HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA1681supplTANANA BASIN AREA PLAN
WATER
RESOURCES ELEMENT
PHASE I
RESOURCE INVENTORY
August, 1983
STATE OF ALASKA
Department of Natural Resources
4420 Airport Way
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
CONTENTS
Chapter I
Introduction ............................................. 1-1
Chapter2
Issues, Local Preferences and Policies
Concerning Water Resources
A. Issues •••••••••
B. Local Preferences •••••••
C. Policies
Chapter3
I. Water Rights •
2. Water Quality
Water Supply in the Tanana Basin
A. Surface Water
1. Runoff ••••••••••••
2. Storage and Wetlands.
.• 2-1
.2-2
.•••. 2-12
. .2-14
3-1
•.. 3-3
. .• 3-16
B. Ground Water. . ........................................ . .3-19
C. Water Quality
1. Surface Water Quality
2. Ground Water Quality
Chapter4
Water Use in the Tanana Basin
A. Water Rights •••••••••••
B. Community Water Supplies ••••••
C. Hydroelectric Power ••••
D. Navigability •••••••••••
E. Floodplain Management •••
F. Placer Mining and Water Quality
G. Forestry ••••••••••••••
H. Agricultural Development •••••••
.3-31
.3-33
••. 4-1
. ..•. 4-8
. .4-12
•• 4-16
• .4-19
.4-22
• •• 4-25
. •• 4-27
B-ibliography .............................................. s ... t
'"'-~4
'"'
..,,
ii,IH'
List of Tables and Figures
Tables Page
3-1 Precipitation, Elevation, Temperature, and Wind Data for some Locations in the Tanana
Basin ................................................................ 3-2
3-2 Major Rivers in the Tanana River Basin .... · ................................. 3-4
3-3 Summary of Surface-Water Gaging Station
Record in the Tanana Basin .............................................. 3· 7
3-4 Snow Courses and Pillows in the Tanana
Basin, Historical Average for
February, March, April and May .......................................... 3·9
3-5 Water Balance in the Tanana Basin ....................................... 3-14
3-6 Lakes over Ten Square Miles in Surface Area ............................... 3-18
3-7 Water Quality of Selected Streams in the Tanana Basin ....................... 3-34
3-8 Selected Water Quality Data, Tanana River at Nenana,
Water Year October 1980 to September 1981 ............................... 3-35
3-9 Chemical Analyses of Ground Water in the
Tanana Basin ........................................................ 3-37
4-1 Water Rights in the Tanana Basin ......................................... 4-4
4-2 Community Water Supply and Treatment
Systems in the Tanana Basin ............................................. 4-9
4-3 Inventory of Large Hydroelectric Power Sites
in the Tanana Basin ................................................... 4-I 4
4-4 Existing Power Systems Data Summary, Small
Tanana Basin Communities ............................................. 4-15
4-5 Tanana Basin Small Hydropower Summary Table,
Results of Detailed Reconnaissance
Investigations ........................................................ 4-15
Figures Page
3-1 Surface Water Gaging Stations in the
Tanana Basin ......................................................... 3-5
3-2 Snow Courses and Pillows in the Tanana
Basin ............................................................... 3-10
3-3 Average Annual Runoff in the Tanana Basin ................................ 3-11
3-4 Management Units of the Tanana Basin Plan ................................ 3-20
3-5 Permafrost Areas in the Tanana Basin .................................... 3-21
3-6 Well Locations in the Tok Area, Tanana River Valley ......................... 3-26
3· i Geology, Slope of the Potentiometric
Surface and Location of Selected Wells in the Fort
Greely Area .......................................................... :l-27
3-8 Availability of Ground-Water in the
Tanana Basin ........................................................ 3-29
3-9 Clearwater-Big Delta Area Assumed Well
Depths .............................................................. 3-:Jo
Chapter I
Introduction
I. INTRODUCTION
Water is a finite resource with measurable limits.
Knowledge about the occurrence and maintaining quality of
water is prerequisite to community development and expan-
sion, especially in the arctic and sub-arctic where the
water cycle is greatly affected by extreme climatic condi-
tions and the presence of permafrost.
Although the water resources element is one of several
resource element sections of the Tanana Basin Area Plan, it
does not necessarily address the planning process itself
but rather attempts to serve as a convenient summary of
regional and local information that can subsequently be
used to guide actual planning efforts.
Contributors to this element include Steve Mack,
Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys; Joyce
Seelman, Department of Environmental Conservation; Tim
Johnson, College intern from the University of Alaska at
Fairbanks; Mike Granata, Division of Land and Water Manage-
ment (DLWM); and Craig Shirley, DLWM.
1·1
Chapter2
Issues, Local Preferences
and
Policies Concerning Water Resources
A. Issues
The following issues concerning water were drawn from
the public meetings, sketch elements and interviews with
agency representatives.
ISSUE 1. The effect of land classification, land disposals
and resource development on water quality and
quality.
ISSUE 2. The effect of mineral-related activity on water
quality and quantity.
ISSUE 3. The effect of agriculture on water quality.
ISSUE 4. The effect of land classification for habitat on
water quality.
ISSUE 5. The effect of forestry on water quality.
ISSUE 6. Maintenance of greenbelts and setbacks near
resource developments and land disposals.
ISSUE 7. The effect of land classification for recreation
on water.
2·1
-
-
B. Local Prefereaces
The following local preferences for each community in
the Basin were listed from notes taken during the public
meetings:
ANDERSON
Disposals have been in bogs.
Roads to disposals are poorly planned.
Don't put disposals in swamps.
Leave spaces for habitat
protect fish and game.
a minimum acreage to
Habitat should be blended with developments.
CANTWELL
No sewage treatment facilities included in disposals.
They put tracts in as if it were a suburb of Chicago,
straight lines right through a swamp or steep cliff.
They JUSt like a neat looking map with
lines. The placement of disposals seems
nothing to do with land suitability.
straight
to have
Water from your property has to be a must. You have
to be able to get to water from your disposal.
Not necessary to have such large setbacks on river
frontage to allow for public use.
Human impact on the habitat and the land
chicken scratch. We won't hurt anything.
and settlement won't conflict with habitat.
is just a
Disposals
Fish and game is too restrictive on the sediment in
streams. Nature does more damage than most miners.
DOT LAKE
Study the impacts of disposals on
impact on fish and game, minerals,
state residents.
2·2
local areas:
communities
the
and
The impact of disposals on Fish and Game and
subsistence should be addressed.
/People's primary concern here is subsistence --their
subsistence lifestyle.
Forestry and habitat play hand and hand with
subsistence. All three of these can be compatible.
We don't really have any concerns about minerals. We
aren't interested in mining ourselves. We don't care
if people mine gold or drill for oil and gas, as long
as they don't destroy the subsistence lifestyle.
People value this lifestyle.
Subsistence is most important to us.
as the umbrella on which to evaluate
supportive or opposed to an action. If
subsistence we are opposed to it. If
we don't have any real objections.
Use subsistence
whether we are
something harms
it doesn't then
With mining, you should discourage something like
strip mining which destroys habitat.
We aren't against developments if
right. If developed in the right way.
or a mine, I doubt anyone in Dot
against.
they are done
Some forestry
Lake would be
If it destroys the environment we are against it, if
it doesn't then fine.
HEALY
There are trumpeter swan nesting sites in the area.
Go with habitat rather than disposals in these areas.
Eight Mile Lake would be good for fishing and water
skiing but there isn't any access to it.
MANLEY HOT SPRINGS
I'd like to know if they found areas of good soil in
the area; they could place disposals there.
People living kind of subsistence 1 i festy le here and
the impact of state activities on locals should be
considered.
MENTASTA LAKE
Protect streams from disposals. Insure that people
will continue to be able to use streams.
2·3
Hydroelectric I'd like to see a 10 foot dam so
Mentasta can get electricity.
Put disposals from Clearwater to Tok. South of Tok
there are problems. People fish just south of TOk and
it is swamp there.
We need the area we use for hunting and fishing.
Every village needs their hunting area.
Keep land in habitat. Don't sell it.
it is.
MINTO
Keep it the way
The beaver have all moved out. There are no fish
because mining has bothered the rivers. No rats
(muskrats), no animals. We have seen animals stuck in
the mud because of mining.
There's a place where there used to be a slough -but
no slough anymore. Birch, Goldstream Creek. Mining
filled it up.
We used to go all the time up to Dunbar but it 1 s no
creek anymore because of mining.
All the lakes are getting filled up with sand.
hurts the animals.
This
Caribou, moose get caught in the mud that is in all
the creeks now; they can't get out.
Don't sell it-leave it as it is.
lands. Nothing. Don't do nothing
fish and game.
DO NOTHING with
on it that hurts
Livengood -all we care about is the water coming into
the flats. Now nothing but sticks filling up
areas. In one area, water is just a foot deep now.
If the state gives mining claims they should control
them and protect water. Mining is really changing
Minto Flats.
Leave Chatanika alone. It's a lifeline for us.
NENANA
Access, power, water should be available for state
land disposals at a reasonable cost to the buyer.
Don't sell lands with 20-40% slope.
build on. Sell more level land.
2-4
It's too hard to
Before disposing of any land make sure that the land
is capable of being built on.
Don't sell land that is swampy.
If you sell land that is swampy have state fill the
swamp and include the cost of the fill and
construction in the purchase price of the land.
When is there going to be an environmental impact
study done on agriculture development that addresses
habitat, leaching of fertilizers into the river,
economics, and wildlife? (Connie will bring documents
that address these concerns and are being used to
develop the management plan to the next public meeting
in April. )
Protect fish from getting harmed by agricultural
development.
Do environmental feas ibi 1 i ty studies during plan and
include fish and game and subsistence.
Consider buffers and setbacks on rivers.
Pollutants from agriculture may affect fish.
NORTHWAY
No water-related comments.
subsistence lifestyle.
Much interest on
TANACROSS
No water-related comments.
TANANA
Concerned over impact of mining on lakes.
filled up Fish Lake.
Mining
Fish and wildlife---it's a real priority; especially
in Fish Lake area.
There's a lot of fishing in the summer. There are not
many fish camps on the Tanana, mostly on Yukon.
Fish Lake is an important use area.
TETLIN
We respect game.
the area, that's
Lake.
We don't want to destroy or pollute
why we don't build around Tetlin
2-5
TOK
Disposals create conflicts with fishing, hunting and
trapping.
A lot of the land the state has for sale is under a
bunch of water or is straight up.
I am
areas.
concerned with critical fish
Especially high use areas.
and game habitat
There should be buffer zones around creeks. (i.e.,
fish and game corridors.
At times no development within 10-12 miles of a creek
is appropriate and should be done to insure fish and
game is protected.
Forests are compatible with fish and
mills can get enough timber and still
can be protected.
game. Local
fish and game
Keep water quality.
Include buffers along water bodies (a few hundred
yards to 1/4 mile).
Part of getting minerals is getting dirty water too.
Get areas
clean. If
don't let
absorb the
revegetated and get
miners can't afford to
them mine until they
environmental cost.
water to come out
clean up the water,
can. They should
High water quality is important to the people of Tok.
When considering mining, it is a one time
development. Balance this against the value of
renewable resources such as salmon and their long term
availability.
If you are going to have agriculture develop it with
lots of big buffer zones.
Areas of black spruce that are drained can be used for
agriculture.
Include buffer zones to minimize soil erosion and
impact on rivers.
Agriculture disposals, if done right--not too large or
too many with proper buffers might be okay for this
area.
2-6
-
Pesticides used on Tok agricultural lands might seep
into the river.
The Tok agriculture disposals will take 2,000 acres of
land out of moose habitat. The best land for crops is
also best for fish and game. Agriculture and fish and
game are not compatible. Leave the land for fish and
game.
I am supportive of the proposed agriculture disposal.
However, if it is not a good site due to conflicts
with fish and game management look north of the Alaska
Highway and west of Tok, but south of and excluding
Wolf Lake, and south of the Tanana so that there is
year-round access.
We need access and some developments on the river.
The state should identify and insure boat launching
areas.
FAIRBANKS
Need clean water -don't like muddy water from mining.
Settling ponds
regulations are
be.
should be
not being
Mining affects fish.
enforced.
enforced, and
Clean water
they should
Mining silt interferes with fishing for white fish on
the Chatanika in September, before ice forms.
Keep permanent roads out of Shaw Creek and Rapid
Creek; that area is good for fish. Float planes use
992 for access. People use White Trail from Quartz
Lake to Goodpaster. Old cabins used by public in that
area.
Reserve public access to lakes and rivers.
On the Little Salcha it is all private land with· no
access.
Consider impact of forest development on fish and game
and recreation.
State is going about it o.k. if it's going to get into
agriculture. But from the perspective of caring about
hunting, fishing and trapping I don't like to see
agriculture. I want to see Alaska stay the same.
I'm not against agricultural disposals but make sure
they are placed in good areas and other interests like
2·7
fish and game are considered.
Putting lands in agriculture should be #l priority and
is compatible with fish and game.
We should look at the impact of agriculture on water
supply, both now and in the future (as well as water
quality).
Trappers agree with this.
We are opposed to agriculture in critical fish and
game areas and if agricultural disposals are done we
would like an assessment of the impacts.
Water use and water rights should be looked at before
planning any agricultural development in the area --
especially if large developments are being considered.
Habitat should be protected.
Protect rivers and large creeks with greenbelts 300'
wide.
With the disposal program in the past, there has been
too much land sold, with too little planning no
water, etc. Too much emphasis on quantity and not
quality. Much more emphasis is needed in finding
quality land.
Water quality anc eros ion control must be cons ide red
for all resources.
Agencies have been ignoring their own regulations on
water quality and this should be changed.
Examine critical habitat areas for fur-bearers as well
as big game. When I say critical I mean in the sense
that if it was gone the population will really drop.
Include waterfowl.
In identifying agricultural land look into using
wetlands rather than maybe forested areas.
Buffer zones and screened off areas are needed for
critical habitat. Incompatible uses should be placed
to provide least amount of conflict with habitat.
I'm concerned about agricultural effect on fish and
game. Not enough is known and if we contaminate the
fishing we are destroying a valuable food source.
All these rivers need a greenbelt on both sides of
them.
2-8
Agriculture is good for fish and game -doesn't have
to be harmful. People have to be educated before they
open their mouths about this.
Waterways move. What happens to a trail that's eroded
away? Buffers and easements should consider this.
Most of Alaska is water -when you drain it, it really
changes. Should consider these changes that can
happen in this plan. This would require kind of an
engineering approach.
With disposals on high areas there's a water problem.
Protect watersheds from mining and agriculture and
other things that cause siltation, pollution, etc.
Put a trail 2,000 feet behind private property on
south side of Chena Hot Springs Road with an access
point at about 12 mile Chena Hot Springs Road where
state property crosses. Place greenbelts of 1, 000
feet on each side of trail and 1,000 foot greenbelts
around any body of water (creeks, streams, ponds,
etc.) in the Chena Hot Springs Road area.
Each special interest group tends to square off
against the other. But many of these are compatible.
Old mining trails grow over into good habitat, the
initial impact is short-lived. Siltation is not as
serious as a lot of people feel. Gravel areas in
tailings become good spawning areas. Mining, if
anything, helps to enhance an area for recreation,
fish and game and forestry.
This water use regulation is a problem. When a miner
starts pumping the water, there may be conflicts with
other water users.
Prime farmland in California is the result of
sedimentation from mines in the uplands.
Banner Creek has never been known for fish due to
heavy metals naturally in the water.
How many fish could be more important than a mine?
Fish and Game should be made to say "x" number of fish
are more important than a mining operation.
They (Fish and Game) has overstressed
their point. Two years after a mine
have more fish than ever before.
2-9
this to make
closes you' 11
Which is worth more having people working on a
needed resource or a couple of hundred fish? This has
been our biggest gripe. They have blown this out of
proportion and without proper research.
Problem you get into, where mining is not compatible
with habitat, is water quality.
Remember for sewage and wells we need low density
lots.
Habitat of streams must be protected.
~1ere is a difference between taking large quantities
of water from some creeks versus using the small water
streams. Small streams, we should have direct access
to.
On small streams the fish and habitat considerations -
I don't understand I believe -they talk about those
little ecosystems of the Minnie Mouse world --it gets
ridiculous.
Oh no it doesn't; you know I've seen salmon spawning
in my berm piles on my farm; they are amazing fish --
you've heard of walking catfish --well, salmon off
Chena Hot Springs Road are doing the same and they
need to be protected.
In 20 years this access to water will be a problem.
~'/rite into the plan that the farmer has access to
water.
Class IV soils are good soils. It appears wet --but
will dry out and be good farming land in time.
The way the Army Corps of Engineers lays out wetlands
is WAY out of line with the Alaska situation.
The Clean Water Act will affect development of
wetlands. I can testify with people here who don't
want regulations on their land. The easiest way to
avoid a conflict is not to dispose of land which will
require permits before he can develop his land. About
5% of the time, there's a major clash between
development and wetland protection.
Are you going to give us credit for giving grain to
waterfowl and for draining some of these wet spots?
There aren't any ducks in some of these dry muskegs.
We need a new definition of wetlands. (Senator
Murkowski will be holding a meeting on this.)
2-10
No matter what you do, if you open
increase the harvest of fish and game.
the farmers and hunt the area.
an area, you
People follow
There's no conflict between agriculture and mining.
Is there a water conflict with mining?
No, you can't get a pump to the river, so the river
water doesn't matter.
If a farmer is careless with fertilizer or pesticides,
this is of concern. But there are serious
restrictions. In the arctic, cold temperatures mean
pesticides don't degrade.
Small-scale farming is a 1 i festyle, and if the river
is dirty and the land is disturbed, mining will be in
conflict. Large-scale mining would be a detriment to
the lifestyle.
Feedlot and barn yards also cause a decline in water
quality.
I think land reclamation should be required and the
water should be kept clean. But minerals and energy
are one of our biggest resources that will help get
renewable resources going.
LAKE MINCHUMINA
The area is pretty well saturated for trapping. What
are people in these disposals going to do for a
living? What about water going up there? People are
going to have a hard time.
Lake pollution is a concern. There has been oil
spilled on the runway here. PCB concentrates in fish
and then the dogs and people eat the fish. Also we
all drink the lake water.
we also hope that you wi 11 continue to classify the
large, mostly marshy area around the south half of the
lake as wildlife habitat. Literally thousands of
geese and ducks, and hundreds of swans and cranes, as
well as other birds, use it as a resting and feeding
ground during migration, and many nest there as well.
The area is rich in mammalian wildlife.
2·11
-
-
The north shore of the lake (Sec. 22, 23, T. 11 s.,
R. 23 W.) is unsuitable for settlement, timber or
other uses, as it is primarily muskeg and black
spruce. It is inhabited by a variety of animals and
wildlife habitat is, we believe, an appropriate
classification.
Forest and habitat are the key concerns here.
DELTA JUNCTION
Greenbelts -restrictions should be placed on highly
erodible areas. These areas shouldn't be encroached
upon.
Mining -DEC should get on placer miners about their
settling ponds. Some of these creeks are as muddy as
all get out. Miners make a real mess of things. The
settling ponds aren't working.
But regulating miners is a touchy one.
walking around with 357's.
Miners are
Maybe notes should be dropped from planes to the
miners about their water qua1ity.
When I started living in Clearwater there were lots of
animals. They started disappearing. They did this
because of too many recreational trappers. No one
took care of game. Beaver houses got trapped out. Do
like Brit ish Columbia and register trapl ines. Give
our watershed to people so they can regulate the take
in the watershed. The commercial trapper can't make
it. I know of one guy who left in 1945 saying there
is too much trapping. I mentioned this idea about
registering traplines to trappers. They didn't want
government in trapping they said as they loaded their
guns.
A 300 foot buffer along rivers is ridiculous; it would
be like having a continuous public campground.
2·12
C. Policies
1. Water Rights
Water rights are the real property right to use surface
and subsurface water.
Alaska water law is based on the appropriation doc-
trine, which holds that beneficial use rather than ownership
of the land is the basis for determining rights to use
water. The Alaskan constitution states that all waters are
reserved to the people for common use, and priority of
appropriation shall give prior right. In 1966 the Water Use
Act was passed to give statutory definition to the appropri-
ation system of water rights authorized by the constitution
(DNR, 1981).
Under the Water use Act water rights are administered
by the Alaska Department of Natural Resources. To obtain a
water right, individuals must complete the Application for
Water Rights obtained from and submitted to the local
district or area office of the DNR Division of Land and
Water Management. A permit is then issued to develop the
water source and the means to use it. Only after the water
is being beneficially used is a Certificate of Appropriation
issued. This is the legal document which conveys water
rights once the water is in use. Water rights do not
reflect the absolute ownership of the water but rather the
right to use the water.
Water rights run in perpetuity but they can be lost by
non-use. Water rights are attached (appurtenant) to the
land where the water is being used. If the land is sold,
the water right goes with the land to the new owner, unless
the water right has been separated from the land through
prior approval of the Commissioner of the Department of
Natural Resources.
Conditions may be attached to permits and certificates
of appropriation including the guarantee of minimum stream-
flows for the protect ion of fish and wildlife, recreation,
navigation, water quality, or any other purpose of substan-
tial public interest. If a significant amount of water is
needed for a short term use such as a construction project,
temporary authorization can be obtained through a written
request to the department. The temporary water use permit
does not establish a water right but is only intended to
avoid problems between those who have a short term need and
those who have existing rights.
2-13
Several except ions can be noted to this priority of
appropriation rule regarding the water rights. Community
water supply appropriations have preference over all others
regardless of date of acquisition; of course, if community
rights are exercised, appropriate compensation must be paid
to those whose rights were preempted.
Indian reservations and any federal lands withdrawn
from the public domain (e.g. national parks and refuges, and
military reservations) have implied water rights by order of
the U.S. Supreme Court. These rights may be established
without demonstration of beneficial use and they are not
lost by non-use. This can make interpretation and quantifi-
cation of water rights extremely difficult.
In 1980 the Alaska Legislature passed amendments to the
Water Use Act (1966) known as the Instream Flow Bill. This
legislation allows private parties and public agencies to
apply to DNR for reservations of water for instream uses
including fisheries, navigation, recreation, and water
quality purposes. Prior to the passage of these amendments,
water had to be physically diverted from the stream to
acquire a water right.
2-14
2. Water Quality
It is the policy of the State of Alaska to conserve,
improve, and protect public health and safety, terrestrial
and aquatic 1 ife, natural resources, and the environment.
In order to implement this pol icy, authority to adopt Water
Quality Standards, which provide for the protection of
identified uses of Alaska's waters, was given to the Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation by the Alaska State
Legislature through Alaska Statutes Title 46, Chapter 3.
Alaska's Water Quality Standard Regulations, (Title 18,
Chapter 70 of the Alaska Administrative Code), identify the
uses of the state's waters and set criteria which limit
man-induced pollution to protect these water uses.
Protective water uses include the following:
1. Drinking water, including food processing,
2. Agriculture, including irrigation and stock watering
3. Aquaculture
4. Industrial, including manufacturing and mining
5. Recreation
6. Growth and propagation of fish, shellfish and other
aquatic life and wildlife including water fowl and fur
bearers.
Manmade alterations to the water of the state may not
exceed the maximum contamnant levels as delineated in the
Alaska Water Quality Standard Regulations promulgated in 18
AAC 70.
Water Quality Criteria are established for the following
parameters:
1. Fecal coliform bacteria
2. Dissolved Gas
3. pH
4. Turbidity
5. Temperature
6. Dissolved inorganic substances
7. Sediment
8. Toxic and other deleterious organic and inorganic
substances
9. Color
10. Petroleum hydrocarbons, oils and grease
11. Radioactivity
12. Total residual chlorine
13. Residues such as floating solids, debris, sludge,
deposits, foam and scum.
2-15
Hater which is classified for more than one use, must
meet the most stringent water quality criteria of all the
included uses. Presently all waters of the State of Alaska
must meet the criteria for all uses with the exception of
the Chena River between the confluence of the Chena River
and Chena Slough to the confluence of the Chena River and
the Tanana River. This section of the Chena River is class-
ified for all uses except drinking water.
Procedures for changing the identified uses of a water
body are included in the Water Quality Standard Regula-
tions. Several Mining Districts have initiated this process
for reclassification of streams within their district to
exclude all uses except industrial.
The Water Quality Standards are used primarily as a basis
for:
1. establishing conditions in wastewater discharye
permits issued by the Department;
2. developing best management practices to control non-
point sources of pollution;
3. determining the effect of man's activities on identi-
fied uses of the water; and
4. enforcement act ions against ope rat ions adversely
affecting water quality.
In applying the Water Quality Standards, the Department
samples and analyzes state water, associated plant and
animal life, and wastewater discharges. The Department also
requires dischargers to perform certain wastewater effluent
and receiving water analyses to assist in protecting water
quality. Monitoring requirements are generally limited to
those pollutant parameters in the standards which are appro-
priate and practical for a particular discharger.
The Water Quality Standard Regulations are reviewed and
revised as necessary, at least once every three years, to
ensure that they reflect new information on criteria limita-
tions and that existing or potential water uses are accur-
ately identified.
2-16
-
Chapter3
-
-• -• -• -• .. -Water Supply in the Tanana Basin
Ill -
-
---..
-----
III. WATER SUPPLY llV THE TAN ANA BASIIV
Information on ground water and surface water charac-
teristics is basic to water resources and land-use plan-
nin•J. Unfortunately, the Tanana Basin is similar to other
regions in Alaska which face the difficult situation of
having a relatively sparse data base, both in terms of
geographical distribution and historical record. This situ-
ation precludes much of the traditional hydrometerological
analysis such as flow durations, flood and lowflow frequen-
cies, and especially area-specific hydrograph characteriza-
tion. New methods for estimating flow characteristics of
ungaged watersheds are certainly needed for Alaska.
i"lethods are needed that bridge the gap between repeated
summaries of sparse data and the site-specific information
relevant to planning and decision making. TI1e scope of this
current project does not allow research on such new ffi(~thod
ologies. However, some potentially fruitful approaches will
be discussec1.
The quantity, quality and distribution of water
resources in any area are affected by geologic, topographic,
and climatic characterist s. Table 3-1 summarizes precipi-
tation, elevation, temperature, and wind data for a number
of locations in the re<.JiO:l.
3-1
A..f:'ASJ\.l~ H
u.::~.
T •
; ,-
·•
'I .: -~ ·---• ... ..-"' ••-I. },
Table3-1
PRECIPITATION, ELEVATION, TEMPERATURE, AND WIND DATA FOR SOME LOCATIONS IN THE
TANANA BASIN
ECi:."VATTOl Piili:!Pl'l'll'fiCN srr-ii-1-.::rr------wrurr:n EXf(it:Mti ____
ll:OI1'ICli ltl fH:::T YEAH OF kiX."'fUJ (Incl. Sr£>W) 9-l:Wl-'1\IL 1l:M.l'I·;W\TUHE( 'f) 'J'l':MPE!l!\TUilE( 'f) 'J'UIPEHA'!'UHE( 'f') 1\ VEii!I.Q; WI NO EX'I'R£'1£ WI NO
-----------...-----------------------------------------------------
Big Delta 1 ,26B 30 ,,. 41" 40' to fi?' -14' to 26' -63' to 92' ESE 8.9 kts. WNW 64 kts.
( 12.5 kph)' ( 90 kph)
calm 15\
01ena lbt 1,195 12 14" 61" ))' to 69' -23' to 19' -59' to 92' -------------
Sprln'jS
Clearwater 1,100 11 15" 56" 35' to 72' :-3 1' to 24' -72' to 9)' ----------
Colle']!! 621 59 12" 51" 40' to n· -16' to 28' -65' to 99' -----
Maqnetic
Elelr.on M'll 547 28 15" 75" 40' to 70' -20' to 26' -62' to 93' W 6.0 kts. SW 50 kts.
(8.4 kph), (70 kph)
calm 21\
f'alr:hanks 4]6 40 11" 70" 39' to 72' -22' to 26' -61' to 99' N 5.3 kts. WSW 35 kts.
Intn'l (7.4 kph), ( 49 kph)
Mqx:>rt calm 21\
~ Gilrore 959 10 11" 83" 36. to 68' -20' to 18' -65' to 89' -------
N Cr~k
Lake 701 25 13" so• 38' to 68' -14' to 25' -62' to 89' ENE 6. 1 k.ts. sw 48 kts.
Mlnc:ht.~nina (6.5 k.ph), (67 k:phl
calm 18\
Llvengo:xl no 12 13" so· 38' to 72' -18' to 22' -54' to 90' -----------
Manley lbt 275 ]4 15" 61 11 ]7. to 72' -21' to 25' -70' to 91 • -----------
Springs
!tKinley 2,070 so 14" 77" 38. to 72' -7' to 27' -54. to 89' --------
Park
ll>~nana 356 40 1 1" 48" 38' to 72' -18' to 24' -69' to 98' E 5.3 k.ts. E 40 kts.
(7.4 kph), (56 k.ph l
calm 28.5\
lbrth Pole 475 7 1 o· 61" 38' to 72' -34' to 25' -67' to 95' ------------
lbrthway 1, 713 30 11: 37" 37. to 69' -27' to 20' -n· to 91' ESE 5.0 kts. NNW 45 kts.
(7.0 kph), {63 k:ph)
calm 24\
Rid1ardson 875 12 13: 54: 38' to 73' -15' to 28' -59' to 98' -----------------
Tolnana 232 70 1 3" 52" 36' to 70' -19S to 28' -76' to 92' -----------------
Tok 1,620 16 11" 34" ))' to 72' -32' to 25' -71' to 96' ------------------
lhiverslty 475 59 12" 51" 40' to 72' -18' to 28' -65' to 99' -----------------
Exp. Station
---------~-·~----______________ .,. __________________ ------------
Sourc:'!: 1\laska Rcqional ProEiles, 1974.
A. SURFACEWATER
t. Runnoff
A knowledge of runoff gene rat ion helps to de 1 inea te
those parts of the landscape that are major contributors to
ei th.er storrn runoff or groundwater recharge. Zones that
allow groundwater recharge, ann therefore supply stream flow
:Juring dry weather, should be conserveu so that they r:1i9ht
continue this function instead of being paved over or
polluted.. In many situations the controls of runoff are
very sensitive to disturbance. The removal of vegetation
from a forested area during construction, for example, can
lower the infiltration capacity enough to generate large
amounts of storm runoff where the previous runoff process
was a slow subsurface percolation. Zones that produce stor;n
runoff also yield sediment, plant nutrients, bacteria, and
other "pollutants". An understanding of storm runoff
production, then, ind ates the management techniques that
might be useil to minimize the discharge of these materials
int0 surface water. (Anderson, 1970) •
Runoff is defined as that part of precipitation which
leaves an area as stream flow. Because it includes melt
-,.,ater from glaciers, the time la<J between precipitation and
runoff may be hundreds or thousands of years. In the Tanana
3asin, measured annual runoff ranges from 10 to 26 inches
per year (Anderson, 1970).
The Tanana Basin includes the arainage of the Tanana
River and its tributaries. The Tanana River drains 44,500
square "'Tii les of which .500 square miles lie in Canada. The
river forms at the confluence of the Chisana and Nabesna
Rivers near the village of Northway and flows generally
north-lilestward 531 miles to its mouth where it enters the
Yukon River at Tanana. From its beginning to Big Delta,
about 230 miles, the Tanana flows in a valley with an aver-
age width of 10-15 miles; below Big Delta the valley widens
U> 50 to 60 miles. Major tributaries are the Kantishna,
Toklat, ~'l"enana, Tolovana, Chena, Delta, Wood, Gerstle, anrl
Salcha Rivers (Table 3-2). Figure 3-l shows the major
rivers and streams in the Tanana Basin as well as location
of surface-water gaging stations in the Rasin.
Drainage areas of streams entering the Tanana River
from the north are distinct from those enterin<J from the
south. South bank clrainage originates in the northern
slopes of the Alaska Range, and at the highest elevation,
numerous glaciers and relatively heavy precipitation result
in different runoff characteristics from that experienced in
the less rugged areas contributing to the north side tribu-
taries. Nearly all of the south bank streams are of
3-3
Table3-Z
MAJOR RIVERS IlV THE TANANA RIVER BASIN
At River Drainage Length of Main
River Tributary To Mile Area(mi.2) Stream (miles)
Tanana Yukon 720 44,500 531
Kantishna Tanana 93 6,770 163
Tolovana Tanana 100 3,360 173
Nenana Tanana 152 3,920 143
W:xxl Tanana 169 1,390 114
(:heni'l. Tanana 200 2,070 141
Salcha Tanana 242 2,170 136
Little Delta Tanana 266 690 36
Delta Creek Tanana 281 720 38
Delta Tanana 299 1,660 82
f':>O:Jr1paster Tanana 308 1,430 71
~-Iea ly Tanana 342 390 42
-Johnson Tanana 369 380 25
Robertson Tanana 408 530 32
Tok Tanana 467 960 87
Tetlin Tanana 500 940 80
Nahesna Tanana 531 2,130 75
Chi sana Tanana 531 3,270 117
(ARP 1974)
3-4
N.C.A.
TANANA
SURFACE WATER GAGING STATIONS
IN THE TAN ANA BASIN
PRESER\IE
.& Complete record (active)
b. Complete record (discontinued)
A Peak record (active)
.&. Peak record (discontinued)
A Record from 1907-12
W SCALe IN MILES
cJt 0 6 12 IS 24
1,
L. \
DENALI NAT'L.
PARK 6 PRESEI!VE
,...
/
I
Figure 3-1. Surfaee Water Gaging Stations in the
Tanana Basin.
']lacial origin and possess the characteristics of glacial
streams. They are generally swift and steep and carry large
amounts of suspended sediments (iuring spring and summer.
Channels in the lower reaches are braided through extensive
']ravel deposits in the bottoms of the canyons. In w.inter
flow ~s at reduced stages and only a small amount of sedi-
ment is carried.
Mean annual runoff in the Tanana Basin averages about
0.5 to one cubic foot per second (cfs) per square mile in
the lowlands and tributary basins north of the Tanana
River. South of the river mean annual runoff probably
ranges from about one cfs per square mile adjacent to the
river to over four cfs per square mile in the uplands of the
,1\.laska Range. Annual runoff also varies widely from year to
year. For example, average annual runoff of the Chena River
at Fair:')anks was measured at 0. 36 cfs per square mile in
19S8 and at 1.32 cfs per square mile in 1962. (Ak Regional
Profiles (ARP), 1974).
Hean annual peak runoff for small areas ranges from
about 10 cfs per square mile in the lowlands to probably as
high as 50 cfs per square mile in steep basins in the
uplands. Most annual peaks occur in summer and are caused
by rain, but spring snow melt occasionally causes annual
peaks. Frequent channel icing and icejam flooding contrib-
ute to a high susceptibility to floods in the lowlands of
the Tanana Basin.
Mean annual low monthly runoff averages about 0.1 to
0.2 cfs per sr1uare mile. (J\RP, 1974). Low flow usually
occurs in late winter or early spring following a long
strear:1 flow recession extending through the cold winter.
Since streams in small tributary basins usually freeze
completely during most winters, the only large source of
streamflow during winter is the subchannel water under the
large rivers. During low flow some of the streams lose most
of their water to the aquifers in the lowlands.
Table 3-3 is a summary of surface-water gaging station
records compilec1 from data from published and unpublished
records of the U.S. Geological Survey. Average and peak
flows are recorded as well as low flow. Low flows are a
statistical analysis used for certain design purposes such
as fish survival or rec r·eiit ion. Figure 3-l shows the
location of these stations.
Table 3-4 is a sununary of the historical averages of
snow depth and water content data frorn snow courses and
pillows in the Tanana Basin. Figure 3-2 shows the location
of these courses and pillows in the Tanana Basin. Snow
courses consist of a series of sampling locations (usually
not less t"han ten) where snow depth and resulting water
content is measured manually. Snow pillows are pillow-like
3-6
Table3-3. SUMMARY OF SURFACE-WATER GAGING STATION RECORDS IN THE TANANA BASJN 1
Data from. PubUshed and UnpubUshed records of the U.S. Geological Survey
IWt:IW;E I'LlJool PEAK ~1.£1,.1 lLW ru:w
7 day, 10 yeilr
so-i'eilr t::xce&l.:nc:e lDW Flow Ptul>dlJlllty
lk<illl<J'Je C:aqe '4;;;. Dlsc·l ict nJe Discharge Date Probability Discharge3 Discharye4
Map St.dt lUrl dr~:d 1n elevation 1"-'riod cfs ~-'-'<" cfs [>:r est iu.ated ds fe<" estlJnate cfs 1.er
t¥>. ,._Jnl>cr !...ilt"t:dln sr.:t. tni les in feet.2 ut lcOJrd t..:t~ $tJ. ml. ct~ S<.!. m l. cfs sq. mi. cfs "'I· ml.
l 1546 9')00 St 1ver Cn .. <Ck r"Car tvrthway Jet. 11.7 1963-1972 355.0 30.3 7-64 558.1 47.7
2 1547 0000 01lsana Rtw'r at N.Jcthway Jet. J280.0 1682.9 195Q-197l 2331 .o 0.71 12,300.0 ).66 6-64 11,412.9 3.48 611.4 0.19
3 1547 1000 Ottters (Leek ncar Northway Jet. 15.4 1964-1980 1010.0 65.6 6-64 773.6 50.2
4 1547 1500 'J'dl'lana River 'l'r. nea~e 'l~t lin Jet. 2.4) 1965-45.0 18.5 6-73 52.5 21.6
5 1547 2{)00 •r-anaad River ff'ur 'Ibk ,Jet. 195G-1953 6980.0
6 1547 3000 Biute 11 Creek near Mentast.a 1965-1966 aa.o 6-66
7 1547 3600 Lo:J Calnn Creek ,..,ar ~ Cabin lnn 10.7 1966-1980 330.0 30.8 7-72 750.8 70.2
B 1547 3950 C1e~rwdtcr Creek near !bk 36.4 1960.0 1964-1980 1040.0 28.6 6-68 1938.4 53.2
9 1547 4000 1tJk River near 'Ibk Jet. 1952-1954 270.0
10 1547 6000 'l'dndrki River near Td!'lacross 8550.0 1489.6 1953-7994.0 0.93 39,100.0 4.57 6-72 40,632.0 4.75 1707.9 0.20
ll 1547 6049 ·rdrldnd Rl ver Tt'. near Cathedral Haptds 3.09 1970-332.0 107.4 7-70 756.0 245.0
12 1547 6050 1'al1drld lti V<!r Tr. near Tanacross ).32 1520.0 1964-1972 297.0 89.5 7-70 845.2 255.0 n 1547 6200 ·rurldnd H.i ver 'l'r. r"Car rut Lake u.o 1400.0 1964-1980 146.0 13.3 7-64 188.0 17.1 ~ 14 1547 6300 Be n·y Creek neil r llJt l.ake 65.1 1400.0 1964-42.2 0.65 2800.0 43.0 7-64 2683.6 41.2 1.4 0.02 ~ 15 1547 6400 txy er,,.,k ncar rut !Ak.e 57.6 1330.0 1964-18.9 o. 33 2200.0 38.2 7-64 2860.4 49.7
16 1547 7500 C1eal:'old1:er Cra.k near 0..1til Jet. 1978-1979 713.0 830.0 8-79
17 1547 8000 'ln.nana 1U ve r at Ellg Delta 13,500.00 963.0 1949-1957 14,950.0 1.11 62,800.0 7-49 69.678.0 5.16 3866.3 0.29
18 1547 8010 Rcx::k Creek neat:' Paxscr~ 50.3 3100.0 1963-1800.0 35.8 6-77 2655.5 52.8
19 1547 tl040 l'ht! 1dJ1 Ct:'eek rear Pax ,;on 12.2. 3700.0 1967-1978 69.7 5.71 2320.0 290.2 8-67 2636.9 216.1 1.0 o.08
20 1547 8050 l"cCa 11 rn. Creek near Paxson 15.5 1967-1010 .o 65.2 8-67 1234.4 70.6
21 1547 8500 !ll.ll>y Cr<:<!k lEd!." ~lly 5.32 1840.0 1963-1979 400.0 75.2 fr-77 865.9 162.8
22 1548 0000 llanner: Cn.>ek at Richardson 20.2 900.00 1909-1910 732.0 36.2 1966 1768.9 87.6
23 1548 2000 Junct ton Cn~ek near Rlchardsun 2.!.6 1000.00 1909-1912 300.0 12.7 6-12
24 1541! 4000 Sd1cha ltiver near 5a1ctl<tket 2170.0 631.9 1949--1650 .o 0.76 97,000.0 44.7 8-67 63,300.0 29.2 83.6 0.04
2S 1548 5500 'l'al'lana Rtver <It Fairbanks uroeftneU 400.00 1967-18,810.0 125,000.0 8-67 3577.5
26 1549 0000 M:XlUncllt Cra.k at Olena tt::>t Spru-•J" 26.7 1200.00 1912-1967 1490.0 55.8 8-67 2223.7 83.3
27 154~ JOOO Olena River ncar Two Rivers 941.0 700.00 1967-651.0 0.69 16,800.0 17.9 So-75 22,882.3 24.3 35.7 0.04
2tl 1549 3500 01ena H.tver near N.Jr:th !'Ole 1430.0 478.1 1972-1980 736.0 o.51 12,300.0 8.60 So-75 20,960.6 14.5 52.4 o.o4
29 1549 )700 01<:n.> !U~r below M:X>se Cr~k Dam 1430.0 1980-795.0 0.56 5930.0" 4.15 7-81
10 l')H 4000 OH.!fkl H.lver r1ear Fa.i.rbaltks 1440.0 450.0 1910-1912 9050.0 6. 28 6-12 8.4 o.ol
j 1 154') 6000 Ltttle O~ena Hiver ..liJOve Sorr'"b Cc..:eK.
ne<.~r O•atanllw 79.0 900.0 1907-1910 405 5.13 5-08
j2 1549 8000 Sorrels cr~"Ck ncar: Olatanika 21.0 950.0 1907-1910 131.0 5.13 s-oa
H 1550 0000 E:l 1 wtt Creek ~ar Chdtanika 13.8 950.0 1907-1910 111.0 8.04 5-08
34 1550 2000 Ftsh Creek below S.>lo Creek neat:'
Cl1atanika 21-5 1100.0 l91G-1912 120.0 s.sa 8-ll
35 1550 4000 fish Creek above Faltbank.s Creek neat:
01atarnka 39.0 a50.o 1907-1908 227.0 5.82 5-08
)6 1550 6000 Miller Cr~k near Chatanika 16.7 750.0 1908-1910 122•0 7.31 s-o8
37 t5'>0 8000 Fish Creek at. n-outh, neat: Chdtantka 90.2 740.0 1908-1910 682.0 7.56 5-08
38 1551 0000 Lltt1e Q>ena River neat:' 013tanika 228.0 740.0 1908-1910 1670.0 7.32 s-o8
39 155 l 1000 Little Chena River near fairbanks 372.0 490.0 1967-1981 204.0 0.55 17,000.0 45-7 8-67 11,299.7 30.4
40 1551 1500 Steele Creek neat: Fairbanks 10.7 1967-1974 340.0 u.s 8-67 263.3 24.6
41 1551 2000 Olena Slough neat: Fairbanks 20.0 450.0 1948-1951 740.0 )7.0 5-49
42 1551 4000 Oler\3 River at Fairbanks 1980.0 422.9 1948-1396.0 o. 71 74,400.0 37.6 8-67 42,001.7 21.21 148.7 0.08
43 1551 4500 WJcd Rlver: neat: Fairbanks 855.0 530.0 1970-1978 473.0 0.55 -5510.0 6.44 8-76 6461.1 7.56 51.9 0.06
44 1551 5500 Tanana River at Nenana 25,600.0 338.5 1948-23,490.0 0.92 186.000·0 7.27 8-67 152,077.4 5.94 4626.9 0.18
~
~
(Table 3-3 continued) AVI:lti\GI:: tlDN
llrair•dge Ga<Je Oh>c!i<.~e<J<=
Hap Station aced in Elevation penod ds tJfdC
in feet2 of ~>coo:-d cfs mi. N.J. tunl~r Stream :;y. miles S<~.
45 1551 51!00 sua~et le Creek near Cant'*"'!ll 36.2 2250.0 1964-42 • .< \.L7
46 1551 5900 ~illy Creek near Cantwell .5.63 1966-.,.-
47 1551 6000 ~nana River near WWy 710.0 2100.0 1951-1202.0 1.69
48 1551 6200 Slime Creek rea.:-Cant""lll 6.90 1966
49 1551 6000 ~nana River near ~aly 1910 .o l270.2 1951-1979 3506.0 1.84
50 1551 8100 ~. Panguineque Creek "'"a.:-Ugnite 3.44 1965-1974
">1 1551 8200 R.Jck Creek near Fer-ry 8.17 1965-1980
52 1551 82SO Bicch Creek near ~ 4.10 1965-
53 1551 8300 renana River near Rex 1965-1968 4536.
54 10.51 8350 Tek1anika River near Ugn1te 490.0 1550.0 1966-1967 698.0 1.42
55 1551 11400 'D>nana River Tr. near Nenafld 0.6 1966-1967
~ 1551 9000 Bddge Creek near uverq:xxl 12.6 670.0 1963-1972
57 1551 9200 Brooks Creek Tr. near ~i verl<jl)Cd 7.8 1964-
58 1552 2000 1-L'f'lanus Creek near Olena lbt Spc in<JS 80.o 1450.0 1907-1912
~9 1552 6000 Olarity Creek near Olena tl:>t Spcir;,)s 6.9 2100.0 1910-1912
60 1552 8000 !l:lnestake Creek near Olena tt>t Springs 5.6 2130.0 1910-1912
61 1553 0000 t'aith Creek near Olena lbt Spnngs 61.1 1450.0 1907-1912
1963-1972
62 1553 2000 OlatMika River neat' Olena lbt Springs 132.0 1450.0 1907-1912
63 1553 4900 POker Creek near Olatanika 23.1 740.0 1972-1976 10.9 0.47
64 155) 5000 Carilxlu Creek near Olatanika 9.2 1170.0 1970-4.7 0.51
65 1553 8000 Chatanika River near Olatanika 4~.0 650.0 1907-1912
66 1554 0000 GJldstream Creek near Fox 28.6 8oo.o 1907 only
67 1554 1600 Glotloe Creek near livengood 23.0 1964-
68 1554 1650 G.lot:>e Creek Tr. near Wvengocrl 9.0 1963-1972
69 1554 1800 Wdshir;,)tOO Creek rear Fox 46.7 1908-1909
70 1555 2000 California Creek near Eureka 6.7 8oo.o 1908-1909
71 1555 6000 Plooeer Creek near Euo:-eka 8.1 900.0 1908-1909
72 15~ 2000 !iJt1inana C~eeek near Eureka 44.2 900.0 1908-1909
73 1556 4000 Sullivan Creek at Tbfty 15.6 650.0 1901)-1909
lrncludes all stream gages gaged 2 year:s or rore; unless other:wise specified.
2'Ihe National <£odetic ver-tical Datllll of 1929 (NfVD) is used to determine e1evatioo for gages '3-'"Je:l afte~e
1929. 'Ihe NFVD is deC"ived fron the average sea level over a period of many years, but it cbes rot
necessar-ily represent local mean sea level at any particular place. Prior to 1929, the gage evaluation has
been cr-udely estimated fran topograf*lic maps.
)•Jhe 50-year f:xceedence Pt:Obability Oisehacge lS the Statlstically dar:ived discharge that Wlll be exceeded,
once in a fifty year period. 'Ihe 50 year-peal< dlscharges weo:-e det.ecmined usir;,) the Ug-Pearson type UI
method.
~'D1e 7 day, 10 year, Low Flow PrcOability Dischacge Ls the estimate for mil1imum ruroff (over a 7-day period)
in a 10 year-period.
•c;age datLlll ( l\Q/D) chanLJed purir>:J this year.
i
P t:AK n.Ool l.Ool I'U.lW
7 day, 10 yc1at·
50-Yca.:-Exceedcnce Low Flow Pn:bdbiltty
IJlSChar<JC mte Pcobabi1ity Discharge) Dis<.:hao:-ge4
cfs fCC estJJI~ated cfti f"!t" e~tlJnat.t: cfs ,_.,,
cfs sy. mi. cfs sq. mi. cfs sq. mi.
llOO.u 85.6 6-64 2996.0 82.8 6.5 0.18 191.0 )3.9 6-66 335.8 59.6
11,900.0 16.8 6-62 11,365.7 16.0 114.5 0.16
685.0 99.3 7-67 792.1 114.8
46,800.0 24.5 7-67 43,271.6 22.7 297.2 0.16
151.0 43.9 8-67
938.0 114.8 6-80 3026.8 370.5
300.0 73.2 6-80 708.0 127.7
33,100.0 67.7 7-67 114.2 Q. 23
18.0 30.0 7-67
1070.0 84.9 6-64 1801.9 143.0
168.0 21.5 5-75 475.0 60.9
760.0 9.50 6-10
71.0 11.2 6-10
58.9 10.4 6-12
4950.0 81.0 8-67 5378.6 8B.o
2190.0 16.6 9-07
232.0 10.0 6-73 730.5 31.6
117.0 12.7 5-75 295.7 32.1
3480.0 7.63 5-11
41.0 1.43 9-07
1240.0 53.9 8-67 1813.6 78.9
490.0 54.4 8-67 685.6 76.2
2500.0 53.5 8-67 4511.7 96.6
8.7 L30 9-08
86.0 10.6 5-09
315.0 7.13 8-09
158.0 10.1 8-09
Table3-4.
Snow Courses and Pillows in the Tanana Basin, Historical
Averages for February, March, AprU and May
Histodcal AveJ:"age2
Feb 1 March 1 April 1 May 1
Eleva-Ye=s of Snow WateJ:" Snow WateJ:" Snow wateJ:" Snow
Map tion Previous Depth Content Depth Content Depth Content Depth
Site ~arne !'b. (feet) Recol:"d1 (in.) (in.) (in. J (in.) (in.) (in.) (in.)
Big Delt3 1 980 23 14 2.2 16 2.7 14 2.7 1
*ClearJ SU!rni t 2 2330 23 24 5.0 26 5.3 29 6.4 26
*Fielding Lake 3 3000 22 32 7.0 38 8.5 46 12.0 43
Tok Junction 4 1650 23 17 2.8 18 3.0 17 3.3 4
*Munson Ridge 5 3050 21 34 7.8 35 8.5 46 13.0 47
*Mt. Ryan 6 2800 21 28 5.7 30 6.2 32 7.3 30
F'rench Creek 7 1800 21 24 4.7 26 5.5 27 6.1 17
*Little Chena Ridge 8 2000 21 22 4.3 26 5.1 27 5.5 19
Little Salcha 9 1700 21 22 4.1 23 4.8 23 5.2 12
Cat:" i oo u 'line 10 1150 18 23 4.4 23 4.5 26 5.5 12
ColoJ:"ado Creek 11 700 17 21 3.6 21 4.1 16 2.9 10
Granite Creek 12 1240 15 15 2.6 16 3.0 15 3.2 3
*U(Jper Chena 13 3000 16 27 6.3 29 6.8 34 7.8 30
Bonanza Creek 14 1150 15 20 3.4 20 3.8 20 4.2 13
Fort GJ:"eely 15 1500 16 15 2.6 17 3.0 16 3.3 4
Yak PastuJ:"e 17 600 23 19 3.2 20 3.8 21 4. 1 5
Haystack ~untain 18 1950 13 27 5.3 28 5.7 31 6.2 26
C= ioou Creek 19 1250 13 21 3.6 22 4.2 22 4.5 7
Carioou Snow Pillow 20 900 13 20 5.6 21 4.0 21 4.2 5
'lontmJent Creek 21 1850 9 19 3.4 21 3.9 21 4.2 15
Teudlet Creek 22 1640 10 18 2.8 21 4.0 20 3.8 7
Lower Chena 25 2000 6 --28 6.1 --0
Little Chena Slo[Je 26 1100 3 -------
Little Chena lbttom 27 1460 5 -------
Jad<: Rivet:" 28 2450 --------
Oppel:" Chena Pillow 30 3400 2 -------
Totchaket 31 350 3 -------
Rhoa::ls Cree..": 32 1225 2 -------
F'aiJ:"banks 33 450 1 -------
Lake ~nchumina3 4E --16 --20 3.8 21 4.3 -
02
* Affected to sane deg J:"ee by ·.rind
1. YeaJ:"s of J:"ec::Jrd ;nay not be identical foJ:" all :neasun~ment dates at eadl site
when different t.i-!e longeJ:" [Jedod of re=J:"d is shown.
2. HistoJ:"ical averages at:"e not calculated until five years of data at:"e J:"e=J:"ded.
3. <OJ:" snow sur;ey inventory purp:JSes this site is incllrled in the Kuskokwim Rivet:" Basin.
Source: "Snow Surveys and 'Hater Suwly OJtlook in Alaska",
u.s. Soil Conservation Service, 1982-3
3·9
WateJ:"
Content
(in.)
0.3
6.8
12.7
1.0
14.3
7.9
5.1
5.1
3.4
3.5
2.7
0.8
8.1
3.2
0.9
1.6
6.6
1.9
1.4
3.5
1.9
0 -------
-
TANANA
DENALI NAT'L.
PARK S PRESERVE
L l
Figure3-2.
N.C.A
('
·~
/
\ -·---, / ·-,
YUKON
CHARLEY
PRESERVE
I
~
/
Snow Courses and Pillows in the Tanana
Basin.
/ :
\
I
SNOW COURSES AND PILLOWS
IN THE TANANA BASIN
SCALF IN MILES
0 6 12 18 24
WRANGELL· Sl ELIAS NAT'L
PREl'lfRVF
l:f --
Figure3-3. Average Annual Runoff in the Tanana
Basin.
AVERAGE ANNUAL RUNOFF
IN INCHES
c:::::J GREATER THAN 48
24 TO 48
12 TO 24
6 TO 12
...
devices set into the ground which measure the wei9ht of
sn'::lw. Snow pillows can be connected to either a continuous
recorder or telemetering device which reduce the need for
on-site visits. Snowmelt provides much of base flow for
many rivers in the Tanana Basin, thus snowpack data can
provide a helpful forecast of water supply through the
su:'1mer.
Figure 3-3 is a runoff map portraying average annual
runoff by altitude zones and the average streamflow.
l\.vera9e runoff is expressed on the map_ in terms of inches
per year. \'/hen expressed in inches, runoff represents
average depth at place of origin. The longest streamflow
records span 17 years and form the base period used. m1ere
p<)SS ible, shorter records were averaged to the longer tirne
period. On ungaged basins, average streamflow has been
est-Lrnatr:!,i. (Anderson, 1970).
The runoff map was constructed by a trial-and-error
process of apportioning measured streamflow and the esti-
.na tec1 ground-water flow throughout the Bas in, assuming that
precipitation tends to increase and evapotranspiration tends
to d.ecrease with altitude. Other environmental factors such
as geology, permafrost, vegatation, and lake or ice storage
were in tro,]uceO. as variables related to evaluation distr i-
bution. Thus, area-altitude distribution provides an index
to quantify altitude zones of assumed homogeneous runoff
characteristics. A set of values was assumed to be satis-
factory when estimated and measured runoff values were
comparable at gaging stations. Altitude zones of assumed
constant local runoff were drawn with the aiel. of altitude
contours. The runoff values are real only in the sense that
they satisfy an inferred hydrologic model and provide the
best Eit for apportioning the measured streamflow through-
out the Basin. Thus, the map is useful in comparison of
runoff with climatic or geologic characteristics of the area
and in grossly delineating the geographic distribution of
water in the basin. The map is not intended to provide a
means for estimatins the flow of any specific stream.
The greatest contribution of runoff to the Tanana
River is from the Alaska Range from areas above 5,000 feet.
This is a rather gross simplification of a complex process
because some prec ipi tat ion above 5, 000 feet is transporte<1
in the sol iO. state by wind or glaciers to lower altitudes
before it melts and becomes runoff. Runoff from areas above
5, 000 feet havin9 perennial ice and snow is estimated to
average 84 inches; runoff from subareas having minor amounts
of perennial ice and snow may be as low as 24 inches.
(Anl1erson, 1970)
In the 3,000 to 5,000 foot altitude (generally between
tree line and snow line) average runoff approaches 100 per-
cent of precipitation or 12 to 24 inches. From 3,000 feet
to valley bottom, runoff is approximately 60 percent of
precipitation or 8 to 12 inches (Anderson, 1970).
3-12
,,.lf
I:1 the poorly drained low-relief areas of the valley
bottoms, average annual runoff from direct precipitation is
presumed to be 0 to 8 inches. Most of the runoff would be
fr•")m snowmelt; little runoff results from rain. Lowest run-
of E is from the areas of lakes and swamps where evapotrans-
piration is high.
A generalized water balance for the Tanana Basin is
']iven in Table 3-5. The term water balance refers to the
balance between the income of water from precipitation and
snownel t and the outflow of water by evapotranspiration,
grouniwater recharge, and streamflow.
The water balance has been used for computing season-
al and geographical patterns of irrigation demand, the soil
moisture stresses under which crops and natural vegetation
can survive, the prediction of streamflow and water-table
elevations and the flux of water to lakes, It is also use-
ful for predicting some of the human impacts on the hydro-
logic cycle. ~1e hydrologic effects of weather modification
or changes of vegetation cover can be quickly estimated at a
very early stage in the planning. Although the predictions
may be approximate, they are ~ufficiently accurate to indi-
cate whether a scheme is hydrologically sound.
From Table 3-5
Basin, 32 percent of
evapotranspiration.
it is estima teri that in
the annual precipitation
the Tanana
is lost by
Year-to-year gains or losses in the lake, ground
water, and permafrost or glacial ice of the hydrologic cycle
are incluc1ed in the values of the water-balance table; the
proportions of their individual contributions are poorly
defined. Data from the Gulkana Glacier has been from photo-
graphs taken by the u.s. Geological Survey in 1910 and
1952. It is estimated that net loss of ice may contribute
about 5 percent of the Tanana Basin yielri. (Anderson,
1970). This estimate, which is quite crude, is baseri on the
photographic record, on water budget studies of Gulkana
Glacier, ancl the patterns of runoff. The water balance in
this table is dynamic in the sense that it considers the net
water volume moving through the hydrolo'] ic eye le. It does
not inclu·ie the large volume of water more or less perman-
ently stored in lakes, grounriwater, or ice within the Tanana
Basin.
As discussed earlier, estimating flow rates for vary-
in'] return periods are made with little confidence in the
Tanana Bas in as \vell as in :nany other areas of Alaska. This
is a particular problem in watersheds with little or no
historical data.
3-13
-
Table3-S.
WATERBALAIVCEINTBETANANABASIN
A generalized water balance for the Tanana basin is given in the table below.
-------------------~ --~-·-·----------
Area Evapotrans-Runoff
Precip-pi ration ----
Altitude Square Percent itation lossl Acre-feet Percent of
Zone miles basin Acre-feet Acre-feet X 106 total oosin
area X 106 X 106 runoff
------·--
<1,000 12,000 27 8.0 6.3 1.7 5
l-3,000 20,000 46 14.9 7.7 7.2 24
3-5,000 8,000 18 7.7 0.4 7.3 24
>5,000 4,000 9 214.2 Minor 14.2 47
---------------------~------
1btal 44,000 100 44.8 14.4 330.4 100
leo.lculated fran precipitation minus nmoff
2rncludes an estimated 1.4 x 106 acre-feet long-term ice storage loss
3rncludes an estimated 3.7 x 106 acre-feet of ground-water underflow
(Anderson 1970)
3-14
Dr. Doug L. Kane ( l ns ti tu te of Water Resources
Fairbanks) is currently working on models and techniques
that can readily use available data. His research should be
~vailable in April 1983.
Dr. John D. Fox (School of Agriculture and Resource
Management, University of Alaska) is also working on a model·
at Spinach Creek, near Fairbanks. Studies on small water-
sheds have also been carried out on Caribou-Poker Creeks
near Chatanika. (u.s. EPA, 1976).
3·15
-
2. Surface Water Storage
Lakes Water storage is seasonal ann limited. Few on-
stream lakes provide sufficient storage to sustain stream-
flow during winter or through dry summers. Table 3-6 lists
L:tkes over 10 square miles in the Tanana Basin.
The snowpack retains most precipitation during winter,
v.Jhich causes the annual low flow. Glaciers provide some
year-to-year storage that helps sustain streamflow during
the dry years. Even though the Tanana Basin is widely
underlain by permafrost, alluvial aquifiers near large
rivers provide significant water storage that helps sustain
streamflow (ARP 1974).
Wetlands The term "wetlands" describes several differ-
e:It kinds of land that may perform similar functions. They
include swamps, bogs, fresh and salt marshes, wet tundra and
other lands that are periodically or permanently covered by
water or that support plants (such as sedges, alders, and
black spruce) which often grow in wet areas (Dames and
i\1oore, 198 2) . In the Tanana Basin wet lands occur a long
river systems and low-lying swamps, bogs and muskegs. Many
wetlancls in the Basin are c:tssociated with the presence of
permafrost.
Providing habitat for fish, amimals, and birds is one
important value of wetlands. [1any species of fish and
shell fish find bree(Hng and rearing grounds in wetlands.
Birds use t'·1e•;1 for resting, feeding, and nesting areas.
Moose and caribou use them as feeding grounds or for migra-
tion routes.
Wetlanrls play other important roles. Some wetlands can
absorb large amounts of water like a sponge and act as natu-
ral flood control systems for rivers. Wetlands may slow the
rate of water flow over land (runoff) during periods of nor-
mal rainfall. This allows water that would otherwise quick-
ly flow into rivers to be released slowly into the ground or
river. Wetlanns may serve as natural storm buffers protect-
ing human life and property. They also prevent erosion
along coastal lanns. In so~e cases, pollutants are filtered
out of the water by plants nS the water flows through the
wetland. \'let lanJ.s may also serve as important recreational
areas for such activities as bird watching, berry-picking,
an:l hunting.
Our coastal areas, rivers, streams, lakes, and wetlands
are all important resources that must be used wisely. With
good planning ann design, most projects can be built in or
along these areas and still protect their valuable
characteristics.
3·16
Projects to be constructed in wetlands usually require
permits from the Army Corps of Engineers· and Alaska Depart-
rnent of Environmental Conservation per the requirments of
the Clean Water Act. Section 10 covers any work such as
construction of structures (pile or floating docks or pipe-
lines), excavation (called dredging) or fill in "nav~gable
water of the United States." These are waters that are
affected by tides. They can also be fresh waters that have
11een, are, or may be used for interstate or foreign coln-
merce. In general, if you can canoe on the waterbody, it
usually is navigable water. Section 404 covers activities
that involve placing dredged or fill material in waters of
the United States. Dredged material is material that
excavated or dredged from these waters. Fill is material
( usna llf rock and gravel) that is used to change a wet area
into dry land or to change the bottom elevation of a water-
body. \'l:~.ter of the United States rneans not only "navigable
water," but also includes all tributaries and streams,
lakes, and adjacent wetlands on private, State, Federal, or
native lands. Isolated water, such as some lakes and spruce
hogs, may also be included in this rlefini tion and work in
these areas may also require penni ts. The Corps is the
final authority on whether or not a permit is required
(Dames and t·1oore, 1982).
l-1ost projects do receive penni ts. However, projects
locate,l in "wetlands~may experience more problems and these
perrnits often take more time to process. This is because
the law is designed to protect these valuable areas. A
final decision to approve or deny a permit is made by the
Corps in agreement with other government agencies.
3-17
Table3·6
"It~
LAKESOVER.IOSQUAREMILFSINSURFACEAREA
Latitude Latitude
Tanana Basin Degrees North Degrees West
Hll.rding 64' 25' 146' 50'
Birch 64 20 147 10
Qull.rtz 64 13 145 49
Volkrrter 64 07 145 ll
Healy 64 00 144 45
Twe l verni l e 63 51 144 40
Black 63 48 144 41
George 63 47 144 32
11o0sehead 63 45 144 32
Sand 63 45 144 15
Glaman 63 26 143 29
Mansfield 63 30 143 25
Fish 63 29 143 15
\"lol f 63 27 143 10
1'¥~ Tetlin 63 05 142 45
i,1 idway 63 13 142 17
Fish 62 57 141 50
Deadman 62 53 141 33
Island 62 42 141 07
Source: Alaska Regional Profiles, 1974
3-18
B. GROUNDWATER
Abstract
Subunit bound-'lries delineate this management plan. The
hydrogeologic framework of the Tanana Basin follows close
pnrameters to general topography and drainage. Discontin-
uous permafrost, litholosic units .'lnd topography are
indicators of aquifer characteristics being either
unconfined or artesian. Of the 13 large subunits and
associated smaller units, a broad overview concerning water-
sheds I soil types I depths of groundwater (when available) 1
topography/elevations and probable availabilities are
·1iscussed.
Introduction
The hy<J.rogeologic framework of the Tanana Basin, in a
generalizerl sense follow closely with surficial topographic
features of watershecls and associated drainage. That is to
say 1 in most cases, groundwater flows are parallel to sur-
face drainage (Anderson, 1970). According to Balding (1976)
seepage from streams are the most important source of aqui-
fer recharge. The scope of this summary is intended to
provide a broad outline of groundwater avai lability data
within the subunits of the Tanana Basin known as the Tanana
Basin Area Plan (TBAP) (figure 3.).
The Tanana Basin lies totally within the discontinuous
permafrost boundaries (Hopkins, 1955). Moisture content and
thickness of permafrost is related to soil types, grain
size 1 drainage, and topography (see figure 2.) . Ground
water availability ranges from good in the flood plain allu-
viums and fans with well sorted sands, gravels and silts, to
poor in the alluvial (recent river deposits) silts, eolian
(wind sorted) silts and bedrock where conditions of low
permeabi 1 ity and limite'1 saturated thicknesses occur (figure
3.) • Of the lithological character is tics just mentioned
":l.bove, yields ranging from 1,000-3,000 gpm (gallons per
minute) are achievable in the alluvial sand and gravels from
•'iepths of ±200 1
, to less than 50 gpm from wells 50 1 -550 1 in
depth, located in bedrock fracture zones (Anderson, 1970).
This study shall consider the data available from 5
u.s. Geolo3ical survey base maps, Kantishna River, Fair-
banks, Big Delta, Healy, and Hayes 1:250 1 00 and the associ-
ated 11 large 11 and 11 small" subunits as decreed through the
TBAP project manager (Todd, 1982).
The following subunit ground-water delineation is based
on av.::~.ilable well log data supported by surficial geology
basemaps and references where cited. Bear in mind however,
many of U1e hydrologic descriptions can only he inferred due
to the lack of data. 3·19
c .,_.1
I
l -
EXCLUSIONS FROM TANANA AREA PLAN
~ Other Stale Plans
~ Federal or Military Land
D Native R ... rvation
XllJt.llJ:U; North Star BoroliQh Boundary
Figure3-4. ManageJDent Units of the Tanana Basin
Plan.
SCAL.E IN MILES
06121824
Lowland and upland areas generally
underlain by permafrost
Lowland and upland areas generally
underlain by numerous isolated
mann of permafrost
Mountain areas generally underlain
by discontinuous permafrost
(After Ferrians, 1965)
TANANA BASIN
Figure 3-5. Permafrost Areas in the Tanana Basin.
Large Unit 1
Large unit l includes the watersheds of the Chi tinana
River, Cosna River and Zitziana River and lies in the
Kantishna River Quadrangle USGS 1:250,000. This area's
topographic relief is generally dominated by low-lying
swampy areas at approximatey +400 MSL (mean sea level)
rising gently to +2000' MSL. 'I'he subsurface lithological
description of this unit begins from the banks of the
Kantishna River, west, toward the Zitziana. Dominant
features here include dune fields and their associated
eolian. sand and silts. The approximate thickness of these
dunes is estimated at 200' and assumed to be a poor to
moderate ground-water source, <Jenera lly free of permafrost.
(Anderson, 1970).
From the Zitziana River, west, to the Cosna and
Chit inana Rivers, surface and subsurface topography rises
gently and is dominated by alluvium and colluvium (talus
cliff debris) with high ice-content permafrost, low permea-
bility and poor to moderate groundwater availability. Also,
west of the Zitiana, sedimentary formations to +2000' are
apparent. This rock unit, although associated with high
surface runoff, low permeability and limited saturated
thickness may be developed in areas with water-bearing
fracture zones.
LargeUnit2
Tanana River to
includes several
Following is a
its hydrogeologic
This unit's boundaries r'l.efined by the
the north and the Nenana River to the east
small units,· i.e., 2-A, 2-B, 2-C, etc.
description of each "small" unit and
scheme.
S~nall Unit 2-A
This area includes c'lrainage to East Twin, West Twin ann.
Kindanina Lakes. Although similar to areas described in
large Unit I, close proximity to the Kantishna River flood
plain alluvium and eolian deposits west would indicate that
ground-water availability could vary and depths to which it
can be reached may be significant. Overall availability is
probably good.
3·22
Small Unit 2-B
The upper portions of the Kantishna River I including
\'lien Lake and Lake Minchuminr~. d.epart only slightly from the
above mentioned description. Here we see a moce complex
surficial geology. Some igneous ond metamorphic features
are apparent. Although poor in permeability I faulting and
fracture zones may allow ground-water extraction. Topo-
graphic relief in this area range from ±500' MSL to approxi-
mately >2000' MSL.
SmallUnits2-C,2-D are quite similar in nature to the
descriptions given for small unit 2-B.
Small Unit 2-E and 2-F
The Toklat River an(i the Tek lanika River watersheds include
a complex array of metaT'l.orphic 1 igneous and sedimentary
bedrock. Also this area exhibits some glacial-morainal
deposits. Ground-water extraction may be extremely diffi-
cult except near the alluvial flood plains. Elevations in
this area range from ±400 1 to +2000' MSL.
Small Unit 2-B
North of the Nenana-Totchaket plan area includes eolian
deposits and to a lesser degree colluvial and alluvial silt
and sn.nd. Generally low lying with a topographic relief of
±300 1 MSL to approximately ±600 1
• According to Anderson,
(1970), ground-water availability within these map units are
assumed to be poor.
LargeUnlt3
TI1is area encompasses the lower Tanana River drainage
including Fish Lake in Small Unit 3-A and the lowland region
south of the Tanana River in Small Unit 3-B. Small Unit 3-C
includes the mining communities of Eureka and Tofty.
According to Baldwin (1976) 1 availability of ground-water
ranges from less than 10 gpm to greater than 1000 gpm.
Anderson 1 ( 1970) further details the area as having good
flood plain alluvium, and sedimentary bedrock fracture
zones. Elevations here range from a low of >600 MSL to
3000 1 above l\1SL.
3·23
Large lJnlt 4
Minto Flats and the Livengood area make up this unit. Small
units include the Dugan Hills, Tolovana River, Tatalina
River and \vashington Creek watersheds. This area north of
Minto is primarily alluvial silt and sand (Anderson, 1970)
with its associated poor to moderate groundwater availabil-
ity at depths less than 100' . These low terrace-type
features grade to a more productive water-bearing alluvium
near Minto. Further nort_h, Livengood area is dominated by
igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary bedrock units which
allow ground-water extraction through fracture and fault
zones. Poor to well-sorted silts, sand and peat with high
ice content permafost is also present. Williams, (1970}
indicates that water was produced from sand and fine gravel
heneath 22-52' of frozen alluvium. This confined aquifer
rose to within 12' of the land surface.
Large lJnlt 7
This unit includes the foothills and mountains of the Alaska
Range. Bas rock type typify this area. Availability of
water in gallons per minute is estimated to be approximately
less than 10 in the hi<Jher elevations to 200 along the flat-
land (Balding, 1976).
Large Unit 8
The watersheds of the Goodpaster River, Healy River, George
Creek, Sand Creek, Mansfield Creek, and Billy Creek have
ground-water data available through their close proximity to
the co~nunities of Big Delta, and Delta Junction. This data
can be obtained through the Northcentral District Office,
Water Management Section and is not currently available for
inclusion to this report. However, ground-water extraction
from Big Delta and Delta Junction and along the Tanana River
is indicated in Anderson, (1970} to be generally good.
Subsurface conditions to the east, northeast of this area
indicate poor water-bearing strata.
Large lJnlt 9
Again, along the
River, ground-water
Undifferentiated
si 1 t (Anderson,
Alluvial fans
Areas here are near Tok and Tanacross.
flood-plain alluvium of the Tanana
extraction is expected to be good.
alluv l, colluvial and/or eolian sand and
1970) is located near Tok Junction.
3·24
....
overburclen the igneous and met::1morphic bedrock further from
the lowlands indicating poor to moderate ground-water
sources. Records indicate that coarse to fine san(iy <]ravel
with lenses of silt ana sand. show that the water table in
this area is between 53 to 70 feet below land surface
(Williams, 1970).
Large Unit 10
This area delineates the Tok and Robertson watersheds. Good
water bearing alluvial plains follow the rivers, igneous and
metamorphic bedrocks shoulo allow 9ood surface drainage and
recharge to these ground-water sources. (see figure 5).
Large Unit 11
This area is a miscellaneous seat ter ing of lands in the
upper regions of the Basin.
S~nall Unit 11-A
Here we see a wide variety of litho logy ranging from good
water bearing alluvian in the floo1lplains to the less
desirable formations offering poor capacities. Recharge to
water-bearing formations due primarily to runoff's expectecl
to be good.
Large Unit 12
This area is mostly the North Star Borough and is the most
highly populated region in the Bas in. In general, grouncl-
water quantity and quality is a major concern here.
Selected data indicate where availability is good, quality
is poor. Wells developed in bedrock (schist) fracture zones
offer moderate yields. Metamorphic domes in the area offer
poor quality ground-water due to excessive mineral contents
such as arsenic, iron, etc. This area has received much
attention in recent years. The reader would be well advised
to explore other sources of literature beyond the scope of
this report.
3-25
-to Tanacross IOmiles !15/40
75/58 100/61'-j
.... .35/53
84/54
WELL LOCATIONS IN THE
TOK. AREA, TANANA RIVER VALLEY
o 75/so Well in which frozen ground
was not recorded
TQK Uppt!r nunJber-is total depth; lower
0 1/2
mile
number is depth to water table if
known .. in feet.
• 40/5o Well in which water occurs
below the frozen layer
Upper number is depth of base of
fr<'ZPn ground; lower number is depth
tn <.-ater table if known, in feet.
Figure3-6.
Well Loeations in the Tok Area, Tanana
River Valley.
3-26
-
Qal
Qal
.\1nrainal dt>pn..;Jh.
l Ill and ~r;1> ,,;
o \\",.u in ,,_.nt;·h r'rozt'll
!/2J • \\.t•!l oi••\ ,.j,,!k'ti Hl
1 lq: w a"n _.;~if) \1
and t.;!\\\"PI
f'hurw•tft•r
J.okt
l Mil
\u~n: ... r c:i\e:. t·in·ati;•n <d ill :·~·d ,,hll\'t' n:••:lfl "<l. it•\'l'~
1104 f-:(;·\';t;lnll .,( :~ult•!:tioml"irl• ~llr:':wo· !..'•nl1otlr i :·P.;t
Figure 3-7.
Geology, slope of the potentiom.etric surface, and location of
selected weDs in the Fort Greely area.
3-27
Large Unit 13
TI1is unit covers the Delta River ~atershed. Basically, this
watershed is encompassed by three lithologic zones. At the
confluence of the Delta-Tanana River are poor to well-sorted
silts, sands and peat with high ice content and low ground-
water yields (Anderson, 1970). Sedimentary bedrocks domin-
ate the centra 1 portions of this watershed with permeability
in fracture zones indicating poor to moderate yields giving
way to well-consolidated igneous and metamorphics at the
headwaters of the Delta River (see figures 3-6 & 3-9).
Conclusion
The Tanana Basin lies totally within the discontinuous
permafrost regions of Alaska, in some cases this contributes
to artesian and unconfined subsurface conditions (Hopkins,
19 55} ( Baldinq, 1970) . Anderson ( 1970} r::tentions the genera 1
flow of ground-water as being parallel to surface flows,
except where influent tr ibutar emerge from the Alaska
Range, where we see water flowing away from the axis of the
tributary. Ground-water is generally obtained in one of two
circumstances, alluvial water bearing formations or bedrock
aquifers (figure 3-8}. Alluvial supplies may or may not
occur either confined (artesian) by permafrost or silt/clay
or unconfined in sands and gravels. Bedrock aquifers, where
sufficient percolation occurs, yield poor to adequate
St1pplies. A fracture trace mapping project is currently
underway by the Institute of Water Resources, University of
Alaska to determine possible ground-water trends in fracture
zones. More detailed information from that organization
should be forthcoming.
3-28
AVAILABILITY OF WATER
IN GALLONS PER MJNVTE
[ ] MORE THAN 1000
~ tOOT0\000
~ IOTOlOOO
[I l D LESS THAN 10
Availability of Ground Water in the
Tanana Basin. Figure3-8.
ELEVATION
1040 to 1090
1090 to 1140
1140 to 1190
1190 & Above
T9S
T 1 o s ~ ----~-;:=--------r----"-<
. ... -
Figure 3-9.
I
' -=-t 7~.~
---~--=----------
1 -:.-= ~-
CLEARWATER-BIG DELTA AREA
ASSUMED WELL DEPTHS
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service
October 1971
40 acres 80
so
75
100
125
!_ j
ASSUMED WELL DEPTHS IN FEET
TO IRRIGATE
acres 120 acres 160 acres 240 acres 320 acres
75 75 100 125 150
75 100 100 125 150
100 125 125 150 17 5
125 150 150 17 5 200
18 17 16
23 24 21
"'I
:I
R11E R12E
,,~
C. WATERQUAUTY
I. Surfaee Water Quality
Nearly all of the surface ~vater tested in the Tanana
River Basin is of acceptable chemical quality, ranging from
60 to 484 mg/1 of dissolved solids \.rith most less than 200
mg/1 (AWSC, 1980). Principal constituents are calcium,
magnesium an;1 bicarbonate. Dissolved solids concentration
is highest during periods of low flow from streams draining
mineralized bedrock areas in the Alaska Range. Higher flows
have lower dissolved sol ids concentration because the peak
discharges are derived froJfl rapid runoff or rain or snowmelt
'.Vhich is low in dissolved mineral matter, whereas the low
flow has a hi,Jh proportion of ')roundwater inflow.
Streams flowing from the Alaska Range are generally
higher in sulf,'J.te an,-1 magnesium content than other streams,
but none carry excessive amounts. Only iron has been found
in undesirable amounts in surface waters and this was
conf ine(1 to two locations near the Cana<i ian border. Hard-
ness of lake water is generally less than that of streams.
Water quality analysis of selected streams in the Tanana
Basin is presented in Table 3-7. Table 3-8 shows the
variability in water quality through the year at the Tanana
River gaging station near Nenana.
Dissolved oxygen concentration in surface waters of the
Tanana Basin has exhibited patterns common to most interior
rivers. The dissolved oxygen concentration at any point is
gradually depressed from near saturation in October to
severe depletion in February or March. Also, the dissolved
oxygen depletion usually becomes more severe when proceeding
from the headwaters toward the mouth (Schallock & Lotspeich,
1974). .
Sediment loads transported· by streams have a direct
effect on the cost and feasibility of water resources devel-
opment. Bigh sediment loads have to be considered in
reservoir design. Treatment is necessary if the water is to
be used for domestic supply. Sediment deposition in streams
reduces channel capacity and increases the flood potential.
From just after breakup and throughout the short
summer, mel twaters from glaciers add sediment load to the
streams. Most of this suspended sediment from glacier-fed
streams "glacial flour", a very fine grayish particulate
material. In glacier-fed streams such as the Nenana River
bordering the entrance to Denali National Park and the
Tanana River near Tanacross, sediment load is fairly well
distributed throughout the summer. The Chena River receives
sediment principally during the rainstorm runoff and spring
3-31
snowrnelt, which accounts for 50 percent of the annual lon.d,
and usually occurs in May. From limited data available,
annun.l loads contributed to the Tanana River from non-
<Jlacial streams of the Yukon-Tanana Upland are inferred to
be less U1an 150 tons per square mile. The streams draining
the Alaska Range, of which the majority originate from
glaciers, contribute loads ranging from 150 tons per square
mile in the flat bottomland adjacent to the Tanana River to
several thousand tons per square mile at the termini of the
qlaciers. Suspended sediment may be the least understood
water quality characteristic and one of the most significant
quality parameters from the standpoint of the overall
quality of virgin fresh waters in the Tanana Basin.
The thermal aspects of water is an important consider-
ation in the development of water supplies. The temperature
of the water presents serious problems in the development,
treatment, distribution, and use of water in the Basin.
Surface-water temperatures range from less than 32° F,
to about 70"F during the year. Water temperatures below
32°F (supercooled) are common in surface water without ice
cover and in some sround water in permafrost areas. The low
temperature of ground and sur face water require$ a longer
time for chemical reactions to reach equi 1 ibr ium. In the
design of water treatment systems, sufficient retention time
must be allowed for the treatment 1)rocess to reach comple-
tion. Also, use of sur face water for waste disposal is
adversely affected because the stream's natural ability for
self-purification is reduced; many biological processes
cease at temperatures near the freezin<J point. Records of
river temperatures show rather uniform patterns of cooling
by October to 32°F, or slightly below, remaining there until
April, then warming to their seasonal highs in June and
July.
Another water quality consideration peculiar to cold
climate areas may be extended survival of pathogenic bac-
teria. In general, survival rate is higher at low tempera-
ture {winter conditions) than warm temperatures (summer
conditions). Fecal coliform survival was 3 to 5 times
greater than indicated by winter survival data from more
temperate climates. Fecal coliform bacteria are used to
indicate the possible presence of disease-causing bacteria
originating from the human intestine, and are not in
themselves harmful. However, pathogenic bacteria such as
Salmonellae may survive longer than indicator bacteria at
low temperatures. Implications here are for greater poten-
tial hazard to water users downstream of untreated sewage
effluent, or for longer viability of pathogens in contam-
inated groundwater.
3-32
2. Gro1111d Water Quality
Most ground water in the Tanana Basin can be character-
ized. as calcium or magnesium bicarbonate. The quality of
water ranges from very good to very poor with most municipal
water requiring t~eatment, since iron content is often
objectionable, and chloride and fluoride concentrations are
low. Chemical quality of ground water reflects its geologic
environment. Table 3-9 show water quality analyses for
specific locations in the Tanana Basin. Hot springs in the
Basin are probably connected with deep-seated sources that
may account for high concentrations of sodium, chloride,
bicarbonate, and magnesium. A few of the springs in the
area have shallow groundv1ater sources and the type of water
discharged from those springs is similar to most ground
water in the area. (ARP, 1974)
Host wells in the up lands arour1d Fairbanks yield water
of suitable quality for drinking. However, wells that yield
water polluted by arsenic and nitrate occur sporadically
throughout the uplands. The high arsenic levels are a
consequence of arsenic enrichment in the rocks of the area.
Placer and lode-gold mining may increase the aisenic content
of the waters by exposing arsenic-containing rocks to sur-
face waters and by increasing the load of arsenic-rich
sediments in the streams (\'lilson and Hawkins, 1978).
Wells yielding water that contains objectionable odor
are also not uncommon. No wells in the uplands are known to
be polluted by bacteria from septic tank effluent. The
considerable depth to the water table ( 30 to 300 feet, or
more) and good filtering capacities of the silt and some
types of decomposed bedrock cause the area to have low
pollution susceptibility.
Water from most sources on the floodplain requires
treatment to make it potable. Ground water may require
treatment for bacteria, iron, manganese or odor. Some high
quality ground water requiring no treatment may be available
where the aquifer is oxygenated, generally near a source of
recharge (Nelson, 1978).
3·33
Table 3-7-WATER QUALITY OF SELECTED STREAMS IN THE TANANA BASIN
(concentrations in milligra:ms per litre (IDg/1} or IDicrogra:ms per litre (ug/1})
""' mg/1 JJ9/l "' -.... r-------....
w
44 .._, ,.... ., N
Oil 0 .. ....
<1) til ~
'Q.C ~ <II c () ..... <ti.Ul <tl .._, .,., ()
<IJ"O 'rl c: w '"' a <tl .,.; ..
Q Ul ....
04-08-59 --14 20(a)
08-23-72
6,490 6.9 140(b)
OB-06-69
10,200 6.4 2,700(a)
03-03-70
182 23 3,200(a)
01-25-74
4,740 19 --
05-23-74
34,300 7.4 --
02-16-59
497 8.2 0( a)
05-24-68
8,750 4.0 550(a)
a Undifferentiated
b Dissolved
c ~ .,
Ul
<ll c
Ill
M c:
<ll
);
lO(a)
O(b}
750 (a)
820(a)
--
--
O(a)
--
~
M
""' e <tl ~
8 Ol
13 :::. ;l a .,.;
;l IJl tl .... ., ;l
u c: .,.,
..... M "' Ill Ill 0 u ~ Ul
15470(00 Ch
46 9.3 6.0
28 4.7 4.3
15514!00 Ch
12 2.3 1.1
'
36 7 .6 4.9
1551 500 T
54 10 4.8
24 5.0 2.7
1551 000 N
36 10 5.6
18 3.6 2.7
:2 .._,
13
;l ....
Ul
Ill
<ll
w
0
p..
sana
2.6
1.2
na Ri
2.1
2.8
nan a
2.9
1.9
nan a
2.6
1.4
c
0 u ::r:
.,
u
Ol
!:
0
I i ve r
8
!
I
15
9
er
3
14
ive
17
7
9
at
0
0
r
3
2
ive r
02 1
57
.,
()_.-.
mg/1
--c:u
Ill•
Ul UV) -o 0 ("-( .... Ul ;:l
""' ~ ;;<: .--{ Ul -o w
0 <II r: Ill
<11 c 0 ·u u tl
'U " u
OJ <ll u-... "' > ::r: •rl Ul w
.-; ""' 0 ....
0 o-< ~ii c Ill Ill ;;
Ill w OJ ::1. -,.; () o.~ ~ Q E-. Ill
~ ..... ~
0 u ..... ·Ill
Ul .._, .._, Ill
OJ .._, .....,
w ., ..
<ll "' "0 'Q OJ c w .... .,., w
0 "' H H "' . ..a ..., 0 0 H
H .... .--{ ;l w
11) ;l ..:: .--{ .,.; u til u ~.-. ;;<:
r:-1 153 319 6.5
I 114 I 89 197 7.1
t No thwa
0 27 3.0 0. 1 --
0 18 1.9 .o 0.02
Fair anl<s
0 10 • 7 • 1 • 27 54 40 83 7.0
0 13 2.1 .2 .52 165 119 252 6.6
t Ne ana
0 33 2.4 .2 .30 212 180 310 7.5
0 34 2.5 .3 • 1 0 113 81 155 7.2
near I ea ly 1
0 51 5.0 .o • 1 1 169 131 282 1 .u
0 14 1.1 .2 .0 9 74 60 I 123 7.0
Table3-8
SELECTEDWATERQUAUTYDATA,TANANARIVERATNENANA,WATERYEAR
OCTOBER 1980 to SEPTEMBER 1981
COLI-STREP
SPE-FORM, 'IOCOCCI fll\RD-
S'I'RF..AM-CIFIC FECAL, FECAL, HARD-NESS
Fl.D'l, Q)N-'IUR-OXYGEN 0.7 KF PGAR NESS ~CAR-
IN STAN-OOCT-PH TEMPER-BID-Drs-UM-MF ( COI.S. (MG/L OONATE
TIME TANEX:XJS ANCE A 'lURE I'IY' SJLVED (OOLS./ PER AS (MG/L
DA'IE (CFS) ( UMHJS) (UNITS) (Dffi C) (N'IU) ( ftK:i/L) 100 ML) 100 ML) CAC03) CA003)
JAN
21 ••• 1510 6870 300 7.4 .o 1.3 8.3 <1 <1 150 27
MAR
19 ••• 1300 7590 325 6.8 .o 3.8 9.1 <1 <1 150 27
JUL
~ 15 ••• 1400 77600 195 7.6 13.3 880 9.4 M9 <2 100 ~
"' SE'.P
17 ••• 1300 24200 251 7.4 7.0 66 11.9 Rl8 Rl8 120 30
SJLIDS
MAGN-rorAS-AL.!Q\-CHID-FI1D-SILICIA RESIDUE
CAJ..l:.IUM SIUM, SJDIUM SIUM, LINI'IY' SULFA 'IE RIDE, RIDE Dis-AT 180
Dis-Dis-Dis-DIS-FIELD Dis-ors-DIS-9JLVED DEG. C
SOLVED SOLVED SOLVED SJLVED (ftK:i/L SOLVED SOLVED SJLVED (M::l/L DIS-
(~L (r-¥3/L (M::l/L (M::l/L AS (MG/L (MG/L (MG/L AS 9JLVED
DA'IE AS CA) AS ftK:i) AS NA) ASR) CAC03) AS S04) AS CL) AS F) SI02) (MG/L)
JAN
21 ••• 44 9.0 5.0 2.1 150 32 1.2 .1 15 179
MAR
19 ••• 44 8.9 4.4 2.3 120 30 1.1 .1 15 175
JUL
15 ••• 30 6.1 2.0 2.3 43 .a .1 6.7 125
Table 3-8 (eont'd)
SELECTED WATER QUALITY DATA, TANANA RIVER AT NENANA, WATER YEAR
OCTOBER 1980 to SEPTEMBER 1981
SED!-
MENT
NI'Iro-CARBJN SED!-nrs-
Grn, ORGANIC MENT, CI-IARiE
'IOTAL 'IOTAL sus- sus-
(MJ/L (MJ/L PEND ED PEND ED
DATE PS N) PS C) (MG/L) (T/DAY)
JAN
21. •• .62 4.9 15 278
MAR ~
~ 19 ••• .44 1.7 4 82
c:l) JUL
15 ••• 1.1 2770 580000
SEP
17 ••• 1.0 351 22900
CHID-
BARIUM CAI14IUM MIUM lim LEAD MEROJRY
'ICTAL 'IOTAL 'IOTAL 'IOTAL 'IOTAL 'IOTAL
ARSENIC RECOV-RECDV-RECOv-REOOV-RECOil-REXXJIJ-
'IOTAL ERABLE ERABLE ERABLE ERABLE ERABLE ERABLE
TIME (00/L (UG/L (UG/L (UG/L (00/L (00/L (00/L
DATE PS AS) PS BA) PS CD) AS CR) PS FE) AS PB) PS I£)
JUL
15 ••• 1400 35 600 1 70 69000 48 .3
SEP
17 ••• 1300 4 200 1 10 9600 150 .1
Table 3-9-CHEMICAL ANAL YSFS OF GROUND WATER IN THE TANANA BASIN
(concentrations in JDilllgram.s per litre (10g/ 1) or JDicrogram.s per litre (ug/ 1)
..
0 .,., ... ..
l)
0
...l
.. ... ..
A
Hanley Hat Sprin9• 03-06-72
Hinto 12----61
HcK1nley 04-04-63
C•ntwell 07-02-68
Auror• 11-14-60
12-15-70
Delta .Junction 07-21-65
Tok 03-14-72
09-08-71
Tetlln ------69
NorthW4Y 09-02-11
~-----.. ___ ... _____ _
SPRINGS
H4nley Cll-14-70
Hutll.nana
Tolav•n•
Chen•
I' ox 09-30-66
• Total
b Undifferentiated
140
40
161>
210
-. ---. --~-. . . . -. . . -.. -...
illq/l uq/l
·-~ -------------~ -
u .
21
1.11
3.0 6.0
8.1
23
" 0 ..
47,000(a)
IOO~b)
20jbl
IOO(b)
1, 200(b)
40(a)
"' .. "' u
"' a " " ~ ....
"" u r. ...
;! ~ "~,.J,
1,20U(b) 1!7
O(b I 44
460(b) 21
26
83
460(a) 43
1 2 4,2
26 5.2
56 3.7
6.0
3.1
g ....
Ill .. ..
w
0 ...
"' ...
"' " 0 .c. .. ..
m•J/l
~ I a ·r-
2.6 239 I o o. 4
4.8 .o
2.0
.1 lOb 0 20
.s 52 0 4)
....... :: :::~:(5~~
;.c ..-1 f.n "0 ~
u
0.3
.l
1.0 .1
.. .. -
.27
0 qJ c.: IQ
Ill c 0 -u u a ... u
" u-... ;.r.; ...-4 Ill:
._ 0
190
325
na
:iii
"' :1 o.-
<1)
364
599
583
6.9
7.)
8.0
2.0 ,2 .OS 91! 207 i 7.0
),0 .2 .02 80 191 1.b
17 6.9 4.2 330 0 11 I 0 530 7. 4
12 4.6 ),1 194 0 11 • 2 324 7.6
1 so 6.1 20(b) 35 7.4 3.1 3.5 102 0 43 1, 4
.J .os 312 I 278
.4 .oo 192 I 157
:: ::: ,:~ I ,:: 247 e.o
1.9 2.0 4.9 .2 20 0 9. 2 • 7
50 15
31
II 4.6 2.0
1,800(a) 1,600(a) 49 ll 30 l,J
42 8.7 7.2 2.2
118
194
223
0 60 4.2
0 .o .o
o .e 36
:: ::: ::: II :::
.5 .02 268 168 435 7. 8
-----r--__ ,_ --· ______ , ______ ! ___ _
8.2 •• 120 5,3 82 0 38 120 6.3 ·" 393 62l 1.a
40 20 6.6 180 7.9 488 ss 40 .e 7.7
75 82 1. 2 321 23 49 40 615 .2 1.1
1 .3 • 1 110 l.J 115 68 2 9 19 9.1
36 11 40 23 6.5 3.7 200 0 41 .1 , 2 • II 224 196 Hl 7.1
----Chapter4
---
---------Water Use in the Tanana Basin
-
IV. WATERUSE
A. Water RJ.chta
Table 4-1 displays water rights on record as of Decem-
ber 1982 aggregated by Tanana Basin Plari. small management
unit and separated into water use categories: domestic,
placer mining, agricultural livestock, agricultural irriga-
tion and other. Domestic water use includes individual
homes 1 community water supply 1 apartments I motels 1 hotels
and other similar uses. Placer mining is limited to just
that: it does not include lode mining. Agricultural live-
stock includes water use needed for production or mainten-
ance of livestock. Agricultural irrigation is water use
needed for the irrigation of crops and does not usually
include garden use. Water uses in the other category
included lode mining 1 small hydroelectric, commercial and
industrial uses.
Different uses are characterized by different units of
measurement because of the requirements of the particular
water use. Placer mining generally requires a high continu-
ous rate of flow through a sluicebox, thus cubic feet per
second (cfs) is used. Gallons per minute (gpm) is also
often used by practitioners. With agricultural irrigation
the farmer wi 11 often have an estimate of the volume of
water a crop will need over a season but will not need a
rate of flow nor know exact times to irrigate in advance,
thus acre feet (one acre of water one foot deep) per year is
used. For smaller uses such as individual homes gallons per
day is a convenient unit. For comparision purposes one
cubic foot per second equals 448 gallons per minute which
equals 724 acre feet per year which equals 646,000 gallons
per day over the same time period. Placer mining and
irrigation are seasonal uses,thus, for example, a miner
using 1 cfs will need that only from June until September
while a farmer irrigating with one acre foot per year will
use all of his water during the growing season. Also, a
miner using l cfs will need that rate of flow only during
his hours of operation. If the hypothetical miner above was
operating for 12 hours a day his daily water use would be
323,000 gallons.
Another consideration is consumptive use. Miners use a
large rate of flow but most operations return almost all of
that directly to the stream (although hopefully through a
settling pond first). Irrigation consumptively uses water
either by the plant in growth, transpiration by the plant,
evaporation and percolation into the ground. Individual
homes on wells return most water to the ground-water system
through the septic system, although that takes time.
4·1
Water rights are acquired only through application to
the Department of Natural Resources. Therefore those water
uses that have not been applied for are not on record and do
not appear in Table 4-1. Table 4-1 cannot be used to deter-
mine actual water use but is an indication of the relative
use of water in the management units of the Tanana Basin.
Domestic Water Use. Not suprisingly 1 domestic water
use on record closely follows the settlement pattern in the
basin. The Fairbanks area has the most use and users.
Actual nomestic water use is under-represented by water
rights. The national average of water use per person {in
fully plumbed houses) is approximatley 90 gallons per day
per capita for domestic use. If this figure is applied to
the Tanana Basin 1980 population of 6l1 000 the domestic
water use should be around 5.5 million gallons per day
(MGD). Water rights on record for domestic use total only
709 1000 gallons per day.
It is interesting to note that even at the larger
amount, 5.5 MGD, domestic water use basin-wide is equivalent
to 8.5 cfs. This is small compared to water availabilty
(the Tanana River at Fairbanks average annual flow is l818lO
cfs) and less than placer mining water use on many individ-
ual streams. However, even though domestic use is relative-
ly small compared to total basin-wide water availability,
because many domestic supplies are wells tapping marginal
aquifers. Domestic water supply 1 in rapidly developing
upland areas, is one of the basin's major water problems.
Placer Mining. Placer mining is the largest out of
stream uses of water in the basin. Table 4-1 shows that
placer mining is well-distributed throughout the basin,
although the greatest concentration is in the lower part of
the basin. In terms of quantity placer mining is a noncon-
sumptive use of water, that is, most water is returned to
the stream. This means that, for example, ten miners each
using 2 cfs could conceivably be operating at the same time
on a stream having a total flow of 5 cfs.
Agricultural Livestock and Irrigation. These water
uses reflect settled areas and agricultural project lands.
Unlike other water uses, irrigation water rights on record
are greater than present actual use. The Delta Plan manage-
ment unit which includes the Delta area agricultural project
lands have water right requests of 28,464 acre feet per year
yet that amount of water is not being used for irrigation
currently. This amount is an indication of how much water
may be used if irrigated a')riculture becomes corrunon on the
agricultural lands in the basin. Estimates of water use for
irrigation water use in interior Alaska range from 0.5 -1.0
acre feet per year per acre of irrigated land.
4-2
Instream Flow. Table 4-l only reflects water rights
for out-of-stream uses. Until recently Alaska law only had
provisions for water rights for out-of-stream uses of
water. In 1980 that was changed to allow water rights for
instream use for purposes of maintenance of fish and wild-
life habitat, recreational use, water quality and naviga-
tion. Procedures for including those types of uses into the
water rights system have not been adopted yet, thus no
instream flow requests have been received or adjudicated.
Hater bodies that might be appropriate for instream flow
reservations would be those with population of anadromous
fish and other high quality sport fish populations, those
water bodies heavily used for recreation and those where
water quality is a concern.
Federal Reserved Water Rights. Federal reserved water
rights are created when federal lands are withdrawn from
entry (by Congress or other lawful means). Simultaneous
with the land withdrawal, implicitly or explicitly, suffi-
cient water is withdrawn to accomplish the intent of the
land withdrawal. Federal reserved water rights may be
created without a diversion or application to beneficial
use, are not lost by nonuse, and priority dates from time of
land withdrawal. No application nor notification to the
state is necessary for creation. The measure of the right
is the amount of water reasonably necessary to satisfy the
purposes of the land withdrawal (Curran and Dwight, 1979).
Federal reserved water rights may only be quantified in a
court-administered basin-wide adjudication pursuant to the
t1cCarran Amendment (43 USCA 666(a)). This requirement plus
the vague "reasonably necessary" definition for the amount
of the reserved right make quantification difficult. No
federal reserved water rights in Alaska have been quanti-
fied. Federal withdrawals in the Tanana Basin that might
have federal reserved rights attached to them include
Eielson Air Force Base, Forts Greely and Wainwright, Denali
National Park and Preserve, Wrangell-Saint Elias National
Park and Preserve, Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge and the
wild and scenic river portion of the Delta River. Much of
the land described above, while within the drainage basin of
the Tanana River, are not included within the Tanana Basin
Plan boundaries.
4-3
Table 4·1 WATER RIGHTS IN THE TANANA BASIN
Management Domestic Placer Mining Ag Livestock Ag Irrigation Other
Unit 11 of Users Amount 11 ofUsers Amount 11 ofUsers Amount 11 ofUsers Amount 11 ofUsers Amount
Chi tanana, Cbsna, Zitziana Rivers
!A
lB 1 5.0 cfs
lC 1 0.14 cfs
K.antlshna, Teklanika Rivers
2B 1 436 GPD 1 2.0 M!'Y
~
J,. 2C
2D
2E
2F
2G 3 1010 GPD 3 194,300 GPD
2H
Lower Tanana River
3A
3B
3C 6 1325 GPD 61 206.7 cfs 4 147 GPD 1 0 M!'Y
3D 2 5600 GPD 1 5,000 GPD
Management
Unit
Domestic Placer Mining Ag Livestock Ag Irrigation
8 of Users Amount 8 of Users Amount 8 of Users Amount 8 of Users Amount
Other
H of Users Amount -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tolovana, Talalina Rivers
4A 2 25,000 GPD
4B
Tolovana, Talalina Rivers
4C-1
4C-2
40 2 325 GPO 13 47.2 cfs 2 200 GPD 1 1 AFY 2 495,000 GPD
4E 6 15.1 cfs
~
"' Nenana River
5A 33 22,645 GPO 7 31.9 cfs 7 130 GPO 9 12.7 AFY 8 l, 160,500 GPO
5B 2 1250 GPD 1 0 GPO 2 500 GPD 5 12,660 GPO
5C 4 1600 GPO 2 9.1 cfs 1 0.0 GPO 3 1 AFY 4 6,300 GPO
Susitna River
6
Tatlanika, Wood, Little Delta Rivers, Clear Creek
7A-1 4 3100 GPD 1 0 given 4 1 AFY
7A-2
7B 30 69.0 cfs
7C
70 1 450 GPO 5 0.33 cfs
Management Domestic Placer Mining Ag Livestock Ag Irrigation Other
Unit #of Users Amount #of Users Amount #of Users Amount #of Users Amount #of Users Amount
Shaw Creek, Goodpastor River
8A
SB
oc
Upper Tanana River
9A 2 575 GPO 1 6,000 GPO 1 175 GPD 1 1.0 JlJ?Y 2 6,000 GPD
98 11 15,000 GPO 1 .01 JlJ?Y 16 2,035,700 GPD
• Robertson, Tok Rivers =
lOA
lOB
llA
Fairbanks North Star Borough, Chena, Chatanika, Salcha Rivers, Goldstream Creek
12A 11 22,777 GPO 10 20.0 cfs 1 15 GPD
12B-1 1 18 GPD 1 0.5 JlJ?Y
12C-l 1 30.0 JlJ?Y 1 1500 GPD
12C-2 2 700 GPD 1 10 JlJ?Y
12D-l 6 3,120 GPD 1 680 GPO 2 1 JlJ?Y
12D-2
12E 90 56,120 GPO 10 6.0 cfs 7 568 GPD 27 17.5 JlJ?Y 2 6,965 GPC
Management Domestic Placer Mining Ag Livestock Ag Irrigation Other
Unit *of Users Amount #of Users Amount *of Users Amount *of Users Amount *of Users Amount
Fairbanks North Star Borough, Chena, Chatanika, Salcha River, Goldstream Creek
12F
12G 409 405,655 GPO 32 61.4 cfs 49 122,483 GPO 132 141.2 MY 14 12,642 GPD
12H 31 17,710 GPO 3 6 cfs 13 4,692 GPO 13 12.3 MY
12I 1 130 GPO 16 56.4 cfs
12J 5 31,500 GPO 45 118.9 cfs 2 unknown 4 4,300 GPD
121< 2 1,075 GPO 4 30.8 cfs
12L 17 8,090 GPO 14 4,581 GPO 10 63.7 MY 8 15,890 GPD •
.:...12M 3 6,300 GPO
12N 5 14 cfs
120 4 375 GPD
12P 8 5,500 GPO 3 296 GPO 6 31.8 AF':l
Upper Delta River
13 4 2,000 Gill 2 0.1 cfs 4 114,000 GPD
Tetlin 2 11,000 GPD
TetlinNWR 1 500 GPD 3 12,000 GPD
Clear 4 12,600 GPD
Delta Plan 126 100,790 GPD 14 32.9 cfs 63 7,115,352 GPO 42 28,464 MY 27 243,137 GPO
Susitna 1 2.5 cfs 1 775 GPD
B. CoiDDIUDI.ty Water SuppUes
Most of the water used in the Tanana Basin for munici-
pal, industrial, military and domestic supplies is ground
water from wells. Water use for those uses in the basin is
estimated at 11 to 12 million gallons per day (mgd). About
7.5 to eight mgd of this are used by military, two to three
mgd are used by the City of Fairbanks and the remainder is
use~ by smaller co~nunities throughout the area (Alaska
Regional Profiles, 1974).
Development of surface water for potable water supplies
in the basin has been limited although extensive sources are
available. Ground water is often high in iron and organic
content and usually requires treatment. The procurement,
treatment, and distribution of water supplies as well as the
disposal of waste are hindered by low air, ground and water
temperatures in the Tanana Basin.
Ground water is generally available in areas free of
permafrost. Yields in excess of 50 gallons per minute (gpm)
and in some areas more than 1000 gpm can be expected from
unconsolidated materials. The largest reported yield is
5, 000 gpm from a 130-foot well at Eielson Air Force Base
( AWSC I 1980} .
Water supplies and waste disposal systems in the Tanana
Basin require engineering that considers the extremely low
temperatures and the presence of permafrost. For example,
the City of Fairbanks, completed a ground water supply and
distribution system in 1953. Water having a temperture of
38°F is pumped from wells and is used to cool condensers at
the city power plant, where it is warmed to 56°F or higher
before being treated and fed into the distribution system
(Alaska Water Study Co~nittee, 1980). In addition, water is
kept circulating in cold months through a "single main-loop
system" which has no deadends.
There appears to be few limitations, to the quantity of
available groundwater for municipal supply in Fairbanks
(MvSC, 1980}. Wells now in place (which were originally
installed for power plant use) can draw ten times the volume
of water that is needed for municipal supply. Daily use
average for 1979 was 2.57 million gallons per day with high-
er use in the summer and lower use in the winter. The
treatment plant capacity has been rated at 3.5 million
gallons per day, but on occasion 4.5 million gallons per day
have been processed with no problem (Alaska Water Study
committee, 1980). Improvements to increase treatment capac-
ity to 8 million gallons per day are being considered by the
Fairbanks unility system (Shirley, 1983).
Table 4-2 is a summary of community water supply and
treatment systems in the Tanana Basin.
4-8
Table4-2 COMMUNITY WATER SUPPLY AND TREATMENT SYSTEMS IN THE
TANANA BASIN
NUMBER ADEQUACY OF TYPE OF PLANNED
TOWN POPULATION OF HOMES WATER SUPPLY WATER SUPPLY SEWAGE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
Andersoa 390 120 300 wells in village Untreated sources of Individual septic None.
ranging in depth fran supply/g<X)d drinking tanks/seepage pits.
8' to 30' /Nenana River water/year Fe. 17 ppm/
also used. Cl 1. 3 ppn/TDS 179 ppn/
hardness 148 ppn.
Delta 945 348 Wells No treatment. Untreatei to river. --------
Ja.netlon
Dot Lake 83 16 PHS well/utilidor/ Excellent quality and Individual septic None in the
piped service to the quantity-oo iron tanks/drain fields. immediate future.
h<:roos/ CL/ FL/!:bnes removal needed/water
heatei off the sarre obtained at pumphouse
""" system/laundry and because of leakage in ~ shower facilities in lines/CL/FL disconnected.
punq:ih.ouse •
Fairbanks 22,645 8,145 Municipal Ample quantity Cl, Fl, Primary and Pumping capacity
fh water softening. secondary. ma.y be increasei tc
creased to facili-
tate water suwly
for fire fighting/
reservoir capacity
ma.y be expanded/ out
datei wcx:x:lstave
pipe in the down-
town area will be
replaced.
Healy 79 21 Haul frcxn nearby lake/ No treatment. Collection system None.
7 acre reservoir and with concrete septic
earth dam/ on stream/ tank and outfall to
water distribution Nenana. River/ serves
system to all homes. entire community.
Uvengood so Hauled. No treatment. Privies, unknown. ------------
NUMBER ADEQUACY OF
TOWN POPULATION OF HOMES WATER SUPPLY WATER SUPPLY
TYPE OF
SEW AGE SYSTEM
PLANNED
IMPROVEMENTS
Manley Bot
Springs
Minto
f" -e
North Pole
77
190
724
Northway 143
Nenana 486
Tanaeross 90
27
45
249
20
128
28
4 individual wells/
nost haul frarn water-
ing point at hot
springs.
New PHS well/piped,
insultate'i distribut-
ion system to all
hanes arrl institut-
ions/FL.
Wells.
Well water is highly privies/septic
highly mineralizen/springs tanks/cesspool/4
are of good quality arrl flush toilets.
preferred by residents.
Gxld quality drinking
water/Fe .4 ppm/TDS 225
wn/Hardness 272 ppn/
operates only as a water-
ing p:>int.
Gocrl quality arrl quant-
ity/Fe treatment necess-
ary.
2 cell faculative
lagoon discharges to
marshy areas by
see_page.
Primary arrl second-
ary.
None.
50 units of HUD
housing propose'i in
1982 fHS improve-
ments to follcw if
funds available/
state funds avail-
able nor feasibility
study in 1982.
well/village corpor-Good quality drinking Honey buckets/ None.
ation central facility/ water/Fe l.B ppm/TDS 268 Privies/Drainfield/
bathing/restroam/laun-ppm/Hardness 168 ppn/Wells Septic tank.
dry watering p:>int. prcxluce an aburrlant supply
of water.
PHS well adjacent to
River/ Green sand
filters/FL/CL/500,000
gal. storage tank/
Burie::l pipe service to
hones.
After treatment: Fe .25
.Pflll!Hardness 200 ppm/well
yield 55 gpn.
PHS 50' well/24,000
gallon woodstave stor-
age tank/recirculating
system/burie::i pipe ser-
vice to the homes/CL/FL/
Washerteria.
G::x.rl quality, good quant-
ity drinking water/year
round supply.
PHS rotatirg biolog-
ical disc treatment
plant/outfall to
river/3 lift stations.
5-2,000 gallon com-
munity septic tanks
and drain fields.
None.
~bne.
NUMBER
TOWN POPULATION OFHOMES WATER SUPPLY
ADEQUACY OF
WATER SUPPLY
I
TYPE OF
SEWAGE SYSTEM
PLANNED
IMPROVEMENTS
Tanana 447 76 VSW facility provides Good quality/water supply
watering point/washer-year DOund/low in Fe/
teria/laundromat/source available at 2-3 wells
Privies/few septic
tanks/cesspools noted
sewer line available
for hx>kup to 15 hanes I
VSW facility effluent
to aerated lagoon/leak
in outfall line needs
repair short circuiting
system.
None.
of supply is well/sub-located along b:mks of
division served by PHS Yukon River/CUantity of
welL water limited in winter.
Tetlin 85 32
of' --
Tok 709 270
~finitions:
1. CL -Ollorine treatment.
2. Fe -Iron treated.
3. Fl -Fluoride treatment.
PHS central facility/
56 • well/watering
point/ CL/Laundry /Bath-
ing/Hydropneumatic
system.
250 individual wells
in residences ranging
in depth frcm 90' to
125'.
4. Hydropneumatic system -Pressure tank system.
5. PHS 'Nell - A well installErl by or meets standards
established by the United States Public Health
Service.
6. Primary Sewer System -Essentually a filtering,
settling, and disinfecting process.
7. Privy -An outhouse.
Facility froze up/pre-
sently using watering
point only/CL not in use/
FE .1 ppn/TDS 184 ppn/
Hardness 214 ppm.
Generally good quality
arrl. quantity water but
untreated sources of
supply FE 0.2 ppn/Cl 1.3
r:pn/Hardness 199 ppn/Tffi
238 ppn.
Pit toilets/seepage
pits fior sink ~stes.
Individual septic
tanks/drain fields/
cesspools/privies.
None.
tbne
8. Secondary Sewer System -Involves further settlirg and
biological decampositon.
9. TDS -'Ibtal dissolved solids.
10. Tertiary Sewer System -utilizes canplex rrethods to rem:::>ve
dissovled nutrients whiCh can result in a pure effuent.
11. ut.ilidor - A variety of passageways and storage areas to
house water and sewer lines and similar facilities.
12. VSW Facility - A facility Yhich meets the standards according to
DOC similar to PHS) •
13. Washerteria - A laundromat-type facility: some of Yhich supply
showers.
14. W::x:rlstave pipe -Wood oonstructed sewer lines.
Sources: Alaska Department of EnviDOnrnental Conservation (DEC) , 1982
Alaska water Study Corrmittee, 1980
Alaska Department of labor, 1981.
C. Bydroeleetrie Power
Electric power provided to Tanana Basin communities is
presently generated, for the most part, by diesel and coal
fired generators. The rising costs of fuel, especially
diesel, environmental concerns, the idea of using a renew-
able resource and the idea of self sufficiency have tended
to make the hydroelectric power alternative attractive as a
source of power (Ebasco Services, Inc. (ESI), 1982, u.s.
Department of Energy {DOE), 1979). Hydroelectric power
facilities are generally broken down into three size cate-
gories: large, small, and micro. For this report the large
category applies to facilities generating more than 5 mega-
watts; small, 5 megawatts to 100 kilowatts; micro, less than
100 kilowatts. Large hydropower facilities would provide
electricity on a regional basis or to a large city, small
hydropower would be for a small community and micro hydro-
power for individual home consumption.
Table 4-3 shows sites in the Tanana Basin that have
been investigated in the past for large scale hydropower
(ARP 1974). None of these sites are currently being seri-
ously considered for construction.
Small hydropower feasibility in the Tanana Basin was
examined as part of a study of small hydroelectric feasibil-
bility of 25 northeast Alaska villages (ESI 1982). Table
4-4 shows proven system information for the sites initially
investigated in the Tanana Basin. Table 4-5 shows summary
information for those sites warranting more detailed invest-
igation. As can be seen from the last column, none of the
detailed investigations showed a benefit-cost ratio greater
than one. This means none of the sites were found to be
economically feasible.
At least one operating hydropower facility at the micro
hydropower scale exists in the Tanana Basin at Camp Denali
in Denali National Park. Because of the availability of
suitable terrain in much of the basin, the relative remote-
ness of settlement in the basin and the high cost of fuel
for electrical power generation, micro hydropower might be
the most feasible scale for the basin. The larger two
scales need combination of population density, water source,
location, and construction costs that haven't been demon-
strated, whereas at the micro scale these factors exist
throughout the basin for power generation, for at least part
of the year.
4-12
Power generation is the product of flow rate and net
head which is the net change in elevation which the water
drops (DOE, 1979). The lower limits at which microhydro-
power is not feasible is ten feet of head and ten gallons
per minute. However, ten gallons per minute at ten feet
will not give any usable power. For an example of scale 10
gallons per minute at 100 feet of head or 100 gallons per
minute at 10 feet of head will produce about 100 watts (DOE,
1979). An equation for theoretical power is QXH/5.3 = P
where Q is flow rate in gallons per minute, H is net head in
feet and P is power in watts (DOE, 1979). This equation
determines theoretical power. Actual power will be less and
will depend on the efficiency of the components of the
system (DOE, 1979).
4-13
Ta•le4-3
IDveatory of Large Bydroeleetrie Power Sites-Taaaaa Rasia
Drainage Max. Reg. Active
Area Water Surface Storage
Project Name Stream (sq. mi.) Elev. (ft.) (l,OOOA/F)
Junction Island Tanana River 42,500 400 29,000
Bruskasna Nenana River 650 2,300 840
Carlo Nenana River 1,190 1,900 53
Healy (Slagle) Nenana River 1,900 1, 700 310
Big Delta Tanana River 15,300 1,100 6,450
Gerstle Tanana River 10,700 1,290 *
Johnson Tanana River 10,450 1,470 5,300
Cathedral Bluffs Tanana River 8,550 1,650 4,900
* Reservoir held essentially full for operation with upstream plants.
4·14
Table4·4
EXISTING POWER SYSTEM DATA SUMMARY
SMALL TANANA BASIN COMMUNITIES
-.!r y r~rgy--cosfoc COst of
Comnunlty I.JJngitude 1981 ~thad of ut11ity Installed Use y Diesel Fuel Residential 4/
Name am Latitude Population Genention Name Owne~shie Capacitl (kW) tkWh/~ea~) _( $/qallon) Power ($/kWhT
Big Delta 145" 49'W 64" 09'N 30 Coal, Golden RFA 225,000 133,091 0.920 • 12
Diesel, Valley
011 Electric
Olatanik.a 147" 2B'W 65• 07'N 30 Coal, Golden REA 225,000 133,091 0.920 • 12
Diesel, Valley
Oil Electric
Olena 147" 56'W 64" 48'N ]') Coal, Golden REA 225,000 155,273 a. no .12
Diesel Valley
011 Electric
Delta Junction 145" 44'W 64" 02'N 945 Coal, Golden REA 225,000 4,192,364 0.920 • 12
Diesel, Valley
Oil Electric
lbt Lake 144" 04'W 63• 40'N 66 Diesel AlASka Private 200 { tentJQracy 292,800 1.241 .25
Powe~ and until transmission
Telephone lines Are in
~ration)
~ 2,275 (early 1982) -r.J.ven:~ood 148" 33'W 65" 31'N 50 Diesel None Private Individual 208,365 1.376 ell
generators
TanAcross 143" 21'W 62" 23'N 117 Diesel Alaska Private 1,975 519,055 1. 241 .25
Powe~ am
Telephone
'lbk 142" 59'W 63• 19'N 750 Diesel AlAska Private 2,275 3,260,728 1. 241 • 25
Power am
Telephone
Table4·S
TANANA BASIN SMALL HYDROPOWER SUMMARY TABLE
RFSULTS OF DETAILED RECONNAISSANCE INVES11GA110NS
-----D~a1naqe TransmisSion Nef ___ Oesiqn Hinimun fristarrer Plant Energy Benefit
Stream Area Distance Head Flow Flow Capacity Factor Cost Cost
Ccmnunity Name (mi2) (mi) (ft) (cfs) (cfsl (kW) (Percent) $/ki-111/ Ratio
D::lt Lake Bear 5!!.0 9.9 151.0 74.2 7.42 699 30 0.48 0.91
Cl:'eek
Tanacross Yerrick 29.0 1.5 237.0 18.6 1.86 299 31 0.69 0.63
Creek
'l'Ok Clearwater 27.0 12.2 353 17.2 1. 72 412 31 0.88 0.50
Cl:'eek
Big Delta -Granite 23.5 20.2 240 3.76 3.76 612 44 0.49 0.66
Delta Jmctlon Cl:'eek
-----------
1/ 1981 $.
D. Navlcabllity
When Alaska became a state in 1959, it also became the
owner of lands beneath both tidal waters and the non-tidal,
navigable water within the state. Although state ownership
of these lands is an established right and is recognized as
such by the federal government, only a small amount of the
state's submerged acreage has been identified to the satis-
faction of both the state and federal governments. Although
in most instances identification of the actual location of
state land underlying tidal waters awaits survey, the state
and federal governments generally agree on how to identify
these lands.
However, they do not agree on how to identify the beds
of non-tidal, inland navigable waterbodies (i.e., lakes and
rivers} . The state and federal governments disagree over
which characteristics and uses -or criteria -of Alaska's
waterbodies satisfy the judicial test. This basic disagree-
ment is a major obstacle to identfying this category of
valuable state-owned submerged lands.
Both the State of Alaska and the United States govern-
ment agree that the legal test of a waterbody's navigability
for the purpose of determining ownership of submerged
lands -has five key elements.
From the viewpoint of the State of Alaska, the follow-
ing constitute basic elements of navigability for the pur-
pose of determining ownership of submerged lands in Alaska:
1. Waters must have been navigable at the time the state
was admitted to the Union.
2. Waters must be navigable in their "natural and ordin-
ary condition."
3. The waterbody must be useful as a means of transpor-
tation; that is as a "highway for commerce over
which trade and travel may be conducted."
4. Navigation must be conducted in "customary modes of
trade and travel on water."
5. Waterbodies which are susceptible of being used,
although not yet actually used in the ways outlined
above are, nevertheless, navigable."
MaJor Disputed Criteria
Consistent with the preceding considerations, the
navigability criteria which the state supports, but the
federal government does not, are the following:
a. Winter Use travel on a waterbody, in its frozen
condition, as an ice highway.
4-16
b. Airplane Use -use of a waterbody by floatplanes or,
in the winter, by planes on wheels or equipped with
skis.
c. Personal Use -travel on a waterbody by individuals
in connection with activities not purely recreational
in nature, such as hunting, fishing and trapping, or
as a means of access to their homes or property.
d. Recreational Use -travel on a waterbody in connect-
ion with recreational activities, such as sightseeing
and recreational fishing, by companies and guides
involved in the tourism and recreational trades and
by private individuals.
e. Susceptibility of Use -physical characteristics
such as length, depth, and width -of a waterbody
which indicate the waterbody is. susceptible of use in
traveL
f. Isolated Lakes -travel and trade on isolated lakes
and deadend sloughs are generally not criteria con-
sidered by the federal government since there is no
"continuous" route of interconnected travel.
g. Obstructions to Navigation -the disagreement here is
one of degree: At ~hat point is a natural obstacle -
such as rapids so extensive that it becomes an
"obstruction" rendering a waterbody, or a portion it,
non-navigable?
h. Alternative Routes of Trade and Travel -the federal
government often discounts use of a waterbody for
travel if alternative overland trade or tavel routes,
such as roads or trails, have developed on land.
Criteria Test Cases
In order to resolve these fundamental criteria disa-
greements regarding Alaska • s inland waters, the State is
filing test cases in federal court for legal identification
of proper criteria for navigability determinations in
Alaska. By filing lawsuits the state seeks to obtain
judicial navigability determinations for selected water-
bodies presently considered non-navigable by the federal
government but considered navigable by the State. With each
test case, the State aims to clarify aspects of its positon
on navigability criteria.
The following waterbodies within the Tanana Basin
promise to be the subject of litigation in the near future
in the state•s effort to obtain judicial guidelines concern-
ing correct navigability criteria of waterbodies in Alaska.
NeaanaRiver-This river is being investigated in the
vicinity of Denali National Park and Preserve and Healy.
The stretch of river under investigation was chosen by the
state primarily to test the obstruction-to-navigability
criterion. The federal government has declared this stretch
4·17
of river through the lengthy rapids alongside the Parks
Highway non-navigable, although it has in fact been exten-
sively used, including present use by cormnerical river-
rafting companies appealing to the tourist trade. Hydrolog-
ical, historical, and contempoary use research and reports
are scheduled for completion in January 1983, at which time
the state can begin legal action.
NorthwayLakes -Several lakes in the vicinity of
Northway provide significant value for a criteria test
case. These lakes were determined non-navigable by the
federal government. The lakes -and the streams and sloughs
connecting them receive local use by small boats for
activities such as personal use hunting, fishing, trapping,
and travel to homesites. A few of the lakes also experience
substantial recreational use. Some of the lakes are not
connected by streams but still receive boat traffic by port-
ages between the lakes. Aspects of the isolated-lake,
personal-use, recreational-use and susceptibility-of-use
criteria which are not presented in other cases filed by the
state are presented by these lakes. Historical and contem-
porary use reports have been completed. A hydrological
report is scheduled for completion by December 1982, at
which time the State can begin legal action.
MintoFiats -This area may be used as a criteria case
because of the reported use of its waterbodies as a trans-
portation network primarily for winter-use activities, such
as hunting and trapping related mainly to personal consump-
tive use of resources in this rural area. Contempory use
and historical research is scheduled for Spring 1983. At
that time, the state will decide the need for this area as a
criteria case.
4-18
E. Floodpl.a.ia Maa.agem.ent
Floodplain management, in a comprehensive sense, has
not been widely recognized as a responsibility of state
government in Alaska. The federa 1 government has assumed
primary responsibility for projects to control flood waters
such as dams and channel improvements, as well as minimum
floodplain standards required by the National Flood Insur-
ance Program. To date, the state government in Alaska has
played a relatively minor role in floodplain management
(Department of Community and Regional Affairs (DCRA),
1982) .
In interior Alaska, cold winter freezing followed by
rapid warming in spring causes rapid snowmelt which over-
flows frozen or ice jammed channels and often results in
spectacular spring breakup floods. Moreover, the presence
of permafrost prevents rainfall from infiltrating, so a
large percentage of rainfall during heavy storms becomes
flood runoff.
Some of the most extensive floods in the state have
occurred in the Tanana River system (ARP, 1974). The
relatively short summers concentrate the major portion of
the annual runoff into less than five months. High flows
occur from May through September; low flows from October
through April. Beginning in late September, freezing
weather at the heads of tributaries rapidly advances down-
stream, and by April, flow is gradually reduced to only the
infiltration of groundwater in the stream bed. In May, ice
in the rivers is broken up by higher flows swollen by the
runoff from snowmelt. Most peak discharges in the region
occur following the breakup of ice. Smaller peaks some-
times occur in late summer from heavy precipitation, parti-
cularly where permafrost is near the surface and prevents
infiltration.
The flood potential in the Tanana depends on the water
level in its tributaries. Streams originating in the Wran-
gell Mountains ann the Alaska Range are fed by glaciers;
the others obtain water from snowmelt at lower elevations.
This results in heavy streamflow all summer with peak flows
in July and August. Flooding is most likely to occur when
rainfall follows a period of warm weather during which the
snowmelt rate increases rapidly (ARP, 1974).
The State of Alaska CLirrently has very little statu-
tory authority to plan for and manage the floodplain areas
of the state. What statutory provisions do exist relate
primarily to state participation in floodplain projects and
to state liability in post-flood situations (DCRA, 1982).
4-19
Settlement in interior Alaska, including the Tanana
Basin, has traditionally included village development
within the floodplain in order to facilitate a subsistence
lifestyle based on use of the river system for transporta-
tion and a source of food. Several villages in the Tanana
Basin are located in areas rated by the United States Corps
of Engineers as having flood hazards of average to high.
Two villages, Minto and Tanacross, have actually been moved
to alternate sites in recent years due to extensive flood-
ing. The u.s. Soil Conservation Service is currently
developing maps of flood prone areas in the Tanana Basin.
These maps should be available in the su~ner of 1983.
Fairbanks, developed unplanned on a poor site, is
apparently typical of old northern settlements (AWSC,
1980). Located in a flat lowland area, Fairbanks has been
flooded by the Chena River six times since 1902 when the
settlement was founded: 1905, 1911, 1930, 1937, 1948 and
1967. The 1967 flood killed six people and caused damages
exceeding $85 million dollars (DCRA, 1982).
Fairbanks exemplifies a community that cooperatively
developed a floodplain management program following the
devastating 1967 flood. Fairbanks has one of the most
comprehensive floodplain management programs in Alaska,
combining flood insurance, regulation, recreation enhance-
ment and structural flood control (the Chena River Dam and
Floodway and the Tanana River levee) to mitigate their
flood hazard. It should also be noted that this program
was achieved at a sizeable cost to the public. The Chena
River project is estimated to have cost $243 mill ion in
state and federal funds. Operation and maintenance costs
are estimated at $763,000 annually (DCRA, 1982). The final
stage of this project, however, is still incomplete and
quite controversial. It appears that a potential land-use
conflict is halting completion. The Army Corps of
Engineer's plan of extending the levee into the Tanana
River near the International Airport has been criticized as
causing unpredictable resu 1 ts, including a southward shift
in the Tanana River bed with a consequent drop in the water
level and loss of navigability of the Chena River (AWSC,
1980). Another potential land-use conflict is in the
construction of a drainage channel from the Tanana River
into the Chena by way of the Borough landfill. Such a
route could have serious threat to ground water quality by
the landfill leachate (DEC, 1982). Alternative routes and
plans are being considered and a final solution will
undoubtedly be forthcoming.
The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) offers
property owners in participating communities flood insur-
ance at initially low, federally-subsidized premium rates.
To participate in the program, the city or borough must
adopt and administer building and subdivision ordinances
which will minimize flood damage within flood hazard
areas. ( DCRA, 1982) .
4·20
Accorning to federal regulations a community is flood
prone for purposes of participation in the NFIP if it con-
tains one or more "special flood hazard areas." These
areas are defined as portions of a floodplain subject to
flooding during a "100-year flood", the size flood which
has a one percent chance of being equalled or exceeded
every year. Many communi ties in Alaska may experience
flood problems, thus may be considered flood prone, but
lack sufficient historical and hydrological data to map the
floodplain estimated to be covered by the 100-year flood
event. Statistical analysis of available streamflow
analysis of rainfall and runoff characteristics of the
watershed, or storm characteristics are used to determine
the extent and depth of the 100-year flood. Fairbanks is
one community where sufficient past data collected at
stream gaging stations existed to classify the flood events
in the magnitude of a 100-year flood or greater.
A community joins the NFIP in two phases: l) The Emer-
gency Program phase and 2) the Regular Program phase. Any
municipality may join the Emergency Program. However, as
previously noted, certain requirements must be met at the
time the application is made. Generally, there is less
technical data available and the insurance and regulatory
aspects are adjusted according to available data in this
phase ( DCRA, 1982) .
A community enters
effective date of the
(FIRM). FIRM is based
Emergency Program phase.
the regular Program phase on the
final Flood Insurance Rate Map
on preliminary studies during the
Federal flood insurance is no longer available to non-
participants in the NFIP. An example of the impact of this
is that an owner trying to sell an uninsured residence will
not be able to do so if the buyer needs to obtain a
mortgage or loan from a federally insured or regulated
lending institution. No federal grants or loans for build-
ing (including repair or improvement loans) may be made in
indentified flood hazard areas. If flooding occurs, it is
possible that the local governments could be held liable by
residents and/or businesses who could not get flood insur-
ance because of the decision not to participate in the
National Flood Insurance Program.
There are other effects too. For further information
regarding the National Flood Insurance Program, refer to
the "Floodplain Management Guide for Alaskan Communities"
(1982) published by the Department of Community and
Regional Affairs, Division of Community Planning.
4-21
F. Plaeer Mining aad Water Quality
If there were only one placer miner operating in
Alaska, there would be little, if any, concern for its
impact on the environment. There are, however, an estimated
150 placer mining operations in the Tanana Basin (Miller,
1983}. These operations have the potential to cause adverse
effects on water quality and generate other pollution prob-
lems. The conventional operating procedures involved in
placer mining include:
1. Stripping of overburden material to expose the
mineral-bearing materials;
2. Thawing of permafrost;
3. Ditching or stream diversion to obtain water;
4. Transporting mineral-bearing material to the sluice-
box; ·
5. Recovering minerals from the mineral-bearing
materials;
6. Construct in of tailings ponds or other control
structures; and
7. Disposal of tailings.
These practices can result in the removal of vegetative
cover, changes to topography at the mine site, modification
of the stream channel, and introduction of material into the
stream system. (Madison, 1981}. The major water pollution
concerns with these changes are with sedimentation and water
quality.
The effects of sedimentation from mining is similar to
that of other land-disturbance activities. Reseachers have
concluded that the following impacts are possible:
1. Physical effects which include increased turbidity and
alteration of channels and changes in stream bot tom
material.
2. Effects on aquatic plant 1 ife including reduction in
photosynthetic activity and consequent reduction in
growth of algae and macrophytes, smothering of plant
life inhabiting the stream bottom, and increase in the
mobility of the substrate.
3. Effects on benthic invertebrates including reduction
in the abundance and diversity of benthos and changes
in community composition from clean-water species to
species more adaptable to higher sediment levels but
possibly less suitable as fish-food organisms.
4. Effects on fish life which include loss of available
food supply due to reductions in production at the
lower trophic levels (plant life and benthic inverte-
brates}, interference with the sight-dependent feeding
habits o£ salmonids, obliteration of hiding or living
areas in gravel, temporary or permanent destruction or
4·22
modification of spawning beds, short-term exposure to
very large concentrations of suspended sediment that
can cause fish mortality through damage to the gill
structure, and avoidance of normal spawning areas
(even relatively low turbidity) and preference for
cleaner tributaries or other sections of a stream
(Madison, 1981).
5. Effects on drinking water: aesthetic, increased total
metals particularly arsenic, interference with disin-
fection, interference with microbe analyses, source of
nutrients for microbes, increase loads on treatment.
Possible water quality impacts include:
l. An increase in organic loading in the stream system
from the introduction of overburden sediments or
innundation of organic-rich topsoils.
2. An increase in the minor-element content of water or
sediments as the result of exposure and oxidation of
metal-bearing materials, the leaching of tailing
deposits, or chemical treatment of the ores.
3. Acid mine drainage.
4. Effects of the above water-quality changes in the form
of toxicity to fish and other aquatic biota (Madison,
1981) .
The above mentioned effects are not present in every
mining operation. The use of settling ponds, recycling of
water, classification of material, proper sizing of equip-
ment and a good mining plan are common practices and tech-
niques that will help a placer mining operation reduce
adverse impacts on water resource.
As mentioned above in Section IIC all waters in the
State of Alaska with the exception of the Chena River must
meet drinking water standards. With respect to placer
mining, the standards of most concern are settleable solids
(0.2 ml/1), turbidity (5 NTU's above background) and heavy
metals.
In light of the increased mining activity, increased
environmental degradation will and has occurred. To best
achieve compliance from miners in wastewater treatment the
state DEC worked closely with other involved agencies and
sponsored an active field program during 1982 (Reeves,
198 2) .
It has been demonstrated that it is extremely difficult
if not impossible to maintain a multiple water use program
through cooperation between user groups without an active
field compliance program. The amount of effort put forth by
miners to upgrade wastewater quality depends on their abil-
ity to realistically attain compliance. The few miners
creating conflicts between water user groups will be
4-23
required to use well-designed and maintained settling
ponds. Additional treatment in order to eliminate the con-
flicts might be one solution to this problem: however the
economics of such action should be analyzed prior to form-
ulation of additional requirements. Technical assistance
is provided to miners in the field. They are advised of
proper methods of settling pond construction and told how to
best achieve compliance, obtain perrni ts, etc. (Reeves,
1982) .
Samples were taken in the field in 1982 and will be
again in 1983. The purpose of this sampling program is to
determine settling pond efficiency and whether or not the
operation is in compliance. It is the Department of
Environmental Conservation's intention to focus field moni-
toring activities in the Tanana Basin during 1983 on those
high priority streams such as the Chatanik.a and Chena Rivers
where multiple use conflicts exist (Reeves, 1982).
On streams where there is heavy mining impact, it is DEC's
goal to encourage properly built and maintained settling
ponds or other techniques to settle out solids. It is felt
that all operators can meet the EPA settleable solids limit
of 0. 2 ml/L. if they maximize the use of settling ponds.
The State turbidity standards are the most difficult water
quality parameter to meet and on-going research will shed
needed light on what environmental effects these suspended
solids actually have.
Field compliance to water quality requlations is recognized
by DEC to be difficult at times and some sites may require a
tailored approach to meeting standards. In many situations
economics and practicability play a role in determining best
sediment control methods. As long as the miner demonstrates
a willingness to comply and engages in coorperative efforts
to meet standards the State will pursue every avenue avail-
able in achieving its own mandate to offer technical assist-
ance and allowing a reasonable amount of time to solve the
problems associated with water quality as effected by placer
mining. In the meantime, regulatory agencies, miners,
recreational users and the general public should display a
willingness to understand each others views and problems so
that a meaningful and well-balanced program of environmental
quality and economic growth can be effectively constructed
and maintained (Reeves, 1982).
4-24
G. Forestry
Poor forestry practices can lead to changes in water-
sheds and stream ecosystems. The following summary of
potential adverse effects is taken from a personal cummuni-
cation (Mark Oswood, 1983). Loss of stream bank vegetation
can result in increases in soil mass movement, increased
erosion, loss of riparian cover for fish, changes in nutri-
ent input into waterways changes in input of terrestrial
insects as fish food, and decrease of terrestrial intercept-
ion and evapotranspiration of water with subsequent
increases in stream flow.
Sediment input into streams can negatively affect
developing fish eggs by physically damaging them, by
decreasing the flow of intragravel water and thereby
decreasing oxygen uptake and waste removal {smothering the
eggs). Increased sediment on the stream bed can change the
composition of aquatic algae and invertebrates, disrupting
the food chain important to commercial and sport fish in the
stream. Sediment input can also destroy habitat space util-
ized by small fish and/or overwintering fish.
Loss of canopy can result in decreasing leaf litter and
woody debris input into the waterway, and increased solar
radiation causing higher maximum diurnal and summer tempera-
tures, and decreased winter minimum temperatures.
Input of large debris can be potentially beneficial to
fish by providing cover, but also can cause potential prob-
lems with Biochemical Oxygen Demand {BOD), creating barriers
to fish movement, and causing possible channel changes.
Road building and other logging activities can adverse-
ly affect waterways by becoming sources of sediment and
toxic materials (such as oil and grease). Heavy equipment
and yarding across waterways may cause erosion of the lower
banks and culverts may impede fish passage.
Channel changes, gradient changes, discharge and
velocity changes can negatively affect the fishery popula-
tion by changing the pool habitat to riffle habitat ratio.
Many adult and juvenile fish typically rest in areas of
reduced water velocities (pools), but feed on benthic
invertebrates derived from the riffle areas.
Dr. Oswood notes that there
quantitative information in many
logging/stream interactions.
4-25
is a lack of published,
Tanana Basin areas of
The Alaska Forest Resources and Practices .1\ct (January,
1979) and the Regulations (February, 1981) attempt to assure
continuous growth and harvest of timber and to protect
Alaska's forest, wildlife, soil and water resources. A
Forest Practices Field Manual for each forestry region of
Alaska lists the Best Management Practices (BMP's) for each
type of activity. These BMP's constitute the state-of-the~
art methods that may be used to achieve the Standards
contained in the Forest Practices Regulations. They are not
mandatory, but serve as guidelines for forest operators to
assist them in meeting the intent of the Act and the
Regulations.
On a state agency level, a cooperative agreement exists
between the Alaska Departments' of Fish and Game, Natural
Resources and Environmental Conservation (April, 1982).
This agreement delineates the responsibilities and activ-
ities of each agency ann the relationship between them in
protecting the renewable forest resources and the environ-
ment. In essence, the Department of Natural Resources is
responsible for the renewable forest resources. The Depart-
ment of Environmental Conservation has the lead responsibil-
ity to protect and maintain water quality including
control of nonpoint source pollution. The Department of
Fish and Game is responsible to protect and conserve fish,
game ano other natural resources, and is vested with the
authority to require written approval of activities in
waters important for the spawning, rearing, and migration of
anadromous fish under Title 16 of the Alaska Statutes.
Coordination among these agencies includes joint forest
practices training programs, joint inspections, enforcement
and monitoring activities whenever possible, and cooperative
review of the BMP' s and logging activities of the Tanana
Basin region.
4-26
B. Agricaltaral DevelopDient
Agricultural development projects in the Tanana Basin
are resulting in the clearing of large amounts of virgin
forested land and subsequent development into treeless,
cultivated lands with necessary roads and homesteads.
Because often large parts of small watersheds are involved
in a development plan these changes have significant effects
on the water resources of the affected watersheds. These
effects can be categorized as effects on the hydrologic
system and on water quality.
1. Hydrologic System
Effects on the hydrologic system are changes in volume
of direct runoff and changes in lag which effect peak rate
of runoff (Soil Conservation Service (SCS), 1972). The
major contributions to change in volume are changes in
infiltration rates and changes in surface storage of water.
Lag is also affected by infiltration rate and by changing
the timing of surface flow by changing the distance and/or
velocity of flow (SCS, 1972).
Forested land has high infiltration rates, high storage
and usually reduces flow velocity. Clearing of forested
land should result in larger volume of surface water runoff
and higher peaks occurring more rapidly during periods of
flooding and lower discharges during periods of low flow.
These effects can be mitigated by land use and treatment
measures. Forested greenbelts, permanent meadows, contour-
ing and furrowing measures and use of grass-lined ditches
and outlets are examples of mitigation measures that might
be useful in the Tanana Basin.
The effects of mitigation measures may be different
with respect to snowmelt runoff than with rainfall runoff.
With snowmelt runoff, because of seasonal weathering and
frost action, contouring, terracing and crop rotation may
not be effective measures while permanent meadows and wood-
lands would remain effective (SCS, 1972).
Roads in project lands may also impact the hydrologic
system. Improperly located roads can act as dams or con-
duits for overland flow. Improperly sized and/or located
culverts can also impede drainage.
2. Water Quality
Agriculture a potential nonpoint source of water
pollution -has not traditionally been a source of serious
wate.r pollution in the state. However, rapid large scale
development of undisturbed lands has increased dramatically
in recent years, and has introduced the possibility of
significant deterioration of water quality in local
4·27
environments. Potential threats to water quality that are
related to agricultural development arise as a result of two
major classes of activities: land development and ensuing
agricultural operations.
Land development includes surveying, construction of
access roads, bridges, and utilities, and land clearing.
Primary water quality effects that can result from such
activities are increases in sedimentation, suspended load,
and concentration of plant nutrients: decreases in light
transmission: and changes in temperature.
Agricultural operations include fertilizing, irriga-
tion, seedbed preparation, chemical treatment of seeds,
application of fungicides, insecticides, and herbicides, and
so on. Primary water quality effects that can result from
these activities are similar to those that result from land
development, but in addition include introduction of fungi-
cides, insecticides, and herbicides, and decreased concen-
tration of dissolved oxygen.
Large scale agricultural development in Alaska began in
lg78 with the launch of the Delta I Agricultural Project.
This farm community has not been unaware of the potential
for development of water quality problems. During early
stages of the Delta Project, a poll of the twenty-four
member 1980 Delta Citizen Council indicated unanimous
support for allocating state funds for "air and water
quality monitoring within the inunediate area of the Delta
agricultural community," and for assessing "the effect of
large scale agriculture on the ecosystem."
Several baseline water quality studies have been
carried out in the vicinity of the first agricultural devel-
opment site, Delta I. These studies include a geohydrologic
report by u.s.G.S., a water quality study by the A.gricul-
tural Experiment Station, a water quality and benthos
investigation by the Institute of Water Resources, a pesti-
cide residue sampling report by the u.s. Fish and Wildlife.
None of the studies produced evidence of significant water
quality problems. Most of the studies, however, were
completed prior to extensive development in the area. Most
of the investigators stressed the importance of continuous
long term water quality monitoring in order to determine the
effects, if any, of agricultural development on the region's
surface and ground water. Unfortunately only two followup
studies, one of nitrogen fertilizer fate, and other on
pesticide residues, were initiated in 1982, and final
results of these studies will probably not be available
before 1985. Neither of these studies is specifically
intended to monitor water quality.
4·28
In 1983 the Alaska Department of Environmental Conser-
vation, Alaska Department of Fish and Game and the u.s. Fish
and Wildlife Service will commence a monitoring program on
Delta Clearwater Creek which will compare new information
with data from past studies. Additionally, the Alaska
Department of Natural Resource's baseline studies will
commence in the Delta Creek area, which is being proposed as
an extension of the Delta I Agricultural Project. This
study will include a study of meteorological conditions,
surficial geology, forest cover evaluation, surface and
ground water hydrology and water quality.
The Department of Environmental Conservation is respon-
sible for protecting Alaska's waters from pollution from
either point or nonpoint sources. The Department intends to
carry out monitoring programs in areas of large scale agri-
culture as funding permits and will continue to enforce
Alaska Water Quality Standards. Additionally, the Depart-
ment has developed Best Management Practices ( BMP' s)
appropriate for Alaska. These BMP's describe general
agricultural operations conducted so as to minimize
adverse water quality effects, or practices designed to
protect water quality directly. A Memorandum of Agreement
between ADEC and the Alaska Soil Conservation District
spells out terms of cooperation between the two organiza-
tions with respect to implementation and evaluation of BMP's
to prevent or mitigate water quality problems. A Memorandum
of Understanding between ADNR and ADEC accomplishes similar
goals.
4-29
---
-
-
....
--
-
-Bibliography
-
V. WATER ELEMENT BIBUOGRAPBY
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, n.d.,
"Issues and Choices in Alaska's Environment: Public
Review Draf.t", Juneau, Alaska.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, 1978,
"Water Quality Protection in Alaska, Vol. 1", Juneau,
Alaska.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, 1979,
"Alaska Water Quality Management Plan for Non-Point
Pollution Sources", Juneau, Alaska.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, 1979,
"Water Quality Standards", Juneau, Alaska.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, 1982, 11 How
to Get Your Corps Permit for Projects in or Near
Alaska's Waters and Wetlands", Prepared by Dames and
Moore Consultants.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, 1982,
"Inventory of Rural Sanitation Services .. , not
published.
Alaska Department of Labor, 1981, "Alaska Population Over-
view", Anchorage, Alaska.
Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Land
and Water Management, Water Management Section, 1981
"Water User's Handbook", Anchorage, Alaska.
Alaska Water Study Committee, 1976, "Alaska Water Assess-
ment: State-Regional Future Water and Related Land
Problems", Juneau, Alaska.
Alaska \'later Study Committee, 1980, "Tanana Basin Overview:
A Review of Water and Land Problems and Programs",
Anchorage, Alaska.
Anderson, G.S., 1970, "Hydrologic Reconnaissance of the
Tanana Basin, Central Alaska", U.S. Geological Survey,
Hydrologic Investigations HA-319.
Balding, G.O., 1976, "Water Availability, Quality, and Use
in Alaska", u.s. Geological Survey Open File Report
76-513.
5-1
Curran, Harold and Linda Perry l)..vight, 1979 "Analysis of
Alaska's Water Use Act and its Interaction with
Federal Reserved Water Rights", Institute of Water
Resources, Report IWR 98, University of Alaska,
Fairbanks.
Dames and Moore, 1982, "How to Get Your Corps Permit for
Projects in or Near Alaska's Water and Wetlands",
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation,
Anchorage, Alaska
Department of Community and Regional Affairs, 1982, "Flood-
plain Management for Alaskan Communities", Juneau,
Alaska.
Dunne, Thomas and Luna B. Leopold, 1978, Water in Environ-
mental Planning, W.H. Freeman and Company, San
Francisco.
Ebasco Services Inc., 1982, Regional Inventory and
Reconnaissance Study for Small Hydropower Projects,
Northeast Alaska. Department of the Army, Alaska
District, Corps of Engineers
Hopkins, D.M. Karlstrom, T.N.V. 1955, "Ground Water in
Permafrost Regions-An Annotated Bibliography", u.s.
Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1792, 294 pp.
Machison, Robert J,, 1981, "Effects of Placer Mining on
Hydrologic Systems in Alaska", u.s. Geological Survey
Open-File Report 81-217, Anchorage, Alaska
Miller, Glenn, 1983, Personal Communication, Alaska
Division of Minerals and Energy Mangement, Fairbanks,
Alaska
National Center for Appropriate Technology, 1979, Micro-
hydropower: Reviewing an Old Concept, u.s. Department
of Energy
Nelson, Gordon L, 1978, "Hydrologic Information for
Land Utie Planning", Fairbanks Vicinity, Alaska, u.s.
Geological Survey, Open File Report 78-959 Anchorage,
Alaska.
Oswood, Mark, 1983, Unpublished lecture notes (WF 423
Limnology), University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska
Reeves, John, 1983, Personal Communication, Alaska Depart-
ment of Environmental Conservation, Fairbanks, Alaska.
Selkregg, Lidia L., 1974, "Alaska Regional Profiles, Yukon
Region", University of Alaska, Arctic Environmental
Information and Data Center, University of Alaska,
Anchorage.
5·2
Shirley, Craig, 1983, Personal Communication, Alaska Div-
ision of Land and Water Management, Fairbanks, Alaska
Soil Conservation Service, 1972, "Hydrology", SCS National
Engineering Handbook, u.s. Department of Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
Soil Conservation Service, 1982-3, "Snow Surveys and
Water Supply Outlook in Alaska", Anchorage, Alaska
Tanana Valley Irrigation Study Team, 1972, "Irrigation
Potentials, Tanana River Valley, Alaska", Alaska Power
Administration, Juneau, Alaska
u.s. Environmental Protection Agency, 1976, "Climatological
and Water Quality Data--Caribou-Poker Creeks Research
Watershed Harking Paper #30," College, Alaska.
u.s. Geological Survey, 1978, "Arsenic, Nitrate, Iron, and
Hardness in Groundwater, Fairbanks Area, Alaska",
u.s.G.s. Open-File Report 78-1034.
u.s. Geological Survey, 1979, "Flood Characteristics of
Alaska Streams," Water Resources Investigations,
78-129.
Wedemeyer, Kathleen and ,John D. Fox, 1981, "Water Planning
Guide for the Kotzebue Sound Region", Institute of
Water Resources, Completion Report IWR 81-18,
Fairbanks, Alaska.
Williams, J.R., 1970, "Groundwater in the Permafrost
Regions of Alaska", U.S. Geological Survey
Professional Paper 696, 83 pp.
Wilson, F.H. and D.B. Hawkins, 1978, "Arsenic in Streams,
Stream Sediments, and Groundwater, Fairbanks Area,
Alaska", Environmental Geology, Vol. 2, No. 4,
PP· 195-202.
5-3