HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA148I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CHAKACHAMNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
INTERIM FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT REPORT
VOLUME I
BECHTEL CIVIL & MINERALS INC.
ENG INEERS -CONSTRUCTORS
•
FEBRUARY 1983
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA
CHAKACHAMNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
INTERIM FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT REPORT
FEBRUARY 1983
VOLUME I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Sect i on
1.0 INTRODUCTION
2.0 SUMMARY
2.1 Project Layout Studies
2.2 Geological Studies
2.3 Environmental Studies
2.3.1
2.3.2
2.3.3
2.3.4
Hydrology
Aquatic Biology
Terrestrial Biology
Human Resources
2.4 Economic Evaluation
2.5 Technical Evaluation and Discussion
2.5.1
2.J.2
2.5.3
2.5.4
Chakachatna Dam Alternative
McArthur Tunnel, Alternatives A & B
Chakachatna Tun~el, Alternatives C & D
Alternative E
3.0 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STUDIES
3.1 Regulatory Storage
3.2 Chakachatna Dam
3.3 McArthur Tunnel Development
3.3.1
3.3.2
Alternative A
Alternative B
3.4 Chakachatna Tunnel Development
3 .4.1
3.4.2
Alternative C
Alternative D
3.5 McArthur Development-Recommended Alternative E
3.5.1
3.5.2
General
Water Releases and Fish Passage
Facilities
i
1-l
2-l
2-1
2-3
2-5
2-5
2-5
2-7
2-8
2-9
2-l 0
2-10
2-11
2-12
2-12
3-l
3-l
3-2
3-4
3-4
3-18
3-19
3-19
3-25
3-26
3-26
3-28
Section
3.5 McArthur Development-Recommended Alternative E
(cont'd)
3.5.3
3.5.4
3.5.5
Upstream Migrants Facility
Downstrea~ Migrants Facility
Conveyance Channel
3.5.6 Outlet Structure
3.6 Transmission Line and Submarine Cable
3.7 References
4.0 HYDROLOGICAL AND POWER STUDIES
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Historical Data
4.3 Derived Lake Inflows
4.4 Synthesis of Long-Term Lake Inflows
4.5 Power Studies
4 . t> Re s u 1 t s
4.7 Variations in Lake Water Level
5.0 ~EOLOGIC INVESTIGATIONS
5.1 Scope of Geologic Investigation~
5.1.1 Technical Tasks
5.1. 2
5.1.1.1
5.1.1.2
5.1.1.3
5.1.1.4
5.1.1.5
Schedule
5.1.2.1
5.1.2.2
5.1.2.3
5.1.2.4
5.1.2.5
5.2 Quaternary Geology
Quaternary Geology
Seismic Geology
Tunnel Al ignment and Power
Plant Site Geology
construction Materials
Geology
Road and Transmission
Line Geology
Quaternary Geology
Seismic Geology
Tunnel Alignment and Power
Plant Site Geology
Construction Materials
Geology
Road and Transmission
Line Geology
ii
3-28
3-31
3-32
3-39
3-40
3-45
4-1
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-4
5-l
5-l
5-2
5-4
5 -5
5-6
5-7
5-7
5-7
5-8
5-8
5-8
5-9
5-9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Section
5.2.1
5.2.2
5.2.3
Glaciers and Glacial Geology
5.2.1.1
5.2.1.2
5.2.1.3
5.2.1.4
5.2.1.5
5.2.1.6
Regional Glacial Geologic
History
·project Area Glacial
Geologic History
Barrier Glacier
Blockade Glacier
Other Glaciers
Implications with Respect to
Proposed Hydroelectric
Project
Mt. Spurr Volcano
5.2.2.1
5.2.2.2
5.2.2.3
Alaska Peninsula-Aleutian
Island Volcanic Arc
Mt. Spurr
Implications with Respect to
Proposed Hydroelectric
Project
Slope Conditions
5.2.3.1
5.2.3.2
5.2.3.3
5.2.3.4
Chakachamna Lake Area
Chakachatna River Valley
McArthur River Canyon
Implications with Respect to
Proposed Hydroelectric
Project
5.3 Seismic Geology
5.3.1
5.3.2
5.3.3
Tectonic Setting
Historic Seismicity
5.3.2.1
5.3.2.2
Regional Seismicity
Historic Seismicity of the
Project Stu( Area
Fault Investigation
5.3.3.1
5.3.3.2
5.3.3.3
5.3.3.4
Approach
Work to Date
Candidate Significant
Features
Implications with Respect to
Proposed Hydroelectric
Project
iii
5-10
5-10
5-14
5-20
5-30
5-36
5-39
5-40
5-40
5-42
5-49
5-51
5-51
5-52
5-54
5-55
5-56
5-56
5-58
5-58
5-61
5-71
5-71
5-71
5-77
5-92
Sect ion
5.4 Refere ces
6.0 E~JIRONMENTAL STUDIES -SUMMARY
6.1 Environmental Studies -1981
f;.l.l
6.1.2
6.1. 3
6.1.4
Environmental Hydrology
Aquatic Biology
Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife
Human Resources
6.2 Environmental Studies -1982
6.2.1
6.2.2
Environmental Hydrology -1982
Aquatic Biology
6.2.2.1
6.2.2.2
6.2.2.3
6.2.2.4
6.2.2.5
6.2.2.6
6.2.2.7
Sockeye Salmon
Chinook Salmon
Pink Salmon
Chum Salmon
Coho Salmon
Dolly Varden
Rainbow Trout
7.0 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
7-7
7.1 Engineering Evaluation
7 .1.1
7 .1. 2
7 .1. 3
7 .1.4
7 .1. 5
7 .1.6
General
Chakachatna Dam
Alternative A
Alternative B
Alternatives C and D
Alternative E
7.2 Geologi~al Evaluation
7.2.1
7.2.2
7.2.3
7.2.4
7.2.5
Chakachatna Dam
Altern"!tive A
Alternative B
Alternatives C and D
Alternative E
7.3 Environmental Evaluation
7.3.1
7.3.2
7.3.3
7.3.4
Chakachatna Dam Alternative
McArthur Tunnel Alternatives A and
Chakachatna Tunnel Alternatives
C and D
Recommended McArthur Tunnel
Alternative B
iv
B
Page
5-9.$
6-1
6-1
6-2
6-5
6-8
6-9
6-9
6-11
6-12
6-14
6-15
6-16
6-16
6-17
6-18
7-1
7-1
7-1
7-2
7-2
7-4
7-5
7-6
7-7
7-8
7-10
7-10
7-11
7-12
7-13
7-14
7-19
7-22
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Section
7.3.4.1
7.3.4.2
7.3.4.3
Potential Effects on
Aquatic Biota
7.3.4.1.1 Construction of
the Chakachamna
Hydroelectr i c
Project and
7-22
Related Facilities 7-23
7.3.4.1.2 Operation of the
Chakachamna Hydro-
electric Project
and Related
Facilities 7-31
7.3.4.1.3 Summary of
Potential Effects 7-51
Potential Effects on
Botanical Resources
7.3.4.2.1 Direct Habitat
7-54
Loss 7-54
7.3.4.2.2 Indirect Habitat
Alteration 7-54
7.3.4.2.3 Summary of
Potential Effects 7-57
Potential Effects on Wildlife
Resources and Habitats
7.3.4.3.1 Direct Habitat
7-58
Loss 7-60
7.3.4.3.2 Indirect Habitat
Alteration 7-60
7.3.4.3.3 Summary of
Potential Effects 7-64
7.4 Project Risk Evaluation 7-67
7.4.1
7.4.2
7.4.3
7.4.4
7.4.5
7.4.6
7.4.7
7.4.8
Lake Tapping
Tunnel Alignment Rock conditions
Underground Powerhouse Site
Barrier Glacier
Blockade Glacier
McA t thur Glacier
Mt. Spurr Volcano
Seismic Ris~~
v
7-67
7-68
7-70
7-70
7-72
7-73
7-73
7-77
Section
7.4.9
7.4.8.1
7.4.8.2
Lake Clark-Castle Mountain
Fault
Bruin Bay Fault
Faults in ·chakachatna Valley
7.5 References
8.0 CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND SCHEDULES
8.1 Estimates of Cost
8.1.1
8 .1. 2
8 .1. 3
8.1. 4
8.1. 5
8 .1. 6
Power Tunnel
Underground Power and Associated
Structures
Tailrace Channel
Switchyard
Transmission Line and Cable
Crossing
Site Access and Development
8.2 Exclusions from Estimates
8.3 Construction Schedules
9.0 ECONOMIC EVALUATION
9.1 General
9.2 Parameters for Econom1c Evaluation
9.3 Cost of Power from Alternative Sources
9.3.1
9.3.2
9.3.3
9.3.4
General
Construction Cost
Operation and Maintenance Cost
Fuel Cost
9.4 Value of Hydro Generation
9.5 Economic Tunnel Sizing
9.6 Economic Tunnel Length
10.0 COORDINATION
10.1
10.2
10.3
10.4
10.5
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service
National Marine Fisheries Service
No c thPrn Alaska Environmental Center
Lake Clark National Park
vi
7-77
7-78
7-79
7-79
8-1
8-1
8-6
8-9
8-11
8-11
8-11
8-11
8-16
8-16
9-1
9-1
9-2
9-2
9-2
9-3
9-4
9-4
9-6
9-12
9-15
10-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
figure No.
1-1
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
3-5
J-6
3-7
3-8
3-9
3-10
3-11
3-12
3-13
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-4
4-5
5-l
5-2a
5-2b
5-3
(7726A)
LIST OF FIGURES
Title
Location Map
McArthur Tunnel, Alternative A-1
McArthur Tunnel, Alternatives A-2 & E
Chakachatna Tunnel, Alternatives C & D
Gate Shaft, Section, Sheet l
Gate Shaft, Sections, Sheet 2
McArthur Power Development, General Arrangement
Chakachatna Power Development, General Arrangement
Chakachatna Lake Outlet, General Arrangement
Upstream Fish Passage Facilities, Plans and
Section
Upstream Fish Passage Facilities, Sections
Downstream Fish Passage Facilities, Instream
ReleaL-Structure
Outlet Fish Passage Facilities, Plan and Sections
Transmission Line, Route Location
Hydrometeorological Station Locations
Hydrometeorological Stations, Periods of Record
Chakachatna Lake, Stage -Area and Storage
Alternatives A and B -Lake Level Variations
Alternatives C and D -Lake Level Variations
Quaternary Geology Site Locations
Glacial and Volcanic Features in the Chakachamna-
Chakachatna Valley
Glacial and Volcanic Features in the Chakachamna-
Chakachatna Valley
Plate Tectonic Map
- i -
Figure No.
S-4
5-5
S-6
5-7
5-8
5-9
6-1
6-2
6-3
6-4
6-5
6-6
6-7
6-8
6-9
(7726A)
Title
Major Earthquakes and Seismic Gaps in Southern
Alaska
Historic Earthquakes of all Focal Depths in the
Site Region from 1929 through 1980
Historic Earthqu~'·es of Focal Depth Greater than
20 Miles in the Site Region from 1929 through 1980
Historic Earthquakes of Focal Depth Less than 20
Miles in the Site Region from 1929 through 1980
Seismic Geology Investigation Sequence
Map Showing Locations of Candidate Significant
Features in the Project Study Area
Approximate Boundary of Chakachamna Lake Study
Area
Locations of Hydrologic Study Areas,
Representative Locations and Channel
Configuration Reach Boundaries
Stream and Floodplain Transect on Chakachatna
River Showing Approximate Range of Natural Stages
Stream and Floodplain Transect on Upper McArthur
River Showing Approximate Range of Natural Stages
Stream and Floodplain Transect on McArthur River
Showing Approximate Range of Natural Stages
Hydraulic Geometry of Chakachatna River Showing
Approximate Range of Natural Flow
Hydraulic Geometry of Upper McArt J r River
Showing Approximate Range of Natural Flow
Hydraulic Geometry of McArthur River Sh e · .ng
Approximate Range of Natural Flow
Chakachamna Lake Bottom Profile Offshore from
Shamrock Glacier Rapids
-ii -
I
I
I Figure No.
I 6-10
I 6-11
6-12
I 6-13
6-14
I 6-15
I 6-16
I 6-17
I 6-18
6-19
I 6-20
6-21
I 6-22
6-23
I 6-24
I 6-24
I 6-24
I 6-24
I 6-24
I 6-24
I
(7726A)
Title
Chilligan River and Chakachamna Lake Bottom
Profiles
Electroshocking and Seine Sampling Locations
Location of Fixed Net Sets
Habitat Utilization of Chakachatna River
Sockeye Salmon Spawning Area -Chilligan River
and Kenibuna Outflow
Potential Sockeye Spawning Areas -Chakachamna
Lake
Chum and Sockeye Spawning Areas -Chakachatna
River Canyon and Straight Creek
Chakachatna River Ma i nstem Sockeye, Chum and Pink
Salmon Spawning Areas
Lower Reaches of Chakachatna, Middle ~nd McArthur
Rivers Showing Sand, Silt and Mud Substrates
Habitat Utilization of McArthur River
Upper McArthur River Identified Spawning Areas
McArthur River Sampling Sites
Designated Habitat Areas
Location of Sampling Quadrats in Chakachamna
Study Area
The Location of Habitat and Vegetative Types
Within the Study Area -Sheet 1 of 6
The Location of Habitat and Vegetative Types
Within the Study Area -Sheet 2 of 6
The Location of Habitat and Vegetative Types
Within the Study A~ea -Sheet 3 of 6
The Location of Habitat and Vegetative Types
Within the Study Area -Sheet 4 of 6
The Location of Habitat and Vegetative Types
Within the Study Area -Sheet 5 of 6
The Location of Habitat and Vegetative Types
Within the Study Area -Sheet 6 of 6
-iii -
Figure No.
6-25
6-26
6-27
6-28
6-29
6-30
6-31
6-32
6-33
6-34
6-35
6-36
6-37
6-38
6-39
6-40
( 7726A)
Title
The Cumulative Number of Breejing Pairs Within
the Study Area
Nesting Locations: Bald Eag:e Nests as of May,
1980. Trumpeter Swan Nests as of August, 1980
Current Land Ownership
Existing and Potential Land Use
Existing and Proposed Transportation Facilities
Location and Ident i fication of 1982 Sampling
Stations
Map of Upper McArthur River Showing Locations of
the 1982 Recording Ga~es and Powerhouse Sites.
1982 Cross-Section of McArthur River at Recording
Gage, Looking Downstream
Hydrographs of Mean Daily Flows at Thre e
Locations in the Study Area
1982 Regression Relationship Between Discharges
at Site 6 and Discharges at the Chakachatna
Recording Gage.
1982 Water Temperature Records at the McArthur
River Recording Gage Site Showing Diurnal
Variation.
Chakachatna and McArthur River Systems Showing
Detail Areas A through G, 1982
Chinook Salmon Estimated Fish Escapement for
Clearwater Tributary to Straight Creek (19)
Hydroacoustic Survey System Schematic, Winter,
1982
Hydroacoustic Survey Transducer Deployment,
Winter, 1982
Hydroacoustic Survey System Schematic:
Summer-Fall~ 1982
-iv -
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figure No.
6-41
6-42
6-43
6-44
6-45
6-46
6-47
6-48
6-49
6-50
6-51
6-52
6-53
6-54
6-55
6-56
6-57
6-58
6-59
6-60
( 7726A)
Title
Approximate Hydroacoustic Transects, September,
1982
Winter, 1982 Hydroacoustic Survey Sites
Chinook Salmon Spawning Areas, 1982 Study
Chin\ok Salmon Estimated Fish Escapement for
McArthur River Oxbow Creek (13X)
Chinook Salmon Estimated Fish Escapement for
McArthut River Upper Tributary (13U)
Chinook Salmon Estimated Fish Escapement for
Tributary 12.2
Sockeye Milling Area~ Streams 13X, 12.1, 12.~,
12.3, 1982
Sockeye Milling Area at Str€am 13u, 1982
Sockeye Salmon Spawning Areas, 1982
Chakachamna Lake Sockeye Milling Areas, 1982
Sockeye Salmon Milling Areas Chilligan River, 1982
Sockeye Salmon Milling Areas Igitna River
Sockeye Salmon Estimated Fish Escapement for
McArthur River Canyon (stations 15 and 14)
Sockeye Salmon Estimated Fish Escapement for
McArthur River Upper Ttibutary (l3U)
Sockeye Salmon Estimated Fish Escapemen~ for
McArthur River Oxbow Creek (13X)
Sockeye Salmon Estimated Fish Escapement for
Tributary 12.1
Sockeye Salmon Estimated Fish Escapement for
Tributary 12.2
Sockeye Salmon Estimated Fish Escapement for
Tributary 12.3
Sockeye Salmon Estimate d Fish Escapement for
Tributary 12.4
Sockeye Salmon Estimated Fish Escapement for
Tributa ~y 12.5
- v -
Figure No.
6-61
6-62
6-63
6-64
6-65
6-66
6-67
6-68
6-69
6-70
6-71
6-72
6-73
6-74
6-75
6-76
6-77
6-78
(7726A)
Title
Sockeye Salmon Estimated Fish Escapement for
Bridge Area, Chakachamna River (17)
Coho Salmon Estimated Fish Escapement for
Clearwater Tributary to Straight Creek (19)
Sockeye Salmon Estimated Fish Escapement for
Clearwater Tributary to Straight Creek (19)
Sockey e Salmon Estimated Fish Escapement for
Chakachamna River Tributary (C 1 )
Sockeye Salmon Estimated Fish Escapement for
Chakachamna River Canyon Sloughs
Sockeye Salmon Estimated Fish Escapement for
Igitna River
Sockeye Salmon Estimated Fish Escapement for
Chilligan River
Pink Salmon Spawning Areas, 1982
Pink Salmon Mill j ng Area Stream 19, 1982
P i n ~ Salmon Milling Area Stream 13u, 1982
Pink Salmon Milling Area, Streams 12.1, 12.2,
12.3, 1982
Pink Salmon Estimated Fish Escapement for
Chakae hamna River Canyon Sloughs
Pink Sa l mon estimated Fish Escapement for
Clearwater Tributary to Straight Creek (19)
Pink Salmon Estimated Fish Escapement for Bridge
Ar e a, C~akachamna River (17)
Pink Sa l mon Estimated Fish Escapement for
McArthur River Canyon
Pink Salmon Estimated Fish Escapement for
McArthur River Upper Tributary (13u)
Pink Salmon Estimated Fish Escapement for
McArthur River Oxbow Creek (13X)
Pink Salmon Estimated Fish Escapement for
Tributary 12.1
-vi -
' I -
I Figure No.
I 6-79
~ 6-80
I 6-81
6-82 -6-83
I 6-84
I 6-B.J
I 6-86
6-87
I
6-88
I
6-89
I 6-90
I 6-91
6-92
I
6-93
I 6-94
6-95
I 6-96
6-97
I
~
(7726A)
Title
Pink Salmon Estimated Fish Escapement for
Tributary 12.2
Pink Salmon Estimated Fish Escapement for
Tributary 12.3
Pink Salmon Estimated Fish Escapement for
Tributary 12.4
Pink Salmon Estimated Fish Escapement for
Tributary 12.5
Chum Salmon Spawning Areas, 1982
Chum Salmon Estimated Fish Escapement for
Chakachamna River Canyon Sloughes
Chum Salmon Estimated Fish Escapement for
Chakachatna River Tributany (C 1 )
Chum Salmon Estimated Fish Escapement for
Straight Creek Mouth Sloughs
Chum Salmon Estimated Fish Escapement for Bridge
Area, Chakachatna River (17)
Chum Salmon Estimated Fish Escapement for
McArthur River Upper Tributary (13
Chum Salmon Estimated Fish Escapement for
Tributary 12.1
Chum Salmon Estimated Fish Escapement for
Tributary 12.4
Coho Salmon Milling Area, Steam 13 1982
Coho Milling Areas, Streams 13X, 12.1, 12.2,
12.3, 12.4, 1982
Coho Salmon Spawning Areas, 1982
Coho Milling Areas Chakachatna Canyon, 1982
Coho Milling Areas Station 17, 1982
Coho Milling Area McArthur Canyon, 1982
Coho M{gratory Pathways, 1982
-vii -
Figure No.
6-98
6-99
6-100
6-101
6-102
6-103
6-104
6-105
6-106
6-107
6-108
6-109
6-110
6-111
6-112
6-113
6-114
(7726A)
Title
Coho Salmon Estimated Fish Escapement for
Chakachatna River Canyon Sloughs
Coho Salmon Estimated Fish Escapement for
Chakachatna River Tributary (C 1 )
Coho Salmon Estimated Fish Escapement for
Straight Creek Mouth Sloughs
Coho Salmon Estimatea Fish Escapement for
Clearwater Tributary to Straight Creek (19)
Coho Salmon Estimated Fish Escapement for Bridge
Area, Chakachamna River (17)
Coho Salmon Estimated Fish Escapement for
McArthur River Canyon
Coho Salmon Estimated Fish Escapement for
McArthur River Uppe Tributary (13
Coho Salmon Estimated Fish Escapement for
McArthur River Oxbow Creek (13X)
Coho Salmon Estimated Fish Escapement for
Tributary 12.1
Coho Salmon Estimated Fish Escapement
Tributary 12.2
Coho Salmon Estimated F ish Escapement
Tributary 12.3
Coho Salmon Estimated Fish Escapement
Tributary 12.5
Dc.•lly Varden Migrations, 1982
Dolly Varden Spawning Areas, 1982
Eulachan Spawning Area, 1982
for
for
for
Dolly Varden Lengt~-Frequency Histogram,
August-October Fyke Nets, 1982
Dolly Varden Length-Frequency Histogram, August,
Fyke Nets 1982
-viii -
I t •
I
(
I
f •
I ( .
I
I I
I
(
I
(
I
!
I
I r
I
I
i1
I r ,
I r 1
I
r 1
~I
Figure No.
6-115
6-116
6-117
6-118
6-119
6-120
6-121
6-122
6-123
6-124
6-125
6-126
6-127
6-128
6-129
(7 7 26A)
Title
Dolly Varden ~ength-Frequency Histogram,
September Fyke Nets, 1982
Dolly Varden Length-Frequency Histogram, October
Fyke Nets, 1982
Rainbow Trout Length-Frequency Histogram,
August-October Fyke Nets, 1982
Coho (Silver) Salmon Length-Frequency Histogram,
August-October Fyke Nets, 1982
Dolly Varden Length-Frequency Histogram,
Summer-Fall Minnow Traps, 1982
Dolly Varden Length-Frequency Histograffi, August
Minnow Traps, 1982
Dolly Varden Length-Frequency Histogram,
September Minnow Traps, 1982
Dolly Varden Length-Frequency Histogram, October
Minnow Traps, 1982
Coho (Silver) Salmon Length-Frequency Histogram,
August-October Minnow Traps, 1982
Coho (Silver) Salmon Length-Frequency Histogram,
August Minnow Traps, 1982
Coho (Silver) Salmon Length-Frequency Histogram,
September Minnow Traps, 1982
Coho (Silvet) Salmon Length-Frequency Histogram,
October Minnow Traps, 1982
Rainbow Trout Length-Frequency Histogram,
August-October Minnow Traps, 1982
Pygmy Whitefish Length-Frequency Histogram,
August-October Minnow Traps, 1982
Pygmy Whitefish Length-Frequency Histogram,
August-October Fyke Nets, 1982
-ix -
Figure No.
6-130
6-131
6-132
6-133
6-134
6-135
6-136
6-L:. 7
6-138
6-139
6-140
6-141
6-142
6-143
8-1
8-2
8-3
8-4
9-1
9-2
9-3
(7726A)
Title
Water Temperature Record at Station 15
(Powerhouse Location) Peabody-Ryan J-90
Thermograph
Phenology of Major Life History Events foi Salmon
Speci e s, Chakachatna and McArthur Rivers, 1982
Estimated Escapements for Sockeye Salmon, 1982
Sockeye Salmon Sub-Adult Rearing Areas Based Upon
1981 and 1982 Data, 1982
Estimated Escapements for Chinook Salmon, 1982
Chinook Salmon Sub-Adult Rearing Areas, 1982
Estimated Escapements for Pink Salmon, 1982
Estimated Escapements for Chum Salmon, 1982
Estimated Escapements for Coho Salmon, 1982
Coho Salmon Sub-Adult Rearing Areas Based Upon
1981 and 1982 Data, 1982
Phenology of Important Non-Salmon species, Life
History Events, Chakachamna and McArthur Rivers
1982
Dolly Varden Sub-Adult Rearing Areas, 1942
Pygmy Whitefish Distribution Based Upon, 1981 ar.~
1982 Data, 1982
Rainbow Trout Distribution Based Upon 1981 and
1982 Data, 1982
Access Roadr-;
Project Schedule, Alternatives A and B
Project Schedule, Alternatives C and D
Project Schedule, Alternative E
Economic Tunnel Diameter
McArthur Tun n el Economic Length
Chakachatna Tunnel Economic Length
- X -
j
ll
{ l
n
ll
n
n
[1
ll
Q
I ·-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'
I
I
--
I
I '-
I . -
-
I
INTRODUCTION
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.0
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
ANCHORAGE ALASKA
CHAKACHAMNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
INTERIM FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT REPORT, FEBRUARY, 1983
INTRODUCTION
This report has been prepared in accordance with the
terms of Contract 82-0294 dated August 3, 1981 between
the State of Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic
Development/Alaska Power Authority and Bechtel Civil &
Minerals, Inc. in connection with services for performing
interim feasibility assessment studies of the Chakachamna
Hydroelectric Project. As its title indicates, the
report is of an interim nature. It is based upon
previously published information regarding the project,
and on data acquired and derived during a study period
extending from the fall of 1981 to December 1982. Its
objectives are to sum~arize the information derived from
the studies, to provide a preliminary evaluation of
alternative ways of developing the power potential of the
project, to define that power potential, and to report on
the estimated cost of construction, and to provide a
preliminary ass~ssment of the effects that the project
would have on the environment.
The initial engineering, geol0gical, and environmental
studies were conducted during the fall of 1981, and the
findings of these studies were summarized in an interim
report dated November 30, 1981. Although the data
1-1
collected and study period up to that time were rather
limited by th~ short time base, some rather clear
indications emerged as to the manner in which it was
considered that development of the project should proceed.
One aspect that became evident was that a much ~ore
extensive and populous fishery uses the waters in the
project area than had been earlier realized or
anticipated. This led to an amendment of the above
mentioned contract in which the requirements for
completio~ of the geological studies, preparation of a
feasibility report and application to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission for a license to construct the
project were deleted from the scope of work. Continuing
studies of the fishery in the waters of the project area
were authorized as were the development of conceptual
designs for fish passage facilities at the outlet of
Chakachamna Lake plus the preparation of estimates of
their construction costs and those of the McArthur tunnel
assuming that it could be excavated by tunnel boring
machine.
As may be seen by reference to Figure 1-1, Chakachamna
Lake lies in the southern part of the Alaska Range of
mountains about 85 miles due west of Anchorage. Its
water surface lies at about elevation 1140 feet above
mean sea level.
The project has been studied and reported upon several
times in the past. The power potential had been
estimated variously from about 100,000 kw to 200,000 kw
firm capacity, depending on the degree of regulation of
the outflow from Chakachamna Lake and the hydraulic head
that could be dev~loped.
1-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\ t
I
\
-'
.•.
-. ·r:"
_ ..
.,_;.-
_...., ._,;
..... r· ., 1-'L::/..-..
r~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I •
I
'
I
Two basic alternatives can be readily identif1ed to
harness the hydraulic head for the generation of
electrical energy. One is by a t welve m1le tunnel ro r e
o r less parallel :o the valley of the Chakachatna R ve r.
Thls r1ve r runs out of the easterly end of the lake and
descends to about elevat1on 4 00 feet above sea leve .
where the river leaves the conf1nes of the valley a ~d
spills out onto a broad alluvial flood plain . A max i mum
hydrostatic head of abou t 7 4 0 feet could be develored via
this alternative.
The other alternative is for development by d1version of
the lake outflow through a ten m1le tunnel to the ~alley
of the McArthur R1ver which lies to the southeast ~f the
lake outlet. A maximum hydrosta~ic head of about 960
feet could be harnessed by this diversion . Variols me a ns
of development by these two bas1c alternatlves ar r
d1scussed in the report on the bas1s of the prese 11 t
knowledge of the s1te conditions.
The 1982 environmental studies confirmed the importance
of the fishery using waters in the p r oject area ar.3
expanded the data base concerning it . The bas1c elements
of the recommended mode of development were concei 1ed ,
these being for development via the McArthur River with a
concrete lined machine bo r ed tunnel and with fish t ·assag e
facil1ties that would permit fish to ascend into tte lake
or to travel downstream from the l3ke into the
Chakachatna R1ver . S1nce no geolog1cal stud1es have yet
been performed along the pliJ:.r.ed tunr-Pl alignment it must
be assumed ,,t the present time that the tunnel can .,e
bored and additional geological studies will be need ed
before it can be firmly recommended that the tunnel b e
bored by machine .
1-3
For the assessment of environmental fa~tors and
geological cond i tions in the project area, Bechtel
retained the services o! Woodward-Clyde Consultants.
1 -4
I
[I
. I
fl
' I
1 .,
1
l
.I
.,
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2 .0 S UM ~~RY
2 .1 Pr o ~cc t La]o ~t St ucies
TI 1e stu,ies eval u ated the ~erits of developi~s t ~e
po-er p o tential of t h e ~(o j e ct by diversion o f wate:
southeasterly to the McArthur River via a tunnel abc u t
10 ~ile s long, or easterly down the Chakachatna V all~y
either b~ a tunnel about 12 miles long or b y a d a~ ~n~
tunnel ~evelcp~ent . In ti.e Ch akac h atna Vall.:y, f e "'
sites, adverse foundation conditions, an d t h e ne a r b y
presence of an c tive vo lcano rnade it rapidl y e v iden :
that the feasibility ot const r u cting a darn t~ere ~ou l d
be questiona b le. The main thrust o f t h e initial
stu~ies W£S t h erefore directed to-ard the tunnel
alternatives without consideration of raising t h e la ke
level above the present outlet channe l invert.
Two alignments were studied for the McA rt hur Tun n el.
~he first conside r ed the shortest distance t h at gave
no OP!:'Ortunit:y for an additional point of access
durin~ const r uction via an intermediate adit. Th e
seconu alignme~t was about a mile longer, but gave an
additional point of access, thus reduci~g the lengths
of headin~s and also the time required for construc-
tion of the tunnel. ~ost comparisons and economic
evaluation nevertheless favored the shorter 10 mile
25 foot diameter tunne l.
ThE: seco1.d alignr..ent running more or less para llel to
the Chakachatna River in the right (southerly) wall of
the valley afforded two opportunities for intermediate
access adits. These, p lu s the upstream and downstream
portals would allow co~struc 1 .ion to proceed simulta-
2-1
neously in 6 h eaGin~s and red u ce the constr u ction ti me
OJ 18 r.'IO r.t hs less t h an t l.at r eqL:ired f o r the r~cArthur
Tunnel. Econom ic e valuatior• asain fa vo r ed a ~5 foot
diameter tunnel r u nning all t h e uay fr om t he la ke to
t he a o ~nstrea ~ end of t he Chakacha t na Valley .
If all the controlled water were used for power
generation, t h e McArthur Powerho u se could support 400
KW installed capacity, and produce average annual fir m
energy of 1752 GWh. Th e effects of making a provi-
siohal reservation of approximatel y 19% of t h e a v erage
annual inflow to the lake f o r instrearr. flow requ ire-
ments in the Chakachatna Ri ve r were found to red uce
the ~conomic tunnel diameter to 2 3 feet . Th e in-
stalled cap~cit y in t h e power h ouse would then be re-
duced to 330 MW and the average annual firm energy t o
1446 Grih.
If a small rock dike is added at the outlet of the
lake and the maxi~um pool level is raised to El. 1155
with 72 feet lake drawdown to accommodate fis h passage
facilities and if the tunnel diameter stays 23 feet to
minimize losses t hen the installed capacity in the
powerhouse will be 330 MW and the average annual firm
euers;y 1301 GV.:h.
For the Chakachatna Powerhouse, diversion of all the
controlled water for power generation would support an
installed capacity of 300 MW with an average annual
firm energy generation of 1314 GWh. Provisional
reservation of approximately 0.8% of the average
annual infl ow to the lake for instream flow require-
ments in the Chakachatna River was regarded as h a v ing
negligible effect on the installe~ capacit y and
2-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
' I
2.2
a v erage annual firm energy because t h at red uct i o n i s
wit h in t h e accu rac y of t il'= ;:.:-:3en :: .,:.::.y .
The reasoning for t he smali~r i n s c r ~a m flo ~ r el eases
considered in this altern ~c i ve i s dis c uss~d in Section
2.5.3.
Geological Studies
At t h e present level of stu d y , t ~c Qua rt e r~a ry Geology
in t he Chak ac h atna an d McAr th ~: ~a ll ey s ha s been eva l-
uated and t h e seis~ic s eo l o s y o ~ ~~~ ~e n era l ar e a ~a s
been examined t h ough ad di ti c :-.:-.~ ·1-;:: :::i:l a ~:-s t o l.:)e
done next year . General o ~-=~:·:-.':i.::..~.:; a 3 ::;;~y may af -
fect the project are as fa ll:>· .. ~:
The ~ove o f ice of the Barri e r Gl a ci a r towar d th e
rive:-may be gradual ly slowing . P.c·.-e ve r, n o material
change in the effect o f t h e glac i er o n t h e contxol of
the Chakac h a~na Lake c u tlet is ant icipated .
The condition of t he Blocka d e Glaci er facing the mau c h
of the McArthur Canyon also appears to be much the
same as reported in t he p re v ious USGS st udies.
There does not appear to be any reason to expect a
dramatic change in the state of growth or recessi o n of
either of the above two glaciers in the foreseeable
future.
Su rface exposu res on the left (northerly) side of the
Chakachatna Valley consist o f a heterogeneous mix of
volcanic ejecta and glacial and fluvial sediments
which raise doubts as to the feasibility of damming
2-3
Chakachatna Riv~r by a darn located downstr eam o f t h e
slacier.
Th e rock in che rig h t ~all of the C h akacha~na Va ll ej
is granitic, and surface exposures appear t o in d ic a:e
t h at it would be su i ta b le for tunnel ~onstr u cti o n i f
that rorm of development of the project were found to
be uesira~le.
No rock conditions have yet been observed that uo ~ld
appear to rule out the feasi~ilit y o f constructing a
t u nnel between the ~re p osed locations o f an i nta ~~
str u cture near the o u tlet of Ch akachamna Lake an d a
powerhouse site in the McArthur Valley. It must be
noted, however, th~t in t h e vicinity of the pr o p os e d
po~erhouse location in the McArthur Canyo n, t h e
surface e xposures indicate that rock quality app pears
to improve significantly with distance upstream fr o ~
the mouth of the canyon.
The Castle Mountain fault, which is a major fault
structure, falls just outside the mouth of the
McArthur Can y on and must be taken into acco unt in t h e
s eismic design criteria of an1 development of t h e
project whether it be via the McArthur or Chakachatna
Canyons. Other significant seismic sources are the
Megathrust Section of the Subduction zone ~.ld the
Benioff Zone.
2-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2 .3 Environ~ental St udies
2 .3.1 Hzd r o l os ~
Field r t connaissances were cond uc ted in Chakachamna
La k e, seve r a l o f its tributary streams, the
Chakac h at n a and McArthur Rivers. Records of ~ea n
daily f l e ws we~e initiated in mid-August 1982 at the
site of t he ~r e vi ou~ly operated u .s. Geological Survey
gage site an d in t he Up ?er McArthur Ri v er downstrea~
from t he p o v er hous e location. Data collected and
de v e l o~ed are t y?i ca l o f glacial rivers with low flow
in late u inter an d larg e glacier melt fl ow s in July
and Aug~st .
The wa t er level in Chakachamn~ Lake whe n measured in
1981 was elev~ti o n 114 2 and is typical of the
September Lake st age records in the 1 2 yea rs preceding
the major flood of August 19 7 1. Lake bottom profiles
were s urveyed at t he deltas of the N~gishla m ina and
Chilligan Riv :s , and t he Shamr ock Glacier Rapids.
Reac he s of the McAr th ur and Chakachatna Rivers vary in
configuration fr om mountainous t hrough meandering and
braided. All except t he most infrequent large fl o ods
are mostly contained within t he unvegetated fl o od
plan. Sedimentation characte ristics appear to be
typically t hos e o f glacial s y stems with very fine
suspended sediments and substantial bed load tran s po ~t.
2 -5
2.3.2 Aquatic Biology
Field o bservations id .:ntiE.:.::J t:-:e :::.:.:::·.:i::g S?.:c i es in
the waters of t h e pr ojec ~
Resident: Rainbow tr c~~
Lake trout
Dolly Varden
Round \ihitefisb
Pygmy Whitefis h
Anadr o mo u s: Chinook s al~~n
Chu m salmon
Coho salmon
Eulachon
Longf in snelt
a ~o~· ---·
,;rt i:: s :::~yl in g
Slirr.y sculp1n
rtinespine stic k leback
7h ree s pine stic kl eback
~:.1nbow sr:;elt
Ser ing ci sco
Salmon S?awning in t he Chakach atna ~iver drainage and
its trib u taries occurs Frimaril y i~ trib u tari~s and
sloughs. A relativel y sm all p e r ce ntage of t he 1982
estimated escapement was observed to occur in mainster:;
or side-channel habitats of the Chakachatna Ri v er.
The largest salmon escapement in t h e Chakac hat na
drainage was estimate to occur in the Chilligan and
Igitna Rivers upstream of Chakachamna Lake. The
estimated escapement of those sockeye in 1982 was
approximately 41,000 fish, 71.5 percent of the
estimated escapement within the Chakachatna drainage.
Chakachamna Lake is the major rearing habitat for
these sockeye. It also provides habitat for lake
tro u t, Dolly Varden, round whitefish, and sc u lpins.
2-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2 .3.3
In t he i·l c Art !Ju r River over 96 percent o f the cs tir.tate d
s al r.;o r. escapeme1.t o cc t:rr ec ir. trib ~ta r ies C::..:rin s
1952. ~he estir.;a~ed esc ape~ent of s al~o n o : a :l
s~ecies was sli~htly sce ~te r in the Mchrt~~r th ac the
C:bakac h atna draina~e . ot:er a:lad ronous fi si: inc:uding
eulachon, Beriny cisco, longf'n sr.;e l~ ac~ rain ~ow
smelt have been found in t h e Mc~rt hu r Ri ve r.
The contribution of salr.ton stocks ori gi nat i ~s in t h e se
syster.ts to the Cook Inlet c o nme rci a l catch l S
p reseutl:t u nknown. Altho ugh some c ornn.:r c i al and
s u L s i s t en c e f i .3 h i n g o c c 1.: r s , t · e e x t en t t o .,,. r. i c L ':. !: e
stock i s expl o itee is al s o r.o ~ known.
Rearing ha Litat for juvenile a nadr omo us a nd re s i C:ent
fish i s foun d t h r oughout tot~ rivers. Althoug h t h e
waters wit h in th e Chakac ha tna Rive r canyon b elou
Chakachar.t na Lake anC: t h e h eadwaters of the McArthur
Rive r uo not appear to be i mpo rt ant rearing habitat.
There appears to be extens i ve r.t ovement of fis h within
and between t h e two drainages , and seasonal cha n ~es in
distribution h ave also b een n o ted.
Terr es trial D i ol~
On the basis o f t h eir structural and species composi-
tions, eight types of vegetation habitats were deli-
neate~. These range fror.t dense alder thickets in the
canyons t o vast areas of coa st al marsh. The riparian
cor.tr.tunities are the r.;ost preva len t varying from rivers
with er.teryent v egeta tio n to those with broad flood
plains sca ttered with lich en, willow and alder.
2-7
2 .3.4
l
Evalu~ti o n of wildlife communities in the project area
i den tifiea sev~~tee n species of mammals. Moos e,
coyo t e , ~rizzl} Lea r a nd black bear ranges o cc u r
t h ro u~h out t ne a r e a.
6 i rds al so a re &b undant, fifty-six species having been
identified with the coastal marshes along Trading Bay
containin~ the largest diversity.
No ne o f t h e s~eci e s of plants, mammals and birds that
we re found are l i s ted as threatened o r endangerec
althous h in May 1 981 it was pr oposed that t h e tule
wh it t f:o nt ed soos e, wh ich feeds and may nest in t he
area, b e c o n siuered f -r threatened or endangered
stat us .
Hu man Re s ourc e s
Th a s e studies were organizec into the f o llowing s ix
elements:
Arc haeolog i ca l and h istorical resources
Lafid own er sh i p and us e
Recreational r~sources
Socioeconomic characteristics
Transportation
Visual resources
Man y contacts were made with both State and Federal
Agencies and native organizations, as well as a
limited reconnaiss a nce of the project area.
2-E
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
No known cultural sites have been identified and the
fi e ld reconnaissance indicates t h at t h e proposed sites
for the power intake and powerhouses have a low po-
te ntial for cultural sites.
Land owners in the area comprise federal, state, and
borough agencit~, Native corporations ana private
parties. Land use is related to resource extraction
(l umb er, oil and gas), subsist e nce and the rural resi-
dential villa~e of Tyonek.
Recr e ational activity takes place in the project area,
but ~it h L ~e exception of Trading Bay State Game
Refuse, little data is available as to the extent or
frequenc} with which the area is used.
Heyional d ata on population, employment and income
characteristics are relatively good. Employment level
and occup~tional skill data are limited and need to be
developed together with information on local employ-
~ent preferences.
Transportation facilities in the area are few and
small in size. There are airstrips at Tyonek and on
t l1e shoreline at ~rading Ba y . A nOOdchip loading pier
is located near Tyonek. Several miles of logging
roads exist between Tyonek and the mouth of the
Chakachatna valley; many of these roads and bridges
are bein~ removed as timber activities are completed
in specific areas. The Chakachatna River was bridged
near its confluence wit h Straight Creek until 1982.
There is no permanent r oa d linking the project area
witt an~ part of the Alaska road system.
2-9
The pro j ect area's scenic characteristics and pr o x-
i m it~ with BLH lands, La ke Clark ~ati o r.al Fa:k an~ t h e
Trading B~y State Ga me R e f ~s~ mak e vi s ~J ! =~~o ~:ce
m ana~ement a sigr.ifican: c o ncern.
L .~ Econ o mic Evaluation
The stud i es demonstrate that the projec t o ffers a n
ecomonically viable source of energy in conparisor.
with the 55.6 mills/kWh which is the esti mated cost of
equivalent energ y from a c o al fire d ~lan t , a ??a rentl y
t h e r.:ost cor.:iJ etitiv~ alter:~a tiv~ s o u rc e . 7a ::i i:c; t h a t
f i gure as the value of e n e r _, , t h e C h a k a c ~1 .::r.:r.a Iiy d ro-
e l ectric Project could be <.;in produ cing 4 CO :-!:: <:t 50 %
load factor (175 2 GWh) ln 19 9 C at 37.5 n ills /K~h if
all stored water is u sed for power generation. If
ap p roximately 19 percent o f t h e water is reserved for
instream flow release to the Chakachatna River, the
powerplant could still produce 330 MW at 50\ load
factor (1446 GWh) at ~3 .5 r:i ills/K\:h, \o'h ich is still
significantly more eco nomical than the coal fired
alternative. If the maximum pool level of the lake is
raised to El. 1155 and the drawdown is El . 1083, t h e
powerplant will produce 330 MW (1301 GWh) at 44.5
mills/KWh with 45\ load factor. In all the cases
above, the power h ouse would be located on the McArthur
River. A powerhouse on the Chakachatna River as
described in the report is barely competitive with the
alternative coal fired source of energy.
2-10
I
I
••
I
••
I
I
I
~
·I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2 .5
2 .5 .1
2 .5.2
Technical Evaluation ano Disc uss ion
Several alternative methods of d evel op:r.g the project
~ere identified and re v ie~ed in 1961. Based on the
~na!}ses perforned in 1582, the most viable
alternative has been identified for furt he r study.
T~at is Alternative E in which water w0u ld be diverted
from Chakachamna Lake to a powerhouse located near the
McArth u r River.
Chakachatna Dam Alternati ve
Th e constr u ction o f a darn ir. t h e Ch a ka c h atna River
Canyon approxi m atel ~ 6 ~iles d ow nstrean frorn t he la ke
outlat, c o es not appe a r to be a reasonable alterna-
tive. While the site is topographicall y suitable, t h e
founuation conditions in t h e rive r valley and l e ft
abutment are poor as mentioned earlier in Section 2 .2 .
F~rthermore, its environmental i mp act specifically on
the fisheries resourc e will be significant although
p ro vision of fish passage facilit e s co u ld mitigate
t h is impact to a certain extent.
McArthur Tunnel Alternatives A, and B
Diversiou of flow frorn Chakachamna Lake to the
McArthur Valley to develop a head of approxi mately 900
feet has been identified as the most advantageous as
far as energ y production at reasonable cost is
concerned.
The geoloyic conditions f o r the various project facil-
ities includin~ intake, po~er tunnel, and powerhouse
app ear t o be favJra b l e base~ on the limited 1 981 fiel d
2-ll
reco1.nais s ances. No insur c o~ntable e mgineering pro-
Ll e~s a~~ear t o exist in ce velopment of t h e p roject.
~l te rnative A, in ~hich essentially all sto r ed ~ater
wou l d be diverted fro~ C h akac h a~na Lake for p o ~er
pr o u uction purposes could deliver 1664 GWh of firm
ener~J p~r year to Anchorage and provide 40G MW of
p e ak in~ capac ity. C ~st o f energy is estimated to be
37.5 mi ll s p~r KWh c Ho ~ever, si nce t he fl ow of t h e
Ch a kachat n a Rive~ b elow t h e lake o u tlet would be
a dve rsel y affe~ted~ t he e~i s ti ns ana~r o mous fi s hery
r ~s o~r c e whi c h u ses th @ ri v er t o gain entry to t he
l ake and its tr ibu tar i es fo r s pawning, ~ou ld be lost.
1~ a L~iti o n t h e fi s h wh ic h s paw n in t he l ow er
Chakac hatna River wo u 1 ~ also b e impacted due to the
m~c h r e d u ced ri wer f l o w ~ Fo r t h is reason Alternative
B has Leen developeu , ~J t h essentially the same pro -
ject arrany e ment exc e~t t h a t app roxi mately 19 percent
of t h e a verage ann ual fl o ~ into Ch akach a mna Lake wo u ld
Le rele~eed i nto t~e Ch aka ch atna River belo~ the lake
outlet to maint~in the fisherj res ource . Because of
t h e s n aller fl e w avai l ab l e for p o ~cr production , t h e
installed cap a ci ty o f t h e p ro~ect ~o uld be reduced t c
33 0 MW and t h e f irm e~er~j delivered to Anchorage
would be 1374 GWh ~er y ea r. The estimated cost of
e ner ~y i u 43 ~5 m ~ll s ~er KWh. Th e cost estimate
included an allow ~r.c.e for facilities for downstrea~
flow release a fid f o r passage of fish at the la ke
outlet. Layouts of these facilities ~ere not
prep ared . Obvi ou sly , the long term envi ronme n tal
i npa~ts of t h e pro j ect in t h is Alternative B are
slgnifi ca ntl y re duced in co~parison to Alternative A.
2 -12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~.5.3 Chak&chatna ~unnel Alternatives C and D
An alternative to t h e devel op~ent of t~is ~j ~:o
electric resou rce b~ diversi o n of fl o~3 f :~~
C h akacha~na Lake to the McArthur Ri ve r is b y c o ~sc r~c
ting ~ tunnel t h rou~h the right wall of t h e
Chakachatna Valley and locating the po~ert o ~s e n ear
the downstream end of the valle}. T~e ger.eral layou t
of tte p roject wo~ld ~e si milar to t h at o : nl:e r~a
tive s A a~d B for a slightly longer power t un~el.
Th e geolos ic conditions f or the vari ous
feature s including intake , power tunnel, L: J ~o ~~r
ho~se ~f pe ar to be favora ble and very si ~~:-: :u :~osc
of Alternatives A and B. Sinilarly no in su :~ou n t~b le
ensineering p roblems a ppear to exist in de~elo?n e :1t of
the pro;ect Alternative c , in which essent i a l l 'l all
stored water is diverted from Chakachamna L&~e f o r
power pro~uction, could ~eliver 1 2 4 8 GWh of firm
ener~y pe r 'lear to Anchorage and pr o v ide 300 M~ of
peaking capa b ility. Cost of energy i s estimated to be
52.~ mills per KWh. ~hile t h e flow in t~e Chakachatna
River below the powerhouse at the end of t h e canyo n
will not be substantially affected , t h e fact that n o
relea s es are provided into the river at th e lake
ou tlet will cause a substantial impact on t he
anadroLous fish which normally enter the lake and pass
thr ough it to t h e upstream tri bu taries. Alternative D
was therefore proposed in whic h a r elease of 30 cfs is
maintained at the lake outlet to facilitate fish
passage through the canyon section into the lake. In
eithe of Alternatives C or D the environmental impact
would be limited to the Chakac hat na River as opposed
to Alternatives A and B in which both the Ch akachatna
2-13
2 .5 .4
anti McArt h u r Rivers ~oulti be affec ted . Since t he
ins tream f low release for Alternative D is le s s t ha n
1% of t l e total available fl o ~, t he p o~e~ prod uction
of Alterna t ive D can b e regarded as being t h e same as
t h ose of Alternati v e C at this le v e l o f st u dy (3 00 M~
p eakiny capabilit y , 1 248 GWh of fir m energ y deli ve red
to Anchora9e). Cos t of power fr om Alternative Di s
54.5 r.lills pe r K\ih .
7h e cost of en e r g y fr om Alternative D is 25% gre~ter
t h an t h at for Alt e rnati ve B an d E and is close to t h e
cos t of alternative coal-fired re s o~rces. ~heref o r e .
it was decided to concentrate furt h er studies o n t h e
McArthur River alternati ves.
Alternative E
In the d evelopment o f Alternative B, no specific
method was developed for r e lease of ir.stream flo ws
into t h e Chak ac h atna River i mme diatel y downstream fr o m
th e lake outlet , and no specific facilities were
de veloped for t h e pas sage of upstream and downs t rea m
migrant fis h at t h e la ke out l et. Inst ead a lump sum
cos t allowance was provided t o cover t hes e items f or
Alternative B .
How ~v er, in Alternati ve E which is a refinement of
Alternative B, development by tunnel to the McArt hur
River, specific facilities for providing instream flow
releases and fish passage facilities were de veloped
and incorporated into the proposed project
str uctures . To facilitate the arrangement of these
facil i ties , it beca~e evident t h at a more limited
reservoir ora-down was essential . The ran ge of
2-14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
res e r voir level adopted was rna xiGurn le ve l El. 11 5 5
t ;ual t o c h e h i s t o ri c al rna~i =u~ level a ~d rn i n i ~um
level El. 1083.
Witl t h is o~erati n s range i ~ t he re se r voi r a nd ~ith an
in s talled capacity of 33 0 ~~, the p roject can produce
1301 G\·11 !.Je r ar.r.um at a 45~ l o ad fact o r. If a 50\
l o ad f actor were to be retained , t he installed
cat:-ac it::r o f t n e po •t~e:!w ~.;se ...,·o u ld redu ce t o
app r ox i mately 3 00 M~, ~h ich ~o~ld r educe the ove rall
~ro;ec t cost by abo u t 5 -!0!ti . [u \;ever, at this stage
o t t t e p r oject o e vel op ~ent , s ~c~ a refinement ~as not
cc ~sioerec wa :rar.te~, a n d th e s~rne installed capacity
as d eve loped for Alt e rr.at i v e B ~~s r et ained for
Alter n at ive E , i.e. 330 M~. Significant p r oject data
fo r hlte r native E are set f orth in Tuble 2 -1.
Al t er native E i s also based on the powe r t u nnel being
~riven b::r a tunnel bo ri ng machi ne which res u lted in a
s i ~n if icant re d u ction in cost conpared with conven-
tional •crill anu shoot• met hods p r eviously adopted
for Alter natives A t h roug h D. In a dd ition, the power
t u n nel p r o fi le in Alternati ve E was modified to a
uniform s ra de from the inta ke at Lake Chaka c h a mna t o
the powerhouse in the McA rt hur valley . Th e estimated
cost o f ene r gy is 44.5 mill s per k\ih .
It should be noted that t he signif ican t saving in
tunnel c ost for Alte rnati ve E, as co ~pa red wit h
Alternative B, is offset by t he increased c ost of the
fish pass a ge facilities and slightly lower energ y
p roducti on, t he re by y ielding a firm energy cost
sligh tly h i ghe r for Alte rna tive E than for Alternative B .
2-15
TABLE 2 -l
PR OJ E C~ OAT.;
C h a ka c ~a ~na Lake
~axi ~u~ water s urface elevati o n (ft.)
Miniffium water surface elevation, appco x . (ft.)
~u rface area a t elevation 1155 (~q. mi.)
1 , E:.
l ,lL 3
27
To tal vol u~e at elevation 1155 (Ac. f t .)
Jr aina~e area (sq. ~i.)
Av e rage ann u al inflow, 1 2 jears (cfs)
.;,.;oo ,ooo
co r r ~lat ed averag e ann u al inflow, 31 y ear s (cf s )
1 ,12 0
3,6C6
3,7 8 :
rtese r voir O pe r ~ti o n
t;o rr. al ma x i mur .. operating wat e r sur fa c e
ele vati o n (f t .)
t o r ~a l ~ini n u ~ ~at e r surface el evat i o n (ft.)
Active s torag e (Ac. ft.)
1 ,1:::
:,GC:3
9GO ,OO O
Di ke
T:i pe
Lengt h , (ft.)
Crest ele vation (ft.)
Maxi rn u~ h ei~ht (ft.l
Vv 1 Uf.le ( Cu • i d . )
T:n,;e
Crest el e va tio n (ft.)
D i s c h ar~e capacit} (cfs)
Pow e r Tun nel
'I':t pe
Dia~ete r, internal (ft.)
Hy drauli c capacity (cf s )
surge cha ~ber (Dia. x Ht. Ft.)
2-16
Over fl o ~ r o c k fi l l
GOO
1 ,177
~9
2.5 G,O OO
F r e e ov erfloVI
1,1 55
5 5,00 0
Circular, conc rete lined
24
7,200
48 X 450
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 2 -l (cont'd)
Penstock
Number/Type
Diameter, internal (ft.)
Concrete lined
Steel lin ed
Powerhou se
l'y pe
Cavern siz~ (L x W x H Ft.)
Tur b ine s
Generat ors
Maximum net hea ~ (ft .)
Minimum nee hea d (ft.)
Maximu m discharge (c fs)
Distri b utur centerline e leva tion (ft.)
Average annual f ir m ene rg y (GWh)
Average annual seconda r y energy (GWh)
Load factor
Fish Passag e Faci l iti es
Maximum release (cf s)
Minimum release (cf s)
Fish passage tunnel (L x W x H Ft .)
Economic Paraffie ters
Estimated t o tal cost $ billion
Cost of energy (mills per kWh)
Cost Fer installed kW ($)
Constr uction period (Mos.)
2-17
!-Circular, c oncrete lined
4-Circular, steel lined
24
10
Underground
250 X 65 X 130
4 Vertical Francis
Synch r o nous
938
866
7,200
190
1,301
2 93
.45
1,094
343
7800 X 18 X 20
1. 32
44.5
3,985
76
•
•
I
PROJECT
DEVELOPMENT
STUDIES
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3. 0 PRO.JE C.T DEVELOPHEi;T S':'UDIES
:. . 1 Resu latorj Storage
The existing stream flow records s how a wide seasonal
variation in discha:se from Chaka c h acna Lake wit h 91
percent of t he annual discharye occurring from Ma y 1
through Octcber 31 and 9 percent from November 1
throuyh h~ril 3 0 when peak electrical demands occur.
The storase volume required to regulate the flow ha s
been reporte~ tote in t he order of 1 .6 milli o n acre-
feet (USBR, 19 62 ). Th e ~levation cf the rive r bed a:
the lake outlet h as be en reported as 11 2 7 -11 28 feet
(Giles, 1367). This elevation is thought to have
v a ried according t o tl,e amounts and sizes of solid
n1aterials C:e~ositieC: in the rive r bed each year by the
meltuts toe cf t he glacier , and the magnitude of the
annual peak o u tfl o ~ from the lake that is available t o
eroae the solid ma terials awa y and restore the river
channel.
The above-mentioned vo l ume of reg u latory storage can
be developed by drawing down the l ake by 113 feet to
Elevation 1014. The original st ud ies performed in
1981 adopt(:u suer, a reservoir operatins range in
develo~ing project alternatives A, 9, C and D.
However , whe n t he 198 2 studies for developmen t of
suitable fish passage ~acilities at the lake outlet
we r e initiated , it became evident that a lake drawd own
to El. 1 014 was n o~ suited to the provision of such
facili t ies. Therefore a modified range of reservoir
operating level uas adopted as discussed below.
3-1
If t he maximum lake level is raised to [1. 1155 and 72
feet urawao~n is c onside red then a reg u latory st o r age
of l,l07,0CO acre-ieet is provided with increase in
heau. hltl ough previous s tudies of th e project have
discreciteu the possibility of locating a control
structure at the l a ke o u tlet because its left abutment
woul~ have lain on t he toe of the Barrier Glacier, -e
believe that a relati ve ly low dike of 27 feet plus
freeuoard can be mair.tained at this location. This is
discusse~ further in Section 3.5.1.
The Barrier Glacier i ce thickness was measured in 1 98 !
L~ t h e USGS using radar techniques. The data has n c ~
y et Leer. ~ublis hed c~t ver b al communicatio n with t r.e
USGS staft has indicated ttat the ice depth is
probaLly 5C0-600 feet in the lower moraine covered
part of t he glacier near the lake outlet. Thus it
would a~pear that t h e outle channel from the lake may
be a small g:avel and boulder lined notch in a deep
beo of ice.
3.2 Chakachatna Dam
~he ~ossibilit y of gaining both storage and head uy
means of a dam on the Chakachatna River was first
poseo in 1950 by Arthur Johnson (Johnson, 1950) who
identified, though -as ~nable to inspect, a potential
da~ site auout 6 miles downstream from the lake o utlet.
Three years later, during the 1953 eruption of Mount
Spurr, a mud flow descended the volcano slopes and
temporarily blocked the river at this location,
backing it up for about 4 miles u~til it overtopped
the debris dam. At t h is location, th e river today is
3-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
still lack~u u~ al~ost 2 Piles despite the oc c u rr ence
of t te Auyust 1971 la ke b rea kout ~l occ ~st~~a:~d t ~
have ~eaked at a bou t 47 0 ,000 cu bic f e et ?e: s~~o ~~
(Lamke , 1972). Th is fl o ~ is about t~~~t j ti =c s l a :s e :
t h an t h e ~ax icu m 'aily discharge t ha t c ccurr ed cu:ing
t h e 1959-1972 perioC of record.
EX&Qi nation of aerial phot og raph s taken af ter the 1 953
eruption between 1954 and 1981 i~dicat e t h at suts e -
quent mud flo~s, though o f small e r ma g ni tude , ~ay ta ve
occ u rred but ~robably did not reac h t h~ ri~e r. :he
s ourc e of this ac tlvi t } has been Cr c.te:: ?·:.:.. 1 ~~
a c t i v e v o 1 can i c c r a t e r o n t h e so u t i1 e c l..t : i _ 01 '; 0 E i·; o .; r . t
Spurr. It lies direc tly above and in .:•1-::P. ;.co x i mitj
t o t l.e pos t u lated dam site and thus pcs·~s seriot:s
qu estions o n the safety of t h is site fer con str uct ion
o f au} f o r m of d am. At this l oca tion, gene ral ly f rom
atout 6 miles to 7 mil es do wnstre a m fr o~ tte lax e
outlet, c he river is confi ned within a c anyo n . Both
upstream and downstream, tbe valle:/ subst an~::.al l :t·
widens and does not appear t o offer a ny top ogr aphica l y
feasible sites for loc ating a dam.
Within the canyo n itself, c o nditi o ~s are rather
unfavoratle fer siting a d am. Bedr0ck is exposed on
the right abutment, caking t h is the most likely site
for a spillway , uut t h e rock surface dips at about
40-degrees toward the river channel. At t h is
location, the peak discharge of the probable maximum
flood calculated accord i n g to conventional procedu res
would ue in the orde r of 100,000 cubic feet per second.
Th e crest length of a spillway would ha ve to be in the
order of 2 00 fee t and siting it on t he steeply dipping
3-3
3.3
3.3.1
ri~h t a bu t ~e ~t r o ck s u rf ac e wou l a Le diffic u lt and
costl}.
Su r f a c e e x ami n at i o n o f t he left a b u t ~ent c ond !tior.s
as a is cussf'-·i i n s ec tion 5.2 .3.2 o f t h i s r epo r t ,
inaicates that t h e y consist of c eep u n c o ns o l idated
volcanic materials . Th ese wo u ld requir e a ~e ep
diaph ragm wall or sl u rr y trench c u tof f t o be d r o ck,
or an exte nsive up s tre a m fo unaa tior. b lar.ket t c c o ntr o l
seepage t h roug h t h e pe rvi o us materials l y ir.g o n t h i s
abu t ment . V er~ h i gh c os ts wo u l d als o be a ~ta c h e d to
t h e ir co~ostructi o n .
Th e ~r e sence of t h e vo lca n o and it s p o t enti a l f o r
f ~t ure erup tion s acc omp an i e d by mud fl ow s as well a s
py roclasti c as h fl o ws is p r oba b l y t h e overri d ing
factor in d iscred iti r.g t he f e asi b ility o f c o ns tr u c t in9
a d a ~ in this can yo ~ locati o n. Co nseq ue n tl j , th i s
co n cept h a s b een temporarily set aside fr o m f u r the r
consideration a t t h e present stag e o f t h e st ~a ie s , and
t h e main t h r u st h a s b een di r ected t ow ard d e v el o p ment
by gaining reg u l a t o r y storage by drawing d ow n t h e la k e
wat e r l eve l a n a d i verting water fro m a s ubme rg e d
i n t a ke in Cha kac hamn a La k e t h r ou g h a t u nn e l t o t h e
McArt h ur river, or through a tunnel to the mouth o f
t n e Chakach atna Valley, as disc u ssed in t he next tw o
sections o f t h is report.
McArt h ur Tu nnel Devlopment
Alternati ve A
Initi a l s t ud i e s h a v e b een dir e ct e d towa r d de v elo p ment
by mean s of a t u nnel t o t h e McArt hu r River that would
3-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
.I
I
I
I
maximize electrical generati o ~ witho u t regard t o
r e l e ase o f water int o t h e Ch a kac h atna River for
support of its fis h er y . TY o arrangements have been
st u ~ieu, t h e firs t bei n g a tunnel following an
alignment ~bout 12 miles long designated Alternative
A-1 and s hown in Fiy u re 3-1. This alignment provides
access for constr uctio r. via an adit in the Chakachatna
Valle} abo u t 3 miles downstream fron the lake outlet.
As discussseo in section 9.0 of this report, the
t u nnel woulc be 25 feet inter~al diameter and concrete
lined thro u ghout its full length.
The s e ~o nd tunnel studied is designated Alternative
A-2 and follows a direct alignment to the McArthur
Valley wit h out an intermediate access adit as shown 0n
Figure 3-2. As further d iscussed in Section 9.0 o f
this report, this tunnel would also be 25 feet
diameter and concrete lined.
Although t h e tunnel for Alttrnative A-1 is about 1 mile
lon~er than that .:or Alternative A-2, it would enable
tunnel construction to proceed simultaneously in four
headings thus reoucing ics time for ccnstruction below
t h at required for the shorter tunnel in Alternative
A-2. Nevertheless, the studies show that the
economics favor the shorter tunnel and no other
significant factors that would detract from it have
been identified at this stage of the studies. There-
fore the direct tunnel route was adopted and all
further references in the report to Alternative A are
for the project layout with the direct tunnel shown on
Figure 3-2.
3-5
Ty pical ske tches h ave been developed fo r t he arrange-
~en t o f st r u ctur~s at t he power inta ke in Cha k ac h amna
Lake a nd t ll ese are shown on Fi g u re 3 -4 wit h t ypical
sections and details on Figure 3 -5 . Sinilarly , l a y -
outs have been developed for st r uc t u res l ocated beyo nd
the downstream enu of t he tunnel. These in c l ud e a
surge shaft, ~e~stock, manifold, valve gallery , power-
house , transformer gallery , a c cess tunnel, tailrace
tunnel and other associated structures as s hown on
Figure 3-6.
Fo r hlternativ6 A, the installed capacity of t he power-
house d erive~ from the power studies discussed in
Section 4.0 of t h is report is 4 00 MW. Fo r purposes of
estimating costs, the installation has been taken as
four 100 MW capacity vertical shaft Francis turbine
driven un1 ts .
It is to be not ed that the layout sketches mentioned
above and those prepared for other alternative3 con-
side red in this report must be regarded as strictly
typical. The~ form t he basis for the cost estimates
discussed in Section 8.0 but will be subject to re-
finement and optimization as the studies proceed. For
example, the lake tapping for the power intake is laid
out on the b"asis of a single opening about 26 -feet in
diameter. This is a very large underwater penetration
to be made under some 150-170 feet of submergence, and
the combination of diameter and depth is believed to
be unprecedented. In the final analysis, it may prove
advisable to design for multiple smaller diameter
op~nings. The information needed to evaluate this is
not available at the present time.
3-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
...... . , ....
-· ' I
8 ...
0
·""
' . >
1
~
•"' •
.,.
.. . , . ..
,. -~ .......
"' (.
.. , .. ,·
I ' · .
.. , ~ •• 4' ..
PR:J F tL E
)."
(} ...
1!~ .;,,,. CO•
.... c ~e ...
;
~:.,;.
•'
' 7---, / -~
,K :j '-i ·' • '-..1 'I ·;. /
# ~-·; f . ~ ..
~·
·"
'·
\ ,,
/
/
/
: r· .. ~ " .. ~ .. ,. ... . . .•.. , . ,.
' ... # .... if-44' ..... 3
.. c:: ........... , ....... s 00
rc•-
1
•C•• (•-,;;..Y ... ~ 1>11#~11/
•; ~ .l;lt
" ""'"* ",,..,., ~·1.1 ' ..-... ~.-£11, "<llfN1.t~~SI ML~A·~ ~(tHIN
f 7 P <¥()/fTN ~, Alii Ci«fT'tiNf
:·
HMA
<I $it, "W~., .. Al¥4}.1 t ~t>lt .ATI
"-~ • ot·• .. 9 -&. ,...,_, 1 .,.,
<j.4/ ,,.., 6>/NSIO..,,.~I/IIti<Wit
~It ;d..,lti&l. A .. lt•I'I41NLN1
McARTHUR T\JtiHEL
ALT£RNAnVE A·l
(t'T
BECtfTU CIYL 6 lt1N£11ALS, INC. --
·-I
I
II
0
I
I
f
.~
5EC
·~.. .. .. '
\ -'~" .,.o
IIJII e._ 'f:)
-y, ....
. ,,
. ,. ....
~/
p A
ll __ .. ,_. -... ., ......
1•'~:: ..:.V-. .. If 'f'WN"'et..
P '? 0 F
<,.
• 'A "'·" . .,
/}
,I
'.
N
L E
,,
"'t ... ,.
.. 'Y ~~,
" :' ;\
::• : .. co .... c
N~D PCN~"'OCIC
'• ' ' .,:'-·"'
c = ... .~~~Jo.
fl •• ,.J--
" ·,
~~0
' \
/
.~
r
., ----~, .. ,_ .# .,,~l. .,_._.,*U
.,_,,. 4 11C' '" • I .,.. 911 MOI'IIII
AN#I' AIV ;..AI~
• "'II '~ 1'1, t .. .tw,;! t T~~~~
_ _,, • ..LIA'f"' -&' '' I • ,.,_
·~~ ,..,_ i/ltMI'fk'.-o~-,._~1
,.,-.~ .. ,., ~·"'ww ""'"'
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
WcAR1'l«...t TUNNE L
AL TUHA TIVES A·2 a E
OJECT
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
7 "" N •
.. '
'uc
,,,, ~-.. /
I • • •
L ~ -·r _. ~-.
r :-=:~·-'· •. --~ I . • v
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.I .
1 I
r
··' 'I
=· :
5 £;T t ;I,J_@
U ·O
s ; c T ' o~,.a E9
.-
5 E;T t ~~.c e
'c -......... -~--!~.:
® 5 1< C T I Y ~--o Q
t:;;::t.~7
~
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--
L A I I _ ...... .....:.___. ....
®
sc:.r ,~ <At A L E • • LE V A TIC N
' ·o
'"'•vt c -i":;t"";#
5 ECT t vAJ
.·:' ' ..
•• , !-_,.
') ,. :
~ . v ·
·~
•'
5 C C ~ 1 OAJ ®
< "~
· ..... 50 ,.
r I
~' ,.
~~
.;/
o' ..
~ ~ ~~ L.. . .,&, ,,
" .. ~;; T 1 QAJ @
I
I
I
1
I
I ·
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
In similar vein, the penstock is shown as a single
inclined press ure s ha f~ descending to a four-branch ed
manifold at t he powerhouse level wit h provisions for
emergency closur e a t the upstream end. Aga1n, thls is
a ve ry large pr essu re shaft, but the combination of
pressure and di amete r is not unprecedented in sound
rock. Other consid e rations, such as unfavorable
hydraulic transients in the manifold, or operational
flexi b ility, may support the desirability of construc-
ting a bifurcat io n at the downstream end of the tunnel
with two penstoc~s , each equipped with an upper level
s hu toff ga tP , pr ov ide d to convey water to each pair o f
turbines in the fou r-unit powerhouse. Such an
arrangement woul d c ase more than the single pens tock
shaft.
7urbine shutoff valves are shown located in a valve
chamber separated from the powerhouse itself. Optimi-
zation studies should be made in the future to evalu-
ate whether these val v es can be located inside the
powerhouse at the turbine inlets, or whether a ring
gate type installaion inside the turbine spiral cases
might be preferable.
The powerhouse is shown as an underground installation.
This appears to be the most logical solution for
development via the McArthur River because of the
steep avalanche and rock slide-prone slopes of the
canyon wall. For the same reason, the transformers
are shown in a chamber adjacent to the powerhouse
cavern. A surge chamber is shown near the upstream
end of the tailrace tunnel. It may prove more
advantageous for this relatively short tailrace tunnel
3-17
3.3.2
to make it freeflowing in which case the tailrace
surge chambe r would not be required.
The object of t he a bove comments is to point out sonP
of the options that are a v ailable. The arrangemen~ of
structures s h ewn provides for a workable installation.
Because of the limited engineering studies performed
to date, it is not to be regarded as the optimum or
most economical. Optimization will be performed a~ a
later date. The layout is a workable arrangement that
gives a r eal istic basis on which to estimate the cost
of construc ti ng the project, and a separately idP nt i-
fied cont.in g~nc y allowance is provided in the esti8a~e
to allow for costs higher than those foreseen at the
present level of study.
Alternative B
This alternative considers what effect a tenta~ive
allocat1on of water to meet instream flow require-
ments in the Chakachatna River would have on the
amount of energy that could be generated by Alterna-
tive A which would use all stored water for energy
generation. The tent ative instream flow schedule is
discussed in Section 7.3.2 of this report. For diver-
sion to the McArthur River, and reservation of water
for instream flow releases, the tunnel diameter would
be about 23 feet. Based on the power studies dis-
cussed in Section 4.0, the installed capacity of the
powerhouse would be reduced to 330 MW. The tunnel
alignment and basic layout of structures generally is
the same as that shown for Alternative A in Figure 3-2.
The diameters of hydraulic conduits and the dimensions
of the 330 MW powerhouse would be smaller than for the
3-18
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.4
3.4.1
400 MW powerhouse in Alternative A and appropria te
allowanc~s for these are made in the cost estimates .
Whe n the var1ous alternative ar r angements of the
project were developed in the 1981 study, no specific
plan had been developed for the provision of releases
of flow into the Chakachatna River immediately down-
stream from the lake outlet nor for the provision of
fish passage facilities at the lake outlet for upstream
and downstream migrants. It was recognized that
suitable structures would be difficult to develop and
would be very expensive. It was also planned that,
due to the presence of the glacie~ at the lake outlet,
the fish passage facility would have to be constructed
inside a tunnel within the massiv~ rock mountainside
forming the right side of the lake outlet. Since no
plan for such facility had been developed at that
stage of the studies, a provisional allowance of $50
million was shown in the estimate for fish passage
facilities.
During the second phase of the study in 1982, the
concept of fish facilities and operation of the lake
has been further developed for this alternative and it
is described at the end of this section as Alternative
E, the recommended alternative.
Chakachatna Tunnel Development
Alternative C
The initial studies of this alternative focused on
development of the power potential by means of a
tunnel roughly paralleling the Chakachatna Riv~r
3-19
without release of water for instream flow require-
ments be~ween the lake outlet and the powerhouse whe re
the water diverted for po~er generation would be
returned to the river. The tunnel alignment is shown
on Figure 3-3.
This alignment offers two convenient locations for
intermediate access adits during construction. The
first is about 3 miles downstream from the lake outlet
in the same location as discussed in Section 3.3.1
above for Alternative A. The second adit location is
about 7 miles downstream from the lake outlet. The
total tunnel length in this arrangement is about 12
miles and the adits would make it possible for
construction of the tunnel to proceed simultaneously
in six different headings.
The arrangement of the power intake is essentially the
same and in the same location as for Alternative A as
shown on Figures 3-4 and 3-5. The tunnel is also 25
feet internal diameter, concrete lined, and penetrates
the mountains in the right wall of the Chakachatna
Valley. The arrangement for the surge shaft, pen-
stock, valve gallery, powerhouse and asssociated struc-
tures is similar to that for development via diversion
to the McArthur River but is modified to fit the topo-
graphy and lower head. The layout is shown on Figure
3-7. The he~d that can be developed in Alternative C
is roughly 200 feet less· than in Alternatives A and B
and the installed capacity in the powerhouse is only
300 MW as determined from the power studies discussed
in Section 4.0 of this report.
3-20
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I \ .. ~ ··-·
I
I
I
• I
J ·, "\ -.. ,
{ --:·. "( ,_, ··~-PI' y I ' . ~..Lf .. · ..,v ... ~ .... .f' ,,-, t'
_,.
I PL A N
I
I
I
I
I ~~· •O'I'IC:!.-~1. ......... ..
I P ROFILE
I
I
I S£CT!ON®
( ... ••·) ••• •0 ~
I ......
'
/
(I
)
/ .;
~·
f.
--·· '\.
.· .. ;cA ,.~r"'.:~ -~-:..~
·e~o --••·,. •s ,~,_ "''•~ ·"""" ......... " ........
: J .=c " 1'tJJit ..,,6.,.,_ •S 100 ,,~, r
"•1.•· t •L :•r~, • 11'1 •.,; '!I• l..l ol.l..
" -=~ ~= .. -...... ~.: Jo 61¥o o141-"'1 •4 -~ ... 1,..€411 • 1.-c: .. ·CA' -AJ#Cf'oOo.J, •z· ... e•·· ,...,4 ,.-c ~ ... .,::..•"'.,
':11 'lo..o •cs ··"-..... ,:. •" 't "
.... -. ~--~-· _.-... c..S .. ..,,: ~~ ...
• -•e• ~-~• • ..,",... '""''"'oc' ~I/I(Nr,£/1~61"N~.Mitf.Mtl6f1A#NI
''lO . I)')
..... "'.
z• &.·• :;.~~ .... c.:
·~ .. s-:.c""
....
-~" ,.. -.-
ALASKA POWER AuTHORITY
CMAUCM-ll"fHOlllCTIIC PIIO.I(CT
~"T IU Tl*-(L
~ ,. ..... 1 'i( t t;. • 0 ..... , . ... , ''
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
, : .... 'if .... ~ ... . -p . -.... I
< • .! ~--~ c
I
I
I"
5FC T tO IV ®
\
~----\j.
---~-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3 .4.2
Fo r purposPs of •sc 1 ~actn~ ~hP p resent cos~s cf con-
st r uction , ~~Q po .. •r~ouso 1s r.a~on as bo1ng loca~oe
undergrou~y . :f ~hl= Al~•rnatlVA w•r• ~o b• pu:s~Ac,
futuro St-Jl•s wo~ld b• made r o dotormtn• 1f eco~o~y
can be acr.atnPd by lccattng lt ou cstdP on r hP g r ~~~d
sur f aco . Cow~ents ~ac• 1n Socr1o n 3.3.1 rega r d1ng rh•
layout skotchos for r.ne McA rt hur poworhous• 1n
Alternarsve A ap?lY ~qually to the pow•rhouse and
cons 1 d~red 1n Alr•rna~lVP C .
on electrical ge nerar ton of ro s ervtn~ wa r.e r to me Pt
tnstream flow req ~1r•menr.s 1n the Chakachatna Rtver .
The tentar.1ve watPr release schedule 1s less r. .. an that
condiderPd for developP•nc by p owe r dtv~rstons to the
McArt hu r R1ver as d1scuss•d 1n Sect1on 7 .1 .5 of this
report. Th e reas on for th1s 1s that 1n the low~r
reaches of the r1ver, downstream from the propos ed
powerhouse locar.1 o n, t he river flow w1ll Incl ude t hosP
waters t h at were d1ve rr.ed for electrical gene r ation .
These lower reac hes of the r1ver are probably mo re
important tv the ftshery than the reach oi the river
between the lake outlet and the proposed p o werhouse
l ocatlon . This probab1lity lS suggested, though not
fully confirmed, bv observations made of f1s h runs
durtng the 1981 and 1982 field studies . These havP
ind1car.ed that the Chakachatna River, between the lake
outlet and the proposed locar.1on of the powerhouse,
serves primartly as a travel corrtdor f o r fi sh passing
through the lake to spawning areas further upst rea m.
The r1ver Itself, in thls r each does nor. appear r.o
offe r much 1n the way of suitable spawn1ng and
ju ven1le re ar1n~ hab1r.ar. On ~he o~he r hand ,
3-25
,
3.5
3.5 .1
s1gn 1ficanc nucbers of f1sh and spawn1ng ar~a s waco
obse r v~c 1n ~he lo~a r ra a~hes of cha r1 ver downs ~r ~an
fr om the p r o?os od ?Owe r ~ou se l oca c 1ons . Cons eq uo ncly ,
c he cenca ~1 ~e 1~acroam fl ow r eleases arP sm a ll when
comp ar ed Wlt h ~~ose c ons1de r ed fo r develop~ant vaa
power d1vors1ons to c ho McA rt hu r RlV 0 r, as dascussP~
an Secc 1o n 7 .1 .5 of c h ~s repo r c . Th 0 t u nnel d1ameter
f o e de velopmen~ o f t h e pow er potentldl v ia the
Chakachatna ~u~nel Wlt h provision f o r 1nstceam fl o w
rele~ces , 1 s 25 f ee c, the same as t hat me ntaoned 1n
Section 3 .3.1 above Wlthouc .s uch releasos . The
1n sta lled capac1cy 1n he powerhouse al so re ma1ns t he
same at 30 0 M~. The layout sketches shown in PigurPs
3 -3 and 3-7 to r Al te rn a tive C ar e eq ua l ly appl1cablo
to Altern at i ve o as ar e the comments set f o rth 1n
sect1on 3 .3 regard1ng c he layout skP.tches f o r de-
velopment v1 a the Mc Art hu r R1ve r.
McArt hu r Dev al oo~ent -Recommended Alternative E
General
This alternat1ve is basically simi l ar to Alterna t 1ve
a , but mo d1f1ed to 1ncl ude water release facilitie s
inco Chakachatna Rive r, fish passage fac1l1t1es at the
lake out let and modification of lake operat1ng levels
to accommodate these fac1lit1es . The power runnel
diamecer will be a 24 -foot 1ncerna1 diameter circular
section and the diamete r s of other hyd ra ulic condults,
the powerhouse arrangement, sizing and location will
be the same as described for Alternative B and shown
in P1gu r e 3-2 .
3 -26
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The oper at1ng range of th e la k e will be ~odifi~d . Th~
max1mum level will be taken a s ~he historica l rnaxi~u m
ev i dence d by a lth~te mar k o n ~~o r o ck slo pes of the
lake sho r e l :ne a~ approx1cately !1 . 1 1 55 . A wide
r o ckfill d ike w1l l ~e co n s~r u c t e d at the lake outl e~
from the plentlf u l spo 1 l ma~eri al ava 1lable from
excavations desc r i bed f u r the r belo w ·o ra ise the lake
outlet by approx1 ~ately 27 fe P ~. Th e reservoi r level
con trol wi ll be es~a bllshed by an unli ned spi llwa y
c~a nnel at El. 1155 excavated 1nto t he r ock o n the
right side o f t he ou~let . T ~e l ayo u t is shown in
F1g ur e 3 .8 . Th P l ake level op•:a~1ng range will be 72
fee t down ~o El 1083 1nstead of El 1 032 previously
used in t h e st udies for Alte r ~5 ~1 V 0 S A th r ough D. The
power tunnel 1 ntak e level i s maintained at the level
previously used to p r ov1de eve n grea ~er submergence to
reduce potentlal problems of att r act ing downstrea m
migrant fis h into the power t unnel. Most o f the
fl oods will be rel e ased through the u nlined spillway
channel cu t t h ro ugh t he granite in t he rig h t
abutment. This u nl1n e d channel h as a capacity of
55,000 cfs, and wi ll therefor e handle all fl ood
r eleases up to 55 ,000 cfs. Flows greater th an t his up
t o the p res ently est 1mated probable maxi mum fl oo d o f
100 ,0 00 cfs will pass both th r ough the spillway and
over the r oc kfill d i ke. I t should be noted that the
maxi mum peak disc h arge in the perio d of record of 1959-
1971 was 23 ,4 00 cfs 1f the •dam-break • type of flood
which occu rred in August 1971 is disregarded. Fut u re
studies of t he req ui r ed spillway size may indicate
that a reduction i n size below the 55 ,000 cfs capacity
may be possible.
3 -27
3. :. . :
3 .5 .3
~r 1s cons1d~rPa chat stncP ov~rropp1ng of thP roc
~!~~ ~111 =~ a VPry lnfr•qJ~nr occu rr•nco, rPpalr of
-.. n d:ko af~e r s~c~ an PVP~~ .o ~:~ ~· an accPp•abl•
1n ~~~ spr~~g ~efore c r.e la k o r!s~s to ~he lovol o!
•h o -1 A 1n ;u!y or A~g~3t.
~o pr o v1do 1ns•r•a~ rPl~as•s tn•o -~· Chakacra ~na
rtl•~= anc arrange for bor!l ~.:ps •rPa r:l and downs r roam
1:g:3"t o c o! ftsh b•t~•Pn -~o :1v•r and th 4
C~::~c~~=-~~ ~a~o , a co~co~-to: a conv•yancP S(S~Po
•;3~ 0 6 ~P!~p Pd WhlCh c~n3lS "PC b83 lCally Of flSh
lQccors ~~ the upsc r ea~ and do~nstrPao ends of two
ln·orc onnPC~lng channPls !oca:od 1n a •unnel. ~hP
s~scem ts a grav1ty flow systPP and dops noc r ely on
any p~r:~ptng for 1ts cporat10n . 7~• layo~.:~ 1s shown 1n
F1g. 3-o .. ~he fac1l>e1•s ~111 oe locat"d 1:'1 •he r 1ght
bank g:an1t1c r ock abu-ment ro prov1do a securP
structure protecced aga1nst avalanchPs and rockfalls
and •o m1n1m1z• the lPng~h of •he •unnel . A de•p
app r oach channel w1ll be excavaced 1n •he alluv1~l
dPpOSlrS OL the rlgh~ Slde Of the lakP OU t le r r c
conv•y wat~r fro~ che lake to thP f1sh r el•ase
fac1l 1 t1es located 1n an excavated cave r n 1n rhe r ~gnr
abucment near che lake oucl~t.
UpstrPam M1grants Fac~l 1 cy
The fac 1 l1ty for upsrr•a~ passage of adult m~gran •
f1sh would cons1st of a convPnt1onal f 1sh laddP r w1th
overflow we1rs hav1ng 1 foo • d1ffPrPnce in elPvatlOn
between each pool . Alon~sld• each t1e r of ladde r
3-28
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
H
(
~
.-I
··-~· ~ ........... ... J
r
I ... '\
• lOO
t
• I
--
'
......
<"''"<::.....
' : -!'o.. c!"'. _A -:¥---,-::::--"'"" ~ ........ \..._ ----
........ ., ... _
~ . .,,-..
---------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3. 5. 4
pools lS 3 ~a~~r supply cha~ber ~hat serv~s a 10 foor
Eac;, pool 1n a
glv~n PlPr uo~ld ha'lP a sa-•d Cw~~o~rlon -o the wa•or
s~ppl~ ch~~b~r , so rha~ for a gl'l~n la:P l~vol, •ho
g3 •P loae1ng •o t;,o pool ~hoso ~3-or lovol 1s 1 f~o~
low~r •ha~ •no r•sor~o1r ~o~!c ~o op•n , thus lP•t1ng
warer r~n fro~ •he s~pply c~a~cer 1n•o -h~ ladd•r.
All other gates ber~een the S-P?lY chambe r s and pools
wOUld OP clos•d. nS ~hP lakP lev•l changPs , rho gatPS
wo~ld bP ~an1pulat•d accord .~glf . n• •h1s srag• 1• 1s
ass~rn~d •r.a• ~h•se ga~•s wo~ld ~o opo rarod nanually
alrhough 1• would bP poss1bl• ~~ au·orna re th~tr
ope ra•1 on , w1•h rho selecr.1on ~-"oc•n" gate tlPd •o
lake 1•vol. ~control ga•• 13 ~!so shown botwPPn Pach
water supply chamber and the lak•. F1sh asc•ndtng thP
ladd•r would r1se through rr.• pools un•1l they r•ached
the on• r ecPlVlng water fr o~ lt~ supply chamber. ThP
f13h would ~h 0 n pass 1nto the s~pply chanb•r and PXlt
1nro rh• lak~ through th• control ga •e open1ng. ~h1s
upstr~an rn1grant structu:e wo_lc be construcred 1n an
underground chamber excavated 1n tr.e rock mounra1ns1d•
adJacent to the ex1st1ng natura_ laKe outlet. The
conc•p~ 1S shown 1n Ftgu:os 3-9 ar.d 3-10 .
Oownstrea~ M1grants ?ac1l1ty
The fac1l1ry for downstr~am passage of out-~lgran•s
and for prov1s1on of m1n1rnum downstrean flow r~l~as~s
1S 3hown 1n F1gure 3-11 . The concept COnSlS~S of
three , 15 feet Wtd~ f1xed wheel type gates srackod on•
above the other . Th• propos•d mode of op~rar1on lS
that when rhe water level 1s between El . 1155 and El.
1127, lhe ~Op gate .. .,Uld bP lowered r he amounr
necessary r.o dtscharge the des1red amounr of wa~er
thar would
3-31
3. 5 . 5
plungP Lnt o a st1ll1ng bas1n and rPrurn to ~he river
chro~g~ t ~· ~!scha rge tunnel . ~hP middle and botrom
ga~as .:~-1~ ~P closed . WhPn rhe lake level falls to
El . _l27 , ~ne ~op gate would be ra 1sed above the wa t•r
su rfac~ and the m1ddle gate would be lowPred to
dtsc~at;e t~• des 1red amount of water. As th P wate r
level descends below El. 1001 , the m1ddle gate would
be r ~Ls •d an ~ ~he lowest gate would take ove r t he
conr.r ol of d1scharge . Tt.Ls gate w1ll be progr•ss1vely
lowered b•low the 1nve rr. of t hP outlet channel as thP
lake l~v~l fal l s . Man1pulat1cn of the gares would be
Ln t h~ rc~•r se sequence dur 1ng the cond ltion Wlth a
r1s1~3 1~:~ ~ar.er l•vel. The depth of flow in th•
S tLllLn ; bas1n 1mme d 1ately downstr•am f r om the gates
1s rPl a~lvely shallow 1n order to prevent en tra1nnen r
of a1r a~ d~pths and pressures wh1ch could res ult in
n1trogen sar.u rar.1on ha r mful to the f1sh .
Conveyance Channel
Both ups trea m and downetream migran ts will travel in
separate channels l ocated in a common tunnel . The
upst r eam m1grants would ut1l1=a a 6' x 4' chann•l
dimens1oned for the fl sh ladder diSCharge of 40 cfs .
The out-mig r ants would use the main cha nnel 18 ' x 7 '
dimens1oned for max 1m um r equ 1red monthly release minus
the flow Ln the small cl.annel . (Th is maxi mum
downstream rel ease as presPnted 1n Section 4 has been
set tentatively at 1094 cfs.) The sm all channel wo uld
be loca ced at one side cf the tunnel above the ma1n
channel Wlth a r oad access p r r vidPd on th e other
side . A typical sectlon of the tunnel is shown in
Flg . 3-9 . Both channels would be t ree flowing wi th
freeboard prov1ded . On ly the ma1n channel wh1ch has a
3-32
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I .
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,._ ... ~_ ,.. ..... _
!!
-,;-.. -. -.---
:;}A"' Fl H -fb l t/5 · ...
,j 114=
d "•• .f ,_.~ -(l_ Ill_$
• ..
,,~~~"'.!
~;-..l _,...,...,"',. ,.,... . ._,,...-"'"~-----·--,_.,..,,..., ,__.
1·-t•:J
,·~-1· . -~ l
t'{A~ FL fll.f • EL 1()95
1·•111 '
AI\ H ~ · ..
. .. . . === ---··-
-l~·J -
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY --CHAitACHA.'IIIIA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
l.PSTREAM FISH MSSAGE FACILrTIES
Pl..AHS AHO SECTK)N
BECHTa CIYL & MINERALS, INC.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I • ". ...... ~ • 'Ill
•..-;· ~,.., •• .o~e·
\
I
. . . .
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r--
' .... _ ~ ....
~
..... .
·---~
s:cr ov 0 .. ,.
M .. ,. • .!' ...... -• •
rc-~l
L' ~
5 €C7 ~VA L
J
;,_
P.~ v
: ..
'
I
' ' ,.
l1
I
,........,._ .. -.c-_ •
.oocc:c._ •• -."' .. ~-
L =====~
l----~ ·----
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.5.6
~ax1mum v~1oc1cy of o f~~·fsoc ., ~o~!o bo fully 110P~
r.o CPd~cP h~ad los3. :n c:c~r •o ko~? ~oloc1•y 1n ~h~
small chann~! fo: -~~ ~p3r.ro~~ m:gra~-s a• 2
f~P•/sPc., •ho f:oor of ~LP ccanno! ~ou!c havo a
sl1ghr.ly loss grad1onr ·~un ~h~ !arq~ chann~! and S
drops of 1 foo -~ach w1l! bP prov1cPd a• rogclar
in•~rvals do~n •he r.~n~ol.
A laddPr iS roqulrod a: -ho downsr.roa~ end o! •hP
tunnPl to prov1do a ~~acs for th~ upstroan migranrs •o
roach thP ~ppor r.ran~porta~1on channel 1nstdo •ho
tunnPl. Th1s ladder Will bo par•lally subrnPcgod ar
h1gh r~lPaSPS s1nc~ tho r1v~r levol r1soc by an
~Stinat~d 4 fe~t ~hon r.ho dlSCharg~ from •hP fac1l1•y
lS 1ncroasod from tho m1n1~um flow of 3~3 cfs r.o •ho
maxunu::1 of 1094 cfs. nno-he>r 6 fr: •Jor::1cal r1so 1n
•hP ladoor 1s prov1d~d •o acccm~odatP tho d1fforonco
be>tWP 0 n tho wacor surfaces 1n rho t~O channels 1n tho
tunnol so •ha• a •oca: cf lu ladcor pools ~ould bo
prov1d~d. A horl~ontal s~b~Prgod scr~on would all ow
•h~ ou •-m1gran•s co react tho ~a1n c1schargo cnannol
~h1le 1•s prPsonco and a volocltY of around 1/2 f-/soc
through rho oars ~ould provent rho largo f1sh from
onr:er1ng rhP ma1n tJnnel ClSChargo channol. 7h0
uttractton flow com1ng down ~ho ladder would bo ~0 c[s .
The layout 1s shown 1n rlg~rP 3 .12.
A floa~1ng lCP barr1~r 1nsr.allod 1n -hp approach
channel jusr: ups~rpam of r.hP fish pas~agP fac111~y
Wtll provon~ mosr of the> lCP from paSsing 1n~o and
through rhP fac1l1 t y du r ing tho brPaku? por1od .
HowPvor, as a procau ~1 on, stnCP 1• ~111 b~ vory
3-39
dlffUClt tO POSUrP thP COr.?lPt.P Pl1~1na~10n Of t~P
on~ranCP Of lCP ln~o ~~~ t~~lll~y, 1~ lC planOPC "0
rA~OVP a s~oplog oarrLPr wt1c h nor~a!!y dLv@r~s ~hA
f!04 rhCCUgh ~h~ hOtlZOn-al SCr~Pn, ~r.~S al:o~~ng ~~-
flow and 1c~ to ~ont1n~~ sr.ca1ght 1n•o thA SldP ou~lP~
cnannPl and ~hP Cha~ac~a ~na Rlv~r, and ~h~~Pby b1-
passtng ~hP hOrlZOn~al SC[PPn thCOYgh whlCh ~hP flo~
normally passes. ~h1s sho~ld bP an accepr.ablP
?rOCPGUCP bPCaUSP thP UpS (Aa~ ~lgCantS dO nor tCaVPl
ups~rPam un~Ll af~Pr broakup occurs.
ClV = cr.annPl J-Sr cpstrPa~ of •hA downs~rPum Pr-~~aOCP
ro rhP our.lP~ fac1l1•J so r.har. thP upstcPam rn1gcan~~
~111 ~p prPVPn•Pd from PnrPcLng rho sACt.Lcn of ~~~
rlV~C bPr w ~Pn thP flSh faClllrJ and thP lakP ou ~JP~.
Any s~all 1nflow 1n~o ~hA ClVPr bP•~PPn rhA ld~A
OutlP~ and thP flS~ faC11l~lPS O~~l~t Vlll ftltPr
~hrough thP rock dtkP.
3.6 TransmLss1on LtnP and Sub~arLnP CablP
A~ ~hP prPSPnt s~agP of r.n~ pcoJPCt cPVPlopmPnr
sr.udtes, no spec1f1c PValua~LJn has bP~n ~ade of
tran~~lSSlOn llnP rour1ng . ~hPthPr dAVPJOpmPnr ShOUld
procPed v1a the proposed McArth~r or Chakacra~na PowPr-
hO-sP loca~lons, 1r 1~ ass~<Pd for rhP pUCFOSP.S of rh~
costs PStLmares ~hat ~he transmlSSlon ltnPS would run
from a s~1rchyard 1n rhP VlCLnl~Y of Pl~h~r powerhouse
Slt~ to a locat1on 1n rhP V1C1n1ry of thP ~xts r ing
Chugach Eloctclc Assocta•Lon '~ 8Aluga Pow~rplan~. 7hP
g~nPral routtng of ~h~ proposPd llnPs 1s shown on
FlgUCP 3-!3. Ar Bel~ga , an Ln~PrconnPcrLon co~ld bP
~ade ~hrough an appropr1ar~ S~ltChtng factltty w1~h
3-40
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
• •
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~ L~ .... ._cm -~---~~~~~~~==cW~~~~F=~~~~f11t ==ir =~~
L ·:
S CC TIO!JAL PL~N G) 1·-·
-------------, -·--···""""
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY _ ......
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
r •
,...,
.-.~· -t·
._. j
~ / -·· .:
o t-.u
J )t/EIITJCAI.. QATIIM IS J/116AN 'Of/1111/f
((hto .. ,.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3. 7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:h~ ~xtsrtng a~luga •r anscLSSlon !1nes 1f a cu~u~l!~
acc~r·a~:P arrangPr.Pn~ coul~ CP nPgo•La•~c ht~h ·ho
o:.~P:: o! thOSP ltnPs. Th1s would en~an~~ rol1~b1l1·7
of t .. ~ ~o·al syst"t:l , b~.o '" for purposPs o~ r:J;ts r"por•
no :.~h tn~Prconn"Crlon has bPPn a:s~.o-od. B•y· nd
~~1-~-. 1t 1s assumPd for purposPs of '"hP •s•icu•P ,
'"har r n ~ nPW rranS:O\lSSlOn l1nes for ' .. "' :! akac• l~na 0!
::cAr· ..... r ?owPchouses •..rould parall"l •.h .. "'X1s r 1n3 ,.rans-
Cl.Slwn corrtdor to a rpr~t~al on ~hP .. asrorlt Jle" of
~n1k Arm and cross t hl~ ~a•Prway by sub~ar1n~ ca~l~s
~o a ••r~1nal on thP Ancnorage SlO". 9"yond •h .-
........ .... :
:n ·~" pro]PCt al:ernattves th~s ~3r constd"rod , r•P
c-s .. os•trna ·~s ar" baSPd on pow~r cranst:llSSton vta a
pa1r of 230 KV SlnglP C lCC U l~ llnPS Wl'"h capac1r.y
ma•ch.ng rhP p~akJ.ng capabJ.ll'"f of •ht> C"'"3~"C"l .,.
povor planrs. Op•tctza •t on s•UalPS •o C"""t~lr."'
~r.Prhpr •ra nsclSStor snould b" pffec•"d 1n :na· ~ann"r
or by a stnglP lln" of doublP c1rcut• •OW"CS should bo
pPrforcod 1 n rhP tu•urP.
GtlPS , Gordon C ., Aprll 1967 .
Barr1er Glac ter Invost1gar1ons and Obse rvar1 ons
1n ConnPc r1 on wtrh Water Power S •udtPs . USGS
r ough draft rPpor•.
Jackson , Bruce~., March 1961.
Potenrtal Warpc Powor of LakP Cha~achamna, Al~ska .
USGS OpPn f11" rPpOr~.
3-45
Johnson , Ar thur , J anua r y 19 50 .
RPport on RPco nnaiss ance o f La ~P Chakachamna ,
Alaska . USGS .
Lamke , Robe r t , March 19 72 .
Floods o~ t he Summer of 1971 1n South -Cen tr al ,
Al a s k a . USGS open file re po rt .
United States Bureau of P.ec l amat 1on , 1952 .
Reconna1ssance Repo r t o n t he potent ia l
Development of Water Resou r ces 1n the Te r r 1~0 :1
of Alaska .
United States Bu r eau o f Rec la ma t ion , 19o2 .
Chakacham n a P r ojec t , Alas ka . Status Repo r t .
Unit e d States Department o f the Army , Corps of
Engineer s , 1 950
su rvey r eport on Harbo r s and RlvP r s in Alaska .
In t e r im Report No . 2 , Co o k Inle t and Tr i buta r ies .
3-46
ll
II
[I
n
ll
ll
D
0
n
D
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
I HYDROLOGICAL
I AND
I POWER STUDIES
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
·I
I
I
I
I
. I
I
I
I
I
I
4.0
4. l
HYDROLOGICAL AND POWER STUDIES
Introduct1on
River flo~ records from a gaging station are usuall y
acce~ted as tb ~ best indicator of future runoff fr o m a
~ra inage basin. The longer the period of record is ,
the more r ~l iabl~ it is assumed to be in forecasting
future runofi . For Cnakachamna Lake, the records of a
gage located near the lak e outlet cover only a
relatively short period of time, May 1~59 to September
1972. During t hat time some periods occurred du ring
which flow rates were not obta ined, reducing the
continuous record to a period dati ng from June 1959 to
August 1971.
There are no records of 1nflow to Chakachamna Lake ,
and since that information ~s needed to perform
reservoir operation 3nd power stud1es , 1nflows were
calculated for the ~ontinuous period of record by
ceve~se r ou ting of outflows and maKing appropriate
adjustments fo r changes in water levels . Calculated
inrlows for the 11 calendar years 1960 through 1970
w ~re used i n the power studies conducted during 1981
for. Alterndtes A , B, C and D .
In orde r to develop a longer series of inflows to
Chakachamna Lake, the lake inflows were statistically
correlated wi th hydrometeorological r ecords f r om oth~r
stations. Us1ng the resulting correlation, inflows
were calculated to produce a total period of Jl years
of recordea and synthesized records. That 31 -year
sequ ence was used to determine the energy-generating
potential for the recommenced pro]ect , Alternative E ,
du ri ng the stud1es conducted during fiscal year 1982.
4 -1
4.2 Historical Data
Hydrometeorological data from several stations in the
Cook Inlet Basin were used for the de~ivation and
extension of estimated lake inflow records.
Streamflow records included t he following furnished by
u. s. Geological Survey:
Station No.
15294500
15284000
15284300
15292000
~escription
Chakachatna River near Tyonek
( the l a k e out 1 e t g ag e)
Matanuska River near Palmer
Skwentna River near Skwentna
Susitna Riv er a t Gold Creek
Gaging Station No. 15294500 is located on the right
bank of the Chakachatna River close to the outlet o f
Chakachamna Lake. The gage records include 13 years
and 5 months from May 21, 1959 to September 30, 1972.
The gage however, was destroyed by a lake outbreak
flood on August 12, 1971 and the records between that
date and June 20, 1972 are estimated rather than
recorded flows. Thus, the period of actual recvrd
extends only from May 21, 1959 to August 12, 1971 and
from June 20, 1972 to September 30, 1972.
Furthermore, during that period, several of the
winter-month flows were estimated because of ic i ng
conditions and instrument failure. Inaccurate winter
records are not a serious engineeri n g concern, because
only 1~% of the average annual flow normally occurs
during the seven months from November through May.
4-~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
In addition to the streamflow data, records of the
water surface elevation at Station No. 15294500 were
also obtained from the u. S. Geological Survey in
Anchoraq e.
Available meteorological data consist of daily
temperature and precipitation data obtained from the
u. s. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
National Climatic Center, Ashville, N.C. for stations
at Kenai, Anchorage, and Sparrevohn.
Th~ locatLons of these three meteorological stations
are shown on Figure 4-1. A bar chart sho~ing the
periods of record for these stations is plotted on
Figure 4-2.
Derived Lake Inflows
Ch akachamna Lake with its surface area of about
26-square miles stores runoff and provides natural
regulation of flow t o the Chakachatn a R iver. In ord e r
to derive a record of inflows to the lake, the
regulating effects of the lake were removed from the
outflow records using a rever.se r outing procedure
which uses the basic continuity equation
It -ot = As
Where
It is the inflow volume during month t
Ot i~ the outflow volume during month t
6 s is the change in lake storage during month t
For all practical considerations, the Ch akachatna
River near Tyone~ gage is, in effect, located at th e
lake outlet and field observations confirmed that gage
4-3
readings closely represent the lake water-surface
elevation. Hence, it was assum~d for th~ rev~rse
routing computations that the two were the same.
Evaporation, seepage and other losses ot water from
the lake were assumed to be small and effectively
compensated for by direct precipitation onto th~ lake
surface.
The lake stage-storage curve used in the computations
is shown on Figure 4-3. This is based on data
measured by the USGS and recorded on the USGS m~ps
Chakachatna River and Chakachamna La~e Sheets 1 and 2,
dated 1960.
Average monthly inflows w~re calculated for the period
June l, 1959 through August 31, 1971, and are
presented in Table 4-1. The calculated inflows for
the 11 calend ar years January 1, 1960 through December
31, 1970 were used in the power studies for Alternates
A, B, C and D of the project layouts during 1981.
4.4 Synthesis of Long-Term Lake Inflows
In order to develop a long-t~rm estimate of
energy-production, methods for extending the inflow
record were investigated. Transposition of records
from other rivers in the region, correlation with
m~teorological data from nearby long-term statio ns,
and combinations of both, were studied using
regression analysis .
4 -4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
z
%
0 > w a:
a:
~
II)
.~
: 1 I,' I . .. " ~ ~ ."'
.;. :, '''-•'"'
..... , .....
........ '"":........... ...... '" . ''"'""• ............. -.... _ .. 6 ....... _ ...... _ .. _. ........ , -·;.: ..................... --·
STATION OROLOGIC AL HYDROMETELOCATIONS
FIGURE 4 -l
-------------------
Chakachatna River J un 59 Sept 72
At Lake Outlet I _j
Matanuaka River Hay 49 Sept 73
At Palmer L
Suaitna River Aug 49 Sept 80
At Gold Creek
Skvent ·• Itilft!r Oc t 59 Sept 80
Near ~~~. .. entna
Temp. & Precip. Aug 48 Dec 80
At Kenai
Nov 5 3 Dec 80 Temp . & Precip. [ At Anchorage
I J u ly 51 De c 70 Temp. & Precip . ~ At Sparrevo hn t:l ,.,
0
;::~ ,., ... ..., Ht"
00 H ~~ (")
l QSO 1960 19 70 1980 ~ ob
'"10
~ H
I ~~ N nr
0
eg~
> ...
H
0
~
til
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I '
I
I
I
I
... , ..
..3
§
:i "' ~~ t;l
~~
~ -.. c > ~
"'
AREA I N THOUSANDS OF ACRES
2 8 26 24 22 20 l8 16 ,. 12 10 8 6 4 2 0
1260
..... r----... v ./"' 1210 ........... r-..... v !'...... / 1160 ............... ~ v
1110
/ v' 1060 v ~ 1 010 v \ CAP ~/
t60 r -\ / AREA
910
I/ 'r-.. 86 0
I "' " 81 0 1/ !'-. 1--7600 t--
1000 2 0 00 3000 4 000 5000 6 000 7 00 0
CAPACITY IN THOU~ANDS OF ACRE-FEET
,..
tHAIACIWIIA
I.ME
MEA I CAPACITY DATA
£LEV. AREA CAPACITY
ti.S.L. 1• ACII£S AU£ FEET
760 0 0
765 810 2,025
770 1,300 7,300
780 2,690 27 ,200 aoo 5,670 111 ,000
20 7 ,32 0 241,000
40 8,270 397,000
60 9,280 572,000
80 10,400 769 ,000
too 11,590 988,000
20 11 ,96 0 1 ,224 ,000
40 12,320 1,467,000
60 12 ,650 1,717,000
80 12,980 1,973,000
1000 13,280 2,236 ,000
20 13,520 2,504,000
40 13,740 2,776,000
60 13 ,96 0 3,053,000
80 14 ,170 3 ,33 5 ,000
11 00 14,390 3,620,000
?.0 14,620 3 ,91 0 ,00 0
40 16,100 4,2i8,00Q I
42 16,780 4,250,000
60 18,250 4,572 ,000
80 19 ,900 4 ,953,000
1200 22 ,956 5 ,382,000
20 24,104 5,852 ,000
40 26 ,038 6,354 ,000
-
OIAKACIIAKNA LAI<.E
LA1<.E STACE-AAEA AII O CAPACITY
rx c;vu: 4-3
- ------ --- - ---- -- --
IAUll ~ I
lA~l tttAI.AUWIHA INflOll~ (th)
Jl y AU C. s rP OCI <j OY O(C II ( A II
tr &A .., .. ,, rrtt "AR lP~ I'll JU 't
.,.~q. I ~' llti, 1101 · )"fa='· I S 70. ~s ~. '!>06 ·
' ··Jq II Q'l , 'I \) I , J I • '!1. I • )'I, 199 . 1110 . 3220 .
\ ,) J. f , • ,q'. ·~)'. ,,. ) , .
E.'"•. Hf> I • 1"~0 • Ol . 17POII . I 08'19 . f,?;?'). 1"81>. &•l ·
'7 0 .. l•E.. l" A I • 1'!11). l'!>9C .
: "" 1411. • flf). Ill• 9 . IC•II· '>'H2 o I I" 1 . ef•l · f. I) •
'J ~ l • • II • •1 1'. llE.'!I. 7q2~. II 0. l~ar . I l~l hl \. 2 ~ .... 'llO . \ I 1 • I • 0 I • • I l., • I '1• 'I • 1.>?01\. ~a •r.
I "b' tt'lt4 . . .. '. II '> • '10'1 . 61>2 . ,. 2 •• . ,. I H H • R 0'1 I, I 0100 . 111'11\. •1 •6 · '1• ...
l"h• \6 ... ' \S •
,,,,
I )I •«> • 10'>11>· I OI'Ol'. 211•. ~'II • •M .. lf.o l •
I Of,-. •1 1'.1. 11'1 . ))1. .l'lll • I ?8& • l•'IO . I <)'!I I • 9 I 0 . 11 3 . , ... '1 .
• I 0 • I P 'Il . 1\1111 . 1~.•os . ,,q ,.. 6601\. .... l"'tJf. :.~fl . ! ''.
~., 0 .
61?1 · lOoO. 1 21!>. ~ 71 . .. , .
I ~~o. ''·) J . II lid. I •") I • I'>C>'l'l .
~~~, 1tll . , .. '}. l n •' I 17'11. 2 J'l). ? lb. t.a?. 1-12 · l'!IH . .....
• f. I • I l 0. ?'1: 'Je. • Jot? II . 1'111 • ll9~. ..... ~"""' ~>l·. 5 I 0, ,, .. ,, ' ..... , . I 11 !1 . ~H . . ,,...,. f) !)1 . 1 ,,. ". '4 :-, 1 • 1; • 1 n. 1?'11 . 2 "2'1 • 1' ,,,., ~ 6'•. •flL · '. 2 . •r.o .
H~1. ?ll">· f I*"' •• • ~~·r.o . l'41i ~. 2 I 30 . 1 .) 'J ••
l''ln '~ i. .. 0 •• I ..... •
., • I • I • • l , 1'-• • b) • I }I 1. • l • ' "' . lf>HI J ,
1 o /I )0•.
snt •· I I :0 I '>. ')(,41q . '"""· ,, .. ~fl!), HOb • ._ • 7 • 1 • I • 7Jt'l'.
~~ ... O,J). .. ' ' . 4 I \ •
ExamLnation of the tnflows to Cha ~achamn~ Lake 1n
T·:tOl<!! 4-l, tno1cateo tnat, for th1s wat'!!rsn'!!o, tn'!!
hydrolog1cal year (water year) should be d~ttned as
the perir>d from May to April to ml.nl.mll;'!! th<!! overal i
oasin-storaqe effects. 'I'he majority of th-e lait!"
tnflow, 93• ot the annual runoff volume, occ~rs ourtnq
May through October, wntle flow recession starts in
Novemoer. Flows recorde~ at th~ lake outlet trom
November to May were, in general, esttmated by OSGS
personnel ustng personal JUdgmGnt oecause 1ce cover
prevented proper function 1.ng of the stage recorder
durtng that pertoo. Tne a~curacy of the recoro~
winter streamtlow 1s, th~refore, quesLtonaole, but
esttmated t otal outflow volume dvrtng the low-flow
wtnter months lS thougnt to be reasonable. Becaus-e OL
thetr dtfferent nyorologtc r:naractert1>ttcs, tt was
aecioed that regression analyses should be performed
sepa rately for the pertoos, May to Octob~r, ano
November to Apol. In so doing, the l-ess-accurate
~ontnly-flow esttmates tor tne •tnter perlod •ould not
unduly influence calculattons for flo-s durtnq the
remainder ot each year.
The tntttal selection of tndepenoent vartabl~s to OG
us~ tn the regre sston analyses wa s oaseo on tne
lengths of t ~e avatlable hydrometeorologic records 1n
trH~ r~ ton, .os well as toe potent tal phystcal
relat1 ons:.1p wtth the tnflow reg tme of La><e
C";al(acnamna. Stnc~ Chal(acnamna La><e ts glacially-f~a,
a heat-input 1ndox, such as monthly degree-days above
32°F recor~~a at Kena1 and Anchorage, could oe an
1mportant 1ndependent variable. Monthly streamflow
records from nenroy watersneds ~nLch are constder~d to
have hydrol~Lc ctaract~ristLcs SlmLlar to tnat of tn~
.;-1 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chakachamna basin were also incorporated in the
study. These include the streamflows of Matanuska
River at Palmer, Susitna River at Gold Creek and
Skwentna River near Skwentna. In addition, monthly
precipitation at Kenai and Anchorage were also
considered. The final selection of the independent
variables used for the lake-inflow synthesis was based
on the results of the preliminary analyses.
The final regressi0n analyses were performed
systematically using different combinations of the
pre-selected independent variables in a step-wise
regression-analysis program (Bechtel TM 750). The
regression equations obtained were evaluated on the
basis of probable physical relationships to
topographic, meteorological and hydrologic conditions
as well as the computed level of statistical
significance of the correlation. It was found that
for both the high and low-flow periods, May to October
and November to April respectively, the monthly
streamflow records for the Matanuska River at Palmer
correlate well with the historical monthly Chakachamna
lake inflows. The regression equations obtained were:
May -October : QLake = 5~5.0 + 0.8967 QPalmer
November -April: Q = 265 3 + 0 4597 Q Lake • • Palmer
Correlation coefficients for these two regression
equations were found to be 0.89 and 0.40 respectively
and are well within the 95 percent significance
level. However, the Matanuska gage was discontinu~d
in September of 1973. Another set of regression
equations was therefore required for the flow
synthesis for the period after September 1973. New
4-13
correlation studies were performed. It was found that
record~d streamflows for Skwentna River near Skwentna
were a good substitute for those at the Matanuska
gage. The regression equations obtained were:
May -October: QLake = 674.67 + 0.5233 QSK
November -April: QLake = 283.27 + 0.2690 QSK
The correlation coefficients for these two regression
equations were found to be 0.73 and 0.45 respectively
and are well within th~ 95 perc~nt significanc~ level.
The correlation coefficients for th~ regressiv n
equations for the low-flow season are relativ~ly low.
This was to be expectea, because, as discussed
earlier, streamflow values for this period were known
to be inaccurate since they had to b~ estimated by
personn~l from the u.s. Geological Survey on the basis
of regional streamflow aata and/or personal judgment
because of frequent malfunctioning of gages during
winter. However, the streamflow volume in this period
represents only about 7 percent of the total annual
runoff volume. Because the operation study used
monthly flow volumes, i n accuracies inherent in the
flow synthesis for the winter months do not
significantly affect the overall accuracy of the study
and the respective regression equations are therefore
regarded as acceptable for use in the derivation of
th~ long-term streamflow record. Table 4-2 presents
the lake inflows synthesized by using th~se equations
and the reverse-routing procedure. The 31 year
sequence of inflows includes the June 1959 through
August 1971 inflows calculated by revers~-routing of
outflows plus the May 1949 through May 1959 and the
4-14
.. -----lliiiiiil iiiil .... .... -------TABLE 4-2
CHAKACHANNA PROJECT OPERATION STUDY
H/H,H&CF ,OE CHTEL CIVIL&MINERALS INC .. SF .
PROJECT 14879001 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY OAT£ 11783 I' AGE 3
ALTERNATIVE E : MCARTHUR SHORT TUNNEL , WllH FISfl RELEASES
INFLOWS TO THE LAKE IN CFS
YEAR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR AVEYR CALVA
1 4513 . 10728 . 15220. 11615. 6305 . 2689 . 802. 636 . 542 . 4811 . 493 . 54 t. 4541 . 1950
2 2055 . 8572 . 13194 . 10548 . 4521. 1761. 569 . 532 . 495 . 4 72 . 450 . 631. 3650 . 1951
3 3801 . 10719. 13095 . 8831. 8635 . 3216 . 842 . 699 . 630 . 495. 467 . 510 . 4321 . 1952
4 2027 . 8204 . 12575 . 9431 . 3562 . 2 7 12 . 865 . 642 . 523 . 477 . 477 . 641. 351 1 . 1953
5 3992 . 13247 . 13355 . 10808 . 4505 . 2002 . 6 :!9 . 550 . 527 . 472 . 458 . 54 t. 4257 . 1954
6 3434 . 9002 . 12091 . 12046 . 6075 . 2787 . 755 . 619 . 578 . 507 . 466. 487 . 4071 . 1955
7 2193 . 6826. 12996 . 9983 . 5 068 . 1988. 595 . !l32 . 504 . 475 . 449 . 496 . 3509 . 1958
8 2936 . 7475 . 14601 . 10235 . 5940 . 2053 . 583 . 565 . 569 . 536 . 505 . 598 . 3883 . 1957
9 4393 . 14817. 13149 . 10405 . 6910 . 2707 . 793 . 562 . 569 . 510. 489 . t575 . 4665. 1958
10 2496. 9930 . 10163 . 8691 . 3452 . 1896 . 526 . 483 . 426 . 468 . 44'3 . 526 . 3292 . 1959
t1 3120. 9459 . 10388 . 11731 . 3662 . 1370 . 654 . 508 . 400 . 307 . 267 . 393 . 3522 . 1960
12 3637 . 6837 . 11209 . 9337 . 3145 . 1439 . 799 . 870 . 877 . 5U . 470 . 346 . 3296 . 1961
13 1881 . 7983. 12808 . 10899 . 6225 . 1586 . 843 . 696 . 633 . 541. 471. 470 . 3753. 1962
14 1265 . 7925 . 13149 . 10411 . 5542 . 1197 . 863 . 613 . 498 . 357 . 315 . 337 . 3539 . 1963
15 1801 . 4735. 13249 . 12208 . 5847 . 2086 . !1 30 . 710. 364 . 43'5 . 332 . 477 . 3598 . 1964
16 1830 . 8093 . 10700. 11798 . 4246 . 1245 . 909. 662 . 419 . 219 . 337 . 398 . 3405 . 1965
17 1286 . 3490 . 11633 . 11929 . 10802 . 2114 . 597 . 466 . 388 . 336 . 350 . 410 . 3650 . 1966 .. 11 1893 . 8072 . 10303 . 9974 . 6608 . 1953 . 910 . 313 . 53t. 449 . 384 . 180 . 3523 . 1967 • 19 2030 . 8761 . 14931 . 15695. 6191 . 2040 . 1215 . 571. 534 . 510. 467 . 630 . 4465 . 1968 .....
1.11 20 2996 . 7808 . 13117 . 11257. 2793 . 976 . 689 . 612 . 485 . 486 . 500 . 652 . 3531 . 1969
21 1948 . 9271 . 12478 . 7297 . 2793 . 3057 . 1215 . 601 . 497 . 504 . 550 . 899 . 3426 . 1970
22 2 265 . 6789 . 10360 . 7986 . 2734 . 1359 . 742 . 460 . 394 . 441 . 513 . 1275. 2943 . 197 1
23 4063 . 12672 . 13695 . 16680. 5075 . 3181. 1090 . 736 . 581. 531. 4 92 . 479 . 4940 . 1972
24 3468 . 8228 . 13490. 9263 . 5012 . 2396 . 679 . 514 . 495 . 492 . 480 . 586 . 3759 . 1973
25 2131 . 7457. 8850 . 7809 . 2794 . 2527 . 740 . 623 . 5 5 8 . 526 . 501 . 5 5 4 . 2923 . 1974
26 4215. 6248 . 6781 . 6159 . 6850 . 3059 . 909 . 530 . 498 . 485 . 485 . 489 . 3059 . 1975
27 4784 . 10649 . 10889. 6802 . 5107 . 3136 . 814 . 622 . 544 . 5:24 . 498 . 625 . 3750 . 1976
28 5283 . 8587 . 8304 . 6494 . 4947 . 3917 . 1058. 1055 . 10 44 . 773 . 606 . 606 . 3556 . 1977
29 5335 . 19864 . 13898 . 11224 . 6059 . 3709 . 9::!2 . 700. 6 0 9 . 5 3 7 . 509 . 558 . 5327 . 1978
30 5387 . 7917 . 10146 . 7865 . 4513 . 3258 . 708 . 701. 597 . 56:<. 547 . 713 . 3576 . 1979
31 6776 . 8514 . 8958 . 9157 . 4572 . 4471 . 1412 . 882 . 762 . 718 . 647 . 810 . 3973 . 1980
MEAN 3201 . 8996 . 11928 . 10147 . 5177 . 2383 . 828 . 621. 551. 491. 485 . 588 . 3781 .
MAX 6776 . 19864 . 15220 . 16680 . 10802 . 4471 . 1412 . 1055 . 1044 . 773 . 647 . 1275 . 5327 .
... IN 1265 . 3490 . 6781 . 6159 . 2734 . 976 . 526 . 313 . 364 . 219 . 267 . 3 37 . 2923 .
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.5
September 1971 through April 1979 inflows calculated
from the regression equations.
Power Studies
During the 1981 project stuaies four basic alternative
project layouts were developed and designated
Alternatives A, B, C and ~ as described in Section 3.3
of this report. Power studies also performed during
1~81 for these four alternates were based on the 11
complete calendar years (January 1, 1960 through
December 31, 1970} of Chakachamna Lake inflow set
forth in Table 4-l. During the 1982 studies, the
recommended Alternative E, also described in Section
3.3, was developed, as was the 31 year sequence of
inflow to Chakachamna Lake which was used during the
1982 power studies for each of the alternatives A
through E. The power operation studies were performed
to determine generated firm and secondary energy, flow
releases, and the fluctuations in the water surface
elevation of Chakachamna Lake for a ranqe of installed
capacities for each of the five project alternatives.
The studies were made using a computer program that
performs sequential routing of the derived monthly
inflows while satis_fying power demands, projected
in-stream flow requirements, and physical system
constraints. Power demands were in accordance with a
plant load factor of 0.5, and the monthly variations
in peak demand listed in Table 4-3. As advised by
APA, these demands are those being used in the
evaluation of sources of power alternative to that of
the Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project.
The in-stream flow requirements, listed in Table 4-4,
represent provisional minimum monthly flows to be
4-16
TABLE 4-3
MONTHLY PEAK POWER DEMANDS USED IN POWER STUDIES
MONTH
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
MONTHLY PEAK DEMAND
(Percent of Annual Peak D~mand)
92
87
78
70
64
62
61
64
70
80
92
100
Sourc~: Susitna Hydroelectric Project D~velopment Selection
Report Appendix D, Table D.l (Second Draft, July 1981)
4-17
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
0
TA C.LE 4-4
PROVISIONA L MINIMUM RELEASES FOR INSTREAM FLOW IN
CHAKACHATNA RIVER DOWNSTEEAM FROM CHAKACHAMNA
LAKE OUTLET FOR USE IN POWER STUDIES
MONTH MC ARTHUR TUNNEL CHAK\CHATNA TUNNEL
DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT
ALTERNATIVE B&E ALTERNATIVE D
(CFS)* (CFS)
January 365 30
February 343 30
March 345 30
April 536 30
May 1,094 30
June 1,094 30
July 1,094 30
August 1,094 30
September 1,094 30
October 365 30
November 365 30
December 360 30
*Use the average monthly inflow to the lake (CFS) or the figure
listed whichever has the lower value.
4-18
released into the Chakachatna Ri v er near the lake
outle t as further discus sed in Sections 7.3.2 and
7.3.3 of this report.
The physical system constra b ts, s e t f orth in Table
4-5, are the overall plant ef f iciency, tailwater
elevation, an·d head loss ·tor the hydraulic conduits.
In the power studies water was drafted from lake
storage ~henever the monthly inflows were insufficient
to meet the power demand. It was assumed that spill,
or discharge of wat e r from the lake into the
Chakachatna River in excess of the tentative instream
requir~me n ts would occur wh enever the lake water lev el
exceeded elevation 1,128 feet, for alternatives A
through o, and 1155 for alternative E. Th e secondary
energy is that which can be generated by plant
~apaci~y in excess of that needed to meet the load
carrying capability, using water which otherwise would
have spilled.
For each of the alternatives considered for
development of the project, a range of installed
powerplant capacities was tested in order to establish
the installed capacity that would make the most use of
all water available for power generat i on without
drawing the lake level below a given minimum
elevation. This minimum was taken as elevation 1,014
feet for alternatives A through 0 and elevation 1,085
for alternative E respectively. The lake was assumed
to be full at the beginning of each run.
4.6 Results
The results of the power stud i es listed in Table 4-6
show that, on the basis of the 11 calendar years of
4-19
TABLE 4-5
POWERPLANT SYSTEM CONSTRAINTS FOR
ALTERNATIVE PROJECT DEVELOPMENTS
ALTERNATIVE PLANT PLANT
A
8
c
D
E
EFFICIENCY FACTOR
(%)
85 0.50
85 0.50
85 0.50
85 0.50
85 0.45
AVERAGE
TAILWATER
ELEVATION
(FT.)
210
210
400
400
210
Note: Q = Flow in cubic feet per second.
4-20
HEAD LOSS IN
HYDRAULIC CONDUITS
(FT.)
0.0000024 X Q2
0.0000024 X Q2
0.0000028 X Q2
0.0000028 X Q 2
0.0000024 X Q2
• I
N ....
TABLE 4··6
POWER STUDIES SUMMARY
Development Installed Average Annual Energy Avera~e Annual Plow
Alternative Capacity Firm Secondary Power Diversion Provisional Spill
A
B
c
0
E
Note:
(MW) (GWh) (GWh) (CPS) Instream (CPS)
400 1752 153 3263 0
330 1446 124 2658 675
300 1314 139 3149 0
300 1314 139 3155 30
330 1301 293 2273 675
Period of record January 1, 1960 to December 31, 1970
Average annual inflow to Chakachamna Lake 3547 cfs (2.6 million AP)
Alternatives A, B -Development via McArthur tunnel
Alternatives C & D -Development via Chakachatna tunnel
Period of record May 1, 1949 to April 30, 1979
Average annual inflow to Chakachamna Lake 3781 cfs (2.7 million AP)
Alternative E -Development via McArthur Tunnel
(CPS)
585
507
695
661
881
Power diversion flows are the flows needed to meet firm energy requirements.
Spill is the difference between average annual inflow to Chakachamna Lake and the
sum of power diversion plus provisional instream flows.
Part of the spill can be used for the generation of secondary energy .
I
I
I
I
I
inflow, and with the parameters used in the studies,
the optimum development via the McArthur Tunnel could
support a powerplant of 400 MW installed capacity when
all controlled water is used for power generation as
in Alternative A. At 50% plant factor, this provides
an average annual 1,752 GWh of firm energy . The
provisional instream flow requirements of Alternative
B discussed in Section 7 .3.2 of this report represent
about 19% of the average annual flow in the
Chakachatna River during the period of record. If
that amount of water is reserved for ins t ream flow,
the installed capacity of powerplant that could be
justified at the McArthur River would be reduced to
330 MW and the firm average annual energy would be
1446 GWh.
For development via the Chakachatna tunnel, the optimum
power development using all controlled water for power
generation, Alternative C, would have an installed
capacity of 300 MW and firm annual average energy
would be 1314 GWh for a 50% plant factor. The
provisional minimum instream flow reservations in
Alternative D, discussed in Section 7.3.3 of this
report, represent less than 1% of the average annual
flow during the period of record. Thus, the installed
capacity and firm energy in Alternative D for
practical purposes would remain the same. There would
however be about 15% reduction in the amount of
secondary energy that could be generated.
Alternatives A through D cannot firmly support the
capacities determined from the 11 years of inflow
during the 1981 studies and the recommended
Alternative E cannot firmly support 330 MW at 50%
plant factor due to two consecutive dry years
(1973-74) that occur during the 31 years of
4-22
correlated lake inflow. These two years do not occur
in the 11 calendar years (1960-1970) of inflow used in
the 1981 power studies for Alternates A through D and
some additional analyses should be made in future
studies of the project. Using the 31 years of inflow,
and 330 MW installed capacity, Alternate E could
produce 1301 GWh at 45% load factor.
4.7 Variations in Lake Water Lev el
The variations in lake water-surface elevation
calculated at the end of the month during the course
of the power studies for each of the five alternatives
and cases listed in Table 4-6 are shown in the
computer output included in the Appendix to Section
4.0, and are also plotted in Figures ~-4 and 4-5.
4-23
.---··----------,,40 r-t
\
\"
I I 20
~ IICO
w
uJ
u.
z
2
0 -
1080
~ ~ I O<DO _,
w
I I
\ I ~--L
' ,.~ I
':<. \040 -r---
6.. I
..J
tvZO
·-____..~ -__ _.-
U. I G,2
···-------
-----. ___ .. -·· ------------
·---------.-
i
t ·
i
I
I
I.
~+
·~
I
~5
I I
'v
\1 .,
-. I
rs.7
r E. r ' · ..-1
\' ' '-' A L N 0 A.~-_: -::. :_. -::.__
---· ----~L\t.R N f,T '· IE.
___ .,._.------
--··-····-·--·.
I
I
I
. I
' I
G.9 1970
... -·-. -------. -·--.
t-w
UJ
(J.
z
I l
0 -~ ~
aJ
-' ul
w
~
~ _.
·iliil iii .. iiiil -- - - - - - - - -
I \40 ·-r-·--r-~·-~·-·---· ----1 I I
I I 2.0 r-D ---~ ~l ~ ~ ~ ~ (\ ll n
---,__.. -
I \
1100 r--
1080 -~-
1 oc;,o
l040
l020
rooo
19~
--...
~
~I
I I
--·-
I i
----
I I
\ \ \ \
~ \ ~
<D2 (o3 <o4 ~5 ~'"
CALENDAR YEAR
ALTERNAT\\/E. C
------Al. T I:.R t· .. AT \V E. 0
\ \
1
-f--
61 1970
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GEOLOGIC
INVESTIGATIONS
I
I
I 5 .0
:..J..
I
5 . 1.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GEOLOGIC ItiVESTIGA':'IO!IS
Scope of Geo l o gic Investi g ations
7ech nical Tasks
The scope o f the geologic investigati on ~ ?!anne~ for the
Ch akachaQna Hydr o electric ?r oj ect Fea si c i:icy St ~GJ
incl u des five tec hn ical t usk s :
Ill Qu aternary geology ,
(2) Se is Qic geol ogy ,
(3) Tunnel alignment and pow erplant s ite geology ,
(4 ) Co nstr uc ti on mater ia ls geo l o gy , and
(5 ) Road a nd transmissi on line geo l og y .
These tasks we re i d entified and scopes defi ne d so that ,
upon conpletion of t he investigati o ns , the inf o r Qa ti o n
naeded t o a ssess t he potential i mpact of a range o f
geologic factors on the feasibility of t he pr o posed
pr o ject \;ill be available . If the Chakachamna Project is
j u dged to be feasi b le , additional geol ogic in v estigati ons
wi ll be requ ir ed subseque n t to the feasibi li t y study in
o r der to pr o vide t he detailed inf o rmati on appr op riate f o r
actual desig n .
At the fea s ibilit y level , it i s app r op r iate to gather
info r mation r egar d in~ the ge neral character of t he
geol og ic e n vironment in and ar ou nd the project area , with
particular attentio~ to geol o gic h azards and the geol o gy
5 -l
5.1.1.1
of specific facilities siting locations. The Chakachamna
Project, as presently conceived , does not incl ude
facilitits such as large dams t hat would in cr ease the
risks associated wit h geologic hazards that arc na:u rally
present in the project area. The geologic tasl~s ~ere
planned in recognition of the above and were designed to
focus on geologic factors that may influence the
technical feasibility, the operating reliabilit y , and /or
the cost of the proposed project.
The work on the geology tasks began in August 1 921 but
the majority of t h e work will take place in f~ture
feasibility level investigations. This report includes a
summary of the work planned for the geologic investi -
gations (Section 5.1.1) and the schedule for each geology
task (Section 5.1 .2 ), summaries of the work completed for
the Quaternary geology (Section 5.2) and seismic geology
(Section 5.3) tasks, and some preliminary commentary on
geologic conditions in the project area in Sectio n 7.0.
The commentary and any tentative conclusions presented
here are subject to revision as the project work
continues in the future.
Quaternary Geology
The Quaternary geology task was designed to include an
assessment of the glaciers and glacial history of the
Chakachamna Lake area, an investigation of the Mt. Spurr
and associated volcanic centers, and a study of the slope
conditions near sites proposed for project facilities.
A study of the glaciers was judged to be appropriate
because:
5-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(l)
( 2 )
{ 3)
movement of the ter~in u s of Barrier Glacier
influences the uater level in Chakacha~na Lake
and any structures to be built near the lake
outlet:
the possibi l ity that changes in the terminal
position of Blockade Glacier could alter the
drainage at the mouth of t~e McArthur River
Canyon: and
questions regarding the influence of other
glaciers in the st udy area on the size and
hydrologic balance of Chakachamna Lake.
In addition, knowledge of t he ages of geo~orphic surfaces
is important to the assessment of possible seismic
hazards and such knowledge depends on an understanding of
the glacial geology .
The simple presence of Mt. Spurr , an·active volcano, at
the eastern end of Chakach~mna Lake provides a clear
rationale for investigating the volcanic history and
potential volcanic hazards of the project area . Of
particular interest is the possibility that lava flows or
volcanic mudflows (a possibility increased by the glacier
ice on Mt. Spurr) could enter the lake and produce large
waves, an increase in lake level, a n d/or a change in
conditions at the lake outlet or on the upper reaches of
the river. In addition, the possible impact of a dark,
heat-absorbing layer of volcanic ejecta on the glaciers'
mass balance, and thus the lake 's hydrologic balance is
of interest.
S-3
5.1.1.2
Chakachamna Lake, Chakachatna River Canyon, and McArthur
River Can yo n are all bc r d ereci by steep slopes that may be
subject to a variet y of types o Z slope failure. A large
landslide into t he la ke cou l d c ha ng~ the usable volume of
water stored in the la ~e and co u ld a lte r conditions at
the proposed lake tap and at t he na~u r al outlet from t h e
lake. Potential outlet ~c:tal and surface powe rhouse
sites in the river can yo ns a re a l l on or imnediately
adjacent to steep slopes. Oo t h t h e in t~grity of and
access to these facilities could be i np aired in the event
of landslide and r o c kfall ac ~:vity.
Because of the conc ern s ~:.J~~~ta~ ~b~~e , t~e Qu aternar y
geology task was design2J ~~ inv~s ti~ate t h e tining and
size of past glacial fl~c t u ati Gns , t h e frequency and type
of volcanic activity, and tte s lope cond itio ns in order
to provide an estimate of possible fut~r e events that
could influence the costs and o per ating performance of
the proposed hydroelectric ~r o j~c t . In adj ition, this
task should provide informa t i on regarding the possibility
of the project destabilizing the lake outlet by producing
or allowing changes in Barrier Glacier.
Seismic Geology
The seismic geology of the Chakachamna Lake area is of
interest because southern Alaska is one of the most
seismically active areas in the world. Potential seismic
hazards of direct concern to the proposed hydro~lectric
project include surface faulting, ground shaking,
seismically-induced slope failure, lake seiche, and
liquefaction. Specifically, the seismic geology task was
designed to investi~ate t he possibility of active faults
in the immediate vicinity of the proposed facilities, to
5-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
assess the location and activity of regional faults
(e.g ., Castle Mountain, B:uin Bay), an~ to estimate t h e
type and intensity of seis~ic hazards that may be
associated with these faults and with the subduction zone.
The seismic geology investigations were planned to ~axi
mize the use of existing information by following a
sequence of subtasks that become increasingly site
specific as the work proceeds. The pri~ary elements in
the sequence are:
o literature review
o remote sensing i~agery analysis
0 field reconnaissance
0 low-sun -angle air photo acquisition and analysis
0 detailed field studies
The data produced by the above sequence is required to
assess directly the surface faulting hazard and for input
to the probabilistic assessment of ground ~otion para-
meters.
In order to develop approximate ground ~otion spectra for
the various elements of the project, existing ground
motion information developed for oth~r projects in
souther n Alaska will be reviewed and modified, as
approp r iate. A simplified evaluation of the liquefaction
potential of the transmission line alignment should also
be carried out.
s-s
5.1.1.3
5.1.1.4
Tunnel Alignment and Powerplant Site Geology
The s~ope o f wo rk for this task should be based on the
need to ass ess the feasibility of constructing a lake tap
in Chakachamna Lake, a long tunnel, and a powerhouse as
the primary components of the proposed hydroelectric
development. Because of the steep mountainous terrain
abo v e the tunnel alignment, the tunnel feasibility study
should be planned around the mapping of bedrock exposures
in the mountains and production of a strip map: drilling
would be li mit ed to the powerhouse site during the feasi-
bility i nvestig ations. The strip map should focus on
t~ose bedroc!~ characteristics that determine the
t echn ical and economic feasibility of tunnelling.
Geophysical techniques should be used to assess the lake
bottom bedrock and sediment characteristics at and near
the proposed lake tap and subsurface condit1ons at the
proposed powerhouse site.
All reasonably possible surface powerplant and outlet
portal sites are on or adjacent to high, steep slopes.
Hazards such as landslides, rockfalls, and avalanches,
which are a particular concern in seismically active
areas, should be assessed during the feasibility study.
Construction Materials Geology
The proposed Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project will, if
constructed, require aggregate for concrete, road con-
struction, and construction of the transmission line. In
addition, rockfill will be required for the low dike at
the lake outlet and boulder rip-rap may be required at
the outlet portal and outfall from the powerhouse. This
task should be planned to yield information about
potential
5-6
I
I
I
I 5.1.1.5
I
I
I
I
I 5 .1. 2
I
I
I
I 5.1.2.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
aggregate sources at the powerhouse-outlet portal site,
along t he road, and along the transm i3 s i on lir.e align~ent .
Road and Transmission Line Geology
r~ologic considerations will be im po rt a ~~ in t te
assessment of the road and transmi ss i on line routes.
This task will use aerial photograph analy s is and
reconnaisdance-level field studies in o~der to p rovi ce
infor~ation on the general character of t he alignmenc s .
The task plans should give partic~l a : at te nt i ~n to ri ~e r
crossings, which may be s u bject to l a :se ~::( ~.:, ~~~ t c
wetland areas where special construe': :o r. :-.•::·~:: -.:. --·..:~s r.i a~·
be req u ired.
Schedule
The 1981 geologic field program did not co nnence u ntil
late August that year and was therefore relativel y
limited in scope, covering only the Quaternary geo logy
and part of t h e seismi c geology tasks. Future
investigations should concentrate on t~e remaining
geologic tasks as discussed below .
Quaternary Geology
All of the Quaternary geology field studies were either
of a regional nature or directed at targets that would
not vary as a function of final configuration of the
project facilities. Therefore, it was possible to
complete th e field work planned for this task. Some
additional review of unpublished data, such as that held
by the U.S. Geological Survey in Fai·rbanks, and
d1scussions with geologists who have worked in the
5-7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5.1.2.4
5.1.2.5
Construction Materials Geolog7
The wo rk .for this task w~!l be cond u cted during future
feasibility study work .
Road and Trans~issi o n Line Geology
The work for this task will be conducted during future
feasibility study work.
Qu aternary Geology
The Quate rnar y , ap p roxi ~ate l y the last 2 million years of
geologic time, is con~only subdivided into the
Pleistocene and the Holocene (nost recent 10,000 years).
Although the Pleis tocene is generally equated to the
glacial age and the Holocene with post-glacial time, such
a distinction is less clear in southern Alaska where the
mountains still contain extensive glaciers.
The Quaternary was a time of extreme and varied geologic
activity in southern Alaska. In addition to the
extensive glacial activity and associated phenomena, the
Quaternary was also a time of mountain building and
volcanic activity. The products of these and other
geologic processes that were active during the
Quate rnary, and are still active today, are broadly
present i n the Chakachamna Lake area. Although the
geologic investigations for this feasibility study
consider a broad range of topics that fall under the
general heading of Quaternary geology, this task was
planned to address three specific topics:
5-9
5.2.1
5.2.1.1
(l) glaciers and glacial g~ology:
(2 ) Mt. Spurr volcano: and
(3) slope conditions.
In addition, the seismic geology task (Section 5.3) is
designed to focus on Quaternary and historic fault
activity and seismicity and is highly dependent on an
understanding of the glacial r.istory of the area for
te ~poral data.
For the Quaternary geology task of the Ch akachamna st u d y , . field work consisted of a twelve-day reconnaissance
during which all three primary topics of interest (above)
were studied. When co~bined with information available
in the open literature and that gained through
interpretation of aerial photography, the field
reconnaissance provides a basis for assessing the
potential impact of the glaciers, volcano, and slope
conditions on the proposed hydroelectric project.
Glaciers and Glacial Geology
Regional Glacial Geologic History
At one time or another during the Quaternary, glaciers
covered approximately half of Alaska (Pewe, 1975).
Previous investigations have demonstrated that the Cook
Inlet region has had a complex history of multiple
glaciation (Miller and Dobrovolny, 1959: Williams and
Ferrians, 1961: Karlstrom, 1964: Karlstrom and others,
1964: Trainer and Waller, 1965: Pewe and others, 1965:
5-10
I
I
I
I
I
~,
I
I
~I
I
I
I.
I
=I
I
I
I
I
I
Schmoll and others, 1972). The current understanding of
t h e r e s~o n's glacial history is based on interpretati o n
of t he n o rphostratigraphic record in association wit h
relative and absolute age dating and other Quaterna~y
studies. The coQplex history is recorded in glacial,
fluvi a l, lacustrine, marine, and eolian sediments that
have been studied primarily in their surface exposures
where they can be associated with specific landforms.
Although more recent work has led to modification and
refin~n ent of Karlstrorn's (1964) history of glaciation in
t h e Cook Inlet region, that work still provid~s a good
g e ne r al overview and, except where not ed , serves as t he
b as i s f o r the follo wing summary.
On at lea~t five separate occasions during the
Quaternary, the glaciers in the mountains that surround
Cook Inlet have expanded onto the Cook Inlet lo\;lands
where they coalesced to cover much or all of the lowland
with ice. Evidence for the two oldest recognized
glaciations (Mt. Susitna, Caribou Hills) consists
dominantly of erratic boulders and scattered remanants of
till at high elevation sites around the margins of the
lowland. Evidence for the next glaciation, the Eklutna,
includes moraines and till sheets that demonstrate the
coalescence of ice from various source areas to form a
Cook Inlet piedmont glacier. The available evidence
suggests several thousand feet of ice covered virtually
all of the Cook Inlet lowland during these early
glaciations.
The next two glaciations, the Knik and the Naptowne,
correspond to the Early wisconsin and Late Wisconsin
glaciations of the midwestern United States,
respectively. Thus, the Naptowne glaciation of the Cook
5-11
Inlet region correlates, in gener a l, wit h the Do nnel y
(Pewe, 1975) and Mc Kinley Park (Tenarink and Rit te r,
1980; ?enBrink and Wa y t homa s, in preparation) glaciations
reported from two areas on t h e n o r th side of the A la sl~a
Range. During t he Knik and Naptowne gl aciations ice
again advanced onto the Cook Inlet lowland, b ut the i ce
did not completely cover the lowland as it apparentl y did
during the earlier glaciations . Ev en at t h e glacial
maxima, portions of the lowland were ice free ; such ar eas
were commo nly the sites of large ice-dammed la k es t ha t
have been st ud ied in some detail (f1iller and Dobrovolny ,
1959; Karlstr om , 1964 ).
The maximum i c e advance during the Naptowne glaciati o n is
recorded by distinct end mo raine complexes located ne ar
the mouths of the major valleys t h at drain the Alaska
Range and by moraines on the Kenai lowland. Th e moraines
on the Kenai lowland are of particular interest because
they were, at least in part, formed by the Trading Ba y
ice lobe, whic h originated in the Chakachatna-McArthur
rivers area and advanced across Cook Inlet at the time of
the Naptowne maximum. Karlstrom (1964) reported on these
features on t h e Kenai lowland in some detail.
Karlstrom (1964) ~sed a combination of radiocarbon dates
and relative-age eating techniques to develop a
chronology for the Cook Inlet glaciations. According to
Karlstrom, the Naptowne glaciation continued, although
with decreasing intensity, past the Pleistocene-Holocene
boundary (generally taken as being near 10,000 years
before present [ybp]), through the Climatic Optimum, to
the beginning of Neoglaciation (see Porter and Denton,
1967). Recent work on the north side of the Alaska Range
has produced a well-dated chronology for the McKinley
5-12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Park glaciation (TenBrink and Ritter, 1980; TenBrink and
Wa y thonas, in prep aration). That chronolog y shows n ajor
stadial events at:
(1) 25,000-17,000 y bp (maximum a dvance at abo u t
20,000 ybp);
(2) 15,000-13,500 ybp;
( 3) 12,800-11,800 ybp; and
(4) 10,500-9,500 ybp.
Recognizing t h e differences in ice extent and other
• factors between the Cook Inlet region and the north side
of the Alaska Range, the TenBrink chronology is probably
reflective of the t iming of the primary Na p towne stadial
events. Dates from the Cook Inlet regi o n proper have yet
to yield such a clear picture, probably because of the
greater complexity of the conditions and thus the record
there.
Following the Naptowne glaciation (about 9,500 ybp by
TenBrink's chronology, as late as 3,500 y bp according to
Karlstrom, 9164), glacial advances in the Cook Inlet
region have been limited to rather small-scale
fluctuations that have extended only up to a few miles
beyond present glacier termini . Karlstrom (1964)
referred to these Ne oglacial advances as the Alaskan
glaciation, which he divided into two distinct periods of
advance (Tustumena and Tunnel) and further subdivided
into three and two short-term episodes, respectively.
According to Karlstrom (1964) these ~eoglacial events
range in age from approximately 3,500 ybp to historic
fluctuations ot the last several decades.
5-13
5.2.1.2
Two points of particular interest regarding Neoglaciation
in Alaska emerged from the literat ure review:
(1)
( 2)
the idea that • the youngest maj o r ad va nce
typically was the most ext ensive of the
Neoglaciation• (Porter and ~e~t on , 1 9 67 , p. 107),
and
Karlstrom's (1964) suggestion t ha t, at least in
the mountains around the ~argins of the Cook
Inlet region, there was no di s tin=~ hiatus
between the last small Na?tcw ~e r e~J~~nce a~d the
first ~eoglacial advance .
These points will be addressed in t he fol l ow ing section.
Project Area Glacial Geol o gic History
The reco_nnaissance-level investigations condu cted for tl:.e
Chakachamna study confirm the general picture for the
project area presented by Karlstrom (1964). Th e area
examined during the field reconnaissance is indicated on
Figure 5-l. Although a rather broad area was included in
the study area, most of the field work took place in the
Chakachamna Lake basin, along the Chakachatna River, and
on the southern slopes of Mt. Spurr.
Most of the study area was covered by glacier ice during
the maximum stand of the Naptowne-age glaciers. Based on
Karlstrom's (1964) wor k , it would appear that only high,
steep slopes and local elevated areas were not covered by
Naptowne ice. Within the area examined in the field, t he
upper limit of Naptowne ice is generally clearly defined,
particularly in the area between Capps Glacier and
5-14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-.
_ .. , ..
'.
' '
·~
··.
._.,..;··-
-~.
·.:.'
' ......
"I
::; •• t
·'
. '
·· .......
' .
: I
·~ i
~ ~-:.-;.; ---/1·.
:•
' -):• ..
·'
•.
-::.....
'\ \
.-·
.. ,,
., ... ·.
.. -". .. · .. .:i .~ :;::·--:··~-·
:::.~I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Blockade Glacier, at and east of the range front (Figure
5-l). In t h is area lateral mo raines pr o duced curing t ~e
maximum stand of Napt ow ne ice (25,000-17,000 ybp) a r e
distinct and traceable for long distances; younger
Naptowne lateral and terminal moraines are also present .
The largest area that was not buried by Naptown e i ce a nu
which was observed during field reconnaissance i s l o cat e c
high on the gentle slopes east of Mt. Spurr, bet ~e e n
Capps Glacier and Straight Creek. The two older surfaces
(Knik and [?) Eklutna) observed in this area (Fig ur e 5-l)
correspond well to the ideas present e d by Karlstro m
(1964).
Not only are moraines marking the Naptowne maximum
present, but a large number of moraines produced during
subsequent stadial advances or recessional stillstand ~
are also present. These features demonstrate that even
at the Naptoune maximum, ice from Capps Glacier and other
glaciers to the north di~ not coalesce witt ice c o ming
from the Chakachatna canyon, except possibly near the
coast. The Chakachatna ice and that issuing from the
McArthur River Canyon and Blockade Glacier did join,
however, to produce Karlstrom's (1964) Trading Bay ice
lobe. That ice lobe covered the alluvial flat t h at, at
the coast, extends from Granite Point to West Foreland.
From the present coast, the Trading Ba y lobe (according
to Karlstrom, 1964) extended across Cook Inlet to the
Kenai lowland.
The complex of moraines located between Blockade Glacier
and the Chakachatna River area allow one to trace the
slow retreat of Naptowne ice. As the Trading Bay l o be
retreated westward across the inlet and then across the
Trading Bay alluvial flats to the mountain front,
5-17
separate ice streams became distinct. As the Naptowne
ice continued to retreat up the Chakachatna Canyon mo re
and more individual glaciers became distinct fro m o~e
anotter. For example, Brogan Glacier (informal n a~e ,
Figure 5-l), separated from the Chakachatna River by a
low volcanic ridge, produced a recessional sequence t h at
is independent of that formed by ice in the Chakachat na
cany on. Such a sequence of features is less distinct or
absent for the other glaciers between Brogan Glacier and
Barr ier Glacier.
Within the Chakachamna Lake basin, t h e evidence of
Naptown e and older glaciations is largely in the f or~ of
erosio n al features and scattered boulders. Naptowne-age
till apparently occurs only in isolated pockets within
the lal :~ basin and its major tributary valleys. The
Naptowne-age surfaces in the basin are mantled with a
sequence of volcanic ashes that averages two to three
feet in thickness. The solids are typically developed on
these volcanics rather than on the underlying
glacially-scoured granitic bedrock or till.
In contrast to the erosional topography that
characterizes the Naptowne and older surfaces within tne
Chakachamna Lake basin, Neoglacial activity produced
prominent moraines and outwash fans. Neoglacial features
were examined at or near the termini of the following
glaciers;
(1) all glaciers along the south shore of the lake
from Shamrock Glacier to the lake outlet;
(2) Barrier Glacier;
5-18
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(3) Pothole and Harpoon Glaciers, where they enter
t he Nagishlamina River Valley;
(4 ) all of the glaciers that flow to the south,
southeast, and east from the Mt . Spurr highland
(Alice Glacier to Triumvirant Glacier, Figure
5 -l); and
(5) Blockade Glacier.
The Neo glacia l history of se ve ral of these glaciers is
discuss ed i~ more detail in Sections 5 .2 .1.3 through
5.2.1.5. 7te Neog lacial r eco rd i s o f particular
importance t o an assessment of possible glacier
fluctuations over the next several decades.
Returning to the two points raised at the end of Section
5.2.1.1:
(1) In most cases observed in the study area, it appears
that the latest Neoglacial advance was an extensive
or more extensive than earlier Neoglacial advances.
Th is is in agreement with the Porter and Denton
(1967) general conclusion for southern Alaska.
(2) Karlstrom's (1964) chronology suggested a continuous
sequence of decreasing glacial advances leading from
Naptowne to Neoglacial time. In most parts of the
study area it was not possible to assess this
suggestion. However, the morainal sequence produced
by Brogan Glacier (Figure 5-l) and the difference in
the topographic characteristics of those moraines
suggest that there was little, if any, hiatus
between the youngest Naptowne moraine and the oldest
Neoglacial moraine.
5-19
5.2.1.3 Barrier Glacier
Barrier Glacier originates in the snow and ice field high
on the slopes of Mt. Spurr. From there it flows down a
steep, ice-carved canyon to the shore of Chakachamna Lake
where its piedmont lobe forms the eastern end of the lake
(Figures 5-2a, 5-2b). Barrier Glacier is of particular
interest to this study because the glacier forms the
eastern end of the lake and influences the size and
character of t h e outlet from the lake.
Barrier Glac ier was described by Capps (1935) in his
report on t h e so u th~rn Alaska Range and was cons i dered in
several reports on the hydroelectric potential of .
Chakachamna Lake (Johnson, 1950: Jackson, 1961: Bure a u of
Reclamation, 1962). Giles (1967) conducted a detailed
investigation of the terminal zone of Barrier Glacier.
Most recently, the U.S.G.S. investigated Barrier Glacier
as a part of a volcanic hazards assessment program at Mt.
Spurr (Miller, personal communication, 1981).
Giles' (1967) investigation of Barrier Glacier was the
most comprehensive to date and was specifically designed
to assess the possible impact of the glacier on hydro-
electric development of Chakachamna Lake, and vice
versa. That work, which took place between 1961 and
1966, included mapping qf the lake outlet area and
measurements of horizontal and vertical movement and of
ablation on various portions of the glacier. Those
measurements indicated that:
5-20
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-·-.I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"ll
AliNA
,
~·
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ,.,
I --.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(1)
( 2)
horizontal movement is in the range of 316 to 125
ft/yr on the d e b ris-free ice and 28 to 1 ft /y r on
the debris-co ve red lobe of ice t h at forms the
southern~ost conponent of the glacier's piedmo nt
lobe complex: and
surfac e el evation c h anges were gener al ly small
(+0.8 to -2.9 ft/yr), but ablation on the
relatively debris-free ice averaged about 35
ft /y r in t he terminal zone.
Giles (1967) idenci fied five ice lobes, t wo on t~e
debris-covered ic e a nd three o n the exposed ice, in the
terminal zone of Barrier Glacier. Examinati o n of color
infrared aerial photographs for the current study
suggests that he defined topographic, but not necessarily
glaciologicall y -f u nctional lobes or ice streams. For
example, on the debris-covered portion of the piedmont
zone, Giles identifi ed two lobes on the basis of a deep
drainage that cuts across that zone. On the air photos
it is clear that the drainage in question parallels and
then trends oblique to the curvilinear flow features
preserved in the debris mantle. The drainage does not
appear to mark the boundary between two ice streams.
Giles (1967) concluded that the level of Chakachamna Lake
is controlled by Barrier Glacier, specifically by one
900-ft wide portion of debris-covered ice along the
river; that zone reportedly advances southward, into the
river channel, at a rate of about 25 ft /yr. Although the
rate of ice movement was apparently relatively constant
throughout the year, the low stream discharge in the
winter allows the glacier to encroach on t he channel but
the ice is eroded back during the summer. Thus, Giles
5-25
suggested that there is metastable equilibrium in the
annual cycle. The annual cycle appe3rs to be super-
imposed on a longer-terw change such as that suggested by
Giles' measurements.
Obse~vations made during analysis of the color infrared
(CIR) aerial photographs and during the 1981 field recon-
naissance lead to general agree~ent with the conclusions
produced by previous investigations. Nonetheless, the
CIR air photos and extensive aerial and ground-based
obser va tions have allowed for the developnent of several
appar e:1 tly new concepts regarding Barrier Glacier: those
ne• ideas nay be sunmarized as follows:
(1) All of the moraines associated with Barrier Glacier
are the products of late Neoglacial advances of the
glacier and subsequent retreat. The large, sharp-
crested moraines that bound the glacier complex on
the eastern and a portion of the western margin
(Figure 5-2a) mark the location of the ice limit as
recently as a few hundred years ago (maximum
estimate) and perhaps as recently as the early to
middle part of this century. Cottonwood trees,
which are the largest and among the oldest of the
trees on the distal side of the moraine are
approximately 300 to 350 years old based on tree
ring counts on cores collected during the 1981 field
work (location of trees on Figure 5-2a). Those
dates provide an upper limit age estimate. The
vegetation-free character of the proximal side of
the moraine and the extremely sharp crest suggest an
even more youthful ice stand.
5-26
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
( 2 ) When Barrier Glacier sto0 d at the outer~ost moraine
(n o. 1 a~ove), tre ter~ir.al pied~ont lobe ~a s larger
t h an that n ow present and probably included a
portion that floated o n t h e lake; the present river
channel south of the glacier could not have existed
in anything near its present form at that time. The
extent of the piedmont lobe, as suggested here, i3
based on interpretation of t h e flow features
preserved on t he debris-mantled portion of the
terminal lobe and the projected continuation of th e
outer mo st mo rain e (no. 1 above).
(3) The mos t rec en t adva nce of Ba rrier Glacier di d not
reac h the outer mo st moraine. It appears that the
fl ow of ice was deflected west ward by pre-existing
ice and ice-co v ered moraine at the po1nt where t h e
glacier begins to form a piedmont lobe. This pulse
was responsible for the vegetation-free zone of till
that mantles t h e ice adjacent to ~he debris-free ice
and for the large moraines that stand above the
delta at the northeast corner of the lake.
(4) The presentl y active portion of Barrier Glacier h as
the same bas i c flow pattern as that described in no.
3, above, but the terminus appears to be retreat-
ing. The flow of ice is deflected westward as it
exits the canyon through which the glacier descends
the slopes of Mt. Spurr. The flow pattern is
clearly visible on and in the debris-free ice and is
further demonstrated by the distribution of the
distinct belt of volcanic debris present along the
eastern margin of the glacier.
5-27
(5) All of the above may be combined t o suggest that the
large deb ris-~a ntled (ice-cored) lobe t h a t f o r QS t h e
most d i s tal 9o rtion of the glacier complex, and
wh ich borde r s the river, is now, at least in large
part, decou 9 led fr o m the active portion of t h e
glacier. 7 h is interpretation in turn suggests t ha t
t h e mo v ement s measured by Giles (1967) are due to
ad iu stment s wi t hin the largely independent debris-
mantled lobe and to secondary effects transmitted t o
and t h r o~gh t his lobe by the active ice upslope.
(6 ) In spi te oi t h ~ fact that disintegrati o n nf tte
debris-~antled l o b e is extremely active l o ca liy , t h e
l o be appear s cc be generally stable because remnant
flow feat u res are still preserved on its surface.
The debris cover shifts through time, thickening and
t h inning at any given location as topographic
inversion t ak e s place due to melting of the ice and
sl um ping and wa t er reworking of the sediment. It
appears t h at the rate of melting varies as a
function of the thickness of the debris co ver, with
a thick cover insulating the ice and a thin cover
produ cing accelerated melting. P.emo v al of the
covering sediment along the edge of t h e river leads
to slumping and expos u re of ice to melt-producing
conditions. Thus the distal portion of the debris-
mantled lobe that borders the river is one site of
accelerated melting. Other areas of accelerated
melting are concentrated along drainages that ha v e
developed within the chaotic ice-disintegration
topography.
5-2 8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(7) There is no ice now exposed along the lake shore or
around the la ke out let, at t h e head of t he
Chakachatna River, as was the case as rec e ntl y as a
few decades ago (Giles, 1969). These areas are
rather uniformly vegetated and the debris mantle
over the ice appear s to be relatively thick compared
to areas where ac c~lerated ~elting is taking place.
These areas appear to be reasonable models of ~hat
to exp~ct when rnelt~ng of the ice and the associated
sorting and readj ~stme nt of the overlying debris
have produced 3 ~5 h ris cover thick enough to
insulat e the i ce.
(8) If the debris-mantled ice lobe is functi o nall y
decoupled from t h e active ice, as sugg e sted above,
the move of ice toward the river is li k ely to
gradually slow in the near future. The Giles'
(1967) data suggest that this slowing may be
underway; the 197 1 flood on the Chakachatna suggests
that the ice movement is still occasionally rapid
enough to constrict the river channel, however.
Nonetheless, it appears likely that, barring a
dramatic or ca t astrophic event, the degrading
portion of the ice lobe along the river will slowly
stabilize to a condition similar to that along the
lake shore. This will probably lead to a channel
configuration somewhat wider than at present but the
channel floor elevation is unlikely to change
significantly. This scenario assumes that the
discharge will remain relatively similar to that
today. If discharge increases, then a channel
deepening, as suggested by Giles (1967), may occur.
If discharge decreases, the available data suggest
that the outlet channel is likely to become more
5-29
5.2.1.4
narrow and perhaps more shallow as the
debris-covered ice continues to stabilize (see
Section 7.0).
(9) Over t he long term the possible changes along the
uppermost reaches of the Chakachatna River, where
the lake level is controlled, are potentially nore
varied and more diffic ul t to predict. One reason
for this is that the longer time frame (i.e.,
centuries vs. decades) provides an increased
probability for both dramatic (e .g ., marked warming
or cooling of the climate) and catastrophic (e.g.,
large volcanic eruption) ev«nts. In this regard, it
should be noted that Barrier Glacier and the lake .
outlet appear to be within the zone of greatest
potential i mp act fro m eruptions of Mt. Spurr volcano
(see Section 5.2.2).
Post and Mayo (1971) listed Chakachamna Lake as one of
Alaska's glacier-dammed lakes that can produce outburst
floods. They rated the flood hazard from the lake as
•very low• unless the glacier advances strongly. The
1971 flood on the Chakachatna (L amke, 1972) was
attributed to lateral erosion of the glacier termi nus at
the lake outlet. This flood may have, in fact, been
triggered by waters from an outburst flood at Pothole
Glacier, a surging gl~cier (Post, 196~) in the
Nagishlarnina River Valley (Section 5.2.1.5).
Blockade Glacier
Blockade Glacier (Figure 5-l) originates in a very larg e
snow and ice field (ess entially a mountain ice cap), high
5-30
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-n
n
1:
in t h e Chigmit Mountains sout h of Chakachamna Lake. This
same .ice cap area is also the s ou r ce o f several of the
glaciers that fl ew to t h e sout~ sh o re of Chakachamna Lake
(e.g., Shamrock, Duna , and Sugiura Glaciers: Figure
5-l). Blockade Glaci e r flows s ou t hw ard out of the high
mountains into a l ong linea r val l ey , whic h trends NE&S W
and which is appare ntly fa ul t controlled (Section 5.3).
Once in the linear va lley, Block ac~ C'~cier flows both to
the northeast and t o the southwest. The southwestern
branch terminates in Blockade La ke , wh ich is one of
Alaska's glaci er-da~med la kes th at is a source of
out bu rst fl o ods (Post and May o , 1971). The northeastern
br a nc h o f t he glacier terminates r._ar the mouth of the
McA rthur aive r Canyon and me lt water f ro m the glacier
drains to the McArthur River.
Bl ock ade Glac ier is of specific interest to the
Chakachamna feasibility study b ecause one of its branches
does terminate so near the mouth of the McArthur River
Canyon, and a likely site for the powerhouse for the
hydroelectric project is in the lower portions of the
canyon (Section 3.0). Changing conditions at the
northeastern terminus of Blockade Glacier could
conceivably change the drainage of the McArthur River to
a degree that may influence conditions in the canyon,
i.e., at the proposed powerhouse sites in the canyon.
Blockade Glacier has not been the s ubject of previous
detailed studies such as those for Barrier Glacier
(Section 5.2.1.3). Observations made during the 1981
field reconnaissance covered the lower-elevation p ortions
of the source area and both terminal zones, but were
c o ncentrated around the northeaster n terminu s, near the
McArthur Rive!.
5-31
At its northeastern terminus Blockade Glacier is over two
~iles wide. Over about half of that width (t he nort her n
half) t he glacier t erminates in a complex of melt water
lakes and ponds that ar e dammed between the ice and neo-
glacial mo raines. The melt water from the lake system
drains to the McA rthur River via one large and one small
river that join and then flow into the McArthur about 2.5
miles downstream from the mouth of the McArthur River
Canyon. A complex of recently abandoned melt water
channels formerly carried flow to the McArthur at the
canyon mouth. ~ sma ll advance of the ice front wo u ld
reinstitute drainage in these no w dry channel s .
Melt water issuing fro m the sou~hern half of the ice
front flows to the ~cArthur River in braided streams that
cross a broad outwash plain. Whereas the northern
portion of t he terminus is very linear, the southern
portion includes a distinct lobe of ice that is more than
a half mile wide and protrudes beyond the general ice
front by more than three-quarters of a mile. Another
notable characteristic of this zone is that the Neo-
glacial moraines, which are so prominent to the north,
have been completel y eroded away by melt water along the
southern margin of the glacier.
On the basis of the above observations and the report
that Blockade Lake produces outburst floods (Post and
Mayo, 1971), it appears that the distinct features in t h e
southern portion of the northeast terminal zone are
present because this is the area where the outburst
floods exit the glacier front. The broad ou twash plain
and the removal oi the Neoglacial moraines are probably
both due to the floods; the vegetation-free (i.e.,
active) outwash plain is much larger than the size of the
5-32
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
n
'I
melt water streams would suggest. The distinct lobe of
ice that protrudes beyond t h e general front of the
glacier probably marks t he location of t h~ sub-ice
chanfiel thro~~~ which the outburst floods escape.
The outermost Ileoglacial moraines present near the
northeastern terminus lie about three-guarters of a mile
bejond the ice front. With t he exception of the distinct
ice lobe, the general form of the ice front is mirrored
in the s hape of the Neoglacial ter~inal moraines. The
outermost end moraine, which stands in the range of 20 to
40 ft -above t h e surrounding out~ash plain (dista l) and
ground mora ine (proximal), is in the form of a corrtinuous
low ridge with a gently rounded crest. Three o r four .
less distinct and less continuous recessional moraines
are pr es ent between t h e ice and the Neoglacial maximum
moraines. Distinct glacial fluting is present in the
till in this area.
The Neog laci al end moraine can be traced to a distinct,
sharp-crested Neog lacial lateral moraine that is
essentially continuously present along the glacier
margins well up into the source area for Blockade
Glacier. The proximal side of the lateral moraine is
steep and ~egetation-free, suggesting ice recession in
the very recent past. The crest of the lateral moraine
stands about 40 or 50 ft (estimate based on observations
from the he licopter) above the ice along th ~ lower
portions of the glacier .
A readvance of Blockade Glacier's n o rtheastern terminus
on the order of one-quarter to one-half a mile would
reestablish drainage through the abandoned channels near
the mouth of the McArthur RivEr Canyon. Such a change is
5-33
unlikely to significantly i•~pact conditions wit h in the
can yo n but would disrupt facilities (e.g., r o ads) on t he
south &ide of the Mc~rt~ur a ~ver o i~mediately outside the
mouth of the camyon. Th e glacier will have to advance
about three-qua~ters of a mile before conditions in t he
canyon are likel y t o be setiou~ly affected. An advance
of a mile and a half uould essentially dam t h e mouth of
the canyon and would flood a major portion of the lower
reaches of the canyo n, including the sites under con-
sideration for the powerhouse. S uch a glacier-dammed
lake would likely produce outbur st floods.
There is no evidence t h a~ a n y of the Neoglacial advances
of Blockade Glacier we re extensive enough to dam the
McArthur River Canyon. The outmost of the Neoglacial
noraines lies at least one-quarter of a mile short of the
~oint where ice-damming of t he canyon would begin, how-
e ~ei. Outwash fans on the distal side o f the moraine ma y
have produced minor ponding in the lowermost reaches
observea in the field and on the color infrared air
pruotos suggest that the last time that Blockade Glacier
ma y hawe da mm ed the McArthur Canyon was in late Naptowne
time , app roximately 10,000 years or mo re ago.
The only ~easonable mechanism that could produce an
a;Q'Vance of Blockade Glacier that would be rapid enough to
impact on the proposed hydroelectric project is a glacier
surge ; a surging glacier could easily advance a mile or
mo re within a period of a few decades. Evidence for
surges in the recent past might include an advancing
glacie r front in an area where gl aciers are generally in
~e eession a nd /o r distorted medial mo rai nes or long-
itudinal dirt bands on t h e glacier surface (Post, 196 9 :
Post and Mayo, 1971). It is clear that Blockade
5-34
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
"
Glacier's recent history has been one of recession, as is
t o e case fo: all othe r glaciers examined during the 1 92 ~
field reconn aissance. ~r.ere are many distinct l cng i:u·i -
nal dirt bands and small medial moraines visible on t ~~
surface of Blockade Glacier. If one or nore of the indi-
vidual ice streams that comprise Blockade Glacier r.ad
recentl y su 'ged, such activity shou ld be reflected in
contorti o ns in the dirt bands and medial moraines.
Visibl e deformatioL of the surface features on toe
glaci~r is very subtl~ and not sugges~ive of recen t
surging of even individ u al ice streams in the glacie r.
Thus , t here is no evidence of a general s u rge of Ol o ~k a ~~
Glacier in t he recent ?ast.
In summary, it appears that Blockade Glacier began to
withdraw from its Neoglacial maximum within the last fe';
hundred yea rs. At that max imum stand, me lt water drain-
age j oine d the McArthur River at the canyon mouth and
outwash nay have produced some ponding and sediment
aggradation in the lower reaches of he cany on: but the
glacier was not extensive enough to have dam med t h e
canyon. Surging is the mos t reasonable me chanism that
could produce a future advance large enough and rapid
enough to impact
Mchrthu r Canyon.
Blockade Glacier
on the proposed powerhouse sites in the
No evide nce suggestive of surging o f
was identified during this study.
Currently, melt water is carried away from the canyo n
mou t h . Eve n markedly accelerated melt water production
from Blockade Glacier is unlikely to change this
c o nditi on o r to have a negati ve inpact on t he proposed
hyd r oelectric project .
)-35
5.2.l.S Other Glaciers
I n o r~e r to g e t a reasonably broad-ba s ed sen s e of c ~~
gla c ial record and history of recent g la~ier beha vi o r in
t h e Ca k ac h amna La k e region, the field reconnaissance
incl uded aerial and ground-based observati o ns of a n ~~o er
of t t e glaciers in the region in addition to aarrie r a n d
Bloc k a d e Glaciers. Those glaciers included:
(1 ) Sh a mrock Glacier, Dana Glacier, S ~g i u ra Glaci e r, a n d
?i rst Point Glacier along the so u t ~ s h o re of
~n a ~acha w na La ke (see f i gure 5-l f o r loc a tions):
( 2 ) i i a r :;>o on Glacier and Pothole Glac ie r in t h e
Na gishla~ina River Valley;
(3) A lic~ Glacier, Crater Peak Glacier, and Br o gan
Glacier on the slo pes of Mt. Spurr, abov e t he
Ch a kachatna Ri ve r:
(4) Capps Glacier and Triu ~virate Glacier on t he e a s t~rn
slopes of Mt. Spurr: and
(5) McArt h ur Glacier in the McArthur ai ver valley .
Post (1969) surveyed glacier s throughout western North
~erica in an effort to identify surging glaciers. Four
of his total of 204 surging glaciers for all of western
Nort h America are in The Chakachamna study area (Figure
5-l). Three, including Pothole Glacier and Harpoo n
Glacier, are located in t he Nagishlamina Ri ver Vall ey ,
trib u tary t o Ch a ka c h a mna La k e, and o ne, Capps Glaci e r, i s
on t h e ea s tern slo pe o f Mt. Spurr. S u rface featur es
5-36
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
indicative of surging are clearly visible on the color
infrared aerial photographs used in this s t u d y and were
o bserve d during field reconnaissance.
Specific observations pertinent to an understanding of
the glaci a l t istory of the area include:
(1) All of the glaciers listed above appear to have only
recently withdrawn from prominent r:eoglacial
moraine s , which in most (if not all) cases mark the
Neo;l a~i~l ~aximum ad v ance positions of tte
glaci e r s . Th ese moraine s and y o u nger r e cessional
dep0 =it~ a r e generally ice-co r e u fer thos e glaciers
in gr oups 1 t h rough 3 (above), but have little or no
ice core in groups 4 and 5, which tPrminate at
sligh tly lower elevations.
(2) Pending and sudden draining of the impoundment
upstr e am of the Pothole Glacier (a surging glacier)
end mo rair.e coh.plex in the Nagishlamina River valley
may be an episodic phenomena that can produce
floodin; in the Lower portions of that valley and
t h us a pronounced influx o f water into Chakachanna
Lake. Published topographic maps (compiled in 1962)
show a small lake upstream of the end moraine, which
with the exception of a narrow channel along the
western valley wall, completely blocks the
Nagishlamina River Vall0y. That lake is no longer
present but there is clear evidence for its presence
and the presence of an even larger lake in the
recent past. Features on the floor of the lower
Nagishlamina River Valley suggest recent passage of
a large flood. Such a sudden influx of water into
5-37
Chakachamna Lake could pr o duce significant changes
at the o ~tlet fro m t h e la ke. I t ma y b e that t h e
1971 fl o o d on the Cha k ac h atna River (U.S.G.S., 19 72)
was tri gg~red by suc h an event, the stag e h aving
been s e t by the slow increase in the level of
Chakachamna Lake in the years prior to the flood
(Giles, 1967).
(3) Only glaciers south and east, and in t h e i mmediate
vicinity at Crater Peak on Mt. Spurr retain any
evidence of a significant cover of volcanic ejecta
from t h e 1 9 53 er u pti o n of Crater ?eak. On bot h
Crater Pe a k Gl acier and arogan Glacier (see Fi gu re
5-l) the i c~ in the terminal zone is buried by a
thick cover of coarse ejecta. The volcanic mantle,
where present, appears t o be generally thick enough
to insulate t h e underlying ice. Th e ejecta cover on
Alice Glaci e r i s s u rprisingl y li ~itec. Areas wh ere
t h e volc a ni c c ove r f o r merl y existed, b u t wa s t h in
enough so t ha t its pr e sence accelerated me l ting,
have pr o bab l y larg ely bee n sw e pt clea n by t h e me lt-
water. In an y ca s e, t h e o nly areas wh er e t ~ere i s
n ow e v i de nc e t h a t t he da rk volcani c ffia ntl e has o r i s
pr o ducing more rap id melting i s on t he ma rgins of
t h e t ~ic k ly c o vered zones on the two cited glaci e rs.
(4) Highly contorted medial morain es o n Ca pps Glac ier,
Pothole Glacier, and Harpoo n Gl a cier s u ggest t h at
several of t h e individual ice str eam s t h at c om prise
those glaciers have s u rged in t h e rec e nt p a s t. lo
compa~able feat u re s w e r ~ ob ser ve d o n any o f th e
o t h er glaci e rs in t h e Ch akac h a mna s t ~dy a r ea .
5-38
• 5.2.1.6
•
•
•
,
,
,
,
'
•
,
Implications with Respect to the Proposed Hydroelectric
Project
Irnplica~ions derived from th~ assessment of t h e glaciers
in the Ch akachamna Lake area, with respect to specific
project development alternatives, are included in Section
7.2 while project risk ~valuation is disucssed in Section
7.4. General implications, not directly tied to any
specific design alternative, may be summarized as follows:
(1) In the absence of th e proposed hydroelectric
project, the t er~in~s of Barrier Glacier is likel y
to continue to e :<is t in a state of dynamic equili c -
rium with the Cha~ac~atna River and to produce
small-scale changes in lake level through time: the
terminal fluctuations are likely to slow and
decrease in size in the future, leading to a more
stable conditi o r. at the lake outlet.
(2) If development of the hydroelectric project or
natural phenomena dam the Chakachatna River Valley
and flood the terminus of Barrier Glacier, the rate
of disintegration is likely to increase. If the
level of the lake is raised, the rate of calving on
Shamrock Glacier is likely to increase.
(3) If hydroelectric development lowers the lake level,
the debris-covered ice of Barrier Glacier is likely
to encroach on and decrease the size of the river
channel: a subsequent rise in lake level could yield
conditions conducive to an outburst flood from the
lake. A lowering of the level of Chakachamna Lake
will also cause the stream channels that carry water
from Kenibuna Lake and Shamrock Lake into
5-39
5.2.2
5.2.2.1
Chakachamna Lake to incise t h eir channels, thereby
l o~e ring the le vels of t ho se ~pstream lak es o ve r
ti.i01 e .
(4) ~he r e is no evidence t o sugg~st that Bloc kade
Gl acier will have an adverse impact on t h~ proposed
hydroelectric project or t h at the project will h ave
any effect on Blockade Glacier.
(5) Gl aci er damming of the Nagishlamina Rive r Va lley may
r esul t in outburst floocs that influence c ondi t io ns
at th e outlet from Cha ka chamna Lake.
(6) With the exception of Shamr o ck Glacier, t h e terminus
of which Pay be affected by the lake level, there is
n o evidence to suggest t h at t he proposed project
will influence the glaciers (other than Barrier
Glacier) in t h e Chakac h atna -Cha k achamna Valley.
Ch anges in the mass balance of the Glaci e r s will
influence the hydr o l og ic balance of t h e lake-river
system, however.
Mt. Sp u rr Vo lcan o
Alaska Penins·l la-Aleutian Isl a nd Volcanic Arc
Mt. Spurr is an active volcano that rises to an elevation
above 11,000 ft at the eastern end of Chakachamna Lake.
Mt. Spurr is generally reported to be the northernmost of
a chain of at l e ast 80 volcanoes that extends for a
distance of abou t 1,300 miles throug h the Aleutian
Islands and al o ng t he Alaska Peninsula: recent work ha s
id e ntified another volcano a bo ut 20 miles north of Mt.
Spurr (Miller, personal communication, 19 8 1). Like Mt.
5-40
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
I
' ,
,
,
•
'
Spurr , about half of the known volcanoes in the
Aleutian I s lands-Alaska ?e ninsula group have been
historically active •
The volcanoes of t h is group are aligned in a long arc
that follows a zone of structural up lift (Hunt, 1967),
and that lies i~n ediately north of t h e subduct ion zone
the northern edge of the Pacific Plate. The volcanoes on
t h e Alaska Peninsula developed on a basement complex of
Ter tiary and pre -Tertiary igneou s, sedimentary , and
m eta s edi~entary rock s the pre-v o lcanic rocks are poorly
e xpo sed in the Aleutian Islands. At t h e northern end o f
t he chai n, such as at Mt. Spurr, t he volcanoe s develop e d
on top of a pre-existing topograph ic high . Mt . Spurr i s
the highest of the volcanoes in the groL~ and the summit
elevations generally decrease to t h e sout:1 and west.
Th e Al aska Peninsula-Aleutian Islands volcanic chain is,
in n any ways, similar to the group o f volcanoes in the
Cascade nountains of nort h ern California, Oregon,
Washington , and southern British Col u mbia . In general,
both gr o ups of volca n oes developed in already mountainous
area s , both c o nsist of volcanoes that developed during
t h e Quaternary and include historica ll y active v o lcanoes,
in both areas the volcanic rocks e n compas s a range of
compositions but are dominantly an desitic, and both
groups contain a variety of volcanic forms. rhe Alas kan
volca n oes include low, broad shield volcano es, steep
volcanic cones , calderas , and volcanic domes. Much of
the present volcanic morphology developed in late-and
post-glacial time.
5-41
5.2.2.2 Ht. sou rr
Ca pp s (1 9 35, p. 6 9 -70) reparte e , •Th e ma s s of · .... h i c h t :.~
h ighest pea k i s called Mt. Sp ~rr consi sts of a sr~a t
o~ter crater, now breached b y the alleys of se ver ai
glaci~rs that flow radially fro m it, and a centr al c v r ~
withi n the older crater, the highest peak of t ~e
mo u ntain, from vents near the top of which st e a ~ so~e
tices stil l issues . One small subsidiary cra t e r , n~1
occupiec by a scall glacier , was recognized on t he s o u t h
ri m of the o ld, outer crater.•
S u bseq~en t work has shown t h at Ca pps ' ob servatio ~~ ·i ~:~,
in part, in error. The error is specifically rela t e .· :: ~
the suggestion that the peaks and r idg es that surro ~~c
the summit of Mt. S pu rr mark the ri m o f a large, ol d
volcanic crater. Why Capps had this i mpression is cl ea:
beca u se as o ne appr o aches the mountain froc the east or
sou t h east, t h e view st rongly suggests a ve ry l a r se
crater : such a view h as suggested t o many geolcgists t ha t
Capps was correct in h is observations. It is only when
one gets up on t h e mou ntain, an oppo:tunit y made
practical by t h e h elicopter, t h at it beco me s clea r t~at
most of t he •c rater ri m• consists of granitic and not
volcanic r o cks. The most recent and cocprehensive report
on the distribution of lith ologies present on Mt . Spurr
is found in Magoon and oth ers (1976). The U.S.
Geological Survey plans to issue an open file repo r t on
Mt. Spurr in 1982 (Miller, per so nal com munication, 19 8 1).
Field work aimed at assessing t h e potential i mp act of
vo l c anic activit y from Mt. Spurr on t he proposed hy dr o -
electric development at Chakachamna ~ake was c o n c entrate d
in the area bo u nded by the Nag is h lamina River on t h e
5-42
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
' '
I
I
I
I
•
west, t h e Chakachatna River on the south, a north-so u th
line east of t he ~ou n tai n front on the east, and the
Harpoon Glacier-C3pps Glacier align~ent en the n o rt h
(Figure 5-l). Most of the o b servations at the higher
elevat ions ~ere fr cm the helicopter: landing locations
high on Mt. Spurr are fe~ and far between and many of t h e
steep slopes are inaccessi~le to other than airborne
observations. It was possible to make numerous surface
observations in the Nagishlarnina River and Chak achatna
River valleys and on ~he slopes ~elow 3,000 ft elevation
to the so uth and so ut~eas t of t h e summit of Mt . Sp u rr.
Obse rvations mad e d L :i ~g t h e 1981 reconnaissance indicate
that the Quaternary Jvlcanics of Mt. Spurr, with the
exception of airfall deposits, are largely confined to a
broad wedge-shaped ar e a bounded generally by Barrier
Glacier, Brogan Glaci e r, and the Chakachatna River
(Figures 5-l, 5-2a and 5-2b): the distribution of
Quaternary volcanics n o rth of the sum~it, in areas that
do not drain to the Cha k achamna-Chakachatna basin, was
not investigated.
The bedrock along the ~estern margin of Barrier Glacier
is dominantly granite. The only exception observed
during the field reconnaissance, which focused at
elevations below about 5,000 ft, was an area where the
granite is capped by lava flows (Figure 5-2a). East of
Barrier Glacier the slopes above about 2,000 ft consist
of interstratified lava flows and pyroclastics, which are
exp~sed in cross section. The slopes of Mt. Spurr in
this area are not the product of triginal volcanic
deposition but are e r os ional features. Thus, it is clear
that the volcanics once extended farther to the south and
southwest into what is now t he Chakacharnna Lake basin and
5-43
Chakachatna River Valley. The lower slopes im mediately
eas e of aarrier Glacier and sout h of Mt . Spu rr consist of
a b road alluvial fan con plex.
aetween Alice Glacier and the mounta i n f ront, the upper
slopes o f ~t. Spurr, where not buried by glacier ice or
Neoglaci a l deposits, expose interbedded lava flows (often
with c o l unnar jointing), pyroclastic u nits, and volcanic-
l a stic sediments. As is the case near Barrier Glacier,
most of t he slo?es in this area are steep, often near
v ertica l ~r o sional features that ex?ose t he volcanic
seq ~en ce i n cro s3-s ection. Th e ?r ima r y e x c eption to this
i s f c un J o n and adjacent t o Cr ater ?eak whe re sone of the
slope s a r ~ oc i g inal depositional features.
Crater Pea k was the site of the most recent eruption of
Mt. Spurr. Th at eruption, which took place in J~ly,
1 95 3, was described by Juhle an~ Coulter (1955). The
1953 er ~?tion produced an ash cloud t hat was observed as
far eas t as Valdez, 100 miles from the volcano: the
distrib u tion of ejecta on Ht. Spurr demonstrates that
virtually all of the airborne material traveled eastward
with t h e prevailing winds. The thick debris cover on
Crater Peak and Brogan Glaciers (Figure 5-2b) is largely
the product of this eruption.
Any lava that issued from Crater Peak in 1953 was limited
to the slopes of the steep-sided cone. The eruption did
produce a debris flow, which began at t he south side of
the crater where volcanic debris mixed with ~ater from
the glacier t h at reportedly occupied the crater (Capps,
1935) and t h e out e r s lopes of the cone began t o move
downsl o pe toward t h e Ch akachatna River. 7he debris flow,
wh ich was p r o bably mor e a flood than a debris flow
5-44
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
initially, eroded a deep canyon along t h e eastern ~a rgin
of Alice Gl acie r, t h r ough the Neoglacial moraine c om ple x
at t h e ter ~in u s of Alice Glacier , and through older
volcanics and alluvium adjacent to the Chakachatna
River. Wh en it reach ed the C h akachatn~ River, the debris
flow da ~me d the river and produced a small lake t hat
extended u pstream tc t he vicinity of Barrier Glacier.
The da~ was subsequ ently partially breached, lowering the
impound ment in the Chakach atna Valley to its present
level. Evidence for t h e high water le v el includes
tributary fan-d e ltas graded to a level above the current
water level and a •bat h tub ring• of sediment and little
or no vegetati o n a l o ng t he so u thern va lley wall.
East of the 1953 debris flow, the Chakachatna River flows
through a narro. canyon within the broader valley bounded
by the upper slopes of Mt. Spurr on the north and t he
granitic Chigmit Mountains on the south. The southern
wall of the canyon (and valley, as whole) consists of
glacially-scoured granitic bedrock. With the excepti o n
of remnant deposits of the 1953 debris flow that are
present against the granitic bedrock (Figure 5-2b), the
1981 reconnaissance yielded no evidence of volcanic or
volcaniclastic rocks on the southern wall of the
Chakachatna Valley. The northern wall of the
Chakachatna Canyon exposes a complex of highly weathered
(altered ?) andesitic lava flows, pyroclastics,
volcaniclastic sediments, outwash, and in one location,
what appears to be an old (pre-Naptowne) till.
Although the general late-Quaternary history of the
Chakachatna River Valley is reasonably clear, the details
of that history are very complex and would reguire an
5-45
extensive field ptograrn to unravel. The
observati ons nade during the 1981 reconnaissance
suggest t he f o lloNing:
(1) Late-Tertiary a nd/or early-Quaternary volcan ic
activity at Mt. Spurr built a chick pile of lava
flows, pyroclastics, and volcaniclastic sediments on
top of a gran itic mountain mass of some considerable
relief.
(2J Interspe rsed ~o lcanic and glacial activity occ u :red
during t he Plei s tocene, with alternating peri od~ of
erosion and ~e?os ition. 7he width of the valley at
Chakacharnna La k e is maintained downstream to t h e
area of Alice Glacier (Figure 5-2a). From that
point to the mo untain front, where the same broad
valley form seems to reappear, the overall valley is
plugged by a complex of volcanic (and glacial)
deposits. This, along with ~he volcanic cliffs hlgh
on the slopes of Mt. Spurr, suggests that volcanics
once largely filled what is now the Chakachatna
Valley, that glaciers c hen eroded a bro~d, U-shaped
valley (such as is still present in the lake basin),
and that subsequent volcanic activity produced the
bulk of the deposits that form the valley •plug•.
(3) The age of the volcanics in the •plug• is not
clear. Some of the characteristics of the basal
volcanic rocks exposed along the river suggest some
antiquity. For example, many lava flows are so
deepl~ weathered (or altered ?) that the rocks
disintegrate in one's hand. These volcanics appear
to be overlain by outwash and may be interbedded
with till, which is also deeply weathered
5-46
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(altered?). These and othe r f eatures suggest t h at
at least s ane of the volcanics in this area were
deposit ed in p r e -~ap t ow n e ti ~e . Glacial deposi~s ,
incl uding mcca ines, a large area of kame and kettle
deposits,and glacier-marginal lake deposit s
interpreted to be a late-Naptow ne ag e overlie
portion s of the vo:c~~ic va lley p l u g. [See Secti o n
7.2 f or discussion of i mp lications with re spect to a
dam in t ~e Chakachat n a Canyon .]
In contr ast , it is ~:EE ic ~lt t o u nderstand how the
appar encly eas i ly ~:0 ~2J vo lcanics in th i s area
survived t h e Uapt o:;~~-~;e g laciers that filled th e
Chakach atna Valley anJ :~re lar ge enough to exte nd
across Cook Inlet (Y.arlst r o~, 1964). In addition,
there are man y landfor ms , such a s volcanic
pinnacles, that cl e arly are post glacial as they
could n o t have survived being overriden by glacier
ice. S u c h landforms d~m and the removal o f se v eral
tens of feet of volca ni cs ove r larg~ areas.
Although t h e evidence is conflicting and an unambig-
uous interpretation d ifficult, it does appear t ha t
much of the vo lcanic valley plug is of pre-Naptown e
age. The basis for this conclusion is mos t c lear ly
documented by the presence of outwash on top of
volcanics, a sequence exposed at several sites in
the ca n yon . The outwash is capped by a three-to-four
foot thick cap of volcanic ash (many discrete
depositional units) as is typical of Naptowne-age
surfaces in the area. Just how these volcanics
survived the Naptowne glaciatio n is not clear.
5-47
•
(4) Following the withdrawal of the Naptowne ice fro Q
t he Chakachatna River Vu lley, Holocene volcanic
activity, glacial acti~i ty , and fluvial and slope
processes have produced the ?resent landscape.
Most, if not all of t he present inner canyon,
through which the Cha kachatna River flows, appears
to be the ?roduct of Holocene downcutting by the
river.
Given that many of the details of the Quaternary history
of Mt. Spurr are not well understood, it is nonetheless
clear that Mt. Spurr is an active volcano that may
?roduce lava flows, pyrocla~t ics, and volcaniclastic
sediments in the immediate vicinity wit h in the life of
the project. Airfall deposits can ·be expected to
influence a larger area. Considering the size and t ype
of volcanic ~vents for which there is evide11ce at Mt.
Spurr and the present topography, the area of interest to
the proposed hydroelectric project most likely to be
affected is the area between Barrier Glacier and the 1953
debris flow. The topography of the valley plug volcanics
appears to afford some, but certainly not total
protection to the canyon portion of the river valley: an
example of this •protection• is provided by a second
debris flow produced in 1953 that was prevented from
reaching the river by intervening topography on the
valley •plug•.
The types of volcanic event judged to be most likely to
impact the Chakachatna River Valley in the near future
are:
5-48
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
I
I
I
I
' I
5.2.2.3
(1) 1953-type debr1s f lows which could inundate a
?Ortion of t h e va lley and r e -da ~ t h e river,
(2 ) lava flows, wh ic h could enter an d da m the valley, and
(3) large floods t hat would be pr oduced by the nelting
of glacier ic e during an er up tio n .
Post and Mayo (1971) s ~gg ested that melting of glacier
ice on Mt. Spurr during vo lcanic ac~i v i t y may present a
seri ous h az ard. Si gn ificant dir e ct i~~act o n Barrier
Glacier would deman d a summit er u9::o n that included the
fl o v of hot volcan ics at least i nt o t :1e upper r ~aches of
the glacier or t h e development of a new eruptive center
(s uch as Crater Peak) west of the present summit. Of
course the character of the volcanoes in the Aleutian
Island-Alaska Peninsula chain make it clear that a very
large event (i.e., a Mt. St. Helens--or even a Crater
Lake-type event) is possible at Mt. Spurr; such an event
has a very low annual probabilty of occurrence at any
given site, however •
Implications with Respect to the Proposed Hydroelectric
Project
The potential impact of Mt. Spurr on the proposed
hydroelectric project will, in part, vary as a function
of the project design (see Sections 7.2 and 7.4), but
some potential will always exist because of the location
of Mt. Spurr relative to Chakachamna Lake and the
Chakachatna River. The amount of negative impact on the
project is clearly a function of the size of volcanic
event considered; larger events, which would have the
greatest potential for adverse impact, are, in general,
5-49
less likely to occu r than smaller volca nic events. Some
gen e ral possi b ilities that might be associated with l ow -
t o med i un -i n~ensit y events (such as a Crate r Peak ev~nt
o r slightly l arge r ) inc lude:
(1 ) Danmi n g o f t h e Ch akachatna River by la va or debri s
fl ows , ~ith t h e most likely site being in the
vicini :y of the 1953 d ebris dam. Flo odi ng of the
terminus of Barrier Glacier may increa se the rate of
ice melt a nd poss i b l y alter the configuration of the
current la ke ou tlet. Any project facilities o n t he
valley fl o c r o f t he upper valley wo u ld be bu ri ed by
th e fl ow an ~/o r f~oo ded.
(2) Flooding of t h e Chakachatna River Valley as a result
of the melting o f glacier ice on Mt. Spurr during an
eruption. ?r o ject facilities near or on the valley
floor would be flooded.
(3) Accelerating th e retreat of Barrier Glac i er d u e t o
the flow of h o t volcanic debris onto the glacier.
In t h e extreme, Barrier Glacier could be eli minated
if enough hot mate rial flow e d onto the ice. A less
dramatic scenario could include destabilization of
the lake outlet due to accelerated melting in the
terminal zone of Barrier Glacier. In contrast, a
large lava flow at the present site of Barrier
Glacier could replace the glacier as the eastern
margin of the lake, providing a more stable dam than
that provided by Barrier Glacier.
Ea c h of the design alternatives (Section 3.0) includes a
lake tap in the zone between the lake outlet and First
Point Glacier. Although it is generally true that a site
5-50
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5.2.3
5.2.3.1
farther from Mt. Spurr is less likely to be subject t o
volca nic hazards t h an a site close r to t he vo l c an o , t h ere
is n o apparent reason t o favor one parti ~la r site in t he
proposed zone ove r any other site in that z o ne. A large
eruptive event, ap?arently substantially larger t han any
of the Holocene events on Mt. Spurr, would be required
before the pr o posed lake tap site would be directly
thre~tened by an eruption of Mt . Spurr.
Slope Conditions
The Chigmit Mou ntains, south of Chakachamna La ~e and t he
Chakachatna aiver, and the To rdrillo Mou ntain s , t o the
nort h , contain many steep slopes and near-vertical
cli i f s . This landscape is largely t h e product of
multiple glaciation during the Quaternary, including
Neoglaciation which continues in the area today. The
proposed hydroelectric project is likely to include
facilities in t h e Chakachamna Lake basin and eith er or
both of the McArthur and Chakachatna River valleys. An y
above-ground facilities in these areas will be on or
imm~diately adjucent to steep slopes, and thus subject to
any slope processes that may be active in the area.
Because of this fact, the 1981 field reconnaissance
included observations of slope conditions in the areas of
interest. Future field work should include detailed
assessment of bedrc~k characteristics, such as joint
orientations, that influence slope conditions.
Chakachamna Lake Area
Chakachamna Lake sits in a glacially overdeepened basin
that is generally bordered by steep slopes of granitic
bedrock that was scoured during Napto~ne and earlier
5-51
5.2.3.2
9la~iations . Locally, such as along t he southern valley
wa ll west of Dana Glaci e r (Fig ure 5 -2a), distinct bedroc k
be nc hes are prese,t . In o t h er ar ea s, t he slopes ri s e,
with only minor va ri a ti o n in slope, fr om the lake le'lel
t o t h e surrounding peaks . All princ i pal valleys along
t h e southern side o f the lake ~resently contain
glacier s . 7he prir.c ipal valleya tributary to t h e north
side of the la ke , t h e Chilli~an and Nagishlamina, are
larger than t hose o n the south side of the la k e and are
currently essentially ice-free, although their present
for m is clearly t he p roduct of glacial erosion.
No e v i de nce of lar ge-scale slope f3ilures of th e slopes
in t he Ch akachamna La ~e basin was obs erved during t~e
1981 field reconnaissance. Most of the slopes are
glaciall y -scoured bedrock and are essentially free of
loose rock debris, although talus is loc a lly present.
The orientation of joint sets in the granitic bedrock
varies somewhat from area to area. In many areas a near
horizontal out-of-slope joint set is present, but it
tends to be poorly expressed relative to more
steeply-dipping joints. Field work indicat ~s that this
and cross-cutting joints have forwed boulder-size pieces
and small slabs that produce rockfall as the only c om mon
type of slope failure for which any evidence was found.
This condition is apparently most pronounced along the
southern valley wall, between Sugiura Glacier and the
lake outlet.
Chakachatna River Valley
The Chakachatna River, from its origin at Chakachamna
Lake to the mounc a in front, flows through a valley that
is rather variable in its form and characteristics along
5-52
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
its le n gth and from si de t o sid e. Th rou ghou t t he val ley ,
the s outh side consi s ts of stee ? g l aciated g ranitic
bedroc k slopes t h at ri se e ssenti all y continu o u sly from
t ~e ri ve r to t h e adjacent mountain peak s . All major
trib u tary valleys o n t he so u t h ern va lley wa ll, many of
wh ic n are hanging alleys , no w cont a in glaciers. The
comments reg ar d ing s l ope c ond ition s on t he 5lopes abo ve
the lake (Sec tio n 5.2.3.:) ap p l y to t he s ou thern wall of
t he Chakachatna Ri v er Va lley.
The nort h s id e of the valley diff e r s fr o m the south side
in virtuall y eve ry conce\vable wa y . On this side bedrock
is volcanic, a n d g lacial and f l uvi a l sed i me nts are also
present. Inthe wesc ernmost porti o n of t h e valley, the
river is bordered b y the Barrier Glac ier moraine and
alluvial fans; steep volcanic slopes abo v e the alluvial
fans are subject to rockfall activity. Between Alice
Glacier (t h e area of the 1953 debri s flow ) and the valley
mouth, the river flows through a n ar row canyon, the nort h
s1de of which consists of a variety of interbedded
volcanics, glacial deposits, and fl uvi al se diments
(Figure 5-2b). The north canyon wall has been the site
of several landslides that range in size from small
slumps to large rotational slides. Such activity is
likely to continue in the futu r e. Its impact will most
frequently be limited to the diversion of the main river
course away from the north canyon wall; there are several
examples of this now present in the canyon. A large
landslide, which appeara to be unlikely given the height
of the slopes, could completely dam the canyon; partial
dammi~g with temporary pending appears to be a more
likely possibility.
5-53
5.2.3.3
Volcanic activity o n Mt. Spurr cou l d directly influence
conditions al o ng ~he Ch akachat na River (S ection 5 .2 .2),
or co u ld, by slowlj al te r i ng c ond i tio ns along t he n o rt ~
wall of the c a nyo n, ha v e a sec ondary i npac t on the valley .
McArthur River Canyon
The McArt hur River Ca nyon is a narrow, steep-wa lled
glaciated val ley. A possible powerhouse site has be e n
identified along t he north wall of the cany on (Sec ti o n
3.0) and t he f o llo ~in g comme nt s specifically refer to t he
north ~all o f the Mc A::tu r River Ca n y on. The va lley
walls, wh ich c onsist ~Z g :anitic bed r ock, ex?o se a
complex of cross-cu~ting joint s ets and s h ear zo nes. Th e
character and do minant o rientations of the joints and
shears vary along the length of the canyon and the
character of the slopes al so va ries, apparently in direct
response.
Except near the canyon mouth, there is no evidence of
large-scale slope fail u re and rockfall is the dominant
slope process. Between the terminus of McArthur Glacier
and Misty Valley (Figure 5-ll t h e j o int se t s are of a
character and orientation such that rockfall has been
active and the bedrock on the lower slopes on the nort h
valley wall are uniformly buried beneath a thick talus.
The v egetation on the talus suggests that the bulk of
talus development took place some time soon after de-
glaciation and rockfall has been less active recently.
The slopes between Misty and Gash Valleys (Figure 5-ll
consist of glacially-scoured bedrock that is essentially
talus free, suggesting little or no rockfall in this area.
5-54
I
I
·I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5.2.3.4
From Gash Valley t o t h e canyon mouth, t h e granitic
bedrock appears to become ?r e gres s ivel y mo re inten se ly
jointed and s h eared and t h us nore su b ject to rockfa ll and
s mall-scale slumping. 7 alus mantles the lower slopes in
much of this area. A large fault zone (Section 5.3) is
present at the canyon mouth. The fa u lt has produced
intense shearing over a broad zone t h at is now subject to
intense erosion anu is the site of several lands l ides.
In~l ications with Respect t o t h e Pr opos ed Hydroelectric
Project
As ir. the case for volcanic haz a rds, there is no apparent
reason with respect to sl o pe conditions to favor one site
over any other in the zone between the lake outlet and
First Point Glacier for the lake tap. Rockfall appears
to be the only potential slope hazard in that zone: there
was no evidence obser v ed in the field to suggest o ther
types of slope failure.
As indicated on Figure 5-9, the Castle Mountain fault
(Section 5.3), which is a major fault, crosses the
McArthur River just outside the canyon mouth (Section
7.4) where the granitic bedrock has been badly shattered
by fault movement. Surface exanination reveals that the
rock quality progressively improves with distance
upstream from the canyon mouth and the best quality rock
lies between Gash Valley and Misty valley (Figure 5-l),
beginning about 1-1/2 miles upstream from the powerhouse
location presently shown on the drawings. This location
is based on economic considerations alone, without taking
account of the higher excavations costs that would bl
associated with the poorer quality rock. A critical
evaluation of the rock conditions in this area shoula be
5-55
4
5 .3
3.3.1
•
included in future studies a nd a site should be selected
for .drilling a d e ep c o re ho l e .
A powerho us e si te at or i mm e d i at el y ou t side the canyon
mouth, as h as be e n co n s idered in o t h er studies, is like ly
to be in t h e fa u l : z one and s ubject to fa u lt rupture as
well a s high gr ou n d mo tions. In ad dition, facilities
outside the canyc n wi l l be in Tertiary sedimentary roc k s
and glacial depo si ts , not grani t e.
Seism ic Geo l o g y
Te cto ni c Sett i nc
The active fa u lting, seis micity, a nd volcanism of
s ou thern Al a s ka are prod u cts of th e regional tectonic
setting. The primary ca u se of t h e faulting and seismic
activity is the stress i mposed on t h e region by the
relative motion of t h e Pacific litho spheric plate
relative to the North Aner i can pl a te along their common
boundary (Figure 5-3). The Pacific plate is moving
northward re lative to the North American plate at a rate
of about 2.4 inc ~es /year (Woodward-Clyde Consultants,
1981 and referenc e s therein). The relative motion
between the plate s is expressed as three styles of
deformati o n. Along the Alaska Panhandle and eastern
margins of the Gulf of Alaska, the movement between
plates is expressed primarily by h i gh-angle strike-slip
faults. Along the northern margins of the Gulf of
Alaska, including the Co o k Inlet area, and the central
and western portions of the Aleutian Islands , the
relative motion bet ween th e plates is expressed by the
underthrusting of the Pacific plate beneath the Norch
American plate . At the eastern end of the Aleutian
5 -56
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ·
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~ -·-~
NOTES
1. 81$e m ap hom Tarr (1974).
2. After Pocker ond others (19751, Belkmon (19781,
Corm ier 119751, RHd 1nd llmphero (1974 1,
Plafker. and .;thers ( 1978).
PACtFIC PLATE
WOOOWAAO.CLVOE CONSULT ANTS
lEGEND
t::~::;f:f::wr anrr ll Rlf)(li
• AtlahY" PKtf tr: P1.U" Mfltton
----Ptll" BrMJndJ f'\', t1a\h,.d where tnf~>uerl
~ Sh,.ll frtr}l" S uur tu r,. w•t h Ohi •OU" SJ•D
-1 .. '' -----=----•·.!=$.:=;:;-;-~:
ALASK A ~~~~THO R ITY I
CHAKACHAMNA_HYOROEl ECTRI CPii'liJffi:
I
I
.I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Islands, the relative plate notion is e xpress ed by a
complex transition zone of oblique thrust fa u lting .
The Chakachamna Lake area is locat ed in the regi o n whe re
the int~rplate motion is producing underthrusting of the
Pacific plate beneath the North A~erican plate. Th is
underthrusting results primarily in compressional
deformation, which causes folds, high-angle re v er se
faults, and thrust faults to devel op in the overl yi ng
crust. The boundary between t h e plates where ~n ~er
thrusting occurs i s a nor thwes twa rd -dipping mega~~cust
fa u lt or subduction zone. 'I'te Aleutian Trenc ~, ·.1i:~ch
marks t h e surface expressi o n of t h is subducti on =o~e , is
located on ~~e ocean floor a pp roximately 270 mil es so uth
of the Chakachanna Lake area. T~e orientiation of t h e
su bd uction zone, wh ich ·may be subdivided into the mega-
thrust and Benioff zone (Woodward-Clyde Consultants,
1981), is inferred at depth to be along a broad inclined
band of seismicity that dips northwest from the Aleutian
Trench .
The close relationship between the subduction zone and
the structures within the overlying crust introduces
important implications regarding the effect of the
tectonic setting on the Chakachanna Lake Project. The
subductior. zone represents a source of major earthquakes
near the site. Faults in the overlying crust, which may
be subsidiary to the subduction zone at depth, are
sources of local earthquakes and they may present a
potential hazard for surface fault rupture. This is of
special concern because the Castle Mountain, Bruin Bay,
and several other smaller faults have been mapped near to
the Chakachamna Lake Hydroelectric Project area
5-59
5.3.2
5.3.2.1
(Detter man and o t hers , 19 76 : Magoo n and o t hers , 197 8).
Future activity on these fa u lts may ha~e a more pr ofound
affect on t he sei sm ic desisn of t t~ pro ject structures
t han the u nderl yi n g subduction zone because of t h eir
closer proximity to proposed pr oject si ~e locations.
Historic Seismicity
Reg ional Seismicity
Southe r n Alaska is one o f t h e rr.o s t seism icially active
regions in t he wo rld. A n umber of grea t earthquakes
(Richte r surface wave m agni t ud ~ ::s a or greater) and
large eart hquakes (greater than ~s 7) h ave been recorded
during historic ti me. These earthquakes have primarily
occurred al o ng the interplate boundary between the
Pacific and North American plates , from the Alaskan
panhandle to Prince William Sound and along the Kenai and
Alaska Peninsulas to t h e Aleutian Islands. Among the
recorded earthquakes are three great earthquakes that
occurred in September 1899 near Yakutat Bay, with
estimated magnitudes Ms of 8.5, 8.4, and 8.1 (Thatcher
and Plafker, 1977). Ground deforma t ion was extensive and
vertical offsets ranged up to 47 ft. (Tarr and Martin,
1912); these are among the largest known displacements
attributable to earthquakes. Large par~s of the plate
boundary were ruptured by these three earthquakes and by
twelve others that occurred between 1897 and 1907; these
included a magnit~de Ms 8.1 event on 1 October 1900
southwest of Kodiak Island (Tarr and Martin, 1912; McCann
and others, 1980) and a nearby magnitude Ms 8.3
earthquake on 2 June 1903, near 57° north latitude, 156°
west longitude (Richter, 1958).
5-60
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5 ..• 2.2
A similar series of major earthq u akes occurred along t he
plate boundary between 1938 and 1964. A~ong these
earthquakes were t he 1958 Lituya Bay earth qua ke (Ms 7.7 )
and the 1972 Sitka earthquake (Ms 7.6), both of which
occurred along the Fairweather fault system in southeast
Alaska; and the 1964 Prince William Sound earthquake (Ms
8.5), which ruptured the plate boundary over a wide area
from Cordova to so~thwest of Kodiak Island and which
produced up to 39 ft. of displacement (Hastie and Savage,
1970). Figure 5-4 shows the aftetshock zones of these
and other major earthquakes in southern Alaska and the
Aleutian Islands. The main earthquakes and aftershocks
are inferred to have rupt u r e d the plate boundary in the
encircled areas.
Three zones along the plate boundary which have not
ruptured in the last 80 years have been identified as
•seismic gaps• (Sykes, 1971). These zones are located
near Cape Yakataga, in the vicin ity of the Shumagin
Island, and near the weste:n tip of the Aleutian Chain as
shown in Figure 5-4. The Yakataga seismic gap is of
particular interest to the project because of its
proximity to the site region. The rupture zone of a
major earthquake filling this gap has the potential to
extend along the subduction zone to the north and
northwest of the coastal portion of the gap near Yakataga
aay.
Historic Seismicity of the Project Study Area
The historic seismicity within 90 miles of the project
area, approximately centered on the east end of
Chakachamna Lake, is shown in Figures 5-5, 5-6, and 5-7.
The earthquake locations are based on the Hypocenter Data
5-61
Fi l e prepared b y NOA A (National Oceani c and At mos ph e ric
Administra t i o n, 19 8 1 ). The Hypoc enter Data File inclu d es
e art h qua k e d at a fr om t h e u .s. Geo l ogic al S u rve y a nd ot h er
s o urces and repre se n ts a fairl y u nif o r m d ata set in ter ms
of quality and c omplet enes s sin ce a bou t 1 9 64.
Based on Figures 5-5 , 5-6, and 5-7 and data a v ailable in
the open literat ur e, the seismi c it y of the pr o ject area
i s primaril y a s s oc iated wi th f ou r principal s ou rces: the
s u bduction z o ne, wh ich is d i v ided into two segm ents--the
Megathr u st and Be nioff zone (Woodwar d-Cl yd e Co n su ltants,
1981,; Lahr a 11d Steph en, 19 8 1); t he crust3l or s ha llow
se ismic zone wit h in t he No r th ~~e r i c 3 n Plate; a nd
moderate co shall ow d ep th s eismicity associated with
volcanic activity. Th e seismic sources are briefly
discussed below in terms of their earthquake potential.
Th e Megathrust zone is a major s o urce of seismic activity
that results primarily fr om th e in t e r plate stress
accumulati o n and release along a gently inclined boundary
between the Pacific and North American plates. This zone
is the source area of many of the large to great earth-
quakes, include the Ms 8.5 1 9 64 Prince William Sound
earthquake, which ruptured along the inclined plate
boundary from the eastern Gu lf o f Alaska to the v icinity
of Kodiak Island. The maximum magnitude for an
earthquake event along the Megathrust zone is es t imated
to be Ms 8.5 (Woodward-Clyde Consultants, 1980, 1981).
The Benioff zone portion of the subduction zone is
believed to be restricted to the upper part of t h e
descending Pacific plate, whic h lies beneat h the North
American plate in southern Alaska. Th is zone is the
source of smaller magnitude and more continuous
5-62
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I 1. Modified after OaotiH .net Hous.e 119791 WOODWAfiiiO.Ct..VOE CONSULTANTS
I
I
I
I
LEGEND
01~
=
loatfO"' It'd Ve:iir o f matot
urlhttu-ilttt, rUI)ftHe tonn
,ndu dmg •h~\hodt •f~M
-1f t Olllh ned
tnterrtl'l't duectton o t m Ot i on
o l P6Crhc 1t1a1~
Apprn'C1m11 e l fan\form ~lit
mOUIIJIO
ALASKA POWER AUTHORrrY
~~~~~~~~~~~~~: gUACHAMNA "iiYOiiOfLECTIIIC PIIOJECT
Ma JOf' E111hQUahs 1nd
S..ismie Gap~ in Southern Al ttltl
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
61.00
'0 -SO
0
•MT. STONEY
• Cl q.,
• ( 0 • -:., ~~·:
GO LDI'AN PEAK • ~ c ~HA-KACHAMNA LAK; 0 0
KENIIIUN1f LAKE 0
.
TURQUOISE LAKE
00
(!) ••
AEOOUBT VOLCANO
~
(!) +
O /Z.OCKADE LA K E
(!)
(!) 0
..
&" ..,o
• r:{'
" . 0
IIELUGA LAKE
,., .
·lS I .Ct"
0
..
0
0 0
<!lo
~
..
0 5 10 15 20 Miles
0
0 5 10 1520 25 Kilometen
NOTE
LEG END
Ot'~"p t r fl'\ Y f.l(_.•;t f
r , •.•
~ 7.0
(.:._) ... ... ..• ... u ._ __ ._
IIH rNSI iT )•II
/!> ,,
(~'
t') ,,
<> Ylll ') •II
<') ••
'>
1. Magnitude symbol sizes •re shown on
a continuous nonlineer tc~tle
CHA IIOEllCTIIIC PIIOJlCT
Historic Eonttqu-of All Focal Do!>tl"
\'fMlo"' Site Rotlon "-11120 ThrCJUtlt
IIECKTIL CML. I ~ IIIC.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
·----
fii.SO
61.ro
6Q.50
+ • +
(!)
oMT. STONEY
i!l
·IS!.OO
+(')
0
0<> C">•
~
... C) +
• SNOWCAP (MOUNTAIN ~ ~ (') O
O Cl
0
MT. SP~RR O
0
GOLDPAN PEAK • ~ o
~HA-KACHAMNA0 LA K; 0 0
KENIBUNA LAI.CE
(9
~~·o.
.
TURQUOISE LAKE
(!). •
REDOUPT VOLCANO
0
.
+t'J t'T) +
~ -
lf'BLOCKA OE LA K E
0
WOOOWARO.CL VOE CONSUL TAHTS
"
• ..,c
·1$,1.00 -ISQ.$0
O FIRE ISLAND
0 f').JJ
• o o~
...
0
0 (!)
O o e
• 0. ffi STERLING
0 ~\.:} 11!1
. .
0 5 10 15 20 Miles
t1 10 152025'Kilomet~
,r
0 .••.••
NOTE
LEGEND
e.c
I t 7.0
_/
~
CJ
0
.,
~-·
s.o ... ... u
No "-orted ~·tv·
l 'll tNS! fY /. > •II
<> •I
/]~
/
~ I'
0 V111 , VII
·~ ,,
'!>
1. Magnitude symbol sizes are shown on
a con-tinuous nonlinear scale
I
I
I
I
.I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
·I
•:.
t.l."!'l
.....
. :-u.so ·ISr oo 1 ~.·-50 "' .;11
I
.
I
1-• -1
'
•MT. STONEY
~:.: • '544 ·IS,I.OC ·l ~l"'
~
. (1
" 0 ~
•SKWENTNA
('), 0 . .....
("\
0
t!J¢ .,
" WILLOw"
~ ~II..E RADIUS ~ rT
I ft I ~ t ~ (i"
/" • MT. GEROINE ~
• SNOWCAto MOUNTAIN MT. SUSITNA0
• MT. SPURR
'~lliiNA LAKE
KEN11U'fA LAKE
+
F
BLOCifiADE LAKE
p TUROUOISE LAKE
BELUGA LAKE
) ~~ .. ~
I ,
KENAI
KPtl.l51N ISLA,-JO 7tCJ
REDOUBT v6!-CAN0 • • +
"' " :._..; l~
FIRE ISI..ANoj} (
C)
~ .
0
, ..
.
'"'
•STERliNG
~ " ~
.£a .n a~:~.:O.ooi0----:-.,:::,t,-;:,50:::-----:.1::55t-.<::00:-----,-:i.,c-_.,-,0,.{.J:_ _ ___!::::f:_ ____ --+-:-4-----:-:t-:::-----:-;j;'-::;----;,C: . .n~8c '' J? ( SKILAK LAKE
IS..,.C\1 1 l'.tl.$0 •ISI.QO -lf.0 .50
0 5 10 15 20 Miles
WOODWAAO.CLYOI CONSULTANTS 0 510152025Kilometllfs
NOTE
LEGEND
~EP OPTE O I'I RGN II UOf
~ e .o
r2) 1 .0
C) •.•
(I) •.•
C) . .. , .. 0 .
b u
No fllw»otwd ..... itvdr
I NTENSITY
~ ...
~·I
~· 0 I •
<!> '1 11 1
~ VII
~ VI
¢ v
1. Magnitude symbol sizes are shown on
a continu ous nonlinear teale
--ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
~=-==~----gtAI!ACitAMIIA HYDIIO~UCTIIIC . PIIOJ£CT
Historic Earthqu•n of Foe• O~th Lns rsr.: ~,::: \'Ia:' Site R .. on from
IECHTU CML 1 -LS, INC. ----=-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
earthquake activity relative to the Megat h rust zone. Ho
earthquakes larger t h an about Ms 7.5 are kno wn to occur
alony t he Benioff zone and therefore, a max i mun nagnit u ~e
earthquake of Ms 7.5 is estimated for this zone
(Woodward-Clyde Consultants, 1961).
The primary source of earthquakes in t h e crustal or
shallow seismic zone is novemen~ along fa u lts or other
structures cue to the adjustment of stresses in the
crust. As s how n in Figure 5-7, t h e historic seisnicity
of the crustal zone within a large part of t he project
study area is loN. The data ba se used t o cor.pile t he
h istoric seisnicity of t h e crustal zon e f e r t h is stu ~y
h as no recorded earthquakes in the v ici n i ty of
Chakachanna Lake.
The majority of the recorde d earthqu akes shoun in F ig ~re
S-7 are located along tLe eastern and sout he rr. margin s of
the project study area. Most of these e vents h a ve n o t
been correlated or associated uith any kn o\t n crustal
structures, with the possible exception of o ne e ve nt that
is associated with t h e Castle Mountain fault. As
discussed in Section 5.3.3.3, t he Ca s tle ~ou ntain fault
is one of the two major faults present in t he project
study area. It passes within a mile or les s of the
proposed project facilities in the McArthur River
drainage and within 11 miles of the proposed facilities
at Chakachamna Lake. Evidence for displacment of
Holocene deposits tas been reported in the S us itr.a
lowlands, in the vicinity of the Su s itna River (Detternan
and others, 1976a). Although a nu mbe r of recorded
earthquakes are located along the t :e nd of the Castle
Mountain fault (Fi gu re 5-7), only o n e event, an Ms 7
earthquake in 1933, has been as sociated with the fault
5-71
(Woodvard-Clyde Consultants, 1980b). A maximum nagnitude
eart hquake of Ms 7.5 has been estinated for the Cas tle
Mou ntain fault (Woodwa rd-c:yde Cor;sul tants, 19 81).
Furt her studies are needed to as ses s t h e possible
association of other historic ear t hquakes sho w ~ in Fig u re
5-7 ~l ith candidate significant features icer.tified in the
fault investigation phase of the project study .
aecau ~e o f the prcximity of t h e pr oject site to active
vo lcanoes of t b.e Aleutian Islands -Alaska Penins ula
volcanic chnin, incl ud ing Mt . Spur r which is l o cated
i nnedi atel y northeast of t he Chaka~ha rn na La ~e , ~o lcani c
induced eart hqu akes are considered a po ten tial seismi c
source. nctive volcanism can produce small-to-moderate
nag nitude earthquakes at moderate-to-shallow depths due
to t h e movement of magma or local adjustments of the
earth's cr u st.
Occasionally, severe volcanic activity such as phreatic
explosions or expl o sive caldera collapses nay be
ac compa nied by significant earthquake events. Beca us e
such large volcanic events are rare, there i s little dat a
from which to estimate earthquake magnitudes that n a y be
associated with them. However , because of the
similarities in characteristics of the Mount St. Helens
volcano to those of the Aleutian chain (including Mt.
Spurr), it is reasonable to assume that earthquakes
associated with the recent Mount St. Helens eruption of
May 1960 may also occur during future volcanic activity
of Mt. Spurr and others in t he Aleutian chain. The
largest earthquake associated with t he Mount St. Hele n s
explosive eruption that occurred on 1 8 May 1980 had a
mag~itude of 5.0. Num erous smaller earthquakes with
5-72
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5.3.3
5.3.3.1
nagnitudes ranging from 3 to 4 were recorded during t h e
period preceding the violent rupture of Mount St. Ilelens
(U.S. Geological Surve y , 19 8 0).
As part of a volcanic hazard nonitoring progran, t h e U.S.
Geological Survey has been operating several seismograph
stations in the vicinity of Mt. Spu~r to assess its
activity. Data acquired by these statio~s are not
presently available but will be released in 1982 as an
u~en-File Report (Lahr, J . c., personal connunication,
1981).
Fault Investication
Approach
The objectives of the Chakachanna Lake Hydroelectric
Project seiswic geology task are:
(1) to identify and evaluate significant faults within
the project study area that may represent a
potential surface rupture hazard to project
facilities and
(2) to nake a preliminary evaluation of the ground
motions (ground shakins) to which p~o?osed project
facilities may be subje ~ted during ~arthquakes. In
order to meet the specific task objectives and to
provide a general assessme ro t of the seisnic hazards
in the project area, the seismic geology study was
designed and conducted in a series of sequential
phases (Figure 5-8).
5-73
5.3.3.2 t·1o rk to Date
The s t u dy phas es reported here include review o f
avail ~j le literature, analysis of re motel7 sen sed data,
a e ri:l field reconnaissance, and acquisition of l o~l -s u n
ansle aerial photographs.
Information of a geologic, geomorphic, and seismologic
nature available in the open literature was evaluated to
identify previously reported faults and lineaments that
~ay be fault related within the project study ar~a .
G~ol0 gists presently working in the area or fa mili a r with
t he s t udy area were also contacted. ~he locatio ns of a ll
faults and lineaments derived from t h e literature re v iew
and discussions with other geologists were plotted on
1:250,0 0 0-scale to?ographic maps.
Lineaments interpreted to be fault related were also
derived from the analysis of high-altitude col o r-i nfrared
(CIR) aerial photographs (scale 1:60,000) and Landsat
imagery (scale 1:250,000) of the study area outlin~d by
the 30-mile diameter circle on Figure 5-9. These
lineaments were initially plotted (with brief annotation)
on clear mylar overlays attached to the photographs and
images on which they were observed. The lineaments were
then transferred and plotted on the 1:250,000-scale
topographic map~. The faults and lineaments identified
from the review of the available literature and
interpretation of CIR photographs and landsat imagery
comprise a preliminary inventory of faults and lineaments
within the study area.
The faults and lineaments in the preliminary inventory
were then screened on the basis of a one-third length
5-74
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
REVIEW AVAILABLE
LITERATURE
APPLY LENGTH-DI STANCE SCREENING CRITERIA
ACQUIRE A~D ANALYZE
LOW -SUN -ANGLE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH Y
REM OTE SENSING
INTERPRETATION
·-..
CIIAIACHAMNA HYDROELECTR~PIOJECT
Seismic Geology lnvntiption SeQU ence
BECHTEL CIVL l MINE'~Al "3, INC .
...
~OODWARD-CLYOE CONSULTANTS Figure 5-8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
·.
.·
·-
/
·.
"-":'
..-~!"
~:~~-·:::<·
.'.:.-, ...
::.. •• lo ... ' ,.
•:;-\ ' ' .. "':-
. '
·'
.:"-"
_o ___ :-.=~--::-
-------=-------~--.. -......
·~-..: -·-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
length-distance criterion to select those faults and
line aments within the study ar e a ~ha t po~Pntia l ly. could
produce ~urface rupture at si~Ps proposed for
facilities. Th e length-distance criterion spPcifies a
minimum length for a fault or lineament and a minimum
distance from the project site for a fault or lineament
to be retained for further study. For example , a faul~
or lineament .that trends toward ~hP project site and has
an observed length of 10 miles would be sel~cted for
further study if it was less than 30 miles from ~h e
project site. A fault or lineament wi t h the sa~e trPnd
and same length, bu~ at a distance of gr e a t er th an 30
miles from the project site would not be SPlPCtPd f o r
further study.
The one-third length-distance criterion used is based on
the empirical data that suggest that fault rup~ure rarPly
occurs along the full length of a fault (Pxcept for very
short faults) during an earthquake \SlPmmons, 1977,
1980). The length-distance crit e rion also takes into
account
(1) the possibility of surface rupture wi t hin or nPar ~o
the project site occurring on faults that may be
identified only in areas remote from the project
site, but which in actuality may extend undetected
to the project site, and
(2) the fact that at greater distances from the project
site, only onger faults would have th~ potential of
producing rupture at the site.
Regional faults in southern Alaska that are known or
~nferred to be active but are distant from the project
5-79
study arPa were not evaluated for surface ruptur~
po~ential. These faults, because of thPir activity, wPre
considered to bP poten~ial seismic sourcPs and thf•rPforP
were evaluated 1n tPr rr.s of their potential for causins
significant ground motions at the project site.
The faults and linearnPnts selected for further study on
the basis of the length-distance criterion or becausP
thPy appeared to be potential sources of significant
ground shaking were transferred to 1:63,360-scalE
topographic maps for use during the aPrial reconr.aissancP
phase. During th e aerial reconnaissance, ~he fat .lts werP
exam1ned for evidence (geologic fPaturPs, and gPomorphic
express1on) that wo~ld suggest whether or no~ yo 11thful
activity has occurred. ThP lineaments were examined to
assess:
(l) whethPr they are or are not faults, and
(2) if they are not faults, what is their origin. For
those lineaments that were interpretPd to bE· faults
or fault-related, further examination was made to
look for evidence that would be suggestive cf
youthful activity.
After the aerial reconnaissance evaluation of the faults
and lineaments, each feature was classified into •)ne of
three categories:
(l) a candidate significant feature;
(2) a non-significant feature; or
(3) an indeterminate feature.
5-80
.
I
I
I
I
-I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5.3.3.3
Candidate significant features are those that at som~
po 1nr. along their length, ~xhibit geologic morphologic,
c : v os ~~ational expressions and characteristics ~ha~
p r ov 1de a strong suggestion of youthful fault ac~ivity.
9on-signlficant features are those, which on the basis of
t~P a e rial reconnaissance, apparently do not possP.ss
geologic, morphologic, or vegetational characteristics
and/or expressions suggestive of youthful faul; activity;
1t was possible to identify non-fault-rela~~d origins for
many features in this category. IndPterminatP featur~s
~re t h ose lineaments that posses some geologic,
~or ph ologic, or vegetational characteristics or
~::?:~s sions that suggest the lineament may be a fault or
fa~!t -related fPature with the possibility of y ou~hful
activity, but for which the evidenc~ is not now
conpelling.
Cand1date Significant Features
The candidate significant and indetPrminate f~atures
identified during the first four phases of this task will
require further study in order to evaluate their
potential hazard to the proposed project facilities.
These features occur in thr~~ principal areas, which arP
designated Areas A, B, and c (Figure 5-9) and arP
discussed in the following sections. The featurPs
presented in each area are discussed in terms of thPir
proximity and orientation with respect ~o the nearest
proposed project facility, previous mapping or published
studies in which they have been identified, their
expression on CIR photographs, and observations made
during the aPrial reconnaissance phase of th~ study.
5-81
Area A
Area A is bounded by ~t. Spurr and the Cha ka chat na ~iv~r
and C~a ~ac~anna La k e and Capps Glacier (Figure 5-9).
Four candidate significant features, SU 56 and c u 50, cu
:2 a~d su 150, are located within this area.
Feature CU 50 is a curvilinear fault that tr~nds roughly
east-west and extends from the mouth of the Nagishlamina
aive r to Alice Glacier, a distance of about 5 niles. ThP
west e rn end of the featur e is approximately 2 miles nor~h
of t h P la ~o ou tlPt. CU 50 was initially id~ntifi e d on
CI R p h otogr a phs and is characterized by the alignno n t of:
(1) linear slope br e aks and stPps on ridgPs t hat project
sou thward from Mt. Spurr, east of Barrier Glacier,
with
(2) a linear drainagP and deprPssion across highly
weathered granitic rocks west of Barrie r Glaci e r.
During the aerial reconnaissance, disturbed bedde d
volcanic flows and tuffs were obs e rved on the sides of
canyons where crossed by the feat~re east of BarriPr
Glacier. These volcanic rocks ar e mapped as primarily
being of Tertiary age, b~t locally may be of Quat e rnary
age (Magoon and others, 1976). The possibility of the
disturbed volcanic rocks being of Quaternary age sugge sts
that CU 50 may be a youthful faul t. The dense vegetation
west of Barrier Glacier prohibited close examination of
the fault in the granitic terrain.
CU 50 is classified as a candidate significant f ea~ure on
the basi s of its close pro ximity to propos e d proj ect
5-82
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
facility sites and becausP i t appPars to displacP
volcanic roc ks tha~ may be Quate rnary in ag~.
Feature CU 52 is a composite feature that consists of a
fault mapped by BarnPS (1966 ) and pro mi ne nt mo rphol ogi cal
features observed on CIR photographs. The fPa~ure te nds
N63°E and extends along thP mountain front from Capps
Glacier to Crater Pea k Gla~ier, a distance of about 7.5
miles (Figure 5-9). The south~PStP rn end of th is fpa~urP
is approximately B miles fro m th ·~ outlet of Chakachamna
Lake. Along the nort hPaste rn portion of CU 5 2 , from
Capps Glacier to Brogan Glacier, thP fpaturP is dPfin~d
by a fault that se p ara~es Te r~iar y s ranitic roc ks from
sedimentary rocks of th e Tertiary West ForPland formation
(Magoon and others, 1976). ThP southwe ste rn segmPnt,
from Brogan Glacier to thP CratPr Peak Glacier, which
PXtends the mapped fault a distance of 3 miles, was
identified on the basis of align ed linea r breaks in
slope, drainages, and lithologic contrasts. During the
field reconnaissance, a displac ed volcanic flow was
observed at the southwest end of the feature. Over most
of its length, the fault was obsPrved to b e primarily
exposed in bed rock tPrrain; you thful latPral morainPs
crossed by the fault did not appear to bP affect ed .
This fault is considered to be a candidate significant
feature because of its prominent expression in the
Tertiary sedimentary and volcanic rocks crossed by the
fault and because of its close proximity to the proposed
project facilities. In addition, the faul t may extend
farther to the west along the mountain front than was
observed on th e CIR photographs or during thP bri e f
reconnaissanc e . If such is the case, it may connect wi th
feature CU 50.
5-BJ
r
Feature ~U 56 consists of two segm~nts, a fault and a
l:~P a ~ent. The co~~ inP d fPature trends N78°E and can b e
~r a c Pd from th~ ~o o o f aa rrier Glacier to the edgP of ~~o
~~sa li ke ar ea b~=:;~p n t h e Chakachatna River and Cap ~s
Glacier, a d~st anc9 o f about 11 miles (Figure 5-9). 7 t~
WPstern extent of t ~~ fault segmen c is unknown, bu~ if
the lineament seg m~nt , defined by a lineae depression
across the toe of Barrier Glacier is associated with thP
fault, it ma y extend into and along the south side of
Chakachamna Lake, VPry near the proposed lakP tap.
SU 56 was rec og ni:P d on the CIR photographs on th~ b~s i s
o f the align~P ~t o f worphologic and VPgPtation fPa t~r ~s:
a linear dapr ass 1on ac:oss the piedmont lobe of Barrier
Glacier: a narrow linear vegetation alignment across the
alluvial fan east of and adjacent to Barrier GlaciPr;
small subtle scarps jetween AlicP and Crater Peak
Glaciers; and a pron i nPnt scarp and possibly a displacPd
volcanic flow betwee n Crater Peak and Brogan GlaciPrs.
During the fi eld rec o nnaissance, all of the character-
istics observed on the CIR photographs could be
recogn~zed with the exception of the vegetation alignment
east of Barri e r Glacier. At two locations along the
feature, between Alice and Brogan Giaciers, displac~d
volcanic flows and tuffs WP.rP obs~rved. At both
localities the sense of displacement was down on the
south side relative to the north side. The amount of
displacemen t could not be measured due to the rugged
terrain at the two locations. At the eastern end of the
fault, near Brogan Glacier, the fault is on tr~nd and
appears to connect with one of seven faults observed in
ridges along the eastside of Brogan Glacier where BarnPs
(1966) mapped two prominent bedrock faults.
5-84
•
I
I
I
I
I
I
Feature SU 56 lS class ified a s a candi d ate significan t
feature because :
(l) i t di s place s vo l~ani c rocks th a t ma y be of
Quaternary agE>:
(2) the linea r d e pr e ssi o n across the toe of Barrier
Glacier is on tr E-n d with th ~ fault: and
(3) t he westwar d proj~ction of thE> feat u rE> wo uld pass I very close to th~ ?ropo s~d projE-ct facilities along
the south sidE> o f Ch.:1:~.:l--:..:1:;ma LakE>.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Feat u re S U 150 lS cowpose d of a s eries of paral:el
wes t -to-northwest -t r end ing faults mapped b y Barnes
(1966). ThesE> f aul~s are l o ca ted on the SouthwE-st sidE>
of the mesa-like ar e a between Brogan and Capps GlaciE-r,
approximately 1 2 miles east of the outlet of Chakachamna
Lake (Figure 5-9}. Th ese faults are exposE-d east of
Brogan Glacier along a nE-arly vertical canyon wall that
is deeply E-rod e d into Te rtiary sE-dimentary rocks mapped
as the West Foreland formation (Magoon and othe rs, 1976).
During the a e rial r e connaissance, five additonal faults
were observed along the wall of the canyo n, south of the
two faults mapped by Barnes (1966). Displacement on
these faults, as well as on the two mapped by Barnes
(1966), appears to be on t he order of a few f e et to a few
tens of feet, with the south side up relative to the
nort h side. An ex c eption to this is thE> southE-rnmost
fa u lt, on wh1ch the displacement appears to be relatively
up on the north side. During the aerial r e connaissancE>,
the fault3 could not be traced for any appreciablE>
distance beyond their approxi mat e leng th of 2 mi les
5-85
mapped by Barnes (1966). The southernmost fault, which
lS on tre~d with F~atur~ SU 56, is probably an ext~nsion
of that feature.
Th~ series of faults associat.~d with Featur~ SU 150 ar~
included in this report as candidate significant featur~s
because of the probable connection of the southernmost
fault in the series with F~ature SU 56, w~ich consists of
morphologic features t~at are suggestive of youthful
fault activity.
Area B
Area B includes the Castle Mountain fault and s~ve r al
parallel lineaments (SU 49, SU 84, and CU 56, Figure
5-9). Th~ Castle Mountain fault is on~ of the major
regional faults 1n south~rn Ala ska. It trends northeast-
southwest and ~xtends fr o n the Copper Riv~r basin to the
Lake Clark area, a d1stance of ~pproximatel y 310 miles
(Beikman, 1980). The castle Mou ntain fault crosses the
mouth of the McArthur River Canyon near Blockade
Glacier. The Castle Mountain fault is reported to be an
oblique right-lateral fa u lt with the north side up
relative to the south side (Grantz, 1966: Detterman and
others, 1974, 1976a, b).
The Castle Mountain fault is a prominent feature for most
of its mapped length. The segment northeast of the
Susitna River is defined by a series of linear scarps and
prominent vegetation alignments in the Susitna Lowlands
and lithologic contrast in the Talkeetna Mountains
(Woodward-Clyde Consultants, 1980: Detterman and others,
1974, 1976a). Between the Susitna and Chakachatna
Rivers, the fault is less prominent but is marked by a
5-86
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
series of slope breaks, scarps, sag ponds, lithologic
con ~=~s~s , and locall y s~eeply di??ing, sheared
s~=:~~nt3 :y :ock3 ~h at are generally fla~ to gently
dl ??l n g a~a ~ f rom the fault (Schno l 1 an d others, 1981:
Jarn ~s , l 3 3S). Southwest of the Cha ~achatna River,
~o ~a r i ~h e La k P Clark area, the ca s ~l P ~ountain fault is
•ell defined and expressed by the alignment of slope
breaks, sadd les, benches, lithologic contrasts between
~l ut o nic anc s edimentary rocks, shear zones, and a
pr o minen~ ~O ?ographic trench through the Alaska-Aleutian
~~~se aat h=l~t h (D e tterman and ot h ers, 197Gb).
:L s •l ~3~~n p~-o n t h e Castle Mo~n~ain f~ult h~s ~een
:~cur r 1 ~g s1~ce about the end of Mesozoic time (Grantz,
196 6 ). Th e ma :<i mum amount of vertical displacement is
a b o u t 1.9 ~iles or more (Kelley 1963: Grantz, 1966). The
~a x 1 r.um amount of right-lateral displacement is estimated
by G:antz (196 6 ) to have been several tens of miles along
the eastern ~races of the fault. Detterman and others
(19 ~7 a,b) c i ted 10 miles as the total amount of right-
la~e ral displacment that has occurred along the eastern
portion of the fault and about 3 miles as the maximum
amount of right-lateral displacement that has occurred
along the western portion, in the Lake Clark area.
Evidence of Holocene displacement has only been observed
and documented along a portion of the Castle Mountain
fault in the Susitna Lowland (Detterman and others, 1974,
1976a). During their investigation, Detterrnan and others
(1974) found evidence suggesting that 7.5 ft. of dip-slip
movement has occurred within the last 225 to 1,700
years. The amount of horizontal displacement related t o
this event is not known. However, Detterman and others
5-87
(1974) cited 2 3 ft. of apparent righc-lateral di s place-
~e~c of a sand ridge crossed by t he fault. Bru h n (1979),
~~s?d on two trench exca v a t i o ns, reporc ed 3.0 to 3 .6 ft.
o f d ip-slip displace ~ent, with the north si ce up r elat i ve
to t he so u th $ide, al ong predominatel y st e eply so uth -
dipplng fault trac~s. He also reported 7.9 ft. of
right-lateral displacement of a river terrace near one of
che trench locations.
On the CIR photographs, the Castle Mountain fault i s
rea d 1ly recognizable on th~ basis of th~ alignment of
l 1 ne a r mo rphologic and veg~tation fe at ures. Tbe mos t
no~abl e features were observed in are as wh ere bedroc k is
~~p osed a t the surface and include: the promin e n t s!ope
b r e ak that occurs along the southside of Mo un t Sus itna
and Lone Ridg e; the p~omin e nt bench across t he ~nd of the
Ch igmit Mountains, between th~ McArthur and Cha kachat na
Rivers; and the alignment of glacial valleys in t h e
Alaska Range, one of which is occupied by Blockade
Glac ier. In areas covered by glacial d eposits, th~
expression of t h e Castle Mountain is more subtle and is
dominantly an alignment of linear drainages, depressi ons ,
elonga ted mounds, and vegetation contrasts and alignments.
Based on interpretation of the CIR photo graphs and aerial
reconnaissance observations, three lineaments (SU 49 and
portions of SU 84 and CU 56) are b~lieved to be traces or
splays of the Castle Mountain fault. Lineament SU 49 is
approximately 4 miles long, trends northeast, and is on
line with the segment of the fault mapped between Lone
Ridge and Mount Susitna (Figure 5-9). SU 49 was
identified on t h~ basis of the alignment of linear
drainages an d s addles on a southeast-trending ridg e wi th
a vegetation contrast in t h~ Chakachatna River flo o d
5-88
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
plain and by a possible right-lateral affect or the east
facing escarpment along the west side of the Chakacha~na
River.
Lineament SU 84 partially coincides with the mapped trace
of the Castle Mountain fault southwest of Lone Ridge. At
the Chuitna River, the mapped trace of the Castle
Mountain fault bends slighcly to the north (Figure 5-9)
whereas lineament SU 84 continues in a mo re southwesterl y
direction. Features along SU 84 that make it suspect are
the alignment of an elongate mound on trend with s teep ly
dipping sedimentary rock3 ex?osed along the ban ks of ~he
Chuitna River and the eroded reentrant along t h e h 1gh
bluff on the northeast side of the Cha ka chatna River
(Nikolai escarpment).
Lineament CU 56 is located east of Lone Ridge; it t r ends
N70°E, is 7 miles long, and is an echelon to the mapped
trend of the Castle Mountain fault. CU 56 was identifie d
on the CIR photographs on the basis of the alignn e nt of
linear drainages and dep r essions and vegetation c o ntrasts
and alignments. During the aerial reconnaissance, a
broad zone of deformed sedimentary rocks was observed on
the location where CU 56 crosses the Beluga River. This
locality coincides with a zone of steeply dipping
sedimentary r o cks mapped by Barnes (1966).
Area C
Area C is located south t0 southeast of the proposed
project facilities sites, along the southeastern side of
the Chigmit Mountains between the North Fork Big River
and McArthur River (Figure 5-9). Th ree prominent nor th-
east trending parallel features, su 16, SU 22, and SU 23,
5-89
are located in this area. SU 16 is an inferred faul t
that transverses ~o th granitic bedrock and glacial
depos its. SU 22 and SU 23 ar e primarily confin~d to th~
granitic bedrock terrain.
Feature S U 16 is the long~st of the three nort heast -
southwest trending features located in ARea c. This
feature extends fron approximately the intersection of
the McArthur and Kustatan Rivers southwestward across a
broad bench and along the northeast trending segnent of
the North Fork Big River, a distance of about 25 niles
(Figure 5-9). S U 16 may extend ~ven farther to the wPst
if it follows a v Pry linear glac1al va lley that is
aligned with the nort hPas t t rend i ng sPgment of the North
Fork Big River. The nor the rn end of SU 16 approaches to
within 10 m1les of the proposed project facilities in
Mc~rthur River area.
SU 16 was identified on thP CIR ?hotographs and aerial
reconnaissance on the basis of the alighment of elongate
low hills, linear depressions, vegetation contrasts,
prominent slope breaks, and a lithologic contrast that
form the broad bench like arPa between the North Fork Big
River and Kustatan Rivers. The southwestern segment of
the feature is defined by the alignment of a linear
portion of the North Fork Big River and a linear glacial
valley north of Double Peak. During the aerial
reconnaissance, no distinctive evidence, such as
displaced lithologic units or bedding or scarps, was
observed to confirm that SU 16 is actually a fault.
Nonetheless, morphologic features that were observed d o
suggest that SU 16 is a fault and that it may be a
youthful fault.
5-90
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SU 16 is included 1n this report as a candidat~
significa n t fa~l t b ~cause the morphologic features
obs~rvec on ~~? C I ~ p h otographs and during the aerial
reconnai s b a;:~e s t r o~gly suggest tha t it is a faul t and
may be a youthful fault.
Features su 22 and SU 23 (Figure 5-9) are both northeast
trending l1 nea r to cu rvilinear faults that parallel one
another at a d lstanc~ of about one mile. Feature SU 22
can be traced fro ~ about the McArthur River southwestward
to Black Pea ~, a dist ance of about 16 miles. Feature SU
23 1 s approx!:~~~2 1J 8 ~1les in length and extends fro~
Blac k sand Cr a ~k a ~uthwe s t ward to the north Fork Big River
area. Th e n o r~t ~~st ~rn ends o f the two features (SU 22
and su 23) appr oa c h to ·:th in 8 miles of proposed project
facllit y sites in the McArthur River area. Both features
were reco gniz ed on CIR photographs and are defined by th~
alignment of prom1nent linenr troughs that are partially
occupi~d by small lakes and ponds, scarps, slope breaks,
benches, and sad d l~s.
Dur1ng the a~rial reconnaissance, the two features could
be readily traced across bedrock t~rrain (mapped as
Jurassic to Cretaceous-re rtiary granitic rock; Magoon and
others, 1976) on the basis of their morphologic
features. Slicken-sided and polished surfaces were
observed at several of the scarps and slope break
localities examined; sheared zones were also observed
during the reconnaissance. The southwestern portions of
both features are located in very rugged terrain and are
poorly defined due to the highly jointed granitic rocks
that are present along this segment.
5-91
'
At the nort h ern end , in the vicinity of Blacksand Creek,
SU 23 appea r s to sp l ay out with o ne trace trending towa r d
SU 22 and one t r ac e tr e nding toward SU 16 (Fig u re 5-9).
SU 22 a l s o appea r s t o die o ut in t~e vicini~y of
Blacksar.d Cr e e k , ul:r.cugh there was a subtle tonal
alignment o~se r vec o ~ t h e :r ~ phot o graphs on the north
side of the creek that sugg es ts it may extend across
Blacksand Creek towa r d the Mc Arthur River.
SU 22 and S U 2 3 are ~nclu ded as candida~e significan~
feat u res becau s e t h eir p:om inent expression suggests tha~
they are ~ajor s~ructu r ~s a nd th at they may be as so cia~e d
with s u 16 w~ich i s consi d ered a faul~ with possible
youthful a ct1vi ty .
Area D
Area D (Fig u re 5-9) includes t he Br u in Bay fault, which
is one of the ~ajor regiona l faults in southern Alaska.
The Bruin Ba y fa ult is a nort he ast-tr e nding, moderate-to-
steeply-n o rt h wes t -d~pp i ng r eve rse fault that extends
along the northwest side of the Cook Inlet froffi near
Mount Susit na to Bechalaf Lake , a dis t ance of abou t 3 2 0
miles (Detterman and others, 1976b). The fault
approaches as close as approxi m a~ely 30 miles south to
southwest of the proposed project facilities at
Chakacha~na Lake and approximately 20 miles of the
project facilities in the McArthur River.
The northern segment of the Bruin Bay fault, from about
the Drift River area to Mou nt Susitna, is projected
beneath surficial deposits from its last bedrock exposure
north of Katchin Creek. The projection is based on a
prominent linear depression across Kustatian Ridg e ,
5-92
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
·-
. t
I
I
I
I
I
I
alignment of linear lakes and de pr ~ssions in the lowland
area wes t and north of Tyone k , ar.d highly disturb~d and
faulted Teritiary sedimentary r o c ks along the Chuitna and
Beluga River (D etterman and others, 1 976b ; ~ag oon and
others, 1976; Schmo ll and others, 1981 ). To the south of
Katchin Creek, where the fault is expo sed in bedrock
areas, the trace of th fault is commonly marked by a
zone of crush~d rock a few to several hundred m~ters wid~
a nd saddles or notches (Detterman and oth~rs, 1976 b ).
The sense of displacement along the f ault is reverse with
the north side up relative to t he south side (Magoon and
o th ers, 1976; Detterman an~ oth~rs, 1976b). D~tt~rman
and Hartsock (1966) report ed left-lateral displac e ~ent of
6 miles or less has occurred along the fault in the
Iniskin-Tuxednl reg1on, southwest of the study area. The
youngest unit report~d displaced by the Br u in Bay fault
is the Tert1ary sedimentary Beluga formation (~agoo n and
others, 1976). No displac~ment of Holocene surficial
deposits between Katchin Creek and the pro b able junction
of the fault with Castle Mountain fault near Mt. Susitna
has been observed o r documented (Detterman and others
1976b; Detterman, personal c omm unicatio~, 1981) •
During the analys1s of the CIR photographs, several
subtle to prominent discontinuous lineaments were
iden t ified along the projected trend of the Bruin Bay
fault across the McArthur and Chakachatna River flood
plains near the Cook Inlet, and along the lowland area
west of Tyonek. The lineamen ~s were exa~ined during the
aerial reconnais s ance and no displacement or disturbed
Holocene deposits were observed. Several of the
lineamen t s, however, did c o incide with disturbed or
faulted sedime ntary rocks of t h e Beluga formation exposed
5-93
5.3.3.4
along the Chuitna and Beluga Rivers. Further work is
n2=~~d t o as se33 whether ~he glacial and/or fluvial
~??~3i~s ov~rl }lnS tme sedioen~ar y ~e d rock haVP-been
.: .l ~ l : ... ·-o r ch s 1: u r b,e d •
~lt j c~g~ no evidence has be~n ~bs?:?ed or reported that
would in d lcate youthful fa~lt ac~ivity along the Bruin
gay fault, several of the linearnen~s observed on the CIR
p~ot.osra p h s are s ::ggestiv.? oti y o~thful fault activity.
On t he ~as is of the linearnen~s along the projected trace
c ! ~h e 3:u in s~y fault, and t te fact th at the fault is
3 ~=??C ~?~ co 1ntersect wit h :t ~ Cast le Mountain fault,
:.::> 3c.:t:·, aa~· .:ault is co ns:G~.:ec for this report to be a
·= ,:-.rll d .::, r: ~ 3 i c:;n i f icant feat u :P.
~~o ll ~a~l ~ns Wltr. Respec~ to t he Proposed Hydroelectric
?r :)j ec t
Ba sed on t he ~esults of the work to date a preliminary
~~se ss me n t can be made regarding the potential surface
faulting hazards and seismic sources of ground motion
(shakin~l wifh respect to the proposed project site.
(1) •ith i n the study area, faults and lineaments in fo u r
ar~as have been identified for further evaluation in
o ~~er to assess and better understand their
potential ei fect on project considerations. For
example~ if feature SU 56 is an active fault, its
trend is toward the area proposed for the lake tap
and e fie extent and activity of this feature clearly
r equire evaluation. Several of these features may
~~0v& to be capable of producing earthquakes, thus
bat~ ground shaking and surface rupture in the
project area.
5-94
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
I
5.4
(2) The Castle Mountain fault 1s located along the
so uthe ast side of t he Chig~1~ Moun~ains a t th~ mou ~h
of McA rt hu r Canyon. Al~ho ug h no displaceme nts of
Holocene deposits have been ob~~rved or r eported fo r
the segment of ~he Castle Moun:ain fault between the
Susitna R1ver and the Lake Cl~r:; a :ea, t:he fault is
cons1dered a n active fault on the basis of the
reported displacement of Holocene deposit s east of
the project ar ea in the v1cin i~y of the Susitna
River.
( 3) Based on a review of the a~ailable :i~?rature and
detailed studies concuc ed for ~aja r p rojects in
so ut hern Alaska there ar e th :?~ pot e ntial seismic
sourc es that Day hav e an effect on the project
site . These include: the subduction zone , which
consists of the Megathrust and Benioff zone ; c rustal
seismic zone; and severe volc anic act lVit y . The
Castle Mountain fault (crust3l se ismic source) and
the Megathrust segmen t of the subdu ction zone are
expected to be the most critical to the project with
r espect to levels of peak ground acceleration,
duration of strong shaking, and development of
response spectra. (see Section 7 .4).
References
Barnes, F. F ., 1966, Geology and coal resources of the
Beluga-Yentna Region , Alaska: u.s . Geological Survey
Bulletin 1202-C, 54 p .
Beikman, H. M., compiler, 19 74 , Preliminary geol o gic map
of the southeast quadrant of Alaska: U.S. Geological
5-95
Surv~y Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-612, scalP
1:1,000,000.
Beikrnan, H. M., c om p1l e r, 19 80 , Geologic ~ap of Alaska :
u.s. Geological s u rve y , scale 1:2,5 0 0,00 0 .
Bruhn, R. L., 1979, Holocene displacemen~ rnPasu r~d by
trench i ng the Castle Mountain fault near Houston,
Alaska: Ala sk a Division of Geologica l a nd Geophysical
Survey s, Ge o logical Report 61, 4 p.
Bureau of Reclamation, Chak achamna Pr o:ect Alas k a -
Status repor t :tarch, 1 962 : Bu r Pau o f RPclana~i o n, Al a s~a
District Office, J uneau, Alaska, unpublis ~e d r epo rt, 2 1 p .
Capps, s. R., 1935, The southern Alaska Ra~ge: u .s.
Geological survey Bulletin 862, 101 p.
Detterrnan, R. L ., and Hartsock, J. K., 1 965 , Geology of
the Iniskin-Tu xedni Region, Alaska: u.s. Geologic al
Surv ey Professio nal Paper 512 , 78 p.
Detterrnan, R. L ., Plafker, G. Hudson T., 7ysdal, R. G.,
and Pavoni, N. 1974, S ur face geology and Holocene brPaks
along the Susitna segment o f the Castle Mou ntain fault,
Alaska: u.s. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field
Studies Map MF-618, scale 1:24 ,000.
Detterrnan, R. L., Plafk P r, G., Tysda l , R. G., and Hudson,
T ., 1976a, Geology and surface featurPs along part of the
Talkeetna segment of the castle Mountain-Caribou fault
system, Alaska: U.S. Geo logical Survey MiscPllaneous
F1eld St ud i es Ma p MF -73 8 , s c a le 1:63,360.
5-96
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Detter man, R. L., Hud s o n, T., Plaf k er, G., Ty sdal, R. G.,
and Hoc::.:~, ~. :!.: 1 :)7~::,, :l e co nr.~1ssar:ce geo l o g 1c r.1ap
alo ng t:=:e 3 :.:::: =-~-:..· . ..: :....:1 ::e C!c r ~ fault s i n K ~r . .:!i anc
Ty on e ~ s~~d ::.ns -~s , :!:.=~a ; U. S . Geol ogical Su r v e y
Open-F il e Jepor t 7 6 -~7 7, ~ p ., s cale 1:2 50,000.
Giles, G. -., 1 96 7, Ba rr ie r Glaci e r in vestigation s an d
obser vatio n ~ i~ co~~ec t1 o n ~ith waterpower s t udies: u.s.
Ceo l eg ical Su r 't?'i , ~n i)u !)l :3 :-:ec r e por t , 61 p .
Gran tz , Art ~~r , :;:e , S ~~1~o -slip f a u l t s in ~la sk a:
U • S • G e :::.1 c ~: .:. ..: : ~--_ : ·: .=: • • 0 --"'::-P i .: ? Rep o r t , 8 2 p •
Hastie, L . :: .. :!:-. ..: .s ::·:~s..,, c ., 1 970, A d isloca t:1o n
model for ':i:.~ .\las :-:.:1 E>art:h.:;iuake : Bulletin of t~~
Seismolog1 c al Socl?~Y o f An ~rica , v. 60, p. 1389-1392 .
Hunt, c . B., 1967 , Phy siography of the Uni t e d S tat:es: il .
H. Freeman an d Co ., San Franci s c o , 480 p.
Jackson, B. L., 19 61 , Pot enti al waterpower o f Lake
Chakac ha~n a, Al aska : U. S . Geo logical Survey Open-File
Report, 2 0 p .
J ohnson, A., 1950, Repor t o n r e c o nna i ssa nc e of Lak e
Chakachamna (sic ), Alas k a: u . S. Geological Survey Op e n-
File Report, 8 p. pl u s pla te s.
Juhle, W., and Co u lter, H., 1955, The Mt . S purr eruption,
July 9, 1953 : Transac t ion s , American Ge ophysical J nion,
v. 36, no. 2, p. 199-202.
Karls t ro m, T .v., 1 9 6 4 , Qua te rnary g e o l o g y o f t he Ke nai
lowland and g lacial h is t ory of t he Cook Inlet region,
5-97
Alaska: u . s. Ge ological Survey Pr ofessional Paper 443,
69 p .
Karlst:: .. ~, ::. , .
• • i Coulter , H. w., Je rnald, A. T.,
W1lli~~s , J. a ., Ho p k ins, D. M., Dr ewes , H., 9 u ller, E.
H., a:1c Can::on , ',1 . H., 1964, surf1cial Geology of
Alask a: u . s. G~ological Su~vey Miscellane0us Geologic
Invest i <;:;.tion :la? I-557, scale 1:1,584,000.
Kelley , T. 2 ., 1963, Geology and hydro~arbons in Cook
I nl e t: Basi n , Ala sk a, in Childs, D. E., and Beebe, B. w.,
ed s., Ba c ·:~O~? o! the n oe ricas Symposium: American
Asso ciat:.o:• -:.:: ?'?t.r oleu::l Geologists P.1e mo ir 2 , p. 2 '78-2 96.
Lahr, J . C., Qnc Stephens, c . D., 1981, Review of
earthqua k e a cr.i v ity and current status of seismic
mo ni to ring 1 n the reg1 o n of the Bradley Lake
Hy droelectric Project: u . s. Geologica Survey Report,
prepared for t he Department of t h e Ar my, Alas ka District,
Corps o f Enginee r s , 2 1 p.
Lamke , R. D., 19 72 , Floods o f the summer of 1971 in
aouthcen t ral Al aska : ~. s . Geological Survey , Wate r
Reso ~rces DiVl S l on , Alaska District, Open-File Report , p.
30-31.
Magoon, L. B., Adkison, w. L., and Egbert, R. M., 1976,
Map showing geology , Wildca t Wel l s , Tertiary plant fossil
localities, K-Ar age dates, and petroleum operations,
Cook Inlet area, Alaska: u. S. Geological Survey Map
I-1019, scale 1:250,000.
Mc Cann, w. R., Per1 z, o. J ., and Sykes, L. R., 1980,
Yakataga Ga p, Alaska: Seismic history and earthquake
potential: Science, v. 207, p. 1309-1314.
5-98
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Miller, R. D., and Dobrovolny, E., 1959, Surficial
g eology of Anchorage and vicinlty, Alaska: u. s.
Geolog1cal S u rvey a u lletin 1093, 128 p.
!lational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra~ion, 1981,
Hypocenter Data File Period of Coverage 1929 to 1980:
Environmental Data Services, Boulder, Colorado.
Pewe, T. L. Hopkins, D. M., and Giddings, J. L., 19 65 ,
The Quaternary geology and archeolo~y of Alaska: in
Wr1ght, H. E. and Frey, D. G., e ds., Th e Quaternary of
~he United States, Princeton University Press, Princeton,
p . 355-374.
Pewe, T. L., 1975, Quaternary geology of Alaska: U.S.
Geological Survey Professional Paper 835, 145 p.
Plafker, G., 1969, Tectonics of the March 27, 1964,
Alaska Ear~hqua ~es: u. s. Geological Survey Professional
P 3 per 543-I, 74 p.
Porter, S. C., and Denton, G. H., 1967, Chronology of
Neoglaciation in the North &uerican cordillera: American
Journal of Science, v. 2 65, p. 177-2 10.
Post, A., 1969, Distribution of surging glaciers in
western North America: Journal of Glaciology, v. 8, no.
53, p. 229-240.
Post, A., and Mayo, L. R., 1971, Glacier da mmed lakes and
outburst floods in Alaska: U. S. Geological Survey
Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA-455.
5-99
Richter, c. F., 1958, Elementary seisnology: San
Francisco, Freeman Pr e ss, 76 8 p.
Schmoll, E . R., Szabo , B . J ., Ru bin, M., a ~d Do b r o ~o l n y ,
E., 1972, Ra diometric dating of marine shells fr o m t h P
Bootlegger Cove clay, A~chorage ar e a, Alaska: Bulletin,
Geological Society of ArnPrica, v. 83, p. 1107-1114.
Schrno:l, H. R., Yehle, L. A., GardnPr, c. A., 1981,
Preliminary geologic map of the Conga hbuna area, Cook
Inlet Re gion, Alask a : U , s . GPol og 1cal Sur v e y Open-Fil e
Report 81-~29, 8 p.
chmoll, H. R ~, Pasch , h. D., Ch l e bo r a d , A. r ., YP h l e , L.
A., and Gardner, c. A., in press, Reco n n aissance
engineering geology of the Beluga Coal resou rc e s area,
south-central Alaska, in Rae, P. D., Pd., Focus on
Alaska's Coal '80, Conference, Fair b anks, Alaska,
Proceedings: Fairbanks, University of Alaa ka , S ch ool of
M1neral Industry MIRL Report No. 47.
Slemmons, D. B., 1977, State-o f-the-ar t f o r assessing
earthquake hazards in the Un1ted S t a t es; ?art 6: Faul t s
<~d earth qua ke wagnitude wit h Appendix on geomorphic
features of active fault z o ~es: u. s. Ar my Enginee ring
Waterways Zxperimen t Station, Vicksburg, Contract No.
DACW 39-C-0009, 120 p.
Slemmons, D. B., 1980, Letter toR. E. Jackson, Nucle ar
Regulatory Commission, dated 5 November 1980 and errata,
dated 4 December 1980, in San Onofre Nuclear Ge n e rat ing
Stations Uni t s 2 and 3, Safety Evaluation RPpor t ,
~UREG-0712, Appendix E, p. El-E28.
5-100
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Sykes, L. R., 1971, Aftershock zones of grPat earth-
quakes, se1srn icity gaps, and ear~hq u a k e predic t i o n for
Alaska ar.d ~he Aleutians: Journal o : G~ophysic a l
Research, v. 76, p. 8021-8041.
Tarr, R. s., and M ar~in, L., 1912, The earthqua k es at
Yakutat Bay, Alaska in September 1899: U. s. Geological
Survey Professional Pa~er 69, 135 ~·
TenBrink, N. w., and Ritter, D. F., 1980, Glacial
chronology of the north-central Alaska Range and
implications ~or j~~co~~'Y of early man sites:
Geolog i.s:al So cH•\:y ot Ame r1ca, Abstracts with Progr a:ns ,
1980, p. 534.
TenBrink, N. w., and Way~homas, c. F.~ in preparation,
Late Wiscons1n glac1al chronology of the north-central
Alaska Range - a rPgional synthesis and i t s implications
for early man settl Pm ents.
Thatcher, W., and Plafker, G., 1977, 1899 Yakutat Bay,
Alaska Ear t hquakes: S~ismograms and Crustal Deformation
(Abs.): Geological Society of Am ·~ica Abstracts with
Programs, v. 9, p. 515.
Trainer, F. w., and Waller, R. M., 1965, Subsurface
stratigraphy of glacial drift at Anchorage: Alaska: u. s.
Geological Survey Professional Paper 525-D, p. D167-D174.
U. s. Geological Survey, 1980, Volcano Log: Mount St.
Helens, 1980, Spall, H., (ed.), in Earthquake Information
Bulletin: U. s. Geological Survey, July-August 1980, v.
1 2 , no. 4, p. 142-149.
5-101
Williams, J. R., and Ferrina s , 0. J., 1961, Lat:e
Wi sconsin and r ec ent ~istor y of the Matanuska Glacier,
l.laska: Arc tic , v. 1.;, no. l, p. 83-90.
Woodward-Cl yde Consultant:s, 1978, Offshore Alaska seism ic
exposure study : Prepar ed for Alaska Subarctic Opera t ors'
Committee (ASOC), Marc h , 1978, v. 1 through 5.
Woodwar d -Cl y dP Consul ta nts, 1979, Reconnaissance Geology,
Bradley Lake Hydro e lec t ric Project: Contract No. Dh~d
85-7 9-C-004 5 , Departmen t of the Arm y , Alaska District,
Corps of En gineers, 65 p .
woodward-Clyd e Co nsul tants , 1380a , S e i sm icity St:u d y
Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project: Contract No. DACW
dS-79-C-0045 Modlfication ?0001, Depar tme nt of the Ar my ,
Alaska District, Corps o f Enginee~s ~ 35 p ~
Woodward-Clyde Consultants , 1980b , Inter~m ~e port o n
Seismic Studies fo r Susitna Hydroelect~ic Project for
Acres American Incorporated: Alaska Power Authority,
Susitna Hydroelectric Proj ec~, Subta sk 4.01 through 4.08.
Woodw ard-Cl y de Consultants, 1981, Draft Report Bradley
Lake Hydroelectric Project Design Earthquake Study:
Contract No. DAC W 85-79-C-0045 Modification 0005,
Department of the Army, Alaska District, Corps of
Eng1neers, 5 3 p.
5-10 2
u
u
[I
q
[ I
t l
{\
l
r 1
r 1
11
n
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ENVIRONMENTAL
I STUDIES
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6.0
6.1
6.1.1
ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES -SUMMARY
Environmental studies were conducted within the
Chakachatna and McArthur River drainages during both
1981 and 1982. The 1981 studies included investigations
of the hydrology, aquatic and terrestrial biology and
human resources of the area. These studies were limited
in scope due to the s ~o rt-time frame which ~as available
for conducting field investigations. Studies conducted
in 1982 emphasized aquatic biological investigations
(seasonal sampling), but also included supplemental
hydrological studies. The following section presents
summary information for each of the 1981-1982 studies.
The complete detailed reports for the environmental
studies are presented in the APPENDIX to Section 6.0 in
Volume 2 of this report.
Environmental Studies -1981
!n 19 6 1, t wo environmental reconnaissance level surveys
were condu c terl in the project area. The first was
conducted in Aug ust to document the presence of sockeye
salmon (Oncorhyn~hus nerka) in the project waters, and
to survey the site in preparation for the fall fie ld
reconnaissance. The second investigation, conducted in
mid-September, involved two weeks of field data
collection. Coincident with these studies were ongoing
reviews of the literature and discussions with key
agency and native corporation personnel.
Environmental Hydrology
Hydrology field studies were conducted for Chakachamna
Lake, several of its tributary streams, and the
Chakachatna and McArthur Rivers. The hydrologic fiel d
data collected included measurements of discharge taken
~1
6.1.2
at eight study locations, a water level survey of
ChaKachatna Lake, a wetland/river level survey taken in
a channel of the Noaukta Slough, and a ch~racterization
of channel pattern and configuration including the
composition of bed and bank materials.
Office evaluations were also conducted to synthe~ize
hydrologic data at eight study locations. Data that
were developed included mean monthly flows, mean annual
flows, historical flood flows, and historical low
flows. In addition, using the Montana Method,
preliminary instream flow recommendations for
maintaining fisheries habitat were calculated on a
monthly basis for the outlet of Chakachamna Lake.
The field data collected from the various streams were
typical of glacial rivers, with low flows in late
winter, large glacier melt flows in July and August, and
annual peaks due to fall rains. The reaches of the
McArthur and Chakachdtna Rivers vary from mountainous
through braided and meandering streams. All except the
most infrequent large floods are contained within the
unvegetated flood plain. Sedimentation characteristics
in the streams appear to be typical of glacial systems
with very fine suspended sediments and substantial bed
load transport. The water level of Chakachamna Lake
(measured in Sept ember) was 1,142 feet which was typical
for the lake in September based on 12 years of past
records.
Aquatic Biology
Two reconnaissance level surveys were conducted in
Chakachamna Lake, and in the Chakachatna, Chilligan and
McArthur Rivers and tributaries. The first reconnais-
sance occJrred during 17-18 August and consisted of
aerial 0 bservations of the project area.
6-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The second reconnaissance, conducted 15-28 September,
involved the collection of data from areas identifie d
during the initial survey. This effort P~ployed b o th
field sampling and visual observations. The major
objectives of this reconnaissance were to identify the
fish species and li~e stages during the fall, to
identify potential critical fisheries habitats in the
system, and to provide information on the species
composition of fish and their habitat use occurring at
different times of the year.
A total of 14 species of fish were collected from the
waters of the project area including all five species of
Pacific salmon found in Alaska (Table 6.1). Some of the
streams flowing into Chakachamna Lake contained large
areas used by sockeye salmon for spawning. Substantial
numbers of sockeye were counted in the Igitna and
Chilligan Rivers, and there was evidence of potential
sockeye spawning in Chakachamna Lake. Juvenile sockeye
salmon used Chakachamna and Kenibuna Lakes as nursery
habitat. Lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush), Dolly
Varden (Salvelinus malma), round whitefish (Prosopium
cylindraceum) and slimy sculpin (Cottus cognatus) were
also found in these locations
Side channels and tributaries of the Chakachatna and
McArthur Rivers contained salmonid spawning sites and
numerous fish were observed using them. These habitats
were also used as juvenile rearing areas. The Noaukta
Slough, a meandering reach of the Chakachatna River, was
used extensively as a nursery area by juvenile fishes,
particularly coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and sockeye
salmon. Juvenile pygmy whitefish (Prosopium coulteri)
and Dolly Varden were also abundant in the slough. The
intertidal ranges of both river systems do not contain
suitable habitat for salmonid spawning or juvenile
rearing.
6-3
Table 6.1 Specie s list and drainage of occurrence Au q ust-September 1981.
!Jr aina~e o f Occurrence
Chakachatna McArthur Species Riverl River
pygmy whitefish Prosoeium coulteri + + round whitefish ProsoEium cllindraceum + + Dolly Varden Salvelinus malma + + lake trout Salve linus namalcush +
rainbow trout Salmo gairdneri + + pink salmon Oncorhlnchus 2orbuscha + + chum salmon Oncorh~nchus ket c1 + + "' I coho salmon Oncorhyr.chus kisutch + + ~
sockeye salmon Oncorh~nchus nerka + + chjnook salmon Oncorh~nchus tshaw~tscha + + arctic grayling Thlmallus arcticus +
slimy sculpin Cottus cognatus + + three spine stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus + + ninespine stickleback Pungitius pungitius + +
1
rncludes Lake Chakachamna and Middle River
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6.1.3
Lake trout appeared to occur only in Chakachamna Lake,
while Dolly Varden were ubiquitous throughout both the
Chakachatna River and McArthur d r ainages. Rainbow trout
(Salmo gairdneri) were collected only in the lower
portions of the ~rainages. Round and pygmy whitefish
were found in most areas of the drainages, although
pygmy whitefish were not found in Chakachamna Lake or
drainages above it. Slimy sculpin were found throughout
both systems and in tributary streams. Sticklebacks,
however, were only found in backwater areas and among
vegetation, usually in the lower reaches of the rivers.
Only a single grayling (Thymallus arcticus) was observed
in a side channel in the upper Nagishlamina River, and
none were collected or observed at any other location.
It was clear that most of the species found inhabit both
drainages.
In genetal, the fish in this area may be classified into
two primary groups, forage fish, and commercial and
sport fish. Forage fish in the project area include
threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus),
ninespine stickleback (Pungitius pungitius), slimy
sculpin, pygmy whitefish, and round whitefish.
Although the round whitefish is probably not used as a
subsistence species in these drainages, it is eaten by
lake trout and other species of fish. Sport and commer-
cial fishes include pink (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha), chum
(Oncorhynchus keta), sockeye, coho and chinook salmon
(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), and Dolly Varden, lake
trout, rainbow trout, and grayling.
Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife
The objective of the terrestrial component for the
environmental study was to characterize the vegetative
and wildlife communities within the project area.
6-5
Because this project would affect t he lands and waters
of both the Chakachatna and McArthur drainage systems,
qualitative data were collected throughout the study
area and vegetation and wildlife habitat maps were
prepared so that areas of a sensitive or critical na-ure
could be identified.
Previous investigations conducted in the area by the
Alaskan Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) and the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) have concentrated on
documenting waterfowl utilization of the coastal marshes
of Cook Inlet. In addition to annual aerial surveys of
the Trading Bay State Game Refuge performed by the
personnel of ADF&G, personnel of USFWS have conducted
aerial swan surveys encompassing the lands in and
adjacent to the refuge. Although the main purpose of
these surveys has been to census waterfowl, information
has also been gathered o n bald eagle nest sites, moose
calving grounds, and the occurrence of Beluga whales
near the McArthur River.
During the 1981 studies, eight types of vegetation
habitats were delineated based on their structural and
species composition. These rcnged from dense alder
thickets in the canyons to vast areas of coastal marsh.
The riparian communities were the most prevalent,
varying from river s with emergent vegetation to those
with broad flood plains scattered with lichen, willow
and alder.
Evaluation of wildlife communities in the project area
identified sixteen species of mammals (Table 6.2).
Moose, coyote, grizzly bear and black bear occur
t hroughout the area. Birds also were abundant,
fifty-six species hav i ng been identified, with the
coastal marshes along Trading Bay containing the largest
diversity.
6-6
-------------------
C1l
I
-...1
Ta ble 6 .2 The s p ecies compos it ion a nd r e l a t ive abun d an ce of ma mmals ident i fied with i n
the study area for eac h o f t h e h abi t at
S p e c ie s
grizzly bear Ur s us horr i b .i li s
black bear Ursus amer.t canu s
gray wolf Canis ~ coyote Can.ts ns
moose Al ce s alces
barren ground caribou Rangi fe r arct ic u s
wolverine Gulo luscus
mi nk Mus tela V.lS On
river otter Lutra canad ensi s
beaver Cas t o r can.A dens J.s
muskrat Ond a tra z .t be t hica
red s q u i rrel T a miasciurus hudson ic u s
tundra red back vole C l e thriono m;ts r u t ilus
tundra vole Microtis o econ omus
porcupine E r e thizon d orsa t um
~~~~rs~~=~Db So rex obscuru s
P Fi oca v.1tul1na
beluga whale De lEhinaEte rus l e u c as
a Upland Alder Thicket (UAT );
High Altitude Riparian (HAR);
Black Cottonwood Riparian (BC R);
Coastal Ma r sh Ri p arian (CMR);
Black Spruce Transitional (B S T);
Resin Birch Bog (RBB);
Willow Thicket Ripar i an (S TR ); and
Black Spruce Riparian (BS R).
typ e s .
UAT
3
1
5
3
5
5
5
5
1
3
b si g hted offshore n e ar t h e mou th of t h e Mc Art h u r Rive r.
(!=Abunda n t )=Commo n 5 =0ccasiona l)
Ha bitat a
HA R BCR CMR BS T RBB WT R BS R
1 3 3 5 5 3 )
1 3 3 5 3 3 3
) 5 5 5 5
3 3 1 3 3 ) 3
1 1 3 3 3 3 )
5
5 5 5 5
5 ) 5 3
5 5 5
3 3 3
5 3 3 3
5 5 5 5 5
) 3 ) 3 )
3
3 ) 5
) )
5
5
6.1.4
None of the species of plants, mammals and birds that
were found are listed as threatened or endangered,
although in May 1981 it was proposed that the tule
whitefronted goose, which feeds on and nests in the
area, be con s ide re d fo r t h reatened or endangered status.
Human Resources
These studies were organized into the following six
elements:
Archaeological and historical resources
Land ownership and use
Recreational resources
Socioeconomic characteristics
Transportation
Visual resources
Contacts with both state and federal agencies and Native
organizations, and a limited reconnaissanc~ of the
project area were made during the 1981 studies. No
known cultural sites were identified and the field
reconnaissance indicated that the proposed sites for the
power intake and powerhouses have a low potential for
cultural sites.
Land owners in the area comprise federal, state, and
borough agencies, Native Corporations and private
parties. Land use is related to resource extraction
(timber, oil and gas), subsistence, and the rural
residential Village of Tyonek. Recreational activity
occurs but little data is available to the extent or
frequency with which the area is used.
Regional data on population, employment and income
characteristics are relatively good. However,
employment level and occupational skill data are limited
6-8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6.2
6.2.1
and need to be developed together with information on
local employment preferences.
Transportation facilities in the area are few and small
in size. There is an airstrip on the shoreline at
Trading Bay and a woodchip loading pier near Tyonek.
Several ~iles of logging roads exist betwee~ Tyonek and
the mouth of the Chakachatna Valley. The Chakachatna
River is bridged near its confluence with Straight
Creek. There is no permanent road between the project
area and any part of the Alaska road system.
Because of the project area's scenic characteristics and
its proximity with ELM lands, the Lake Clark National
Park and the Trading Bay State Game Refuge, visual
resource man~gement is a significant concern.
Environmental Studies -1982
The 1982 environmental studies included both
hydrological and aquatic biological investigations with
primary emphasis on the latter. The hydrologic studies
were conducted during the fall of 1982 (August and
October); aquatic biological studies were conducted
seasonally, with the major sampling effort occurring
during the summer and fall periods.
Environmental Hydrology
The objective of the 1982 environmental hydrology
studies was to collect baseline data to assist in future
evaluations of the physical process of the Chakachatna
and McArthur River systems, and facilitate the
correlation of these processes with fish and wildlife
habitats.
6-9
During August, two recording gages capable of recording
river stage and water temperature were installed, one on
the Chakachatna River near the lake outlet, the o ther on
the McArthur River downstream of the powerhouse
location. Staff gages were installed at an additional
15 sites and were periodically monitored. In October,
dischar ge measurements and water surface profiles were
made at 12 gage stations, and a generalized sediment
characterization made for the various stream reaches.
~anning's equation was used in the hydraulic analyses t o
establish preliminary rating curves.
O?erall, the discharges in the lower Chakachatna River
above the split with the Middle River correlated
reasonably well with the discharges at the Chakachatna
River recording gage. The flows averaged about 17
percent of the flow at the lake outlet. The average
discharge during the study period was significantly less
than the average for the 13 years of U.S.G.s. records,
with August flows well below average. A September
rainstorm did result in a short duration flood flow in
the upper McArthur River with a peak flow of about
4500 cfs. This discharge has a recurrence interval of
about 25 years.
Mean daily water temperatures in the Chakachatna River
at the lake outlet ranged from 8°C in August to 6°C
in October. Water temperatures in the McArthur River at
the rapids exhibited large diurnal variations in August;
temperatures varied from 3.0°C to 9.5°C in a
six-hour period. Temperatures in the McArthur River
from mid-August to mid-September averaged 1.6°C less
at the powerhouse than at the recording gage.
The Chakachatna and McArthur River systems are glacial
and thus carry fine glacial silts through much of the
6-10
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6.2.2
open wat e r season. The main channel substrate of these
rive r system s appears to be quite unstable.
Aquatic Biology
The 1982 aquatic biology studies concentrated on the
fishery resources of the study area. Tw o series of
programs were conducted, one during the winter and
spring, the other during the summer and fall. The
winter-spring studies were designed to extend the d a ta
base on seasonal habitat use and distribution of fish,
to identify the time spring spawning migration begins,
and to examine for the presence of outrnigrants. The
summer-fall studies were directed at investigating both
the adult anadromous fish, and the resident and juvenile
anadromous fish in the study areas. A separate program
for sampling the fisheries in Chakachamna Lake was also
conducted during the summer-fall studies.
A variety of methodologies were utilized to sample and
cou;at fish in the study area during the 1982 program.
Selected sampling techniques included the use of fykP
nets, minnow traps, seines, hook and line,
electrofishing, and gill netting. Hydroacoustic
sampling was used to examine the relative distribution
of fish in Chakachamna Lake.
A total of 18 fish species were identified and/or
collected during the 19~2 studies, including four
species not collected in 1981: Bering cisco (Coregonus
laurettae), longfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys),
rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax)and eulachon (Thale i chthys
pacificus). The species of commercial, subsistence and
sport interest utilizing the Chakachatna and McArthur
River systems included sockeye, chinook, pink, chum and
coho salmon, Dolly Varden and rainbow trout. summary
6-11
information f o r t h ese s even species i s presente d bel ow .
Detailed anal y ses of the 1982 studies are p resen t ed i n
the APPENDIX to Section 6.0 in Volume 2 of t h i s r epo rt.
6.2.2 .1 Sockeye Salmon
Sockeye salmon adults p robably ent er the Chaka c hat n a and
the McArthur Rivers i n early Jul y . Sockeye first
appeared on th e spawning streams on Ju ly 22 , 198 2 .
Spawning continued through the first week of October in
various parts of the system and few spawning sockeye
were present past earl y October.
The timing and duration of sockeye-runs varied with
location. Runs in the McArthur River tributaries peaked
earlie ~ than most of those on the Chakachatna River.
Spawning adults were present \n the Chilligan River an d
sloughs at station 17 longer than at other sites.
Sockeye escapements were estimated for all identified
spawning areas and are presented in Table 6 .3. The
largest estimated escapement was for the Chilliga n
River: 38,576 sockeje. A total of 41,357 sockeye
(total of the Igitna and Chilligan River escapements )
were estimated to spawn above Lake Chakachamna. Of the
other sockeye estimated to spawn in the Chakachatna
drainage, 1788 spawned in sloughs or side channel
spawning areas receiving slough flow . In the McA ~thur
drainage, of the 34,933 fish, 98.1 percent of the
estimated sockeye escapement occurred in tributar y
streams. Overall, 44.7 percent of the total estimated
escapement of sockeye occurred in the McArthur drainage.
Sockeye which are spawned in the Chilligan a n d Igitna
Rivers, rear in Chakachamna and Kenibuna Lak e s . The
Chakachatna River across from Straight Creek, the
6-12
I -------------------
Table6 .3 Su~ry of e sti.atP~ ~almon esc4 pement by waterbody and drainage f o r 19ti 2.
CHAKAC HATNA RIV[R DRAINAGE
Chaka chatna
Straight Bridge Chc1 kac hatna Chaka chatnc1 Straight Cre ek
Creek Side Channels Cany on Tr ibutary lg1 t na Ch!l ligan Stra i gh t Cle arwater Dra i nage
Species Mouth and Slough s Sloughs (Cl) Riv e r Riv e r Creek Tributary Total
Sockeye
Sal1110n 2D3 1,193 392 238 2,71!1 38 ,576 0 2!1 4 43,637
Chinook
Sal1110n c 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,422 1,422
Pink
Sal1110n 0 59 279 0 0 0 0 7,925 8,263
Chum
Sal1110n 15~ 1,482 121 165 0 0 0 0 1,920
Coho
Sal1110n 76 1,560 608 183 0 0 0 172 2 ,599
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------0'1
I MCAWTHUR RIVER DRAINAGE .....
w Streams Drainage
Sjil!cies McArthur Canyon Stream 13X Stream I 3U 1~.1 1 ~.~ l~.l 12 .~ 12.S Total
Sockeye
Sal1110n 666 5,416 1,213 16,711 6,085 2 ,51 2 2 ,3 28 0 34,933
Chinook
Sa l1110n 0 452 1,6 33 0 2'l 0 0 0 2 ,107
Pink
Sal1110n 60 4,22 !1 5,402 8,499 1,566 4 18 3 19,777
Chum
Sa l1110n 0 23 4 0 0 0 29
Co ho
Sa l1110n 1,182 1,378 32 2 ,000 46 89 0 0 4,729
Noaukta Slough, and portions of the lower McArthur River
also appear to be used as rearing areas by fish spawned
below the lake. Juvenil~ sockeye appear to tear in the
system from as short a time as their first summer to as
long as their thir d year (age II+) prior to migrating to
the sea.
6.2.2.2 Chinook Salmon
Based upon 1982 observations, chinook salmon adults were
entering the river systems prior to late June. Chinoo k
spawning was first observed in the study area on July 17
at Stream l3U in the McArthur system, but spawning could
have started as early as the end of June. Live spawners
were observed as late as August 25 .
The largest estimated escapement for chinook salmon
occurred in Stream l3 U in the McArthur drainage (1633
f ish) and the second largest in the clearwater tributary
to Straight Creek (1422 fish) (Tab l e 6.3). All chinook
spawning observed during 1982 occurred in tributary
streams. The majority of spawning occurred within th e
McArthur drainage.
Chinook salmon juveniles rear in fresh water from as
short as three months to well into the ir third year of
life. Juvenile chinook salmon collected in the st ~dy
area ranged in age from 0+ to II+. Chinook salmon
juvenile rearing areas consisted of spawning streams
(Streams l3U and 19), low velocity side channel and
slough areas (stations 17, 15 and 13) and many areas
within the Noaukta Slough. Chinook outmigration may
start as early as Jun e and appears to continue into the
fall.
6-14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6.2.2.3 Pink Salmon
Pink salmon were first observed milling in fresh water
in late July (July 22) and first observed in the
spawning streams on July 31. Pinks continued to be
observed in the McArthur and Chakachatna River
tributaries until mid-September with peak counts made in
August.
In Cook Inlet, pink salmon in even numbered years are
generally larger than runs occurring during odd n u mbered
years. Since 1982 was an even year, larger than average
escapements were expected. However, preliminary
commercial catch data indicate that 1982 had a lower
than average run for an even-numbered year. Estimated
escapements for the various water bodies in the system
are shown in Table 6.3 .
The vast majority of pink spawning occurred in tributary
streams. In the Chakachatna drainage, 4.1 percent of
the 8,263 estimated pink escapement for that drainage
occurred in sloughs and side channels, and in the
McArthur drainage less than 0.3 percent of the estimated
pink escapement occurred in sloughs or side channels.
The majority of the total estimated pink escapement,
70.5 percent or 19,777 fish, occurred in the McArthur
drainage. No pinks spawned above the sloughs at the
base of the Chakachatna River Canyon.
Emergent pink salmon fry probably move directly down
river to the sea. Rearing in fresh water may be for a
period as short as one day, and thus, no rearing areas
were identified during the 1981 and 1982 studies.
6-15
6.2.2.4 Chum Salmon
Chum salmon were in the spawning streams on August 25
and were found at most spawning areas by September 1.
The total estimaied spawnings escapement for both the
Chakachatna and McArthur River drainages was 1949 fish,
which was less than any of the other four salmon species
(Table 6.3). The majority of these fish (76.0 percent-
1481 fish) spawned in the sloughs at station 17 on the
Chakachatna River. Over 90 percent of the estimated
escapement occurreo in sloughs or areas receiving
upwelling flow
In early June, chum salmon fry had moved into lower
portions of the river systems and smelts were found at
collecting stations near the mouth of the McArthur
River. By the end of June, only a few smelts were
collected near the mouth of the McArthur River,
suggesting that the peak downstream migration had
occurred. Because of the relatively short rearing
period of chum salmon in freshwater, no specific rearing
areas were identified during the 1981-1982 studies.
6.2.2.5 Coho Salmon
Coho salmon were first observed in fresh water in
mid-August. At that time fairly large numbers of coho
were observed milling at the mouths of streams on the
McArthur River. Coho were observed on spawning streams
on September 1 and peak numbers were observed in mid to
late September in most water bodies. Spawning was still
in progress when the study was concluded in late October
and may have continued under the ice in the Chakachatna
canyon sloughs.
6-16
I
J
I
-
I
I . '
-
I
I . '
I .-'
-
I
r '
I ,.,
I r,
I 'r
The majority (64.5 percent) of the estimated total coho
escapement for the study area occurred in the McArthur
River. In the McArthur systeim, 75 percent (3547 fish)
of the estimated escapement of 4729 coho occurred in
tributaries (Table 6.3) The 25.0 percent took place in
side channel and ·slough are~s. Spawning occurred in
both tributaries and sloughs. The majority (86.3
percent) of the estimated escapement of 2599 coho in the
Chakachatna drainage were observed in sloughs and side
channels receiving upwelling or slough flow. No coho
were observed spawning above the Chakachatna Canyon
sloughs.
Yolk-sac fry and emergent fry were found in spawning
areas in the study area in late March. Coho juveniles
may remain in fresh water for up to four years. Coho of
up to age II+ were common in the Chakachatna and
McArthur River systems. Juvenile coho s almon were among
the more widely distributed fish present in the study
area below the lake. Coho juvenilPs were generally
abundant in tributaries, the Noaukta Sough, and areas in
the lower po~tions of both rivers. Observed increases
in the abundance of coho in the Noaukta Slough, lower
riv ~r systems and upper McArthur River probably repre-
sented a com~ination of movement to overwintering
habitat and outmigration. The outmigration of some coho
was confirmed by the collection of smelts in the lower
portions of the rivers. Coho smelts were collected in
the Chakachatna and McArthur River systems from early
June into October.
6.2.2.6 Dolly Varden
Dolly Varden was the most widely distributed species
collected in the study area and was found at almost
every site at which fish were collected. They
6-17
numerically dominated collections made below Chakacharnna
Lake. Dolly Varden may be resident or anadrornous; both
types are probably present within the study area. Dolly
Varden were obsereved spawning from July 31 through
October in the Chilligan River.
During late October, sexually mature upstream migrants
were still being collected in the lower portons of the
river systems, and Dolly Varden spawning was still
occurring. Dolly Varden spawning was also common in the
McArthur River and its tributaries during October. Some
upstream migrants which spawned in the McArthur River
were observed entering the river systems from the Middle
River and then moving through the Chakachatna River.
Dolly Varden juveniles were widely distributed in the
river systems. They were collected from every river
sampled, including the the Neacola and Another Rivers.
Juvenile (ages I+ to II+) appear to be common throughout
the river system with larger, older fish, including age
III+, more abundant in the Noaukta Slough and lower
portions of the river. Dolly Varden appear to move
freely within and betweer. the two river systems.
6.2.2.7 Rainbow Trout
Rainbow trout were regularly collected in portions of
the lower river systems and tributaries. Rainbow trout
were collected most frequently in October when large
numbers had moved into the lower river system.
Little is known about the spawning of rainbow trout in
the Chakackatna and McArthur River systems and few
rainbow trout under 10 ern (4.0 inches) were collected.
6-18
The distribution of rainbow trout in the Chakachatna
River appears to be limited to areas below the
Chakachatna River Canyon. During t he summer and fall of
1982, juvenile rai nbow trout were collected in the
Straight Creek clearwater tributary (19), in the
McArthur River (Stations 13, and 11) and in the lower
Chakachatna River {S tations 3, 4, and 6). Rainbow trout
are a resident species and therefore rear in freshwater
throughout the year. Based upon tag return data,
rainbow trout appear to move freely within and between
the middle and lower portions of both river systems.
6-19
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EVALUATION OF
ALTERNATIVES
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7.0
7.1
7.1.1
EVALuATION OF ALTERNATIVES
Engineering Evaluation
General
The figures quoted in this section of the report f or t :,(
estimated cost of energy are considered to be
conservative for two basic reasons, the first being t t a :
in t h e power studies for Alternatives A, B, C and D , t ~~
maximum lake level was taken as elevation 1128 whi c h ~a ~
bee n reported a s the approximate invert elevation of t ~P
natural lake outlet channel. The natural maximu m la k~
water level is reported to have been at about ele v ati o~
1155 ana the records show that the lake rose to that
level or within about 5-feet of it each year. ~o cr ec i~
h a s been taken in the calculations for any additi onal
energ y t hat would accrue from the higher head s t hat ~o ~J ~
temporaril y be availa b le when the lake water level
exceeded elevation 1128. There is also the possi bilit ~
that once diversion of water for power generation be g i ~~.
t he outlet channel may choke and its invert may ris e
above its present elevation thus creating a hi gher he a ~
for power generation. If the maximum water level is
take n , as eleva ti on 1142, the installed capacity fo r
Alternative B would increase from 330 MW to 350 M~ a~~
t he average annual energy would rise by 6% from 1446 G ~~
to 1533 GWh.
The second reason which applies to Alternatives A, B, C ,
D and E, is because of the realistic approach taken t o
estimating the cost of constructing each of the
alternatives. Analyses were made of bids received for
7-1
7.1.2
7.1.3
projects involving similar types of constructi on a na t t.E
unit prices used in the estimates are consistent wi t~
those that have been received in recent competiti ve
bidding in cases where the analyses have permitted sue ~
comparisons to be drawn. Furthermore, althoug h t he
estimates make allowances for certain lengths of the
tunnels where production may slip and costs ma y incr ea sE
due t~ adverse rock conditions, an overall 20~
contingency allowance over and above the estimated c ost
of construction, engineering and construction rnanage mer.t
has been included in arriving at the estirnateG total
project costs.
Chakachatna Darn
On the basis of what was seen in surface exposures d u ri~~
reconnaisances of the Chakachatna Valley, little
encouragement could be found for pursuing a c ourse b a se ~
on the concept of siting a dam anywhere in the valle y
downstream from the lake outlet. Although the
possibility has not been completely ruled out, it is
considered most unlikely that justification for sitir.g c
dam here could be confirmed.
Alternative A
This alternative, which would take all controlled water
from Chakachamna Lake for the generation of electrical
power in a powerplant located in the McArthur Valley , i s
the most advantageous identified by the present studies
when regarded strictly from the point of view of power
generation. As may be seen by reference to Table 7-1,
the powerplant would have the maximum installed capacit y
(400 MW), and would yield the maximum average annual fir rr
7-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 7-1
COST OF ENERGY
Alternative
Installed capacity-M~
Annual generation-GWh
Deduct 5% for transmission
losses and station service-GWh
Firm annual energy -GWh
Capital cost including roc
at 3% -$Billions (1)
Annual cost 3 .99% including
interest, amortization and
insurance for 50-year
project life -$Millions
Net cost of energy -Mills/kWh
O&M -Mills/kWh
Total cost of energy -Mills/kWh
A
400
1752
88
1664
1.5
59.9
36
1.5
37.5
B
330
1446
72
1374
1.45
57.9
42
1.5
43.5
(1) Excluding Owner's costs and escalation.
E. Marchegiani's comments
7-3
c D L
300 300
1314 1314
66
1248 1246 1 --~ L : • ..
1.6 1. 65 1. 3:.
63.8 6 5 .8 52 .";"
51 53
1.5 1.5 1.:
52.5 54.5 4 4. ~
7.1.4
energ y (1 664 GWh ) at the lowest unit cost (37.5 mill s p er
kWh). It is c o nsidered that these figures ca n safel y be
regarded as conservative for the reasons set fort h i n
Section 7.1.1 above.
This alternative would provide neither instream fl ow
releases nor fish passage facilities at the lake outl et
and should, therefore, be regarded as a hypothetical c ase
giving the theoretical maximum energy potential tha t
could be developed.
Alternative B
This alternative follows the same basic layout as that
for Alternative A, but approximately 19% of the a ve ra g e
annual flow of water into Chakachamna Lake, during t he
period of outflow gauge records, would be reser ved f o r
relea se into the Chakachamna River near the lake outlet,
to satisfy the tentative minimum instream fl o w req uire -
ments discussed in Section 7.3.2 of this report. This
woul d cause the installed capacity to be reduced fro m
400 M~ to 330 MW. The average annual firm energy wou ld
reduce to 1374 GWh at a unit rate of 43.5 mills/kW h.
Thi s is 16% higher in cost than for Alternative A but i s
still significantly less than the 55.6 mills/kWh which i s
t he estimated cost of energ y from the most competiti ve
thermal source, a coal fired plant, as discussed in
Section 9.4 of this report. Alternative B has the
advantage that instream flows are provided in the
Chakachamna River for support of its fishery and based on
the tentative amount of water reserved for these instre arr
flow requirements, the project would still be an
economically viable source of energy.
7-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7.1.5
Alternatlve B does not include a design concept f o r a
fish passage facility that would maintain a means of
entry into and exit from Chakachamna Lake for migrat i ns
fish but an allowance for the cost of one was includ e c i -
the estimate. A concept was developed in the 1982 stu d i :~
and is discussed below in Section 7.1.6, Alternative E.
Alternatives C and D
Both of these alternatives would divert water from
Chakachamna Lake to a powerplant located near the
downstream end of the Chakachamna Valley. For
Alternative c, all controlled water would be used f o :
power generation. For Alternative D, water required t c
meet the instream flow releases discussed in Section
7.3.3 of the report would not be available for power
generation. This water amounts to 30 cubic feet per
second average annually, which is less than 1% of the
total water supply. Being that small, it can be igno:!!=
at the present level of study.
As may be seen from Table 7-1, the installed capa c ity f or
both Alternatives C and D would be 300 MW. The a v era g e
annual firm energy would be 1314 GWh at 52.5 mills /kW ~
for Alternative C and 54.5 mills/kWh for Alternative D.
The installed capacity and energy that would be generat ?c
by Alterntatives C and D are significantly less than in
the case of both Alternatives A and B, and the cost of
energy is significantly higher. Alternatives c and D a1·e
inferior in comparison with Alternatives A and B as
sources of hydro power. At 55.6 mills/kWh, energ y fro m a
coal fired plant would be only marginally more expensi v e
than the energy that could be generated by implementin g
Alternatives C or D.
7-5
7.1 .6 Alternative E
Tn is alternative incorporates all the principal fea tu r es
of the power facilities for Alternative B. In add i t i on ,
the normal maximum oprating water level in Chakachamna
Lake would be raised to El. 1155, which is reported a s
the high lake water level under natural conditions, b y
constructing an overflow rockfill dike in the natural
outlet channel. The dike will provide an artificial
barrier such as the natural barriers that have built u ~
in the past for various periods of time before the y wer e
washed awa y during the passage of lake outbrea k flo ods .
The artific ial barrier would be protected aga i n st
overtopping b y an unlined spillway channel excavated i n
rock o n the right abutment . Material excavated t o f o r rr
this channel would be used to construct the dike. Th e
discharge capac ity of the channel wo uld be in th e ord er
of 50 ,000-60,000 cfs but future studies of fl o o d
h y drolog y are needed to establish the appropriate
capacity. Flood discharges exceeding the desig ned
channel capacity wo ul d b e discharged over and th r oug h t h ~
roc kf i l l dike.
Since the only f oundation available for a dike at th is
l ocation is the glacial deposited rock and grav el wh i c h
underg o es small movements, intermittent maintena nc e wi ll
be required. This could be performed each year, or a s
required, during the spring while the lake leve l is d r a wn
down below the level of the dike foundation.
The normal operating range of lake level will be 7 2 f eet,
from El. 1155 to El. 1083. This will support a capa cit y
of 330 MW at 50% load factor except for 1-month dur i ng
7 -6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7.2
7.2.1
the 31 year extended hydrological record, or a tr ue f i r rr
capa c ity of 330 MW at 45\ load factor throughout the
entire period. The average annual firm energy wil l be
1301 GWh at a unit cost of 44.5 mills/kWh. Facil i t ies
will be provided for the discharge of instream flow
releases to the Chakachatna River, and for the upstrea ~
and downstream passage of fish into and out of the la ke
over the full operating range of lake water level.
Geological Evaluation
Chakachatna Dam
Althoug h suitable dam sites might appear to exist in t h e
canyon l i ke topography along the Chakachatna River a bout
six mi les downstream from Chakachamna Lake, the ge o log i ~
characteristics of the canyon suggest that constructi o~
o f a major dam there is unlikely to prove feasible, a nc
if such construct i o n is attempted, it is li ~ely t o be
very costly and a complex engineering problem for t h e
reasons d i scussed below.
As discussed in Section 5.2.2, there is a marked
difference in the bedrock from one side of the
Chakachatna Canyon to the other. The south side of th e
canyon consists of a steep wall of glaciated granite,
which appears to be well suited for a dam abutment. I n
contrast, the north wall of the canyon exposes a comple x
of geologic units dominated by lava flows , pyroclasti cs ,
and volcaniclastics, but including outwash and fill. I f
the ideas presented in Section 5.2.2.2 are basically
correct, the volcanics may overlie alluvium below the
present valley floor; both the volcanics and the allu v i urr
7-7
7 .2 .2
rest on granitic bedrock at an unknown dept h bel o w th e
v alley floor. In addition to specific adverse foundat i on
conditions suggested by deposits found on the north
valley wall (e.g. high permeabilities, low strength ), t h e
chaotic character of those deposits would make the
prediction of foundation conditions at a given site v er y
difficult.
Any impoundment in the Chakachatna Canyon will be su b j e ct
to the volcanic hazards associated with Mt. Spurr
(Section 5 .2.2.2). The youthfulne ss of Mt. Spurr, as a
wh o le, and the fact that it has been active in his t ori c
time suggest that continued eruptive activity s houl d b e
factored in as a design consideration for any fac i liti e s
i n the Chakachatna Canyon.
Al t ernative A
On t t e basis of the o bs ervations made during t he 19 8 1
field program, it is possible to comment on sever al
ge o logi c factors that ma y influence considerati o n of
Alternatives A, B and E, (see also Sections 5 .2.1.6,
5.2.2 .3, 5.2 .3.4, and 5.2.3.3.).
(1 ) Although any lake tap site between the la k e
outlet and Firs t Point Glacier would be s ub j ect
to impact from a very large eruption of Mt .
Spu r r, no site in that area is likely to be
disturbed by Crater Peak type events (Se c tion
5.2.2 .2).
(2) The bedrock characteristics pertine n t t o
tunnelling have not been specifically studied ;
7-8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
( 3)
this should be a subject of future study.
General observations in the Chakachatna Can yon ,
aerial observations of snow-and-ice-free bed-
rock exposures between the Chakachatna and
McArthur canyons, and general observations i n t ~~
McArthur Canyon suggest that bedrock conditio n s
are likely to be well suited to tunnel
construction, with the exception of the lower mos:
portion of the canyon, near the castle Mounta i;,
fault. The Castle Mountain fault, which has ha ~
Holocene activity along at least part of its
length, is present near the mouth of the can yo~
and has apparently disrupted the bedrock (shea~£,
intense jointlng) in the lower reaches of the
canyon. For any project facilities construct e~
in the faul~ zone, there would be a risk
associated with fault rupture; large grou nd
motions would likely occur during an earthq u a ke
on the fault. One of the design alternative s
presented in this report include facilitie s i n
the fault zone, as it is now known. Additio na:
work is needed in future exploration s of t his
area.
Slope conditions above both the proposed lake t c ;
site and outlet portal site are generall y si milar
in that there is no evidence of large-s c ale sl o~c
movements in the recent past and rockfall appe ar s
to be the dominant slope process. Talus at t h e
base of the slope at the proposed outlet
portal/powerhouse site (Figures 3-1, 3-2)
suggests a significant amount of rockfall
activity in post-glacial time.
7-9
7.2.3
7.2.4
(4) As discussed in Section 5.2.1.4, a significant
advance of Blockade Glacier could disrupt
drainage in and near the lower reaches of t he
McArthur Canyon. There was no evidence
identified during the 1981 field work to sugge st
that such an event is likely in the near futur e .
Alternative B
The comments in Section 7.2.2 apply to this alternative ,
also.
Alternatives C and D
On the basis of the observations made during the 1981
field program, it is possible to comment on several
geologic factors that may inf l uence consideration of
Desig n Alternative C (and D); see also Sections 5.2.1.6 ,
5.~.2.3, 5.2.3.4, and 5.3.3.3.
(1) In this alternative, both ends of the
hydroelectric system would be subject to the
volcanic hazards associated with Mt. Spurr.
Comment No. 1 for Alternative A (Section 7.2 .2 )
applies here, also. Volcanically-induced
flooding is judged to be the volcanic hazard most
likely to affect the outlet portal /powerhouse
site (Figure 3-3) in the Chakachatna canyon .
(2) On the basis of general observations (i.e., n ot
observations specifically designed to assess
tunnelling conditions), the granitic rock type s
that predominate in the area of the proposed
7-10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I 7.2.5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
( 3)
tunnel alignment (Figure 3-3) are generall y well
suited for tunnelling. Local zones of inte nsiv ~
weathering, alteration, or extensive jointi ng a ~'
shearing may provide poor tunnelling condit ion s .
The slopes above both the lake tap and outlet
portal sites consist of glaciated granitic
bedrock. No evidence of large-scale slope
failure was observed during the 1981
reconnaissance field work. Rockfall appear s t o
be the dominant slope process.
Alternative E
~he c o~ents regarding the power facilities in Section
7.2.2 apply equally to this alternative. The following
comments apply to the facilities proposed to be locate d
in the general vicinity of the lake outlet.
( 1 )
( 2)
( 3)
The inlet port d l for the structures required f o r
instream flow releases and fish passage
facilities will be located in glaciate d gra ni ti c
bedrock. No evidence of large-scale slope
failure was observed in this area.
The spillway channel will be excavated in the
same glaciated granitic bedrock.
The approach channels to the fish passage
facilities and spillway will be excavated in
fluvial sediments deposited in a fan to the so ut h
of the lake outlet.
7-11
7.3
(4 ) Tunnelling conditions for the fish passage flu mes
and instream flow releases will be as des c ri bed
in Section 7.2.4 (2) for the power tunnel in
Alternatives C and o.
(5) The outlet structure and lower part of the fis h
passage flumes downstream from the tunnel porta l
will be constructed as a cut and cover struct ure
in outwash materials and alluvium.
(6) The left abutment and river channel section of
the dike will be constructed on debris cover ed
glacial ice. The right abutment will be on
glaciated granitic rock.
Environmental Evaluation
The preliminary environmental overviews presen ted in t h e
following sections for each proj~ct alternative are ba se ~
on data obtained from agency personnel, available
literature, and the information collected during th e l9 8i
and 1982 field programs. Although a complete eval ua ti on
of all influences of each alternative is not included i r.
this section, the anticipated major effects of eac h
alternative are presented. These potential effects
should not be considered definitive, and are onl y
included at this time to facilitate comparisons of the
alternatives. The recommended Alternative E is discus se d
in more detail and the effects on aquatic and terrestri a l
biological resource~ u~~ identified.
7-12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7.3.1 Chakachatna Dam Alternative
If a dam was constructed and operated on the Chakac hatn o
River, it is likely that substantive adverse impact s
would be inflicted on fish of the Chakachatna drainag e .
A fish passage facility, somewhat similar to that
described for Alternative E, would be necessary to
preserve stocks of anadromous fish which spawn above
Chakachamna Lake. If such passage was not provided the
41,000 sockeye which are estimated to spawn above the
lake (Section 6.8.3) and their contribution to the Coo k
Inlet Fishery would be lost. The Dolly Varden popu lat i o~
which migrate to and spawn in tribl'taries above
Chakachamna Lake would also be lost. If passage wa s
maintained impacts to those populations could be simila r
t o Alternative E.
Siting of the d am at the mouth of the canyon would re s~l :
in the loss of slough spawning habitat for coho, pink,
s o cke y e, and ch um salmon and Dolly Varden in that are a
(Section 6.8.3 ).
Due to the water quality alterations in the river dow n -
stream from the dam, the use of some fish migrator y a nd
rearing habitat may be reduced. This, in turn, co u l d
adversely impact cook Inlet commercial fishery reso u rce s.
If a large decline in the lake fishery occurred, wolve s ,
bears, and eagles would probably migrate to lower
elevations, thus increasing the density of animals in t h e
remaining forage areas. Other large mammals that
ordinarily utilize the Chakachatna River canyon for
migration to and from summer and winter range would
7-13
7.3.2
probabl y also be impacted. Since the canyon area
upstream from the dam would be flooded, a high qualit y
visual resource will be affected by the loss of the
white-water reach of the river. In addition, fluctuati n g
Chakachamna Lake water levels associated with all
alternatives will impact the scenic quality of the lak e
shoreline. If the lake levels are raised so that the
tributary deltas are inundated, additional juvenile
rearing and spawning areas may be created for resident
lake fish, (primarily lake trout) and anadromous fish if
passage past the dam is maintained.
Although fishing and hunting access to the lake b y
wheeled airplanes would be reduced, access by float pla ne
will be unaffected.
Construction impacts due to this alternative would be
more extensive than other alternatives where less area
would be affected and where the need for such large
volumes of construction materials is not required.
Although the impacts from this alternative may be severe
in that a major fishery could be adversely affected or
lost, many of the impacts, including the damage to the
aquatic resources, potentially could be mitigated,
primarily through the installation of appropriate fis h
passage structures.
McArthur Tunnel Alternatives A and B
Through the implementation of Alternatives A or B, the
impacts resulting from construction and logistical
support activities would be very similar. In these
alternatives, although the major impacts most likely wil l
7-14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
be inflicted on local fish and wildlife, huma n and v i sJ a :
resource s will also be affected. F o r exampl e , wit h
increased access to the McArthur Canyon and C ha k ac h a ~~a
Lake, impo rtant visual resources as well as fish e rie s a ~~
wildlife habitat may be degraded.
Once in operation, the increased flows in the McArt h ~r
River may result in changes in water quality and
alterations in the chemical cues that direct anadro mous
fish t o their spawning grounds. This could cause
additional losses of spawning adults through or red uce
th e productivit y of spawning areas through crowding a n c
redd superimposition. Although the possibility al s o
exists that the population of salmon will increase in t h(
Mc Arthur River, predation ma y also increase. I f la rg e
mammals begin to concentrate in these high densit y fi s~
area s , sport and subsistence hunting pressur e ~il l
pr oba b ly also increase.
The maj o r d i fference in these McArthur tunn e l al te r-
nat ives is t h at in Alternative A, no water would be
pr o vid ed in th e uppe r reaches of the Chaka c ha t n a Ri ve r,
while in Alternative B, some flow would be ma i ntain e d .
Ne ither alterna t ive provides passage facilitie s fr o m t he
river to the lak e . Alternative A would likel y res u lt i n
a total l o ss of the population of sockeye salmon whi ch
spawn upstream of Chakacharnna Lake. The estimated
escapement of sockeye upstream of the lake was 41,00 0
fish during 1982. This would also cause t~e loss of
their contribution (presently unknown) to the Cook I nl e ~
fisher y . In addition, because no maintenanc e flows woul d
be provided below the lake, the spawning, rearing an d
7-15
migration of salmon and resident fish in the Chakachatna
River drainage would likely be significantly and
adversel y affected. Estimated escapement of salmo n be lo ~
the lake is over 16,000 fish (Section 6.8.3) which c ou l d
be lost. In Alternative A there is a significant
potential to drastically red uce the populations of salmo n
which are represented by the estimated escapement of o v e r
57,000 salmon in the Chakachatna drainage.
Alternative B provides no fish passage to and from the
lake. The sockeye salmon and Dolly Varden which spawn
above the lake would not be able to ascend to the la ke
unless the lake level exceeded the present channel inve rt
(El. 1128) by at least 1 ft at the l ake outlet. Down-
stream migrants could not pass from the lake unless t he
water was at this level or if they passed through a n
outlet structure which would provide the mitigative
flow. Th e impact of this alternative without prov isi on
f o r a fish passage structure could be substantial.
Alternative B would provide for year round flow release E
t o the Chakachatna River (Table 7.2). The amounts of
instream flows selected are approximately 30 percent of
the a v erag e annual flow during May through September a~c
between approximately 10 percent of the average annual
flow during the winter months, October through March.
April flows are intermediate. These flow quantities ar e
very tentative and the final recommendations regarding
flows to be released to mitigate potential adverse
impacts will be based on further studies to be performe d
in the future, and may be greater or less than the val ue s
presented herein. The implementation of Alternative B
should inflict less adverse impact on the fish which
7-16
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 7.2 Natural and Alternative B regulated mean monthl y and rr e3r
annual flow at the Chakachamna Lake outlet.
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Mean
Annual
Flow
Mean Monthly Flows
Natural
(cfs)
613
505
445
441
1,042
5,875
11,950
12,000
6,042
2,468
813
1,206
3,645
Regulateda
(cfs)
365
34 3
345
536
1,094
1,094
1,094
1,094
1,094
365
36 5
36 0
679
a Regulated flows were estimated using the Montana Method as
described in Section 6.2.2.1
7-17
..
spawn and rear below the lake, than Alternative A. The
severity of adverse effects upstream of the lake wou ld
depend on reservoir operation and the mitigative meas u r eE
taken. The influence on the human resources will
probably also be less severe since the commercial fish e ry
will probably not be as heavily impacted, but the impa ct
due to the loss of a portion of the lake tributary
spawning could be substantial.
Whi le the impacts related to Alternative A affecti ng
l oca l resources would be difficult to mitigate and
significant changes in both the distribution and
abundance of fish ana wildlife population s wo uld almoE t
certainly occur, the impacts resulting from Alternati ve n
woul d be less severe ana relatively more amena b le t o
mitigative measures, primarily through the instal l ati on
of fis h passage structures and maintenance of adequat E
do wns tream discharge •
It sho uld be noted, however, that while not directl y
stated, the loss of spawning areas, and juvenile habita:
due to any of the project alternatives will most like ly
eventuall y manifest itself as a decline in the populati o~
of ao ul t fish as well. In addition, since eggs, fry, a nc
juvenile s of all species provide food (prey) for ot her
species, losses of spawning and nursery areas will almo s t
certainly result i n eventual reductions in the standing
crop of their predators. For example, losses of juveni l E
sockeye salmon in Chakachamna Lake would probabl y al so
z esul t in an overall decline in lake trout.
7-18
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7.3.3
Potentially, one of the more substantial influen~e s t o
important floodplain riparian habitats and wildlif ~
dlstributions from the McArthur alternatives is the
disposal of large quantities of waste rock in the
McArthur valley. Without proper site selection,
stockpile design, and erosion control, this disposal
could significantly alter valuable riparian habitats, a~~
detrimentally affect wildlife species that rely upon
these habitats. Moose, ptarmigan, small mammals, and
passerine birds would be most likely affected froffi
substantial floodplain habitat alterations.
Chakachatnn Tunnel Alternatives C and 0
Tnroug h the implementation of Alternatives C or D, t he
impacts resulting from logistical support or con s tr uc t:o ·
activities would be similar. However, since all
activities are restricted to the Chakachatna flo o c-~l:ir
in these alternatives, the resources in the McArtr.u r
drainage will not be affected. Although impacts on t t ~
wildlife populations may occur, significant impa c t s ~ill
occur to the fisheries. Since access to Chakacharn n a La k :
will be increased, sport and subsistence fishin g pre s s ur E
may increase. ~ith the road, campsite and disposa l s i t ~
for rock excavated from the tunnel, all located in t he
Chakachatna canyon, an important visual resource wil l ce
modified. In addition the presence and activity
associated with these facilities may impede large mam mal
movements through the canyon temporarily during
construction of the project. Depending upon facility
locations and activity levels, large mammal movement
patterns may also be affected during project operati on .
7-19
During the pre-operational phases, the fishery in t h e
Chakachamna drainage will probably only be impacted t o a
small extent over a relatively short term. Above t he
powerhouse, the impact on the Chakachatna River and
Chakachamna Lake fishery will be dependent on whether
flows are maintained and fish passage facilities
provided. Alternative C does not allow for these
mitigative measures. Therefore, the impacts to the
fishery in or above the lake, and thus the wildlife ar.d
commercial fishery in the surrounding area will be
similar to that inflicted through Alternative A. Since
Alternative D does provide flows (Table 7.3) and
migratory passages, the impacts would be similar to t h oe e
described for Alternative B, but with substantially les s
adverse impact below the powerhouse due to the highe r
flo~s releasea by that facility, and substantiall y les 2
impact on fish that spawn upstream of the lake due t o t ~~
presence of the fish passage facilities.
~ith i n the project area, some resources will be affe c~e c
no matter which alternative is chosen. This is parti-
cularl y true of scioeconomic, land use, and transport-
ation characteristics. Through the implementation of
mitigative measures, it may be possible to offset man y of
the adverse impacts. However, the mitigation technni q u e £
outlined will probably not restore the environment t o
pre-operational condition.
7-20
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ta b le 7.3 Na tural and Alternative D regulated mean mont h l y ana r.~~~.
annual flows at the Chakachamna Lake outlet.
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
t-iay
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
No v
Dec
Mean
Annual
Flow
Mean Monthly Flows
Natural
(cfs)
613
505
445
441
1,042
5,875
11,950
12,000
6,04 2
2,468
1,206
1,206
3,645
Regulated a
(cfs)
30
30
39
3 0
3 0
30
3 0
3 0
3 0
3 0
3 0
30
30
a Regulated flows were assumed to be sufficient minimum flows t o
maintain migratory passage as described in Section 6.2.2.1.
7-21
7 . 3 . 4
7 .3 .4.1
Re corrmende d McArthur Tunn el Altern a t ive E
'I'his s ec tion presen ts an identification o f s o me
poten tial e f fe c ts of the recommended project
alte rnative, Alternative E. The identifica tion of
ef f ects is baseo upon data developed during t he c ou rse
of studies carried out during 1981 and 198 2 . This
e v a l uation addresses the potential effects o f pro je 'L
con s t ruction and ope r~t ion on the aquatic, wi ldli :e
a n~ b o tanic a l resources o f ~he site area. ~va l uatic~~
o f p ote n tial effects o n aquat~~ habitats a nc aquati c
bio ta are based upon hydrol ogical a n~ fi sheries
studie s c onducted during 19 8 1 and 1982. tvaluatio:.•
o f p o ten tial project effects on terrestria l b~c~a ~r c
b ased o n 19 81 reconnaissance data. T he l arge r d a t <
base a va1la b le o n t he hydrology and fishery r e ~ourc e:
of t he s tudy area al l owed a more detailed e xarr.1natH .. :.
of p o t en tia l effect s on these resources.
Poten tial Effe cts on Aquatic Biota
Con struc tion and ope ration of the proposed C hakacha~:<
Hyd r oelectric Project wi l l result i n changes t o ~~e
aq u a~i c habitat and a&sociated fishery resources i r.
the McA r thur and Chakachatna Rivers, Lak e Cha k a cha~~-~.
a n d t ributarie s upstream o f Lake Chaka c harr~a , suc h ~~
the Chilligan and Igitna Rivers. This section
examines potential effects of projec t Alterna tive E o :.
the aquatic biota.
In this s e ction the term • impact • refers t o b oth
direct a nd indirect effects on fish and aquat ic b iota ,
inc luding the utilization of aquatic habita t s
resulting f rom project-induced changes i n t h e ph ysic~:
characteristics of the environment. Impacts o n t h e
fishery can be either beneficial or adverse.
7-22
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The description of antic1pated ef fec ts pres e~Le c b~lo~
is a generic identification of changes t o fish hab ita~
and direct effects on the fishery likely t o occur
during the construction and operation of this project .
lt is based on available baseline information o r. t he
bi ology of the fishery resources found in the Mchrt hu r
and Chakachatna systems, identification of potentia l
changes in physical characteristics, and the effect 0:
habitat alterations from similar acti vi ties as f ou~~
in the literature.
7.3.4.1.1 Con struction of the Chakachamna Hydroelectric Pr oJt~t
and Related Facilities
The const r uction effects that could potent ially r esult
in changes to the fishery resource fall into tJ-.r e~
na jor area s of con struction-related activity :
o Effects of permanent or temporary alterations t c
wate r b od ies (i.e., dewatering, altera tion of fl o ~
regime, or a l t e ration of channels );
o Changes in water qual ity associated wi t h
alterations to the water body, or with eff luent
discharges a nd h aza rdous material s pill s ; a nd
o Direct effects of the construction activ i ties
(i.e., use of chemicals, noise, heavy equipme~t
operation, etc .).
Alteration of Water Bodies. Few alterat~0~s o ! water
bodies are expected during the construct . .l -.>n p!.ase of
the project. However, al terations may be a sso ~ia t ed
with the follow i ng construction activities :
7-23
o Ins tallation of bridges or culverts f or r u ads a~c
r ights-of-way ;
o Re-routing of runoff from camps and mater ial~
storage areas; and
o Re-routing of flow in areas of near-stream o r
in-stream construction.
Bridges and /or culverts will need to be instal led tc
provide road access over streams and other water...-ays .
Properly designed bridges and culverts, insta lled s o
as to prevent perching and high wa t er v eloci t ies
should have fe .... adverse impacts on waterwa ys . Duril S
construction or installation o f the bridges/cu l vert s ,
some l ocal increases i n turbidity ana localiz e c
di sturban ce wo u ld b~ expected, but these should ~E c:
relative ly short duration . Potential irnpc:.cts o:
temporary incre ases in turbidity on aquati c biot ~ c~t
disc ussed under water quality (below).
Alterat ion of waterbodies resulting fron the
logistica l support activities associated with the
Chc:.kachamna Hydroe lectric Project will most likely t,.._
sma ll in areal extent although the speci f ic extent ~r.c
poten tial for impact will be dependent upon t he peri o c
of construction and the mitigative measures used.
Re-ro u t ing of runoff from camps, materials storage
area s and construction sites is expected to affe ct
small areas, primari ly in the McArthur River canycr..
The re-routing is expected to primarily i nvo lve
re-routing of surface run-off, where silt and solubl e
material s would otherwise be carried into the
waterbody. Some re-routing of in-channel flows ma y be
necessary to allow construction activities in certain
7-24
I
·I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
s i te are as . Presently, there are i n su f ficie n t d a t a t c
i den ti fy the extent of these areas. For exa mi)l e , ir .
t h e Mc Arthur River cany on in-channel re-rout ing ma y b ~
necessary to al low the construction o f t h e po wer ho ~s e
and tailrac e, and dispo sal of tunnel ing spoi l s . Su c h
re-routing should only affect a sma l l area in t he
immediate area of construction. The resulting i mpac t~
could inc l ude a poten tial loss of some spawn i ng a ~c
rearing hab i tat and some degradation of dow nst rearr,
habitats. The extent of this loss cannot b e
determined at this time. The channel struc t ure i n
t his immediate area does not appear to be very stab le ,
and therefore the significance of the loss is u nc lea r.
The re-routing of flow in s o me construction an d caL ~
areas ma y be p e rmanent.
Ch ange s I n Water Qual i ty . There are a va r 1ety oi
water q u al ity impacts tha t could poten t i ally oc cu:-
during c ons truction . These genera l l y i n vol v e t hE
discharge of silt-laden waters from various areas a nc
ef f luent s . Peters (1979) noted that under p r e s L:r.t
environmental legislatio n and by use of cu r re nt.
enginee rin g
discharges
altoge ther.
practices, most
c an be mitigated,
impacts due t o s u c h
if not elimin ated
Silt-laden waters from collected run-off and from
excavation of facilities, could represen t a
con siderable source of silt and turbidity to the
river. Spoils will be disposed of or stored at. t h e
headwater area of the Chakachatna and f.lcArthur Ri v er s .
Spoils located at the upper McArthur River cany o n wi l l
result from tunneling and powerhouse excavat i o n . T h e
spoil disposal area should be far enough upstream t o
avoid significant pffects on fish habitat and to avoid
inundation. Spoils in the Chakachatna drainage would
7-25
include materials removed fror:1 g a te sha ft e>:c a vati o :.,
right-o f-wa y clearance, a n d fish passage and tu n~e:
fac il ities excav ation. Some spoils wil l b e u se d t c
construct the outlet structure dike, while other s ~1-
be disposed of just upstream o f the dike (Figure 3 -o ).
lt i ~ expected that disposal areas in t he Mc Ar th~1
River drainage will be diked, and run-off contr ol le ~
to minimize sediment discharge into waterways .
Settling ponds will be used for sedimentati on o:
suspen ded silts prior to discharge to reduce p o t e n t1<:
impacts. In the Chakachatna Riv er disposal area ,
i n undation of the spoils may increase local turbi c::. t.:·
and ma y occasional l y affect turbidity o f wa ter
released frorr. the outle ~ structure.
Th e primary change in water quality t h at r::il y occ1..:r
f rom con struction ~s i ncr e ased turbidi t y . T h i s rr.c.:· b e
produce d b y increased erosion a ssociated with di sp cs~:
o ~ tun n e l spoils and construction activ itie s.
Turbidity originating from run-off and con str uc t ion i ~
often associated only with actual clearing a c ti viti~r
and ra i nfall e v ents. The increases in t~r b i d it y i~
the Cha k achatna disposal area would occur n ea r ma xirr ur
lake levels (El. 1140). Increases in tur bid ity wou!L
vary wi th the type, extent and duration of
con struct ion activity , but woul J be expected t o b e
local in nature and of relatively short duration.
lncreased turbidity can reduce visibility and decre ase
the ability of sight-feeding fish (e.g. salmonid s ) tc
obtain food (Hynes, 1966 and Pentlow, 194 9 ). I n
addition, salrnonids may avoid spawning in turbid
waters (De h oney and Mancini, 1982), and many fi sh ,
particularly older life-stages, may completely a v oi ~
waters containing high turbidity. However, th ~
turbidity increases in mainstem areas of t he
7-26
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chakacha tn a a nd McArthur Rivers would be expected t c
have a lower potential for adve rse effe ct on fish due
to the na turally high turbidity level s found in thes e
wat er bodies.
Siltation (sedimentation) is often associa ted with
construct ior. activities. There is a considerable
amount o f li terature dealing with the effects oi
siltation on aquatic biota (Burns, 19 7 0; Shaw a:.c
Maga, 1943; Ward and Stanford, 19 7 9), particul ar ly t tc
effect o f siltation on salmoni d spawning a nc
incubation. A general conclusion rea c hed by a r evie~
of the literature (Dehoney and Mancini, l9b 2 ) is t h a t
siltation and turbidity impacts have their gr eatc~t
a dverse effects o~ eggs and larva l fish. In ge~er~l ,
siltation car. cau se a signif icant loss of incubc ~i~c
eggs a~d pre-en ~rgent fry in redds . This is ge~era ll ~
a result of inter ference with water and oxygen
exchange i n redds. Upw e lling flow in a ff ectec area s
m~y tend to reduce such i~pacts b y reducing t he a reou~~
of sedime n t which settles into the redd.
Re le ase of suspended materials can also affe ct cL h er
wa ter qua lity parameters including disso lved oxyg e ~,
BOD, trace me tals, and pH (Pierce et al., 19 70 ).
The production of concrete for constructio n of the
fish passage facility and powe r house may result i n ttL
production of concrete hatching waste. Peters (19 79)
points out that the dischargt~ of this waste, i f
untreated, could lead t o detrimental effects on fis h
population s and habitat. A particular prob lem ~i th
this waste ~s it s high pH (10+) and the need to
neutralize ~t (pH 7) prior to discharge. It i s
expected that this waste will be treated as requirec
by the anticipated project NPDES permit.
7-27
Duri ng peak construction activity, fa c i liti es t o h oL~~
worke rs will be located primarily in the McArt ht::-
floodpl ain. The housing and supply storage area w ~~
occupy 20 to 30 acres. Due to the presence of u lar gE
construction force in the area, sanitary wa ste wi ll
need to be treated and discharged . The extent 0:
treatment of sanitary waste, its volume, and the p oir.t
of d i scharge will control the extent of p otential
impact. Wastewater eff l uents can affect BOD, ar.d
therefore the dissolved oxygen, pH, nutrients, trace
metals , and buffering capacity of the receiving w a~er .
Such ef fl uents can thus affect the water qua li t y of
the fish habitat (USEPA, 1976; AFS, 1979; Hynes,
19 66 ).
Hazardo us material& may also be used durin g
constructi on activities of the pro ject. Althol'g r.
hazardo us material s~ills are generally of £L c r~
duration, they may have severe impacts depenci r.g ut::o:-.
the substance spilled . A number of fac tors ,..il l
affect the seve rity of a spill on fish:
o The toxicity of the substance spilled,
o The duration a nd frequency of the spill,
o The qua ntity spilled ,
o The fish species present,
o The fish life stages present,
o The season (time), in which the spill occurred, a r.~
o Mitigation and clean-up provisions.
Ar,y substance used around the site, or waste produce d
on-site, could potentially be spilled directly int o a
waterbody. In general liquids used in large
quantities and over greater areas, including fuels ar.c
lubricating oils, would be more likely to be involved
7-28
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i n sp1l ls. Die se l oil, f o r example, w ill be used a~L
s to red in large qua n ti ties on-site . In ge n era: 1
spills will be most serious if the y occur in ar eas cr
high bio logical (e.g., spawning) act i vity a nd ~r~ not
dissipated quickl y , or if a large area is af fect~c .
As in the c ase of siltation and turbidity, the les s
motile life stages are most likely to b e adverse ly
affected 1 since older juvenile and adu lt f is!: ca~
usually leav e an affected area. Good e ng inee::-ii .S"
practices, and a thorough spill control plan shou lc
great ly reduce t he potentia l for such i mpac t s .
Direc ~ Construction Activities. Dire ~t constr~cti o~
activities include activities that can be e x pected t L
o ccur throughout the con struction of t he proje ct .
These act1vities, f or the most part, wil l be cc~f1ne ~
t o specific are as .
Duri ng construction, some of the first a ctivities t c
o cc ~r will include the construction of access r oa~r~
clearing of construction areas, stockpiling of
c on s tructi o n material s and fuel, movement of teavy
equipment, and construction of suppo rt facili tie c.
Activities as soci ated with support facilit y
construction will include cutting and clea::-ing in
areas near several streams.
The removal of ground cover during this project ~ill
be minor but may locally increase the potential f or
greater run-of f , erosion, increased turbidity an d
increased dissolved solids (Likens et al., 1970 I
Eoreman et al., 1970 and Pierce et al., 197 0 ). The
extent of impacts can be minimized through the us e o:
mitigative practices to control erosion and re lated
sedimentation and turbidity.
7-29
'T he: removal of bank cover may locall y iucrease t hr.
expos~re of fish to terrestrial predators and lea c t c
a decrease in their populations (Joyce et al, 198 0 ).
There are no plans for regular operations of hea v~
machinery in streams. The primary use of hea vy
machin ery would be during the re-routing of flow. Tt L
extent of potential impacts due to siltation a r.c
turbidity should be short-term and dependent upon t ~~
extent of machinery operation and the type o:
substrate i n the streams affected (Burns 19 70 ) .
Sma l ler su bs trates tend to be more affected (Eu r~=.
1 9 70 ). However, if water velocities are sufficiently
high, the deposition of suspended sediment s may n c ~
occur locally, and the e f fects could be minor (S~a~
and Ma g a, 1943).
Curren t c cn struction plans d o not require i n -strear..
blasti n g.
As part of the construction activities, water wil_ lL
diverted from the streams in the construction area
be used for dust control, drinking wat er ,
f ire-fighting water, sanitary water, concre t e
batchinc;, and wet processing of gravel among other
uses. The diversions will probably be accomplis he d by
f•.:.mping from local stream segments and intakes \d 11 b e
screened and designed t o use very low velocitie s t c
avoid fish impingement and entrainment.
Operation of the camps will also result in increas ed
access to an area that has previously experienceC:
relatively little fishing pressure. The areas
potentially affected would be thosP. stretches of the
McArthur River and its tributaries that are easily
accessible by foot from the camp.
7-30
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7.3.4.1.2 Operatic~ o: the Chakachamna Hydroe lectri c ~reje c t a ~~
Related Facil~ties
Potential impacts of the operation of the prOJE:Ct
(Alternative E) are expected to occur to the a~uat~c
biota through:
o Changes in aquatic habitat,
o Direct effects on aquatic biota, and
o Effects o n fish passage into Chakachamna Lak e .
Effects are expec ted to vary between wat erbod~es ar.~
can b e evaluated separate ly for the following:
o Chaka chaMna Lake anu tributaries,
o ChDkachatna River, and
o McA~thur R~ver.
Hydrologica l alte rat ions are discussed first, and arL
then followed by the effects of those alteration s ~
the cquatic biota.
Chakachamna Lake and Tributaries. Chakacharen a Lake
"''il l be affected b y a 72 ft annual water level
fluctuatio n during proposed proJect operation. T n(·
maximum proposed reservoir level of 1155 ft is n€a~
the maximum historical lake level; this level wil l
occur seasonally under post-project conditions.
Minimum reservoir levels will be approximately 4 5 f t
below pre-project r.1inimum levels. Such a drawd o wn
will expose lake shoreline and stream deltas which c:n.
normally inundated. Lake levels will vary in
Chakachamna Lake and will result in increased
inundation of lakeshore and delta areas during hig i:
reservoir levels; dewatering of submerged s ho rel ine
would occur during periods of drawdown.
7-31
The project effects on the water q u ality of La k E.
Ch akac h amna may include increased suspended sccur.en t.
and turbid ity concentrations nea r tributary nouths .
The potential sediment inf low from the tributar~cs i s
discussed below.
Th e channel gradient of the Chakachamna La ke
tributaries will be affected b y the drawdowr. a nd
fluctuation of the reservoir level. Maximurr. wate :::-
levels will cause inundation of the lower reaches o:
streams which are not normally affected; minimum wa ::..::
levels will expose the entire stream delta surface a~c
the upper portion of the steep delta front. Resultir.~
cha11ges in stream gradient will be progressive ar.c
sequ ential . These will likely be similar at. t b e
mouths ot all tributaries, but t o different de g r eus .
The anticipated. changes due to seasonal minu1Ur.
res a rv o ir lev~ls include:
o Dewatering of over 7 mi 2 of delta area;
o Increase in stream gradient and acco rr.pa~ying
er osion where the stream flows down the fr o r.t c:
d el tas;
o Development of new deltas;
o Eventual channel degradation at the tributa ry
mouths to near the lowest regulated reservoir
level; and
o Degradation upstream as far as is required for t he.
stream to reach equilibrium between the streamfl o~
regime during low reservoir levels and the
materials through which it is flowing; possibl y
7-32
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
resulting 1n loca l ized rapids during the lo~ ~at~r
p e riod, if erosion resistant materials are r eachc ~.
Maximum res e:rvo ir levels can cause depositi on c z
stream-borne sediments in those reaches o f strear ..
af fecte~ by backwater from the reservoir. Some o t t r.•_
ciepos1ted sediments would likely be eroded as t hE
reservoir level drops through the winter.
flows may remove the rest of the deposits.
BreaY.-e::
According to the proposed reservoir opera t i u~
schedule, the reservoir will be at rn.:'.ximum l e v E<.
during Septerr.ber and drawn down to lower level s C•Y Er
the winter with a min1mu ~ level occurring duri~s hr r~:
or May.
Ha bita t Effe ct s -The operation of the rese :-\'vl!.
should tavc effects on the fish rearing habitat ~lth l ~
the lake. Dur i ng open water, juvenile sockey e , :~~E
trout, round whitefish and Dolly Varden are :oun c
throughou t the lake with many fish found offshc r e
along steep drop-offs and just under the 1 cc .:.r.
wi nte r. It is unclear what the effect o f cha n9 ing
water leve ls ma y have o n winter water te ffiperatur~~ o:-
habita t us e , parti c ularly near shore.
At high reservoir levels (during October and Nove r.b e r l
lakeshore areas may be used as spawning habita t b j
lake trout. After reservoir levels drop, incuba t1 ng
eggs and fry may be exposed to freezing or
dessication. Relatively immobile invertebrates .,.·h i d .
reproduce in shoreline areas may also be af fectec.
There are, presently, insufficient data to asses s t he
impact of such effer.:ts on lake trout populations ar.a
standing crop of benthic invertebrates, although the
e ffects could be substantial.
7-33
L ~Y.e lev el s ~il l be near min i mum l e v el a t br ea k -u ~. r
wtic h time t h e princi pa l moveme n t of fis h con s ~st s c:
em erge n t f ry mo v ing from the i r tributary rearing a= b S
t o t he lake. It is not expected t hat t he high
gradients t o the lake will adversely ~ff ect t he s(.
migrants.
During the period in which sockeye salmon a n d oo ::..:.:.y
Varden spa wn in tributaries above the lake, rese rvo i1
levels wil l be greater than pre-project lake lev£ls .
Th is wi l l p o tentially result in lake water flco dins
do ... nstream areas of the Chilligan Ri ve r and t h e
Kenibu n a Lake /Shamrock Lake rapids . The e ffec t o r ,_· .. .:
lake weter o n the utilizati o n of the lower artas c f
the Chi llig <:~n River is not. presen t l y known b ut t hEHE
i s s ome e v idenc e (w h ich f ollows) t h at t h is may net be
a n i mp o rtant e ffec t. The area at the mou t t o: t he
rive r c on tained a lo\1: density o f spawni ng soc keye
compared to areas f u r ther upstre a m. It we.!> u see
ex ten s ive ly a s a mi lling area. During SeF t ember 1 9 t ~,
l ake wat e r inundated the area without appare nt impact
on ei t h er s ockeye or Do l ly Varden spawn ing. Adv e r s e
effects wo uld b e expected if flooding o f t he l ow er
Ch i lligan River r e sulted in increased si l t a t ion w ~i c ~.
c ould af fec t h a tch ing success (see Water Qu alit y ,
above ).
Direc t E ff e c ts -The lake-tap (or multipl e lake -ta p s )
will withdraw water at approximately El. 9 7 4. The
subme rge nce depth would vary between 10 9 f t a nd
18 1 ft. Fish that are entrained into the lake ta p
would b e exposed to turbine passage at the p ow e rhou s E
and mos t would be expected to b e killed by t h e
t u rbines, or during passage through the pressure
7-34
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
di ff eren tial betwe en the depth o f t h e la k e-t a p a nc L ~~
powe r pla n t. Juv enile sockey e a nd both j u v e n i le a:.·
adu lt lake trout, Dolly Varden, and r o ~n d w hi te f i ~~
ma y be v u l nerable.
Hy d roacoustic observations of fish distributio~ i n t he
lak e have indicated that most fish were detecte d w e ~
above t h e depth of the lake tap. During the w i n ~er ,
ove r 99 percen t o f fish were detected in tte u pper
5 0 ft o: the water column. During Septembe r, 19c~
ove r 88 per c ent of t h e fis h detected were in water a~
l east 60 ft above the proposed lake-tap (at t h a t tir.~
of y e a r it would hav e been located at 18 1 f t ) w i ~h n o
fis h d e te cted b e low 161 ft. Thus, poten t iaJ los s of
fis h due to the lake tap based upon curren t a a ta
w o~ld b e r ela tive l y low. How e ver, add ition a l s e a sona l
in fo r mati o n wo ul d b e n eeded t o q u antify p otentia.:
l o sses .
Fish P a ssage Ch a k a c hamn a Lake Alte rnati ve E
i n cl u des a fis h passage fac i lity wh ich is d esigne e t c
permit up s tream mi grants to ascend from t h e
Chakac h atna Ri ver to the lake and to allow d o wn strear
migran ts to pass from the lake to the Chaka c hatna
Ri v er. Th e f ish passage facilitie s a r e desc ribed ir.
Section 3. 5. Detailed design of the fish passa g t::
f aci li ty and its hydraulics has not been comp l e ted .
The upstream passage facility consists o f a poo l a r.c
weir fishway constructed in an underground facilit y c.t
the l a ke outlet, and is connected to the Chakac h a t n~
River downstream of the facility by a tunnel a n~
s maller fishway. Downstream migrants will be p as s e c
through a wheel gate into a stilling basin a n d f r o ffi
there into a tunnel which connects wit h t he
Ch akachatna River downstream . A grate a t t he
7-35
downstre am end would prevent the entrance of ~pstrea r..
migrants into this facility.
The fa c ility is composed of components found ir. a
variety of existing fish passage facilities.
Presently, there are insufficient data avai l able t o
assess the potential effects of this facility o n
migrating fi s h in a quantitative manner.
Sockeye salmon and Dolly Varden would be expected t o
usc this facility, as both have been observed to s p~~:.
above the lake. Escapement estioates of sockeye
indicat-e that (based upon 1982 data), over 41,000
sockeye (possibly more depending upon ye arl y
variation) would need to successfully pass throug t ~r.f
facility to migrate upstream. Since the percenta ge c:'
the run suc c essfully reach ing the Chilligan a nd Ig~t r.a
Riv~rs is not known, the true extent of the sock ey~
sa lmcn resource can only be estimated. From 1 0 t c
more than 100 times as man y sockeye can be expec tec t <.
migrate dcwr.strearn due to the normally hig h~r
production of young fish (Foerster 1968). A sma lle ~
number of downstream Dolly Varden would also b e
expec ted to pass through the facility. If t he
facility works as planned the impact to t he s o ckeye
run should be low.
If the facility did not successfully allow the
migration of sockeye both upstream as adults a nc
downstream as juveniles then some part of t he
estimated adult spawning population would be expecte c
to be lost, as well as a portion of its presently
unknown contribution to the Cook Inlet fishery. As
design details are determined, the fish passage
facilities will need to be re-assessed in a more
detailed fashion.
7-36
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Th ~ release of water from Chakachamna Lake into tr.L
McArthur s y stem could potential ly result in impact s t c
fish which would normal ~ spawn in Chakachamna La ~~
and tributari e s above it. While the "homing" o f
salmon is not completely understood, the orientatio:.
of upstream migrants to olfactory cues originati~~ 1 ~
natal streams has been considered to be a p=incipal
factor (Hasler, 19 7 1). Fish entering the systcr..
through the Middle River should not be affected by t ~~
McArthur release. Fish enterin~ the system t hroug ~
the mouth of the fotcArthur River may encou nter
olfactory cues from flows entering the McArthur I:i ver
at the conf luence of the lower Chakachatna ~.-it !. tt.e
XcArthur River, from t he conflu ence of the t-.ca 1;i<~c
Slcuc;h "'i th t he r-:cArthur River, and frorr. .,..·c;ter
discl:arged from t he tailrace c: the po...,:e r plc.r.:.
loc&t ed in the McArthur canyon. Fish t ha t eT!tere cl t h e
Ch akachatna River eithe r at the lower river
confluence, or the Noaukta Slough would be follo~i~~
wh a.t i.:; hypothesi zed to be the present rr.igratory
path"'ay a nd wou ld n o t be expected to be sigr.ifi c a r.~l ~·
a f fected. b y the other power plant discharge; s or..c
dela y due to confusi on may occur. There is a
potenti al. f or some o f the upstream migrant s t.o b e
attracted t o the tailrac e ir. the McArthur can yo n
Since t he fi sh could not migrate further ups t ream i~t (
Chakachamna Lake, three basic scenarios could d~ve lc.F :
o The fish could back down the system ur.til the y
detect alternate olfactory cues (i.e., at t he
Noaukta Slough} and then migrate up the Chakachat n a
River,
o The f 1sh could mill in the tail race until sexually
matured and then back down the system u n til
alternate cues were detected, or
7-37
o The fibh could spawn in the McArthur Canyon .
The significar,ce of a delay in migration i s n o -;:
presently known. However, the spawning of l a r ge
nur:\bers of lake tributary origin sockeye in t he
McArthur River canyon area could result in lo~ e g g
hatching success due to high densities of spa~~ing
fish and resulting redd superimposition, the u se of
poor spawning habitat, or females not spawning (B el:
1 980). ln addition, the rearing habitat in t ht
McArthur canyon is probably less suitable for sockeye
salmon than in Chakachamna Lake. Thus, if ~n c r eas eo
spawning occurred in this area, rearing would probab ly
be less success f ul.
Ch a kacha tna Riv e r. Water releases will b e ma~e tc t h e
Chakachatn a River b e lov; the fish passage f a ci l i t:,·.
The qua n t ity of t h e actual releases is not pr ese~tly
known, and wi ll be based upon future studies.
Howe ver , preliminary release flows have been esti rnat t ~
as a starting point for analysis (Table 7.4 ). S ue t
flows constitute a relatively small percen t age of
pre-project annual flow. Tributary inflow down st r ear.
from the lake contributes relatively small q u antit ie ~
of fl ow c ompared with pre-project flows at Lhe la kt
outlet. However, depending upon the time of year, t h e
tributary inflow may substantially increase
post-project flows downstream of the release
structure. Historical lo~ flows will be subst ant ially
reduced by project operation during October throug h
March. Ten percent of the average annual flow is
€ensidered to be the minimum for short-term surv i val
of fish and other aouatic organisms (Tennant, 197 5 ).
However, in this system, post-project release s frorr.
January through April may be less than 10 percen t but
7-38
I
I Table 7 .4 Natura l and Alternativ e E regulated mea n mo nthly
I and mea n an n ual flow a t t h e Chakachamna La ke
outle t.
I Month Natural Reg ul ated a
(cfs) ( cfs )
I
I Jan 613 365
Feb 505 :>43
I Mar 44 5 34 5
Apr 441 536
I
~1 a y 1,04 2 1 , 0~4
J u r. 5,8 75 1 , 0 9 ~
Jul 1 1,9 50 1, 0~~
I Aug 1 2,000 1, 0 9~
Sep 6 ,0 4 2 1 , 09~
I Oc t 2,468 3E 5
Nov 1 ,2 0 6 3 6 5
I De c 8 13 3E 0
I ME:!a ::1
Annua l 3 ,64 5 679
I Flow
I
aRequ l ated flows were estimated us i ng the Montana Me t hod as
I described i n Section 6.2.2.1.
I
I
I
7-3 9
I
st ill represent between 60 and 122 percen t of
pre-project average monthly flows, respect ive l y .
Flood flows would be modified in the regulated flo~
regime . Chakachatna River flood flows would b e
smaller in magnitude than past events, but would
exhibit a greater variation around a mean flood v al ue
du e to the rel atively small influence of Chakachamn a
Lake on the post-project river system. The seasona
distribution and hydrograph shape of the annua l f lo oc~
may shift from the mid-summer, long duratiun f loods
u nde r the natural flow regime, toward a fal~, short
duration flood more typical of casins without the
stcrage ef fects of lakes and glaciers.
The sedimentation characte ristics o f the C hak a~hatn a
R i ve r sy s tem will change with the regulat ~d flo.,.,·
regime. Se diment transpo rt will decrease i n respon st
to decreased flows.
The configuration of certain stream reaches wou c
likely change as a result of the flow al te ra tior.
associated with the project. The mountainous reache s
on the Chakachatna River would retain a sing le channel
steep gradien t condition, although it woul d be
carrying less flow. Split channel reaches woulc
likely assume more o : a meandering Cjnfiguration. T he
braided reaches above Straight Cree ~ and in Noauk t a
Slough would likely become more stal>le and the flm;
would be carried by fewer channels which are
characteristics of a split configuration. The lower
reaches of the Chakach atna and Middle Rivers would
likely retain their meandering configuration.
Ice formation and breakup processes will also l ike ly
be affected by the project. The evaluation of the
7-40
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
n ature an d extent of the s e effects require s fu rthe r
study.
Ma i n stem Habitats -The phy sic a l effects of t he
proposed flo"" reductions are described above . The
ma i nsi..e::u 1 habi tc:ts apfear to be currently used a s
migratory pathwc.ys, rearing areas for sub-adult a u :
residen t fish, and there appears to be a s mall a mou r.~
of side channel spawning associated "''i th areas o :
upwelling or slough fl o w . Table 7.5 lists es ti~a t e c
escapeme n ts of fish species for water bodies in tr.~
Chakachatna River dr~inage, classified as to w h e t hE~
t h e waterbo dy is like ly to be affected by t h e red~cec
ma in s tem flow. The tribu t ary wate r bodies are n ol
exp ected t o b e significantly a f fected b y r ed u ced
f lows .
Side c h anne l s i n t h e Straig r.t Creek mou th ar ea a nc ~~
station 1 7 are expected t o be most afiec t ec .
Obsen·at i o ns d u ring 198 2 h,,v e ind i.cated that U,~sc
areas wi l l probably not be dE::-.-?at~red or perc hed . 'I r.c
observatio ns have ind ica ted that turbid mains ter.
o v er f low, which is pre s ent in these a ;7e as dur i n s
higher flows, wo uld be absent. Without the c over
provi ded by this turbid flow, fish spawning in the£€
area s may be more vul n erable to predation. Side
channel spawning in both areas represents less t har.
5 0 perce nt o f observed spawning at each site . Dept t
of water at entry points to side channels a t
station 17 would be expected to be shallow and ma y
adversely affect fish entry.
Based upon 1982 observations, the milling areas at
Tributary C1 and at the mouth of the Chaka.:h a t n a
Ca nyon Slough s would be sign~ficantly less turcic t r.a r.
at present. This may also increase potential
7-41
-.J
I ...
IV
TahlfiP 7.S. ~~ti•at~ esca~nt of iMpnrt~nt fl~h ~~CIP~ in thP Ch~~~rh~tn~ Al vrr ~yntr~ by w~t~rb~y cla~~lfiP~ by
potf'nt lAl f~Pf feet !'I of fff'rr~'lll':rff flow nf wnt rr fro111 rhnlt .,,.h~llln~ l .~tttr .
S~cles
Socllf'ye1
s~lrnnn
Chinook 2
s~htlon
Plnll 1
S~l1110n
Chu•4
Sal110n
Coho5
Sal1110n
Dolty6
V"rden
FICJ . 6.1l2
2 FiCJ. 6.114
1FICJ. fi.116
4rlCJ. fi .ll1
5FICJ . 6.118
'rtq . fi .141
X • U111eff alii
MOre
POTI'!NTIAJ,f,Y
Aflect.-d
AFFr.CTEO WATER~~~F.~.S~r----
Lr!ls 1\1 ff'r t('ft --~-----. ·---'-----
Stulqht
Cr~e~
Mouth
201
0
0
152
76
and Sf'!ctionl'l
and SPction•
and SPr.tions
and Sll!ctlonll
and Sectionll
Chakach~tM
BridCJf'
!;idfiP Ch,.nnPJI'I
~n<i Slouqh!l
<"ha~~ch~ttn~t
Canynn
!llouqh!'
1 ,191 Hi'
0 0
59 271J
1 ••• ., 121
1,560 ~Oil
X X
6.8,), fi.8.fi.1-.t;
6.8.1, fi.lt .6. l-. o;
6.11.J, fi.ll.fi. 1-.o;
fi .II.J, fi. IJ ,fi. 1 --....
6.11.], 6 ,11 .6.1-.....
and SP.ction 6.11.6.6
"pawning are~"·
l"h~ltnrh,..tn~t
Tribut~rr
II' I I
7111
n
0
I fit;
1111
)(
tqitna
Al vrr
7,7111
0
0
0
0
X
Chi11iqlln
River
31t,~71'i
0
n
0
0
X
Str,.lqht
CrPP~
0
0
0
0
0
Stralqht <"rPPit
CJPIHW~trr
Trlhut~ry
7 .... 4
1,4 ;12
7 ,41 7 ~
0
177
)(
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
vulnerability to increased predation. Th ~ ext 2 n t o :
the potential increase in vulnerability to preda tic ..
of spawning adults at these sites will need t o b e
assessed after more data ~re collected.
There are a number of fish species which use mains te:.
and side channel areas as rearing habitat . The effe c:
of decreased flow on the availability and suitabi:ity
of this habitat can not be determined at this time.
While decreased flow will decrease the wetted
perimeter and therefore the area of a stream, th ~
decrease is not linearly proportional to the decrea:c
in flo111• (Tennant, 1975). Additional sources o f
inflo111·, including sloughs and tributaries suer, a ~
Straight Creek, should result in somewhat in c rease d
flow downstream of the outlet structure. The
additional water sources (Straight Creek, var le t.:
sloughs, and unnamed tributaries) will reduce effe c t s
of the decrease in upstream releases. In areas 111'hC!·(
pre-project water velocities are too great to conta L.
suitable rearing habitat, decreased velocities c o ~l c
potentially increase suitable habitat. Presentl y ,
there are insufficient data to evaluate all expect e~
change.
Decreased flows during winter may cause change= in t h e
ice conditions and also result in decreased
overwintering habitat. The actual nature and exte n~
of effects cannot be determined from available data
but a significant decrease in mainstem overwintering
habitat is likely during the early winter.
Sloughs -Observations made during March and Octobe~
1982 have indicated that flo"1 in sloughs located in
the Chakachatna River canyon and at station 17 appear
to be independent of river flow. It is not expe cte d
7-43
that reduced flow in the river will hav e an adver se
effect on these waterbodies. This will need t o b e
confirmed through more detailed study. The
overwintering habitat in sloughs should not b e
affected by reduced flow in the mainstem of the ri ver .
Downstream migrants originating in the Chakachatna
drainage may require high seasonal break-up flow ~ t c
trigger their migration; proposed post-projec t
discharges may not be sufficient to trigge r thi s
behavior. Howe v er, post-project releases duri n~ A~r1l
and Ma y are greater than pre-project flows c.r.d
depending upon the timing of outmigration ma y b e
sufficient to trigger the downstream movement. Data
c ol lected dur1ng 1982 suggest that outmigratior. o:
chu~ s al~on and some sockeye occurs during la te Ma;
and earl y June. Col l ections made during the sur..r.,;;,.::
a nc fall anc i n the Susitna drainage suggest
downstream migration and smol tification of coho ,
chinook and s oc keye salmon continues throug hou~ t~e
sununer and fall.
Some data in the literature indicates that swi mrni~~
activ ity, downstreaffi migration, and smoltifi cat i on o:
some species ma y also be controlled by photoperioc
(Lorz, 1973; Go din, 1980). If the outmigration i s
photoperiod controlled, high break-up flows would n et
necessarily be required. Overall, available data d e
not suggest that an adverse effect would be expected
on stimulation of downstream migratio~.
McArthur River . The McArthur River will receive flo~s
from the powerhouse ranging from a minimum of
approxima tely 4600 cfs in July to a maximum of
approximately 7500 cfs in December. Present flow s in
the upper McArthur River near the powerhouse are
7-44
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
estimated to average about 600 cfs in Jul y a nd 3 0 cfs
in December. Thus, flows in this upper sect ion ~i~l
be substantially increased by the operation of the
project during the entire year. The re lative
magnitude of increase will be less downstrean of it s
confluence with the Blockade Glacier channels.
Post-project summer flow in the McArthur Ri ver
downstream of its confluence with the Noaukta S lo~c h
will be less than pre-project conditions due t o t he
substantial decrease in flow through Noaukta S l ougt ..
Floods on the McArthur River upstream of Noaukta
Sl o ugh would be increased by the operatior. of tt,e
projec t. The amount of increase will be rough ly
equiv alent to the modificati on of the base flows u pc ~
which the f lcods are superimposed. That is, t he-
source of the flood waters remains unchanged, but t he
flow in t he McArthur R1 ver as the flood begins wi l l b e
greater. The relative increase in flow ~ould decrea se
in a downstream direction along the McArthur River .
Below its con fl uence with Noaukta Slou ~h, the McArthur
River would likely experience a reduced flo od
magn itude. This is due to the decrease of inflow fr or.
Noaukta Slough during the summer as comparee with t he
inflow under pre-project conditions. Noaukta Sl ous ~
contributes a greater mean daily flow to the Mc Art h~r
River from mid-June through mid-September under
pre-project conditions than the maximum that will b e
diverted to the McA~thur River for power gen e ~atio n
during project operation.
The upper McArthur River will experience increase d
sediment transport loads due to the larger discharge s
in the channel. The upstream reaches will likely
scour the channel bed to reduce its gradient. In
addition, bank erosion will likely increase its rate
7-45
and areal extent as a resul~ of the increased flo ~.
Flood discharges in mid-September 1982 cau sed b ee
scour and bank erosion,
sediments
and
along
transported
its channel. quantiti es
magnitude
of
of this short-duration event
larg e:
T he
wa s
approximately 50 percent greater than those expectec
on a daily basis under post-project conditions.
The increased post-project flows in the McArthur Riv e~
are n o t anticipated to cause significant change s i ~
channel configuration. However, some meande r ing
reaches, especially toward the upstream end, rr.ay
assume split channel characteristics. Further
analysis is required to ascertain the effect s or.
channel configuration, o f the increased sedime nt
transp o r~ into the lower rea.ches of the McArt hu~
River.
'I'he ice p rocesses in the McArthur River will also
likel y be affected b y the project. Ice formatio n may
be reduced or poss1.bly elimi nated by the increasec
quantity and temperature of flow. Evaluation of t he~c
effects requires further study .
Turbidity in the McArthur River canyon would b e
expec ted to increase during the winter mo n t h s.
Pre-project winter flow in that area appears to b e
derived from upwelling and is clear. Water from the
powerhouse tailrace would b e expected to have a hig h e~
turbidity as is normally found in Chakachamna Lake .
Turbidity in the lake varies with depth during cert~in
times of the year but is generally similar to that
measured near the powerhouse location in the McArthur
River. Below the McArthur Canyon, flow from the
Blockade Glacier channel is also turbid and therefore
7-46
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
e ff ects below the confluence of that c hanne l s h o u ld l c
mi n imal.
Mainstem Habitat -Mainstem areas of th e McAr thur
Ri ver appear to be used as migratory pathway s f or
sub-adult and residential adult rearinq, and f o r
spawning in the McArthur River canyon.
Table 7 .6 lists escapement estimate s of majo r sp ec~€£
that spawn in the McArthur River drainage b y
waterbody . The only area in which spawning ha b 1tut c:
the se species is likely to be affected i s i n t he
McArthur canyon. All other listed areas a re
tributaries. Spawning habitat in sloughs and sid e-
chan ne l s of the McArthur canyon occur up s tream of t he
pow e rhouse tailrace. It is unlikely tha t the se a r~~s
wi ll b e significantly a f fected. Based upon 195 2
escap eme n t es timates, a relativel y small percen tage o~
spawni ng s a l mo n wi l l be vulnerab l e to changes i n
mainst em fl o w. Som e f ish that normally spawn a bove
Chakachamna La k e ma y b e attracted to the p o werhouse
tailra c e which ma y af f ect spawning adults of McArthu r
orig in (see above).
The r ed i s tribution of substrate in the powe rhouse are u
may also affect spawning. Presently, there a re
insufficient data to determine if the effect would b e
beneficial or adverse to the availability of habita t
to spawning adults.
Eulachon spawn in the lower reaches of the McArthur
River mainstem, below the Noaukta Slough. Flow
alterations are not expected to affect spawning o f
this species because during the period of eulachon
spawning, the continued post-project McArthur Ri v er
7-47
-
......
I
~
CJ)
Table 7.6. t:stl11111te esciiPf!-nt of IIIIJ'Ortllnt flflh I'J'If'CiPfl In th,. Mrllrthur RlvPr fi \•P<tf"lft by v11tPrbooy c 111'!fl ff i P" hy
potentill1 of inrrell!"<'fl f1 nv of vllt,.r .
POT!;NTJALLY AF'F'F.CTEO .AREA roTF'NT 'IIJ.I .• Y NON-AF'F'f:CTEO AIIF.AS
------- ------St rr.,1 r'~-
~pecie!'l McArthur C11nyc>n ~trf'_,.m lJX ~tr""'" 1111 ~T,1il ;:;;)·-·-1 7 .~D .7 -1].)
". i ---n-:-;
----
~or keye
666!\ o;,41f;l\ 1 • 7 11" ~11lmon
Chfno<>k 07 4'l}7 l,fi1J 7 ~1111110n
Pink ,;o" 4,nr;11 <;,40 2 11 ~111mon
ChUIII
19 o' 0 Sal111on n
Coh o
1, 1112 10 I, 37810 1} 10 Sllllll<'n
Dolly
Varden X X X
X• Prob11bie Sp11vninq 1tre11!'1.
1aased on 6 d11y P<treatll life Tablf" ll.JS, SP ctl on 1\,8 .3 .
2R11sed on ~ount of live 11nd d~ad fi!"h Table 1\.34, ~f'rtlnn 6.11.3.
1 Ras,.d on 6 day ntrea111 lire T11ble 6 .36, SPc tlon 6.A.J.
4 Aased on peak on total r<>untA T11blf' fl .17, ~,.rtf o n 1\,II.J.
5 Aa,..-d on 10 day stream lif.-Tl'lhl<' 1\,)11, Sertlon 1\.8.).
fiF'iq. 6.132
7 rtq. 6.34
II Fi9. 6 .J6 .
9 811P<ed IIJ>Cn 10 f111y !It rP.<trl 1 if.-Tith 1 f' ft. 17.
10 Bat~:rit upon 10 d<~y p;t r"IIM 1i fr T,,,. I" ". 111.
-----------·
}7,1\11\1\ I r., 7 11 1 ft,OII ~I } • •;t} 1 } • 1 ~111
777 n2
1o,non 11 11,4oo 1 I , <,f\6 1 ., 111 1 )J
Q •• I~ o;
7,1 )7 10 },000 ... 46<; 89<;
X Y. X X X X
•
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
and Noaukta Slough flows are expected to be s inilar t c
pre-proj ect flows.
Increased post-project flows wi 11 occur abov e t he
Noaukta Slough confluence on the McArthur River. Tl.(
lower post-project flows below the Noaukta S loug h
confluence during June through September should net
have a signiticant effect on fish passage. It is n o t
clear at this time if the upstream migrants above the
slough will even be exposed to significantly high€r
velocities than they are exposed to by pre-project.
flows. This will need to be assessed in the f utur e .
Pre-project water temperatures in the vicinity o: t h
proposed powerhouse location have a wide diur n a l
variation during the open water season. Th e dis charg e
of Chakachamna Lake water during operation wo u l a te n c
t o stabilize the temperatures. Water temperatur es at
the propose d lake tap depth were as follows:
March 2.1°C
August 6.5°C
September 6.2°C
T h e temperature of discharged water shoul d b e fair ly
con stant and should reduce diurnal variation ar.c
maintain temperatures closer to optimal ranges for
spawning and incubation for many of the species
present (Bell, 1~80).
There are a number of fish species which use mainsteffi
habitats in the McArthur River for rearing habita t .
Presently, the effect of changes in the flow regime ir1
different reaches of the river at different times of
year cannot be determined. Changes in wetted
perimeter, depth and velocity for different areas wil l
7-49
af fe et the overalJ total s u i table are a f or e ach
s p ecies a n d l~festage. Thus, sui table h ab i t at may
i nc rease , decrease, or r em ain the same.
a l s o n eed to be assessed.
T his wi l:i.
Increased flow : n the McArthur canyon from t he
powerplant discharge may affect availab:e
overwintering habitat in the McArthur drainage . Da ta
col l ected during 1982 indicate that the McArth ur
cany o n and areas below it (station 13) may be used a E
o v erwintering areas. Increased flow and depth rna~
increase the over._.·intering area avai l ab lE.
I n sufficient data are available t o assess s u c h
changes .
Wa ter discharged from the powerhouse ~ill proba bly b e
warmer tha n wate r o f McArthur origin; 2. 1 °C , a s
compared with 1.2°C, respectiv ely , during Ma rch 19 8:.
This ma y result i n g r eater metabolic activ i t y b y fis t
and oth er aquat i c biota d u ri n g the winter, and re su~L
i n more rapid incuba tion ar.d earlier emerge nc e time s
f or Mc Arthur canyon fish . Such emergence times would
b e similar to those found in the Chakachatna Ri ve r .
It is u n clear fr0m present data whether this wi l l h ave
a n adverse effect.
Incr eased post-project turbidity during the winter
months should not have a significant adverse ef f ect o ~
fis h in the McArthur Canyon. Turbidity levels s h ou lc
be similar to those measured in this area during t he
spring through fall, and it would be expected that
fish are well adapted to them.
There is a potential for the discharge of disso l v e d
gases at levels greater than 100 percent of gas
saturation at the powerhouse. Water discharged at t h e
7-50
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7 .3.4.1.3
powerho use, entrained at lake tap depth s of mo r e t ~2:
100 :t, w~ll undergo a pressure change o f more t r.a r. _
atmospheres. After the change in pressurt t he
solubility of dissolved gases is redu c ed . The
constant mass of dissolved gas and the lowe r ed
solubility may result in supersaturation. Ev ide nce c:
a potential for supersaturation was detected duri og
sampling in September 1982. If supersaturation o cc ~rs
(.,·ithout mitigative measures), it could have
significant adverse effects on fish in the imnedia :.E·
area of the discharge (Merrell et al. 1971; Bl ah;-
et a l. 1975, Fickeisen an d Schneider, 19 7 6, Bell ,
1980).
Slouc:hs -Some sloughs in the immediate vicin ity c :
the tailrace o~ the powerplant may become inur.Cate rl
ar.d water velocities may increase. These changes r..a:·
a f fect t h e suitability of these habitats. The e x ~e~~
o f su c h changes cannot be determined at this ti ~~.
Tributaries -No significant changes would be e x pec t e c
in McArthur River tributaries due ~o post-op eratio n a~
fiows based upon current data .
Summary of Potential Effects
Potential effects of the proposed project alternative
on the aquatic biota will vary depending upor.
waterbody and location. Potential effects o f
construction are likely to be limited in extent and o f
short duration.Effects may include:
o Local increases in turbidity, unlikely to affe c t
fish significantly due to already high ambier.t
levels;
7-51
o Local increases in siltation and po s s~bl e
degradation of some spawning habitat:
o Local clearing of banks with some increases i n
water temperatures:
o Re-routing of flow with potential redistribution c~
loss of existing habitat: and
o Potential spills of materials, which although o f
brief duration ma y adversely affect biota .
Operational effects differ according to the wate rbc~y
considered.
include:
Potential changes in Chakachamna La ke
o Potential loss of some lake trout spawning area a ~~
fr y :
o Seasona l variation in available rearing habitat:
o Flooding of the downstream area of the Chillig an
River and some loss of spawning habitat tt:1·oug h
siltation: and
o Potent~al fish loss through turbine passage.
The successful operation of the fish passage facilit ~·
will be necessary for the continuation of the
population of sockeye salmon which spawns above
Chakachamna Lake . Insufficient data are availabl e tc
properly assess the operational characteristics of the
current design.
Flow reductions in the Chakachatna River will
potentially have significant effects on mainstem and
7-52
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
side channel habitats. There are insufficient c ata t 0
assess potential changes in the suitability of h~bitat
and the net loss or gai n of rearing h abitat. S or £
potential effects that can be identified include:
o Decrease in cover provided by turbid water in s orr e
side channel spawning areas downstream of slough!::;
o Decrease in cover in some side channel milli n<;;
areas downstream of sloughs;
o P otential changes in distribution o: fish witt
changes in habitat; and
o Potentia l loss of some o v erwintering habita t .
Poten tial e ff ects of the inc r eased water releas e i ~
the McArthur River in clude :
o Potential mis-cueing, straying, a nd/or delay c :
fish that norm ,~lly spawn above Chakachamna Lak E-
through the release of olfactory cues at the
McArthur powerplant tailrace;
o Potential loss of some spawning habitat in t he
McArthur River canyon;
o Potential habitat changes in upper reaches of the
McArthur River; the specific nature and extent o:
such changes cannot be determined at this time;
o Potential decrease in temperature variation in t he
upper McArthur River resulting in more optimal
temperatures for spawning and inc~bation of some
species; and
7-53
7.3.4.2
o Potential release of gas supersaturated wat e~ ~tic~
could adverse:ly affect fis h in the immediat e
vic inity of the tailrace.
Potential Effects on Botanical Resources
The development of a hydroelectric power project a t
Chakachamna Lake, will result in changes in t he:
distribution and species composition of vegetat ive
communities. Based upon current designs f o r
Alternative E, these changes would occur over a
relatively small portion of the project area. Chan g e&
that do 0 ccur may be beneficial or detrimental t o the
biota depending upon the type of changes as well a s
the location, duration and magnitude of change .
i .3 .4.2.1 Direct Habitat Loss
Construction of a rockfill dyke and fish pas sage
facil1t y in the upper Chakachatna River canyon and a
powerhouse in the McArthur River canyon will
nece ssitate the removal of vegetation over a
relative ly small area. The powerhouse and =ish
passage facility will be primarily underground , th us
minimizing surface disturbance. The rockfil l dyke
wi ~l be sited in the upper reach of the Chakachatna
canyon where the floodplain is unvegetated and t he
canyon walls and glacial moraine support Sitka alder
and willow which are abundant throughout the proje ct
area. The areal extent of vegetation removal dur ing
road, camp, airstrip, and borrow pit development i s
not yet known because the location and size of t h ese
facilities have not been sufficiently defined .
7 .3.4.2.2 Indirect Habitat Alteration
7-54
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The most notable changes in the distributi on o f
vegetation will likely occur in the lower t-l cArt hu r
River and Chakachatna River canyons. In the lower
McArthur canyon, increased flows emanating fror:: the
tailrace and the deposition of excavated materials
within the floodplain near the powerhouse may recuc e
the extent of riparian vegetation. In the Chakachatna
canyon below the dyke, reduced flows may enabl e
riparian vegetation to become established withi n wha t
is now the active floodplain. In time, if these
riparian thickets do expand, additional habitat for
moose, songbirds and furbearers may be provided.
Disposal of materials excavated from the power tunr.e l
and fish passage facility will be stockpiled in t he
floojplain above the dyke. When the d y ke is compl etEc
and the lake level raised to an elevation of 1155 ft,
this disposal area, as well as portions of t he la ke
shore will be floodec. In the area subjected to t f.e
annual fluctuations of lake water levels, portions o£
the Nagishlamina, Chilligan and other smaller l ake
tributary deltas will most likely realize a c hanqe ir.
their vegetative cover. Vegetation may recede due t o
inundation and shoreline destabilization . However,
such changes are expected to influence only a sma ll
area since under pre-project conditions, the laY.e
level only occasionally reaches elevations at or
near 1155 ft. Above the high water level, the shore
may also develop a different species composition; o r.e
more representative of early seral stages and we tter
soil conditions (Newburg and Malaher, 1972). The
anticipated changes in riparian and shoreline
vegetation cannot be further refined until
site-specific , field verified, habitat maps have bee n
prepared and the operating reservoir levels better
defined.
7-55
Downstream from the McArthur and Chakachatn a canyc n s ,
the i nf luen ce of a l tered flows, either inc reased or
decreased, on riparian vegetation wi l l d e pend upon t h~
direction and magnitude of channel migratio ns a n d t he
amount of floodplain area removed from the influer.ce
of flood events. Based upon current information , t h e
McArthur River channel above Noaukta Slough h a s beell
naturally migrating and some rechanneling has o ccurre c
in the slough under normal flow conditions . S us tai ned
higher flows in the upper McArth ur Riv er ma y re sult :r.
accele r ating th i s migration. The extent o f cha nne l
migration is also dependent upon floo dp lain s ubstra ~e
and bank composition . Until i n formation is avail a ble
on these parameters, the speed, directio n , a n d
magnitude of migration in the upper McArthu r Ri ve r
cannot b e assessed. The influenc e of reduced flows i r.
t he Chak achatn a Ri ve r a n d Noaukta Slough ma y b e ~c
reduce t he freque ncy a n d magnitude of rech a nnelir.g i ~
the slough a nd t o remov e portions of the now a c t ive
floodplain from the influence of flood e v ents. E a5cc
upon cu r rent information, it is not possib le at t hi s
time t o estimate the location, extent or tirr.i n g o =
revegetation.
The influence of wind or ve h icle-generated d ust
emanating from cleared areas, roads, and b o rro w pits
ma y influence the vegetative community composition i n
the immediate vicinity of these facilities.
Accumulations of dust may accelerate the rate at whi c h
snow melts (Drake, 1981) and affect the growth o f
cottongrass and mosses (CRREL, 1980). The extent o f
vegetation changes due to accumulations of dust wi ll
be dependeu t upon the methods and level of effort
exerted to reduce dust.
7-56
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Off -road use of vehicles in the project are a rr.a y
affect vegetation depending upon the type of v e h icle,
the time of year, and soil moisture conditions
(Sparrow et al., 1978). Currently, no policy exist s
to control or permit off-road use of the site.
To assess the influences on vegetation of constru ctin~
and maintaining a transmission line, the vegetativ e
species composition, transmission line design, an d
construction a nd maintenance techniques will need t L
be established. Since this information is not
currently a va ilable, the effects of a transmi ssicr.
line on vegetation cannot be evaluated.
7 .3.4 .2.3 Summary of Potential Effects
Potential effects of the proposed project al~ernati ~e
on the botanical resources will vary de pending U?Gr.
location . Sm a ll areas adjacent to project faci l it i E[
wi ll be influenced by the construction and operati c~
of the project. Such influences may include:
o Increases in bank erosion along the upper M c Art h ~r
I River due to increased channel migration ;
I
I
I
I
o lncreases in the extent of riparian vegetation i ~
areas removed from the active floodplain b y reduce d
flows in the Chakachatna River;
o Altered distributions of vegetation along the lak e
shore and deltas due to higher, fluctuating la ke
levels; and
o Reductions in vegetative cover and changes i :1
1 species composition in areas cleared for the roa ds,
airstrip, and borrow pits.
I
7-57
I
7.3.4.3
Although it i s likely that these vegetation changes
wi ll o c cur , the extent o f the change is less t har. tha t
typicall y associated with the dev elopme n t of a
h ydroelectric project. This is because d e s i g n s f or
t h is project have incorporated a lake tap rather t ha~
a rese rvo ir and thus:
o Considerably less vegetation needs to be c leare d :
o Effe c ts of change in albedo should be neglig i b le:
o T he incidence of fire a n d vegetativ e disease s houl c
be reduced sin ce it will not be necessary t c
stoc kp i l e large amounts of cleared v egetation ; anc
o T he a mo unt of wi nd -genera ted dust shoul d b e l e ss
since a mu ch sma ller area wil l be cleared .
Ve ge tat ion in t h e project area has been drama t i c a lly
chan g ed throug h pr ior dev elopment. Road s p r ovide
u n r estricted a cc ess to ~he lower portion s o f t h e a r ~c.,
exten s ive timber h arvesting has greatly reduced t he
vegetat ive cov er over a large area near t he
Chakac hatna Riv er, and an underground pipe l ine has
been s i te d on the shore of Trading Bay. It i s
unli k ely that the development of the Chakachamna Lak e
hydroelectric project would influence vegetative
commu nities to the extent of these prior dev elopme nts .
Potential Effects on Wildlife Resources and Hab i tats
The construction and operation of the Chakachamn a La ke
Hydr o electric project will affect the wildlife
resources of the area . One means by whicD wi ldli fe
may be affected is through habitat loss d u e t o
facility siting . Because the area actually occupied
7-58
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
b y a facility is usually small when c om pared t o t ht
total area encompassed by a particular hab itat t ype,
u n less a facility is sited within a spec i al u se ar ea
(e.g. calving, nesting, or molting areas), the lo s~ c:
a small amount of habitat is usually not critical t o
the future viability of a population.
A second means by which the biological resources ffia y
be affected is through habitat alteration. In t hi s
case, some phase of development is usually respon si b~L
for altering the physical or vegetative con dition£.
Examples of this includ e the alteration of r iv er
hydraulics, lake morphology, coastal sediment a tion ,
and biological community d y namics. Often whe n £uct.
changes occur, the existing wildlife resources resp o~~
wi th changes in species compos ition, diversity , ar.c:
distrib~,;.tion.
Th~ t hird type of habitat change ma y occur as a r e ~1:.:t
of a n influx of support services. Typica lly t hi:
e quates to an increase in the loca l human p opul ati o~,
increases in traffic levels (inc luding air and
ground), and increases in noise. These condi tions may
result in d ec reased use of adjacent areas by ~i ld l ife.
Regardless o f which type of habitat change occu rs , t h e
response of wildlife will vary with the time o f year
and the species involved. If the habitat lost is of
minor importance and the extent is small, wildlif e
populations may only abandon or discontinue their u sc
of the affected habitat while remaining in the gener a :
vicinity. However, the effect on populat i o n levels
may be severe if habitats used for important l ife
functions are rendered unusable by intense ac tivity,
or large scale habitat loss or change. These
important areas include the land and water used for
7-59
breeding, nesting, calving, staging, winteri ng ar.c
denning.
7.3.4.3.1 Direct Habitat Loss
Through development of the Chakacharnna Hydroelectric
Project, direct n abitat losses due to facility s1 ting
will occur with construction of the dyke, disposal
areas, powerhouse, fish passa ge facility, camps,
roads, airstrip, port and docking facilitie s , an d
borrow pits . The influence of this habitat loss or.
wildlife p o pulations should be negligible. The dy ke
wi 11 b~ sited at the outlet of Chakacharnna Lake ; a:-.
area that receiv es little use by birds and mamn.als.
Th e powerhouse and fish passage facility will b e
l oc ated in the McArthur River and Chakachatna River
c an yons, respectivel y. Because these facilities wil l
b e primarily underground, relativel y smal l qeantit1 es
o f surface habitat will be lost. Although the ex act
size a nd precise location of the remaining facilitie s
have not bee n determined, each will occupy a
relati v ely small amount of habitat in an area tha t i ~
not considered to be essent i al to any species o f bird
or mamm al. It is assumed that development o f disposa :
area s in both t h e McArthur and Chakachatna floodpla in s
will result in the largest habitat loss, and greatest
disturbance to birds and mammals.
7.3.4.3.2 Indirect Habitat Alteration
Chakachamna Lake. Habitat alteration and disturba nce
due to the construction and operation of the project
could influence the distribution of some wildlife
populations. In the vicinity of the lake above the
dyke, f luct\.~ating water levels may have several
implications. As the lake level is lowered during t he
7-60
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
wi nter, ice along the shore will most likely fracture,
e v entua l l y resulting in a zone of broken ice t hat may
prevent some large mammals from venturing out ont o t he
frozen lake surface. Moose, bears, wolves, a nc sm a:l
mammals are the p=imary inhabitants of the lake s ho r e
during winter. However, the degree to which these
mammals use the frozen lake surface will need t o b e
established. During the ice-free period, a variety o:
birds and mammals use the shore of the lake . The
higher, fluctuating water level during this peri od ma y
alter sma l l areas of shoreline habitat but shou l d n e t
:i gnificant ly influence the overall u s ~ of the s ho~e
by these wildlife.
Chakachatna and McArthur River Canyons. Constru ct io~
act~ vi ties occurring in the Chakachatna Ri ver a nc
McAr thu r Riv er canyons may influence the appare nt.l.:·
lin.:. ted use or t he canyons by mammals a nd birds. Tl".E
canyons are used by eagles, bears, furbearers, moos e ,
a nd passerine birds. Near the construction sites,
incre ased levels of noise from heavy equipme nt a nc
blasting may discourage eagles, moose and be ars f r offi
using adjacent areas (Roseneau et al., 1981, McCourt
et al., 19 7 4). However, other mammals, includ ing
furbearers and small birds appear to have a hi gher
tolerance for human disturbance and ma y not
substanti~lly alter their distributions (Penner, 19 76 ,
Clark and Cambell, 1977). This influence of noise a nd
disturbance on wildlife populations in the canyons
should be limited to the construction period.
Chakachatna and McArthur River Floodplains. Below t he
canyons, wildlife activity is more abundant and
diverse. In these areas, a variety of wildl ife
species could be influenced by construction
activities. Due to increased levels of noise a nd
7-61
disturbance, sensitive species such as moose , gri z z li
bears, gray wolves, eagles, and swans may disc o~ti~~E
their use of the affected area (Roseneau et al., 19 81 ,
McCourt et al., 1974, Hampton, 1981). Other speci ~s,
including coyotes, ducks, and other small birds, ar~
more tolerant of disturbance and will probably n ot
alter their distribution (Penner, 1976, Gollop et al.,
1974, Schweinsburg et al., 1974, Ferris, 1979). It
avoidance of a construction area occurred it wou ld
most likely be temporary with individuals returning t c
the area soon after noise and activity level s
subsided. However, if areas used by wildlif e fer
important life functions are abandoned, a decrease i r.
the abundance of some local species may be noted. To
e va luate which species ma y be affected and t o wha~
extent, it will be necessary to establish the u~e anc
importance of the Chakachatna and McArthur floodplai ns
to wildlife.
The alteration of habitat and wildlife dis~ributi o~s
below the canyons during the operation of the projec t
may be evident as a result of changes in the
vegetation cor~unities or as changes in the abunda nce
or distribution of prey (particularly anadromous
fish). Changes in the distribution of vegetation (a s
described under Potential Effects to Botanical
Resources) will probably not result in significant
changes in the distribution of wildlife populations.
Channel migration along the upper McArthur River and
rechanneling in Noaukta Slough may erode relatively
small areas of riparian vegetation. This may displac
a few individuals, but overall abundance of a wildlif e
population in the project area should not be
significantly changed. Likewise, a small increase in
the abundance of floodplain riparian vegetation along
the Chakachatna River will probably not result in a
7-62
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
sig nificant change in wildlife species diversity o r
abundanc e in this drainage. The anticipated cha n g ~s
may be more clearly defined by acquiring inf ormatio ~
on the extent of channel migration, revegetation, a~~
the use of riparian areas for denning, wintering,
breeding, and calving.
It is unlikely that minor changes in anadrornous fi s ~
abundance and distribution (described in Section 7 .1 )
will have a significant effect on the distribution o~
either birds or mammals. Several species of wild lif e
feed on anadromous fish. Although bears and ea9le s
are the most visible, mink, harbor seals, and b eluga
whales a l so consume fish originating in the
Chakachatna or McArthur drainages. The degree t c
which t hese species will be af :ected can be e valua t ed
b y inves tigating the anticipate<! changes ir. fi sh
distribution o r abundance and the reliance of ~i ld l ife
on this resource (Miller and McAllister, 1982). Eased
upon the anticipated change in anadromous fis h
abundance and the opportunistic nature of the w ild lif~
species involved, no significant change in the
abun dance or distribution of wildlife is currentl y
expected to occur in either the Chakachatna or
~1cArthur drainage as a result of this project.
Increased access to the area will affect wildlife
populations by two means; increased disturbance frorr
construction activities, and increased local hunting
(sp ort and subsistence) pressure. By utilizing the
existing road network for construction and operati on
in the Chakachatna drainage, only a slight increase in
vehicle-related disturbance to wildlife should occur.
However, through the construction and use of two road
extensions to access the McArthur drainage and
Chakachatna canyons, there will likely be a short-term
7-63
reduction in the use of areas adjacent to these roa ds
by species that are sensitive to traffic, particu lariy
moose, bears, wolves, eagles, and swans (Rose n eau
et al., 1981, McCourt et al., 1974, Hampton, 1981,
Goddard, 1970, Elgmark, 1976, Carbyn, 197 4) . The
extent of this influence will depend upon the locati o ~
of moose wintering and calving grounds, the location
of brown bear, black bear, wolf, and wolverine dennin ~
si ~es, and the location of swan and eagle nesting,
brood rearing, and fall staging areas. Future stuci~£
will be needed to identify the locations of these
important habitats and to allow for more defin itiv~
assessments.
Whether local wildlife populations are influenced by
increased hunting pressure will depend upon t~e;
magnitude of the hunting increase and t~e level cf
road access allowed. Currently no p ol icy affecting
access of the project area has been outlined.
The influence on wildlife of constructing and
maintaining a transmission line and the likelihcod o:
bird collisions or electrocutions with the line~ wi ll
be dependent upon the species inhabiting the area,
transmission lir e design, and construction and
maintenance techniques. Until this information is
available, these effects cannot be assessed.
7.3.4.3.3 Summary of Potential Effects
Wildlife populations within the project area may be
influenced during the construction and operation o!
the facility. The direct loss of habitat by facility
siting will most likely not significantly affect t he
abundance or distribution of any wildlife population.
7-64
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i '
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
Habitat alteration, however, may result in some rr . .:..r.cr
changes whir.h include the follow~ng:
o Red uc ed access for moose, wolves, bears , a nd
caribou to the frozen lake surface during the
winter due to fractured ice along the shore;
o Reduced utilization by sensitive species (such a s
wolves, moose, bears, eagles, and swans) of t he
areas near the construction sites, camps, a n d roa cs
due to increased levels of noise and disturbance ;
o Increased hunting pressure on large marrunals and
birds allowed by the presence of road exte~si ons tc
the Chakachatna canyon and McArthur drainage ; and
o Inc reased mo rtality of birds due to c oll ision s o r
electrocutions from transmission lines.
Although these changes are likely to occur, t he
magnitude of the influences are less tha n tho s e
usuall y associated with the construction and opera t ior.
of a hydroelectric facility. This is because designs
for this project have incorporated an underground
powerhouse, and a lake tap rather than a reservo ir a nc
thus:
o Potentially important habitat, including large
mammal migration routes, moose wintering and
calving areas, bear and furbearer denning and
feeding areas, and bird nesting areas do not ha ve
to be inundated to create a reservoir;
o The disturbance associated with clearing large
expanses of land will be absent; and
7-65
..
o Surface noise and disturbance associated witt L ~E
construction of a darn will be &ignificantl y
reduced.
Wildlife di~tributions within the project area ha vE
been influenced in the past by large scale timber
harvesting, road construction, relatively high leve l~
of hunt.ing pressure, and the construction of a n
underground pipeline on the shore of Trading Bay. It
is unlikely that the development of the Chakachamna
Lake project would influence wildlife populatio ns t o
the e x tent of these prior developments.
7-66
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7.4
7.4.1
Project Risk Evaluation
Development of the project would be attended by a n uffi ~E ~
of risks associated with the physical layo u t of t he
project structures and natural phenomena occurring ~it ti ~
and adjacent to the project area. Some of these coul d
directly impact the cost of constructing the pr oject
while others could either impair its output or add tot'·
cost of maintaining the designed energy generation a n c
peaking capability. Typical among these aspects ar e t ~r
following:
Project Layout
Lake tapping
Tunnel alignment -rock conditions
Underground powerhouse site
~atural Phenomena
Barrier Glacier
Blockade Glacier
McArthur Glacier
Mt. Spurr, Volcano
Lake Clark -Castle Mountain Fault
Faulting in Chakachatna Valley
Bruin Ba y Fault
The above items are treated individually in the
paragraphs that follow.
Lake Tapping
At this stage of the project studies, it has been
necessary t o presume that a location can be b y
exploration where the rock conditions will be suita ble
7-67
7.4.2
for constructing the lake tapping. Based on exam in ot i o~
of rock conditions above the lake water level, the a bc~e
presumption seems to be reasonable but a significa nt
amount of exploration will be required to define suito bl:
rock. Furthermore, as far as it has been possible t o
ascertain from reviewing the technical press, the
combination of diameter and depth needed for the
Chakachamna Lake tapping is without precedent and
considerable modifi c d~ion of the tentative arrangeme nt ,
developed as shown for preliminary estimating purpos es o~
Figure 3-4, may be necessary before an acceptable desi ~~
concept is reached . Specifically, the length of the
tinal plug may need to be increased or multiple s mall er
diameter openings may be required to penetrate from t he
underground excavations out into the lake. The leng t !. o:
the chamber between the bottom of the intake gate s ha:t
and t h e lake may need to be increased. Factors suc h a s
t h ese cannot be finall y determined until some desi gr.
ph ase su b surface ex p loration has been performe d .
Tunnel Alignment Rock Conditions
As set forth in Section 7.2.2, bedrock characteristic s ,
as the y ma y affect tunnelling conditions, ha v e not be e n
specifically studied within the scope of studies t hu s f a1
completed. No geological mapping has been done al ong t h e
proposed tunnel alignment. However, aerial obse rvati on s
of rock exposed along the tunnel alignment and in the
walls of the Me Arthur canyon lead to the indication t h at
suitable tunnelling conditions should be encountered.
This expectation needs to be qualified to the extent t hat
the rock o v erlying about 25% of the length of the tunn el
is concealed by glacial ice and its surface features
cannot be seen. The depth of rock cover and ruggednes s
7-68
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
of terrain over the tunnel alignment virtuall y r ule o u t
the practica b ility of conducting any subsurfac e
explorations at tunnel grade, except in t he vici n ity o f
the upstream and downstream ends. The depth of cover
exceeds 3000 feet over about 40% of the tunnel len gth a ~=
it exceeds 2000 feet over about 66% of the length.
(Figure 3-3). With such depths of cover, ground water
under high pressure could be encountered where the t unr.e:
penetrates permeable fissures or water bearing joint s .
Some dramatic changes in relief occur at sever al
locations along the tunnel alignment. These could g ive
rise t o the presence of troublesome stress concen trati or.~
particularly, for example, where a deeply incise d
U-shaped valley runs perpendicularly to the maj o r
principal stress of the in-situ bedrock stress field.
Furthermore, due to the nearby presence of the Castle -
Mo untain-Lake Clark ~ault and the depth of co v e r o v er
muc h of the tunnel alignment, there is the p os Ei b i lity
that i n -situ rock stresses ma y be high and tha t r o c k
bursts may be a factor to contend with during exca va ti o ~
of the tunnel.
High pressure ground water and adverse rock conditi o n s
are factors which could add to the cost of constructir.s
the power tunnel. The great depth of rock cover pre v e nt s
exploration at tunnel grade except near the two end s . In
the absence of exploration over so much of the tunnel
length, more water at high pressure, and more highly
stressed rock than anticipated, might be encountered
during construction of the tunnel, and in that case, t h e
constructed cost could exceed the cost that was estima te c
at the present stage of the investigations.
7-69
7.4.3
7.4.4
Underground Powerhouse Site
Final determination and confirmation of the locati on of
the underground powerhouse site should preferabl y a~ait
design level exploration, the construction of an
exploratory adit and laboratory and in-situ measureme nt
of the engineering properties of the rock. The wall s o:
the McArthur canyon afford good rock exposures and all o~
a mor ~ meaningful assessment to be made of the rock
quulity than any number of drill holes. There is aga in,
however, the nearby presence of the Lake Clark-Castle
Mountain fault and the possibility that high in-situ r oc k
stresses may occur near the fault. If so, roc k burst s
coulo occur during excavation of the powerhouse caver r.
and associated underground excavations.
Barrier Glacier
Tnis is the glacier that contains Chakachamna Lake an c
co~trols its water level. It descends t h e southerl y
slopes of Mt. Spurr to the Chakachatna Valley , wh ic h it
crosses , and thrusts against the steep face of th e
Ch i gmit Mountains that forms the south wall of th e
valley. During the summer of 1981, the U.S. Geologic al
Sur v ey conducted some measurements of ice t h icknes s i r.
connection with an evaluation of the volcani c hazard £
p o sed by Mt. Spurr. Many of the field data are st il l i r.
raw form, but in the floor of the Chakachatna Valley, ~h~
thickness of ice in the Barrier Glacier was believed t o
be in the order of 500-600 feet (Mayo, u.s.G.S.
Fairbanks, verbal communication, 1982). The depth of
water in Chakachamna Lake is about 300 feet.
7-70
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.I
I
I
I
I
The natural outflow from ~he lake discharges v ia a
c h an n el eroded through the glacial ice along it s c on t a ~~
wit h t he mountain wall on the sou th side of t he valle y .
The c h ann el is armored with large boulders wh ic h are
carriea along by the glacial ice and are deposite d i n t ~•
channel as the ice melts. Over the years, the c h ann el
bed apparently aggrades, and the lake water level rise s
until there develops a combination of circumstances th at
produces an outbreak flood which erodes the channel be e
and lowers the lake water level. The last known e v e nt 0~
this nature took place on or about August 11, 1971. T ~c
flood peak was estimated to be in the order of 47 0 ,0 0( cr .
and the lake level dropped about 14 feet. (Lamke 19 7L '.
Only unsubstantiated reports and fragmentary e videnc e
exist of previou s outbreak floods. It is, however,
rat h er evident that these would be cyclic events h a vi~~
uncon trollea and indeterminate periods, and t h at t h e l a'~
outlet is in a state cf changi n g equilibri um t hat a m n~~
other things is strongly affected by the rate a t w h ic ~
t h e Barrier Glacier advances towards the south valle y
wall , and the annual runoff from the watershed area
di sc h arging into the lake.
No evidence of surging has been reported in Barrie r
Glacier though Potho le and Harpoon Glaciers, nearby t o
the north, have both been identified as surging g l aci e r£
(Section 5.2 .1.5). Barrier Glacier has, however, gon e
through various cycles of advance and retreat in rece n t
time, and may reasonably be expected to continue to d o E C
in the future . The extent to which such cycles mig ht
affect the lake level, and thus the amount of regulat or y
storage available for power generation, cannot be
predicted with certainty.
7-71
7.4.5 Bloc k ade Glacier
This glacier is fed cy large snow fields high on t h~
southerly slopes of the Chigmit Mountains to t h e s outh c:
the McArthur canyon. At about 1700 feet elevati on , t he
glacier splits into two forks, one flowing southwes terl y
and the other northeasterly towards the McArthur River.
The glacier impounds Blockade Lake beyond the termin us c:
the soutwesterly lobe. As set forth in Section 5.2.1.4
of this report, Blockade Lake is the source of out bu r st
floods that discharge into the McArthur River.
The present terminal moraine o f the northeasterly fl o wi ~~
lobe of Blockade Glacier lies within about 1-1/2 mile s o:
the mouth of the McArthur canyon. If the Blockade
Glacier were to advance during the life of the pr oject,
it is concei va bl e that the mo rainal materi a l cou l d a lso
advance towa r d t h e McArthur River and cause t he r iver oe ~
to aggra d e downstream of the mouth of the cany o n . Thi s
cou l d cause a rise in tailwater level to occur a t t he
power plant site with t h e extrem~ consequence being a
flo o ding o f the powerhouse if a channel were n o t
mec h anically excavated through this material .
As summarized in the closing paragraphs of Section 5 .2 .1 .~
of thi f report, Blockade Glacier's recent histor y h a s
clearly been one of recession, and it is believed t ha t it
began to withdraw from its most recent maximum advanc e
within the last few hundred years. At that maximu m
advance, melt water from the glacier joined the McArt hu r
River near the canyon mouth and outwash may have caus e d
some aggradation of the river bed in the lower reaches of
the cany on. Surging of the Blockade Glacier is
7-72
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7.4.6
7.4.7
considered to be the most likely mechanism that coul c r r
expected to produce an advance of the glacier that rr is ~~
impact on the proposed McArthur powerhouse site. No
evidence s P ggestive of recent surging was, however,
observed during the field studies.
The possibility that climatological changes and
consequent changes in mass ice balance may trigger
surging of the Blockade Glacier during the life of tt ~
project is a remote possibility that cannot be foreca s :
or evaluated with any degree of certainty.
McArthur Glacier
The terminus of this glacier lies in the McArthur c an y~~
about 5 miles upstream from the proposed powerhouse
site. An advance of the glacier over that distanc e ~ow:~
endanger the tailrace channel and portals of the tailra c ·
tunnel and access tunnel to the underground power hous~.
Such an advance would, however, involve almost dou ~l i~~
the existing length of the glacier and is, there fo r e ,
most unlikely to occur. Since the Blockade and McAr thu r
glaciers are fed by adjacent snow fields, a chang e i n
snow supply needed to cause a five mile advance in t he
McArthur Glacier would create an even greater pro bl e m au~
to advancement of the Blockade Glacier.
Mt. Spurr Volcano
The summit of Mt. Spurr rises to elevation 11,070 feet
above sea level and lies about 7 miles northeasterly fr o~
the outlet of Chakachamna Lake and 7-1/2 miles from th e
proposed power intake site. The intake could be located
7-73
further to the west to increase its distanc e fr om t he
volcano but this would increase the length and c o st o f
the power tunnel, and also the difficulty and c os t c f
access to the intake site along the precipitous mou ntai~
slopes on the south side of the la.;e.
Mt. Spurr's last major eruption occurred on July 9,
1953. It eJected a large ash cloud whic,l reached a n
altitude of approximately 70,000 feet, darkened Anc hor ag(
and deposited about 1/4 inch of volcanic ash on the ci t ~
(Juhle and Coulter 1955).
The source of the eruption was reported to have bee n
Crater Peak, a subsidiary vent at 7575 feet altitud e o~
the southerl y slopes of the volcano. The
eruption triggered a mud slide that dammed the
Chakachatna River about 6 miles downstream fr o~ t he
outlet of Chakachamna Lake. The river backed up ne a:l y
miles, overtopped the dam and has since partiall y er o dec
its wa y down throug h the debris. Abundant e v ide n ce
exists along the northerly slopes of the Chakac h atn a
Valley of a long history of violent volcanic acti v i ty.
Large deposits of mud flow materials and p y rocla s tic
breccias occur for several miles along its length.
Examination of aerial photographs taken in 19 5 4, 19 57 a n~
1978 suggest the possibility that some minor mu d fl o ~s
ma y have occurred on the slopes below Crater Peak sinc e
the 1953 eruption.
The u.s. Geological Survey undertook a limited
micro-seismic study of the Mt. Spurr area during the
summer of 1 982. The results have not yet been published
but they are planned to be the subject of a report
scheduled to be released during 1983.
7-74
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mt. Spurr is regarded by some volcanologists to b e
similar, in several respe~ts, to Mt. St. Helens in t~~
State of Washington whose May 18, 1980 eruption
devastated a 200 square mile area. In the path of t h ~
main blast, devastation of forest land was complete a s
far as 18 miles from the crater.
Present technology for predicting volcanic activity i s
limited to the short term, and there is no way to
forecast when Mt. Spurr will next erupt, or whether it
might erupt during the life of the project. A cata s -
trophic blast, such as occurred at Mt. St. Helens is a
rare event but of course cannot be ruled out at Mt. S pu~r .
As discussed in Section 5.2.2.2 of this report, the
general direction of a future blast at Mt. Spurr i s
expected to be in the southeasterly quadrant, or direct ly
across and down the Chakachatna Valley. The propose d
power intake site on Chakachamna Lake could be an are a of
ash deposition. It could also be affected by a lar g e
landslide or mudflow, or by ~ot blasts from pyrocla st ic
flow s if such were to occur, and the evidence is t ha t
these have occurred in the past, particularly in the
Chakachatna Valley.
While future events similar to the 1953 Crater Peak
eruption woula probably have little effect on the abili t y
of the power facilities to continue in operation, the y
could readily put the fish passage facilities out of
service. Another mud flow could dam the river below
Crater Peak thus causing it to back up and flood the
proposed structure at the downstream end of the fish
passage facilities. The reduced flow in the Chakachat na
River would not have the same erosive power to cut it s
7-75
wa y down t h rough the debris dam and il could wel l b eco~c
necessary to mechanically excavate a channe l t h r ough t ~~
debris to lower the water level and return the fis h
passage facilities into operation. A catastroph ic eve nt
of the Mt. St. Helens type, if directed towards the la ~e
outlet and intake structure, could have very seriou s
consequences and possibly bury both the upstream a nd
downstream ends of the fish passage facilities, an d th e
power intake, beneath a massive mud flow. The tre mend o ~'
amounts of heat released by pyroclastic ash flows c oul d
melt ice in the lower parts of the Barrier Glacier anc
interfere with the glacier's ability to continue to
contain Chakachamna Lake.
The power h o u se and assoc iated structures in its vici n ity
wou ld probably not be significantly affected by volca n i c
activity at Mt. Spurr because the y are shielded from t he
direct ef f ects of a volcanic blast by the high mountai r.~
between th e Chak ac~atn a and Mc Arthur Valleys. Depenair.s
on wind directio n at the time of the eruption, as h
de po sition is probably the main effect that would occu ~
near t he powerhouse s ite and this could lead to temporary
interruptions in power supply. Similar outages co uld be
caused by ash accumulating on transmission line
insulators.
Volcanic events are risks that would be associated wit h
development of the project. The probability of major
events occurring during the project's life is small, but
the proba b ility or effects on the project cannot be
predicted with certainty.
7-76
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7.4.8
7.4.8.1
Seis mic Risk
The site lies within a zone of high seismic ris k . Ae ~~~
forth in Section 5.3.3.3 of this report, pote n tia l
seismic sources which may affect the project site ar e t ~c
subduction zone, faults in the crustal seismic zone a n c
severe volcanic activity. The Lake Clark-Castle Mou nta :~
fault (crustal source) and the megathrust segment of t ~t
subduction zone are considered the most critical wit h
respect to peak ground acceleration and duration of
strong sha :·.ing at the site. The maximum probabl e or
operating basis earthquake for the site, defined a s t h e
earthquake that can reasonably be expected to occ ur
during the 1\fe of the project has not yet been define d .
The probability that the vibratory ground motion o f t b.e
operating basis earthquake will be exceeded during th e
life of the project can b~ calculated by using genera l l~·
accept ed techniques. Thus, the seismic risks as soc i a t e <i
with t he site can probably be submitted to mo re rati ona :
risk anal ys is than can the risks associated wit h
glaciology or volcanism, principally because muc h mo r e
data is availa ble on the frequency of occurrenc e of
seismic events in the region than is available on t he
f requenc y of significant volcan ic events fro m Mt. Spurr
or the frequency of aberrations in glacial activit y a t
the site.
Lake Clark -Castle Mountain Fault
Thi s is a major regional fault that has been traced f or
over 300 miles. (Magoon et al 1976). It extends fr o m
its northerly end near the Copper River basin about 1 2 0
miles to the northeast of Anchorage (Figure S-9), to t h e
7-77
•••
7.4.8.2
southerly end in the Lake Clark area. It crosses th e
McArthur Canyon at the canyon mouth where a prominent
rift can be seen in the mountainside. The northerly
parts of the Lake Clark-Castle Mountain fault have been
~xtensively studied and evidence of recent displacement
has been documented near the Susitna Valley. Less is
known about the southerly portion of the fault but it i s
considered to be capable of causing a large earthquak e
ana of experiencing significant displacement during the
life of the Project. For this reason, and for reason s of
improvement in rock quality with distance from the fault,
the proposed powerhouse is shown as being upstream fro rr.
the mouth of the canyon, although this results in some
head not oeing developed.
At least one crossing of the fault by the power tran s -
missio n line cannot be avoided; this will be in t he
vicinit y of the mouth of the McArthur Canyon. The
powerhouse switchyaro also would be in this vicin i t y .
Thus, some of the transmission towers and switchy ard
structures would be subjected to very strong shaking i n
the eve n t of a major earthquake on the fault near th e
McArthur Canyon. Underground structures will proba bl y b~
less vulnera b le to damage than surface structures. Th e
structures can be designed to withstand the stronge st
lateral forces expected to occur, but it is not pos si b le
to design against significant displacement in the
foundation at any given structure site. Consequentl y
structures should not be located in the fault zone.
Bruin Bay Fault
This is one of the major regional faults in Southern
Alaska. In the vicinity of the project site, it is
7-78
I
I
I
I 7.4.9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7.5
I
I
I
I
I
I
inferred to occur more or less parallel to t he Coo k l n ~~
coastline about 20 miles southeast of the mouth of t h~
McArthur Canyon (Figure 5-9). But, its trace i n t ~at
a rea is obscured by glacial diposits and its rela tion -
s' ip to the Castle Mountain Fault is not known.
Faul~s in Chakachatna Valley
Four features which may be significant to the Project
have been identified in the Chakachatna Valley (Fig ur e
5-9 ), and are discussed in Section 5.3.3.3 of thi s
report. Based on the 1981 geologic investigations wtici.
wer e limited to study of remote sensing imager y an d o~
aerial (helicopter) observations, it was concluded t hat
these features include faults which may offset Holocene
deposits (less than about 2 million years old); als o , o~
of t he fe atures trends toward the site of the propo sec
power intake structure. Further study of the Proje ct
should include evaluation of the age and extent of
fau lt ing which is rela ted to these features, in o r der t c
better assess the potential for fault displace men t at o r
ne ar Pr oj ect structures.
References
Juhle, We rne r and Coulter, Henry, 1955, The Mt. Spurr
Eruption, July 9, 1953: American Geoph ysical Un i o~.
Transactions, Vol.36, Number 2, Pages 199-20~.
Lamke, Robert D., 1972, Floods of the Summer of 1971 i n
South-Central Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Oper.
File Report.
Magoon, L.B., Adkison, W.L., and Egbert, R.M. 1976, US GS
Map No. 1-1019 Showing GeolQgy, Wildcat Wells,
Tertiary Plant Fossil Localities, K-Ar, Age Da tes
and Petroleum Operations, Cook Inlet Area, Alas ka .
7-79
Ac u atic References
American Fisheries Society, Water Quality Section. 1979.
A review of the EPA redbook: quality criteria for
water. Am, Fisheries Survey, Bethseda, MD 313 pp.
Bell, ~1. C. 1980. Fisheries Handbook of Engineering
Requirements and Biological Criteria -Fisheries
Engineering Research Program. North Pacific
Division. Portland, Oregon.
Blahm, T.H., R.J. McConnel and G.R. Snyder. 1975 .
Effect of gas supersaturated Columbia riverwater on
the survival of juvenile chinook and coho salmon.
NOAA Technical Report SSRF-688. National 1-iarine
Fisheries Serv ice, Seattle, WA.
Bormann, F.H., T.G. Sicceman, C.E. Likens, and R.H.
vlhittaker. 1970. The Hubbard Brook Ecosystem Study :
Compositio n a n d dynamics of the tree scratum. Ecol.
Mongr., 40:3 7 7-388.
Bu~ns, J.W. 1 970. Spawning bed s e u~mentation studie s
in northern California streams. Californ ia Fish a nd
Game , 5 6 ( 4 ) : 2 53-2 7 0 .
Deho ney , B. and E. Ma nc ini, 198 2 . Aquatic biolog i cal
i mpacts of instream right-of-way c o nstruction a nd
character istics of i nvertebrate c on~unity r e c o v e ry .
Rig h t -o f-W ay Symposium, San Diego, Ch .
Fi cke i s e n, D.H. a n d M.J. Sc~neider (Ed). 19 76 . Gas
bubble disease. Technical Information Center, Office
o f Pub l i c Af f airs Energy Resea r ch and De velopment
Administratio n, Oakridge, TN.
Foerster, R.E. 1968. The sockeye salmon . On c orhynchus
n erka. Bulletin 162. Fisheries Researc h Board of
Cau a d a. Ottawa, Candda.
Godin, T-6, 6 1980. Temporal aspects o f juvenile pi n~
s almon. Oncorhynchus gorbuscha. (Walbaum) emergence
from a simulated gravel redd. Can. J. Zool.
58(5) :735-744.
Hale, S.S. 1981. Freshwater Habitat Relationships -
Chum Salmo n (Oncorhynchus keta). Alaska Dept. of
Fish a nd Game. Hab~tat Div iSIOn. Anchorage , Al a ska .
81 pp.
Hasler, A.D.
s . W. Hoar
19 7 1. Or i entation and fi s h migration In
and D.J. Randall (Editors). Fish
7-80
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
II
II
II
~
!I
II
II
! I
r1
Ph y s io logy, Volume VI, Environmental Relation and
Behaviors, Academic Press, N.Y.
Hynes, H.B.N. 1966. The biology of polluted waters.
Liverpool University Press, Liverpool, UK. 202 pp.
Joy ce, M.R., L.A. Rundqurst and L.L. Moulton. 198 0 .
Gravel Removal Guidelines Manual for Arctic and
Subarcti c Floodplains. Water Resources Analysis
Project, Office of Biological Services, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 20240.
Liken, G.E. F.H. Bormann, N.M. Johnson, D.W. Fisher, and
R.S. Pierce. 1970. Effects of forest cutting and
herbicide treatment on nutrient budgets in the
Hubbard Brook watershed-ecosystem. Ecol. Monogr.,
40:23-47.
Lorz, H.\'l. 1973. The development of the parr-smelt
transformation in relation to some environmental
conditions. Oregon Wildlife Commission, Resourc e
Division. Portland, OR.
Merrell, T.R., Jr., M.D. Collins, and J.W. Creenough.
19 71 . An estimate of mortality of chinook salmon in
the Columb~a River near Bonnevilie Dam during the
summer run of 1955. Rishery Bulleti n 6 8(3):461-492.
?en tlow, F .P.K. 1949.
China clay workers.
No . 3 1 .
Fisheries and pollutior. from
Rep. Salm. Fresh. Fish. London
Peters, John C. 1979. Bnvironmental contro l during d a ~
const ructi on. In Environmental Effe cts of Large
Dams. ASCE 225 pp.
Pierce, R.S., J.W. Hornbeck, C.E. Likens, and F.G.
Bormann. 1970. Effe cts of elimination of vege tat~on
on stream water quantity and quality. Pp. 31 1-3 28.
In: Results on Research on Representative and
Experimental Basins, Proc. of Internat. Assoc . Sci .
Hydrology. UNESCO, Wellington, New Zealand.
Tennant, D.L.
wildli fe ,
resources.
1975. Instream flow regimes for f is h ,
recreation and related environmental
USFWS. Billings, Montana.
U.S. En vironmental Protection Agency, Washington D.C.
19 76 . Quality cri;eria for water. u.s. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C . pp/256.
S haw, P.A. and J.A. Maga. 1~43. The effect of mini ng
silt on yield of fry from salmon spawning b eds.
Cal ifornia Fish and Game. 29(1): 29-41.
7-81
Ward, J.V. and Stanford, J.A. (Ed) 197 9. The ecology of
regulated streams. Plenum Press, New York.
Terrestrial References
Carbyn, L.N. 1974. Wolf population fluctuations in
Jasper National Park, Alberta Canada, Biological
Conservation 6: pp. 94-101.
Clark . J.W. and T.M. Campbell. 1977. Short-term
effects of timber harvests on Pine Marten behavior
and ecology, Unpublished report, USDA Forest Service .
Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory. 198 0 .
Environmental engineering and ecological baseline
investigations along the Yukon River, Prudhoe Ba y
Haul Road, Report 80-19 , U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Hanover, N.H.
Drake, J.J . 1981.
snowmelt rates.
pp. 219-223.
The effects of surface dust on
Arct ic and Alpine Research, 13:
Elgmark, K. 1976. Agemnant bear population in southe rn
Norway and problems of its conservation. In: Th~r d
International Conference on Bear Researc h and
Management, Binghamton, NY. pp. 281-299.
Ferris, C.R. 1979. Effects of interstate 95 on
breeding birds in northern Maine. Journa l of
Wildlife Management, 43(2 ): pp. 421-4 27 .
Goddard, J. 1970.
hunted area of
Management, 34:
Movements of moose in a heavily
Ontario. Journal of Wild l ife
pp. 439-445.
Gollop, M.A., J.R. Goldsberry and R.A. Da vis. 1974.
Aircraft disturbance to moulting sea ducks, Herschel
Island, Yukon Territory, August 1972. Arctic Ga s
Biological Report Series, 14: pp. xii-xiii and
202-23 1.
Hampton, P.O. 1981. The wintering and nesting behavior
of the trumpeter swan. M.S. thesis, University of
Montana, Missoula, Montana . pp . 185.
McCourt, K.H., J.D. Fe i st, D. Doll and H.J. Russell.
197 4. Disturbance studies of caribou and other
mammals in the Yukon and Alaska, 1972. In: Arctic
Gas Biological Report Series. 5(1). pp.~46.
7-82
•
I
I
II
II
II
II
II
" II
II
II
I
II
II
r 1
II
II
Miller, S.D. and D.C. McAllister. 1982. Susitna
Hydroelectric Project Phase I Final Report: Big
Game, Vol. VI -Black bear and brown bear. Prepared
by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game for the
Alaska Power Authority.
Newburg, R.W. and G.W. Malaher. 1972. The destruction
of Manitoba's last great river. Naturaliste Canadien
(Ottawa), 1 (4): 4-13.
Penner, D.F. 1976. Preliminary baseline investigatio ns
of furbearing and ungulate mammals using lease No .
17. Environmental Research Monographs, 1976-3,
Syncrude Canada Limited.
Roseneau, D.G., C.E. Tull and R.W. Nelson. 1981.
Protection strategies for peregrine falcons and other
raptors along the proposed Northwest Alaskan gas
pipeline route. LGL Ecological Research Associates
Inc., Fairbanks, Alaska. Unpublished report to
Northwest Alaskan Pipeline Company.
Schweinsburg, R.W., M.A. Gollop and R.A. Davis. 191 4.
Preliminary waterfowl disturbance studies, Macke r.zie
Valley, August 1972. Arctic Gas Biological Report
Series 14: xiv-xv plus pp . 232-~57.
Sparrow, S.D., F.J. Wading and E.H. Whiting. 19 7 8.
Effects of of f -road vehicle traffic on soils a nd
vegetation in the Denali Highway Region of Alaska .
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 33:
pp. 20-27.
7-83
I
-1
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
AND SCHEDULES
' ' tw
I
I
I
I
I
I
I er
I
I
I
n
8.0
8.1
CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND SCHEDULES
Estimates of Cost
Estimates of construction costs have been prepared for
t~e following alternatives for project development:
Alternative A -400 MW McArthur tunnel development
Alternative B -330 MW McArthur tunnel development
Alte rnative C & D -300 MW Chakachatna tunnel
development
Alternative E -330 MW McArthur tunnel development
The estimates are based on schedules of quantities of
materials and equipment needed for the major features
of each alternative to the extent permitted by the
drawings for Section 3.0 of this report. In some
cases, quantities were proportioned from the
construction records of other projects bearing
significant similarity of structures and conditions
expected to be encountered during construction of the
Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project. Unit prices
developed for this and other projects involving
similar types of construction and from analyses of
bids received for the construction of similar types of
projects in Alaska, adjusted as necessary to reflect
January 1982 price levels, were then applied to the
schedules of quantities to arrive at the estimated
costs set forth in the conceptual Estimate Summaries,
sheets 1 of 2 and 2 of 2. The summaries show the
8-1
• .:,
CHAKACHAMNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE SUMMARIES-SHEET 1 OF 2
ESTIMATED COSTS IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
ALTERNATIVES A
LAND AND LAND RIGHTS Not included 0
POWER PLANT STRUCTURE AND IMPROVEMENTS
Valve Chamber 5,600
Underground Power House 26,200
Bus Galleries 200
Transformer Gallery 4,600
Velw• Chamber and Transformer 400
Gallery -Access Tunnel
P. H. Access Tunnel 13,500
Ceble Way 800 --51,300
RE~t:k /OIR, DAM AND WATERWAYS
Reur•oir 100
lnta .. · Structure 10,400
ln-.&b Gate Shaft 13,200
Fitn Facilities -
Dike • Spillway -
Access Tunnel
-At Intake 21,600
-At Surve Chamber, No.3 6 ,600
-At Mile 3, 5, No. 1 0
-At Mile 7, 5 , No. 2 0
Power Tunnel 626,800
Surve Chamber -u.,.,..r 12,900
Penstock -Inclined Section 18,000
-Horizontal Section and Elbow 6,700
-Wya Branchn to Vain Chamber 13,200
-· BetwHn Valwe Chamber 81 Po-r House 800
Draft Tube Tunnels 1,900
Surve Chamber -Tailrace 2,400
Tailrace Tunnel and Structure 10,300
Tailrace Channel 900
Rlnr Trainint Works 500
Mlteellaneous Mechanic-' and Electrical 7,100 --753,400
A. 8 -McArt hur dewlopment, high level tunnel exc:.veted by drilling end blestmg
C . D -Chececketne velley development excavated b ·f drilling end blast ing
E -Me Arthur deve lopment . low leve l tunnel excaveted by borong machine
8 c D
Not included 0 Not included 0 Not included 0
5,500 5 ,600 5 ,600
2!;,200 26,200 26,200
200 200 200
4,300 4 ,300 4,300
400 400 400
13,500 13,500 13,500
BOO BOO 800 -49,900 -51,000 -51,000
100 100 100
9 ,300 10,400 10,400
12.400 13,200 13,200
---
---
19,100 21 ,600 21,600
5 ,900 8,900 0 ,900
0 20,800 20,800
0 14,500 14,500
580,400 12,500 712,500
11 ,000 12,900 12,900
16,500 15,400 15,400
6,000 6,700 6,700
11,900 12,100 12,100
600 800 BOO
1,700 1,900 1,900
2,400 2,400 2,400
9,600 10,300 10,300
700 900 900
500 500 500
6,100 5 ,700 5 ,700 --694,200 --871,600 --B71,600
E
Not included
5,500
25,200
200
<{.,300
400
13,500
800 ---49,900
100
9,300
17,600
85,400
9 ,100
0
5,900
0
0
447,800
18,900
0
6,000
11 ,900
600
1,700
2 ,400
9,600
700
500
6,100 --633,600
------CHAKACHAMNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
CONCEPTUAL ES!IMATE SUMMARIES -SHEET 2 OF 2 -----
ESTIMATED COSTS IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
ALTERNATI V ES
A
TURBINES AND GENERATORS 67 ,900
ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT 11 ,200
MISCELLANEOUS POWER PLANT EQUIPMENT 8 ,600
SWITCHYARD STRUCTURES 3,600
SWITCHYARD EQUIPMENT 13,800
COMM . SUPV . CONTROL EQUIPMENT 1,600
TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES
Port 4,600
Airport 2,000
Accus and Construction Roads 59,600 --66,200
TRANSMISSION LINE • CABLE CROSSING 63,200
TOTAL SPECIFIC CONSTRUCTION COST AT 1,040,800
JANUARY 1982 PRICE LEVELS
ENGINEERING. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 124,900
SUBTOTAL 1,165,700
CONTINGENCY tt 20% 233,100
ESCALATION Not Incl.
INTEREST DURINC CONST. tt 3% PER ANNUM 111 ,900
OWNER 'S COSTS Not Incl.
ALLOWANCE FOR FISH PASSAGE FACILITIES -
TOTAL PROJECT COST AT 1,510,700
JANUARY, 1982 PRICE LEVELS
USE 1,500,000
A . B -McArthur development . high level tun nel excavated bv dr~lling and blasting
C . 0 -Chacackat na vallev ti!ve'opment excava ted bv drill ing and blastong
E -Me Arthur development . low level tu nnel excavated bv bor~ng mac hine
B
57,900
!J,500
7,300
3,600
12,500
1,600
4,600
2,000
59,600 --66,200
63,200
965,900
115,900
1,081,800
216,400
Not Incl.
104,100
Not Incl.
50,000
1,452,300
1,450,000
c D E
54,500 54,500 57,900
9,000 9,000 9,500
6 ,900 6,900 7,300
3,600 3,600 3,600
12,100 12,100 12,500
1,600 1,600 1,600
4 ,600 4,600 4,600
2,000 2,000 2,000
44,100 44,100 59,600 --50,700 50,700 66,200
56,500 56,500 63,200
1,117,500 1,117,500 105,300
134,100 134,100 108,700
1,251,600 1,251,600 1,014,000
250,300 250,300 203,000
Not Incl. Not Incl. Not Incl.
101 ,400 101 ,400 97,400
Not Incl. Not Incl. Not Incl.
-50,000 Under
Reseryoir
Item
1,603,300 1,653,300 1,314,400
1,600,000 1,650,000 1,314,000
-
following estimated project costs excluding owner's
costs -and esc:lation:
Alternative A $1.5 billion
Alternative B $1.45 billion
A:~=rr:ati.ve ... $!.6 billion ....
Alternative D $1.65 billion
Alt.ernative E $1.32 billion
The above cos~s include a 20% contingency added to the
sp~cific construction cost plus engineering and
const:u c ;: i c1 :;:.=~a g ~me .. :, ar.u interest during
const:~c~i =n . ~t e cos~s fo: Alternatives 3 and D
additic~a!ly i~cluee a pr o visional allowance of $50
million for fis~ passage facilities at the lake
outlet. Costs for Alter~ative E include a constant
grade tunnel fr cm powerhouse level at the McArthur
River to t~e base o: the intake gate shaft at
Chakachamna Lake, and pend~ng the completion of
geological studies of the tunnel alignment, the
assumption is made that this tunnel will be driven by
a boring machine. Included also in Alternative E 1s
the estimated cost of proposed fish facilities at the
Chakachamna Lake outlet as described elsewhere in this
report a nd shown on drawings. The estimated project
costs are considered to be conservative because of the
conservative assumptions made regarding the amount of
rock support required in the underground excavations.
For all of the alternatives, the principal structures
consist of the following:
o Intake structure at Chakachamna Lake with
underwater lake tapping, and control gate shaft.
8-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
' I
I
0
0
0
0
0
0
Concrete lined power tunnel with construction
access adits.
Surge chamber and except for Alternative E,
emergency closure gates at the downstream end of
the power tunnel.
Underground concrete lined pressure penstock and
manifold.
Concrete and steel l ined penstock branche s
leading to a valve ch3mber and the turbines.
Four unit underground powerhouse with expl o rat o r y
adit (to become the ventilation tunnel) and main
access tunnel.
Underground transformer vaults and high voltase
cable gallery.
o Tailrace tunnel and surge chamber.
0 Tailrace outlet channel and river protection
works.
o High voltage cable terminals and switchyard.
o Transmission lines to northerly shore of Knik Arm.
0 High Voltage submarine cable crossing of Knik Arm.
In addition, for Alternative E the following principal
structures are included:
8-5
8.1.1
0 Concrete lined surg e shaft connecting surge
c~amber and downstream end of power t unnel .
o Rockfill dike ~t 2ha~achamna Lake o u tlet.
o Spillway at lake outlet.
o Fish passage facilities at lake outlet for botn
upstream and downstream migrants.
Power Tunnel
The cost of constr u cting the power tunnel is tte
dominant feature, repr esen ting more than half t he
estimated cost of constructing each alternative.
Detailed evaluations wer e made of all operations and
the direct costs considered necessary to construct the
25-foot diameter concrete lined power tunnel for
Alternatives A, C and D, using both rubber tired and
rail haulage equipme nt. The difference in cost
between the two was found to be small. Thus, the
choice of haulage equipment will probably be
deternined by other considerations such as for
example, whether excavation and concret e placement
would be scneduled by a Contractor to take place
concurrently in a given tunnel heading. This can be
accomplished if necessary in a 25-foot diameter tunnel
with either rail haulage or rub b er tired equipment.
The estimated cost of constructing the 23-foot
diameter tunnel required for Alternativ e B wa s fir s t
proportioned from the estimated unit costs per lineal
foot for constructing the 2 5-foot diameter tunnels for
Alte rnatives A, C and D using th e same constru c tio n
8-6
• I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
p
I
methods of drilling and blasting. These costs are
indica ted in t he summary schedule for Alter n ati v e B at
t h: en::i of c~is chapter as $580,400,000 .•
For Alte:na t ive E, an alte r native method of dr iving
the t unnel by a boring machine ~~s consider ed a$ well
as a rnodifi=ation of the pr o file of t he tunn el us i~g
unifor m grade from near the base of the in ~aka shaft
to the power ho use . Th ~ use o t a ~ori n~ ma~b i ne for
excavat:.ng s h o·.1ed a s~ving in c o sts of $l:Z6 ,7 00 ,000.
Ch an3i ns the grad~ of t he tunne l a h ow c d an a cdit i on ~l
sa v i n; c i ss,ooo,ro oo. The to t al cost of c ons tructi ~g
t ~e t~~~el was t h us re d uced from $580 ,4 00 ,00 C to
$4~8 ,700,000 . Tn is cost was usecl in th e summ ar y
sch~jule fo r Alternative E 1 the recommended
alternati ve .
The esti:na t ed tunnel const.::uction costs are based o n
the following items:
0
0
Excavation for Alternatives A, B, C and D would
be by conventional drilling and blasting
gener ally with full fac ~ excavation , drilling
12-foot depth rounds. Allowance is included for
a nomina l l e ngth of tunnel whe re the d epth of
rounds might have to be reduced, or where top
heading and bench techniques might have to be
used temporarily, if less favorable ground
conditions are encountered.
Excavation for Alte~nativ e E would be by a boring
machine to 27-foot bo ri ng diameter which after
lining wou ld be hydraulically equivalent to the
23-foot diameter horseshoe f o r Alternative B
driven by conventional methods . The rate of
8 -7
advance was estimated at 50 feet per day
calculated on the basis of a simila r pr o j e ct i~
similar rock f cr~ation . Assu~?tio~s :o ~ z~~~o rt
we re conservacively left the same as for t ha
conventionally driven tunnel, alt hough it i3
realized that 3vme savings would pr obabl y r e ~ult
in actual operation. Also, sections of the
tunnel may be left unlined becaus~ t he bori ng
machine provi des a smoother excavated sur f3 ce
than conventi o nal methods, thu3 reducing tunnel
friction los ses .
o The assumptions are made that 23~ of t he c ~~r.el
length would r equ ir e steel ri b support , 25 ~ wou ld
be supported by patterned rock bolts and 5Q j
would be unsuppo rted .
o Chain lin k mesh for the protection of w or k ~en
from ror.k falls is pr ov ided above the S?ring line
over the full t un n e l l eng th.
o Estimate d excavation costs includ e 9rovision for
handling and r emov ing 2000 gallon s per minute of
groundwater inflow in ea c h tunnel heading .
o Excavation and concrete lining would proceed on a
3-shift basis, 6 days per week.
o Construction access adits would be located near
the upstre am and down s tream ends of each tunnel
alternative. In addition two intermediate adits
would be provided for Alternatives C and D.
8-8
I
I
8.1.2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Underground Powerhouse and Associated Structures
Fo r purposes of t h e current esti~ates, the po~er h o u 3e
has been ta ~en as an underground installation f o r each
alternative, with a high pressure penstock shaft and
low pressure tailrac e tunnel . The estimates of c os t
are based on the following conditions:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
All excavation and concret e work would proc eed on
a 3-shift, 6 da y s per week bas is.
The power ho use ca ve rn, valve c~amber and tailrace
tunnel would be excavated b y to9 head i ~g and
bench.
The pensto c~ a~d sur e shaf ts would be excava~ed
first by p ilo t r a i se , then by downward s lashing
to full d 1 ame t e r .
Excavati on fo r th e ho r i z ontal penstock and
manifold , a c ce ss tunne l , cable gallery and draft
tubes wo u l d be full fa c e .
Chain li n k me sh i s pr o v i d ~d for protection of
workmen o v e r the uppe r p e r imeter of all
excavatio ns exceeding 1 2 f e et in height.
All perman e n t excavati on s would be supported as
determined n e c essary b y p a tterned rock bolts.
Allowance i s inc luded f o r lining the upper
perimeters o : al l caver n s , chambers and galleries
required for p e r mane n t ac cess and those housing
vulnerable gene rati ng or accessory equipment wit h
wire mesh reinfo r ced ~n otcret e (~his may onl y ~e
8 -9
8.1.3
needed locally according to rock conditions
exposed durins c-:>r,s:.c J c-~1'):::.
o Excavation of an ex;lcra~ot; 1 .i t, and a program
of core drilling and roc~ t~3 ~~~~ will precede
and confirm t ~~ ~-i:.~~~~~i ~~ t ~~ site for the
underground ?o ~er ~"'".'! c om?l ~~ du:ing the design
phase and tha c osts ~~2 r~of are :~eluded in the
estimates.
o The costs incl uc:.:;.: :·:·: :·~.':. ~:'lj :.~.c i.:<?T.s o:
mechanical at:c ::!.::··:: ... _ .';.:i~:.::~: aro: ta sed on
current data ·.:. '::: · : '-: I --
~ .... -~ -:c r J~livery
and tcanspoc tat i -:.. _ , .:: .. _ . ..: -.<::.:-: • ...; J..;~ 6 i te.
Installation costs ~r~ a:3 ~ incl~~ej.
o Costs of mechanical a r.d el e ctrical auxiliary
equipment and syste os , cc~~rol and protective
equipment are includ e~.
Tailrace Channel
The estimates incl~de -monetary allo~~nce foe the
construction of an outlet channel and river training
works to protect it from damage during floods in the
river. Details of such requirements are not well
defined at the present stage but it is contemplated
that extensive use would be made of rock spoil from
excavation of the powerhouse complex for these
purposes.
River gravels excavated from the tailrace channel
would be processed ana used to the maximum extent
possible for concrete aggregate.
8-10
I
I
8.1.4
I
I
I
8 .1.5
I
I
I
I
I
8.1.6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Switchyard
In each alternative, due to space li ~itations, the
switchyard would be located outside the mouth of the
canyon on gently sloping land and an appropr i ate
allowance is included in the estimates for t h eir cost.
Transmission Line and Cable Crossing
Field data acquisition has not been performed and
information regarding constructi o n conditio ns is
limited to aerial observation o f th~ pr o po se d
transmission line alignmen t and cable c ross ing . The
cost allowed in t h e estimate for the tr ans~ission line
is based on experience and includes t h e estimated cost
of the submarine cable crossing to a dead end
structure on the Ancho:age Shore of Kni k Arm.
Site Access and Development
The estimates include costs of constructing access and
support facilities needed for construction of the
permanent works. These would consist basically of the
following installations:
0
0
Unloading facility on tidewater at Trading Bay,
complete with receiving and warehousing
provisions, bulk cement and petroleum fuels
storage plus a small camp for operating staff.
Gra v el surfaced all-weather access r o a ds t o
construction sites (Figure 8-1). It has b een
assumed that where existing roads are suitabl y
located, permission t o use them co u ld be
negotiated with their owners in exc h a n ga f o r
8-11
improvements that would include widening them to
f u l l t wo -way traffic roads. Bridges and culvert s
wou ld be provided at all streams and water
c ou r se s and where needed for drainage. Year-
r o und ~aintenance costs are included throughout
the c o nstruction period.
o An a i rcraft landing facility with a runway of
sufficient length to h andle aircraft up to DC-9
and 7 3 7 t y pes, and ground su p port facilitie s .
o For Alte rnatives A, B and E, major constru ct i o n
c ~w~s wou ld ~e l oc ated outside but clo se t o the
mouth of th e McArthur canyon to acco mmodate
wor ke r ~ employed o n the downstream heading of t he
power tunnel, the powerhouse and associated
struct u res. A second camp for workmen empl oyed
on th e upstream heading of t h e power tunnel and
inta ke wo r k s wou ld be provided just east of th e
Barr ie r Glacier on the northerl y side of the
river. This camp will also b e used for
construction of the lak e outlet work s and fish
f a cilitie s for Alternati v e E.
o For Alternative s C and D t he ma i n con s truction
camp would be located outside the mouth o f th e
(hakachatna Canyon for workers employe d on the
downstream heading of the power tunnel, the
powerhouse and associated structures and a l so for
t h e second in t er me diate a cce ss a d i t t o the power
tu nn e l. A s e c o nd camp f o r wor ke rs e mplo yed o n
the u p str eam h e ad i ng of t he p o we r tunne l, intake
wo r ks and hea di ng s d ri ve n f r o m the firs t
8-12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
intermediate access adit to the power tunnel
would be located east of the Ba rrier Glacie r.
o The construction camps wo~ld be self-contain€j
with all neeqed support facilities which would
include water supply sewage treatment, solid
waste disposal, catering and medical services.
o Electrical power during construction is provided
for on the assumption that diesel driven
equipment would be used.
o Major compressed air facilities would be required
for the excavation work and their cost is
provided for in the estimates.
o Camps needed to accommodate transmission line
workers would be light weight "fly camps". Much
of the line wor k would be undertaken in winter
and would be avoided duri~g waterfowl nesting
periods.
As construction work approaches completion, all
temporary facilities will be dismantled and removed
from the site, which will be restored insofar as is
8-13
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figure 8 -1 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
8-14 I
t : +--
-t·
1
-I , .r, 1"-.
"
. ..
t .·Y _; x · ... _.,..
'1~ ;;
. -.#.,
......
·-·-;;
.... -
1 -
"
·.-:. ·(
~ .. ·~
1.• ~ ''f .
'"-·."~r _.., , . ' . .·
•O&T~ I U!o"'t\.
fi!Ltt.flllroiATtl( • &. .)
/) p
,,
' . \.~----------, -_,
• J •••
/.
'
,. ~· t . '.; .,/ "'
•
r'"
,•
\ ,,
/
\'
.. 0#0 ~••-r ·!l ,.,..,_ ua••
::: ... •0 4 ............. .
: ~IO*fA4 ·~II} 11 t/1111•"""~ .... y.~'•ta •«C•f.,..
••c. ... fc '~ .,, ..,...." ..... a •JC •~
::•r""""'
IJ ~-~~ ... OAJ~ ,. ,.,.,._,. ••IIIIIC-·
l O•~rc•
LE~£v0
-I• s:-... •:t ·~ ·o tff .......... ~0
---4· ...... •dt-10
-----'·"~. ,.,. ·~-...
.,.t.l.l ...... ~t ..
·~
I
I
I
I
I
I .
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
intermediate access adit to the power tunnel
wo u ld be l ~c ated east of the Barr ier Glacier.
o The construction camp s would be self-contained
with all needed su p port facilities which ~ould
include water su p p l y sewage treatment, solid
waste disposal, catering and medical services.
o Electrical power during construction is provided
for on the assumption that diesel driven
e q uipment would b e used.
o Major compressed air facilities would be required
for the excavation work and their cost is
provided for in the estimates.
o Camps needed to accommodate transmission line
workers would be light weight "fly camps". Much
of the line work wou l d be undertaken in win 'e r
and would be avoided during waterfowl nesting
periods.
As construction work approaches completion, all
temporary facilities will be dismantled and removed
from the site , which will be restored insofar as is
8-15
possible to its original condition, and the cost of
such demobiiization and site restoration is includec
in the estimates.
8.2 Exclusions from Estimates
The estimates of construction costs do not include
rrovision for the costs of the following items:
Owner's administrative costs.
o Financing charges.
o Escalation (Estimated costs are "overnight costs"
at January 1982 price levels .
o Land and Land Rights.
o Water Rights.
o Permits , licenses and fees.
o Switchyard at the Anchorage transmission line
terminal.
8.3 Const~uction Schedules
Typical construction schedules · are shown on Figure 8-2
for Alternatives A and B, on Figure 8-3 for Alterna-
tives C and D, and on Figure 8-4 for Alternative E.
These schedules have as their beginnings the existing
schedule for completion of the project feasibility
study and preparation of the application to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for a
license to construct the project.
8-16
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The assumption has been made that the license
a ?p lica t ion would b e s ubm itted to FERC March 1, 1984.
Ass u ~i ng also that t he FSRC licensing process
c o ntinues in much t h e s a me manner as it does at the
present time, an early s te? will be the preparation of
an e n v ironmental a sse s smen t of the project by FERC
staff. This generally t3 k es about 12 months following
wh ich is a 60-day peri o d for review and comment by
interested agencies. Th us, by the end of April, 1985,
it should have be come clear wh ether there are any
ou t s t anding unreso l ve d issues. If there are not, the n
i t wo uld be p ossi bl: t o forecast with reasonable
c er t a inty that th~ F 3 RC license would be issued in
ear l y 1986, in wh ich e ve nt there would not appear to
b e any reason why the construction of access
f acilities and camp ins tallations could not commence
b y June 1, 1985. In o r der to provide adequate lead
time to commence design a nd prepare plans and
s pecifications for the c o nstruction of access
facilities, design engineering of the project would
need to commence at th e beginning of 1985.
No ting that there is a possibility that FERC might
also require completion of an exploratory adit and
rock testing program at the powerhouse site before
issuing the project license, June 1, 1984 would appear
to be a l o gical time to commence that program. Making
an early start in the manner described above would
permit the plant to commence commercial operation a
year earlier than if the design of the project and
construction of infrastructure did not commence until
after the FERC license had been issued.
8-17
.........
., j ...
-· t h
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
·I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1~ 1984
DESCRIPT ION
ENGINEERIN(i
Fe<ntbtlity Study
FERC Ltcense
Exploratoon Progr1m-Poon-Road
Intake E xpooratoon Program
E ngo~rtn<J Dflogn
PROCUREMENT TURBINE ,GENERATOR
-
CONSTRUCTION
Mobo ltutton and Wate</Sewage Plant
Tradtng Bay Por11nd FacolittM
A •rstr1p
Ac:ceu Roods & Campt -lntoke
f--
I> CCHS Roads & c..mos Downm•am T unnol -----Ac:c:ess Roods & c..mos Powemouoe
Ac:ceJJ Tunnels-lntlke
Acc:eu Tunnell -Oowns•r~3u•
Access Tunnels -Powe<hO<J se
Power Tunnel Excavation
Power Tunnel Concrete
Upper Surge Chamber
Intake Gate Shaft
lntok~ Tunnellnd uke Tap
Powerhou~ Complex
Low-r Surge ~ber
Penstock a ld Manotold
Taolrace Tunnel Top Headong & Bench
Taolrace Canal
Rover Train ing Works
Swo tchy1rd
TrAnsmtsston une
Demobtlizatton lnd Site Restorotton
I
I
CHAKACHAMNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
PROJECT SCHEDULE
AL TE RNA TIVES A AND B
1985 19M 1!187 1981
1-1-
.... ~ ~ ~ --~
h
)
~ 1-1-1-
I
~~
1-
-r-r-
1989
1-1-
1-1-
r-r-1-
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994
1-
fj_
1-
1-
H -1-
FIGUR£ .. z
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
·I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1983
DESCRIPTION
ENGINEERING
FOB1b1lolY Study
FERC L1cense
E ~plorauon Program-P1oneer Ra.d
Intake Exploro11on Program
Eng•.-1"9 Design
PROCUREMENT TURBINE 'GENERATOR
CONSTRUCTION
Mob1huuon and Water/Sewage Plont
Tradmg Boy Port ond Fac1h11es
Aunr~p
AccessRoads&Camps lntoke & PH
Ace-Tunnels-ln"tk•
Access Tunnels -M1le 3 .5
Ac:ceu Tunnels-M1le 7.5
Access Tunnels -Downstream
Ace-Tunnels Powerhouse
"ower Tunnel -Excavate
Power Tunnel -Concrete
Upper Surge Chamber
lntoke G ate Shaft
I nuke Tunnel & Lake T~
Powerhouse Complex
Lo-. Surge Chamber
Penstock and Manifold
Ta1lraca T unnel Top Head1ng & Bench
Tailr~ee Cana l
River T roining Works
Sw1tchyard
T..,...,ission Line
Om>e>blliution & Siu Restorat ion
CHAKAC HAMNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
PROJECT SCHEDULE
A LTERNATIVESC AND D
.
1984 1985 1986 1987
.. ~
r-.. ~ 1-
I !I !J !-1-
II I I
I'll i'-1-1-
It
F-
I I
r-
r-
..
1-1-1-
1988
t-
1-
r-
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994
1-~
1-"'t'-
I
r-
L I N Ll
L,.f"!'
I
1-
1-H-
1-1 ·1-1--1-
FIGURE W
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
·I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DESCR IPTION
ENGINEERING
Fe..obolotV Srudy
FERC Locense
Exploratoon Program Pioneer Road
lnuoke Exploratoon Program
_ Engoneerong Dmgn
PROCUREMENT TURBINE/GENERATOR
CONSTRUCTION
Mobolizuion and Wate-'Sewaoe Plant
Tradong Bay Port and f •ocohtiet
Aimr1p
Access Roads & Campt lnrake
Access Roads & Camps Downstrea m T unnel
Ace= Ro.lds & Camps -Po'hl!rhc<:·.,
Access Tunnels -Intake
Access Tunnels -Downstream
Access T unnels -Powerhouse
Fish F acilotiet
Chakachatna Dike and Spollway
Po wer T u n nel -Excava tion
Po wer Tunnel Concrete
Upper S urge Chamber
lnake Ga te Shaft
Inta ke Tunnel a nd Lake Tap
Powerhouse Complex
Lower Surge Chamber
Penstock and Manifold
Taol race T u nnel Top Heading & Bench
•• ,u ac::e Canal
Rover Traon ing Wo rks
Switchyard
Transmis:sion Line
Demobili zation and Site Rettoration
1983
.
CHAKACHAMNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
PROJEC T SCHEDULE
ALTER NATIVE E
1984 1985 1986 1987
F
1--
I t
~+t
~ 'J
'I
I
!I
1-1--
1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994
r--1-
M F. I I
-~
'I
I
•I
I
I II
v E E y u
~
1-· ... 1-1-1--
~-1-1-
-I"" I-
1--~
FIGURE 1-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The assumption has been made that the license
application would b e submitted to FERC March 1, 19 8 4.
As s um ing also that the FERC licensing process
c on tinues in much the same manner as it does at the
present time, an early step will be the preparation of
an environmental assessment of the project by FERC
staff. This generally takes about 12 months following
which is a 60-day period for review and comment py
interested agencies. Thus, by the end of April, 1985,
it should have become clear whether there are a ~y
o u t standing unresolved issues. If there are not, the n
i: wo uld be possible to forecast with reasonab l e
ce r t~inty that the FERC license would be issued in
e a rl y 1986, in which event there would not appear t c
be any reason why the construction o~ access
facilities and camp installations could not commence
by June 1, 1985. In order to provide adequate lead
time to commence design and prepare plans a n d
specifications for the construction of access
facilities, design engineering of the project would
need ~o commence at the beginning of 1985.
Noting that there is a possibility that FERC might
also require completion of an exploratory adit and
rock testing program at the powe r house s~te before
issuing the project license, June 1, 1984 would appear
to be a logical time to commence that program. Making
an early start in the manner described above would
permit the plant to commence commercial operation a
year earlier than if the design of the project and
construction of infrastructure did not commence until
after the FERC license had been issued.
8-23
Construction of the power tunnel lies on the critical
pa t h for comple tion of deve lop men t via t he Mc Arthu r
Ri ~er in Alternatives A, B, a n d E. ?o r c onve~t i o nal
exca v ation methods assumed for Al:e r i.at i ve s A a~c B
the schedule was base d on tunne l excav a t i o n
advancement at an average rate of 2S f e e t per d a~ in
each heading. At that rate, e x cav ation would be
completed in approximately 3-l/2 y e~rs.
For excavation by boring mach i ne assu ~ed for
Alternative E the schedule was base d o~ net
advancement of 50 feet per da y f r o m c~~ h~~din g ~:
which rate the excav ation woul d b e c ~~~!e:~~ in
a p proximately the same time.
Placement of the conc rete lining woul d p r oceed
generally concurrently with the exca v atio n . Tota l
construction time for the t u nnel is thus 50 mon t h s an d
the first unit in the powerhouse could b e started up
b y August 1, 1991.
As discussed above a saving in time might be effected
if any sections of the tunnel can b e left unlined as a
result of smoother boring machine excavation and
reduction of rock shattering.
For development via the Chakachatna River in
Alternatives C and D, the ability to provide two
intermediate construction access adits enables the
tunnel construct i on to be completed within 32 months,
or 18 months less than for the McArthur tunnel.
Timely delivery of the turbines and generators, and
construction of the powerhouse ·complex becomes more
critical. Assuming an early start on site access and
8-24
develo,.ent aa deacribed above for Alternative• A and
~' the firat unit in Alternative• c and D could be
atarted up by February 1, 1990, or 11 .ontha earlier
than would be the caae with Alternative• A, B and E •
•
•
1-25
I
·I 9.0
I ~.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ECONOMIC EVALUATION
General
During the initial project studies carried out in 19 8 1,
an evaluation was made of the economic tunnel diameter
and economic tun ne l length tor the four basic alternative
schemes develope d at that time. Alternatives A, B, C & D
(described in Section 3). This economic study was made
using tunnel costs calculated for tunnel excavation by
conventional arill and shoot methods. Subsequent studies
performed in 19 82 indicated that cost savings will be
achieved ii the tunnel would be driven by tunnel-boring
machine. Alternative E is based on tunnel boring machine
excavation. These stuaies are discussed in Section 8.
No re-examination of the economic tunnel diameter or
length has been made using these modified tunnel costs,
but any change in economic diameter or length of tunnel
is considered to be small.
Determination of the economic tunnel diameter involves
comparing the construction costs of tunnels of varying
diameters, with the present worth of the difference in
power produced over the life of the project as a result
of the changes in hydraulic loss in the tunnel as the
diameter is varied. The economic tunnel length is
determined from an economic balance between the cost of
increasing the tunnel length to develop additional head
on the powerhouse, and the present worth of the additional
power produced by the higher head over the life of the
project.
It should be noted that these economic evaluation studies
were based on economic parameters prevailing in 1981.
These parameters which include capital costs of thermal
g e nerating plants and fuel costs for both coal and
natural gas have, ot course, now been superseded. In
9-l
9.2
9.3
9.3.1
future studies, the influence of updated economic
parameters on the economic tunnel diameter and length
should be made.
Parameters for Econo~ic Ev a l uu ticn
Alaska Power Authoricy has devela p~d the follo~in g
parameters for economic an alyses of hyd roelectric
projects.
Inflation Rate
Real Discount Rate
Economic Life of Hydroelec ~ric ?~OJ~cts
Economic life of thermal pl anes
(conventional coal fired or
combined cycle)
0%
50 years
30 yea rs
In sizing the various pro]ect elem ~nts, i.e., tunnel
diameter and length, the value of power generated by the
hydroelectric project has b~en consi d~red equal t o ~he
cost of the equivalent power generated thermally oy coal
fired plant or by natural gas fired comb ined cycle plant.
As agreed with APA, in order to arrive at a project cost
which can be readily compared with that for the Susitna
Project a 50% plant factor has been used for determining
the installed capacity of the power plants discussed in
this report. Future studies should concentrate on
refining the preferreo plant factor for the project.
Cost of Power from Alternative Sources
General
To ensure uniformity of data between the various
feasibility studies of hydroelectric projects which are
currently in progress, including the Susitna
Hydroelectric Project, APA requested that the following
9-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
9.3.2
sources be used for the development of cost of power from
alternative thermal generation:
( 1) Acres American Incorporated report "Susi t~.:;
Hydroelectric Project" Task 6 Developmen~ S e l e cti or.
Report, Appendices A through I, July 1981 for
construction cost of coal fired and combi n ~d c y cle
thermal plants.
(2) Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, for the
cost of operation and maintenance and fuel for coal
fired and combined cycle tr.e rmal plants. D a~a o~
these items were obtained d ~ring a visit to
Battelle's office on Septe~b er l, 1981.
Construction Cost
(a) Coal fired thermal plant:
The Acres American report referred to above develops
the construction cost of a 250-MW coal fired thernal
plant at Beluga in 1980 dollars to be S439,200,000
dire ~ construction cost and $627,650,000 total cost
including 16% contingency, 10% for construction
facilities and utilities and 12% for Engineering 3nd
Administration, but not including interest during
construction. This total cost corresponds to
$2510/kW. Including interest during construction at
3 percent per year for a 6 year construction period,
the total cost amounts to $2706/kW. (This differs
but little from the $2744/kW value given in Table
B.l3 of the Acres Report apparently because of some
rounding of numbers in the Acres calculation and
apparently slight difference in cash flow during the
construction period.)
9-3
9 . 3. 3
9.3.4
(b) Combined Cy cle Plant
The Acres Ane rican r e port also develops the
constructi on cos t of a 250-MW combined cycle ~lant
in 1980 d ollars to be $121,830,000 direct
constr u ctio n co st and $174,130,000 total cost
including 16 % contingency 10% for construction
facilities and utilities and 12% for Engineering and
Administration, but not including interest during
construction. This corresponds to $697 /kW. When
interest during construction is added at 3 percent
per year, t h e t o tal cost is $707.5 /kW.
Operation & ~ai nte n ance Cost
Data obtained from Battelle is summarized b elow for 1980
price le v els.
(a) Coal-fired Thermal Plant
Fixed Operation and Maintenance $16.71 /kW/year
Variable Operation and Maintenance 0.6 mills/k Wh .
Escalation above general inflation rate 1.9% until
year 2012 with no escalation after 2012.
(b) Combined Cycle Plant
Fixed Operation and Maintenance $35.00/kW/year
variable Operation and Maintenance 0 mills/kWh.
Escalation above general inflation rate 1.9% until
year 2012 with no escalation after 2012.
Fuel Cost
Data obtained from Battelle is summarized below for 1980
price levels
9-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(a ) Coal from Beluga
F u el c o st $1.09/mill. BTU
Esc a l atio n abo v e general inflation rate 1.5 % until
y e a r 2012 with no escalation after 2012.
Heat Rate 10,000 BTU /kWh.
(b) Natural Gas -Combined Cycle Plant
The natural gas prices as estimated by Battelle for
the future years are given in Table 9-1.
Heat rate 7500 BTU/kWh.
TABLE 9-1
NEW CONTRACT GAS PRICE (AML&P)-ANCHORAGE
Year Gas Price
$/Mill BTU
1980 1.08
1981 1.08
1982 1.09
1983 1. 09
1984 1.09
1985 1.09
1986 1. 35
1987 1. 56
1988 1.65
1989 1.89
1990 2.11
1991 3.62
9-5
9.4
1992
1993
1994
1995
3.74
3.86
3.98
4.11
Forecast escalation after 199 5 = 3 % pe r ye ar until t he
year 2012, and no escalation thereafter.
Value of Hydro Generation
The value of the hydro generation is established by
determining the cost of generat in g pow~r from alt2rnative
sources. For the purpose of t tis study an anal y si2 ha s
t een made of the cost of alternative coa l -fired and
~ombined cycle generation, using the basic cost data
presented previously in Section 9.3.
The annual cost of interest, depreciation and insurance
for the alternative thermal plants were calculated on the
following basis:
Interest
Depreciation (30 year life)
Insurance
Annual Charge on
Capital Cost
3.0%
2.1%
0.25%
5.35%
Based on an arbitrary selection of 1990 as the in-service
date for the Chakachamna Project and examining a fifty
year period, equal to the economic life of the hydro
plant, and using the unit costs for thermal generation
discussed above, comparative costs were prepared for each
year of the 50 year period of the cost of generating
power at 50% load factor by each of the two alternatives,
conventional thermal using Beluga coal and combined cycle
9-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
using gas. These annual costs over the 50 yea r period
were then used to determine their presen t worths at the
first year of generation ta ke n as 1990. The calc u l ations
were performed o n a cost per ~Wh basis and are presented
in Tables 9-2 & 9-3 for the con v entional c oal f ired and
combined cycle cases respecti ve l y .
The levelized _annual cost _of generation by a coal fir ed
plant using Beluga coal is calculated to be 55.60 mills
per kWh compared with 75.21 ~ills per kWh for t h e
combined cycle plant, based on 50 % lo a d fact0r
generation. The higher cost for the combined c y cle plant
is due primarily to a higher initial fuel c o st, a much
higher escalation on th e c os t of fuel, a n d somewhat
higher operation and maintenance cost. Taken
collecti v ely these more than offset the much lower annua l
charge on the capital co s t of co ns tructing the combined
cycle plant. The cost of power produced by the coal
fired plant was therefor ~ adopted as the alternative for
establishing the value of hydro generation.
The capital cost of a hydro plant w~~~h gives a levelized
annual cost over the 50 year life equal to the levelized
annual cost of the coal fired thermal plant of 55.60
mills per kWh, based on 50% plant f ~tor, and including a
credit of 5% less installed capacit. required in a hydro
plant because of the recuced system • serve requirements
with hydro generation, is calculated to be $6,117 per
kW. This total cost includes contingency, construction
camp facilities, engineering, and construction management
and interest during construction.
9-7
TABLE 9-2 (Sheet l of 2)
COAL FIRED PLANT
COST OF GENERATI NG ?m·7 E ~ AT 50 % LOAD FACTOR
Amo rtization Present
Yea;: & Insurance 0&~·1 Fuel Total Worth
1 33.02 5.32 12.65 50.99 49.50
2 33.02 5. 4 2 12.84 51.28 48.34
3 33.02 5.52 13.03 51.57 47.19
4 33.02 5.63 13.23 51.88 46.09
5 33.02 5.74 13.43 52.19 4 5. 02
6 33.02 5.84 13.63 52.49 43.96
7 33.02 5.96 13.83 52.81 4 2. 94
8 33.02 6.07 14.04 53.13 41.94
~ 33.02 6 .18 14.25 53.45 40.9 6 ;I
.:.. .I 33.02 6.30 14.46 53.78 40.02
~l 33.02 6 .~2 14.68 54.12 39.10
12 33.02 6 .54 14.90 54.46 38.20
1 3 33.02 6.67 15.12 54.81 37.3 2
1 . ... 33.02 6.79 15.35 55.16 36.47
1 5 33.02 6.92 15.58 55.52 35.64
1 6 33.02 7.06 15.82 55.90 34.84
17 33.02 7.19 16.05 56.26 34.04
18 33.02 7.33 16.29 56.64 33 .27
19 33.02 7.47 16.54 57.03 32.52
20 33.02 7.61 16.79 57.4 2 31.79
21 33.02 7.75 17.04 57.81 31.08
22 33.02 7.91) 17.29 58.21 30.38
23 33.02 7.~J 17.29 58.21 2.:L49
24 33.02 7.90 17.29 58.21 28.64
25 33.02 7.90 17.29 58.21 27.80
946.54
NOTE: Escalation rates above the general escalation rate are as
follows.
Amortization & Insurance -Nil.
Operation & Maintenance -1.9% for first 22 years only.
Fuel-1.5% for first 22 years only.
9-8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
TABLE 9-2 (Sheet 2 of 2)
COAL FIRED PLANT
COS'!' OF GE NE RATING PO WER AT 50 % LOAD FACTOR
Amo rt izati o n PresE:::n t
Year & I n surance O&M Fuel Total Worth
Fwd. 946.54
26 3 3. 0 2 7.90 17.29 58 .21 26.99
27 3 3 .02 7.90 17 .29 58.21 26.21
28 3 3 .02 7.90 17.29 58.21 2 5.44
29 33.02 7.90 17.29 58.21 24.70
30 33.02 7.90 17.29 58.21 23.98
31 33.02 7.90 17.29 58.21 23.28
32 33.02 7.90 17.29 58.21 22.61
33 33 .02 7.90 17.29 5 8.21 21.9 5
34 33 .02 7.90 17.29 58.21 2 1.3 1
35 3 3 .0 2 7.90 17.29 58.21 20.69
36 3 3 .02 7.90 17.29 58.21 20.0 8
37 33.02 7.90 17.29 58.21 19.50
3 8 33.0 2 7.90 17.29 58.21 18.93
39 33.0 2 7.90 17.29 58.21 18.38
40 33 .02 7.90 17.29 58.21 17.84
41 33.0 2 7.90 17.29 58.21 17.32
42 33.02 7.90 17.29 58.21 16.82
43 33.02 7.90 17.29 58.21 16.33
44 33.02 7.90 17.29 58.21 15.8 5
45 33.02 7.90 17.29 58.21 15.39
46 33.02 7.90 17.29 58.21 14.94
47 33.02 7.90 17.29 58.21 14.51
48 33.02 7.90 17.29 58.21 14.09
49 33.02 7.90 17.29 58.21 13.68
so 33.02 7.90 17.29 58.21 13.28
1430.64
Equivalent Levelized Annual Cost = 55.60 mills/kWh.
9-9
--------
TABLE 9-3 (Sheet 1 of 2)
COMBINED CYCLE PLANT
COST OF GENERATING POWER AT 50% LOAD FACTOR
Amortization Present
Year & Insurance O&M Fuel Total Worth
1 8.64 9.64 21.1 39.38 38.23
2 8.64 9.82 36.2 54.66 51.52
3 8.64 10.01 37.4 56.05 51.29
4 8.64 10.20 38.6 57.44 51.03
5 8.64 10.39 39.8 58.83 50.75
6 8.64 10.59 41.1 60.3 3 50.53
7 8.64 10.79 42.33 61.76 50.22 a 8.64 1.1. 00 43.60 63.24 49.92
9 8.64 11.2 1 44 .91 64.76 49.63
10 8.64 11.4 2 46.26 66.32 49.35
11 8.64 i l. 64 47.65 67.93 49 .0 7
l c2 8.64 11.86 49.08 69 .58 48.80
l3 8.64 12.08 50.55 71.27 4 8. 53
14 S .64 12.31 52.06 73.01 48.27
15 8.64 12.55 53.63 74.82 48.02
16 8.64 12.78 55.23 76.65 47.77
17 8.64 13.03 56.89 78.56 47.53
18 8.64 13.28 58.60 80.52 47.30
19 8.64 13.53 60.36 82.53 47.07
20 8.64 13.78 62.17 84.59 46.84
21 8.64 14.05 64.03 86.72 46.62
2 2 8.64 14.31 6 5. 9 5 88.9 0 46.40
23 8.64 14.31 65.95 88.90 45.04
24 8.£4 .1.4.31 65.95 88.90 43.73
25 8.64 14.31 65.95 88.90 42.46
1195.92
NOTE: Escacalation rates above the general escalation rate are as
follows.
Amortization & Insurance -Nil.
Operation & Maintenance -1.9% f o r first 22 years only.
Fuel -1.5 % for first 22 years only.
9-10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 9-3 (Sheet 2 of 2)
COMBINED CYCLE PLANT
COST OF GEN ERA TING POWER AT 50 % LOAD FACTOR
Amortization
Year & Insurance 0&:.1 Fuel Total
26 8.64 14.31 6 5. 9 5 88.90
27 J .64 14.31 65.95 88.90
2 8 8.64 14.31 65.95 88.90
29 8.64 14.31 65.95 88.90
30 8.64 14.31 65.95 88.90
31 8.64 14 .31 65.95 88.90
32 8.64 14.31 6 5. 9 5 88.90
33 8.64 14.31 65.95 88.90
34 8.64 14.31 6 5. 9 5 88.90
35 8.64 14.31 65.95 8 8.90
36 8.64 14.31 65.95 88.90
37 8.64 14.31 6 5. 9 5 88.90
38 8.64 14.31 6 5. 9 5 88.90
39 8.64 14.31 6 5. 9 5 8 a. 9 o
40 8.64 14.31 6 5. 9 5 88.90
41 8. 6 4 14.31 65.95 88.90
42 8.64 14.31 6 5 . 9 5 88.9 0
43 8.64 14 .31 6 5 . 9 5 8 8.90
44 8.64 14.31 6 5 . 9 5 8 8.90
45 8.64 14.31 65.95 88.9 0
46 8 .64 14.31 6 5 . 9 5 88.90
47 8.64 14.31 6 5. 9 5 88.90
48 8.64 14.31 65.95 88.90
49 8 .64 14.31 65.95 . 88.90
50 8.64 14.31 6 5. 9 5 88.90
Equivalent Leve1ized Annual Cost = 75 .21 mills/kWh.
9-11
Present
Worth
1195.92
41.22
40.02
38.86
37.72
36 .63
35.56
34.52
33.52
32.54
31.59
30.67
29.78
28.91
28 .07
27.25
26.46
25.69
24.94
24.21
23.51
22.82
22.16
21.51
2 0.89
2 0.28
19 35.25
9.5 Economic Tunnel Sizing
T~~ economic diameter of the main power tunnel has been
investigated by comparing the incremental cost of v arying
t he tunnel diameter with the incremental value of the
diffP.rence in power produced as a result of such
var iation in tunnel diameter. For the same powerhouse .
flow, increasing the tunnel diameter reduces the head
losses in the tunnel thereby increasing the total head on
the powerhouse with a consequent increase in power
production.
I~ es tablishing the variation in estimated tunnel
c o ns truction cost it has been assumed that the tunn e l
will be fully concrete lined with the typical horseshoe
section shown in Figure 3-2 and would be excavated by
c o n v entional drill and shoot methods. Future studies
should evaluate the merits of a nominally unlined
tunnel. It should also be noted that when the method of
driving the tunnel by tunnel boring machine was examined
in 1982, no attempt was made to refine the economic
tunnel diameter.
For the case of Alternatives A & C with no water release
to meet instream flow requirements in the Chakachatna
River (i.e., all controlled water being diverted for
power production purposes) , Figure 9-1 shows the plot of
estimated tunnel construction cost and value of power
production with variation in tunnel diameter. This curve
shows that the economic riameter of a concrete lined
tunnel is 25 feet. In Alternative B, with the flow
diverted to a powerhouse sited on the McArthur Rive r, but
with water reserved for instream flow requirements in the
Chakachatna River a separate study to establish the
economic diamete r was not made. Instead, as an
• approximation, the tunnel diameter was selected such that
9-12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
70
60
50
"' 0
~
;<
<n-40
I
!-<
til
0 u
...J
t>l z
~ 30
!-<
...J < :::> z
~
20
10
0
17
~
\ 1\ ;-_TOTAL COST
\
)~
~ ~
~ d v
'\ ~ \ \_ANNUAL COST -$29.29 x 10 6 ~ ~ ~~v
~ v-e-
K OPTIMUM TUNNEL DIA . 25 '
~ COST ~
............. ~ kL ~POWER LOSS CO ST
r----~ ...
~~
1 ~ 20 22 24 26 28 30
TUNNEL DIAMETER -FEET
ECONOMIC TUNNEL DIAMETER
FIGURE 9-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
9.6
the velocity of flow through the tunnel with the
generating units operating at full o u tput and at full
le v ~l a t L~K e C h akac hamna would o~ t h~ sa me a s th a t
~b c ain~c ~~c~r these same o perat i n~ c o nd it io ns in
A lt ~r natLv~ A f or whic h the economic dia ~eter had been
c alc u l a t~a. ~n is approx imation giv~s a 1 3-foot horseshoe
t u n n el.
In to~ case of Al ternative D where only an ave :a ge
rel~ase of 30 c f s flow is maintained below Cha k achamna,
La ~e , c t e 2 ~ foo t d i ameter tun n el was re c ained , since the
?C ,~r h0 us e ~lo~ d i ff ers by less t han l %.
I1 th~ case o~ Al c~rnative E a~v elo p ~d in 19 82 , based on
dr i v i ~g t h e t u nn?l by tunnel boring mac n ine, a 24 foot
diamete r circular tunnel was sel~cted. This is
hyd ra •J l icall y ~qu ivalent to the 23 foot diameter
h orses ho e s hapea tunnel in Alternativ e a. If future
g~olog ic studies confirm the suitability of the rock for
ma c n i n! b oring, t ~e economic tunnel aiameter should b e
re-evaluated.
Economic Tunnel Lengt~
For both basic alternative developments by div e rsion to
the McArthur River or downstream along the Chakachatna
River, an examination has been made of the economic
tunnel length. As the powerhouse is moved downstream to
develop additional head, the power tunnel becomes longer
and hence more costly. The economic tunnel length is
therefore determined from an economic balance o f
estimated tunnel construction cost and value of power
produced. Ba s ed on the value of the hydro generation a s
discussed in Section 9.4, the present worth of the power
produced by l foot of head when all controlled water is
9-15
us~d for pow~r g~n~ration is ~qual to approximat~ly
$3,500,000 which corresponds to $139,000 annually ov~r
the 50 y~ar lif~ of th~ plant at 3l rat~ of inter~st.
Th~ economic balance in clud~s consi c~r ~tion of the
additional ~stimat~d tunn~l construction cost by
incr~asing th~ tunn~l l~ngtr., additional pow~rhous~ cost
to d~v~lop th~ pow~r produc~d from th~ additional h~ad
and th~ value of th~ adaitional pow~r generated by the
additional head dev eloped. The additional head is based
on the increased gross head due to the lower tailwater
obtained by extending the tunnel less the increased
friction h~ad los s in the longer tunnel.
Figur~ Y-2 and 9-3 snow respectively the plots of the
economic tunnel length for the development via th~
McArthur River and down the Chakachatna River. The final
selected tunnel lengths and corresponding powerhouse
locations ar~ s hown in Figures 3-2 and 3-3.
9-16
-·~~ ·-~--------~----
120
100
-c
0 ......
>< ~
l&l 80
~
l&l ~
t:l
~
f-< 60
til
0 u
l&l
til
;:J
0 ~
~
0
40
p.. .......
...:I
l&l
~
20
0
35
,. -
~ --c:;: RE:NUE
~ GENERATED FROM POWER
I I
/ I I
$88x10 6 fMAXIMUM ANNUAL POWER ~EVENUE =
v-----\ ,.
I .-'= -r v \. -NET ANNUAL REVENUE
I
GENERATED FROM POWER
I
q>
/OPTIMUM TUNNEL LENGTH=53,400'
v
,.
,.... ·-..... '-ruNNEL/POWERHOUSE COST ,. -,....
-"'
40 45 so 55 60 65
TUNNEL LENG TH-FT x 1000
70
-
75
McARTHUR TUNNEL
ECONOMIC LENGTH
FIGURE 9-2
120
100
\0
0 .....
>< <h
J,%.l 80 ;:::.> z
~
~
0
~
!-<
CJ) 60 0 u
J,%.l
CJ)
;:::.>
0
2
~ 40
Cl.. -..
....J
J,%.l
~ -
20
0
45
----... _..----
--..--
ANNUAL REVEN UE
GE NERATED FROM PJ WER-~ ~ v
~ ~ v---~
NET AN NU AL RE VENU E
GENERATED F~
~
..... ,.... ..... .....
' L TUNN EL/POW ERHOUS E COS T
50 55 60 6 5
TUN NEL LE NGTH-FT X 1000
OPTIMIZATION NOT POSSIBLE -TUNNE L~
LEN GTH LIMIT ED BY TOP OG RAGHY AT
CA~Y ON MOUTH -~ -
...a.--v -
..... ..... ..... -'tT'"""'"' -
70 75 80
-""
85
CHAKACHATNA TU NN EL
ECONOMIC LE NGTH
FIG URE 9-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COORDINATION
I ,··l 6-
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY ;
1
2
I
I
334 WEST 5th AVENUE· ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 Phone: (907) 277-7641
(907) 276-0001
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The Honorable lb'lald 0. Skoog
Camri.ssioner
Alaska Department of Fish & Garre
Sueport Building
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Dear Ccmnissicner Skoog:
January 8, 198 2
A rreeting was held on Decerrber 11, 1981 to present our conc -=pt of
the 1982 \o!Ork plan for environnental studies on the Chakachanna
Hydroelectric Project to your staff. Prior to the rreeting, t,or itten
cq:>ies of the 1982 \o!Ork plan were distributed to your staff. At that
rreeting the need for m:>re data to evaluate the carpleteness of the 1982
\o!Ork plan was identified. A copy of the Chakachamna Hydroelectric
Project, Interim Report along with this letter has been sent t.o your
staff for this purpose. Please note that this report is not a
feasibility report and we are not requesting ccmrents on it. H~ever,
we would appreciate forma l cc:mrents on the 1982 work plan, environrrent.al
studies.
Although we plan to proceed with the work plan as scheduled, it
should be noted that the majority of the work in 1982 i!'; contingent u}'X)n
additional appropriations by the Legislature.
Sincerely,
c:;?~~~L
~ Eric P . Yould
/ Executive Director
EPY:E'JIM:sh
cc: Mr. Carl M. Yanagawa, Dept . of Fish & Game w/attach
•
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
---------------------s. 12. --
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
334 WEST 5th AVENUE· ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 Phone : (907) 277 -764 1
(907) 276-0001
Mr. Carl M. Yanagawa
Regional SUpervisor
Alaska Depart:Irent of Fish & Gaire
333 RasrberrY Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99502
Dear Mr. Yanagawa:
February 1, 198 2
RECEJVr
FEB' 198Z
-,r.I.OIIk
Transmitted for your information and records are meeting notes
concerning the Chakacharma lake Feasibility Analysis.
If there are any questions, I can be reached at 276-0001.
FOR 'rnE EXEOJI'IVE DIREX:'IDR
FM/es
Attaclr.e.nts: Meeting Minutes
Sincerely,
Eric A . Marchegiani
Project Manager
cc: Robert T. Loder , Bechtel , w I o attachrrent
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DEP ~RT liE:\T OJ~ FISH .~ :\0 G .. \ liJ:
February 18, 1982
Alaska Power Authority
334 W. 5th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER
Attention: Mr. Eric P. Yould, Executive Director
Gentlemen:
5.12-
JAr S. IIAIIIiOIIIJ. liiWllflltlll
P.O. BOX 3·2000
JUNEAU. ~KA41 §.802
t-HONE : 4b:>-UU
M~q 1 1982
~POWER~fTY
Re: 1982 Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project Study Plan Review, Interim Report
Engineering and Geological Studies {November 1981), Woodward-Clyde
Environmental Study Work Plan (December 1981)
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has reviewed the proposed 1982 Chakachamna
Hydro Study Plan and submits the following comments:
1982 Environmental Study Work Plan
We are concerned that the remaining one year of study may prove to be
insufficient as very little is currently known about the fish and wildlife
resources within the project area. In addition, the study plan does not specify
the effort devoted to each task or expected sequence of events and from all
appearances the 1982 effort looks to be an overly ambitious undertaking . As we
have said in the past, we are willing to provide specific direction towards
development of studies if you desire our assistance. Please find comments
specific to portions of the 1982 Study Plan enclosed.
In addition, please feel free to contact us if you have any questions or
conments.
cc: c. Yanagawa R. Logan
R. Andrews A. Kingsbury
R. Redick s. Eide
L. Trasky D. Daisy
s. Pennoyer R. Roys
R. Somerville J. Fall
1·.
lo
I
I
I
I
I ·
I
I·
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(j) 5./~
U.S. DEPARTMENT ( COMMERCE
· · N•tlon•l Oc••nlc •nd .. ,mo•ph•rlc Admlnl•~•tleft
National Marine Fisheries Service
(j) Colt..~ ;)~·;:::.::::"•au. ALaska 998 02
(§) ~~~ .
February 18, 1982
?~
Mr . Eric P. Yould
Executive Director
Alaska Power Authority
333 West 4th Avenue , Suite 31
A~chor~ge, Alaska 99501
Dea l Mr. Yould:
REUElVEO
P,. ..• e,. :' !n.·~.-: 'T'•' ,1'":''1\ -··-" ..• [-...... ,..., .....
We have rece 1ved the Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project Interim Report -
November 30, 1981, and the 1982 Work Plan for Environmental Studies
Associated with this project. We have completed our review of both
documents and offer the following comments.
The Interim Report, according to your letter of January 8, 1982, is
being distributed in order to provide additional data on which to bas e
comments regarding the 198 2 Environmental Studies Work Plan. Accordingl y ,
we have limited our review of this document only to those sections perti-
nent to the Environmental Studies program, sections 6 and 10. Section 6
provides a sun mary of those reconnaissance-level surveys conducted
during the 1981 season. Although little data are provided, this section
identifies areas that appear to be important to fisheries resources
and discusses gaps in available knowledge. Section 10 (describing the
1982 studies) and the 1982 Environmental Studies Work Plan both target
upon these important areas. However, we feel some caution should be
used in bas ~~g fu~ure studies heavily on the results of the 1981 work .
Paragraph 6.3.4 states that these surveys were of "limited duration" and
provide only a limited "look" at these river systems. The extent of
pink salmon spawning and the location of such spawning withi~ the
Chakachatna River are unknown. The same is true for coho within this
system . Only limited survey work occurred on rivers tributary to
Kenibuna lake or within Kenibuna lake itself. The strength of the
1981 salmon runs may not have been representative, as even year runs of
pink salmon in upper Cook Inlet are larger than odd year runs. It will
be important for 1982 study efforts to remain flexible in order to fully
understand the fisheries resources of the project area. The 1982 Work
Plans presented to us do not have this flexibility or sufficient scope
to adequately assess impacts or identify necessary mitigative measures.
We have made some specific comments on both documents, which follow.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2
Interim Report
10 .1.3 Reservoir and Fish Passage Facilities
The report states that studies will be conducted regarding fish passage
into and out of the reservoir . The Environmental Studies Work Plan does
not identify these studies . What type of research is being discussed
here?·
10.3 Environmental Studies
This paragraph implies that current minimum flows were based on field
research on fisheries. These preliminary releases were developed us i ng
a percentage of mean flow (the Montana Method) and do not necessari l y
meet the needs of the fishery resources within the system.
1982 Wor k Plan -En vironmental Studies
General -We do not believe the proposed studies are of sufficient sco pe
to ach i eve the stated objec tives of providing data to ac c urately pre pare
environmental exhibits for the FERC application, assess projec t impa cts ,
describe e xisting conditions or develop mitigation measures . At t hi s
timE we are most concerned with identification of waters within the pr oj ec t
area which support habitat utilized by fish, evaluation of altered flov:
to fishery habitat and the impact of altered temperature regi mes . Th e
1982 fish survey sites should increase our understanding of the rela tive
value of project waters as habitat . We are pleased that instream fl ow
group (IFG) methodo l ogies are being proposed to assess change s in ha bitat
value s . However, we believe that a proper applicat i on of th i s systew
require s considerable effort beyond that which is presented in t he
wor k plan. Input from several areas is required in order to a pp l y the
IFG me t hodology. It will be necessary to know the distr i buti on of f i s h
s pec ie s wi thin the system, to select target species and li f e s t ages ,
and to correlate t hi s information with additional input concerni ng hydro-
logy and pro j ect operations . We realize that muc h of th i s descript i on
would be too detailed to be included in a general work plan . Ho weve r , a s
this study element is critical to impact assessment and mitigation pla nnin g ,
we bel i eve a separate scope of work should be prepared and circula t ed f or
comment whic h deal s with the IFG methodology as it applies to the Ch ak a cha mna
project stud i es . The work plan does not adequately address the issue of
al t ered temperatures. We suggest that the upcoming stud i es allow f or t hi s
imp ortant issue. Continuous recordin9 themographs may be valua ble at s ites
which may be impacted by thermal changes . Will a temperatu r e mod el be
prepared ?
The Work Plan fa i ls to discuss how mitigative measures wi ll be develo ped
for inclu s ion into the li cense application. We suggest early coord in at i on
between the contractor and resource agencies on this issue. A mitigation
policy similar to that being developed for Susitna would be valuable .
Page 4, paragraph 5. The criteria used in selecting these wetlands for
study are not mentioned. Are these areas assumed to be representa t ive of
the wetlands within the area of impa c t or of a special value as habitat?
... -·----·---
-. / I ~ /
-~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3
Page 7, paragraph 2. The instream flow investigations will provide
necessary data on the impacts of flow regulation. Based on preliminary
information presented by Woodward-Clyde it appears that sloughs or
side channels in the upper McArthur and in the Chakachatna River below
Str~ight Creek are important sp~wning areas: Man~ of these channels may
be 1mpacted by altered flows ana should be 1nvest1gated using in-stream
flow methodology. The Work Plan is not clear on whether these sites
will receive special attention, but states that new sites will be studied
using IFG-2 methodologies. We feel that some new sites (such as side
channels utilized by spawners) should receive the IFG-4 methodology to
more closely assess project impact.
Page 7, Aquatic Biology : The work plan does not describe what work is
planned for further limnological investigation of Lake Chakachatna or
Kenibuna. Water quality parameters, depth profiles and plankton tows
are some things that should be considered.
Finally, we must express our concern with regard to the project schedule .
It is unlikely that any study effort, regardless of its thoroughness,
could properly identify the fishery and related impacts within a 10
month period (February to November). The fact that little informatio n
currently exists for these systems adds to this concern, as much wor k
will be needed to gather basic reconnaissance-level data. We suggest
the timing of the FERC license application and the scope of environ-
mental studies for this project be reconsidered with an aim at insuring
a thorough understanding of the resources and a professional assessment
of project related impacts and mitigation opportunities .
We appreciate this opportunity to comment at this time.
Since rel y ,
.. C)..~ 77. JS~~~~
~obyrt W. McVe y
~ector, Alaska Re9ion
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
February 1. 1983
Mr. Eric Marchegiani
Alaska Power Authority
334 W. 5th Avenue
Anchorage. Alaska 99501
Dear Mr. Marchegiani:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT DF COMMERCE
National Oce•nic •nd Atmoapheric Adminiatr•tion
Jratiorlal Mzrirw Pu'Mm• s.rl)ic•
P.O. Boz 1568
rliD'leau, Alaeka 11802
:0 FILES :
.,oject 0 General 0
R~t~~~~Q ___ v_o'._-_-_-_-__ -
;_ ~if'• Entered -------....
. -0 7 1983
ALAsKA POWER AUTHotun
The National Marine Fisheries Service has reviewed the Summary of Fish
Passage Facilitt Desi~n Co nce~ts and Preliminary Results of FY 1982-83
Fish Studies -hakac amna ~ roelectric ProJect, Bechtel/Woodward
Clyde, December 1982. OUr F sh Facilities D1vision has developed
comments specific to the conceptual passage designs, and we are
forwarding these for your consideration prior to completion of the
February report. We will be able to provide a more complete analysis of
fishways design when operational concepts are finalized. The proposed
fish passage structures appear feasible, but we believe relatively hi gh
mortality will occur with respect to out-migrants.
1. The turn pools at all ladder turns are too short . The interior
ladder wall at all turns should extend at least 8 feet upstream and
downstream from the adjacent weirs. The exterior wall would of
course ex.tend further than 8 feet.
2. All adult fish ladders and channels must be lighted to encourage
fish movement. Natural light or artificial light can be used.
Access for artificial lighting maintenance is required.
3. The upstream passage facility shows a ladder with 60 pools. For
this orifice-overflow type of ladder to function properly the water
surface in the pools should be controlled to provide 1.0 ft. of head
on the weirs, plus or minus 0.1 foot . The docum~nt does not explain
how the water level in the ladder will be controlled during periods
when the forebay elevation is above or below an even-foot elevation.
It is assumed flow would be controlled by throt tling the inlet con-
trol gate to the appropriate water supply chamber. Proper operation
of the ladder will require faultless operation of all 60 gates to
the individual ladder pools and all inlet gates to the water supply
chambers. This will require good access for frpquent gate inspec-
tion and O&M. No method of access is indicated.
4. The ladder exits must be sufficiently removed from the downstream
migrant facility to prevent adult fish from falling back downstream.
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
5. Both sche.es for juvenile passage appear to have potential for high
fish losses. Scheme A •ight be .edified to avoid the turbulent
plunge pool which would exist, particularly when either of the top
two drum-type gates are operated. The drop of up to 80 feet ± into
the basin shown would be very hazardous for fish, since they would
be subjected to extreme turbulence with associated pressure fluctua-
tions and shear forces prior to exiting through the tunnel. High
injury and MOrtality rates can be expected. Continuous smooth
spillway crests downstream of each gate to a standard spillway
stilling basin, and a smooth gradual transition to the tunnel would
be an improve.ent.
Scheme B has .ore potential problems than Scheme A. These are:
(1) More mechanical equipment is involved, therefore more chance for
.alfunction . (2) The entire flow is not near the surface where it
would aid fish outmigration. (3) Fish may not readily sound to the
depth required to exit through tne tunnel, after they pass over the
flow control plate. (4) Fish passing through the two 7 ft. x 4.75
ft. tunnel discharge control gates can be expected to suffer high
mortalities, based on experience at other projects of even lower
maximum heads. (5) Some fish can be expected to exit the forebay
through the two low level bypasse~. particularly if lower forebay
elevations exist during outmigration. and flow conditions in the
bypass conduits could be damaging to fish .
6. The proposed breakwater in the lake could result in downstream
migrants not finding the lake outlet so readily. The location and
length of the breakwater and its relationship to shoreline
topography should be COfSidered very carefully to avoid anadromous
fish passage problems. JThe approach channel to the lake outlet
should be designed with consideration to maintaining adequate
velocities to move fish to the outlet structure.
7. The proposed power outlet from the lake to the powerhouse will
apparently be located considerable distance from the fish passage
facilities. No information is given as to the magnitude of the
power discharges. Power discharges can be expected to detract from
the limited outmigrant attraction provided by the fish passage
facilities, reducing their effectiveness in maintaining fish runs.
Should you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact
our Anchorage Field Office at 271-5006 .
~
I ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
334 WEST 5th AVENUE· ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 Phone: (807) 2n·7641
(907) 27&0001 I RECEIVED
DEC 2 1982 November 26, 1982
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
R. T. LODER
Mr. Robert W. McVey
Director, Alaska Region
National Marine Fisheries Service
P.O. Box 1668
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Dear Mr. McVey:
Please reference your agency's letter of February 18, 1982,
concerning Chakachamna Hydroelectric Pr~~ect 1982 Work Plan,
Environmental Studies. The Alaska Power Authority appreciates the
detailed commer.ts your agency has provided, but due to severe budget
restraints we have not yet been able to implement most of those. The
Power Authority through our consultant, Bechtel/Woodward-Clyde, has
collected fishery data during this past summer and fall. Your agency
personnel visited the proposed project area while Woodward-Clyde was
actually collecting this data during August 1982.
We would like to invite you and your staff to a mePting at 9:30
A.M. on December 9, 1982, in the new Federal Building, National Weather
Service, 5th floor, East Conference Room. The purpose of the meeting
will be to present information collected during the summer and fall and
answer questions or an infonmal basis concerning the resource in the
area. I have attached an agenda for the meeting.
We have requested additional funding for the FY 84 budget year in
order to complete the feasibility study. Once legislative approval has
been acquired, a new work plan for environmental studies will be
developed takinQ into account concerns previously expressed by your
agency and others. It is our intent to coordinate this plan with the
concerned agencies.
Thank you for your continued participation in our planning
activities.
cc: Robe r t Loder, Bechtel
Wayne Lifton, Woodward-Clyde
KPnneth Plumb, FERC
Executive Director
Ronald Morris, National Marine Fisheries SPrvice
Brad Smith, National Marine Fisheries Service
Attachment: Agenda
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
II.
III.
ATTACHMENT A
TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR DECEMBER 9 MEETING
Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project
Opening Remarks
Purpose of Meeting:
Eric Marchegiani
Provide Background to New Personnel
To Receive Agency Input
To Keep Agencies Informed
Description of Project
Engineering Studies to Date
Fish Passage Facility Concepts
Environmental Studies
FY 1982
Eric Marchegiani/Bob Loder
Wayne Lifton
FY 1983 -scope, general objectives
Hydrology
Aquatic Biology
L. Rundquist
Wayne Lifton
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
I ~WEST 5th AVENUE. ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 Phone: (Q07) 2n-7641
(i07) 276-0001
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RECEJV£0
DEC 2 1982
The Honorable Ronald 0. Skoog,
Con111issioner
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
Subport Building
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Dear Commissioner Skoog :
November 26, 1982
Please reference your agency's letter of February 18, 198 2 ,
concerning Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project 1982 Work Plan,
Environmental Studies ; The Alaska Power Authority appreciates the
detailed comments your agency has provided, but due to severe budget
restraints we have not yet been able to implement most of these. The
Power Authority through our consultant, Bechtel/Woodwar6-Clyde, has
collected fishery data during this past summer and fall. Your agency
personnel were invited to visit the proposed project area while
Woodward-Clyde was actually collecting this data during August 1982 .
We would like to invite you and your staff to a meeting at 9 :30
A.M. on December 9, 1982, in the new Federal Building, National Weather
Service, 5th floor, East Conference Room. The purpose of the meeting
wil l be to present informat i on collected during the summer and f all and
answer questions on an informal basis concerning the resource in the
area. I have attached an agenda for the meeting.
We have reouested additional funding for the FY 84 budget year in
crder to complete the feasibility study. On ce legislative approval has
bee n acquired, a new work plan for environmental studies will be
developed taking int o account concerns previously expressed by your
agency and others. It i s our intent t o coordinate this pla n wi th the
concerned agencies.
Thank you for your continued participation in our planning
activit i es.
cc: ~obert Loder, !echtel
Wa yr.e Lifton, Woodward-Clyde
Kenneth Plumb, FERC
Sincerely,
kr -~~
Executive Director
Carl M. Ya nagawa, Alas ka Department of Fish & Game
Don McKay, Alaska Department of Fish & Game
Phi Byrna, Alaska Department of Fi sh & Game
Attachment: Agenda
~
I
(
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
33-i WEST 5th AVENUE· ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 98501 Phone: (107) 2n-1s.1
(107) 27&0001 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~E:CEIVED
DEC 2 1982
R. T. LODIR
Ms. Kay Brown
Director
Division of Minerals &
Energy Management
Pouch 7-034
Anchorage, Alaska 99510
Dear Ms. Brown:
November 26, 1982
We would like to invite you and your staff to a meeting at
9:30A.M., on December 9, 1982, in the new Federal Buildir.g, National
Weather Service, 5th floor, East Conference Room. The purpose of the
meeting will be to present info~tion collected during the summer and
fa 11 and answer questions on a'n i nforma 1 basis concerning the resource
in the area. I have attached an agenda for the meeting.
We have requested additional funding for the FY 84 budget year in
order to complete the feasibility study. Once legislative approval has
been acquired, a new work plan for environmental studies will be
developed taking into account concerns previously expressed by your
agency and others. It is our intent to coordinate this plan with the
concerned agencies.
Thank you for your continued participation in our planning
activities.
cc: Robert Loder, Bechtel
Wayne Lifton, Woodward-Clyde
«aren Oakley, DNP.
Attachment: AgPnda
Sincerely,
~w~ .? ~
Eric P. Yould
Executive Director
I
~
I ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
~WEST 5th AVENUE· ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 Phone: (101) 2n · 7641
(101) 27&0001 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RECEIVED
DEC 2 1982
R. T. LODER
Mr. Keith Schreiner
Regional Director
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services
1011 East Tudor Road
Anchorage, Alaska ~503
Dear Mr. sjrJfn~~:
November 26, 1982
Please reference your agency•s letter of March 5, 1982, concerning
Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project 1982 Work Plan, Environmental Studies.
The Alaska Power Authority appreciates the detailed comments your agency
has provided, but due to severe budget restraints we ha~e not yet been
able to implement most of those. The Power Authority through our
consultant, Bechtel/Woodward-Clyde, has collected fishery data during
this past summer and fall. Your agency personnel visited the proposed
project area while Woodward-Clyde was actually collecting this data
during August 1982.
We would like t o invite you and your staf• to a meet ing at 9:30
A.M. on December 9, 1982, in the new Feder~l Bu il ding, National Weather
Service, 5th floor, East Conference Room. The purpo se of the meeting
will be to present information collected during the summer anr f a ll and
answer questions on an informal basis concerning the resource in the
area. I have attached an agenda for t~e meeting.
We have requested additional funding for the FY 84 budge t y ~a r in
order to complete the feasibility study. Once legislative approval has
bee ~ acquired, a new work plan for env i ronmental s tudies will be
developed taking int o account concerns previously expressed by your
apency and others. It is our intent to coordinate this plan with the
concerned agencies.
Thank you for your continued participation in our planning
activities .
cc : Robe ~t Loder, Bechtel
Wayne Lifton, Woodward-Clyde
Kenneth Plumb, FERC
s::•.ly,_
Eric P. Yould
Exe cutive Director
Garv Stackhouse, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Lenny Corin, U.S. Fish & Wildl i fe Service
Attachment : Agenda
I (
I ALASKA. POWER AUTHORITY
334 WEST 5th AVENUE· ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 Phone: (907) 277-7641
(907) 276-0001 I "~C£1VED
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ·
I
I
I
I
I
I
JAN 4 1983
"-T. LODER
Mr. Eric F. Meyer
Northern Alaska Environmental
833 Gambe 11 Street
Suite B
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Dear Mr. Meyer:
Center
Please reference your letter of December 13, 1982 in which you
suggest the Alaska Power Authority defer the filing of the FERC license
on Susitna.
We will not defer the filing of the Susitna FERC license
application. The Power Authority believes the studies being done on the
Chakachamna project to date are more than sufficient to fulfill all FERC
requirements for the study of alternatives for Susitna license
application. Furthermore, the Chakachamna project is not itself an
alternative to Susitna, but rather an element of a larger alternative
scenario that includes coal and natural gas fired generation.
Over $1.8 million has been invested by the Power ~uthority and the
Governor•s office in evaluating the Chaka~hamna hydroelectric potential.
Neither the Susitna Feasibility Study nor the Battelle Alternatives
Study found tt.e Chakachamna project to be the preferred Railbelt power
generation alternative. At the same time, however, the potential for
eventual contrary findings was recognized. New information on
Chakachamna costs, Susitna costs, or load forecasts could conceivably
reverse the findings. Therefore, additional work to exolore money
saving construction concepts was deemed advisable. The necessary funds
were taken from the Susitna appropriation. A FY 82 study plan was
drafted which addressed the primary area of concern affecting
feasibility: project cost. Fishery impact was also deemed important, as
mitigation measures (minimum flows and fish passage) could potentially
impact project output and cost.
The current program has three major components: 1) fish passage
into and out of the lake, 2) enumeration of the fishery resource, ~nd 3)
the applicability of tunnel excavation by means of a tunnel boring
machine. (This possibility represents the source of the greatest
uncertainty in the cost estimate.)
The fish passage facility analysis has involved the development of
a structure which would permit passage of fish at various lake levels
with gravity flow. In order to provide gravity flow through the
facility, the project would require a small 50 foot rock filled dam at
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Eric F. Meyer
December 30, 1982
Page 2
the outlet of the lake. This structure would probably require
continuous maintenance due to the movement of the Barrier Glacier.
The f is hery enumeration program has collected data continuously
between Ju1y and November. In addition, there will be a winter survey
and a spring survey. The program will estimate the seasonal
distribution, habitat abundance, and numbers of fish. ThP estimate of
fishery impact will be updated based on this additional data. Further
work such as an instream flow assessment would be required to fully
evaluate project impacts and mittgation measures, but such impact work
cannot effectively begin until a year of base line data collection is
accomplished.
As you are aware, a representative rock sample has been acquired
near the McArthur power house site and has been sent to the Robbins
Company Testing Laboratories in Seattle, Washington. The Robbins
Company has reported that the rock is similar to the rock found at the
Kerckhoff project in California, where a 24 foot diameter tunnel boring
operation has been in satisfactory progress during the past year. The
test data from the rock analysis has generated information which was
ut ilized to estima t e the cost of using a tunnel boring machine rather
then the conventional drill and blast method. The estimate has reduced
the cost of the project by app~oximately $200 million.
In summary, the Alaska Power Authority has pursued the Chakachamna
Project with the appropriate diligence, given that studies to date have
shown it not to be the preferred Railbelt power generation alternative .
The current studies are more than adequate to fulfill all FERC
requirements for the study of alternatives.
cc: ·Robert Loder, Bechtel .
Wayne Lifton, Woodward/Clyde
Kenneth Plumb, Secretary, FERC
William Wakefield, FERC
Charles Conway
Sincerely,
. I .... -·· ~
Eric P. Yould
Executive Director
I
'I .
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
Northern Alaska Environmental Center
833 Cambell Streeet -Suite B
Anchura~e. AlaskR 99501
l'!'r. Eric Yould
Executi~ Dire ~tor
Alaska Power Authority
334 Wes£ 5th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Dear to!r. Yould :
(907) 277-6Al4
13 December 1982
IIJECEf~EQ ,
r ·r::c ..;... 1 61912
,_ fOWER A4mtoNtt
I am writing to exoress formally my preat concern about the
9 Tcrgres5 and adequacy of the Lake Chakachamna feasibility
studies . As you well know, the Chakachamna oroj e ct is the
most significant and likely hydro alternative to Susitna and
a comprehensive evaluation of this potential hydro option is
central to the on going Railbelt power studies. Without the
commitment of the APA to undertake and execute the necessdry
investi~ations to assess project feasibility at the level of
detail required for preparation of a FERC license application,
the APA will preclude meaningful consideration of the Chaka-
chamna option.
As a result of attending the recent December 9, 1982 inter-
agency briefing on the status of the Chakacha~a studies, it
is apparent that the APA is not honorinp its nublic commitment
to continue the Chakachamna investi~ations in a substantive
and timely fashion. It is now evident that the FY 83 fundin~ ·of
$800,000 allocated by the APA Board to t~e Chakacha~a studies
is entirely insufficient to address the outstandin~ questions
about project feasibility and that this will have the effect
of discounting the viability of the Chakachamna option as part
of the FERC Susitna proceedings.
T~e Northern Alaska Environmental Center has, ove= the ~ast
three years, repeat e dly cited the need to move forward with
the Chakachamna investi~ations in an appronriately a~~ressive
fashion so that the Chakachamna and Susitna ootions can be
considered on an equal basis . Th~~ is why last June I ur~ed
the APA to allocate the full $3.3 million necessary to under-
take the full.scope of feasibility studies required to assess
the Chakacharnna site . At that June Board ~eeting you re~resente d
that $800,000 would be sufficient to continue the evaluation of
the Chakachamna O?tion. At the December 9 interagency meetinr.,
however, APA project manager Eric Marcheriani rnade reneated
reference to "bud~.etary constraints" and the fact that h e has
not "had the level of fundinS>.. necessarv to sunnort" a feasi-
bility level report . The Northern Alaska F.nvironmental Center
continues to be deeply concerned that a lack of commitment on
the Part of the APA to conduct the appronriPte en?ineering ,
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
I
I
I
I
!-!::-. Eric Yould
'N'
Mr. Yould, p.2
geotechnical, amd environmen t a U studies of the Chakachamna
site will result in a preju~iced evaluation of Railbelt elec-
trical options. Precisely ~he si ~uation we had hoped to avoid
is now being rea l ized .
The limited wo rk done by Bechtel and Woodward-Cl _ J e has accom-
olished little mo.re than confirm the fa'ct that Chakachamna is
very attractive econ1omic·ally (•relative to Susitna) and that
the site supports a signifi~ant fishery resource (as does the
Susitna). The work by Bechtel/Woodward-~lyde, however, will not
yield a level of asse•ssment nec.essatry for 'preparation of a FERC
license application as stated ~y Mr . Mat-hegian i, nor will the
Bechtel/Woodward-Cly de wo·rk Jjll rovide a sufficient basis for
comparing the relative economic and evironmental merit of these
projects as required for the F.BRC/NEPA-EIS process. It seems
inescapable that the submissi0rn of a Susitna license applica-
tion in the first q1uarter of 1983 (as presently planned) would,
on its face, be deficient i t\ this regard .
The Northern Alaska Environmental C~nter shares your oft stated
concern for the pot~ntial f i shery i mpacts that could attend de-
velopment of the Chakachamna sit ~, as we are concerned with the
myriad impacts tha t would be a ~so1c i ated with development of the
Susitna basin. Neither of these p rojects should enjoy blind
support and both mu s e be car ~fu lly evaluated as part of a com-
prehensive Railbe1t power pla ~n in g effort. It is lamentable that
some percei·.re the more mode stly scaled 330MW Chakachamna project
as a tnrea r to Susitna . Especially at a time when electrical
de~,d projectio ns are aropping dramatically and future load
gro~th is clouded with great uncertainty, such a narrow perspec-
tive contribut~s li t t l e to the need for cautious consideration
and prude nt planning to develop an optimal supply strate~y for
the Railbelt. As you well apprec i ate, the questionable need
for a massive project like Susitna requires careful evaluation
of rr.ore flexible capacity supply strategies which could include
a c0mbinatio ~ of short-term benefits from combined cycle combus-
tion turbines u s~ng natural ga s and long-term benefits from a
more modestly scaled hydro project like Chakachamna.
For these reasons we formally ask the APA to defer filing of the
Susitna license application in February so that (1) detailed
evaluation of the Chakachamna option may be included in the
application and (2) the fishery and wildlife impacts that would
be associated with either proj e ct ma y be better understood . We
ask, moreover, that the APA imm e d i ately dedicate the necessary
financial and p ersonnel resources to upgrade the Chakachamna
study effort to that of a true feasibility study and so that
the 1983 field season may be as productive as possible. At a
very minimum, this should start with the conv e ning of an inter-
agenc y steering committee for the Chakachamna project analogous
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Hr . Yould, p.3
to the Susitna Hydro Steering Committee.
In the ab~ence of such action on the part of the APA to insure
a thorough analysis of Railbelt power alternatives, we feel
that vou will jeopardize the Susitna license application and
subj ~-t the entire process to unecessary delay.
The Chakachamna Alternative
The Ncrthern Alaska Environmental Center has not been alone in
its effort to draw attention to the need to carefully consider
more modestly scaled power options such as Chakachamna as an
integral aspect of formulating a responsible plan to meet future
Railbelt power requirements . Indeed, the Extern ~l Revi e w Panel
of international experts retained by the APA to provide an in-
dependent assessment of the Susitna project, in formal testimony
to the APA Board, strongly recommended that your agency identify
viable power alternatives in the event that (1) Susitna is delayed
or (2) the demand forecasts change . Precisely the latter circum-
stance has emerged with current Battelle energy projections for
the year 2010 as much as 44% lower than the ISER forecasts used
by Acres in its development selection analysis which led to the
adoption of the Watana/Devil Canyon scenario. See Tab l e 1 .
This advice was reflected in the letter sent by the APA to the
State legislature (April 26, 1982) which recommended that the
Ohakachamna and North Slope gas alternatives be thoroughly in-
vestigated . The APA Board specifically indicated that FY 83 costs
to continue the Chakachamna feasibility studies was on the order
of $3.3 million.
The Policy Review Committee, charged with the responsibility of
n~naging the Battelle Alternatives to Susitna study, concurred
with these assessments and also supported FY 83 funding to asses s
the Chakachamna optio~ in detail along with additional inv esti-
gation of the North Slope gas and Beluga coal options . ·
More recently, the Di vision of Budget and Management noted ce r -
tain deficiencies in the FY 83 studies respecting the APA sta f f
descision not t0 undertake necessary geotechnical studies . Th e
Division of Budget ciemo (August 19, 1982), distributed to the
full Board by Dr. Ronald Lehr, noted that the limited scopft of
the FY 83 Chakachamna studies "may result in a (Susituc.) FE r-C
license application next spring which is neithe r c o mp lete n o r
a d equate ."
Fun d ing
As you know, whe n the legislture adjourned, i t had appr op riated
$2 5.6 million for the continuation of the Susit na/ Railbeltpower
studies . At the June 24, 1982 APA Board meeting considera t i o n
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Yould, p.4
was given to the issue of submittin~ a FERC license applicati9n
including the role that the Chakachamna feasibility study played
in the overall evaluation of Ra i lbelt power options. I myself
took the opportunity at that time to make a statement to the
Board and urged that the full $3.3 million necessary for the
Chakachamna studies be dedicated to that purpose from the $25.6
million available. To my great disaoointment it was your
recommendation to the Board that only $800,000 be allocated to
the Chakachamna investigations. It was your contention that
$800,000 was sufficient to carry the studies forward . As noted
in the recently prepared APAFY 84budget proposal relative to
the Chakachamna project, the "FY 83 funds are coming from the
Susitna funds since Chakachamna is considered as an alternative
to the Susitna Project." The budget document ~oes on to state
that the FY 83 ($800,000) phase of investigation "will see a
threshold level of environmental investigation and additional
engineering studies to confirm the construction cost estimate
and cost of power."
It is not clear to me what a "threshold level" of evaluation means
in light of the data that has been gathered by Bechtel/Woodw&rd-
Clyde and which was presented at the December 9 interagency meet-
ing. Clearly, the project is still economically attractive, in
fact even more so now than when Acres did their feasibility work
on Susitna as a result of downward revisions in capital cost
estimates by about $0.22 billion due to the ability to use state-
of-the-art tunnel boring technology. As for the environmental
work --which has focused exclusively on the fishery --there
is little to be concluded beyond the fact that the McArthur a~d
Chakachatna drainages support a significant fishery resource on
the basis of very limited escapement data. The "threshold" level
of data developed by Bechtel and Woodward-Clyde has confirmed the
fact that the Chakachamna alternative is as much (if not more) of
a Railbelt power alternative due to (1) downward revisions in
expected capital costs and (2) Gownward revisions in expected
load growth.
The Need for Additional Investigations
At this point, the Northern Alaska Environmental Center is very
concerned that the Chakachamna studies be expanded substantially
in scope. We urge that the APA immeadiately commit the financial
resources prese~tly at its disposal toward the development of a
comprehensive f~asibility study of a quality and detail equal to
the Susitna studies. The scope of investigations should include
a much more detailed examination of the Chakachatna tunnel alter-
native, especially in light of the recent findings regarding
tunnel boring technology. (While the Chakachatna tunnel alter-
native may not be as attractive as the McArthur tunnel scenario,
it offers the distinct advantage of perha~s avoiding altogether
impacts to the McArthur drainage.) It is imperative that this
effort be initiated immediately and aggressively so that the
Chakachamna hydro option can be considered on a parity basis wit h
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
·.
Mr. Yould , p. 5
Susitna . It was clearly evident from the comments made by the
resource agency personnel at the December 9 meeting that there
is a great amount of work to be done between now and the point
when we could achieve such a level of comparability .
This is particularly disturbing in looking back thr ~u ~h the
November 1981 Interim Report on the Chakachamna st ~ .ies which
was very explicit about the fact that the consultant was pro-
vidin~ services "for performing a feasibility study and for pre-
paring an application for a FERC license to construct" the
Chakachamna project. The "1982 Work Plan -Environmental Studies"
circulated by the APA to the resource agencies almost exactly
one year ago was equally explicit with regard to the overall
objective being to prepare the necessary environmental exhibits
to accompany an APA license application. Unfortunately, this
"paper commitment" has not been supported monetarily .
As currently planned, Bechtel/Woodward-Clyde will issue their
findings at the end of February and the study at that point will
not be of sufficient quality to make a clear determination about
project feasibility . It is perhaps not entirely ironic that the
same month is targeted for submission of the Susitna FERC license
application. Further work on the Chakachamna feasibility study
will then be dependent upon the vagaries of legislative appro-
priation during a time when increasing political pressure is
being orchestrated to "pour concrete."
The Need for a New Plan of Study
I do not mean to imply that even an unlimited budget for the
Chakachamna studies as of last June could have yielded a com-
pleted feasibility study by "late winter of 1983" as was pro-
posed in the "1982 Work Plan-Envirotu!lental Studies" document.
The 1982 Work Plan was deficient in many regards, as pointed out
in the comments prepared by ADF&G (February 18, 1982), USF&WS
(March 5, 1982; March 12, 1982 ) and NMFS (February 18,1982)
much remains to be done to work out a comprehensive Plan of Study
to identify and execute essential field studies. However , a
larger budget last June and r e solve on the part of the APA to
initiate the necessary intera~ency processes would have adv ance d
the studies much further than they are today.
With the limited funding, the 1982 Work Plan and a gency comment s
were "set aside" (to use Mr. Marchegiani's wo rds) and a scop e of
work negotiated betwee.l the APA and Bechtel/Woodward-Clyde with-
out the appr opriate involvement of o t her resource a g ency perso nnel.
the result is that while we do know somewhat more about the project
site, a great deal of money and , more importantl y , time has been
wasted.
Bas e d on the limited information currentl y a va ilable , th e 330 MW
Chakachamna project still appears to be v er y attrac tive econ o mi call y
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr . Yould, p .6
with an estimated capital cost of approximately $1.23 billio n
(Bechtel/October 1982 Progress Report). As you noted in re-
cent remarks to the Alaska Environmental Assembly (November 13,
1982) the Chakachamna project is very competitive with Susitna
and qu i te possibly the more attractive economic choice. This
is pa1 ~cularly so because a project the size of Chakachamna
would not be vulnerable to the uncertainti~s of load projectio ns
(ie ., we can reasonably assume the need to r eolace 330MW of
thermal capacity but cannot necessarily assume the need for all
1600MW's offered by Susitna). While you have acknowledged the
economic merit of Chakachamna, you have expressed great concern
for the fishery impacts that could attend development of the
project . This sentiment is reflected in the Acres feasibility
reoort where Chakachamna was not included in the "base case"
pl~m because "it may have a subst2ntial fishery impact " and
because "studies to date have been insufficient to determine
expected capital costs with precision" (Acres/Summary Report ,
March 1982, p . 7). Notwithstanding the substantial expenditures
b y APA to Acres , th e same general observations ma y be made about
the Susitna project .
The Susitna related fish,~ry resource is only dimly understood
a t this point with onl y the initial phases of a basic 5-year
study program complete . Recent correspondence to your agency by
USF&WS (October 5, 1982) and NMFS (October 15, 1982) describes
the more important fishe ry issues that remain entirely unresolv ed .
The fact that the 1982 (second year) field data will n o t be in-
cluded in the license application highlights further the sev ere
limitations to our current understanding of the potenti a l impacts
to the Susitna basin fishery. More succinctly , at present the
Federal and State resource agencies are only now in the process
of describing the existing resource and are far from understanding
the impacts associated with post-project conditions.
Respecting confidenc e in the Acres capital cost estimates f o r
Susitna , the fact tha t an indepen dent cost estima t e b y Ebas co
yielded a $0 .36 bill i on disparity clearly indicates that th e .
"prec i sion" o f />.~res Su si tna c o st est i mat e i s s omewhat su spec t .
Finally, I would n o te that the minutes of the June 24th APA Bo ard
meeting reflect your comment that "Susitna must be the best a l t er -
native before the FERC wil l issue a license." It is our h o pe
that the FERC process will, in fact, insure that the Chakachamna
alternative is investigated adequately and t~e best Railbel ~_r.ow er
alternative developed . To that end, ,.r e urge the APA t o d e fer i t s
Susitna license applica t ion and move forvard iT!llllecliat e l v with
expanded Chakachamna studies so that these two ma jor al t e rnat i ves
ma y b e considered o n a comp arable bas is .
Sincerel y, // ·1 /h ~hy-----
Eri c F. My'ers
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Yould, p.7
cc : APA Board
USF&WS
NMFS
ADF&G
ADNR Susitna Hydro Steering Committee
Quentin Edson, FERC
Sierra Club Alaska Center for the Environment
Trustees for Alaska
Governor Sheffield
I ·.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Year
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
Notes:
Table 1
DECLINING LOAD GROWT H
PROJECTIONS
"Medium" Load Growth
1980 1982
ISERl Battelle2
2790 2551
3570 3136
4030 4256
5170 4875
6430 5033
7530 5421
8940 6258
Projections/GWh
Revised
Battelle)
2551
3000
3391
3884
4010
4319
4986
1 . Used by Acres for generation planning studies for developmen t
selection; Acres feasibility study Table 5 .6.
2. Battelle "base case" ; Battelle Col'!lment Draft Table A.l2 .
3. Revised Battelle forecast; Prologue Table 3 (Draft ).
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
334 WEST 5th AVENUE · ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501
Hr. Paul Haertel
Superintendent of lake Clark
National Park Service
U. S. Federal Buildi.IY:;
Ancrorage , Alaska 99501
Dear Hr. Haertel:
January 12,
Phone: (907) 277·7641
(907) 276.()()()1
We are p resently undertaking a feasibility study o f the proposed
Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project. '!be study cxmnenced in August 1981
and is scheduled for cc:rrpletion in early 198 3 .
The project area is located approximately 6 0 miles 'IN'est of
Anchorage. The water storage reservoir for the prop:> sed hy dro~-e:::
pro ject would be existing Chakachamna Lake , a 23 square-r ..:1e lake fo:nred
in a steep v alley behind a glacial rroraine. CUrrent studies have
identified several alternative arrangenents for the project . The
a l t ernative with the greatest power potential involves a lake tap
leading t.hrwgh an 11 mile transrountain diversion tunne l to a powe r
plant o n the McArthur River. Such a diversion of fla,..r nay have
signific ant env ironrrental i.npacts in the McArthur River and in the
Chakac hatna River, the ootlet stre am fran Cha.kachamna lakE'. These b.."'
rivers are kna,..rn to have runs of anadrmous fish. The planned proj e ct
constructioo for any of the alternative layouts presently under
consi deration does not involve any construction activ ities witl.in the
l:x::mldaries of lake Clark National Park. H~er, as stated above, the
project operation may affect the fish and wildlife in the Chakac hatna
River basin including part of the National Park by diversion of water
fran the Chakachatna River and by seasonal la,..rering of the level of
Chakachamna lake.
The work being performed in the f e asibility study inc l udes an
assessrrent of the environrrental :inpact of the proj ect constructi on and
operation. To evaluate the influence of t:he project on the f ish and
wildlife ~lations of the area it is necessary to include in this
e v aluation tlx:>se resources within the National Park, specifically
Kenibuna lake s ince a FOrtion of the anadrarous f ish run pass ing through
Chakachamna lake enters Kf"Jl ibuna lake .
At this ti.rre, the 1981 e nv i ronrrental studies f i eld program (aerial
and ground reconnaissance o f the general study area) has been c::arpleted .
The first overview was conduct ed in August with the ct>j e c tives being t o
document the p r esence of sockeye salrron in the ma jor project waters and
t o survey the site in p r eparation for the fall reconnais sance. The
second inve stigation wa s carried out in mid-Sept ember and inv o lved two
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..... ., ,.. ~ .... • - -., .... ;..: ... .. •• '-1 .. ;& '" a. -
Cl
Mr. Paul Haertel
January 12, 1982
Page 2
,b ...
weeks of field data collectioo. 'nle objectives of the effort were to
obtain sufficient informatioo and understanding of the project site and
its resoo.roes to allow for the design of rrore detailed 1982 studies, and
to assess, in a prel:i.minaiy nature, the overall feasibility of the
CO'lceptual designs of the project alternatives. In this 1981 program,
no activities were perforned within the Natiooal Park.
Since part of the 1982 field program will occur within LUe Clarl;.c
Naticnal Park, we are requesting that a special use permit be authorized
for the envi.rorlnental investigations. Specifically, we are requesting
that the following nonconsunptive activities be authorized in the
Natiooal Park:
o fly over and land near •ne Igitna, Neacola, Another, and
Orilligan Rivers using a helicopter;
0 use a nDtorized raft oo J<enibuna Lake;
o use standa::'d surveying techniques and depth samdi.ng ~prent;
and
o conduct vegetatioo surveys.
In add.i tion, we request that the following conSUITpti ve , yet
nondestructive, activities be authorized in the National Park:
0 the collection of stream and lake substrates to assess stability;
o the use of fyke nets, electroshocking equiprent, and seines
(adults captured by these techniques will be released) ;
0 the limi. ted use of gi 11 nets along the steep banks of the la<e
shore. If used, the gill nets will be set for short periods of
tine to prevent excessive losses.
There will be no carrping or similar activities associated with
these above activities. A schedule for these activities is attached.
The work described above would be perfonred for the Authority b y
Bechtel Civil and f.1.inerals, Inc. and their environrrental subcontractor
Wcx::rlward<lyde Consultants. Subsequent to these studies, we do not
anticipate any further investigations within the Lake Clark National
Park.
If you hav e any questions or if you require additional infornation
on any phase of this program, please contact ne.
Sincerely ,
.f:fil:~E-
1
Attachrrent: Schedule
. . .
CC! ·~ '1' • laJer 1 Bedrt:.el:
•
I
I
I
I
~I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
Table 1. Tentative Schedule for Activities to be Conducted within Lake
Clark Naticnal Park
Fish Aerial
Schedule* and Groond Surveys
31 May-2 June X
21-23 June X
12-14 July X
2-4 August X
23-25 August X
13-15 Septemer X
4-6 CX:tober X
Activity
Wildlife Visual
Reconnaissance
X
Hydrology
Habitat
Paraneter
Measurerrents
X
X
*Activities should only require one day during each schedule period.
-I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~CHAMNA HYD~OELECT~IC P~OJECT
JOB NO. 14879
MEETING NOTES
DATE:
LOCATION: Anchorage. Alaska
SUBJECT: Ch akachamn• Project ~eview Meeting
PARTICIPANT S:
Alaska Power Authority
Eric Harchegiani
Bechtel
Bob Loder
Dave Cornman
Woodward-Clyde
Wayne Lifton
Larry Rundquist
Hike Joyce
National Park Service
Larry Wright
Alaska Department of
Natural ~esources
Karen Oakley
Alaska Department
of Fish and Game
1Cen Tarbox
Bruce King
Phil Brna
Kevin Delaney
Jim Faro
Gary Lie pi tz
u.s. Fish and
Wildlife Service
Lenny Corin
Gary Stackhouse
National Marine
Fisheries Service
Brad Smith
NA!C
EiTC Meyers
Representatives from Alaska Power Authority (AFA). Bechtel Civil and
Minerals. and Woodward-Clyde Consultants (WCC) presented a summary of
results of the 1982 engineering and environmental studies perfonDed on
the Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project to local. state and federal agency
personnel. The purpose of the meeting vas to provide background
information to new agency perso.mel. to infonD all present of new project
data • and to receive agency inpu t s regarding study results and fu:ure
project plans.
0433J/Rev.2/(0042F)
DDC:hf:l/24/83
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Meeting Notes. Dece•ber 9. 1982 : Job 14879
Eric Marcheaiani (APA) initiated the •eeting by intr oducing those
preaent. A 61-page handout vaa diatribu~~d eontaining detailed drawings
of conceptual fiah paaaage facilities of 1982 fiaheries data and other
relevant infor.ation. Eric then reviewed principal project events which
have occurred aince the laat project review 8eet1ng. December 11. 1981.
Because the Al .. ka legislature provided only S750.000 for FY 1983. m.t.1 ny
engineering and field atudies foreerly planned for evaluation of full
project feaaibility and FERC licensing Yere not performed. APA has
requested S2 .9 •HUon for FY 1984 to carry the proj~ct through FERC
licenaing.
Bob Loder (Bechtel) briefly reviewed the engineering atudies performed ~o
evaluate various dae and tunnel alternatives for developing the
ChakachamrA Lake hydro reaource. These atudies were reported in the 1981
Interim Report. These engineering and cost atudies ahoved that a
Cha~achamna lake tap and tunnel diversion to the adjoining McArthur River
vas the eost attractive alternative for power developeent. A prelimir.ary
capital coat eatiaate of Sl.7. billion vas •rrived at assuming the use of
tunnel boring .. chines.
Loder then provided a detailed review of the fish passage facilit y
concepts developed in 1982. Facility atructures and operation were
described on large eulti-colored vall drawings. Seasonal passage for
downstream and upstream eigrant fish is provided at all projected lake
openting level&. Fish passage facilities consist of a one mile-long
divided tunnel from the lake outlet to a point downstream on the
Chakachamna River. a eulti-level spiraling fish ladder for upstream
eigrants. and two alternative lake outlet facilities for downstream
eigrants .
Wayne Ufton (WCC) presented a brief overview of environmental studies
performed to date on the project. Larry Rundquist (WCC) then aummarized
the results of the 1982 hydrologic studies conducted in August and
October. Gage locations were illustrated. The data base for recording
gages on the Chakachamna and McArthur Rivers vas provided in cverhead
pre&entation. along with a aummary of the ataff gage data base. A
general descri ~tion of flow distribution and aedieent characteristics vas
given based on field obaer~ations and prelieinary data.
Lifton then presented the prelieinary reaults of the 1982 fisheries
program with a alide presentation illustrating the 24 sampling atation&.
Study eephasis vas placed on the Chakachamna River. Fish habitat.
habitat utilization and apavning were inveatigated. Pyke nets and other
gear were uaed in rivers and atreaes and gill nets. seines. and ahocking
were uaed on the lake. The reaults were au~Dmarized in figures (overhead
presentation of graphs) repreaenting each aaepling atation. Preliminary
escapement e&timates were provided in the handout. It appears that only
aockeye and Dolly Varden are found in atreams above Lake Chakachamna.
0433J/Rev.2/(0042F)
DDC:hf:l/24/83
2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Meeting Notes. Deceaber 9. 1 82: Job 14879
The .. jor questions and concerns voiced at the aeeting are liated be ow:
General:
0 !. Marchegiani -The total coat estiaate is based on APA's
economic parameters. Don't compare these coats with those on the
Susitna Project. That would be like comparing apples and
oranges.
Fish Passage Facilitiea:
0
0
Would someone be on site to control the gates?
The ayatem can operated aanually or by autoaatic sensors.
Has this aystem been used elaewhere in 1 automatic mode?
An existing reservoir in Oregon acco1111odatea aimilar change in
water level. A ladder is conventional. however, the water aupply
chambers and openings to the reaervoir are unconventional.
o Has a gated aystem been uaed before?
0
0
0
0
0
Not aure, need to find out.
has been used in the past.
l~ile long tunnel.
This is not exotic -change from what
The aost different feature is the
Is there an auxiliary water aystem to achieve 1,000 cfs?
That is part of the downstream •igrat1on ayatem. and will be
d iscussecl later.
Will a dark tunnel make avoidance probable?
The tunnel could be lighted if neceaaary.
Could this create maintenance problems?
There will be vehicular acceas. Someone would check faciU ties
on a regular basis. The poverhouae operator would check water
levels and gates.
Will the water temperature be regulated in the lover outlet?
No. not as planned. It juat takea vater from the ch~nnel.
W•ter taken fr011 the lover depths vculd be colder. Thermocline
may cause fish to pool up.
0433J/Rev.2/(0042F)
DDC:hf:l/24/83
3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Meeting Notea, Deceaber 9, 1982: Job 14879
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Would thia be a year-round operation ?
Bow will ice and debria be handled in the ayatem (i. e., at the
arate )?
We would probably provide means of eliainating ice and debris at
the intake.
After November 1, no fiah will be going upatream.
Ice is an iaaue that has to be dealt with in the design of the
facilities .
What is the dep t h of the power tunnel intake?
Approximately 150 feet below noraal lake level and below lake
level in the apring.
Will downstream migranu find the power outlet or lake outlet
(attraction)?
Intake aust be designed ao they don't find the power intak e.
What is the poaaibility of varying temperature in the McArthur?
Haven't addressed this problem yet.
Explain the dyke. Where does it terminate?
Protective device for design of fiah channel. Channel has to be
excavated to allow water entry at dayliJht level.
What is cost eatimate of tunnel?
Don't know yet, but there is an advantage of a totally gravity
system (pumps are another option). The water level variation was
raiaed to accomaodate the aravity ayatem. (11~ to 1095').
Will alouah habitat be aodified downatream?
Thia ia another aapect vhich will be addreaaed later.
Fiaheriea Studies:
0 Explain the araphs.
0433J/Rev.2/(0042F)
DDC:hf:l/24/83
4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Meetin& Notea. Dece•ber 9, 1982: Job 1 4879
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
IJ•e fiah count• were .. de on weekly baaia. Counts were plotted
•eraua conaecut1•e days. Area under cu~e: fiah-days, theae are
d1•1ded by the a•ount of ti.e the fiah were in atream and reault
in eati .. ted total nu.ber of live fiah per atream.
Elaentially. the aame technique vas uaed on Suaitna. This
inforwation vas aupplemented with electroahocking. netting and
&round counta. Data &•P• did occur during the September atorm .
Bov .. ny people counted fiah?
'IVo.
Bov did you cover the area?
Helicopter vas equipped with apecial bubble windows. Overflights
were .. de aa alow and aa near to the &round as poasible.
Were there fiah at atreams you couldn't •onitor?
We counted every atream in which apavning fiah were found and
aome where there were no fiah.
Were you aware of when runs began?
We took the helicopter out once a week for the entire schedule,
easentially since •id-July.
It is hard to understand how two people did all that.
Actually, five or aix people were in the field.
covering apavning right now.
Will count data be preaented?
I'm just
Each count will be recorde ~. The hydroacoustic aurvey was
conducted during the fall to ount juvenile diatribution in the
lake (overhead preaentation). We were eventually weathered out.
What i1 the diatribution at 10m ft.? What do the 9 and 12 mean ?
Number of fiah per •3 x 103. Fiah were Jenerally found
deeper than previously expected • to 100 ft. The numbers are 10
ft. deptha intervals. Fiah were ahore-oriented.
o Did you find any lake trout ?
0433J/Rev.2/(0042F)
DDC:h .::l/24/83
5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Meetin& Notes. Dece•ber 9. 1982: Job 14879
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
tea. quite a few.
Did you identify any areas where lake trout were concentrated ?
Ve identified larae concentrations of lake trout in 1981.
How .. ny Dolly Varden were there?
They're residents and priaarily cauaht by aear which &ives
relative abundance. eo can only esti .. te.
Are Dolly Varden the •oat abundant?
Maybe. hard to aay. lots of ali•y aculpin. pygmy whitefish. etc.
Also. lots of juvenile aockeye in lake.
Are escape eatiaates •ini.um numbers and did you only count
clearwater atrea•s?
Clearwater counta were areat. We feel very confident in those
areas. When atrea•s clouded up as in September. counts were much
less reliable. Many cloudy areaa-aide channels were countable
and counts were corrected by sround truthing.
Any spawning in .. tnstream indicated or aeen?
Mainstream areas don't aee• to be uaed. The water was too
turbid, aubstrates we r @ bad for apawning. Only fish we found in
•ainstream weren't ripe Q~ were apawned out (•!grants.).
When was fyke netting started?
August 6.
What was your recovery on tagged adult fiah?
Not counting Dolly Varden. under 150 Peteraen tagged fish.
Of all species?
Of those aalmons that were occurring in .. instream. Not counting
fish tagged on the lake. atreams or aloughs.
General Diacuasions:
Eric Karchegiani (APA) explained project funding. A discussion ensued on
the need to develop a detailed plan of atudy for full feasibility early
0433J/Rev.2/(0042F)
DDC:hf:l/24/83
6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Meetin& Notes, Deceaber 9, 1982: Job 14879
in 1983 prior to continuanc~ of planned field studies. A 2-step approach
to aaeacy review was suaaested:
1) Identify prosram eleaents and set priorities
2) ~rovide detail on •&reed upon list of programs and priorities.
Eric Hyers expressed concern resarding the FERC licensing proc ess on the
Suaitna Project and an apparent lack of co-itaent to ad.equately study
Chakachaana as an alternative to Susitna. Eric Harche&iani assured
everyone that APA ia co-itted to a full feasibility study of Chakachamna
as indicated by ita request for S2.9 •illion for the project in FY'84.
Eric Harchegiani (APA) concluded the ael!tin& indicating that the next
refort will be out by the end of February. There will be a June Addendum
to cover winter and apring vorlt. Please review the fiah and bypass
aystem and &ive us your ideas. We will aeet to diacuss plans for spring
and winter.
0433J/Rev.2/(0042F)
l>DC:hf:l/24/83
7
1.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
( ~~CHHNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
JOB 14879
s .12
MEETING NOTES
DATE: December 11, 1981
LOCATION : Business Park , Anchorage, Alaska
PARTICIPANTS :
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
Carl YaiJagllwa
Don McKay
Ken Tarbox
Kelly Hepler
Larry Heckart
Paul Ruesch
Ron Stanek
Tom Arminski
Bechtel
David Cornman
Bob Loder
SUBJECT: Chakachamna Agency Seeping Meeting
National Marine Fisheries Service
Brad Smith
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Dave Ferrel
Alaska Power Authorit y
Eric Harchegiani
Woodward-Clyde Consultants
Hike Joyce
Larry Rundquist
Paul Hampton
Braxton Dew
Wayne Lifton
Jon Isaacs
Representatives from Alaska Power Authority (APA), Bechtel Civil and Minerals,
and Woodward-Clyde Consultants (WCC) presented a summary of the proposed 1982
biological studies and the results of the 1981 reconnaissance efforts to repre-
sentatives from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), National Marine
Fisheries Service (NHFS), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). The purpose
of the meeting was to discuss and solicit verbal co~ents on proposed biological
studies for the 1982 Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project.
I ·
I
I
I
I
I 0
I
I
I
I
I
0
I
I
I
I 0
I
I 0
I
I
Because the critical reaches include the major spawning,
rearing, and migration areas, and the areas that could
potentially be influenced the most by the project, we feel
that the data gathered will p r ovide enough information
to assess impacts. In addition, if future studies indi-
cate that more critical reaches are needed, we will cons i der
including them.
Will the distribution of age and size classes as well as
the intra-areal movements of juveniles and residents be
investigated?
Through the diverse nature of the collecting gear and the
number of sample sites, age and size class distribution
will be investigated. Local movements of residents and juve-
niles within the study area will not be directly addressed,
because data collected through other aspects of the prog ram
(maintenance of habitats ) will be sufficient t o asse ss
pro ject influenc es on loc al movements.
Sinc e the winter low flow periods are a critical time of
year, will the winter studies be sufficient to evaluate the
effects of altered discharge on the fish populations ?
At this time we feel that the sampling effort planned for
the winter will be sufficient to assess the effects of
altered discharge on the fish populations.
Local fisherman and the resource agencies are perhaps most concerned
about the cumulative effects of the Chakachamna and other Upper
Cook Inlet projects on commercial fisheries.
The comment was noted.
Are the Habitat Evaluation Procedures being applied and what, if
any, changes in the program are anticipated?
The Habitat Evaluation Procedures are being applied. Only two
changes are anticipated.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
0
0
0
1 )
2)
The chang e in hab itat units over the life of the
proj ect will not be calculated because the p otential
effects of other nearby developments (Beluga Coal
fields, timber harvesting, and offshore oil d evelop-
ment) cannot be accurately assessed.
Because the models describing the habitat preferences
of the evaluation species are based on a generalized
niche concept, changes will be made, where necessar y ,
to make the models more applicable t o the preferenc es
o f the speci es in the study area .
Are the transmission line corridor and r o ad right-of -ways
going t o be investigated?
Both will be evaluated b y all disciplines after the general
routes have been det e rmined .
Are a~y environmental studies planned for the marine o r
intertidal z o n e ?
The possibility of spawning, rearing, and migration areas
in the intertidal zone will be investigated. The species
composition and distribution of birds and mamn•als in the
intertidal zone will also be investigated. No studies are
planned at this time for the marine environment.
What facilities are planned for the coast ?
At this time, the only proposed development of the coast
will be a dock and an airstrip near Granite Point .
Will the results of the 1981 investigations be a v ailable
for agency review?
I ·
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
0
0
In January 1 982, the results of the envir o nmental studies
as well as a complete pro j ect description will be sen t
to the agencies.
Will a more detailed 1982 work plan be ava i lable tha t
describes the functions that will be performed by subcontrac-
tors, who the subcontractors are, and what th e approximate
level of effort is for each sub-task ?
A new work plan will not be prepared. However, a lis t of
subcontractors and their obligations will be sent t o the
agencies along with a schedule of the approximate level
of effort apportioned to each sub-task.
Will an Agency Task Force approach be instigat e d t o coo rdi-
nate agenc y input t o mitigative measures ?
If the agencies choose that approach, APA, Be c htel, a nd
Woo dward-Clyde are willing to work with the Task Force .
When , where, and how many public meet~ngs are planned ?
No specific times, dates, places, or numbers have been
determined. However, due to the special interest of the
people in Soldotna, one of the meetings may be held there.
The representatives from the agencies agreed to submit further written
comments after they had reviewed the results of the 1981 investigations
and reviewed the preliminary project designs. They will each submit
comments to their supervisor and one letter from the head of each agency
will be submitted to the APA .
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CHAKACHAMNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
JOB No. 148 79
MEETING NOTES
DATE: December 10, 1981
LOCATION: Business Park, Anchorage, Alaska
PARTICIPANTS:
Name
Bob Loder
David Cornman
Mike J oyce
Chuck Holmes
Dave Z-tobraten
Bailey Breedlove
John Isaacs
Organization
Bechtel
Bechtel
Woodward-Clyde Consultants
Subcontractor to Woodward-Clyde Consultants
Anchorage District Office of the
Bureau of Land Management
National Park Service
Woodward-Clyde Consultants
SUBJECT: Human Resour~es Scoping Meeting .
Representatives from Bechtel Civil and Minerals and Woodward-Clyd e Consultants
(WCC) presented a summary of the proposed 1982 Human Resources studies and the
results of the 1981 reconnaissance program to representatives of the Anchorage
District Office of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the National Park
Service (NPS). The State Archaeologist was unable to attend the meeting .
An introduction describing the project, team organization, and potential
development schemes was provided by Bob Loder . This included conceptual
design and locations of the project alternatives. Mike Joyce presented a
general overview of the environmental program, followed by Jon Isaacs, who
discussed the 1981 Human Resources reconnaissance and the 1982 work program.
The agency representatives each had received a copy of the 1982 proposed work
plan prior to the meeting. At the conclusion of the presentations, the agency
representatives were asked to supply oral and subsequently written comments
expressing their concerns with the proposed hydropower project and the proposed
human resources work plan for 1982.
The major concerns expressed orally at this meeting are listed below:
~LM
o mineralization of the area, and potential resource extraction
should be investigated .
o impacts on fish and wildlife resources are likely to be the
big issue ; economic impacts on the Cook Inlet fishery should
be determined.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~s
o with regard to permits, it is likely that no permits for 1982
studies within the power site withdrawal will be required . Out-
aide of the withdrawal, permits will be required for activities
involving significant surface disturbance, such as drilling
or road construction .
o input from Cook Inlet Region Inc. (CIRI), Tyonek Native Corpora-
tion (TNC) and the State of Alaska should be solicited.
o maps conveying land to the Native corporations and state should
be checked for road and powe rline easements.
o concerning project construction and operation, waste disposal
from tunnel construction will be an issue of concern. BLM would
have no problems with road construction within the power site
boundaries.
o use of the project rela~ed roads and where they might put use
pressure are of concern, particularly in the vicinity of Chaka-
chamna Lake , where ~ake Clark National Park could be affected .
o the potential drawdown of Lake Kenibuna ~y the project needs
to be investigated.
o interest was expressed on Mt. Spurr's influence on the proje c t.
o potential effects t o salmon runs enterin6 Lake Clark tl ational Park
(Kenibuna Lake ) will be investigated.
o potential impacts to the project from glaciers and volcanic activity
were noted.
o situat1on problems similar to those anticipated on Susitna, may
occur on the Chakachamna Project.
In addition to these comments, several questions where asked about the
biological (winter fish distributions, peregrine falcon) and engineering
(tunnel construction) aspects of the project.
·I
I
~
-I
I
-------
AUUL FlAt.T FICT•.r.:
CV[PLI.if FHT ::P.: l . ' ..
''. . -'
FRitliU L C~! ttrrrltiF U : e iU~L 0~!7 :..
POt.HU LCft fJCl(P ~:
of • 0 •, ~ r .u:: • f • l ,H ~ ·" ~ ~
Hoi 1 I Al" l "'r. ~lOtH :••17 !1 t . AC•f l
f'UI"U" LHf 5lCPHr : !.!-l1l ~t. ~t:-fl
.. ., ... u .. UKf s trr. rcr :e•l7!tCo at•fl
• c c n
------llf•HI H 'IA ~ll '.ffl ll fll ~TIOt. !;lUrY
1/l oiHio '·!!I TI"l fi~JlH'H i~l.l ~ Hlo o Ho
t I '!-.I; t r C V k II: 11 Cl-In
----
.. --.. -UTL . 10~1!..
~llfl !.tll \'~ a : l't l~liU~ !';lf.P T l lJ P'IIIlt WIH FI H R[L(AS[S
... ---·--------------
•• q ~ .r.;: .~H • 1 P r 7' • . .
--
FAG(
.. .. -..
f !I C .. I r 1 1 .. 1-1 ' ·I 1 l
H.FlfW ~ 11 11 1' 1 /H Ir I"
C'
('
('
('
('
(•
(·
(·
0
D
0
YUR
I ·
1
f
l (
. I 1
1 <
1 ~
! 4
l ~
If
17
tr
l ~
c ~
; I
c ~
! I
c. t 1 ~· •
i r ! ' .... t ,.
''•! Cf.
; 1 ( ~ •
;t..tt.
4 ~ .... ~ •
~ lj t;, •
:! 1 ;.'" •
! f .., 7.
Jf I 1,
t :f !'.
If 1 1o
I r. • ( •
I ;: l'l •
I I·',.'.
: t ! l •
r ' c. f •
1' .. ~.
:; f ~ •
q( t!.
! ,, I I •
; 1 ! 1 •
tt ;.l".
471· 4.
~; ... ~ .
r ., • ~ ... ... .. -.
~ ~, 7.
• 11 f •
! ~ i 1.
t 7H.
1:. ( ••
' l ~I
} I i; ' '
I .,·'
) . , i' .•
• :, c.,
l !: II j I
. " ~ .
, f ; ( •
7 '· i c •
1 41 l i •
r c ! ( •
': "!. «: •
.;. : , 1 •
7 c. f-! •
7 • ; r •
4 1 ~ ~ •
I : c ~ •
! If~~.
I ' ; ; •
r 1 f 1 •
1 f t I ,
': ;.: 7 1 •
, 11 c •
1 ~ ( ; ' •
I .. ; I ,
1,. ~ ; •
f :til .
l : L 4 < •
I ·' ~ 1 •
l':t£~.
7 r l 1 o
P'. 1 l.i ,
..
'"' y
1' : ( ~ •
1.'' l c 41 .
1 .' ( t ~ •
l ; .. 7! •
1 ~ -~! !: •
I ; I ' I,
l ··I C I •
! ! 1 4 ~.
I , I ~ '•
l ~!FI:.
J 1 ; • ':.
I ;: f t! •
! .' 1,. c .
J !C 't ~.
1 . 1 ~ c.
llt!!.
1 ; ! \ ! •
1 '• ~.! 1.
I~ I !1.
1 ~0~.
1, ! ,. '· •
1!£.~!.
1:::,. ~ :.
l F ~ ~,
( 7 p 1 •
1 '. ~ F; ~ • ,...!{-.
l.!E ~l.
I ! I• f •
P~! b
1 ~~~ c.
• 11 I •
.. .. .. .. .. -r 1 : ~. ~ r 1 ~ I· r. 1 r r • , 1 < 1 r r r •· 1 1 1 ~~ r. ~ ll. r. v
i I • · r r I •' ~ f I 1 ~ l C I II I L ' I' I r. r II A l ~ I P, C • • ~I •
tlt ::~t r(.loH' f.ll liC II JH
-...
qlor~t.11V' (: ~(H lll!l< ~I OR 1 1 1J~~(l• lotH FIH R(l£ASlS
- --
PJGf
a r. ~I (. c 1 r.r.11 r.r c ..... fth ----14Ui ---AFA--J'f[.YR OLYR
I !f I ~ ,
• I ~ 1:; I
1 1 .'1 .
t ,, , 1 •
1 ; I ( <l ,
1 ;, ,, ., •
C.';f.''
) .. ; ~ r •
1 ~ Ia ( ~ •
1 ' r 1 •
117!1 •
c.~! 7 •
lf(<<;?,
I : • I I •
l ;: l ,, •
111 ~ (1 •
11';,~.
~ r 1 q •
l~f:~!":.
I I ;:~ 7.
7;';7.
7 ~ f: ( •
lEE H . c;: f ., •
11 ( •:.
!-1 ~q .
EH2.
f ~ r-•
__ 11 ~,~.
1 ~ ( ~ •
~ 1 ~ 7.
i ., ' ••
f o I ' i •
r: 'r. •
., c ( •
4 L
r • 1'
' '· '· ..
I -:.I : •
.'it I :-e
! 1 r ; •
! ] ,, •.•
(..; :-I e
r r 14 ~ •
~ ; /j 7 •
'• (.lr ~ •
ltc _:.
( ( . p .
( 1': 1 •
~ 7 '· -~ •
t. 1 '.' ~ •
: 1 " 4 •
~ ( l:..
c.: 1;.
~ 7 ~ '• •
f r r \.·.
~ 1 ' 1.
't'"47 .
u:..~ •
,. ~ 1 ...
1t ~ I ?.
~ 1 7 7.
lHHe -~~~:<:.
,. ) ! (" • ;. 7 .. lj •
; i f ,. •
I {l ) •
.t ; 1 ( •
: ; 1 ; •
, 7 ,. 7 •
; '-? •
: 1' 7.
I I 'i ~ •
J ~ 7 0 .
l 4 .., r •
l ~ p ( •
I I ~ 1. =' e £.
1 ... 4 r •
• 114.
) c ~ :'.
; r 4 C •
t; 7 f •
~~~1.
l!'.:C,.
! lE 1 •.
~., c; f •
( '. ~ 7 •
~r c c ,
! 1 ~ E •
?~17.
.! 1 c c;_. -·
! ? c; f •
4 4 71 •
I' t;:.
r.,.c..,
I 4 ; •
I• f r. •
f ~':.
7 !.. '-.
~c.;~.
r J. ~ •
7 t.J ~.
r:. ;', •
~!.~.
7 q c. •
l · 4 ~.
""~· 'J :!: r .
r, r«;.
~9 7 •
'· J (.
1 ~ 1 ~.
f.Pc;.
I ;> 1 '. •
7 11 ;>.
lL'. ~.
( 7 ~ •
74 c.
~ 1 ~.
I C <.F .
-·-'.. 2 ' •
7 t l'.
I 4 1 2 •
F2P .
( 'l'l .
~4 ;>,
~ ~ 0 •.
£ 1 'i .
~~;>.
C" ( • ..,.
c. ( ~ •
411 3 .
~ ~B •
EH .
1'56 .
"1'.
11 ~.
(f-2 .
4H:o
? I '•
! 71 •
~ 1 2 .
f n .
4 ~ c •
7 !£.
~ 1,..
6~3 .
!~0 .
( 22.
t r ~ ~.
7C ~ •. -
7 c 1 •
1'1'2 .
f 2 1.
5''· 4 q~.
,.~ 0.
". ' '-.
~~7.
">1P .
C;O '•
"-= r,.
CS:E q •
41'F,
47 ~.
•<J~.
1111.
~ 72.
507.
47!.
5.3 f.
51 C.
49~.
4':0.
~67.
1111.
~41.
{~I •
!ilO •
6111.
11 5f~_54~.
4E:E:. llf7.
~~6.
~~f .
6 75.
~!~A.
!f !>O.
~!?1!.
! ! 11 •
11<!>7.
H71.
!!C9.
! ee 3.
HE:Se
4 ~£. '6 P . ••~• ~C ~. ~C9 2 e
~~~o . .3C7·----2~7 ___ 35.3. _ !!22.
~71. 58~. 470. 346. !29 ~.
6~~. 5~1. 471. 470. ~7 !1 3.
·~e. 351, 31 !. !!7. !!39.
3~11. 4 35 . 3!2. 477. !!9@.
4t~. 21~. 337. 3~e. ~4os.
Je e. .3!f:...__3sc .___uo. !{so.
5~1. ~~~~~. 3PII. eeo. ~!23.
5!~. SICa 4£7. 6!0. 4465.
liP "• liP(. 5CC, 6!2o !!31.
~~1. so~. 5~o. e~9. !426.
J CIIo 1141o SJ!o 1275o 2 94~o
set •. ___ s..l.1..__4'3:....__!tl5. __ 4~40.
ll'l !. 49 2 . •ec. se£. !759.
5 !t>. su. sn. ss4. •~2!.
~5 P. liPS. liP.!. 4f'J. !C5"1.
544. 524o 4c;p, 625o 37Sr.
l u••· 77!. 6rf. 606. !!56.
c.cs. ______ 5.!.l.____!i,5·---~a. !!27.
5 r,7. 562. 547. 71.3· !!76.
.1 ~2. 7lt'e 647. P10e !~73•
~65. .! 71! 1.
1 0! 5 • ·-_l U 4 II • __ U.1..a ___ 6 4 1 a----1 2.1.5 . .__ _ ! ! 2 7 •
219. 2£.7. .!.!7e <S23.
19!C
19 5 1
1'3!-2
1<;5!-
1'3!4
1c;!!>
J<j5£.
1<;5 7
1 '958
19 5 9
l".l£ 0
1'961
1'962
1"163
1'96•
11j6 !>
1 '366
1 '9f.7
1 '56 8
1'9f.9
1"170
1'H1
1 '972
1'17 ~
1<;74
1'97 5
I '176
1977
197e
1979
I 'I PO
-.. ,
,
'
(1
0
0
0
('
UC..ttt l4fHI; I
" ,. •n"vc a• f.trHf'-£LI ~~ tJ\'t,•HO:
C' At·· t
!o
«' ,r cc.:.
7~~~.
ClC~t.
f'o 111 7~(.
c41l :r.
!'Ol '.:t.
!l~:~c . (' ll~:···
~~! ~tt.
(' t;~-:·lL·
I4C7 Ji~o
111H'.~•
(' l~l!~:t.
~C!~' .. :·,
C!t•t~r.
C' :lHC'Co
!~!~:.;"'.
!~!~\:c. • !f&:o~c.
!q·or~.
4clr.~t~. • -=~"'(!t.
•Ul7~ ~.:..
" •rr t
•• ··~· :Ho , ...
•• "UHL• ftlklf'L"
•
~. l •
• ' . : ..
•
rro 1
H •
"lIt t
il '. ,, ~ .
f ~ ' • ' ; ~ .
Htl o
l·t \ •
H :o
~ .. .....
t;; ~ •
~-~ . r' .. t
~ .. :.
I ''. . . .
1 :" ~.
I! .. (.
1 • • L t
1 • r · •
! I · .. •
11 ;, .•
11" .•
11"; •
lit;!,
en.
: .
! :'(( •.•
Jt.! ll<f,.
' . .
I o
• •
lfH
. . '11. t •• " . "'' .
CL~:.
! , , : • ., ~: ..
Ul :o
r .. r' .. ,. ....
J:•t ·.
ll!:.~t •
,,~, ..
1;~;:,
t : I 8 r t
l: ... ,. (. •
1 ~ ~' ! •
1.!!::.. r
p;.-~.
!?t;,_,
!•llt.
! • !':!:.
,.,~:.
1Utto
t•u~.
I Ho\~o
HU S u
f.
tr ~;:
~ . : .
r~·~,r~,,~, Fac,tct t,taattck st~r'
•". ·'~' ,, rc•Hl CI\H,,.JP.£11AL!: ur •• H.
I Lt.~ I( e "t ~(II l C 1 Hie J tl , .. ,
---.------.
--------.... _ ....
..... __ .. __ , . ------------------
, . c •
•·,
( .
Cl
a
-.. -.. --
lt.rlfW~ 1• 11 r 1 rH If r• •
--.. ---C I :.~.HI u :r.t tl:t"d Cl ff(ll/.llr.t. ~11;tY
itt• F.r.fol~(l Hl (J~JlHJHIOl~ JP,CotSfo
tl t r.U 1'(.1o.[R 1-l r fl .f.R llY
--
1-lltr~t.ll~f 1: I'CHltllli !">l(lAl lllt'il.tlt IIIH FTH ll[l[UtS
-----••
(' c
•
!.
('
('
(·
c·
! 1
0
c
D
... ,
• ,. 1 ~.
c ·r~.
!II" I.
;r ;1.
. ~ '· .J; •
!It!•.
; 1 ,. ~.
~ .. ~· t •
·~t;~.
~It G I •
~1;,~.
! f ~ 7.
1' I 1,
1:, !-.
1f "l·
1 (· • t.
l~l'lo
1 ,. '., ~·.
= \! t.
, ( c f •
~·~t:.
; ; f ~.
4t(l!.
! • , "'.
'1! 1 •
.. ;. 1 ... •11·•.
~;f-~.
~!..'!..
~! ,. 7.
~11f-.
! ~ i l.
t 1lf..
1 ' ( !·.
' l ~ r
I ( ; ; ' • . : , -: .
1 \ ; i ~.
•·; , ...
1!: t,; •
r,: l ; •
, ' :I..
74; ~ •
1*1 l;.
c: ': ~ ( •
': 4t!. t;.
1 '. f!.
7 '', I •
• 7! ~.
,. : c!.
!-~~.
f , ; ; •
f'H io
1 I ll •
•.: ;.· 7 1 •
( 11 < •
I:; f ; < •
,.. ~;, .
1~~1. , : "I •
I :(.*' •
f' ~ l.
l'H£• •
1' ll.
I'~ , ••
,., ,. -:, .
~LI y
1 r ~ C ~ •
L' l c ••
1 ..' ( t ! •
l; .. 7 ! •
JZ~~~.
1; I r I •
1:-:f',:.
14ft 1.
I !I*~·
!. H !,
l;.!F£ •..
II<.~ •
1:-H£.
!.~I-··
l.!C«t~.
1 :1~C.
llt! :.
ll!\~.
111~!1.
1!111·
l<•lh
] ( ! 'r:.
l!(c; !.
1:·~~.
11fl! •
I ! ~ .,. •
I ' ~ 1 •
c Q! 1 •
1 ; , (". ';, ,.,.,.
c. t; f 1' •
J~;~~.
~~-cc,
r, • 1 •
117!1.
~!!1.
Hn~.
I : • II •
1 ; ~ l •••
117H.
11~2-:.
~· H•
l~l~~.
11~!7.
1;~1.
1~ F(,
. lEE H.
If~~. HC ~.
flPJ, fH'I •
l'.~P.~. EH2•
f'!C'• fit~-.
.l!Hl•---lH£11.
J ~1•f· lJ(';.
l!~!t. H~7.
~I I 1
f 1' ' ...
/i • •• 1 •
r; ''" •
~' ( :: . ,. ~: ' . ( ·1··.
c : •· :•.
.' .,, ; .
!. f' ; •
!. 1,. ~ •
(. c;! •
'"•::.
! I~ 1 •
'• ~~~ ~.
HE-~ •
(,. p.
(1':1.
; 7 ~ .! •
c 1 ·}.~.
= 1 ~ ...
!l7!.
~ : 1 ; •
< I '-" •
f r •· t·.
!; J( ., •
•"•1· H::.~.
.. !: , ...
~~12·
! 171.
l'!::cH•---HUG•--l~f :c.
•·HI. f.l!'"• <1'~.
c.c 1
:, ' r..
! 7' I •
.' ~ lf·.
; i 1 ; •
,. .....
' 1 ,. 1.
! .·.~-, t:.
; · . ..:.!.
~ 7 ~ 1.
II 'i ~ •
J ~ 1 Q •.
l .. "r•
I~ P( •
II o; 1.
:ceb
t.c:"
,. ~'. t,,.. t..
f. It;. ,. "'!·.
f-2').
7!. ~.
!,CI!:e ,.,.!.
7 'J !.
!=o ;'( •
E:!. ••
1 .....
t·-:!.
,.,.,~.
'J ~ r •
1 -: •& • '· rc;.
aH. ~97.
1C!!o 'J JCo
;r.-o. 121!.
~1f. ,. .. ~.
!~!:7. 1 2 1!.
1!t;r;, 1"'·
! tEl •.. ---1L~! •
#~'H• f7~.
i!~l. lit(,
!r~ e.
! 1.! E •
!t; 11.
.! 1 c ~ .. ~-· ·---.!1 2£.
!~!:1· • 7LPo
uu. 1'12.
-•u· 'lfo
fi2P.
r.rt ,_, .. ___ .... ___ .,.._-
f!,_, ~-2. •REo '9.!, !'1• -!-~.
~3 ;, "q~. •12. -~o. E.!1. ~f50.
f ~q. ,.!0. ··~· •67. 510. ·~1~.
f•?· ~~.!L 4llo •11. 641a .!!1lo
~'!Do --·-'!cl• •u• --•5t-!Ue --H57.
fl~. ~lP, 507, •Efo 4f7e 4C7Io
~~?. ~o•. 47!. ••~· •~6. .!~C9.
•t~. ~~·· 53f• 5C!• !~Pa ~ff3e
cr.;. ~Eq, 51Co •P~. 67!. 4ff5•
"v3, "'E• "6f'o ··~• ~~~. ~~92o
~~s. .-co... .l01·---2U ___ .uJ. !!22.
flO. ~11. 58~. 470• 34E• !29~.
E:~6. 6~!. 5"1• 471o 471• !7~3o
f1•. ••a• 3!7. 31!. .!.!7. !~39.
11n. 3~"• 43~. 3~2. •11. ~!91.
£~2. •••· 21~. 3!7. 3~e. ~•e5.
41':6o 3ae.---3!t--~C· Ut.-!t51o
!13. 5~1. ••~· 38"• eeo. ~!23.
!71. 5!•· 510. ••1• •~e. •••5•
~12. •P~. "'(• ~tc. t!2• .!!31.
trt. •~1. 50"• 5!0. IIJ9. ~•2•·
*I':C. 3~*• 441• 51~• 1275• 294~.
l!E •. __ 5P1•-----5.U--4!1· t.n.... __ ·~···
!J•. ·~~. ••2. •ee. !16. !7~9.
623t !!Po 52fa 5t1. !!4. 2•2!.
!~O. •~P. 4P5a 4P!. 4f9e !t5~.
f22• 5••· 52•· ••P• 625. !l~e.
tr~~. to••· 77!. •r•. •••· !!56.
lCC•··-··-6C.S. ____ !I•J. .5,S._!!Ie ___ !!Ue
7C1, 5q7, 562• 5'7• 713• ~!76.
Pf'2t .7!:2• 11P. 6U, Ule ~'73.
HI• "'1· !U. !7~1.
10~5. ___ tuH. __ z..u...___,4l~2n . .__ !~n.
~1~. ~f-. 21~• 2E7• !!7• 2523•
19!C
1951
U!-2
U5~
U!4
1'~!1
1956
1957
t95fl
U59 nu
1961
1962
"'" 196•
11J65 ....
190
uu
19U
1~70
197l
1972
U7!
11)74
1975
1916
1917
1911
1979
1UO
G
• •
0
(
(
('
(
(
( ! I
( ·.
c
0
(
J •· ~ ••
1 ': ,._ (.
I c < I •
I, I· I •
1 '.;: ~ J •
1 .... ~.
I c I I.
1 ~ 1 r .
1"'! .. .
l c: ~-.. .
)': 71.
1 r ~ ( •
1 ~ f ".
J t 1"' ••
1 ~ J ;. ••
.. u.•
17~E.
I ~ l' •
I" ( •
I I t : •
I . li: •
I I ; ...
II £! •
I Hl.
I I r ~ •
: ~ ; ...
ll r; •
. ! ! ' ~ •
1 : ~ ..•
I'· tr •
1·7~.· 11·•1.
l':f<o,•\'> .a~;l.-
! c 77 ••
1 C"', ~-.
1" f c .
1 c '· ~.
1 r r .! •
1 ';' 7.
!r ~J.
I' 1 7 •
1,. ~· t:.
! ....... t;.
l ~ .. ..
1~!ll .
1" .. ;:.
1 ':!f .•
1 r-c '· •
1' , " •
~ t ; ( •
! $ ': , •
I I i i,
! f · ~ , .•
! 1 I ! •
II f1 •
II Ho
II • f •
1; ,, ~ •
17~!.
I I ~I o
1 .. !! •
1HC:o
-... t.-1.-Y
l 7".
11F;.
I H ~.
! 71' lo
ll!l.
l H 1.
I l <; f •
1Hh
1 n •· 117 c;.
.J , .. ~.
l~t~.
I 1" • •
I P: lo
u! r.
II : • •
1~!;-·
I ~ l I •
! Hlo
I H !o
Ji";~.
I 1 ~ "•
1 1!: t.
1 71[.
u 1<.
I I' I~ •
1 7! l.
171'.
llll.
1711.
I 7f ~.
llf!<.
(l:~tC I t~l: rPr.,rrt fJ.IP.tttr.~. C::lUI:Y
llltl'l.l•'l:'ll'l Cl\'llfiiiHFt.l ~ Uc •• ~F .
tlb !-Kt rt~on. t~ott.Ck "' ------Ul t...--U.U!.----F AGt
tll"'l.f.IIH 1.: HHliUH S IC:Iil .lt.NHlo loll .. FIH R(l[lS[S
-·--·--
--·II.{. ~'' r• t -·--C:~J ---.~4:11 -·--rr.~ -·-.-.lAt.--.. f~l.-.t---.UII---••~-· HlYI -UUII
II l C •
II 1 'o
I I' l'i .
!I H •
lL 1.!.
l(·, 1\.
11; ~.
.! • t• •
l f lilt
;c ....
;. , ' 1 •
J ~,. &: •
~. l ...
; ~: ~.
:=f\2.
11~2• ;Cl !:.
II ; {; • ---· ; tl II •·
lf-11 ;'.
l f I C: •
1~<!-.
II 11 3 •
l t ! c •
lHf .•
~~~~ ....
l j ~ f •
Ill I.
H!t ..
If~~~ •
1 H! •.
I I ll •
II ! r; o
'~ 1f.
UH.o ·u ! ~ •
1f u •.
1,. ~~.
H 1e.
1 f· ~~.
~ ~ ....
H ·7•
C ! r F •
~ ,. I '•
l~h7o
; r. ! •
; = ':-. : u 7.
; ~ 1 7.
; ( : 1.
;~:.f.
C ~ r •
; :I' •
C ~(-Pe
~:·~:.
; r 1 a •
,. r t r
c .. --. ; ., l.
H I r.
; ! ! 'i.
; ~ 1 1 •
-· .!111 .. c! llo
; .! 1 l.
;~rt. ~·~'· ~73~.
~~~2. 2S~9. ;756o
~L~lt 2r;~'• ~13'•
~~rt. ;s~~. ~7!q.
---.,.o:o--.2'i6fJ •. _-£1~2·---·
?~~2. 2~~4o ~74Go
;~~o. 2~6~. c1~~.
~~f~. ;q6~. 27~1.
;~Rio ;r;~~~. ~liiOo
c!l!o c6r;t. 2C:~6. ~7~f.
:!17.---*"~'•· -· -=~u .. _ -HU·---c ~ llo
;!Jf..
; ~If •
·~·~~· : :' 1 fl.
;:1-·-
~!t•.
; ! 1'.
~f.D!-= a
~"9!.
~ ,, r.l.
2 1·1·7.
;"f 0 f a
~f .f:t;i. ,,.,..,.
:-c;~q.
?H1o
~~73.
;-:~9.
;'1:;71.
;r.1-5,
; ' ( '.
;c ~7.
~ r J. ' ..
<l~Q.
c 7~ c.
~ 7!" c;.
; Hf • < 70.7.
-C1~2··-·
~ 7! '· c 7~! • ; 7f".
~7~~.
2Hlo
26lllo ?36Co 21~4. ~~42o
~~3~. 2~7~. , •• ,. ~~7··
26l2o 2l~'• 21!3o ~~~~.
2~1~. 23~~. 21~3. ~~71.
262f-~!Ho 2U!--cae.
26lllo 23~Co 21~•• ~~6~o
2627o 2374o 2147o ~ella
262!. ~37to 21•3• ~ell.
26lilo 23lC• 21~!o :~61•
'~!lo '!lfo 214~o :ello
UlJ~lU-.2Ul---· Hila
2622• 2~f7• ?14le 22~3,
262~• 237Co 214•• ccl9o
?6!4o 23PCo 21~•• ~el~.
26cco 23f~. cl4!o eel~.
2~3!o 23P~. 21!3o ce85o
a-..--237~--2U'-a--U'lo
;62!o ?372o 2l44o c~l2o
c61fo 23f•• cl~lo c&lle
264~. 2~f7o 2151i c~84o
260~. 23!!• 2121o eel~.
26•1• 23Pfo 21!•• 2el6o
~! J c.
; ! ?t.
:!tt:.
:.! 1 '.
.... fo ( •
; H"•
; (. 7':.
; 7( c.
;f.6t.
; f f·! •
~ (,n C •
;>~·Ill.
;~11'3o . ---27!4o .. 264.5o.----23!!--21!J .. ___ uu.
: ! 11.
; • 1 1 ....
;!c':.
c•rt.
::!n. -·
;~~G.
:.!::~.
'"'''· <HGo
;f.Cla
; t,r;..
i'f: 71'.
a .e1.
~~~'lo 474fo
'r,f.llo n~o.
;~c,, ;Ho.
c<;E I •
27~'1.
2121.
2747.
'62lo 2Jf.7o 214Do cello
2624• 23f~o 2142o cello
26l4a 2360o 2134e c279a
c6l4o 236Go 21!•• 226~.
2~~e. 23•;• 2111. ««61•
.. aUo.----23.!l--2l.Ue..--.U!S2e
2£13. 235Po 2lllo c26!o
260Co 2345o 21Jie 2256e
u-.. ;ns.
U!SO
I'J~I
I'J!S£
19~3
19!14
1'15!-
19!6
U~7 .. ~.
1'9!111 nu nu
1962
I'Jf 3
1'64 ... ~ ....
I'JU nu .. .,
UJG
1971
1912
197~
1914
197~
Ul6 nn
1911 .,.
nee
H!.<. •. -·-lllf .• c ~~!!.
I • '· 1o
~!2~ •.
~ .. ~ :-.
'HJ ... ___ .Hu •. _ a•.!._ .. _.Jlflo---2.1~.__ &as.
111:. ~~4~. 2727. 2~''• 234co 2117. 2242•
o,
oa
•
o,
0
0 ,
.. --\.'
0
('
(l .
Fllt .. rc 1 1 -r-1<: :.1. 1
!Pill H cr~
'""
< .
(.
" ~
l ~
··---11
l<
1~
1-
1 ~
:F.
11
1''
·~ .. c.
~I <.
-.-4!
--;!
Cf
;1 .,.
--C~
~-
!l
1 ... c:..
(·. ...
r,.
~.
~.
~.
' .
(.
0 .
t.
\ ..
t.
l •
(.
' . ;.
r •
'· ( .
: . .. ...
~. . ..
( .
~ .
~.
i .
c.
:: 1 •
l !;L~.
( .
---------(I;,, HI ti'H f'lli .. Ffl ll'rPitlU. StUr:Y
I II o' ~ cr o r• r fl t t:l C l ~ 1l '-''I"' E P 'l !' U C • tHo
ALHIU ~titeR ~UliCI,lll
------
-Uft . U!ll-----
.. L&.Y -• --AI.C . ·-oiU. Fu ___ ,. .. ___ ,..,, .. ____ nu11 uu•
7•·Ho lc•111o F1llo !;~7o l~o Oo Oo Do a, ao Do ~fl1o
~. Fc!o lfHo 1-1~. to ~. ~. Go Co Co Do fZ3o
(o !«llo !~ll!o •!lllo •-;-. Co Oo Do Co ~. Do 1269o
!'o £11~7. ,. •. ,., ~F • Oo Co Co Co fo ao ~16o
C • 7f.f,Jo -... l.~Clo .111" ~ o -t .. ___ ---Co -·------Do ----Oo ..... --C---Co Do ---1414o
Co -~1. ~1•11• <r.H·o l11o {o Oo Oo llo Oo lo la51o
r • c. F ! 1 1 • 1 ~(. c • o. ~. o. e. a. r o o. E 11.
~. 7F,.. 1~;~:. :;f~t1. -:. t. c. n. t. a. o. •11.
Co Pll~'• 7•~7. !flllo ~lo Co ~. Co Co 'o Do lf41o
Co Co !~'f• !'<.!o Oo to Oo Oo Co Oo lo 411lo
Lo ------t---.l•U••-----t~'"··--·---Do -------Co Oo ----0•---·----D-o l!o D&--.152o
~ o Co cfffo ~·-. r, to ~. Oo ~. llo lo 2•~•
c. r.. f~lllo !):7. ~. c. o. .c. o. e. l!o ••2.
(. Co !l!lo :--•1• t'o Oo Oo Co Oo '!o Co f'l•
c. Co -;cu. :n-1. o. c. to o. Oo Co Co !19o
·• ·• ~~7~. 11-~. to Co Oo lo Co eo Do !59o .•. ------4.---! u •...... 11~1. ------to--·-··--c. a •------o •------~ •· lo ___ ,,zo
'• ~. ~fa. !"\1• Co Co r. c. Co Go a. !211o c. llil'l. t;rc~. ~t~~. o. r. o. c. c. Co Do tel!o
:. ,.... f!!?o '· c. c. c. o. r. to Do .,.1.
lo Co ~7!2o ~. 72o Co Oo lo Co llo lo 134o
I. ~. c~l<;. ·• n, Co Co lo Co Go lo l•lo
•• -~14••---l!H!.o --l~l!o !C.l -----Co --t~. -Co'----Go Go I. ll4lo..
~. ~~!;. f!!J. t<•~. Co c. Oo r. Go Co Do ~~'•
Co Co Oo Co Co Co Oo lo Go Do Oo lo
·.• :. !o ;"'• ~"•• to Co fo Go Oo Oo !16o
t. !CE!o !lf2 o :!.!. llf2o r. ~. lo Oo fo Do fDio
'• r. ;f !~. Jf•b· ~~-£. c. ~. fo c. c. o. • •••
(7 1 :. lltl~o ~!1~•-£q_l. lC!lo -lo ~. Co _ _. .c.__ _ __l __ £!11o
F7<• ~<4 P o I~ ~. :@ -. C. ~. ~. Co Go Oo f~lo
'• !':(!. ·~-!o \b'f·o ll':!o fo ~. ~. Go Co lo '3lo
• 11 •
7 1!7£.
~.
l.:.lll lt o
(.
l!i~!.
; ' I • c.
. c.
(.
~.
t'o
c 0 Go Oo •• ....
--' ..__ ___ c._.. ___ _.a .__-a Uo
e. •• •• c.
U50
1!51
19!2
1953
1954
1955
1956 .,51
19!1 .,!,
nu . .,,.
l~t2
1'6! ....
l"!
"" .,.1
nu .,,,
1911!
1'11 nu
U1!
an•
U15
1916 nn
lUI
.~,.
Ullt'
-
••
G
G
Q
•
a
0
•
0
0
0 0
0
\.
l .
(·
(
(
(
(
(
(
(_
--UU:
l
If
11
1:1
I!
141
1!
It
--. --11
H
I~
; .
. ' , .
! I
1 : t; ••
1 : r 6 •
t l' '· ...
J . ,.._4.
1~~-.
J I ...
I :~-.
1 . l It.
1 : ~·.
] I '•• •
!:.\1•·
1 : r q •
l (" '· 4t.
1 ~ , ....
1! r. ••
1 .. ,. .. .
1 : ,, .. .
1 , ,. -.
J , • ....
1 \: '· ••
J'Lfte
I . •." •
1i.t:6.
1 ~r,••
H' q.
J!"r, ••
l " •.••
1 r r: 6 •
1 t ., -.
1 ( ., -.
I to;•,
: . ~,..
J r; , ••
I.~~.
' , 4.
I I ~-.
I r If •
J '; ••
' t;.,. •
l . ' .. 4.
1 ':,. •
1 ~ ...
I . ~ • •
I . ~ ~ •
I t ~ • •
I .. ~' • -
J • r II •
l . ~ ••
1 ~ f! ~.
·~~-. J ·t"··
lc. ': 4.
I ""••
I ! ~" •
I :~-•
1 . c ••
I 'c • •
I ~ ~ • •
1 . c ••
1 ( t".
,.llY
1 ~ ': ••
1 r r. • •
J : ( ••
1 , ': 4.
1 : •• ~.
1 ~ c: ••
H~ 4o
1 '5 ••
1 ( ~-.
l c ~ ...
l c,. It.
1 '~c .. .
1 ~ ~ .. .
! ~ ~ ••
tr -; ••
"~ -· a;~,.
I ( ~ '•
I c. c ~.
1 ~ r • •
1 c ~ ••
1 ·: t; ~. . ~ ~ ..
I :~ '•
It~-·
1 ( ~-.
1 ( '·-. ~ ~ ~ ..
-l; r; •• -
J : ~ ••
J~r;-.
o :~~rtHr .~ nt..rc.T t;lfR•ttr.t. nt:r.Y
I II •' HI • r. l t.l · T r L C n JL H II\ I r. H ~ Ill C • t ~ r •
tlt~~~ PC~[P. ~C11C~11Y
~l11 ~~~11Vf f: ~(I R li 'U~ ~~0 ~1 I~Nkflt ~~~~ fl~l R(L(AStS
'
! ; , 1 c t I --.. --t; Q II tLC --..IU. . ----'-U llA..._I ____ Af.L ____ ,AiftU .ULYII--.
i :~•• l'··•· !~~. !l~. ~~G. 3l~. 3'!• 3'!• ~!le f79e 1'!D
• ~c.,, !~'·•· !C:'"• ~~>~. !f-r. ~l~. 3-~. 34!e 5~~. 1-19. ~~~1
!:'4• 1r ··-•. ~f~o 3f,';o !ftl!e S~!o ''-'• 3'!• !Ue f77e 1!!2
1 :':'•• 1 '"6• !~! • 3 f:!o ~I: lie 3f5o 343o 3-~. 5~6e f74!1e 195~
.1 :~'1. 1 :'"1• !f.!o.--·--·-.H.!.. ..!£Ce---!l!•-__ J..4.!.__J .-~ . .___!..!6o --· _ tn •. 19!' ___ __
1!~•. I '~. !f!o ~~c. !~Oo !f!e 3•3• 3-~. -f7e f7!e 19~~
l ·~-. 1 :· -· ~1:':;. 3 ~0:. !0. J~!. ,,~. ,,!. ··6· '"• 19!16
1 :••• I '•• •r.c, 3 f!e ~f~e :5t!o -''~• l''!• !~6• f79e 1957
11~11. 1 ·.• •• !r:~. 36'!. Jf.C o ~s~. 34~. !4!e !1~6. t79. 19!111
)!<4o 1 o.··· ~f!o !l'o'!o !f·~o !f!o 3-!e 3•!• '!~fo f711e J•!l•
H~ll.. 1::•:11. !I:!... Jr.~. !C.Co ----3f.!e ---~U.._.26J.-.-lt.le.-.... Uie 1!U
!!••. !r:•. ·~~. !fc, ~(Oo 3~!. 311!e 3•!• 3'6• f63e 1"61
:r~•• l'''"• ~~-~. !1.~. !fCo 3l!e !'!• 3'!• •71o l74e 1962
!:t;•• l'';lt, ·~•. 3f,!o !(~. 3f.'!o 34!e 31!e 3!7e f61e 1963
~~~-. ~~-~~. ~f!o Jf.~o !lte !f'• 3'!• ~!2e '''• f73e J9f.'
1!''• 1 :'-•• !f,~. 3f-!o !6 ~. !f!lo 21~o J!le Jtle f.!l7e 196!1
UHe --It<:•• --.. u.~.---3'~•--. llOo J6!1e ------3.!6. 34!o •II• t6le. .. 1966
1'~11. J[~"• •r!. !f!o !t~. 3~~. 311!e 3-~. !1!6o ff!le 1967
1!~4. 1(~-. ~f·· ~r·. !I'• Jt~. 3':• 34!e ~~•• '''• l'fll
1 :!•• I "~•• "t'!o !f!o !f '• 3f~e 34!e 3'!• !1!6e ff9e 1969
1t!•• 1t ~•• !f'!o 31:!o !fOo !f!o 3-!. 3-!e !1~6e ff9e l9JC
1 !••• J [~-. !~~. Jt!o !f-Oo 31-'!e 343e 3'!• !1!6e ff9e J9JJ
1 L'illo -.. Jll,lfo !f.~•-· ·-. ...3~!----Jl:io ----36!e---··-Ul-l4!.-•J...___ &Uo lt72
1(~4, I~"•• !Po !o f.~. !(ro 3f-!o 34!e !4!1e !1~6. tl4!1e 1913
1!~-. It ~•• !1:~. 3t!. !f~o !6!o 3'!• 34!e ~!fe (J9e 197'
1(~-. 1 r "4• !f~• ~f~o ~F.!Io !l:!!o 3':!• H!!e •n• ff!le 1975
1 !~-. 1'''• !f~o 36!e ~F.Ce 3l!!o 34!e 3'!1• 5!6e 179t 1976
1 r<:•• !l~•. !f!o 3f-!o !l~e 3f~e !'3• ''!I• !136e tl9e 1•11
1 "'i'· 1 :'"• !6~•--· .Jt~.. !l~o ----·· 3l~ ... --.l..4!e 34!-!.!6•--Ut •. 1911 -
11Ho ~~·;-, !f~. U ·!e !f.Oo ~fo!o :H~. 34!e !!6e f79e l'JT9
lt!•o !~~-. !l!o 3l!o !fOo 3f!o -'':!• 5'!• !!6e f79e 1911
'"•
1 ~ ';"' •
• 1 : ,. 4 .
3 ~~ .._ --l4 ~ ----~.!6.a.--
2Jt. 2~J. !~l.
U!le
nt •.
t57.
•
0
0
0
0
·')
. )
0
·•
-\ .
("·
('
('
(·
(.:
t:l
-
.. ...
-
~ .
! •
! •
(.
c •
t •
r •
· ..
~ .
t. ..
! •
' . .
c •
~ .
: ..
'··
t •
c.
4·
( .
-
.. u .r.
( . . ..
( .
' . . -.
( .
( .
: .
(.
( . . . . . . , .
lo . .
! • , . .. .. -
I •
( .
' . . , . . . .
lo
( . . .
( .
. .
' -.
--------Clft~tCttr~t l~t .. rct n~tP,liO~ STOtY
til ol '-Cftf',ftHL CHJlt!'tr.(t:aU U.CotHo
~LASKI rt~(~ A~II .CRI11
----
--·-___ utt-U!t!.. ..
lltFP~Itlvr 1: 'Ctf:liU~ ~~U~t IL~~[lt ~It• Fl~t RtL[A$lS
--
FUt .. 1
llt ttc -------.In _ FU.--.UI. ___ Af.l . UUI ULYI
l.
c. . .
c. , .
lo c.
c.
(. . -... ··-c.
! •
c.
(.
lo
r •
I .•
\.
c.
~.
:. .
Jo
n -.
.
----~. c.
c.
·.• . . -.
a.
r.
~. ' . r •
r • ': •
-·---0·-----:1-. -----· c.
c.
l.
t.
f .•
o.
r .. .
~ .
c.
~.
·-·--'· -·-------~.
~. ~.
{. :•.
(.
'· l.
Q.
--c.
•).
c.
1.
c.
'• c.
r •
' .
i •
' ·-.
. .
.. -.
.. .
~. . . .
c •
c.
( .
t •
:: .
c.
:J.--..
".
c.
c.
c. . . .
-~ ·-, .
t. . -.
l •
c. c ...
c •
c.
~.
. r •
' . ~ .
o.
~ .
~.
'· c.
c.
~.
c.
0.
c.
r.
(.
o.
c.
c. c.
c.
r.
c.
r •
!.
( .
I •
c.
c.
r -. --11-------o. ---
r.
c.
• • c.
~ .
c.
a. c. c.
'· ~--~•---.. ··--C•
t. c.
t. r.
c. c.
r.._ .. c. . -.
o. c. o. c.
0. 0.
~. 0 •
o. ' c.
~. c.
~. t.
~ • G •
0. o.
0. "· e. __ t.
o. c.
~. o.
':. 'J.
a. c.
0. !) •
J... o.
~. 0.
c. 0.
lj. c.
~. c.
c. c.
--0 • ------0 •.
r • a •
!lo 0 o
"· o.
!I • D •
0. c.
Go .Oo -.,. c.
o. c •
o.
t.
I ' •
t.
. t.
o •
t. ~. • •
Co !o Co c. c. c. o. c. o •
•• lo
•• •• ... oeo • ._ ___ .Oa.·-----110 •----· -lo c. ~. c.
t. o. ••
t. c. o.
c. •• o.
c-. c. o.
------' ------. '.____ _o_._-c. c. o.
Co Co Go
c. o. ••
t. o. • •
c. c. o.
---' t .. a.
0. c. • •
Do Co Do
Co Oo Do
c. r. o.
c. c. ••
~ .... ____ .. ·-----
Go Oo lo
~. Do Co
Oo Co lo
lo 0 o Oo
D • Oo I o ---.----£••----••• o. __ _
'· o. c • c. r. o.
Go e. lo
--A-----···----··...__ __ -Oo Oo Do
•• c. o. o.
•• •• •• •• o.
'· Oo
Oo
•• lo •• Oo •• •• •• •• •• e. •• •• •• ••
••
•• o.
..~, .,,.
1'9!12
I'~~
1'!!4
1"!15 .. ~ ..
1'51 ... ,,
If!"
I'U ••u l'962
.,,~ .,,, . ... ~
nu ..,.,
1"11 .,. .. ..lt
I'll
U12
I'U! .,74
191!
IH6 . .,.,
1!11
1'1fl
191l'
-'·
•
•
G
a
•
•
•
0
0
·..)
('
(•
(
(
(
(
(
(
c
(
c
0
a
(j
'!:•·r.1 .:n • f ~l .lll C ll ~:-11 r.r. S TUCY
I /1 •· rf r.: I ' I ,, t r 1\!ll '!Jl f\l r.t!L C: t~c •• ~F .
fR(-.[(1 l ~l7 ~'.l l A lf.~n PC ~l'-f ll llt P lll ---t..A' [... __ u.!.t..!.._ --
flli ·U l!~l ': I"Cf.l 'l l ll ~ ~H n lli.Hlo ~IH flH R£llAS£S
f.C.~. ~ l t;Ptr.f I I H ~1 ·I I
.. V[ t R •. t r.r .L Ll : Ll. CCI Ill\> :rc ·-· .JAil Ftf ___ IIAR-.--.AER .-AVEYR CAl YR
I :
. 11
I '
I !
l-
1'.
I'·
11
1f
I S
( ·' ~I
; ~ . . . -
-~
•c . .
'· 4 Ii I .. , •
~'-I : 11 r: I •
! ·. f 4 ; 1 '-•
-! ·, f 4'" il l •
!.t' 7 H d ,
? '. 7 c. 1 ! '-•
! ': ,. f.~~ ~ •
! c.~',(, 7 t. •
~ ·~ ~-"! ~ ~ ;> •
... ~ ~ ~ 1 , .••
!~!41 :.7.
!'';. _. 2 I 7,
! ... \ 11· 7 ....
~ 4 c.(.;. . 1 •
~ 4 ~ I ;. ~;. ,
• .. ~;-, ('.
.! .' ~-; 1: f. I).
? '• ( 1 ~ •. ! •
,!C.),:ll,.,
.! •. '; 111 1 •
.!41!'"'".1.
~ ~;; ; ;-4.
!~.t C:t:7; •
!':7 £~r 7,
!~;':71;.
"'!4~P7 C:.
!l c ~;r !.
'!7'-;!7 ':..
.~ .. f,7•;,.
~ 1 t-7 ~ ') f •
. "II 7 ; : J ~.,
~ (. 1 ; ~ . ~-'
.. ; • 'r t '7 •
L ~ f.: f t; 1
,1 ~ i C. 7 I ! 1
4 .' :I '· 1 1,
:c'f r c r,
~ i ': ~: r f ,
• r · 4 1 ':.I •
'-If , I 1 7 I
",. r 7 J ;-f •
~~;~,,~.
.'74 '-· }J..
.' ' :-~ : c ~ •
'T J l l ( } t. C 1
?~;771 4 ,
." i ... :" J ~ •
-~ t c ,. ~ •• 1 •
• ~ f r t ! f ,
!1 f-7·~~ •
"f 4 i r (4 ,
~lfl ~~L .
."' ~ r , . 1'' •
:'i~f,.f ~.
~I ~I f. 1 : •
(o 1 ' .• .... l •
,. : ... ,. :-1 ~ •
t.t417 ~~, •
4 ~f.!,, 1 ...
(·~~4 '7';.
.-, .. ;-;or •, :.•.7 7' :~. '•'•11 '"', "'•i 7 •~r. ·~·~·1 r.r. ~17 .,~1 "• •02 11 ~•. !ff•66 ~. 37~B ~P!. 3 l 22C17o •2 2<117.
••i7".[, o qp;:. ••7 7 : ""'(<'•• •<i;""l. •I ;CPf '• !9!~4 2 1. H C~fi'H• 3f~~flf.<. 3~!8f72o •C!i1739o
"'•i 7~~[, <<17'1:. 4'•71 c (. 't4 7 7'rt • 4~•f !4t . 4 11 ~<.~7. 4 L!!EC7. !f~~l27. !7!:-~2 C o !E<77Ho •11!(16.
Hilf r !o '•417~(~. 4471 " [, •r 47i 1 U o •!•11 1 f , 4}1 !"L 4o ~0 24P 2 £, ~Pf7l~(. !75 G2C!o !6<~!33. •097<'l••
4•17~L :. ~477~t~. ~·•7 7~·~. '•"!""'''• 4 ~'.1!:.1 ~. 412 l.~I!4, • ..!9E:16!;.7,.!E£29.5.".-.UUlLD ..... !~5£lS2e HD1~58e
••11~:: .• •••77 ~:r . 447 1• ..• '·•n•:r. '•~'-1 1 ~7. '•17 c •23 . •o 2 oo•~• !H39o;3, 37fl632"i. 361o;340. •101<!10.
••l <f ;o, o•77!C :. ~•7 ;~· •, ·~?•~to. 4 ~l ~f l ~. 4llff ~2 . 3 9 !E:I2Do !fl258to 3~13G28o 35~!2!3e •c•~115o
~>o 77~r :. 4 o 71 ·~~. 447 7 ' ~. ••!!•<~. •<~1 9L l. 4 l l:<~t . !Gf"l !~. !f !q so;~. !f9•121. !!70o;Jio •o57489.
rr o 7 7•C!o 4 ~7r !C ~. 447 7 !~(. o4 7 7LC C . 4!0 3 41(. 41741.7. •o1f 2 4fo !ff?34!. 37.60P 2 o 3~27.G4o -~-~~6~.
o •'~[~~. ~•77!'"• '~77" •• ••~''t 2 , •~7 ~7~4. 41 1 ~7 ~~. '9 !f Of P. !7~~92"• 3t~q21Do ~5 31320• •o~;E19o
,, .' 1 ;; H 4. • •>7 i ~ L:.. 4 41 i ~: t . '•! ~ (l! 1! •. ~; ~! ~ 7 4. H 7 •, El4 • ! ':' 1 ~ H 1 • ! H C 4 !.4 a-!l.U!! l.._.U!.! 511• • 0 H ~6~ •
•~F :<o~. ••17 '((, ••1 ;•· ~. ••~1 :1 ~. 4 ;r ••~•. •ti ~~P~. !~777-t. !f•!~O~. 37 0 79fl!. 3~PC!t1o •D31EP5.
••!'.<17· 4 •7 7 •:r .• •••77' .• '•~l :l ~r:. •;7 '?''• 4I H~F 1. !~~!P !e. !fcS \!7!. 3~9107e. !5t~!22. •o••te2.
'•.'i''l c , ••77'!"· ••1 7' ,, •• ,,;;~. •:"<11·. •l •~>~4 ~. ·a ~f f?J. ~H J C 'l9. ~t3•7•1. !!tf!~2. •oo~c11.
·=~·F ~!. ••7 7 !~:. ~·7 7' r . •••1 ::1 •. •!!'7 •~· •t~•!•~· !~f!~21. !E•to~~. !E~•3tC. 3!tte!a. 400f!87.
••;14f1Ho '"7 1'(~. 4477' '• <!1 <:~·. •.•l.?L . 4 1'·f~:3 . !q!C6P6o ~7f-450o 3f!8 1~?. 3!-10020o •OIC-~4o
.".flf~~. •o71 ! t ii . U77' .. c . ~••;H7.~4 ~~~ !.'!!. 4l nF;'l. !'.i!<9S"i •• .3H 70~! ... !tU2!~......!.!.!3U!e -!!t!a7.
~C 1 l ~r •. ""11 '-~:. "411 ~ r . 'll•.,;'-C!. l.!(':.'f c• 4 J C:~t~(. !';E•JCP • .!f i •tP9. ~fA C 7-5 ~. ~~l 3 ff~• 4H"J2!1 3 4e
•4i 7 ~: •• 4477 ~ :r·. 4477' • q.'lt ~r-., •'il·'i 4J, 411'<10 !. •~C18llo !EE C8!7. 3742964. 3E01351!e •01~~16.
44/7~::, ••11•:r . 04 ~1 !17. 4''!!F !. q ;J J7 f?. Ol 4 !P~3 . !P PIOEE. 31•22.!0. 3EC•9s7. 3•f3471o -~1FI50o
4'7 f ~F •. ••77 !~:. 44 !•'77. •4 7 1 '~~. ·~!~l~t . o;•;l !2. •t •<1C1o !~f6122. !773910. !E ff~12. 4C7~"'7•
• ' : l ( r r • ., 4 1 7 r : r • • 4 " < •. , • I, .! 7 , •• '• • ~ < ·" ;· ! • • • ·. c ~ ;; 1 ~ • ~ I G r 0 1 7 • ! 7 • p 7 7 4 • 3 ~ 12. 2 ! • 3 ~ 2 e 2 '. • 4 0 1 ~ ~ 12 •
~~~1~t-. o41 H t: •. 4477 ~.:. 4 4 7 i~~ll -.-1t!Ul7.!. H C <~!7, lt :H 0 9.!o .!Heau.......l.Ll.JU.!....-!.l46l11 .... -UHC63e-.
4•17 ~,:. 4477'·~r.. •~1 7 •·r , '·'•H l P •. ·~•c,t •>7. I\IO<H 4. ~':111 !7 <>;. ~P•e•'5fo 37112~!. 3~8f8P5o -~9~7!19,
'1'1~~!. 44 f [C !1. 44~1 t!r. ""~l4 P ~. •:~!74~. 41 <7 ~rl. !~7t•!~. !f!•8'l~. ~t,8!21o 3~72422• 4C2f47~.
•• ;r~~~. 4 ;;7 !~!P. ~477 ! .• <47 1"t r , 4 !!"'4 F o 4J7 e ;;~q• •t 1f~~~. 3F l l667o 37•!-1 ~1. 3f1P1~0, ~o•,•47o
·~77!rr. ••7 7~:r . ••77 !' '• ""7 7 !c :. ~~·4 ~E:E. ~ti7 ~J e c. •C<17fl7. !fft810. 3746099. ~6244~1. ~1347!16•
f> 4 ! L ! ( 7 o 4 4 7 JL ( 0 o 4 4 7 7 ! .. r o r, If] 7 ° ( ~ o • ~ If ;> '\ ~ o 4 t 2 ; 1! J o -Q ~ • 7~ C o ~ ~ J-3 7-o 3 e-6 4 1 ! o 3 7 2. f: 2• 0 • J 6 2 )3 ~ 0
~ •17 • '· t. 4 411 ~ '~. u 11 r .. : .• '·" n • ~'·-" ~ ~ 1 H!. • 1 ·n~ 111 ... •o: l2H. lH JC8.!.-l168l02 o-J6•at~l...-"17!~!llo
4'•i7!rr. ••·n ~r ·J . u77 !'~. '••n ~•c . 4!?1 3 2£. oi17E~O. 4 C2!•17• !F~'S 3!. 37579~~. !~HETOo •t!4;02.
4417 !CC. "''l ~r l . ••11 !· r . •~77cc c . ~!r o •~•· •;3t•!~. •oee111. !~E C 20f:. 3!3461P. ~7~4~10. •18!E•e •
4417r .. c . 4477 ':(.. 4417~~'-• U71~CO. lt<t77!:~. 'r~7Ht.C. 4!1'.•!;. 11 <.31-~6. •o ~•760o l~H3Ho....!8464.l.!o-l124S1D~-•22<117o
!!~'f e r, !~=111'• !!ll~~~. 4 ~7 ~'EF . ~~41 !~~. ~~~~~, !, ~;1 11r 7 , 4~-!PP'• ~~f10 f Ee ~7'~2 3(. 3£0-9~7. ~-@~411. !96~~8le
Jfj ~()
1'l '5 1
I'J ~<
19~!
~~~~
19~~
1'3~6
19!7
Jlj !fl
1'.1!9
l'JH
I'H: 1
l'H 2
lqf!
1t;6.
19(1,'5
lt;H
1967
1'H8
1'Jf9
1 o; 7C
I'Hl
1912
)';73
19H
197'5
1 o; 76
I CJ 77
1978
1979
198 0
··r:
0
.. )
0
'
0
0
0
--- -
~~~ ', [ r 1 I 41' 1 '. ~ I I
r.c.r-. ~~·r L'V 't H ,.,,
('
("
('
0
0
0
,
)"
11
I <
I !
I-
I~
H
11
I P
. ' < •
< I
'' -. . -
! I
I I':'.
1 r r, •
I r 7.
1 ~ , ' •
l 1. .. ~ •
I " 7 .
1 ·.r,r.
I . • ~'
! I : ; •
1 '."1.
l ~ c; 't •
] l r: ~.
1 ~ .-~ •
I : F ~,
I :I' 1.
I ( ':t '
l : I! 5 .
) : .. c...
1 '. c: r .
1 'r 1-•
I l l· f ,
1 l . : •
1 L ': 1: •
11 ·. 4.
I ~ ·. ~ •
1\: '.
II : 7.
ttl :.
Ill 1.
I ll ;:,
1117.
II !C •
11 ~~.
I r c c:. •
: ~ ...
I : I',
II "'. •
• l ;; .
1 :: · .•
l ~ ~ I •
I 1 'I! •
J ! , ( •
I I ~ I ,
) 1 ~ ': •
I I I ! ,
1 l ' ( •
1 c Q •
Itt ;:.
I : ( 1 ,
I I tr •
I l lf •
I I I r ,
Ill ~,
I I If •
l l !; •
t 1 : ~ •
I II c •
I l l ! •
I I ! f •
1 1 :; •
1 1 ~ ~.
I I : I •
I I ! ~ •
1 1!. ~ •
£; •
-- - --- --l l :.~ t.~l ~.··! t ~~! ,.,1 C l I ~I l'tli C"' !.TI.r Y
l /l ,·•,t l ,l ·1 "1 1'l f i V IL U t \<FAL ~ I~C .o 5f .
~~ 1 ~r.1 r-r •.11 q 11 t P I1~
----
--CUE Ul~£! -
:.t 1' '.-''''•1 I: ~rtr1 t11 P ~1 0 111 T 1J ~.~£.Lo loiH rt H R £L£A S £S
--
... l l ' t l C .. rt t t v ('! c JH. rn ___ ~A fL__.AF-A . _ HE. YR CALYR
:t •:, I t~·:. '!· ~~·~. 11'•7 . 1 1 ~7. 11 2 7 . llte. llC~. llOOo 11 3 9.
•t · •, 1 ~~~. 't~;. I t •!, I 1 !2 . 1 1 ~2 . 111 ~. tiC !. 1C~4. 11 2 8.
• t :•, 1 :~!. I ' i l ' •, ! I "P • I t !e , 1 12!. 111 ~. 110~. llOlo 113 2 o
:!'':, t ::~. ll :t cr , l)H , !!!P o 11 ?7. lllFo 11 0~. llOlo 113lo
!!"' 1 !~~. I '' '1'~. :1 •~. 11!,. __ 1 1:<!. llH •.. ~lC,..___l O'H,._ 1132 o
i l". 1 !", 1 1 ·1 ••. 1 1'•1• 11 !7. 11 ?7. lllP. ti C ~. llCOo 11!1.
; I • ;: , I ! !, ~ , l I • I I ~ ~ , I I 4 ~ • I I ! ! • I I 2 ! • I 1 l ! • I 1 C ' o 1 C ~ ~ • I 12 8 •
'I'~• 11 !~. I !' •t •!. 11114, \1'4 • It ;>~. Ill !. llf~o 10~7. 112 9 .
~1'.'• 11 ~~. I I " I I ~~. 11~7. 11 !7, 11 2 7. 111 P o 110~. llOlo llHo
I t '•• J t«, !1·•· I t "::. 11-•, 11 ~~. 1 1 ~2 . 111 2 . li C ~. IC~4. 11 2 'Jo
1 1 o £., 11 ~ ~ • 1 I '. ~ • _ . 11 ~ L •---11 ~;: • 11 ! 1 • 11 2 0 • • -lllC ..___l..LO C -----l 0..S lo ---1 126 o
l l ''~• 1 1 ~~. 11 '~. tt •t. 11 ~.•. 11 !~. 11 :>4 . IIllo ltr~. 10<;7. 1127o
!P!e 1 1 ~~. ll ':l ':o 1 1!:lo 1)-4 , 11 !3 o 11 2 ~. ll141o llC~o lO'.i6o 112 8 o
))q<, tt •c;. 11 '·~• tt "C . ))o ;:, 11~2 . 11 2 1. 1111. 1101. 10c;2 . 11 25 o
11 !1. II ~<;. I I ~~. It ~!. 11H. t n f>. 11 2 ~. 1 11~. ltr ~. UHo 112 5 .
!14 ?, I I!~. 1t •!;, ll ~r.. II '-!• II ~;>. 11 ;1. 111 1 . 11C1. 1C '.i2 o 11 2(,.
11 ~!·--11~~. 11 ::~.. 11 ~!. 11~~. ll !~. __ 11 2 3. llJ.!...____l lt~. ___ l Oit._ 1122.
1 111 ', 11 ~5 . II'~• !l ~c • !14 '.• 11'•• 11 2~. Ill•• llf4o l0'17o 11 2 1o
II !~. 11!~. It ••;. I I ~!. 11 4 7, ll !f,. 11 ?~. ll17e lltle 1G ';9. 113Do
I I ~"• 11 ~"• 11 '4 , j)O P , 1 )4 (, )p <;, 111 8 . llCe. 1~~~. lCc;O. 11 2(,.
114 ~. II ~~. I I ""· 1 1 !~. l t •r.. II !~. 11 ;:«;, 11:10. llllo llC3o 113Co \ \ "< • 1 I ~ 5 , I I !• to • 11 II ~ , I I II I • 11 '0 • I 11 '.i • tl 0 '.i • 1 n 'i ~ • 1 0 c; 4 • 112 6 •
tt e!. _ 1 1!!.. 11~5 . _ -ll ~e ---l.1ttt ... __ U .3 'J._--l125. -----112..0. 11 u. __ ucz. __ .llH •.
I t ~•. It!~. I I""• I t ~•• 1 1 •£. II ~!. II ?~. 111 ~. ti C~. lO'.i8o 113lo
ll !f. 11 ~4 . 1 1~~. 11 ~2 . 11 ~4. 11 3 11. 11 2 ~. Ill ~. 110 ~. lO'.ilo 1127o
11~1. 1111 3 . 11 '-~• 11!:!:. li4P, 11 !7. 11<7• tlll'o llC~. llOOo 1128.
I I!!. 11 ~~. 11 5 ~. 11 !~. 11 6 7, 11 !7 . 11 2 7. lll!o 110~. llODo ll34e
11!::. 11 ~~. I I'!. !\~!. 1141 f , 1 14 0 . 113 2 . \1 2 4. llH. llC7o 1136.
_ 11 ~._--1 1!!: •·---11:.!. •. --11 !:!: L---lH.E. ---11!1J._ __ l12 f. ____ lJ 2 0. I.UD -----l.l.ll 2..._ __ l136o
I I ~~. II !!. I I ~!. II ~~. 1147. 1'1 !7. \1 2 7. 11l'.i o 1110o llCl. 1134.
II !!. 11 ~~. 11 '!:. ll ~~. I I~~. IH1o 11 .!2o 1123o lll'!:o 1U7o 1137o
I 1 !: C • 1 1 ~ ~. 1 l ' c..
11 ~~.
1 1 ~ .' •
I , •• . -. I 1 ! ~ •
1141 •·-
11 2 ...
11 2 ~.
11 ~2 .
111 e .
ua. llUo 1098. 1130.
1 1 2 ~ ...____1 Uf.. __ -l..lll.._ ___ 1139 •
lt ~e . lO'.i~. lO'.iO. 1122.
l '.i ~O
1 9~ I
l '.i 5 2
1 '1~3
1 ';5 4
19~~
}';5 6
1'l !i 7
l'.i !8
1'1 "'9
19 H'
1 '16 1
19f.2
19 f.!
19f.•
1H5
19 H
19 f.7
1'1 H
1'H9
1 o; 7(,
1 9 71
1 'J72
1'11.!-
1 'J 111
19 7 5
l'J76
1 'J 77
1978
l'J79
l9ec
-
I '
0
•
0
•
0
0
0
0
0
0
'-'
(I
(
(
c
. c
c
(
~Alf P F LLHC f
• Y[ L R ~ :. y
F
I I
-1 1
I t:
I ~
l 4
I •
I (
I 7
l ~
I '
£(
<:1
! (
! l
[.
'·· '. . .
[.
c .
'·.
! • . .
t .
-:.
(.
~ .
(.
L ,
( .
' -.
t.
n ..
L •
' ..
' . .
(. ' .
c •
(,,
vl ~I
' . .
r •
(.
' . { .
'. ' . .
r
( .
r .
(.
( .
t .
·:.
r '
r • ' . (.
' -.
' .
'.
[,
r •
(.
c •.
( .
c.
r .
'· r •
r •
c.
t .
c.
' . .
\.
r .
(,
( .
t .
'· l .
a r. -
~ .
'• :,.
' -.
"·
( .
r .
0 .
.. c.
r •
;:.
. ".
(.
( '
l •
c •
! •
t • ' .
·-.
' . .
c .
( .
r 1 ' n r 1 : ·• :. r. 1 r . , r t 1 t rt r: ~ 1 111 r. s T u r Y
/lo t ~tlo !lf f l 'l (I V!L f •')fdH·L< Jt;(,,H ,
LU SV.I P CI.f k ll.JICP.ITY ---CU( .-ll~.!-__ F .IG( 1C
~I r I LCI • t .C ~ --..e tc ·---JA<II FLC----K.II\ ___ ..J&uFR __ AVlY R CALYR
, .
J .
. .
c .
, .
~.
u .
~. ...
t .
n ..
~ .
{•,
·• .
'·.
~ .
c •
c .
~.
r .
( .
(.
r -.
( .
r. •
c •
~.-
t;.
~.
( .
( .
0 .
' . .....
r •
c •
. .
l·.
c .
c •
' . r •
c •
~.
l.
l •
(.
( .
( .
(.
(.
L,
~.
c . __ .[.
r .
' -.
(.
c .
( .
_c.
l o
t .
[ .
c .
(.
( .
l .
r • '. ' . .
c.
r •
c .
(,
c.
(.
Q .
0 .
c •
0.
Q .
0 .
0 .
o •
~.-----~.
n ..
0 .
r • c .
r.
G •
0 .
c .
o . o. o.
o . o. o.
c . c. o.
o . c. o.
_ _r._._ ____ t_._ ____ o • ---
c . c. o.
c-. c. o.
o. c. o.
c . o. o.
o. o.
o. c.
~. o. c. c. o.
·-0. o.
o.
c. o.
o. _c. ____ o. ___ ___c ._ ____ c o. _ .. 0.
o.
o.
o.
0.
o.
0 .
c.
~.
? •
r .
o.
r •
0 .
'.;.
0 . , .
~.
c •
~.
0 •
~ .
c .
o.
G •
il .
0 .
~ .
0 .
0 .
0 .
0 .
r .
c •
G •
0 .
0 .
0 .
c.
c .
o.
c.
c .
c •
o.
0.
c.--
c .
0 .
L •
c . o.
c .
Go
c.
c.
L •
c. 0 .
c. 0.
c. c.
0 . 0.
c. 0 .
--0 ._ ___ D ~.__ll .• --
o. o. o.
o. o. o.
r •
0 .
c.
o.
o.
o.
-c.
0. o.
~.
0.
o. c. o. o.
_Q. _____ c._ ____ Q. ____ -o.
c .
c.
c.
c.
t.
c.
c.
c.
o.
o.
o.
c.
o.
o.
o. _c ..., _____ o---_f)_._
c .
o.
0 .
c.
c.
o.
0.
o.
c.
~ ·-----ll • --c. 0.
o.
0.
o.
o.
o.
-.o.
0.
0.
o.
o.
o.
1 c;s c
1'l S 1
1'1 52
1 95~
19 5 ~
19 !:~
19!'6
1 9 7
19 5 8
19 '5 '1
1960
1 %1
19 62
1 963
1 9 6 '1
1'l fo 5
l ':H
1%7
1 9 ~.1'.
19 69
1'.i7 0
JS71
1 c; 72
1973
197-
1'!75
1 'J76
1 c; 71
1'3 78
1 c; 7Q
19 &0
,-.
'
0
0
0
0
Q
Q
Q
---
('
('
('
('
('
('
(
(
(.
(..
[]
Fllt.,F C l 14 f l' .. ·.1
F OWFR I~ no
~ ,.
11
I <
l!
)4
l ~
H
11
1r
1 ~ . ' '-~I
; 1
: .
;:~ ..
~ I
1 ; 4 .
I ? • •
1 ;,..
1 : ,, •
1 :! ~ •
1 ~ 4 .
I ~ 4 •
I; • •
1 ;-4.
);.lll.
1 :4 .
); "·
I ;: 4.
! ;. 4.
1 ''•. 1 ~ 0.
1 ~ q •
);.t.,
!t ...
t ; l;.
) ~ 44 •
1 ~ ,. •
1 ~4.
I ;· 4,
1;: ••
1 ; 4.
I : ,. • t =,.
I <. 4 .
I: 4,
1 ; 4.
I : 4,
1 ~ ~ •
I : o •
-
~I~ I
]; c .
); \.
I ; ' •
l :, •
I : l ,
1 : : •
1 ; ~ •
' ~ .. ,; c.
1 c l •
);: l •
1 ; l •
I ; C •
j ; ( •
1 ; : •
l <L .
J ; ( •
! ~ ( •
1 ; r •
] ; ( .
l ~ ~ •
1 ; r •
I ~ ( •
1 ; : •
l : .•
1 ; { •
1 c : •
J ; r .
~ : · ..
1::.
, ;. :.
} : ~ .
---- ----- ---- -
I I~ •
II '.
I I ( •
II .. •
II ! •
, t ::.
I If.
1 11.
1 1 1 .
I !( •
1; 1.1 •
I ;~ •
1 ; '• •
1 ; 4 •
J 'It . 1 , ...
1 ; 4 •
1 cIa •
1; ••
I< 4,
llf.._ --~~-.
I II , I ; 4 •
11£.
I II ,
1 H.
I If,
1lf.
I If,
II E •
·I 1 r.
11 r .
JJF,
11 e.
I Jl ,
lib
I II ,
I If •
I If,
11(.
II ' •
! I f ,
I l t,
II 1: •
Il l ,
] ; 4.
1 c,. •
I < 4 • ] c,. •
1 ~ ~.
) ; 4.
1 c" • ] c ••
1 c 41 •
1 < 't •
---l~q •.
1 c 4.
1 ~,..
1 ; 4f •
I;~ •
1 ~" •
1< 4 •
1 c: '• •
I;" •
1 ~ 4 •
l ~ 4 •
l < Ia •
(1 .•1 11 :'~' t l•c ,<tl r FF.R•tiO~ ~t u rv
11 ,1 .,, •·" '' ''l r 1\ IL' ~-1 1\I.P~L ~ u.c .•• ~r.
n:~., r a H tl't tot:rtrv
~. ' 1
1 't. • : ,, .
1 '(... •
1 , ( •
! .' ( •
I ,,.,
1 ! ' •
! y ( •
1 ' f •
1 , t. •
1.! c..
] .. ( .
I ~ f:o
1"1-•
I ~ 10 •
) .' f •
I .!~ •
1 .1 ( •
1., f •
I H .
l ... E-.
1 • /...
1 ! t.
1 't •
1! 1_,.
) ,, .
l ~h
1 '' •
1 ? £: •
; If .
J I ( •
I . I •
I .. . .
l , ...
c c 1
1 ': ~.
1 ~ ~.
1 ~ ~.
1 ! e •
1~~.
1 ': c •
1 ~ ~· •
1 '; ~.
1 ~ ~ •
1 ~!: •
1~~.
1 c !:.
1 !: ~ •
1 c. c. •
1 ~ ~.
1 ~!.
1 5 ~ ·-
1 ~ ~.
1 ': ~ •
1 ': ~ •
1 ~ ~.
l 'j"J ,
1 ~ ~. -
1 c.~ •
1 !-~.
1 r: ~.
tt: c;.
1 r ': •
1 ': ~ •
J r C: •
1 '~ ~ •
I •• -.
l ~ ~.
\r:c..
11 p .
I 1 P .
I 1 °,
I 1 F ,
1 H,
I 7f ,
I 1 P .
1 7 ~.
I 7e.
1 7 ~.
-----11f. __ -
1 7P,
I 7 f .
1 7fo
I H,
I 7 F ,
_ 1 1 e.
I 7 P ,
1 1 e .
1 1 p .
I7Po
1 7 p .
11 e.
I 71,
11f.
17Po
I H.
I 7 ~.
11t.
! 7,.
l 7 F,
ll p.
1 7f .
I 7f ,
cr. c •
1 '?4.
1 q 0 •
I G'I,
I c 4,
1 t;q,
t ~ 4.
t c 4.
1 r 4 •
I c; ~ •
1 ~ct.
1S'I.
I c; 4 •
1 c; 6 •
~~-.
1<;4 ,
l ":'t.
1'H •
I 'l o ,
l 'i ~.
)~ct •
l 'i ~.
11 e.
17 e.
17 fl .
1lP,
178.
111!.
11 8 .
118.
I 71! •
1 7 P..
__ 171!.--
Ill!.
111!.
I 7 P,
178.
17P,
ue._
ne.
11e.
1 7 !'.
171!.
1 Go, Ill!.
t 'l o, __ ue.
l'i~. 111!.
1 "". 11 e. 1c4, 17 ~o
1 °4, 17!'.
1 c 4.
1 ~ ••
J C 4 e
1 '1 4 •
)C..4.
1 ') 4 •
1 ':,. •
ll p.
11 e.
118.
178.
178.
118.
17P,
-CAT[ 11
FU ---IUR ___ APR -AV£ YR OLYII
1 5 1.
1 ~1.
1 5 1.
1:!6. 1'19.
1!Eo 1~9.
136. 1'19,
1~c, 1~1o 1J~o 1~q,
1t.So ---151 .. ·--~l36o _ ... _l'l9o
1fCo 1 ~1o 1!6o 1'19,
1 ~1. 1!Eo H9.
16<;. 1~1. 1:!6. 1'~q•
1 6 <;. 1 5 1. 1:!6. 1~9.
1f.~. 1 5 1. 1!6. 1~9.
1.65 ---151 .__1!6. 1'19. ac;. 1!'1. 1:!E. 1~9.
IE S o 1 ~1. 1!6. 1'19,
1 6 9. 1 5 1. 1!6. 1~9.
lES. 1~1. 1!Eo 1~9,
1 6<;, 1 S 1o 1!f.o 1~9.
16.5.___1!;1.___1.!6o ___ 1'19o
169. 1 5 1. 1!6. 1~9.
169o 1~1o 1!6o 1~9.
1 6 'l. 1~1. 1!~. 1~9.
16~. 1~1. 1!6o 1'~'l•
16~. 1!'1· 1!6. 1'19.
16'3 ._ 15 1o_l~6 .._ ___ 1'19 •
16<;. 1 5 1. 1!6. 1~9.
16<;. 1~1. 1:!6· 1'19.
l69o 1 ~1. 136o 1'19o
16'lt 1 5 1o 1!6o 1~9,
H"i. 1 !'1. 1!Eo 1'19,
1.f..5....___1~1· 1:!6. __ 1'19.
16~. 1 ~1. 1!fo 1'19o
169o 151o 136o 1'19o
1E5. 151o 1!6o
1E.S .__1_!l._. __ _L1..:.'6.L -___ 149o .
16<;. 1 ~1. 1:!6. 1'19.
l'l~O
19 ~1
1c;s2
1q 5 3
1c;!:~
19 55
1 ~56
1 S e 7
1 'lSI'
19~9
196C
19 6 1
1'362
15,.3
1H~
1'36 5
1966
1'H7
19f.8
19f.')
l'J 7 0
15 71
1972
1973
197'1
1 57~
1 "J 76
1 c 77
1H8
1'379
H80
..., -
0
0
0
•
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
('\
('·
C·
c
c '
(
(.
(
(
' \ '
.FRC.ECl 1~F7~~~~
o .rro II· ··~•
•• Y [ t R
1
r
1(
·---ll
t;
1 ~
l q
I~
If
--11
1(
1 ~
• 1
; ~ . ' ··-··-~-
~-
~ 1
,. ~ , " .
• (C. ••
,. ~;! t •
'.;;.! L •
c; ; ~: •
r;c;.tt .
t. ~;: ! t •
r r; 'I l •
,.,.. ... I f ,, ....... . ,. , .. ,, , ,•' ...
':;;: "t •
r; ~;., r •
c ;;.. ~ ( •
t .. .,,
• tor ... 1
': ~;! ( •
c c ;. :' ,.~ •
r;.; .. 'I •
c ;:-t:! t •
c:::: ! l..
r; :-: ~ t· •
':~:!~...
(;; .. • ( .
': ~;! ( •
,. ~ ~! ( •
~;. ~ .~ ( I
~ c ; 'I t •
~ ~ L ! r. •
r ~; ! r •
<: :-; ! ( •
~,;!l .
c ~ ~"' t •
l(<ff.
~,. c,' t-•
ffl,fl,
J. ( ''I I 1
~t'o! (.
Efq t (,
~(411,
F-f.ll (f.
ff•fr .
f(4!f ,
rt-.4ft,
1 f I, It. 1
~ f: '•! ( •
,.,.,., l .
! 1 h f I ,
; , ,.. ( ( .
(( ••I I,
I ~ ., r ' •
: ( '•' (.
I t •• I t I
;. ( 't '' .
: t . 4 I I 1
I ('·I f.,
r ~+ '·, 1 ,
lf·4•f·
H•fl·
I L '• t. l •
If'' ( f ,
ll I. t.:!. •
I I 4 ( I ,
I ( lj, ( I
l {. ,, f f •
r, '·, r •
fot-'-1 I 1
.. l.l. y .. -t 1..(; ..
(1~(i.
11~:1.
f7~(7.
f7~(1,
f H ~ 1.
q~: 1.
J7~l1 .
l1'c1.
f7~t1.
I 1 c ! 1,
f1~(;1,
c 7 c r ·1.
f 1 c -) •
r 1 q 1.
~ 7 ~ '. I,
, 1 ~ . 1.
I 1 ~ • ) •
~ ; c. : 1 •
I i" ( ;,
' j ~ , i .
I 7 ~ : i •
, i ~ ( ; •
!7~l1.
H~(1.
£7~(1.
f1H 1,
1 7~C 7,
I 1 ~ ' 1,
H~ ( 7.
t' 7 ~ i 1.
f 1 ~ ( 1.
l 1 ~ ( 1.
1 1 ~:1.
c. 7 ~ ... 1 .
'=;;.~a r •
r.; c ! ( •
':; ~! £:.
, ; ; ! , •
r;;;!c.
("; ; ! I).
c:; C: ~! •
~;(!').
r,;;!c.
,...,.., .,.
~ c c: ... "' •
-:;•;.!t. ...
"~ .. • 1 . ... .......
tl .. ' .,., .... " ......
r:; ~ ~ {' •
c:;~!~.
f :: c ~ ol •
~;;.!~.
~; ; ! t·.
'":;;. ! l •
';.;; ! ~ •
"]~~!~.
c;;!:.
'· ~; ! ;; • ... ; c ! ( •
ace~:.
rtc!~.
'J~'.!C.
'l;: ~: •
~ , ., ,
< r •
r r :rt·'rt •r.: r~r.f rl <.r !IHl iC~ S ll.l:Y
''•''I"I.I 'C II'l CIVII!.I'JI>IP~l ~ IIIC .. ~f.
H f ~KI l"(lo[fi I·I,;Tio(ldll
£l11 H,~IIH 1: I'Ctf'llllll ~.t Of.l ll.NHLo lo!H FIH RELEASES
fAG£ 12
H f 1 . .. CCI.---.IH.~---tlC-----.JU ---F.L E --KAR ---AF.R -----1CTYR CAL YR
~ if ; .! •
c: 7 t ;:-••
~ 1 (-~!.
~ 1 f :' ~ •
c: 1a.;!.
c: 7,;. ~.
"; 7,.. .• 1' •
~ 7';!.
«; 7 (;. ., •
r 7 ( ;'! •
«; 7 ( 2 .!.
f'" II ;.. .' •
r-. 1 f ; ! •
~ 7 t .... 'I •
':. 7 I : ! •
c. 7 ( ~ , •
': 7 f ~.!.
t'; 7 ,, .. ' •
~ 11 ., ! •
r.: 7 i' .' •
( i , ; ~ •
": 11 0 .! •
c 7 I
r; '/ ( ~! •
';1(2 ~.
~1ec~.
c; 1,;.!.
. ~7(2!.
c: 7? :-! •
C7f;!.
1• 7 t: ~ .
r i t , ~ ,
1l ~~PF, 1~~30-. 144110. 1!~5E1. 1132-?. 112-C~. ~7E~3o 130CCOP.
11"iP P, t;P3G•• 1*~11~. l!c5e t. 11 !2 -?o 112-C!. ·7~;3, 130CCOP.
11 ~-~P.. I;P3C4, l4411G. 1~~5P ia 1172R7o 112-05, ~76~3. 130-C52a
11 !~tf . 1;~5 c•. 1••110. t!~5Pt. 11 ~2 -~. 112-o~. ~7~23. 13ooeoe.
11!; I! I! •-1: L.!C.II • -14 H 1 Q •--1 !~!:I! 1. 1J !2.112 -1.1.24 t.!o--5.16.2-l...-13 D 0 CO 8 •
li !~FF , t;f!L-. 146110. I!<~P I. 11 32 -2o 112-0~. ~7~2~. 1300C08a
11•~(P , I IP304 , l441l C • l!<~E I. 117 2 1!7. 1124C~. ~7623a 1304C52a
11 !?€!. 1;•514, 1 44 11 C. 1 !<5t l. 11 !?•2• 112-0~. ~7623o 13C0008o
11•2 EE. 1;~50-. l4411 j , 1!<~1!1. 1132-c• 11~40 ~. ~7E~3. 130CC08.
11!iFP, 1;~~(6, 141111 ~. 13c 5 Pt. 11 3?-~. 112-c ~. ~7Ec3o 130CCG8a
1l ~~tE •. 141,!~'1. 14~ 11C. l!;!':el •... 117ULJ,._l..1240!':~6.23.a .. l304f.52o
li !<~Q , 1;1 !r 4. 14 411"• 1!£5111 , 11 ~.2 -;. 112-0'!:. ~7623• 1300Ctl8.
11~<PP, 1 4~3~4. 146 11~. 1!<5e !, 113~4?o 11240~. 57623o 130CCOn,
!t•;Pp, t;P ~V4 , 146l!C, l~;~e t. 1 1!2 -ia 11?-0!a ~7~2!o 1~0Ct08o
11 ~~re. t :•~t •. 14411 ~. 1!<5et. 1112e1. 112-G~. ~76~3. 130-£!':2.
ll';~p . l :l!l•. 144lt n , 1 !<581 . 113242• 11240~. ~7623a 1300C08o
!1~<ll:, 1 ;!-.!:.4, !H11~. -1!<51!1 •. l132.Ua-1..1240!~6.23.a-..1300t08o
11'(~P . J;l .'(4 , 1'•411(, l !c"P1 , 11 32 -<• 112-0!a 0:7f~3a 1300C08o
ll'<~f;. 1 <'!04, 1••r11r. 1!<~et. 117287o 112-.C!:o ~7623. 1304t!>2o
11'.~PP , 1:•\1·•· 1•-11 c . I!<Se1. 113242. 112•0!. ~7~23. uucoe.
t1 ·<~f . 1 <Pl r•. 1 4 4110. 1!c5e t. 1132-<· 112-0!. 57E2~. 130tC08 •
1t';FF , J ;l~(q , 1••11 ~. l!~~t l. 113?-2 . 11240!. 9762 3. 130CC 08 o
ll ~.ree ._ 14L!t4. _ 14411:._ 1:!<5 1!1. _l172a.Ja-1..1240!~6.2.3._.1304C!>2o
11'7 P ~. 1 :r~t ~. t-•t1 "· 1 !<5t 1. 113?"'· 112•0!. 97623, 1~cntoR.
11 !2ee . 1 <P3 C"· 14411"· 1!<se t. 11!1 -<· 11240!. ~7E23. 130CC08.
ll!<~P. 1~1 30 ~. I44IJ C, l!c~e 1. 11!2 "<• 11240!. ~7E~3. 130GCOe.
t1!<ee . J <t3r-. 14~Jt c . 13<~81· 117287. 112405. ~7623· 1304C52o
1t !<Pe. 1 <f3o•· I-411C. J!<5e t. 11 !2 42. 11 2 •0!. 976 2 3. 130CC08.
ll~~e e.__.1,&3C~ •· __ 1.411110, _.1!~5f1. __ ll!B.L._J_l240!o 5162.1.._ 130CCD8o
11 •7Pf , l i~304 o 1-•110. 1!<5 Pla 113~4 2o 11 2 -r~. 57~23o 130CC08a
tt ~<P.€. 1 <~3c-. J4~11 t . 1!<~et. 1112e7. 112-o~. 57623. 13o-c ~2.
11 ~ 2 r E .
1 1 ' 'P P ,
1~~11 0 .
1(1.3 !.4. 14-11 0 .
1 :1?>14, 14411 ~.
1!<581.
1!<!:e1.
13<7.~1.
I H2!Eo 1124C~. ~H~3. 1301C5So
11 72! ... 7 , __ 1.124.0~ ~...5JHl._l304 C!2,
11'2 -<• 112-C~. ~7623• 130~C0Ra
1~!0
1'>5J
1~52
19 ~3
19~4
19 5!>
1"l~6
1~57
19~8
1<J'59
.1560
t 'If-!
1962
19f 3
I '!164
191\!.
J'j66
19f7
19t.8
1~69
1970
1U1
J'j 72
1 97~
197"
197!>
1976
1977
1978
1979
198C
')
.,
0
0
0
0
---
JRC~lt1 Hill~-~~
(•
0
(
(
(
(
(.
(.
c
[J
Y(&R
• c
f
1
I ·.
. u
I;
I~
I•
JC
H
.11
lf
I"
c I
;;
4!
--.. ,.
1'1 ..
I'
r •
r •
~ .
'-·
~.
c. , .
r • ". ~·.
t.
c.
c.
c.
'· '· r..
( .
~.
r •
r •
l.
i..
(.
(.
c.
~.
-
.. l~l
t •
~ .
( .
~ . .. . . .
. . .
( . ' . ( .
' . ( .
'· ( .
t •
. .
~ . , .
~.
·-.
~ .
. .
t •
r •
· ..
, . .
--------
fl ~llHtHU Pl<t~ru CFIRit i Ot. SfUfY
I 1 1 ,: t.rJ.t•£(1 1!l CIIIIIHHlPAL!. HCotHo
tL&~KI Pt~[A tUII.CHII~
----
-. ---U tl U!U.. --·--. _
tlHI·'·'11"r l: HH11Uii ~.11>111 llt.'II.£Lo ~IH riH II[LlAS[S
--
.... , y HG !.1 I' 1 ",_. etc . --o~u. fU---.... ___ _,._-lUYR CALYII
c.
~.
(.
(.
L,
••
I o
c.
:.
t.
c.
'· c. ..... c •.
r . .
c.;
~.
0 •
~.
~. c.
c. . ..
c. " . ,,.
' .
~.
o. e. . ..
--Co ·
o • .. . .
I. •
r •
r •
' ..
r •
l •
r .. . ..
' ..
t.
" -.
~.
. .
c.
~. t. '·
r • '• ,.. •
~. ~. ~.
.t.. -·--· -~-·--·----.... c. o. t. . _.
'· c.
(.
~.
r •
~ .
".
r •
" ..
c.
t;:.
~.
! •
c.
c.
lo
' .
L • c •
a • o.
c.
c. '·-(.
r •
t.
c.
~.
c.
f •
c.
c. c.
'· (',
. t. --·-
! •
c.
r • c.
c.
c •
r.
c.
c. r.
a. t.
(. '!.
-·-'· .. t. c. r.
a. r.
~. c.
fo ~.
c. r.
... a. "· ~. 0. 0.
o. 0.
Oo ------Co ....
(!. 0.
0. ~. "· ~ .
!lo Oo
o. o.
t •. -4·--·
~ • G • o. o.
~.
0.
~ . 0. c. c.
Co -· Go
". 0.
0. o.
o. o •
~. a.
~. o.
__ ,. ·------·-!. --___ Q_, _____ -··· ·-c.
( .
c.
~.
c.
Go
r, • . . .
r •
c.
~.
r.
c.
(.
c.
f.
'· r •
l .
~.
r -. r.
('. 0. o. e.
IJ.
~.
II,
" •• ~ .
c •
c.
"·
o. o. e. a.
a •
Lo
c.
c. c.
'· c. •• Co Go Oo c. r. a. c. c. ••
•• o. ••
--'----~ ... ---·--·· •• •• •• ~. o. •• c. o. ••
c. c. ••
'· c. •• a. ~. •·
--'•----. c. ·--· 0. o. ••
c. a. •· c. •• o.
a. r. •· a. o. •·
__. _ __c. ·-c. c. o.
c. •• ••
fo Co le
c. a. •• c. P. a.
--' le '•
G. e. •· •• c. ••
~. '· .. c. o. ••
De Oo I•
c. •• o.
•• -.. •• '• •• •• •• -·-.. •• o.
•• •• •• ---···· ••
• •• •• •• •• -~----"..____...__ __
• •• •• c. o. •• o. c. ••
c. o.
··-t .. ___ --: '"----• .. ---· a. ~. o.
••
••
-· .. ••
U!l
19!11
.. ~2
U!!
19!,
19!1~
l'!' ,,.,.,
19~·
U!''
1 ...
1911 uu
Uf!' .. ,,
Uf5
1"' 19U
1"1
19 ••
1910
1971
nu
1973
19U
197!
1976
nn
ltll
1979 . ...
-
f)
0
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
0
0
I'
()
c·
c·
. (
(
c
(...)
--YU P.
•
~
~
l
f •• c
H
·--·-a1
H
I!
l•
I!
H
·-··11
IF
JC
«-= .. ~ ·.
• 'r ,. . ".
: .
~.
~.
l •
(.
c·.
r •
t. ,.,
"· ,·,
r •
~.
t.
t •
'· ~ .
t.
c.
t.
~ .
.c .
( .
1.
; ! ( •
(.
.. u. [
~ .
( .
( .
t.
c •
(..
( .
(.
r • ••
. .
' ..
{ .
.. •• ~ .
~.
( . '. , ..
c •
r. •
:_ .
(.
( .
; I •
: ! ~ •
r11n.p n ·u re r dfl crrr,t.l!••' ~tun•
I Jt •I \ff ,q r·t frl ( nll'.P'fl.l r ·'l ~ Jt.Coo~r •
li!S H PCHR H :li.CI<l fY .... --~t. -U~----· FAU ..
tLtn,.attV' 1: l'r:lf<li:UR ~.t·r.F.t 11.:1\to£l• I.IH Fl!t lt[LUStS
··,
H -·----·· ,-
t.:l
~LLY ~r rt. ct.t --· _r,t~ .LLC .. . .JU .... ftc.l'---UR---...t•~•a___nnR ULYit ---.. --.. --.
. .. .. ... .. .
~.
!!~.
1 ~ 1.
~.
ll!. ,,, . ........
. . ' .........
~! r..
~:!a.
~~r:.
.!!a .
~!o.
'!~",j. . .. .. ... .. .
~ 7 l •
• • 0 . .....
I•· ~ '
.C!~~
~ ·" r:.
; I 7 e
!:''.
'! 7 r •
:.. ~!') •• ~.r:.
--t·------.. !1(1. --17.!.
~. ~17o 13Po
c.
r.
r.
r .
'!!r..
'!~:l .
!~(,.
~!0.
. .. .. ... . .
. ---'•--·----IU•--·-·:..'.,.,_.
(, !1'• !'C•
;~r. !~r. '!'C•
H <. ~!0, C.
•• !tl!o Co·
t.
!!t. -·---
~ c; 1.
r .
t.
!!:.
' .. ... .. .. ... .
11f,
. . . -......
< 11'. .. ~ ......
'I 1 'J •
~. , ..
! !\..
71!. . " .. -· .
!!(,.
. . . . " ... . .. ... .......
: .
~.
C t .F .•
~ ( ta • -.
1' ~.
~ 7: •
,. ,. r
( . .
;· 1 q.
t :. 1 •
l !:f. c. o. c • Do Co Oo H2o U!a o. c. o. o. a. a. o. 61· 1'9!1
1~1. ~0 e. to Co Go Oo '9~o 1'9~2
let. c. n. o. Do Co Oo '54o 1'9!13
... Co-... -----'•·-·-·---llo---·--llo _____ , ____ G ... ___ __..a~. 74. 1954
If!. c. o. o. Oo c, Oo 11o U!o!i
c. o. o. o. •• ~·· 1956 ... . r. "· c. o. e. •• 69. 1'957
1''-l· c. o. o. a. o. o. '96. 1'951!
Co Co ~. Co Co tlo Do 4lo 1'9'5'9
.. ----C ·--·--·--11·--------ll·----a. __ __. _____ -~;. ____ _. ••. __ u •. 1961
c. r. o. o. a. r. o. -''• t9f.t c. t. c. o. o. e. e. ss. 1'962
C • t. Oo Do a. Co Do S2o 1"6~
c. c. a. a. o. a. •• s•. 1'9t• o. (. r. o. o. lo Oo 4So 1'965
·--.:-----G •----.. --' •----C .. ----~i.._----IC>.o-.---~111.4-o -•I• ---U66 o • r. c • o. o. r. e. s•. 1'" 1
c. Co n, Co Co a. Oo 76o 1'968
c. .• o. c. c. "· o. •1· 19ft!
It-t. (', :. o. a. r. •• 3'9o 1'970
~. (, C o Oo Co Oo lo 23o 1'911
1es.. --~• iio---Do -·----4o lo •--•J• ·U12
•. c. ~. e. c. o. e. '"• t'97~ c. c. c. o. o. r. e. eo ·1•1•
1P1. ~. c. a. c. r. •· 21. 1975
1e~. c. r . c. o. e. o. '93. 1'976
<!F. ( o ~·· ~. Go t'o Oo 6flo 1971
;~~. ...£._ :. ·--Go --·----Al-••----~C••----.uDe.---4no lUI
1 o; •. c. c . t. c. r. o. 11. 1'97'9
~lr:, c. ~. o. c. o. o. • •• ••ee
1 .. . . :.
c.
r •
~.
~.
c.
c.
c.
~.
a.
-D•--·-
Co
••
~-----• ... r. e.
• ••
142o ••
IJ
0
c
0
•
0
n
-
('
l\.
0
0
0
0
r
< r
~I
-~ ': . .
! 1
-
1 <.)1 :.
(.
' . .
l •
(
(.
(.
(.
(.
! •
l •
(,
(.
..
~ .
'
( .
l •
~ .
( .
7 ~17!.
;,.
-
~l 1. r
. . .
' ..
' . .
(.
l •
f •
(.
(.
( .
r.
(.
r. •
. . ' . ~ .
(.
~ .
(.
'· 7' I •
1 ~ ! ! ! II •
-
.,I.LY
I' H 1 ?.
(t ~ I ."' i •
1 r II 1 ~ •
(.
I~ IF I ',
; '' ." I· ~ • c.
, , .. 4 ( •
1 ~ 7 ' 1 ! •
r .
' -· ~.
r •
(.
· ..
I< I C I ? •
1 ~ ~ t.,,..
'·
,,
l~Hl!o
4" 1 ; .1
•
f.! p:! l.
! I 7 It ,
I ~ 7 I I !, . .
-------n AKHI A1'~6 FPC,rtl CP[IlHJOI\ S lUCY
tlf,HU ,rr rttr l f l~ll f.rJHP H S 11\C,tHo
All~l\1 r t~tl< ALTICR1ll
----
___ cut J..O!e.!. ___ _
H T!R f,All\1 < 1 : l'rHT IU R H f P l T UH(lo I.Jll-fl~t RElEASES
--
15
fl(, ~~ r T r. C I C[.C F L L ---MAR ---.tfR_ lClYR OLYk
l'"~;~r .
1 c ! ;. r: l •
1 t.. ~ = ~ (·.
1' ! ; r :;,
l ~ ! ; ': t..
1 t. ~·; ~c. •
1 ': .' ~ ( :-•
1 r ~: ~ r ••
l c ~; .. ').
1 ~ ! ; (. ~ •
1~!;~~.
14 ! t: f c •
1 ';.!' c; J .
)C!~~:.
1 !'..!; c; r •
.s=~~6 .
l4 lf !?o
t'!~ct,
I'( iH,
II 4 '4 7 ,
l~..':~t .
I c ! ; c "" •
1•1'~7 .
1 ~!·~:.
1 c. ! ; c;: •
J ! .! c ~ l •
l !fl(7o
1 ~,. ; 1 1 •
( f '· ( :-•
1 .• «; t 7 7 .
;; J LJ c:,
L I (I ~ •
l • r ' 11 •
e: ,, ( 7 1 •
1 !7 ;!}.
1!~~71 .
1 I f I 4 .
• ~ ( E:~ .<.
I 77f..
1 ! ': '. 7 7.
1 l 1 ~ 4! •
1 ~;. 1 .""lf.
~ ~ J • 4 •
l!';C:7 7.
l ! r ', 7 1 •
J :'C C7 7,
..
~ ~ :' l c .
1 t.l .....
·.c ,. ; •
n ' ) '•
I: • ·. 11 .
( !· . i l. •
7 .':.'!.
p l . ( 1 .
1 ; ! •
t •
~ ; : ., c .
• r 71 •
c .
r t ] c •
~ .
' -.
l (<I .
t •
(.
fi .
~.
~.
o.
( .
l.
r •
t •
r •
! 1!:.
1' I r. ~.
C ?~~E .
•·< , ;: ~ •
~! t .! ~.
; ' 1 ; I •
e ~ 11.
I C • (f.,
~~c.11.
r •
(.
(.
r.
L •
l.
( .
( .
r .
(.
(.
r •
~.
' -.
(.
c.
t .
t .
(.
t.
r •
f •
(.
t .
l.
( .
( .
l .
c.
! •
0 .
~.
c . '. o.
r .
~.
n •
' . .
~.
c .
~.
c .
~.
r •
(,.
0 .
'I •
j .
J .
Q .
c .
? •
c .
0 .
0 .
0 .
' . .
Q .
0 .
c .
o.
l •
c.
0 .
c.
c .
.a •.
c.
a .
a.
o.
c.
c.
o.
0.
o.
0 .
(.
o.
a .
o.
0.
c.
0.
.Q ••
~.
c.
0 .
c .
0 .
~.
c.
0.
o.
c.
c.
o.
o. 6111 '510.
o. :.>f -!@8.
o. 477~10.
o. 171146.
·-·-'•-----D----0• _.J7e!89o r . c. o. 3:.>!<65 .
Co Co a. 2 4Ec61o
c . o. o. 3~1-~8.
o. o. o. 4 5<!02.
c. o. o. 1 6~9-4.
----t~-c...___.. __ Q.__18C 121o
c. ~. c. 1•!£~6.
c.
0.
c.
o.
~.
~.
o.
o.
o.
29~267.
2 712 33 .
28£ Cl4o
o. c. o. 20f424.
__ _t...__ __ Q _____ o .• _17t !44o
c. o. o. 28 1£10 . a. t. o. 391t13.
r. O. Oo 1P~t9 J o
Co Co Co 1-C!18o
o. c. o. 114!-7. __ o ____ o ... ___ ~o .... _" 31496.
Go r . Do 3 71!!:'Jf,.
c. o. o. o.
c . r. Do 3-C24o
Co Co Oo 43CI!01o
c. 0. Co Do 29!C66o
0 . __ _.J _____ .o; .__--'! .... _6!: ~ 654.
c •
0 .
c.
c .
r .
c.
0 .
0.
o. o. 2~!<14.
Co Do J97732o
c. o. 29!,181.
__ Q ____ o..___ _o...._681~1o.
o. c. o. o.
19!:0
1'.l!l
1 '552
19 !-~
19 5 4
19 ~')
1t;56
1'5 ')7
19 !8
1959
19 6a
1 1lf 1
1t;62
1'Jf,J
19 1:•
19f.!·
1 '366
19f>7
191'8
1969
197C
1t;71
19 72
1973
1974
197 5
1 9 76
1977
1'J7e
1 97<1
1980
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.. FRC~tc 1 !H1~~ll
C f fYA(fft r~~ F~t .[Cl LFlR&1 10. S lUCY
f II •'"~C r ,f ((H[l C I V IL KI'I IIfr.~u: III C ooH •
~U ~I';I F CI.lf\./UTI (I IlY
tl 1[f\fll~f 1 : ~C t P li Uf.. ~I L ~1 lLIIHLo I.IH fnf RELEASES
.. •
H -
~ 0
(
(
('
(·
(i
r·
1 '
-11
I<
I~
I~
I"
I '
11
II
I c
;:r
;: 1
., ---a -
! ,
'---I' A)
I'll\ "·
c •
''•
l •
r •
(.
(.
'.
L •
~ .
( .
r . .
(.
t.
~.
~ .
r •
t.
r •
' . .
c.
(.
(.
r •
~ .
(.
(.
~ .
I •
~ i : •
.... L L Y
r~!~.
' . .
c: ~ •
~.
If!:-~.
c; f: ::.
'.
r •
(.
:.
i •
I ; F ,
(.
7 ~ l ~.
(,
I LG
:. ,... c '-;.
4 ~ f 2 •
~ r 4 ~ •
~· : ~ ;: .
~ t;: •
( ~ l. , •
~ ~ ~ 7 •
l i; 4 .....
,. "1 r •
; .'c. ( •
1~1 ~~.
:.
? ,.._ ,. ] •
; i f '* •
I 1 ~' •
; ~ 1 ~: •
(' i ~'I •
~ .
I o. r '; 4,
! ~ i 1 •
r;.
~.
'j f,,
~.
~ ; !f .•
I I· 7".
! 11 1 •
~-
!.l F l. __ .. -C.U ----NO ll. ______ [;(.( ___ _.)At, __ .f~Lr __ _,MAR..___.l.ER._ .. A\I(YL CAL YR ._
,. 1':
; ( .~ i'.
1 ~.
':1 .'.
4 J ':.
(·I 1 o
1 . '··
r •
l •
I 0
,,;·.
.:-1 7.
41 ... ~.
r,,
u •
o.
c.
( .
~.-'. -.
( .
( .
t .
~ .
'.
( .
l •
r •
r -. c •
r •
( .
r • c •.
u .
r .
c •
t. -·
c .
·-·
( .
! •
r..
---c.
t .
(.
(.
(.
. t.
c.
c.
(.
0 .
'·· c.
(.
(.
1-.
c .
r.
r -.
~ .
' -·
c .
c .
c .
c •
~.
( ..
~.
0 .
n • . ..
0 .
L ----·
0 .
0 .
~.
0 .
0 .
c .
0 ..
0 .
~.
c .
0 .
~.
~.
r •
t .
0 ..
0 . ,, -.
( .
r
u •
r . .
ry .
e '
0 •. --
~ .
~.
c .
c.
(•.
0 .
~.
0 .
c •
0 . c •
r .
(•.
c.
c.
o.
0.
0.
0.
H60o
!8 0.
~64.
~79.
77 7.
~. ( .
_Q. __ __c_....___ c._ __ __....._ __
r.
0.
r •
c.
c •
c.
0 .
c.
c .
0.
c •
t.
0.
t .
c.
c.
r..
o.
Go !:12o
o. 25 1.
0. !~·. o. @83.
o. o. o. 196.
__£ --0 ____ _....._ __ . .!~ 'J.
c •
0.
0.
0.
c.
(,
c.
c.
o. o.
0. !~ ~.
o. 232.
o. 'l!!.
G o Oo Oo Oo ~1)'1,
.c •. ____ ..n c.___---D.._ ___ Ho.
Co O o Oo Oo !!1o
o. o. c. o. f2!!.
o. o. o. o. ~39.
c . ~. o. o. o.
o. c. c. o. o. o . _c ,. ______ c..__ ___ o .__ 1115 ....
c . c. r. o. 27:!.
0.
c.
c.
0 .
. 0.
0.
o.
c.
.Q.
0 .
c.
~.
o.
o.
0. c.
0. c.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
79 .
o.
---t --D o-----"--.1 ~ 02 •-
t •
o.
c.
c.
c.
c.
o, 157.
0. 26~.
o.
...c •---_c ------"-1(60.
o. r • o. o.
1'3 5~
1951
t<;~;>
19 53
195~-----
19 ~!\
l'l 56
1957
1';!:6
1 959
1960
1 %1
19 f-?
1CJ6 3
196-
1'l f\~
l '366
191\7
1%8
1 'H-e:'
19H
19 71
197 2 .
1 c; 73
1974
197 5
1'l7 6
1 <;17
l'ne
1 'l 79
1980
0
(')
··_~
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c. 0
0 0
Q 0
0 0
.._.: t. r f _ .. ~ ,. , , _..... ,,, ·' 0 • ' .
.. -----PROJECT 1'1879001
w !~S TALLED CAPACITY: l ~Or oo. KW
bhHUAL PLANT FACTOR: .5
OVERLOAD FACTOR: !.DO
PLANT EFFICIENCY: of 50
FRICTIO~ LOSS COEFFICIE~T: .0000~28~J
MOUT~LY LOAD FACTORS:
-------CHAKACHAMNA PROJECT OPERATION STUDY
H/Htii&CFtBECHHL C IVIL&I'IINEIIALS JNCotSFo
ALASKA POWER AUT tiOR IT Y ---DATE 3!178 3
ALHI<NATJVE D: CIIAI<ACtiATNA TUNN£lt IIJTii FJStl RELEASES
.920 o H7a .7~r .7C G ob'l~ ob20 .&11 .~4( .7C O o800 o92 G 1.000
I~ITIAL LAKE STORAGE :4"332 0 0. AC-FT
MINIMUM LAKE STCRAGE :?.'123600. AC-FT
I'IAXI~UM LAKE STfRAGE :~~332CO. AC-FT
---PAGE
....
..... ....
PRO J E CT l4 P 79 0 3 1
R(S (R VO J R S TO R AGf-[L[VATI ON -AR (h;
~c -r r Ff (T ACP(
~. 7 6"· ~.
2:?5 . 7 6 ~. A 1 v ,
73(10. 7 7 r , 1 .3 ~ 0 .
?1 2 c !•. 7 P r . 7.690 .
1 1 1 r· o ~, HOC, ':>F-7 0 .
2 4 1 .j '= 0 . 82 ~. 732 c .
397 -~:, u. e 4 r . (I 2 7 \j o
5 7 2"~J . IHr ~, 928 0 .
1 f.n r. ~C . B R ~. 1 ~4 ~ r..
9 r 0 'G 0 . 9 o r, 11 ~g ij .
1 2240Q;), q 2 0 . i 1 9bC .
l4f.H ~~. 9 4 r , 1 <'32C ,
17 17!:~3 . 96 (. 1 26~0 .
1 91-}~~G . 98 ~. 12 91\G o
~23 &0 ~0. 1 ~ 0 '!. J 32Ar..
2 5 (4 0 0 0 . 1 ~ 2 ::. 1~52C o
2 7 7f.JO G, 1 \:~ ~. 1 3 74 :.,
3 ~5 .3':G~. 1 ~6 •• l 39£:J ,
33~5 0 0 ~. 1 C B ~·, 1 4 1 7 0 •
. 3£-<:,Q :;, 1 1 0 ~. J 4 Jq u ,
3 9 1 "·~~0. 11 2 £1 . 14 62 fo .
q 2l l':iCG . 1 1 q c . 1 51 " il .
4 2 5 -.o~c.. I 1 4 2 , 1()7 8 0 •
4 47 7 5 \l •• 1 1 5 ~. 178 '1 2 .
T A1L IIAHR -F L OII Rl l AT I ON S I'!P:
rr c T CF S
4 : J . c •
4Co (J . J O Ot'Or .
MONT I'L Y ~II: !HUM IN S TR (AM F L OII S I N
!.'J . so . 3 c . 3il o 3 0 .
11 0NT ~-'LY O !VERS I ON R[OU IR[11[NT S It<
c • ~. 0 . 0 . c .
r•c rn !·L v Rr ~(H VO I H [VAf'OP ~l !Gio I ll
v . ( . ' ·) . ~· . . .
CF s :
3 0 . 30 .
CF!>:
G • o.
I IIC t•f S :
. . (:,
Cl'h KACI IAMNA PROJ (C l OPf.R AT I ON S TUDY
11/H ,t!&C F ,R(CI I H L C I V I L ~MI NER AL S INC, ,S F,
AL ASKA PO IJ (R AU T t'OR I TY
All[ll NATI VE 0 ! CI IA KACIIAHIA TUNNE L• II !T H F I SII RELEASES
!,0. 30 . ~ 0 . 3 {J . 30.
0 . t'. 0 . 0 . 0 .
0 . '. J . u . 0 .
OAT[ 30 78 3 PA G ( 2
-------------------CllfiKACIUMNA PROJECT OPERATION STUDY
ti /II,II&CF ,OEC HTEL CJVIL&HINERALS JNC .. SF .
PROJ(C T 14879 C01 ALASKA POII(R AUTHORITY OAT( 3(j 10:5 PAGE 3
ALTERNATI VE o: CllAKACilA TIIA TUNNEL, Ill T II F 1 S li RELEASES
JNF"l OilS ro THE UK E I N CFS
Y[H JAN F CP MAR APR HfiY JUN( JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV OE.C AVE YR CAl YR
4 0 0. :3 0 7. 267. :5 9:5 . 36 ~7. f.IIH . 112~9. ?3:57. 3145. Ill .59 • 799. 117 0 : 3220. 19t-O
2 8 77. cl 89 • 47 Q. 3 4 6. I IIII 1 • 79 83 . 1 2 8CII. 101199. 6225 . 15 !I f.. Hll :5 • 696 . .3 76 7. 1961
3 633. 541 . 4 71. 1170. 1 2£-!\. 7925. 1 ;\149. 10411. 5542 . 1 19 7 . 863. 613 . :55'10. 19 62
4 1198. !5 7. 315. ;\37. 1 8 : 1. 11735. t 3 249 . 1 22 08. 58 1t7. 20 56 . 93C. 71 ~. :5587 . 1963
•, 3611. 43!'>. 33~. 4 77. 1 8 3 u. 1109:5. IC70 0o 11 7?8. 42'16. 1211 5 . 909. b62o :5 4 2 It • 1964
f, 419. 21 q . :53 7. .391\. I 2Hb • :H90 . 1 3 0 4 6 . 10 516 . 10002 . 21 )II. 59 7. 4 66 . :5 64' I • 19 65
7 311 1J. 3 3 ~. 3 !\0 . 4 )Q. 16"3 . 11 ~72. 1 !' :5 c .3 . 99 74. f.608 . 19 53 . 91 0 . :5 1 3. 345?. )966
R 5 :3 1. 4ll 9 . :384. 1111 c • ;>!130 . "76 1 • 1 49:51 . 15695. 619 1. 2 u 4o. 1 2 1 5 . 571 . 111173. 1967
" s :H . !11 ~ • 'I b I. f>3 0 . 79"{,· 1n r o. LH 17. 11 257. 2 7'1 3 . 976. f.89 . (:. 12 • 3 5 :32. 1 9611
1 -ItA~. 4P6 . 5r'O . 6 "'2 · 1 .... 8 . 'J~ 71. 1 2 '; I U. 72'17. 2 79 :3. :30 5 7. 1 2 1 5. 541. :5396 . 1969
! I 497. 5G4. 5 1)0 . 1199 . 22 &5 . F-789 . l l 3(, (j . 7 9116. 2 7 34 . lJ 59 . 742. '160. 2929. 1 9 7 ()
'I[ Ari 51 1. 4 .3 0 . 4')4t. !'"•36 . 2 ~76 . 7251 . 1 2:3 L7. 10 6 71. 5 175. 172 9 . 88:5 . 592. :551t 7.
14AX 877. 5 11°. 55 0 . Fl99 . :36:'o7. 927 1. 1119:31. 15695. 1 08Q2 . 3 05 7. 1 2 1 5 . an . 11473.
HIN 3&4. 219. 267 . 337. )2(,5 . 3490. 1 0 3 0 :5. 7297. 273 '1. 9 7&. 59 7. 313. 2929 .
Chloi(ACIIAI'.NA PROJECT OPERATION STUOY
H llit ii~CF oBECP.TEL C IV IU.MJN(RALS lNCotSF,
PROJ[C T 1~879 C OI ALASKA POIIER AUT IIORITY 0 ATE: J07t1J P AGE ~
AL T(J(NA Tl V( o: CfiAKACitA TNA TUNNEL, IIITtl FJSII RELEASES
POIIfR REL[ASE IN CFS
Y[ ,\R JAN F[l: MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC AVE YR CAL YR
~5&2· 3411~. 317b. 2PP C, 2655 . 25~2. ;'4 JO, 2~117. 26711 . 30 75, 3f. J2. 4040, 3~47. 1%C :> ~8~8. ~ f ,p.p . 3 3!>~. J ~39. 26 t.6 , 2720 . 25 7 7. 252.3. 2682. :'075. .3599, 4(135. 3 162. 1961
31;1~7 . Jt.c:i4. J 36 0 . J ·, ~5. 711 1 9, 7735. :>593. 2532 . 2bll2. 3075 . 36 ~ 7. II 045, 31 (,'1, 1%:? 4 3860, 3711. 331!1. 3 (69. 26?--11 . 2750. :?663. 2596. 2686. .3075, 3589. 4 019. '3186. 196 3
5 38.30. 3f.6~. 3 355. 3 2 45. 211 ·,9. 2724. :!5 79. 2558. 2684. .3075, 36C6. 11(143, 3166. 1964
(, 3856. 37 ~~. J JA£ • :'1 0 69. 2 "·'~. £75'1. 21-o 96. 2631. 273~. 307P.. .35119. '\026. 31':17. 1965 7 31144, Jf..97. 3J(,9. 3 ' 57. 2 A;> I, 2735. 2590, 2574. 26'12, 3075. 3592. 4 ~23. 3172. 19(,£,
!' 31143, .31-':'~. 3 3(, ~. J r .,n . 2 P '6, 2716. 75 f>l . 24 7 6. 26 79. 3075. 359 J, 4013. 3155. 19 67 c; 3626 . Jh7 5 . 334b. 3 '32 . 27""· :?61!7 . ;:'549. 2493. 2680. 3075, 3612 . 4~56, 3152. 1 968 I r 31172. 3 7 2 ~. 3 39 0 . J ·n. 2AJ I, :?74:'1. 2!> 7 f,. 2526. 2683. :'1075. 3 5f,9, 39115, 3171· 1%'1
! I 3 797 . 31-47. .3 .31 7. 3 ( 04 . 21f,2. 2669. ~550. 2538. ::!6117. 308Q, 3610. ~051. 3h3. 197(1
~:[At: 31!17. 3h 7J. 3.34 5 . 3 .3~. 2 796. 7707. 25 79. 2536. 2688, 3076. .3597. 403~. 3156.
tHY 3872. 3 7 2 3. JJ'I C , :F 73, 211'4 · ;>759. ;>(, 9f.. 2631. 273'1. J~8o. 361:?. 4 ~56 . 3 197,
MIN 3~·&2 . J~ 84 . 3176. 2 f;8 ~. 2655. 25'12. 24 J 0. 2447. 2678. J07 :i . 3569. 3985. 3 0117 .
1--- --- ---------- ---CIUI(ACIIAHNA PROJECT OP[R AT ION STUOY
11/11 til& C F' t BE CIIT E L CIVIL&HINERALS INC • t SF •
PROJECT 14 £179001 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY OAT[ 3 0783 PAG[ 5
ALTERNATIVE o: CHAKACIIATNA TUNNEL • WITH FISH RELEASES
SPILL IN CF' S
HAll JAN f[rJ HA R APR HAY JU"lr JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC AV[YR CAL YR
1 0. 0 . c. 0 . 0. 0. 2 2E.2. 6860. 437. ~. (1, 0. 797. 196C
2 c . n . (j , 0. ~. o. o. 3bH • 3513 . 0. 0. 0 • 5q9, 1961
3 c . r.. (,, 0 • Q . 0. o. 2651. 2830 . o. c. c. 45 7. 196 2 4 0. r, • o. 0 • 0. 0 . o. 697 . 3131. o. o. ~. 319. 19 b~
0. 0 . 0 . 0 • 0 . 0 . o. 2339. 1532. 0. o. 0. ·3?3. 19~4
~ c . c • o. 0 • 0 • 0. o. o. 11970. 0. o. 0 . '11 If • 19 6S
0. '. c. 0. Q. 0. o. ?. 3406. o. o. 0. 2114. 1 'H-(.
1\ 0 . ~. 0 . G • 0 . 0 . 0. 11590. 341!2. 0. o. 0 • 1256. 19f.7
9 0 . ~. r, • ) . ~. 1. 0. 5934. 83. 0 • J. 0 • 50 1. 19f.ll 1 : c. G • Q, ~. g. 0. o. r • o. o. '). J . o. 1969
11 0. ( . r.. 0. 0. o. o. o . o. o. o. o. o. 1970
14(1.11 G • (j . o. 0. 0 . 0 . 2 r E>. 301>8. 2 126 . o. o. 0. 4 5 0.
,..AY G • ('. c. 0 . ~. Q. ?2 (,2 . 11 5 90. 4970. J. o. n • 1 256 . ,.. Jrl 0 . (I . c. o. c. 0. o. 0 . 0. 0. 0 . 0 . o.
I
F I SH ~(L E A S ( I N Cf S
Y(A P JAN FE B MA R APR
:sv . :-.o. 3 n. 30 .
2 30 . 3t . 3 ~. 30 .
~ .3G . 3 ~. 3 c. .3 D •
4 .30 . 3 0 . 3 u. 30.
'i 30 . 3 ('. 3 u. 3 0 .
f, ?. 0 . 3 0 . '0 . 30 .
7 ~ G • J~. .30 . 3 0 .
lj 30 . .3 ~. ~o . .30 .
30 . :\G . 3~. 3 0 .
I j 3 0 . 3 (1 , 3 0 . 3 0 .
11 .30 . 3 0 . 3 Vo :s o.
'I( Atl 3(1 , 3~. 3L. 3 ~.
-MA• 3 0 . 3P , :so . 3 0 .
MI N .3 c . 3 C. .3 0 . 3 0 .
...
, ....
....
...
....
..
-~
C II ~K A CIIAMN A P ROJECT OPERA TIO N S TU OY
h ii i ,II !.Cf ,Bf CtnE L C JV JU.M J N(RA LS INCotSf,
ALASKA PO WER AliT t:Ok 1 1 Y
. .,
~LT Eil N 4 11VE 0: CHAKACHA TNA TU NNE Lt IIJTH Fl S tt RE LE AS ES
MAY J UN E J UL Y AUG SEPT OCT
:\0 . 3 0. ~n. 3~. 3 0. 3 0 .
:s o. 3 0 . 3 G. 30 . 30 . 30 . ,o • 3 0 . :s o. :so. 3 0. 3 C.
~o . 30 . 30 • 30 . 3 0 . 30 .
3 0 . 30 . 30 . 30 . 30. 30 .
3 0 . 30 . 3 0. 30 . .30 . .3 0.
.30 . 3 0 • 3 0. 30 . 30. 30 .
:\0 . 30 . .3 0 . 3 0 . 3 0 . 3 0.
30 . 3 0 . 3 0. :so . .3 0 . .3 0.
'0 . .3 0 . 3 0 . 30 . 3 0 . 30.
3 0 • 30 . :s o. :so. .3 0. .30.
3 0 . 3 0 . .3 0 . .30. 3 0. 3 0.
~a . 311 . 3 u. 3 0 . 30 . 30 .
:\0 , 3 0. 3 0 . 30 • 30. 30 .
OAT£ 3 07A 3 PAG E
NOV OEC AV E YR CAL YR
3 o. :so . 30 . t%r
3 0 . .3 0. 3 0 . l 'H l
30 . 3 0 . 30 . 196 2
3 t . .3 0 . 3 0. 19 f.3
j O, 3 0 · 3 0 . 1?6 4
3 0. 30. 30. 191>5
3 0 . ~0 . 30. 19 66
30. 3 0 . .3 0. 1 96 7
3 0 . 31). .3 (1. 19 f fl
30. 30 . 30 . 1 969
30o 31). 30. 1 97 0
30 . 30 • 30 .
3('. 3~. 30.
3 0 . 30 . 3 0 .
·------- -- - - -- ----- -
... CIIAK ACIIAMNA PROJECT OPERATION STUDY
Hltlt'i&CF,OECIIHL CIVIL&111NERALS INc •• sF.
PROJECT 14 11 79001 ALASKA POWER IIUT HOR IT Y QAT( 3 0 7(!J PAG£ 7 ...
All[I,NATlVE o: CIIAI<ACIIATNA TUNNEL, WIT II F I Sli R[LEAS[S II:E T (V/lPCH AT I ON Ill AC -F l -
Y [ AP JAN F"E P I'.AR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SE PT OCT NOV DEC A V( YR CAl YR -
-
...
...
0 . r . o. :!. 0. 0. o. o. 0. o. j.
~ 0 . (J , o. 0 • l • 0. 0. . Q. o • o. o. 3 c. t . o. 0 • 0. 0. o, 0. 0. o. ~. 0 . c . ~. 0 • 0 . ~. o. 0 . 0. o. o. c; c . 41 . (1 , 0 • ~. 0 . o. 0. 0 . o. o. f 0 . o , e. il • 0. 0. o. 0 • 0. o. o. 7 ~. c . o. 0. c . 0. o, 0. o. o. o. A 0. 0 . ry , c • 0 . 0. 0 . 0. (I. o. o.
'J iJ . J • ry , r • 0 . 0 . 0 . 0. 0 • (J, o. I ~ 0 . -. o. 0 . 0 . 0. o. 0 . 0 . o. 0. I I c • ~. o. 0 . 0 . 0. o. 0 • o. o. o.
0 . o. 1960
0. 0. )Qf,J
c • 0. l 'lf>2
(1, o. 19E:!
0 . o. 196~
c . 0. l'l65
0 . o. 1 966
0 . o. 1 Cjf> 7
0 . 0. 1 9f.8
0 . 0 . 1 96 9
0. G • 1 9H -'l f /IN o. o. 0 . ry • 0 . 0 . o. 0 • 0. 0 . o. o. o. ... I' a~ G • ~ 0 . (I . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . o. 0 • -. o. MIN 0 . c. ~. c • 0 . 0 • o. 0 • 0. 0. ry ,
0 . 0.
ry , o • ...
-
-
.,.
.,
.,
.,
•
•
PROJfCT 14879001
(,Q,p, S t ORAGE I~ ACR f -FT
Y(tR JAN rE R MAR APR
:'1 !\3 6962. 3 (,5 2!>~ q. 3 471821. ~32207:'.
2 ~'8:'1 .39 . 3207149 • . 3026 01 5 . 21\6579".
3 ~'6 H6a. 3 19 u 71t. 3~11222. 2R56192o
4 3 j 29.5 b7. 3 1 "1 4 4". 2951 09~. 2 7B6771o
<, ~~f!64D, 3 1 99 R6 I , 3012109. ;> !t 57'i40 .
..... !> B~!-6(,7, 313R;>Cf,, 2'149151. 27AA409.
7 ~3!:.7222. 3 168 1'7 6 . 29'1141f,. 2 0 22143 .
A ~~6!:.5.5C:, ~.t0366 J . 29 9!lb5f>. 2e&774 4.
.... <; 34 j 69 5 3 . 322317:>. 3 ~44 'I 2 . 209'l5 6q.
1 1' 3l:2'l 0 q. 31214 ~!. 2941924. 277 6"•97.
1 1 346 ~5 1!2 . 3292356 • .31 203 61. 2')93316.
...
MEA N :'141254&. 32 2 9 r3f . 3:i 4n .H1. 289 5'186 .
..... :-'AX ~1136 S 62 . 3652 "0 ';. 3471821 . 3 32 2 0 7 2 .
MIN 3.H29 0 4, 312145 3 . 29H 924 . 27 8 ~771 .
...
;.,
._
....
-
...
-
CH~I<ACIIAMNA PROJ[Cl OPERATION STUOY
11/litP&CftBECIIl[L CIVIL,MIN[RALS INCotSF.
ALASKA POII(R AUTIIOR I TY
ALl[ll NATIV( 0: CIIAKACttATNA TUNN£Lt Willi FISH R[L(AS(S
MAY JUN[ JULY AUG SEPT OCT
3:'-A oq F-. 3634:'>H . 40!.200. '1033200. 110332~0. 393n789 .
28on1 1. 3118 702. H4!'921o .. 03320 0 . 'I 0332!)0 . 3'l398 J2.
2759395. 30(,6416 . 3 71 36~';. 11033200. 403321)0. 391~891.
272 14 10 . 2837769 . 348f.852 o 1t033200 . 4 0 33 20 0. 396 8695.
27?5513 . 31 13225. 3f.H7 11\, 'I 033200. '1033200. 39111837.
26'J I 4 I I. 27:'13099. 3:0.t.7f.3~. 385 06119. ~03.5200. .5972 0 64.
?76:0.218 . 3079~1~. 3 5 51450. 4004599. 403.5200. 39623 3 f'.
2 8181 9 5. 31760 95. 3 9 3 4 8(, 0 . 403320 0 . lt (l33 i'OO. 3967737.
2c:1 ~D6. 3213 a A4 • 3 Bb1 0 53 . 403320 0 . 40332 0 0 . 39 J 2~11.
2 7.39945. 312f.5 89. 3 7 355 :'1'1 . 40 2 70 5'1. 4031798 . 402 8827.
2960911. 3204278 . 36 1126 40. 4015789. 4016014. 3909163.
28490 2 3. 3118422. HC 2 13 5 . 4011863. 4031583. 3946951.
.!38C6 16. .!-63 4374 • 4fo 3 32 ~0 . 4 0 3320 0 . -~332~0. 4 028827 .
2 69 1411. 2 73 3 0 99. . D6 76 35 . 385064 9 • 4016814. 39 tl 2.5 11e
OAl( 30783 PAG[
NOV ore AV[ YR CAL YR
376220t~. 3!'i6 5lo(,j. 3721368. 196G
377'1028. 3566907. 345843 1. 1961
375QA1A· 3537'1'13 . 31t3b339. 1962
3808663 . 3603349. 33'f1818. 1963
375(,5(, 0. 3!'"61151. 343AfL'I,; • 19,;~
379226 7. 3~715'13. 33!:.1175. 19b ~
3~0 0 988· 357105 ... 3424626 . 1966
3824647. 3611186. 311Alt560e 1967
3726602. 3513010. 3480550. 1 9611
3886942. 3£.73335. 3 11 5 1 034 . 1 %':'
3736728. 3514064. 349291 7. 197G
3783677. 3570427. 3466568 .
3886942. :'167333 5 . 3 7 2 136 8 •
3726602 . 3 5 1301a. 335 177 5.
------------.. ------CIIAKACIUHNA PROJECT OPERATION STUDY
H/llt ii &CF tBECIIT[L CIVIL&HINERALS INc.,sr.
PR('IJECT 1"H79 ~~1 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY DATE J078 J PAG[ 9
ALJ[I'NAT !V[ o: CHAKACIIATNA TUNNEL • Ill T II FISH RELEA S ES
[. 0. p . LA ><F: LFV[L IN F(£T
.,
Y(l.P JAN rEF' MAR foPR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC AVE YR C AL YR
I Ill 5 , 11 c 2 . I G9 o . I r 79 o I 0 1\J , I 1 0 1 • 11 2A . 11 211 . 1 1 2 8 . 1 1 2 1. 111 ) • 1 Q96 . 11 C: 7. l 'lf.O
;> )1)/jJ , 1 '71 • 1 0 '>A , 1 ·." f,. 1 r4 2 . 1 %5 . 11 C9, 11 2tl o 1 1 28 . II 2 2 • 1 1 I I , 1 0 %. 1 0 8 A, )<I f,)
' !GH2 . 1 n 7 0 • ),1~7. 1 .' 4 6 . I OH . 1 06 1. 1 1 r, 6 . 11?8. 1 I 2 R. 11 2 0 . 11 0 'J . l 'J 94. 1 0 8 7. 1 %2
1 0110 . 1 :, f, (,. I ~'i ;o,, 1 ~II I • 1 0 ~(,. lr 4 q. 1 ~ '.i 1. 11 2 8. 11 2 8 . 112 '+. 111 J . 1 ()99 . 1 01<4. 1 'lh:3
<, 1 0 1•4 . 1 n,. 1 ~~ 7. 1 : 4 f,. 1 ::4 I • 1 r, 6 4. 1 (\Q'J . 11 2 11. 112 8. 1 1 2 1. 11 0 9. 1 0 9 5 . 1 08 7. 19 6 '+
(. I ~ 1\ C • 1 :·f. F-. 1 )5 J , 1 ·: .. 1 • t ;:J ... !J J7. 1 (11!2 . 111 6 . 1128. 11 2 ... 1 11 2 . )1)97. 1 (If 1. 1 '16!'.
7 1 '8 2 . 1 ~H . 1 J ~~. 1 )4J . 1 r 'q . I (I f, 2 . 1 v95 . 11 ?6 . 11 28 . 11 ;> J . 1 I 1 2, I =' 97. 1 ~~~6 . 1 9f.f
f 1 j!! 2. 1 :69 . 1 v5 "'· 1 r ,. 1. 1 (. .. J . 1 v 69 . II 22 . I 1 2 A • 11 28 . 11 :> ... 1 I 1 '. I 0 q q • 1 ~9 0. 19f.7 .. 1 ~115 • I '1 2 , 1 ')'i ':'. l f~4". 1 !l'i 0. 1 0 7 I • II I 7, 11 28 . 11 28 . 111 9. 1 1 0 7. 1092 . 1 090 . 1 96(1
I .. I (.7 8 • 1 'tJ !:. 1 0 5;>. 1 C '+I , I C ,\ 7. 1 06 'i. !!CR . 11 2 8 . 1 1 2 8. I 1 2 ft • 1 1 I 1\. I 1 0 '+ • 1 r.ll8 . 1 9611
; I 1089 . 1 ~ 11. 1 J6 5 . 1 ' 56 . I C..,J . I t7 1. I 1 C.'+. 1 1 2 7 . I 1 2 7. 11 2 c. 11 08 . 1 09 J. 1 09 1. 197 0
:•[ Arl t c8 5. 1 n 1 ;>. 1 059 . 1 -49 . 1 G 4 5 • 1 0 65. llr•6 o 1127. 11 2 8. 1 I 2 2 • 1 111. 1 0 97. 1 0 8 9 .
MAX 111 5 . I I 0 2 , I 0 9 ~. I • 79. 1 ~·flJ . 11 0 I , I I ;>II , 11 211. 11 2 8 . 11 211 . I I I 8 , 11 C ll, I 1 ~ 7 ,
MIN 1 ~7 8 . 1 u.s . 1 05;:!. 1 t; 4 1 • H .H. 1 OJ 7, 1 0112 . 111 b . 11 2 7 . 1119. 11 0 7. 1 0 92. 1 0(1 1 •
CII~KACIIAHNA PROJECT OP £RATION STUDY
11/ll•t't CF .AECII T EL CIVIL&M I NERALS INC •• SF.
PR OJ(C T 1 4879~01 ALASKA POWER AU T il OR I T Y OATE JC.78:5 PAGE 1 0 ...
All(RNAT I V( o : CIIAKACIIATNA TUNNEL • WITH F I SH RELE ASES
\lA l( A B AL~N C( -
Y[AR JAN F[fl. f",Af( APR HAY JUNE JULY AUG srPT OCT NOV DEC AVE YR CAL YR -I 0 . ~. ~. o. 0. o. o. 0 • o. o. o. ~. o. 196U
;> 0 . ( . 0 . o. 0. ~. o. 0 . o. o. o. p . o. 19#-1 -.\ o. J • o. 0 . 0. 0 . 0 . 0. 0 . 0 . o. ~. 0. 1 Q62
0 . 0 . V o ~. 0 . 0 . o. o . o. o. 0 . il . 0 . 196J
5 c. c. ' c • G • 0 • o. 0 . o. 0 . . J . 0 . 191)4 -· , ..
h 0 . ~. o. 0 . 0 . o. o. c . 0 . o. o. o. o. 191>5
7 ~ . 0 • J . ~ . 0. 0. o. 0 . o. 0 . o. 0 . 0. 1 91)(-
I< ~. ~. n. 0 . 0. 0 . o. 0 . o. c.. p , c . o. 1 967 -'l 0 . ~. 0 . 0 . r. • 0 . o. o. 0. J . o. J . o. 1 '16(1
I ' ~. r • ' . p • o. 0 . 0 . o. o. 0 . o. 0 . o. 1969
; I ~. Q . c. c . o. 0. o. 0 • o. 0 . o. 0. o. 197 ~ -~l E tN Q • 0 . r . (i . o. 0 . o. o. o. 0 . o. 0 . c .
MH ~.-c . o. 0 . o. 0 . 0 . o. o. 0. 0 . 'l . o.
I'. I ~ 0. 0 . o. c • 0 • 0 . o. o. o. 0. o. 0 . o.
....
-
..
-
w
.. ------------------LII~KACt t A,.,NA PtcU.Jt rT OP£RATION STUDY
tt /ti 9 11 &CF .REC H T (L CIVIUHIN[RALS INC.,SF.
PROJECT 1~8 79 00 1 ALASKA POW[R AUTHORITY OAT[ 307113 PAG[ 11
ALT[PNH!V[ o : CIIA K ACIIA HU T UNN(L , WI Til FISH R[L[A S[S
POW[ A IPI I'll
y [ ~~~ JAN Ff l' MA R ~P R ru v J UN ( J U LY AU G SEP T OC T NOV DE C AV[Y R CAL YR
I R!i , 1 1 n . 1 5J o J .n . 1 ;:>~. I 2 1 , 1 1 Q. 1 25 . 1 3 7. 1 5 7. 1 R r . 1 Q6 . 1 5 0 . I 91·0
;> Ill c.. 1 7". I ~ . I H. PS , I? I • I I 9, 125 . 1 ~ 7. 1 5 7. 1 8C , 1"6 · 1 5 0 . 191..}
' l bii . I 7C • 1 5~. I 3 7 , 1 ~5 . 1 2 I , I I 9 • 1 2~. 1 7. I ~ 7, 18 ~. 1 96 . 1 50 . l"t-7
4 1 <10 . I 7 r., 1 5 ~. 137. 1 2 5 . 1 <'1. l l 9 . 125. 1 J 7. 1 5 7. 1 a o. I 91-o • 1 5 0 . I "I· 3
I fl C, I 7 ~, 1 .... ·'. t:n . l ?!'"J . 1 2 1. I I 9, 125 . l .H, I 5 7, 18!1. 1 " ... 1 50 . l 'Jt.'l
.... 6 1 R 0 , I H . 1 5 j , I 3 7, 1 2 ~. );>}, I I 9 , 1 25. l.H . 1 57 . 1 11 r . 1"6 · 15 0 . I 'Jfo5
7 1 8C.. 1 7: • 1 5~. 1 3 7. 1 75 . 1 7 1 • I I 9 , 1?5 . 1 3 7. 15 7, I II C, 1"(,, 1 !'i 0. 19 (,6
A )It~. l 7 : .• 1 ~ 3 . 137. I ?'\, l 2 1. l 19 . 125. 1.~ 7. I <; 7, 180. 1 C'lt,. 1 5 0 . 1 9f,7
" Ill r . 1 7 c.. 1 ~' ~. 1 37 . l ?~. I 2 1 , II '1 , 175. l .H , 157. I A 0 . I 9&, 1 5 0. 1 %11
I • lAO , I 7 C , 1 !'i 3 . ! 37 . ] 2 ~·. l 2 I , 1 I 'l , 1 75. 1.~ 1. 157. t ao . 1 "6 . 1 5 0 . )a t-9
:I !PC, JH , 1 5 J , I 37 , 1 25 . I 2 1 , 11 9 . 12 5 . 137 . 1 5 7. I I! C. 1 ')(,, 1 5 0. 197 0
N[ All 1 A;;. J 1 ~. 1 5 3 . I 37 , 1 75 . I 2 1 , 1 1 9 . 1 25 . 137. 1 57 . 18 0 . 1 9(,. 15 0 .
I H~ I SO , 1 7 r, • 1 53 . 1 3 7 . 1 :'5 . 1 71 • 1 1 '). 1 25 . n1. 1 5 7. 18 c . 1 96 . 1 ~0 .
MIN 1 11 0 • I 7 ;;, 15 ~. 1 37 . 1 ?5 . 1 2 I , 119. 1 2 5. 1 J 7. 157. 1 80 . 19&. 15 0 .
-
-
...
PHOJECT l~I\79 J OI ...
[t;fR GY I N MW H
Y E t R JAN F[b MAR APR -1 3.'1 9 20 . 1 I ll '' 7 1 , I U5~1. 9 8E-n'l .
2 1 ~.'19 20 . 11'1.~/1 (,, I 1 !. 5 11 1, 911f>09 . -:0. 1 :0.!.9 2 0. 11 ~.'\l:ho 11 J 5 4 1 . ')I! f. c" •
135920 . 11 ~3/l b , 1 15 5 41. 96609 .
!; 13 3 ')2~. 1 1 8 '' 7 I , 1 135~ ), '18(, 09 . ... (, 15.'1920 . 1 1 ~ .'\ p (,. I I S 'i ll 1 , up,t..r Q .
7 1 .'\~'1 20 . 1 1 ~ ?· !l (,. 1 1 J 5 11 ), 986 C9 .
II 1:\.'1920 . 11 4 .'\Af,, 1 13 5 1t 1. ') 1\f, 09 . ... 'i 1'.'19?0 . 1 1 fl 4 7 I , 1 1 J:>lt 1 • 9P6C9 ,
1 '• 133920 . 1 1 4 ~116 . 11 J 'Hl. 'J fl f, ~ q .
l l 1 .3.'19?0 . 11~386 . 1 U5~ 1. 91\6C9 ,
....
II( AN 133920 . 1 1 5 5 or . 1 13 !>Il l . 911~09 .
IH)I I .D':'?O , 1 111471 . I 135111. 91lf> 09.
I' I N 1.'1.'19 H , 1 H .'Ie 6 . 1 135111. 'J 8 ~ 09.
-
w
CI H KAC~I\MNA PROJECT OPERATIO N S TUD Y
t '/II ,P&C F tOfCIITl l C I VI L&MINERA L S I NC ,,S F ,
ALA S KA POWlR AU I IIORJTY
Ill T[HNA T I VE 0 : CH AKACIIATNA TUNN(l , WI Tt l FISH RE LEA SES
MAY J UNE JUL Y AUG S(PT OC T
o ~J <.;>, 11 7 .'139 . 111'7"~· 93 16 2 . '186 ~9 . 116~52 .
9 :3 1 1 2 . 11 7 :3:39 . PP 7 'J5 , 93 1 62 . 911(,"9 . 1161152 .
0 .'\1 6 2 . A 7 .'\J 9, 8 0 79 5 , 9.'\1fo 2 o 986 ·)9 , 1 16~52 .
931 f.2. 8733 9 . 11 1\7 95 . 9 3 1!.2. 986~9. 11 61152 ·
'13 l f.;>, 11 7D9 , AP7°5 . 9J 1 62. '111 60 9. 1 161152 .
'1 .'\1(,2 . 87339 . 11117'J5 . ~3 1 62· 91!61)9 , 1 161152 .
9'1 ~2. II 7 33 9 , 1'-11 7°5 . 93 1 62 . 9116(19, 116~5 2 .
'l3 1 r.;>, 1173.'19 . llfl795. 93 1 62 . 986 ('9 . 11 6452 .
9 ~ }(.2 . 117:\39. 111'7 95 . 93162. 986 '-'~· 1 16115 2 .
9.H fo2 · 8 7339 . 11e795 , '131&2. 9 86 ~9 . 116~52 .
9 .H62 , 8 7.'139. 11 8 79 5 . 9 316 2 . ?116 0 9 . 116~5 2 .
931 F.2 . 117.'1 39 . 1\8 79 5 . 9 3 162 • 986(19 . 116'152.
93 1 £,2 . 8733'1 . 11 1:7 95. 93 1 62 · 9A6 C9 , 1161152 .
93 1(.2 . 87339 . 1!P 795 o 93162 . 9 86~9 . 116-52.
O Al( 3 0 711.'1 PAG( 1 2
NOV DEC TOTYR CAl YR
1 2°60(1 , 1~5 565· 131722~. 1'1!.~
12'16CO, llo5565 . IJ1J13'J , 1061
1 296 01l . 1 1t~565 o 1)13 )J O, 1 '1 (.2
1 2'1600 . 1 ~556!i. 1 3 1 3139 . 1 '16J
1 2961)0, 1115565 · 13 17 22~. 1 96~
1296 0 0 . 145565 . 13 1 3139 . 1 965
1 29600 . 1455 65 . 1313139 . 1°H·
120600 . 1 45565 . 1 ~1 JU 9, 1 967
12'lf.O O, 1115 565 . 1317 22 11, 1 9£,11
1 2 9!.00. 145565 . 1313139. 1 9!.9
129!.00 . 1455 65. 13 1 3139 . 1 c; 7 0
1 2 9 600 . 1 115565 . 13111253 .
1 296 0 0 . 11155 65 . 131722 4.
12960 0. 1 '15565 . 13 1 3139.
--------------------t:tiAKACHAIH~A PROJECT OPE:RAliO~ STUDY
11/lltti&CF tBE:CIIl[l C 1 Vll&IIIN[RALS It4c,,sr.
PROJECT 14 8 79 :0 1 ALASKA POI/[R AUT I!OR 1 TY OATE: 30783 PAG[ 13
ALIEPNATIH o: CliAKACHAlNA TUNNE:lt 111lll FJSII R[l[AS[S
,.N(P GY C£FICT1 IN 1111 11
Y[tfl JAN f[fl MAR APR MAY JUf>l [ J ULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC TOT YR CAl YR
I 0 . ~. o. 0 • o. 0. 0. 0. o. o. o. o. o. )Q6C
;> 0. r . 1), ~. 0 . (', o. 0 • 0 . o . o. r . 0. 1961
~. c . ~. 0. 0. o. o. o. o. 0. o. 0. o. l'lf-2
Q 0 . c. o. 0 • (i, o. o. o. o. o. o. 0 . o. 1963
5 (i. ~. o. 0. o. o. (1, 0. o. 0 . o. 0 . o. 1 96"
t, 0 • 0 . o. i), 0. 0 . o. 0 . o. 0 . o. o. c. 1 '165
1 c • ry , n • 0 . (1 , 0 • r. ~ . 0 . 0 . o. (1 , 0. 1 'lf-6
" 0. :.. o. 9 . (,, 0. o. 0 . o. o. o. 0 . o. 1967
9 ~ . 0 . ~. 0. 0 . 0. o. 0 • o. o. o. 0 . 0 . 19611
1 . c. c . c . 0 • 0. 0. o. ~. o. 0 . o. (1 , o. 1'1 1>9
II Q . ~. 1), o . 0. 0. o. o. 0 . 0. o. ~. o. 1 9 7 1i
1-'[~N (1 , L • o:.. c . 0. 0 • o. 0. 0. 0 • o. 0 . 0.
I' AX 0 . 0 . o. 0 . ~. c . o. o. o. ii . 1), r • o.
II IN c . 0 . (J , u . (i , 0. o. 0 • o. 0 . o. o . 0.
PRO J ECT 1 4(\79 00 1
AV[R AG[ GENER ATI ON IN MW IN ~ON T HS OF SP I L L S -
Y[~l! JAN F f P. 1'4AR ~ PR -0. J • o. 0 •
~ 0 . ~. c. c • -;\ c. :• . G • 0 .
0 . 0 . 1 . 0 .
'j Q . J • o. C· • -r, G • 1 . r,, (1 ,
7 0 • --. c. 0 .
p G • c . 1 . 0 . -9 G. c . J , 0 .
I'• "· u . J . 0 .
it 0 . c. 0 . -1'(.\11 v . ~. o. 0 •
.... ,..~~ r . ~. 0 . il •
I'IIN c. v • o. 0 •
.,
"
w
""' -
~
;,.
<II
ttl
w
~
.-
CIHKACit AMNA P R OJ ECT OPE RATION S TU DY
11 /llt i i&CF t Bf CII TE L C IVIL &MIN ER AL S I NC.,S F.
ALASK A POW ER AU T HOR I T Y
~Ll [RNA T J V[ D: f.II AK ACI I AHl A lU ,INE Lt WJT II FIS H RE L E ASES
MAY J UN[ JU L Y AlJG SEP T OC T
Q . o. 2 4 9 . 300 . 1 66 . o.
0. 0. n. :H~. .5 0 0 . 0 .
0. 0. c. 2 7 5 . 29.5. 0 .
0 . 0. o. 1 74 . ~oo . 0 .
n • o. 0 . 260 . 22.5 . o.
v . 0 . o. 0. 300 . 0 .
0 . 0 . o. 0 . y:; 0 • J .
0 . D • o. J(lO, :Ho . 0 .
G • 0 . 0 . ~oo . 1 4 7. 0 .
~ . 0 • 0 . (l • 0 . c.
[J . 0 . o. 0 . o. o.
o. 0 • ?3 . 1 7 4 • 212 . 0 .
0 . 0 . 249 , 30 0 . J a o. 0 .
0. 0. o. 0 . o. 0.
OAH" .50 7 8.5 I" AGE 1 4
NO V ore A VE YR C ALY R
o. 0 . 6 0 . 1 %0
~. c . 50. 1Qf.1
~. ~. 117. 1q62
o. 0 . 4 0 . 1 9f.3
o. o . 40 . 19f.4
o. c . 2S . 1 \I E-!J
~. o. ?5. 19f-6
J o ~. sc . 1Qf\7
0. c .• 37 . 1 968
o. l'. o. 19f,9
o. c. 0 . 19 7 0
J . o. .511.
(). ~. 60.
o. 0 . 0 .
------ -- - - - ---- ----CfiAKACIIAHNA PROJ[Cl OPERATION STUDY
PROJECT 141179 ~0 1 lt /!t ,t•&CfoR [CIIT[L CJVIL&M!N f.RALS JNc.,sr.
ALASKA POIIER AllllfORITY OAT[ 30783 PAGE 15
SURP LU S (t;(RGY lt. ~\Ill AL lERNA T! VE o: CIIAKACtfATNA TUNNEL, Ill Til F I S it RELEASES
Y[A f( JAN F((: MAR APR MAY JUNL J UL Y AUG SEP T OCT NOV DEC TOT YR CAL YR 0. l • c . G • 0 . 0 . ' <;( 2 '• 7. 1 30038 . 205112. (', c . r. • ~. 0 . ~ . ~-o. ?116 6 £.7 . l %e 0 . o. 1300 311, ! 0 • c . o. 0 • 0 . 11 739 1. 0 . ~. c . 2 117430. 1 'H-I c . ~ 111 231\, II 0. ~. J . " I 1 2 0 I 4, c . ~-~. <'2325 1. ~ . ~. Q . 0 . 36 491. II 73'1 1 , 191'2 c . c • o. r, • 3. (), o. ~ . 1 53AR3 . 1 %3 (, c.. 0 . a. 9993'.>. 6 22 73. 0 . ( . u . 0 . ~-o. ~ . 1622 0 11. 1 %4 0 . G • o. 0. II 7J9J , c • c . . . J . {' . 0 . J . 117 .~'J I, 1 96~ II 0 . ~. ~. 1173'!1, G • r.. ~. J • 0 . ~. II 7 3 '11, 0 . 0 . ~. 1:'1 0 0 ~~~. 1173QI • ". IQ&t-. , ~. 0 . 1 . c. ~-0 • 0 . 0 . n • ;><t74 30 . 1 9&7 I . J . o. 1 3G0311 , 6970. G • ' . ! • 0 • ~. c . 137 0 C8 , 1 %8 II 0 . 0 . c . 0 . 0. 0 . ". -. 0 , J . 0 . 0. o. o. G • o. 1 9 (-9 0 • 0 . 0 . o. 1), 0 . I 9 7 C "[HI 0 . ,1 . ) . ~. 0 . 1-7 5 0 . 6980?. 717 3 9 . 0. o. G • 150260, IH~ J . ! • IJ , J • M I II 0 . 0 . 'J ( 2 4 7. L J J 38, I I n91, c . c . c.. ) . (,. 0. -·. ~-0 . 2 47430, 0. 0 • 0. J . G, 0 . 0.
CHA KACHAr1NA PRO J ECT OPfRAT lO N S TU DY
!1 /ll o ii i'.CF ,~ECtiT[L C I II IL I'.M I NERA LS JNc •• s F.
PRO J ECT t4e79 o ;:t A LASKA POIIER AUI II OR l TY OAT[ J ~7 83 PAGE J(, .. ~LT [R NATIVE o : CI IAK ACHA I NA TU NNE L, II IT If F I S H RE LE ASES
R[t'AI NJ NG SPI LL S IN crs ..
Y[ 4R JAN F [ l· I'IA R APR MAY J UNE J ULY AUG SE P T OCT NOV DEC All[ YR CALYR
..
~. c . a . 0 • ~. 0. o. 3662 . Q . 0. 0 . o . 305 . 1 96 1\
~ 0 . j . c. ~ . c. 0 . o. 5 J f>. 5~2 . 0. o. ~. 90 . 1'16 1
0 . v . o. ' 0 . 0 • o . 0. 0 . ~. o. o. o. I 'H ·2 . .
4 u. .. (J, 0 . 0 . (1 . o. 0 . 1 57 . o. 0 . o. 13 . 1qE-3
" J . c . G' c . J . 0 . o. 0. o. ~. c. 0 . o. 1 96 -
f, c . -. o. 0 . 0 . o. o. 0 . 20 ~6 . 0 . 0 . ~. 17 0. 19&5
7 0. f\, ~. 0 . 0 . o. 0 . ~.3 7. o. c. 0 . 36 . l'H·f>
~ 0 . o. r.. J • o. 0 . 84 0~. 530 . o. ~. o. 74 J . 1 9f-7
" ( . ". J . 0 . G' (1, o. 2 7 67 . o. Q, o. r.. 2~1. 1 '76H
I ,. (I . c. c . u . 0. 0 . 0. o. 0 . n • o. 0 . J'l 69
l I (J , . . c. 0 • 0 . 0 . 0 . 0. 0 • 0 . o. o. o. 1 q 7 (.
I~(.HI 0 . J • o. 0 . 0 . 0. 0 . I 397. JJ5 . o. o. o . 1 4 -. -I" AX "' ,, . ~. 0 • 0 . n • o. 84 05 . 2031,. 0 . 3 . a . 74 3 .
MIN 0 . c . o. J • 0 . 0 . o. 0 . 0 . o. c. ~. c •
------
PPOJECT 1~e 7"1 ~0 1
I ~S lAllE U CAPACITY: 3 :0 ~0 G , ~W
ANNUt.L PLAIIT F AC l OR: • 5
\JVEH LOAD FACTOR: I • ~~
P LA o;T EHJC I E'-ICY! .85 ~
FRl C TIO~ LO SS CO[F F J CIENT! ,OuGil~2AO O
~O IITI 'L Y LOAD FACTORS!
,'120 .a n .780 ,7C O .64r .62~
I N I I I b l L AK[ S TO fi AG [ :4 :33?0 0 . AC ·FT
'I I N l ~UI'I LH [ STOR AGE :::4 236Qi), AC·FT
~.,X I I'UP'I LA KE STCP AG E !4 ~3320 0 . A C ·F l
-
• f, I (I
------CHAKACI'AI';~A PROJ EC T OPERATION STUDY
11 /H,II&CF t BE<:IIHL CIVIL&MJNERA L S INC .. S F.
ALASKA POWER AliTIIOR J TY
---
OAT[ 3n83
All(I':NATJV[ c: CI IAKACIIATtlA TUNN[Lt WITHOUT FIS II RELOS ES
.6 4 ~ .7 0C • 8 0 ~ .9<t 1 . 0 0 0
---PAGE
pqoJ ECT J4 f!7'HC1 ...
R[S [RV O Jk STOPAG(-[L[V~TJ ON -A H[A:
... ·' C -F T FEET A C Rf
0 . 7 6 "· ~.
2 ~25 . 76 ~. r.] ~ •
7.3::3 . 7 7 r . 13 c ~.
2 7 2'"0 · 7 R ':. ?f.'l'), ... Ill C 0 C, Rc r , 5f.7n,
?4! ~J O , P;>':, nn .
jC 7 7C -:. P 4 r • F,2 7 j .
7 ?:3 0 . 116 ~. O?Pr:.
7 f.O • ~ Q o f!P: • 1 ~·4 ~3 .
c;~R-,0 , 9:'1 ... l 1 5 °0 .
1?24 ~')~. ':1 2 ~. 1196 ~.
14 f.7 ~~1). ~4 "'. ? '"('.
1717~·~. n6:. , sr .
1 q 7! 'J; r . '9P. ~. 1 2'J il:l .
:' 2 .'.f, ~(I c . 1 ,.. n '" . . 1 ~2 1'~.
2'l"4:J ~. 1 '?". ! .3 5 2 C .
?77 <.CC'). 1 :'.'•':'. 1.3 74 ),
.3r c,::,~n . 1 u,··. 1 .~'l f,~ •
.3!~5 "0 0 . 1('1\~. 14 17 ~ •
. H<' ~ ( ~. 1 l ~'. ! ,, .3 'l ) •
~ q 1 .. :' n ~ • 1 12 7. 1 •<.2 ~.
4t'!r rrc , 1 I 4 ~ , !'.!O C ,
"2!1 -~:·r . l 14 ;;. 167€G .
4q 77'i ~:. 11 5~. 17 8 4 2 .
I A 1 LilA I f R -F'L O'J RE LAT!0NSt-'1P:
FrET CF ~
4 r:~.
4 1 . }:,~r:'[,t" •
~'O •IT I'LY MIN IM UM INSTRfAI' F L O II S 1 N
r . c . G. r • ;: .
I'OrJ li 'L Y C IV[RS I0 N R[O IJ J !;[M(N T S IN
c . ~. G • , . o.
l-I O N I'll Y Pl!;(RVIJ 1 P [V~P O ~ 1.1 I G I\ Ill
" r.. .. ~. "'
...
CF s:
~ . r..
r r s:
Co • 1 ,
I Nf llf ';:
~. r ,
CI'.'•KACII AMIIIA PR OJ[fl GP[RATION !'T UO Y
l!ll i t l 'tCFtf1f C I'lfl C IVJLIUiltiERA L S IN C .,S F ,
ALASKA POII (R All lii OR ITY DATE .H711.3
ALTf R NAl l V[ C! CIIAKA(IiATilA TUNNEL • 1/llttOlJ T ~I Sif RE L EASE S
c . 0 . 0 • r . o .
c • "· 0 . I• • 0 .
0 . 0 . ~. (. 0 .
PAGf
---.... ---------------ChAKACIIAMNA PROJECT OPERAT ION STU(1 Y
11 /ll,lllt CF ,BECIIT(L CHIL&MIN(RALS IU C .,SF.
PR OJ(C l 14 67 '?~01 ALASKA P 0\I(R AliT I IOR I TY OA T( .H7 P :I PA G( 3
IIL l(RNATIV ( c: CIIAI< HIIAHlA TUNN(L, IIITHOUT F I Sl• RELEASE S
l'lrL OII S TO Til( LAKf I r1 CFS
Y!"~R JA il r r '! MAR AP R MI\Y JUN( J ULY AUG SE PT OCT NOV 0 1 c AV E YR CAL YR
~, n . ~r:.7 . 2 F.7. 93 . ~f,\7, f>l' .: (. II 2 0 '1, 'l .D 7. 314~. l4 :1 'l. 79'l . 87 0 . 322 c. 1 9f>~
' 1177 . r. A~ • 4 7 c . ,\If (., Ill r. 1 • 798 .1 . );ArR . 10899 , 6225 · 15 6£:. 114 3 . f,O(,, 3 7 1> 7. 1 9"1
f-:'3 . c 41 • 471. 1• 7 il . 1 :'f·S . 7'l 2 5 . I~ 1 4 9 • I 0 4 11 • 5')4 2 . 11 'l7. 1:163. 61 ~I . "'i'lO . 1 96;>
4 'lf\, 35 7. 3 1 !). :1 37 . 1 P rq • H35 . 1 ~2 4 9 . 1 22nll . 5 A47 , 20 ">6 • 'lJ n . 7 1 0 . 351l7. 196!
" 31-4. '•!-'i . 332· tt7 7 . 1 II;\ 1 , fi iJ9 3 . 1 nn o. 11 7911. 4;>4,;, 124"· 9nQ. f,F,;>. 3 4 ;>4 . 1Gf,4
" 4 1 '). <'I c, • 3 :'17. \QI\ • l :>P "• 3 4 q (1 . l;,\(,4 6 . 1051(.. 1~11 1 2. 2 1 I 4. 'i97. 4 (, ( .... !-f-4 I • \ '!--"'
1 \II!! • ~ -'~. 35 0. 41 ~. 1 1\"3 . 1'1 }2 . I r•' C 3 • 99 74, 66 ~8. 1 953 . 91 0 . .'I 3 . 3 4 5<1 . 10f>f,
A 53 1. 44 9 . 3 8 4. 11 AC . 2~'J . P 7f> I • 14 '':\I • 1 !';(,9 5 ~ 6 1 91. 2 0 ,, 0 . 121 5 · 5 71. 4473 . 10 f.7
'l 53 4, r,) ~ • 4 f.7 . ( 3 0 . 2 Ql)t). 7 H Ci R. I I I 7. 11 25 7. 27°3 . 9 7 t.. "119. Ftl:'· 3">:1;>. 1 '?66
I ; 4 1\5 . 4 /l ( • 50 0 . f-5;>. I 'Jq II . "2 71. 1 ~ • I 0 . 7 :?97. 2793 . 3~'i7 . 12 15. 5 41 • .I .\c f, • 1 O f,O
• 1 4 9 7 • 5 ~4 . 550 . l:l 99 . 2265 . f-7119 . I I .'1'6 C • 79 8 b . 2 7 :3 4 . 1 .35 9. 74 2 . 4 £,3 . zn q. 1'?70
~· [A r. 5 11 . 4 ~;. 4C4. 5.3 F.. ;> i:?&. 7 2';1. I • .3 0 1 . l 0, 71 • 5 17 5 . 1 729 . 811~. 592 . _,5 4 7 .
,. h ~ A7 7 , ':J P<l . ~5 "· p 9'1. :3 f.·' 7. G271 , 14 ~~\r 1 56qS , 1 0 11 "2 > 3 0§7. I 2 1 <,, P./C , ~~7 3 .
I' IN ~(,4. 71 'J . 26 7 . ~.3 7. ] 21--!j . .3 4 9 0 . I! r. ". 1 2 9 1 . 2 7~4. 97&. ':J q7 r :3 1 :3 . 2 'l 2 9 .
---
"" CH~K AC H AMNA P IWJ E C T CI P[R A TJON S TUD Y
11 /I I ,II &C F o AE CIIT[l C I V I L & ~1 1 N!: R A L S I Nf o t S F .
pq OJ EC T 1 411 7 9 ~0 1 ALA SK A P Oll ER Ali T II OR I T Y DATE 30 78.3 P AGE --.~L T [~N ATIV E c : C liA K ~CII ATNA TUNNE L, Ill T IIO U T F I S i t RE L CA S E S
P Q II fR IHL lAS [ I N CF S
....,
y ( /. p JHI F Ef' MAR A Pll M~Y JU NE J ULY AUG S E P T OCT NOV f'I EC A V( YR CHYP ...
!%2 . .341' . ~1 74 . 2 H7 8 , 26 ~\_\. ~54 0 . ;: 4 ~ 7 . 2 44 7 , 26 7 8 . :0.0 7 5 . .3 ~;r t . 4 r;5 8 . .3 r 4 6. 1 9f.r
~!145 . .3HI~. .3:-49 , .3 : ~4 • 2 11' l • 27 1 4. ~!)7 ;>. 2 5 111 . 26!1 1. .3C7'). .35 911. 4 ),3.3 . .3 1 ~·9 . 1 0 (,1 ... ?-!1 4 4, ~6 9 ~ • ~ .3 ~ (,. .3. 41 • 2 p,r l •• 2 7 .3 0 . ~~.,FA . 2527 . 2611;>. .3'1 7 '). ~6 ~7. 4 C4 .3 , J If,( .. 1 962
4 .311 !)1\, .3H 7 , .3 3 77 • .3 " 6 11 • ;>P 2 '1 , ;>74 4 , (!(.~7 . 2590 . 26!15 . 30 7 5 . 3511 9 . 11 0 16 . !-18 3 · 1 96.3
<, 38?7 . 3f,a r • 3.'t'lc • ~ "'''". 28'4 , ?71 R. ?">7 4 . 2 5 5 2 . 268:0.. 30 7 5 . 36%. Q 0 4 1 • 3 16.3 . 1 96 4 -6 .3854 , .3 I j5 , ~.'7 8 • 3 .. •6 5 . 2A;t a . 2 7 5 4 . ;: f. (J 0 . 26 25 . 2 1 ?8 . 30 7 11 . 3511 11 . 11 02 4, 31~3 . 1 ':!65
.3e 4 1 • ~1 .9 4 . ::D fi '), ~, 'l?. ;>A 1 6 , 2 7 29 . ;>511 4 . 256 9. 2 ftll 6 . 3C75 . 35 q1. 11 ?2 1. ~1 <,q , 1 9f.f.
I; .3P 41 , 3 69 1 • ~35q , 3 '· 46 . 2 P" 1 . ?7 11. 2 "1 . (,. 2 4 7 1. 26 79. .3 0 7 5 . ·'5 89. II 0 I I , 3152 . 1°&7
.... 31123 . 36 7 2 • . D4;>, .3"21\ • 2 71•9 • ?1-.R;>, 2~4 4 , 2 411 6 . 261\0 , ~C 7 ';. 31.-I 1 • q ? 5 4. 3 14 9 . l 0 f.ll
1 ' !.Ph 9 . .372?. 3~86 . ;\~~~~ . 2!1'6 . ?ns . --~ 7 1. 2"12~. ?f.ll2 . 30 7 5 . ~'1 6 11 . 3~6 3 . 31'-7 . t%9
11 .370 4, .3 6 4 .3 . 3 .31.3 • 2°99 • 2 7 'i 7 . 266.3 . ~~4 4 , 25.32 . 2 6 82 . .31'7 5 . 36 0 3 . 11a 4 2 , 31.3 7 . 1 9H -IJ ( f, tJ 31\1 4 . .3f.7 0 . ~3 4 1 . J ~2 9 . 27q2 , 2702 . ;>5 73 • 2 531 . 2 b86 o 3(175 . 35 %. 4 028 . .3 15 3.
-I'AY 3 !'(,0 , 3 7 2f . 3~R(,, 3~ftR , 2 1l::'l , 2 75 4 . ;;(,90 . n2s . 2 7 2 8 . 30 7 8 . .'I f.. 1 I • II "5 4, .na:3 ,
1'111 35~2 . Jld~::!,. ~1711 . 2F. 711 . 2ft "d . 25 q ~. 2 4 2 7 . 2qq 7. 2 678 . .3 0 75. 3~&11 . 3'l8J • 3 0 4 6 .
-
-
-
....
...
"" CH~K AC H AMNA P IWJ E C T CI P[R A TJON S TUD Y
11 /I I ,II &C F o AE CIIT[l C I V I L & ~1 1 N!: R A L S I Nf o t S F .
pq OJ EC T 1 411 7 9 ~0 1 ALA SK A P Oll ER Ali T II OR I T Y DATE 30 78.3 P AGE --.~L T [~N ATIV E c : C liA K ~CII ATNA TUNNE L, Ill T IIO U T F I S i t RE L CA S E S
P Q II fR IHL lAS [ I N CF S
....,
y ( /. p JHI F Ef' MAR A Pll M~Y JU NE J ULY AUG S E P T OCT NOV f'I EC A V( YR CHYP ...
!%2 . .341' . ~1 74 . 2 H7 8 , 26 ~\_\. ~54 0 . ;: 4 ~ 7 . 2 44 7 , 26 7 8 . :0.0 7 5 . .3 ~;r t . 4 r;5 8 . .3 r 4 6. 1 9f.r
~!145 . .3HI~. .3:-49 , .3 : ~4 • 2 11' l • 27 1 4. ~!)7 ;>. 2 5 111 . 26!1 1. .3C7'). .35 911. 4 ),3.3 . .3 1 ~·9 . 1 0 (,1 ... ?-!1 4 4, ~6 9 ~ • ~ .3 ~ (,. .3. 41 • 2 p,r l •• 2 7 .3 0 . ~~.,FA . 2527 . 2611;>. .3'1 7 '). ~6 ~7. 4 C4 .3 , J If,( .. 1 962
4 .311 !)1\, .3H 7 , .3 3 77 • .3 " 6 11 • ;>P 2 '1 , ;>74 4 , (!(.~7 . 2590 . 26!15 . 30 7 5 . 3511 9 . 11 0 16 . !-18 3 · 1 96.3
<, 38?7 . 3f,a r • 3.'t'lc • ~ "'''". 28'4 , ?71 R. ?">7 4 . 2 5 5 2 . 268:0.. 30 7 5 . 36%. Q 0 4 1 • 3 16.3 . 1 96 4 -6 .3854 , .3 I j5 , ~.'7 8 • 3 .. •6 5 . 2A;t a . 2 7 5 4 . ;: f. (J 0 . 26 25 . 2 1 ?8 . 30 7 11 . 3511 11 . 11 02 4, 31~3 . 1 ':!65
.3e 4 1 • ~1 .9 4 . ::D fi '), ~, 'l?. ;>A 1 6 , 2 7 29 . ;>511 4 . 256 9. 2 ftll 6 . 3C75 . 35 q1. 11 ?2 1. ~1 <,q , 1 9f.f.
I; .3P 41 , 3 69 1 • ~35q , 3 '· 46 . 2 P" 1 . ?7 11. 2 "1 . (,. 2 4 7 1. 26 79. .3 0 7 5 . ·'5 89. II 0 I I , 3152 . 1°&7
.... 31123 . 36 7 2 • . D4;>, .3"21\ • 2 71•9 • ?1-.R;>, 2~4 4 , 2 411 6 . 261\0 , ~C 7 ';. 31.-I 1 • q ? 5 4. 3 14 9 . l 0 f.ll
1 ' !.Ph 9 . .372?. 3~86 . ;\~~~~ . 2!1'6 . ?ns . --~ 7 1. 2"12~. ?f.ll2 . 30 7 5 . ~'1 6 11 . 3~6 3 . 31'-7 . t%9
11 .370 4, .3 6 4 .3 . 3 .31.3 • 2°99 • 2 7 'i 7 . 266.3 . ~~4 4 , 25.32 . 2 6 82 . .31'7 5 . 36 0 3 . 11a 4 2 , 31.3 7 . 1 9H -IJ ( f, tJ 31\1 4 . .3f.7 0 . ~3 4 1 . J ~2 9 . 27q2 , 2702 . ;>5 73 • 2 531 . 2 b86 o 3(175 . 35 %. 4 028 . .3 15 3.
-I'AY 3 !'(,0 , 3 7 2f . 3~R(,, 3~ftR , 2 1l::'l , 2 75 4 . ;;(,90 . n2s . 2 7 2 8 . 30 7 8 . .'I f.. 1 I • II "5 4, .na:3 ,
1'111 35~2 . Jld~::!,. ~1711 . 2F. 711 . 2ft "d . 25 q ~. 2 4 2 7 . 2qq 7. 2 678 . .3 0 75. 3~&11 . 3'l8J • 3 0 4 6 .
-
-
-
....
...
'~ --------- - -- - --- - -
'-Cllf.KACttAMNA PRO J ECT OP E KA TT ~·N ST UDY
t•Ht o tl t..C F o OECitl[L C I V I LI'M I NrR AL .) IN C ,,S F.
PROJ[C l !4 !1 79 C0l AL ASKA PO WE R t.li T HOR IT Y O AT [ ~0 71L" P AGE s
bLTEI'NA TI Vl c: CII AKACH AT N A TUNNE L• WIT HOUT F I S l' R[l [ASf S
SP I LL I 1\ r:F S
Y(AR JA N F E [) MAR ~ PR MAY JUNf .JU LY AU G S EP T O C T NOV ore AVf YR CAL YR
I 0 . ~. 1 . n. o. 0 . <4 p 0 . 689 ~. 4 (,7 . 0 . ~. " 82 0. 19(.~ ..
? 0 . r • c. Q . 0 . (1 , (\, 4 c 34 . 3544, ~. " -. !·3 I • ]0 (,) . .
'-~ ~. 0 . o. 0 . 0 . 0 . 1). ~ 0 I ?, 2 11 f.D , c . ~. r. -ll 9 . 1 96?
0 . ( . c.. o . 0 . o. o. 1 059 . 3 \62 . c. (1 , r. J5 2 . 1 %.3
" c . ~. ~. 0 . o. c . (1. 270 1. 156 .3 . o. "· ('. ~"5 . 1 964
t, G • .. ~. (), I). r . o. 0 . 538 1 . ? • ~. r • """· )06C,
7 0. ' ~. ~ . 1 . 0 . o. ? • J lll 6 o 0 . . ? • J 11.1 . 19(,6 -·
" 0 . 3 . o. o. I). 0 • ~. 11 950 . J ~l 2 o o. ~. ,, 1 711 9 . 1%7
'J ? • ~. ~. 0 . 0 • 0 • 0 . 6 2 96 . 11 .3 . 0 . ~. 0 . ~~ ... 1 9 1,fi
I -(1 , ' ~. 0 . ? • ~. o. 262 . 11 1 • 0 . ". " s 1 • 1 060 . . ..
! I 0 • 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0. 1 06 . 5 ?. " ' " . 1 3 . 19 7(1 . . . . ' .
I '[ All ~. c . ? • 0. c . o. 2 2 5 . ~3 0 1 . 2235 . c . " .. 0 . -~~ 0 .
,.tX G • 0 . r . (1 , 0 . ~. ?4 fl 0 . 119';0 . 5~11 1. o. ~. ~. 1 2 11 «l,
'"j l .. c . ~. c. r . 0 . I). o. 0 . 52 . 0 . o. ( . 1 3 .
lw CliftKACPAMNA PROJfCl OP[RAfJON STUDY
11/II ,II&Cf t UfCI IT fl C l Vl L&HlNfRALS I NC ot S F •
PROJEC T 14 A79 C01 HASK A PO II (R AU TIIOR IT Y OAT[ J 0 78J P AGE 6 -4 L TE R NA TIV E c : C•IAKA CHA TN l UNN EL t WI THOUT FISH RE L EASES
r I S l• k(lfA')[ IN CF S
Y (~k J/1.1 FE R HAR f.PR 11AY J UN E JULY AUG SE PT OCT NOV DE C AV(Yil CAL YR
0 • ~ . ~. 0 . 0 . 1), 0 . o. c. n • 0 . 0 . c • 1"60
7 0 . ' a. ~. (l , c . 0 . 0 • o. ~. ~. ~. 0 • I'H-1
.... . \ 0 • r: • '), 0 . 0 . 0 . ~. 0 . ~. ". '!. 0 . '), 1°62
4 0. ~ . o. '), c . 0. o. ' . o. c . o. (1 , o. 196J .. 0 . j . ~ . o. (1 , c . 0 . n, • o. 0. '), (), I). 1 964 -c, ( . '), o. 0 • 0 . c . o. o. o. 0 . ~. ~. 0. )0 6'i
7 0 . r,, ~. o. 0 . 0 . (I . 0 • 0 . (1, (), (I . 0 • 1'1 6f,
ll 0 • ~. '), (1 , 0 . 0 . o. '), 0. 0 . ~. o . '!. 1967
Q c • r,. 0 . c . 0 . 0 . o. 0 • o. o. ~. (1 , (I . 1'?611
1 ' 0 . , . ~. 0 . o. 0 . (1 , I) • o. o. '), '), 0 . 1'1 £.0
1 1 I) • ~· . " ". 0 • "· 0 . o. ~ . o. c . o. c. 0 . 1 0 7('
I'[ All 0 . c. 0 . (1 , o. 0 . o. 0 . o. o. '. '). o.
•• ft X (). .. o. '!. 0 . 0 . 0. ') . 0 . ~ . o. ~. 0 •
I" IN 0 . G' ~. 0 . ), 0 . o. 0 • 0 . 0 . c. 0 . 0 ,.
-
-
...
--
-
-
__ ..
..... -------- -------.... - -
"-
C hAKACHAIINA PROJECT OP fRATI ON S TUDY
II Itt ,!I . ..; F , 0 ( C ttl [ l C 1 VILU11N[RALS INc •• sr .
PliOJfC T l~ll 7Q ~G1 ALASKA POWER AIITIIORITY OAT[ J 0 78:3 PAG(
ALT (RNA T IV( c: CIIAK ACIIA lNA TUNNEL, IIJTIIOUT F I Sl l RELE ASES
Pl f 1 f VA P Of\ A 1 1 0 N I N a c -F T
Y( AR JAN FEE\ liA R APR "'"y JUNE JULY AUG SEP T OC T NO V Ol C AV( YR CAL YR
l c . ·'. o. 0 . 0 . 0 . o. ~. o. 0 . ~-0 . o. ]Qf,~
? 0 . 1). j • j . 0 . o. 0 • l'. ~. ~. ~. r . I 'H-I
~ ~. ~. ('. 0 • ~. c . o. ~. o. c. c. n • o. 1 9(.2
4 ~. ( . '). c • 0 . 0 . o. 0 • o. ('. o. 0 . 0 . 1 9b~
... l' • " '). r,, 0 . o. o. l'. o. 0 . ('. ~. 0 . ]QE,~ . .
" ~. ' . . ' , . ~. 0 . ('. o. 0 . o. I) • o. ~. o. 1 9&'\
7 0 . ~. o. ~ . ~. 0 . o. j • o. ~. c. 0 . 0 . 1'?&1>
K 0 . ~. ~. n • ~. 0 . I). ~. I). ~. ('. n • o. ]Of,7
Q 0 • ' ~. ~ . ~. o. o. 0 . 0 . 9 . ' c • '). 1'16R ' . ..
I • (). ~. !'. 0 . ~. 0 . o. IJ . ('. 0 . ~. 0 . o. 1 'H>0
1 1 o. ~. '). =' • ~. 0 . o. j . 0. 0 . ~. ) . 0. J.9H
"'(AU a . (1 . o. Q • 0 . 0 . o. ~ " . ('. ~. o. ~ . o.
,. ,, '( ~. c . n • I). ry , 0 . 0 . '). J . ). .. o. 0.
"I N ~. c . ~. ') . '). r,. 0 . 0 . o. o. ~. I). 0 .
-
--
(II AI< AC tiAMNA PROJ E CT OP fR AT ION S T UDY
11 /H t ii &CF t!l ECHTE L C IV!Lt.MINERAL S I Nc •• sr . PRO.J[C T 14 1!7G~O l AL ASK A PO WER AUTt 10 R IT Y DA T[ .30 71!~ PAGE 8
ft L T Eli NAT l V E c: CH AKA C IIA TNA TUNN (L , IIITIIOUT flS II RELEASES r '0 ' p • ST OR ACl l t. ACk[-rT
y ( f.'! JAN fl P MAR APR MAY JUN( J ULY AUG SfPT OCT NOV DEC AVEYR C f>L YR
~"3PP ~6 . .36%11 7 . 347735 0 . ~~?9 1•92 . :\'"Dr l 9 • .36 4 5 72 ~. 4 C 3:'>2f.~. 4 0.3 .3?00 . '+~.D 2 0 0 , 3 G3263'+. .37658 7 5 . .!i 5 71P 72 . 3 7 2 5 '.;7 . J 'lh O ;:> ~'11P5 49 , 32 1 !>!-1 2 . .3 0 .3956'+. 2 8 7 Q !~ 9 : • 2 11n C:l 'i . 3 1 3f.'iH . :nr,!\93 1. 4 J3.3?.00 . 4".\32~0 . 3 941h~•A . .3 777 6 'H:. 3!\7 25 17. 346ntol • 1 %1 -:1 ' 7 ')0 7 1. :_\20~17f . "!J02?774 , 2 8(,<;792 . ?7 7 !:> n.L 1 084 265. 3 7 ~ ~ (, ~~4. 4 03.320(1 . 4 r 3J2UO . 3917737. 375 4'+86 · 3543~5 4. 344..,;>5.3 . 1962 4 ~~·~(.9 79 . ~ I sr, 'l 1 4 , 2962£.56 . ?1J rn'!l 4 . 2 7 3 7 I 1.11. ?8';56 41 • . ~S PF·9 ,,0 . ~0 3320 0 . 4 1J "!J?OO . 397r54 1, :18 1 :?.B 1. .3 6"119511 . 3 40 0 74 :?. 10f.J 'i .B'l 6 ~22 . 37 ~9.!?9 , .3 323 72 4. 2 1171 ;> ~r,, 2P i l3 111 • .31:1 1132 . 3f.:!-r A02 . 4 0~3??~. 4 1 .'.32 ~0 . 392('6113 . 3H.~:>21!. 3 5 ';?4 62. J q47711(1, 1960 ... " "•1 2 79 . ,1 14 H7 !:. :? 9 ~" 71 !i . n r:>~;>~. ;>7)71 (.,11 , :>75 0 97;>, :1.!>11 77 2 9 . 3 A7 2<>53 . 4 0332"0 . 3 "7 .3 9.3 5 . 37 959 63 , 35 77 1 11 1. .3362565 . 196'\ 7 ... "" 4 A(,J • • '1 7 13 \7~ • 29°3C t0 • 7 11.3 ';7 77. ?7 7 11 'l'j 4 . 3 0 'l f:e9 7. :1 5 71 5 16. 4 0 2611';7 . 4 1332ro . :19!-4;>(1(.,, 3/lr46fc10 . ~57f,f.I1 A. :143 5 4 2 1. 1 %6 p "1 •1 7 .! 1 75 . .I '':: 1 " I • .3 iJ 1 02.l 4 , 2 Aill .H .\. ;>I'~ ~ 9(, (' • ;} I <;> ~9£-?. :'1 ~5 '•~9 9 . 4 0.3.3?0 0 . '+1 3320 0 • • ~'J6Q511J . }/1 2 1131!' • 36167 94, 34<J34A7 • l 9 f.7 r. ~~14 ~·~1 . J2n,'JP . 3 ')~5'l;>J . ?0 1 ';:n . ;>•>;><, "?9 . 323 (·"7 2 . ·' l1 PI 1 0 'l , 4 1)~32C(I . 4 93~2 00. :'>9)41 5 7. 373 r2 n. 35 186 ;>4 , ~.48'J4 fi O, 1 '1611 I • . ~I 1 :1 52 1 • ~1J C'9J::. 29';,~0 3 . ;>A r,<l7 20 . 2 7 55 7 13 • . \1 44 46'l. :\ 7 "!1~ q 1. 4 (13320~. 4 0.D20 0 • II ~3 ?.1 ('5 • 3A92f'72 . 36 11,44~ • 3 4 6 t}Q 'j ~. 1 969 11 3 4777 2 7. 3 3:3~AP.. 3 1 335 1 .1 . 3G~P'i3 9 • 2'J 711 2'1 5 , ~223 7 03 . 3 7 P4J 4 2 , 4 0332f'O . 4 ~;}~2 0 0. 39?7697 . ~7 5 7446. 3~>:1 7 20 6. 3 5 091'6 1. 1 9 7 ?
ro : 34 1 <l 7 7 7, 323!'1 29 • .1 0 5 7 5 4 "· ?9"9 1 °2 o 213£:.5 1 :·8 . 3 13 5850 . 3 7 2 ( 5 Ill , 4 0 18 055. 4 ~332 00 . ~95044 '). ~76"~33. .35 7777'.3. 3476223 .
r t x • ~A '!11~6 . 3£,56 117. 3 4 7 7 ,\•,?. .1 32049?. • 3'9 ~~1 19 • ;\6'1572~. 4 t~J ;\;>O n . 41)3320·1. -~~320 0. "'.3 21 (\!'. 3!'9 2C 12. ~~A :'-44 5. 372555 7. I' I I. ~31 '52 1 . 3 1 3093 G . 2<l53 4 9 .l . ?8 (~'84 . ;>7~71 6 8 . :>75 0 9 7 2 . 3~A77<'l . 3 1172953. 403.32 0 0 . 39 ~4 1 5 7. 37 .31 2 7 .3 . 35 18624. 3362565.
-.... ------------------ -
..... CII~KAC IIA~NA I'RO.JEC T OPERAT ION S TU OY
h /tl ,ll t fF ,ll[CIIT[L C IV IL ~MINERALS INC,,S F.
PRCJrC I (4 879 0 01 ALA SK A POWER AU T fiOR IT Y OAT[ .H 7ll3 PA!i[ 9
,_
~Ll(RN ATIV [ c: CHAI<ACtiA TNA TUNNEL • WITHOUT FISII RELEA S E S
r . 0 . P . LH( L ( V ( l IN FEET
Y(~O J AN rE I' M.IR AI'K HAY ..ruw: J ULY AUG SE pT OC T NO Y OEC A V[ YR CAl YR
1115 0 1 1 ~ ~. 1 J 'l 3 . 1 ""p~. 1 1 1\4 . I 1 0 2 . 1 1 211 . 1 1 ?A • l 1 ?II. 1 1 2 1 • 1 1 1 c. 1 097 . l 1 r, 7 • 196!'
I 011 ~, 1 ·' 1 2 . 1 1 ">9 0 1 r 47 • 1 1)4 :S o 1 ~bb o 1 l I 0 , 11 2A o 1 1 2 t\. I 1 2 2 o I I 1 1 • 1 0 97 . 1 0 1''1. 1 9£.1
1 ~ f-~. 1 -n . 1 c 'j p . 1 'II 1 • I 3 • 0 . )1)6?. I I !' 8 • 1 1 2 8 . 1 1:>8 . 11 2 1 • I 1 0 9 o 1 ~')5 . l i)A 7 • 1 %2
BPO , 1 '! (, 1 0 1 ~5!. I '-2 . I ) .I 1 . l fJ 46o I h 92 o 112 8 . 11 ?8 . 11 2"· 1113. 1 099 . 11)f". 1'16
r, 1( A4, 1 r 11 o 1 ~'ill 0 1 . 47 0 1 ~4 J 0 1 ~f,f, 0 I I 0 I • 1128 . 11 2 11 . 1121. 1 11 c. 1 0<:>~. 1 r11 11. 19 1',4
( I {I· 0 , 1 ' r, 1 . 1 ~., ::s . 1 '4;>, 1 ('~!i . 1 0 :II , 1 r r• 4. 1 1 1 7 0 11 28 . 11 ~,.. 1 I 1 2 . 1 !1 '17 , 1 !1 8 I. \%!\
1 1~112. 1 -~-'I 0 1 ~.,, 0 1 ",., •• 1 (14 (1 . 1 "6 3 . I (·97 . 1 I ?A . 11 2 8 . 11 2 4 . 1 11 3 0 1 ~97 . 1 ~117 . 1°66
ll 1 ~ p :I . 1 ~ 1 ~. 1 c 'j 1 . 1 ,. 4ll. 1 1)4 4 . 1 ~70 . l 1 ;> :-~. 1 l 2A . 1128 . 11 ?11. 1 11 II , 11 r o. 1 t'9 1. 1 967
'! 1 ; A(,, I. 1 !, 1 ',c . 1 . ';)0 . 1 1 5 I , 1 0 7 J , 1 I 1 fl . 11 711 . 1 1 2 11. 11 21). 1 1 011. 1 O<;>:O • 1 ~<;> 0 . 196A
I : I ~ 7 8 . 1 '£,(;, I 0 5 ~. 1 n a;>, 1 ~' 9 , )I"Lb o 1 1 11 9 . 11 :>8 . 11 ?8 0 11 :>8 . ll l <J o 1 1 011 . 1 71' t\. 1 <J f,<;>
I I 1 09C . 1 -1 t'. I ~bb . 1 !1 5 7. I 0 !..5 • I 0 72 , 1 1 '16 . 11 28 . 1 1 2 8. 11 2 1 • 11 09 . 1 ~ 911 . 1 ~q2 . 1970
M( A I , I 'P 6 , 1 n::s . I C 6 (I , 1 '.50 0 1 ~4 f, 0 1 1J 66 o 1 1 c 1. 1 127. 11 2 s . 1 123 . 1 11 7 . 1 0 '17 . 1 C<J 0 •
.... "~A X Ill 5 , 1 l c? 0 1 G0 ~. 1 n 8r . 1 ~r 4 . 11 02 0 1 1 2 11 . 11 2R • 11 2 e . l 1? fl o 111 9 . 11r•. l 1 ~ 7.
I' I r. 1118 . I ;fF., 1 '5J . 1 • 4 2 . I 0 ":'>, 1 0 II , 1 Gfl 4 . 111 7. 11 28 . 11 20 . 1 1 0 I'. : C93 • 1 Ot\1.
-
-
-
__ ...,
C llA KACitAt•II:A PROJfCl OP(RATION STU DY
11 /ti ,I'&CF ,n [CIIl(L C I VIUH J NERAL S tNc •• sr. PPOJ(C l 1 4 1\7'?:.~1 ALASK A P OII [R AU lit OR I T Y OAT( H7RJ PAGE 10
'J tl fR li AL~IIC(
A L 1 (R ItA 1 I V f c: CIIAKACIIATNA TUNN(l , IIJT iiOUT FI SH R[L(AS[S
1 [A ~ JAN r ru I'AR APR M l y JIJN f. J UL Y AUG S [ P T OCT NOV nrc A Vf. YR C Al YR
(. . 0 . n . 0 . ~. 0 • 0. 0 . '' r • 0 . 1 91.0 ~ ~. r, r . ? • '. 0 . ~. c • 0 . c . ~. (', ~. 19~1 ~. . . ~. 0 • (1 . ~. o. , . c . r • ~. ('. o • 196 2 4 r . ' . ~ . , . n 0 . o. 0 . '}, ~. ?. r . ~. 19£.~ c. ~. ' . ~. 0 . ~. 0 . 0 . 0 . "· ~. o. 0. 1 0f,4 "· ~. 0 . r • 0 . !'. 0 . 0 . ('. r . ~. r . 196'\ ~. ~. r . ~. ~. 0 . (1 , 0 . 0 . ('. (', c . 0. 1 96f. !' 0 . ~. ' c • 0 . ('. 0 . n , o. o. n , ('. 0 . 1 067 ..
Q '. t . ~. 0 . 0 . 0 . o. '} . o. 0 . " ('. o. Jof.fl .. I . . ( . .. '} . 0 . " o. c • (1 , "· ~. ~. o. 1 '!6 o ..
I I c • ~. o. 1 . ? • c . 0 . 0 . 0. 0 • . 0 . 0 . 197!' ..
I"!:~ It 0 . J . ~. '}. 0 . o. o. 0. 0 . 0 . !'. (', o.
"A k r . ' . :>. J • 0 . r. ~. o. o. ~. c. ~. 0 . ".II. c . o. . J . 0 . 0 . 0. o. 0 . o. 0 . c . . .
·---------- --- -- -- --CII ~KACII AMNA PROJE CT ('IP(RATION SlUOY
t<llt ,II&CF ,fl[CIIlfl C I VIL~MIN(RALS INC •• S F .
PPOJ(CT l•P 79 QO I ALASKA POWER AUlltOk IT Y OAT( H 7 8J P AGf II
AL T(RNA 1 IV ( c: CHAKArltAlNA TUNN[L, Ill T II OUT F I S ll R[L(ASf.S
f'OII (fl I I\ Mil
Y(A P J AN r u , MAR APR MAY JUN E JU LY AU G S EPT OC I NOV DEC A V( YR CAL YR
I ll 0 . 17C . I S:";. 1 ~7. I /5 . 1 <'I • 1 I 9. t ;>S . I ::'17 • 1 5 7. t a c. 19&. I o; ~ • 1 •u.r
<' ! 6 c. 1 7 (.. 1 5~. I ~ 7 . 1 :>'1 . 1 2 1. II 9. 1 2S . I J 7. I S 7. t ar . )Qf.. l !i C. 191>1 ... ' 11\0 . I 7 ('. I S '. I 7 . 1 ?5. I <' 1 • I 1 9 . 1 <'5 . D7. 1 5 7. 1 11 r . )Of,, I S O. 19&::'
4 I I' 0 . I 7 ~. 1 s .'i . 1 ~ 7 . 1 :>5 . 1 2 1 • II 9 . 1 ;>~. t:'l7. 1 S7 . 113 c. 1 ':16 · 1 S 0. 1'!6:'1
" I I' 0 . !H . J 'i :";. I 7 . 1?5. I<' 1 • 11 q. 1 2S . I~ 7 • I 5 7 • Ill~. )06. I~~ • 196~
,.. I I' 0 • 1 H . 1 5l . 1 .H . );>'). I 2 1 • I 1 9 • 1 7.~. I 7. 1 57 . ta r . l9 f>. 1 5 0. 1Q(,'\
7 I !I C . 1 7C . 15 :'1 . 1 ~ 7 . I ?S . I 2 I. 1 19 . 1 2'1 . I J 7. 1 5 7. 1110. I a f. • 1 5 0. 1 9 H
I' I P. C , 1 7 ~. I S ·'. l.H • 1 .?5 . I 2 I , 119. J;>'i. I~ 7 • 1 ~7. Ill 0 . J9f,, I r, 0. \Qf,7
., I R C • I 7 7 • l C..~. 1~7 . 1 ;>". 1 2 1 • 119. 1 2S . I 3 7. 1 5 7. Ill ~ • 1 0 !-. 157. JO,I\
I • I f 0 , 1 7 o • }C..';. 1 H. 1?5 . 12 1. II q. 1?5. I H . I 5 7. Ill ~. 196 . 1 '1 0. )9f,0
I I 1 e J . I 71 . I S 3 • I 37 , 1 ?5 . I 2 I • II 9. 1 25 . t.H . l'H . I a~ • !9f,. 1 ')0 . 197~
....
f\f II t l I ~~ • 1 7 'j . IS 3. t.H . 1 ?5 . 121. I 19. 125. I 3 7. 1 5 7. tao. 196. I S O.
-"'!AX I P ~ • 1 7 r... I '5 'i • I 'I 7 . );''j . I 2 I • I I 9. 1 2S . , ~ 1. 1 5 7. I B r, I q6 • J 'i (',
H JN I I' 0 . 1 7 ~ • 1 5 3 . I 37 . 1?5 . I 2 I • II q • 1 2S . 137. 157. lAO. 1 9 6. 15 c .
...
-
...
CIIA KAC HA11 NA PROJ [C T OPE RATION S T UDY
HI H t i 'I.CF tii [Cit T EL C I VIU11IN F:RALS 1t1c. ,s r. P ROJECT }4 /1 7 9 ~01 A LA 'i t< A POWER AUTt•OR I TY D A 1 E H 7A' PA&[ 1 2
( >J ( R G Y IN ~hi t '
All[R NATJV[ c : C IIAK ACH A TNA TUNN[L • WITHOUT F I Sll R[l[A '>ES
Y(AR JAN F"[P II All APR HAY JUNf J ULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC T OT YR CAL YR
I:"H2 J , 1 1 8 4 7 1. 1 D '\4 1, 9(11 09 . 9:\ IF•2 . A 7' :"9 • !'A 79 5 , 9'1 6;>. 9 8 f.0 9 . I 1 1'4 5 7 . l ?"f.~C . 145 565 · 1 .5 17 22 4. )<1 (,(1 ~ ~~~9 CO . 1 1 4 ! 116 . 1 1J 5 41, 9Ar,oq , ".5 1 <.2 , A 7:3~<:> • !'f-7"5 . 93 1 62 . 9116 0 9. 1 1 64 57 . 1 29&C~. 14 5565 . 1:\I JJJ'I , 1 9~ I 133 'i ~~. I 14 ~A f., 1 1.}5 41, 9 8F.~9 . 9;\ 1 r,;>, 117.':\ 9 . ~JI7t;~r;, 9 .H62 . <:>86~9 . 116'<5 7 . 1 29600 . 14 '\565 . J.H .5 1 .5 9. 1%2 13!-"2 0 . I 1 4 .5 1l f. , 11.~5 41 , 9flf, :)9 . 9!>1 f.2 . l.l7J.39 . P f\7 °5 , 9.5162. 91l6n c:>. 11 6 « '\2 . 1 2°60 0 . 145 565 . 13 1.51.'9. l"f.!> ' 9?~. I I P 4 7 I , 1 U <;41 , 91l b ~9 . 9.51 &2 . A7 ,,J '>, P I J 7°5 • '!.5 16 2 . 9 A&P 'l, 11 ""52 . 1 7 %~C . 14·,.,~5 . 1 .5 17;>24 . l 96 4 f. i :"J'l?O . I 14 .'.PI., 11 '\4 I . 9tH.r9. 9.51<-;>, A7339 , 1Hl 7 9 5 . •n 1 62 . 986 0 9 . 1164 52 . 12%~~. 14';5(,5 , l.'t:q J q. 1n 6 r; l3 ~'i 20 . I 14 J/16. I I .5 5 4 l. "'" (, '". 9 ., I '-2 . R 7 .\,\9 , 111•7°~. ".3 1 62 , 9(1 6 ry c;>, l164 ~2 . 1 2 °(,P0. 145 56!". 1:31 .5 1 .5 '1 . 1"66 !.5~9?0 . 1 1 4 'A ~ • liJ 5 4J. "ljr, 0 " • 9 ,, t '·2 . t~n3<>. I!,, 1 "'\. ".5 162 . 9!46 0 9 . 116452 . 1 296?~. 1455&5 . l.H J 1 J'l . 1 96 7 a !!J 0 20 . 11 A 4 /1 , 1 1 .5 5 4 1 . 9 p " ~0 • 93 1 '·2 . 117 3 .'". 1'1'7':1 5 . q .' 1 &2 . 986C'l . 11 6 <1 52 . I 2 °6 0 C, 14 5565 . I .H722 'l. I'J H I r I :" ~,'1 2C . ll4 3fl 6. I 1.3 'i 4 I • 9 86 C'l . 931 f.2 . 8 7 .',5'!, [1 1•7°5 . q .5 162 • 986 0 '!. II 6'< !:12 . I ;>'l (, 0?. l45 565 . I.H .H3q, l ':'f.'? :I !~392 C . 1 1 4 J8f.. 11.5 ~41. ':Ill< ~'l . '!3 1 &2 . A7'.H , £1.8 7 9 5 . ':13 1 62 . 986 0 9. 11 6 4 52 . 1 2 %~~. 1•55F-5 . I JI:\139, 1 9H ,..r ~ t, l~J 9 2 0 . 11 5<; ~ 3 . 11 .5 5 4 I . '?B !i C9 . OjJ(,2 , 07 .B9 . ef7'15 . 9.516 2 . 9116~'!. 116'•52. 1 296 0 ~. 14 55&5 . 1:"142 ~·:3·
MAY , .'~920 . IH471 , 11 3 '\41 . 91'.; 0°. "3 1 !i;>. A 7 .3~'1, C1 f-7°5 . 9 ., 1 62 . 91J60 9. 11 645 2 . 1 2%0 '). 14 5 565 . Bl7 7.<1 1f, ,. ! rJ 1 3.3"2 ~. 114 ~1'6 . 1 1 5 5 4 I . '?I! f. 0 9 , 9 31b2 o 6 7 3 .H , C:P 7'l 5 , 'lJ I 6 2 . 911 6r 9 . 11 6452 . 1 29bO'l . 1-S':ib!J . I J I J I J q.
-- ----.. ---------- --CHAKACfllMNA PROJECT OPERATION STUOY
H ltltii&C f .BE CIITEL C I VI UMJil[ RAL S IUC ot SF .
PPOJECT 1~1\79 0 0 1 ALASKA POII[R 'UTI•OR I TY OAT[ J0 783 PAGE 13
AL lE R NA T IV[ c: CIIAKAriiATNA T U"'NE L t 111TIIOUT F I S'l RrLEASES
P t [R GY (iff I C IT I N Mil II -
Y( ~R JAN F E~ MAR APR MI\Y JUN E JULY AU G SEP T OCT NOV nrc T OTYR CA1L U -I " " . ~. o. n • c . 0 . o. o . o. n • r . (j. 0 . J96 (,
? 0 . ~. ~. 0 . 0 . ~. 0 . 1), '. a . n 0 . 1'U -I -~. ~. o. 0 . 0 . 0 . IJ . ~. ~. n. '· 'l , 0 . 1"1.~ c . ~ . ~. ~. 0 . 0 . 0 . I) • 0 . ~. ~. o. 1 96;\ ,, 0 . ~. ~. ~. ~. 0 . o. ~ . o. 0 . ~. c • o. 1'1!>4
!· c . c • 1), o. (1, ~. 0 . ~. ~. ~. r • ~. (1 , ~0 (,<,
0. -. ~. " ~ . ? • 0 . ? • n • 0. 0 . ~. ~ . n, !"~"
ll Q . ~ . c . ry , o. 0 . o. o . 0. 0 . ~. (1 , 0. 1 %7'
.... 9 0 . ~. ~. ' . o. ~. 0 . 0 . o. 0 • " ~. c . l %tl ..
I ~ c . 0 . ~. Q . 0 . ~. 0 . 0 . ~. 0 . 1), r • o. 19 6 °
I I 0 . ' . . ' . . Q . 0 . ~. (1, ~. J . " J • ~. ' .. 0 . l '?H ...
I'[ All r. ~. '· 1 • 0 . r . o. 0 . J . 0 . (1 , ~. 0.
... '~A :< (I . .. '· 0 . ~. 0 . u . 0 . 0 . ~. '· ~. '), ,..,,l 0 . j . ~. c • 3 . 0 . o. o. 0. 0 . (1 , o. o.
-
....
....
...
_w
CIIAKACIIAMNA PROJECT OP[RATlON STUDY
H/lloii&CF oB[CIIT[L CIVIL U•JN[RALS J NC • t SF • PA OJ(C T 111A7~!l01 AlASKA POW£ A AUTIIOR I TY DATE 30783 PAG( 111
ALTEilNATIVf c: CHAKACIUTNA TUNNEL, WITHOUT FISii REl[AS[S •vE~AGE C.(N£RATIOtl IN MW IN 1'-0NTI !S OF SPILLS
Y£AP JAN F£P MAN APM MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV ore A II[ YR CAL YR
I o. r. J. 0 . c. 0. 2 f. 0. 300. 1!>7. c. ~. (1, 61. l'H>O ? 0. c • ~. 0 • r.. (I. o. :'J OO, 3()0. ~. ~. ~. 50. 1%1 J o. 0. c. '. o. o. o. 2911. 2911. ~. o. ~. "'· 1%2 It c. ". ;), 0 • o. (1, o. l?J. J ~(l. c. t'. 1), Ill. 1963 5 o. ~. r,. , . '}, o. o. 2 7f!.. :!2 5. 0. o. IJ. .. 4 2. 19~11 f. '. (I . ~. (I . o. !1. (1, o. 3~0. ~. (', ~. 25. 196!> 7 0. 0. (1. ~. ~. :>. o. (I. 3~0. "· o. ':'. 25. 19H k 0. 0. (I. 0. o. !1. o. 300. 3 r:'!l. c. ~. "· 'j(l, 10f-7 ., Q. I). o. '. o. o. o. JOO • 148. '· o. :>. !-7. 1068 1 ,. IJ. "· o. 0 . o. 0. o. 1117. 111,_. ., . '· 0. 25. 196° 11 c. '· ~. 'J. o. o. o. 1110. 145. 0. (1, o. 211. l9H
"£All c. 1), tj. 0. o. o. ;>It, 2 05. 239. '), ~. "· 39,
"'All c. ~. '· 0. o. 0. 2tiJ. 300. 3(1~. o. o. o. 61. MIN a. " o. '}. 0. ., . o • o. 1'15. '. ll. o. 24. . .
·---- - ---
PROJECT 1'•8790~1 ...
SURPLUS l~ERGY IN MWII ...
Y[AR JAN FEB MAlt APR
o. ' . . o. (1.
;> ~. .. ... o. 0 •
J o. ~. o. 0 '·
" 0. c . '· ~.
~ 0. n • ~-1). ... ~ 0. ( . ~. ~.
1 '· .. o. ~. . : .
R 1}. . . (1. '· '1 0. :). (1. (!.
1 " o. i:. ('. 0.
11 o. ~. o. ~.
MEAN 0. ~. '· 0.
w ~Air c. c. lj , o.
I' IN 0. 0. (', 0.
w
w
--- -.. -CHAKACIIAMNA PROJECT OPERATiON STUDY
11/!ittt&CFoAECHTEL CIV .i l&MIN[RALS INCooSF.
ALASKA POWER AUTIIORJTY
--
ALTERNATIVE C: CHAKACHATNA TUNNELo WITHOUT FISH RELEASES
MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT
o. o. 1 04o706o 1300311. 21 BO. .. ...
~. o. o. 130~38. 11 H9lo !!.
o. o. o. 12526'>· 113160. "· 0. o. o. 5(1531. 11 n n . "· 0. o. ~. 1139911. 6 .H lllo ~.
o. o. o. o. 1l'f~'l1o c.
fl. !1. o • o. 117391. ,. ..
o. o. ll. D0038. 117391. o.
1). o. o. 130!!J8. 811,. o.
0. (1, c. 165"2· IH16o o.
~. o. o. 10(145, 58&2. c.
o. o. "519. 76121. 73396. o.
c. o. 1 (14706. 1300311. 117391. ~.
o. o. o. 0. 5t162o o.
----
PAGE 15
NOV DEC T'lTYR CAL Yll
~. Jo 256474 • 1960
"· r • ?-1-30. 19t-1
"· ~. ?~11-25. 1962
!'. ~. 16711J22. 1963
~. :>. 111"'". 10(,41j
(1. (l . 1 17 ~'11 • 1'160,
'· c. 117391 • l9F.6
~. .. ?"17"JOo 19F-7 ..
o. (1 , 13111!>-. 19'>11
o. 0. 24f>58o 196'?
o. J. 167(17, 1'?H
t'. r. 1591j36. ,, (1, 2 5647-.
o. o. 167117.
CIIAKACIIUH;A PROJ[CT OP[RATION STUDY
'''''• !I~CF, nrcttTrL CJV!l&!'IIN[RALS INC .. sF. PRCJ£C T 1'4879,01 ALASKA POIIrR AUTHORITY OAT£ l078l PAG£ 16
AL T[RNA Tl V£ c: C11AKACiiATI\IA TUNNrL t WITHOUT FISII R(l[AS[S R[l'lolflll'iC. SPILLS IN crs
YrAP. JUl F£P. !'IAR APR MIIY JUNr JULY AUG SfPT OCT NOV ore AV[YR CALYR I c. 0. o. ~. 0. o. o. J692. o. 0. c. ~. J08. 196~
~ o. ' . o. ~ . o. "· ~. 892. 572. ~. (1. ~. 122. l%1
J "· .. ~. 0. o. , . o. o. o. '· :!. Jo o. 1'162
4 0. r • ~. 0. o. o. o. ~. 1 e 1. o. ~. ~. 16. 19f.J
t , o. ~. ~. , . 0. o. IJ. 0. o. o. ~. ~. o. 1,64
.. o. ~ . ~. 0. o. o. o. o. 2"41. 'J. ~. ~. 2C3. 196~
7 c • ~. '· !1. IJ. c. o. '. 1141. .. 1) • ~. 1n. 1%!. .. & J • ~-~~. c. 'lo o. o. 8761. 538. " ~. 0. 775. 19(.7 . . 9 '· 0. o. o. o. 1). o. 3123. o. o. ~. c . u. "· 19611
I : o. ; . (1. c • o. o. c. o. o. o. t'. '). o. 19E-9
11 (1. ('. o. o. o. o. o. 0. o. o. .. "· ~. l97r J o "[AN ~. ~. '· 0. o. o. o. Jo\97. 416. o. '· ,. 159. 14U ~. ('. ~. ~. o. o. o. 8761. 2H I • t'. "· "· 77!!.
MIN "· o. ~. o. o. o. o. o. o. D. "· "· c.
------('
. r-..
A~NUAl FlA~l rt(lr~: . .,
PlAflll [f'rJCJ[' CY!
FRJCliC~ lOS S CCfFFIClt~l: .0000~2370
"'ONTJILY lClAO fAClCP S !
a. ac-r 1
'
('
------
CH~t.rl I,IINII I'R(IJfCl OP(RHIOPI S lUOT
1/'.o l '<.rr or:tCI'Hl CIVIL&I'IJN[Fo:A LS HICooSFo
r. L ~!; ~ A " ro.!l ~ r. u II • OR r 1 T
----
our 110!11!1
£llf.I''.AllVF I'! I'C A~li'UR SI'OPT lUPdl[lo Willi FJS~ Rf.lEAS[S
---
PAGE
')
')
f )
0
0
0
{·
{
f
{
(
f
(
(
(
'
PROJECT 14P7 '?~01
RrHilYOIP ~TO~AG(•EL£VATIO~·AAEA:
AC·F T
o.
:> O;>!l.
7;!.0~.
:>1;>00.
lliCOC.
:0'11: (I ~.
~·n ~or.
~7 7')'J(\.
1 F. •: ~ 0 ~.
o;r.r t()J.
tn•oo o.
l'lf-7 0 (1 0 .
1117CCC.
IS7 ~oco.
2;l~f.CCO.
2!~•oor.
2771-UC'O.
~C!i 3 0~0.
3.B!i~OC.
3f2 t·,oo.
3 'l l~cco.
4f>J J ;>CC •
TAJlWAT[P•rLn l
:>to.
21C.
rrn u :Rr
760. 0.
H·"i • I' I 0 •
770. 1300.
7PC. 2 t.?IJ.
,, J c. ':6 7~.
I·:> C • 7!?.0.
t·4 r. P.2 1 C..
~ (. (). "?f C. ,. "r. J04~r.
":lj . 1 1 "'.,~.
~;:~. II q r O.
r4r . 1 2 3 :> ~.
~ ( (l . I ?.'·'· ( •
9(1 (1 . J iJCt~t) e
)~;;~. 1~:>~~~.
J?;>(. 13 ~20.
)(. o . !!7•0.
1 ~ ( 0. ).~t;j:.~.
I 011 C • 1'1170.
1100. ~~~'JO.
II:? C. t•F.:>Oo
II:> f-. 1 52 1:>.
PrLPif~HJI':
crs
0.
JCoono.
MONTHLY ~I~JMUM ~~~TPIA~ FlOWS JN CFS:
MONll'lY OIY£11 S IOII FI[OUJR[I'I[P:TS IN cr~:
o. o. c. o. o. o.
~ONTIILY R lH P VOIA FVAI'CR~T ION IN I"'C'!F ~:
o. n . . (I . ~ . 0.
0.
o.
CHAKAC~AMNA PAOJ£CT OP[RA1JON STUDY
1'/llotU.Cf oO[CHHL CJYIL&I!JNEAALS IPIC .. SF •
ALASKA POWEll AUTIIORJTY DATE 1105111
ALHRNATIVE 11: MOATI1UA SIIORT TUNNrLo WIT~ f'IH R[l£AS£S
o. r • o. o.
0 . o. o. o.
""'
PAGl 2 ~
"' _,
')
'),
ll
')
f)
I)
f)
•')
•)
.)
)
)
)
-------------------Ct •r Kt.CI ·AIIPIA I'IIOJ[CT liP[ RATION STUDY
Ulloii'-Cr ollCChH L CIIIJL"~JNCRALS Jt\CotSfo
PRCJfCT I<~~ I' 7r. ~ 0 I· HA ~I(A POIIrR AUHIOR IT Y OAT£ 1105111 PAG£ 3
AlliF~IATIV[ o: 14rARH'UR St4CIIT TlJNI\i£l t WITt4 f' IH R[L[lS[S
INfLOWS TfJ T•·r UK[ I'-Cf' $
')
Y[AP JUI rr.r p(AP A I'll I'AY JlJN JUL AUG S[P OCT P.IOV DlC avru CAl Yll
1 <~~r o. ~07 . ?f>7 . , ... ~. .' '~ ·' 7. f>ll3 7, ll2C9o 9337. 31<~~5. H39o 799. 1170. ~220. 1960
(• ? ,. 17. ~p c;. '17~. ~ .. ,.,. 1 ,. r 1. 7 ']83. 1 21108 . 101199. 67?5. 15116. l'.3. 696. 3 76 7. l9U . ~ f, ~ ~ • ~·"I • '17 1. <117 ~. 1 :• '·. 7"'2 ... I ~ I" 9 • I 0411. !1~'12. 1197. l!fo 3. 613. 3!>9 0. 1962
4 It ':A • .!~7 . ~ 1 !l • 3 .' 7. H ~ I. 47J5o J !;:419. 122011. 5847o 2056. 950. 710. 3!>1!7. 1963
'i 3 ~4. lt:-''l. 3 ., :>. .. 7 , • I I· ! 0 • (I 0'13 • Jr70tt. 11 7')11. 42"6· 1245. 909o 662. 3 424. 196"
f, 419. ?1'io 337. 3 98. J 2 b 6 o ~<1190. I !OH o 10 5 16o 10802. 2114. 597. 466o 36"1· 1"!> (•
7 ·'I J) • ~ 3,.. 3!>0. "10. I!'"~• 1'07 2 . I ( .' 0 ~ o 9974. 6601!. 1953. 91 o. 313. 34'5'Jo 1966
8 ~."1. 44<;. 3@". 81!0. 2 r • r. ('761. 1'19~1. 15695. 619 1o 20•0• 1215. 571. 4473. 1967
9 ~-· ... r I 0 o <It f. 7. ,,~. ;'l 9 f,. 71100. 1.'-117. 112'5 7. 2793. 976. 6119. 612. ~'532. l9fo8
10 It ,,r, • 4 Ff o soo. (:~2. 1 ':46. 9271. 12!>10. 7297. 2793. 3057. 1215. 541. 3396. 196~
IJ • ' 7. '"Ctt. 550 • 1: '"1. l =''~ r,. fo78'1. 1(,,,0. 79116. 273 •• 1359. 7·2· .. ,o. 2929. 1970
I'[AN ~ J J. 't,!!). <110<11. !>36 . ;c u. 7:!'H, 1 ?30 7. I Of> 71 • 5175. 1729. 11113. 592. 3 5 •7.
(• I'U 1177. !:P9. 55 0. 1!99. '!.f .•. 7. <;;>71. 14931. J C,f>9'5 . 101102. 31.'57. 1215. 1170. 44 73.
I' IN . H.<~~. 2 19 • 267. 337. 1 26~. 3490. 10 3 03. 7297. 27~4. 976. 597. 313. 2929.
(· ')
('
(·
(
( I')
(
(
(
(
0
,,
f.I'~KftCt.AIWA P~ !l.J£Cl OPfiUliON STUOY
I /l :ol ·'.('f .n((fllrl CIVIl&>~J~(RAlS JNC •• sr.
f ' PIIC.J£Cl 141•7.,, r 1 ~lA S '<ft ~>n•u· AU li 'OR ilY OAf[ 110581 PAGr 4
Hl[ld .AIIV£ 1': II CAP li!UII !>I• OR T TtJNNElt lo\lll' FIH R[l[AS£S
(' P OW( II ll[l£ &H Jl, rr ;. ,. .
(' Y[ All • .If" rr" IUR ArR n .Y .JUil JUl AUG srP OCT NOV 0[( AV[ YR cAl"'
I :'l tr.~. ;>'1 <;P. < 739. 24111 8 . 2 2 ~;>, 2160. <'075. 2DO. 2335. 26112. 31110. 3475. 2f::'IO. J9f,O
(' 2 32 ( 0. .H~J. :?PO"• C'!i73. ~.''4 r'• 22,~. :>1:?5. 2130. 2335. 2682. 3UOo 311175. 269111, 1961 ·' 3 ?~0. ! I ~ I • 280~. :>!: 73. II .3 '• r. • 2?6'1. t'125. 2180. 23.55. 26112. 31fl0o 311175. 2699o 1962 Ill .52 1·0. ~l !i l • ;;>80'1. ~!in. :-'~4 5 . ;>;>6q. .;J 77. 2180. 2335o 2682. 3180. 311175. 2703. 1963
(' <; 32 f. c. 3 1!: I • 21'0'1. ?5 13. ;'!·II~ • 2 ~69. <'177. 21110. 2.B5. 2(.112. 31110. 311175. 2703. 19f:lll ~ ~;;>(. 0. ~ 1 !i I • 2 80"· 2!17:\o 2,.~,. ;>~2tt. ~231. 223:>. 233f:o 2682. 31811. 311175. 2717. 1CJ65 7 3 2 1 0. J I 5 I • 21!0<:>. ?57.5. ~..,,. r;. 22fo?o 2177. ?11'0. 2335. 26112. 31110o 311175. 2703. 1'J6fo
(• II 3?1 0. ~1!1. ::-eoq. 2 5 73. ?.5111 ~. ?:>69. t'l?!i . 2130. 2335. 26112. 3180. 311175. 269111. 19f.7 '! .52 <0. !072. 2 8 09. ?5 7.5 • ?3<~5. 2213. 2 1?5. 2130. 23:'15. U82o 3180. 3564. 2f:9Jo 1CJfoll I 0 3 21·0. 31"1· <'8111. 2573. .... 06. -.2269. -· 2125. 2180 •. 2390o -2746. --3110. 3564. 2727. 1')(,')
(· 11 32H. ~1 ~.1. 21!111. 2'5B. ;>~lll'lo ?269. <'177. 2232. 2390. 2813. 3260. 36511. 2 7!\ 1o 1CJ70
"[All 32-6. ~130. 21?15. 2 5 62. 2 :!11 0. 2260o ?1111':1. 2171. 231115o 2699o 3187o 3508. 270 1o
"'AX .5 ;>I, 0. :! l ~ 1 • t'Pfl I • 2573. :-•r.f.. 2 !:?8. nn. 2232. 2!1'i0o 2813. 3260o 3658. 2751. .... ~ 31~ ... :!IJ ~t. 2739. 21111118. ~2 3 2. 2160. 2075. 2130._ 2335. -2682. __ 31811. 311175. 2630.
(
( f )
( •)
( .)
(
(.. .)
._)
(
•V
-------------------..
(' C1 1 fti\ACI,AI'4NA I'IICJ£CT UP[ RATION STUOY
1-lttoll&cf oB(Ch Hl C 1 VI LUll N£R ALS lNCotSf o
(" I'ACJ£CT l'IP.7'1 C01 •LASKA 1'01/[A AUTHORITY OAT[ 1105111 PAG[ 5
Al HPIUT IV£ p: I'CAATI IUA SIIORT TUNNH, WITH FIH RHrasrs
(" SPILL Ill cr s
(' Y[U Jh"' HI' I' All APA MIY JUN JUl AUG sr.P OCT NOV O[C AV[YII en u
1 ~. o. o. 0. o. o. 8~6. 6113. o. o. o. o. !179. 191>0
(\ ~ c. o. o. o. o. a. o. 20112. 2796o o. o. o. •o6. 19f.1 ~ o. o. o. o. o. o. o. 1211'. ?113. o. o. o. ?18. 1'!16 2 • o. c • o. c. o. o. o. o. 20~'). o. o. o. 172 . 1963
(1 5 ~. '. o. o. ~. o. o. 831. 1!11. o. o. o. 1 3 7. 196• ,. o. u. o. o. o. o. o. a. 311!a. o. o. a. 2 f.!l. 1965 , 0. o. o. o. o. o. ~. o. 1321o o. Do o. 11 o. 19f.6
C• II 0 •. o. o. o. c. o. o. 9736. 2762. o. o. o. 1 OH. 1'7 67 ' ~. r . o. ~. 0 . o. o. •21111. o. o. o. o. J!\7. J')(,ll H ~-o. c. o. c. o. c. a. o. a. -a. o. o. 196'!1
(' 11 o. o. ~. o. c . o. o. o. a. a. a. o. o. 1970
I~[ Afl o. (1. o. o. ~. o. 76. 2206o 13f.llo o. o. o. 30 ••
"'All c. c . o. 0. o. 0 . 8~6. 9731>. 311! o . o. o. o. 1 0 " •• MIN o. 0. o. o. c. o. o. o. o. o. -o. o. o.
I)
')
(
')
(
(
(
( C)
' '·
(
0
CIIAKACI •AHI'.'A PR!l.J[Cl OP[RA liON STUDY
t-ll '•"~r.r .nrctnn c 1 v JL&II 1 Hrll aLS I~C .. Sf •
PRC.J(( l JIII!7C U(•l 1\LA SK A POW(R AUltiOR tTY OAT£ 1105111 PAG£ 6
r I Sit PH OS£ IN rn
AllfRNAliV£ 1!: HCAR TI 1UP SH ORT lUt.lll£lt WllH FIH lt£l£AS£S
(' Y[U .JAN F£1' I'AR APR HAY .I UN .JUl AUG S[P OCT NOY D[C 'V[ Ylt Ol Ylt
1 3 (, !>. ~07. 267.
2 l~!,. 31.!i. 3f.5o
~ 3 1·5 . 3f:5. 365o .. ·'"S • ~~. 7. -31!>.-
'5 3(,41. 3f:":o ~32.
f. 31-!io 21<;. 337.
7 ~<,5. 3 ~£. 3!'i0o ,. 31'5 . l f.S. 365.
c 3f·5o ~6!. 36'i.
I 0 ,,,:.5. 3f!o. 365.
II 31 s . l f!:. 3ft!i.
c
(
393. 10'!"· 1094. I 09" • 10'94. 1094. 365. 365. 365. 6 !>1'. 19f.O 346. 1094. 11194. I 094. 1094. 1094. 365. 365. 365 . f,f, 7. 1961 470. I 09"• 1094. 109-. 1 o•H. 1094. 365. 365. 365. 677. 196:!
. -337. ----109•···---10'114•·---1094. -l 094 •. --. .1 094. 365o -·-365. --·-365 • 662. 1')63 1177. 109"· 1094. 1('94. 1094. 1094. 365. 365. 3 65 . 67'5. 1961o
3~11. 1 094. 1091oo 1091oo 1094. 109 •• 365. 365. 365. 6'!)7. 1965 •to. I C'H o 109•. 1091oo I 094 • 1094. 365o 365. 313. 664. 1966 Peo. lC'Jioo IO'Ho 10'!41. 109-. 1094. 365. 365. 365o 712. 1967 630. 1 091oo 109•. 1(19 •• 1094. 1094. 365. 365o 3 f>5t £91. JCJ611 6 5 ?. 1 091oo -109•. 1091oo 109 •• 1094. .. _ 365.-365 • 365. 693. 1969 8'!9. 10°•· 1091oo I 094 • 1 O'H• 1094o 365. 365. 365. 713. 1970
,
H[&N 3f:':>o 341~. 3 415. 5~6. IC94o l0'94o 1094. 1094 . 10'94. 365. 365. 361. t.79. .... 3 1 'i. . H5o !ft ...
MIN 3f-4. :>l'i. . 2ft 7.
( 89'9 • 1 ~"·. 1 ~·H. 1094. 1094. 1094. 365. 365. 3t.5. 713. .s:1. IQ'lloo IO'Ho 1 0'?4. 10'94. 1 0.94. -365. -. 3~--313. 657.
I)
(
(
( •)
(
( 1.)
(
D
r ----('
(' PROJ[Cl t-117•a ro1
(' NfT [VA FOR AlI '''' H: AC -f T
('
Y[lR ·"', HP. MAR Hll
o. ~. o. 0.
(1 ~ r. G. o. o.
~ c. l • o. o. .. c. c. o. o.
(• !t o. c. c. o.
(:, o. o. o. o.
1 c. et. o. o.
II o. o. o. o. ('
"' ~. o. o. 0.
10 o. o. o. o.
(• 11 o. o. o. o.
I'! ON o. c. o. o.
( MAX o. o. o. o.
MJ~ o. c. o. o.
------
Ct•A k trt· U'NA PIIOJ[Cl OP[RATJOrl STUDY
I ll"o t!P.Cf" oBtChftl CJVJUi'!JNtRALS INCooSf •
HAS I( A POWER •ul~(IR ITY
Al H N PJAl l Vf n: MCARll UR ~1101!' lUNN[L o WJlH fISt
MAY .JUN JUl AUG S£P
o. o. o. o. o.
IJ . o. o. o. a. o. o. o. a. a. o. o. o. -_o. o. c. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. c. o. o. 1!. o. o. o. o. o. o.
0. o. o. o. o.
o. o. o. o. ... c. o. o. o. ...
---
OAT[ 11 05fll
II[LUS[S
OCT NOV D[C
o. o, o. a. a. o. o. o. o. o. -a. a. o. a. a. a. a. o. o. o. a. o. •• o. o. o. o.
. o. -•• o. o. o. o.
o. o. o.
•• a. o. a. -o. ••
-
PAG[
AVUII
o.
o.
I Oo
a. a.
•• •• •• o. o. o.
o.
a. o.
-
7
cau11
19f.CI
19U
19U
196 ~
""" 196!1
1966
1961
19U
1969
1970
-
,
r
r
,,
'
J
•.>
1..)
C~aKAC~AMNA PR~~[Cl OPFA A TJO'f S fUOY
~lt :,II-.CFofi[ChHL CIVIL&MIN(AALS INc .. sr.
::>AOJ£CT HI!1'Jtl0 1 AlASIIA POWER AUT .. OA I TY our I If '51! I PAG£ "'
HHPNAfJV£ R: "OAliiUA SliOII T lUNN£Lo Wlfh Fl~· A[l[lS[S
r.o,P, ~T(ltiA t;[ n ·ar Ar-n
Yl .. A JAN rr 'l MAR U 'R ... , JU.N JUL aur. SI:P Otl NOV or.c urYR CAL YA , ,,. __ """· 3 f.l2~~·· !50!609. 335l'J3i'o 3 !170!1"· !5'JC23'5. "033200. "03!200. "016213. !~I H30o 3154049. 3 '5 1140!. !122511. I'JU
~ ;H!I24~1. 32~9t'F5o !01~6!10. 2920 ~5 3. 21'2 .. 113 . 30"9"75. ~689300. "033200. •033200. 3H3;"'• 31U6Uo 35fi928Ao !46'1332. l'iU
3 ~-~!-" "· 3 ;1-C ltl o 3 0739211. ;1920f30o ?11'111 ... !05H2!io H6'.'21flo "0!3200. -~!3200. ~~19 .. 71. 3759904. 3 ~61456. 3"'5'5203. I 9U -3~t5 o l'6 o 31S4l'i ~. 30l'J ~u. ?.1161!3'i8o ;17(,7700. l'll49321o -~4fo?810o 4012209 •. "ou2eo. ~9l229So -ll16709e lUU2'1. H1'!191!4, 1'963
'j .!"<3JCJ, 3;U,S PI • 3~7~e·H. ?IIJ2C7~~. 21'211171!. ~10 33 26. 3!161!131'. 4033200. 4033(100. 3H 24?8o 3165'593. 3'5101'51!. 3•5f.249, 19f."
f. ~ .. ~B~~o. ~1';8 0 !7 . 30?53"'" 21172242. 21:!9fll1. 2 H3929o ""16;'1. 3 7113116· "033200. 397'51161. 3800460. 3!19 2974. :!31335 8. 196'5
1 33 9 39"0· Jcll'r.•7. 30462'56. 211'H15l' • 2HP110o !l!71'3011o !!itC1JOo 392t'611 6o •033200. 396'5961. 31091116. 3!195489. 3438129. 19U
II . Ht:!!2•7• 3:>3•"<0 • 306339lo 2910300. H23f.P2, !H-1119, 31f.'5042o 4033200. 4033200. 3971311· 3832614. 36316'53. 3•95193. 1961
9 3 441f l1o 3?1323 0. 310f:l!l o. 295:!713. 2'.126 492. :!1'.14 !01. :!P0?931o "033 200. 399'5328. 3 flf8016o 3698013o 3494118. ~-1123;>0, 19U
u Jl(jl0lo9o ~13:>7 !>';, ;9~t3CJ05. 21l011Gl. 211 53911. 3U.t.'!il8. l6le:2•o. 3111!1616 . 3a .... n. ~141176. 3702513. 3494213. 3lU42'5 o 1961J
(• 11 :!3~1111'1. 313"!~1. 2 96P.I!tlo 21'1~701. 2H35 "9• l'94HOO. ~311 3 303. 3 6fo98H. 3t.2'l11'1. 3~13341. 3341192. 3UU91o ~21.001. I •n 0
I'[Atj 3 42.5111 7. .525~2~1!. ~OP:!l!lo 2931 3 11. 21' .. 11"0· 3 01'H23o u.~""•"· !95CIIt4, 39139611. 31~1881. 37330'56. 3531617. 3 444 5~2 .
(• ... , :01<4 .. 41't. • 31!720~1. !5 03609. ll511J32. 3H10!>" • !~HCI35. "033200. H33200o •oH2oo. 39751!6 1. 3832614. 36316'53. 312?517.
l'lN .-.~~lo•?. lllH!It;, 29t.3'90!'o • 2fi1011Dio 21t5~'lH, ; 743929. !341621. 366913 ... 362!1111. l!i13341e ~341192e .3122691o 32HOI.Ih
(
)
c
( ·.)
{
{· )
(.
(.
..)
-------------------
Cl'~~-ACI'AHI'\A PROJ£.CT llPLIUliON SfUOY
1/ll o''&C f oll£.Cii ftl CIVIL&MIN(RALS tr.c •• sr. FMCJ( Cf I to 111'J n (·I AI AS II A Pf.lif A ~UTIION I fT flU( 110581 PAG[ Cl
tLH i.~A TJV[ P: P"CIRfi•UR SilO II f TUN"H• WlfHFJU Ul£ASU WAHR PALANtl
{• T(AII JHol HP I'AR APR MAY JIIN JUL AUG S(P OCT NOW O[C All( Yll CALYII
I o. ('. o. (', r. o. o. o. o. o. •• •• o. J 9f>ll :> c. c. o. o. c. o. o. 0. o. o. •• o. o. J96J ~ o. o. lio o. ~. o. o. o. o. •• •• o. o. J9ft2 " o. o. o. Q. o. o. o. o. o. 0. -o. o. o. 196! !i o. ~. ?. c 0 o. o. o. o. o. Do •• o. o. 196to f. o. Oo o. D. o. o. o. 0. Do Do D. Do D. 196!1 7 :!. l'o o. Oo r• • o. o. o. o. o. •• o. D. 19U A 0 •. o. !l. o. ~. o. o. o. Oo o. o. o. o. 1967 Q r • o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. Do o. o. r. 19U 1 D o. o. o. o. "· c. Do r. o. •• " .. •• o. 1969 J I r • c. c . o. o. o. Do o. o. D. o. o. o. 197D
(•
(• I)
!'[A'l (1 . o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. Do o. o.
flU Do IJ . 'l. o. o. o. o. o. o. Do "· o. o. Ill"' o. u •. n. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. __ Q. o. o.
(• ')
')
(· •>
(·
(·
(· ()
(.
(.
L
(' Ct•AKlC~AM~l PRO.J[Ct OP[IIUJON STUDY
1-/ll tii ,Cf ti'U:I!Hl CJUl&MIN[IUU INC •• sr.
('
PPC:.J[C1 l•fl7"t 01 AllSICl PfiW[R AUtlfORIIY OU( I 1 OSIII PAG£ I D • AlHPNllJY[ n: I"ClRti•UI! 5110111 tullt~H. Wilt' F IH IIHUS[S
( \
POWfP II\ I'W
(' Y[ All .: "'~ H I' "'" APR ... ., .JUIII .JUL lUG srP oct IIIOV D£C AII£YR CAL U
I I"P.• H 1 7. 1"R• 151. 13P.. 133. I~ 1e 1311. 151. 112. • ••• 21S. I6S. UfoD
(' 7 l '·ll . 11'7.
~ 1 f l ~~. !P7. • I r: fl • I I' 7 •
H'l. 1!i 1e I'E'• 13 3 . 131. 138. 151. 112. 1 ••• 215. 165. 1'61
l6fl. 1 !i 1 • 1.1 1'. 13l. 131w 1311. 151. 172. 1 ••• 215. 165. 1'61
1'-11· 151. 1! r,. Ul. 131. ua. 151. . ·-172. ·-ltl.-.. --us. 165. U63
,
( ~ I < I' • H7o ,. l rft o H7.
7 t re . If! 7 •
( ' il l '' P.. I P 7 o ., 1 '.~P • !F. I •
Hlle 151. I 3 ~. 133. 1~1. 138. 1!11. 172. 191. 215. 16!1. 1 ... 1 ,,I!. 1!>1. 1 ~1'. 133. 131. 138. 151. 172. • ••• 215. 165. 1"!1 If. II. 1!'>1. Bfl . 133. 131. 138. 151. 172. 198. 21S. u.s. 19f.6
1611. 1 '!'> l • 1 ~ft . I_,·' • 13 1. ua. 151o 172. 191. us. 165. ,,,7
J(,P. 1 !·1. 1." r.. I.B. 1 !-lo 138. 1!11o 172. 191 • 21!1. 1fo5. 1'68
,
1 c . 1'!A. IP7o
( 11 I'· II • ll! 7.
11,1\e 1 !>1. t:h 1JJ. 13!. 131. 151. . .. 172.-1, •• 21!1. 165. 1,.,
1 r,P. I !i 1 • I '·I' • 133. D1. 138. 1!11o 172. 198. 21!1. 1fo!le 1'70
l'[ltj l"tt. 11'7. 1E-IIo I !i l • 1~11. l B . 1 ~ 1 • 1311. 1!11. 112. • ••• 21!1. 16!1.
( ' MAJ ... ,.. II' 7 • !1,1'. 15 1. 1 ~1'. 133. D1e 1311. 1!11o 172. 191. 21!5. If. !I. I)
1'-11\i 1 f l , •• 11'7. '""• 151. 1~R. 133. 131. ua. 151. 172 .... 191. -· 21!1. 16!5.
( .
(
(· 1)
( •)
(
( )
( 1..)
(..
(..
(..
D
(;
------- -- --· --- - - --·
C~AKAC~AMNA r~O~[Ct OP[UtiON StUDY
t·/Htii&CF oOtCHfEL C IV IL&f! INUALS IIIIC .. SFo
PU~£Ct J411!7 4H01 AlASKA POW[~ AUT~O~ItY OU£ 111!181 PA&[ ll ,.,
j
AlHitNATIV£ 1!: MtAitltiUII !:ttOIIf fUNNHt llltH , I st 11£LUUS
[h[IIGY ... IIW~
(' Yf All ~ftN rn trAP APR ,.,, ' ~UH ~Ul AUG S[P Ott IIIOV O[C fOfYII CAL Yll
1 1•l~l:?o U0!1f;o 12411.,!;. 1 OI!HO o 1~2-711. .,6073. ')7614o 1U,H8o 118471. u8n7. 142'lUo UllUo 1 .... .,.,. 19U
2 1•7 .H:>. l ;'!-f~~. t:>•P.')'i. 101!•70o H:'4711o 96013. 97674. ·102478. 101410. uaon. 14:>!1,0. 1f01Uo ••u•!ls. 1961
3 1•7!12. 1:>•·t ;!:. 1 2 41!9!1. Hol'470o 1024 "'. 96073. 976Ho 102478. l08410o IU097o 142!1Uo UOU2o 14U-53o . ., ... , . ..,
4 1•7J12o 1:>~ (;!;. IHII95o 108410· 1024111. 96013 •. .97614 •.. 102471. 108470. taon. _ 142560. UOU2o 14U453o 19.,
5 f4731l'o 130~11!. 124fl')5. 1DP470o 1t2478. 96~73. 97674o 1024711. 101!-?0o uent. 142560· uotu • ....... ,. 1964
f. 147!1:>. 1:>!:f2!o 1241!95. 10!470o 1 02HIIo 96013. 97674. 11!24711. 108Hio UI097o 142560. UllUo 1UU5So 1965
7 "1.5.,. 12!:,.2!. U41!95o tllfiHOo 102478. 'JH13o '1l. 14. 1 C24Uo 101141lo 121097. 142560. U0122o 1U445So ..,,.,.
('
II IH312o 125~2~. """~· 10fl470o 102•78. 96013. ')76Ho 102478. 10147Do 12809?. 142560. UG122o 1UU5So 1967
9 147312o 1~0~11!o U•895o 1ofl•7o. 102418. 9f.07~. 'J76Ho 1024711. l08Uo. taon. l425Uo UIU2o 14411')47. ..,.. )
10 IH312o a;~t-~. 12419!J. l0U70o 100:478. 96013. -9767 •• 102471. 111411~ uaon ... 142!11>1. uuu. t•4-4!'So 1"9
11 1473Ho I:>!-,..,r. • 12•1!9~. ll'f470o 1024711. 96C13o 976Ho 102478. 1011470. uenlo 142S60o U0122o 14444~3. I 'Jill )
!4UN 147~12o t;70!0o 12•895o I Ol'HO o 1024711. 96073. 97614. 1024711. 108470. uun. 1425Uo UIU2. 1U!-6?9o
I' A a 1•7312· 13G~1flo U41''15o '101'470. 102411!o 96073. 976Ho 102478o l08Uo. ueon. 142561. UllUo IU89-7o ')
tON 14731~. 1;>!'if2~. IHI95~ 101470. 102H8o . 96013. 9767 •• 102U8 • 101•10• 12119fo ·-1•2Uia . UIU2o .----~3.
(· •)
( ')
( :)
(
( .:)
(
(
c
(..
L
(' CttAICACI-I~U Pl'n.JrCl ~PrR&liON SfUDY
.. lltthC.frt{I(Ct•lrt. C1Y1l&llltllr:RALS IIIC • oSF •
(' PI'CJ£Cl 1•1'7'1 0 01 All$11& P01i£R •utllfllll n our lJ 05111 PIG[ 11
ALHAUfiY[ P: llfARfl Ull St•OAl lUNN[lt WITH fiS .. II[L[AS[S
('\ ll["<UG SP 1L l ~ H en
('
.,,. .. JA'4 r[t! ""' '"" "'' JUN JUL AUG srP OCT 110¥ ore nru UL'III
1 o. c. o.
(' 2 (1. o. o.
3 o. o. o.
' o. c. o.
(' !I c. o. o. ,. o. o. o.
7 O• o. o.
('· " c. o. o.
~ o. o. o.
Ill o. Go o.
( 11 ~. c. Do
IO[A,. o. o. o.
"• Co Oo o. 3tn. •• •• •• Oo U6o ,1960
o. o. o. Oo o. 66o •• •• •• 5o 1 .. 1
Oo Do o. Oo Oo •• Oo •• •• •• ..,,
o. Co •• Oo --Oo ----.. ---··--.. ,. •• 1 .. 3
Oo Oo Oo Oo Oo •• •• •• •• •• . ....
Oo o. Oo Oo Oo us. •• •• •• 37o ···~ Oo o. o. o. o. •• •• •• •• •• . ...
Do c. •• o. 6112o u. Do •• •• 511o .. ..,
Oo o. o. o. u.-. •• •• •• Oo 1l'o 1961
o. o. o. o. Do •• ··---.. •• •• 1969
o. o. o. o. o. o. •• •• Do •• 191tl
Do Oo Do "· I OHo .. .. •• •• •• .... ,
(· .... c. o. o.
Milt o. o. o. •• Go •• •• uu. .. .. s. •• •• •• 510o
Oo --... ·------.. --•• Oo Oo -
-··---··--•• ••
,
(·
(•
(·
(· ')
('
(
(
(
(
(.
[J
(.. ' v •
------------------
PIIC.I[Cl 1H1'7 ~0l
CHA-ACHAMIIiA PRO.I[CT OPfiiAfiON SfUOY ~/HeH&CFoBtC~ItL CJVlL&MII'ftiiALS Ir.c •• s,.
ALASU POII£11 •utHORfn OUt JIUII PUr u
·AV[R&G[ Gllli£RU IU, u I'll OURII'fG !li'ILLS
AlltR~AlJV[ P: IIC AllttiUII SttOII f fUNIII[L 1 lilt tt 'IS~ II [LUSts
Y[AII .,~,. ru-"IR •PR "'' .I UN .IUl AUG S£P Oct 110¥ ore AVfYII CALYJ
1 r. c. Oo
~ o. o. o.
3 0 ~ c. o. • e. o • o. o; o. o. o.
6 o. o. l'o
7 o. Do o.
" c. llo o. • r. o. o.
J!! CJ. c. o.
II o. o. Do
(•
(•
flo o. o. liJOo 330o Oo •• •• •• •3· 19110 o. Oo o. Oo 215. 330. •• lo •• 'llo .. .. o. o. o. o. 222o 2'JOo •• •• o. .3 • I'J62 Do o. -Oo o. Do 211. •• • •••• e • 24o .,., Do o. D. o. ''"· 105. •• •• •• 33o • ••• o. Oo Do o. Do 331o •• •• •• ''· 1965 Do u. o. Do o. 238o •• lo •• 20o I"' o. Go o. o. 330. 330. •• •• •• 55o 1961 Do r. Do o. no. Oo •• •• •• 27o . ... o. o. Do o. Oo Oo .. --.. •• • • . ... o. l'o o. c. llo o. •• •• •• Oo 1911
II[AfO o. o. o. .... o. c. o. MI .. !lo o. o.
(·
(·
o. o. o. ''· 153o us. •• •• •• 29o
o. Do o. '""• 330o S!Oo •• •• •• "'· o. Oo Do o. Oo •• . .. --·· •• • •
(·
(·
1)
(
·:> ·-----·-----· . ·---·--
(·
(
0
·-.. --.. --. ----------. -. --· -------.. . .
(
(
(
(..
(
0
(' C~AKAC~AM~A P~~~fCl OPUU lOr. SfUDY
.,
t-/lltii&Cr ol'[(Hl[l CIVIli"INrULS fllc .. sF.
.C' P~C~[Cl H87'J001 •L AS Ill POW[' AUfHfiUlY our ... , .. PUl .. ~
-L HUH IVt p: I'CUfttllll SHOIIf fur.r.u. ,,., .. FlU ULUIU
(' SU.PLU$ f'llif',GY u ""'I 1
··--···
(\ , .. ~·" f'[P ""' .,~ .... ~UN ~Ul AUI S[P OCt IIOV ore fOfU ULU .,
l o. ~. o. Do ~. o. -!l!lo t•n-,. •• •• • • •• .. ., ... . ...
(' 1 o. t. o. o. o. •• •• .., .... UtUio •• •• •• uans • . ... ,
3 ~. Do •• o. •• •• •• .,, ... .. .. .,. •• •• • • tuns • . .. , ·-· .. o • ... -· . ......... .... ··---··· .. ·-·-·· ----·---··--· -----'"''•-----1·---_ .. _____ ..... "'··· ltU
(• ~ o. o. tlo o. o. •• o. UUIIo ,, .. •• •• •• ""'· .... ~ " o. o. •• o. o. •• •• •• UtUio • • •• • • UtUio ... ~ ., o. o • o. o. o. o. r. ,; ., .... •• •• •• I Slife . ...
('• p r. •• •• o. •• •• o. un••· UtUio •• • • •• 1nns. . .. , ,
' o. o. •• o. •• o. •• tuou. •• • • •• • •• . ., .... . ...
HI o. o. o. •• •• . -·. -·· •• -··-•• ·-··-. . -.... ·-.. .. •• .,,,
(• ll o. o. '· o. o. o. •• •• •• •• •• •• • • ltJI ,
f'(U •• •• •• •• •• •• 3976. snss. "'"· •• •• • • UU54o
(· .... o. Go •• •• •• •• 43731 •. .. , .. ,. Utl!lo •• • • •• nun • ,
.. ..... o. o • •• •• c •. --··· •• • • •• -··-· .. --·· -.. • •
( ,
(· ,
.. ---· -· . ----..
(· 4)
( t)
·-. . ---
( •)
(.. 0
( 0
(. '
(
"
11 '-' I
" I ' ' . ~
• I ' I . t t..::;.J I I ' I . ._. --.___. ---._ ·-._.
(
(
r
c
f
f
c
c
(
(
D
-----------·--------
.. ,
oll':>O
FIIICtiC~ LC5S COtFFICit~t: o00000~310
•o-.tHLY LOAO rartc•~:
•"~C ·" 10 o?ltC • uo ...... -•"" •'"·
II• It I AL LAlit !;tf.aAC[ :"nuu. ac-Ft
........ u,. LU[ S tt.UGf •• AC•Ff
"U IMU,. lAC[ SttfiAGt :"033711 • . ,.,., ..
C~AKAC~A~~A PkVJ[Cl CPr•atiO~ StUDY
t· ll•olt Hr ollf: t .. t[L C J Yl t&~l~t RALS IIIC • tSf •
ALA~•a POYta #.UlkORitY
•'"" ..• uo ••••• .•ao , ....
•
onr unea •
0
..)
llfSliiVtiP ~tPntrr•!LrvatJo,·••rA:
(• AC•' t rrt t AC:F£
c. 11 ;:'. ,.
202"· 7• r • •tr. ('
73CC. • 77 :·. unr.
27200. 1f [. 2£·'~':.
11 t ceo. F:c. !:f-7~. ('
:»•Hu~. ~:>t. B?te
3'97t.0Ce "" o. 1!270.
~'~~or. Ji'-'!• 9?110. r·
,,..,:~o. l'fiOe 10•00•
'"'~co. ~cr. 115'H•
uz•~cc. .,,~. 11960. (·
JUl';'O~. c;•(l· !232~·
lJl?OCOe 9fCo !2'-!>0o
l~7!('~t. '"'!. l?qll~.
2Uf-w0Ce toro. l!:'POe
2~o·~oo. HcOo 1.5!>2 0.
2l1'-t':lllo It'•~· uuc.
lt!llOCOo l '*'0· ,~,,.o.
!33!'000. lOI!Ce ... ,,.
!f?lO:Il'e llC ~. t•no. (·
~'' ~.ooo. u;o. .... .,o.
•c~!-2oo. st;e. , .. .,u.
UlliUtU•HOW llflat IC,SHP:
t .. ·--
( H[t CFS
ue. Go
( 21!:. 100000.
•otot IlL' ........ ". I~Sflt I" FLOW$ ... tJS:.-
o. o. o •. o. o.
('
' 'lo ~'• ~. r. c. ~.
' "OilfiiL' fll S fRVI 'IP (VH1 111AtJ(IPJ lfl J P!fhr C..:
n. r. I • r. o.
o.
r..
o.
c~•••c~•·-• Pao~rct oPraatiO-stun•
1.11' tii&CF •ltCIIUL tlVIL&II!l-tULS UC • •SF •
ALAS~& POW[II AUt~OattY
o. o. o. o. o.
r. r, • c. r. o.
o. o. c. o.
,
-oau IUSil PAl[ ' ')
")
'1 , , , ,
I')
..,
,
,
..,
4)
4)
0
G
Q
0
0
0
-------..
('
(' PIICI.I[CT ·-I!?Ci ~l·J
(' I.,Hows Til t••r llrf "' crs
(• Hill .J&t: rr,. flU an
I 'ro. ~n. 2f.7o !•n .
(' ~ 1111. ~.c;.
~ f,!3. !-·· '"· ! .... . ,.. '70 • • , ... 11 • ~~ 1. ll~. -U?e
(" .. ~ .. -. -.!~.
6 '''· ?lh
!Uo -11 •
!Ho ,., ..
1 "'''. ~!f. '''· • u.
( " !i~l. . ,.,.
' !l!•· ~~~~.
u• • ""· .. .,. 631o
ID .,!i. •H• .... . '''· .
( II •07. •c•. !l!lt!o '"'•
f'UN !ill. ·~o. •••• !l36 o
( .... an. .... ,. !1!10 • ,,~. .... lf>'· U'.l. -161 • -331.
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(.
------------
flo&O(t AfiNA rMO.JU:T OPtiUTIOlil ~fUOY
I ll'tl<lrF ofiU .. fFl CIVJl&MIII[IALS IIICotSFo
'USU POIIH IIUfl'lllllfY
,, .I UN ..tUL lUI srP
~ ... q. ff'Ho aun. U!?o SH!o
l Ffl lo 7'ill~. una. ...... un.
12t !io 1 't2 !lo l!t••· ... u. ''''· I P.:;t • . U .llo--Ul•t• . una •. ... , .
1 ·~ o. fiiiiJ !•o it'?Oio 11191. ., ...
U86o !•to. uou. an••· .... ,.
111~3 • f01.2. auu. .. ., .. . ....
21~0. '"·· •• .,31. .,,,, . ••••• n••· uoa. 13111· 1 U!l '• ,.,.,.
ltUo ·---UU •. ·-· U5Uo 1291 •. nu.
12fo!io 61119. lt!Uo "". ,.,, ..
2016. 1251. IU01o .... .,.. •an •
36Ho •na. 1•9Ho ...... .. ....
12£!1. . ·'"'· . usu. ""· . ""·
Dlft 111!111
OCf ... ore .awrtt ULYI .. , .. '"· '"· ,, .. ....
Ullo ..,. .... '"'· 1961
lltfo ..,. . .,. ""· l'tU -...... ___ '"• --, ... nn. ltU .,. .. •••• "'• ,.,.. • ••• ,. ... '"• •••• u••· ltl!l ... , .. .... su. ,.~ .. . .... ,. ... un. !lfl. uu. . . .,
'"• .... .... nu • ....
_)fSJ .. _. a us. • ••• U96e .... .,., .. ,.,. ..... ""· "" . , .. eu • '"· n•'•
"''· IUS. ., .. .. , .
·-''~· ... '"•. us. ""•
•
, . ,,
CI ·A,AC~A~~A PRO~[Cf OP[RAftON SlUOY
.. ,,, olllCt oOtCI' ttL Cl VILl'-INUALS u.c •• sr.
PttO.Jrtf Hfi7'Hl'l llASKI rOW[R IUf~~RifY DAft unu PAGl •
AltriiNHJV[ a: IIC U fl iUR S ltOU f UfCN£lt 11/0 'iS .. IIHUSU
POW[ II R[L£ •~r '" cr s
y[all ..... r[P ""' "'" "" .JU .. JUl AUG srP oct NOV D[C AVUII CALYit
t !II'!~. !,@Go !356o ~~IJ?. 2?1Ho 263!1. l'5!Do ,!I.,. 5179. uu. 5911. ., ... !, .... l9U
'I llrH. ~1 •77. ...... 3. lS.IJ. ?9•1· 2711. 2!191 • 2591. U51o 5212. S!llo ., ... 3lllo 1961
! 11rt•. .51'71. !'S!If,. 31•'· ='~·1· 27'Plo ~65ft. 2651Jo 211!11. 52112. 39llo .. u. us.. 19U
• •tH•o ~rn. 353foo , .. ,. 2'l'lllo 211'5· H-56· 26!i9o 21!1o Ullo • , ... .,. .. us •• IIJU .. •!· t •• ~ ,.,, . ~"13f.o ~ ..... ;~··· 2111· ;>t.!•fto 26!1Jo 21151. 3212. 59Jlo .. u. lUI. 196•
" • t·t•. ~~ 17 • -'~3~. H•'f• :>9•1· 21!•5· r11•• ,, .. 21!1. 5212o ll9llo ., ... H•!• 196~
1 •c1•. 31'71. 3536. 51•'· 2IJ•l· 2111· l'6!l6o U!IJo 2151. U12o 5911· .,. .. 5 ~21. ....
" •ot•· 3'-Ho 3!i36o 51''· ='''I· 2111· 251Jio ''''· 21!lo Slllo 59llo ••••• Ul?o ... ,
q •t'Ho !P 7f. o , .... 31 .... 2f!fo!lo 2111· ?5~1. 2!i1J?. 2115lo 3212o 5911• •• u. uu. l''"
JC •o••· 31111. !!IUoo u••· n•l· nu. 25~1. 265!o 2151. sua.-, .... ..... uu. 1961J
II •n•. ~en. ~55 too ~ .. ,. ?llfo!io 2111. ,.,!>6. 2fo!iiJo '/11J20o 3563. •• u. ...!1. 55!i2o 1910
(•
(•
c··
,
W[Af,; 59C6o ~I!~IJ. 3503. 513'5. '~" .. nu. c6?7. 26'5. 211Jo Ulto 5911. un. ssu. .... •cu. !• n. 5531.. "'"• 2'''· u•s• H2'o 272 •• un. S5Uo . .. ,. ••es. U52o
lila: Mil.'• .'f,PC • 3l56o 2IJIJ2o ,,, .... 2635 • --2Sl0o UIJ?o .. 2Ulo -.3211·-·-stu ... ..,. .. uu.
')
(· t)
--·-..
t)
(·
(·
(
(
.<
(
L
(. ."J
-------------------
CHAKAC~A-~A PltO~[Cf OPUUION SfUDY
•'"•"acr.etc~ftL CIVIL&MINrUU a .. c •• sF.
PltO.I[Cf Hr.?'JC 0! ALASIIA POV[It AUf .. OR lfY DUl UISII PUr 5
ALHIINAUVf: a: MCAitftfUit S .. Oitf fUNIIHo VIC ,.s. ltlLUSlS SPILL ... rr~
Y[llt ~AN rtF! Mall API! MA'I' .I UN ~Ul AUG SI:P OCf NOV DlC AYUII CALYII
(
(I
(•
I o. Go ~. 0 •. r.. o. Hllo foHOo 66o •• •• •• .. ~ . . ... ~ o. o. tlo o. o. Do o. ,.,7. 337 •• •• •• • • ....... . ... ~ o. o. Do o. o. o. o. ., ... l69lo o. •• o. "''· .,., • o. o. •• o •. o • o •. ·-·-·. o. --·-.•... uu. . -·--···---··-•• .. ~ . ···~ .. (1. o • o. o. '!o o. o. IIHo ..,,~. •• •• •• .... ""' ~ Do 1o o. o. o. o. o. D. 3•••· •• o. •• 117. ..,~
7 l'o o. o. Do o. Do Do o. I lllllo Do •• •• ·~7. .. .. " o. o. o. •• Do o. Do IOIIIIIo 3340o •• •• •• llUo ltU .,. Do o. Do a. Do o. o. "5110o Do •• •• •• 3112. .., ..
lC o. llo o. Do --.. o. . ·---·····----o.-----o •. •• , __ -·· -··---··----.. •· •• .. .. tl o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. •• •• •• •• 1970
... u .. o. o. o. o. o. o. U'Jo 2370. l61!o •• •• •• , .•..
(• .... o. o • •• o. o • o. IH7o IOllllo '""". •• •• •• ll27o MU:. o. c. ·--.o •. o. c. ---···-·-·-o ... -·-o •. ···-__ ... _ -· __ .... --· -· ..... • • (• .
(•
.<I
(·
•l
( a
(
(
_)
(.
D
C~AKAC~Afi~A PRO~[Ct OPUUION SYUOY
~/H•H,CFeBtCHttL ClVJLI~JNtAALS Jr.c .. sr. PIIO.J[Ct 1-11791'111 AUSU POWU AUltiCllll n OAt[ 111~11 Pur 6
Al T[R NAt IV[ A: fiCARtt iUII SHORt tUNft[Le 1110 Fist-anusu FISh RrLFASl JN cr s
·-·-·----. ·-·-·· -·---·--·· ~ Y[AII .,.,~ HP "'" APR "" .I UN .JUL AUG SFP on NOV O[C AVUII CALYII
('
(•
(·
t o. ~. a. o. o. o. o. o. •• •• •• •• •• 1961 2 o. o. Do o. o. Do D. o. o. o. o. •• • • lUI 3 o. o. o. o. o. o. Do Do o. o. •• •• •• . .. , -o. o. Do Do o. --0· o. -····-o. •• . ... --.. •• •• l96J 5 a. o. a. o. o. o. o. o. o. •• ••• • • o. 196• f, o. c. o. o. o. a. o. o. D. •• o. •• •• 1965 1 o. c. o. Do "· a. a. a. •• o. • • o. •• 1, .... R (1. Do •• o. o. a • a. o. o. •• •• •• •• 1961 q t'. '· Do o. ~. o. a. o. •• •• •• • • •• 1961 1:1 o. o. o. o. o. o. o. -.. ••• ·----··-........ •• •• 1969 1l o. n. ?. o. o. o. o. o. •• •• •• o. o. 191D
I'[UI ~. o. o. o. r. o. o. o. o. •• •• o • o.
( .... t'o c. o. o. o. a. o. •• •• • • •• • • •• ..... o. o. o. o. ~. .o. .. .. -··-. ... --· .. ···--··-··--•• ••
')
(.
( <)
(· l)
(
(
(
(.
L 0
l
-------\ .
('\
(' PIIC.I[Cf H1179COI
(' Nrt £VAPOIIUION HI •c-rt
(' YUII .... ~ rn I'IAA a Pit
I Do Do Do llo
(• 2 Oo Do Do Do
~ Do o. o. o. • Do o. o •. -·--·-o.
(' !I Do 0 •. o. o.
6 o. o. o. o.
1 o. Do o. (1.
(• II Do Do Do o.
~ o. o. Do o.
10 Oo o. o •. o.
(' 1l Do o. o. o.
i"Ut.l Do o. o. o.
( "!U ~. o. o. o. .. ,_, o. o. o. o •.
(
(•
(
(·
(
(
(.
(
l
(.
M
l <..
. ---------
Ct•f.~tACI ·AI'INa PRO.I[Cl OPI ItA liON SlUDY
l•lllol!lCrei'[Ctll£L CIVIL&"-IN£ULS lltt .. sr.
Ala~KA PUW£11 AUlHOIIIfY DA'[ 111511
H HR NATI V£ A: MUIU .. Uit SIIOR f fUIINrL • IIIC F1 s• It [LUstS
MAY
Do
Do o. .o.
o.
o. o. o.
Do c.
Do
o.
o. o.
.I UN
o. o. o.
--··-· Do o. o.
Oo o. -·'· o.
o.
o. . o.
JUL
Oo •• o. ---··· o. o. o. •• o. •• o.
llo
Oo o •
AUG
•• •• •• o. ··--o. a. a. o.
•• •• o.
a.
•• -o •.
StP
•• •• o.
. -.. •• o. o. •• •• •• o.
••
OCT 110¥
•• • • o. •• •• •• --·--··--· .. -o. •• • • •• •• •• • • •• •• •• •• ---···· -·· -···-··-•• • •
•• ••
ore
•• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• ••
•• •• •• •• • • I • ----· -I• -. --I.e .. ----I •
---·
PA6( 1
AVUII CALYII
•• • ••• •• . ...
•• . . .,
•• ••u •• . ...
•• "" •• . ....
•• . . .,
•• . ....
e • ....
•• 1971
• • • •
,
••
I)
I) .,
()
0
v
.)
CI4AICACI ·A"U PRO.Itct OP£11 U IOtll SfUOY
H/HtH,CFtOEC~ItL CIVIL'"I~ERALS lftetSf•
PIICJ[CT t•lll'ICOt AL~SI!A POll[ II AUIIIfl~l IY llan lll'lt f'aK •
aLTEPtJA ll VF .• ! •c Allti0UR SIIORI IU~IU:L t 11/11 FlU •uLUSU
[ .o .... s 1 nuG£ It I ICMt•rt
Y[ All Jt~ HI! I'AR Af'R "'" .,u,. .IUL A IG SEP get 110¥ ou un• CAL Yll
t .'P?3~~~. ~f.?'l~t:' • ~-~'l!l5o ~1'''"· ~!~H~l. ~!!IIU!I l,e •G 3~100e aOH.lll• aeduo. 3'11 ...... 3i3H?'Ie nh•u· 369U•I· "" ? -'~3 1111'· .St•'JtoO. 2•una. ,, ••• u. <'73'2119 • soauu. 36U605o •nszu. •nuoo. 5'l219i~ n~•"· SSitl61e S4U1Ue 1961
3 3!11673. 31!2~e'l. na3'121· 2111UI!2• 2UU2le 1'lfiP093o 36-33117. ~03Slt0e •tsnoo. 3115014. 371~•5•· s••1s•5· u ...... "" • 3?7•3'1'9e 301111197. :!fi.PDUle IUS•84e 26.3St.Se 2755110. HOUUe '"411i • 4U3~11· nuua •. uu\n •. nus.-. is•un. 19U
~ 3 33f.Ot:'.!o 3t~I'Ut. 2'1'1 106· UII:>Ua. <'1131r.3. suoas2. 3~2!-033. •U sa•o • •usau. '3U11956. U".t'Ue hnU7e ~~·•u•. . .... , 3::1112as. ~01'i071. 2111310. ,, .. ,..,. 2Ul'8Ue ?65126'· Ul591le Hnoaa. •nsuo. !'lllllle 3764116e iii.IISe ~1957 ... 1965
1 S !Cfol~a. ! 1 nu~. 2'113117. 215UOIIo l'fllf.2a5. ~001f65. 3HI I~5. 3'l21f•SO• -'033201. 3'1!~41·~ 5712,11• ~lllllle """'· ....
I 33H•D•• suaou. l''ISCI'l•• 219~151e 273'11<'8• ! U!l5a6. 31~'2··· •oha.tl. 403,1211· lt!6"1Sie }196.-lle SSUUs. ,., .. ,. "" 'I 3353'i!>Oo !UD31to nun ... :11273!111. 2P3!1a2Co 31351•2· 3UcS4Ie ''""'· 4U9JIIe 31!1911· 3696_.,. ,,,, •••• s•suse • ....
10 3"··~·· .'O!IHU. 2111UIIo 2122•99· a•uaat. nauu • sueua. ltUUie snt"Ju. ltJI9Jie -~16tiJ9._JtJIIIIe SI645Ue ....
11 3.!1119~0. . HSI!-~2. 2'9'7 .. 2 • usauo. ?111111!1. ~Dlf272e , .. .,.,61. ~111150 •• li06Uie !lfSII4e 341.SJ?e jf46llle 11941Ue 1910
I' (A~ 3 3~at•o;• ~U2~11!!e 297113!1. 28111!12. 2765612. 3032131. ~u~an. l"6U!l•• •oenu. , •• ,.,6. ,,,,.,,. unsss. S41UU. .... 31'23l.•t • .H 2 «:' 312. 3•3•3f"'e !1tla11•· 3!!1f.f.Ho !~IIU!Ile U3~?01e au'.UII. usuu. 3111311· '''''lie JIIYUSe 3 .. ., ... ... ~ l?HPio !IO"'ln!. 2171108. i?Uaea • ~fl:>llt-1o ;'65126'· Ul!l'Jilo 31f,!IOH. 31164~1· SIIJIJ4e .J4111l7e uuu1 ~ snuu.
( o C)
(-l)
( Q
(
(
l
(_
l
.~ 0 '
----- -------------
ct!~I(A(t',.MU PIIII.J£Cl OPfUliON SlUOY
('
hllleiiUf ellf:CIIlfl C IVIl&MINfiULS U1c .. u. PIIO.Jtrl 1'111%01 -LA~U POW[P •ulHOIII l Y DU[ 111~11 "I[ •
IIAf[ll ULUI[(
H HIHHifJVt a: ~·CAII111Uk St•OIIl lUNN£le IIIC: 'IS· IU:LUSU
(' '"" .JUI rn ... , APII ..... ..I UN ..IUL •u& S[P OCl .. , Drt A VUlt ULYII
I n. o. llo c. c. o. o. o. •• •• •• •• •• 1961 ? c. l'o n. o. o. o. Do •• •• •• •• •• o. 1961 3 (1. to. c. o. n. •• o. •• • • •• •• •• •• 1962 • o. c,. o. o. o. . .. o. u •. o. o. ·-·-··-..•. -•• o • 19U .. l'o c. o. o. r. o. o. o. •• o. •• •• •• 196• , o. Yo o. •• o. o. o. o. •• •• •• •• •• nn 1 o. o. Do :lo o. o. o. o. •• •• •• •• •• 1 .... " o. o. o. o. o. o. o. •• Ge •• •• •• •• nn 9 c. c. c. o. o. o. o. •• • • •• •• •• •• I9U 10 o. o. •• • • o.
• •• o • •• • • -··-•• •• •• 19" II o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. •• •• • • •• •• 1910
('
( '
(
I' [Aft! o. c. o. o. o. o .. o. •• •• •• • • •• •• .... o. o. o. o. o. o. o. •• • • •• •• •• • • .. ,_. c. c •. •• _. __ .. •• -··----·· •• ·---··-·-• • ---·-·-·-. --'• -•• ••
f)
(
(
(
(
·.")
(
(
..)
(.
D
, .
Ct •t~ACitAMU PII(I.I£CT (lPfiUtiOH STUDY ~
1-llitlfltf tBtCIITtL CIULII"Jti[IIIILS ll'tCotSr •
PIIC:..J[CT 14 11 1~~0 1 ALASkA POW£11 AUTf'Clll IT Y nan 110~11 PU£ II ' ~l t[RHATIV[ a: MCAIITI'UII SttOIIT TUHNU t 1110 , I s• IIHUSU
Powrrt n .,.,
('
Y[AII .Jilt; ,,. I' all APR .... .JUH JUL AUG S£P net IIOV ore U[YII ULYII
1 240o ?21. 203. 1113. 11· 7. "'"· l!i'lo I fo 1o 183. 209. ..... , ... , ... 19U .. ?.40o ?.21. 20;,. 1 u. 16 7. 162. 159. lf.7. 183. 209. , ... ,, .. , ... 1961
~ 0'4Co , .. 7. 203o U3o 161. UO'o 1!59o .,,. 1113. 209o , ... , ... no. 1962
4 i?40o 227. 203. 113. 167. 162 •..... .159. -. 161. 113. "'•-.... 161· 200· nu
(' !5 24!Jo 227. 203. 183. 16 7. 162. l!-9. l61o 183. '"· z•o. Ulo no. 1964 , 241!. 227. 203. 183. ur. U2o 1!59. l67o 113. , ... '"· 161o no. 19~!5 r
7 24Co 221. 203. lll3o 1,.7. 162· 159. 167. u.s. , ... , ... 261. 200. 196fo
('
II 140o 221. 203· 11:3. 161. 162. l!i'lo 167. 113. U9o , ... . ... no. 1967 ., 240 • 2C1 o 21!3. 1'lo 161. lf•'· 15'1. 16 7. u.s. '"· , ... 161o . ... 19,. ,.
1C 240. 221. 203. 183. l67o 162. -159 •. ..16 7. 113. ·--'"·--uo. -· 261o no. . .. ,
ll 240. 227. 203. u.s. 161. 1fo2o 1!-'lo lfo7o u.s. , ... 240. 261. no. 1910 ,.
I" UN 240o. c <'7. 203. u ;;,. 16 7. 162. 15'1. 1t.1. 1113. '"· , ... 26lo 200. .... 24Do n1. 203 • 1P.3o 11. 1. 1ft2o 159. 161o u.s. .... , ... Ulo , ... (
... ltl l'4Do l'21o 203. lllo 16 7. 162. 15'Jo 161. 1Uo . .... , ... ·--.... -····. 261. ....
(• r
(· ,.
(
(
(
(
(
l
l..
-------·--
C~AKAC~~MHA PR V.JtCT OPtRAtiO~ StUDY
t/llt11Ufe0£Ct-f£&. tiVIL&MJ~[RALS UICotS'o
(.' PRC.I£C 1 JUIH OH ALASKA POilU "UTIICR ITY our 111511 , .. ( ll
Al HP~IATIV[ ": IICU1t•UR SltOIIT TUNN£Lt 1110 ,.~ .. ltU.USU
(' [~[IIGY lt.i f!WI'
(I Y[AII .J , .... r tf' I'U APR ... , .JU._, .IUL AUS sr.P OCT NOV ore TO nit CALU
I 17f1Sf0o J !J 7'H::»o 1!·1 31111. 131'711 •. 12•211.. 1 H ''i2 • I lf3°3 o 12•216. 13JUI. 1!5Ut. nnu. nuu. 17!16 199. 1960
:» 178!:f 0 . J !i~'i J 5 . 1!'1-'811.
3 1711 !'1.(1, J ':·2!.a l!e H13PPo (' UIUM, 1l''21f>o 1H•52o I Jf3 ~3. l2'2Uo uaue. I'UU. 172111. ..... ,. 1151152. 1961
131ll711o "'216. llf-•52. UP~IJ~. 1<'ll216. UIUI. I!UUo 171111· ... II,. 11501!12. .,.,
' 17li!II-C o 15~~1~. J !J UIAo
s 17!1!'-D • Jr,71Jf:2 o 1'H 3PI'o
6 'J 7P.5'-C• l !i2!:1!. 1!131'11. ('
131,78. 12•216· 116•52 • . 1U3!3. 12.216. uuu. 1!5210•-112111•. nun. 1150152. 1963
131•78. 1 2•21'-· llf•5:». I Jf~'f3. J:»•2U. i'.!JUio 1!5211· I 'lUll. 19 ... ,. 1'15fo2'9. ....
131•78. 12•216· IU•52. I1P3'J3. 12ll216· 131 ..... 1!5211. 172111. .... .,. 11501'52. l96'l
7 l711'H·O• 152!1!'. l!13tlllo 131HIIo 12•2Uo 11 1':•5 2. ,,,.~,3. 12•2Uo 131.71. 1!5211. 172111. lUlU. 11501'52. 1966
II 171'!H:Oo 1!>2 !\Ho 1!'131!11.
9 1 71!!if 0. 15 7CJf:». 1!1 31111. (• 131•711 . 12•216. 116,52. 111'393. u•zu. UIUio IIJ52Ut 1721tlt 194111. 1151152. nn
13t•7e. l<ll?16. llf·•52. 11f3CJ3. 10!'21fot 131•'11· nun. 1UIII• .... ..,. 11un• • .... ,.,
10 17A!f.Oo 1 !>2!:1~. 1!:13(111, 131'71. 12•216. 116,52. 118393. u•au ... UlUie 155211.. -l1211tt __ .... .,. 11501'52 • .....
.(. 11 l711~f 0o 1 !-~!i J ~. 1 !'1:!11 11. 131•18. J26 2 1foo l 1H5:»o 11~3!!. 124216. ll1Uie 1!'5271. 1'12111. n•111. t1511!12o lUI
•ru, 178 ~1':0. l !i •Ho. 1513811. 131•71'. l24<!-16o 116.52. 111'~"'3· 1242Uo UlUio 155Ut. lUIIIt IUII1. 1'152331.
(• .... 118!'1-0o IS71JE:»o 1~13Uo B1•71. "'".,. 111.'52. 11~3"3· 12"116. 131471. 1!5.271. l7211't. . ... ..,. l'I5U99o ..... 1711560 • 15~~15. uuu. UIHI. 12"16· .. 116452 • . 1U39.So 12"16· UUllo 1!52.11. -1 12111• _.1941Ue 11511!12.
(• f)
(·
( 0
(
(
(
(
(.
D ·-
I'\
( '
(' Yrtl! ~At; Hr. .... APR
o. o. o. o.
2 o. a. a. o.
!. c. o. o. o. ('
-~. o. o. ~.
or; r • r. o. o.
f, o. Go o. o.
7 o. O·o o. o.
I! o. o. c. o.
9 c. c. o. o. (•
10 o. llo ~. o.
11 r. ~. ~. r.
I'[AP: ~. r. o. ~.
( I'U ~ . . c. ~ . c • ..... c • o. o. a.
(
(
(
(
C~AKACI 'AM~A PR~~[CT OPERATION STUDY
f,/Heii&CF eBltltltL tlVIL&~I~[ULS I~CotSF •
AlASU POilU AUTI IORIU
HT(P.tiUIV[ a: MCalllloUR SIIORT TUfltflt£Lt 11/0 FlU R[l[A$[5
... , ~u~ .JUl AUG S(P OCT
o. o. o. nu. o. •• o. a. •• •• , .. o.
o. o. o. o. o. o.
o. a. c. o. o. o.
c. o. o. o. o. •• o. o. o. o. I Ole o.
o. o. o. o. •• •• o. o. o. ···~· •• •• c. o. o. IOilo •• •• o. o. o. •• •• ·--····-~. o. o. o. o. ••
r. o. o. 'J~2. ••• '·
r • c. o. 661~. 101. •• Lo c;. o. • D • •• _ _..
,
,.
DUl 11Uil u ,.
MOV OlC avn• CAl Yll
•• •• ua. 1960
•• •• ~. 1"1 •• •• •• 19U .o. o. •• 1963 o. o. o. 196-
•• •• •• 196!1
•• •• •• 1966 •• •• !I !II • 1961
•• •• • •• 1961
·-· .. •• •• . ...
•• •• • • 1970 ,..
' •• •• .,.
•• •• !I!IZ • ') ·-··. ···-· •• ••
•)
0
( Q
( Q
' -----.. ------
l
'.
('
('
/
1/
(·
(·
(·
(·
(·
(
(
(
(
('
PRt•frc f 1U7~t01
nuac;r f,[lii[IU f If.•;
Y(AII .Jt.lil
I o.
~ ~.
~ o.
4 ~ vo
!-o.
6 o. ., o.
II llo , c.
10 o.
1l o.
!'![ ... l'o
"'' ~.
MIN o.
lti P'll P.lii!UG !'il'lllS
,, .. "'"' "" c. o. o.
f·. o. c.
~. c. o. o. o. o. c. o. o. o. o. o. c. o. o. o. o. o. c. o. o. o. o. o •.
l'o o. o.
o. o. o.
c. o. o. o. o. o.
.. ---- -.. ---,,
C~AkAC~AM~A PRO~lCf OP[IUfiON StUDY
lllttlt~Cr ollrt .. Hl CIVILIMIN£ULS INc .. sr.
AlASkA POilU AUfiiOit lfY ont 111511 !tAG[ u
t.lf£RIIIAfiVE . : I"CARft•UR !'ittOIIf fUtiN[le 1110 ras• II [LUSts
"''' .JUIII ~Ul AUG S£P on .. ov D[C U[Yit CAL"
o. o. :1~6. •oo. ll!lo •• •• •• u. 1960 o. o. o. 3:17. •oe. •• •• •• • •• 1961 ~. o. o. 2~~. 3511. •• •• • • 51. 1962 o. .. --0. o •. -a.-336. ··--. -.0. o. 21. ltU o. o. o. 221Jo 275. •• •• •• .,. .,,. . o. o. o. o. •oo. •• •• • • 33. 196~ o. o. o. o. 306. •• o. •• 15. . ... o. . o. o • .... ., .. •• •• •• 67. IIJU o. •• o. •oo. • • •• •• •• 33 • 19611 o. -0•·-·-.. o. ·----··-•• ·-···--·-·· •• •• 1969 o. o. o. o. •• •• •• •• •• l97D
c;. o. ?3. U3o ,.,. •• • • •• 37.
(1. o. ?!If .. 400. 400. •• •• •• "· t. o. o. o. . . •• ---_ .... --. ·-·-·· ... ·---· • • ••
,
t)
0
~)
''
CI '!I<ACI'A"U PIINfCT OPriiA f lOti STUrtY
.,llolltcf ollECHHL CIVJL&~INEIULS INc •• s,.
PIIO.J[Cf Uf!f'HOI ALAS I'. A POilU AUfllOIIIU our HUll PAll 14
ALT[I!~AflY[ a: MC All HIUI! StlOIIT fUNfiHt 11/0 '1St II[LUS[S
SCIIPl US r.t>FIIG Y IJ. I'll ..
-----·-·--·· -----· .. --·-··-·---~---Y[U .JAN HP. ..... APII "" .JUfl .JUL AUG SF. I' ott .. 0¥ Dtc YOU II CALU
I o. o. o. o. o. o. 12219. 113314o 4161o Oo •• •• 2 .. ., •• 1961
2 o. Go o. o. Oo •• •• nuu. U65Uo •• •• •• 2152Uo 1961
3 tl. o. o. o. o. o. •• 64Hio U6419o •• •• • • ....... 1962 • o • o. o. o. o. o •. ··-o •.. .. ···-uun. ... ·-... . .. -·-•• 111265 • 1963
!> o. o. o. o. o. o. Oo '6308. UIUo •• •• •• IUUio 1964
6 (!. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. U6U2o •• •• •• 15·uu. 196!1
1 c. o. o. o. o. o. •• •• uau • •• •• • • 11132. 1tfo6
('· II o. o. ~. o. o. o. o. 113314. 156522. •• •• • • UttU. 1tU
~ o. l!o n •. o. c. tl. o. 113384. •• •• •• • • 173384. 1961
10 o.· o. o. o. o. o. •• • •• •• -·--··-·-···-· •• • • 1969
(• 11 o. o. o. o. o. o. •• o • o. •• •• •• • • 1911
I'[ AN o. ~. l'o Oo r. o. f!>71o fiiiUOo 11!6lllo •• •• •• I!UStlo .... o • 0. ~. o. c. o. 1~~19. 113314. I!I6!1Uo •• •• •• uttu • ...... o. o. ~. a. c. Do Do -Oo . o. . ... -.. -·· -··-·-·. •• ••
(• ')
(• 0
(· t)
-·-.. -------·-·-· . -----·--·---
(· 0
'(· 0
(.. 0
(. 0
( Q
-----• • • • • • •
CHAKACHAMNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE SUMMARIES-SHEET 1 OF 2
• • •
ESTIMATED COSTS IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
ALTERNATIVES A
LAND AND LAND RIGHTS Not iftcluded 0
~ERPLANTSTRUCTUREANDIMPROVEMENTS
VIIHCNmber &,100
Undlflround Powtr Hou• 28,200
ButG..._,Ies 200
Tr..tonwerG.U.V 4 ,100
VIIH CNmber end Tr....tonner 400
Glllery -AClMII Tunnel
P. H. Aocetl Tunnel 13,&00
c.bleWay 800
11,300
RESEh ·IOIR, DAM AND WATERWAYS
Rec.wooir 100
lnta •• Structure 10,400
lnvak~ Gate Shaft 13,200
FIM Fecilitiet -
.,. •• Spillway -
Ace~• TUIIMI
-At llltlke 21,100
-Atlut'IICNmber,No.3 1,100
-At Mile 3 ,1, No. 1 0
-At Mile 7,1 , No.2 0
P...,TUIIMI 121,100
...... CNmber-Upper 12,100
PeNtocll -lndiMd Sectioft 11,000
-HoriiGntellectiol'l end Elbow 1,700
-WyeBrancMitoVIIHC.._.., 13,200
-....._VIIHC.._..,.,__,Hou• 100
DreftTubeT ....... 1,100
lut'll CNmber -Tellrece 2,400
Tellrece TunMI end Structure 10,300
Tellrece ct1enn11 100
Rinr Treinlftl Worl&s &00
IIIIUIIITIIMII llll:hellic8l .... Electrlal 7,100 --713,400
A. I -McArthur .-velapment, hilh lew! t unnel ••-'ld by drllllnt end b._tint
C, D -Chv.ecketne velley .-velopment ••cawted by drilllnt end blntlnt
E -Me Arthur .-velapment,low lew! tunnelexcavetld by boring IYIKtllne
B c D
Not• inducted 0 Not iftcluded 0 Not inchldld 0
&,&00 1,100 1,100
25,200 28,200 28,200
200 200 200
4,300 4,300 4,300
400 400 400
13.&00 13,&00 13,100
800 100 100 --41,100 11,000 -11,000
100 100 100
1,300 10,400 10,400
12,400 13,200 13,200
------
11,100 21,100 21.100
1,100 1 ,100 1,100
0 20,100 20,100
0 14,100 14,100
110,400 12,100 712,100
11 ,000 12,100 12,100
11,100 1&,400 11,400
1 ,000 1 ,700 1,700
11,100 12,100 12.100
100 100 100
1,700 1,100 1,100
2,400 2,400 2,400
1,100 10,300 10,300
700 100 100
&00 &00 &00
1,100 1,700 1,700 --814,200 --171,100 --171,100
• ---j
E
NotiMiudld
1,&00
21,200
200
4,300
400
13,100
100 --41,100
100
1,300
17,100
•• 400
1,100
0
1,100
0
0
447,100
11,100
0
1,000
11,100
100
1,700
2,400
1,100
700
&GO
1,100 --133, ..
-----------.. ------CHAKACHAMNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE SUMMARIES-SHEET 2 OF 2
ALTERNATIVES ESTIMATED COlTS IN~ .... -.. OF DOLLARS
A
TURBINES AND GENERATORS 17,100
ACCEIIORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT 11.200
MISCELLANEOUS POWER PLANT EQUIPMENT 1,100
IWITCHYARD STRUCTURES 3,100
IWITCHYARD EQUIPMENT 13,100
COMM • ..V. CONTROL EQUIPMENT 1,100
TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES
Port 4,100
Allport 2,000
AGcna end Conmuction ROidt H,IOO -18.200
TRANIMIUION LINE • CAlLE CROIIING 13.200
TOTAL .-ECIFIC CONSTRUCTION COlT AT 1,040,100
JANUARY 1•2 PRICE LEVELl
ENGINEERING. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 124 ... --
IUITOTAL 1,116,700
CONTINGENCY. 2ft 233,100
ESCALATION Not Incl.
INTEREST DURING CONST .• ft PER ANNUM 111 ...
OWNER'S COlTS Not Incl.
ALLOWANCE FOR FISH PASSAGE FACILITIES -
TOTAL PROJECT COST AT 1.110,700
JANUARY, 1•2 PRICE LEVELl
USE 1,100,000
A, I -McArthur !Mwlopmeut, hlth level tunnel ••~ by drillint end bl•stint
C , D -Ch-katne v•llev development ••c:.v•ted by drillint end blntint
E -Me Arthur !Mwlopment, low level tunnel .. c:.v•ted by borint rnedtine
4,100
2,000
11,100 --
8 c D
17,100 14,100 14,100
1,100 t,OOO 1,000
7.-1,100 ....
3,100 3,100 3.-
12,100 12,100 12,100
1,100 1,100 1.-
4,100 ··-2,000 2,000
44,100 ~ .... 10,700 10,700
13,200 11,100 11,100
-.100 1,117,100 1,117.-
111 ... 134,100 134,100
1 •• 1.-1,211,100 1,211 ...
211,400 210.-210,3DO
Not Incl. Not Incl. NotiMI.
104,100 101,400 101,400
Not Incl. Not Incl. Not IIIII.
10,000 -10,000
1,412.-1,103.-1,113.-
1,450,000 1,100,000 1,110,000
E
17, ..
t,IOD
7,3110
3.-
12,100
1.-
4 ... z.ooo .....
•,zoo
13,200 --
1 •• 780
1,114,100 -·-Not IIIII.
17,400
Not IIIII.
URder .........
I ....
1,314,400
1,314.-
-------------------
HAJ/APD
MF
CHICKID 8'1
CONCEPTUAL
TV'I OF ISTIMATI
ALTERNATIVE A .
NO . DESCRIPTION
POWER PLANT STRUCTURE • IMPR
Valve Cha•ber
Excavation 6 Support•
Concrete & Reinf Steel
ESTIMATE SU.IARY
CIW{ACHAMNA HYDROUt;c-arc J?RO lt;CT
OJECT
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
OUANTITY UNIT UNIT AMOUNT COSTS
VEHENTS
10,500 CY 270 2,A35,000
6.520 CY 410 2,673,200
Struc. Steel & Miac.Heta • 52 TON 1,800 93,600
Round-Off (1,800)
!Jndentround Powerhouse
Dewaterina LS 4,100,000
Excavation & Support• 64,000 CY 155 9,920,000
Drillina-Percua.& Rotary 15,000 LF 30 450,000
Concrete & Reinf.Steel 14,200 CY 630 8,946,000
Struc. Steel& Mise He tala 330 TON 5,300 1,749,000
Architectural LS 1,000,000
Round-Off 35,000
Bus Galleries Between Power
house & Transformer Vaults
Excavation & Supports 200 CY 825 165,000
Concrete 120 CY 290 34,800
Round Off ioo
HKF CH 123 1,..,1
TOl:ALS
-
.
5,600,000
26,200,000
200,000
14179-001
.108 hO.
NOV. 1911
DAU
fo.!IIT 1 OF ~5
REMAIUtl
Entire Unde.r.R.round Cnmnl ....
2 11 -3 11 ~
.
.. .
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
HAJ/ APD • E81111ATE SUIIIIARY
14879-001
l'f .. I'A"ID 8Y JOINO.
MF IIOV. 1981
CHICitiD IY OATI
CONCEPTUAL CHAKACHAMNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
PAOJfCT aHIIT 2 Of 15
TYI'I Of laTIMATI
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
ALTEINATIVI A II~IIIAAI5 JlHII
NO. DEICAIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT AMOUNT TOT All RIMAfiiiCI COSTS
TPana"' f"..allerv ~ ... La
Excavation ~ Su~~orta 13.._000 CY 280 3,640,000
Concrete & Reinf Steel 900 CY 460 414,000
Struc St•el & Miac.Metal• 130 TON 3,800 494,000
Round Off 52,000
4,600,000
Valva Cha.ber & Tranafor.ar
Gallery-Acceaa Tunnela
Excavation & Supports 1_.500 CY 250 375,000
Concrete 60 CY 290 17 400
Round-Off 7,600
400.000
Powerhouae Acceaa Tunnel
Portal Excav.& Protection 56 000 CY 10 560 000
Portal Cone.& Reinf.Stee1 1 000 CY 570 570 000
Tunnel Excav.& Supports 24 000 CY 300 7 200 000
Tunnel Concrete 900 CY 290 261 000
Tunnel Hiac. Metals 30 TON 11 000 330 000
Subsurface Exoloration
Mobilization LS 1 500 000
Exploratory Adit 1,000 LF 1 800 1 800 000
Core drillina. s.ooo LF 140 700,000
Helicopter Service LS 600 000
Round-Off (21.000)
13 .. 590,000
HKF CIE 523 1).801
---• • • • • • • • • • • • • • -•
ESTIMATE SUMMARY
HAJ/APP 14879-001
.10• HO.
HF NOV. 1981
CHICKID •v DATI
CONCEP'nJAL CHAKACHAHNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
IHIIT 3 OF 15 I"ROJECT
TYPI OF I I TIMATI
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
ALTERNATIVE A
NO. OESCRII"T ION OUANTITY UNIT UNIT AMOUNT COSTS T OTALS RIMARKI
l'..ahl• Wav
l'.nnl' ....... 1.. a .. t nf !:.t-.... 1 1 000 ~ 700 700 000
Mi~.M2talM &.Cabl e Sun 26 TON 5 100 132 600
Part Da~•1•
Rnund-Off (3 2 600)
800.000
TnT.U P~R PLANT STRIJI'TII'DS' T ' rs 51 300 000
-·
H6CF CSE 523 C:lal
---• • • • • • • • • • • • • • -•
ESTIMATE SUMMARY
HAJ/APP 14879-001
.10• HO.
HF NOV. 1981
CHICKID •v DATI
CONCEP'nJAL CHAKACHAHNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
IHIIT 3 OF 15 I"ROJECT
TYPI OF I I TIMATI
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
ALTERNATIVE A
NO. OESCRII"T ION OUANTITY UNIT UNIT AMOUNT COSTS T OTALS RIMARKI
l'..ahl• Wav
l'.nnl' ....... 1.. a .. t nf !:.t-.... 1 1 000 ~ 700 700 000
Mi~.M2talM &.Cabl e Sun 26 TON 5 100 132 600
Part Da~•1•
Rnund-Off (3 2 600)
800.000
TnT.U P~R PLANT STRIJI'TII'DS' T ' rs 51 300 000
-·
H6CF CSE 523 C:lal
-------------------
HAJ/APD • ESTIMATE SUMMARY
Pfli,AIUD av
14879-001
Joe NO.
MF NOV. 1981
CHECKED aY DATI
CONCEPTUAL
CHAKACHAMNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
PROJECT SHaaT 4 OF 15
TYPE OF ISTIMATE
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
ALTERNATIVE A
NO. DESCRIPTION OUANTITV UNIT UNIT
COSTS AMOUNT TOTALS fiiiMAfUCI
II r11 n.&.W &. U4.TI!Riol.&.Yt::
-I•
u ......... , ....... , ........ d i .... I.S 100 000
Tn••lr• St'rur• •••
C4•• lo'vnf,.•••inn
.....• 414 ..... 4 .. ~ ILS 150 000
r,. .... l)ri 11 inD s.ooo ILF 80 4oo :OOo
u.,.ti C::A•ui~A LS 1.50 000
'~'•·--ol IO'v.-.... &. c. ·--~-•• 12.000 rv 470 s 640.000
"'··--,, r~-~ L llafnE c ...... 100 In 350 35 000
I a&.a-Tan {lo'fn,.) llnund\ lu~ 3 000 000 L • 26'
D1.,.. .. .&. "' T.-...,. rnn.-oOO lrv 700 4 20 000
n4 .. ~ .... r .... " " 60 ln.a.vc 0 000 600 000
llnund-nff s 000
10 400 000
, .......... r ........ !:h·"•
<::h.aF• F.v.-.au 1.. c.--......... 10-000 CY 360 3 600 000
i Maaa <::url'.a.-a 11v.-.au so 000 lr.v 30 1 500 000
rnn ........... t.. v .. tr,f ~,. ..... s 700 lrv 890 s 073 000
Wi AI' W.Ot'ala l:!qt'Ail S. Un4 It 24 4 ITnN 2 500 3 050 000
llnund-OF'F' (21 00())
13 .200.000
HACF CSf 123 0.01
-------------------
ESTIMATE SUMMARY
IM.I/APD
HF
CHaCJtaD8Y CHAKACHAMNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
CONCEPTUAL
TY'I OF asTIMATI
ALTERNATIVE A
NO . DESCR.,TION
Aceeaa Tunnel at Intake
Portal E..ceav & Proteetio
Tunnel Exeav .& Suooorta
Tunnel Cone & Reinf .Stee
Round-Off
Acce11a Tunnel at SurRe Cha1a' er
Portal Excav & Proteetio1 -· • Excav . & C!. ·--ta
Tunnel Cone & Reinf . Stee.
CroutinR l".nnt-•~t & Preaau1 ~e
W•teriRht Bulkh.,.ad & Fr ..
Rnunti-Off
,__ Power Tunnel
E:~~:eavation & "' ...
Concrete
C::rnutino r.nnt-AI't " Preaaute
Round-Off
HaCF E Cl 1231~1
I'ROJECT
ALASkA POWER AUTHORITY
OUANTITY UNIT UNIT
COSTS
6.000 CY SlY
72.000 CY 295
200 CY 500
6 000 CY 35
17 000 CY 295
2.000 CY 420
2 500 CF 58
27 TON 13,800
5 3 400 LF 8 800
410 .000 CY 334
370 000 CF 54
AMOUNT
300 000
21.240.000
100 000
(40.000)
210 .ooo
5 015 .000
840.000
145 ,000
372.600
17.400
469.920,000
136,940.000
19.980.000
(40 000)
14879-001
J08NO
NOV. 1981
DATa
SHUT 5 OF 1 5
TOTALS REMARKS
21.600.000
6.6oo.ooo
626 .800.000
---
--------- -
ESTIIIATE SUMMARY
HAJ/APD
HF
CHICKIO •v
CONCEPTUAL CHAKACHAHNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
TYPI Of ISTIMATI
ALASKA POWER AUntORITY
ALTERNATIVE A
NO. DESCRIPTION OUANTITY UNIT UNIT AMOUNT COSTS
Sur11e rha•h"''r -llnru•r
... ••fnn I. Cunnnrt-a 35.500 ("Y 200 7 100 000
Conr.rete I. hfnf !1:1" .... 1 6 100 r.v 880 5,368.000
F_arthwnrlra I. J" .. n,.fno 15 000 r.v 27 405.000
Round Off 27 000
P•n•l"nl'lr-Tn,.J fn•d !i:•l'l"fnn
110'-~a .... f"fnn I. C:ooftftnrt-a 27 000 CY 280 7,560,000
Concrete & Reinf. Steel 12 000 CY 845 10,140,000
Groutin11 Contact & Prea aure 6,200 CF 52 322,400
Round-Off (22 400)
D. • ·1.-Hcrizontal Sectio n & Elbow
lhr,.avlll.t.ion I. Sunnort.a 14,000 CY 310 4 ,340,000
Conr.ret<l! S htnf Steel 6 000 CY 365 2,190,000
Grnutfn" -l'.nnta~t 3 000 CF 50 150,000
Round-Off 20,000
H6CF CIE 1523 IJ.eOI
--
TOTALS
12,900,000
18,000,000
6,700,000
-----
14179-001
JO•No
~-~19.,.8~·~-
DATI
SHIIT 6 Of 15
.. EMA .. KI
Heliport, Storage, Work Area
-------------------
ESTIMATE SUMMARY
HAJ/APD 14879-001
PIIIEPAIIIED •v JOSNO
NOV. 1982
CHECKED SV DATI
CHAKACHAHNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT 15 COIIICE211161 'AOJECT .HilT 7 Of
TVPl Of ESTIMATE
ALTERNATIVE A AI.6SKA G3fj~ ~THORITY , AA DOfli
NO. O£SCA.,TION OUANTITY UNIT UNIT AMOUNT TOTALS COSTS ,_IMAAKI
D-.-.. ·-'--Uv.a Rr.taft,.hAa t-n V.a luA f'h.ta•h"'!r
Excavation & SuDoorta 10 000 CY 440 4 400 000
Concrete & Reinf. Steel 7 200 CY 60R 4 377 600
Steel Liner 850 TON 5 000 4 250 000
Grout ina-Contact 3,000 CY 50 150 000
Round-Off 22 400
13 200.000
r--Penstock Between Valye Cha1 ber & Powerhou1e
Excavation & Suooorts 1,000 CY 440 440 000
Concrete & Backfill 600 CY 550 330.000
Round-Off 30.000
800,000
Draft Tube Tunnels
Rock Bolte & Grout 19,000 LF 27 513.000
Concrete & Reinf. Steel 3,300 CY 425 1,402,500
Round-Off (15 500)
1,900,000
Surae Cha.ber -Tailrace
Excavation & Suooorta 5,000 CY 480 2 400 000
HaCF CSE 123 CloiOI
-------------------
HAJ/APD
IESTIIIATE IUI•IARY 14879-001
.IOe NO .
MF NOV. 1981
CHICKID •v DATI
CJWCEfTIIAI
CHAKACH+MN+ HY~~lfl''C PIBIECT 8HIIT 8 0~ 15
TYPI Of 18TIMATI
ALTEIMATIVI A ALASKA POWER AUntORITY
NO. DISCf .. ,TION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT
COSTS AMOUNT TOTALS ......... "
Tat 1 rat'• Tunn•l & Structurt Ia
~ff'!rd.aa &. "' I no LS 2 .000.000
Pnrtal EKcav &. Protectic In 2 000 CY 65 no.ooo
c~> .. ,.•"lte &. btnf Stee..L 1.200 CY 600 720.000
Wa lk.vav Brtdtril!! LS 65.000
~tnnl11tra &. H.;:;,iata 81 TON 8 500 6Blf.soo
,. ...... ..,} lhrt'av I. ~unnnrta 25 000 CY 260 6.soo.ouo
Plua 1P ,,.. "'ll:fnn 4 000 CY so 200 000
lnu~d-Off (3 500)
10 300 000
Ta~t •• ,. .. Channa1
cs..-~ ..... 1 ...... ,. ..... f ... ~ 100 000 CY 9 900.000
f-Rfvar Tra~ .. f .. a Works
River led Deepening so.o oo CY 10 500 000
Mech & Elec. LS 7 100 000
TOTAL RESERVOIR. DAM AND WJ TERWAYS 753 400~000
H6CF CSE 523 1,.,1
-------------------
ESTIMATE SUIIUARY
HAJ/APD
P"IPAIUO 8Y
HF
CHICitiO 8Y
CONCEPTUAL
TYPI OF ISTIMATI
_____ ..JoCollHLAA&.Ua~C..sHI.IIA~HNill ' HY~i\>CDIC PROJECT
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
ALTERNATIVE A
NO. OESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT AMOUHT COSTS
Turbines 6 Generators
Turbines 4 u 9.93000 ') 39.720,000
Generator• 4 EA 7 050J)O 28,200,000
Round-Off (20 .000
A,,. ....... ~ ... -ll!lectrica1 Eauin• i.ltnt
Eauioaent LS
Mise Pn.-r Plant ll!outn-n
Crane Bridae 1 EA 1 100 000
Other Power Plant Eauio. LS 7 500,000
Swit~hvard Strur:turea
Earthwork a 15,000 CY 25 375 000
Concrllll!te 6 Reinf Stlllllllllll 3.800 CY 640 2 432 000
Struc Steel 6 Miac.MI!tala 225 TON 3,500 787,500
Round-Off 5 500
HACF CSE 123 C3401
14879-001
J08 NO.
NOV. 1981
DATI
SHUT 9 OF 15
TOTALS RIMAfUtl
OT,900,000
ll,lUU,UUU
8 600.000
3 600 000
-
-----•
HAJ/Afp
CHICKIO BY
CONCEPTUAL
TVPI Of ISTIMATI
ALTERNATIVE A
NO. DESCRIPTION
!:l.u4t-.. hv'\rd Eauio-nt
Trana~· ·a IO'i HVA.
UnH & Line Brealu~ra
c. ... f .. ,.h ... & l .f oht-n Arre•tc Ira
21.0 ICV f'ahl .. a
r.nntrl\la & Metr'R EquiD.
llnund Off
Cnmmnn i .cation a nti Suov
r.nntrnl Eauio.
HKF CSE 123 IHOI
• • -• • •
ESTIMATE SUMMARY
CIIAKACHAHNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
OUANTITY
5
7
30
18 000
PROJECT
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
UNIT U,.IT
COSTS AMOUNT
EA 152.00(] 5 , n-o ~Q_!!_
EA 206,.00C 1,442,000
EA 3100 1,110,000
LF 140 2,520,000
LS 3,1JOO,uuu
02 ,000)
LS
-
• • -----
14879-001
JOB NO.
ttov. 1911
DATI
SHIIT 10 OP 15
TOTALS REMAIU(I
IJ,~uu,uuu
T,bUU,UUU
-------------------
ESTIMATE SUMMARY
HA-J/AfD 14879-001
P"IPA .. IO 8V J08NO
HF NOV . 1981
CHICKIO 8V DATI
CONCEPTUAL CHAKACHAMNA HYDROELECTR I C PROJECT
IHII'II 11 Of 15 I'ROJECT
TV"! Of IITIMAT I
ALTUNATIVE A
ALASKA ~~~R ~THORITY AA FOA
NO. DESCRiniON OUANTITY UNIT UNIT AMOUNT TOTALS AIMAAKI COSTS
TRAHSPORTATION J'ACT ."{TIES
Port Facilities
Cauaeway 19,600 CY 80 1,568,000
Treatle Piles 50 TON [1,300 565,000 L • 150 LF, flZ' , t •. ~·
Treatle Struct. Steel n o TON 3,500 385,001)
Treatle Reinf. Cone . 150 CY 700 105 ,000
Facilitiea -Allowance LS 2 ,0')0,000
Round-Off (2 3 .000)
4,600,000
Airport
Earthwork 54 ,500 CY 16 872,000
Culverts 1,000 LF 65 65,000
Subbaae & Base 55 ,000 CY 14 770,000
Building -Allowance LS 300,000
Round-Off (7 ,000)
2,000,000
-ICF CSE 623 13401
-------------------
ESTIMATE SUMMARY 14879-001 UAJ/AfD
JOe NO.
MF NOV. 1981
CHICitiD eY DATI
CHAKACHAMNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT CONCII'!t'!'UAL IHIIT 12 OF 15 f'AOJECT
TYPI OF ISTIMATI ALASKA POWER AUntORITY
ALTDHATIVE A
NO. DESCA.,TION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT AMOUNT COSTS TOTALS AIMAAQ
,.,.,. .. •• I. l'.nna t .,.,,. t t nn Road•
Mtl"" I)U)O tn IA.U\0 ... ~ .. 175 000 CY 6.60 1,155,000
r. ............ 1 . ~00 LF 65 97,500 36 11 ~ CMP
Brtd~~~r•• 1 400 SF 150 210 ,000 !!:.......... .. •••• 85 400 CY 15 1,281,000
C:uard Rat 1 1 .200 LF 25 30,000
a ..... t .. l!.vtattna llnad 95 000 LF 10 950,000
~nnw lli'a~nAa 5 000 LF 35 175,000
Round-Off 1 500
3,900,000
..... IA.6.00 t-n 't~
v_~~rt-hwnrl.a 1 465 000 CY 6.60 9,669,000
Culvert• 3.600 LF 80 288,000 48"-' CMP
!l:uhhAaA &. Baa• 165 000 CY 15 2,475,000
Guard Rail 13 000 LF 25 325,000
R•natr !Vwtat-tn .. Rnad 16 000 LF 10 1b0,000
Snow -1.000 LF 35 35,000
Round-Off 48 000
13 ,IJIJU ,000
.,.._1111! 1'i+OO tn 1Q+ll0
F.arthwnrlr 445.000 CY 8. 30 3,693,500
Culverts 1 000 LF AO HO,OOO 48"-' CHP
D .~ 9 000 SF 150 1,350,000
!l:ut.t...... &. Baa• 38.000 CY 15 570,000
C:na rd R2 t 1 10.000 lF 27 27 0 .000
' 2:uuu 35 "' "'""" ... LF • I ll i HKF CIE 123 lloeOI
I I
--
HAJ/APD
MF
CHECKED IIY
CONCEP11JAL
----
ALTERNATIVE A
NO. DESCRiniON
Walkuav -To-Gate Shaft
Earthwork
Guard Rail
Bridae
Rio rap
~-Off
A.r~oeas Road to MacArthur
F.arthwork
Culverts
Bridae Imorovements
Subbase & Base
r.u.-rd Rail
Snn"' Fenl'ell
Rnund-Off
Acce~ta Road to Tailrace
.Earthwork
Culverts
Suhhaa" & Base
C:u'f.rd Rail
Anuntl -Off
H6CF CSE 623 1~1
------
ESTIMATE SUMMARY
CHAKACHAHNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
'ADJECT
ALASKA POWER AUntORITY
OUANTITY UNIT UNIT
COSTS AMOUNT
1 200 CY 20 24 000
1 000 LF 25 25 000
200 SF 150 30 000
100 CY 35 3,500
17 500
Valley
545 000 CY 7 3 815 000
2,400 LF 75 180 000
9,000 SF 70 630,000
105,000 CY 15 1,575 000
6,000 LF 25 150,000
3 000 LF 35 105 000
45 000
unne1
56 000 CY 8 448 000
100 LF 80 8 000
2 500 CY 20 50 000
60 0 LF 25 15 000
(21 ,000)
------
14879-001
JOII NO .
NOV. 1981
SHIIT lJ 0' 15
TOTALS fiiiiMARKI
100,000
36"t4 and 48"t4 CMP
6,500 ,000
48"t4 CMP
500,000
-------------------·
HAJ/APD
ESTIMATE SUMMARY
14879-001
JOe NO
MF Nov. 1981
CHECKED •v DATI
CQNCEfTUAL
CHAKACKAHNA HY mtcrEUCTRIC PROJECT
PROJECT SHUT 14 Of 15
TYPE OF ESTIMATE
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
ALTERNATIVE A
NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT TaTALS COSTS AMOUNT REMARKS
Access Road to Downstrealll P wer Tunne 1 -
Tarthwork 215 000 CY 9.AO 2. H)7, .GOii)
Culverts 800 LF AO 64 {:)00 48 11 e etP --
Bridae 3 000 SF 150 45(). 000 -
Subbase 6 Base 10 000 CY 2 1 210 ,00(}-
Guardrail 9 000 LF 32 28R ,OOO
Srlowshed & Slide Fall 1 000 LF ROO 800 000
Round-Off (19 000)
3,900 000
TemnoraryConst ruction Road a
Earthwork 61 000 CY 6 366 000
Culverts 600 LF 80 4R,OOO 48'/J CMP
Brid11e 3 000 SF 150 450 000
Guardrail 2 000 LF 25 50 ,000
Round-Off (14 000)
900,000
Road Maintenance
Su11111et Season 45 HO 150 000 6,750,01)0
Winter Season 30 HO &00,000 lR,OOO,OOO
Round-Off 50,000
24 ,AOO,OOO
TOTAL AI'I'F~S & CONSTRUCTION Rc: lADs 59,600,000
lf6CF CSE 623 ll-801
------...._ ----• ti -_ ... J . &.--..) -~ ---_., -
HAJ/APD tiJ ESTIMATE SUMMARY
14897-001
li'AIIIEO IY JOINO
MF NOV. 1981
ECKEO IY DATI
CHAKA~HAHNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT 15 OP 1 5 C<*C!PTUAL P'ROJECT IHIIT
1"1 OF ISTIMATI
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
ALTERNATIVE A IIREIIAREO FOR
NO. OESCRIP'T I ON QUANTITY UNIT UNIT AMOUNT TOTALS AEMAfUC.S COSTS
Tr.-.. -•••ion Line
Clear & Grub_ 82 HI 1225 1)00 18,4 50 ,000
Tran-t•11ion Line 82 HI 343 000 28 126,000
Subaarine Cable 21 HI 792 000 16,632,000
Round-Off (8,000)
6 3 200,000
TOTAl Sl'ECIFIC CONSTRIJCTI ON C hsT
AT JANUARY 1QR 7 PRICF. I.F.VF.I.S 1,040 800,000
I
f CSE 5?3 IJ.eOI --
ilii ------------' -
ESTIMATE SUMMARY
HAJ/APD 14897-001
JOe No
NOV. 1981
CHICKIO ev DATI
CONCEPTUAL CHAKACHAHNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
'ROJECT SHIIT 15 OF 15
TVrl OF ESTIMATE
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
ALTERNATIVE A
NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT AMOUNT COSTS TOTALS .. IMAfUtl
-· ·-Tr.-.. -~ •111ion Llne
Clear & Grub 82 HI ~25 ()00 18 450,000
Tran-ta,.ion Linl! 82 HI 343 000 28 ,126,000
Subaarine Cable 21 HI 792 000 16 632,000
Round-Off (8 000)
63,200,000
TOTAl SPF:r.Tln r. ~11NSTRITrTTON r f'lST
AT .JANII ARV 1 QA? PRTr.F. l .F\IF.l c: 1. 040 '800 '000
I I
HACF CSE 523 13-801 ...
I
I
I
I
I
I ALTERNATIVE B
I ESTIMATED COST
I
I
I
I
I
--------- -- --- --- --
ESTIMATE SUMMARY
HAl'APD 14879-001
J08NO
HF NOV. 1981
CHICKIO 8Y DATI
CONCEPTUAL CJIAKACHAHNA HYDB0£1.ECTBIC PBO.I£CI
'AOJECT SHill l 0, 15
ALA SKA POWER AUTHORITY
ALTERNATIVE B
NO. DESCA.,TION OUANTITY UNIT UNIT AMOUNT COSTS TOTALS AEMAAI(I
POWER PLANT STRUCTURE & IHPR< VEHENTS
Valve Chaaber
Excavation & Support& 10 000 CY 275 2,750 ,000
Concrete & Reinf Steel 6,5 20 CY 410 2 673 200
Struc. Steel & Hisc .Heta a 52 TON 1 BOO 93 ,600
Round-Off (16 800)
5,500,000
Und erground Po werhouae
Dewaterina LS 4,100 000 Entire Under2round Como l e x
Excavation & Supports 58 900 CY 168 9,895,200
Drilling-Perc us.& Rotarv 12 700 LF 27 342 ,900 2" -3"~
Concrete & Reinf.Steel 13 100 CY 630 8,253,000
Struc. Steel & Mi se He tala 300 TON 5 .300 1 590,000
Architectural LS 1,000,000
Round-Off 18,900
25,200,000
Bus Galleries Between Power
houslo:! & Transformer Va ults
Excavation & Supports 200 CY 825 165 ,000
Con c rete 12 u CY 290 34,800
Round Off 20 0
200 .000
---.. -----------• • --
HAJ/ APD ESTIMATE SUMMARY 14879-001
JOI NO.
MF NOV. 1981
CHICkiO IY DATI
CONCEPTUAL
CHAKACHAHNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
I'AOJfCT IHUT 2 Of 15
TYI'I Of ESTIMATE
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
ALTERNATIVE B
NO DUCAII'TION OUANTITY UNIT UNIT AMOUNT TOTALS AIMAAKI COSTS
Tranafn..-r C'..allArv t. 'runnA A
Excavation & Suooorta 11 960 CY 290 3 468 400
Concrete & Reinf Steel 830 CY 460 381,800
Struc Steel & Hiac.Metals 120 TON 3,800 456.000
Round Off (6 200)
4,300,000
Valve Chamber & Transformer
Callerv-Accesa Tunnela
Excavation & Suooorta 1,500 CY 2')0 375 000
Concrete 60 CY 290 17 400
Round-Off 7.600
400,000
-Powerhouse Access Tunnel
Portal Excav .& Protection 5b,OOO CY 10 560,000
Portal Cone.& Reinf.Steel 1,000 CY 570 570,000
Tunnel Excav.& Suooorts 24 ,000 CY 300 7 200 000
Tunnel Concrete 900 CY 290 261,000
Tunnel Mise. Metals JU TON 11 000 330,000
Subsurface Exoloration
Mobilization LS 1,500,000
1--Exploratory Adit l,OUU LF 1 800 1,800,000
Core drillin.R. 5,000 LF 140 700,000
Helicopter Service LS 600 000
Round-Off (21 000) '
13 500 000
H6CF CSE ri23 IJ.eOl
-------------------
ESTIMATE SUMMARY
HAJ/APD 14879-001
MF NOV. 1981
DATI
CONCEPTIJAL CHAKACHAHNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
SHUT ) OF 15 PROJECT
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
ALTERNATIVE B
NO DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT AMOUNT COSTS TOTALS REMARKS
C:abl~ Wav
f'nn ....... I. a .. tnf c: ...... , 1 000 rv 700 700,000
wt .. Hetalsli. Cable Son 26 TON 5' 100 132,600
Pn .. t Pan .. ta
Rnunti-Off (3 2 ,600)
.....__. ·soo,uoo
TnT.A.I PnuJ;"D PLANT ~TRIIf'Tlllll< ~·rs 49 900 000
•
r----
--
HaCF CSE 5 3 2 13«11
-------------------
HAJ/APD 14119-001
MF NOV. 1981
CHECKED •v DATI
CONCEPTUAL CHAKACHAHNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
'ROJECT IHIET ~ 4 Of 15
TY'E OF EST'IMATE
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
ALTERNATIVE B
NO. DESCRI .. TION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT
COSTS AMOUNT TOTALS AI MARiti
RI7C:.1711.V'lll OAM I. WATJO"RUAVS
Da•••unir
u ..... t~ual a ....... rtfino LS 100 000
ln .... !. .. C:.t"r ort" ....
C4 .... 17vnl nra .. 4nn
""•hi 1 i , .... inn ILS 150,000
f'ro.r• n r i 11 ino 5 000 ILF AO 400,000
u .. t-trnnt-... <:arvtr .. •.s 150 ,000
"'"" ol J;'y.,.,.., I.. C:.unnnrt-a 10 000 lr.v 51( 5 100.000 -
'~'·•-••1 (',...,..,. L D dnf C::t-AA 90 lr.v 35( 31.500
I .. t. .. -Tan (PinAl Round\ ILS 2,500,000 L • 26'
Pl • ·• l. "' Ttr>mn f'.nnr ·ss-o ICY 70(] 3f!S 000
n4 rino f'rAL 60 DAYS lO 00(] 600,000
DnunA-Off (16 ,500)
9 300 000
lnt-alr .. GAt'" C:.h.caft--
<;haft F.l<rAV J. c;:,,.,..,._,.rt"a 10 000 CY 36{ 3 .600 000
r.. ... aa C:.trf"'r" IO'v ... ,. so 000 lrv 3( 1 500 000
C'n n t:rete 1. RPinf Stf>Pl 5 200 ICY 89( 4 ,628 000
Miar Met:ola r..._.te.A 1. Hni ~t-220 TON 12 20C 2 ,6A4 ,000
Dn•ntd-Off (12.000)
12 400 000 ·j
I
H6CF CSE &23 1~1
1..
----
===-~HA~.: I,.~~A~P.~o~D"------
.... E .. A .. Er lY
Mr
--------
ESTIMATE SUMMARY
CHAKACHAHNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
CONCEPTUAL
TYP'l Of ESTIMATE
ALTERNATIVE B
NO . DESCRiniON
Access Tunnel at Intake
Portal Excav. & Protectio1
Tunnel Excav.& Suppo rts
Tunnel Cone. & Reinf.Stee
Round-Off
Access Tunnel at Sur.a.e Cham' er
Portal Excav & Protectio
Tunnel Excav .& Suooorts
Tunnel Cone. & Reinf Stee
GroutinR Contact & PreAAu fe
Waterhht Bulkhead & Fra•'
Round-Off
Power 'funnel
Excavation & Suooorts
,_ Concrete
C.ro 1tino C'.nnt,.~t & Prii>AA ~e
Round-Off
1---
r--
'AOJECT
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
QUANTITY UNIT UNIT
COSTS
6 000 CY 'iO
60 000 CY 312
170 CY 500
6 000 CY 35
14 000 CY 317
1 700 CY 4 20
2 260 CF 58
27 TON 13 800
53 400 LF 8 372
348 000 CY 334
317 000 cF 54
AMOUNT
300 000
18 720 000
85 000
(5 000)
210 000
4 438 000
714 000
131 080
372 600
34 320
447.064 800
116.232 000
1 7,118 000
(14 800)
-------
14879-001
JOe NO
NOV. l 981
DATI
IHIIT 5 Of 15
TOTALS REMARKS
19 100 000
5 900 000
580 400 000
.
-------------------
ESTIMATE SUMMARY
HAJ/APD 14879-001
.... E .. AIUO BY JOe NO
NOV. 1981
CHECK EO ev OAT I
CONCEPTUAL CHAKACHAHNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
PROJECT SHifT 6 Of 15
TY .. E Of ESTIMATE
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
AL TERNA Tl VE B PREPARED FOR
NO DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COSTS AMOUNT TOTALS REMARKS
SurJU! rhn-~ ·-UnQer
JO:vrA ,,. ... ,...,. 1.. c;:,..,..,.,, ...... 2'l o;on rv 227 5,788 500
Conrr~t .. & ~inf St~Pl 5 500 rv 880 4 ,840,000
E.ar .. h .......... i< .. & J;'!Pnrino 15 .000 rv 27 405,000 Heiloort Storeice Work Area
R c~nd-O f f (33,500)
11.000 000
P .. n .... ,..,..lr -Tnrl i niP A c:: .. ,. t f nn
IO'v,.,..,,. ......... & Sunnnr"'" 24 .000 CY 306 7,344,000
Concrete & Reinf. Steel 10 .500 CY 845 8,872,500
Groutinll Cont.act & PreE &ure 5 :sao C.F 52 286,000
Round-Off (2,500)
16,500,000
1-Penstock-Horizontal Sect i< n & Elbow
' Excavation & Suooorts 12 000 CY 334 4 ,008,000
Concrete s Reinf su~e1 5 100 CY 365 1,861,500
Groutino -Contact 2 600 CF 50 130 ,000
Round-Off 500
~
6,U00,00fl
----
H6CF CSE 523 t:W.OI
---• --------------
HAJ/APD
ESTIMATE SUMMARY 14879-001
~~U~AIUD BY JOB NO.
MF NOV. 1982
CHECKED BY DATI
CONCEPTJJAI
CHAKACHAHNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
'ROJECT IHUT 7 01' LS
TY~E 01' ESTIMATE
ALTERNATIV~ B ALASKA roo~ AUTHOR 1 TY
NO. DESCRIPTION OUANTITY UNIT UNIT AMOUNT COSTS TOTALS AEMAAtcS
Pona .. ~~lr-lolv .. RrAnrh .... t.o v~ live Chamber
Excavation & Supports q .000 CY 480 4 320 000
Concrete & Reinf. Steel 6 100 CY 60 8 3 ,708 800
Steel Liner 700 TON 5 000 3 ,500 000
Grouting-Contact 7 000 CY 56 392 oon
Round-Off (20 800)
11 900,000
Penstock Between Valve Cha~ ber & Powerhou e
Excavation & Supports 850 CY 440 374 000
Concrete & Backfill 500 CY 55 0 275 000
Round-Off (49 000)
600,000
Draft Tube Tunnels
r--· Rock Bolts & Grout 1 5 000 LF 29 435 000
Concrete & Reinf Steel 2 97 5 CY 42 5 1,264 ,375
RJund-Off 62 5
1 ,700,00 0
Surae Chamber -Tailrac e
f-Excavation & St.,oorts 5 000 CY 4 80 2 400,000
l I I I ! I
HaCF CSE till 13401
• • • • • •
HAJ/APD
P .. IPA .. EO ev
MF
CHECKED ev
CONCEPTIIAI.
TY'i 0' ESTIMATE
ALTERNATIVE B
NO. DESCRIPTION
Tailrace Tunn•l & St.ructun
r~fferd-I. n.. ........... frtll
Pllrtal Ellcav & n :tic
r.nn,.,..et.e & Reinf ~t•'!l
Walkvav Brid11e
Stoolo11a & Hoiats
TunnA} IO'YI'AV 1.. ~ .. nnllrt.a
Pl1111r v •• ttinn
RnunA-Off
Tai11'"AI'A rhannA1
t'\oannAl v-~••• .... fnn
River Trainin111r Wnrlra
River Bed Deepening
Hech & E1ec.
TOTAL RESERVOIR DAM AND WJ
H6._F CSE 123 llal
8
In
• • • --•
ESTIMATE SUMMARY
CHAKACHAHNA HYDROF..I ECTBIC PRniECT
,AOJt:C:T
ALASKA POWER AUTifORITY
QUANTITY IJWT UNIT AMOUNT COSTS
LS ' 000 000
2 000 CY 65 130,000
1 200 CY 600 720 000
LS 65,000
81 TON 8,500 688,500
20 000 CY 290 5 800,000
4 000 CY so 200 ,000
(3,500)
80 000 CY 9 720 .ooo
(20,000)
50,000 CY 10
LS
TERWAYS
-------
14879-001
JOe NO
NOV. 1981
DATI
SHUT 8 0' 15
lt\TALS REMARKS
9 600,000
--
700,000
500,000
6,100 000
694,200,000
--
-----
HAJ/APD
, ... ,AfiiiD ....
HF
CHICKID IV
CONCEPTUAL
TV'I O r ISTIMATI
ALTERNATIVE B
NO. OESCR.,TION
Turblnea & Generators
-· Turbine a
Generator&
Roun d-Off
J,.,.,.. .... ,... ___ R}.,. ... ,.rical i:o' dn•
Eauio-nt
Miac Power Plant Ea •tn-n
Crane Bridae
Other Power Plant Eauio .
Switchvard St:ru.::tures
Earthwork•
r ... n ... •'"!te & Retnf Steel
oAn ..
Struc St:.,..,.l & Miac Meta: a
Round-Off
HKF CSE 123 13«11
------
QUANTITY
4
4
1
15 000
3,800
22 5
ESTIMATE SUMMARY
'ROJ CT
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
UNIT UNIT AMOUNT COSTS
EA 8,L•Rnnnr 33 .920,00 0
EA fJ ,nnnnnr . . .. 24 .000 ,000
ClU,UUU)
LS
EA 9 30,000
LS 6,370 000
CY 25 375,00 0
CY 6 4u 2 4 32 .000
TON 3 ,500 787.500
5 500
-----·--
14879-001
JOI NO.
NOV. 1981
DAT I
SHIIT 9 Of 1 5
TOTALS REMARKS
-330 MW
57,~uu,uuu
9,500,001..1
7,300,000
3 .600,000
----------------
ESTIMATE SUMMARY
UAJ/APD 14879-001
P .. EPA .. ED IV JOI NO.
ttoy. 1981
CHECKED IY
CONCEPTUAL
CIL\KACHAHNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DATE
PROJECT SHEET 10 Of 15
TY,E Of ElliTIMATE
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
ALTERNATIVE S
NO. DESCRIPTION OU .. NTITY UNIT UNIT
COSTS AMOUNT TOTALS REMARKS
~wit-... hv.ard ~l!lufn-nt
Tranafn.--•r• lOS MVA 5 EA l03QD0( 5,150,000
llnit-& Line Brt!akers 7 EA 185,000 1,295,000
~ .......... h .... t.. l.f~rht-n .Arreat.• Ira 30 EA 34 oop 1,020,000
210 lC.V Cablea 18.000 LF 130 2,340,000
r~ .... •-,la & Met.r'R Eauio. LS 2,700,000
DnunA Off (5.000)
12 .5oo.ooo
r.nmmurdcatinn ;>nd Sunv
Cont.ro Eauio -LS 1.t>oo.ooo
-
HACF CSE 623 134111
-------------------
ESTIIIATE SUMMARY
HAJ/APD 14879-001
MF NOV. 1981
CHICKID 8Y DATI
CONCEPTUAL CHAKACHAHNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
P'AOJECT SHUT 11 OP 15
TYP'I OP ISTIMATI
ALTERNATIVE B A AA 0 FOR
NO. OfSCAIP'TION OUANTITY UNIT UNIT AMOUNT COSTS TOTAlS REMARKS
rnwtSPORTATION FACILITIES
fort Facilities
Cauaeway 19,600 CY All 1 'i6A 000
Treatle Piles 50 TON 11 .300 565.000 L • 150 LF el2" t -!..s" Trestre Struct. Steel llO TON 3 500 385.000
Trestle Reinf. Cone. 150 CY 700 lO'i 000
Facilities -Allowance LS 2 .000 .. 000
Round-Off (23 .000)
t. .600 .. 00
Airport
Earthwork 54 'iOO CY 16 872 000
Culverts · 1 000 LF 65 65 000
Subbaae & Base 'i'i 000 CY 14 770 000
Buildina -Allowance LS 300,000
Round-Off (7 ,000)
2,000,000
HACF CSE 523 1,_1
·-------------------
HA.I/APD
ESTIMATE SUMMARY 14879-001
MF NOV. 1981
CHICKIO •v OArl
CONCEPTUAL CHAKACHAMNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
PROJF.CT SHIIT ]2 D' 15
TYPI D' IITIMATI ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
ALTERNATIVE B
NO . DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT AMOUNT TOTALS COSTS REMARKS
..._,.,. ...... & C'.nn .. truetinn Road1
Mfla tu.nn tn tA.Uln
"' •L 175 000 f'.Y 6.60 1 l"i"i nnn
r.uluarta 1 500 T.F 6'i Q7 r;nn 36"e CMP
Rr~d ..... 1.400 SF 150 210 .000
c: .. r..r........ & BaAl! 85.400 C'.V 15 1 281 000
n ...... ..t D .. ~t 1 200 LF 2"i 30_000
Ranair R'lfiAtino Rn.ad 95.000 LF 10 950 000
C:nnu ~..: ........ 5 000 LF 35 17"i 000_
Round-Off 1 ~5oo
l.900_000
.. ~ 1.. I a.u\1\ tn 'l'>.sln
v ..... r..~~-t. .. 1 465 000 CY -6.60 9.669.000
Cu1vl!rtll 3 600 LF 80 288 000 48"e CMP
c: .. r..r.. ...... I. BaAl! 165 000 CY 15 2 475 000
Guard Ratl 13,000 LF 25 325 000
R ...... ~ .. ll'wi .. tino Rnad 16.000 LF 10 160 000
Snow F41!nei!A 1,000 LF 35 35 000
Round-Off 48 000
13 000 000
~
Mi 1111! '\"io.s\n tn '\Q+CIO
F_arth....,.rlr 445 000 CY 8.30 3 693 500
Culvl!rtll 1,000 LF 80 80 000 48"e CMP
RrtdoA 9 000 SF 150 1 350 000 s............ 1.. a ....... 38 000 CY 15 570 000
GttJO rd RA ( 1 10 000 LF 27 270.000
Snow Fl!nl''"'" 2.000 LF 35 70 000
Rnund-nff (33 SOO)
f. nnn nnn
HKF CSE 523 13«11
·------
HAJ/APD
MF
CHICitiD aY
CONCEP11JAL
TYPI O' ISTIMATI
ALTERNATIVE B
NO. OESCAIPTION
Ua\lr.vav -To Gate Shaft
Earthwork
Guard Rail
Bridae
Riorao
Round-Off
A,,...,., •• Road to MacArthur ... .... 1rk
r.ulv•rta
BridRe Iaoroveaaenta
C! •• r...r...----&llaae
Guard Rail
Snow -
Round-Off
Ar!ll:!ll!aa Road tn Tailrace
Earthwork
Culvert•
C:tohhaaA & Baa"'
Guard Rail
Round-Off
HaCF CSE 123 1~1
------
ESTIMATE SUMMARY
CHAKACHAMNA HYQROELECTRIC PROJECT
I'AOJ£CT
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
OUANTITY UNIT UNIT AMOUNT COSTS
1 20 0 CY 20 24 000
1 000 LF 25 25 000
200 SF 150 30,000
100 CY 35 3,500
17 500
Valley
545 000 CY 7 3,815,000
2,400 LF 75 180 000
9,000 SF 70 630 ,000
105,000 CY 15 1.575,000
6 000 LF 25 150 000
3 000 LF 35 105 000
45,000
unne1
56 000 CY 8 448 000
100 LF 80 8,000
2.500 CY 20 50 000
600 LF 25 15,000
(21 000)
-------
14879-001
NOV. 1981
DATI
SHIIT 1) 0' 15
TOTALS REMARKS
100,000
36"..S and 48'..S CMP
6,500,000
48 ~ CMP
500,000
-------------------
HAJ /APD 14879-001
MF Nov . 1981
CHICitiO BY OAT I
COHC Q TUAL
CHAKACHAHNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
PROJECT S HUT 14 Of' 1 5
TYf'l Of' ESTIMATE
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
ALTERNATIVE B
NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT
COSTS AMOUNT TOTALS RfMARKI
Acceae Road to Downstre• p, ~er Tunnel
Earthwork 215 .000 CY 9.80 7 ,107,000
Culveru 800 LF 80 64 ,000 liB''~ CHP
lridae 3.000 SF 150 ~50,000
Subbase 6 Base 10,000 CY 2 1 1 10 ,000
Guardrail 9,000 LF 32 2HH,OOO
Sn~ t. Slide Fall 1 ,000 LF HUU 800,UUU
Round-Off (l~ 1 0UU)
.J,~uu,uuu
Teaoorarv Construction Road I
Earthwork 61,0 00 CY 6 ~.ooo
Culverts 600 LF 80 ..
4 8 oao 48'~ CMP
Bridae 3 ,000 SF 150 450~000
Guardrail 2,000 LF 2 5 50,000
Round-Off (14,000)
900,000
-
Road Mainten&tce
Su-er Season 45 MO ~u,uou 6,750,000
Winter Season 30 MO 600,000 18,000,000
Round-Off 50,000
24,800,000
TOTAl . Arr li'<:<: I. rf'' ·n~~llrT T.ON RO .ns W,600 ,000
--HKF Clf i23 13-801
·---·--.. ----------
ESTIMATE SUMMARY
HAJ/APD 14897-001
JOe NO
MF NOV. 1981
CHICitiD ev i)ATI
C(JICIPTUAL CHAKACHAHNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
I'AOJECT SHUT 15 0' 15
TVPI 0' IITIMATI
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
ALTIRNATIVB B
NO. DESCA.,TION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT
COSTS AMOUNT TOTALS AEMAAKI
Tr.-.. -.c .. .,ton Line
Claar &. Grub 82 HI 225,00( 18,450,000
T;~-taaion Lin• 82 HI 343 ,00( 28,126,000
c .. .._ ... i.ne Cable 21 HI 792,00C 16,632,000
Round-Off \8,UUU)
t»J,ZOO,UOU
TOTAL SPECIFIC CONSTRUCTION
COST AT JANUARY 19~ PRICE
LEVELS 96:>,~uu ,uuu
HKF Clf 523 IJ.IOI
ALTERNATIVE C
ESTIMATED COST
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
HAJ/APD ESTIMATE SUMMARY
14879-001
MF NOV. 1981
CHICIICID8Y DATI
CONCEPTUAL CIW(ACHAMNA HXDBOEUClRIC ljBOIECT
AOJE T SHIIT 1 Of 16
TYf'l Of ISTIMATI
ALASKA POWER AUntOR !TY
ALTERNATIVE C
NO. DESCAif'TION OUANTITY UNIT UNIT AMOUNT TOTALS AEMAAKI COSTS
POWER PLANT SftUCTURE ' IMPRC VEHENTS
Valve Challber
Excavation 6 SUfPorta 10,500 CY 270 2,835,000
Concrete & Reinf Steel 6,520 CY 410 2,673,:.!UU
Struc . Steel & Hiac.Heta a 52 TON 1,800 93,600
Round-Off U 1 HUU)
,,ouu,uuu
Underaround Fowernouae
Dewaterina LS 4,1UU,!JUU Entire Undenlround Como1ex
Excavation & Support& b4,000 CY 155 9.920.000
Dri1linJL-Percua.& Rotarv 15,000 LF 30 450.000 2"-3"111
Concrete & Reinf.Stee1 14,200 CY 630 8,946,000
Struc.Steel & Mise Hetale JJU TON 5,300 1 749 000
Archt tee tura1 LS 1,ooo .. ooo
Round-Off 35.-000
26,200,000
-
Bua Galleries Between Power
house & Transformer Vaults
Excavation & Supports 200 CY HD 165,000
Concrete .L LU CY L ~U 34,AOO
Round Off 200
200 000
4KF CIII2J ca.GI
-------------------
HA3/ APD ESTIMATE SUMMARY 14879-001
JOB NO.
MF NOV. 1981
CHICitiD 8Y :-..,.:-:T:-::1---
CONCEPTUAL CHAKACHAHNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
'ADJECT SHIEl 2 Of 16
TYPI Of ISTIMATI
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
ALTERNATIVE C
NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT AMOUNT TOTALS REMARKS COSTS
Tranafn~r C'.all~rY & TV""' Ia
Excavation 6 Suooorta 11 960 CY 290 3 468,400
Concrete 6 Reinf Steel 830 CY 460 3Rl,800
Struc Steel & Kiac.Hetal& 120 TON 3,800 456,000
Round Off (6 200)
4,300,000
Valve Chamber 6 Transformer
Gallery-Access Tunnels
Excavation & Supports 1 500 CY 250 375,000
Concrete 60 CY 290 17.400
Round-Off 7,600
400,000
Powerhouse Access Tunnel
t---Portal Excav.6 Protection 56 000 CY 10 5_6{1 J)OO
Portal Cone.& Reinf.Steel 1,000 CY 570 570 000
Tunnel Excav .6 Supports 24,000 CY JUU 7.200.000
Tunnel Concrete 900 CY 290 261 000
Tunnel Hiac. Metals 30 TON 11 000 330 01)0 --Subsurface Exploration
Mobilization LS 1 500 000
~ Exploratory Adit 1,000 LF 1 800 1 800 000
Core drillina. 5,000 LF 140 700 000
Helicooter Service LS 600 000
Round-Off (21 OQO )
13 .500 000
H.CF CSE 523 1~1
-------------------
ESTIMATE SUMMARY
HAJ/APD 14879-001
MF NOV. 1981
DATE
CONCEP'RJAL CHAKACHAHNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
PROJECT SHUT ) Of 16
TYPE Of ESTIMATE
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
ALTERNATIVE C PREPARED FOR
NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT AMOUNT COSTS TOTALS REMARKS
l'Ahl .. Wav
l'.nnrr•t-• To. RA-In~ C:t-.... 1 1 000 r.v 700 700,000
Mi.-: Metals & Cahlll" SI!D 26 TON 5.100 132.600
Part PanAla
Jl.ound-Off (32 600)
800,000
TnT•t PnwE.R PLANT ~TRUCTURE T.-on O:MJo:NTS 51,000,000
.!
H6CF CSE 623 13-eOI
-------------------·
HAJ/APD ESTIMATE SUMMARY
14879-001
MF NOV. 1981
CHECKED •v DATE
CONCEPnJAL
CHAKACHAHNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
SHEET 4 Of 16
TYPE Of ESTIMATE
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
ALTERNATIVE C
NO . DESCAiniON QUANTITY UNIT UNIT AMOUNT COSTS TOTAlS AEMAAKS
D .. C! .. DUI}TR nAM I. lolA ..... n• .v ..
a--•run-lr
u.. ........ l .. u .. l a-n~•-4 t no LS 100 000
Tnt-•lr-~t"rut't-ur ..
~ C:~t-a 5'vn1nr•t--l~n
W.,.).-1 1 ......... ~ .. ILS 150,000
l'.nr~ nrt 11 tno 5,000 ILF 80 400.000
H .. 1-ll'nnt"Ar C:..Pu-lnA ILS 150.000
T11nnAl IO'vl' '"" . [,. "'· .,. .. 12,000 ICY 47 0 5 640,000
'"'"""'"' -~nn L D--In~ ..: ...... 100 :CY 350 35 000
I •lt .. -T.an {li'-lnA1 Dnun-4\ LS 3 000 ,0 00 L • 26'
P1.u-a .s.·n T-...... l'.nnl' 600 I CY 70 0 4 20,000 -
1\-lu-ln .. f'rA~ 60 I DAYS 10.000 600 000
v,. .... d-Off 5,000
10 400,000
Tnt".alra Gat:~ Shaft"
Ch .. ~t-F.w,..au I. "'· 10 .00 0 CY 360 3 600 000
Maaa Surfa.I'P IO'vn .... 50 000 lr.v 30 1 500 000
r.nlr\erPt"P t.. R .. tnf 'l:tpp} 5,700 lev 890 5,073 000
M{a,. .... tala 1'!2 t-Aa I. Hnt ~t" 244 I TON 12 500 3,050 000
v. ..a_nff (2 '3 00 0)
13 200 000
HaCF CSE 523 13-4101
-- -----------------
• ES'giATE SU ... ARY 14879-001 II.&Jl.&~D
r"lrAfUD IV JOINO
MF NOV. 1981
CHICitiD IV CHAKACHAHNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DATI
CONCEPTUAL rROJfCT IHIIT 5 OF 16
TVPI OP IITIMATI ALASKA POWER AUTHORin·
ALTERNATIVE c ,ROARED FOR
NO . DESCRIPTION OUANTITY UNIT UNIT AMOUNT TOTALS COSTS AEMAAKI
Aceeaa Tunnel at Intake
Portal Exeav 6. Proteetio1 f. QOO CY 50 300 000
Tunnel Excav.& Supports 72.000 CY 295 21 240 000
Tunnel Cone 6 Reinf Stee: 200 CY 500 100 000
lound-Off (40,000)
21.600,000
Aceeaa Tunnel at SurRe Ch-1 er
Portal Ezcav. 6. Protectio1 6 000 CY 55 330,000
Tunnel ·Excav. 6. Sunno1-. ta 23 000 CY 323 7 429,000
Tunnel Cone, 6 Reinf Steel 2 300 CY 420 966.000
Croutintt Contact & Preaau1 •• 3 400 CF 58 197.200
Rlilund-Off (22,200)
8 900 000
HACF CIE 123 fl.eOI
-------------------
ESnMATE SUMMARY ·
HAJ/APD 14879-001
f'AEP'AAED BY JOB NO.
MF NOV. 1981
CHECKED BY DATE
CONCEPTUAL CHAKACHAHNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
PROJECT SHEET 6 O f 1 6
TYf'E OF ESTIMATE
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
ALTERNATIVE C PREPARED FOR
NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT AMOUNT TOTALS COSTS REMARKS
Access Tunnel at Mile 3 . 5 No.1
Portal Excav & Protection 6 000 CY 53 318,000
Tunnel Excav & Supports 68,000 CY 297 20,196,000
Tunnel Cone & Reinf Steel 500 CY 430 215,000
Grouting-Contact & Pressure 1,125 CF 58 65,250
Round-Off 5.750
-20 1 800 1 000
Access Tunnel at Mile 7. 5 No.2
Portal Ex c av & Protection 6 000 CY 54 324 ,000
Tunnel Excav & Suooorts 45 000 CY 298 13 ,410,000
Tunnel Cone & Reinf Steel 1,600 CY 420 672,000
Groutin2-Contact & Pre ssure 2 300 CF 58 133,400
Round-Off (39,400)
14,500,000
Power Tunnel
Excava tion & Suooorts 67,000 LF 7,698 515,766,000
Concre te 514 000 CY 334 171 ,676 000
Groutim~-Contact & Pressure 464,000 CF 54 25,056,000
Round-Off 2 ,000
712,500 , OCJO
-------------------
ESTIMATE SUMMARY
HAJ/APD 14879-001
P"I"A"ED av J08 N O
MF NO'I. 1981
CHICKED8V DATE
CONCEPTUAL CHAKAC~A HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
PROJECT --------SHEET 7 OF 1 6
TVPE O F EST IMATE
ALASKA POWER AU'mORITY
ALTERNATIVE C
NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UN IT UNIT
COSTS AMOUNT TOTALS REMARKS
Surtta r.ha•h•r -llnn•r
110'-~··· lltinn I. c:: ...... ,.. .. ,. .. 35 500 r:v 200 7 .100.00 0
r~ .... ·"!t.illl & bfnf .Staal 6,100 r:'i 880 5. 368 ,000 " .......... -~• I. J;".,n,.inD 15 00 0 r:'i 2 7 4o 5 ,ooo Heliport, Storage , Work Ar ea
Rnuncl-()f f 2 7 000
12,900,000
Panaltnt'lr-lnl'l fn•d c:: ..... t.fnn
... . ....... " ... 23 400 CY 2 71 6,341 ,400
Concrete & Reinf. Steel 10 ,500 CY 8 3 7 8,788,500
GrnultinR Contact & Pre1 Iaure 5,000 CF 52 261J,b uu
Round-Off 10 l UO
15-;4UO ,OUO
Panatot!k-Horizontal Sect!< n & Elbow
£][C'avat:ion & Suooorts 14 000 CY 3 10 4. 340-t900
C.nncrate S bfnf Steel 6 000 CY 365 2 190 .ooo
Grnnlt(ng -r,. .. ..,,~t 3 000 CF 50 150 .000
Round-Off 20.00 0
6 700 000
f6CF CSE fi23 13«11
-------------------
HAJlAPD II ESTIMATE SUMMA::Y
P.-IPA"I D 8\'
14879-001
J08 NO.
HE NOV. 1982
CHICitiD 8\' DATI
CHAKACHAHNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
CQIICEEIII61 'ADJECT SHIIT 8 0, 16
T\'PI D' ISTIMATI
ALTERNATIVE c 61.6SKA lSi\\ ~THORITY .. A DOA
NO . OESCA.,TION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT
COSTS AMOUNT TOTALS AEMAAKI
....... tn .. lr-Wv• .......... h... tn v~ llve rh .. -h .. r
Excavation & Supports 10 000 CY 432 4,320.000
Concrete & Reinf. Steel 7 200 CY 608 4,377.600
Steel Liner 650 TON s.ooo 3,250,000
Grouting-Contact 3,000 CY so 150.000
Round-Off --z ,400
12.100 000
Penstock Between Val•e Cha1 ber & Powerhou e
Excavation & Supports 1.000 CY 440 440 000
Concrete & Backfill 600 CY 550 330 000
Round-Off 30 000
800.000
Draft Tube Tunnels
Rock Bolts & Grout 19 000 LF 27 513.000
Concrete & Reinf. Steel 3 300 CY 425 1.402 .soo
Round-Off (15 .500)
1.900.000
Surae Chaaber -Tailrace
Excav4tion & Suooorta 'i.OOO CY 480 2 400.000
i
I
I
H6CF CSE 123 Clel
------
HAJ/APD
MF
CHICitiD ev
CIWC•PTJIAI,
TYPI OP ISTIMATI
ALTERNATIVE C
NO. D£SCA.,TION
Taf llt'ace Tunnf!l & Structur1 •
C~fff!rd-I. n.. ...... orfno
Pllrta l E:11:cav 6. Protll!ctic In
C.~>ni'P~t• " Rf!tnf st .... l
WalkwaY BridRe
!i;tooloRa 6. Hoiata
'1' ........ 1 ~YI'AV I. !l:unnn...,.ta
Pl111 ~ ... ,.avat:ton
Dnu.;;d-Off
'l'a~lral'• Chann•l
Chaftou~l lhr ............ ,.n
Rfvar Trainfno Worka
River led Deepening
Hech & E1ec .
------
ESTIMATE SUMMARY
cHAKACHAHNA uyopn£I~CTRTC ppni£CT
'AOJECT
ALASKA POWER AUntORITY
QUANTITY UNIT UNIT AMOUNT COSTS
LS 2 000 000
2 000 CY 65 130,000
1 200 CY 600 720 000
LS 65,000
81 TON 8 500 688,500
25 000 CY 260 6 500 000
4,000 CY 50 2o c ,~:;o
(3 ,500)
100 000 CY 9
50 000 CY 10
LS
TOTAL RESERVOIR DAM AND WJ TERWAYS
H6CF CSE 523 I
-------
14879-001
JOe NO
NOV. 1981
DATI
S HUT 9 OP 16
TOTALS AEMAAKI
10,300 000
900,000
500 000
5.100.000
871,600,000
-------------------
HAJ/APD 14879-001
HF NOV. 1981
CHICKID 8Y DATI
CONCEPTUAL CUAKACUAHNA HYDROEI.ECTBIC PROJECT
PROJ CT SHUT 1 0 Of 1 6
TYPI Of ISTIMATI
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
ALTERNATIVE C
NO . DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT AMOUNT COSTS TOTALS REMARKS
Turbines & Generators 300 HW
Turbinl!a 4 EA 1.9101)0 31,880 ,00(
Gene r ators 4 EA 5.660.00 22 ,640 ,00<
Round-Off (20 ,00<1)
54,500,000
Aeel!asarv Electrical Eouio• ll!nt
l!:ouioment LS 9 ,000,000
M .' ar PnWOO!r Plant Eo d n-n
Cranl! Bridlle 1 EA 900 ,00(
Other Power Plant Eauio . LS 6 ,000,00(
6,'JUU,UUU
Swit.ehv4rd Structures
Ear~rka 15 00 0 CY 25 375 ,00(
Canc:rete & Reinf Steel 3 ,800 CY 640 2 '432 ,00(
Struc Steel & Hiac Heta s 22 5 ION 3 ,500 7 87,50(
Rau,;d-Off 5 ,50(
3 ,600 ,oor
HaCF CSE 523 13401
-------~-------------
HAJ/APD
P .. IPA .. EO av
MF
CHICKIO av
CONCEPTUAL
TYPE 01' ESTIMATE
ALTERNATIVE C
NO. DESCRIPTION
~utt-('hvard ~oufn-nt
........... fn.-.. ...... IO'i MVA
lln{t: & Line Breakers
~ ... f trh .. a ft. l.{~rhtn . Arreliltc 'rs
210 KV Cables
Ccmtrols t. M.!tr' ll Eauio.
DnoonA Off
r ... -Suov Control Eauio
H6CF CSE 523 IMOI
ESTIMATE SUMMARY
Cl~CHAHNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
PROJECT
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
PREPARED FOR
OUANTITY UNIT UNIT AMOUNT COSTS
5 EA ll.OlOJ)O 5,050,000
7 EA 1R<VJO( 1,26(),00()
30 EA 33,00 990,000
18,000 I.F U< 2,160,000
LS 2,630,000
lO,UUU
LS
14879-001
JOa N O
NOV. 1981
DATE
SHUT 11 Of 16
TOTALS REMAAKS
lZ,lOO,OOO
1,600,000
------------------
ESTIMATE SUMMARY
HAJ/t.PD 14879-001
PAIPAAID ev JOe NO.
NOV. 1981
CHICitiD ev DATI
CONCEPTUAL CHAKACHAHNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
,AOJECT SHUT 1 2 OP 1 6
TYPE OP ESTIMATE
ALTEINATIVE C A AR FOA
NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT AMOUNT TOTALS AfMAAKJ COSTS
'l'IN!_SPORTATION FACILITIES
Port Facilities
Cauaeway 19.600 CY 80 1 568 000
Treat1e Pilea 50 TON 11 300 565 000 L • 150 LF .412". t -l:i"
_!reatle Struct . Steel 110 TON 3 500 385 000
Treatle Reinf. Cone. 150 CY 700 105 000
Facilities -Allowance LS 2 000,000
Round-Off (23 000)
4 600 000 -
Airport
Earthwork 54 500 CY 16 872,000
Culverts 1,000 LF 65 65,000
Subbaae & Baae 55 000 CY 14 770 000
Buildina -Allowance LS 300,000
Round-Off (7 ,000)
2,000,000
HACF CS£ 523 f:HOI
_______ .... __________ _
UAJ/AfD
ESTIMATE SUMMARY 14879-001
MF MOV. 1981
CHICKIOeY DATI
COMCEPTUAL CHAKACHAHNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
PROJECT IHIIT 13 Of 16
TYPI Of IITIMATI ALASKA POWER AuntORITY
ALTERNATIVE C IJAOAAED FOR
NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT AMOUNT COSTS TOTALS REMARKS
......... 1. rnnqtrull'"tfnn RnAd
Mf 1 • 1\U\n tn I JU410 ... 175,000 CY 6.60 1,155,000
,..,, ....... 1.500 LF 65 97 500
Rrfda•• 1.400 SF 150 210 ,000
C!. ·'-'----&. s-e 85,400 CY 15 1,281,000
t:!ooa•A Doof 1 1 200 LF 25 30 000
RAnafr ll''({•tfna Rnad 95,000 LF 10 950,000
Cnnu "'· 5,000 LF 35 175,000
Rruu.,.-1.-nff' 1 500 3,900,000
Mf 1• I a.tVl tn 1'i+CO
ll'•rll'h~ ... •t.a 1.465 000 CY 6.60 9.669,000
"ulverta 3,600 LF 80 288,000 48"e CMP
Cuhhaa .. & Baae 165 000 CY 15 2,475,000
l:uard Rail 13,000 LF 25 325,000
R•nafr IIO'vfattna Rnad 16,000 LF 10 160,000
Snow J'en~ea 1,000 LF 35 35,000
Round Off 4R,OOO
13,000,000
·-
Mt I• 1'i+ll0 to 19+00
ll'arthwnrl. :.45 000 CY 8.30 3,693,500
Culvert a 1,000 LF 80 ao,ooo 48".S CHP .. . 9,000 SF 150 1,350,000
~uhh,.cu• t. RaAP 38,000 CY 15 570,000
l:u.a rd R,:a f 1 10,000 LF 2 7 270,000
Snnw );',. .. ,.,. ... 2,000 I.F 35 70,000
D ........ ..~_n<rf (33,500)
6 ,000 0~0
HKF CSE 623 13-4101
_________________ .... __
HAJ/APD
MF
CHICICID8Y
CONCEP'nJAL
ALTERNATIVE C
NO. DESCRIPTION
Walkwav To Gate Shaft
Earthwork
Guard Rail
Bridae
RiDra~
Round-Off
&~ceaa Road to Tailrace T
Earthwork
Culverts
Subb nse & Base
Guard Rai 1
Round Off
HACF CSE 523 13-80
ESTIMATE SUMMARY
CHAKACUAHNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
I'ROJFCT
ALASKA POWER AUntORITY
OUANTITY UNIT UNIT AMOUNT COSTS
1,200 CY 20 24,000
1,000 LF 25 2s ,ooo-
200 SF 150 30,000
100 CY 35 3 ,500
17,500
nn el
56,000 CY 8 448,000
100 LF 80 8,000
2,500 CY 20 50,000
600 LF 25 15,000
(21,000) --
14879-001
NOV . 1981
DATI
IHIIT 14 0' 16
TOTALS REMARKS
100,000
48'" CMP
-
:>UU,U!JU
----------------
HAJ/APD
ESTIMATE SUMMARY
14879-001
JOe NO
MF Nov. 1981
CHICKIO av DATI
CONCEPTUAL
CHAKACHAHNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
PROJECT SHUT 15 Of 16
TY .. I Of ESTIMATE
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
ALTERNATIVE C
NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT AMOUNT TOTALS COSTS REMARKS
Access Road to Downstream p, !Wer Tunnel
!arthworlt 215.000 CY 9 .80 2 107 000
Culverts 800 LF 80 64,000 48'/J CMP
Brid1u~ 3_.000 SF 150 450.000
Subbase 6 Base 10,000 CY 21 210.000
Guardrail 9,000 LF J;! 288.000
Snowshed 6 S-lide Fall 1,000 LF 800 800.000
Round-Off (19,000)
3,900,000
Teaporarv Construction Road a
Earthwork 61,000 CY 6 366,000
Culverts 600 LF 80 48,000
Brid&e 3,000 SF 150 450 000
Guardrail 2,000 LF 25 50,000
Round-Off (14 000)
900,000
Road Maintenance
Su.-er Season 36 HO 120,000 4.320 000
Winter Season 24 HO 480,000 11,520,000
Round-Off (40 000)
15.800 000
I I ;;;; ... ••TEss &eONSTRIJC:riON tns i I I 44,100.0()0
HACF CSE 123 fl-eOI
ESTIMATE SUMMARY
HA.J/APD 14897-001
'fiiiPAIUD 8Y J08 NO
MF NOV. 1981
CHECKED 8'1' DATI
CONCEPTUAL CHAKACHAHNA hYDROELECTRIC PBOJECT
,.ROJECT SHUT 16 Of 16
TYPE Of ESTIMATE
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
ALTERNATIVE C
NO. DESCRII'TION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT AMOUNT COSTS 'TOTtALS AEMAAKJ
Tran111111iaaion Line
Clll!ar & Grub 70 HI ~25 000 15 750 000
Tr.-n-it~sion Line 70 HI t344 000 24 080 000
Subaarine Cable 21 Ml 1792.0()(1 ]/) 6 32 .000
Round-Off Ja:ooo
5l6.500 000
TOTAL SPECIFIC CONSTRUCTION C losT
AT JANUARY 1982 PRICE LEVELS 1 117 500 0 00
HaCF CJE 523 3a
ALTERNATIVE D
ESTIMATED -COST
.._ ____ ~ ....... -------
HAJ/APD
I'RII'ARID IY
MF
CHICKIO IY
CONCEPTUAL
TYrl OF IITIMATI
ALTERNATIVE D
NO. OfSCRII'TIOH
ESTIMATE SUMMARY
I'AO CT
ALASKA POWER AtmiORITY
QUANTITY UNIT UNIT
COSTS AMOUNT
POWER PLANT STRUCTURE ' IHPR< VEKENTS
Valve Chaaber
Excavation ' Supporta 10,500 CY 270 -2 , s-n-,llmr
Concrete ' Reinf Steel 6,520 CY 410 2,6 73 ,200
Struc. Steel ' Hiac.Meta a 52 TON 1,800 93,600
Round-Off (l .800}
1--
Underground Powerhouae
Oevaterina LS 4,100,000
Excavation • Supporta 1)4,000 CY 155 Q Q2n.nnn
Drillina-Percua.• Rotary 15,000 LF 30 L.c:;n nnn
Concrete & Reinf.Steel 14,200 CY 630 8.946 .000
Struc.Steel & Mise Metala 330 TON 5.300 1 749.000
Architectural LS 1 ooo.ooo
Round-Off 35.000
Bua Galleriea Between Power
house & Transformer V11ulta
Excavation & Supports 200 CY 82) 165.000
Concrete llU CY 290 34,800
Round Off 200
~ CIE 123 IMOI
14879-001
.101 NO.
NOV. 1981
DATI
SHUT 1 OF 16
TOTALS RIMARKI
-y,bUU,UUU
Entiu UnderRround Comolex
2"-3".1
26.200,000
200 000
-----------
14879-001
.10e NO.
MF NOV. 1981
DATI
OONCEP'l1JAL
CHAKACHAHNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
,..o:ilct SH .. T 2 Of' 1 6
TYPI OF IITIMATI
ALASKA POWER AtmiORin
ALTIIIIATIYI D
NO. OIIC,.IPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT AMOUNT TOTAlS "IMA .. KI COSTS
Tranaforw.r r..all.ll!!rv l -•
Excava cion l Support• 11 960 CY 290 3 468 400
Concrete l Reinf Steel 830 CY 460 3R1,800
Struc Steel & Miac.Hetal1 120 TON 3,800 456 000
lound Off (6_._200)
4,300,000
Valve Chaabar & Tranafor.er
Gallery-Acceaa Tunnela
Excavation ' Support a 1 500 CY z:>fJ 375,000
Concrete 60 CY 290 17,400
lound-Off 7_1600
400,000
Poverbouae Acceae Tunnel
Portal Excav.6 Protec tion 56 ,000 CY lU 560,000
Portal Conc.6 Rein f .Stee 1 1 ,000 CY 5 70 570 000
Tunnel Excav .& Supports 24 ,000 CY 300 7.200.000
Tunnel Concrete 900 CY 29 0 261 .000
Tunnel Miac. Metal• 30 TON 11~000 330 01)0
Subaurface Exploration
Mobilization LS 1.500 000
Ex~loratory Adit 1,000 LF 1,800 1.800 000
Core drilling 5,000 LF 140 700 000
Helicopter Service LS 600 000
Round-Off (21.000)
13 .50() 000
HKF CSE 123 IJ.eOI
---------1
EST111ATE SUIIIIARY
HAJ/APD 14179-001
JOe NO.
HF IIOY. 1911
CHICitiDeY DATI
CONCEPTUAL
CHAKAawttA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
SHIIT 3 o• "'OJECT 16
TY~I O' ISTIMATI
ALASKA POWER AUTHORin
ALTERNATIVI D HIIPlMib FOM
NO . OIICAIPTION OUANTITY UNIT UNIT AMOUNT TOTALS AIMAAKI COSTS
l'..ahla Wav
l'.nn,.rat-• .L R•inf ~t-aal 1 000 CY 700 700 000
Mhe..Met.al• 6. Cable Suo 26 m.H 5""-100 132.600
Pnrt P.anala
llound-Off (32,600)
800 000
'.I'O'.l'M. Ptw.IRR PI.ANT ~' TNPI 51.000,000
HKF CSE 523 ,_,
------
HAJ/APD ESTIMATE SUIIIIARY
IUZI.OOI
JOe NO.
MF ltOV . 1911
CHICICID ev DATI
CONCEPnJA II ..
TYPI Of IITIM# -"'1,....------
CHAKACHAHNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
PROJECT
ALASKA POVER AUTHORin
AL TUNA' IVI D PAEPAAED FOR
NO. OEICf'IPTION OUANTITY UNIT UNIT AMOUNT TOT All f'IMMQ .J COSTS
r----
DAM I. loi.&'I'RRioiAY~
-"'"'
lola~~ .. Lav.al .. ~~ ... LS 100.000
, ......... su~ ........
~~I' a P.•rr•lnPat tnn ........ ~ ..... ~ ..... LS 150.000
Cn.r• Drtllt-5 000 Ll' 80 400.000
llali. ~Pvf ra LS 150.000
'l'unna 1 .,.... ... &. ... ~t..a 12.000 CY 470 5_~640.000
T..,._l r~ . .&.. htnf c ..... 100 let 350 35.000
l_alra-Tan llr~na1 Rftnnd\ ILS 3.ooo.ooo L • 26'
...... .L .. T-.. l'.nnl" 600 ICY 700 420.000
n~ .. ~ ... ~ ....... 60 lDAYS 10.000 600,000
Rnund~Off 5.000
10.400.000
Tnt-air• Cat.a Shaft.
_5h..aft Rw .. av &. ~ .... ..,...,..,,. 10 000 CY 360 3 600 000
Maaa SurfarOI! R1rrav. 50.000 ICY 30 1.500 000
Conc.re.t.e " hinf ~ .. ··1 5 700 lr.v 890 5.073 000
IHa!!! Ml!t.ala .C'.ataa I. Hot lt 244 ITOH 12,500 3,050.000
Rftnnd-nff (23 000)
13 200.000
HKF CIE l:ll 13401
-----------
' , ESRIATE IUI.IARY
IIA Il&!D '
14179-001
PRIPARID IY JOe NO
HF 110¥. 1911
CHICiliDIY CHAKACHAMNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DATI
aJIICIP'nJAL NioJict IH.IT 5 M 16
TYPI DP IITIMATI
ALASKA POWER AU'niORITY
ALTIINATIVI D lltlillllilllll5 Jllll
NO . DIICft.,TION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT AMOUNT TOT All MIIIIAfUtl COST I
Acceaa Tunnel at Intake
1111 ...... 1 lzcav. 6 Protectlot 6.000 CY 50 300 000
Tuaael lzcav.6 Support• 72.000 CY 295 21.240 000
TLm.Dd Cone. • lelnf ,Stee 200 CY 500 100 000
lound-off (40.000)
21.6oo.ooo
' I .. TUDDel at Sur•• I'L
Portal l:.:cav. ' ...... ~tiDI 6 000 CY 55 330 000
.......... 1 llllcav. • a, :a 23.000 CY -323 7.429.000
Tunnel ~. 6 I&J.n_f .Stee. 2 300 CY 420 9661000
r. ....... f ... ,._ ........ ' ...... , ~-3 .400 CJP 58 197 200
Round-Off (22.200)
8 900.000
-
HKF Clf 12J Gel
:
ESTIMATE SUMMARY
HAJ/APD 14879-001
MF NOV. 1981
CHECKED IY DATI
CONCEPnJAL CHAKACHAHNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
SHUT 6 OF 16
TY'I OF ESTIMATE
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
ALTERNATIVE oJ
NO. OESCR.,TION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT AMOUNT TOTALS COSTS REMARKS
Access Tunnel at Mile 3. 5 No.1
Portal Excav & Protection 6 000 CY 53 318.000
Tunnel Excav & Suooorts 68 000 CY 297 20,196,000
Tunnel Cone & Reinf Steel 500 CY 430 215,000
Groutina-Contact & Pressure 1,125 CF 58 65,250
Round-Off 5 ./5()
20,800,000
Access Tunnel at Mile 7. 5 No .2
Portal Excav & Protection 6.000 CY 54 324 .ooo
Tun nel Excav & Suooorts 45 000 CY 298 13.410.000
Tunnel Cone & Reinf Steel 1,600 CY 420 672,000
Groutina-Contact & Pressure 2.300 CF 58 133.400
Round-Off (39.400)
14,5_00,000
Power Tunnel
Excavation & Suooorts 67 000 LF 7 698 515 766,000
Concrete 514,000 CY 334 171.676.000
Groutimr.-Contact & Pressure 464 000 CF 54 25,056,000
Round-Off 2.000
712,500,000
:
HACF CSE 623 ll-801
ES1111ATE SUMMARY
HAJ/APD 14179-001
,fiiii'AfiiiD •v JO•No
MF IIQV. 1911
C:HIC:KID •v DATI
OONCEPTUAL OIAKAawtliA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
I'AOJEcf
TY,I OF ISTIMATI
ALASKA POWER AU'MIORITY
ALTERNATIVE D ,AEPAAEDFOA
NO. DIIC .. IPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT AMOUNT TOTALS "IMA"KI COSTS
Suraa""" ... -Unllar
IPw ot-t,. .. &. ~tlllDnrta 35 500 ,..., 200 7.100.000
C".nnrrat"a &. Rat nf ~•••1 6 100 rv 880 5,36 8,000
·• " v .... ,.t .... 15.000 ,..., 27 405,000 Heliport. Storage, Work Area
Round-Off 27.000
12.900,000
D ............... &r-Tnl'l tnad ~ ... ,. .. t,.n
IP ............ tnn &. ~otnnnPt-a 23 400 CY 271 6.341,400
Concrete & Rein(. Steel 10,500 CY 837 8,788,500
GroutinR Contact & Pres •ure 5,000 CF 52 261:},"000
Round-Off 10.100
' 15~,000
Penstock-Horizontal Sectio n ' Elbow
F.1rravat.ion & Suooorta 14 000 CY 310 4 .340~00
Concrata S a.tnf Steel 6 000 CY 365 2 .190.000
Groutlntr -l".nnl"a.-t 3 000 CF 50 150.000
Round-Off 20.000
6.700,000
HAJ/APD
ESTIMATE SUMMARY 14879-001
JOI NO .
MF NOV. 1982
CHICitiD IV DATI
C:CWCEP"'A'
TVPI OP ISTIMATI
CHAKACHAHNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
MOJECT SHIIT 8 OP 16
ALTERNATIVE D AIASKA,JiJfM AU'niORITY
A DFOA
NO. DEICAIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT AMOUNT TOTALS COSTS AIMAAIC.I
D---•-.. '--lolv• a •• _....... t-n V.o tv .. r.h-h .. r
Excavation • Suooorte 10 000 CY 432 4,320,000
Concrete • Reinf. Steel 7,200 CY 608 4,377,600
Steel Liner 650 TON 5,000 3,250,000
Crout ina-Contact 3,000 CY 50 150,000
Round-Off 2,400
12.100 000
Penstock Between YalYe Cha• ber • Poverhoute
Excavation • Suooorte 1 000 CY 440 440.000
Concrete • Backfill 600 CY 550 330 000
Round-Off 30 000
800,000
Draft Tube Tunnels
Rock Bolte • Crout 19 000 LF 27 513.000
Concrete • Reinf. Steel 3 300 CY 425 1,402,500
Round-Off (15 ,500)
1,900,000
Surae Ch-ber -Tailrace
Excavation & Suooorta 5 .000 CY 480 2 400 000
HaCF CSE 623 13401
r i
HAJ/APD
ESTIMATE SUMMARY 14879-001
JOe NO
NOV. 1981
CHICKID ev DATI
mMCEPTIIAI. CHAJACHAMMA Hy~~tptRIC PRni!CT IHIIT 9 OP 16
TYPI Of IITIMATI
ALTERNATIVE D ALASKA POWER AUntORITY
NO. O'.:SCRIPTION OUANTITY UNIT UNIT AMOUNT TOTALS RIMAfU(I COSTS ~
Tatlralt'll! Tunnel ,.. Structurte
{',of#. .... " "'· 'inR LS 2 000 000
Port.al Eicav 6r Protectic ,n 2 000 CY 65 130,000
Concret.• & Rain£ S[.eel 1 200 CY 600 720 000
Vallr.vav lridJte LS 65~000
Stooln~ra 6r Hoiata 81 TON 8,500 688,500
Tunn.al Ellc.av. & "'· ~t.a 25 000 CY 260 6,500,000
Plwr .,, •tfon 4,000 CY 50 200,000
Round-Off _{3,500]
10,300,000
Taflrall'lll! Chann"'!l
Chann .. t Ew,.avJiltion 100,000 CY 9 900,000
River Tratnfn• Worlr.a
River Bed Deepening 50 000 CY 10 500_.000
Hech 6r E1ec. l.S 5,700,000
TOTAL RESERVOIR, DAM AND WI TERWAYS 871 600,000
HACF CSE 523 I:W.OI
HA.J/APD
ESTIMATE SUMMARY 14879-001
'IIIIPAIIIIID IY .IOINO.
MF NOV. 1981
CHICICID IY DATI
mNCEPTUAL IHIIT 10 0" 16
TY'I 0" ISTIMATI
ALASKA POWER AUllfORITY
ALTERMATIVE D
ita. DEICRif'TION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT AMOUNT TOTALS IIIIMAfU(I COSTS
Turbin•• & Generator• 300 MW
Turbine a 4 EA 1.9101>0 31.880 .ooc
Generator• 4 EA 5..6601>0 22 ,640 ,00(
-Round-Off (20.00(}
54,500,000
"'"'"••'"lorv Electrical l.out n• ~nt
lauiDMnt LS 'J ,uuu ,uuu
Miac Po-r Plant Ea,•fn-nl
Crane Bridae 1 EA ~o-;om
Other Power Plant Eauio, LS 6.000.001:
b,900,000
SwitchYMrd Structure•
Earthworlta i.5 ooo CY 25 375 ,00(
Concrete & Reinf. Steel 3,800 CY 640 2,432 ,00(
Struc. Steel & Mhc Meta. a 225 TON 3,500 787 ,50(
RoWld-Off 530{
3 ,&on ,oor
L .
HKF CSI123 lloeOI
HAJ/AfD
CHICitED 8Y
CONCEPTUAL
TY'I Of ESTIMATI
ALTERNATIVE D
NO. D£SCA.,TION
~·
Swi .. ~ ....... A Eauio.ent
Trana~ ·a 105 MVA
Unit & Line •···~era
Swi t.cllea & Liabt.n Arreat, Ire
230 KV cables
Cont.rola & Metr'a Eauio.
Rnund Off
l'~. Suov _Control Eauin
HACF CSE 1123 IUOI
ESTIMATE SUMMARY
CI~CHAHNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
'AOJECT
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
OUANTITY UNIT UNIT AMOUNT COSTS
5 EA ll 010J)OC 5,050,000
7 EA 1R(\00( 1,260,000
30 EA JJ.OO(l 990,000
18 ,000 LF UCJ 2,160,000
LS 1,6JO,OOO
10,000
LS
141'79-001
JOaNO
ltQv. 1981
DATI
SHifT 11 Of' 1 6
TOTAlS AEMAAKI
-
-
l2,1UU,OOO
1,600,000
------ -------------
ESTIMATE SUMMARY
HAd/AfD 14879-001
"'""'A,.ID ev JOe NO.
NOV. 1981
CHICitiD ev DATI
CONCEPTUAL CHAKACHAHNA HYDROELE CTRIC PROJECT
SHIIT 12 DP 16
TYI'I OP ISTIMATI
ALTUMATIVE D
NO. DESCAII'TION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT AMOUNT TOTALS ......... tl COSTS
ntAifSPORTATION FACILITUS
fort Facilities
Ceusevsy 19.600 CY 80 1 568 000
Trestle Piles 50 TON 11 300 565 000 L • 150 LF. 1612". t • ~"
Trestle Struct. Steel 110 TON 3 500 385 000
Trestle Reinf. Cone . 150 CY 700 105 000
Facilities -Allowance LS 2 000.000
Round-Off (23 000)
4.600 000
AirJ.)ort
Earthwork 54 500 CY 16 872.000
Culverts 1 000 LF 65 65.000
Subbase & Base 55 000 CY 14 770 000
Buildina -Allowance LS 300.000
Round-Off (7 .000) -2.000,000
HACF CSE 523 13«11
-------------------..
HAI/APD
ESTIMATE SUMMARY 14179-001
JOe NO .
HF NOV. 1911
CHICitiD ev DATI
CONCEPnJAL CHAKACHAMNA HYDRO!L!CTRIC PROJECT
HiOJEcf ------SHUT lJ OF 16
TYPI OF ISTIMATI ALASKA POWER AU'l110RITY
ALTDNATIYE D
NO. OIICRIPTION OUANTITY UNIT UNIT AMOUNT TOTAlS COSTS RIMARKI
•--••• &. l'.nn•tru,.tfnn Rnad,
Mf1a 1\Uln ..... ljUI!n -.L 175,000 CY 6.60 1.155.000
l'u1vart• 1.500 LF 65 97 500
Brtdaaa 1,400 SF 150 210,000 c:............. " •••• 85,400 CY 15 1,281,000
t:!uAPd R•f 1 1,200 LF 25 30,000
Ranaf P lhrf •tfnD Rnad 95,000 LF 10 950,000
C:nnu .. 5.000 LF 35 175,000
Round-Off 1 500 3,900,000
Mf 1.-I a.N\ tn '\OW.O.\ ......... ~ ... -1.465JOOO CY 6.60 9,669,000
Culvart.a 3,600 LF 80 288,000 48"4 CHP
c.......... " .... 165,000 C'.V 15 2.475,000
Guard Rail 13,000 LF 25 325,000
Ranafr htat.inR llftad 16,000 LF 10 160,000
Saov r ... ,. •• 1,000 LF 35 35,000
Round-Off 48.000
13 ,ooo,ooo
Mt la l'i+OO tn 19+00
ll'..arth..,.rlr 445,000 CY 8.30 3,693,500
l'ulvart_a 1,000 LF 80 80,000 48",S CHP
a.td .. .-9,000 SF 150 1.350.000
c.......... " ... 011! 38,000 CY 15 570,000
Cuard R.Af 1 10,000 LF 27 270,000
~nnw IO'•nr•• 2,000 LF 35 70,000
Rnund-nff (33.500} --6.000 000
HKF CH 123 13-eOI
------------------..
ES'IWATE SUMMARY
HAJ/APD 14179-001
""I"A"ID e v JOe NO.
HF NOV. 1981
CHICKID 8Y DATI
CONCIP'l\IAL aHIIT 14 Of' 16
TY"I 0' laTIMATI
ALASKA POWER AUntORITY
ALTIINATIVI D PREPARED FOR
'tO. DEICfUt'TION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT AMOUNT TOT AU "IMMU COSTS
Vallr.vav To Gate Shaft
Earthwork 1,200 CY 20 24.000
Guard Rail 1,000 LF 25 25 ._q()()
lddae 200 SF 150 30,000
l.iorao 100 CY 35 3.500
lound-Off li,:>Uu
100 ,000
kc••• load to Tailrace Tt nnel
Ear -L 56 000 CY 8 448,000
Culva-:ota 100 LF 80 8,000 46"1 U'lr
Subbas e & Base 2,500 CY 20 50,000
Guard Rail 600 LF 25 15,000
Round-Off (21,000)
:>UU,UUU
·-
HACF CSE 523 I:J.eOI
---- ---------------..
ESTIMATE SUMMARY
HAJ/APD 14879-GOl
,,.., ... ,.Eo ev JOe NO
MF llov. 1981
CHICK EO ev OATI
CottCRTUAL
CHAKACHAHNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
I'RO:ifCT IHIIT 15 M 16
TY'I OF IITIMATI
ALASKA POWER AUTHORin
ALTIIIIATIVI D
NO. DEICfU,TION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT AMOUNT TOTALS COSTS IIIIIMAfUCI
Ace••• -.oacr to l)Oiili•tre• Tc iter Tunnel
Earthwork 215 000 CY 9.80 2 107 000
Culvert• 800 LF 80 64,000 48",J QtP
lridae 3.000 SF 150 450.000
Subb••• • •••e 10 000 CY 21 210.000
Guardrail 9,000 LF 32 288,000
C!-·" ~ 6 Slide Pall 1.000 LP 800 800,000
lound-Off (19.000)
3,900,000
Te•orarv Con•truction Roacl1
Earthwork 61,000 CT 6 366,000
Culvert• 600 LF 80 48,000
lridae 3 ,000 SF 150 450,000
Guardrail 2 ,000 LF 25 50 ,000
Round-Off (14 ,000)
900,000
Road Maintenance
Su..er Seuon 36 MO 120,000 4,320,000
Winter Seuon 24 MO 480,000 11,520,000
Round-Off -(40 ,000)
15,800,000
TOTAl. Al"l"FC:C: 1.. lllrTHW I loAns 44 100 OllO
HACF CSE 523 1,_1
--=· -:• _,. ---- -=--:---=----·---..
EST111ATE SUMMARY
IIAJ/APD 141197-QOl
JOe NO.
HF NOV. 1981
CHICitiO ev DATI
C(JtCIPTUAL CHAKACHAHNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
SHIIT 16 OP 16 PAOJECT
TYPI OP ISTIMATI
ALASKA POWER AUTHORin
ALTERNATIVE D ,,.E,ARED FOR
NO. DIICRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT
COSTS AMOUNT TOT All RIMARU
-· L••illllft Lina
Cl~t•r ' Cruh 70 HI '25 000 15 750.000
Tr ... -f"'atnn Linl! 70 HI 344 000 24.080 000
Subaarine Cable 21 HI 1792.000 16 632 000
Round-Off 38.000
56.500.000
T<1rAL SPECIFIC CONSTRUCTION ( OST
AT JANUARY 1982 PRICE LEVELS 1.117.500.000
HKF CSE 513 13401
I
ALTERNATIVE E
ESTIMATED COST
-------------------
HAJ/APD
ESTIMATE SUMMARY
14879-001
JOe NO.
MF NOV . 1982
CHECKED av DATI
CONCEPTUAL CHAICACHAMNA HYDBOEI.ECTBIC PBO.IECT
PROJECT SHIIT 1 0, 20
ALASKA POWER AuniORITY
ALTERNATIVE E 'REPAfUD FOR
NO . DESCRIPTION QUANTI TV UNIT UNIT AMOUNT TOTALS COSTS REMARKS
POWER PLANT STRUCTURE & IMPR< VEMENTS
Valve Chamber
Excavation & Supports 10,000 CY 275 2.750.000
Concrete & Reinf Steel 6 520 CY 410 2 673 200
Struc. Steel & Miac.Heta a 52 TON 1,800 93.600
Round-Off (16,800)
s .son.ooo
Underground Powerhouse
DewaterinR LS 4 100 000 Entire Underground Complex
Excavation & Supports 58 900 CY 168 9,895,200
Drillina-Percus.& Rotarv 12 700 LF 27 342,900 2" -3"~
Concrete & Reinf.Steel 13 100 CY 630 8,253,000
Struc.Steel & Mise Metals 300 TON 5 .300 1 590.000
Architectural LS 1,000,000
Round-Off 18,900
-zs-,200,000
Bue Galleries BetweenPower
house & Transformer Vaults
Excavation & Supports 200 CY 825 16 5 ,000
Concrete 1 20 CY 290 34,800
Round Off 200
i 200.000
HaCF CSE 623 IUOI
-------------------
HA.l/APD ESTIMATE SUMMARY 14879-001
J O e NO.
MF NOV. 1982
CHECKED ev DATE
CONCEPTUAL CHAKACHAHNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
PROJECT SHUT 2 0' 20
TY" OF ESTIMATE
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
ALTERNATIVE E PREPARED FOA
NO . DESCRif'TION OUANTITV UNIT UNIT AMOUNT COSTS TOTALS AlE MARKS
Ty-.an11form.f!r GallPrv I. TunnE b. a
Excavation & Suooorta 11.960 CY 2 90 3 468 400
Concrete & Reinf Steel 830 CY 460 381,800
Struc Steel & Hiac.Metal! 120 TON 3,800 456 000
Round Off (6,200)
4,300,000
Valve Chamber & Tranaformes
Gallery-Access Tunnels
Excavation & Supports 1,500 CY 250 375 000
Concrete 60 CY 290 17 400
Round-Off 7,600
400,000
Powerhouse Access Tunnel
Portal Excav.& Protectio~ -sfi;oou CY 10 560,000
Portal Cone.& Reinf.Steel 1,000 CY 570 570,000
Tunnel Excav.& Supports 24,000 CY 300 7,20G,OOO
Tunnel Concrete 900 CY 290 261,000
Tunnel Misc . Metals 30 TON 11,000 330,000
Subsurface Exoloration
Mobilization LS 1,500 ,000
Exploratory Adit 1,000 LF 1,800 1,800,000
Core drillin2 5 ,000 LF 140 700,000
tlelicooter Service LS 601) 000
Round-Off (21 000)
13,5oo.ooo
') .~&r.F r.~F !'i 1 11.11 "'
-------------------
ESTIMATE SUMMARY
HAJ/APD 14879-001
JOB NO.
MF NOV. 1982
CHECKED BY DATE
CONCEPTIJAL CHAKACHAHNA HY DROELECTRIC PROJECT
PROJECT SHUT 3 Of 20
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
ALTERNATIVE E PREPARED FOR
NO. DESCRirTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT AMOUNT COSTS TOTALS REMARKS
Cable Wav
rnni"PA~A t. RPinf ~,. .... , 1 000 rv 70 :.. 700,vJO
Nhr-.Metals E. CabltL.SlU> 26 TON 5,100 ~32,600
IJnP,. IJAnAla
Rnund-Off (32 ,600)
I:SUU,OOO
TnT.t.t JJnURR JJJ '-NT JRF. IMPRnVF.MF.N rs 49. 900_,000
HAC F C SE 5 7 :1 11-4101
-------------------
HAJ/APD ESTIMATE SUMMARY
14879-001
JOI NO.
MF NOV. I qR ?
CHECKED IY o"TE
CONCEPTIJAL
CHAKACHAHNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
PROJECT SHEET 4 OF 20
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
ALTERNATIVE E PREPARED FOR
NO . DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT AMOUNT COSTS TOTALS REMARKS
DC'O:IO"RVOTR n.lM I. U.lTFRU4.YS ·-
D .. ., ... .,,.~.
u .. t-.. • , ...... , v .. ,...,.._.fno LS 1002000
T.,p-,.lc,. C::r-ro..-t-,.,.
Sit,. F.vnlnrAtinn
Mnhflf.,At-fnn ILS 150 000
rn ... n .. ~ 11 fnn 5 000 ILF AO 400 000
-~ 1 ~ ...... ~ ...... .: ...... ~ ..... IT.s 150 000
TunnAl Fv..-:>u I. C:unn11rtA 10 000 lev 510 5,100 000
TunnAl rronl' I. DAfnf st .... 90 lr.v 350 31 500
l.alc~-TAn {FinAl RnunA\ T.S 2 500 000 L • 26'
Dl ....... I. D """-rnnl' 550 lr.v 70( 3R5 000
nfufnn f'r•n 60 I DAYS 10 00( 600 000
Rntmtl-nff (16 500 )
9 300 000
---
-· ---·-. ·----··-. -··-
--------
~ --~ -------------~--. ·-·-·-
-·-· . -------·
H.CF CSE li23 13-80
---------------, ESTIMATE SUMMARY
HAJ 14879-001
PREPARED BY JOB NO.
MF NOV. 1982
CHECKED BY DATE
CHAKACHANMA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
CON~EfTUAL PROJECT SHEET 5 OF 20
TYPE OF ESTIMATE
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
ALTERNATIVE E PREPARED FOR
NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT AMOUNT TOTALS REMARKS COSTS
Intake Gate Shaft
Excavation & Sunnorts 360 LF 17 'iOf 6 300 000
Mass Surface Excavation 50 000 CY )( 1 500 000
Concrete & Reinf Steel 5 200 CY 89c 4 628 000
Misc. Metals Gates & Hois 220 TONS 12 20C 2 684.000
Access Road 1.25 MI > 000 0 0 2 500 000
Roun d Off (1 2 .000)
17 600 000
-
H6CF CSE 523 13-801
ESTIMATE SUMMARY
HAJ 1 4879-001
I'REPAREO BY JOB NO
HF NOV. 1982
CHECKED B Y DAT E
CHAKAC HAHNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJEC T
CONCEPTUAL PROJECT SMEET 6 OF 20
TYPE or ESTIMATE
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
ALTERNATIVE E PREPARED FOR
NO DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT AMOUNT TOTALS REMARKS COSTS
~ Fish PassaRe Facilities
Aooroach Channel
Channel Excavation 1 040~000 CY 11.30 ll 752.000
Slooe Protection 90 000 CY 28 .00 2 520 000
Round (22 000) -
14 250 000
Upstre am Portal
Excavation in Rock 64 500 CY 30 .00 l._135 000
Rock Bolts -Ch LK Mesh LS 544 s_oo
Dewatering During Con~truct LS 50 uJO
Fence 400 LF 45 00 18 000
Round 2 500
2 550 000
--
H&CF CSE 523 (J-801
ESTIMATE SUMMARY
HAJ 1 4879-001
I'REPAREO BY JOB NO
HF NOV. 1982
CHECKED B Y DAT E
CHAKAC HAHNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJEC T
CONCEPTUAL PROJECT SMEET 6 OF 20
TYPE or ESTIMATE
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
ALTERNATIVE E PREPARED FOR
NO DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT AMOUNT TOTALS REMARKS COSTS
~ Fish PassaRe Facilities
Aooroach Channel
Channel Excavation 1 040~000 CY 11.30 ll 752.000
Slooe Protection 90 000 CY 28 .00 2 520 000
Round (22 000) -
14 250 000
Upstre am Portal
Excavation in Rock 64 500 CY 30 .00 l._135 000
Rock Bolts -Ch LK Mesh LS 544 s_oo
Dewatering During Con~truct LS 50 uJO
Fence 400 LF 45 00 18 000
Round 2 500
2 550 000
--
H&CF CSE 523 (J-801
----• • • • • • • • • • • • •
ESnMATE SUMMARY
HAJ 14879-001
PREPARED B Y JOB NO
HF NOV 1982
CHEC KED B Y D A T E
CONCE PTU AL
CHAKACHAHNA HYDROELE CTRIC PROJECT
PROJECT SHEET 7 OF 2Q
T Y PE Of EST I MATE
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
ALTE .RNATTVE E PREPARED FOR
NO D ESC RIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT AMOUNT TOTALS REMARKS COSTS
I"-
~pstr eam Fis h Passage Fa c ilit'
Ex c a vatio n & Support 16 550 CY I 1'>3 2 ,6 9 7 ~§50
Co ncre te & Reinf. Steel 5 880 CY 759 4 ,lt62, 920
Hisc . He tal Gates & Crane LS 1,786,3 09
El ec trica l & Instrumentatior LS 200,000
Round Uf f (3' 13Cl)
9,150,000 -
Do wn s tr e am Fish Passage
Fa ci lit y
Ex c ava tion & Support 8 900 CY 191 _l f)g9 9!1 0
Con c r e te & Re inf. Steel 2,600 CY 635 1 .~5 t ,aQ o
2,28}.,000-----Hisc . Me t a l Gates & Crane LS
El ectric a l & In s trumentatior LS 100,0 00
-Round Of f (3,900)
5,730,0!1(]
Ac c ess Tunn e l
Ex c avatio n & Support 12 2 ,500 CY 30 3 37,117,500
Co n c r e t e & Re in f . St ee l 22 800 CY 573 13 064,400
Mi se. Me t a l LS 405,000
Elec tric al -Lighting LS 231,000
Round Of f (7 '900)
i 50 8 10 000
HloC F CSE 523 (3-80)
-------------.. ----·-
ESnMATE SUMMARY
HAJ 14879-001
PREPARED BY JOII NO
MF NOV . 1982
CHECKED B Y DATE
CONCEPTIIA!.
CHAKACHAMNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJE CT
PROJECT SHEET 8 OF 20
TYPE OF ESTIMATE
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
ALTERNATIVE E PREPARED FOR
NO . DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT AMOUNT TOTALS REMARKS COSTS
1----Fish ~assa~e Facilities
Excavation & Suooort 6 600 CY 53 349 800
Concrete & Reinf Steel 740 CY 778 575 720
Misc. Metal Gate etc LS 434 650
Round Off (170) .
1 360 000
Chakachatna River
Flow ReJ;tulation
River Bed Deeoenin2 10 000 CY 9. sc 95 000
Rio-Rao 1 000 CY 35.0( 35 000
130 000
Ac c ess Road LS 300 ,000
Access Tunnel t o Fis h
1-Passage Facilities
Portals Excavation 700 CY 93 65 100
Tunnel Excavation & ~oo rt 3 350 CY 314 _1_,05 1 900
Round Off 3 ,000
·-1 120 000
Total Fi s h Fa c ilities 85 400 .000 ·-
HloCF CSE 523 (3~01
-------------------
ESTIMATE SUMUMY
HAJ
MF
CHECKED B V
CONCEP TU AL
_____________ C~HA~KA=CHAMNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
PROJECT
TVI'E OF ESTIMATIO
AL TERNATIVE E
NO. DE SCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT AMOUNT COSTS
Chakac hata Dike and Spillway
Excava tion & Slooe Protecti on 280 000 CY 29.50 8 260 000
Co ncr e t e & Reinf Steel 1 1 QQ_ CY 325 357 500
Timber Brid2e 2 200 SF 150 330 000
Dike 250 000 CY 0.75 187 500
Round Of f ( 35 0001_
Ac cess Tunnel at Sur2e ChambEr
Portal Excavation & Protect ion 6 000 CY 35 210 000
Tunnel Excavation & Suooorts 14,000 CY 317 4 438,000
Tunnel Concrete & Reinf. St eel 1 700 CY 420 714 000
Grouting Contact & Pre ssurE 2 260 CF 58 131,080
Watertight Bul khead & FramE 27 TON 13 800 372,600
Round Off 34 320
H6CF CSE 523 (3~1
TOTALS
9,100,000
5,900,000
14879-001
NOV. 1982
DATI
SHEET 9 Of 20
REMARKS
·-
------
HAJ/APD
~RE~AREO B Y
MF
CHECKED BY
CONCEPTUAL
TY~E OF ESTIMATE
ALTERNATIVE E
N n DESCRIPTION
Power Tunnel TBM -
Excavation & Supports
Concrete
Grouting
Round Off
H6CF CSE 523 IJ-601
-------------
ESnMATE SUMMARY
CHAKACHAMNA HYDROELECTRIC P.!:R~O~JE~C~T"------
PROJECT
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
PREPARED FOR
OUANTITV UNIT UNIT AMOUNT TOTALS COSTS
53,400 LF 6,ll0 326,274,000
267 .000 CY 341 91 .047 .000
540 000 CF 56 4( 30 456.000
23 000
447.800.000
14879-001
JOI NO
NOV. 1982
DATE
SHEET } 0 OF 20
REMARKS
-------------------
IIAJ /APD
ESnMATE SUMMARY
14879-00 1
PR E PARED B Y J08 N O
HF NOV, l ~gz
CH ECKED B Y DAT E
CDNC EP'IlJAL CHAKAC IIAMNA IIYDROELEC rRI C PROJECT
PROJECT SHEET 11 OF 20
TYPE OF E S TIM ATE
ALASKA POWER AlflliORITY
PREPARED FOR AJ TERNATl VE E J J
N O DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT AMOUNT TOTALS REMARK~ COSTS
--:)u rg_e C hamb ~L-J.I Dner
Exc:~var-io n & Sunnort" 27 100 c v 353 9 56 6 ,)00
Cn n r r o>t"P F. Ro>inf St-o>Pl 10 000 c v RQ1 R Q10.000
Earthwork & Fen c in11 15.000 CY 2 7 405 000
P 'lund Off ( l 300)
18 QOO 000
!P e nst oc k -Horizontal
ISP c t i o n
Ex c avacion & Support s 12 000 CY 334 4 008 000
Co n crete & Reinf. Steel 5 100 CY 365 1,861 500
Grou t in g -Contac t 2 600 CF 50 130.000
1----Round Off 500 6,000,000
1-----
1-
I
H&CF CS E 523 13-801
-------------------
HAJ/APD
ESTIMATE SUMMARY
14879-001
PftEPAIUO BY JOB NO.
MF NOV. 1982
CHECK E O BY DATE
CONCEP'MIAI.
CHAKACHAMNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
PROJECT SHUT 12 OF 20
ALTED"'ATIVE E AI.ASKA POWER AUTHORITY
NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT AMOUNT COSTS TOTALS REMARKS
n .. ., .. t'nrlt-Uv-RrAnl'hAa tn v. It VP r.hsomhPr
Excavation & Suooort~ Q .OOO CY 480 4 320,000
Concrete & Reinf. Steel 6 100 CY 60 8 3,708 800
Steel Liner 700 TON 5 000 3 soo noo
Grouting-Contact 7 000 CY 56 392 000
Round-Off (20,800)
11,900,000
Penstoc k Between Valve Char ber & Powerhou1e
Excavation & Suooorts 850 CY 440 374 000
Concrete & Backfill soo CY 550 2 75 000
Round-Off (49 000)
600 000
Draft Tube Tunnels
Rock Bolts & Grout 15 00 0 LF 29 435 000
Concrete & Reinf. Steel 2 .975 CY 425 1,264,375
Round-Off 625
1,700,000
Sur2e Chamber -Tailrace
Excavation & Suooorts 5 000 CY 480 2,400,000
-
H.CF CSE 623 13-60)
------------------
HAJ/APD
ESTIMATE SUMMARY 14879-001
JOB NO
MF NOV. 1982
CHECKED BY DATE
CON CEPTJJAI
CHAUCHAHNA IIYDROEJECTRIC PRO.l£CT
PROJECT IHEET l ) 01' 20
TYPE OF ESTIMATE
ALTERNATIVE E ALASKA POWER AUTHOR I TY
PREPARED FOR
NO . DESCRIPTION QUANTITY I UNIT
UNIT COSTS AMOUNT TOTALS REMARKS
Tail ?:ace Tunnel & Structurt 8
l'.llffe.rdam & n ....... t-.. rint:J LS 2 000 000
Portal Exeav & Prnt-~cti( In 2 000 CY 65 130,000
C1>n~'rl!t .. I. R .. tnf C<t'~!!l 1 200 CY 600 720 000
Walkwav Brid~re. LS 65,000
Staola~PA & Hoists 81 TON 8,500 688 500
Tunn,.} E.llcav & "' rta 20.000 CY 290 5 800,000
PluD Rxravatfnn 4,000 CY 50 200 000
Rnu;:;d-Off (3 500)
9,600,000
Taflrar .. Ch,.n ..... l
Chann.,} IO'v,..u .. tfnn 80 000 CY 9 720 000
(20,000)
700.000
Rfvl!r TraininD Warka
River Bed Deepening 50,000 CY 10 500,000
Hech & Elec. LS 6 100,000
TOTAL RESERVOIR, DAH AND Wi TERWAYS 1)1 3 6()'1 ()1)('1 '
i
HACF CSE 623 IJ.80l
-------------------
HA.l/APD
ESTIMATE SUMMARY 14879-001
JOI NO
MF N0V. 1982
CHICKID IV DATI
CONCEPTUAL CHAKACHAMNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
PROJECT SHUT )4 OP 20
ALASKA POWER AUntORITY
ALTERNATIVE E
NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT AMOUNT COSTS TOTALS REMARKS
Turbines & Generators 330 HW
Turbines 4 F.A [H ,4bl.IH11 33,920,000
Generators 4 EA 16,00(\0QI 24,000,000
Round-Off (20,000)
57,<;~UU,UUU
Aec~••ol"v Electrical Eauim tent
Eauioment LS 9,:~uu,uuu
Hille Pow~r Plant Eauiomen
Crane Bridlle 1 EA 930,000
Other Power Plant Eauio. LS 6 ,370,000 7,300,000
Switehv~;-dStTurt:ures
Earthwork• 15,000 CY 25 375,000
Concrete & Retnf Steel 3,800 CY 640 2 432 000
Struc Steel & Mis e Meta Is 225 TON 3,500 787 500
Round-Off 5 500
3 ,600 000
f HAC CSE Ul IWOI
-------------------
HAJlAPD , ESTIMATE SUMMARY
~AE~AAED BY
14879-001
JOI NO.
NOV . 1982
CHECKED IY CJUU(ACHAMNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DATE
CONCEPTUAL PROJECT SHUT 15 0' 20
TY~E OF ESTIMATE
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
ALTERNATIVE E PREPARED FOR
NO. DESCRII'TION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT AMOUNT COSTS TOTALS REMARKS
Switchvard Eautnment
.... -&. ·----105 MVA 5 EA 1,030,00 5,150 000
Unit. & l.f "" Sreakera 7 EA 18500D 1,295,000
C:uft',.h .. a & Li11htn.Arreat Ira 30 EA 34,00rf 1,020,000
210 KV C.Ahl'"• 18,000 I.F 130 2,340,000
Controla & Hetr'Jt Eauio. LS 2,700,000
Rnund Off (5 ,000)
12,500,000
Cnmmuni r;~tinn aud Sunv
'f.nn-t rn F.n 1 f n -LS 1,600,000
HACF CSE 623 IUOI
------------ --- --
HAJlAPD flJ ESTIMATE SUMMARY
14879-001
'"l'AREO BY JOB NO .
NOV, 1982
CHECK EO BY DATE
CONCEPTUAL CHAKACHAHNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
PROJECT SHifT 16 0' 2(1
TY'E OF ESTIMATE
ALTFRNATIVF. E
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
PREPARED FOR
NO. DESCRIPTION OUANTITV UNIT UNIT AMOUNT COSTS TOTALS fUMAAKS
ri'RANSPORTATION FACILITIES
Port Facilities
Causeway 19.600 CY 80 1. 'i6fLOOO
Trestle Piles so TON 11 300 'i6'i.OOO L • 150 LF .612" t • "'" lfrestle Struct. Steel 110 TON 3 500 385.000
Trestle Reinf. Cone. 150 CY 700 105 000
Facilities -Allowance LS 2.000.00ll
Round-Off (23.000)
1..6~0.00
Airoort
Earthwork SL..'iOO CY 16 872 .ooo
Culverts 1.000 LF 65 65,000
Subbase & Base 55.000 ·cY 14 770 000
Building -Allowance LS 300,000
Round-Off (7 .000)
2.ooo.ooo
-
H 6Cf CSE 523 t~l
--------------------, ESTIMATE SUMMARY 14879-001
Joe NO.
HAJ/APD
,,U:,AR(O ev
NOV lQR?
CHECKED ev DATE
CONCEPTUAL
CHAKACHAHNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
PROJECT SHE lET 17 Of 20
TY .. E OF ESTIMATE ALASKA POWER AUTHORI 'fV
ALTERNATIVE E PREPARED FOR
NO . DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT
COSTS AMOUNT TOTALS REMARKS
.,.,. ...... & r.nnatrn,.t{on Rn:ut111
11114 1 A n.. .IIn ton 1 ~n
lO'arthwnrlc 175 000 (";'{ (, flO 1 1 '\'\ .000
ruluartA 1 500 L"F 6'\ Q7 .'lOO 16"~ CMP
Rritlo.,A 1,400 SF 150 210.000
SubbaAA I. ~baA 85 400 CY 15 1 2A 1 .000
~ .... rtt Ra-t 1 1 200 LF ?'l 1rl.OOO
RAn~tfr Evfatino Road 95 000 LF 10 950 000
C:nnL lO'AnrAa 5 000 LF 35 17'l.OOO
Rnund-Off 1 .500
3 !}00.000
M-t 1 A I A+OO tn '\'\+On
10'a,.thunrlta 1,465 000 ·--9 669 .000 CY 6.60
Culverts 3,600 LF 80 288 000 48"~ CMP
Subbase & Baae 165 ,OO r) CY 15 2 47'l 000
Guard Rail 13,000 LF 25 325 000
RAn~tir F.vfa · fno Rnad 16 ,00•) LF 10 160 000
Snn'" Fencea 1,000 LF 35 35.000
Round-Off 48 000
13 000 000
M-1 lA '\'i-+00 tn '\Q+I)Q
F.arthunrlt 445 000 CY A.30 3 693 500
l'nlu.,rt-A 1,000 LF 80 80 000 48"tl CMP
Rr-1.-loP 9 000 SF 150 1 350 000
SuhhAaP I. R .. a .. 38 000 CY 15 570 000
r. .. .._ rd Ra f 1 10,000 t~ 27 ?70 non
z:uuu I ceA 35 70 000 I I I 6,000 ,000
HACF CSE 123 1~1
--------------~----
HAJ/APD
CHECKED IY
CONCEPTUAL
TYPE OF ESTIMATE
ALTERNATIVE E
NO. DESCRIPTION
Walkwav To Gate Shaft
Earthwork
Guard Rail
Bridae
Riorao
Round-Off
._,.,."!sa Road to MacArthur
E4rthwork
Culverts
Bridae Improvements
Subbase & Base
Guard Rail
Snow Fence&
Round-Off
f-. Acce11a Road ~o Tailrace
Ea: "hwork
Culvert&
C:uhhaa,. & Baae
Guard Rail
Round-Off
t-
6CF CSE 1523
ESTIMATE SUMMARY
CHAKACHAHNA HYDROEL ECTRIC PROJECT
PROJECT
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
PREPARED FOR
QUANTITY UNIT UNIT AMOUNT COSTS
1 20 0 CY 20 24 000
1 000 LF 25 25 000
200 SF. 150 30 000
100 CY 35 3 .500
17 500
Valley
545 000 CY 7 3 815 000
2 400 LF 75 180 000
9 000 SF 70 630,000
105 000 CY 15 1 575 000
6 000 LF 25 150,000
3 000 LF 35 105 000
45,000
unnel
56 000 CY A 448 000
100 LF 80 8,001)
2.500 CY 20 50,000
600 LF 25 15 .o oo
(21 000)
14879-001
JOI NO.
NOV. 1982
DATI
SHEET 18 OP 20
TOTALS REMARKS
100 ,000
36'/J and 48'~ CMP ·-
6,500,000
48'~ CMP
500,000
HAJ /APD
ESTIMATE SUMMARY
14879-001
JOB NO.
MF NOV. 1982
CHECKED BY DATE
CHAKACHAHNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
CONCEPTUAL SHEET 19 Of 20 PROJECT
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
ALTERNATIVE E PREPARED FOR
NO. OESCRI,.TION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT AMOUNT COSTS TOTALS REMARKS
Access Road to Downstream P !Wet' Tunne 1
Earthwork 215,000 CY 9 .80 2,107,000
Culverts BOO LF 80 64,000 48'~ CMP
BridRe 3,000 SF 150 450,000
Subbase & Base 10,000 CY 21 210,000
Guardrail 9,000 LF J:l ZHH,OOO
Snnwshed & Slide Fall 1,000 LF 800 800,UUU
~ Round-Off (19.000)
'J,'JUU,UUU
TemDorarv Construction Road9
Earth~ork 61,000 CY f 36fi ,000
Culverts 600 LF 8( 48,000 48'~ CHP
BridJte 3,000 SF ~5( 450.000
Guardrail 2,000 LF z 50,000
Round-Off (14,000)
900,000
Road Maintenance
Su11111er Season 45 MO 1150 ,uuu 6,750,000
Winter Season 30 MO ~oo,uuu 18,000,000
Round-Off 50,000
24 800,000
ITOTAT Af'f'IO'C::C:: E. "(tN~TRUCTION RO lns -59 ,bOO ,000
H&CF CSE 51:1 1:1-llnl
ESTIMATE SUMMARY
HAJ/APD 14897-001
JOB NO
MF NOV. I QR?
DATE
C~CEPTUAL
CHAKACHAMNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
IHIIT 20 0' 20 PROJECT
TVI'I 0' ESTIMATE
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
ALTERNATIVE E PREPARED FOR
NO. DESCRIPTION OUANTITY UNIT UNIT A MOUNT COSTS TOTALS REMARKS
Tr•n-faaion Line
Clear & Gruh 82 HI 225,000 18,450,000
Transmission Line 82 HI 343,000 ~.126,000
Submarine Cable 21 HI 792,000 1o,b3z ,ooo
Round-Off (8,000)
bJ,.lUU ,UUU
TOTAL SPECIFIC CONSTRUCTION
CO~T AT JANUARY 1982 PRICE
LEVELS lJOS • 300 • 000
.
HACF CSE 523 C~l
FILMED AT
ARCTIC ENVIRONMENTAL INFOR}~TION AND DATA CENTER
707 A STREET
ANCHORAGE, AK 99501