HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUS269DEVELOPMENT SELECTION REPORT
TASK 6 - DESIGN DEVELOPMENT
DECEMBER 19811
POWER
APPENDIX C -ALTERNATIVE HYDRO GENERATING SOURCES
The analysis of alternative sites for non-Susitna hydropower development follow-
ed the plan formulation and selection methodology discussed in Section 1.4 of
Volume I and Appendix A. The general application of the five-step methodology
(Figure A.1) for the selection of non-Susitna plans is presented in Section 6 of
this report. Additional data and explanation of the selection process are pre-
sented in more detail in this Appendix.
The first step in the plan formulation and selection process is to define the
overall objective of the exercise. For step 2 of the process, all feasible
sites are identified for inclusion into the subsequent screening process. The
screening process (step 3) eliminates those sites which do not meet the screen-
ing criteria and yields candidates which could be refined to include into the
formulation of Railbelt generation plans (step 4).
Details of each of the above planning steps are given below. The objective of
the process is to determine the optimum Railbelt generation plan which incorpor-
ates the proposed non-Susitna hydroelectric alternatives.
C.l -Assessment of Hydro Alternatives
Numerous studies of hydroelectric potential in Alaska have been undertaken.
These date as far back as 1947, and were performed by various agencies including
the then Federal Power Commission, the u.s. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), the
United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), the United States Geological Survey
(USGS) and the State of Alaska. A significant amount of the identified poten-
tial is located in the Railbelt region, including several sites in the Susitna
River Basin.
Review of the above studies and in particular the inventories of potential sites
published in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers National Hydropower Study (1) and
the Alaska Power Administration (APAd) 11 Hydroelectric Alternatives for the
Alaska·Railbelt 11 (2) identified a total of 91 potential sites (Figure C.1). All
of these sites are technically feasible and, under step 2 of the planning
process, were identified for inclusion in the subsequent screening exercise.
C.2 - Screening of Candidate Sites
The screening process for this analysis required the application of four itera-
tions with progressively more stringent criteria.
(a) First Iteration
The first screen or iteration determined which sites were technically
infeasible or not economically viable and rejected these sites. The stan-
dard for economic viability in this iteration was defined as energy
production cost less than 50 mills per kWh, based on economic parameters.
This value for energy production cost was considered to be a reasonable
upper limit consistent with Susitna Basin alternatives for this phase of
the selection process.
C-1
Cost data provided in published COE and APAd reports were updated to repre-
sent the current level of economics in hydropower development for a total
of 91 sites inventoried within the Railbelt Region. As discussed in
Section 8, annual costs were derived on the basis of a 3 percent cost of
money, net of general inflation. Construction costs were developed by
1naking uniform the field costs provided in the COE and APAd reports. This
was necessary as the two agencies used different location factors in their
estimates, to account for higher price levels in Alaska. Contingencies of
20 percent and engineering-administration adjustments of 12 to 14 percent
were added to finally yield the project cost. Project costs were subse-
quently updated to a July 1, 1980 price level based on the 11 Handy-Whitman
Cost Index for Hydropower Production in the Pacific Northwest" (3).
Using updated project costs as well as a series of plant size-dependent
economic factors preliminarily selected for the rough economic screening,
the average annual production costs in mills/kWh were estimated for the 91
sites. Typical factors considered were construction period, annual invest-
ment carrying charges, and operation and maintenance expenditures. Plant
capacity factors ranged from 50 to 60 percent, based on source data. A
range of average annual production costs resulted for most of the sites,
similar to those initially estimated by both the COE and the APAd.
As a result of this screen, 26 sites were eliminated from the planning pro-
cess. The sites rejected are given in Table C.1. The remaining 65 sites
were subjected to a second iteration of screening which included additional
criteria on environmental acceptability. The location of the 65 remaining
sites are given in Figure C.1.
(b) Second Iteration
The inclusion of environmental criteria into the planning process required
a significant data survey to obtain information on the location of existing
and published sources of environmental data. The 27 reference sources
used in preparing the evaluation matrix include publications and maps for
which data were collected, prepared and/or adopted by the following
agencies:
-University of Alaska, Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center
-Alaska Department of Fish and Game
-Alaska Division of Parks
-National Park Service
-Bureau of Land Management, u.s. Department of Interior
-U.S. Geological Survey
-Alaska District Corps of Engineers
-Joint Federal State Land Use Planning Commission
C-2
In addition, representatives of state and federal agencies (including
AEIDC, ADNR, ADF&G, ADEC and Alaska Power Administration) were interviewed
ta provide subjective input to the planning process.
The basic data collected identified two levels of detail of environmental
screening. The purpose of the first level of screening was to eliminate
those sites which were unquestionably unacceptable from an environmental
standpoint. Rejection of sites occurred if:
(i) They would cause significant impacts within the boundaries of an
existing National Park or a proclaimed National Monument area;
(ii) They were located on a river in which:
-Anadromous fish are known to exist;
-The annual passage of fish at the site exceeds 50,000;
-Upstream of the site, a confluence with a tributary occurs in which
a major spawning or fishing area is located.
The definition of the above exclusion criteria was made only after a review
of the possible impacts of hydropower development on the natural environ-
ment and the effects of land issues on particular site development.
The first exclusion criterion reflects the existing restrictions to the
development of hydropower in certain classified land areas. Information
regarding the interpretations of land use regulations was gathered in dis-
cussions with state and federal officials, including representatives of the
Federal Regulatory Commission (FERC) who are responsible for the licensing
of hydropower projects affecting federal lands. Many land classifications
were identified, such as national and state parks, forests, game refuge or
habitat areas, wild and scenic rivers, and wilderness areas. Additionally,
the land ownership question in Alaska was further complicated by federal
land. withdrawals (under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act) and
Administration National Monument Proclamations.
After the various restrictions were evaluated, it became clear that the
only lands where hydropower development is strictly prohibited are National
Parks and Monuments, Wild and Scenic Rivers and National Wilderness Areas.
At this time, many lands were still protected by the National Monument
Proclamations, pending the passage of the Alaska National Interest Lands
Bill in Congress. Other land classifications allow for monitoring and
regulation of development by the controlling agency and, in some cases,
veto power if the development is not consistent with the purposes of the
land designation. Note that no sites coincided with either Wild and Scenic
Rivers or Wilderness Areas; these were not included as exclusion criteria.
At the time of evaluation, the Alaska Lands Bill had not yet been passed by
the U.S. Congress. Thus, the determination of impacts of restricted land
use was based on the existing legislation, which included the
C-3
Administration National Monument Proclamation of December 1, 1978, and the
Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. The Lands Bill became
Public Law 96-487 on December 2, 1980. The resulting land status changes
have been evaluated to the extent that they affected the chosen hydropower
sites.
Many significant sensitivities were identified in the Alaskan setting.
However, only one of these was determined to be so highly sensitive to
hydro development and so important to the state that it alone could pro-
hibit the development of a site. Thus, sites located on a stretch of river
used as a major artery for anadromous fish passage were excluded. It was
believed that the potential for mitigation of adverse affects of such sites
was limited, and that even a relatively small percentage loss of fish could
have a devastating result for the fishery.
Of the 65 sites remaining after the preliminary economic screening, 19
sites were unable to meet the requirements set for the second screen.
These sites are given in Table C.l, and the reason for their rejection in
Table C.2
(c) Third Iteration
The reduction in the number of sites to 46 allowed a reasonable reassess-
ment of the capital and energy production costs for each of the remaining
sites to be made. Adjustments were made to take into account transmission
line costs necessary to link each site to the proposed Anchorage-Fairbanks
intertie. This iteration resulted in the rejection of 18 sites based on
judgemental elimination of the more obvious uneconomic or less
environmentally acceptable sites. The remaining 28 sites were subjected to
a fourth iteration which entailed a more detailed numerical environmental
assessment. The 18 sites rejected in the third iteration are given in
Table C.1.
(d) Fourth Iteration
To facilitate analysis, the sites were categorized into sizes as follows:
-Less than 25 MW: 5 sites;
-25 MW to 100 MW: 15 sites
-Greater than 100 MW: 8 sites.
The fourth and final screen was performed using detailed numerical environ-
mental assessment which considered eight criteria chosen to represent the
sensitivity of the natural and human environments at each of the sites.
Three main aspects were incorporated into the sel ion of these criteria:
-Criteria must represent the important components of the environmental
setting that may be impacted by the development of a hydroelectric pro-
ject.
-Criteria must include components th represent existing and potential
land use and management plans.
C-4
-Information relating to these criteria must be reasonably available and
easily incorporated into a screening/evaluation process.
The eight evaluation criteria are listed in Table C.3. Each criterion was
defined to identify the objectives used for investigating that criterion.
Following the selection of the evaluation criteria, it was necessary to
define the significance of a variety of factors within each set of criter-
ia. Under the category of anadromous fisheries, for example, it is neces-
sary to differentiate between a site which would adversely affect a major
spawning area and a site which is used only for passage by a relatively
small number of fish.
For each of the evaluation criteria, therefore, a system of sensitivity
scaling was used to rate the relative sensitivity of each site. A letter
(A, B, Cor D) was assigned to each site for each of the eight criteria to
represent this sensitivity. The scale rating system is defined in Table
C.4.
Each evaluation criterion has a definitive significance to the Alaskan
environment and degree of sensitivity to impact. A discussion of each
criterion is appropriate to determine the importance of that criterion in
the continued study or rejection of the hydroelectric sites.
(i) Big Game
The presence of big game is especially significant in the Alaskan
environment. Special protection and management techniques are em-
ployed to ensure propagation of the species and continued abundance
for subsistance and commercial harvesting as well as recreation uses.
This criterion has a very high importance in the life style and eco-
nomic well being of the Alaskan people.
Site specific information was extracted from a series of map overlays
which identified types of big game habitats with varying importance to
survival of the species considered. For example, a map may have a
large area designated as "moose present" or "moose distribution".
Within that large distribution area, smaller areas were identified as
seasonal concentration areas or calving areas. These smaller areas
were considered to be more sensitive to development than the large
areas because they satisfy specific needs within the life cycle of the
moose, and because the availability of appropriate land is limited.
Of the references inspected, "Alaska•s Wildlife Atlas, Vol 1" was
regarded as the most authoritative source, and took precedence in the
case of conflicting information. References "Musk Oxen and Caribou"
and ••Large Mammals" generally added to the body of knowledge. Refer-
ences "Bear Denning and Goat Range", "Dall Sheep, Deer and Moose Con-
centrations" and "Distribution of Caribou Herds in Alaska" were
reviewed, but had little input which corresponded with the sites
surveyed.
C-5
(ii) Argicultural Potential
Agricultural potential was assigned a relatively high importance. This
is because it is an indicaton of the potential for the self suffi-
ciency of any area, and the avenues towards self sufficiency require
special consideration in the economic climate of Alaska.
The best agricultural resources identified in the Railbelt region are
located in the lowlands adjacent to the lower Susitna basin. These
include the Yentna/Skwentna system and the northern and eastern shores
of Cook Inlet as well as the Tanana and Nenana River valleys and the
upper part of the Copper River basin. The latter was identified as
climatically marginal.
The amount of land identified with suitable farming soils is rela-
tively small and was assigned a higher sensitivity than land with
marginal farming soils. Lands with no suitable soils identified were
assigned the lowest sensitivity.
Map reference "Cultivatable Soils" and ''Alaska Resources Inventory,
Agricultural and Range Resources" were used to identify lands with
agricultural potential in the Railbelt.
(iii) Waterfowl, Raptors and Endangered Species
The Railbelt provides extensive habitats for many species of waterfowl
as well as habitats for some threatened and endangered bird species.
The protection of these habitats in the face of development is a con-
cern of many environmentalists and ecologists. As an evaluation cri-
terion, this was considered to be slightly less important than the big
game or fisheries criteria because of the combined ecological and
economic importance of those two criteria.
In evaluating the sensitivity of the various factors providing input
to these criteria, three reference maps were surveyed: "Alaska's
Wildlife Atlas Vol II" provided information regarding waterfowl and
seabirds; "Migratory Birds: Seabirds, Raptors & Endangered Species"
had information regarding seabirds and raptor habitats; and "Birds"
identified endangered and threatened species habitats. Generally,
raptor and endangered species' habitats were considered most
sensitive. High density and key waterfowl areas were considered to be
moderately sensitive.
(iv) Anadromous Fisheries
The anadromous fisheries resource is an essential component of
Alaska's economy and life style as well as its natural environment.
It is the single resource most affected by hydropower development due
to the nature of the development itself which not only hampers the
passage of fish but may also alter flow conditions essential to the
anadromous life cycle. Because of its sensitivity to hydropower
development, the anadromous fisheries resource was very highly
considered in this evaluation.
The comparative sensitivity of the sites was based on the number of
species identified as present or spawning in the vicinity. Particular
emphasis was placed on the river upstream of proposed dam sites and,
when information was available, on the estimated number of fish iden-
tified passing certain points. Some sites were excluded in prelimin-
ary screening because they were identified as major locations for fish
passage (greater than 50,000 annually.) The most sensitive of the
remaining sites were those with the largest number of species present
and with the most extensive spawning areas upsteam of the dam site.
Lowest sensitivity corresponded with the absence of anadromous fish in
the area.
Several compiled references were available for determining the extent
of fisheries' presence at each of the hydro sites considered. The
most comprehensive reference was "Alaska Fisheries Atlas" Volume I,
which indicated on USGS topographical maps the presence of each of
five species of salmon and their spawning areas for all areas of
interest. Two map overlays were used to determine more generally the
presence of anadromous fisheries: 11 FisherieS 11 and "Marine Mammals and
Fish". This information was also checked against the Ch2M-Hill
report 11 Review of South Central Alaska Hydropower Potential 11 for some
of the sites.
(v) Wilderness Consideration
National and state interest in the preservation of natural aesthetic
qualities in Alaska continue to be the impetus for studies and land
use legislation. Substantial amounts of land have been identified and
protected under state and federal law. However, other lands have been
identified for their unique wilderness, scenic, natural and primitive
qualities but have received no particular protection. This factor was
considered to the extent that any of the potential hydro sites would
impact the aesthetic quality of these unprotected lands.
Two map overlays prepared by the Joint Federal State Land Use Planning
Commission were used: "Selected Primitive Areas in Alaska for Consid-
eration for Wilderness Designation 11 and "Scenic, Natural and Primitive
Values 11
•
(vi) Cultural, Recreation and Scientific features
These criteria reflect the importance placed on the historical, cul-
tural and recreational values of certain landmarks, as well as the
values of scientific resources at identified locations. Areas of
varying significance were identified by the reference sources and com-
parative sensitivities were assigned accordingly if potential hydro
sites corresponded with identified areas.
Three map overlays were used to substantiate these criteria: 11 Recrea-
tion, Cultural and Scientific Features 11
, "Nationally Significant Cul-
tural Features 11
, and "Proposed Ecological Reserve System for Alaska 11 •
C-7
(vii) Restricted Land Use
A significant amount of land in Alaska is classified as national or
state parks, wildlife areas, monuments, etc. These classifications
afford varying levels of protection from complete exclusion of any
development activity to a monitoring or regulation of development
occurring on the protected lands. Using this criterion as an indica-
tion of the legal restrictions that might hinder the implementation of
a hydroelectric development, the comparative sensitivities were
defined. If a potential hydro site was located within a national
park or monument, the site was excluded during preliminary screening
from further consideration. Other land classifications were less
severe. This criterion, although it may be more of an indication of
institutional factors than the actual sensitivity of the site area,
represents real issues that would affect development.
Land status was identified using maps and reference materials prepared
by state sources: "Generalized State Land Activity", 11 Game Refuges,
Critical Habitat Areas and Sanctuaries", and federal sources, USGS
Alaska Map E and Quadrangle Maps, 11 Administration National Monument
Proclamation and FLDMA Withdrawals", 11 Alaska Illustrated Land Status 11
•
It should be noted that this evaluation was performed before the
passing of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (PL
96-487). The results of the application of this criterion were
subsequently compared against the mandates of this federal act. No
substantial effects on the screening results were found.
(viii) Access
The main purpose of this criterion was to indicate how the potential
hydro sites fit into the existing infrastructure. In other words, the
concern was to identify those areas which would be most and least
affected or changed by the introduction of roads, transmission lines
and other facilities. The highest sensitivity was assigned to the
sites which were the farthest from the existing infrastructure,
indicating areas with the greatest potential for impacts. Lower
sensitivities were assigned to areas where roads, transmission lines
and settlements already exist.
Although this was an important criterion to consider, it was not given
a high weighting when compared to other criteria due to the subjective
nature of the interpretations made. It could be, for example, that an
existing small settlement would be more adamantly opposed to develop-
ment in an area where nobody has presently settled.
Information was garnered from notes in 11 Review of the Southcentral
Hydropower Potential .. and road maps of the area.
(ix) Summary of Criteria Weighting
The first four criteria-big game, agricultural potential, birds and
anadromous fisheries, were chosen to represent the most significant
features of the natural environment. These resources require
C-8
protection and careful management due to their position in the Alaskan
environment, their roles in the existing patterns of life of the state
residents and their importance in the future growth and economic inde-
pendence of the state. These four criteria were viewed as more impor-
tant than the following four criteria due to their quantifiable and
significant position in the lives of the Alaskan people.
The remaining four criteria-wilderness, cultural, recreation and
scientific features, restricted land use, and access were chosen to
represent the institutional factors to be considered in determining
any future land use. These are special features which have been iden-
tified or protected by governmental laws or programs and may have
varying degrees of protected status, or the criteria represent exist-
ing land status which may be subject to change by the potential devel-
opments.
It must be noted that the interpretations placed on these criteria are
subjective, although care was taken to ensure that the many viewpoints
which make up Alaska's sociopolitical climate were represented in the
evaluation. The latter four criteria were considered less important
in the comparative weighting of criteria mainly because of the subjec-
tive nature and lower degree of reliability of the facts collected.
Data relating to each of these criteria were complied separately and
recorded for each site, forming a data-base matrix. Then, based on
these data, a system of sensitivity scaling was developed to represent
the relative sensitivity of each environmental resource (by criterion)
at each site.
The scale ratings used are summarized below. A detailed explanation
of the scale rating may be found in Table C.5.
A-Exclusion (used for sites excluded in preliminary screening)
B -High Sensitivity
C -Moderate Sensitivity
D -Low Sensitivity
The scale ratings for the criteria at each site were recorded in the
evaluation matrix. Site evaluations of the 28 sites under considera-
tion are given in Table C.6. Preliminary data regarding technical
factors were also recorded for each potential development. Parameters
included installed capacity, development type (dam or diversion), dam
height, and new land flooded by impoundment. The complete evaluation
matrix may be found in Table C.7.
In this manner, the environmental data were reduced to a form from
which a relative comparison of sites could be made. The comparison
was carried out by means of a ranking process.
C-9
(x) Rank Weighting and Scoring
For the purpose of evaluating the environmental criteria, the follow-
ing relative weights were assigned to the criteria. A higher value ·
indicates greater importance or sensitivity than a lower value.
Big Game 8
Agricultural Potential 7
Birds 8
Anadromous Fisheries 10
Wilderness Values 4
Cultural Values 4
Land Use 5
Access 4
The criteria weights for the first four criteria were then adjusted
down, depending on related technical factors of the development
scheme.
Dam height was assumed to be the factor having the greatest impact on
anadromous fisheries. All the sites were ranked in terms of their dam
heights as follows:
-Height ~150 1 : Rank +
-Height 150 1
-350 1
: Rank++
-Height ~350 1 : Rank+++
A dam with the lowest height ranking (+) would have least impact,
and would therefore result in the fisheries weight to be adjusted down
by two points. Similarly, a dam of height (++) was adjusted down by
one point. A dam of height (+++) would have the greatest impact and
the weight remained at its designated value.
The amount of new land flooded by creation of a reservoir was con-
sidered to be the one factor with greatest impact on agriculture, bird
habitat, and big game habitat. Sites were ranked in terms of their
new reservoir area as follows:
-Area <5000 acres: Rank +
-Area 5000 -100,000 acres: Rank ++
-Area ~100,000 acres: Rank +++
The same adjustments were made for the big game, agricultural poten-
tials, and bird habitat weights based on this flooded area impact (see
Table C.8).
Note that for developments which utilized an existing lake for
storage, the new area flooded was assumed to be minimal (+).
C-10
The scale indicators were also given a weighted value as follows:
- B ~ 5
c = 3
0 = 1
To compute the ranking score, the scale weights were multiplied by the
adjusted criteria weights for each criteria and the resulting products
were added.
Two scores were then computed. The total score is the sum of all
eight criteria. The partial score is the sum of the first four cri-
teria only, which gives an indication of the relative importance of
the existing natural resources in comparison to the total score.
(xi) Evaluati
The evaluation of sites took place in the following manner: sites
were first divided into three groups in terms of their capacity.
Based on the economics, the best sites were chosen for environmental
evaluation. Table C.10 lists the number of sites evaluated in each of
the capacity groups. The sites were then evaluated as described
above. They were listed in ascending order according to their total
scores for each of the groups. The partial score was also compared.
The sites were then grouped as better, acceptable, questionable, or
unacceptable, based on the scores. The same general standards (e.g,
cut-off points) were used for all groups.
(xii) Analysis
The partial and total scores for each of the sites, grouped according
to capacity, are given in Table C.10.
-0 -25 MW
Of the five sites evaluated, all five were determined to be accep-
table, based on the overall standards. Three of these sites were
judged as a group to be better than the other two which had higher
partial and total scores.
-25 -100 MW
A cutoff point of approximately 134 for the total score and approxi-
mately 100 for the partial score was used. Sites scoring higher
were eliminated. The seven sites scoring lower were re-examined.
Three developments at Bruskasna, Bradley Lake, and Snow were the
best sites identified.
C-11
Of the remaining four, Coffee and Seetna were identified as ques-
tionable because of anticipated salmon fisheries problems. Lowe and
Cache scored only slightly better, but Lowe has minimal fisheries
problems, and the Cache site is farthest upstream on the Talkeetna
River, beyond which the salmon migrate only about five miles.
->100 MW
Again, the same cutoff point for acceptable sites with total scores
of 134 and partial scores of 100 used. The sites fell easily into
the two groupings of acceptable and unacceptable.
(xiii) Results
Sixteen sites were chosen for further consideration. Three con-
straints were used to identify these 16 sites. First, the most eco-
nomical sites which had passed the environmental screening were
chosen. Secondly, sites with a very good environmental impact rating
which had passed the economic screening were chosen. And finally, a
representative number of sites in each capacity group were to be
chosen, Table C.10.
From the list of 16 sites, 10 were selected for detailed development
and cost estimates required as input to the generation planning. The
ten sites chosen are underlined in Table C.1.
Three sites, Strandline Lake, Hicks, and Browne were identified by the
Ch2M-Hill Report to COE as being environmentally very good. These
sites were included, even though their associated economics were not
as good as many of the other sites which had also passed the economic
screening.
The Chakachamna site had both a very high economic ranking and a good
environmental rating in terms of the sensitivity of its natural
resources to development. Chakachamna was also identified by the
Ch2M~Hill report as having minimal environmental impacts. It should
be noted that under the recently passed Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act (PL 96-487, December 2, 1980) the lands including the
Chakachamna site have not received protected status of any type. This
applies to both the project area and the existing Lake Chakachamna.
Although the boundary of designated wilderness area is located a few
miles from the eastern end of the lake, operation of the lake would
have little direct effect on the wilderness area. Because the
Chakachamna site is desirable in other respects, it is being consid-
ered as a viable alternate competing with the Susitna Project.
Three sites were chosen on the Talkeetna River. These are Cache,
Keetna, and Talkeetna-2 which are being studied as an integrated
system alternative. Although the identified environmental problems
are significant, the system is being studied for several reasons. It
C-12
is believed that with the system approach, the incremental impacts of
building a second or third plant on the same river system would be
smaller than the impacts associated with building plants on completely
separate rivers. The integrated system not only improves the economic
potential of the operating capacity, but also allows for better con-
trol over regulation of stream flows as needed by the downstream eco-
systems. Secondly, the choice of the Talkeetna River was made over
other rivers with potential for development of similar systems,
because the environmental sensitivity of the Talkeetna was not as
great as that of the Yentna-Skwentna basin, the Chulitna River or the
lower Susitna basin, particularly with regards to the presence of an-
adromous fish or big game. And finally, the Talkeetna River develop-
ments were some of the best sites economically, thus providing better
competition to Susitna.
The remaining sites of the 10 studied in detail are Allison Creek,
Snow, and Bruskasna. These are sites that were identified by the
environmental evaluation as being the best environmentally of the 28
economically superior sites.
(e) Plan Formulation and Evaluation
Steps 4 and 5 in the planning process are the formulation of the preferred
sites identified in Step 3 into Railbelt generation scenarios. To ade-
quately formulate these scenarios, the engineering, energy and environ-
mental aspects of the ten shortlisted sites were further refined (Step 4).
Engineering sketch layouts {Figures C.2 to C.lO) were produced for seven of
the sites with capacities of 50 MW or greater, and site specific construc-
tion cost estimates were prepared on the basis of this more detailed infor-
mation (Tables C.l2 through C.l8). For the three remaining sites, con-
struction costs were developed by a process of judgemental interpolation on
the basis of the estimates for the seven larger developments. Costs and
parameters associated with all ten sites are summarized in Table C.l9.
These costs incorporate a 20 percent allowance for contingencies and 10
percent for engineering and owner's administration. Cost of money has
again been assumed to be three percent, net of inflation. Energy and power
capability was determined for each of the sites using a monthly streamflow
simulation program (Appendix F). The annual average energy for each of the
the sites are also given in Table C.l9. Installed capacities were general-
ly assumed that would yield a plant factor for the developments of approx-
imately 50 percent. This ensures general consistency with Susitna develop-
ments and Railbelt system requirements.
The formulation of the ten sites into development plans resulted in the
identification of five plans incorporating various combinations of these
sites as input to the Step 5 evaluations. The five development plans are
given in Table C.20.
The essential objective of Step 5 was established as the derivation of the
optimum plan for the future Railbelt generation incorporating non-Susitna
hydro generation as well as required thermal generation. The methodology
used in the evaluation of alternative generation scenarios for the Railbelt
are discussed in detail in Section 8. The criterion on which the preferred
plan was finally selected in these activities was least present worth cost
based on economic parameters established in Section 8.
The selected potential non-Susitna hydro developments (Table C.19) were
ranked in terms of their economic cost of energy. Chakachamna is the high-
est ranked (preferred) with a cost of energy of 40 $/1000 kWh and Hicks is
the lowest ranked with a cost of energy of 1612 $/1000 kWh. The potential
developments were then introduced into the all-thermal generating scenario
in groups of two or three. The most economic schemes were introduced first
followed by the less economic schemes.
The results of these runs are given in Table C.21 and illustrate that a
minimum total system cost of $7040 million can be achieved by the introduc-
tion of the Chakachamna, Keetna and Snow projects (Plan C.2). This plan
includes 1211 MW of thermal capacity and assumes a medium load forecast.
No renewal of gas plants at retirement is also assumed. The make-up of the
Railbelt generation system under this least cost scenario is shown in
Figure C.11. Additional sites such as Snow, Strandline and Allison Creek
could be introduced without significantly changing the economics of the
generation scenarios. The introduction of these latter projects would be
beneficial in terms of displacing non-renewable energy resource
consumption.
C-14
LIST OF REFERENCES
(1) u.s. ArmY Corps of Engineers, National Hydropower Study, July, 1979.
(2) Alaska Power Administration, Hydroelectric Alternatives for the Alaska
Railbelt, February, 1980.
(3) Handy-Whitman, Cost Index for Hydropower Production in the Pacific
Northwest, 1978.
C-15
TABLE C.1 -SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF SCREENING PROCESS
Ehmination El1minat 10n Ehminahon Eliminat ron
Iteration Iteration Iteration Iteration
1 1 1 1
Site 2 3 4 Site 2 3 4 Site 2 3 4 Site 2 3 4
Allison Creek Fox * Lowe * Talachulitna River * 9eluga Lower * Gakona * lower Chulitiua * Talkeetnna R. -Sheep *
Beluga Upper * Gerstle * lucy * Talkeetna -2
Big Delta * Granite Gorge * McClure Bay * Tanana River * Bradley lake * Grant lake * McKinley River * Tazlina *
Bremmer R. -Salmon * Greenstone * Mclaren River * Tebay lake * Bremmer R. -S.F. * Gulkana River * Million Dollar * Teklanika *
Browne Hanagita * Moose Horn * Tiekel River * Bruskasna Healy * Nellie Juan River * Tokichitna * Cache Hicks Nellie Juan R. -Upper * Tat atlanika * Canyon Creek * 'Jael<River * Ohio * Tustumena * Caribou Creek * Johnson * Power Creek * Vachon Island *
Carlo * Junction Island * Power Creek - 1 * Whiskers * Cathedral Bluffs * Kanhshna River * Rampart * Wood Canyon * Chakachamna Kasilof River * Sanford * Yanert - 2 * Chulitna E .F. * Keetna Sheep Creek * Yentna *
Chulitna Hurrican * Kenai Lake * Sheep Creek - 1 * Chulitna W.F. * Kenai lower * Silver lake * Cleave * Killey River * Skwentna * Coal * King Mtn * Snow
Coffee * Klutina * '§TOman Gulch * Crescent lake * Kotsina * Stelters Ranch * Crescent lake - 2 * lake Creek Lower * Strandline lake
Deadman Creek * lake Creek Upper * Summit Lake *
Eagle River * lane * Talachulitna *
NOTES:
(1) Final site selection underlined.
* Site eliminated from further consideration.
Site
Healy
Carlo
Yanert -2
Cleave
Tebay Lake
Hanagita
Gakona
Sanford
Lake Creek Upper
McKinley River
Teklanika
Crescent Lake
Kasilof River
Million Dollar
Rampart
Vachon Island
Junction Island
Power Creek
TABLE C.2 -SITES ELIMINATED IN SECOND ITERATION
Criterion
National Park (Mt. McKinley)
National Monument (Wrangell-St. Elias National
Park) and Major Fishery
National Monument (Wrangell-St. Elias National
Park)
Naional Monument (Denali Naitonal Park)
National Monument (Lake Clark National Park)
Major Fishery
TABLE C.3 -EVALUATION CRITERIA
Evaluabon criteria
(1) Big Game
(2) Agricultural Potential
(3) Waterfowl, raptors &
endangered species
(4) Anadromous fisheries
(5) Wilderness Consider at ion
(6) Cultural, recreation
& scientific features
(7) Restricted land use
(B) Access
General Concerns
-protection of wildlife resources
-protection of existing and potential
agricultural resources
-protection of wildlife resources
-protection of fisheries
protection of wilderness and unique
features
-protection of existing and identified
potential features
-consideration of legal restriction to
land use
-identification of areas where the
greatest change would occur
Scale Rating
A. EXCLUSION
B. HIGH SENSITIVITY
c. MODERATE SENSITIVITY
D. LOW SENSITIVITY
TABLE C,4 -SENSITIVITY SCALING
Definition
The significance of one factor is great
enough to exclude a site from further
consideration. There is little or no
possibility for mitigation of extreme adverse
impacts or development of the site is legally
prohibited.
1) The most sensitive components of the
environmental criteria would be disturbed
by development, or
2) There exists a high potential for future
conflict which should be investigated in
a more detailed assessment.
Areas of concern were less important than
those in "B" above.
1) Areas of concerns are common for most or
many of the sites.
2) Concerns are less important than those of
"C" above.
3) The available information alone is not
enough to indicate a greater
significance.
Evaluation Criteria
Big Game:
Agricultural Potential
Waterfowl, Raptors and
Endangered Species
Anadromous fisheries
Wilderness Consideration
Cultural, Recreational and
Scientific features
TABLE C.5 -SENSITIVITY SCALING Of EVALUATION CRITERIA
Exclusion
-major anadromous fish
corridor for three or
more species
-more than 50,000
salmon passing site
High
-seasonal concentration
are key range areas
upland or lowland
soils suitable for
-nesting areas for:
• Peregrine falcon
• Canada Geese
• Trumputee Swan
-year round habitat
for Neritic seabirds
and raptors
-key migration area
three or more species
present or spawning
identified as a major
anadromous fish area
All of the following
-good to high quality:
• scenic area
• natural features
• primitive values
-selected for wilderness
consider at ion
-existing or proposed
historic landmark
-reserve proposed for
the Ecological Reserve
System
scALE
Moderate
-big game present
-bear denning area
-marginal farming soils
-high density waterfowl
area
-waterfowl migration
and hunting area
-waterfowl migration
route
-waterfowl nesting or
or molt area
-less than three
species present or
spawning
-identified as an impor-
tant fish area
Two of the following
-good to high quality:
• scenic area
• natural features
• primitive value
site in or close to an
area selected for
wilderness consideration
-Site affects one or
more of the following:
• boating potential
• recreational potential
• historic feature
• historic trail
archeological site
• ecological reserve
nomination
• cultural feature
Low
-habitat or distribu-
tion area for bear
-no identified agri-
cultural potential
-medium or low density
waterfowl areas
-waterfowl present
-not identified as
a spawning or
rearing area.
One or less of the
following
-good to high quality:
scenic area
• natural features
• primitive value
-site near one of the
factors in B or C
TABLE C.5 (Continued)
Evaluation Criteria
Restricted Land Use
Restricted Land Use
Exclusion
-Significant impact to:
• Existing National
Park
Federal Lands with-
drawn by National
Monument Proclaima-
tions
High
-Impact to:
• National Wildlife
Range
State Park
• State game refuge,
range, or wilderness
preservation area
-no existing roads,
railroads or airports
-terrain rough and
access difficult
-increase access to
SCALE
Moderate
-Increase:
• National For est
• Proposed wild and
scenic river
• National resource
area
• forest land withdrawn
-existing trails
-proposed roads or
-existing airports
-close to existing
roads
Low
-In one of the
following:
• State land
Native land
• None of A, B, C
-existing roads or
railroads
-existing power lines
IABL[ C.6 -Sll£ [VAliJAIIOHS
Agr {cultural WoEerFowl, Raploro, Wlldirneea tullural, f&icreo[ional, tfee[r lcted
Big c..., Potent iol [nd!I!!!J8red Specie• Conslderot !on and Scientific r!oherleo land Uoe
Allison Creek -Alack and Grizzly benr -None lde•'l.l rted -Year roood hobitet for -Spawning area for -HI~ to good quality -None !dent! rtod -Ncar Oluqoch
present neritic oeahlrda ond on lnaon epee leo aet!n lc area Hot lnnnl forest
roptors
-Peregr lne falcon
neat lng area
... Waterfowl resent
Orodley lnke -Block nnd Grizzly beor -25 to JO percent of -Peregr lne rn leon -Nom! !dent I fled -Good to hi~ quality -Doat lnq oroo -Nom! !dent Hied
pre ant soil morqinall !mit-nest lng areoo ecenery
-f.boaa present oble for forming
-hi alit forest a
Browne -Black and Grizzly boor -1-bre than 50 percent -low density of woter--Nom! -Nom! -Boot lng potential -Nom! I dent I rtod
-~~:"~resent morginolly sultoble fowl
for forntlng
-Car lbou winter ron
Bruskoeno -Block ond Grizzly bonr -Nono I dent! fled -low density of woter--None -Good to hI~ quo lit y -Boating potent lol -Nom! I dent! rted
present fowl scenery -Proposed ecological
-f.booe present -Neotlng and 1110 I ling reoorve site
-Cor ibour winter ran oren
Olnkochomno -Alock beor hohltot -Uphmd opruce, hard--Waterfowl neot lnq and -Two spec len present -Area under wllderneso -Anal ing orens -None I dent lflerl
-~loose present woort forent molt lng oroo conoldeot Ion,
-Good to hi~ quollty
ocenery
-Pr lmlt lYe and nnturol
feotureo
Coffee -Block and Grizzly beor -Moro than 50% of uppor -Key waterfowl hobltot -rour opec len present' -None I dent I fled -Bont lng oreo -None !dent I fled
present Iondo oultob le for two apownlng in oren
-ttlone present ogr lr.ul turol
-Good foreota
Cothedrnl Oluffn -Block and Grizzly bear -1-bre thqn 50% of lond -low drmalty of water--Onn opec lea prooent -Good scenery -None !dent! fled -Nom! ldentlfled
present morginnl for faraing fowl
-f.boae present -~lund spruce-hardwood -Neotlng and 1110lt lng
-Doll sheep present foreot oren
-Hoose c:cncentrat Ion or eo
Hicks -Black Dt'ld Grizzly beer -None I dent If led -Waterfowl neat lng and -rar downotruam of alto -Nom! I dent! fled -None ldont I fled -No praoent
present 1a0l t lng area only rei'Jt r let lonn
-Corlbou preaent
-Hoose winter 1 oren
Johnson -Dlack ond Grizzly bear -25 to 50!1 of upland -low denolty waterfowl -Saloon epownlng area, -Nom! !dent! fiad -Boot lng potont Ia! -Nom! !dent! fled
present ooll suitable for a reo one spec lea preoent
-foboBo, caribou ond farming -Neetlng ond mit lng
b loon preoent -t.plond opruce-hordwood a reo
forest
Keetno -Black ond Grizzly bear -None ldont I fled -Nom! !dent If led -rour &pee len preoent' -Coed to hi~ quality -HI~ booting potontlol -Nom! I dent I fled
present one ope-cleo opnhTiing prlooltlvo Iande
-Caribou winter area near elte
-Hooae fall/winter
conc:ent rat ion area
Kenai lake -Block .,d Grizzly boor -Nono Identified -Woturfowl neat lng ond -rour opec lee preoent' : :!!tur:i8 ~!~{u~~:nery -Boot lng potent lol -Olugoch National -~r~""~ep hRhttat
-Coastal hetllock-11'10lt lng area two spawning roreot
altko opruea forest
-foboae fall/winter
concentration areo
TA!llE C.6 (Contl,.,.,d)
e
Agr [cultural Waterfowl, RapEero, Wlldirno!IB Culturul, Recrev[ionol; 11iio£rleted
Big C...... Pot""t ial EndenQ!!red §l!!eleo tonoiderotion fmd Scientific rtllherloo Ltmd Use
Klut !no -Block and Grluly beor -25 to 50 pereent or -low d<molty w•lcrfowl -Two opccles present, High quality scern>ry -Boot lng pot....tlol -!lone ldontlfed
premtnt aollo morgtnai for orea Ot"'e speetea eptnn in -Natural forut lona
"" Corlbou ptenent farming -Nesting nnd ..,I tlnq vicinity of site -Prl10llhe lfmdo
-J.boso rail CDnctlnt ro--Cll..,te morglnol for area -Soloeted for wlldor-
t ton eree rariOing tJpland apruee-nonn conn lderot ton
hardWood roroet
lnne -Bl """ be or prem'"t -low densUy wntorfowl -rive i!p'DClfts prosont -Hcnn loontlf!ed -'::::!:ii't~ortonltleo -Hcnn ldonll flod
-f.bose present , area and upswn ln o \tc
Cor lbou preDent -Hooting and mo It lng vicinity
ercn
lo"" -Rinck and Grizzly boor -None ldont If led ... Per lgrene falcon -Oln spec leo praoent, -Good to high quollty -Hlntodcal feoturo • loeohd no or t no
pr-esent -Cosatnl wootorn hmnJock-nestlnt;J eroo othero down'&t reoo of -Propoood ocologlcol bordor of Onlgoch
f.bose pres~nt altkn cpruec forest olle reMtrve aite Nat lond foreot
lower O.ulltno • Block ond Grluly beQt -H::!ro thon ~0 pereont or -lbdh.., donslty ""torfowl -Four epoclos present t -Aron oolectod ror -l!oot lng rotontl6l • Hcnn ldootlrtod
present the uplond coila oult-area throe """"" lng In wlldoroenn cnnstder.ot ton
-Car tbou pnmont able for rormlnq: Neotlng ond mit lng vicinity
oroo
Silver loko -Block and Grizzly boar -Ilona .toont If lod -Yon round hobllot for -Ono spec toe prooont • -Good to Mgh quollty .., Oost lng etrm potont lAl • Cl1lo<joch ~lot lonol
preoent -Coootol waotorn hnr:doc:k-ner It lc o•oblrdn fmd morn downatrii'!<W:J """"'"Y roroo
-lli!J!:! d!!nslt~ or oeols oitko e.eruce foront r!Etoro • Primitive volua
Skwentno -50 percent or ttpperlmdo -low d<Joolty wohrrowl -Three ep0c leo prooant, -lboo !dent lfled : ~~~!~r.~n .. n. -Ibn!! ldont lrtod
oultoble for rer .. lng ClfOB apawnlng ln oroo
-Lowlfmd !lfJrUCe --Host lng ond molt lng
hardwood rorost IU03
Snow -Nooo ldontl fled • lbetlng ond molting -•-ldontlflod • Proposed ee<>loglcol • l.oeetod In Chll!lBCh
ores rnoerva alto ~lionel foroot
Slrcndllne toko II'ID:tgl--Nootlng Gnd ""It lng -Hone proe""t -ll<><>d to h!qf> quollly • Nooo Identified • -lt!.nt I fled
nree:
lol~eotno 2 -~~c .... ldontlfled -Four opec loo ptoaont, -Good to h lqf> qualIty • !looting potont lei • f'lo"" ld<tnll find
oott epee lea opawnn at eecnarv
olte -Pr I" it he lando
-llano ldontl fled -Hone ld<tnt \fled -four gpttC lea of 811\mon ~ Good to high quality -!looting potentlol -ltJne ldontl fled
preoent, epmwn lng nreos ec&nery
ldontirled -Prlmlt lve lond~
fa.rllno -IInne ldonll flod ... hm opec leo present -None identified -!looting potential • Hcnn ld:mtHied
-lowland apruet!-hordwood ut olte fmd upotrooo
forest
loklchltna -Black bear preoent -PtJte Umn 50 percent of -Hodlt,. donolty Willer--four cpecleo present., -Border primitive oren • lloollng potcnllol -Hcnn ldont lrted
-Hoose present Dolls nre u:Joblo for fowl ttreo threo epecteo opown ln
... Car Jbou preoent forming (In upper lando) -Nesting and ..,ltlnq ores olte •lcintly
TABlE t.~ (Continued)
hmlt.nern -Block be or hob It nt -Nooo !dent I fled • Nono !do!ntlrlod • Nono ldent Hied -S..lected ror wl!dnrnesn -None I <foot HI <><I -located in Kens l
-!loll ohoop hobllot tOMidorat ion Not tonal Noose R""9"
-Caod to hlgll qunl tty -Slte within n
scenery doolgnoted l'l:>t lenni
-Natural feot.Ut"t'!D WI tdormn;o areo
-Prlo,ltlve l""do
(%>per llo lu<t• -t-klooe present -Hadlum dennlty wnter-rour opecius prcoent, • Nono !donl H lod -l'.tout ing :Jrea -Nono ldonll flod
fowl IUftD tw cpm::ios opown in
-1\botlng end roaltlng nroa
ares
l%>P•r No llle -Grbzly bear preaent -1\bne ldontHiod -Nons ldentlrlod -Nons ldontl rted -ll:Jntlng IX!lllfltlol -thugDCh flat lrn>ol
Juon -Hoooo preoent -Conulsl weotern heraloclc-rorest
• fll&ek boor hobltot nitko optJrte roroat
Whlnkers Olock ond Crlzz!y beor -50 percent of upf)Etr lando -low density walcrfmd ... five epecloe: preuent., -Nons ldontlf!ed -Coot I"'J potmnt lol -liD"" I dent !r ied
-~==n~taeent sultoble ror ror,.lng erao two BfJOWJl ln are111
-llottoml1111d epuree• • Noet lng end 11101t ln9
-Cor lbeu erosent l!.'!l!lsr forest area
Yentna -Blt!Ck ond &rlzzly beor -25 to 5£1 percent or -HodhJO denulty wotor-- r he epee leo Elpnl«l ln -none ldl:nt tr lo<l -Coat lfl<l l"'tenUol • None I <lnnU fled
pTesent ootls in )mdondn uro rowl oreo BrftD
-ltlooo, spr lng/o..,.,.r/ rrultobl" ror rorl!l!ng Nootln9 and 1110ltlng
winter :onct:mtrot ton -eott ... lnnd spruce-poplor oreft
rorcnt
Crescent Lake
Chokochomno
Lower Be I uga
Coffee
~per llelugo
Strand line Lake
Bradley Lake
Kasilof River
Tust~.JTtenn
Kenai Lower
Kenol Lake
Crescent Lake-2
Grant Lake
Snow
1-lcClure Day
Big
Geme
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
ll
c
n
8
D
~per Nellie .l.Jon R C
Allison Creek D
Solomon Gulch tJ
lowe c
Silver Lake D
rower Creek D
Million Dollar D
Agr lcullurol
Potential
D
tJ
D
B
0
c
c
ll
D
B
0
D
IJ
D
D
D
D
IJ
D
D
D
IJ
D
c
c
c
c
c
R
c
IJ
c
c
c
c
c
0
D
R
B
R
ll
n
n
Anodromous
rtsherles
[J
c
8
B
D
D
D
A
D
0
B
c
ll
D
c
D
c
c
c
c
A
A
TABLE C. 7 -SITE EVALUATION MATRIX
Wilderness
Cons !deration
c
R
D
D
IJ
c
c
D
B
c
c
c
c
D
B
ll
D
D
c
c
c
B
Cult, Recren,
& SclentHlc
c
c
c
c
c
D
c
c
D
c
D
c
c
c
D
c
tJ
D
c
c
c
c
Restr lcted
Land Use
A
ll
D
D
D
D
0
B
B
c
c
c
c
c
c
0
D
D
c
c
c
Acceos
B
c )100
D <25
D 25-100
D 25-100
0 <25
0 25-100
0
B <25
25-100
0 )100
0 <25
D <25
D 25-100
c <25
<25
D <25
D <25
D 25-100
c <25
c <25
c
Dam
Scheme Height (rt)
Reservoir <150
w/Diverslon
Reservoir <150
w/IJI version
Reoervolr <150
ond Dam
Dsm end <150
Reservoir
[)om and 150-350
Reservoir
Reservoir <150
w/Di vera !on
Reservoir <150
w/Oiverolon
Reservoir 150-350
w/01 vers !on
Reservoir <150
w/Diverslon
Dnm ond <150
Reoervolr
Oson and >350
fleoervoir
Reservoir <150
w/01 vera ion
Reservoir <150
w/Diverslon
Reoervo!r 150-350
w/DI vers inn
Reserve ir <150
w/Di version
Reservoir <150
w/D! version
Reservoir <150
w/Di vera !on
Reservoir <150
w/01 version
Dam and 150-350
Reservoir
Reservoir <150
w/Di version
Reservoir <150
w/Di vera inn
Dam ond
Resr.rvoir
<150
on
nooded
(Acres)
<5000
<5000
<5000
<5000
5000 to
100,000
<5000
<5000
>100,000
<5000
<5000
5000 to
100,000
<5000
<5000
5000 to
100,000
<5000
<5000
<5000
<5000
5000 to
100,000
<5000
<5000
5000 to
100,000
Keetne
Granite Gorge
lalkeetnn-2
Greenstone
Cache
Hicks
Rampart
Vachon lsI ood
Junction Island
l<onllshna River
McKinley River
Tekloniko River
Browne
~oly
Carlo
Yonert-2
llruskasna
Tanana
Gerst le
Johnson
Cathedral Bluffs
Big
Game
B
B
fl
B
fl
IJ
c
B
B
c
B
B
!l
B
ll
IJ
II
B
!l
c
ll
Agrlcu !Lura I
Potent lei
0
0
0
0
0
0
B
ll
B
ll
D
D
c
c
0
0
0
IJ
B
c
0
0
0
0
0
c
B
c
c
c
c
0
0
0
0
0
c
c
c
Anodromous
fisheries
B
B
B
B
B
0
A
A
A
ll
0
0
D
0
0
0
D
B
c
c
c
Wilderness
Conoiderat ion
D
c
c
c
c
0
D
D
0
B
B
D
B
B
B
0
D
D
0
0
Cult, Recreo,
& Scientific
c
c
c
0
c
c
c
0
c
B
c
c
B
c
c
c
0
Restricted
lend Use
0
D
0
D
D
0
c
0
0
D
A
A
D
A
A
A
D
D
0
0
0
Access
25-100
c 25-100
25-100
25-100
25-100
D 25-100
)1011
c >100
>1011
c 25-100
B
D >Hill
0
0
0
D 25-100
0 25-1011
c 25-100
D )100
0 )100
Osm
Scheme Height (ft)
Dum ond >350
Reservoir
Reoervolr 150-J50
w/Oi version
Osm and >350
Reservoir
Reservoir 150-350
w/Oiversion
Dl!lll end 150-350
Reservb!r
Dam and 150-J50
Reservoir
Osm and
Reservoir
Osm and
Reservoir
Osm and
Reservoir
Osm and
Reservoir
Osm and
Reservoir
Osm ond
Reservoir
Dam nnd
Reservoir
Dam ond
Reservoir
Dam end
Reservoir
Dom end
Reservoir
Dam end
Reservoir
Osm and
Reservoir
Dam and
Reservoir
flam and
Reservoir
and
>350
<150
150-350
(150
150-350
>350
150-350
150-J50
150-350
150-J50
150-J50
<150
<150
<150
150-J50
a
flooded
(Acres)
51100 to
11111,000
<5111111
50011 to
100,000
<5000
<501111
<511011
>100,1100
>100,000
)1110,000
)11111,000
<5000
5000 to
100,000
5000 to
100,000
5000 to
100,000
<5000
5000 to
100,000
5000 to
100,000
50011 to
100,000
<5000
5000 to
100,000
50011
TARLE C.7 (Conllnued)
Big __________________ Game
Clr.ove c
Wood Conyon c
Tehay Lake c
lbnaglta c
Klulino B
Tezl inn ll
Gakonn 13
Sanford 0
r.ulkona [l
Yentno B
Tolachultno B
SkwenLna R
luke Creek l\Jpe r c
Lake Creek lower c
lower Chulitna c
Toklchltna c
Coal B
!Jllo B
Chulitna n
Whiskers c
lnne c
Agr iculluro l
Potential
0
0
0
0
c
0
c
c
0
R
[l
B
0
B
n
n
0
0
0
B
B
B
c
0
0
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
Anadromous
risheries
B
B
c
0
c
c
c
c
c
B
R
B
c
[l
B
B
c
c
c
B
B
Wllrlerness
Consideration
B
B
B
0
R
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
0
c
c
c
c
c
0
0
Cult, Recreo, Reolrlcled
c\ Scienll fie lund Use
c
0
0
0
c
c
c
c
B
c
c
c
0
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
A
A
A
A
0
c
A
A
B
0
0
0
A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Access
0
0
B
ll
25-100
>100
0
0
0 25-100
c >100
c 25-100
c 25-100
c
c
D 25-100
D >100
0 25-100
0 25-100
0 25-100
c 25-100
c >100
Oom
Scheme Helgllt (ft)
Dum and 150-J50
Reservoir
Oom and >J50
Reservoir
Reservoir <150
w/Oi version
Reservoir <150
w/Oiverolon
Oom ond
Reservoir
Dam and
Reservoir
Oom ond
Reservoir
150-J50
150-J50
Reservoir 150-J50
w/DI vers \on
Dum and <150
Reservoir
Oom end <150
Reservoir
Oom and >350
Roservoir
Reservoir <150
w/Oi vera I on
Oom and 150-J50
Reservoir
Oom and
Reservoir
Onm and
Reservoir
Oom and
Reservoir
Dom ond
Reservoir
Dam and
Reservoir
Oom nnd
Reservoir
Dam and
150-350
150-350
150-350
150-350
150-350
<150
150-J50
0
rlooded
(Acres)
5000 to
100,000
>100,000
(5()00
<5000
5000 to
100,000
5000 to
100,000
5000 to
100,000
>100,000
5000 lo
100,000
5000 to
100,000
<5000
<5000
<5000
5000 to
100,000
<5000
<5000
<5000
<5000
<5000
lAIII.( C.1 (Conllnuedl
Big ______________ c..
llnnd C.Oyon
Honeqllo
,.,,,,..
s.nrord
~I keno
Venlne
loli0Cf1ultno
Slnenlno
loire Creek """'r
loire Creek l"""r
lok lctlll ...
rnot
"''"
O.Ultlno
tltl.ecerll
c
c
A
n
n
"
A
A
A
A
c
c
c
c
n
8
A
c
c
A
A9rlcu llurol
Potenltol
0
0
0
0
0
c
c
0
A
n
A
0
A
n
"
0
0
0
II
8
0
i•lerfowl,
R•plore ,
(ndl). Spec lea
B
0
0
r
c
c
c
c
c
c
r
c
r
c
c
c
c
r
c
0
8
A
0
c
c
c
c
8
R
8
c
8
II
8
c
c
c
B
II
0
WI lrlerneeo
Conoldlrollon
R
8
8
n
II
D
0
0
D
0
0
0
c
0
c
c
c
c
c
0
0
c
Cull, lllocr .. , llloolrlcled
& Sdenl tr tc lond lloe
c
II
0
0
c
c
c
c
A
c
c
c
0
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
A
0
c
A
B
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D
D
D
Accooo
0
0
II
0
D
0
c
c
c
c
c
0
0
0
D
D
c
c
c
lneiei I iff
Cop...,lly
(Mil)
1~-100
)100
U-100
U -100
2).100
>100
U-100
U-100
U-100
n -1110
>100
n-1m
,.. end ...........
Dol end
Rtuw.rwoh
1~-)~0
>J~
........... (1)0
w/Oherolon
lloMrvolr <I~
w/Ol .. rol""
0.0 end
lllooerwolr
0.0 end ......... ,.
llollrwolr 1)0 -J~
w/Dhoro Inn
0.0 end ...........
,.. end ............
(I )I)
(I~
)J)O
llo11nolr <I~
w/OI .. rolon
0.0 end
Rre .. rvotr
0.0-
lllo11rwtr
,.. -........ ,,
0.0 end ......... ,,
0.0-
lllo11rvolr
0.0-
llo11rvolr
1\0 -J)O
I )O.J)O
1)0-J~
>no
( ....
floodM
(Acne)
)OliO to
IOO,!m
>100,000
(~
()000
)OliO to
100,0011
~n lo
IOO,OIWI
SOliD lo
100,1100
)1110,000
loOIIO lo
IOO,OIWI
)11110 to
100,1100
()f!OO
<)0011
<)000
)000 to
11111,000
<loOIIO
(\OliO
<:111111l
()0011
TABLE C.8 -CRITERIA WEIGHT ADJUSTMENTS
Dam Height
Adjusted We1ghts
Reserv. Area
Initial
Weight + ++-+++ + ++ +++
Big Game 8 6 7 8
Agricultural
Potential 7 5 6 7
Birds 8 6 7 8
Fisheries 10 8 9 10
TABLE C.9 -SITE CAPACITY GROUPS
No. of S1tes No. of Sites
Site Grou~ Evaluated Acce~ted
< 25 MW 5 3
25-100 MW 15 4 - 6
>100 MW 8 4
TABLE C.10-RANKING RESULTS
Site Group Partial Score Total Score
Sites: < 25 MW
Strandline Lake 59 85
Nellie Juan Upper 37 96
Tustumena 37 106
Allison Creek 65 82
Silver Lake 65 111
Sites: 25 -100 MW
Hicks 62 79
Bruskasna 71 104
Bradley Lake 71 104
Snow 71 106
Cache 86 127
Lowe 89 122
Keetna 89 131
Talkeetna -2 98 134
Coffee 101 126
Whiskers 101 134
Klutina 101 142
Lower Chulitiua 106 139
Beluga Upper 117 142
Talachultna River 126 159
Skwentna 136 169
Sites > 100 MW
Chakachamna 65 134
Browne 69 94
Tazlina 89 124
Johnson 96 121
Cathedral Bluffs 101 126
Lane 106 139
Kenai Lake 112 147
Tokichitna 117 150
TABLE C.11 -SHORTLISTED SITES
Environmental Ca~acit~
Rating 0 -25 MW 25 -100 MW 100 MW
Good Strandline Lake* Hicks* Browne*
Allison Creek* Snow* Johnson
Tustumena Cache*
Silver Lake Bruskasna*
Acceptable Keetna* Chakachamna*
Poor Talkeetna-2* Lane
Lower Chulitna Tokichitna
* 10 selected sites
Table C.12 -PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE-SNOW
Description
Diversion Tunnel
Earth Cofferdams
Excavation -Overburden
-Spillway
Impervious Fill
Pervious Fill
Filter Stone
Coarse Rock Fill
Concrete Spillway
9 Ft ~ Power Tunnel
22 Ft ~ Surge Shaft
50 MW Underground Powerhouse
Tailrace Tunnel
Tailrace Channel
Subtotal
Land/Damages
Reservoir Clearing
Switch yard
Transmission
Roads
Bridges
On-site Roads
Buildings/Equipment
Mobilization
Subtotal
Camp
Cater in
Subtotal
Engineering, Administration
Contingency
TOTAL
Quantity
2,000
132,000
768,000
638,000
3,028,000
83,000
57,000
1,600
10,000
200
1
505
2,000
Cost/Omt
Unit $
LF 3,060.00
cy 10.25
cy 4.50
cy 5.00
cy 5.00
cy 8.00
cy 8.50
LF 24,900.00
LF 1,978.00
VLF 7,000.00
ea
LF 1,978.00
LF 510.00
Airiognt
$10
Totgls
$10
6.12
1. 35
3.46
3.19
15.14
0.66
0.49
39.80
19.78
1.40
25.00
1.00
1.02
118.41
.98
4.16
3.00
7.20
4.20
5.00
8.00
7.54
158.49
20.00
14.40
192.89
61.72
254.61
Table C.13 -PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE-KEETNA
Description
Diversion Tunnel
Earth Cofferdams
Excavation -Overburden
Impervious Dam Fill
Pervious Dam Fill
Filter Stone
Coarse Rock -Rip Rap
Spillway Excavation
130 Ft Concrete Spillway
Power Tunnel
100 MW Surface Powerhouse
Subtotal
Lands/Damage
Reservoir Clearing
Switch yard
Transmission
Roads
Bridges
On-site Roads
Buildings/Equipment
Mobilization
Subtotal
Subtotal
Engineering, Administration,
Contingency
Quantity
2,000
824,000
1,474,000
1,850,000
8,513,000
193,000
148,000
410,000
1 ,ooo
2,100
1
Unit
LF
cy
cy
cy
cy
cy
cy
cy
LF
LF
ea
Cost/Unit
)
9,460.00
10.25
4.50
5.00
5.00
8.00
8.50
100,500.00
4,110.00
Amo~nt
$10
Totgls
$10
18.92
8.45
6.63
9.25
42.50
1.54
1. 26
100.50
8.64
50.00
247.69
1.66
12.18
3.00
3.20
3.60
5.00
5.00
8.00
14.47
303.80
30.00
361.10
115.55
Table C.14-PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE-CACHE
Cost/Unit Amo~nt Tot~ls
Descrietion Quant it~ Unit $ $10 $10
Diversion Tunnel 2,200 LF 8,390.00 18.45
Earth Cofferdams 301 '000 cy 10.25 3.09
Excavation -Overburden 2,946,000 cy 4.50 13.25
-Spillway 490,000 cy
Impervious Fill 2,750,000 cy 5.00 13.75
Pervious Fill 12,018,000 cy 5.00 60.09
Filter Stone 284,000 cy 8.00 2.27
Coarse Rock Fill 196,000 cy 8.50 1.67
Concrete Spillway 2,000 LF 71,400.00 142.80
13 Ft ~ Power Tunnel 2,000 LF 2,870.00 5.74
50 MW Surface Powerhouse 1 ea 25.00
Subtotal 286.11
Lands/Damages 1.89
Reservoir Clearing 13.96
Switch yard 3.00
Transmission 8.80
Roads 12.00
Bridges 5.00
On-site Roads 5.00
Buildings/Equipment 8.00
Mobilization 17.19
Subtotal 360.95
Camp 33.75
Cater in 32.40
Subtotal 427.10
Engineering, Administration,
Contin2enc~ 136.67
TOTAL 563.77
Table C.15 -PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE-BROWNE
Cost/Umt Amo~nt Totgls
Descri~tion Quant it~ Unit $ $10 $10
Diversion Tunnel 1,000 LF 12,000.00 12.00
Earth Cofferdams 196,000 cy 10.25 2.00
Excavation -Overburden 7,197,000 cy 4.50 32.39
-Spillway
Impervious Fill 2,497,000 cy 5.00 12.49
Pervious Fill . 11,895,000 cy 5.00 59.48
Filter Stone 337,000 cy 8.00 2.70
Coarse Rock Fill 329,000 cy 8.50 2.80
Concrete Spillway 1' 100 LF 128,000.00 141.00
23 Ft ~ Power Tunnel 1 ,DOD LF 5,540.00 5.54
100 MW Surface Powerhouse 1 ea 50.00
Tailrace Channel 300 LF 510.00 0.15
Subtotal 320.55
Lands/Damages 4.62
Reservoir Clearing 28.21
Switch yard 3.00
T r ansm iss ion 2.00
Roads 4.20
Bridges 5.00
Dn-s ite Roads 5.00
Buildings/Equipment 8.00
Mobilization 19.03
Subtotal 399.61
Camp 37.50
Cater in 36.00
Subtotal 473.11
Engineering, Administration,
Contingency 151.40
TOTAL 624.51
Table C.16-PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE-TALKEETNA-2
Cost/Un1t Ailio~nt Totgls
Descri~tion Quantitl: Unit $ $10 $10
Diversion. Tunnel 2,800 LF 8,660.00 24.25
Earth Cofferdams 445,000 cy 10.25 4.56
Excavation -Overburden 4,668,000 cy 4.50 21.00
-Spillway 333,000 cy
Impervious Fill 2,932,000 cy 5.00 14.66
Pervious Fill 14,213,000 cy 5.00 71 .07
Filter Stone 294,000 cy 8.00 2.35
Coarse Rock Fill 197,000 cy 8.50 1.67
Concrete Spillway 1,200 LF 81,600.00 97.90
12.5 Ft ~ Power Tunnel 2,400 LF 2,750.00 6.60
50 MW Surface Powerhouse 1 ea 25.00
Subtotal 269.06
Lands/Damages 0.48
Reservoir Clearing 3.27
Switch yard 3.00
Transmission 5.60
Roads 7.20
Bridges 5.00
On-site Roads 5.00
Buildings/Equipment 8.00
Mobilization 15.33
Subtotal 321.94
Camp 27.50
Cater in 29.10
Subtotal 378.54
Engineering, Administration,
Contingency 121.13
Table C.17 -PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE-HICKS
Cost/Un~t Amott Totals
Descri[!tion Quentitx Unit $ $10 $106
Diversion Tunnel 2,400 LF 8,450.00 20.28
Earth Cofferdams 641 ,DOD cy 10.25 6.60
Excavation -Overburden 2,136,000 cy 4.50 9,60
-Spillway 292,000 cy
Impervious Fill 2,160,000 cy 5.00 10.80
Pervious Fill 8,713,000 cy 5.00 43.60
Filter Stone 238,000 cy 8.00 1.90
Coarse Rock Fill 154,000 cy 8.50 1.30
Concrete Spillway 1,800 LF 79,444.00 143.00
15 Ft ~ Power Tunnel 1,900 LF 3,342.00 6.35
Surge Shaft
60 MW Surface Powerhouse ee 30.00
Subtotal 273.43
Lends/Damages 1. 76
Reservoir Clearing 1.48
Switchyard 3.00
Transmission 20.00
Roads 3.00
Bridges 5.00
On-site Roads 5.00
Buildings/Equipment 8.00
Mobilization 16.05
Subtotal 336.72
Camp 33.75
Cater in 30.30
Subtotal 400.77
Engineering, Administration,
Contingency 128.25
TOTAL 529.02
Table C.18-PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE-CHAKACHAMNA
tOst/Omt Aliio~nt lot~ls
Descri[:!tion Quantit~ Unit $ $10 $10
Main Dam ea 2.00
26 Ft Concrete Lined
Power Tunnel 57,000 LF 8,380.00 477.66
Adit Tunnels 14,000 LF 1 '680.00 23.50
35 Ft Tailrace Tunnel 1,000 LF 3,500.00 3.50
88 Ft ~ Surge Shaft 500 LF 50,000.00 25.00
16 Ft ~ Penstocks 3, 700 LF 5,090.00 18,85
500 MW Underground Powerhouse 1 ea 273.50
Diversion Tunnel 2,000 LF 9,580.00 19.15
Subtotal 843.16
Lands/Damages 0.50
Reservoir Clearing
Switchyard 3.00
Transmission 14.00
Roads 31.80
Bridges 10.00
On-site Roads 10.00
Buildings/Equipment 8.oo
Mobilization 44.40
Subtotal 964.86
Camp 72.50
Cater in 84.00
Subtotal 1121.36
Engineering, Administration,
Contingency 359.05
TOTAL 1480.41
Table C.19-OPERATING AND ECONOMIC PARAMETERS FOR SELECTED HYDROELECTRIC PLANTS
Max. Average Economic
Gross Installed Annual Plant Capit~l Cost of
Head Capacity En err Factor Cos~ Energy
No. Site River Ft. (MW) (Gwh (%) ($10 ) ($/1000 Kwh)
1 Snow Snow 690 50 220 50 255 45
2 Bruskasna Nenana 235 30 140 53 238 113
3 Keetna Talkeetna 330 100 395 45 477 47
4 Cache Talkeetna 310 50 220 51 564 100
5 Browne Nenana 195 100 410 47 625 59
6 Talkeetna-2 Talkeetna 350 50 215 50 500 90
7 Hicks Matanuska 275 60 245 46 529 84
8 D"lakachamna D"lakachatna 945 500 1925 44 1480 30
9 Allison Allison Cl'eek 1270 8 33 47 54 125
10 Strandline
Lake Beluga 810 20 85 49 126 115
NOTES:
TT)Tncluding engineering and owner's administrative costs but excluding AFDC.
TABLE C.20 -ALTERNATIVE HYDRO DEVELOPMENT PLANS
Installed On-Line
Plan Description Capacity Date
A.1 Olakachamna 500 1993
Keetna 100 1997
A.2 Olakachamna 500 1993
Keetna 100 1997
Snow 50 2002
A.3 Olakachamna 500 1993
Keetna 100 1996
Snow 50 1998
Strand line 20 1998
Allison Creek 8 1998
A.4 Olakachamna 500 1993
Keetna 100 1996
Snow 50 2002
Strandline 20 2002
Allison Creek 8 2002
A.5 Olakachamna 500 1993
Keetna 100 1996
Snow 50 2002
Talkeetna -2 50 2002
Cache 50 2002
Strandline 20 2002
Allison Creek 8 2002
TABLE C.21 -RESULTS OF ECONOMIC ANALYSES OF ALTERNATIVE GENERATION SCENARIOS
Installed Capacity (MW) by lotal System Iota! System
Categor~ in 2010 Installed Present Worth
Generation Scenario OGP5 Run ~fiermal Hydro Capacity in Cost -
ln~e Descn~tion Load Forecast Id. No. oal Gas Oil 2010 (MW) ($106)
All Thermal No Renewals Very Low 1 LBT7 500 426 90 144 1160 4930
No Renewals Low L7E1 700 300 40 144 1385 5920
With Renewals Low L2C7 600 657 30 144 1431 5910
No Renewals Medium LME1 900 801 50 144 1895 8130
With Renewals Medium LME3 900 807 40 144 1891 8110
No Renewals High L7F7 2000 1176 50 144 3370 13520
With Renewals High L2E9 2000 576 130 144 3306 13630
No Renewals Probabilistic LOF3 1100 1176 100 144 3120 8320
Thermal Plus No Renewals Plus: Medium L7W1 600 576 70 744 1990 7080
Alternative Chakachamna (500)2-1993
Hydro Keetna (100)-1997
No Renewals Plus: Medium LFL7 700 501 10 794 2005 7040
Chakachamna (500)-1993
Keetna (100)-1997
Snow (50)-2002
No Renewals Plus: Medium LWP7 500 576 60 822 1958 7064
Chakachamna (500)-1993
Keetna (100)-1996
Strandl.i.ne (20),
Allison Creek (8),
Snow (50)-1998
No Renewals Plus: Medium LXF1 700 426 30 822 1978 7041
Chakachamna (500)-1993
Keetna (100)-1996
Strandline (20),
Allison Creek (8),
Snow (50)-2002
No Renewals Plus: Medium L403 500 576 30 922 2028 7088
Chakachamna (500)-1993
Keetna (100)-1996
Snow (50), Cache (50),
Allison Creek (8),
Talkeetna-2 (50),
Strandline (20)-2002
Notes:
(1) Incorporating load management
(2) Installed capacity
and conservation
152° 150° 148°
SCALE-MILES
I INCH EQUALS APPROXIMATELY 40 MILES
& G 0
0. 25 MW 25·100 MW > 100 MW
'· STRANDLINE L, 13. WHISKERS 26. SNOW 39, LANE
2. LOWER BELUGA 14. COAL 27. KENAI LOWER 40, TOKICHITNA
3. LOWER LAKE CR. 15. CHULITNA 28. GERSTLE 41, YENTNA
4. ALLISON CR. 16, OHIO 29. TANANA R. 42. CATHEDRAL BLUFFS
5. CRESCENT LAKE 2 17. LOWER CHULITNA 30, BRUSKASNA 43. JOHNSON
6. GRANT LAKE 16, CACHE 31. KANTISHNA R. 44. BROWNE
7, McCLURE BAY 19. GREENSTONE 32. UPPER BELUGA 45. JUNCTION IS.
s. UPPER NELLIE JUAN 20, TALKEETNA 2 33, COFFEE 46. VACHON IS.
9. POWER CREEK 21, GRANITE GORGE 34. GULKANA R, 47. TAZILNA
10. SILVER LAKE 22. KEETNA 35. KLUTINA 48. KENAI LAKE
II, SOLOMON GULCH 23. SHEEP CREEK 36. 8RAOLEY LAKE 49. C HAKACH AMNA
12, TUSTUMENA 24, SKWENTNA 37. HICK'S SITE
25, TALACHULITNA 38. LOWE
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE HYDROELECTRIC SITES FIGURE C. I I GIR I
3' GRAVEL _j9
BLANKET
sENORMAL MAX.WL(AS INDICATED ON PLAN)
COMPACTED PERVIOUS
FILL
GRAVEL 5URFJlCt:
CCREST ELEVATION (AS INDICATED ON PLAN)
~~:=....;:;::::---'----
COMPACTED PERVIOUS
FILL
U/S COFFE ~ DAM -' D/5 COFFE.RDA..M
DAM CROSS SECTION
ALTERNATIVE HYDRO SITES
TYPICAL DAM SECTION
SCALE. : 0 '200 400 FEET ~~~
FIGURE C.2
\
\ . \
I • I
\\.\ ~ \ ·.
Jl
8
0
0
£:!
0
(~
I
0
0 00 8~
( ~. • .
ALTERNATIVE HYDRO SITES
SNOW SCALE: B
_ ..... __ .......
-c,~: DlA. POWER TUNNEL
PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT
SCALE• B
0 0.1 0.'2. M\LES ~-----~----~ o,_._ .... :...-----::;2 MILES
FIGURE C.3 [iii]
NORMA'-MA')(,
W. L. EL. 0)4.5 t
.P~R INTAI<i
(\
SU~FACE. POWE.RI-lOUSE"
TOO MW CAPACITY
~LIPBUCKEi
/i'.AII...WATER El... (Q(S.O'j
~.------o/5 COF'FERDAM ... ---.. ...__.__ __
\ ALTERNATIVE HYDRO SITES
KEETNA
FIGURE C.4 •
1600
1500
~~oo
Jseo
170o _
--~--.... -~---
------------
---,.,. __
NORMAL MA'/.. WL I
E.L. 1630
\4.00 ~ --.... U/S COFFERDAM
' -----~ ...
. ------,
1400 ~
Ol..VER'5\0N
ALTERNATIVE HYDRO SITES
CACHE
SURFACE POWERHOUSE.
!50 MW CAPACITY
1500
\600
\iOO
1800
~A.Lf: 0 O.l .~~~~~ ----~O.Z. MIL~
FIGURE C.5
/
# /
.·(
___/ · . ... --...._ ----···----···
FLIP8UCt'E.T
0 0.2 MILES
FIGURE C.6 •
'Soc
NORMAL. MAX . w. L. E.L... '::,45 I
U/5
COFFE RO.t:>Jvt
/ ,,cO
1000 -!..:.--------
FL.OW >
--··-----~--
POWER TUNNE-L
ALTERNATIVE HYDRO SITES
TALKEETNA 2.
SCALE. 0
CAPACITY
0.1 0. '2. MlLE.'S
FIGURE C.7
···~ ~···'--, ••. DlVEI<SION
"•. ··.. ~ TUN~E.L~ ~ .. '-----.) . . . --....... ----. ......___ .. ·-... :::::::: ...
NORMAL MAX.
W. L. EL. 1<;;5;;; 1
.. ~·~~~-
ujs COFFERDAM
--19CQ
1700
I GOO
.........,_.~~========-----150::) '" D/S GOFF cRDAM
~. .,
'' ~ -----------------1400 \~ ~~ I SURFAcE:. POWE-RHOUSe.-~" <DO MW CAPACITY ,............,~ '"' ---. ".----···-K..J _______.. . .. . .. ----
'OP l Lt-WAY CONTROL
sTI<UCTURE.
ALTERNATIVE HYDRO SITES
HICKS
~ ·•"
1800
----~-------------)~00
rz.cx:o
SCA..LE. 0 0.1 0. 2 MIL..ES
~~~~-----.
FIGURE C.B [ii
-...,.,
CONSTRU iiON--f
ADIT
ALTERNATiVE HYDRO SITES
CHAKACHAMNA
0
Ut-.JDER.GROLJI-JD
POWS<.HOIJSE. -
:,00 MW CAPA.CIIY
'2 MIL.E.S
iiiiiiiilliillilii
FIGUREC.9 •
0
MAXI~UM
R6SER\OIR
EL 1130.0'
2 3 4 5
R:>WER TUNI-JEL.
2(;.0~ OIA.
6 ...,
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE.lt-..1 MILi;.S
8 9
PRO~ILE ALONG 4_ OF INTAK~, TUNNEL1 ~ POWERI40USl:
UNLit-JED OR SHOTCR&TE
TAILRACt TlJN"Na
ALTERNATIVE HYDRO SITES SCAL.,fiii
CHAKACHAMNA-PROFILE AND SECTIONS
SUR.G;E 51-4A.FT
10 II
----·;.·-~ FEET
1'380
LEGEND
D HYDROELECTRIC
IMi~@ COAL FIRED THERMAL
Ell GAS FIRED THERMAL
2000
• OIL FIRED THERMAL( NOT SHOWN ON ENERGY DIAGRI\M)/
NOTE: RESULTS OBTAINED FROM
OGPS RUN LFL 7
CHAKACHAMNA
EXISTING AND COMMITTED
1990 2000
TIME
GENERATION SCENARIO INCORPORATING THERMAL
AND ALTERNATIVE HYDROPOWER DEVELOPMENTS
-MEDIUM LOAD FORECAST-FIGURE C.ll
1954
2010
2010