmental, social and
project acceptability data)
1. Conventional system-
data from Stages 1, 2 and 3;
at site power values;
refined costs.
2. Systems with integral
pumped-storage data from
Stages 1. 2, 3 and 4 supple-
mented by d strict data
Dams, and data on projects licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC). Deleted from the active file were all existing sites
that would not yield a power potential of 1 MW or greater, based on the
formula: MW = 36 X storage X head.
During the stage 1 screening, the assumption was maae that sufficient
flow would be available to refill the maximum capacity of each reservoir
every 24 hours, and that all of the flow could be used to produce power at a
head equal to the height of the water control structure. Their assumption
assurea that any reasonable site would be retained for the next screening
which required a more rigorous analysis.
Following completion of the stage 1 evaluation, a form 1 data sheet was
prepared on each developed and undeveloped site remaining in the active
inventory. Recorded on the data sheets were the project's name, its
location by latitude and longitude, the drainage area, a representative
streamgage number, average annual flow and the project's installed capacity
and corresponding energy values. Also, recorded for existing projects were
data on the year a project was completed, the type of structure, the active
storage behind the impoundment, and the project's specific purpose.
Sites failing to meet the minimum regional standard of 1 MW power
potential were placed in an inactive category established within the
computer base.
51
5.3 Stage 2 Second Screening
Stage 2 involved a screening for preliminary economic feasibil1ty of
those existing and undeveloped sites that met the 1 MW capacity criteria
established for the stage l -first screening. ihe principal task of the
stage 2 activity was to refine estimates of capacity and energy for all
sites remaining on the initial inventory. The criteria required a project
to have an economic benefit/cost ratio of 1.0 or greater. However, the
economic criteria were preliminary, as only the costs for the powerhouse and
switchyard facilities were estimated at this stage. ihese benefit/cost
ratios were not interpreted as a conventional B/C ratio because only partial
costs of power were computed. It was intended only to eliminate sites
clearly recognizea as lacking economic feasibility. However, because some
local conditions merited special consider·ations, the second screening
retained a number of sites in the inactive file wherein the preliminary B/C
ratio was less than 1.0.
Additional information gathered during the second stage was used to
further evaluate the economic feasibility of new hydropower potential. In
making the required estimates, power development at undeveloped sites was
assumed to be a single purpose project for nationwide comparison. The
physical characteristics of the dam consiaered the structure height and
crest length and the valley configuration. Also, the length of any tunnel
or penstock associated with a diversion was entered. Other data entered at
this time included a USGS map identification number, refined latitude ana
longitude locations, the reservoir size, and the con1puted active storage
behind the dam impoundment. ihe total costs of a project, including the
capital cost, annual operation, maintenance and replacement costs were
computed on all sites remaining in the active file. These total costs
reflected only those cost items included in the Hydropower Cost Estimating
Manual prepared by the North Pacific Division of the Corps of Engineers in
May 1979.
Also auring stage 2, i~entif1cation was mctde of all sites included in
the stage 1 initial inventory that were capable of yielding a power
potential of 50 kW or greater at a benefit cost ratio of at least 1.0
assuming a discharge frequency exc ance percent. The purpose this
activity was to provide preli nary publi information data on the National
Hydropower Study. In Alaska, 484 sites the 50 kW -1.0 B/C ratio
criteria. The results of this invento1·y ;n'e publ·isherJ in the report
entitled "Preliminary Inventory of Hyuropmver Resources, Volume 1, July
19 II
5.4
This screening activity was d1rected toward identifying those sites
which demonstrated firm economic feas~b l1ty. Form 2 data sheets were
prepared for all projects meeting stage 2 screening criteria. These
S2
data included more detailed site locations, physical site and valley
characteristics taken from available topographic maps, tailwater rating
curves and other data to the extent that it was available.
Ir Alaska, all project costs are developed by computer based on the
Hydropower Cost Estimating Manual prepared by the Corps of Engineers.
The economic
process included
sites ana 0.7 or
1 MW or greater.
active file. All
criteria established for the stage 3 -third screening
a benefit/cost ratio of 1.0 or greater for existing
greater for unaeveloped sites with a power potential of
All sites meeting these criteria were retained in the
others were placed in the inactive file.
5.5 Stage 3 Fourth Screening
This final screening involved the assessment of noneconomic factors
to determine overall project acceptability for all projects remaining in
the active inventory file. Data on environmental, social, institutional
and marketability impacts were compiled and entered on the form 2 data
sheets.
ProJects were examined with respect to their effects upon existing
land use, anadromous fish areas, wildlife migration and habitats. Also
investigatea were social impacts including a project 1 S impact on
recreation areas, a town site, historic/archaeological sites, and other
important cu ltura 1 resource areas.
Current and proposed institutional laws were investigated. The
recently enacted Alaska Lands Bill has eliminated many potential sites in
Alaska from possible development. Known data was entered into the
computer with an additional comment reflecting the present institutional
status.
A marketability analysis was prepared by the Alaska Power Adminis-
tration on those sites that remained on the preliminary inventory of
potential feasible projects for possiole development.
Sites remaining after the third screening were assessed according to
the data gathered on environmental, social, and institutional impacts.
Those sites which passed all three criteria and have a marketable load
center for low cost electric energy were identified as potentially
feasible hydropower projects and carried forward for possible develop-
ment. Some of the projects are currently in the advanced stages of stuay
or under construction for power-on-line in the early 1980's. These sites
are considered undeveloped since, at this time, they are not yet
producing power.
53
5.6 Stage 4 Regional Power Plan
ln this stage a regional power development ~~lan was formulated.
Regional power demanos were examined ana compared to the energy that
coula be supplied by the projects at those sites remaining in the active
inventory following the stage 3-fourth screening. During the
development of the regional p0wer plan thr" screening process recognized
the sensitivity of changed power values ana the removal of environmental
constraints. Also, electrical energy supply ana demand within the major
subregions of the State were analyzed separately in view of the limited
present and projected development ana the improbability that extensive
interties with the exception of an Anchorage-Fairbanks intertie, will be
developed within the forseeable future.
5.7 Interpretation of the Q~nand_2j_!_uat_~_on for Projections in each
Subregion of Alask~
This interpretation is intendea to be exploratory and suggestive
rather than definitive. Its ultimate objective is to provide guidelines
to assist in analyzing the National Hydropower Site findings for use in
determining future Alaska hydroelectric power developments.
The Arctic, Northwest and Southwest Subregions have scattered
isolated demands for electrical power. Power for these areas is
generated by fossil fuel plants and is dlstnbuted through the local
community system. There are no transmission facilities to areas outside
each conmunity. Opportunities for interconnection in these isolated
areas are highly unlikely. The distances between villages, ruggea
terrain, ana relatively small loads present obstacles which make present
efforts for hydropower site development substantially infeasible in these
areas. Special State leg1slation has provided financing to expedite
development of the Kisaralik ana LaKe Elva projects in the Southwest
area. The Lake Elva project is of marginal size although it appears to
be the major prospect for hydropower in the Dillingham area. There are
few options for such remote areas, therefore, oil-fired, diesel-electric
powerplants are expected to continue as tne main source of electricity
past the year 2000.
The Southcentral Subre9ion has ti1e largest demand for electric power
in Alaska. A number of potentia 1 hydr'c!power sites have been
investigated. The prime alternative is development of two dams on the
Susitna River. The next largest potential hydropower development is on
Chakachamna River; however, this project could have land use conflicts.
Small individual sites are available that could satisfy a portion of the
market demand for this area. Other sites with acceptable capacity and
economic capabilities have been precluded by restrictive land use
designation, such as national parks, national monuments, national
wildlife r·efugees, and wild ancl seer; c t'ivers. The development of an
intertie system between Fairbanks, Anchorage, and the Kenai Peninsula has
been explored for improving the ici ncy in energy use. Demand changes
result from long range population movements due to labor forces. As a
priority matter, anticipatea availability of hydropower alternatives
suggests the need for well planned electrical interties throughout the
Southcentral Railbelt area.
Current construction includes the interconnection of Glennallen and
Valdez. A long range subregional grid interconnection could tie these
systems together with the railbelt scheme. If economically feasible,
this would lead to better regional coordination and optimal use of the
resources available for Government facilities, public and private
purposes.
Kodiak Island falls within the Southcentral Subregion. However, for
all practical purposes it remains isolated from any consideration of
interties with the mainlana. A number of potential hydropower sites on
Kodiak were screened out during the advanced planning of the Terror Lake
projects. This project would generate 20 MW of power in the first stage
and 10 MW in a second stage of development. Other projects on Kodiak
Islano incluae Larsen Bay, Port Lions, ana Old HarDor. These proJects
are being addressed in the Small Hydropower Study being done by the
Alaska District Corps of Engineers.
The Southeastern Subregion is isolated from any of the larger power
systems, therefore, separate power systems are required to serve each
community. In most cases, the distances between towns, the rugged
coastal terrain, and relatively small loads preclude economically
feasible intertie developments. A substantial regional transmission
system would be needed to utilize the available hydropower energy
resounes and the required investments for such facilities would be very
large. Current planning includes possible interconnection between
Petersburg and Wrangell and another system connecting Ketchikan and
Metlakatla. This would be a major step toward creation of a Southeast
subregional power system. For long range planning, a regional grid
interconnection with neighboring Canadian systems should be explored.
Presently the opportunities for development of many independent hydro-
power sites to serve individual communities appears to be the most effi-
cient method of meeting the loaa demands in Southeast Alaska.
5.8 Major Factors Considered in Selecting __ ~rojects for each Demand
ProJection and Their Sensitivity to the Analysis
Considering the uncerta1nties inherent in selecting projects to meet
Alaska•s projectea energy demanas it seems prudent to anticipate a wide
range of possible future conditions and requirements. The controlling
factors include the econon1ic costs, conservation technology, available
energy sources, types of Alaska development, environmental constraints,
population growth, and new advances in technology.
Of first importance in selecting a site for possible development was
the economic cost of tne project. The maJor factor influencing the cost
estimating procedures was the power plant cost at the identified
55
hydropower site. To maintain consistency throughout the nation,
estitnating curves were programmed into the computer and a multiplier of
1.5 was applied to the factual data for Alaska. The procedure provided a
method of comparing projects based on the most probable cost of specific
components. Detailed studies on some specific projects may produce
different results than were determineo by the computer estimating
procedures.
5.9 Public Involvement
Public involvement provided effective exchange of data on existing
and potential site development. Early public involvement consisted of
telephone calls, individual meetings, and letters to interested parties.
To familiarize the state agencies with the study, a coordination meeting
was held on 20 June 1980. The purpose of the meeting was to present the
computer techniques used to evaluate the power potential at the
respective sites, discuss the procedures for ranking the various projects
according to economic and environmental factors, and to discuss the
utilization of the completed data.
A report summarizing the progress of the study was prepared and
disseminated in July 1980. This report also announced that a public
meeting was to be held on 19 August 1980 to review the findings to date
of the National Hydroelectric Power Study.
The meeting was held at Central Junior High School in Anchorage,
Alaska. The meeting was cosponsored by the North Pacific Division and
the Alaska District. Colonel Lee R. Nunn, Jr., Alaska District Engineer,
chaired the meeting.
Colonel Nunn introduced the meeting and made a few general conments
about the National Hyaropower Study, its objectives ana what had been
accomplisned. Mr. Thomas White, North Pacific Division, study manager,
described the regional efforts and how it would fit into the scope of the
National Study. Mr. Carl Barash, Alaska District, Chief Reports Section,
described the study results for the Alaska Region. A question and answer
perioa followed the presentation.
S7
Chapter 6
INVENTORY
6. l General Discussion of St
Size of Inven~or:t
and 3
During the initial stage of the National Hydropower Study in Alaska
the potential for additional hydropower generation was evaluated at 61
existing water resource project sites and 634 undeveloped sites. By
means of the screening process describea in Chapter 5, the number of
sites demonstrating potential economic feasibility and environmental
acceptability (stage 3 -fourth screening) was reouced to 59 including 10
existing project sites and 49 undeveloped sites. Because of the number
of sites involvea ana the limited time frame, collection ana analysis of
site data was based on available and readily developed information. A
summary of the screening process broken down t)y the six major subregions
of the State and the principal objective of each screening stage is
presented in Table 6-l.
~-~pacity and Energy
These 59 identified sites have a total capacity of 3,562 MW and could
generate 15,432 GWh of energy. The capacity and energy values are
displayed by subregions of the State and are listed in Table 6-2.
Plant Factors
Plant factors for the projects passing the stage 3 -fourth screening
of the inventory vary from 0.23 to 0.91. The average plant factor
equaled 0.50 with the majority of the projects having plant factors
varying from 0.4 to 0.6.
Primary Locations
The greatest number of projects are located in the Southeast
Subregion of Alaska which has 38, followed by the Southcentral Subregion
with 15. The Arctic and Northwest Sub ons of the State dia not have
any projects which passed the screening criteria. The Yukon Subregion
had one proJect while the Southwest Subregion had four projects.
Projects identified for further stuay range from small (less than 25
MW) to large capacity. The projects listed by range of capacity are; 20
projects have a capacity of less than 10 MW; 25 projects have a capacity
ranging ft~om 10 MW to 50 MW; 7 have a capacity in the 50 MW to 100 MW
range; ana 6 have a capacity of greater than 100 MW.
Table 6-1
SUMMARY OF NATIONAL HYDROPOWER STUDY SCREENING RESULTS, ALASKA
STAGE 1 STAGE 2 STAGE 3
Initial r1rst Second Th1rd
WER AREA Inventory 1/ Screenin~ 2/ Screening 3/ Screening 4/
mrrrON·· txisbng Onaev:---Existing Ondev. Existing Ondev. Ex1sting Undev.
f!~jects Sites Total Project~ Sites Total Projects Sites Total Projects Sites Total --
:nc 0 5 5 0 5 5 0 3 3 0
RTHWEST 0 27 27 0 16 16 0 7 7 0
KON 3 56 59 3 51 54 0 27 27 0
UTHWEST 2 38 40 2 28 30 0 8 8 0
UTHCENTRAL 14 196 215 12 138 150 9 43 52 3
UTHEAST 42 312 349 40 189 229 30 114 144 14
ASKA TOTAL 61 634 695 57 427 484 39 202 241 17
Objective: Inventory all existing dams and previously identified undeveloped sites.
Objective: Identify total physical hydropower potential.
Objective: Identify physical hydropower potential showing possible economic feasioility.
Objective: Identify economically feasible hydropower potential.
2 2
6 6
20 20
8 8
40 43
70 84
146 163
Fourth
Screen i n9 5 I
Existlng Undev.
Projects Sites Total
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 1
0 4 4
0 16 16
10 28 38
10 49 59
Objective: Assess noneconomic factors (environmental, social, institutional) and identify feasible hydropower projects that
reidentified for detailed study.
Tab h· 6-2
HYDROPOWER PRO,JECT~ BY SUBREGION
Power Area Subregions
Arctic
Northwest
Yukon
Southwest
Southcentra1
Southeast
~)
\)
20U
_____ Energx (GWh)
0
2,
549
Alaska Total 3,562
Existing Project~
0
566
376
12,004
2,486
15,432'
Providiny additional hyaropower potential from the 10 existing
projects would be accomplished through ':!xpansion of the existing
hyaropower plants or providing additional storage. Total potential
capacity cr·eated by the development was estimated to be 44 fvJW while
proviaing 291 GWn annually.
New Sites
There are 49 undeveloped s1tes having a total capacity of 3,518 MW
and energy potential of lS, 141 GWh.
_§_:l_St_age 4 l_~entorx
Proj_ec_!? __ a i ned Jluri ng Stage 4
The 59 projects that passea the stage 3 fourth -screening were
retained in stage 4 as regional projects.
?hysical Characteristics
Selected projects are classifieo into tour groups (see Table 6-3):
a. Reservoir projects.
tJ. [{eservoi r with l1i version projects.
c. Diversion projects
d. Run of-tne-river project
Ex~t in_g_ Projects. Of the ex i t i ng projects, four are reservoi1~
prOJects, four are reservoir ~itn Jlversion projects, one is a aiversion
project and one is a run-of-the-river project.
Undeveloped Sites. Twenty-eight of the undeveloped sites would be
reservoir with diversion projects, eighteen would be reservoir projects
and three would be run-of-the river projects.
Economic and Financial Characteristics
The estimated average cost of energy for the 59 projects varied from
11.53 mills/kWh to 145.87 mills/kWh. Total annual project costs were
derived by summing the annual nraintenance costs and the amortized first
cost basea on 50 years project life and at the Federal discount rate of 7
1/8 percent.
61
0'1
N
Status of Waterway
Strucbr?;
Existing
Existing lfi ith
Power
Existirg w th
tired Power Pi ant
Rreached
Breached witn
Retired Power P 1 ant
Undeveloped
TAB 6-3
NEW PROJECT TYPE AND STATUS IDENTIFIER
RtJn of
River Diversion
A B
G H
M N
s T
y z
4 5
Reservoir
c
n u
u
0
6
Reservo1r with
Diversion
0
J
p
v
7
Irrigation
Can a 1
E
K
Q
w
2
8
Pumped
s
F
L
R
X
3
9
General Environmental and Social Conditions
Expansion of the existing hydropower proJects would have no significant
environmental impact in most cases. Generally, any adverse modification to
the environment would have already occurred.
All the new development sites were assessed on their impact to fish and
wildlife, cultural resources, scenic beauty and impacts to designated
national parks or monuments. Those projects which would have significant
aaverse impacts on these criteria were dropped from further stuay. The
projects identified for further study either would have minimal adverse
impacts or the magnitude of the impacts have not been conclusively
determined.
63
Chapte•· 7
EVALUJHION
7.1 REGIONAL PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
The impact of hydroelectric power development was addressed through
preliminary environmental constraints ana screening criteria. Much of the
lana or resource development in Alaska is subject to current political
issues. Until recently, millions of acres of Alaska were withdrawn from
potential development by President Carter under the provisions of the
Antiquites Act. The Alaska Lands Bill passed by Congress and signed into
law in December 1980 negated the lands withdrawls under the Antiquites Act
but then designated a majority of these same lands, plus additional lands,
as either national parks, wild and scenic rivers, wildlife refuges, or
wilderness areas. Until implementation regulations are promulgated, it is
unknown whether hydroelectric projects would be excluded from certain land
classifications. It is hoped that this study will provide useful
information for continued assessment of hyaro!JOwer development as a viable
alternative for meeting Alaska' future energy needs.
A total of 49 undeveloped sites and 10 ex1sting projects have emergea
from the three-stage screening for possible adoption in the development plan
for Alaska. These 59 projects are listed on Table 7-1. They are listed by
map number and should not be construea as being in order of preferred
development. More complete physical, environmental, and social impact aata
are presented in Appendix A. The total incremental capacities of these
sites are 3,562 MW while produc1ng 15,432 GWh of energy.
The projects passing the inal screer1ing have been evaluatea as to their
potential impacts on several environmental and social concerns. These
potential impacts have been ~oaea ana are listed in the Appendix. A ranking
system based upon economic and environmental considerations was originally
proposed. However, after furt~er assessment, it was determined that this
ranking system is inappropriate for Alaska fiS well as other western states.
In Alaska, the decision to develop a hyr:lroelectric project must be based or;
a neea as well as a viable means of satisfying that neea for a given
geographical setting. Inte~ties between geographical regions and
communities are impractical in many areas, especfally Southeast Alaska.
Transmission
Alaska's population is prin1ari·:y urban, concentrated in a few principal
cities and many smaller towns and villages. Fairly extensive interconnected
systems serve the population center~ 1n the Anchorage-Cook Inlet and
Fairbanks-Tanana Valley areas. The rest of the State's power systems are
isolatea, with electric ser-vice usually linrited to the irnn1eaiate urban anu
suburban areas. Some small communities scattered throughout the State have
interties between local ut l'it.H::::,, it•cust1ies, and military bases. Over 60
64
percent of the State•s population is served Dy the interconnected trans-
mission system in the Anchorage-Cook Inlet area. Five utilities, several
industries, and two national defense installations are tied to this system.
In the Fairbanks area, two utilities and three military bases are
intertied.
Power Requirements
The projections include utility, self-supplied industry, ana national
defense needs.
The summary totals are listed below by area:
1979 1990 2000
Area MW GWh MW GWh MW GWh
Southcentral 887 2,683 1 ,442 5,640 2,541 10,560
Yukon 399 709 600 1 '364 675 2,072
Southeast 224 661 296 896 349 1 ' 131
Southwest 81 164 108 252 134 358
Remainder of State 277 619 304 848 301 879
Total 1 '867 4,836 2,800 9,000 4,000 15,000
The year 2000 energy requirement of 15,000 GWh is roughly a three-fold
increase for estimated 1980 requirements, and would represent an average
growth of 6 percent per year for the 20-year period.
It is likely that actual requirements may be substantially higher or
lower depending on pace of development of the Alaska economy and
effectiveness of various energy conservation programs.
Harza Engineering Company, in connection with the National Hydropower
Stuay, prepared three projections of future electric energy needs. Year
2000 estimates of energy use excluding national defense and industrial use
were: Projection 1--14.5 thousand GWh; Projection 2--5.8 thousand GWh; and
Projection 3--7.5 thousand GWh. Projection 1 of 14.5 thousand GWh is very
close to APA•s estimate of 15 thousand GWh. Inasmuch as the Harza pro-
jections (1) dia not consider national defense and industrial needs and (2)
usea the 1972 OBERS population projections, which is generally recognized as
being inappropriate for Alaska conditions, it would be reasonable to accept
the APA projection as more realistic.
Comparing the hydropower potential with the projected demand of each
region (Table 7-2) reveals that, with electrical transmission interties, most
of the power needs of the Southeast, Southcentral, ana the Yukon Subregions
of Alaska could be met by hydropower. In addition, approximately 39 percent
of the power requirements of the Southwest could also be met by hydropower.
The power neeas of the Arctic and Northwest Subregions woula have to be met
by other means.
65
Index
ect Name
TABLE 7-1
NATIONAL HYDROPOWER STUDY
POTENTIAL HYDROPOWER SITES IDENTIFIED FOR DETAILED STUDY IN ALASKA
age
Ident Capacity Energy Cost of
Number Name of Stream Latituae Longitude Owner Potential Potential Energy
-----=---·~----··---·-----------~------~-----·-.----·---·-------····-------------------------~-{Tirr·--·-(rvtWh} -tmi 11 s";kWh~
Yukon
Brovme ;'\!\6NP/'~Or.i 27 Nenana R ~ ver 64 11 .o
AK6NPAC'l:l2 Kisaralik ;~iver 60 26.4
Tazirnina AK6NPA0032 lazimina 5 58.0
4, Grant Lake AK7NP/1.00i8 Woo:i River 59 itS. l
5. Lake Elva AK7NPA0155 Elva Creek 59 37.9
15.0 undeveloped 200,000
160 5.5 undeveloped
1~4 33.0 unaevelopea
158 32.0 undeveloped
l ' ~ ':II 0.0 undeveloped
30,000
51,0011
2. 700
1 ,000
566,000
131,000 56. 72
,oou 17,00
12,700 145.
8,000 29.58
Southcentral Railbelt
6. Chu1 itna AK6NPA0181 Chulitna River
7. Devil Canyon AK6NPA0188 Susitna River
AK6NPA0222 Susitna River
9. Chak achamn a l-\K7NPAO"I 06 Chakachamna
63 4.9 149 45.0 undeveloped 34,000 166,000
62 48.9 149 18.9 unaeveloped 766,000 3,410,000
62 48.9 148 30.9 undeveloped 792,000 3,480,000
61 13.0 152 22.0 undeveloped 366,000 1,300,000
45.07
11.53
17.97
12.30
TABLE 7-1
NATIONAL HYDROPOWER STUDY
POTENTIAL HYDROPOWER SITES IDENTIFIED FOR DETAILED STUDY IN ALASKA (cont)
Map Site Additiona 1 Additional Average
Index I dent Capacity Energy Cost of
Number Project Name Number Name of Stream Latitude Longitude Owner Potential Potential Energy
{kW) (MWh) (mill s/k!
1 0. Talkeetna AK6NP.I\0216 Talkeetna River 62 28.0 149 22.0 undeveloped 90,000 406,400 23.32
11. Keetna AK6NP.t:Dl97 Talkeetna River 62 26.5 149 41.6 undeveloped 7 4,000 324,000 30.38
12. Skwentna AK6NPA02ll Skwentna River 61 51.9 152 7.0 undeveloped 98,000 490,000 30.02
"13. Yentna AK6NPA0224 Yentna River 61 36.9 150 32.0 undeveloped 219,000 960,000 38.4 7
14. Beluga Upper AK6NPA0175 Beluga River 61 15.9 151 15.0 undeveloped 48,000 210,000 53.06
15. Coffee AK6NPAO 10 8 Beluga River 61 12.0 151 10.0 undeveloped 37,000 160,000 50.41 ::n
'-J
16. So 1 omo n Gu 1 c h AK7NPA0384 So 1 omo n Gu 1 c h 61 30.9 146 15.9 undeveloped 12' 000 65,000 25.5 7
17. A 11 i son Creek AK7NP~O 41 Allison Creek 61 7. 1 146 10.2 undeveloped 8,000 180,000 46.50
18. Snow AK7NPA0283 Snow River 60 17.9 149 18.0 undeveloped 63,000 278,000 31 .24
19. Bradley Lake AK7NPIX> 10 3 Bradley Creek 59 45.0 150 51.0 undeveloped 94,000 410,000 18.40
20. Terror Lake AK7NPA0166 Terror River 57 40.0 153 6.0 undeveloped 20,000 139,000 19.94
21. Power Creek AK7NPffiO 39 Power Creek 60 36.0 145 34.0 undeveloped 7,000 26,000 87.04
Southeast
2 2. Pe 1 i can Creek AKINPA0346 Pe 1 ican Creek 57 34.7 136 7. 8 Pelican 1 ,000 1,700 7 5. 57
Utility Co
Index
Number ect Name
23. KasnyKu Lake
?4. a katz Creek:_
2 ')' ;_,arDon
26. l~i ~ 11< Lake
"'2 7. Diana Lak'=
:0
28. Green lake
2 9. Maksuutof
30. Borodino Lake
31. Goat Lake
32. Dewey Lake
33. Dayebas Creek
34. Gold
TABLE 7-1
NATIONAL HYDROPOWER STUDY
POTENTIAL HYDROPOWER SITES IDENTIFIED FOR DETAILED STUDY IN ALASKA (cant)
e
I dent
Number
AK7NP ;, 033 5
AK7NPA0311
AK7NPh0321
AK7NPA0294
AK7NPA0325
AK7NPA0332
AK7NPA0291
AK7NPA0319
AK7NPA0357
AKINPA0359
AK4NP.!\0078
AKHNPA0099
Name of Stream
Kasn_yk u Fa 11 s
Takatz Creek
unnamed
i~ ilK Cr-eek
unnamed
Vodopad River
MaKsoutof
B.P. Walte,~
Pitch Fork
Dewey Creel<.
Dayebas Creek
Gold Creek
Latitude
57 11.0
57 6.9
S7 l.9
56 58 .I)
')6 53.0
56 95.3
56 30.0
56 2 2. 3
59 31.3
59 26.4
59 l 7. 2
-p ::>::> 1 7 ~ 9
Add1t10nar-Ado1tionar-Average
Capacity Energy Cost of
Lo itude Owner Potential Potential
134 49.9 undeveloped 7,000 30,000 41.63
134 51.0 undeveloped 20,000 9 7,000 34.48
134 28. 1 undeveloped 10,000 49,000 58.16
134 4 ! (' I o .J undeveloped 7,000 33,000 39. iO
1-, ,,
I .) "'\ 3.0 undeveloped 8,000 35,000 '65
11.6 undeveloped 16,000 64,000 48.47
134 57.9 undeveloped 24,000 li 7, 000 23.47
134 42.9 undeveloped 5,000 24,300 44.51
135 11.0 undeveloped 10,000 46,000 33.80
135 18.9 Alaska Power 1,000 l ,300 83.39
& Tele Co
135 2.0 undevelopea 5,000 18,200 65.95
134 2 3. 9 Alaska Elec 2,000 9,000 34.90
Light &
Power Co.
fABLE 7 -1
NATIONAL HYDROPOWER STUDY
POTENTIAL HYDROPOWER SITES IDENTIFIED FOR DETAI D STUDY IN ALASKA (cont)
Map Site Additional Additional Average
Index I dent Capac lty Energy Cost of
Number· Prgject Name Number Name of Stream Latitude Longitude Owner Potential Potential Energy
(kW) (MWh) (mi 11 s/kWh
35. Treadwell AKMNPA0086 Tr2adv1e l ., 58 15.5 134 22.3 A 1 ask a Tread-2,500 10,000 25.70
Ditch we 11
36. Annex AK lNPA0098 Annex Creek 58 19.5 134 7.6 A.J. Ind. 1,800 3,000 57.18
3 7. Lake Dorothy AK5NPJiD096 om~othy Creek 58 14.0 134 3.0 undeveloped 34,000 150,000 15.24
38. Speel Division AK6NPA0082 Speel River 58 6.9 133 42.9 undeveloped 63,000 275,000 32.84
39. Sr.ettisham AKJNPJiD102 Long Lake 58 5.9 133 48.0 A 1 ask a Power 27,000 168,500 14. 17
0'1 Administration
1.0
40. Crater Lake AK7NPA0356 Crater Creek 58 8.0 133 45.7 undeveloped 12,000 41 ,500 45.65
41. Tease AK7NPJl0084 Tease Creek 58 5.9 133 40.2 undeveloped 16,000 70,000 29.42
42. Upper AK7NPA0143 Sweetheart 57 59.7 133 30.6 undeveloped 7,000 31,000 42.94
Sweethear·t
4 3. Sweetheart AK7NPJlD083 Sweetheart 57 56.6 133 38. 1 undeveloped 29,000 127,000 38.19
44. Scenery Creek AK7NPA0401 Scenery Creek 57 4.9 132 41.9 undeveloped 15,000 6 7. 000 34.04
45. Falls Lake AK7NPJ.ID417 Cascade Creek 57 1.1 132 45. 1 undeveloped 44,000 190,000 18.20
46. Thomas Bay AK7NPA0310 Cascade Creek 57 3.3 132 45.2 undeveloped 50,000 217,000 18.47
47. Ruth Lake AK7 N P J.ID400 De lt Creek 56 59.0 132 45.0 undeveloped 13,000 63,000 45.61
TABLE 7-1
NATIONAL HYDROPOWER STUDY
POTE HYDROPOWER SITES I DENTI FIE 0 FOR uETAILEO STUDY IN ALASKA. (cant)
.. ___ _, -~~---..--~ ~----------Add 1 t Ton a 1---Ad d 1 t 1 on a 1-)i,verage ___ ·-
index I dent Capacity Energy Cost of
Number Number Owner Potential Potent·ial Energy
·-~~-.. ,-... ~~---.~~-· ""-•~n~" ---------~------tk'Wl·-----~ { m i nsTKWfi-r
48. ita AK6NPA04 14 Zimovia Straight 56 15.5 132 26.5 undeveloped 3,200 14,000 54.60
49, Harding r:ive~" f1K 7 NPAO 30 i Har(Jing River 56 1 r ~b. 1 31 38.9 undeveloped 18,000 85,000 60.44
<::: e Creek /\K 7 NP 1\04 Oi3 e Creek 56 12.0 131 3'' n undeveloped 30,000 133,000 27.66 " ..., If. .......
h s~!''l'aL L (1! 132 Fa 1 s 5S 3 5. 9 1 31 " .o undeveloped 22,000 85,000 !:\ •' 33 ,J ,, c ~o
5" (. !V1o.honev Lak AK7NPAO-l?3 !•lahoney Lak 55 25.0 31 31 1 undevelopec 14' 56,000 ,, 112
J ) s 3. Upper s i 1 v ·j s .AKDNPAO I Beaver Fa l 1 s c.~
,J :l 2 2.8 31 30.9 City of 2,000 4Y, 100 21.71
Ketcnikan
Lake Co nne 11 AKDNPA.Ol4l \liard k r:: ,. 26.0 131 40.2 City of ? 0,400 56<4S :)') ·-' Ketchikan
55. Ketchikan AKINPA0138 hikan eek 55 2i.5 31 37.0 City of 2 t ooc~ 15,000 3 10
Ketchikan
56. Chester e AKPNPA0097 Nichols Off 55 7. 1 131 31.6 City of 2,500 5,200 48<75
Metlakatla
57. B 1 ack ar AK7NPAOl Black Bear 56 32.9 132 0.5 undeve1opec 5,000 221000 44 ..
58. Lake Mary !IK7 NPAO Old Franks \, 55 26.0 132 29 .o u ndeve 1 opeci 9, 42.300 49
59, ;~e l er; LakE: AK7NPA025S lds k 55 1 2.0 132 36 ("! v undevelopec
I
I
0 F
c
A L
i
\
0 c
,lo<l.,HS -~~-~-..=,;-__-;::;
OPOWER STUDY NATION~llA~~~ REGION
E
ON MAP SITE LOCATI
DISTRICT ALASKOFA ENGINEERS CORPS
11180 DECEIIIBER
4
TAI3LE 7 2
Regional Requirements versus Hyaroelectric Potentia
H'lATED
REGION I REivJEN T
MW GWh
Southcentra 1 2,541 10,560
Yukon 675 2, 072
Southeast 349 1) 13 l
SouthvJest 134 .158
Remainder of State 301 879 __ , ___
4,000 15,000
l/ Marketable Projects by Year 2000,
HYDROELECTRIC
POTENT I
t-1W G\~h ... -,.~--=-.
2, 728 "12 ,004
200 r:.::
,J
549 :::<,486
85 376
u
---~-· ·~---· ""-'~
3,562 15,432
!\laska
f'4ARKt. t:
HYDROEL HUC
. .EQII~TlA.l:..~.l L
MW t1Wh
?,587 i ! • l
200
152 1)6(3
30 Dl
0 ;~ .. u
2,969 12,549
PCI-ver Adn;1n :~t-r·at 1on
APPENDIX A
PROJECT DATA
PROJECT DATA
The following tables provide physical data and environmental and social
impacts of the proposed projects. The environmental and social impact codes
can be identified through the following matrixes:
Des'::ription Matrix for Potential Environmental Concerns Code
(" <!< ........... " ~ i .::_> / .· <U I oi Q> / ~ ~ ~" I t.... l ~ I "'<U / ~ .
~ CO f'.,f ;;.~/ ~/ ~I ·~ / ~
t; ~ "' "' <> y "' " ,. ,§ ~ 'o <'~ '-' " ·~"" J; ~ 1} .' I ~ . ?;. .Jr ~ 0 ~ 0 'b-::;-I ~ ·~ 1 "'--"' -:"'-<>:"r~-~ -4-~ -5--{~ l..i; * ..•
Imp.,.ct 7
Unknown u u u u u u u
No N . N N N N N N
Yes y I y y y y y y
De~cription Matrix for Potential Social Concerns Code
-(J § ...... / ......
A-1
' I
> I
N
SURVEY SITES
TABLE 1
****••***********'**j**•j·~··********~*~···•**********~************'*************~*****•~··~·········-~········•••*•*••~···~····~
'* 'liTF !I' * Pix ECT ~JAMt Pi<l!MAI<Y rOil~liY * l"iCI<EMErHAL * TNC'<F''1Ec4TAL * Ir<f.riF1·1E TAL •tJJVRIH<:,TL• SOCIAL *
'!U I~ b f R * * C A PAC 1 T Y • Fr., F;; \. y C () ~ T • J ~ 1 PACT • I"' PAC T ~
* * * (K{'l) • (M,oH] • (:S/~l'NI1) * C'11JF * Cuf't *
***~*******************~**'***V********~*****~***~*****************************•~~··•**********~********k***********************~
* A~'o·<PAOU!2 • r'T~AHAL!K '<IVF.>I • riEP1t:l * ~<I(JIJO * !~IOU(! * 56.7<'1'1 * YYIIUllllll • !I'~'Jll!l!lUUU *
* ~I< 7 ·~ P A 0 0 1 8 * ;, '< H: T L A~ f ~ B fl IS r 0 L ':lA Y D 1 V * 2 7 0 n • l 2 f, 7 2 * I 4 5 • H 7 * N 1< I I lJ II U U * ll ~-N 1 Ji I U U U U *
* AK 7iJPA0 1 "i') ~ LAKt FL'J~ • Bll l ST!JL BAY llTV * 1000 * 80()11 * 290. ':!11 * NW\I.'J~Ii\1~) * N~JN:'JillJliYII *
* A•<7:;PM10~2 * TAZI:'.],;~ • tlRI':iTGi_ !:lAY !)IV * \1!0110 * 2?'11i00 * 17. 'I * V:JYY"NN * 11\NUi!UUUlJ *
~ A K r.; ~I P A fl il 3 <; * f' Cl t: E P C ~E. F -: • C '1 R 0 0 V A • n C C A P T h Y ", 0 0 0 " ? 6 (l 0 0 * 1 0 3 • .3 4 • t J fJ Y yr, U ~' " ~It J'" i\1 Y N U Y Y *
* l~P400Qt • A~NFX
• AK7~PA03~b • CP4Tt~ LAKE
• IKh\~40099 • hOL C~F~K5
* A K "i .·; P A 0 0 Q b * t. A~ F D J Q IH-! Y
K; J ; PAn 1 li c" * ,:, f'>; i:._ T T 5 H A ~1.
• ~ 1'. b "P A 0 \J R 2 * 5 D t F L ) T V ! S J '"'
• AK7~PA00Aj * S~E~lHfiQTFALLS
• AK7NPAOO~a • TFASE
• A".''·JPAI}tliib • T<;!t:AJIIIELL 0ITCH
• kK7'1PAnl<J3 PFfi ->Wf:FH•~A;;T
'* .~~<~7.-tt-_;Af)1:1 _5
* A•<7"P !<•
t fl. i·:·.:cA.9i (~
• !JKj~;PA(~l~F\
• ~ Y. fHl P A 0 1 11 1
KRA EY LA'<E
• CHA~ICHAMNA LAKE
·> CDF FEE
• K t 1 C '< I r, A •·J lAKES
• LA!\E CO'<~'>JEU. D.~~
* * AK7 PI 123 • MIHONFY LAKF UPPER
* IK7NPA0132 • SWAN LAKl
* A~ONPA0l!Y * uP~~k &ILV!S LAKf
* AK7~P40l6b * TE~RUH LAKE
* 4Ki,t>..PA017 • t!FL'JI,A !IPPEP
* AK~NPIOIRI • LHULIT~A JURRTCANE
• AK6N~A0!88 • DEVIL CA~YON ~PI PROPnSAL
* IK6NPAO!Q7 • KEETNA
* AK6NPA0211 * SKWf~T~A (HAYES)
* AK6NP~Oc16 * TALKEETNA c
•
• AK6NPA022c * ~&lANA ~PAPAOPJ5AL
* AKhNPAOC'2q • YENTNA
* AKPNPA0097 • CHESTER LAKF
* AK7hPAOIQq * tlLACK 8EAALAKF
~ AK7NPA0,3QS * LAKE MARY
• * AK7NP6025'l * MELLEN LA~E
* AK7NPAD283 * SNO~
* AK7NPA0319 * 80HODI~O LAKL
" 4K7tJPA032l • CARBO~! LAKE
* AK7~PA0325 • DTANA LAKE
* JU,~E AU
* JUi~fAli
• JUNf:AII
,. JII'.;E Ai'
* JUNf:A!;
* * j 11'\Jf A I)
>-JUNE' AIJ
* JIJ'If:AU
• Jur..E~<P
* J II i1F A I!
* KE~AI-OO~I~LfT
* KE~AI-00KINLET
• KfNAI-00Kl~LF1
* K ETC rl I Ari
~ K F 1' (' H f 1\ A ·~
•
*
*
*
"
*
•
*
*
* * * KtJCHIKAN *
• ~ETCH1KA~ •
• KETCHIKAN •
* KODIAK •
"' !·~A TAN U 5 K A-S II S I TN *
* * * KATI!.i~i!St<A-S\JSITN *
* MATA,~USKA-SIISITN *
• MATANUSKA-S!ISTTN *
* ~.A T A"< 1J S K A-S ll S I TN
• MAT HJliSK A-SUS! TN *
* • I"'ATANliSKA-SliSITN •
* MATANUSKA-SUSITN *
• O!JTEf.l KETCHIKAN •
* PRINC~ OF NALES *
• PRINCE OF ~ALES •
* * PRINCE QF ~ALES
• SEWARD
• SI!KA
" SITKA * SITKA
•
*
*
* •
*
t75fl
1 I R7?
21}1)0
1<41)011
?.nun
~>300()
?901)()
lbOOO
2'300
7000
9411 (I
31:>6000
1:70()0
1401'\
2000
141.10()
::>c>noo
2000
20000
481100
34000
776000
74000
qdOOO
90000
7Cl2000
219000
2500
5000
9600
8000
b3000
soon
10000
8000
* •
* •
*
*
*
*
* •
*
* ..
*
* • ..
* • •
•
*
* • •
*
* • •
*
*
* ..
*
* • •
* • •
*
5000
41QqO
~>9oR
l"iUOOO
27':>001)
1?/0un
10000
10000
3u6 0
4101)01\
1600000
lh001)0
2141)
lVQ';)h
C:'5'i90
A"lOOO
4 91 1 1
139000
21onoo
166000
3410000
3?4000
490000
40b446
348(!000
960000
5221
22000
4nr;o
30000
278000
24300
49000
35000
•
* • •
* • •
*
* •
*
* •
* •
* • •
*
* •
* •
*
*
* • ..
*
" •
*
*
*
* •
* ..
57.'7h
a7.n'i<l
34.R<lq
t<;.?l.l.:>
I)
.S2.1'4b
36.1'10
?.CJ.llf?.A
25.700
42.<l<IS
lA.I!Oil
!?. -~05
':> 0. ll I 3
H.S45
5f.t.ll':jl'l
3•1.'!2h
SA.~3R
5.1i277
JQ.QI.1'3
':5~. 61>
45. 74
11.<;3(1
.30.~l:l?
30. 27
2'3.'141
17.979
.56.Q7q
46.755
1.1'1.367
49.1\09
II 1 .I, 8?
s l • 21.12
4<1.S1h
5B.1t>O
37.658
* * * NNliUUUII • !iNNl•UUIJUti •
* ~'"WNNNI\I * NNNUYUUY Y *
* Nfli'!JIJU'I * IJf<~I;JliUlliJII *
* ~·:'<tltJUUI' * u;JNUYYYYY *
* Y 'IJNf<!Jr·JN * NN!Ii•~YtH Y Y *
* *
"' ~!'<IJii'Jllil * IINI\lUiiliiJUII •
* NNt.•UU!JU * !INNUYYYYY ,.
* f 1 ~·FIUt1Ul! * Ui'J~UYYY 'f Y *
* fiJi<LIUitU\t * IJ~Nlll!UIIYU *
* Nt4'1lllLIU • ll'liiJUIIUltUII *
* * N~YYYNY * NNNUYYYYY *
* Y iHIUIJUU • tiNilliJi.IUUUU •
* ~!I~YYIJUli * U'HJU!!UUUIJ "
* NN\ldiiULI * IJiii\JUIItJlil!ll •
* N~JIJUlJU!J * llt\INU''UlfUtt *
* * NNYtH~JN * VIJ'!IJ'!:'<',UYY *
• N~YYNUU ~ YNN~YUUYY •
• NNUUIIUIJ * UNN!!UUUUIJ *
* YNNYYNN * YNNYYNUYY •
• ~JNUYIIUll * UNNIJIJUI'Ull *
• * • * NNIIUUUII * UNYUliUUUU •
* NYN~NUN * UNNNVNUYY *
• NNlllJUI!II * UNNUUUUUII *
* NNUUlJUU * UNNuUU!Jl,U *
* NNliUIJiliJ * IJNNUUUUUU "
• * * NYNt~Nt.J~J * liNNNVNUY Y *
* NNYYIJUY * UNNUUUUUII *
* NNUUIIUU * t!NNUiiUUUU *
* Yl\iNYYNN * IHJNNYUL!O *
* NNUUIJUU * IJNNUUUUUU • .. • •
* NN!Jlii!Ull * liNNUIIl 1UUU *
* NIIHIUIJUt' * IIIIINUUUUUtt *
* NIIIU!IliiJU * IJNNUUUtlllll *
* NNUlllJIJII * utJNliUIHJUU "'
* NNlJ•JUULI ., UNNUUUUUU *
*
* ..
..
*
*
*
* •
*
*
*
*
*
* ..
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
SIT£ !f)
r; ut.1r! I'><
A!(HJPA0332
4K7rJPA033':l
AK 7htPAO.;:Q1
AI\ 7·',PAIJcQ4
Al< p;Pt,(1)1Jb
AK7tJPA0311
~KIJNPA(\078
A~ !r;PA 0 .5'5'1
AK 7r<Pt.u3'57
A~<, 7:JPA0v41
AK7NPA(1384
Ai\7·\PA0.310
A K f, •, Pt. 0 4 1 4
AK7i<PA0~01
AK 7'if'A0400
Ai<":-JPA0417
AK7NPA0401
AK7NPA040!!
A~hllPA0427
*
•
*
"' • • ..
*
*
*
* ..
*
*
* •
*
* •
*
*
*
G'l~_ff< LA I( I'
!(A~fH~d LIIKI:
rLIJ.I\SuiJTPF !-ilVf~
·~I L~< LAKt;
P"L T C Af< CREEK
TAKAT7 Ch'EEK
DAYf!:lAS Ch'EEK
j If: :;F=_ '( LA'<FS
L~lA T LAKi:
All [ !:lO'l CRH.:
~nL OM•1hJ GI!LCH
1 ri!JMAS 'lAY
MilT A
HAkDlNG RIVE f./
R II T >1 LAKt:
FALLS .LAKJ:;
SCENC:~Y CRI'FK
TYEE CREEK
flPQI'INE
..
*
*
*
* ..
*
* •
*
*
*
*
*
* •
•
*
*
SURVEY SITES
TABLE 1
.'<1TKA
!:ll TKA
5 TTKA
!:l fTI(ll
~I1KA
S TTK A
S K A r; ;·< ~ Y -Y A K II T A T
S ~ A(.'.\ A Y -Y A II 1.1 f A f
:0 '<A'>~! A Y-YAK U T ~ 1
VAL.fi£7-Crll T~,·:Hl 1
VAL') t. 7.-C rH T -,v-< I T
..
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
t,f<A'J,;FLL PETER!:>~UR•
>'~ANbFLL-i>I:.Ti:PSR •
,~f<A"lbELL-PI:. T~PS'lll~'*
:,i<l;. "'GEL L -PC: T E Fi S~ * WRAN CELL-PETERS B
O<A~JGELL-PE TERS~ •
>\tiAIIJGELL·PE HRStl *
YIIKfl'J•!(llYI!Kll!(
l r, C R e·1t N T A L
t: A PAC I TY
( K 1'1)
lbhd(l
70UO
~4fJtl0
71')of\
1000
?00()(\
soon
1 fliJ(l
1 1) () l) 0
~000
120()()
c;onon
3?.30
1811(10
t 30;10
44000
1':>1!00
30(i00
200(10(1
* ..
.. hLlOOP • ~R.4n7
* 'tt1 non u1.b2h
* 117000 * <' ·~ • c1 I q
* 3.50()0 * )Q. 1 01
1700 .. l"i.'i()7
* *
* Q?nvo .. ~ Ll. IJ 0 {1
1 b 1 'H• • b'i.Q')}
* 1 ~ l) 11 .. 1'':.'1;/-l'i .. <I bll cl n * 53. A IJ II
* 1 0 fli) (' * uio, • .,v5
* ..
* hSI)OO * ~"'.'ill
* 2!7ll17 .. 1 fl.:n (
1 .. 1 :Jr. * ':>4.nv'>
* f\'jllUO * !:>0.443
* '>3nun * 4"i.hl~
* 1 90000 18. 200
1-,71100 * .sa. "l
* l'~c 0 <+0 .. 27.~!:-il
* ':>6bOU0 • ilfl.'l-'!5
* f:J' \1 R! J '11 1 T L '*
* l if-' ACT *
* CWlF. *
* f.l,"Jt!,;L!."H' •
'itLJi ~Lit 1 •
• II )11!'11 • .. ~j' ~II ,J [II I I\ *
* ~-J~·:IHqlllll * .. .. .. y J 'J I )I I *
* rJ r.J r.;;, y til J •
• ~.' )II II t IIi 1 ..
* ., HIJJIIIJ'i •
• r.1 JU v r-1rJi<! *
* * .. t,lf,i"H'{f'~ ~ 1 I! * .. ~-I ;.,.,..,i • tv:·~"'; *
* i·F<I'!IIIIJil •
* rn~ Ll! Jtlt.liJ * . t-U.J!ll)l !tJt l *
* N~ UUUUU
• fr'.tltllUtt *
* ''"<I i' J1 fiJI! *
* '<NIHil II II) *
:;,nctAL
JI~PACT
c' l"t
Wv'JIJYYYYY
ii ,;!VdUl1llliiJ
II>;'~(> IIIII ',J II
""JtttiUltutl
II I.J \If) l 'lll 1 U I I
I I' ,tql11lJ(Il•ll
i 1 ~": \:\ U Lt lr Y t1
l1 •J ~J :_)I_ it; l ~ U !_ i
11 J'I'.!IIL•IIUII
~J i'; f)!' y ''.! 'V '( v
~-:I II, Y t:!JY Y
•;v-.:,yy~yy
1•1J''l''.IUUUII
'"'~'llt 1 lll'UI I
tJ~~'JtllilliiUI'
U:-lNUUUU UU
llt~~·JUt llllitPJ
, J t\! ~ ~.! l 1 l1 ~ 1ut 1
II V Y •Jr-!'d'i~t<
*
*
• .
•
*
*
*
*
*
* •
..
• .
•
*
* •
* ..
*
***************k*****~********************************************************•*******~************************~*********•*******
SURVEY SITES
TABLE 2
*~•*'*******************•'*~*************************************•··~···•*********************************************~*********•*** * SITE IO * PROJECT NA~E * LATITUDE •PROJ.PURP.• DAM ijT * EXIST.CAP. •EXIST.ENRG•ANUL. rosT * ~NVIRONMENTAL *
• PRIMARY CO. •NAME QF STREAM •LONGITLIOE * STATUS •F C STOA.• INC. CAP. •INC.ENERGY•ENEHGY COST• IMPACT COOE *
* OEP ACT\1" (1WNER • OR.AREA • AVE. Q •PwR. HO. * TOT. CAP. *TOT.ENERG'~'• *
* CODE INV * MAP REFERENCE * (0 M.M) * • (FT) * (KW) * (MMHJ * (IUOO S) * * * GEOG. AREA * * (D M.M) * (AC FT) * (KW) * (MNH) * (S/M~H) SOCIAL *
"' * * (SQ.MI) * (CFS) * (f'T) * (KW) * (l~;~H) * IMPACT Cv{it *
******•-•*********W***********************************************~*•**~***************~*******ft**************•*******************
* AK6flPA0012 • KISARAl.TK RIVFR * 1:>0 26.4 * H * 315.0 * 0 * U * 7431.11 * YYUUL>IIU *
~ I 2 * ~ETHEL ~lSAPALlK RIV• 160 5,5 • IU * 71~000 * 'OOO~ * i31000 * ~b.72R *
> SOUThwEST • UIIIOEVF•_OPEil 5U4 • UO.O* 264.7 * ~00(10 • 13!UilU • * tiU~:UlJU!IIJLI *
• • •'FT'iEt 'I-~. " • * * • ~
* • IK7~PAOU18 * GAIN1 LIKE
* ! 2 * nRlSTOL 6AY WUOD RI~Eh
* SOitiH;·;~"ST • tJNDEVFLilPF:O
* * uiLLI~GHA~0-7,U-e ,.
* AK7~PAOl'>S • ~AKf ELVA
* i 2 • ~RISTO~ SAY * SiJUTr">lfST • JNDfV!:LOPFO
*
*
• GOODNF~S ~AY r-1
• * AK7~PA0032 * TIZIM!NA
• I 2 * dRISTOL ~AY
* SUtiP1,~fST • IJijlJEvFUJPFll
* IliA"l'~A il-5.
* * AK5NPA003Q • PO~ER CREEK I
* ~ ~ • CO~DUVA-~CCA
c 'lO Cf~TRAL • U~DfVfLO~f0
,. • [neli)OVA C-';),
o AKI~PA009H o A~~FX
TA7l"INA
• sq 1"5.'~
* 15B 32.0 •
31 *
" * 59 H. 'I *
• l'>'i n.r. •
1. 0
• ':)'1 "ill,') +
TVE* 1~~4 3~ .. 0 *
* 3?0
•
*
•60~5.1 *
* 14~ 3?.4 •
?1
* ')A 1\:f.'J:
* I 2 * J'JNfAII ANNE X CRFEK * l 3tt ., • f:. *
• >vi!T>;[AST * ALASKA 'L.F:C L(: f MID PI'M b •
* Jqr;E AU "-!
* AK7NPA03~& • C~ATtR LAKE
i' * J!!Nf ~.II
• SUI'THEA:;T * d~:DEVEi..OPEO
* TAKI! ,~~b. ..
* A>:>~iJF'll.G(jQ9 • &OLD CREEKS
•
• Sf' o. i>
[~ATfR CREEK • 133 45.7 •
• SF< 1 l. I
• I 2 • Jllt<f A !I G•lLD C'<E:'" l ,,. ?:L o *
j(; * ScllfTHE~ST .. 4LASI'\A ELELTFIIC i_lG>-If ~ Pf),;F•
~ Jlli<EA 11 "1-?
• * lK~NPA009o • LAKE DOQOTY¥
*I 2 ~ .Jtt.-·JEAi'
* 'ltJHTHlAS I • lJ'JfJI:'VfL.OPFIJ
,:;· i"/\1'\.il RIVE.RA-b,
OU>I(Jlc\Y C
• •
* s~ 1 4, ~:
t.lo(• 1~~4 :;.,n *
I!
rl
IS *
•
•
!)? .. ? ..
•
•
H * n; •
l'I'<O.n•
*
H *
SP "
ri
•JP *
H
I"
.,, b.,. 1J {-
•
11'5.0•
•
H *
flP *
-57,7•
•
IS
*
')6.\J *
52':>00 *
209.7 *
*
* 137.0 *
c<lOOO "
2t;9.7 •
* ..
li':J.O •
llli'O:)U *
!l<u.o •
25.li '
i) ..
.5'19. b •
* ~~~.0 •
2~411() ..
755.0 *
*
5'J .. o 11:
1\ROO(! +
979.0
* 5.1) •
•J •
2?':>.11 *
s.u It:
1ot;uno •
23Ul.b •
*
n *
270il *
270!l *
*
* () *
1000 *
111()0 *
*
n *
t80uO *
11:\1100 *
+
f\ •
'J!l<JO *
501)() *
..
3<; ~) 0 •
17':11' *
'l250 *
0 *
l 1 p, 7? •
llf!P •
l.h ('I *
?Ot;n ..
.H·on • ,.
..
~ "
~~4 n ,, •
3U tl 'J ''i *
*
* \) *
1C'b72 •
[?I) 7 2 *
*
l' •
i<iJOG *
f\ no •
*
221i (H) *
;:> c: l.j l• (] 0 *
*
* Q •
in()\\ cl *
26\J!lU *
1)\10{1 •
~ 0 ()
'ltno *
(I >
41 4°•) ..
<!100!) •
*
f,{j()(l •
'14/,K *
J'-,7ho •
*
\i *
lR49.t;
l <4:,. i:) 7
2'ic'4.6
2qv.'il\
q>oo.R
)7. f'
21,137.0
I .\ 3. 'iJ
171. '1?
'::; 7., lr
.512.'-'R
jiJ./)qO
*
*
•
*
*
*
* ..
•
*
*
iUltYll
. I. J I' y· '( \' '( y
*
*
*
*
SURVEY SITES
TABLE 2
·~····••***************************************~********************************************************************************** * 'liTE ID * PROJECT NA•1f * LATITUDE •PROJ.PURP.• DAM HT * EXIST .CAP. •EXIST .ENRG,.ANUL. COST * ENVIRONMENTAL *
* * PRl~ARY CO. •NAME OF STREAM •LONGITUDE * STATUS •F C STOR.* INC. CAP. •INC.ENERGY•ENERf.Y COST• lV.PACT CODE *
* DEP ~CTV * O~NER * DR.ARfA * AVE. Q •P~R. HO. * TOT. fAP. •TOT.ENERGY• * *
*CODE INV * MAP REF£RENCE * (D M.M) * * (FT) * (KW) * (M~H) * (1000 $) * *
* GEOG. AREA * * (0 M.M) * * (AC FT) * (K.-1) * (M>'IH) * (S/MWH) * SOC_IAL *
* * * (SQ.Ml) * (CFS) * (FT) * (KW) * (MWH) * * IMPACT CODE *
***************************************~························••************************************************•***************
* AKJNPA0102 * 5NETTISHAM * 58 s.q * H * 10.0 * 471b0 * 1bR50U * lq0?.8 * YNNNUNN *
* 1 2 * JUNEAU LUNG LIKF * 133 48.0 * OP * 150000 * 23300 * 0 * 0 * * SOUTHEAST • .H POWER ADMIN. * 30 * 447. 0* 800.0 * 704b0 * !l4250 * • IJNNNYNYYY *
* * TAKU RIVERA-b * * * * * * *
* * * AK&NPAOOA2 * SP~EL OTVISION
* I 2 * JIJNEAU SPFEL !'liVER
* SDPTHEAST * tJNDEVELOi'Eu
* • TAKl.l RIVE!IA-5.
* *
..
• 58 b.q *
* 133 4?.Cl ..
* 19'1 *
" ..
*
H *
IS *
-2314.')•
*
* AK7NPA0083 • SWEETHEARTFALLS * 57 ')b.b * H *
* I 2 * JuNE All SwEETI-tEARTCRE • 133 38.1 • IS *
* SUIJT!jE AST * U~JOEVELOPED * 35 * 328. O•
* * SiJMi)U'-1 0-5 * * *
* * AK7NPAD084 * TFASE * 58 5.9
* I 2 • J \i '" F' AU TEASE CREEK .. 133 '10.2 •
* SUUT~tAST * UNDEVELOPED
* * TAKll Rl\/ERA-5.
* * AK~N°AOU8b * TREAD~ELL OllCH
"' I 2 * JPI•EAtl TRFAI:'.'iELL
* SOUTHEAST * AK ELET LIGHT K ~O~ER
* * JIJNEAU 1-l-?., A·2
* *
.. ..
1 1 * .. ..
* 58 15.5 •
Dlh 13ll 22.3 *
.. 1 .5 "
*
*
*
*
*
H *
I'> *
H
IS
1':l2.o ..
*
*
*
* 7'i.O• ..
* * AK7NPA0113 * UPPER SWEETHEART * 57 ~q.7 * H *
* I 2 * JIJNEAU Sv<EE THEARICf<E* 133 30.& * IS •
* SOU!i-<E.IST * UNOEVELf1PEO * 3 * 4"i.O* ..
* * AK7:4PA010.5
* I 2
* SI.J CENTRAL ..
*
• SLI~f)U'-~ n-<;-
* * fiiHDLE Y LAKE
* KENAI•COOKIN
• l.lNDEVELO!'ED
*
*
*
*
* ~9 45.0 *
BRADLEY CREEK* 150 51.0 *
* 8b * * 3ELOUV1A D-3,C-3. *
*
*
* •
H
PA
*
*
*
*
3<?5.0 *
q10000 *
272.7 *
*
* tso.o ,.
2U6(JU0 *
011. .5 *
•
* ao.o •
220(\0 *
\032.q *
*
* 5.0 *
4()0 *
'517.4 *
*
* 35.0 *
18000 *
1178.6 *
*
* 120.0 *
363000 *
1053.~ *
*
* * AK7NPA010b
* I 2
* SO CE:~Ti.IAL
* CHAKACHAM~A LAKF
* KFNAI•COOK!N rHAKACHA~NA
* b1 13.0 *
R• 1'52 2i?.O *
H
IS
.. 5.0 *
* 4015000 *
*
*
* uNDEVELOPED
* TYONE~ A-7.
* * AK~NPA010b * COFFE~
* I ~ * KE~A[-COOKIN
* SO CE~TR.L • U~DEVELOPFIJ
* * TYO~EK A-11.
* 1120 * ..
*
*
* * 1)1 t2.0 *
BELUGA RIVER • l~l 10.0 *
81,0 *
* *
364b.D• 7q2.2 *
*
*
H *
IS *
218b.O•
*
* ..
t::>O.IJ *
0 *
108.8 *
*
* n *
b3000 *
b3000 *
*
*
0 *
?.9000 *
29000 * ..
* o *
16000 ..
16000 *
*
*
0 *
2'500 *
2500 *
*
*
0 *
7000 *
7000 .. ..
* (I ..
94000 *
q4000 ..
*
*
0 *
366000 *
3f>b000 *
* ..
o *
37000 *
37000 *
*
0 *
275000 *
27'5000 *
*
*
u *
1.:>7000 *
127000 *
* ..
0 *
70001) *
7000P *
*
*
0 *
\OUOU *
10000 ..
*
* 0 ..
50bb0 *
306h0 *
*
*
0 *
410000 ..
410000 *
*
*
0 *
160()000 ..
lb01)00fl ..
*
*
0 *
lbOOOO *
160000 * ..
*
*
*
*
*
* 4~50.2 *
38.191) *
*
*
* ,:>flSQ.o *
29.112A *
2"i7. (\
25.7on
7547 ....
18.408
19&8A
12.305
8066.1
':10.113
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
* ..
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
NNUUUUU
!'NNUUUUUll
NNlllJUUU
t:NNlJYYYY Y
NNUUULlli
IJNNUYYYYV
t~"JU!IUIIU
liNNIJUUUYU
•<NLJUUUU
liNNUUUliUil
NNVYYNY
t\INNIJYY¥YY
YNIHIUlJU
UNNUUUliUU
NMYYUUU
tJNNUUUIJUU
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
* ..
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
***************•***************•*************~************************************************************************************
SURVEY SITES
TABLE 2
~****************•**************•*******•***~*w******~********k*~********~********•***~*****************~*************************
* SITE 10 * PROJECT NAME * LAfiTIIDf •PROJ.PURP.• DAM HT * EXIST .CAP. *EXIST .EN!<G•MJUL. COST * ENVIRONMENTAL *
* * PRIMARY CO. -NAME OF STREAM •LONGITUDE * STATUS •F C STOR.* INC. CAP. •INC.ENERGY•ENERGY COST• IMPACT COOt *
* DEP ACTV * OwNER * DR.AREA * AVE. Q •PWR. HD. *TOT. CAP. •TOT.ENERGY• * *
* CODE INV * MAP REFERENCE * ID M.M) * * (FT) * (KWJ * (N~H) * (\000 $) * *
* Gt::OG. Ai<E~ • * (D M.~~l * * (AC FTl * (K~) * (~lNH) * ($/MWH) * SOCIAL *
* * * l SQ. t4 I J * ( C F S) * ( r T) * ( K W) * ( ~1.~ H) * * IMPACT CODE *
*****~*********~******~***~*****************~*~*******************************************************************~*************** * AKINPA013H * ~ETCHIK~~ LIKES *55 21.5 * SH * 33.0 ~ A200 * 14800 * 159.5? * NNUUUUU *
* T 2 • ~FTCHTKIN KETCHIKAN C~E* 1~1 37.0 • OP * 9200 * 1400 * 2140 * 74.Sa5 * * * S:J<tTH~:AST *CITY OF KETCHI!<Ml * ll * -14&.1• 265.0 * 5600 * 16940 * .-tiNNlJUUl!UU *
• * KFTO•IK~I\i d-5 * * * * * * * *
* * * * A~DNPA01~1 * LAKE (U~NfLl nAM
* I 2 t KfTCHlK&~ WAR CREEK
• 5':> 2b.O *
* 131 40.2 *
* 1 3 *
*
• O>Ui'THE ~~.;T • r<fTCr1I(l:< PULP C0'1PA Y
• * ~ETrHJ4KA~~-5.6-b ..
AK t;,PA01?3 * Hi•hONF r LA!'\E liPPEP
+ I 2 * KfTcHIKA,J ~~AH(JN~ Y
"' SuUTHEAST • UNiJfVELOPED ..
* * s5 ?~.o
u,•E * 111 31.1
* 2
*
*
* * AK 7:J.'>Ai}llf2 < SWA'l U\K[
* I 2 * KETCHIKA~
1P.: ~'·.1 :1TH[/·.~T tt li"JOEVELDPE
'~ETCHIKA•~ C-3.
* 55 i!'5.q *
FAtl_.o CR rlt\iT• 1~1 21,0 •
"b ·~
*
• A~ 10139 • UPPER SILVIS LA~E
• U 2 * KFTtHikAN 8EAVE~ * 30t'Ti"'E:AST * CITY OF KFTC~nKA;j
., t<:ETrH[K!J.IJ B-5
* 1~7~PA01~o * YfQRO~ LAKl
• ! c * KODIAK
* 'll! CE.1Th:AL * UIIJOEVELf'PFD
* * ~OOIA~ C-4a
# 5~1 ~c.,8
fALLS • l31 10,9 *
22
* .. * * ':>7 'lll.O *
153 1,,0 *
*
*
*
1 7
* ~'IHJPA0175 * tiELII{:,A IWP!:h'
* f! ,~ * '•lA TA•,u:,K A-Sll
* SU Cf'HRAL • lJ'IIuEVELOPFU
~ bl lS."' *
REL GA ~~ ER • 1~1 lS.O *
* 840
*
* * A~hNPA01AI • CHULITNA JUR~ICANE * b
* I t! * '·'A TAN US K A -$ U C H II L r TN A R t V E,. 1 Q 9
+ ~0 CErJT~AL • UN0~vft_OP~~
* • HEALY A-c,
*
*
* •
t.;.'-1
45 .. (' '*
?<IS *
*
* AKbi,PAC•!R~. • UfVIL c~,;vl)f! "JPA PROPPSIIL * b, t;t\.9
* D 2 1r ·~1 A iAN l J ~ K A-S t i ~.: '5 I T f~ ~ R IV c:: R * l 4 9 1 8.., c, w.
~ t:_!·, rt_~,iTk:Al ~ !_J"'JU~\,r.:· (;PF0 'H31 0 J~;
T A L ~ E Pl A . ·H 5 -'; -4 • *
* sn *
UP *
H
IS
174,0•
*
*
*
* 4~<.0•
*
*
rl *
IS *
OP
rl
IS
*
*
*
*
*
H *
IS *
241:1'1.0>
*
*
H *
IS *
2na.o ..
HR(
*
85.0 *
1\300 *
149.8 *
*
*
25.0 *
111200 •
1825.1 •
*
*
!<15.0 *
!70000"
27<L7 *
*
* 60.0 •
22uno *
265.0 "
..
70.0 *
u *
1148,8 *
*
*
180.0 *
I) *
141.8 *
* ..
230.0 *
u •
?0 b. 7 *
*
*
1035.0 *
~o • tnsornn •
9~27.n• 574.4 *
*
*
I) *
2noo ..
2000 *
*
*
0 *
1440:'1 *
lll4Uil *
*
* 0 ..
22000 *
22(l0(1 ..
*
*
2100 *
2000 *
41Uii *
*
*
(l *
?.0000 *
?0000 *
*
*
I) *
llHOOn *
48000 *
*
*
0 *
~4000 •
~4000 *
*
*
ll *
71h11!1 *
77b000 *
*
*
0 *
!OIJ5b *
10456 *
*
*
(J *
S'i59u •
55590 *
*
*
0 *
115000 *
ti50fl() *
*
*
':>GOO *
'lq111 *
5Q 1 ll *
*
* () *
\ 3 q 0 0 \• ..
13'l000 *
*
*
0 *
210000 *
210000 •
*
\1 *
lbhO!H* *
1 b600t) *
*
*
0 *
jlllOunn *
3lll Oflll •
*
59u.cll
5h.llSO
211<>.20
5.13?77
*
*
* *
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
"
*
•
*
*
*
11143 *
53. hh *
748?.3
4'i. 71.!
39~2"
11. '<'12
*
* •
*
* •
* ..
"li\JUUUUU
UNNUUUI!Uli
NNYNYNN
YN,..NY~JIJYY
NNYYfljlf!l
YNNNVLJliYY
NI\JUUUlHJ
UNNUUU!JLIU
Y"JNYYiliiJYY
NNUYUl'IJ
U~·JNUIIUUUU
NNtH'IJUU
UNYUlJU!IUU
NYNNNIIN
*
*
*
*
*
*
•
*
*
" *
*
*
* ,.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
SURVEY SITES
TABLE 2
!->lit ID P,;I'JJ':Cl ''~"!:
• ~Ql~ARY en. -NAM~ OF
'J :: ~n: "~
* L A I J 1 I I U r * P f.' U j • "U R P • * ) A '·1 rl T • f:. X I S 1 • C A o-' • •r XI'-' I .t•J;,·r.•Ar,!IL. rr,s I
•l~JC.I:'Ji:.RhY•t!<f>U;y rn~;T. S T REA"' • L J ~~ G J T tJ D F • STATuS * F C S T n ~. • I r; C • C ~ P •
* [lt p ACH • nR.a~EA AVF. U •"~R. riO. * li'JT. CA". • T (l T • L ' i-R ,, v * *
* CliDt.
* r,[ (1 ;; ..
HIV •
ARFA *
"AP REFI:RI:~CF ( ll ·~ • M ) • ( F T ) • ( K ·; l • ( t\;, H) l I •J '''' 'I l *
*
• A K h II PAn I g 7 * K f t T J A
* (!! '-'.M)
(S,l.tH)
* 62 2b.'i
*
* I 2 * 1·1 A I A'' l> :0 K A-~ Li T A L K t. r. T i, A I< i V * 1 I~ g 4 ) • h *
12'i0 * SO CE'JTI-< AL • U~IOEVfLI'JPFlJ
* TALKI:El~A ~TS ~-6 *
*
• A K 1-'; P A 02 I 1 * ::i ~ "' E < T ~A (HAY f S) • hi '11.4
RIVE• !">2 7.0 *
q<;,) *
* I) c * HAT A'JJ;:,K A-SU SK.~I: 'I HIA
• S(J [F:HfiAL • IJ'!OEVEUlPfu
* 1 Y U '·IF '( II-f. •
* • AKhNPA0c'lb * lALKI:El~A i
* I 2 • :·iATAtJIJSKA-SIJ
• ~U CF~TRAL • U~DEvFLOPFO
*
* 62 2R.\) *
TAlK E 1: T :J A P IV • 1 1.1 g c! 2. fl *
B'iO *
* * TAL~EFT~A Ml~S R-5.
* * *
• A K I,'' P A 0 2 2 2 * . ; A T A i~ A ~·J f-' A P ~ 0 P 0 S A L * 6 2 1.1 8 • 9 *
• D (' * ,-\A 1 At-J i IS K A-S II SUS I T' I A Q I \' ~ R * 1 ~ 9 :~ 0 • g *
* St; C>'.JTRAL • U~JlJFVfLOPfi) 5190 *
* * TALKI:ET~A ~T5 u-1.1,3,~ C-2,1.• *
• * * AK6NPA02?4 * YE~TNA
* [I 2 * '1 A T A '<US K A -S ll
* SU CfNTt-<AL * IJ'JUfv'fLOPEO
* * TYONt.K C-2.
"
* *
• bt ~o.9 •
YENTNA hlv'fk * 1'10 3?.n *
640V
*
*
*
* * AKP~PA00q7 * C~ESTFR LAKE * 5~ 7.1 *
• I 2 • OUTE~ KETC~I NICHOLS OFFST• 131 31.h *
* S llU THE A S T • '1 E T L A K AT LAP 0 ~ E R 1\ L 1 G H T * 2 *
" •
• r<FfCf-ilKAr~ A•'J
* * AK7NPA0104 * tlLACK tlEARLAKE
* I ~ • ~QI~C£ OF ~A
* SOUTHEAST * UNuEVELUPEO
*
*
* CPAIG C-3
* * AK7NPA03g5 * LAKE MARY
* I ~ • PRI~CE OF ~A
* SOtJTHEAST • U"lllFVfl[JPF'D
* • CRAIG d-2
* * AK7NPA025~ • MELLEN LAK~
* I c! * PRINCE OF ~A
* SOUTHEAST
*
* UNiJEVELOf>ED
* SITKA 0•3.
*
*
*
* * 56 32.9 *
BLACK REARC~E• 132 O.S *
• 1 *
*
*
*
* * 55 26.0 *
OLD FRANKSCRE* 132 2q.o *
* 27 *
*
*
*
* * 55 12.0 *
PtYNOLOS CREf• !32 36.0 *
*
*
6 *
*
( r:F s)
*
H *
IS •
1b50.0•
HRC
*
*
*
(AC FTJ •
( F T) •
3h 1). () *
q 1 r i) no
21".,.7 *
3h (). \) *
0 •
;>q().?
*
.H':l.u *
0 *
3bq.b • ..
810.0 *
rP • 9~21.1000 •
dl37.~· 6'19.~ *
fi
lS
*
* 171--11.0•
*
*
.1
(JP
H
IS
*
26.0•
*
"
*
13.5•
*
*
H *
IS *
H
IS
240.0•
*
*
*
* b2.0•
*
*
l? (!. 1) *
IJ *
81.9 *
*
*
12.0 *
300 *
7~9.2 *
*
28.0 *
hqno *
1458.~ *
*
*
30.0 *
95000 *
2f-4.7 *
*
* 35.0 *
\) *
1:1 F,q. 1 "
*
(' \ J
(><;c•;)
•
n *
7-..noo
7 "0 1) 0 *
n •
g ~ n 11 n *
OtjO(JO .. .. ..
(l * quono ..
q ,J 0 0 (l •
*
*
n *
7qcnoo •
7g20G~ * ..
*
0 *
21'l01)0 *
21'-100(\ *
*
*
n *
2c;oo *
,>Gl)r\ *
*
*
o *
5000 *
':>000 *
*
*
o *
9600 *
9non •
*
*
0 *
AllOO *
ilOOO *
*
(~",H)
( ~.'.\H)
\) .
~2l..l()(,\l •
~c'4UL1u *
') *
Ll qo 0 1, 1; •
(J g '< U I) cj *
c *
~ 1) 64 (J"'
/Jilh4/Jb •
u It
'54 Mill! (I v *
31JC\{IlJ0U *
u *
ObO(JOLJ •
GG(l(JOO *
*
*
(J *
'iC?i'1
~?? 1 *
*
u *
2?00U *
~2000 ..
*
*
(l *
4230l! *
4?3nu •
*
*
0 *
30000 *
:soono *
*
Qf'4~.7
3 n. -~a?
1250.4
41 • f-d2
*
*
* .. ..
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
F 1 1 1[1<,1~.·-tP"l AI_
li''PA(T [>Jilt
')IlL l A L
1 M PAC T CcJ c I'
U0Jr\: !llt11 Jt!ll
fJf·I(JI_Itlll!!
! !rJh,i ,I !i i:Jt 11 I
r;f,.\JllJ!lU
iJ~ Y Y LillY
IIIJ ~<I 11.11 J II U lJ
~!NlllJllllll
IIN'<Lii;i)\ltlll
Llflii!NYULIYY
I)~JNIILIUIJUll
'JNUUUUU
ilNNllliUUUIJ
..
•
•
* •
*
*
*
* •
*
*
*
*
*
* •
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
**********************************************************************************************************************************
SURVEY SITES
TABLE 2
*********~**•****~V**•*****•**+**********************************W****************************************Y*******-********•*****~
* <;JH. ID 1->'l'lJfCT ~JA'l£ * !.ATITUDE •PR(l.J.PURP.• lJA'' t-<T * EXIST.C~P. •t.XIST.fNh'G•A'''JL.. CUSf * F:IVJO,-•Nr•1ft,TAL
• Pi:ii'lARY L:O. -~JAME UF STR!::.A~I •L(JI\iGTTIIUf. * ::;TATUS •F C STD'I.• HJC. CAl". •HlC.UJI'RGY•ft,fR!;'C CnSl* P~r'ACT COOt
A( TV * rt~;t·•t:P • DR. AREA • AVE. io •Pl.P. h0. * TnT. CAP. •T(IT .EN!:RGY * *
* CtJOc I~V * MAD WEFERENCf [0 M.M) * * (fl) • (~W) * (M~H) (IUOO ~) * * G t 01.:> • t R F ~ * * (0 !4 • M ) c<: * l A C F T ) ( K I'J ) * p• '.~ H ) * ( ) I~,~; H * Sl'CIAL
* * ( S Q • I-I[ ) ( C F 5 ) ( F T ) * i 1\ t1 ) * ( M :i H I * U-1D ACT COD!:
**'******~******************************~~***************w*•t***************************************~•~******~**********•******•**
' A''/:·-!PA02R'I * :oc,r)W * t,(l 17.9 * H 310.11 * I• * 0 * t\hn';,t; * tJ~JIIIIti!IU *
* r "' • ""'''A 'l s,'o"· kTVF'' * 1149 tA.fl ~ rs o * n3nuo * ?71hlOo * .s1 ,?'l2 • * * S(l CF\JTRAL. * U'JOEVfL!)PF.O * 1\5 710.0• t>S2.3 * 1-.SilOO * 27flU00 * t:N':UUUllllll *
* ~F~;6Rfl q-7,
* * ~K7'1PA(J3lg • r\1:1-i(lll] LAKE
* I ,· TTKA BIG P_,RT
* iTHI:AST * Ulll.)tVfLl1"'F:G
• PnRT ALEXANDER 8 3.
* • t 7;~PA 321 • CA~~o~~ LA~[
*
2 * STTI<A
* i!'lLiFVELO"'E
* S!iKA A•3.
* A!'\ 1NPA 032'.1 + LJIMJA
IT I< A
l~KF
* c •
< U'·1[HVELf'lPF
• Pn~T ALf'XA~OEN 0-4,
* A~7~0 A0332 * GREEN LAKF
* T 2 $ SITKA \IOilUPI\0
* S:JI•7HEt,ST * U!IJOEVF'LI'lPI=D
*
*
~ PORT ALEXANDER D-4
* * • 56 22.3
,., A L T * l ''J 4 2 • 'l *
3 *
X 57 t,'J *
l 34 21'. 1
~ ?7 •
* Sic S3.0
* •
• L'':l -L 0 •
*
* •
..
* * 56 qs.3
lVER• 135 11.~ •
2o *
*
* * AK7NPAr335 o KOSNYKU LAKE
* I 2 • ~TTKA
* 57 11 • {! *
KA'illiYKil FALLS• l3Ll 49.Y •
* '\Ut!THlAST * UNOF.VELOPEO
* o SiTKA A-3.
* * • AK7NPAQ291 * MAKSOUTOF RIVER
* ! ? • S lTKA MA>:SOUTOF * SOUTHtAST * UNDEVELOPED
* * POgT ALEXANDER C-3.
* * ili<7 N9A02'l4
* J c:
* 'iU!iTHE~ T
*
* WilLI<' LAKE
* SITKA MILK CP(f><:
* •JNOF VF lOPE[;
* PORT ALFXANO~R 8-3
*
* 5 *
*
* * 5f, "::v.o
RIV• t'3ll 57,C •
* 2<4 *
*
* • Sb 58.0 * 1 3 4 4 7 • ,-, *
* l 1 ~
*
* AKINPA 34b * PFLTC•~ CREEK
* I 2 • SITKI
.. 57 ~4.7
PELICAN CREEK• 136 7.A
• PFL!C A,\ uT H.
* SITI'\A D-7
co. 12
*
*
rl
IS
•
*
* r< ..
IS
H
IS
*
* 3h,O•
*
H *
iJC *
H
IS
H
IS
()P
241.1h
*
*
* 7 (J. 0.
*
150.0•
• •
6S.lJ *
'::>hllBO k
2"9. 7 •
*
5.0 *
0 *
\473.5 ..
* ..
200.0 •
13?00(1 *
344.6 *
* ?0.0 •
0 •
650.3 ..
*
*
AO.U *
0 *
569.'< *
* ..
~u. u •
0 *
6n5.3 *
*
*
22.0 *
200 •
121) • I) ~
*
*
* r) •
soon *
'5000 *
* •
(l •
100(1{) *
1(1(}(11\ *
•
*
(1 *
/30(1 (l ~
500 ..
*
I) *
lbhOO +
lbb()(l *
*
*
n *
7000 *
7000 *
"
0 *
?<lllOO *
?4000 •
*
*
!) *
7000 *
7000 *
* suo *
1000 *
1"011 *
*
!I •
2<!300 *
2430 *
*
4'<1)0•) *
4 1HJ00 *
{) .
~"iUOU *
5"ill01i *
•
I) *
r-ll0f10 •
64000 *
*
\) *
30000 *
30001) •
*
*
I) *
117000 *
!1700ll *
*
v *
33000 *
3'10110 k
2001.' *
17 0 \) •
370 *
lfi>\1.7
4/l. 51 b
2f\ 'l.l<
':iR.lbO
l2'l0.3
3q.' 01
l2!'1.3b
7 "· "'' 7
*
*
*
*
•
*
*
"
*
*
*
*
* •
*
*
*
*
*
*
•
*
*
*
llcJ~ii)lll)IIUU
~J0:U LJ 'J t ltJ
UCJN• ltiiJl!illl
Iii~ NU I JUIJ U II
NNUUIJUU
IINNUUUUUU
NNUUUUU
I!~JNUUUliUIJ
I INNUIJUlllltl
•
*
*
*
* •
*
*
*
" •
*
*
*
*
"
*
*
..
*
*
SURVEY SITES
TABLE 2
**********************************************************************************************************************************
• •
SITE IO * PkOJFCT ~AME
* D!:.P
* CODE.
* PRIMARY CO. -NAME OF
~CTV * OwNEP
lNV * MAP NEFERENC~
* GEOG, A"'EA *
* *
* LATITUDE •PROJ.PUAP.• DAM HT * EX!ST.CAP.
STREAM *LONG!TUUF. * STATUS •F C STOA.• INC. CAP,
* OR.~REA * AVE. ~ •PftA, HO, * TUT, CAP,
* (0 M,M) * * (FT) * (KW)
* (0 M,M) * * (4C FT) * (1'\W)
* (SQ,tH) * (CFSJ • (FT) * (KW)
•E.XIST ,E.NRG•AI\IliL. COST •
•I~C.ENERGY•ENENGY COST•
•10T.E~ENGY• *
* (M~~J * (!uno sJ •
* (~~H) * (5/MWHl *
* (~~.~~) * *
ENV!RllNMEt,TAL
InPACT CUDE
SOCIAL
IMPACT ClJOE
*
*
*
*
*
*
********************************************************************************************************************************** * AK7~PA0311 * TAKATZ CREEK
* I 2 * SITKA * SOUTHEAST * uNDEVELOPED
* * SITKA A-3.
* * * AKINPA0078 * OAYEBAS C~EfK
* I 2 * ~KAG~Ay-YAKU
* SOUTH'::AST
*
*
* UI\IDEVEL(1Pf':J
* SKAGW~Y ll-1
* * AKJNPA03~9 * DEftEY LA~E5
* T 2 * SKAr.ll'iAY-1AKlJ
* SOIITHEAST *
*
*
* 5KAG.-.AY tl-1
*
• AK7NPA03~7 * G0AT LAKE
* I 2 * SKAGt,AY-'(AKU
* SOI'THt::AST • tJ~lDEVELOPEO
* * SKAGNAY C-1.
* * • 'K7NPAOU41 • ALLI50~ cqEE~
* I 2 * VALOtl•CHtT-
* SO CE~TRAL * UNDEVELOPEU
* • VALDEZ A-7
* * AK7NPA0384 * SnLO~lON !iiJLCrl
* I ~ * VALO!:Z-CHII-
* SO CENTRAL • UNDEVELOPED
* • VALOEl A-7
* * * A~7NPA0310 • THO~AS MAY
* I 2 * ..,AANGELL PET
* 50t1THE6.5T • li~OfVELOPED
* * !:)tJMf)UM A-?A-:5 ..
* AKhHPAnQI4 • ANITA
* T ~ * WRA~GELL-PET
* S(WTHE AST • U'WEvEUWFtJ
* * PErF.RS~URGH-2.
* * AK7iJPA0301
* I 2
* SU!lli-II:AST
* * HARfliNG RTVER
* WkAt<Gf.LL-PET
* U'!OE\I':LOPE'O
* ':>7 6,9 *
TAKATZ CREEK • 1~4 51.0 *
* 10 *
* *
* * ~q 17.2 *
0AYE8AS CRE(K• 135 2.0 *
* ..
*
1 l *
*
*
H *
IS •
!80.0•
* H
IS *
85.5•
*
* 5Q 26.4 * HS * * 135 11l.q • (JP
7 * 30.0•
*
*
• ')q 31.3 •
PITCHFQRW FAL• 135 11.0 *
• 4 *
* *
* * 61 7.1
ALLISON C~EEK• jib 10.2 *
* 5 *
*
*
*
*
• 61 3o.q •
SOLOMUN GULCH• 146 15.Q *
15 *
* *
" * 57 ~.3 *
CASCAUE (qEtK* 132 Q~.2 *
* Hl *
*
*
*
* * ':iii 15.'5 *
ZIMUV!A STRAI• 132 2h.S *
* 2 *
*
*
*
* • ':lb lb.! •
HARf!P!r; RIVEP• 131 3H.9 *
* b ~ *
rl
IS
H
IS
*
*
•
*
* 4q.n*
*
*
H *
IS
138.0•
* ..
"' * IS
H
IS
•i
IS
*
*
*
* 27,0•
*
*
* 7?5.0•
* * 8QADFIELO CANAL A-5 * *
205.0 *
1451'10() *
990 ·'' *
*
* 15.0 *
I} *
344,6 *
*
* ?O.u •
410 *
400.ll *
*
*
15.0 *
6000 *
186t~.l *
*
* 1.0 *
199110 *
11">8.'3 *
*
*
10.0 *
0 *
b07.3 *
*
*
3.0 *
'17500 *
14''13.5 *
*
*
lii\.0 *
1'5500 *
1UO':l.9 *
*
* 1qo.o •
2 0 0 (II) ti *
259."1 *
*
n *
?Onvo *
20000 *
*
*
0 *
5110() *
soon "
*
* 375 *
1noo *
137'5 *
*
0 *
100Ufl *
)(10()(1 *
*
*
I) *
4 ror. *
400(1 *
*
*
0 *
li::OUO *
1~1)00 * ..
*
(1 *
'5011()0 *
'5unoo •
*
*
(1 *
5? 30 *
3;:>30 * ..
*
0 *
I !l 'Hill *
lSO(Jil *
*
() *
97000 •
97000 *
*
*
'J *
IA1'l0 •
ln!CIO *
*
l(l!)(l *
1 .3 0 l• *
230() *
*
*
•) .
460110 *
46•JOv •
*
0 *
1800{; *
!flOC..; *
*
0 *
b~uou *
b"if)l)f) *
*
u *
217417 *
217411 *
*
*
1) *
l415'l *
t 4 1 5 (l *
*
* \) *
8500•) *
8')()(1() •
*
1">5'i.?
33,PuB
~37.10
46.~1"/'i
16b?.l
25.571
772.b4
<; u. !'> \}-.:
s 1 3 7 .~:
~fi.lli.j"i;
*
* •
*
" *
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
"
*
" *
*
*
*
* ..
*
*
*
*
tiNNUllUliUU
IJNt\itiUUIJYU
NNU!IUUti
UN~JlJLillliUII
NNIJ\IIJUU
ll~vNilliUIIIJII
ivfJIJU<JIJll
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
* •
*
*
*
*
*
*
* ,. ..
*
*
*
*
*
"
*
********************************************************•*************************************************************************
SURVEY SITES
TABLE 2
**************~········*~*******j******•****.*****************•***********************•*************************************•*****
* 'i 1 TE I D * P >I') J f-C T 'I A '•1!:: * L A T IT U II f * P f.lli J • P li f.l P • * U A ',1 H T • EX IS T • r.· A P • * E XI S T • E K' "I G *A r, 11 L • C lJ !' T * E ~~VI f< UN M F 1\, T A l *
* * f' 'I 1 ·~A f.l Y C fl • • f' A"!: 0 F <; r R t A V. •l 0 N ~ IT II 0 F. * S T A T lJ S • F C S T 0 R • * I !\ C • C A P • * l Tv C • t. 'H: iH; Y * E' r, f R G Y C (1ST * I M P A C T C U f) t *
* OtP ACTV fi;,~JFR • l)fi.ARFA * AVI':. Cl •PWR. HO. * TOl. CAP. •TOT.tNF.Rt;y,.
* C Li fl t 1 'J V • 'I A P Pi: F t R I' hJ C F * (f) M. 'I) * ( F T ) ( ;<.~) * ( M .'1 H ) * l 1 ll 0 U S l
* G t (IS • ARt A * (I) ~. M j * * ( A C F T) * (!\Vi) * ( M ,; H) * ( S /1·1.-. H)
* (Sr:.J.~·H! (CFS) * (FT) * (1(1'1) * (MNH) *
A "-, i 14 P A 0 4 U
T ,>
* S r 11lAST
* t<I,JlH LA;(f
* ;·,~A~hFLL-DE:T
* ,i.'<L:f VEL(IPF u
• P~ T~="!<St'1 lt<IGt)-L
• Sr't '<L'< • C'<tl-~
,.,Q~l"H_~~· LL-r.:E T
• ,;ri''EV(L'H'F
::)~J··.;Pl/1 A-::>~ D-3.,
* u'•;rtv LdrJF,-:~
~"' PrT~-t~..~· c~·~~'"'
C. 'II: y II~ -0;:""' :< ·~! '( /I'(.
"(I jjl ,') "-j * '' fVFL
..-~AIJ.JHA·'~KS ~-~.
.
['t:i l *
*
*
•
*
*
':lio S'i. (1
n" 4'i. 0 *
tl *
*
') 7 ., • 4
132 41." *
?l
*
Sf~ 1 2. I
1 ~ 1 >; '1. ()
l (j
*
1 '• '-' 1 ". n •
2<+'iC
*
,; * J<; * l:ll. f)•
*
* ,,
IS
*
*
*
IS *
l.jf, '~?.
c 1 0. v " () • 'J •
u " 1 3 (l 0 f>'IUO\J •
14'17.5 * l.SOvfl ,. f>3u•Ju
* * • * *
i 0 • () * (l * \i *
t>O()f)u * 1'::11\U(l . t> 7 ·J no * b1Y.3 * J"i0"0 . f) 7 Ll (l l!
* *
* *
1 0 (I. I) *
10"iufll' >; \) ()(1 [) . 1 52qu 0 .
l .S'ib. ~ * 30000 * IP'l!lv * •
* * ..
,?_ ~t). 0 f) ~ !l *
u * 2000011 r:;;bh (•0 () •
20;,.7 C'O(lf>l)(l * 5661)0() *
* *
2nn.o
'-1">.613
2?tJi1,7
3". 41
367 • 2
?7.hb8
;:>]7 :s 1
i<P.g'l<;
*
•
*
* •
* ..
*
*
*
*
*
SflCIAL
I'1PACT CODE
NNIJIJIJUU
l1NNUUUIIU.J
NNUUUIIi.l
II~JNUliiJlllJI'
rH•IIUlJlllJ
111\;N!)llUill<''
'ifJlJI;,l\1::
11 Y v UWJN'·ii\J
*
*
*
*
y
*
•
*
~ •~·~~·•~* t*~**w**~**•***~*********~******~*~*******~**~*•***~*************~*************~************~*******~~********-******~**
I .......
0
APPENDIX B
A1aska References
Alaska References
"Summary of Alaska Lower Priced Hydroelectric Potentials -2500 KW (Continuous
Power) and Larger." January 1968. Alaska Power Survey 1969.
"Inventory of Potential Hydroelectric Sites in Alaska." Prepared by the
Alaska Power Administration -April, 1977. First published in Alaska 1 s Energy
Resources, Volume II: Inventor of Oil, Gas, Coal Hydroelectric and Uranium
Resources. tate o A as a. epartment o ommerce. lVlSlon o nergy
Power Development. October 1977.
"Projects Presently Under License or Which Have Application for License
Pending." Federal Power Commission. Division of Licensed Projects. Bureau
of Power. Washington, D.C. April. 1980.
"Potential Hydropower sites Near Angoon, Craig, Hoonah, Hydaburg, Kake,
Kasaan, Klawock, Kukwan, Pelican, and Yakutat." Preliminar raisal Re ort,
Hydroelectric Potential for Angoon, Craig, Hoonah, Hy a urg, a e, Kasaan,
Kl~wock, Kukwan, Pelican, and Yakutat. 1977.
"Hydropower Sites & Land Withdrawals in Tongass National Forest (as of June
1974)." Map and list prepared by the Alaska Power Administration. U.S.
Department of Interior.
"Potential Power Projects -Mainland." Harbors and Rivers in Alaska Survey
Report. Interim Report No.5. Southwest Alaska. Corps of Engineers, Alaska
District. 19 54.
11 Powersite Land Withdrawals and Better Hydropower Potentials."
Administration. U.S. Department of Interior. Compiled 1970.
Alaska Power
Updated to 1976.
Water Powers Southeast Alaska.
U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Federal Power Commission and Forest Service.
1947.
11 Inventory of Dams in the United States.11 National Program of Inspection of
Dams -Volume III. U.S. Department of the Army. Corps of Engineers.
May, 1975.
11 Potential Hydropower Sites -Northwestern Alaska.n Harbors and Rivers in
Alaska Surve Re ort. Interim Re ort No. 6. Northwestern Alaska. Corps of
Eng1neers, A aska District. 1957.
11 Hydropower Sites & Land Withdrawals in the Chugach National Forest.u Alaska
Power Administration. U.S. Department of Interior. June 1974.
~Jroelectric Power Resources of the U.S.-Developed and Undeveloped. Federal
Power Commission. 1960.
Alaska Power Market Survey. San Francisco Regional Office. Federal Power
Co1:1mission. 1960.
Water Resources Deve1o7ment.
PaCific Divis1on. 196 •
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Alaska, North
hPotential Hydropower Sites in Alaska -Individual Developed and Undeveloped
By Major Drainages and River Bas~ns and By Geographic Divisions and States."
Hydroelectric Power Resources of the U.S. -D~_'!eloeed and Undeveloped+
January 1, 1968. Federal Power Commiss10n. U.S. Department of Intenor.
"Reservoirs Under 100 Foot Dam and or Storage Capacity Under 10,000 Acre
Feet." This list developed by the Alaska Power Administration from list
entitled "Inventory of Dams in the United States'' prepared by the Corps of
Engineers. Alaska Power Administration. December, 1977.
11 Southeastern Alaska Water Power Projects -February 15, 1952.11 Harbors and
Rivers in Alaska Survey Report. Southeastern Alaska. Interim Re ort No. l.
U.S. Corps of Engineers, North Pacific Division. February 5, 52.
11 Existing Power Developments and Potential Power Projects in Southeastern
Alaska." Harbors and Rivers in Alaska Survey Report. Southeastern Alaska.
Interim Report No. 1. U.S. Corps of Engineers, North Pacific Division.
February 15, 1952. -
"Potential Hydropower Developments -Cook Inlet Area.11 Harbors and Rivers in
Alaska Survey Report. Cook Inlet and Tributaries. Interim Report No. 2.
Alaska District, Corps of Engineers. January 20, 1950.
"Potential Hydropower Projects -Copper River and Gulf Coast." Harbors and
Rivers in Alaska Survey Report. Copper River and Gulf Coast, Alaska. Interim
Report No. 3. Alaska District, Corps of Engineers. October 30, 1950.
"Potential Hydropower Projects-Tanana River Basin." Harbors and Rivers in
Alaska Survey Report. Tanana River Basin. Interim Report No. 4. North
Pacific Division, Corps of Engineers. May 1, 1951.
"Potential Power Projects." Harbors and Rivers in Alaska Survey Report.
Yukon and Kuskokwim River Basins. Interim Report No. 7. U.S. Army Engineer
District, Alaska. Corps of Engineers. December 1, 1959.
Summary of Potential Hydroelectric Power in Alaskd. Corps of Engineers. U.S.
Army Engineer District, Alaska. Revised September 1961.
"tJeveloped Hydroelectric Projects in Alaska. January 1, 1960.11 Hydropower of
the U~ited States-Devel9ped and Undeveloped, 1960. Federal Power Commission.
"Su~nary of the More Favorable Potential Hydroelectric Sites in Alaska -
Febl'Uary 1976." Ihe 1976 Alaska Power Su!.::YeY,, Volume 1. Federal Power
Commission.
"Existing Hvdroe1ectrl'c Plants -January 197!0),,11 ... h 19-'6 Al k p s J -1 e , as a ower _urvey,
Volume l. Federal Power Commission.
B--2
11 Hydroelectric Developments Existing and Under Construction, February 1973"~
and 11 Key Hydroelectric Resources of Alaska". 1974 Alaska Power Survey.
Re.sources and Electric Power Generation, A Report of the Technical Advisory
Committee. The Alaska Power Survey and the Federal Power Commission.
May 1974.
"Alaska Water Assessment Map Showing Undeveloped Hydroelectric Resources."
Alaska Water Assessment State-Regional Future Water and Related Land
Problems. Alaska Water Study Committee. June 1976. List of 76 sites.
Alaska•s Fisheries Atlas, Volumes I and II, State of Alaska, 1978.
Alaska•s Wildlife and Habitat, Volumes I and II~ State of Alaska, 1973 and
1978.
Re:sources of Alaska, A Refional Summary, Joint Federal State Land Use
Planning Commission for A aska, July 1974.
A1aska Regional Profiles, Southcentral Region, State of Alaska, July 1974.
Qpper Susitna River Project Power Market Analyses, Alaska Power
Administration, March 1979.
Alaska Natural Resources and the Rampart Project, U.S. Department of the
Tr:1terior, June 1967.
A1aska Power Survey, Federal Power Commission, 1976.
A'laska Regional Energy Resources Planning Project -Phase 1~ Volume II, Alaska
O·ivision of Energy and Power Development, Department of Commerce and Economic
Development, State of Alaska, October 1977 (Similar report Phase 2, dated
1979).
Electric Power in Alaska: 1976-1995, Institute of Social and Economic
Research, University of Alaska.
~!1alysis of Impact of H.R. 39 on Hydroelectric Potential of Alaska, Alaska
Power Administration, April 1977.
Analysis of Impact on Hydroelectric Potential of the Administration•s
Recommendations for Alaska D-2 Lands, Alaska Power Administration, February
T978.
Bas in, Interim
~arketability Analyses, Upper Susitna River Hydroelectric Studies. Report on
~arkets for Project Power, Alaska Power Administration, December 1975.
B-3
Analysis of Electric S{stem Requirements for Petersburg, Alaska.
Associates. March 197 .
R. W. Beck &
Virginia Lake Project.
R.W. Beck & Associates.
Appraisal Report for the Thomas Bay Power Commission.
August 1977.
Thomas Bay Project. Appraisal Report fo1· the Thomas Bay Power Commission.
R.W. Beck & Associates. November 1975.
Swan Lake, Lake Grace and Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Projects. Appraisal
Report for the Ketchikan public utilities. R.W. Beck & Associates. June 1977.
Analysis of Electric Utility System Sitka, Alaska. Requirements report for
the Sitka City and Borough. R.W. Beck & Associates. April 1974.
Application for License, Green Lake Project. City and Borough of Sitka.
Sitka, Alaska. September 1977.
Lake Grace Project Alaska. U.S. Department of the Interior. January 1968.
Takatz Creek Project Alaska. U.S. Department of the Interior. January 1968.
Black Bear Lake Project. Harza Co. October 1979.
Cathedral Falls Project. Harza Co. October 1979.
Revie\'i of Southcentra 1 A_l aska~~ropower Po~ent i a~ Anchorage Area. CH2M
Hill. October 1978.
Review of Southcentral Alaska Hydropower Potential Fairbanks Area. CH2M
Hill. October 1978.
Rivers and Harbors in f~las~~terim FeasH;i!.:L!x Report on liydroelectric Power
lind Related Purposes for Sitka, Pet_ersburg, Wrange11, and Ketchikan Alaska.
Alaska District, Corps of Engineers. April 1979.
Southcentral Railbelt Area, Alaska Stage II Check~oint_Report Hydroelectric
Power and Related Purposes for Valdez, Alask~. A aska District, Corps of
Engineers. April 1978. · --
Reconnaissance Study of Hydropower SHes Near Cordova, Alaska. CH2fv1 Hill.
October 1979.
Alaska 1 s Hydroelectric Resources Inventory, Preliminary Report. Alaska
Department of Commerce and Economic Development. March 1978.
~ational ~ydroelectric Po~er Study Plan 0f Study. Institute of Water
Resources, Army Cm·ps of Engineers. Janua1·y 1979.
B-4
Dictionary of Alaska Place Names. U.S. Geological Survey. 1967.
Te_rror Lake Hydroelectric Project Kodiak Island. Definite Project Report.
R.W. Rutherford Associates. December 1978.
Re_connaissance Assessment of Energy Alternatives. Chilkat River Basin
Region. CH2M Hi 11. February 1980.
Bristol Bay Energy and Electric Power Potential Phase I. U.S. Department of
Energy and Alaska Power Administration. December 1979.
Revised Preliminary Appraisal Report Tyee Lake. Rutherford Associates.
"September 1979.
Thayer Creek Project. Harza Co. October 1979.
G~rtina Creek Project. Harza Co. October 1979.
Alaska Power and Economic Development Prolram, Volume I, II, and III, State of
Alaska, Division of Economic Enterprise, 977.
Al_aska Power Survey Resources and Electric Power Generation. Alaska Technical
Advisory Committee. May 1974.
Water Resources Data for Alaska. U.S. Department of the Interior Geological
Survey. 1940-1979.
Alternative Administrative Actions Alaska National Interest Lands. Final
EIS. U.S. Department of the Interior. 1978.
Small Hydroelectric Inventory of Villages Served by Alaska Village Electric
cc:,operative. U.S. Department of Energy Alaska Power Administration. December
1979.
Surm1ary of Projected Peak Load, Generating Capability and Fossil Fuel
Rt~!quirements. National Electric Reliability Council. July 1979.
Hydroelectric Power Resources of the United States Developed and Undeveloped.
Fti!deral Power Commission. January 1964 and 1968.
R~!source Study on Power Supply Development for the City of Ketchikan, Alaska.
R.W. Beck & Associates. January 1956.
I'liamna National Resource Range Environmental Supplement. U.S. Department of
the Interior. March 1980.
Alaska Peninsula National Wildlife Refuge. Environmental Impact Statement.
U.S. Department of the Interior. May 1980.
B-5
A Proposal for Protection of Eleven Alaskan Rivers. Environmental Impact
Statement. U.S. Department of~Inter1or. ~1980.
Index of Surface Water Gaging Stations. Alaska District, Corps of Engineers.
September 1978.
G 6