HomeMy WebLinkAboutAlaska National Interest land Conservation Act Impact of Hydroelectric Resources 1981I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I .
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HYD
075
ANALYSIS OF ALASKA NATIONAL INTEREST
LAND CONSERVATION ACT IMPACT
ON HYDROELECTRIC RESOURCES
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
ALASKA POWER ADMINISTRATION
MAY 1981
Alaska Energy Authority
LIBRARY COPY
CONTENTS
TITLE PAGE NO.
PURPOSE............................................... 1
BACKGROUND. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1
StJMMARY. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 2
EFFECT OF PUBLIC LAW 96-487 ON HYDROPOWER POTENTIALS
BY REGION. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 3
Arc tic. . • • • • • • . . . • . • . . • . • • • . • • . . • • • • • . • • • • • . • • . . • 3
Northwest........................................ 3
Yukon.... . • • • . . . • • . . • . . . . . . • • • . • • . . . . • • . . • • • . • .. • • 4
Southwest........................................ 4 Southcentral..................................... 5 Southeast........................................ 5
FIGURE 1--UNDEVELOPED HYDROELECTRIC RESOURCES OF ALASKA
AFFECTED BY PUBLIC LAW 96-847............... 7
TABLE 1--SUMMARY LISTING OF HYDROPOWER SITES UNDER
CONSTRUCTION, PLANNED BY 1990, AND POTENTIAL
PROJECTS BY THE YEAR 2000................... 8
TABLE 2--IMPACT OF ALASKA NATIONAL INTEREST LANDS
CONSERVATION ACT ON ALASKA HYDROELECTRIC
POTENT 'IALS • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • l 0
PURPOSE
The purpose of this analysis is to assess the impacts of the "Alaska
National Interest Lands Conservation Act" (Public Law 96-487) on the
major identified economical hydroelectric resources of Alaska. The
short term and long term impacts of the Act are discussed for each
region of the state.
BACKGROUND
The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 authorized the Secretary
of Interior to set aside up to 80 million acres of land for National
Parks, Wildlife Refuges, Forests, and Wild & Scenic River Systems.
After considerable study, hearings, and draft legislation, lands were
designated and the "Act" became law December 2, 1980 through Public Law
(P.L.) 96-487.
The Act added 104.3 million acres of new parks, monuments, preserves,
forests, wild and scenic rivers, and Bureau of Land Management Conservation
and national recreation areas. Wilderness areas were increased 56.4
million acres, however 21 million acres overlap the new parks, monuments,
preserves, etc. It provides for transportation and utility systems in
and across and access into conservation systems along with an outlined
procedure for processing applications (Section 1101). A few hydropower
sites (Thayer Lake, Port Alsworth, and Terror Lake) within conservation
units are specifically provided for. Special study councils and coordina-
tion committees are provided to implement the Act and handle mutual
State, Federal and regional concerns.
The impact of proposed land legislation on hydropower sites was examined
in a similar manner twice before by Alaska Power Administration (APA).
A paper was prepared on HR-39, April 1977, with a follow-up on the
administrations proposal, February 1978. Both proposals would have
precluded about 93 percent of the energy potential even though they
effected different sites.
Identification of hydroelectric resources in Alaska has come about
through basin, inventory, and individual project studies by the Alaska
Power Administration, Bureau of Reclamation, Corps of Engineers, and
other. For purposes of this analysis, the APA inventory tabulation
dated 1968 and titled "Summary of Alaska Lower Priced Hydroelectric
Potentials, 2500 kW (continuous power) and Larger" has been used to
represent the undeveloped hydroelectric potential of Alaska. Potential
project lands--particularly dam sites and reservoir areas--can be
easily identified on existing USGS topographic maps.
The location map of hydro potential sites was compared with the map
locating the Alaska National Interest lands and the overlapping areas
identified. The attached list of hydropower resources states the amount
of energy involved and the effect P.L. 96-487 has on the resource.
A National Hydroelectric Power Study is currently being finalized by the
Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). The study examined the hydropower
1
potential with a view toward assessing the national power resources up
through year 2000. The list of APA better hydropower sites was incorporated
into the Alaska portion of the Corps study. Transmission and power
marketing aspects of the hydro projects were added to the study by APA.
The expected impacts of the Act were also incorporated into the Corps
study. The study appears to be a reasonable inventory of hydropower
potential based on the several criteria used to screen the projects.
The appended Table 1 presents a summary listing of hydropower sites from
the Corps study which are under construction, planned by 1990, and
potential projects by the year 2000.
SUMMARY
Except for the Upper Susitna River Basin projects, most of the major
Alaska hydropower potentials were precluded by the Act. "World Class"
hydropower sites on main stem rivers precluded include Wood Canyon,
Rampart, Woodchopper, and Holy Cross. Yukon-Taiya is precluded by an
existing National Park. However, there may be some chance Yukon-Taiya
may eventually be possible since all the studies for the Klondike Gold
Rush National Park indicated basic compatability between the Park and
the hydro project.
The results of this analysis 1ndicates that 80.5 percent of the state's
hydroelectric potential is precluded by the combined effect of the Act
and existing parks. National Parks and monuments existing before the
Act precluded 12.9 percent. Under the Act, new parks, monuments,
preserves, and wild and scenic rivers added another 67.4 percent. Also,
0.2 percent are precluded for a three year study period and possible
inclusion in wild and scenic river designations.
By way of comparison, the enacted legislation precluded about 13 percent
less of the power potential than the earlier HR-39 or administration
proposals. The sites not precluded by the final Act which can contribute
to the State's power needs are the Susitna River and Chakachamna Lake
Projects. Other sites allowed by the final Act, such as Crooked Creek,
Nuyakuk and Lake Iliamna, would likely have been precluded for envrironmental
reasons anyway. Passage of the Act will have little apparent near-term
impact on the hydroelectric projects under active consideration. These
projects include Susitna, and several smaller ones such as Terror Lake,
Tyee, Bradley Lake and Black Bear.
Long term impacts are more extensive for all regions of the state except
Southeast. The Act essentially precluded hydro development in the Yukon
and Northwest regions.
The Southwest region will be able to meet their needs with hydropower
through the year 2000 if both Tazimina and the Kisaralik sites are
determined to be developable.
The Southcentral region and Railbelt area will have sufficient hydro
resources to meet their demands though the year 2000. However, est~~ated
power demands will exceed the remaining resources after 2000. Hydropower
options will be severely limited.
2
Sufficient resources remain in the Southeast region to meet foreseeable
needs. The possible exception is that the Misty Fjords Honument will
severely limit options in the Southern part of the region.
A summary of the hydropower energy precluded by regions follows:
Hillion KWH/yr Percent of
Region Precluded Region Potential
Northwest 2,179 90.4
Yukon 94,555 93.8
Special Study 282 0.3
Southwest 1,559 12.1
Southcentral 28,412 66.1
Southeast 10,788 88.7
Subtotal 138,315
Three studies provided for in the Act will likely affect future hydropower
projects and related transmission lines. They are: (1) the Bristol Bay
Region Federal-State Cooperative plan for land and natural resources,
(2) the wild and scenic river studies involving hydropotentials, and (3)
the Scenic Highway Study involving land one mile each side of several
highways in Southcentral Region. The study periods are for three years
in each case. The Kisaralik River and possibly the Tazimina Lake and
Railbelt intertie could be involved in the 3 year studies.
EFFECT OF PUBLIC LAW 96-487 ON HYDROPOWER POTENTIALS
This is a series of observations on the effect the Act had on the
hydropower potentials for communities and regions in the state and notes
the current outlook for the remaining potential.
Arctic Region
The arctic region north of the Brooks Mountain Range is severely restricted
on hydropower due to lack of head, water supply, climate, and economical
dam and reservoir sites. There are no known hydropower potentials in
the a'rctic region affected by the Act.
Northwest Region
The better hydropower sites in the northwest were all precluded by the
Act. The sites involved major dams on sizable rivers in new National
Preserves and Parks. The one site not precluded, Tuksuk Gorge, would
involve roughly 250,000 acres of land and produce only 289 million
kilowatt hours of energy annually. Likelihood of development is low due
to the environmental considerations and local power market conditions.
There may be opportunity for a few small hydropower developments for
villages along the Kobuk River from tributaries to the River, however
the total installed capacity would likely be less than 1 MW.
3
•
Yukon Region
Hydropower development in the Yukon region was essentially precluded by
the Act. Sites not precluded are relatively far from the load centers.
Most of the sites involved large dams on the main stem of the Yukon
River or major tributaries. Rampart, Ruby, Holy Cross and Woodchopper
sites were among the very best of any in the state from an engineering
and cost viewpoint, and are considered "World Class" energy sources.
Sites not precluded consist of five sites on state land in the Tanana
Basin and twa sites relatively far from a power market area. The five
sites on the Tanana River would have environmental effects and are not
as economical as several other sites in the Southcentral region, which
could serve an Anchorage-Fairbanks intertied system. The Hughes site is
roughly 250 miles fram a power market area, and the Melozitna site is
200 miles. In addition, the Melozitna site is included in a three year
study under the Wild and Scenic River Act.
The Yukon-Taiya project would involve a water supply from the head
waters of the Yukon River in Canada across the border from Skagway.
This project may eventually be possible since all the studies for the
Klondike Gold Rush National Park indicated basic compatibility between
the park and the hydro project.
Southwest Region
Most of the hydropower sites in this region would be precluded by the ·
Act, existing National Parks or for other reasons. Two of the most
promising sites, Tazimina and Kisaralik, are impacted by the Act. The
Alaska Power Authority is pursing development of the Tazimina site as it
had been for some time before it was included in the Lake Clark National
Preserve. However, the land involved has also been selected by and most
of it conveyed to the local Native corporations. The Kisaralik River
power site is precluded for a three year study period to determine the
river's value as a Wild and Scenic River.
The Naknek site is precluded by the existing Katmai National Park.
Three other sites, Nuyukuk, Lake Iliamna, and Crooked Creek were precluded
by previous land legislation proposals, but were not included in the
final Act. Crooked Creek is a large power potential that would have an
installed capacity of 2140 MW on the main stem of the Kuskokwim River.
Because each site is in a very environmentally sensitive area with huge
fishery resources involved, it is unlikely any of the three sites would
be developed even though they are not included in a national interest
land area.
Two small power sites not precluded by the Act--Lake Elva and Grant
Lake, are under study for near future development by the Alaska Power
Authority. However, without development of the Tazimina and Kisaralik
sites, only six percent of the regions year 2000 power needs could be
met by these two small sites.
4
The Naknek site would be precluded by the existing Katmai National Park.
Three other sites, Nuyukuk, Lake Illiamna and Crooked Creek, large
enough to contribute significantly to the area power needs, were not
precluded. However, they are in ve~y environmentally sensitive situations
involving huge fishery resources and thereby are not likely candidates
fo~ development. Without the Tazimina and Kisaralik sites, the two
small remaining sites under study for near future development--Lake Elva
and Grant Lake--would meet less than six percent of the regions needs by
the year 2000.
Southcentral Region
The major impact of the Act was preclusion of the Wood Canyon power site
on the Copper River. The outlook for hydropower use is that most of the
regions needs could be met through the year 2000. After that, options
for hydropower development are severely limited. The near term outlook
is that the Bradley Lake and Susitna projects are not effected and will
proceed. Chakachamna, is a likely follow-on project. The sites on
state land available after development of Susitna and Chakachamna are
generally two to six times as expensive as Susitna. In addition, these
sites generally will have significant fisheries effects.
The preclusion of the Wood Canyon site, and thereby, the two sites
downstream on the Copper River, removed 4,860 MW and 27.4 billion kilowatt
hours from possible long range use in the Southcentral region.
Section 1311 of the Act provides for a three year study and a land
withdrawal of the area one mile on each side of the road for several
scenic highways. The land withdrawal, could impact proposed transmission
routes for marketing the Susitna Project energy. It could also impact
projects serving smaller communities along the scenic roads. The highways
involved are:
a. The Parks Highway from Denali National Park to the Talkeetna Junction.
b. The Denali Highway from Cantwell to Paxon.
c. The Richardson and Edgerton Highways from Paxon to Chitina and on
to McCarthy.
Southeast Region
The Southeast Region of the state has an abundance of good hydropower
sites. The sites under active investigation and under construction were
not affected by the Act. However, the Act precluded a number of hydro
sites located close to major Southeast communities that could have been
depended upon for meeting longer term power needs.
Sitka--Although rather long transmission lines would have been required,
the Maksoutof and Deer sites, precluded by the Act, were among the
better hydropower sites on Baranof Island. The only remaining feasible
site for meeting Sitka's needs after completion of Green Lake, is
Takatz, which is coming under study in 1981 by the Alaska Power Authority.
To meet Sitka's long range hydropower needs, only smaller and less
economical sites will be available.
5
Ketchikan--The Swan Lake Project is under construction and the Mahoney
Lake site is likely for development within 10 years. The remaining
better hydropower potentials near Ketchikan have been precluded by the
Act. One of them, the Lake Grace power potential, on the same island as
Ketchikan, was studied at the feasibility level by APA in 1968 and is
within the Misty Fjords National Monument and wilderness area. Some of
the other better power sites precluded, for meeting longer term needs,
include the Spur, Leduc, Rudyard, Punchbowl, and Red Sites.
Petersburg-Wrangell--This area has the Tyee Project, which is in advance
planning stage and the Thomas Bay and Scenery Creek sites. These sites
were not precluded by the Act, and could meet the foreseeable needs of
Petersburg and Wrangell well past the year 2000. They could possibly
furnish power to other Southeast cities through interconnection.
Juneau--None of the sites in the Juneau area were precluded. Several
sites remain which could be shared through a transmission system to the
south by interconnecting Ketchikan, Petersburg and Wrangell and possibly
even to the north to Haines and Skagway and Canada. An intertie to
Canada to the south is also possible. The better sites in the Juneau
area include Lake Dorothy, Sweetheart, Tease Lake and Speel River.
Following is Figure 1, which shows hydropower sites precluded by the
Act. Table 2 lists sites by Region impacted along with installed capacity
and annual energy capabilities.
6
....,
t'Zj
H
C) c:::
~
f-'
/////
r · · •
SUBREGIONS
NOTE
Numbers tefet to ~OIKII iii.O CWI SumMary o' A.11111.1 Low• Prteed tiydrorMIItclrk.
Pol•nlt.al• .
~~·· Wild & 11'<;"~10
ALASKA
Table L Su.nmary Listing of Hydropover Sites Under Construction,
Planned by 1990, and Potential Projects by 2000
Region
Southcentral
Fairbanks-Tanana
Valley Area
Southeast
Southwest
Region
Southcentral
Fairbanks-Tanana
Valley Area
Southeast
Southwest
Under Construction
Name
Solomon Gulch
None
Green Lake
None
Region Served
Valdez
Sitka
Subtotal
12
0
16
0
28
Planned by 1990
Name
Bradley Lake
Terror Lake
Power Creek
None
Swan Lake
Tyee
Snettisham--Crater
& Long Lake Dam
Black Bear
Dewey Lake
Elva
Region Served ~nv
Kenai Peninsula 70
Kodiak 20
Cordova 7
Subtotoal ~
Ketchikan
Petersburg/
Wrangell
Lake
Craig-Klawock
Skagway
Subtotal
Dillingham
Subtotal
0
22
20
27
5
1
82
1
166
Total of Sites Planned and Under Construction 202
65
0
64
0
TI9
GHh
322
128
26
476
0
85
114
143
22
3
393
8
825
980
Data Source: Corps of Engineers National Hydroelectric Power Study
8
Table l (continu~d).
Region
Southcentral and
Fairbanks-Tanana
Area
Southeast
Southw-est
Remainder of State
Total
Hydropotentials Hith Energy Harketable by Year 2000
Name
Brmme
Chulitna
Keetna
Skwentna
Talkeetna
Watana
Devil Canyon
Yentna
Beluga, Upper
Coffee
Snow
Chakachamna
Mahoney
Sweetheart
Takatz
Thomas Bay
Lake Dorothy
Dayebas Creek
Kisaralik
Tazimina
Grant
Area Served
Anch. & Fb ks.
Anch. & Fbks.
Anch. & Fbks.
Anch. & Fbks.
Anch. & Fbks.
Anch. & Fbks.
Anch. & Fbks.
Anch. & Fbks.
Anch. & Fbks.
· Anch. & Fbks.
Anch. & Fbks.
Anch. & Fbks.
Subtotal
Ketchikan
Juneau
Sitka
Petersburg/
Wrangell
Juneau
Haines
Subtotal
Bethel
Dillingham/
Naknek.
Dillingham/
Naknek
Subtotal
200
34
74
98
90
792
766
219
48
37
63
366
2,787
14
29
20
50
34
5
152
30
51
3
84
0
3~023
GWh
566
166
324
490
406
3,480
3,410
960
210
160
278
1,300
11,750
56
127
97
217
150
18
6:65
131
224
13
368
0
12,783
Data Source: Corps of Engineers National Hydroelectric Pow-er Study
9
TABLE 11:. IMPACT OF ALASKA NATIONAL INTEREST LANDS
ACT ON ALASKA HYDROELECTRIC POTENTIALS
Region
No. Hydropower Site
Northwest
1 Agashashok
2 Misheguk
3 Nimiuktuk
4 Kobuk
5 Tusuk Gorge
Yukon
6 Holy Cross
7 Dulbi
8 Hughes
9 Kanuti
10 Melozitna
11 Ruby
12 Junction Island
13 Bruskasna [1]
14 Carlo [1]
15 Healy [1]
Energy
Million
KWH/year
820
760
613
526
289
12,300
1,070
482
1,612
282
6,400
2,330
110
730 [1]
[1] Units of Nenana River System
Capacity
1, 000 KW
Installed
186
174
t40
120
66
2,800
244
110
368
64
1,460
532
40
30
130
10
Precluded by Noatak National Preserve.
Precluded by Noatak National Preserve
and wild and scenic river and wilder-
ness designation.
Precluded by Noatak National Preserve
and wild and scenic river and wilder-
ness designation.
Precluded by Kobuk Valley National
Park.
Not affected.
Precluded by Innoko National Wild-
life Refuge.
Precluded by Koyukuk National
wildlife Refuge.
Not affected, but probably not feasible
with upstream and downstream sites
precluded.
Precluded by Kanuti National Wild-
life Refuge.
Precluded, withdrawn for 3 year
study under Wild & Scenic River Act.
Precluded by Nowitna National Wild-
life Refuge.
Not affected.
Not affected but limited to
110 million kWh without Carlo & Healy.
Main purpose was storage for down
stream sites.
Precluded by existing Mt. HcKinley
National Park.
Precluded by existing Mr. ~kKinley
National Park.
Region
No.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Hydropower Site
Big Delta
Gerstle
Johnson
Cathedral Bluffs
Rampart
Porcupine
Woodchopper
Fortymile
Yukon-Taiya
South1Jest
25 Crooked Creek
26 Nuyakuk
27 Lake Iliamna
28 Tazimina
29 Inger sol
30 Kukaklek
31 Naknek
Southcentral
32 Cresent Lake
Energy
Million
KWH/year
987
438
920
693
34,200
2,320
14,200
723
21,000
9,400
555
l, 3 70
224
630
232
473
179
Capacity
1, 000 KW
Installed
226
100
210
158
5,040
530
2,160
166
3' 200
2,140
127
313
51
144
53
108
41
11
Not affected.
Not affected.
Not affected.
Not affected.
Precluded by Yukon Flats National
Wildlife Refuge and Yukon (Rampart
Section) National Wild River 3 year
study.
Precluded by Arctic National Wild-
life Refuge and 3 year Wild and Scenic
River Study.
Precluded by Yukon-Charley Rivers
National Preserve.
Precluded by Fortymile Wild and
Scenic River.
Precluded by existing Klondike Gold
Rush National Historical Park.
Not affected by the Act, but possibly
precluded for environmental reasons.
Not affected by the Act, but possibly
precluded for environmental reasons.
Not affected by the Act, but possibly
precluded for environmental reasons.
Included in the Lake Clark National
Preserve. May be allowed due to Nativ~
land ownership and local interest.
Precluded by Lake Clark National Park.
Precluded by Katmai National Preserve
Addition to the Katmai National Park.
Precluded by existing Katmai ~ational
Park--further affected by additions
to Park.
Precluded by Lake Clark National Park
and Preserve.
Re~ion
Energy Capacity
Million 1,000 KW
No. Hydropower Site KWH/year Installed
33 Chakachamna 1,600 366 Not affected.
34 Coffee 160 37 Not affected -State land.
35 Upper Beluga 210 48 Not affected -State land.
36 Yenta Not affected -State land.
37 Talachulitna 1,390 Not affected -State land.
38 Skwentna Not affected -State land.
39 Lower Chulitna 394 90 Not affected -State land.
40 Tokichitna 806 184 Precluded by Mt. McKinley (Denali)
National Park Addition into
reservoir area (in T30S R15W).
41 Keetna (Talkeetna) 324 74 Not affected.
42 l.fuiskers 368 84 Not affected.
43 Lane 1,052 240 Not affected.
44 Gold 1,139 260 Not affected.
45 Devil Canyon [2] (738) Not affected.
46 Wa tana [ 2] 7,000 (4 78) Not affected.
47 Vee [2] (386) Not affected.
48 Denali [2] (---) Not affected.
49 Snow 278 63 Not affected.
50 Bradley Lake 410 94 Not affected.
51 Lo~•e (Keystone 254 58 Not affected.
Canyon)
52 Million Dollar 1, 927 440 Precluded by ivrangell St. Elias
National Park and Preserve.
53 Cleave (Peninsula) 3,600 820 Precluded by ivrangell St. Elias
National Park and Preserve.
[ 21 Units of Upper Susitna River System
12
Region
No. Hydropower Site
54 \lood Canyon
Southeast
55 Chilkat
56 Lake Dorothy
57 Speel Division,
Snettisham
58 Tease Creek
59 Sweetheart Falls
Creek
60 Houghton
61 Scenery Creek
62 Thomas Bay
(Cascade Creek)
63 Stikine River
64 Goat
65 Tyee Creek
66 Spur
67 Leduc
68 Rudyerd
69 Punchbowl Creek
70 Red
Energy
Million
KWH/year
21,900
180
150
275
70
125
136
67
166
9,900
87
120
105
62
83
64
104
Capacity
1,000
Installed
3,600
41
34
63
16
29
31
15
38
2,260
20
27
24
14
19
15
24
13
Precluded by Wrangell-St. Elias
National Park and Preserve.
Not affected.
Not affected.
Not affected.
Not affected.
Not affected.
Precluded by Tracy Arm-Fords Terror
Wilderness in Tongass National Forest.
Not affected.
Not affected.
Precluded by Stikine-LeConte Wilder-
ness in Tongass National Forest.
Precluded by Stikine-LeConte tlild-
erness in Tongass National Forest.
Not affected.
Precluded by Misty Fjord National
Monument.
Precluded by }tisty Fjord National
Monument.
Precluded by Misty Fjord National
Monument.
Precluded by ~tisty Fjord National
Monument.
Precluded by Misty Fjord National
Monument.
Region
Energy Capacity
Million 1,000
No. Hydropower Site KWH/year Installed
71 Lake Grace 99 20 Precluded by Misty Fjord National
Monument.
72 Swan Lake 69 15 Not affected.
73 Maksoutof River 117 24 Precluded by South Baranof Wilderness
in Tongass National Forest.
74 Deer 31 7 Precluded by South Baranof Wilderness
in Tongass National Forest.
75 Takatz Creek 97 20 Not affected.
76 Green Lake 52 11 Not affected.
Table 1 Summary
Region
Million KWH/yr
Precluded
Percent of
Region Potential
Northwest
Yukon
Special Study
Southwest
Southcentral
Southeast
Total Potential in 76 sites
Potential precluded by existing
National Parks & Monuments
Potential precluded by PL 96-487
2,719
94,555
282
1,559
28,412
10,788
138,315
Potential precluded by 3-year Wild &
Scenic River Study
To tal Precluded
Remaining Potential
14
Million KWH/year
171,839
22,203
115,830
282
138,315
33,524
90.4
93.8
0.3
12.1
66.1
88.7
Percent
100
12.9
6 7. 4
0.2
80.5
19.5