Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHydroelectric Alternatives for the Railbelt - Alaska Power Association - Feb 1980 - U.S. Department of Energyw 10: cos ni! O W ABA V TK 1424 .A4 A2515 1980 Hydroelectric Alternatives For The Alaska Rai I bel t _.ud Wildlife I:ECEIVED emerged W- .L.V08 ANCHORAGE,gALASKA ice lEcolo - Services Anchorage, Alaska F e b r u a r y , 1 9 8 0 U.S. Department Of Energy Alaska Power Administration Juneau, Alaska, 99802 91 1w ARLIS �1rEs Alaska Resources Library & Information Services Anchorage, Alaska Additional copies of this report are available from: - Alaska Power Administration P.D. Box 50 Juneau, Alaska 99802 HYDROELECTRIC ALTERNATIVES FOR - THE ALASKA.RAILBELT February 1980 l'�iWIS Alaska Resources Library & Information Services Anchorage, Alaska U.S Department of Energy Alaska Power Administration Juneau, Alaska 99802 CONTENTS TITLE PAGE NO. PART I INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . 1 PART II SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 PART III PREVIOUS STUDIES. . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . 3 PART IV HYDROELECTRIC POWER INVENTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 PART V ALTERNATIVE HYDROELECTRIC PLANS . . . . . . . 9 Bases of Comparison ...... 0. 6 0 a a a a a a a a 9 Power Demands. a a a .. a a a a. a a a a a a 10 Costs a. a a a a a a a a a a a a .a . a a a a 10 Land Use and Management. . a Environmental Aspects. Larger Capacity Single Sites. a.a 4 a ....-a Combinations of. Smaller Sites by..Geographic Area. a a a 12 Combinations of the Most Economical Smaller Sites a . a 18 The "Small" Hydro Approacho a a . . . . . . . ... a a a 19 APPENDIX .. a a a. a a a a a a a a a a...... a. a a a 20 Aa Inventory of Potential Hydroelectric Sites in Alaska . . . a a . a a a a a a a a a a . . . . . . . 20 B. Map ofPotentialHydroelectric.Sites in Alaska . . . a . . a . . a a . . . a . a a a . . a . 24 Ca Description of Small Capacity Sites Within Geographic Areas. . . . . a a a a . a a . . . . . . a a 25 Da Initial Evaluation of Project Effects on Fish and Wildlife. . . . . . . . 'a . . . a . . . . . . a a a 30 Ea Sample of Inventory -Grade Hydroelectric Site Study. a a 33 F. References. a a a a a a a a a a a a... .. .. ... 49 PART I. INTRODUCTION For the last several years, hydroelectric investigations for the Alaska Railbelt have focused on the Upper Susitna and Bradley Lake hydroelec- tric projects.- Many other potential projects, l.ar-ger and smaller, have been identified which -are accessible to the Railbelt, thus there are 1 important questions to ask as to how these projects were selected and whether some other project or group of projects might offer a more xi sensible hydroelectric development plan for the Alaska Railbelt. This report provides a review of the data and studies that brought about the selection of the two projects, and a current appraisal as to whether that selection remains appropriate In Alaska the electric power demands are greater in the -winter than'in summer. This is due to .the. ,long., winter -.;lights and the cold dominated climate. Streamflow characteristics are opposite of the power demands. Streamf lows are greater in summer, when the Bower demands are less and subject to fall freeze up or very minimal flows in winter. Typically only about, 20 percent of the average annual runoff occurs between October- and May. Because of this need for firm energy, "run -of -the- - - - - river" (non -storage) sites were not considered as alternatives to Susitua. In addition to references within the text, this report is based on those publications.listed as references within the appendix 1 PART II. SUMMARY In connection with the power market analyses for the Corps of Engineers (Corps) 1979 supplemental feasibility studies of the Upper Susitna Pr-oj-ect-,- Alaska-Power-Administration—(APA) conducted -a review of -alter native -potential hydroelectric development .plans for- the Alaska Rail- ".. belt. The. -purpose of:the review was to examine whether selection of. the Upper Susitna Project remains appropriate The principal -findings are: There are no hydro generation opportunities available to generate power in sufficient quantity to be alternative to the Susitna project. Small individual sites may be available, but would satisfy only a small par- tion of the market area demand. Other sites with apparently acceptable capacity and economic capability -.have been,, or may be, precluded by restrictive land use designations such as --national `parks, national monuments, national wildlife refuges, and' wild and scenic rivers. FART III. PREVIOUS STUDIES This Section has a few notes on the principal investigations of alterna- tive hydroelectric -power projects for the Alaska Railbelt. Except _in Southeast Alaska, v ittle was known about the extent of Alaskan hydroelectric resources prior to World War II. During the war, and in the, immediate post-war period,serious interest in the hydro developed It appears that there were two primary motivating factors. (1) the world-wide search..for large low-cost hydroelectric .projects that.` could be used in aluminum production, and (2) intensive interest in providing a viable economy in the then Territory of Alaska.. Key events included initiatives by the Territorial government and pri- vate studies on both the Wood Canyon and Yukon -Taiga projects. A com- prehensive inventory of Southeast Alaska hydroelectric resources was published by the Forest Service and Federal Power Commission in 1947 covering an accumulation of studies in that region since the early part of the century. The Bureau of Reclamation conducted its first field reconnaissance of several Alaskan hydro projects in the fall of 1946. This led to a statewide reconnaissance completed in 1948, which. first brought atten- tion to the hydroelectric potentials of the Upper Susitna and other hydro projects in the Susitna River basin. That reconnaissance trig- gered the studies that led to authorization of the Eklutna Project in 1950, Reclamation's Susitna River basin investigations which were com- pleted in 1953, U.S. participation in the first Canadian-U.S.. investi- gation of the Yukon -Taiga Project, as well as investigation of several_ smaller projects in other..parts of the State. Reclamation's Susitna basin report recommended feasibility investigation for the Upper Susitna Project based on the results of comparative studies, including initial fish and wildlife evaluations, for more than 20 potential hydroelectric projects in the Susitna River basins The detailed studies confirmed viability of the project, and Reclamation's 1960 feasibility report recommended project authorization. This process of statewide reconnaissance, a comprehensive river basin study, and then detailed investigations of specific sites brought about the initial Susitna Project.construction proposal. A separate series of regional water resources investigations by the Corps of Engineers brought about alternative strategy keyed to the Rampart Project on the Yukon River. Reconnaissance studies on Rampart in the late 1950's indicated an immense potential for low-cost power, leading to a determination that further action on the proposal for Susitna authorization be deferred pending completion of: (1) feasibil- ity reports on Rampart by the.C.orps of Engineers, and (2) investigations by the Interior Department of the power market and natural resources aspects of Rampart. That action was set in the March 14, 1962 agreement between the Secretaries of Army and -Interior. 3 At the time, Susitna and Rampart were the apparent alternatives for long-term_ major _power. _ supplies_ in -the _Railbelt.___ Interim -_solutions_ were also needed, and the options included a number of smaller projects, including Bradley*Lake near Homer for which the Corps had completed its review report in 1961. Bradley Lake was authorized for construction in the 1962 Flood Control Act, and the aforementioned studies concerning Rampart proceeded. As. a part of the Interior Department Rampart investigations, the Bureau of Reclamation prepared a comprehensive inventory of statewide hydro electric:resources during the period 1962 to 1967 (APA has updated portions of that inventory since that time). The inventory benefited from a -great deal of information that was simply not available for previous inventory and basic studies by the Corps and the Bureau: The extensive work on regional and basin studies had, by now, accomplished an essentially complete identification of available sites - Post World War II data collection efforts, principally in topo- graphic mapping and hydroelectric data, provided a much firmer basis for assessing the potential. Individual project studies had been completed providing specific field information of reconnaissance or higher level for several potential projects The actual processes for conducting the inventory are discussed in more detail subsequently. They ncluded a comprehensive search for physical potential based .on all previousstudies; an :exhaustive examination of available mapping to identify new sites; screening processes to focus in on sites..having apparent potential; inventory -grade site studies includ- ing hydrology, reservoir and power production studies, cost estimates, and field checks of the better sites on geologic; and engineering suitability. The initial inventory results were summarized and published in the June 1967 Interior -Department Report, Alaska Natural Resources and the Rampart Project. That report also summarized more detailed evaluations of the Susitna, Wood Canyon, Yukon-Taiya, and Woodchopper Projects which were found to be the principal major project alternatives to Rampart. These studies reaffirmed the previous general findings concerning Susitna and Bradley Lake. Similar findings appeared in the 1969 and 1976 Alaska Power Surveys of the Federal Power Commission (FPC). The evaluation of hydroelectric resources for the two FPC reports was again premised on the statewide inventory. 4 For a time during the 1960's and early 1970's, natural gas and fuel oil dominated thinking in Alaskan power supply planning. Thus, while action on Upper Susitna was deferred pending the Rampart outcome, interest in smaller projects 'such as Bradley Lake was diminished because of the availability and low cost of natural gas, The Corps completed its report on Rampart in 1971 with the recommendation that the project not proceed. This led directly to the renewed interest in Upper Susitna. Further impetus to the hydroelectric initiatives came about with the 1973 oil embargo and the new round of project investigations was launched. 5 PART IV. HYDROELECTRIC POWER INVENTORY The term "inventory" means different things to different people: The APA-USBR inventory. included assessment of physical potential and screen - lug and evaluation process to provide appraisals of engineering and geologic suitability, sizing studies to approximate the optimum levels of development, estimates of probable construction costs, and relative cost of power for the more promising sites. There are two published summaries of the inventory: - The list of 76 "more economical" potential projects which, with minor variations, has appeared in numerous reports. - A longer list of 252 sites for which inventory -grade plans and cost estimates were prepared during the inventory process. The list of 252 includes the 76. The steps in the inventory.were as follows: 1. The search for possible sites. 2. The screening to identify those with reasonable possibility of economic and engineering viability. 3. Specific site studies. 4. Field check of the promising sites. 5. Coordination. The inventory process was designed specifically to examine projects with potential of 2,500 kW or more prime power capacity (equivalent to 22 million kilowatthours per year, or roughly one-half of 1 percent of the 1977 electric power use in Alaska). Site Identification This was accomplished by assembling information from all available previous studies_ supplemented by a careful map search to identify addi- tional possible sites. The map search involved examination of each drainage area on the available topographic maps for possible dam and reservoir sites or diversion schemes that could possibly produce power. In all, some 2,000 sites were identified in this process. Screening Processes The screening processes used several techniques. Very rough estimates of power potential were prepared using regional interpretations of runoff characteristics, measured drainage areas, and estimates of avail- able head based on the topographic maps. The initial group of around 2,000 sites was reduced to about 700 in this preliminary screening. T which eliminated the very small sites and those which, by judgment, - would involve excessively expensive construction costs for the amount of .,power available The second .level .of screening produced- rough indications of relative cost of major features --volume of dam or size and length of major water- ways. This process identified projects for which excessive costs of obtaining necessary reservoir storage and head would rule out a signifi- cant chance of feasibility. The second screening left a residual list - of 252 sites for which inventory -grade plans and estimates were pre- pared. Site Studies Inventory -grade plans and estimates were prepared for each of the 252 remaining sites. To assure a reasonable level of consistency, a series of.procedures for sizing and cost estimating was developed. As appropriate to each project, the following steps were followed: 1. Water supply available for power production was estimated using all available. streamflow records supplemented by climate- data.. and correlationso - 2, -Reservoir area -capacity values- were determined by map measure. 3. Alternative plans for project development were determined using the topographic maps (i.e., alternative heights of dam or length of pen- stocks and waterways) 4. Preliminary estimates of reservoir sedimentation were developed. 5. Sizing studies were prepared to approximate the optimum scale of development for each project. ' This included evaluation 'of reservoir regulation capability (usually by mass diagram techniques) and compari- son of project costs and firm power capability. The site studies are quite accurate for those projects which had the benefit of considerable previous field data For other projects, par- ticularly those in remote areas of the State, the inventory -grade site studies are probably much less reliable. By judgment, the largest single variable is actual foundation conditions for major features, especially dams. - Some field reconnaissance work, including observations of surface geol- ogy, was accomplished for purposes of verifying the site studies. This, focused on the projects that appeared to have good physical potential, but for which foundation.information was lacking. The inventory produced few surprises It located a few new projects (relatively small) that had not been found in earlier studies . It VA eliminated many projects that had been listed in earlier studies by reason of excessive costs or evident engineering or "geologicproblems. The net result was a reasonably consistent evaluation of the State's hydroelectric resources including appraisal of engineering and economic viability 4. Coordination A major step in the coordination was reconciliation of data and project assumptions arising from Bureau of Reclamation inventory.studies and the series of Corps of Engineers river basin reports. This was accomplished on a project -by -project basis so that the end result of the inventory reflected the best available data on each site. Portions of the inventory have -been modified from time to time as new data became available through specific project studies or new mapping, 0 PART V. ALTERNATIVE HYDROELECTRIC PLANS 0 There are a number of significant new facts that are relevant to decid- ing which project makes most sense and when. Substantially better information_ is available on likely environmental aspects of the proj- ects; constructicn costs and interest rates have risen dramatically, as have levels of ,demand for power; fuel costs have skyrocketed; major changes in. land ownership and management are affecting the availability of individual projects As a part of the most recent round of Susitna investigations (1979 Supplemental Feasibility Report), APA again reviewed the available hydroelectric alternatives to see if a different selection of projects would be more appropriate under present conditions. Considering present hydroelectric proposals, the current strategy in- volves development of the authorized Bradley Lake Project with power on line in about 1987, followed by Watana in 1994 and Devil Canyon in 1998. This timing is consistent with the APA mid -range power demand estimates. Actual timing would depend on load expectations at the time when con- struction decisions are reached on each unit of each project. For example, if lower load growth occurs through the 1980's, it would follow that construction start on Devil Canyon would be deferred somewhat. The range of possible alternatives can be summarized about as follows: 1. Early construction of one of the major Alaskan hydro projects such as Wood Canyon or Rampart. 2. Pursue regional or river basin development using smaller individual projects and attempt to optimize development in each area. 3. Pursue a strategy of constructing the most economical smaller projects available anywhere in the Railbelt area. 4. A strategy of very small hydro projects (say small river basins, with project capacity up to about 30 11W, where minimal environmental costs are expected), Each of these strategies is examined in subsequent parts of this report. Bases of Comparison There are four general bases of comparison: 1. Demand for the power (in lieu of the Upper Susitna Project, to what extent would the alternative strategy meet the needs). 2. Relative costs; i.e., would the alternative strategy result in lower or higher costs to the consumer. 9 3. Land use and management aspects as they affect availability of the alternative sites., 4. Environmental -aspects, anticipated impacts. Power Demands The projected power demands (APA) for the Upper Susitna River Project market -area (Anchorage -Fairbanks "Railbelt" area) are: 1980 1990 2000 _ MW* GWH** MW GWH MW GWH High 890 3,930 .2,360 10,680 4,650 20,940 Medium 830 3,660 1,590 7,080 2,850 12,740 Low 770 3,390 1,180 5,220 1,780 7,890 * MW (Megawatt) equals 1,000 kW ** GWH (Gigawatthour) equals 1,000,000 kWh These projections include the total utility, industrial, and national defense needs, and are based on Institute of Social and Economic Re- search (ISER) 1978 population and employment estimates. For the purposes of this study, it was assumed that the hydro strategy would focus on requirements between 1990 and 2000. Under the low and high load projections, alternative hydro plans were analyzed that would tie to those demands. Costs Estimates of the cost of power generation (mills per kWh) were prepared for each of the 252 sites. This is the index cost (last column) of the list of 252 sites, which `is the basis of economic comparison of the sites (generation only --no transmission). (Costs are based on 1965 to 1966 prices, 50-year repayment at 3 1/8-percent interest rate, and complete utilization of average annual energy) The combination of -the four Susitna River sites (127--Devil Canyon, 128--Watana, 129--Vee, 130--Denali) resulted in an index of 643 (mills per kWh).. This is the basis.of economic comparison of possible alterna- t Ives. For information purposes, possible alternatives are discussed that are within twice the cost range of Susitna (12.6 mills per kWh). This is to allow some flexibility for contingencies and unknowns should more de- tailed consideration become warranted, and candidly, because very few sites are within the cost range Even though economic comparison is based on work that is several years old, it is concluded to be valid. More recent estimates of the Susitna River sites correspond generally with costs that would be obtained by 10 indexing earlier costs to present levels. More specifically, cost estimates for energy from the four Susitna River sites, by the Corps..of Engineers in the December 1975 interim feasibility report Southcentral Railbelt_Area, Alaska- Upper Susitna River.Basin, are within 10 percent of .the index costescalated to 1975 by construction cost trends. There- fore, economic comparison of possible alternatives is based on relative costs from the list of sites rather than updating all costs on the list. Land Use and Management Of specific concern are present and pending designations of wilderness, national parks, refuges, and wild and scenic rivers since hydroelectric development is not compatible with such designations. . Environmental Aspects Based on published materials of AD &G, the Land Use Planning Commission, and others, we are able to offer general statements of likely major fish and wildlife implications of alternative hydroelectric ..projects, with particular reference to anadromous fish. Significant potential for impact lies with the Tanana,, Yentna., Skwentna, and Talachulitna River basins. In addition; the extreme recreation development and use of the Kenai . River would likely preclude serious consideration of identified power - sites on that river. Larger Capacity Single.Sites Aside from Upper Susitna, the best known major hydro potentials of Alaska are Rampart on the Yukon River, Wood Canyon on the Copper River, and the Yukon-Taiya diversion from the head of the Yukon in Canada to Tidewater near Skagway in Alaska. Yukon -Taiga and Wood Canyon each have a power potential about three times that of the Upper Susitna Project; Rampart is about five times as large as Susitna. Other large projects of possible interest include Woodchopper and Ruby on the mainstem Yukon, and Porcupine which is on a major Yukon tributary. A final large project --the downstream Holy Cross site --would be of interest only in connection with development of major upstream storage projects. These large projects are not considered to be available alternatives '_n the time frame proposed for the Upper Susitna Project for a variety of reasons. Firm Energy Capacity Cost No. Site Stream GWH/yr. MW Mills/kWh 16 (06) Holy Cross Yukon R. 12,300 - 2,800 9.0 29 (11) Ruby Yukon R. 6,400 460 3.9 54 (20) Rampart Yukon R. 34,200 5,040 2.0 59 (21) Porcupine Porcupine R. 24320 530 5.0 60 (22) Woodchopper Yukon R. 14,200 3,200 4.5 64 (24) Yukon -Taiga Yukon R. 21,000 3,200 3,3 173 (54) Wood Canyon Copper R. 21,900 3,600 3.2 On the cost aspect, several projects have potential,. equivalent to or lower than Susitna. Present and pending land use designations preclude consideration now of the mainst_em..Yukon sites as well as Wood Canyon; Yukon -Taiga is affected by legislation creating the Klondike Gold Rush National Park,_ although it should be noted that all of the field studies indicated the park and the hydro project were basically compatible. On the demand side, the_iarger.projects would substantially exceed anticipated Railbelt area demands through 2000 and .beyond,. However, they could be designed to serve larger power markets through intercon- nection with Canada. Serious environmental problems have been documented with regard to Rampart, and Wood Canyon is known to have major anadromous fishery problems. Of the large projects, Yukon-Taiya would likely have the least severe environmental problems. Combinations of Smaller Sites by Geographic Area In addition to the larger capacity. single sites discussed in the pre- ceeding section, combinations of individual, small capacity sites were also considered as possible alternatives. These sites were grouped by eight geographic areas and compared with the projected power demands and with the Upper Susitna.Project generation capacity and 1966 cost cri- teria. The areas are listed on the following page: 12 % of Projected, Firm Low Level, Weighted Cost Area Capacity Energy Power Demands Mills/kWh MW GWH/yr 198G 1990 2000 1, Matanuska River Basin 194. 935 : 25 - 18 12. 87.5-. 2. Tanana River Basin 1,316 5,806 171 111 74- 18.5 3. Cook Inlet - West Drainage 533 2,347 69 45 30 10.3 4. Skwentna-Yentna River Basin 509 2,312 68 44 29 29.6 5. Talkeetna River Basin 237 1,107 33 21 14 40.4 6. Chultina River Basin 345 1,542 46 30 20 12.3 7. Kenai Peninsula 475 2,211 71 46 .31 19.9 8. Scattered Sites, Tributary to Railbelt 462 2,207 65 42 28 31.6 * Does not include transmission system cost. Sites within the Nenana River Basin have also been identified in the past, but all are precluded by Mt McKinley National Park. A brief description of each area follows, while specific information on each site may be found'in the appendix. 1. Matanuska River Basin This basin lies to the immediate northeast of Palmer, Alaska, and drains the southern slopes of the Talkeetna Mountains and the northern ---slopes of the Chugach Mountains. The basin contains primarily State and pri- vate lands, is bisected by the Glenn Highway, and is easily accessible to the Anchorage area. The basin contains six small, potential hydroelectric sites that range in capacity from 9 MW to 67 MW with total generation capability of 935 GWh per year. Costs, not including provision for transmission, would be in the magnitude of 14 times that of the Upper Susitna Project. 13 The basin contains a variety of wildlife including moose, bear, caribou, and Dall sheep, as well as furbearers, waterfowl, and upland game birds Five species of salmon are found in the basin, principally in the lower reaches, in addition to trout, grayling, whitefish, and burbot. The Alaska Coastal Zone extends into the basin and includes half of the - sites, representing 78 percent of the potential capacity. Even though no major environmental impacts have been identified, there is possibility for conflict. Principal, potential impacts include disruption of anadromous fish passage, loss of fish and wildlife habi- tat, and degradation of aesthetics 2 Tanana River Basin This basin is located in the east -central part of the State and stretches southeast from the Yukon River to Canada. Lands in the Tanana River Valley are principally State and private; however, there are several major Federal land withdrawals in the basin for military reser- vations, Mt. McKinley National Park, the Alaska Pipeline, and settlement of the terms of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. The Richardson and Alaska Highways are located within the basin and provide access to Fairbanks and a number of smaller communities. The basin contains seven potential hydroelectric sites that range in capacity from 25 MW to 532 MW with total generation capability of 5,806 GWh per year. Costs without provision for transmission, would be in the magnitude of 2.9 timesthatof the Upper Susitna Project. The basin contains a wide variety of wildlife including moose, bear, caribou, Dall sheep, and one of the State's two bison herds, as well as furbearers and upland game birds. The Tanana River Valley provides extensive waterfowl nesting areas. Three species of salmon are present with the majority of spawning located in the lower half of the basin. Trout, grayling, whitefish, burbot, and sheefish are also .present. Principal potential impacts include major highway relocation; disruption of anadromous fish passage; loss of fish and wildlife habitat, particu- larly waterfowl; loss of bison calving grounds; and loss of recreation use of natural waters. 3. Cook Inlet -Western Drainage This area is located immediately to the west of Cook Inlet between Tuxedni Bay on the south and Mt. Susitna on the north. Lower lying, lands are mostly State and private while the higher elevation lands to the west and south are Federally withdrawn for the Lake Clark National Monument and settlement of terms of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. The area lies within the Alaska Coastal Zone. 14 The area contains seven potential hydroelectric sites that range in capacity from 9 MW to 366 MW with total generation capability of 29347 GWh per year. Costs, not including provision for transmission, would be in the• magnitude of 1.6 times that of the Upper Susitna Project. A variety of wildlife are found in the area including moose, bear, sea mammals,. furbearers, upland game birds, and water fowl. Five species of salmon use the area and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game has identified several major salmon fishing areas along the shores of Cook _ Inlet Whitefish and trout are also present. The area is scenic with the lofty, ice clad Mt. Spurr and other mountains forming a picturesque .backdrop for the forest clad lowlands. Even though there is no road network, recreation use is heavy. Principal, potential impacts include age and habitat, .conflict with. bear and degradation of aesthetics. 4. Yeutna-Skweutua River Basin reduction,in anad.romous fish pass - in intensive use and denning areas,.. This basin lies across Cook Inlet to the -northwest from Anchorage and drains a large area into the lower reaches of the Susitna River. Lands are nearly all State and private with some Federal withdrawals at the higher elevations of the mountains to the west. The basin lies within the Alaska Coastal Zone. While there is no road network and access is by air and boat, recreational use is intense. The basin contains eight potential hydroelectric sites that range in capacity from 15 MW to 145 MW with total generation capability of 2,312 GWh per year. Costs, without provision for transmission, would be in the magnitude of 4.7 times that of the Upper Susitna Project. The basin supports numerous wildlife including moose, bear, Dall Sheep, furbearers, upland game birds, and migrating water fowl, as well as a significant part of the Cook Inlet anadramous fish resource. Five species of salmon are present and use the basin extensively. Trout, grayling, whitefish,- burbot, and Northern Pike are also present. Principal, potential impacts include loss of recreation use of natural waters; disruption of anadromous fish passage; loss of fish, wildlife, and waterfowl habitat; conflicts with bear denning and concentration use areas; and degradation of aesthetics. - 5. Talkeetna River Basin This basin lies to the east of the community of Talkeetna and drains the central and western portions of the Talkeetna Mountains. Lands are mostly in State ownership, while Federal land withdrawals lie along the northern rim of the basin and just east of the junction of the Talkeetn'= River and Iron Creek. There -is no road network in the basin, and access is mostly by air. 15 ::, The basin contains six potential hydroelectric sites that range in capacity from 5 MW to 74 MW with total generation capability of 1,107 GWh per year. Costs, without provision for transmission, would be in the magnitude of 6.4 times that of the Upper Susitna Project. Wildlife in the basin include moose, bear, Dall Sheep,, mountain goat,; caribou,. furbearers, upland game birds, and migratory waterfowl. Five species of salmon use the basin, principally below the confluence of the Talkeetna River and Prairie Creek. In addition, trout, burbot, gray- ling, and whitefish are found in various partsofthe basin. The major potential impacts would relate to disruption to, and possible loss of, anadromous fish and passage to spawning areas; loss of big game intensive use areas; and loss of the relatively unchanged, natural condition of the basin. 6. Chulitna River Basin This basin lies to the southwest of Cantwell and drains the southeast slopes of Mt. McKinley into the Susitna River at Talkeetna. Lands at the lower elevations of the river, valleys are mostly State and private, while Federal withdrawals cover the higher lands to the north and south. The Parks Highway and Alaska Railroad bisect the basin and provide easy access for the Railbelt :population. The basin is quite scenic with Mt. McKinley serving as a spectacular backdrop.. The basin contains six potential hydroelectric sites that range in capacity from 12 MW to 184 MW with total generation capability of 1,542 GWh per year. Costs, without provision for transmission, would be in the magnitude of double that of the Upper Susitna Project. Wildlife in the basin include moose, bear, caribou, Dall Sheep, fur - bearers, upland game birds, and migratory waterfowl. Four species of salmon are found in the basin in addition to trout, grayling, whitefish, and burbot. No major environmental impacts have been identified; however, there is potential for disruption, and possible loss of the anadromous fish resource and degradation of aesthetics. 7. Kenai Peninsula This area is just south of Anchorage and joins Cook Inlet on the west and the Pacific Ocean on the east and south. The area contains, a sig- nificant part of the State's highway and road network and includes several of the State's larger communities. The majority of the lands are within Federal withdrawals for a national wildlife refuge, national forest, national monument, and settlement of terms of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. State, and some private, lands are located around the western and southern rims of the Peninsula and in the Seward area. The area lies within the Alaska Coastal Zone. V The area contains 13 potential hydroelectric sites that range in capac- ity from, 6.MW to 94 MW with total generation capability of 2,211 GWh per year. Costs, not including provision for transmission, would be in the magnitude of 3..2 times that. of the Upper Susitna Project. The area supports a wide variety of wildlife including moose, bear, Dall Sheep, mountain goat, caribou, sea mammals, furbearers, upland game birds, seabirds, and waterfowl. Five species of salmon are found within the area and several major salmon fishing areas along the shores of Cook Inlet have been identified by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. The area is highly scenic, ranging from ocean fjords to rugged ice clad mountains. Recreation use is intensive Major potential environmental impacts would include disruption of the intense recreation use, reduction of anadromous fish resources, and degradation of aesthetics. 8. Scattered Sites, Tributary to Railbelt These sites are scattered all the way from east of Fairbanks to Anchor- age and. the Valdez areas. The sites. are generally small, widely sep- arated, and interconnection would be extremely 'expensive- Lands ;in volved include State, private, and Federal, dependent on the specific site location. In some. cases, Federal -withdrawals would preclude development. Thirteen potential hydroelectric sites are included that range in capac- ity from 4 MW to 82 MW with total generation capability of 2,207 GWh per year. Costs, not including provision for transmission, would be in the magnitude of 5 times that of the Upper Susitna Project. The general variety of wildlife found in the areas discussed previously is representative of these site locations. A number of the streams and rivers support salmon in addition to trout and other resident fish. No major environmental impacts have been identified; however, there is potential with each project, particularly those that involve the larger streams and rivers with anadromous fish, are in highly scenic areas, or would extinguish extensive wildlife habitat areas., 17 Combinations of the Most Economical Smaller Sites The third approach to evaluating a possible alternative to the Susitna Project is to combine the economically best small sites from each of the geographic areas. Only one site (Chakachamna) is within the economic range of Susitna. Twelve sites are within twice the cost range, and are included' in ,the following tabulation of the best small sites within the Railbelt area. Firm Energy Capacity Cost No. Site Stream GWh/year MW Mills/kWh 93 (32) Cresent Lake Cresent R. 179 41 9.9 94 (33) Chakachamna Chakachamna R. 1,600 366 6.5 97 (34) Coffee Beluga R. 160 37 11.5 98 (35) Upper Beluga Beluga R. 210 48 11.1 105 (36) Yentna Yentna R. 145) 1066 (37) Talachulitna Skwentna 1,390 75) 10.1 10.7 (38) Skwentna Skwentna 98) -(Yentna, Talachulitna, and Skwentna operated as a system) 109 (39) Lower Chulitna Chulitna 394 90 8.1 110 (40) Tokichitna Chulitna 806 184 8.8 112 (41) Keetna Talkeetna R. 324 74 11.3 150 (49) Snow Snow R. 278 63 11.2 158 (51) Lowe Lowe R. 254 55 11.2 Total - 5,595 1,276 The Lowe site has the severe disadvantage that it would block the major land access route to Valdez; it would also involve relocating the Trans — Alaska Oil Pipeline and a highway, and a planned transmission line between Valdez and Glennallen. Sites that 'are in designated national monuments or are included in proposed Federal land withdrawals include Cresent Lake and Chakachamna in the Lake Clark area, and Tokichitna in the Denali area. These sites represent approximately half of the total potential -power from the sites, leaving 685 MW capacity and 3,010 GWh energy. Bradley Lake (no. 154--Kenai Peninsula) with an index cost of 8.0 is not included because it is already an authorized project (Corps of Engineers). Another site, Lane (no. 124, 240 MW), with an index cost of 8.9- could also be included based on the less than 12.6 criteria, however, it is actually a part of the Susitna River system because it is immediately downstream from the Devil Canyon site. Cost: This would involve smaller increments of new investment, ut uniformly and progressively higher costs per installed W. Transmission system needs would be substantially greater also. 18 The program would very quickly 'move into significant fisheries prob- lems --by judgment substantially more significant than those of Upper Susitna., Expect significant impacts on game habitats, primarily moose. The "Small" Hydro Approach The existing hydroelectric projects near Anchorage (APA's Eklutna Proj- ect and Chugach Electric Copper Lake Project) are examples of smaller projects including relatively small drainage basins and generally favor- able .environmental aspects. If a large number of small. projects (say size range up to 30 MW or so) with favorable environmental aspects could be located, an ,alternative small- hydro approach -would make a:great.deal of sense The viability of the strategydepends on the extent of the resources- of good small projects, their cost, availability, and cumula- tive environmental impacts. Sites smaller than 2.5 MW would likely have to be fully automated opera- tions because a significant part of the revenue would be required for personnel to attend the plant. For .example, operation costs alone for a five -person staff would cost $200,000 per year, which would amount to 4,5 cents per kWh for a 1-MW plant operating at 50 percent plant factor. Sites of 2.5 MW and smaller cannot support transmission lines for very long distances; hence, to contribute positively to a power system, sites have to be close to the power market or an existing grid power system. A 50-mile transmission line costing $40,000 per mile would add 3.7 cents per kWh to the cost for a 1-MW plant. To meet Railbelt power needs by small hydros alone in the 1990 decade, 200 of the 1-MW powerplant sites would need to be developed annually. It is doubtful that 1/10 to 1/20 of this number of sites would be avail- able every year as an alternative to meet the full power needs of the Railbelt area The criteria and. examination procedure for :evaluating, cumulative envi ronmental.effects of developing several small hydro project sites will be the same criteria and procedure used in evaluating larger powersites. Sites that need only relatively short access roads, short transmission lines, and small dams could meet the criteria. Conversely, development of dozens of the small sites that each need roads, transmission lines, and dams, or long roads and transmission lines, could have accumulative environmental impacts that may exceed the effect of a single large project Logic suggests that several of the more economical smaller sites having a minimum of environmental effects could be constructed as supplemental local energy sources to large projects which meet major city utility requirements,