HomeMy WebLinkAboutEngineers Planners Economists Scientists Potential Accept of Selected Sites 1979r
I
r
-
' I
r
r
-
-
r
r
r
RAJ
023
..-;;.-
...... , .; .
CH2M
HILL
engineers
planners
economists
scientists
9 Jan uary 1979
Kll83 9. DO
Depar tment of the Army
Corps of Engineers
Alask a District
P. 0. Box 7002
Ancho rage, Alaska 99510
Atten tion: Captain Robert Mohn
Gentl emen:
Attac hed are rev1s1ons to our report "Review of Southcentral Alaska
Hydro power Potential -Anchorage Area".
As re quested in your letter dated 24 November 1978, the following
addit ions or clarifications are made:
•
•
He did not use the term "transmission areas 11
• ~Je did,
however, refer to "transmission access 11
• This we rated as
good, moderate, or severe, depending on the distance and type
of terrain a road or transmission line would have to traverse
between the project site and the market area. This rating has
been incorporated into our "land use 11 evaluation and had been
listed on the individual site sheets as an aid to arranging
the list of sites within the ranking group. (New information
on the national monuments has also been placed in the 11 land
use 11 evaluations.)
Mr. Paul Lowe with the Alaska Center for the Environment re-
evaluated several of the proposed sites (see attached letters).
The term "too big" was based on two things: whether the power
potential exceeded the needs of the immediate areas, and the
amount of given head at a site. In several instances, the
head had been misinterpreted (as at Strandline Lake) or was
incorrect (as at Deadman Creek). On the individual site
sheets we have indicated the updated evaluations with an
asterisk (*). This information, as well as that submitted by
the Trustees for Alaska, has been incorporated into the
"Reckoning of Evaluations 11
; these agencies' input had been
received too late to be fully incorporated into the prelim-
inary report .
A n c horage Office • 310 K Street. Su ite 602 Anchorage, Alas ka 99501 907/279-6491
""" ,_ .
r
I
-
-
•
-
r V8'ft ........ -
rRCt HJ.Ift8HOIH
-.
-
i -
-
-
-l OJ.Ginltll iU.YO
-n:o
IVll
,.....,
'
,........
-
.-
-
--'
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers
Captain Robert Mohn
9 January 1979
Kll839 .DO
Page Two
t Evaluations from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service were
received and have been incorporated into the report.
We have appreciated this opportunity to work with you and look forward
to assisting you again in the near future.
sp ~.{U~
Ronald J. Reiland
Project ~1anager
de a
enclosures
POTENTIAL ACCEPTABILITY OF SELECTED SITES
POTENTIAL ACCEPTABILITY OF SELECTED SITES
ANCHORAGE AREA
(Revised)
LIST OF RANK GROUPS
Rank
Group
1
2
3
4
5
Site
6 Strandline Lake
43 Tustumena
41 Snow
2 Chakachamna
34 Hicks
35 Caribou Creek
47 Nelchina River
11 Emerald
32 Coal Creek
33 Purinton Creek
44 Sheep Creek
45 Resurrection River
31 King Mountain
Conunents
May affect native lands; access may
be difficult.
Proposed wilderness area~ difficult
access.
Some fisheries conflict; proposed
wilderness area.
Some fisheries problems; difficult
access; proposed Lake Clark National
Monument.
Some fisheries conflict; lake size
questionable.
Some wildlife and fisheries conflict.
Proposed wild and scenic river;
some fisheries and wildlife conflict.
Difficult access; wildlife conflicts.
Fisheries and wildlife conflicts;
on native selected lands; lake size
questionable.
On native selected land; fisheries
and wildlife conflicts; lake size
questionable.
Proposed wilderness area; wildlife
and fisheries conflicts.
May be access problems; some
fisheries conflict; on boundary of
Harding Ice Fields National Monument.
On native selected lands; fish and
game conflicts; lake size questionable
1 Crescent Lake
6 3 Beluga Lower
4 Coffee
5 Beluga Upper
7 Lake Creek Lower
9 Talachulitna River
10 Hayes
12 Yentna
13 Talachulitna
14 Skwentna
29 Palmer
30 Moose River
36 Kenai Lower
37 Moose Horn
38 Killey River
39 Stelters Ranch
40 Kenai Lake
42 Kasilof River
46 Tazlina
On proposed Lake Clark National
Monument; may affect native selected
land; fisheries conflict.
Unacceptable sites from environmental
and land use aspects.
RECKONING OF EVALUATIONS
j I I
Individual Evaluations
Site # FG NMF Fl\7 LU ACE TA Reckoning of Evaluations Result
Lo. \:;e_ c.J.o...-\::... .No---\11 Mo"'u. ......,.e .0 -~;.c;. \.,.e.r-' e <; <:..o""'~\ \.2\-
5
cl~...t;.\ c.. u-.\"\-o...c... ..... ess .
1 0 0 0 0 \0 C)41 0
:;l..c;-
:.Ave r-c.0o::.e ~ ~· ::l_.';,-
S-\o...-\e. \oi"'~S-~ro~ose.,\. \._ c. \c..c. (_\c. f" \;. \-Jo..'"\' \ ~a ... ~-'=><>"""e..
-\-t.,_\-.. \o <;:.~-"'""'o ~e..r-o..~ o.. c.<.. e. '.:.S
2 5 s 5 \D 0 10 5.'6 s-~ ':)-+ s--+ 10 "\ \0
: .Ave..r-o.~~= 1.. :: '5. '6
Nc..""\\-Je st:.\~c..-\e~ \c.. .... ~s -~o~ <Ac<...-e.<.:.S.-""""'~..., .... {:;e.""~'e..s.
5 ~~\'c.."'"
3 0 0 0 \0 -
.!.IJ...""o..c:c..-e.~\o\e.. -::..Q
0
~o-~ \o. ..... ~ c;, -~ooc\ o...cce<es-...t'V"-o.;o,.. ~\6,\-..e_r.;:c<,.c;, ~~\.,_..,...,
4 0 0 0 \0 \0 -0
.·. \A-C.. CC..-<.t..p-\-o.\o\e_.:: 0
\-J 0..-\-\ " e.. ~e\ec.~.l \v.,..,. ~ 5 -~oc ~ G..C<:.e S'i> -.....,..._o;C~ .-
5 0 0 ·o s-\0 --\-\.s\....e.r-';..eS ~~\~-.:~
0
:. u ..... o.c<-ep-t-o-..~\~ "'-0
No.-\-\ ..., e.. ')e\ec~~ \o.""" c\. ":. -~ da-c-o..~ o. cc.e. «.S.-,........._ ,,. .. ;, ...._ ..... \
6 ~0 10 \D S' \0 -{-' <;. \,..._, Q.. ""'-~ -......! ~ \ ~ \ .. ~ .. ~0.. ~
~.c)
' \0 -\\t)-1-\0't':)+ \0
: . A "e. r-o-.t:, e :: ·-::::~ 5"
'S'\·0 ~ \~ ~ -.l~«~ c.. ...... \-\-c,.c c.es s -l.-...eo. ....,{ <ecreo..~~et\
7 0 0 0 <; 0 D
v,. c;,~ -~or ~ ",; '5. ~\: e "i:. '-(l'•r•:{ \', c..\
0
~.v.."'o..c:c..e.~o..lo\e..:: 0
S-\-~ \o..,.r.. ~ -.~.:~ \ c.. u. \-\; o.. c <:...~ .._ <::.-\...e.~ v "t ..--ec. • eo..-\-;. ~o. \
v..c:,£..-~or ...C.\s \.....e-1"' ~~~ c...r--{-\ ~ c:."t-
9 0 0 0 s 0 0 0
:. '-\.-Q. c. c. 'C:fl--\.0. b \e.. ;;.. 0
S--\-01.. ~ \a.....-.. 6 -,,~: ... « \ c.. ""\\-o..cc..e..'>.S-,........_o;..'y, ... -\~~~~es,. a.-..~
10 0 0 0 s-· t) 0 ~""-e. ~ ~ \ .. c.--\;:-$ 0
• l • ....... ""-c r_Q..IO -\-.\::,\ <:.. -::... 0
0 0 0 0 0 " -
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
en
S:: M
.~ ~ ··-+J
0 p -0 0 0 0
0 0 --
mr--+-------+-------+-------+-------+------~------~-------4-------4-----:::3
r-l ::J m H 0 0 0
> Mr--+-------+-------+-------+------~------~------~-------4-------4------
.... -
~ ~ \~ 0 Q
·-~~-+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------~------~-----·r-i
0 0 0 0
\.f\
~ r::..
·r-i ~
'0 z 0 0 0 () 0 0 t.r
·-~~-+-------+-------+-------+-------+------~------~-------;------~------
0 0
N
0
0
M
N
M
_.J:lb;; __ .hal _ Jal\ .. __ ton_
Site # FG NMF FW LU 1\CE
34 5 5 s-\D 0
35 5 5" S> ,o D
36 0 0 0 ,o 5
37 0 0 0 \0 s-
38 0 0 .Q \0 0
39 0 0 0 \0 0
40 Q 0 0 \0 0
41 r; 5 s-\U 0
42 0 0 0 \0 s-
TA
D
0
0
D
v
0
0
s-
s-
Reckoning of Evaluations
':>~~ \o.. ..... ~ -~oci a..c.c...ca<a.s-r-.e:.<:....("e.o..-1...\o..-...o..\ v.s,c.-
.C.\<;.\...E:...r-':.e 'So \o<;;.S-\o.~-e.. -\:oo \c)\") ~\,.~e.,,.... \oc:. ... ""\o ......
~-~tS'-+~·\\0
:, a ""e...
:. A>.Je...r;-~e_ :::: lo ::.. "\. ")....
S\....~ \a..,..,~c;;,· ~o~ e...c.c..e.~s -r"'-C..re.. ..... ....!...\o ..... Q..\ v.c;.e.-5o---e.
..t;..\s\... .,.,,..., ~ ':l.""....,.._~ o..~~c:...~ ~
... A,.,) C!. r-c....~ e.. :.
..,-.. 9 + ;-... 10
I.. 4.;)...
~ ... f'V\.oo'iol2.. ~"'-~C. -~4 o...c..c...-e..'!DS.-"""'~\..... I"~C-.r.co.."-\._a,...o.\
u.. C::.t!. -~ 0 (""' ~ '"""' 0. ...... ~ ";). Cl, ,......._ Q... ~ ~ \.;; c..""'\:.
! . \.A. .-...o-.c.c;. ~~b\e. :::.0
~~ \_......~-~ o..cc...e.<t:.&-r~c:...r-.Q..=--~o ,......,..\ ""-!.e -""~o,...
..{:\ ~\...... Q. ...... ~ ~""".........e. ~+\ ~ c..""\-s
!, U.."" o...c.c... 41t.-~ o.. \o \.e. :::... D
~".,.:' Moo st ~~e. -'V'-1) ~o.. ~ o.c.c..e .._s -N'.o.\o<"" -{:ts.\....
............. ~ ~o.."""'-JIC.. ~~\~c:..""\-p~'e>~o~c.~ ....... ·,\~-r-....-..e.s.s
;. u ..... c:...c.._-e.R'\-.o,.\,\e;::: 0
~e"'o..'-f"\oo~~ Qa.. ...... "':::e..-~J.. o..c..._e..€. s -r-e..c. ~~~e.......o...\ ...... .-.,.e.'
fV'\.o;\ot' ~\: ... ~ \. e .S. ~-<;.\•c...~
l
.. '. U"'o...c..c. e.~\,\e.. ::>... 0
~~ \a..-~ -~ c:\.. o...c.c..LS.s. -~or-~ ~ ""~ ~ c:.s
<:: ............ :-\;-\ ~ c.. "T
:. \l~o...c:...c...c...4l-\e..\t.\e ::.o
~cu::...\.... }'J~'\-"\o.-..o...\ ~r-e..s.~ -~~ o.cc...e...$-s.-re..c....r-ca..o..."\-~ ....... \
v..c;,.e..-......._;......o..-~\l:.\.... o. .... ~ ~Cil,.......ct,. ~1"-<b'!.\~ S-pno~oc,e.~
......,\ \ ~e.c r-e..~s o.r 4:......_
..... A-H~.f'C:...~~ ':
'.) • <;""+ S" i I 0 1-S"
lo 5'.0
S-\-o3::l:t \.o..,.,.....~-~ ~ a. cc...e..~s.-,.~~-\......'\ ~ ...... o.. \. v...r.e , ~~c..,
-Ci. ~ ~e..r-\ es. ~~\.;. ~"T
:. I,J...,...~-\-a..'b\c. ::.o
Result
4. :1.
4. :t.
0
0
0
0
0
5.0
0
U)
J:: r;il
0 u
··~·r-1 <
+J
0
0 0
0
0 0
0 -
,, 0 -
0
II
r:J
f
1..
" ?
<(
.,
~~-+------~r-------+-------~-------+--------r-------4--------+------~r-----::l ,..; p
~ H 0
:>
r;it~-+------~r-------+-------~-------+------~r-------+--------+------~r-----
l.n 0
,..; :-:::
~ rx:..
·~·· :::1
0 l.f\ 1.1'\ 0
~~-+--------~------+-------~-------+--------r-------4--------+------~r----·r-l t> rx:..
·r-1 ~ , .... ~ z
0
.;' Q
~~-4--------~------4--------r-------f--------r-------;--------t------~r-----
0 -l.n G
INDIVIDUAL SITE INFORMATION SHEETS
Site No. 1 ------
Group Rank 5 -----
Name Crescent Lake
Stream Tuxedni River
Power Potential (kW) 41,000
Transmission Access Severe
U.S.G.S. Topographic Map (Scale 1:250,000) Kenai (B-8)
COMMENTS:
EVALUATIONS:
CH2M HILL Utilizing Land Use Planning Commission Information:
Scale
0
Comments
Within Lake Clark National Monument; Crescent Lake
affects lowlands --lowlands are village cor-
poration selection (Crescent Lake and Tuxedni
River lowlands).
Alaska Department of Fish & Game:
Scale
5
Comments
Some fisheries habitat problems anticipated.
Crescent Lake is an important sockeye salmon
producing system.
National Marine Fisheries Services:
Scale
0
Comments
Effects on anadromous fisheries --large red
salmon runs up Crescent River.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service:
Scale Comments
0 Important sockeye salmon system.
Trustees for Alaska:
Scale Comments
10 None.
Alaska Center for the Environment:
Scale
*0
Comments
*Distance --undesirable due to distance from
markets, and length/cost of transmission fac-
ilities needed.
*Access--maintenance roads, etc., would encourage
new and excessive (usually motorized} access to
remote areas, with attendant damage to wildlife
and nonmotorized recreation values.
*In Lake Clark National Monument.
Site No. 2 ------
Group Rank 2 -----
Name Chakachamna
Stream Chakachatna River, McArthur River
Power Potential (kW) 366,000
Transmission Access Moderate
U.S.G.S. Topographic Map (Scale 1:250,000) Tyonek
COMMENTS:
EVALUATIONS:
CH2M HILL Utilizing Land Use Planning Commission Information:
Scale Comments
10 State land --proposed road route.
Alaska Department of Fish & Game:
Scale
5
Comments
Some fisheries problems anticipated. Both the
Chakachatna River and McArthur River support
anadromous fish runs.
National Marine Fisheries Services:
Scale Comments
5 Some mitigable loss of fish/wildlife habitat.
u.s. Fish & Wildlife Service:
Scale Comments
5 None.
Trustees for Alaska:
Scale Comments
10 None.
Alaska Center for the Environment:
Scale
5
*0
Comments
Distance --undesirable due to distance from
markets, and length/cost of transmission fac-
ilities needed.
*Access--maintenance roads, etc., would encourage
new and excessive (usually motorized) access to
remote areas, with attendant damage to wildlife
and nonmotorized recreation values.
Less problem than with #1, but potential inter-
ference of lake and/or generating facilities with
proposed Lake Clark National Park.
*Too big given distance from market. In proposed
Lake Clark National Park.
Site No. 3 ------
Group Rank 6 -----
Name Beluga Lower
Stream Beluga River
Power Potential (kW) 15,000
Transmission Access Good
U.S.G.S. Topographic Map (Scale 1:250,000) Tyonek
COMMENTS:
EVALUATIONS:
CH2M HILL Utilizing Land Use Planning Commission Information:
Scale
5
Comments
CIRI land selection --proposed road route --
existing power lines.
Alaska Department of Fish & Game:
Scale
0
Comments
Major anadromous fisheries drainage; the Beluga
River supports five species of salmon.
National Marine Fisheries Services:
Scale
0
Comments
Major anadromous fishery --spawning/rearing
habitat; sport fishing area --big game habitat.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service:
Scale Comments
0 None.
Trustees for Alaska:
Scale Comments
None.
Alaska Center for the Environment:
Scale
10
Comment
Proximity ~-project is apparently desirable
because of closeness to markets for electricity or
existing corridors.
Reasonable Size --size of project seems more in
keeping with our general views that smaller,
decentralized sources of energy are desirable.
Site No. 4 -------
Group Rank 6 -----
Name Coffee
Stream Beluga River
Power Potential (kW} 37,000
Transmission Access Good ---------------
U.S.G.S. Topographic Map (Scale 1:250,000} Tyonek
COMMENTS:
EVALUATIONS:
CH2M HILL Utilizing Land Use Planning Commission Information:
Scale Comments
10 State land proposed road route --existing
power lines.
Alaska Department of Fish & Game:
Scale
0
Comments
Major anadromous fisheries drainage; the Beluga
River supports five species of salmon.
National Marine Fisheries Services:
Scale
0
Comments
Major anadromous fishery --spawning/rearing
habitat; sport fishing area --big game habitat.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service:
Scale Comments
0 None.
Trustees for Alaska:
Scale Comments
None.
Alaska Center for the Environment:
Scale
10
Comments
Proximity --project is apparently desirable
because of closeness to markets for electricity or
existing corridors.
Reasonable Size --size of project seems more in
keeping with our general views that smaller,
decentralized sources of energy are desirable.
Site No. 5 ------
Group Rank 6 ----
Name Beluga Upper
Stream Beluga River
Power Potential {kW}
Transmission Access
48,000
Good
U.S.G.S. Topographic Map (Scale 1:250,000}
COMMENTS:
EVALUATIONS:
Tyonek
CH2M HILL Utilizing Land Use Planning Commission Information:
Scale
5
Comments
CIRI selected land --proposed road route --
access to existing power lines.
Alaska Department of Fish & Game:
Scale
0
Comments
Major anadromous fisheries drainage; the Beluga
River supports five species of salmon.
National Marine Fisheries Services:
Scale
0
u.s. Fish
Scale
0
Trustees
Scale
Comments
Major anadrornous fishery --spawning/rearing
habitat; sport fishing area --big game habitat.
& Wildlife Service:
Comments
None.
for Alaska:
Comments
None.
Alaska Center for the Environment:
Scale
10
Comments
Proximity --project is apparently desirable
because of closeness to markets for electricity or
existing corridors.
Reasonable Size --size of project seems more in
keeping with our general views that smaller,
decentralized sources of energy are desirable.
Site No. 6 ------
Group Rank ___ 1 __ __
Name Strandline Lake ~~~~~~----------
Stream Beluga River
Power Potential (kW} 17,000
Transmission Access Moderate
U.S.G.S. Topographic Map (Scale 1:250,000} Tyonek
COMMENTS:
3 Development of Beluga Upper (5) would reduce by 12 x 10 kW.
EVALUATIONS:
CH2M HILL Utilizing Land Use Planning Commission Information:
Scale
5
Comments
Strandline Lake is state selected, Beluga Lake is
CIRI selected --proposed railroad route --has
access to existing power lines.
Alaska Department of Fish & Game:
Scale
10
Comments
Minimal fish and wildlife concerns; no known
critical habitat involved.
National Marine Fisheries Services:
Scale
10
Scale
10
Comments
Minimal known fish and wildlife resources; no
major impact foreseen.
Fish & Wildlife Service:
Comments
None.
Trustees for Alaska:
Scale Comments
None.
Alaska Center for the Environment:
Scale
5
*10
Comments
Distance --undesirable due to distance from
markets, and length/cost of transmission fac-
ilities needed.
Too Big --sheer magnitude of project causes us to
question its desirability.
Access--maintenance roads, etc., would encourage
new and excessive (usually motorized) access to
remote areas, with attendant damage to wildlife
and nonmotorized recreation values.
*Minimal conflict.
Site No. 7 ------
Group Rank 6 -----
Name Lake Creek Lower
Stream Lake Creek
Power Potential (kW) 22,000
Transmission Access Severe
U.S.G.S. Topographic Map (Scale 1:250,000) Talkeetna
COMMENTS:
EVALUATIONS:
CH2M HILL Utilizing Land Use Planning Commission Information:
Scale Comments
5 State lands --existing trail.
Alaska Department of Fish & Game:
Scale
0
Comments
Lake Creek is a major anadromous and resident
fisheries stream. It supports trophy class
rainbow and Arctic grayling and provides spawning
and rearing habitat for five species of Pacific
salmon.
National Marine Fisheries Services:
Scale
0
Comments
Important anadromous fish drainage --sport
fishing area; big game habitat. Supports 5
species of salmon and several freshwater species.
u.s. Fish & Wildlife Service:
Scale Comments
0 None.
Trustees for Alaska:
Scale Comments
0 Heavy recreational use, fisheries conflict.
Alaska Center for the Environment:
Scale
0
Comments
Fish --project would or might impact "obvious"
fisheries resource (usually salmon).
Recreation --Adverse impact on present or po-
tential recreation uses (tourism, floating rivers,
rafting, canoing, kayaking, etc.).
Site. No. 9 ------
Group Rank 6 -----
Name Talachulitna River
Stream Talachulitna River
Power Potential (kW) 28,000
Transmission Access Severe
U.S.G.S. Topographic Map (Scale 1:250,000) Tyonek
COMMENTS:
EVALUATIONS:
CH2M HILL Utilizing Land Use Planning Commission Information:
Scale Comments
5 State lands --proposed road and existing trail.
Alaska Department of Fish & Game:
Scale
0
Comments
Drainage provides important wildlife habitat. The
Talachulitna River is a trophy fish stream for
rainbow and Arctic grayling and also, a major Cook
Inlet salmon producing stream.
National Marine Fisheries Services:
Scale Comments
0 Anadromous river with important sport fishery.
S. Fish & Wildlife Service:
Scale Comments
0 None.
Trustees for Alaska:
Scale Comments
0 Heavy recreational use; fisheries conflict.
Alaska Center for the Environment:
Scale
0
Comments
Fish --project would or might impact 11 0bvious"
fisheries resource (usually salmon).
Recreation --adverse impact on present or po-
tential recreation uses (rafting, canoing, kayaking).
Site No. 10
Group Rank 6
Name Hayes
Stream Skwentna River
Power Potential (kW) 89,000
Transmission Access Severe
U.S.G.S. Topographic Map (Scale 1:250,000) Tyonek --A-------------
COMMENTS:
EVALUATIONS:
CH2M HILL Utilizing Land Use Planning Commission Information:
Scale Comments
5 State lands --proposed road and existing trail.
Alaska Department of Fish & Game:
Scale
0
Comments
Important big game and anadromous fish habitat
involved.
National Marine Fisheries Services:
Scale Comments
0 Major anadromous waterway --game habitat losses.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service:
Scale Comments
0 None.
Trustees for Alaska:
Scale Comments
0 Recreation use.
Alaska Center for the Environment:
Scale
5
Comments
Distance --undesirable due to distance from
markets, and length/cost of transmission fac-
ilities needed.
Access--maintenance roads, etc., would encourage
new and excessive (usually motorized) access to
remote areas, with attendant damage to wildlife
and nonmotorized recreation values.
Site No. 11 ------
Group Rank 4 -----
Name Emerald
Stream Skwentna River
Power Potential (kW) 37,000
Transmission Access Severe
U.S.G.S. Topographic Map (Scale 1:250,000) Tyonek
COMMENTS:
EVALUATIONS:
CH2M HILL Utilizing Land Use Planning Commission Information:
Scale
5
Comments
State lands possible long access through
Skwentna River to proposed road and existing
trail.
Alaska Department of Fish & Game:
Scale Comments
5 Some wildlife conflicts anticipated.
National Marine Fisheries Services:
Scale
5
u.s. Fish
Scale
5
Trustees
Scale
0
Comments
Some loss of game habitat --possible loss of fish
habitat.
& Wildlife Service:
Comments
None.
for Alaska:
Comments
Recreational use.
Alaska Center for the Environment:
Scale
*0
Comments
*Distance --undesirable due to distance from
markets, and length/cost of transmission fac-
ilities needed.
*Access--maintenance roads, etc., would encourage
new and excessive (usually motorized) access to
remote areas, with attendant damage to wildlife
and nonmotorized recreation values.
Site No. 12
Group Rank 6 -----
Name Yentna
Stream Yentna River
Power Potential (kW} 145,000
Transmission Access Moderate
U.S.G.S. Topographic Map (Scale 1:250,000} Tyonek
COMMENTS:
Assume operation with (13) and (14) as a system.
EVALUATIONS:
CH2M HILL Utilizing Land Use Planning Commission Information:
Scale
10
Comments
State lands --accessible by trail and to proposed
road.
Alaska Department of Fish & Game:
Scale
0
Comments
Critical anadromous fish and big game habitat
involved.
National Marine Fisheries Services:
Scale Comments
0 Anadromous river with critical big game habitat.
u.s. Fish & Wildlife Service:
Scale Comments
0 None.
Trustees for Alaska:
Scale Comments
0 Recreation use.
Alaska Center for the Environment:
Scale
10
Comments
Proximity --project is apparently desirable
because of closeness to markets for electricity or
existing corridors.
Site No. 13 ------
Group Rank 6 -----
Name Talachulitna
Stream Skwentna River
Power Potential (kW) __ 7_5~,_0_0_0 ____ __
Transmission Access Severe
U.S.G.S. Topographic Map (Scale 1:250,000) Tyonek
COMMENTS:
Assumes operation with (12) and (14) as a system.
EVALUATIONS:
CH2M HILL Utilizing Land Use Planning Commission Information:
Scale Comment.s
5 State lands --proposed road and existing trail.
Alaska Department of Fish & Game:
Scale
0
Comments
Major migrational corridor for anadromous fish.
Important big and small game habitat area.
National Marine Fisheries Services:
Scale Comments
0 Major anadromous waterway.
u.s. Fish & Wildlife Service:
Scale Comments
0 None.
Trustees for Alaska:
Scale
0
Comments
Heavy recreation use which will grow; fisheries
conflict.
Alaska Center for the Environment:
Scale
0
Conunents
Fish --project would or might impact "obvious"
fisheries resource (usually salmon).
Recreation --adverse impact on present or po-
tential recreation uses (rafting, canoing, kayaking).
Site No. 14 ------
Group Rank 6 -----
Name Skwentna
Stream Skwentna River
Power Potential (kW) ga,ooo
Transmission Access Severe
U.S.G.S. Topographic Map (Scale 1:250,000) Tyonek
COMMENTS:
Assumes operation with (12) and (13) as a system.
EVALUATIONS:
CH2M HILL Utilizing Land Use Planning Commission Information:
Scale
5
Comments
State lands --by proposed road route and existing
trail.
Alaska Department of Fish & Game:
Scale
0
Comments
Critical anadromous fisheries and wildlife habitat
involved.
National Marine Fisheries Services:
Scale Comments
0 Major anadromous waterway.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service:
Scale Comments
0 None.
Trustees for Alaska:
Scale Comments
0 Heavy recreation use.
Alaska Center for the Environment:
Scale
0
Comments
Distance --undesirable due to distance from
markets, and length/cost of transmission fac-
ilities needed.
Access--maintenance roads, etc., would encourage
new and excessive (usually motorized) access to
remote areas, with attendant damage to wildlife
and nonmotorized recreation values.
Site No. 29
Group Rank 6 -----
Name Palmer -------------
Stream Matanuska River
Power Potential (kW) 16,000
Transmission Access Good
U.S.G.S. Topographic Map (Scale 1:250,000) Anchorage
COMMENTS:
EVALUATIONS:
CH2M HILL Utilizing Land Use Planning Commission Information:
Scale
10
Comments
State lands by Palmer --existing roads and
railroad.
Alaska Department of Fish & Game:
Scale
0
Comments
Significant anadromous and big game habitat
involved.
National Marine Fisheries Services:
Scale Comments
0 Impact on anadromous fish and game habitat.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife:
Scale Comments
0 None.
Trustees for Alaska:
Scale Comments
5 None.
Alaska Center for the Environment:
Scale
10
Comments
Proximity --project is apparently desirable
because of closeness to markets for electricity or
existing corridors.
Minimal wildlife, access impacts? However,
lifetime of facilities? (sedimentation); other
factors being equal preference decreases with
distance from Palmer --proximity.
Site No. 30 ------
Group Rank 6 -----
Name Moose River
Stream Matanuska River
Power Potential (kW) 21,000
Transmission Access Good
u.s.G.S. Topographic Map (Scale 1:250,000) Anchorage
COMMENTS:
Alternative to Palmer (29).
EVALUATIONS:
CH2M HILL Utilizing Land Use Planning Commission Information:
Scale
10
Comments
State lands near Palmer --existing roads and
railroad.
Alaska Department of Fish & Game:
Scale
0
Comments
Significant anadromous and big game habitat
involved.
National Marine Fisheries Services:
Scale Comments
0 Impact on anadromous fish and game habitat.
u.s. Fish & Wildlife Service:
Scale Comments
0 None.
Trustees for Alaska:
Scale
0
Comments
Scenic drive, recreational use, commercial float
trips.
Alaska Center for the Environment:
Scale
10
Comments
Proximity --project is apparently desirable
because of closeness to markets for electricity or
existing corridors.
Minimal wildlife, access impacts? However,
lifetime of facilities? (sedimentation}; other
factors being equal, preference decreases with
distance from Palmer --proximity.
Site No. 31
Group Rank 5 -----
Name King Mountain
Stream Matanuska River
Power Potential (kW) 44,000
Transmission Access Good
U.S.G.S. Topographic Map (Scale 1:250,000) Anchorage
COMMENTS:
EVALUATIONS:
CH2M HILL Utilizing Land Use Planning Commission Information:
Scale Corrnnents
5 Partially selected by CIRI --existing roads.
Alaska Department of Fish & Game:
Scale
5
Comments
Some anadromous fisheries and big game habitat
would be lost.
National Marine Fisheries Services:
Scale Comments
0 Impact on anadromous fish and game habitat.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service:
Scale Comments
0 Important anadromous fisheries and big gam habitat.
Trustees for Alaska:
Scale
0
Comments
Scenic drive, recreational use, commercial float
trips.
Alaska Center for the Environment:
Scale
10
*5
Conunents
Proximity --project is apparently desirable
because of closeness to markets for electricity or
existing corridors.
Minimal wildlife, access impacts? However,
lifetime of facilities? (sedimentation}; other
factors being equal, preference decreases with
distance from Palmer --proximity.
*Lake very big given location. Moose habitat impacted?
Site No. 32
Group Rank 4 -----
Name Coal Creek
Stream Matanuska River
Power Potential (kW) 64,000
Transmission Access Good
U.S.G.S. Topographic Map (Scale 1:250,000) Anchorage
COMMENTS:
Alternative to King Mountain (31).
EVALUATIONS:
CH2M HILL Utilizing Land Use Planning Commission Information:
Scale Comments
5 Partially selected by CIRI --existing roads.
Alaska Department of Fish & Game:
Scale
5
Comments
Would effect several small anadromous fish streams
and some winter big game range upstream of the
impoundment.
National Marine Fisheries Services:
Scale Comments
5 Some loss of fish and wildlife habitat.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service:
Scale Comments
5 None.
Trustees for Alaska:
Scale
0
Comments
Scenic drive, recreational use, commercial float
trips.
Alaska Center for the Environment:
Scale
10
*0
Comments
Proximity --project is apparently desirable
because of closeness to markets for electricity or
existing corridors.
Minimal wildlife, access impacts? However,
lifetime of facilities? (sedimentation}; other
factors being equal, preference decreases with
distance from Palmer --proximity.
*Lake too big given location. Rapid sedimentation.
Long transmission lines necessary {desirability
decreases with distance from Palmer).
Site No. 33
Group Rank 4 -----
Name Purinton Creek ----------------
Stream Matanuska River
Power Potential (kW) 67,000 ----=-------
Transmission Access Good --~-------
U.S.G.S. Topographic Map (Scale 1:250,000) Anchorage
COMMENTS:
Alternative to Hicks (34).
EVALUATIONS:
CH2M HILL Utilizing Land Use Planning Commission Information:
Scale Comments
5 Selected by village corporation --existing roads.
Alaska Department of Fish & Game:
Scale
5
Comments
Would effect several small anadromous fish streams
and some winter big game range upstream from the
impoundment.
National Marine Fisheries Services:
Scale Comments
5 Some loss of fish a:r,d wildlife habitat.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service:
Scale Comments
5 None.
Trustees for Alaska:
Scale
0
Comments
Scenic drive, recreational use, commercial float
trips.
Alaska Center for the Environment:
scale
10
*0
Comments
Proximity --project is apparently desirable
because of closeness to markets for electricity or
existing corridors.
Minimal wildlife, access impacts? However,
lifetime of facilities? (sedimentation}; other
factors being equal, preference decreases with
distance from Palmer --proximity.
*Lake too big given location. Rapid sedimentation.
Long transmission lines necessary (desirability
decreases with distance from Palmer).
Site No. 34 ------
Group Rank 3 -----
Name Hicks Site
Stream Matanuska River
Power Potential (kW) 59, 00_0 ___ _
Transmission Access Good
U.S.G.S. Topographic Map (Scale 1:250,000) Anchorage
COMMENTS:
EVALUATIONS:
CH2M HILL Utilizing Land Use Planning Commission Information:
Scale
10
Alaska
Scale
5
Comments
State land existing road --may affect down-
stream native selections.
of Fish & Game:
Comments
No major fisheries problems anticipated; some big
game habitat would be lost.
National Marine Fisheries Services:
Scale Comments
5 Some loss of fish and wildlife habitat.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service:
Scale Comments
5 None.
Trustees for Alaska:
Scale
0
Comments
Scenic drive, recreational use, commercial float
trips.
Alaska Center for the Environment:
scale
10
*0
Comments
Proximity --project is apparently desirable
because of closeness to markets for electricity or
existing corridors.
Minimal wildlife, access impacts? However,
lifetime of facilities (sedimentation}; other
factors being equal, preference decreases with
distance from Palmer --proximity.
*Lake too big given location. Rapid sedimentation.
Long transmission lines necessary (desirability
decreases with distance from Palmer).
Site No. 35 ------
Group Rank 3 ----
Name Caribou Creek
Stream Caribou Creek
Power Potential (kW) 19,000
Transmission Access Good --------------
U.S.G.S. Topographic Map (Scale 1:250,000) Anchorage
COMMENTS:
EVALUATIONS:
CH2M HILL Utilizing Land Use Planning Commission Information:
Scale
10
Comments
State lands --access to existing road through
narrow valley.
Alaska Department of Fish & Game:
scale
5
Comments
No fisheries problems but some important big game
habitats involved.
National Marine Fisheries Services:
scale Comments
5 Some fish and wildlife habitat losses.
u.s. Fish & Wildlife Service:
Scale Comments
5 None.
Trustees for Alaska:
Scale Comments
0 Recreation use, hiking, skiing, access route.
Alaska Center for the Environment:
Scale
*0
Comments
Too big --sheer magnitude of project causes us to
question its desirability.
Recreation --adverse impact on present or poten-
tial recreation uses (tourism, floating rivers,
etc.) .
Loss of habitat for wildlife.
Distance --undesirable due to distance from
markets, and length/cost of transmission fac-
ilities needed.
*Too far from market. Moose/caribou habitat?
Site No. 36 ------
Group Rank 6 -----
Name Kenai Lower
Stream Kenai River
Power Potential (kW) 55,000
Transmission Access Good
U.S.G.S. Topographic Map (Scale 1:250,000) Kenai (B-3)
COMMENTS:
EVALUATIONS:
CH2M HILL Utilizing Land Use Planning Commission Information:
Scale
10
Comments
In Kenai Moose Range (Federal) . Close to local
road and existing highway with power.
Alaska Department of Fish & Game:
Scale
0
Comments
The Kenai River is the leading anadromous fisheries
stream in Cook Inlet. Important big game habitat
involved.
National Marine Fisheries Services:
Scale
0
Comments
Major anadromous fish drainage; important sport
fishery --valuable game habitat.
u.s. Fish & Wildlife Service:
Scale Comments
0 None.
Trustees for Alaska:
Scale Comments
0 High recreation use, fisheries conflict.
Alaska Center for the Environment:
Scale
5
Comments
Fish --project would or might impact "obvious"
fisheries resource (usually salmon) .
Recreation --adverse impact on present or poten-
tial recreation uses (tourism, floating rivers,
etc.) .
Site No. 37
Group Rank 6 -----
Name Moose Horn
Stream Kenai River
Power Potential (kW) 60,000
Transmission Access Good
U.S.G.S. Topographic Map (Scale 1:250,000) Kenai (C-2)
COMMENTS:
EVALUATIONS:
CH2M HILL Utilizing Land Use Planning Commission Information:
Scale
10
Comments
On state land. Close to local road and existing
highway with power, and landing area.
Alaska Department of Fish & Game:
Scale
0
Comments
The Kenai River is the leading anadromous fisheries
stream in Cook Inlet. Important big game habitat
involved.
National Marine Fisheries Services:
Scale
0
Comments
Major anadromous fish drainage --important sport
fishery --valuable game habitat.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service:
Scale Comments
0 None.
Trustees for Alaska:
Scale Comments
0 High recreation use, fisheries conflict.
Alaska Center for the Environment:
Scale
5
Comments
Fish --project would or might impact "obvious"
fisheries resource (usually salmon) .
Recreation --adverse impact on present or poten-
tial recreation uses (tourism, floating rivers,
etc.} .
Site No. 38 ------
Group Rank 6 -----
Name Killey River
Stream Killey River
Power Potential (kW) 21,000
Transmission Access Moderate
U.S.G.S. Topographic Map (Scale 1:250,000) Kenai (B-2)
COMMENTS:
EVALUATIONS:
CH2M HILL Utilizing Land Use Planning Commission Information:
Scale Comments
10 Kenai Moose Range.
Close to trail --access possible though distant.
Alaska Department of Fish & Game:
Scale
0
Comments
An important big game habitat area, particularly
for moose and bear. Some anadromous fisheries
habitat would be lost.
National Marine Fisheries Services:
Scale Comments
0 Important anadromous fish stream --game habitat.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service:
Scale Comments
0 None.
Trustees for Alaska:
Scale Comments
0 Proposed wilderness area.
Alaska Center for the Environment:
Scale
0
Comments
Distance -~ undesirable due to distance from
markets, and length/cost of transmission fac-
ilities needed.
Access--maintenance roads, etc., would encourage
new and excessive (usually motorized) access to
remote areas, with attendant damage to wildlife
and nonmotorized recreation values.
Site No. 39 ------
Group Rank 6 -----
Name Stelters Ranch
Stream Kenai River
Power Potential (kW) 84,000
Transmission Access Good -----
U.S.G.S. Topographic Map (Scale 1:250,000) Kenai (B-1)
COMMENTS:
EVALUATIONS:
CH2M HILL Utilizing Land Use Planning Commission Information:
Scale
10
Comments
Kenai Moose Range. Very accessible --next to
existing highway and power line.
Alaska Department of Fish & Game:
Scale
0
Comments
Miles of critical anadromous fisheries habitat
upstream of the site. Some big game habitat
involved.
National Marine Fisheries Services:
Scale
0
Comments
Major anadromous fish drainage --important sport
fishery --valuable game habitat.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service:
Scale Comments
0 None.
Trustees for Alaska:
Scale Comrnents
0 High recreation use, fisheries conflict.
Alaska Center for the Environment:
Scale
0
Conunents
Recreation --adverse impact on present or poten-
tial recreation uses (tourism, floating rivers,
etc.) .
Lake --based on available information, dam would
create lake of excessive size, given local con-
ditions (settlement, wildlife habitat, etc.)(?)
Site No. 40
Group Rank 6 -----
Name Kenai Lake
Stream Kenai River
Power Potential (kW) 115,000
Transmission Access Good
U.S.G.S. Topographic Map (Scale 1:250,000} Seward
COMMENTS:
Alternative to Stelters Ranch (39).
EVALUATIONS:
CH2M HILL Utilizing Land Use Planning Commission Information:
Scale
10
Comments
State land --good access to existing highway with
power.
Alaska Department of Fish & Game:
Scale
0
Comments
Would negatively impact anadromous fisheries
production on a major system.
National Marine Fisheries Services:
Scale
0
Con:unents
Major anadromous fish drainage --important sport
fishery --valuable game habitat.
u.s. Fish & Wildlife Service:
Scale Comments
0 None.
Trustees for Alaska:
Scale Comments
0 High recreation use, fisheries conflict.
Alaska Center for the Environment:
scale
0
Comments
Lake --based on available information, dam would
create lake of excessive size, given local con-
ditions (settlement, wildlife habitat, etc.).
Site No. 41 ------
Group Rank 2 -----
Name Snow -----'---------
Stream Snow River
Power Potential (kW) 63,000
Transmission Access Good
U.S.G.S. Topographic Map (Scale 1:250,000)
COMMENTS:
EVALUATIONS:
CH2M HILL Utilizing Land Use Planning Commission Information:
Scale
10
Comments
Chugach Forest (Federal). Good access, good
power --existing.
Alaska Department of Fish & Game:
Scale Comments
5 No major fisheries or wildlife problems anticipated.
National Marine Fisheries Services:
Scale Comments
5 Some loss of fish and wildlife habitat.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service:
Scale Comments
5 None.
Trustees for Alaska:
Scale
5
Comments
May be part of trail system through Ptarmigan
Lake.
Alaska Center for the Environment:
Scale
*0
Comments
Too Big --sheer magnitude of project causes us to
question its desirability.
Recreation --adverse impact on present or poten-
tial recreation uses (tourism, floating river,
etc.) .
Wildlife.
*Wildlife habitat. Extensive recreational use
(motorized and non-motorized) . Proposed wilderness
area. Distance from market.
Site No. 42 ------
Group Rank 6
Name Kasilof River
Stream Kasilof River
Power Potential (kW) 40,000
Transmission Access Good
U.S.G.S. Topographic Map (Scale 1:250,000) Kenai (B-4)
COMMENTS:
EVALUATIONS:
CH2M HILL Utilizing Land Use Planning Commission Information:
Scale
10
Comments
On state land (20% regional). Close to existing
and proposed highway and power line.
Alaska Department of Fish & Game:
Scale
0
Comments
Major anadromous fisheries and big game problems
would occur.
National Marine Fisheries Services:
Scale Comments
0 Important anadromous fishery.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service:
Scale Comments
0 None.
Trustees for Alaska:
Scale Comments
5 Heavy recreation use.
Alaska Center for the Environment:
5
Comments
Fish --project would or might impact "obvious"
fisheries resource (usually salmon).
Recreation --adverse impact on present or poten-
tial recreation uses (tourism, floating rivers,
etc.} .
Site No. 43 ------
Group Rank 2 -----
Name Tustumena
Stream Glacier Creek
Power Potential (kW) 21,000
Transmission Access Moderate
U.S.G.S. Topographic Map (Scale 1:250,000) Kenai (A-2)
COMMENTS:
EVALUATIONS:
CH2M HILL Utilizing Land Use Planning Commission Information:
Scale
10
Comments
Kenai Moose Range. Access difficult --possible
to proposed highway.
Alaska Department of Fish & Game:
Scale Comments
10 No major fisheries or big game habitat involved.
National Marine Fisheries Services:
Scale Comments
10 No major impacts --provided drainage to Kasilof
River is not affected.
U Fish & Wildlife Service:
Scale Comments
10 None.
Trustees for Alaska:
Scale Comments
0 Proposed wilderness area.
Alaska Center for the Environment:
Scale
*0
Comments
*Distance --undesirable due to distance from
markets, and length/cost of transmission fac-
ilities needed.
*Access --maintenance roads, etc. would encourage
new and excessive (usually motorized) access to
remote areas, with attendant damage to wildlife
and nonrnotorized recreation values.
*Moose habitat? Proposed wilderness area.
Site No. 44
Group Rank 4
Name Creek
Stream Sheep Creek
Power Potential (kW) 20,000 _ ___:. ___ __:_ ___ _
Transmission Access Moderate
U.S.G.S. Topographic Map (Scale 1:250,000)
COMMENTS:
EVALUATIONS:
Seldovia
CH2M HILL Utilizing Land Use Planning Commission Information:
Scale
5
Comments
On line between D-1 and Kenai Moose Range.
Accessible to proposed highway. {presently quite
distant).
Alaska Department of Fish & Game:
Scale
5
Comments
No fisheries problems. Some important goat and
sheep habitat would be lost.
National Marine Fisheries Services:
Scale Comments
5 Some fish and game habitat losses.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service:
Scale Comments
5 None.
Trustees for Alaska:
Scale Comments
0 Proposed wilderness area.
Alaska Center for the Environment:
Scale
*0
Comments
*Distance --undesirable due to distance from
markets, and length/cost of transmission fac-
ilities needed.
*Access--maintenance roads, etc., would encourage
new and excessive (usually motorized) access to
remote areas, with attendant damage to wildlife
and nonmotorized recreation values.
*Impact on habitat (Fox River flats transmission
lines).
-
Alaska Center for the Environment:
Scale
*10
Conunents
*Proximity ~-project is apparently desirable
because of closeness to markets for electricity or
existing corridors.
Alaska Center for the Environment:
Scale
0
Connnents
Distance --undesirable due to distance from
markets, and length/cost of transmission fac-
ilities needed.
Lake --based on available information, dam would
create lake of excessive size, given local con-
ditions (settlement, wildlife habitat, etc.).
Recreation --adverse impact on present or poten-
tial recreation uses {proposed wild and scenic
river).
-
Site No. 45
Group Rank 5 -----
Name Resurrection River
Stream Resurrection River
Power Potential (kW) 18,000
Transmission Access Good
U.S.G.S. Topographic Map (Scale 1:250,000) ~S~e~w~a~r~d ______ _
COMMENTS:
EVALUATIONS:
CH2M HILL Utilizing Land Use Planning Commission Information:
Scale
0
Comments
Boundary of Harding Ice Fields National Monument. On
proposed railroad and highway. Possible access to
existing road and power.
Alaska Department of Fish & Game:
Scale Comments
10 Little fisheries or wildlife problems anticipated.
National Marine Fisheries Services:
Scale Comments
5 Some fish habitat losses.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services:
Scale Comments
5 None.
Trustees for Alaska:
Scale
0
Comments
Forest Service trail; access to Harding Ice Fields
National Park; Park Service headquarters.
Alaska Center for the Environment:
Scale
*0
Comments
*Distance --undesirable due to distance from
markets, and length/cost of transmission fac-
ilities needed.
Lake --based on available information, darn would
create lake of excessive size, given local con-
ditions (settlement, wildlife habitat, etc.).
*Recreation --adverse impact on present or poten-
tial recreation uses (proposed wild and scenic
river).
CORRESPONDENCE
REPLY TO
ATTENTION Of:
NPAEN-CW
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
ALASKA DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 7002
ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99510
Nr. Ronald J. !Ueland
CH2M Hill
310 K Street, Suite 602
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Dear Hr. Reiland:
(
(,,, . ~,I L
Review of your reports entitled: "Review of Southcentral
Alaska Hydropower Potential" for Fairbanks area and Anchorage
area, has been accomplished on your Contract DACASS-78-C-0013,
Work Orders 5 and 4, respectively.
The following items need clarification or addition to the ,
reports:
a. Clarify the term "transmission areas" and define the
role it has in the evaluation.
b. Some of the smaller projects, such as Strandline Lake,
Caribou Creek, Deadman Creek, etc., have been termed "too big"
by the ~laska Center for the Environment. Recheck your
evaluation.
c. Incorporate Fish and Wildlife Service input into the
report. This information should be available in two weeks.
d. Incorporate the additional evaluation work being
accomplished by the Alaska Center for the Environment, based
upon information being collected by Mr. Paul Lowe.
NPAEN-CW
Hr. Ronald J. Rieland
Contract completion will be extended to 16 January 1979 to
allm'l incorporation of above information.
Sincerely,
JAY K. SOPER
Chief, Engineering Division
2
Alaska Center for the Environment
1069 W. Sixth Ave.
Anchorage, AK, 99501
December 27, 1978
Ms. Nanette Horvilt
CH2~1-Hill
310 K Street
Anchorage, AK, 99501
Dear Ms. Harvil)
In my October 25 letter to Corby Howell, I indicated that we
would be doing a more detailed evaluation of the 61 hydroelectric sites
proposed as possible alternatives to the Susitna Dam project. This eval-
uation is enclosed, and is supplemental to the preliminary version we
submitted two months ago.
We have also reviewed CH2¥-Hill's summary of the preliminary eval-
uations, and wish to make a few comments:
1.) We share the concerns expressed by Mr. Petrie of the Alaska Depart-
ment of Natural Resources in his October 20 letter,·regarding the need
for more data before really meaningful evaluations are possible. ~·lhile
realizing that this is a "first cut" in this direction, we are particu-
larly concerned that the proposals be examined in light of the intended
markets for the electricity generated at each one, and specific routing
of transmission lines. In some cases, the environmental impacts (on habi-
tat, etc.) of the transiDission lines may far exceed those of the dams
they would service~., Sheep Creek site,fr44).
2.) While we have not done an extensive analysis of your summary, there
appear to be some inconsistencies. For instance:
a.) there seems to be excessive weight given to the "CH2M-Hill using
LUPC Information" evaluation in determining a site's final rating.
In several cases, scores of 10 in this area effectively offset "un-
acceptable" ratings for impacts on fish or wildlife habitat <!...:.!.·,
sites I 8, 53, 54, 56, 58). This is of special concern in light of
the fact that the Alaska Division of Lands was not able to participate
in the evaluation, producing a situation where "all state lands were
indicated as 'acceptable' ••• ~ Again, we realize the limitations you
had to work under, but this approach could lend itself to unrealistic,
if not inaccurate, evaluations of various sites. ADL's input seems
to be essential to this process i
b.) our understanding is that _ftite within the Morton d-2 withdrawals
was put into your Group Rank 6. Teklanika (#52) falls in this cate-
gory (Morton McKinley Park additions), but is rated at 4.
3.) We would have preferred to see our evaluations, and those submitted
by Trustees for Alaska, used on a par with those from public agencies,
rather than as a secondary prioritizing mechanism. While the public agen-
cies may bring greater specific credentials to bear on this, our organi-
2.
zations probably have a broader perspective. If our input is solicited,
it should be used on an equal basis with others'.
These comments are very definitely not directed at anyone personally,
or intended as flat criticism. tole support this evaluation process, ap-
preciate the opportunity to participate, and want to see it be as effec-
tive and comprehensive as possible. We strongly feel that this evaluation
process should produce a document as substantive in fact as in name.
Again, thank you for your assistance, and for the opportunity to
participate. We hope to be able to continue in this role.
Paul Lowe
Executive Director
Enclosures: Revised hydro site evaluations, with explanatory notes
cc: Brent Petrie
ADL/Planning & Research
" " Classification
TO: CH2M-Rill
Corps of Engineers
Other Interested Parties
FROM: Alaska Center for the Environment
1069 W. Sixth Ave.
Anchorage, AK, 99501
December 27, 1978
SUBJECT: Revised evaluations of 61 proposed hydroelectric sites
NOTES:
1.) These are supplemental to our earlier evaluations, dated 10/25/78.
2.) At that time, the onl~ata available to us was site location and
11h" (head?) figure, for each one. (There are apparent errors in some
"h" figures, such as /128-Deadman.) Our judgements as to size of the
installations and/or lake involved were based on these data.
These revised evaluations were done using CH2M-Hill's summary of the
initial evaluations, 1:250,000 maps showing site location and lake areas,
and additional references. As a result, our initial findings have been
revised in some cases.
3.) We have not re-examined those sites in Rank Group 6 of CH2~Hill's
summary, on the assumption that those will be ruled out by reason of
other input. If this assumption is incorrect, we would appreciate noti-
fication.
4.) In light of the additional data available, we submit the attached
evaluations •
CH2M
II HILL
engineers
planners
economists
scientists
9 January 1979
Kll839.DO/EO
Mr. Paul Lowe
Alaska Center for the Environment
1069 W. Sixth Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Dear Mr. Lowe:
Attached is a copy of the rev1s1ons to the report "Review of Southcentral
Alaska Hydropower Potential -Anchorage and Fairbanks Area 11
, which we
submitted to the Corps of Engineers.
l~e have carefully considered the points in your letter of 27 December
1978 and would like to make the following clarifications:
1 In view of the lack of better information, CH2M HILL chose to
rate sites on state selected lands as good. We do not feel
that this has adversely affected this stage of the site
evaluations, since the current purpose is to eliminate the
obviously poor sites. With fewer sites remaining to be
considered, it will then be possible to do a more thorough
study from all viewpoints, including that of land use.
t The sites in D-2 withdrawals were not automatically placed in
Group Rank 6. If a site was affected by D-2, CH2M HILL rated
it as "unacceptable 11 in its land use evaluation. The fate of
D-2 lands is too uncertain to automatically eliminate a site
simply on that point.
• We received the input from the Trustees of Alaska a~d the
Alaska Center for the Environment too late to include it in
the 11 Reckoning of Evaluations" in the preliminary report.
However, these evaluations, as well as new data from other
sources, have been included in the revisions.
We hope this has answered any questions you have. Thank you for your
cooperation in this effort.
Sincerely,
' -~'t~~v·~
Nanette P. Harvill
Enclosure
hms
Anchorage Office • 310 K Street, Suite 602 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 907 (279-6491