HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA1183•
--
·'
' ,
FEDERAL 'ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20416
OGC
Project No. 7114
Alaska Power Authority
Jane Drennan, Esquire
Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro
Suite 900
1050 Seventeenth Street, N.Wv
Wash1nQton, D.C. 20036
Dear Ms. Drennanz
Please provide Staff with the following information by
D~cember S, 1983:
1) Raw data (disch~rge vs. percent exceedance Yalues)
used to plot the flow duration curves in Exhibit E.
These curves, for the Cantwell, Gold Creek, Sunshine,
an~ Susitna Station gaQing stations, were found in
Chapter 2, Exhibit E~
2) Sediment transport and bedload data collected by the
USGS in CY 1982.
, 3) A complete copy of the December 1981 R&M report
entitled "Hydrology, Lower Susitna StudiesM.
4) Copies of the reports ~ntitled, •Alaska Department
of Fish and Game Sueitna Hydro Studies Final Data
Report~ and Synopsisa. These reports include 1982
and 1983 5tudies.
5) A copy of the Braalay Lake Instream Flu~ Assessment
being prepared by Jean Baldrige for Woodward-Clyde
and th~ APA.
6) Preliminary result~ of the habitat preference criteria
etudy now in progress.
7) Results of any new HEC-2 calibration studies, and the
data input, to upgrade water aurf&ee elevation
predictions in the main channel, including new channel
cross sections, and water •urface elevations.
Documentation for the SNTEMP rnodel that haa been ".
proposed by AEIDC t.o simula.te downstream vater
t•mper&ture regimes.
. '
" .•·
'
-------
-2-
9) A complete copy of Table 6.10 from Volume 2 of the
Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project Inte~im Feasibility
Assessment Report, March 1983.
10) A report on nitrocen supersaturation due to temperature
differences at the Cultus Lake facility in British
Columbia.
/.11) The Fifth Progress Report on the Columbia River.
: ... 12) A complete ~et of the ni tro~en supersaturation data
and analyses from the Devil Canyon site.
13) Copies of the following references cited in the
Exhibit E (listed by Chapter):
Chapter 3 ..
. Alaska Depte of Fish and Game. 1978. •Alaska's
~Wildlife and Habitat.• State of Alaska, Juneau.
Kemper, et al. 1977. The Potential Impact of the
Mackenzie Highway Construction in Northern Wetlands.
2 Unpublished reportv Canadian Wildlife Service.
Edmonton, Alberta.
Newbury and Malaher. 1972. The Destruction of
l ~ Manitoba's L~st Great River. Naturaliste Canadien
,./_; 1(4): 4-13. Ottawa, Canada.
Sellers. 1979. •waterbird Use of and Management ~Considerations for Cook Inlet State Game R~fuges.•
Alaaka Deptv of Fish and Game.
wolff and Zasada. 1979. Moose Habitat and Forest
v,?"'Succesa -~on on the Tanana Ri VEt·r F loo~plain and 'iuk<?n-
.) Tanana upleutd. In; Proceed 1 ngs of the North A.mer1.can
£onference and WorkshoQ Noo lCs~ Kenai, Alaska.
Woodwar~-cly~e Consultants. 1979. •aiological studies
lP of a Proposed Power Plant Sill:.e Near Healy, Alaska. •
Chapter 10
Cook Inlet. Region, Inc. and Plaeer Amex, Inc. 1981,
1 Coal to Methanol Feasibilit Stud , Belu a Methanol
~roject. Volume v, Environmental.
Cook Inlet Reoion, Inc. an~ Placer Amex Inc. l9Bla. ~ ~£oal to Methanol Project, Fin~~ Re2ort. Volume IV.
.-'
-3-
The following list of information is needed to clarify and
supplement APA's responses to the April 12, 1983, letter from
the commission requesting additional information. This inform-
ation $hould also be provided by December 5, 1983!
A. section 3 -Terrest~al, Botanical, and Wildlife Resources
1. Request a l~stinQ of all stationary air pollution
sources expected durinQ ~roject construction and
operation (e.g., diesel generators and incinerators),
and indicate as appropriate for each: (a) emission
rates ~or TSP, NOx, sox, CO, and hydrocarbons! (bl
typd of fuel! (c) whether permits will be required!
(d) results of any air 1uality calculations or estimated
impacts relative to these sources.
2, In APA's response to Exhibit E, Section 3, Request
No. 10, which requested meteorological data from the
vicinitY of the propose6 dam sites, portions of
Volumes l-8 of a report prepared by R&M Consultants,
Inc. wers reproduced representing data from the
susitna Glacier, Denali, Tyrone River, Kosina Creek,
Watana, Devil canyon, Sherman and Eklutna Lake Stations.
Request a copy of the rem~ininQ unreproduced portions
of those reports and any other reports relating to meteorolo~ical or air quality data taken by the
Applicant for the project area,
B. Section 7 -Recreation Resources
With reference to the APA response to Exhibit E,
Section 7, Request No. 4, request the notice an6
I
map re~ar~1ng trail locations.
Request the report on recreation affected by the trane~issLon line corridors that is mentioned in the
APA response to Exhibit E, section 7, Request No. 6,
and the •recreation implementation report• referred
to in the response to Request .No. 14.
c. Section 8 -Aesthetic Resources -. = •
Request s list and description of the •exceptional
natural features" located along the entire transmission
line corridor in a 1imllar manner as presented ln
Exhiblt E, Chapter 8, pages E-8-30 and E-8-31.
If not currently being prepared ln the final vi1ual
resource analysis report, request maps indicating
viewpoints, viewsheds, distances, and potential <'
number of viewers for the tranemisaion line corridor
stubs (Anchorage-Will~ and rairbanka-Healy). These
. . ...
. .: ' ..
•
J
l ;
-_ . .--.. .... '..: ....
'
-~--·----·-
maps should be similar in style to those prepared
by APA in response to Exhibit E, Section 8, Request
Nos. 2 and 7.
If available, reQuest all of the •significant view•
maps for the transmission line corridor using the same
map scale as found on the •significant view• maps
provided in APA's response to Exhibit E, Section 8,
Req:ueat No. 2.
D. Section 10 -Alternative~
1. Request copies of maps showing locations of the
following potential hydroelectric sites evaluated by
APA: Browne, Keetna, Snow, Johnson, Vee Canyon,
MacLaren, Susitns II (Olsen), Suaitna III, Butte
Creek, Gold Creek, and Tyonea ?or each potential
development, request da·ta or estimates on (a) type
and height of dam, (b) reservoir surface area, an~
(c) total area inundated and disturbed.
Your prompt attention to this request will be appreciateda
onald H. Clar e
Deputy Assistant General Counsel
Hydroelectric Licensing
ccs APA Project Manager
•
•. '
Comment 1:
RESPONSES TO FERC LETTER OF NOVEMBER 3, 1983
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
Raw data (discharge vs. percent exceedance values) used to plot the
flo~ duration curves in Exhitit E. These curve::;, for the Cantwell,
Gold Creek, Sunshine, and Susitna Station gaging stations, wer~ found
in Chapter 2, Exhibit E.
Response:
The raw dat.a used to plot the flow duration curves in Exhibit E has
been compiled and is presented as Attachment 1. It includes:
Pre-project daily based discharge vs. percent exceedance values for
Denali, Cantwell, Gold Creek, Susitna Station, Chulitna River and
Talkeetna River (insufficient data were available to prepare flow
duration curves for Sunshine Station); License Application Figures
E.2.39, E.2.40, E.2.41 and E.2.42.
Pre-and with-project monthly based discharge vs. percent exceedance
values for Watana, Devil Canyon, Gold Creek, Sunshine, and Susitna
Station; License Application Figures E.2 .. 159, E.2.206, E.2.207,
E.2.160, E.2.208, E.2.161, E.2.209, E.2.162, and Eo2.210.
Pre-and with-project weekly based discharge vs. percent exceedan.ce
values for Gold Creek; License Application Figures E.2.163 and
E.2.211 •
B/6/1
. \.t\.~
.l!; 1-;~
x.J • "
"•
· ...
•
. "
~ !J:
Cbtnme.nt 2:
,
..... ,
I •
Sediment transport and bedload data collected by the USGS in CY 1982.
Response:
The report 11 Sediment Discharge data for selected sites in the Susitna· !tiver
Basin, Alaska, 1981-1982" is attached •
B/6/l
•
· ...
-.
;
Comment 3:
Aeot\lplete copy of .the December 1981 R&M report entitled "Hydto"logy,
Lower Susitna Studies".
ReS}lonse:
"Hyd1:·ology, Lower Susitna Studies", 1981, was never completed by R&M
Consultants. Instead, relevant data collected by R&M Consultants was
incorporated into the 1982 "River Morphology" report produced by R&M
Consult,ants for Acres American, Inc. Four (4) copies of this report
were transmitted to FE~C prior to February 15, 1983 by Acres American
as backgt'ound material for the Susitn.a Hyc.\roelectric Project License
Application. [OC. If 31
.B/6/1
, ..... ,,
I :
. :. ·:.C· ,_ ··"
· ....
Conntlellt 4:
Copie.s o£ the repo·rts entitled, n Alaska Department of Fish and· -Game
Sus.itna HydrQ Studies Final Data Reports and Synopsis". These reports
include 1982 and 1983 studies.
Response:
Two copies of the ADF&G Phase II-1982 Basic Data Report have been
transmitted to FERC previously, on October 31, 1983.
The 1983 ADF&G Basic Data Report is currently not available, but will
be transmitted when available (approximate date June 1, 1984). ---..
B/6/1
Cotmnent 5:
A copy of the Bradley Lake Instream Flow Assessment being prepared by
Jean Baldridge for Woodward-Clyde and the APA ..
Res·ponse;
A copy of the Bradley Lake Instream Flow Assessment {by Jean Baldridge)
is contained in Volume 3, Appendix E of the Bradley Lake Hydroelectri~
Power Project Feasibility Study. The complete 3 volume set of this
feasibility study was transmitted to FERC on 23 November 1983.
B/6/1
R2
_;;< ..
;~--
»" ..•
•
.
· Cot'l!fllent 6:
Prelim.inaty re~:~ult.s. of the habitat preference criteria study .nQ~ in
prpgret\s ••
·Results obtained in the habitat prefer~nce criteria studies now being
eonducted are briefly· dise'vJsed in the "Synopsis of· the. 1982. Aquatic __
Studies and Analysis·~op FiSih ··and H.nbitat RelationsbipJ!."~ AUF&G, Ph&~e
II, Ba~i,c D8.:~ ·a Report,, 198.2. Data regarding. habitat preference
criteria .are ~ontained in. Vol. 4 -Aquatic Habitat snd inst-re~,tm Flew
Stud.ies, and are summarized in Vol" I, pp. 46·,.S9.. These volumes were
tra~smitted to FERC oa OctQber 31, 1983.
!./6/.1 .
Conmient .7J
Results· of · any new HEC-2' calibration .studies, and the . data. input 1 to
upgrade water· surface elevation predictions in the main channel,
including new channel croas sections:; and water surface elevations.
Response:
A araft report entitled "Sui~itrta Hydroelectric Prnjeet, Lower Susitna
River, Water Sl!rfaee Profiles and Discharge Rating CurveG 11 Qctob-ar
1983, has been prepared artcl i.s' being reviewed. The repo!'t ~4111 be
finalized ·after the review co,mments are received. For your current
use, the d1~aft rsport is atta\:hed which contains the following:
1. Mai·n Report.: Tne main report identified the new cress sectiona
surveyed in 1982 and the old cross sections surveyed in 1981
2. Appendices A to I: The ap1pendices contain information on input to
and old Qutput of the H.EC-2 model.
In addition to the draft report, all channel cross sections used in the
study are also attached in a separate volume.
It is anticiplited that the draft report will be fina.lized on or before
the end of December 1983. A copy of the final report will be sent to
FERC as soon as it becomes available.
J/6/1
... -
··.··comment _8!
.DtKlUl't~ntation for :the SNTEMP model .that has been proposed. by AEIDC · to
simulate downstream ltater temperature regime$ .•
..
_Re~'pottse:
Documentation · fot~ the SNTEMP model is provide.d in the at tache.d · report :
•'
'
Stre·~m Flow~. and-Temperature Modeling in the Susitna .Bauin, Alaska -
Final Reporll: by AEIDC, June 30, 1983. ~c:)G:P'"'35
•
·B/6/1
•
• '
' \
C>
A cQmplete copy of ·table 6 .10 f~om Volume 2 ilf the Chakachamna
B.yd~oelec:tric Projee.t Interim '.Feasibility Aasess:ment Report, March
1983.
A eomplete copy of Table 6 .• 10 from. the Chakae.hamna Hydroel·eetric
·Project Interim 'Feasibility Assessment Report is attached •
B/6/1
~ llZ
•••
·-.• :.=-.·~ .. .., ~ '·· .... -.~ ; .. ~· .. , . ~ ~: .... ' -J
()
1. report: odl nitrog~n aujfetlliil:ur!l~ion due to tei\lpe::-~ture d:i.i[ferences at'', ~ \\ ',,
the Cultua. Lake facility in British Columbia. .
~espouse:
H.l{ii·Hatvey (1963J 'is attached ..
'&/6(l
r
'I
I
'~
l :
L
I
i
···~
('
~· ·, '.
' 'i.
f
j
f
l
l I.
I:
I 1:
l
...
CoJDDlent 11::,
',Jrhe Fift}l. Progr~ss J?tepot~ on t;lle Col~bia River.
Res pons_!: ... ' '. ·,··
The 1979 teport by the Corps entitled "Fifth Progre~s Report on
Fisheries Engineering Research Program, 1973-1978n is attached,.
i)lJC.!I{'F 33. 0
.. , .
~
·,
,..,_
. '
Com.txu!nt 12.:
~ complete set of the nit~ogen s1,1persaturation data. and analyses from
the Deyi.l.. CE~.nyon $ite.
Re$ponse:
A· completa .set of N . 2 supersaturation data. and analyses from the
Devil Canyon Site is available in the 1982 Phase II ADF&G Basic Data
Report, Volume 4: Aquatic Habitat and Instream Flo:w Studies Pat't I~
pp. 30-34; 170-175; 197-202; and the fQllowing figures and tables.
Fig. 41 -3-54, pg. 171
Fig. 41-3-55, pge 173
Fig. 41 -3-56, pg. 174
Fig .. 41 -4-3, pg. 200
Appdx. Table 4-D-·1, pg. 4-D-2
Appdx. Table 4-D-2, pg. 4-D-3
Appdx. Table 4-D-3 . , pg. 4-D-4
Appdx. Table 4~D-4, pg. 4-D-11
This volume was transmitted to FERG previou$ly on October 31, 1983o
B/6/1
•'
~ --
t I: ·. : ..... : .(J. ,..,.~I :..:
'''
:_,·
·· ...
. ...
, p,:~vid:e: , Ala$ka Dep~ttmertt of Fi'sh and ·Game. 1iJ78. · nAlaska's Wildlife
·arid~ ltabit~t'.:!e ·State of Alaska, Juneau •
. :~: ·. ,--.
The ADF&G 1978 report entitled "Alaska's Wildlife and tra~itat" is out
of print" This oversize,· two-volume set may be obtained· at the Library
of Congress in ·washington, D.C.. 'l'he catalogue number is Gl53l!OD4AH
1973. It may also be obtained at the Alaska Resources Library in
Anchotage$ Alaska.
B/(>/1
.. •• •
,!
•
C.omment 13 ~ Chapter 3, No" 2:
Provide: Kemper, et al. 1977. The Potential lmpact of the Mackenzie
Highway Construction. in ·Northern We.tlands. Unpublished report.
Canadian Wildlife Service. ·Edmonton, Alberta
ResP2nse:
The article~ "The Potential Impact of the Mackenz-ie Highway
Constructi<>n in Nort'hern Wetlands~• is attached •
B/6/1
•
••
RESPONSES tO FERC LE~TER OF NOVEMBER 3, 1983
~
· REQUEST . FOR ·INFORMATION
..
Comment 13. -Chapter 3, N.Q. 3:
":· . ..~ ~
Provide: Newbury and Malaher. 1972. The Destruction of Manitoba's
Last Great River. Naturaliste Canadien 1(4): 4-·13. Ottawa, -Canada.:
-~
Response:
The report "The Destruction of "Hanitoba' s Last Great River'* is
attached •
B/6/1
\
;j
• I
~ . !
; if
• I •• I I
I' ll I
I' I: I I . I q I I
I:
....
NOTIC~: This mat~ria.t may be protected
by copyright law (Title 17 U.S. Code)./
1fhe-Destruction of
..
l,
.Manitoba's Last ·Great River
by R. NEWBURY and G. W. MALAHER
... water is an £ntegr~l part of the land, responsible to a large extent for its physical form and the life found
in or near it -including man. The land and water are indivisible, and those wlzo would treat a river as so much.
plumbing to be manipulated7 and its water as a commodi~ to be bough~ and sold like carloads of wheat, lu.zve
simply not comprehended this fundamental fact.
Richard C. Bocking
Two great rivers, the Nelson and the Churchill, cut com-
pletely through the Precambrian Shield of northern Mani-
toba bringing water from the interior of Canada to Hudson
Bay. \Vaters flowing to the Nelson begin their journey on
the eastern slope of the Rockies, crossing the three Prairie
Provhtces via the Saskatchewan River. The Saskatchewan
enters Lake \Vinnipeg at Grand Rapids. All rivers that
drain into J .. ake \Vinnipeg, including many beginning in
northwestern Ontario, contribute to the flo\y of the Nelson.
In total, this. vast watershed covers some 414,000 square
miles.
The headwaters of the Churchill likewise begin far to the
west at Beaver Lake ncar Lac Ia Biche, northeast of Edmon-
ton. Its waters· flow eastward acros.c; the ·northern plains of
Alberta and Saskatchewan to Lac Ile-a-la-Crosse, there
meeting the Precambrian Shield. lt~rom the Manitoba~
·Saskatchewan border, the river flows northeastward through
a magnificent rl)ain of lakes, roughly paralleling the Nelson
to the sottth. The Churchill watershed covers an area .of
about 115,000 .square mil-::-s.
. Though these rivets liit several hundred miles apart, the
height of .land. separating the Churchill at the Southern .
Indian Lake area from waters. flowing southward to the
Nelson is low and very short-so short, in fact, that the idea
of diverting the Churchill to increase 'the volume flow of the
Nelson, for power purposes is an ~'engineer's dream." In the
late 1960s and the first two years of the present decade, this
. dream has come closer to reality beca\tse of government-
approved plans of Manitoba Hydro to build a dam on the
Churchill at its outlet from Southern Indian Lake. The dam
would create an ertotmous r~rvoir stretching some 11 0
miles southward to the headwaters of a small tributary to
th~ Nelson-· .the Rat-Burntwood system (see map). The.
lower 250 miles of the Churchill River valley would be
almost completely cut off and receive significant flows only
Editor'l nott: This paper has been published separately as Canadian
Nature; F~eration Special Publication No. 2, january, 1973.
Available frosn the C.N.F. Qffice f'or SI.OO.
in midsummer when normal high. water would overtop tht
proposed Missi Falls dam. The stopped-up waters of th(
Churchill would head southward through Notigi and Spli
Lakes toward the Nelson River some 200 miles to the south
The reservoir would raise lake levels from ten feet or
Southern Indian Lake to 60 feet or more in the diversior
area, and the diverted water would increase the flows of th'
Rat-Burntwood system by over 500%.
\Vhelher or not this enormous proposed scheme shoult
become fact is a question that has beleaguered the presen
government as well·as formt.:r governments of Manitoba
These governments have doggedly backed ~lanitob
Hydro's diversion plans, even though there is no doubt tha
the scheme could create a nightmare for many other burna
and resource values in the region. The essential question is
Is the power that would be generated really worth more tc
Manitobans and to Canada .than the many values tha
Dr. Ntwbury is a projusor of Civil Engirutring and Earth Scieft&ts, Universal
of ~fanitoba, Win11ijHg. He Fuufirst lzand knowl:dge of Manitoba's sub-arct:
rivtrs as well as of dewlopmml selzemtsjor lht reg1on.
Mr. Malalztr is a former dirtclor of the Manitoba Wildlife Branch. fie
ammt/.1 retirtd from govtrnmenl service.
would be compromised or de:>troyed? The utilization of a
entire river by diversion rather than in steps or stages alor
its own channel has never been done before in Manitob.
or anywhere else in Canadav Even the governments reCO!
nized the possible size and immensity of the scheme in 197 · ·
17zere lias never 6een :: thorough appraisal of environmmt
and resource use prectd'ing ll diversion prl{jtct an;where m
North America. Tlze Churclzill divtrsion }~remises !!1 b~ the
/ar£tsl single divtrsion evtr undertaken by man on this
tonlinent.1
The ~'need" for d~velopment on the scale of the Churchi
·diversion lies mainly in the minds of p~w~r developers wt
have projected provincial power needs fteometrically to ti
year 1994. The projected geometric inc•~ease in "needu ca
.(1
Valley of t!zt lowtr Churchill. Q tht praposed divmion iz apjiT(Jvtd h.1 till ManitoiJa govnnment thi,r portion ~{the ChfiTcfliil would etau to tml.
5
. ~ ·,
,., : ~ ' . .• .~ . ' .
.. be vistl:alir.ed b~hnagining a lily pond in whi~h lily pads are growilt~. and .nndtip!ying at such a rate that the number of
pad$ ctOuble,s each day. The daily increment of pads would
l . t. • . . . -. . .
• TABL~ l
GENERATING STATIONS ..\ND CAPACITIES IN MANITOBA t
TOTAL
INSTALLED
D.-\.TE
1906
19H
1923
19:11
1931~
1951*
t954
1957**
1961***
!965
1971
STATION
Pinawa
Point du .Bois
Great l•'al!s
Sla\'c 'Falls
Seven Sisters Falls
Pine Falls
McArthur Falls
Selkirk and Brandon
Kelsey .
Grand Rapids
Kettle Rapids (partially' completed}
ST .... TlON
CAPACITY
(Mw)
28
72
132
68
150
86
56
244
224
472
300
(Mw}
28
100
232
300
425
536
592
836
1028
1500
1800
----*Seven Sisters was not completed until 1949. In 1951 the Pinawa
Station was abandoned in favour o£ Seven Sisters. ~*This date is approximate as the introduction of these stations was a
progressi\'e affair. ·
***Kelsey was built only to service the town of Thompson and the
International Niclcel Company mine and as such did not satisfy the
normal growth of demand in the Southern system ..
fl'hese figures are approximate and do not allow for the commis-
sioning of individual units except where noted.
grow gcometdcally. If we start with two lilies. the first day,
four the next, and so forth, by the 30th day of growth lhe
pond surface would be totally covered with pads. On the
29th day enough lily pads must grow to co,·cr half the pond
in only· one day. This'is the kind of "need" that the power
developers st1y must be met in the near future.
DEVELOPING HYDRO POWER IN MANfl'OBA
Tht: slow early growth of power demand in Manitoba,
starting over 60 years ago, is analagous to the early days of
the pond. As indicated by the projected need (load g;·owth)
curve for ~ianitoba, the first hydro-electric plants needed to
satisfy the demands were small and widely spaced in years.
The initial plants were located on the \ Vinnipcg River
starting with the 28 megawatt (Mw) installation at Pinawa.
It was not until the late fifties that all ofthc twailable drop in ·
the \Vinnipcg River had been utilized by the additional six
dams listed in Table I. By the mid-sixties, however, the
increments of power needed to satisfy the demand were in
the Drder of hundreds of Mw, and the installation of new
plants took place every few years. The solution to satisfying
the geometricaily growing demand was to dam the next
large riv:er to the north, the Saskatchewan. The Grand
Rapids plant above Lake \.Vinnipeg on the Saskatchewan
created a vast reservoir by flooding over 600 square miles of
upcleared delta land and lakes. The addition of Grand
Rapids (472 Mw of capacity) to the system !latisfied the
demand for only six years. However. the hydro-electric
potential in the northern half of the provint"f.; was. vast
and untapped.
The large outflow system from La~e \ \rinnipeg, the
Xclson River, was well suited for large scale power develop·
. ... : . . -. ).~ ": .. _, . ·-.. '-='" . ... . - . . 'J. ) .
I . t# • •
' ' .
5,000 Mw of power would be available by damming the
Nelson at eight to ten places (Table II). The feasibility of
developing Nelson sites had been proven with an initial
plant, the Ke!sey Station, located just upriver from Split
Lake~ The Kelsey plant was constructed primarily to supply
·the International Nickel Company mine at Thompsop,
Manitoba. Construction of the first Nelson River plant for
the southern system began at Kettle Rapids in 1968 and
now nears completion. This plant's capacity of over l ,200
Mw will be transmitted southward by a federally assisted
DC transmission line to meet the demand for an additional
six years. Exploration for the construction of a second plant
on the Lower Nelson at Long Spruce Rapids has now
commepced.
As indicated by the projected load growth curve, plants
of over .1 ,000 M w must be. added every five to six years to
meet the increasing demand in the 1970s. To improve the
efficiency ofthes~future Nelson plants, works to. regulati! the
ftow of the Nelson from Lake Winnipeg are now under con-
struction. The Churchill River diversion would dramatically
increase the size of the Nelson flows (b1r about 30%).
Now, in the 1970s, according to ~1~anitoba Hydro, the
suppl~· of hydro-electric power has reached the lily pond's
29th day of growth, where entire rivers must be developed
in a single project to meet the projected demands. The
Churchill is the last great river capable of sustaining such
growth for even a few years in Manitoba. ·
lf the l'emaining potential of the Nelson River is applied
HUDSON
BAY
I
I
' J
· ·to the power demand a11d projected intO the future at a
consetvative 7% growt~rate, it can be seen that the Nelson
alone will carry th~ n~w demand to the year 1990. Based on
.. diti?n cf~h,r:hillRiver flow~ as an approxilnat!ons
th" d1vers10n wdlutcreasr. the capactty of the Nelson Rllver
plants by 1,500 M'{v, while an additional400·Mw vvill be-
come available al~g the diversion route (Table U). The
total effect of the Churchill River diversion will be to add
1,900 Mw to the system, but this allows the'load demand_~
be carried only into the year 1994. \Vith the trcmcndO\lS
annual increments of power that will be needed in the 1990s,
the total effect ofthe entire diversion project will be to delay
the need to develop alter1;1ative sources of power for only
four to six years. In spite of a scarcity of undammcd rivers
which will occur by 1990, power plannerS and politicians
advocate. the diversion.ofthc Churchillimmediately,·that is,
before· the Nelson is developed. They bolster their argu-.
ments by actively promoting greater consumption of elec-
tricity both in the province and for export. Although the
1972-1990 period could be used to assess the true value of
the last great river, Manitoba wiH reach its 30th day of
development in the lily pond analogy by 1974 if the move
to dam the Churchill cannot be stopped.
Of course, saving for the future always costs today's con-
sumer. 1Yianitoba Hydro's. estimate of the extra cost of pre-
serving the Churchill for 18 years is a S% to 1 O% increase
in power costs. They argue that saving the option on the
Churchill is not the cheapest way to produce power, their
"' ~--:.-
FIGURE 3
GEOM~TRIC GROWTH
OF POWER DEMAND
AND SUPPLY IN
MANITOBA
only interest. Unfortunately, cheapest power is also the
cheapest treatment of native communities and ofNianitoba's
livable environment,. It is also the cheapest ~lf!ritagc of na-
tural resources that can be passed on to future generations .
Is a few percent of etlidency worth it?
'THE DIVERSl'ON
A description of the Churchill River after its diversion inust
be based on smaller projects elsewhere since diversion proj-
ects of .the extent proposed do not exist. Essen~ially, in the
· diverted form, the 10\ver 250 miles of the river valley will
have only a small flow from local drainage occupying the
large unfilled channel. The only appreciable flows will occur
, in early summer and last only a few weeks whe11 the Southern
Indian Lake reservoir is overtopped at the proposed lvlissi
Falls Dam. 'Vhether the smaller flows are maintained during
the winter in the large channel without remedial. work or
extra releases is unknown. In effect, the abandoned channel
aspect will be maint_ained by short bursts of peak flows for-
ever, and no new natural regime will be allowed to establish.
The whole ecology of the Lower Churchill will be drastically
changed to some form unique to an artificial regime.
In the Southern Indian Lake-Notigi Lake reservoir, 0\·er
300 square miles of shoreline areas will br. flooded as existing
lake levels are raised up to ten feet at the uppet end and 60
feet at the lower end of the reservoir. The bedrock surface
in the area is overlain with lacustrine clay and l,mtr.onsol-
~? .. ~''ftll~' .. t~·nMB•r~crmlt~~cn~ .. sr .. •r.-•s.-.. .-r .. ~·~MI .. M~•d&~~Sd ....... .-.. ~·~------.. •~E•r=.-v~ .. ,~~=--·•--~==-•----·=--·cc•=~-----m.a~------,--------~-----
l
I
l
I
South Indian Lakt settlement, one of tk many
communities along tk diversion route that u;ould he
displaced. The diversion would also cause unca/culated
damage to wildlife and other natural usources in
the region. G. McCullough
The livelihood of hundreds of Indian families will
be dtStroyed if tit: Manitoba government approves_
plans to divert the Churchill Rir:t1'. 1!. Fl. Lloytf
S. Simp~n
. . . t. ..
! .
..
;j
1:
I ;., .
!:
' t .
. j!
t.
•
·1d~tcd glacio.-ftitvial deJ)Osits/in which pe~~n:aftost is wide-
~pread. The effect of illlpoundment .o"·er unconsolidated
fl'ozen materials elsewhere, even to a limited e~tent, has ~.en
to~se continuous pank instability, high water tu~b1~1ty
a'.~ff..shore sedidnt~tion, a high frequency of ftoatmg
debrls and. shores lihed wid( dead vegetation. As observed
in portions .of Rei:uleer Lake impounded only four fec:t in
. 1941, Sipiwesk Lalld _impounded in 196 J,. C~dar Lake i~
pounded in 1964, or the Kettle Reservorr 1mpounded m
I 970, the time requir~d for the re-establishment of lake
shores in permafrost areas is unknown, but is definitely more
than 30 yea~. ·
The small tributary channels of the Rat-Burntwood sys-
tem that will receive tr..e flows of the Churchill will also
undergo an unspecified period of instability. The . flows in
the 200 miles of channel connecting the Churchill and Nel-
son will be increased by over 500% causing large lake level
fluctuations, unstable shorelines, and continuous reaches of
channel erosion followed by downstream deposition in the
slower-flowing expansions and lakes. The location and fre-
quency of sediment and floating debris will depend on the
sequence of developmento( ndditional reservoir sites along
these diversion routes.
These proje('tcd effects of flooding have been confirmed
by even the most recent :Manitoba Hydro study where shore-
line clearing and debris booming of travelled routc!S in the
proposed reservoir is recommended for safety and appear-
ance, and where the deliberate creation of cleared boat
re~¥r~ areas in other parts. of the .reservoir is recommended.
1( ,u;ast study, released only a few months ago was commis-
siooed by the chairman ofl\fanito!:>a Hydro <tnd directed by
P. D. McTaggart-Cowan, the executive director of the
Science Council of Canada. The terms of reference are typ-
ical of the limited studies undertaken to date in that it is
assumed that: the project must prqceed i111mcdiately; the
study must be short-term; and tlu! recommendations are to
deal only with the mitigation of environmental effects. This
stitdy n.oted however~
~Ve sincerely lzope that tllis will be tlte_last time in tlte llistory
of lvfam'toba tllat major engineering endcaoours art under-
taken u:it!Jout a proper environmental impad study !laving
been comj;/tled so lltat it is on~ of lite essential itljJuts to the
j1olilical decisicr.. 2
It will, of course, be the lstst time-for the Churchill River
is the last great river in !.fanitoba on which major engineer-
ing endeavours have not yet been undertaken.
MOVING· TO UlPLEl.IENT THE PLAN
Although studied as far back as 1919, serious consideration
of the Churchill diversion by Manitoba Hydro first resulted
from a study by the firm of Gibb, Underwood & McLellan
in I 964. In 1966, the Conservative government of Manitoba
·allowed Manitoba Hyd'ro to enter into an agreement with
th· · "7ederai Government to proceed with the development
oUNcJson, including a high level diversion of the Chur-
chill. and construction of a 560 mile DC powe1· line to
southern Manitoba. Public announcements made with en-
thusiasm by Premier Roblin were taken at face value by a
public unfamiliar with norther~ gcogt"nphy, its people, or
the values of other resources in the region. The Manitoba
\Vildlife Federation (12,000 members) pressed forbiologkai
and environmental studies to be carried out coincident with
Hydro investigations and planning. A preliminary study by
the University of ~lanitoba recommended in-depth socio-
logical, biological and environmental studies. But, funds for
the recommended studies were refused, and the report is
being kept secret and has still not been made public.
On December 20, 1968, an open letter expressing det·p
concern regarding the proposed high levd diversion was
TABLE U
FUTURE GRO\VTH OF THE ~IANITOBA HYDRO SYS'rnli
Without Diversion
of the Churchill River
Capacity
{Mw)
Station
800 Kettle Rapids
168 Jenpeg•
420 Bladder Rapids •
320 Kelsey•
700 Gull Rapicls • •
600 Long Spruce:
1300 Limestone Rapids*~
600 Gillam Island
0 Burntwood River
Full utilization by the
year 1990.
Assuming Div(·rsion
of the Churchill River
Capacity
{Mw)
1200
168
420
320
900
800
1600
600
400 {approx)
Full utilization by the
· year 1994. Four years
gained by diversion at
7% growth.
*The figures are dependent on Lake Winnipeg Regulation.
Present installed capo:1cjty at Kclsey-224 Mw.
**These lorations may involve two. plants each.·
Nott: The npproxim~tc capacities shown arc based on avaiJablr. rh·~r
Aows only and may vary depl"n~ing on their role in supplying
power to ;;he province or for e::cpoJ:"t.
presented to the Hon. Harry Enns, .then ~finister of ~lines
and Natural Resources, by a group of University of ~Iani
toba professors. Publication of the letter first made the public
aware of the probable annihilation of the South Indi;m
Lake settlement, and of widespread extreme environmentnl
damage.
A Southern Indian Lake Action Committee was formed
by private citizens to further inform the public by holding
a serie~1 of public meetings. In the meantime, Manitoba
Hydro applied for a license to proceed; and public hearings
under the Water Powers Act (Man.) were announced. At the
stormy sessions which followed in January 1969, Manitoba
Hydro representatives stated that Hydro's sole rt~sponsibility
was to provide adequate power at the lowest possible rost.
Opponents of the plan objected vigorously to this unilateral
approach, blaming the government more than Hydro. The
main objections centered on the disruption of the South
Indian Lake community, lack of any in-depth rcsourC'e
studies, and reftasal of the government to make public such
reports as they had. The hearings wc~c adjourned without a
recommendation, and in February lawyers representing the
South Indian Lake and Granville Lake communi tic-.; sought
and obtained an injunction to prevent Hydro from proceed-
ing unless the hearings were properly concluded.
To circumvciit the injunction, the government introduced
Bill 15 in the ensuing legislative session. If pa~d, this Bill
9
•
. i.\ ; l·• . .,Y . ' ; ...
~ ~!
1 •
I ) i. \
I•' ~ ~;
I.
I
I
j
'I
,l :j .
I
' ,
:.i
:i!
t!'
! ·I ;• .
.. . i·
'·
NOTIGI-
SOUTHERN INDIAN
.. IESEIVOIR
FALLS CONTROL STRUCTURE
( 1200 lqlHint mil .. }
w~uld have become an Act superseding and having prefer-
enC'e over any other Act or hearings. Opposition parties
(including the present NDP government) fought the Bill
dgorously on the basis that lack of .information and govern-
ment refusal to release reports and other vital information
prevented any intelligent vote in the legislature. The Bill did
not pass second reading since tht: House was dissolved in the
spring of 1969 and an election called, partly on this issue. In
a surprise vote the Conservatives lost, and the New Dem-
ocratic Party assumed the reins of government.
Premier Schreyer had stated prior to the election that, if
elected, he \vould not allow the high level diversion and
would seek other alternatives. The NDP government called
in David Cass-Beggs, former chairman of the Saskatchewan
Power Corporation, to review Hydro's plans. In his report
to the l<!gislature, Cass-Beggs ~onfirmed that alten~~tives tee
high level di"~:ersion could be found.
On September 23, 1970, Premier Schreyer annom'lcea
nlternative plans to develop Lake \Vinnipeg immediately
for the dual purpose of flood control and regulation of the
~elson River for power purposes. He proposed that the
diversiou at Southern Indian Lake should indeed proceed,
hut must not raise the level of the lake more than some
ten feet.
The announcement appeared to give government sanction
to the qa~s-Beggs recommendations. (These recommenda-
tions are contaii)ed in his foreword to a Manitoba Hydro
Task Force Report on Expansion of Gmnating Capaci!J in
.\faniloba, dated Septcm~r 23rd). At the same time, federal-
provincial agreement to study the eft'etts of hydro-eiectric
dc.·velopment on aU rcsourc~ and settlements was being
50 MILES
FIGURE 2
PROPOSED CHURCHilL
RIVEtt DIVERSION AREA
Force Re\)ort's introduction shows that the authors of the
report had their minds already made t,tp!
A more detailed stud;' of tile effect of tht cotzlrolled regime on
resource values is at present being undertaken under joi1zt
Federa/-ProvinciDl auspices, but while it lVill provide im-
portant information for tks detailed planning and operation
of tltt control project, there is no possibility of it leading to
any basic revision Dj the concept. 3
The agreement covering the "detailed study', was not
signed until a year later, in September 1971, following re-
peated re-drafting because of objections raised by the chair:·
man of Manitoba Hydro. The lost time was critical, par·
ticularly since findings would represent the only det~ilec
study of effects on natural resources in the ChurchiU.-Nelsor
and Lake Winnipeg project areas. Two million dollars havt
been committed and more will be, but "there is no ·possi
bility of it leading to any basic revision of the concept"! .
Lack of basic datet and the failure to undertake in*depd
quantitative resource studies, in spite of pressure to do so
is a serious indictment of both governments concerned. Evei
-the one detaile~ study, which deals. wi~h the ~ffects '?n re
sources only, will not ~·completed m t1me to mftuence th,
course of events in any significant way.
A current an~lysis offederal participation in the Churchill
Nelson study further confirms the peripheral nature of th
research by noting:.
• • • • the gowrnments asked if tllert was an opportunity
jor and sufficient time to a&l1im meaningful results, or is
this (slutf.1) essmtial/.1 a wli.J4r.JJtUia to tover decisions
HIT.~~3U11 taken.' •
".A Alth6tigh · thcffJhurchiU i$)th~ last rimj~ river, plans to
divert local systems to tlte di\·ersion area a~ being enter-
tained •. To the north li~ a smaller river, the Seal: Its two
drain mos~~f Manitoila lying north .of SOf.tthern
Lake.· Thc:~re~ace t~ the Manitoba Hydro Task
Fox:ce Report ofSegtember'23, 1970 states:
~ \'
It has also fum Minted out tl1at ultimattly a div~sionfrom
the Seal River (IOQ milts further north) migltt be used to
compmsatt for reJtr&titJns in the availablt flows from tire 'Q
C/iurcllill.3
Should this be the next step in power development, even
more countcy will be flooded than in the initial diversion of
the Churchill. There. would then be one continuous chain of
impoundments stretching northward from Nobgi, 300 miles
to the Northwest Territories.
· At the time of writing, the present chairman of Manitoba
Hydro, David Cass-Beggs, has moved on to head British
Columbia Hydro. However, assuranc .· s by Premier Schreyer
of Manitoba have been given that problems a5.'iociated with
northern hydro development have been solved by the former
chairman, and plans to divert the Cht~rchill River will pro-
ceed as rapidly as possible.
In a final move of arrogance, on December 8, 1972, the
Minister responsible for granting a license to Manitoba
Hydro for the diversion, the Hon. SydneY. Green, announced
that no license would be required, no hearings into the issue
would be held, and no compensation to native communities
would be necessary as it had been decided in Cabinet to
grant permission to 1\:Ianitoba Hydro to proceed
by an Order in Council. The legality of this
move is now in question.
A RIVER OF UISTORY AND BEAUTY
The Churchill River, in its course through the .Precambrian
Shield, is today in its natural state except for a power dam
·and a minot> in-channel.reservoir at Island Falls, Saskatch-
ewan .. From the Saskatchewan border, the river surges east-
ward and northward through l\1anitoba for 250 miles to
Missi Falls at the outlet of Soutl1ern Indian Lake. Its char-
acter is that of a magnificent chain of lakes broken only by
short stretches of river where rapids and falls occur. That it
was known and weli-used before the onset of Canadian his-
tory is apparent from the large numbers of archeological
sites discovered since the flooding and diversion were first
discussed. Approximately 180 sites of up to 35 acres in extent
have been found within the area,. and most of them· will be
· inundated. Age of som.c ofthe site! is tentatively dated at
6000-7000 years. In modern times the Churchill has lain
remote, known only to scattered native communities along
the lake shores and to canoeists who have retraced the early
fur trade routes of western Canada.
Duke \Vatson, an internationally-known wilderness trav-
eller, in a letter to Premier Schreyer inJ une, 1970, described
the Manitoba portion of the Churchill in these words:
.. l1e C/,urcllill River lzolds a very special $i&nificanct for me
in that I./rave traversed it by canoe in its entirt~ across
Manitoba. I ltavt camped at many silts along its course; 1
luJ.ve sailed on Southern Indian lAke aud tlte other big
lal.:es of lltt Clturcllill sy.sttm; and lltavt visital t!tt com-
muni~y of Sout/1 lntlz'an Lalct, in itstl}an insfJiration. 1
should add that wilderntss travel t/zr(;ugltout JVortlt
A.mtrira ltas httn a recreational pursuit of mine for mai!JI
;·rars. Out of the nwnerous qips, lloU:tr:tt, tilt lower
Churcltill, consisting of t!te sections which would eilher h~
flooded or divrrtrd of most of tht rolumt, ranks as 11!V most
outstanding rerreational and esthetic e:«fttrienrt. Tlirrt is
simply nothing like it tlstwhert!
In another letter to Premier Schreyer dated September,
1971, two canoeists wrote:
rve lzazle SJ1ent months zvitll villagers in Alaska, rtmote
mountain rt'gions o/ the U.S., and canoeing and hu11ting in
Canada. OJ all our trips, we tf!joyed lite Clmrddll River
better than any other. :JVtvtr lzm·e we tn}oytcl such great
freedom as enJoY.ng tllis great water route. The fishing,
wildlife and pure natural btauty are unsurpassable.
Sigurd F. Olson, internationally-known author and out-
doorsman and leader of the Voyageurs' group from Ottawa
(that has included Prime Minister Trudeau and the late
Blair Fraser), has traversed the fur trade routes of Canada.
In a letter to G.\V. Malaher, he has written:
lltavt travelled the Churcltill Riz•er in 1955 from Ile-.a-la-
Crosse near its fttaclwa/P.rs in SaskatclmvaTl some 500 miles
to Cumberla11d House and the Pas on tlte Saskatchewan
River, t!tcn later in 1001 from I.ake Pukatawagan through
Grall~·ille a11d South Indian, thtn down the Rat to its con-
fluence witlz tire Burntu:ood mding at tire mining tou:n of
Thompson • • •
The area that will ,,,. flootftd on tlte Clwrchill is ortt of··
J:te most beautiful regions of Canada. [l is usable, acces-
sible, ils waters warm comj1arrd to t!Je frigid riurs and
lakes of tile far north. Fislling is e:><cellmt and lltere is
murll wildlife.
If tile South Indian jwyer.t is abandoned, future gmtra-
tions u:il/ bless the vision of tile decision makers of today.
The Churchill wili soon become accessible directly by
road from the south, and it will be possible for many more
people to enjoy its wilderness beauty and wildlife. The
Ruttan Lake mine, now under construction, lies a few miles
south of Southern Indian Lake, while the new townsite for
the mine is located on the ChurchiH River where it enters
Southern indian Lake at Leaf Rapids. A new highway con-
necting Leaf Rapids with the southern road system nears
completion, providing the first land link from the south with
the Churchill River. The large mining developments at Flin
Flon, Thompson, Lynn Lake and Ruttan Lake lie nearby
to the south and west. ·
In addition to providing a stable loC'al economy based on
fish, fur, and game animals, the Churchill provides a habitat
for a significant portion ofthe northern Manitoba waterfowl
population. The lower 250 miles· of the channel that is.
trimmed of large vegetadon by icc and high flows each
winter provides a major nesting and rearing area. At the
end. of the river the Churchill estuary on Hudson Bay also
plays a role in providing a fresh water habitat for popula-
tions of white whales, capelin and seals.
11
1
~
I
I
l
!
j
l
! :
i
!
I
-~
i
:I ·t
h • ' l
I
l .. • I
~~ ~ ~·· \> PEOPL~ W,HO ~IVE ON THE CHURCHILL
~ ~ . . ' .
~Ianydt the original settlers at South Indian Lake moved up
from tlfa. Indian Rc:ser\'e at ~clson House. They were the
~o~t aggtessive hunters who moved far out to the best hunt-
ing groun9s. At first it was only a winter settlement but in
time became their home. The main source of livelihood was
trapping, and until some years ago their trapping grounds
were open to invasion by any itinerant trapper from the out-
side who ('hose to compete with them. This precarious exis-
~ence was changed by the advent oftwo major management
programs. A system of Registered Traplincs was insti-
•, J ( (
Fu rthcr complications arose through the insist.enee of co.xn-
mercial fish marketing interests that fish produ( ,tjon fn!ISt be
undertaken in time to <"atch the. early ·winter ·lllarket, thus
keeping men from their traplincsduring the important tra~
ping months of Xo\·ember and Dccembe1· \v 1en fur 'pelts
were at thcit• prin1c. This too was finally rcsoh·cd so !hat
trapping and •fishing earning opportunities· cli l not r.onftict ·
and were sprc?.r\ over the longest possible peri!~ ofthe year.
The people responded splendidly to thi~ integnation of earn-
ing opportunity, and so today we find a set·lement where
Indians, \Vhites and those of mixed blood w<:rk together in
harmony and under relatively prosperous conditions with-
NELSON AND BURNTWOOD RIVER
ULTIMATE PROFILE
(as:ruming that the Churchill River is diverted).
tutcd by the government, which gave security of tenure
to each trapper on his own area, not subject to trespass
by othe-rs.
The l~ke was opened to commercial fishing in ! 942, and
.so a second source of income was provided. At first there
were conflicts of interest. There was danger of introducing a
new and additional population of commercial fishermen be-
cause the men at South Indian had no experience in com-
mercial fishing. Tbis was resolved by permitting a few ex-
perienced men to move ·in on a short term basis to train the
local people and help maintain an economic operation while
. · then restricted to local residetlts.
Noti
-+-----tSOO
100 50
Ollt socia.l assistance. They have carved the r own security by
developing all the talents of use in theirchcsen environment.
Offers to compensate these people, to mt we them to new
locations in the general area or train them in new skills to be
used else:\\' here, have naturally been rejectc ~. Compensation
can be destructive of their pride .and self-r~ 1$pect, and man}
are certaini)' too old to learn new ::kills ii 1 a ne\v environ·
ment .. Yet, 1\.fanhoba Hydro and the Gove"nment of~fani
toba refuse tom~ke pub~t·· their studies:. if any, of this poten·
tial social problem.
That residents do not want t 11 Le hydro project, spurn tht
idea of "compensa tiont and h~,v~ pride in jhc e):isting com
' ' ,' t .
'~
• 't ;, } .
. ~unity is evidenc~;.'ti by ~ta~ments of t\VO ~!dtimers quoted
m the f.V£rmijug Free·Prus and the TVinnipeg Ttihz;~e.
. } .. .. . .
. . . ••.• tltt manag~iOJ t!te Hudson Ba)' store u:mt on. a
• 1slli11g trip iflll~f!rgrJt to lot:k lilt d()or. lnfact it u:a.t'lt:«dt
.. open. ret duri•lt lht'J{lrtt-tla)'$ he was gone not one person
u:a//;td into ''1' store. rou can ltailt a boat and motor
aTl.)·u•lrtrt ani !f~ctrtain no ont will laue.~ it.
.4 ;~ear ago,~·}J~ R.C.M.P .. built ajail at Soutl: Indian
Lakt. So far it lt'tis.;·tt to' liavt a si11gli~ inmate an.d tzo one ~
lllants tlte distinction of being t!te first person in tire comd
munit;' to be locked up • .t .
Tlte uaso1• I am writing tlzis ltJittr is tlu:zt I hope ;•ou will
print it so tltat tlze people doum south u:ill rmli::.e what is
about to take place at South Indian La!t:e.,· and u:ll)' u·e, llle
residents, are one hundred pcretnt agaitzsl it. s
Though the residents of South I nciiLin Lake \·\'ere provided
with legal assistance during the diversion conlroversy by the
Conservative Government, they were refused the same assis-
t2 nee when the pr-~aent plan was presented by the New
Democratic Government. Thus, people arc confused and do
not know where they stand. They have raised a small fund
within. the community to retain their former legal assistance
and continue their fight.
It has now been learned that after a Canadian firm of
consultants had refused to accept the work, a consultant'
from \\'isconsin has been hired to plan a new townsite--
higher up the bank. The community at South Indian does , :t know of this.
... ,...,QNC.LUSION
This destruction of the Churchill River and Rat-Burntwood
system would take place only for the sake of providing
cheaper hydro-electric power for a few additional years.
This po,rer '"'ill not be needed until close to the turn of the
century. Yet n.:Ianitoba Hydro is anxious to proceed with the
· divt"rsion almost immediately. To "justify'' the rapid cxpan ..
·sion of power developments, 1\..iaiJitoba Hydro continues to
light its offices in \Vinnipcg for 24 hours eac-h day and has
conducted an intense publicity campaign advocating that
people use mare electric power. Such advertising for self-
gratifying growth should be made illegal.
Pltysically, the proposed diversion project would begin a
cycle of long term erosion and deposition along 250 miles of
local river channels-the Rat-Burntwood system, and would
d~troy the n~turallandscape and habitat of 250 miles of
large scale river channel-the Lower Churchili River, and
370 square miles of shoreline environment spread out over
thousands of miles of mainland and islands-the Southern
J[ndtan Lake-Notigi Lake area.
Cullurally, the diversion would remove the traditional in-
dependent livelihood of the South Indian Lake community
and other dvwnstream fisheries and would substitute untried
one-way compensation.
• -rragically, the diversion would permanently destroy Mani-
'!',.,a's last great river before its values for7ecreation, habita-
tion, wildlife, or wilderness are gauged, realized, or under-
stood. All this for the sake of a power scheme that could be
delayed for at least 20 years and perhaps forcver.O
REFERENCES
The quotat}~n on page 4 i~ from Co1!ada's Watrr: F~r ~altJ, copyright .
1972 by Rtcnard C. Bocktng. Rcprmtcd by permassaon of the pub·
lishcr, James Lewis & Samuel, Toronto .
1McDouga11, I. A., 1971. Tl1t Churclri/1 Diversion: Dtt•tlopmmt of" l.tgal
Franuu.'orkfor the .\lanagtmrnt of Canadian Waler Rtsources. Environ·
mcnt Canadz,;.
2Rcport to the Chairman of Manitoba Hydro on Tfre Cltariug Pro.s:ram
for Southfrn Indian Lake and the Diversiou Clzanntl from South Bay to
Notigi. P. D. McTaggart-Cowan (Chairman), F. F. Slaney,
E. D. Gillespie (August 1972).
3 ,\fanitoba II;·dro Task .Force Rtport on Future Gelitrating Capaci{r h.
;\(anitoha (September l970),
4McKenzic, Murray, 1971. Interviewed by Gene Telpncr, Winnipt.t;
Tra'hunt~ August 6.
5Charlie Dysart, 1972. 40-year rt'sident oi South Indian Lake in Letter
to the Editor, Winmptg Frte Press, August 22.
ADDITIONAL READING
Bocking, Richard C. 1972. Canada's Water: For Salt? James Lewis &
Samuel Publishers, Toronto.
Campbell, M. J. 1970. The Saskatchm:an. Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
Inc., Toronto.
Cram, J. 5. 1968. ~~'attr, Canadian .Nwls and Rtsourcts. Harvest House
Ltd., Montreal.
Cumming, Peter. 1972. Our Land, Our .People: Natiz•e RighJs . .Vorth of 60.
Canadian Arctic Resources Committee, Ottawa.
r:fford, Ian E., and Barbara M. Smith. 1972. J:.iurgy and the Environ·
nunt. Univc~·sity of British Columbia, Vancouver.·
Gillespie, E. D., F. F. S!aney, P,. D. McTaggart-Cowan. 19i2. Rtport
to the Chairman of .llanitoha H;•dro on th~ Clearing Program for
Sou!lzem lndiat! Lake and tlze Diversion Channtl from South B~y to
Notigi. :Manitoba Hydro, Winnipeg.
Gl01.>schenko, Valanne. 1972. The Jamts Bay Power Project. Nature
Canada 1(1): 4-10 •
H<1ig-Brown, Rnderick L. 1946. A Rit•fr Ntr.:cr Slup.r. \Villiam M.:.rrow
and Company, New York. ·
Haig-Brown, Roderick L. 1972. The Frastr Watmhcd and the ;\loran
Prnposal. Nature Canada. 1(2): 2-10.
Hirshleifer, Jack, J. C. DeHaven and J. W. Milliman. 1960. Water
Supply Economics, Tedznology and Policy. UJ;tiversity of Chicago
Press, Chicago.
Hutchinson, Bruce, 1950. The Fraser. Holt, Rinehart and \Vinston, Inc.
and Clarke, Irwin and Company Ltd., Toronto.
International Joint Commission Canada and United States. 1971.
Enr;ironmmtal a11d Ecological Collstquences in Canada tif Rais:"ng Ross
Lake in the Slca,git Vallt:J to Eletlatiort. 1725. Environment Ca.nad~,
Ottawa.
Krutilla, John V. 1967. The Columbia River Treaty. The Johns Hopkins
Press, Baltimore.
Laxer, James. 1970. Tnt Politics tif the Contintntal Rtsourcts Deal. New
Press, Toronto.
McDougall, I. A. 1971. The Churchill Dit.rtrsion: Delttlopmcnt of a Ltgal
Ji'ramtworkfor the Mar.agtmtnl of Canadian Water Rtsot(rcts. Environ-
ment Canada, Ottawa.
Quebec Hydro-Electric Commission. 1971. DtvelofJmtnl of tl1e Main
Rivers of the James Bay Easttrn Watershed. Montreal.
Reinelt, E. R. et al. 1971. Procudiugs of tht Ptace-Athahasca Dt/ta
Symposium. Water Resources Centre, University of Alberta,
Edmonton.
Report of the joint Federal-Provincial Task Force. 1971 • ..t Preliminary
·Study of tilt Em:ironmtntal lmpaets 'of lht James .Bay DtL·elopmmt
Project. Environment Can~da, Ottawa. . .
Richardson, Boyce, 1972. ]amu Bay: The Plot t11 Drown tile .\ort.~
Woods. Sierra Club, San Francisco. Clarke, Irwin and Company
Ltd., Toronto. · ·
Spence. j, A. and G. C. Spence. 1972. Ecological Considtrations of tnt
]amts Day Projtct. James Bay Committee. ·
Sprague, J. B. 1972. Aquatic Rtsourets in tki Canadian North: A'nozdtdgt,
Dangtrs and Restarch .,\ieds. Canadian Arctic Resources Commit·
tee, Ottawa.
Waterfield, Donald. i970. ContinmlrJI Water/Joy. Clarke, Irwin and
Company I~td., Toronto.
13
• i
I
•
•
Comment 13 -Chapter 3 t No. 4:
Pl'ovide: Sellexos. 1919. "Waterbird.Use of and Management
Cpnsideration$ for· Cook Inlet State Game Re.fuges .. " ·Alaska· Dept. of
Fish and Game.o
Response.:
The 1979 report by R. Sellers of ADF&G ent.itled uwaterbird us·e· of and
~fanagement Considerations for Cook Inlet State Game B.efu.ges" is
attached .•
B/6/1
~:
••
• . •:
,(
. I
', ;-
-Chapter 3, .No. ~:.
(.~.
if
'
t
Prov~~~: WQlff and Zasada. 1979. Moo$e Habitat ancl ¥'ore~t Suj~c:eseion
o~. tb~ Tanana River Floodplain artd Yukon-Tanana Upland. In: :{\
--.· '-'·(:.---_ .-,· ~-_ _,_ ' ~
Proceedings of the North American Conference and Workshop.No. 15.:
Kenai, Alas'ka.
Response.:
The 1979 report by Wolff and_ Zasada entitled "Moose Habitat and Forest
Suceession on the Tanana River Floodplain and Yukon~Tanana Upland" is . --~-
attached. fJ'k'{r -'\\
"Al6l1
''
'• ··•·· · .. ··.-
'·.
.•.... ·-·.[\ .t
. -
. •
..
C.bmment 13 .. ChaptYer ln No • 6~
-~' .. . . .·
Provide: J~aodwa~d~·Clyde Cona.ultants. 1979. "P;iologieal Studies of a
Proposed Power. Plan1t Site Nei~T Healy·, :Alaska."
..(;
R~sponse:
•'
'nte 1979 report. by Woodward-Clyde Consultants entitled "Biological
Studies of a Proposed Pow~:r Plant Site Near Healy, Alaska" is attached •
'B/6/1
' ) .
' '
1. Provid'e~ ''Qo9k Inlet Region, Inc. and Placer .Anlex, Inc. 1981. Coal
. to Methanol ~Feasibility Study, Beluga Methanol Project. Volume .IV,
Environmental.
2. ~Pro,;ide: Cook Inlet Region, Inc. and Placer Amex, Inc. 198la. , H
Coal to Methanol Project, Final Report. Volu111e IV.
Response:
The repott~ Coal to Methanol Feasibility Study, Beluga .Methanol Project
is no lonser available.
A co.py of Coal t.o M!,_thanol Project, Final Report, Volume IV, is
attached.,
B/6/1
R.2
.•. _.)
~-
•, .
.
'
..
. ;·· " . ~ • . 1• Cor:inent ~-A, Sect1on 3 1 No. •
~.)
1,.( ~ ~ ,,..,
!\{ c ··.~ Re·~·w.ast a. -listing of all stationary air p.ollution sources expected
dur~-rig project construction and operation (e.g., diesel generators and
iue'inerators) J and indi.cate as appropriate for each: (a) emission . .
rat~~s for TSP, NOx, sox, CO, and hydrocarbons; (b) type of fuel; ·
i
· {<:) ;~hether permits will be required;-(d) results of any air quality
calculations. or estimated .impacts relative to these sources.
Response:
The following. air pollutant emission estimates and air quality analyses
depict point source emiasions during construction and operation of the
Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Fugitive dust emission estimates were
. presented in .,an earlier document (Comment 3B-8, submitted to FERC on
July 11, 1983).
Comment a) and b): Request a listing of all stationary air pollution
sources expected during construction_and -operati-?nj aud.indicate the
emission rates for TSP, NOx, SOx, CO, and hydrocarbons; indicate type
of fuel.
Emission estimates were made for the diesel electric generatox, refuse
incinerator, concrete batch plant, aggregate screening plant, and oil
heater emissions fr:-omthe .Watana and Devil Canyon camps and townsites ..
The estimated emissi~n rates for particulates, sulfur oxides (SOx),
nitrogen oxides (NCxi, carbon monoxide (CO), and hydrocarbons from
each of the·se sources are listed in Table 1.
DieselElectric Generator-The diesel generator at the Watana site
will provide interim electrical power for the camps at both Watana and
.Devil Canyon. The generator will be operated for the fi:rst three
60,tll2
' 1
•·
••
.
..
•
TABLE 1
. .· E$TilQTED m.iiSSION RATES (TONS PER ¥,ua)!./
Diesel21 Refuse
Generator Incinerator
Particulates ~63
Sulfur
.Dioxide
Nitrogen
Oxides:
Carbon
300
2,230
Monoxide 1;220
Hydrocarbons 204
36
7
8
90
4
Concrete
Batch
Plant
44
0
0
Q
0
Residential
Aggregate Oil Heaters
Plant Watana Devil Canyon
Negligible~/ 8. 3
0 108 43
0 55 22
0 15 6
0 3 1
f}/ Emission. rates calculated from AP-42 (EPA 1977) ,..
b/ Diesel generator emissions based on representative manufacturers' data for
-peak output of 16 MW.
s/ Very much less than EPA .. ~tandards.
2
•.
•-:_, p
I
J
:
.:.. ' :l
.ye~e.of .. project c:onstruc:tioil, thetl line power will be avt~.ilabtle. The
g~ratot will be· designe..d for 4 peak load of 16 MW and an av~rage
anAqal load of 10.3 MW. The generator will use an averag.e of 723
gallQns per hour of No •. 2 di~sel fuel. Estimated. emissioq~ from the
' generator are s.hown in Table 1.
Refu·se Iti.cinerator -Refuse from the Wat~na and Devil Canyon camps and
pe~an;ent townsitea will probably be incinerated. As a. worst case
estimate, the colilbined populations at: the Watana and Dev:il Canyon sites
will produc~ a~ estimated 14 tons per day .of refuse, based on .a: conser-·
·· vative refuse generation rate of 5 lbs/person per day (TchobanQglous,
1977}. Estimated emissions from the refuse incinerator. are shown in
Table 1. It was assumed that the incinerator will be equipped with a.
water spray sc.rubber for particle removal.
Batch Concrete Plant -One or more batch concrete mixing plants will be
used. The estimated peak capaeity of the plants is 1,000 tons per
hour, producing concrete with a density of 4,000 pounds p.er cubic yard.
As s.hown in Table 1, particulates are the only significant pollutant
emitted from the plant, at an estimated emission rate of 44 tons per
year.
Aggregate Screening Plant -River gravel from the Susitna River will be
used as processed gravel fill in the dam and as aggregate for concre1te ..
Tlte gravel will be dredged and stockpiled along the river before
washing and screening prior to use.. Particulate emissions from the
washing and screening process should be ne.gligible because of the hi:gh
moisture in the gravel (EPA 1977) ..
Camp and. Townsite Emissions -The major emissions from the camps and
permanent townsites are expectetl to come from residantial oil heate.r:s.
The fuel type \!Sed will be No. 2 distillate, with .a :0.25% sulph~r
content. The population. at the w·atana site will use an estimate
6,080,000 gallons per year (gpy), while the population at the Devil
'6.0012
3
••
: ~ .
.. . .
~ '
. qa4yQn si..~e'' will. yae. a,430',0U9 SPY•· ·· Estimat~d oil heater emiss;ons
fr rm t. b.e t_vo ··ite$ .. · .. ·are shown in Table 1 • . ? .
l'·. ' .
Comment el:. Indicate whethe~. air quality pe:rmit:s will ;be reguit-ed. ·
Prevention ofSignificant .Deterioration (PSD)Permit-Construction of
J11l:ne ,diesel ele4!tric generator will requix-e a .PSJ) ·review. by the Alaska ·
.<· ·:::;:.:.--·-.
Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), $S part of· the ADEC
Permit to Operate• · A PSD review i.s required foJ:.: any "majorn source
that emits ~t least· 259 tpy 9f any pollutant· re,~ulated under the Clean
-. Ab: Act• As shown. in Table it, the diesel generat~r. will emit an
estimated 2, 240 tpy of NOx, so it is a "major SOl!rce" and. is
therefore regul.atecl under the PSD process.
Full PSD analy$e~ are required for each pollutant emitt~d froa a
"major" sou~c:e·at a rate higher than the significance level established
fox-that pollut:ant. the significance levels for 15 pollutants are
listed in 18 AAC 50.300. For the diesel generator, the estimated
emission rate$ of particulates, Sox, NOx, CO, and hydrocarbons
exceed the applicable significance levels shown below:
Particulates
Sulfur Dioxi.de
Nitrogen O:r.ddes
Carbo11 Monoxide
Hydrocarbona
E.stimated Diesel
Generator Emissions, tpy
163
300
2,240
1;220
203
ADEC
Significanee level; tpy
25
40
40
100
40
As outlined in 18 AAC50.300, air quality and Best Available Control
Technology (BACT} analyses must be conducted for each of the above
60012' 4
· ..
•
•• .
-.~-. ... :..
l
~ . . . ,pol;lutanta emitted from. the diesel gener.ator • The BACT analysis
f
cdtisist·a of the fo11owing: . .
' .
. a.
b.
A detailed demon·str·ation· that the maximum allow.able' emissions· fxom
the generator will not cause the ambient concentrations of TSP,
•· ·sox, NOx• co,. or hydrocarbons to exceed either the ambient air
quality standards (18 AAC 50.020a) or tb'e allowable PSD Class II
·increments for so 2 , and TSP (18 AAC 50.020b). A simplified
scr.eening moelel analysis is sometimes suitable for i.solated
sources such _as the diesel generator (EPA 1980). Where
applic,able, ·.the maximum expected 24~hour pollutant concentrations
can· be· estimated using· suitable "worst case" assumptions: low
wind speed (typically 2.5 meters per second) and poor atmospheric
dispersion .(F-class stabiity). If the modeled "worst caae11
concentrations are well below the. applicable 24-hour standards,
then the PSD applicant may not be required to conduct additional,
more sophisticated, air quality modeling •
BACT analyses will be: required for TSP, so 2 , NOx~ CO, and
· hydrocarbons emitted from the generator •. Each analysis must
demonstr.ate that the proposed air pollution control strategies are
effective and use readily available equipment and materials. It
is doubtful that the flue gas treatment would be required for an
internal combustion diesel generator. However, it is possible
that BACT for TSP and so 2 would require use of low ash and low
sulfur fuel oil.,
c. It is unlikely that a full year of meteorological and air quality
monitori·ng will be required. Meteorological data are not
60012
.
required if th.e worst-case air quality screening analysis
described in part (a) above is used. Monitoring of existing
pollutant concentrations is not required if the applicant can
/
-. .... "
•• !:-7 ·,demo.nstr.ate that ·either ·the existing ambient concentrations are
~) below published threshold. values, . or that the· estimat.ed increases
! in pollu.tallt concentrations resulting from the proposed emission
will be less.· than those -$ame threshold values (EPA 1980b) • . -
;;
ADEC Permit to Operate -Industrial processes and fuel.burning
equipmen·t. constructed ·in Alaska require art ADEC l:"ermit to Operate• The
r.efuse incinerator, concrete batch plal~ts, .and aggregate screen will
require this permit, as described in ISAAC S0 .. 300e The permit
applications for these processes will require brief engineering
·· reports, describing the .facility layouts, process flowrates, and
estimated pollutant emission rates.
Emission Standards -The diesel electric generator (rat.ed at 16 MW peak
capacity) would be subject to the proposed federal NSPS standard for
NOx emissions from internal combustion engines (Federal Register,
1979.).
Emissions from the diesel generator, concrete batch plant, and the
aggregate screen will be limited according·tn_ the emisson standards
established by the ADEC in 18 AAC 50.050. Emissions from the refuse
incineratorwill be limited according to 18 AAC 50.040. Operation of
residential wood stoves will be limited by the practices described by
18 AAC 50.085.
Comment d): Indicate results of any air guality calculations or
estimated impacts relative to these sources.
The EPA-approved screening procedure was used to estimate the worst
case air quality impacts .near the diesel generator, refuse incinerator,
concrete batch plant, and the Watana and Devil Canyon townsites (EPA
1980bl. To estimate the maximum 24-hour average polJ;;tant
60012 6
r
. ;:"~
.~.. . . ~ . ..·• c:oncentratioQs downwind of the Watana sources, the wind ti'as a.ssu!lled to
t --• -bl~ up the valley along· the Tsuse~a Creek at a constant· <2 ~s mps wind -
s~ed with a F-class atmospheric stability. The EPA screening apprrJach
recommends the use af the 2 .. 5-mps wind speed and F--class stability as
the. "worse case" conditions. As shown in Table 2, the measured wind
..
speeds at the. Wat:ana site are generally greater than 2.5 mpa, so the
use of that wind speed as the "worst casen condition should provide
conservatively high pollutant concentrations. The EPA approved COMPLEX
model was used to estimate pollutant concentrations along the complex .
terrain. Under tl.le assumed conditions, the maximum pollutant
·... concentrations occurred at a point roughly 3 km north of the wa·tana
Townsite. Similarly, the maximum air quality impacts near the Devil
Canyon townsite were modeled by assuming that the wind blew up the
valley along Portage Creek, at 2.5 mps with F-class stability.
The estimated worst case 24-hour average ambient pollutant increments
caused by the point source emissions are shown in Table 3. The
estimated maximum increments for TSP and so 2 are well below the
allowable PSD Class II increments and ambient air quality standard
concentrations for those pollutants. Based on the low calculated 24-
hour concentrations for all the pollutants., the 3-hour_, 8-hour, and
annual average concentrations of NOx, CO and hydrocarbons will
probably also be well below the app~icable Alaska ambient standa-r;ds for
those averaging times.
The low calculated pollutant concentrations also indicate that ambient
air quality monitoring will not be required as input to the PSD review
for the diesel generators. Ambient monitoring is not required if the
maximum impacts of the PSD source are below significance levels for the
appropriate pollutants (EPA 1980b). The calculated impacts from the
diesel generator are near or below the significnnt monitoring
concentrations, as shown below:
60012 7
'!
• ... . '
• ,'
, r.
.. ::,
I
i
'
TSP
Carbon Monoxide ·
. JW~'Q •• . ~ ·.. .. :·:: . . .. .
;_·,
Calculated Impact EPA s_igJ:lifieant ·
from Diesel. Generator Monitqring CQncentrat.ion
(micrograms/ml) · : :. (mic~Qgrams/m3)
1.4 10
14 13
, 100 575
· ... Because the calculated maximum impacts are near or below the monitoring
significance lev~ls, it is unlikely that. a full year of ambient
monitoring would be required for the. PSD ~eview •
60012 8
.e:
.,
~.
'
·~
1
TABLE 2
·RECORDED MONTHLY WIND SPEEDS AT WAlANA WEATHER STATION . ,.· .• · ,.· ;;, :· .'· .. , . ·. . . . '
Month
October 1981
November
December
January 1982
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
Source: R&M Consultants, 1982.
9 .
..
Monthly Average
Wind Speed, mps
3.2
3.8
. 3.6
4o0
·No data available
3.5
3.2
2.4
2.7
2.4
2.0
2.4
•
• ~ . .
I
'·
,'J
Diesel
Generator
Refuse
Incinerator ·
Concrete
Plant
Watana
Townsite
Devil
Canyon
Townsite
PSD 24-hr
Class II
Increment
Ambient
24-hr
Standard
1
·TABLE 3 ' '
= ESTIMATED MAXIMUM 24....:HoUR QUALITY ~ACTS
(All Values In micrograms/m )
Particulates SC:l
7.4 14
1.4 0.26
2o3 0
2.3 33
0.057 0.80
37 91
150 365
\i
NO
X
190
o·~3o
0
17
0.41
)
No PSD
Increment
No 24-hr
Standard
co Hydrocarbons
100 17
3.5 0.16
0 0
4.6 0.93
0.11 0.23
No PSD No PSD
Increment Increment
No 24-hr No 24-nr
Standard Standard
. ~
Note: Values do not include background concentrations. 24-hr impacts
calculated using EPA appro·;ea scree:1ing analysis (EPA 1980).
10
' ._.
/,
..• :._ .. _ ... ~·
. t',
'"
. ['· .,
'.(\·
REFERENCES
EPl~ 1911.. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors 9 AP-42.
. . . ~ ;v... . . .. . -
: Offic.of Air and Waste Management. 3rd Edition, August 1977 •
'-;. .. ...
, ):
-~ '
EP,\. l9~0.. G~id~lint!: on ~ir Quality Models. Office of A1r Quality
Planning and Standards. EPA 4S0/2-78-02.7, Revised October 1980.
EPA;; ]-980b.· Ambient Moni:toring Guidelines for Prevention of ~·
Signifi c:Jnt Dete'ri oration. EPA 450/4--80•012. November 1980.
Federal Register~ 1 979,. Proposed Standards of Performance for New
st-ationary Source·s; Industrial Internal Combustion Engines.
July 23. 1979~ · ·
a&M Consultants. 1982. .'rocessed Climatological Data. Volume 5.
0650 -:-Watana Station, October 1981 -September 1982. Alaska Power
Autho~;·F:y, Susitna Hydroelectric Project. R&M Consultants,
Anchorage. Alaska.. December 1982.
Tchobanoglousj G. and H. Theisen, R. Eliason. 1977. Solid Wastes.
McG:r;aw Hill, 1977.
11
~~
Comment ... A,. Section 3, . No. .2:
In APA's response to Exhibit E, Section 3, Request No. 10, lmich
requested meteorological data fran the vicinity of the proposed dam
sites 1 portions of Volumes 1-8 of a report prepared by R&M Consultants,
Inc .. were reproduced representing data frau the Susitna Glaciar~
Df;nali, Tyone River, Kogina Creek, Wa.tana, Devil Canyon, Sherman and
Eklutna Lake Stations. Request a copy of the ~emaining unreproduced
·port~ons of thoDe reports and any other ~epo!:ts relating to
1Ileteorological or air quality data t.aken by the Applicant for the
project. area.
Attached are complete copies of the following reports in which meteoro-
logical dE:ta f.or the project area is presented:
R&M Consultants, 1982. Susitna Hy<Jroelectric ?roject, Processed Clima-v,..f'?
tic Data. October 1981 thru September 1982. Vol .. 1, 0610 -Susitna
Glacier Station.
R&M Consultants. 1982. Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Processed
Climatic Data. October 1981 th~11 September 1982. Vol. 2, 0620 -Denali
Station.
R&M Consultants. 1982. Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Processed ~~
Climatic Data. October !981 thru May i982" Vol. 3, 0630 -Tyone River
Station.
B/6/1
R&M Consultants. 1982. Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Processed
Climatic, Data. Oc~ober 1981· thru·September 1982. Vol. 4, 0640-
1Cosina Creek Statio~.
R&M C-onsultants. 1982. Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Processed \u . ~
Climati~ Data. October 1981 thru September 1982. Vol. 5, 0650 -
WatanaStation.
·... R!:M Consultants. 1982. Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Processed v...,~
Climatic Data. October 1981 thru September 1982. ·Vol. 6, 0660 -Devil
Canyon Station.
R&M COnsultants. 1982. Susitna Hydroelectric Project.. Proc:e.ssed ~fQ
Climatic Data. May 1982 · thru September 1982. Vol. ·7, 0665 -Shennan ., ...
Station.
Volume 8 (0700 -Eklutna Lake Station) was transmitted to FERC with the t).C\
11 July, 1983 filing.,
R&M Consultants. 1982. Susitna Hydroelectric Project.. Processed
Climatic Data. July 20 thru September 30, 1981. Vol. 1, Susitna
Glacier Station.
R&M Consultants. 1982. Susitna Hydroelectric Projeet. Processed
Climatic Data.. July 18 thru September 30, 1981. Vol. 2, Denali
Station.
R&M Consultants.
Climatic Data ..
River Station.
B/6/1
1982. Susitna Hydroelectric Project.
August 27, 1980 thru September 30, 1981.
Processed
Vol .• 3, Tyone
• . .
. ·.
'
•
•
. ' •. ' .. \
<.
. •
,-...
R.&M ,·_Consultant•.-1982. Susitna Rydroele"tric Projeet. Processed
Cllmatic>Data. Augus~ 25, 1980 thru September 30, 1981. Vol. 4,
·Koaina.Creek Station.
R&M C~nsul.tants. ·· 1982. Susitna Hydroelectric ~Project. Processed
fl-.
. ::~·~ . . Cli.matJ.c Data. April 8, 1980 thru September 30, 1981. Vol. 5, Watana
Station~
·• R&M CQnsul tantiJ • 1982. Susi tna llydroelec trie Project. Processed ?P'J>
Climatic Data. July 17, 1980 thru September 30, 1981. Vol. 6s Devil
Canyon Station.
The 1981 sampling period had only 6 stations in ope.ration -Stations 7
and 8 had not been set up at that time •
B/6/'1 '
••• • •• 'H· •
1.
• ~ -~ ... ' -~ .... ,. 4 :· • -. • .. .. ·:, .* .. • .. :;:. _.,, : . • • f. t 4 •
J
RESPONSES TO FERC LETTER OF NOVEMBER 3, 1983
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
Comment -B, Section 7, No:._!.:
.
.. u . '
With reference to the APA response to Exhibit E: Section 7, Request No.
4, request the no.tice, and map regarding trail locations •
' ..
•,
Response:
Attached is the notice for proposed easements and topographic maps
denoting trail locations, in support of the 11 July 1983 submittal of
supplemental responses to FERC (Exhibit E, Section 7, No. 4).
B/6/1
•
.•... .'
•· ...
I < -. . . • ... . , :-: .
I ..
.... _::.:_
I
1
'
. ' .
. ..
.
' .
vAA-16637-EE (75~4)
AA-13358 (2652)
(963) .
SEP 26 1983 f. ...,. 7~
./ ~~'~·
• /, . /_ r ~ ·~·"'~/ ~ I ~,. •
Memorandum
·To:
From:
Assistant Deputy .. State Director for Conveyance Management (960)
Chief, Branch of Easement Identification (963)
Subject: FinarEasements for Cook Inlet Region, Inco (Talkeetna Mountains ,, • ...o:
Deficiency Area)
Foilowing 'are the final easement and major waterway recommendations for lands
selected by Cook Inlet Region, Incorporated, in the Talkeetna Mountains Defi-:
ciency area. Of those recommendations, my decision is as follows for the lands
described -below: ·
•
Seward Meridian, Alaska (Unsurveyed)
T:a 31 N. ,. R. 1 W.
Sees. 1 to 12, inclusive, . all.
T . 32 N . , R . 1 W.
Sees. 5 to 10, inclusive, all;
Se_cs . 13 to 24, inclusive , all;
Sees. 29 and 30, all.
T .~ 29 N. , R. 1 E.
SP.c. 13, all; .
Sees. 23 to .29, inclusive, all;
Sees. 33 to· 36, inclusive, all.
T. 31 N., R. 1 E.
Sees. 6 to 12, inclusive, all.
T . 32 ~. 2 R . 1 :E •
Sees: 3 and 4, all;
Sees. 7, 8, and 9, all;
Sees. 18 and 19, all;
Sees. 30 and 34, ~an.
T. 33 N., R. 1 E.
Sec~~. 25. an.d 26, all;
Sec$;. 3~ and 35, all.
T; 29 N. • R. 2 E •
Sees . 1 to 4, ·inclusive, all;
Sees. 8 to 33, inclusive, all;
Sec. 36, all. · . . .
_! •..... ,_ .. ,.
•,
·,
•••
•
•
~' .
-...
-,.
' .
;).
l .
T .. __ 30 N·.; R. 2 E .. ... -Sees. 1 ·and· 2, aU;
:sees. 11 to: .14{: inclusive, aJl;
Sees. 23 to 26, inclusive, aU;
Sees-. 3~-, 3~, and 36, all.
T~ 31 N., R. 2 E ..
Sees. l to .4, inclusive, all;
Sees. 7 to 11, inclusive, all;
Sees.· 14 and 15, . all;
Sees~ .22 to 26, inclusive, all;
Secs .. ·.as and 36, all.
r. s2 N., n. 2 E.
Sec. 22, all;
Sec. 27; alL
T. 33 N. , R . 2 E .
Sec. -3.0; --all".
T. 29. N., R. 3 E. .,
Sees. 5 to 8, inclusive, all.
T. ·30 -N. , R. 3 E.
· Sees. 1 to 22, inclusive, all;
Sees. 28 to 3~, inclusive, all .
T. 31 N., R. 3 E.
Sees. 13 to 17, inclusive, all;
Sees. 25 to 36, inclusive, all ..
T. 30 N. , R. 4 E.
Sees. 1 to 9, inclusive, all.
T: 31 N: , R. 4 E.
Sec. 1, aU;
Sec. 9, all;
Sees. ll to 14, inclusive, all;
· Sees. 22 to 36, inclusive, all.
T. 32 N. R. 4 E ..
\Sec. 34, all. ·
T. 30 N. , R. 5 E.
Sees. 5 and 6, alL
T. 31 N., R. 5 E.
Sees. l to 24, inclusive, all;
Sees. 26 to 34, inclusive, allo
T. 32 N. , R. 5 E •
Sec. 25, all;
Sees. 34 to 36, inclusive, all.
--~-.
..
..
•
. .
. ..
~,"'
. ·· .. ·,A .. / I . -,,
.3. /
• ~..;..-
. -.-T. ~il N '!.l R. 61~
i: Sees. 1 to 8,. inc:lusive, .all;
· Sees. 1 '1 and 18J all. ..
. T. 32 N. & R. 6 E.
Sees. ~~5 to 29, inclusive, ali;
Sees .. 31 to 36, inclusive, all.
T. 31 N., R. 7 E.
S·ecs. 2 to 6, inclus.ive, all;
Sec. 11, all; _
Sec. 12, all lands south of Susitna River.
T. 32 N. , R. 7 E.
Sees. 30 and 31, all;
Sec. 32, all lands south of the Susitna River.
...
MAJOR .W'ATERWAYS:
.
Stephan Lake .and Fog Lake #4 (Sees. 13 and 14, T. 31 N., R. 5 E., Sec. 18,
T. 31 N., R. 6 E., ·seward Meridian) have been determined to be major waterways.
In addition.,. the Susitna River has been determined to be a major waterway.
Stephan Lake has an extensive history of significant use for ac.cess purposes.
As the site:·of several private lodges and as the major fioatplane staging area
for several townships, it serves as the point of origin and terminus for access
to large areas of land which will remain in public ownership.
\\"bile all of the Fog Lakes have been used for access purposes, Fog Lake #4 .
appears to have seen the most use for accessing those lands c1utside the selection
area which will remain public. The demand for access to public lands south
and ·east of Fog Lake #4 will continue to place a premium on this lake as a fo.cus
for this access.
The Susitna River provides a major avenue of access to and through the public
lands in the region surrounding the subject selected lands. The obstacle to,
traversing the entire length of the river presented by Devil's Canyon, does
. not negate the use historically found on the river upstream from the canyon~
Current information reflects a cgnsistent, long term u.se of the river above
Devil's. Canyon for both recreational river floatL~g and for general access ·
purposes. These uses generally originate upstream on public lands at point!;
such as the Denali, Highway crossing and the Tyone and Macclaren Rivers.
Travel downriver ends just above Devil's Canyon requiring access off of the
river.
ALLOWABLE USES:
:
.
All easements are .subject to applicable Federal, State, or
Municipal corporation regulation. The following ·is. a listing
of uses allowed for ea(;h type of easement identified. Any
uses which are not specifically listed are prohibited • .
25 :Fo~t Trail -Th~ uses allowed on a twenty-five. (25) foot
wide trail easement are: travel by foot, dogsled, animals,
':
/'
~/·,:.'~ ~ ",.
.
/ • ~+,.;..->
.. .
.. ' ..
4
snowmcibiles., two-and three..:wheel vehicles, and small
. all•terrain .vehicle~ (ATV's) (less than 3Si000· lbs. Gross
· Vehicle ,Weight (GVW)).
. . t -. -
· SO .Foot Trail -The uses allowed on a fifty (50) foot wide
trail easement are: travel by foot, dogsled, animals,
snowmobiles, two-and three-wheel v~hicles, small and large
all-terrain ·vehicles, track vehicles, and four-wheel drive
vehicles. ·
One Acre Site -The uses allowed for a one (1) acre site
easement are: vehicle parking (e.g.~. aU-craft, .boats,
ATV' s, s.no~obiles, cars, trucks), temporary camping, and
loading or unloading. · Temporary camping, loading, or
unloading shall be limited to 24 hours. ·
• EASEMENTS TO BE RESERVED:
a. (EIN ·18 D1, D9, L) An easement fifty (50) feet in width for an
existing .and proposed access trail from the Chulitna siding on
the Alaska Railroad in SE!.i, Sec. 2, 'I'. 32 N., R. 2 W., Seward
Meridian, easterly through selected lands in T. 32 N., ·Rs. 1 E.
and 1 W. , Seward Meridian, to public lands. The proposed . .
segment of this trail has been rerouted, where .necessary, 'aroJllld
and adjacent to the boundary of U.S. Survey No. 4987 and U.S.
Survey No~ 5382, connecting with the existing trail. The uses
allowed are those listed above for a fifty· (50) foot wide trail
easement. ·
Discussion: . .
This is an existing trail which has been used fo.r many years to·
provi_de a·ccess from the Chulitna siding on the Alaska Railroad
to public lands east of Portage Creek and north of the Susitna
Rivero It provides· ac!:ess for the transportati.on of supplies and
equipment to mining claims and patented entries on the public
lands in this area. Primary use is by track vehicles, with some
use by four-wheel drive vehicles durin.g drier periods.
~. (EIN 22d. D9) A site easement upland of the ordinary high
watermark in the NW'-~, Sec. 1.8, T. 31 N., R. 6 E., Seward
Meridian, on the northeast shore of Fog Lake t4·. The site is
one (l) acre in size with an additional twenty-five (25); foot wide
easement on the bed of the lake along the entire waterfront of
the site. The uses allowed are those listed above for a one ·(1)
· a ere site. ·
Discussion:
Fog Lake #4 has been determined to b.e a major waterway~ This
site will facilitate a change in mode of transportation and in
conjunction with trail EIN 22e D9, will provide access to public
6J ~. lands located south and east of the lake. These lands have been ~.t isolated due to topography and the selection pattern.. Tht~re are
no other n.earby alternate· access routes to these lands.
. . .. .
'!'·/'.·.·· ... _ .. . -. '
. .
. .
. . . .
· ..
•
•
··~·-··. •• . •.
5
. -c. (EIN 22e D9) An -easement twenty-:five (25) feet in width for a
proposed access trail -~rQm site ElN 22d D9 on . the northe:lst -' ~· .... ,..
'
;
shore_ of·· Fog Lake #4 m _.the: _NW!J, · ~ec .. 18, "T • .31 N., R., 6.-E~.,
Seward Meridian, southerly to public land. The uses allowed are
those listed above for a twenty-five (25) f-oot \vide trail easement ..
Discussion~.
This trail provides access from a major waterway to public land ..
This la11d has been isolated due.· to the combined effect of the -~
surrounding topography and the selection pattern. There· are no
other nearby alternate accesa routes into these la.J.~ds.
d. (EIN 26 D9, L) An ·easement fifty (50) feet in width for an .
existing access trail from the west $bore of Stephan Lake adja~
cent to the southeast corner· of U.S~ Survey 5213 in Sec. 16,
'l'. 30 N. , R. 3 E. , Seward Meridian, thence westerly along the
southern boundary of said survey and on to public land. The
uses allowed are those listed .above for a fifty (50) foot wide
trail easement.
Discussion:
This is an exiating trail which begins at site EIN 26a C4 on
Stephan Lake. In order to avoid conflict with the private
landowner, the trail has been moved south, adjacent to the
: boundary of the private land. This trail has been used in the
past for the transportation of materl.als and supplies :into the
Stephan· Lake area.. The trail will prcvide access from a major
. waterway to isolated public land.
e. (EIN 26a C4) A site easement upland of the-ordinary high . .
watennark on the west shore of Stephan Lake adjacent to U.S.
Survey 5213 in Sec~ 16, T. 30 N .. , R. 3 E., Seward Meridian.·
The site .is one acre in size with an additional twenty-five
(25) foot wide easement on the bed of tha lake along the entire.
waterfront of the site. The uses allowed are: those listed above
for a one (1) acre site.
r.
Discussion:
This site will serve as the trailhead for trail EIN 26 D9, L. ·The
site will facilitate public use ··of public waters and change in mode
of transportation~
(EIN 27a j)g) A site easement upland of the ordinary high ·
watermark' on the southeastern shore of Stephan Lake, adjacent
to U.s. Survey No. 5202 in· Sec. 16, T. 30 N., R. 3 E., Seward
Meridian. The site is one ( 1) acre in size with an additional
twenty-five (25) foot wide easement on the bed of th~1 lake along
the entire waterfront of the site.~ The uses allowed are those
listed above for a one (1) acre site.
Discussion:
The site 'is. used· extensively as a boat and floatplane lan.ding
area"" It is noted that there is patented Ian~ in the area .. The
site is not in conflict with the patented land. •.i'his site along
•
..
.•.·
~
. -· .. _ .. / .. _._-_.· .. _-~--\·.··_.···
' ... -. . . .
. A
·-~:--.
·-
.
\
A\ tr;?_-··""'-~;-/
· ...
' .
_g.
h.
:
•
r.
j.
·.
.;_ .•.
6
• p
with trail EiN .28 D9 was relocated approxhnately one (1) mile .
:northeast of the proposed location as recommended by the State ·-of Alaska. The -present location will serve as the trailhead for ·
the relocated trail EIN 28 .D9 .. which provides access to public·
land southeast. of Stephen Laxe.. ::
(EIN 28 · D9) An easement twenty-five (25) feet in width for an
existing aecess trail from site EIN 27a D9 in Sec. 16, T. 30 N. ,
R. 3 E., Seward Meridia..tl, southeasterly to public land. The
uses allowed are those listed above for a twenty-five (25) foot
· wide trail easemento
Discussion:
This ·trail} in conjunction with site EIN 27a D9, p~ovides access
from Stephan Lake southeasterly to public land isolated by the
· selection pattern and tQpography. This trail easement was
originally in a proposed location but h.as been moved approximately
one (1) mile northeast to the present alignment on an existing
trail as recommended by the State of Alaska" .
(EIN~ 38 Dl, D9) An easement twenty-five (25) feet in width for
an existing and proposed. acc~ss trail from the S~, Sec .. 31,
T. 29 N., R. 3 E., Seward Meridian, northwesterly, thence . ~ .
southwesterly generally paralleling the right bank of tlie Talkeetna
River to public land in Sec. 2; T. 28 N., R. 1 ·E., ·seward
Meridian. The us~s allowed are those listed above for a twenty-
five (25) foot wide trail easement.
Discussion: . .
This trail provides a.ccess to and between public l~ds. isolated
by the selection pattern and the surrounding rugged topography.
This .easement has been realigned to facilitate unrestricted access
to public lands.
(EIN 40 D1) An easement twenty-five (25) feet in width f~>r a
proposed access trail from traU EIN 38 Dl, D9 in Sec. 16, T. 29 N. ~
R. 2 E. , Seward Meridian, northwesterly, generally paralleling
the right bank of Cache Creek, to public land. The uses allowed
are those listed above for· a twenty-five (25) foot wide trail
easement.
Discussion:
This trail ·easement is necessary to provide access to public
lands northwest of the Talkeetna River. These lands. have been
isolated by topographical features and the selection pattern.
(EIN 46 CS, Dl) An easement twen~y-five (25) feet in width
for .an existing access trail from site EIN .14 CS, D9" in. the NE~,
Sec .. 23; T. 31 N., R. 3 E., Seward Mericlian,. southerly to the
northern end of Stephan Lake,. The uses allowed are those
listed ab·ove for a twenty-five (25) toot trail easement.
.........
•
'
..
• •
Discussion:. . . . . ..
This trail; together.Jvi.th site· EIN 14 CS, D9 provides the prima·ry
access front the Su~itna River for parties floating the river
down""':titreaJ;D. from public laT\ds~ Because of ·nevil's Canyon,··
river floaters are forced to haul their equipment overland to
Stephan take for pick-up by floatplane:;.
' .
k. (EIN 4Ga C4) A site easement upland of the ordinary high
watermark in Sec. 2, T. 30 N. , R. 3 E. , Seward Meridian, at
the. northern end of Stephan Lake~ The . site is one. ( 1) acre m
size with a». additional twenty-five (25) foot wide -easement on
the bed of the lake along the entire water front of the site.
The uses allowed are those listed above for a o~e (1) acre sit~.
Discussion:
This site will. serve &s the trailhead for trail EIN 46 C5, Dl.
This site will facilitate public use. of public water and change in
mode of transpQrtation. It is part of a trail system providing
access from the Susitna River to Stephan Lake. .
1. {EIN 48 L) An easement fifty (50) feet in width for an existing
access trail from Goid Creek on the Alaska Railroad in the S.W!.ap
Sec. 20; T. 31 N. , R. 2 W. , Seward Meridian, easterly, generally
paralleling the south side of the Susitna River at a distance· of
: . approximately 1~ to 2 miles, to a point south of Devil's Canyon
and then extending southeasterly to public land. Tbe uses,
allowed are those listed above for a fifty (50) foot wide· trail
easement.
Discussion:
This 1s an old cat trail which was used by the Bureau of
Reclamation to get from the Railroad wayside at Gold Creek to .
the Susitna River at Devil's Canyon. It is presently used as an
access route and supply route from the Alaska Railroad at Geld
Creek to several mining claims in the Chunilna Creek area. Tlie
trail is needed for access to public lands which have been isolated
due to the rug~ed topography of the area a11:d. the selection
pattern. . .
m. (EIN 71 CS, D9) A one (1) acre site easement upland of the ,
ordinary high watermark on the right bank of the Susitna River
in the SE%, Sec. 20, T. 31 N., R. 4 E., Seward Meridian., The
uses allowed are those listed above for a one (1) acre site.
Discussion: .
This site, in conjunction with trail EIN 72 C5, D9, pro~'ides
access to public lands on the north side of the Sudtna River
which would otherwise !;e isolated by distapce J• topography and
the· selection patter-a, The nearest point upstream from this
easement at which a landing may be made on the north side of
the river is approximately twenty (20) miles" · .
,,.. "' _..
n. (EIN 72· CS, D9) An easement twenty-five (2f)) feet in ~dth for
. a .proposed access tran from· site EIN 71 C5, JJ9 on the nght
,,
. :
•
. .. .
:
••• 8
'
'bank of the · Susitn~· Ri~er in ; the . s.E~t, Sec. 20, T ~ . 31 N. ,,
R. 4 E·,, Seward Meridian, northerly· to public lands. The uses
allowed are those listed above ·ror a twenty-five (25) foot wide
trail f!asement.
Discussion: .
·Topography and the selection pattern along the Susitna River
create. the circumstance where access to pubHc lands north of
the river is restricted tor a span of ::.?proximately siXty ( 60)
miles.· This trail, in conjunction with site EIN 71 CS, D9,
constitutes one of the few places on this part of the river where
a· landing can be made and access gained to the public lands
north of the river.
The following easements were considered but were not recommended.
· ... a. (EIN 16e D9) A site easement for a bush airstrip located in
Sees. 13 and 14, T. 32 N., R. 1 W., Seward Meridian, adjacent
to trail EIN 18 Dl, 09, L.
...
Discussion:
The relocation of trail EIN 18 D1, D9, L to -its true alignment
leaves this airstrip isolated within selected lands. Sinc·e it no.
longer provides access to public lands it cannot_ be recommended .
b. (EIN 22f C5, Dl) An easement twenty-five (25) f.e,et in width
for a proposed access trail from site EIN 22d D9 on the east
shore of Fog Lake #4 in Sec. 18, T. 31 N 4, R. 6 E., Seward
Meridian, northerly to public land.
Discussion:
This .traii is not needed-as alternate access from the north is
provided by trail EIN ~2e D9.
c." (EIN 25a D9) A site easement upland of the ordinary high
watermark on the east shore of Stephan Lake in the S~, Sec. 2,
T. 30 N., R. 3 E., Seward Meridian. The site is one, (1) acre
in size with an additional twenty-five (25) foot wide easement on
the ~d of the lake along the entire waterfront of the site.
d~
Discussion:
This site easement was the trailhead for 'trail EIN 45 L. This
trail has been deleted, therefore site EIN 25a D9 is not necessary
and has been deleted.
.
(ElN 34c D9, L) A site easement two hundred fifty (250) feet
in width and three thousand (3,000) feet in length for a bush
airstrip located in the N"Wi-:i, Sec. 23, T. 29 N. , R. 2 E 4 , Seward
Meridian. ·
Discussion:
This easement was deleted because the airstrip does not meet
minimUl.u r~quirements set forth by FAA.
•. . r_;
.. -
. ..
~
···/·.··._._· .. ·
"" . . .... .. ' * ' '
• . ·'-
··•·· ._ .. ·~-"
•
e. (EIN 39>D1) An.· easement twenty-five {25) teet in width for a
.. propos.ed: access· trail from site EIN 34c D9, Lin the ~, Sec. 23,
· ·· T:· 29 N., R .. ~ 2 E., Sewar;i Meridian, ws.sterly and south~vesterly ~
generally paralleling the r1ght bank of the Talkeetna River to
public lm1d... ._ .
D • . .• . lSCUSSlO.U:.
This ·Easement IdentU'ication Number was . deleted and the easement
, combined l'.-ith trail .EIN 38 'Dl, D9 to simplify the easement
,identifi2t~ttli)D and numbering process, .
.• .
f. (EIN 45 L) An easement twenty-five (25) feet in Width for an
existing access . trail from site EIN 25a D9 on th~ east shore of.
Stephan La1te in. the SM&~' Sec. 2, T. 30 N., R. 3 E .. ~ Seward
Meridian, easte~ly to public land. · ~ ·:.~
•
' .r ••
-...
..
D . .
lSCUSSlOtt: .
This trail easement has been deleted as it duolicates access
provided by trail EIN 28 D9. Both EIN 28 D'S . and EIN 45 L .
provide access to the same block of public land. EI·N 28 D9 was
retained instead of EIN 45. J..~ as it impacts less Native land ~d is
located on a,, existing trail that is presently being used according
to tbe State of Alaska. ·
lSI MARTIN l. KAASTE ItER
. . ...
cc:.
RP.tained La..11ds Unit .. Easements
Division of Land and Water M"anagement
Alaslca Department of Natural Resources
Pouch 7-005
Anchorage, Alaska 99510
AM-FM (270)
Navigability (962)
9S3:RL1oyd:sqt:09/26/83-F
.. · . SQT#28*a
....
•
Commetu: -B, Section 7, No. 2:
Request tb.e report on recreet:ion affected by the transmisoion lin(
r:orriclors that is menti .. oned in the APA response to Exhibit E, Sectiot
1, Request .. No. 6, and the "recreation implementation report" Teferre(
to i:n'the response to Re~uest No. 14.
Response:
:No recreation report exists for the transmission corridors referred 1:0
above. The study referenced in ~:espon:se to Exhibit E, Section 7, N,,.
\_ ' I;
6 is of transmission line alternatives., including the Licen ~e
Application Route for the north and south stub areas.
incomplete and will not be completed
This study i.s
(
J
Recreation facilities or sites potentially sffected by the Licel'!se
Application route in the north and south stubs are very f{;w. The:se
sites can be referenced on the visual resource maps submitted in
respons-e to the Supplemental Comment C, Section 8, No. 2 regarding
aesthetic resources.
B/6/1
I>· • • . • • • •
~ . ' . .
••
j-.c,,··
Ccrnlm.ent c, Section .8, No. 1:
Request a list and description of the "exceptional natural features"
located ~long the entire tramsission line corridor in a similar manner
. ' . ' ~ ..
as presented in Exhibit E, Chapter 8, pages E-8-30 and E--8-31 •. ·
Response:
There are no areas within the proposed transmission line route that are
cu'J."rently identified as exceptional natural features. Scenic viewsheds
within pral';imit.y of the proposed route include the Hurricane Gulch area
and the Chinilna C:reek drainage. Though the Hurricane Gulch area can
be viewed from Parks Highway, the visibility of the transmission line
structure from the highway is unlikely due to the potential screening
effect of the natural landscape vegetation and terrain.
A number of lakes are also within proximity of the transmission line,
but these are not considered to offer unique or exceptional scenic
viewing experiences.
B/6/1
1'.'
lj
· Comment -C, Section 8, {!a-.• 2:
If no~ eu~rently bei.ng prepared in the final visual resource analY,.sis
~eport.1 requ~st maps, indicating viewpoi,n_ts, vi.ewsheds, distances, ~nd
-~ -~ .~< -" . ' ' ' ' -
-potential number o~ viewe~s for the transmission line corridor stubs . ~ ' -."' ' .• ,_. '
(An-:ho'%-a~e-Willow and Fairbanks-Healy).. These. maps should be similar
in style to those prepared by APA in response to Exhibit E, Section 8,
Request Nos"' 2 a.nd 7 ..
_!tesponser
Attached a:te: tbree visual resource maps, twc for the northern corridor
route and one for the southern corridor route.. The. route chosen for
the Susitna License Applicaton is highlited in yellow. .Accom.partyin_g
the maps is commentary for each of the segments comprising the License
Application route. The commen_tary notes viewpoints, viewsheds,
-potential viewers, and viet-7ing distances. The segment numbers
indicated, in the commentary text are marked on the maps.
SOUTH~RN TRANSMISSION LINE ROUTE -A.~CHORAGE TO WILLOW
Segment I. Susitna River Lowlands Physiographic Subunit
B/6/1
. Potential Viewpoint: a) Parks Highway crossings north
of Willow
b) Willow Crt!ek Recreation Ar.ea
c) Iditarod Trail Crossing
(primary), in addition to 6
other trail crossings
' J
identified on maps
d) Little Su~itna State
Recreation River Cro~sing
The primary viewpoints 1 lo·c~atictns from which the landsco}u!~t will be·
viewed most frequently, aret the Pan."kS Highway crossings north of Willow
and the Willow Cteelt ·Recreation Area. ··
Observer Pos,itio11: ·a) tre.nsportatic>n
b) recreation sites
Viewsbeds: the primary 'riewsited!\ will be at the Parks Highway
·... crossing north of Willo1W, and recreatl..c:mal ~'trea users
Potential Viewers: a) vehicle tr.avelers, approximately 2000/ day
b) re,:reat:tonists engaged in outdoor
activities at all areas, especially Little
Susitna River, Iditarod Trail, and Willow
Creek Recreation Area
Distance: usually with 1/4 to 1/2 mile
Segment S .. Sus Jttna Ri'l'7er Lowlands· near Pt .. McKenzie
'riewpoints: Minimal
V'iewsbeds: Topography i.s flat, visual quality is low
Poter1tial Vi,ewers: gene1rally low levela O'f viewers
-l>is tance: vi.ewers will h,ave to· be within 1/2 mile •
Segment 8. ~~rallels. Exis\ting Chusach Electric Transm.ission
B/6/1
Viewpoints: ~Iinimal due to long viewing dits't:.a.nce and
dt~nse vegetation. cover
· ...
•
Viewshed.s: topqgr;Jphy. is fl~t and v~getation is domin~ted
by closed.mbced fotest, (}pen dwarf tree sc;rub,
and sphagn~ bog,.··. Visual quality i.G minimal
Potential Viewer•; minimal., clue to great: vtewing .
distances and dense vegetation
Distanc.e: viewer$ will· have to be within l/2 mile
•• -il-
Segment 18 .. Knik Bottomland with Anchorage Physiographic Subunit.
Potential Viewpoin~s; a) an approxi~ate 2.8 mile Segment
adj~cent railroad right-of-way
and one railroad crossing
b) railroad crossing at the east
end of Segment 18
Observer Position: railroad trartsportati,on route
Viewshed: characterized by flat land-dominated by
forested and 1.1rban use. Visual quality is
low.
Potenti.al Viewers: viewing. potential· .tno·re :frequent yet
remains at low levels; a·result of
nearby urban areas .and the adjacent
railroad right-of-way
Viewing Distance: potential for viewing will occur within
1/4 mile of the transmission corridor.
Segment 19. Transmission Line in Anchorage City Limi£!_
IJ/6/1
Viewpoints: Viewed from vehicle traffic, residential and
recreational areas along Tudor and Muldoon ·
streets,, and along Glenn Higb~ay;
views on the south and east edges of
Anchorage; views along border of Fte
,. ·,
. ,
·'
Richardson. and Elmendorf .A_..F .. B~,;. and views
""'
along approxi~ately S t!liles of 1~lenn Highway
east. of Ancb\)rage.
View:sheds:. . domina. ted by mixed forest, dwarf _)tree stubs,
and urban use
Potential tViewers: ·. Anchorage residents.· and vehicle
travelers along Glenn Highway and
· access r_Qad to Arctic B.9wl B,ecreation
Area
Distance: Foreground, usually ~ithin 1000 feet.
NORTHERN TRANSMISSION LINE ROUTE .... .HEALY TO FAIRSANKS
Segment 2. Nenana Uplands Physiographic Subunit
B/6/l
Potential Viewpoints: a) 9. 7 miles of parallel with
Parks Highway
b) 7. 9 miles of parallel with
Alaska Railroad
c) railroad crossing,. northeast of
junct~on of Rock Creek an<! the
Nenana River
d) 2 scenic turnouts
e) 2 recreation sites within 1 to 3 miles
of thi.s' segment
f) 1 low-volume (900/day) road crossing
Observer Position: a) vebi~le transportation routes
b) railroad transportation routes
c) recrea~ion sites
Viewsheds: generally open along entire segment since
vegetatio~ is low and the viewer positions .are
.rai$ed. Dominant views are to the east from
.Parks Highway.
PotentialVit!Y~ers: tra\Felers along Parks Highway, and
passengers along' "'Alaska Railroad
·> approximately ll2S/d~y
Viewing Distance: 0.5 -1.0 m-i.leff off in distance,
middleground distances ·
Segmen\t 5. Nenana Rivar Crossing N'enana Upland's Physiographic Subunit
Pote.ntial Viewpoints: a) Railroad .. and Alaska CrO$Sl.ng
R'ailroa~ parallel for entire
length
~ b) 2o6 mile·s parallel ~ith ·parks
·Highwyay
c) 2 scenic turnouts·
Observer Position: a) railroad transportation route
b) vehicle transportation route
Viewshed: visibility is generally open throughout this
segment due to low vege.tation; visual quality
of this segment is moderate
Potential Viewers: Highway travelers and Alaska ·Railroad
passengers -. approximately 1I2S/day
Viewing Distance: generally less than O.Smiles,
foreground distances
Segment 8 -Nenana Uplands Physiographic Subuni£
B/6/1
Potential Viewpoint: 4 scenic turnouts along Parks Hwy.
occur within 1 to 3 miles;
visibility is also afforded from 7.7
miles parallel with Alaska Railroad
Obser~'el" Position: a) vehicle transportation route
b) railroad transportation route
. ..
·.· •• vie~sJ:agcl: ~ajor views are to east ~nd i.·ntenuittent at . . . . . .
dif;Jt,an~t!O of 1 to 3 •ilea
Potential vi.ew~ts: · vehi.cles alo~g Pax;ks Hi$hw~y .and
Alaska Railroad passengers.
Viewing Distanc~: 1 -3 mi lea, micidleground and
bac~ground distances
Segment 9 Nenana River l.owlang
Potential Viewpoints: toward the north or south from
highway, with limited viewing
frona the roadw:ays to the west
Obs~rver Position: vechile transportation routes
. Views beds: vis.ual quality ranges from moderate at
south end to low at north end... Major views
along highway,axe. to north and south
because of dens.e screen of vegetation on
either side of highway
Potential Viewet-s: Very limited due to acr~en~n~ by
d~nse vegetation and long (l-3
miles) . di~ta.nces f.rom roadways •.
Viewing Distance: 1 -3 miles from !'arks Highway,
middleground and backg.round
distances
Segment 12 ~nana River Lowlands, South of Tanana Ridg~
B/6/1
Potential Viewpoints: segment passes through dog
musher'$ area and Jllay encounter
some visual interaction from
·Parks Highway
Observer Position: recreation site
<'' -
.•
view$heds: . vehicle transporation\\l;outes ·d'ominated by
flat ·topography, scrub vegetation,_ and
dwarf conifers ; limited ·vievsheda of low
·· visual quali'ty /
Potential Viewers:· limited views by outdoor
reerea·tionists; long distance viewfJ
/·
Viewing Distanee:
by vehicles along Parkft· ;Highway
major visual contact is fr·Olll 1.5 -4
miles, middleground and background
distances
·,.. Segment 15 -Nenana River Lowlands Physiographic Subunit
. ''
Potential Viewpoints: extremely limited;.only the
river crossing· ('tanana) and tone
recreation site exist within. 1
mile
Obser\rer Position: recr·eation site
Viewsbeds: limited viewpoints exist and area is c~f low
visual quality
Potential Viewers: rec·reation8.1 users of river and 1
nearby recreation site·
Viewing Distance: most visibility from greater than 1
mile, middleground distances
Segment 17. Tanana Ridge Physiographic Subunit
B/6/1
Potential Viewpoints: the northern tip of this segment
will be "isible frQm vl.ewpoints
along the Parks Hwy. Limited
potential viewer contact occurs
within Segment 17. One
..
Yr
\'
. t'ect;eationdtite ,~~i,.sts witb.j.n 3
miles of the .north end.
observ~r Position:. vehicle transportation route.
Viewsheds: eh;Jracte.rized by flat topography, closed
d.eciduous · and conifer forests,· and ·dwarf
conifer woodlands.
·Potential Viewers: travelers along. Parks Hwy,
approxid1ately 1125/day
Viewing Distance: usually greater t:ha,n. 3 milei'h
background dis t:a:F!.ees .·
Segme·nt 20. Nenana Ridge Physiographic Subunit
Potential Viewpoints: alon~ Parks Highway looking
south for entire .segment
distance; two srcenic overlooks
provide view$ to the
$outh-.southeast of highway; one:
highway crossing by corridor
Viewsheds: characterized by .closed coniferous· and
deciduous forest, an dwarf conifEtr
vegetation
Potential Viewers: vehicle traffic along.l2 -13 miles
of highway is approxi'Diately
1000/day
Viewing :Distance: within l -2 miles on .south sid~~ of
highway, middlegtound dis·tances
Segment 22 & .. Tanana Ridge Physiographic Subunit, Northwest. of ~.!!!.
B/6/1
Ridge
~--
Potential Viewpoints: along .Parks Hwy; 3 scenic
overlooks provide views to tbe northllest of
· ...
".
Tanana Ridge along' approximately 6 miles of
Parks Highway·
Observer Positlot11: ·vehicle !transportation route;· ,,
vi~n1al quality o,f seginent itt moderate
Viewsbeds: Sloped topograpby; closed mi~ed forest arid
dwat•'f. CO~i~er Wf~Od.lartdt1
Potential Viewers: vehicle "tt•t:~.ffit~; approximately
1000/da.y
Viewing Distanee: TranamiEisi.on corrid()X' is within .5 -
1.0 .mil1! northwest {)f highway,
middlegro;und. distattces
Segment 25 -Tana-pa Ridge Physiograehic St~'lni1t, Nort:heast o·f Tanana
Ridge East to Fairb~nks City J!i.mi ~
!/6/1
Potential Viewpoints: along Parks Higb,wa.y for entire
segment; three scenh: viewpoints
ar.rd two highway crossovers exist
alo.ng approxim;ately ten miles of
Parks :~ligbway 11ihich basically
parallels the tranmnission
corridor into Fairbanks; east
end is within urbart areas of
Fairbanks.
Obsever Position: vehicle transportation route
Viewsheds: characterized by flat valley bottoms and
steeps ide slopes; closed dwa1:f conifer,
closed mixed 3nd deciduous f,orest, and
closed tall shrub scrttb
Potential Viewers: mostly vehicle traff!ic at an
appro,~.cimate rate of 1000/ day, along
10 miles of t•arallel highway; also
. . .
, •. '~,:.-<r~.~~: ~:
..
•
•
. . :;·
·'-t. *• ::':
. :~·-' -
' -_-,. urban areas -on :ea$'t .end of. ~egmen~~~
-...;· ' '\
·. Vlew-ing· pistanc~·: _ cc~ridor crosse_& ,tt~e .highway _4t two -
poin·ts and is gen~kally_ -within 0 ~--
.. J;:,S ~iles of Parkn Bt~y •.
. _,Sepu!nt 28 -Nenana River Lowlands·Physioa:raEhie Subunlt,. Transmfssicn;
. --.1
B/6/1 ·
corrido~· within Fairbanks Citi Limits
' ~ . _;:
Potential Viewpoints: high levels., of po_ten(:ial viewer
contact-occJur within segment, .~8.
·' The se~an~F is botJnded by a, wide
range of ti:i·ban land uses.
<i
Nwnerous ~~foad crossings oceur
along the·:s~_~J!Il.t•
Observer Positions: residential' areas, vehicle
I
transpo1:tAtion l"oute
Viewsheds: predominantly urba11 nsage. and .many road
' . 1'
crossings occur within the segment.
Potential Viewers: a large number of urban users ·of'
the area 1;iill potenti.ally ·be
impacted
Viewing Distance: 0 - 2 miltas, for.egrou·nd and
middlegro-und distance!&
..
·.
'I
. ,
~ ~ • :· . • • ·-:j ., \ .-.> . . :.. ~~'~"~ = . .. . ,. .. .... .
:: ~~: ~~~J. ~.~, .. i·
:. .. . 'l" ~·i"~ ~i;J. ~· ~· r?:~\ '"· )\·~, .. "'~' ~' ~: . ,. ..... , ':~:·.· ~ :"\~ f'·:®~. J •' ~·r .. ,·· ,. • , ··-• • • t •
•• I' .. '~~ ... ":.· I I ")!'" ' ( • • "l,, • • r • ·~J~oo-''"·-·-• • ., • + ,. • •• -·
;;~· ... f I ,,. e a 1 I It • I l-.. "' . ' '. f ,. ~ .·. • .. .,.. ~, ~·· .~:rl. . ~ ·,
1 • r . : ,~ .. : .. ~;. • r . ....i • • i .. t ·: / .I'J • . : i :. . . •... .• r . ~ : . : .. : 't 1." . I' 1... I. • • ••• •• I • ..: • '·• '· I I t. : f • I .. ·. ~~··r ~ .·, .··. .. . . . .. ~ ~ •,.•J. \.;1~•~ • f 11 .!. ·~I 1• !, ' l •,. • ,·.: ,i'' .. •,:: 1 ,1,:1 I f \'t t 01 I • ~i· .... \ 4" I ' ::I I '•* II J f/1 I: ,. . : \ell \ I ii ' . . . I·· ... ~ j .. · .. ,.. : r.,·! ., ... . ,. , .. • • I ·~I, : .... .. ~·· ~ : ..... I • I • I I '•I I ~ •! -H • .. ; .. r : . je ~ I ; .; . . . . 'i . . . . .. I ( t t • f • t
.,•
•
IIA
I I I ._..
.. J . ':':
: •!. • .. .. . ,
....... ; ......
•' I ·•' . r ,; ..
•I
i·
..
, .. ~
. . . . : ' I .. ~
. ..
•'
..
• I It ..
•:
'· .
ltl
. ..
• • ..
. •
• •• •
. •'
..
..
\
.. ..
'•
1,'
·~
·' .. ,
. .
'· .
• !
••
.. " . . ........ I .. ..
. .• . . .. ' .... , ..... . ':.. .,. . .. .
I ,• fl I I
~: . ..
-~ ' .
I ••
0\ '• I . ..
I\ O I I .. ~· ,. .. ·.
·.
~·
I
'
(e.
~ --------------------------~---
-• ~ .
-~
...
,
. .
a • • • tl> • , ·.
.. .
-· ""' ; ~~,) _,_J '
,. !~·
J·~· \01: .. -~
.. .... . '·.
..
.. • ..
:,.-
:~ ... -
..
-.· .....
..
~ -·.-~ .. -=-·.,. :: .. :· .. ...
.· . . , ...
. .. . ; 1:
:..:.:-..--__ ........__ ..... ....:.,..:. .
_., :· ..
:,
-.
~
• .. :
• 110 ...
,
"-:---t--
. .
--. -.
,. -. l• •
:...: ~ -:...:._-.....
., . ..,~. ... ,.
I
-~ -:. -:--i .. : ~.-: .
. --·· ·.· :~·; .. ·:.~:·:··, · ..... . -) . . -. -. -. -~ . . ---. :.. . . . .. -.. ·. . -t·-.: . -. · ... -~ · .. • ,· .:·. · ... ,-.. -... , ... ·.:'
"" • -• 4.. • • • • ,. -: • • -\. - -~-. •: --' . . . :.. .. 2.. ~.-: ·-..-. :·: -;~"·, __ --: .: • • • .. L• . ._. r. • . • • · . .:r-~ . • . . ·,.:-: .... :; _· . ;,_._ -. ------....,., ' -... ~ . . . . .. .( . _,__.., . . •. --.:; . ~ .... . -~~.. . . ._... , ... -" -. --·-----~-:-~ . . . . -..--.. . . . " .. .
• • ••• < • • ---< ' '\· . . .. . . . . -·' ·. . .. , . ' ' . . .... ,. ' ·. '
• • • . · ' • f· · • 'M· 'le Lake . . . .•. . . -. ~. . . " ....... . "" • .. .. ; . .· . ' ·.::r. . . . ., . / • ·.•
f t
I
·-
...... -/ ....
.
··-
... .
• .. t• ~ .. • . .. .
. . . . . .. •"' ·· . .. :· ·-. •
.. ... -~ . . ... .. ...... ..
<#
.. . !. ...... -. .... . .. . . . .. ' ;·
NENAW. RIVER LO~~
Low Vi:Ju}":Jualil)l • • ·•· •• . .. . . . . : . .
a • • • • • .• ..... 't • •
•,J . ..
. ·. .. ~
. · .
f r ;,
\
-··
.. .. • .. . .-... . ..
'!
. .
..
....
.. ~ . .. -"' . ,, ·. ;o . .. . :-~ ...... '"~ . ..
.-
· .. · .... ...
-· ..
'1
If ~ . \
-"": =· ·_· . . -. -:.. . .. \\ -~----;~
. . -~· ... .. . . . ........... ..,.,. .. ,.. .. . .. : --..:..~·--1"~--.. ' . . ·--....... --..... ·--. ' . . .... . .
"\• ·~ . . . . -. • • • • ~ ..!:..: -=""---r -· -: ·-· • ~ •• ; • . . . • ...: .•. "'(.· ,._ •• ••• • • 1:' •• -• ~: • -• ~ ..... -•. . . ... ~, ; ·--: .... -• J . " -:-. . . •• . -~. : . .,.. . .•·. ~ _. "~ • ... " .; ·. .. . I . :-:or:· •
• • • • ~-. • ••• • -'( •• • • • • -• i\. ;• ...... -•. . ,.,.. ':::-_· .. -:._ . -.-...t-~-........ .: .. •. --.. ,, - .
. · • . -• •· • . . ~ • • •. . : . • ~-· .· ··-v.: .. •. •. ..· • . • .,_,. "~· .:,. .l.lf,.,.'IAa,,,.. • S· ~ , .. -~ ...:.:..L.-----·-~ .
0
.:: -·'CCI"'""""· . ,: -:...... --: ' .. -• ~, : . • . _ .... '
1
Moderale Visual Oualily • • .,.. .... ~-.. _ • • •· ·-• • ,., , •
• ... • ...... --..!.-• ·"' ·--· ... ooc. -. • ...... • • • • • • • ... l'.;;.--. --...... ., -• •' •• " ' -.. . •. -:. .: ~ •· ...:.:_ • • • • • ; : 3r . ·-. -...:. • . -• :t' "'• •. '-:. '\r-• :-:. '-=-?=--· .. ...;:..,.. . { .• ;,--· ••.... _.__ ~.--. .-::•;. :.·.:-.,;:·r")· ........... .:. ·····•<to .• ·• · • .l'; .. :·r.• • ·'....: .. • . . . . j.:·\ '--:, -,~.;:':,· .... -~·· . ,... ..... --. . .. , ........... ..
• ...... , •.''•I • • • • .. , I "''-''· .·~,'-...~, , ••• _ . ..-!!""-J~·1
I 'I ••-• •" 1 • o ..... ~· •-•r.-r, I .• • '1 -• • • -·... .. ' • .. • -• -:--........ \ \ -•.: .-1 ~ : J.'. • • '" l. -~ • • -,.. r :. • ~ • .• • • ... -""'• • . . • '-· -"':..:r-r· ,J.-1!_-il.i •. 3-:-..;.~--..:.: .. -.. . •. -i -~·-.·~-=-·-:~ .... ·.: ""'-: ·"\··,.~ ~ ..... :;
. -. , ---.. •• •l -.. • •• • • • .. -• • ' •. -:~ ~-; ""-· •.... -~-: .. , __ -~· .. -• • .• ''..:....t:.:.:.:. ... ·, ";; ~:-;.• , • + '!' --r-:: --,i---J -·."'; ----~ ·-:-:::--·--r-:-:-·•· ••.. -.. ,., '•· -. r·· •• ;......-:.
•
4
•! ... ~ •. • • • • : 1.•• "' ":"•~;:: ... ~.l.• -.~•u 'l .. :•}.e_.•*• .~: ... ~ •i t,
-· -• .. .. , .... -... _.. • -,.. ---.-...-~ ..... , -(1·1., J. . ) . """ . .. ·' . ., . . . .... ~ ~ . :.. ' ·c .. •r··' .. , . . .:,.. ~· .-... , .. . --· -: .-.. ~~=.: ·:..-: -;l: -~-...... ~~ ~-... , ~ . . .. . .. . .. . .. . "•
• : ". -..· ; 11 .-""-. ~.,...;-_ .. ;·=:· ... ""· .!.--.; -.J:.~ ....... --• ............ ,T.,., ... ~~ • -. . --..: .. ... ... -... . . ... ···~.-.... ' • -• ----~ • • -~·· • • 1·. • • -. • -• •. • • • .....
·-· ,...,. · { • • 8
1
• n Ar-
--• • ( •• f -• -. . . .. . . . ....
. ·--..:..-.. ,.... , v~ --.... ·----.. . . ' . . . "'"""' -· . ~
• ,), \ , I \' oo -. • . -· .. -.. -' . ' -. . . -. . -. . ! .·. . : '
\ ~ . . . . ·, ... J l . -
\
\
.~ '6oo•C:: ... _ ....
!'
•• : __ .. -·~··· -·~ ..... :.-..!...,:-.:........ -~-:.._\:-_:. .• ~.r~"" • • · r \1': ....... '"' .._,. • , • • ... , 111 ~ • ( .. -:"> • • ... •'-• • .. • • ·~-''~ • ~ ... ~ ....... ~ ·::·. -• •• • • • • - . ....: •. • -. .. ·-:# ... ... .. • • . • : .. 1 ........ -.. • •• -:..:::. -... -!\ ..... :-:-· • . • ..... ~-~: • ~ -··;-:-~.:-::.'r" ·-::--· ..• \.:.:-' .=::!· -·.: -: ~ •· •. :--·,:~:::-• .. ·.r.:~ .... •:-;-..··. ~~~ ... ;, ... 'o:_ ··.' : •.... ::..;::..... • .:,::..:. . ";" ··-.-"---.;--.. _ _._ --....._, __ .,.... ·--.:---.--.. !-' •
, • • • , ""': _ :--; • -:-.. ~. • • • •• • .... !. • ~ ;-, .,, .. • • r .· ~ .. ·. ·
• .. • • :. .. .-.!.' ; .; .• ·~ • .. ....•• .._,.: .: • ...:; .. ·--· ~ -· :·-....... \.;--"!' ..... -.. . ; ,. . . ::... ·:. -·-. . .. .. , . ... .. . .• . ..... , .._ ... , .. : --~·:,. ........... :. . ·;.. ·-~~-... ;.: •. =-.• :. • • • .• ·-::. ~) . .::;~
• • ··-• ' ·~ ., '''\"':' ·•• ~~ ':u ·:~-~ • \ -\ ..,--.:-~. • ~ :--__,... •. ~ ·~::• H• .;,II _. -:. -:.. ... ~ : -· .:. ·'' . -. . . ~ . . .. : . --.. .. \~ ... . -. .. " ·:,~. . . : . . · , .. ..... . .. ' .. .,. .. ~
' . . . .. . . ••"
. -
... ). : .... ,. ' o I ~· • • • •• • o • ,;i o o o ,.,.,_., '':"•. o .·· ··: . ~-.. ...... . . ... ;··; :.;·.;;::--·· ....... , ... ..:. ...... -
~ .. -..,~~-=~·---,..,, .... • ........ -=-.. . !.: .·"' -· .. : . ".........:...: ........-::-...... ' . . . -., ..... ~ . -. ' .... ~-~~ ... ;,. . . -~ -·. . .... ~ . ··--. . .... . ,..... ........ . "-·~-• ---... ~.• 'r 'lf•,•••·1~
• .. -... olD • .. '•l> ~ ........ ;r-_;,.. . it • ...:.· • -:-..... :-. .. -.. _ ............ : ..... ~, t. . . ' ,. _-, ..
••
Nc)rth Study Arf!a·
Healy Subarea
VISUAL
·-It ·-w ..., .. ,
·-RA ... ,
·~& -u
•
4
Road Crol!lsio;
Stream Crossing
Railroad Crosioing
Recreaticm Access
Road crossing
Ti'aQ Crossing
Average Oally 1i'JSfllc'
Physiographic
Sub-Unir eoundr)'
Park and Recreatlan.
Area eoundries
Recreation Sitea
Scenic Overlooka
TraUa
·~'
State Recr.ealion Riv.,.-
_..@._ Transmission l1ne SeQment$1.
UUii!ll•f!IJIIJU Potenti:~l Visual Resource. ,
' • Problem Area'S ·
~Ui...J--i
N!>llllH lie"~ lid UU::I
I
.0 ~· 10 r--....l
.teo,. "'"*!•··
ALASKA POWER AUTHORiTY
· ~: ~ . .._ .__.-. t-,."ral,. ~0~1'\:tl~.·~
:.4
. .. .. ••• .. : ~ ··: .
.~ .. ~·
.. .. . .... • . :
t l" -.. • 1: ''* .. . .. ..... :
~ '· . ..
~
1
:,. . , .. ~ .· . .. . ~ ..... . .. ; \ \.. • t •
1-·•.• : ..... .. -... "'
.. . • "!. : •• • •• ••
"" ~ .. . -. ..,. ..
-"'!! ... . •.: ·I '!I •....._ ••
• 1 .... .. • ·.. .:. I ·"' . . . ·:·• . .. .. ~ '~\:•
.• -::~· '. ,-.: ~-{~,_.:i~. ~·· ... ~ ....... ~ ·. •• ~ .. ·' ..... .. •'. ... t ·-..
,"' "' ,:-·•• . .. .:. .. -.,.. !
·4'! :.. ~ ~ ;_ :. \ ., -... g:... :.. ·: -~~ . ,. "=. ..:r.. . ~ _ ...... .. ~.-~, .
J .... 'ti ~ ....... ;.. .. / '-.. ~;., I',_.,...,.: ,.. •. ...._ . .. "\ ~ ....._..... ·::'.:) ·.v ~ .. ..:.-z~.-...--/ ..
I ~· JJ • -: ~ ....... . -:::: ;.:·.~ .
,'·'!. ...... •
• .. :"-'3 ... lr-~ .. : ..
:
:
· ..
-"£) ·~~ = .:i:r ~~ . -~ .. _, ...... y.. .liiY' . :{. ~ ~t' .,.;~ .. ~ 0 '
• ..,. . ..EJ .. r-·.; ~"::. fl(/.--:G:~!:
.. ,.. :· - !
. ,. {S·.~·-~ .. \ ;.~~:~~~:· ... . ,-~. .. · . . ·.,;. _, ..
:::: .. ::::·····~--. ~.:· \:·~~J ~-·· .. ~-~ .. ··~·. ~ ~ .....
• :•· !f:· Ji~:.------~·· : ·. :. ;z~::~' ~.~· . "_.. .:~u." -
t ~--,;·~ -. . : .. .. , • "" ~ -~iii.. .. • ..... • ._:t-·~ .. :;;;.__'; • . . . '· : .... ~1! ~ ;r ,;:· ·• ~•..... .. . . •.r·-•
.:.. =~~·-gf ::-· .. -· -~1::·:·::.:~:: . ""-
... '· . .:¥.." ··'" •. -Susl .... -·~-·s...._ ..... ' .il"'f'' _. UCQ~ •• \\'. • ,. :.~ · ·,. • ·State-GSmtJ ;I. •• . ~:.,n;_· .-:c,.-:: : .~!·~;,. t .Rofqga.;,: •
• • -••• §--....':!';;.... ~ ~-"'-c..,;:;-: .
• ~ .·:· ··;.i.' ~ ~:.-.:...-• -... -\a . ·~·· _,:::.;. ·"-··•I,· ~ :: • i""' . • • ~d!J-1 _ • =~ .. r· ·-if~ ·.• ... ·::!~~~ ' _r.-:.
.... • • : ;!' .•· ~ • • ... .,. ,; / ~ ,!~~·· • •'li :• ;,.~, •. • •• r·· -~· ........ .~ ... ,, . ·;:· ~-:~., . · ... :.:.. "':;,•" : :f
]:
tf/ .. e.'·~-·.:.· . . : •.. ·· .... ~~ :;.,...: -·· ~ .. ,r"t'"''· -:::1 ~.:. . • r· :~ £>+~· -~· s .. ... •.. . .. ..... """• ~1f .. ·!-·: . "· .. ~-.,. .,.. .... . ~ . r1 .... :r· . · . :•::~-~. . ~ ,. '• : . . ~-·:...•· -. -'!~. ••• •·..: '~ .... ,:~· • • ••• ~_ ... ;,.,.. . \ ~ ••. . • ... .. .pc, • : ~. . .. ~ ... . . ... -~. ·~'' ~... .
p.'-. ~ -. ·=-· . ' ·...:~ ....... ·"-" ..:..-~~· .11'!: • .. .. .. .-.. ... •• \;-. .. • .:i .. ·!~·-X~ :! ~.,.\. ~":'..:,·:rr::::i: ~l:.li :-rtA~·~y--· ........ ' ..
..
• i ·.:~: .... J. -,. --··-----~.;-..~ . . ...:::·... . .. ~-t.t~; .· ~;..;·
i
.·-:~~-.~~
., A l;·•· ·~· . . ... ~~~-=:;.
·-· ; i'Z··· ..... "··· ., ., • • -f -... -........ ·;... :_ . ::. ·-..... ,.,.. : __ ... _-.. -
:~ • ,. 4 : .. )
..:
~~--e .,. .. :. .
.:
.:-·
•
... :.. . '-~=-.
/ .... .,
. " .. I . .-
'I I~ .
....... ' , ......... _.,, ... ., ...,.r-•. ..i.r ................. ,.,....,. ......
" • ' " c...: .... ~ ·-·-~ ·.. -""... • • .... .. • • ., ........ '··~ • ·~ ....... ;r .. ~. --~ .. .. ... . J.. .. .,. -· -..,.
• • • • .. • .. •• • • • • •• ""' o~..::.:l'-"' 4J\.. •-. .... ..-r • ~ ~-~~.. ...t ..
• • • • -· • .,. ,. , 1 -r·-.· "''" I ~·· · ..':_~ • . • • -• , • • ,. • 'ii.Di:~ .. Dhlel ~-~ ...... <!:. ..... eJ f·-":'~ :.oc .. •• T-:1 • • " _ _, __ •• . ~..,...-·_:;. J/1 " t~•• .. _,a.. .... .. . , .;;: • •.. , • • .. • ., ·...Yi-. -.. -• ,.,.. ....................... -• ~ f 1., ... ~ .. 1 .. :
• . .... ?. ••• ,: y .. • ':.';. -~· ..••• -~ .. ,· •............ :=-"1 :
Hatchor Pas~~t.a~Q~'l:r~~~(Prvp~':'·-;-r~·:~ '• ... --\ • _
• 1 7 -• .., ••• ._:; • ..,. -J •. ~ Ill • II~.: ,! t • • -.:.a. 7':;. -• .:. ... • • --: • • , '. -u " ~ • ., • •-" \
" • -• ._,--:: \ -··. • ... ~ • ~.. :...! • ~ ~ ; .. ...... \ . '-.. ' .. . .. ,.... . . .. .. . .,_, .. -, . . • : • • ...._ •• .....,__. ! • ' •r •• , ..... ·• • ,._.. -., .. .~ • • • •: • . ..:.;·.,.., ..... _;"' .. ·" ..... ·.-.··: .. -· :"' "'. ...... -~~ .......... :------. ~-· . ..-... :-··. -.:-:· '-!·:·:":: ..... ·~·:~· .. ill ... ~.~ ... -..... #111"'~
._., ~·}-.·1~ ~ . :· . , . .,. ____ _ ..
. . -
-· . .. ~ •·
"\,. .. ·=-:: .-. . .... ~
·.
SoUth S.rudy Area
VISUAL RESOURCES
.-« Roa~ Cros~.;1g
·~., Stre"m Crossillg ....... Railroad Crc$&lop
•··NA Recroati9n Acceaa.
Road Crossing ._,
Trail Crossinc
5~ Average Dally Traffic
~ Ph~sioJlr a,fhlc ~· Su -u 1 Clundl')'
LJ Park and Recreation
Area Boundriea
II Recreation Sites
, .. Scenic Overlookc.
__ .,.-'ltans
~ Stale heereation River
0 1r:msmissit)n Line· Segment~ --lliiii!IIIIIIV.Illl Potentia! Visual fiasoutce ·
' · Problem Areas · ,
~ D 1 2 • • t.....ri..-....
NOR I" SC'IL£ ltl UILE&
II 21 1ft
~
GUIO"'!" ... IJ
ALASKA POWER AUTHOR!TY
•
.. -' •
Comment .C; S~e tfort 8 ~ No • 3 : -· .
If avail~ble, request· ~11 of the "significant view" maps for the
;
· tl;'ansmission line cor~idor using the same map scale as fouild on the
nsignif'icant v-ie.w" maps provided in APA"s response to Exhibit E~
-Section 8, Request No. 2 •
... Response:
"Significant view" problem areas are identified on the visual resource
maps supplied in answer to Comment -Cs Section 8, Noo 2 •
j) -~
·' "
.. .... eoittment : ]} t Seetioll 10 , No • 1 :
~·
·aJquest copies of ~ps showing locations of the following potential
hydroelectric sites evaluated by APA: Browne, Keetna, Snow,. Johnson,
Vee Canyon, MacLaren, Susitna II (Olsen), susitna III, Butte Creek,
Gold Creek, and Tyone• For each potential development, request data Ot
estimates o!l (a) type and height of dam, (b) reservoir surface ares,
· ...
..
and (c) totsl area inundated and disturbed.
Rusponse:
A total of 11 sites have been considered as potential hydroelectric
projects in the Susitna Basin and vicinity areas. (Some of these sites
would be eliminated by development of other sites). A review of past
studies indicates some of the data you requested are not available,
since preliminary schemes, including specific.dam locations, types, and
heights were not developed for all the sites.
Copies of u.s.G,S. maps of the requested potential sites are enclosed.
Alignments have been sketched on the individual damsite plans. These
locations, although approximate~ are felt to be within the site area
projected for the potetitial hydroelectric projects. A table entitled
"Su!IID8rY D!lta on Proposed Rydtoelectric Projects" is also provided
which contains available data on dam height and type, reservoir surface
area, and inundated and disturbed area for these l!ites. Additional
related information concerning reservoir elevations and storage , where
available, is also included.
B/6/2
•
• •
SllottAAY DATA ON PROPOSED HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS . ,
'·, . ..l· ,.,_ .
S-et 1 cf 2 II. ,:,.
··~ ' .
.
U.S.G.S. Map She~t Dam Type
''
Project Strea• Drahaage Area Dim Ue.f ght Fun Level Cre$t Levef Ave. Tai1uater
Sq. Hi ft. Elev. ft. · Elev. ft. .Level ft.
Srow~e Nenana River Fairbanks A-5 Rockfi11 2,450 305 1,000 1,010 750
keetna Talkeetna R. Talkeetna Mt. B· 6 ·., Co_ncrete . 1,260 405 950 955 605
Snov Snow River Seward ~ .... 7 Concrete 84.7 310 1,200 1,210 500
Arth
Johnson Tanana River Ht. Hayes C.-2 Con(rete 10,450 210 1,470 1,490 1,290
with Earth
Dike
Vee Canyon Susitna River Talkeetna Mt. C-2 fill 4,140 610 2,330 2,350 1,925
Gulkana D-E Fill . ' 485 185 . 2"395 ·2.405 2,300 Mclaren Mclaren River
Olsen Susttna River Talkeetna Mt. D-5 Concrete -160 1,020 1,030 810
( Sus1 tna II)
Susitna III Susitna Rher Talkeetna Mt. D-3 Fill -670 2,340 2,360 1,810
Butte Creek SUs 1 tna River Healy A-2 ·Fill -150 ---. .
Gold Creek Susitna River Talkeetna Mt. C-6 Fill . 6,160 190 870 880 680
• Gulkana C·6 60 Tyone Tyone River f111 ----
Sources: Acres 1982, Ebasco 1982, U.S. Department of Energy 1980. Federal Power Con;tsston, 1976.
Dashed lines represent data not available
'\
51748
• • • -~
•
SlttMARY DATA otJ PROPOSED HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS (continued)
.
I
Sheet 2 of 2 ~ h
Max. P.:-1g. W.So ktive Storage Raoge Static Ave. Haad Ave. Annlla1 RQs. Surface Inundat~d Installed Colllents . ·
Elev •. ft. 10,00 llC .. ft •. Head ft. ft. Runoff acres · Area • acres Cap M\f
1000 ac•ft. /
~-
Browne 1,000 760 195 max. 170 3,258 10,640 10,640 100 ..
Keetna 950 675 345-173 286 1,740
,_:: 74 ,_ -
Snow l QGO 354 750-550 .. 653. 535 --. 63
I.
Johnson 1,470 5,300 180-100 149 7 ,83ll --210
Vee Canyon 2.,350 1~000 -430 4,730 --386
Mclaren. 2,395 210 -263 1.410 --55
Ols~n 1~020 ~6 --...... --200
(susftna II) .•.
susitna .Ill 22340 .,.. -----.350 .
outte Creek ---_., ---40
Gold Creek 870 -189 7,327 --260
T,Ybne 2,385 700 ------6
$l\urces: Acres 1982, Ebasco 1982, U.S. Department of Ener.gy 1980, Federal Power Connissfon, 1976 ..
Dashed lines represent data not available
.·
9
51748
.. . .. .
•
•
•
...
..
u.s. Department of Ener_gy, Alaska Power Administration, February 1980"'
"'Hydroelectric Alternatives for the Alaska Railbelt," U.S.,D.O.E.,
Alaska !'ower Administ:ration, Juneau, Alaska.
Federal Power Commtssion, 1976..,· uThe 1976 Alaska Power Sul:Vey," Volwne l,
Federal Power Commission, Washington, D.C •
·~Acres, 1982. "Susitna Hydroelectric Proj~c;t -Feasibility Report,
Volume 1 Engineering and Economic Aspects, Final Draft, 11 Al~ska
Power Authority, Anchorage, Alaska.
Acres, Februa1;y 1983. "Before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 19
Application for License for Major Project -Suaitna Hydroelectric
Project -Volume 9 -Exhibit E Chapter 10,11 Alaska Power.
Authority, Anchorage, Alaska.
Acres, March 1982. '*Susitna Hydroelectr~c Project -Summary Report-
t;raft," Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage, Alaska.
Ebasco Services Incorporated, January 1982. "Railbelt Electric Power
Alternatives Study -Browne Hydroelectrit: Power Alternative,18
Ebasco Services Incorporated, Bellevue, Washington •
B/6/2