Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAddendum to Reconnaissance Report on Alternatives for the Haines-Skagway Region 1981ADDENDUM TO RECONNAISSANCE REPORT ON ALTERNATIVES FOR THE HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION R. W BECK AND AsSOCIATES, INC ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS APRIL 1981 L-__ ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY __ ---' P.O. BOX 2400 SITKA, ALASKA 99835 FILE NO. R. W BECK AND AsSOCIATES, INC HH-1559-HG2-AA 3110 Hr. Robert A. Hohn Director of Engineering Alaska Power Authority 333 West 4th Avenue, Suite 31 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Robert: ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS TOWER BUILDING 7TH AVENUE AT OLIVE WAY SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 206-622-5000 Subject: Addendum to Reconnaissance Report on Alternatives for the Haines-Skagway Region P.O. BOX 6818 KETCHIKAN, ALASKA 99901 June 25, 198 1 We are pleased to submit herewith the final letter report entitled Addendum to Reconnaissance Report on Alternatives for the Haines-Skagway Region. Also included are copies of letters commenting on the draft letter report, a summary of public meetings held in Haines and Skagway to discuss the draft report, and copies of letters from the Alaska Power Authority responding to the comments. In addition to the sites described in the letter report, we in- spected a site on Haska Creek. The site includes a masonry dam formerly used for water supply at the U.S. Army Post in Haines. We concur with the assess- ment presented in the February 1980 Reconnaissance Report which indicated that it may be economical to develop hydropower at Haska Creek only in conjunction with future development for potable water. The earlier report stated that there is insufficient generating potential for development as a power project only. The reconna1ssance assessment did not include consideration of the Chilkat River Gorge site north of Klukwan which was brought up during the pub- lic meeting in Haines on April 28, 1981. Practical development of the site would involve flooding of Canadian territory and therefore require a treaty between the United States and Canada. A smaller project not involving flood- ing of Canadian territory would probably not be an economical project when compared with the other alternatives. The Chilkat River Gorge site is dis- cussed more fully in the APAt s comments, a copy of which is attached in the Appendix. Mr. Robert A. Mohn -2-June 25, 1981 Copies of the calculations on each alternative have been provided to the Power Authority and are on file in their office. In addition, the oal- oulations are on file in Beck's Seattle Office. This completes Phase 1A of our Agreement. WVB : DRMll kb Enolosures Very truly yours, JL!W. BECK AND ASSOCIATES, INC. / I ( d~v~~ {~/ /,--/~~-- Donald R. Melniok Projeot Engineering Manager EXHIBITS ADDENDUM TO RECONNAISSANCE REPORT ON ALTERNATIVES FOR THE HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION CONTENTS Exhibit A -Trip Report Memorandum Exhibit B -Geotechnical Report Exhibit C -Environmental Aspects of Six Alternative Hydroelectric Power Sites in the Haines-Skagway Area APPENDIX Summary of Public Meetings APA Comments on Chilkat River Gorge Letter from Organization for Lynn Canal Fishermen's Rights, April 28, 1981 APA Response Letter from National Park Service, May 5, 1981 APA Response Letter from Alaska Department of Fish and Game, May 14, 1981 Letter from Alaska Power Administration, May 19, 1981 Letter from City of Skagway, May 21, 1981 Resolution by City of Skagway Letter from City of Haines, May 28, 1981 Letter from Haines Light and Power Company, May 28, 1981 Letter from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, May 28, 1981 P.O. BOX 2400 SITKA, ALASKA 99835 FILE NO. R. W BECK AND AsSOCIATES, INC WW-1559-HG2-AA 3110 Mr. Robert A. Mohn Director of Engineering Alaska Power Authority ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS TOWER BUILDING 7TH AVENUE AT OLIVE WAY SEATILE, WASHINGTON 98101 206-622-5000 333 West 4th Avenue, Suite 31 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Robert: Subject: Addendum to Reconnaissance Report on Alternatives for the Haines-Skagway Region P.O. BOX 6818 KETCHIKAN, ALASKA 99901 April 14, 1981 This letter revises our letter report of November 20, 1980 to in- clude an analysis of the Goat Lake site in addition to the six sites origi- nally studied. The Goat Lake site was not visited; therefore, all analyses of the site are based on map studies and office analyses. In addition, the pres- ent worth, benefit-cost analysis was modified in accordance with the latest APA regulations for all projects. Otherwise, the letter contains the same in- formation as the Letter Report of November 20, 1980 and, as such, fulfills the requirement of our Contract for the subject study with the Alaska Power Authority (APA) covering Phase lA, Site Reconnaissance. The purpose of the site reconnaissance work is to update and revise the February 1980 Reconnais- sance Assessment Report (RAR) prepared by CH2M Hill on hydroelectric poten- tial in the Haines-Skagway Region. Six sites in the Haines-Skagway Region were visited and inspected during the week of August 4, 1980. These sites are Dayebas Creek, Kasidaya Creek, Kelsall River, Nataga Creek, Upper Chilkoot Lake, and West Creek. The Goat Lake site was not visited since it was added to the study after comple- tion of the other site visits. Five of the sites are suitable only for par- tially meeting the needs of Haines while the West Creek and Goat Lake sites can be developed to meet the needs of either or both communities. Only three of the sites, West Creek, Upper Chilkoot Lake, and Goat Lake, have potential for storage. Preliminary project layouts, energy output estimates, and cost estimates were made for each site, and an economic comparison was made of the different alternatives. Further details as to the assumptions and methodolo- gies used in the study follow. Figure 1 is a map of the Haines-Skagway Region showing the location of the seven projects. Mr. Robert A. Mohn -2-April 14, 1981 LOAD PROJECTIONS The RAR included both high and low projections for loads and energy requirements in both Haines and Skagway through 1990. Although the growth of both demand and energy requirements is important in the sizing of the selected project, it is not significant in the comparison of the various alternatives. Thus, for purposes of this phase of the work we have used the average of the high and low projections as the energy requirement in each City. Peak demand for each City was taken by dividing the average annual capacity computed from the energy requirements by the historic load factor of 60% for Haines and 50% for Skagway. In addition, summer peaks were needed for those projects which are run-of-river, since the water is only available during the summer months. Based on information from the Haines Light and Power Company, the 1980 summer peak load is 69% of the winter (and annual) peak load. Assuming that the present pattern of energy use will continue, summer peaks were estimated. It is estimated that any of the potential hydro developments could be scheduled to enter into service in late 1986. Table 1 is a summary of the annual energy requirements and peak loads in Haines and Skagway for the first full year (1987) and the fifth (1991) and tenth year (1996) of project operation. The hydroelectric projects were sized using loads and energy re- quirements in 1996, the tenth year of operation. For all except West Creek, Upper Chilkoot Lake, and Goat Lake, the proposed projects can only operate in a run-of-river mode since little or no regulation storage is possible. Be- cause of the very low winter flows, there is no reason to size the projects to meet the annual peaks which occur during the winter. ThUS, the installed capacity of a new run-of-river hydro development, to meet the entire summer peak demand, should be 2,500 kW to meet Haines peak demand alone and 4,300 kW for Haines and Skagway combined. (The proposed installed capacities for West Creek and Goat Lake are less than the 1996 peak by the installed capacity of the existing hydro projects in Skagway.) Usable energy was estimated using the flow duration curve and recognizing that usable energy is limited not only by flow, but also by the demand at the time the flow occurs. Thus, the usable energy from a project will increase each year as the demand increases. This means that the sizing of the projects and the economic analyses are sensitive to the assumptions made concerning load growth. For the West Creek and Goat Lake sites there are potentials for storage which means that year-round operation is possible. Thus, in those cases the installed capacity was assumed equal to the estimated 1996 peak annual (winter) demand, reduced by the capacity of the existing hydro projects at Skagway. Thus, the new hydro developments should have an installed capac- ity of 3,600 kW for Haines alone and 5,350 kW for Haines and Skagway com- bined. Again, the usable energy increases with increasing demand. HYDROLOGY Gaged streamflow records are available for the following streams in the Haines-Skagway Study Region: Mr. Robert A. Mohn -3-April 14, 1981 1. West Creek near Skagway, USGS Gage No. 15056200 -Daily Flow Rec- ords June 1962 to September 1977. (Gage has been inoperational since Septem- ber 1977.) 2. Taiya River near Skagway, USGS Gage No. 15056210 -Daily Flow Rec- ords October 1969 to September 1977. (Gage has been inoperational since Sep- tember 1977.) 3. Skagway River at Skagway, USGS Gage No. 15056100 -Daily Flow Rec- ords October 1963 to September 1979. (Gage is still operational.) Flow records for these gages were studied and average annual and monthly flows computed. Daily flow duration curves for the gages were ob- tained from the USGS office in Anchorage, Alaska. In addition, Ott Water Engineers prepared a Water Resources Atlas for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Region 10, which in- cludes regression equations to estimate the mean annual and monthly flows and the daily flow duration curves of the streams in the Tongass National Forest. Statistics for the potential sites and the three stream gage sites were esti- mated using the regreSSion equations. Except for the average annual flow, the results obtained were not satisfactory. Average annual flows derived from average monthly flows and from the flow duration curve did not agree with the average annual flows calculated from regression equations, nor did the monthly flows or the duration curve agree with those calculated from the actual rec- ords of the three gages. However, the mean annual flows estimated using the regression equation for the West Creek and Taiya River gages agreed quite closely with the recorded mean flows. For the three gaged streams, non-dimensional flow duration curves were prepared by dividing the equaled to or exceeded flow by the mean annual flow, and plotting the ratio against the percent of time. These non-dimen- sional flow duration curves showed an excellent consistency in magnitude and shape as shown in Fig. 2. Thus, it was decided to use the regression equa- tions to compute mean annual flow and the non-dimensional flow duration curve to develop daily flow duration curves for the ungaged sites. Figure 3 shows the estimated daily flow duration curve of each potential hydro site. ALTERNATIVE PROJECTS The layouts for the six sites were developed based on the field reconnaissance described in the attached memorandum (Exhibit A) from Rahim Nasserziayee to Wilson Binger dated August 15, 1980. Observations by Alan O'Neill, Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Inc., on geotechnical aspects and by John Morsell, Dames and Moore, on environmental impacts, are included in their trip reports, copies of which are attached as Exhibits Band C. During the field reconnaissance, a special effort was made to iden- tify potential storage sites which could allow year-round use of the proj- ects. There were two possible sites for storage, at Upper Chilkoot and West Mr. Robert A. Mohn -4-April 14, 1981 Creek. Thus, for these sites storage alternatives have been included in addi- tion to the run-of-river alternative. Physical limits of the Upper Chilkoot Lake site impede providing storage to completely meet 1996 projected load requirements and, hence, only sufficient storage to meet 75% of the projected needs was considered. Two other options at West Creek, (1) to install only enough storage and capacity to meet the needs of Haines, and (2) to install a diversion dam and pipeline to meet the needs of Skagway alone, were also eval- uated. Layouts of the alternative projects are shown on Figs. 4 through 11. Descriptive data are summarized in Table 2. The map study of the Goat Lake site indicated that storage is also a possibility at that site. However, because no site visit was made, there remains a question as to whether or not the existing lake contains usable storage or if all storage must be above the present water surface. If there is no usable storage below the present lake surface, a 50-foot high dam would be required to meet the 1996 energy requirements of both communities. Assum- ing that the lake has sufficient storage to meet one-half the annual require- ments would lower the dam height to 30 feet. Thus, two options, one with a 30-foot high dam and one with a 50-foot high dam, were evaluated. A third option, to meet the energy requirements of Skagway alone, would require a 20-foot high dam and was also investigated. The layout of the project is shown on Fig. 12. Descriptive data is summarized in Table 2. COST ESTIMATES A preliminary cost estimate of current cost level (July 1980) for each project was developed based on the above described layouts. The result- ing Direct Construction Costs are summarized in Table 3. The Total Investment Cost was arrived at by adding indirect costs of 20% for contingency, 15% for engineering and owner administration, and 10.2% for interest during construc- tion. Current costs for the projects were escalated to a mid-1984 contract bid date using an inflation rate of 7% per year. Based on a 2-1/2 year con- struction season this will result in a project entering into service in late 1986. Interest during construction was calculated using an interest rate of 8.5%. COSTS OF POWER AND ECONOMIC EVALUATION As explained above, costs of energy will vary during the first years of operation due to inflation and the changing load requirements. In order to make a preliminary comparison between the alternative projects, the cost of power was estimated from a project in 1996, corresponding to the tenth year of project operation. To arrive at the annual debt service financing was assumed with a bond issue for a 35-year term at 8.5% interest. Annual opera- tion and maintenance costs fOl~ the first year of operation (1987) were esti- mated at 1.3% of the Total Investment Cost and escalated at 7% per year there- after. The results are summarized in Table 4. For comparison purposes fuel costs for diesel generators in the region are projected to be 41¢ per kWh in Mr. Robert A. Mohn -5-April 14, 1981 1996 assuming 10.5% annual escalation in petroleum fuel costs from current values (3.5% more than other escalation). Based on these predicted 1996 costs of diesel generated energy it is obvious that the Kelsall, Nataga, and Kasidaya sites are significantly less economical than the alternatives at West Creek, Upper Chilkoot, and Goat Lake and have a higher cost than the diesel alternative. Further, they meet only a fraction of the City's load requirements thus requiring substantial continued generation by diesel fuel. ThUS, no further analysis was made of these sites. For the West Creek, Upper Chilkoot, Dayebas, and Goat Lake alterna- tives, a present-worth, benefit-cost analysis was made over an analysis period starting with 1981 and extending through the life of the hydro project, as- sumed to be 50 years. Since the projects were planned to meet the needs of either Haines or Skagway alone or Haines and Skagway combined, three separate comparisons have been made. In each case, benefits were taken as the present worth of continued use of diesel generation over the entire analysis period. Capital and operation and maintenance costs were assumed at the July 1980 base and not escalated. Fuel was escalated at 3.5% per year through the first 20 years and then held constant. Project costs were taken as the total cost of meeting annual requirements using a combination of the hydro project and die- sel generation. The same escalation assumptions were applied to costs as to benefits. All annual costs were discounted at 3% to a present worth value and summed. The resulting present worth costs and benefit-cost ratios are summar- ized in Table 5 for projects meeting the energy requirements of the Haines market, in Table 6 for projects meeting the energy requirements of the Skagway market, and in Table 7 for projects meeting the energy requirements of the combined Haines and Skagway market. Table 8 summarizes the most prom1s1ng alternatives for meeting the energy needs of the Haines-Skagway Region including both single projects and combinations of separate projects for each community. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS None of the sites appear to have environmental impacts sufficiently severe to preclude development. The Kasidaya and Dayebas Creek sites appear to have the least overall impact. The Kelsall and Nataga sites have greater impacts both on anadromous fish resources and on bald eagle nesting areas. Development of the Upper Chilkoot Lake site will impact on visual resources and potential recreation uses of the area. The transmission line will pass through a wildlife management area of considerable recreation use which may cause increased environmental problems. The West Creek site has possible impacts on anadromous fish and will require investigation in this area prior to licensing. Development of the storage site will involve the loss of some terrestrial habitat, but with the mitigating formation of lake habitat. Addi- tional detail as to the environmental settings and impacts can be found in Exhibit C. Mr. Robert A. Mohn -6-April 14, 1981 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Our studies show that the power needs of Haines and Skagway can only be completely met by hydropower if a storage site can be developed. Without the storage capability, hydro projects will only meet some energy requirements during the high flow season, May through October. This is the period of lower demand which means that sufficient capacity of another sort must be available and must be used annually to meet the annual peaks. Also, the energy output from a possible site is limited by the energy requirements of the community. The combined effect of these two factors is to significant- ly increase the energy costs of the run-of-river type projects. On the other hand, storage projects can be used throughout the year and thus replace not only the energy generated with diesel power, but also the installed capacity. This will be the case even if the available storage can meet only a portion of the total annual requirements. The most attractive project economically is development of the West Creek site with storage to meet the needs of both Haines and Skagway. The Goat Lake site with a 30-foot high dam appears almost as attractive, but has certain limitations. First, because no site visit was made to the site it is very possible that a higher and thus more costly dam will be required to meet the storage requirements. Second, the West Creek site has definite potential for relatively inexpensive expansion should this become necessary at some later date. Because of its high elevation and small drainage area, inflow to Goat Lake is limited and the proposed project is probably close to maximum use of the site. It is, therefore, concluded that development of the West Creek site with storage to meet the needs of both Haines and Skagway will best provide for the energy needs of the region. It also has the advantage of providing a transmission intertie between Haines and Skagway. WVB:DRM/lkb Enclosures Very truly yours, ~-R.I) .• BECK AND ASSOCIATES, INC. ·[·~·e/~- Donald R. Melnick Executive Engineer TABLE 1 HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION STUDY SITE RECONNAISSANCE SUMMARY OF MEAN PROJECTIONS, 1979-1996 ENERGY AND PEAK LOAD SKAGWAY 1979 1987(7) 1991 1996 Total Energy Requirements (MWH) . 6,042(1) 5,839(1) 7,173(2) 9,200(2) Annual Peak LOad (kW) ........... 1,279 (1) 1,333(1) 1,639(2) 2,100(2) HAINES 1979 1987(7) 1991 1996 Total Energy Requirements (MWH) . 6,732(3) 12,348(4) 14,417(6) 18,840(6) Annual Peak LOad (kW) ........... 1,296(3) 2,349(5) 2,743(5) 3,584(5) (1) From Reconnaissance Assessment Report (RAR) on Energy Alternatives Chilkat River Basin Region, by CH2M Hill, February 1980 -Mean of High and LOw Projections, Table 14. (2) projected at 5.1% per year from 1990 mean projections as assumed in RAR. (3) Actual figures -obtained from Alaska Electric Light and Power COmpany - Haines. (4) From Reconnaissance Assessment of Energy Alternatives Chilkat River Basin Region, by CH2M Hill, February 1980 -Medium Projections, Table 7. (5) Computed from energy projections using annual load factor of 60%. (6) Projected at 5.5% per year from 1990 mean projections as assumea in RAR. (7) Schedule for hydroelectric development estimated to result in on-line date of late 1986 for all potential sites. 1987 is first full year of opera- tion, and 1991 and 1996 are fifth and tenth years of project operation. II!. I NI::5-Sl<AG\JI\Y REG lOr.. S1'U DY SITE RECONNAISSANCE PHOJEC'l' lll\TI'. Day"bas KilSlui.iya Kelsall Hataga Creek Creek !liver Creek Installed Capacity (kW) 2,,500 2,500 2,500 ;0,500 Static Heaa (ft. ) ............. 580 540 110 800 Drainage Area (Sc!. Miles) 11.<;1 19.95 294.7 14.05 ~'ean Annual Flow (cfs) .. 73 13B 705 48 Dam Height (ft. ) .............. 30 30 60 30 Power TUnnel Length (ft. ) 3,750 2,700 2,100 9,550 Po\~er Shaft Leng th (ft. ) 640 600 800 (l) -With diversion dam only. (2) -With 107-foot high. storage dam. (3) -With 95-foot high, storage dam, Haines energy requirements only. (4) -With diversion dam and pipeline, Skagway energy requirclllellls orlly. (5) -pi{Jeline length. West Creek (l) 4,300 280 40.35 313 30 2,800 300 West Crcek (2) 5,350 672 37.16 288 107 10,500 870 \>/Cht Creek (3) 3,600 660 37.16 288 95 10,500 870 TAbLE 2 Page 1 of 2 WE:st Creel<. (4) 1,500 595 37.16 288 (5) HAINJ,;S-SI<AG~JAY Rr;GIOi, STUDY SITe: RECONNAISSANCE: Upper Ch ilkoot Lake (6) Installed Capacity (k~) 2,500 Static Head (ft. ) ....... 2,085 Drainage Area (sq. ~!iles) 5.02 Mean Annual Flow (cfs) .. 32 Dam Height (ft. ) ............. 15 Power Tunnel Length (ft. ) 3,150 Power Shaft Length (ft. ) 2,450 (6) -With no storage. (7) -With 40-foot high storage da~m. (8) -\~ith 50-foot high storage aam. (9) -With 30-foot hi')h storage <'lam. (10) -With 20-foot high storaye dam, Skagway energy requirements only. U1>1>er Ch ilko6t Lake (7) 3,600 2,110 5.02 32 40 3,150 :l,450 Goat Lake Goat Lake (8) (9) 5,350 5,350 2,165 2,145 4.24 4.24 31 31 50 30 3,900 3,900 2,600 2,600 TAOLI; 2 Page 2 of 2 Goat Lake (10) 2,100 2,135 4.24 31 20 3,900 2,6()0 Preparatory Work ........ Access Roads or Port Facilities ........ Dam and Reservoir .. O' ... Power conduit & Intake Power plant .................... Transmission Lines Total Direct Construction Cost (July 1980 Level) ... Dayebas Creek $ 9.00,000 2,000,COO 5,700,000 3,200,000 1,800,000 3,860,000 $17,460,000 (1) -IHth diversion dam only. (2) -with 107-foot high storage dam. Kc.siduya Creek $ 900,000 2,000,000 3,200,000 2,B06,000 1,BOO,000 7,179,000 $17,B85,000 HAINES-SKAGwAY REGION S'l'UUY SI'l'\:: kECONNAISSANCE SUffi<lARY m' PHEL IMI NI\RY COS'£ ESTHIA'rE!:> Kelsall Natilsa west Creek )Hvcr Creek (1) $ 1,250,000 $ 850,00G $ 650,000 360,(JOO 350,000 350,000 10,360,000 4,280,OllO 3,000,000 11,260,000 8,9~6,000 3,300,000 1,640,000 1,120,000 2,900,000 9,500,UOO 9,300,000 11,488,000 $34,370,000 $:<'O,B26,000 $21,688,000 (3) -with 95-foot high storage darn, Haines energy require.nents only. (4) -With diversion dam and pipeline, Skagwc;y energy requirements only. West Creek viest Creek (2) (3) $ 900,000 $ 800,000 600,000 GOO,UOO 7,B75,OOO 5,475,000 8,514,000 8,464,000 2,300,000 1,900,000 11, 4cHl, 000 11,48B,000 $31,677,000 $2B, 7'<.7,000 'l'JlbLE 3 Puge 1 of 2 ViEst Creek (4) $ 440,000 600,000 920,000 2,201,000 2,051,000 1,:<08,000 $7,420,000 Preparatory Work •..•. Access koads or pOrt Facilities .... Dam and Reservoir ..•. pOwer Conduit & Intake pOwer plant •..•..•.•. Transmission Lines ••• TOtal Direct Construction Cost (July 1980 Level) (5) -Hith no storage. (6) -With 40-toot high (7) -With 50-foot high (6) -With 30-foot high (9) -~ith 20-foot high BAINES-SKAGWAY kEGIOI, STUDY SI'l'E HECONNAlbSANCE Upper Chilkoot Upper Chilkoot Goat Lake Lake (5) Lai{e (6) (7) $ 650,000 $ 650,000 $ 1,750,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 b50,OOO 2,000,000 10,870,000 30,700,000 4,454,000 4,454,000 5,080,000 1,330,000 1,450,000 1,950,000 4,300,000 5,010,000 11,500,000 $13,734,000 $23,434,000 $51,1>:;0,000 storage clalll. storaye dahl. storage dam. storage dam, Skagway energy rc~yu lremenls only. Goat Lake (El) $ 1,050,000 650,000 13,2(JO,OOO 5,080,000 1,950,000 11,500,000 $33,430,000 TABLIC 3 Page 2 of 2 Goat Lake (9) $ 900,000 1,100,000 5,2(jO,OOO 5,080,000 l,300,OuO l,bOO,OOO $15,180,000 IJAINE::;-SKAGWAY HEGIOiJ S'£UDY ::;ITE HBCONNAISSANCt: 1996 CO::;'!' OF I::NERGY ::;U~.ARY Dayebas Kasioaya l;e!>;all [,,,taga Creek Creek River Creek Installed Capacity (kW) 2,500 2,500 2,~00 2,500 Direct Construction Cost (7/1980) ($) 17,460,000 17,885,000 34,370,000 24,826,000 Total Investment Cost (Mid-1984 Bid On-Line Date 1986) ($) 34,811,000 35,657,000 68,525,000 49,495,000 Cost/Installed kW ($/kW) 13,900 14,300 27,410 19,800 Total Annual Cost (1996) ($) ........ 4,156,000 4,257,000 8,180,000 5,907,000 Usable Average 1'-annual Energy (MWh) 7,420 9,230 9,050 7,090 % of Average Annual Energy Provided by Potential Hydro ... 39" 49% 4U'b 38'1, Cost of Energy (1996) 56.0¢/kWh 46.1¢/k~ih 90. 4¢/k\~h G3.3¢/kWh (1) -With diversion dam only, Haines and Skagway 10aos. (2) -with 107-foot high storage oarll, Haines and Skagway loaus. (3) -With 95-foot high storage dam, Haines energy reCjuirements only. (4) -With diversion oam alld pipeline, Skagway energy reCjuirenlents only. 'l'ABLE 4 Page 1 of 2 ... est Creek ~,est CreeK West Creek West Creek (1) (2) (3) (4 ) 4,300 5,350 3,600 1,500 21,688,000 31,677,000 28,727,000 7,420,000 43,240,000 63,155,000 57,273,000 14,788,000 10,100 11,804 15,900 9,859 5,161,000 7,538,000 6,838,000 1,765,000 13,490 26,540 18,840 5,000 51% 1(j0~ 100% 65% (Haines (Skagway Only) only) 38.3¢/kWh 28.4¢/kWh 36.3¢/kl'oh 33.3¢/kWh Installed Capacity (kW) Direct Construction Cost (7/1980) ($) Total Investment Cost (Mid-1984 Hid On-Line Date 1986) ($) Cost/Installeo kW ($/kW) TOtal Annual Cost (1996) ($) ••••••••••• Usable Average Annual Energy (MWh) ••.••..•. % of Average Annual Energy Provided by POtential Hydro •.••.. Cost of Energy (1996) •. (5) -with no storage. (6) -With 40-foot high (7 ) -With 50-foot high (8) -IHth 30-foot high (9) -With 20-1oot high IIAI NES-SKAGvIAY IiliGION 5'l'UDY 51'1'1:. RECOHNl\ISSANCE Upper Ch ilkoot Upper Chilkoot Goat Lake Lake (5) Lake (6) (7) 2,500 3,600 5,350 13,734,000 23,434,000 51,630,000 27,381,000 46,720,000 102,935,000 10,900 12,970 19,240 3,:.168,000 5,~76,OOO 12,28b,OOO 8,370 14,130 26,540 44~ 100¥. 39.0¢/I;Wh 39.5¢/kWh 46.34/kl.h storage dan •. storage. storage Oanl. storage dam, Sk"gway energy requiremer.ts only. Goat Lake (8) 5,350 33,430,000 66,649,000 12,458 7,955,000 26,540 100'!. 30.0¢/kWh 'j'ABLB 4 Page 2 of Go"t Lake (9) 2,100 15,180,000 30,264,000 14,411 3,b12,OOO 7,700 100% (Skagway Only) 46.9¢/kWh 2 present Worth Cost ($1,000) Benefi t-Cost Ratio · " .. " " " " 1987 Usable Energy " " " " " " " " 1991 UsablE: Energy · . " " " . " . 1996 Usable Energy · " " " " " " " ( 1) -vii th 95-foot high storage (2) -vJith rio storage. (3) -vlith £l0-foot high storage HAINES-SKAGwAY REGION STUDY SITE RECONNAISSANCE E;Cm~OMIC ANALYSIS OF PROJECTS POI{ HAINES HARKET ALONE Base Case \'Jest Creek UE12 er (1 ) (2 ) $127,010 $93,120 $109,810 1.36 1.16 12,350 Hwh 12,350 r-:lv~h 5,940 h~~h 14,420 I"i.vh 14,420 NWh 6,920 fi1VJh 18,840 HWh 18,840 N~\jh 8,370 M\'¥'h dam. dam. TABLE 5 Chilkoot Dayebas (3) $91,240 $120,160 1.39 1. 06 12,350 hv~h 5,575 h~~h 14,130 r'iV'ih 6,315 hWh 14,130 I"Mh 7,420 1:1'Vlh Present Worth Cost Benefit-Cost Ratio 1987 Usahle Energy 1991 Usable Energy 1996 Usable Energy HAINES-SKAGv.AY REGION STUDY SI'l'E RECONNAISSANCE ECONOHIC ANhLYSIS OF PROJ:t;CTS FOR SKAGWA Y HI1.RKET ALOlJE ~~est Creelc Buse Case ( 1) ($1,000) 52,l60 38,980 · ....... 1.34 · ....... 5,840 t-1"~h(3) 2,820 !-1hh · ....... 7 , 170 r-1\vh (3) 3,(;90 l\JVih · ....... 9, 7.00 Iv1~';h (3) 5,000 ~~'~h (1) -with 6iversion dam and pipeline. (2) -With 20-foot high storage darn. (3) -Includes average of 1,500 r4Wh which is met with existing hydro. 'l'AbLE 6 C..oat Lake ( 2) 45,440 1.15 4,340 i'lWh 5,670 M\'lh 7,700 I-';i-ih Base HAINES-SKAGWAY REGIOH STUDY SITE RECO~NAISSANCE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS GAINES AND SKAGtiiAY r-1ARKET Case \<Vest Creek ( 1) (2 ) present vvorth Cost ($1,000) $179,170 $142,120 $117,390 Benefit-Cost Ratio (8) .... 1987 Usable Energy · ....... 16,690 1991 usable Energy · ....... 20,090 1996 Usable Energy · ....... 26,540 (1) -~Hth diversion dam only. en -With 107-foot high storage dam. (3) -with 50-foot high storage Jam. (4) -\'Vith 3D-foot high storage tlillll. 1.26 1. 53 MvJh 8,070 I'iWh 16,690 iiMh l'Mh 9,860 Mhh 20,090 ~~h r~ih 13,490 Ev~h 26,540 Hv~h 'l'ABLE 7 Goat LClke (3) (4 ) $149,850 $120,220 1. 20 1. 49 16,690 t-'lwh 16,690 r<lYih 20,090 r.1Wh 20,090 tJj~vh 26,540 j\i~Jb :l6,540 r··-;w IJ Alternative HAINES-SKAG\vAY REGION S'l'UDY SITE RECONNAISSANCE SUlfiMARY OF ECONmnC ANALYSIS (1) Present Worth n:aines Skagway Cost Base Case $127,010,000 $5L,160,000 'v~est Creek (2) (Haines and Skagway) Goat Lake(3) (Haines and Skagway) Goat Lc:ke(4) (Skagway) and Upper Chilkoot(5) (Haines) West Creek (6) (SI<agway) and Upper Ch ilkoot (5) (Haines) ~1,240,O(j0 45,440,000 91,240,000 38,980,00C (1) -This table summarizes the most prolilising alternatives for meeting the energy neeos of the Haines-skagway H.egion including both single projects and combinations of separate projects for ea.ch community. (2) -with 107-foot high storage dam. (3) -with 30-foot high storage dam. (4) -1'1i th 20-foot high storage dam. (5) -\\:ith 40-foot high storage dam. (6) -with ~iversion dam and pipeline. Combineu $179,170,000 117,390,000 120,220,000 136,680,000 130,2LO,00U Tl'd:lLE 8 B€nefi t-Cost Ratio 1. 53 1. 49 1.31 1.. 38 I <)' '-' VICINITY MAP NOTE: Topography from U.S.G.S. I: 250,000 Skagway, Alaska -Canada. 1961. LEGEND "A. Overhead Transmission Line ......--.-Submerged Transmission Line o X + Gaging Station location (See fiO.2) TR ANSMISSION LINES o West Creek-Skagway-Haines ® Kasadaya -Haines o Dayebas -Haines o Upper Chilkoot -Haines ® Kelsall-Haines ® Nataga -Haines (2) Goat Lake -Skagway -Haines DATEo 4miles I o 4 miles I R. W. BECK and ASSOCIATES -.s NfII CONSUlTANTS SMale, WIIhII ..... ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY ANCHORAGE. ALASKA HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION STUDY LOCATION MAP OF POTENTIAL HYDROELECTRIC SITES .... OCT. 1980 LEGEND ® West Creek-Draina~e area 40.35 sq. miles; Average annual flow (}=313 CFS; Mean basin elevation 3320, 15 yrs. of record X Talya River -Drainage area 179 sq· miles; AveralJl annual flow Q = 1136 CFS; Mean basin elevation 3470 t 8 vrs. of record + Skagway River -Drainage area 145 sq· miles; Average annual flow Q = 527 CFS; Mean balln elevation -3740, 16 yrs of record R. W. BECK and ASSOCIATES EHIINEEIS NIO COHSUlTANTS ........ WlWaIII ... .,INo ..... _. DeIww. CoIondo ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY ANCHORAGE. ALASKA HAl NES -SKAGWAY REGION STUDY NON -DIMENSIONAL GAGED DAILY FLOW DURATION CURVES L-~ ______ , ________ ~_~_= __________________ ~~_C_~._19_8_0 __ .I~_~~~ __ ~1_~_·~_·~I~Mk ___ 2 __ --J 900 \ 90 1 \ \ 400 , 800 \ 80 \ \ \ \ \ 700 70 \ \ , 300 , 600 ~ 60 220 -1\ -\ 1\ (J) \ 1f) -lL. lL. 200 (J) u 500 u 50 \ Dayebas Creek lL. \ Kasidaya Creek -\ West Creek \ Goat Lake u -180 drainage area -\ drainage area UJ \ qrainage area w 1 uraiOage area 4.24 -t,!) ~ 160 11.90 sq. miles, UJ 200 19.95 sq. miles, 400 40.35 sq. miles, t,!) 40 sq. miles,average t,!) \ 0::: \ 0::: ~ average annual average annual <t average annual <t annual discharge 140 0::: ::I: 1\ discharge 73 CFS, <t \ discharge 138 CFS, \ discharge 313 CFS, ::I: \ 31 CFS, mean w 120 ::I: u U t,!) \ mean basin EI. 2900 u \ mean basin EI.3670 (J) 300 \ mean basin EI. 3320 (J) 30 1 basin EI. 4110 0::: 100 (J) 0 0 <t \: -\ , \ ::I: 0 I-U 80 100 200 20 (J) \ r\ ~ E 60 1\ , \: \. "-40 "-, 100 " 10 """,,-20 ....... '-~ ""'-............ 0 0 ~ 0 r-- 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 ·100 0 20 40 60 80 100 PERCENT TIME PERCENT TIME PERCENT TIME PERCENT TIME 90 \ \ 80 160 70 \ 140 \ _ 60 2400 120 \ (J) \ \ LL U \ \ II I (i) , -50 Upper Chilkoot Lake Kelsall River 100 Nataga Creek \ 2000 lL. LLI drainage area I \ drainage area u drainage area t,!) -a:: \ 5.02 sq. miles, -\ 294.7 sq. miles, 14.05 sq. miles, <t40 average annual (J) 1600 average annual w 80 averaqe annual '( lL. t,!) \ ::I: discharge 32 CFS, u , discharge 70~ CFS, 0::: discharge 48 CFS, u (J) \ -<t \ mean basin EJ. 33 00 5 mean basin EI. 3880 \ mean basin EI 3710 ::I: 30 UJ 1200 u 60 \ t,!) \ (J) \ It W. BECK and ASSOCIATES a:: -, <t \ 0 \ ENGINEEIS AND COHSULTAHTJ 20 ::I: 800 40 SeItde. wlllhington o.n_. CoIor8do i\ u \ " , (J) ...... oIIIceI: T_ BuIdIIw. s.IIIt, .......... 101 \. 0 , I\, 10 400 20 , , "-ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY "'-........ '--~ ANCHORAGE , ALASKA ~ 0 0 0 or-HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION STUDY 0 ';' ~. ,~, 100 40 60 80 100 20 40 60 'fao 100 0 20 40 60 80 0 20 ESTIMATED DAILY FLOW, DURATJON PERCENT T I ME PERCENT TIME PERCENT TIME CURVES FOR POTENTIAL HYDRO SITES DAtil DMWNI IT'I'" 3 OCT. 1980 PJG --..-.--..,,-.~.~-~~---.. --~-~-~-~~ .""" .. ',,""""'''..-: .... - PLAN 1000' 0 11111111111 1000' I Crest· of diversion dam EI.600'± Stream 7'modified H.S. ~~~ 570 :t tunnel L= 2350' ;!: (unlined) 5' ~ shaft L=640'± Powerhouse T.W. EI.20 7' modified H.S. tunnel L= 1400' t (Partially lined) (Unlined.except for cover limitation) PROFILE ALONG i OF POWER CONDUIT NOTE Where rock cover on power conduit is less than 1. head I power conduit is to be concrefe lined and where less than 1 head, it is to be steel and concrete linea. R. W. BECK and ASSOCIATES ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY ANCHORAGE. ALASKA HAINES -SKAGWAY REGION STUDY DAYEBAS HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT CONCEPTUAL ARRANGEMENT DAlIo OCT. 1980 .... 4 ,/ (' i , / I I • I i I ;' ~--Powerhouse .... • II) " c:: , " ! c:l .~ ~ PLAN 1000' 0 1000' ~I~,~, ~'~I ~I~I ~I wi I~I ________ ~! diversion dam EI. 560:! Stream bed ~----~ Existing ground surface EI. 530:t 8' modified H.S. tunnel L= 1000'± (Unlined) Powerhouse 5' fII'-:sh-a~ft------'::::::,:-c1=---==:--T. W. E I. 20 L=600 ± S'modified H.S.tunnel, L = 1700':! (Partially lined) (Unlined,except for cover limitation) PROFILE ALONG ct OF POWER CONDUIT NOTE Where rock cover on power conduit is less than i head,power conduit is to be concrete lined and where less than * head, it is to be steel and concret lined DATEs R. W. BECK and ASSOCIATES INMfffllS AND CONSUlTANTS Den_. CoIoredo ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY ANCHORAGE. ALASKA HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION STUDY KASIDAYA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT CONCEPTUAL ARRANGEMENT OCT. 1980 Nt 5 PLAN 1000' 0 1000' Stream bed EI. 480! I , ! I I ! t I I I I I Crest of spillway EI. 540 ± 9'1/1 buried penstock L= 2100'± Powerhouse PROFILE ALONG ct OF POWER CONDUIT R. W. BECK GIld ASSOCIATES ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY ANCHORAGE, ALASKA HAINES -SKAGWAY REGION STUDY KELSALL HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT CONCEPTUAL ARRANGEMENT Dot.TII OCT. 1980 .... 6 Stream bed EI.1420 :! Crest of diversion dam EJ. 1450 a'modified H.S., tunnel L =8000 ± 1000' PLAN o I'III'""! 1000' I Existing ground surface 6'; shaft L=aOO'± (Partially lined) PROFILE ALONG t OF POWER CONDUIT 8' modified H.S. L ::1550± Powerhouse T.W. EI.650± (Unlined,except for cover limitation) NOTE Where rock cover on power conduit is I ess than ~ head, power conduit is to be concrete lined and where less than * head, it is to be steel and concrete lined. R. W. BECIC and ASSOCIATES __ AND CONIUlTAII1I ...... ,.: ......... ' ...... ..... '-................... UIl ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY ANCHORAGE, ALASKA HAINES -SKAGWAY REGION STUDY NATAGA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT CONCEPTUAL ARRANGEMENT ~1Ia OCT. 1980 .... 7 PLAN 1000' 0 111""'"' 1000' I Existing lake W·S. EI. 2270 j: W.S. EI. with storage 2310± storage 2285 ! Existing ground surface \ >0 * * <'. ~ <;: ;, "* < ,,' '" "" It , / Powerhouse '---T-------__ ---.:~~~T~,W~. ;:.E'I. 200.:t 7' modified H,S. tunnel L= 3150'±(Unlined, except for cover limitation) PROFILE ALONG <lOF POWER CONDUIT NOTE: Where rock cover on power conduit is less than ~ head, power conduit is to be concrete lined and where less than *' head, it is to be steel and concrete lined. R. W. BECK and ASSOCIATES fN8INfflS AND CONSUlTANTI s..tde, w~ Dtnvw. CoIondo ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY ANCHORAGE. ALASKA HAl NES -SKAGWAY REGION STUDY UPPER CHILKOOT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT CONCEPTUAL ARRANGEMENT ~~ ~ 8 OCT. 1980 Stream bed EI.300:t 9' modified H. S· tunnel, L=1700'± (Unli ned except bottom) 1000' 0 i, « « , I « , I , , 1000' Crest of diversion dam E I. 330! ground surface 7 I 0 shaft ,L=300± (Partially lined) Powerhouse 9' modified H·S· tunnel L=IIOO'± (Unlined,except bottom and for cover limitation) PROFILE ALONG <t.. OF POWER CONDUIT NOTE Where rock cover on power conduit is less than ~ head, power conduit Is to be .co~crete' lined and where less than * head, It IS to be steel and concrete lined R. W. BECK CIfId ASSOCIATES ....... ww ...... ' ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY ANCHORAGE. ALASKA HAINES -SKAGWAY REGION STUDY WEST CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ALTERNATIVE WITH DIVERSION DAM CONCEPTUAL ARRANGEMENl DATI: OCT. 1980 .... 9 ( Normal maximum W.S.EI.712 (Haines and Skagway demand) , ~rmal max. W.S. EI. 700 (Haines demand only) Stream bed EI. 61. 5 6' f) tunnel (machine bored) (Unlined) L=7700'± PLAN 1000' 0 111'11,"11 1000' 1 Ex isting ground surface 6 'f) shaft L=870± (Partially lined) PROFILE ALONG ct. OF POWER CONDUIT ~---------------------------------------------------------------------------- L---------~--------------~J_·-EI. 40± 6'~ tunnel (machine bored) L=2800'± (Unlined ,except for cover limitation) ,f NOTE Where rock cover on power conduit is less than ~ head, power conduit is to be concrete lined and where less than ~ head, it is to be steel and concrete lined. R. W. BECK and ASSOCIATES tHelHEEIS AND CONSULTANTS Seattle, WMhlngton ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY ANCHORAGE, ALASKA HAINES -SKAGWAY REGION STUDY WEST CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ALTERNATIVE WITH STORAGE DAM CONCEPTUAL ARRANGEMENT ~ ~ 10 OCT. 1980 (Normal W.S. EI. 630 ~ Dam PLAN 1000' 0 I I I I I I I I I I I. 1000' 1 2.5' tJ surface pipeline, L=2.7 miles Existing ground surface PROFILE ALONG £ OF POWER CONDUIT fI 1/ / { ./ Surge tank \, t f R. W. BECK and ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS S .. nl., Washington Denver, Colorado Ge .... 1 DIIIces: Tower Build ..... SUttle, W.shl ..... 98101 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY ANCHORAGE, ALASKA HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION STUDY \, WEST CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ALTERNATIVE WITH DIVERSION DAM AND PIPELINE CONCEPTUAL ARRANGEMENT OATE: APPROVED: RG: II APR. 1981 ~ Existing W.S. E 1.2965 or 2945 PLAN ground surface 7 I modified H S tunnel L:: 3900 I (Unlined I except for cover limitation) EI.IOOO ± Powerhouse PROFlLE ALONG <t OF POWER CONDUIT NOTE Where rock cover on power conduit is less than ~ head, power conduit i:~ to be concrete lined and where less than :1r head I it is to be steel and concrete lined. 1000' 0 11111111111 1000' I R.. W. BECK and ASSOCIATES fNGIHffllS AND CONSULTANTS Sutde. wMhington Denwr. Colorado ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY ANCHORAGE. ALASKA HAINES -SKAGWAY REGION STUDY GOAT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT CONCEPTUAL ARRANGEMENT DATE: MAR. 1981 FKr. 12 EXHIBIT A Trip Report Memorandum EXHIBIT A R. W BECK AND AsSOCIATES, INC 1'0. BOX 2400 SITKA, AlASKA 99835 FILE NO. WW-1559-HG2-AA 3006.2 To: Wilson Binger ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS TOWER BUILDING 7TH AVENUE AT OLIVE WAY SEATILE. WASHINGTON 98101 206-622-5000 MEMORANDUM From: Rahim Nasserziayee Subject: Trip Report, August 4 -6, 1980 Reconnaissance of Six Potential Hydroelectric Sites, in the Haines, Skagway Region, for the Alaska Power Authority Summary August 15, 1980 The field reconnaissance of the potential hydroelectric sites PO. BOX 6818 KETCHIKAN, ALASKA 99901 in the Haines -Skagway Region was made to inspect the five sites recommended to the APA in our letter of July 14, 1980. One additional site on Nataga Creek was identified during the trip and has been included in the reconnaissance. In addition to the field reconnaissance of the potential hydroelectric sites as listed below, the trip included an office visit with the Haines Light and Power Company in Haines, and a reconnaissance party discussion session at the hall of the fire department in Haines, Alaska. Reconnaissance Sites 1. Kelsall River 2. Upper Chilkoot 3. West Creek 4. Kasidaya Cre~k 5. Dayebas Creek 6. Nataga Creek Reconnaissance Party Members Jim Williamson -R. W. Beck and Associates Don Melnick -R. W. Beck and Associates Rahim Nasserziayee -R. W. Beck and Associates John Morsell -Dames and Moore, Anchorage, Alaska Al O'Neill -Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Inc. Archie Hinman -Haines Light and Power Company, Haines, Alaska (part-time) Memorandum to: Wilson Binger -2-August 15, 1980 Itinerary The trip included reconnaissance observations of sites and meetings as follows: Monday, August 4, 1980 Monday, August 4,1980 -Departed Seattle 8:20 a.m., arrived at Haines about 11:30 a.m. 3:30 p.m. -Reconnaissance of Kelsall River at approximate elevation 450 for dam site and at approximate elevation 300 for powerhouse site. Also flew over potential sites on Nataga Creek, a southern tributary of Kelsall River, and an unnamed creek, a northern tributary of Kelsall River north of confluence with Nataga Creek. 6:00 p.m. -Reconnaissance of upper Chilkoot Lake at the lake outlet elevation 2,270 for location of a potential dam site and later reconnaissance of the powerhouse site on the left bank of Chilkoot river at approximate elevation 200, where the upper Chilkoot tributary meets the Chilkoot River. Approximately 8:00 p.m. -Returned to hotel in Haines. Tuesday, August 5, 1980 8:30 a.m. -Reconnaissance of West Creek diversion site at approximate elevation 300, followed by powerhouse site at approximate elevation 40 on the right bank of West Creek near its confluence with the Taiya River. 11:30 a.m. -Reconnaissance of an alternative dam site on West Creek at approximate elevation 600+. 12:00 noon -Lunch. 1:00 p.m. -Reconnaissance of Kasidaya Creek. No appropriate helicopter landing area near the diversion site at ground elevation 500 was found. The party flew over potential dam sites and the drainage basin. The reconnaissance party landed at the Kasidaya Creek confluence with Taiya Inlet. Approximately two hundred feet south of this location was considered to be an appropriate site for the powerhouse. 2:15 p.m. -Aerial observation of Dayebas Creek dam site at approximate ground elevation 500. Due to the lack of proper helicopter landing area, the party had to land at the Dayebas Creek outlet to Taiya Inlet. The southern bank of the creek outlet provides a location for the powerhouse. The party flew over the three Dayebas Creek upper lakes at lake elevation ranging between 1,600 to 2,500 feet in the helicopter. Memorandum to: Wilson Binger -3-August 15, 1980 4:00 p.m. - A revisit to Kelsall River at approximate elevation 300 for an alternative project arrangement where the powerhouse could be located at the toe of a higher darn. 5:30 p.m. -Reconnaissance of Nataga Creek for powerhouse site just upstream of the confluence with Rosaunt Creek. 6:45 p.m. -Return to hotel in Haines. Wednesday, August 6, 1980 9:00 a.m. -Visit to the Haines Diesel Power Plant operated by the Haines Light and Power Company. Discussions with Archie Hinman, the plant operator. At present Haines uses diesel powered generators to supply energy. The following information was provided by the plant operator, Mr. Archie Hinman: Diesel Consumptior No. Make & Model CaEacit;t Year (New) Year (Installed at Haines) (Full Load) Ga1./Hr. 1 Fairbanks -Morse 2,070 kW 1968 1973 165 (D38 18 OP) 1 Caterpillar 800 kW 1969 1969 65 (D399) 1 Caterpillar 600 kW 1968 1968 50 (D398) 1 Fairbanks -Morse 300 kW 1951 1962 24 (32 E 14 -6) 1 Fairbanks -Morse 200 kW 1942 1955 16 (32 E 14 -4) 1 Fairbanks -Morse 150 kW 1943 1960 12 (32 E 14 -3) Cost of fuel to Haines diesel plant 99~/gal. including tax. 10:30 a.m. -Meeting of the reconnaissance party with Torn Quinlan, Treasurer for Haines Light and Power Company. Discussions on power demand and power sales were conducted. Reference to the potential hydro sites and transmission line alignments were made. 11:30 a.m. -Reconnaissance party meeting in the hall of Haines Fire Department. Discussion on the potential hydro sites on a site by site basis, as well as comments on geotechnical and environmental aspects. 4:20 p.m. -Left Haines for flight to Juneau and Seattle. Memorandum to: Wilson Binger -4-August 15, 1980 10:05 p.m. -Arrived at Sea Tac airport. Conclusions The sites are well documented by photographs taken during the trip. A photo album has been prepared and ready for use. ~~·~~=::zr--L- RN/rhl EXHIBIT B Geotechnical Report ConverseWard DavIs Dixon September 5, 1980 R.W. Beck & Associates 200 Tower Building 7th Avenue at Olive Way Seattle, Washington 98101 Attention: Mr. Donald E. Melnick Geotechnicil Consullints The Folger Building, Suite A 101 Howard Street San Francisco, California 94105 Telephone 415 543-7273 EXHIBIT B Subject: Haines-Skagway Hydroelectric Project 1 INTRODUCTION On August 4 and 5, 1980 the undersigned made a brief field reconnaissnace of five alternative sites for a hydroelectric project in the vicinity of Haines and Skagway, Alaska. Par- ticipating in the inspections were: Messers J.V. Wil- liamson, D.E. Melnick and A.R. Nasserziayee of R.W. Beck and Associates; John Morsell of Dames and Moore; and Archie Hinman of Haines Light and Power Company (part time). The reconnaissance was conducted utilizing general locations selected on USGS topo maps. A set of maps with proposed locations and supporting data was supplied by R.W. Beck. We were shuttled to each of the potential sites by helicopter, being able to land near some, but not all of the sites. Because of favorable weather we were able to com- plete the field inspection in two long days. We did not at- tempt ground access to sites wherein it was not possible to land. Therefore, conclusions regarding conditions at those sites are based on the aerial reconnaissance and available data. This report is being provided to assist you in evalua- tion of the alternatives. It gives my general evaluations of the geologic conditions which may affect planning of a hydroelectric project at the alternative sites. When the most favorable project site is selected additional site specific information may be supplemented for use in your ap- praisal study. Converse Wlrd Divis Dixon, Inc. Seattle WA San Francisco CA Pasadena CA Anaheim CA Las VegssNV Cincinnlti OH Clldwell NJ Attn: Mr. Donald E. Melnick September 5, 1980 Page Two Information provided herein is based on very brief aerial and ground inspections. The sites inspected were only generally located with regard to structure locations. Exact structure sites should be located to take advantage of topography or better geologic conditions. The data herein are considered adequate for evaluation of alternatives and appraisal studies but should not be used for design studies without further investigation. 2 GENERAL GEOLOGIC SETTING The project area is located in the northern part of Southeastern Alaska, approximately 75 miles northwest of Juneau. As a generality, igneous and metamorphic rocks as well as surficial deposits are present in the area. Meta- basalt of Mesozoic Age constitutes the most common meta- morphic rock although other varieties of metamorphics are present. Igneous rocks consist of diorite and quartz diorite of Cretaceous Age. Surficial deposits, of Quatern- ary age consist of glacial drift and outwash deposits, ele- vated fine-grained marine deposits, elevated shore and delta deposits, alluvial fan deposits, colluvial deposits, modern beach deposits and river flood-plain and delta deposits. Glacial ice probably covered the area several times during the Pleistocene Epoch. The present topography is the result of modification by glaciers and to a lesser extent by stream action. Deep fiords, U shaped valleys and cirque valleys are some of the typical geomorphic features of the area. Since retreat of the ice, about 10,000 years ago, there has been uplift of the land surface near Haines as evidenced by immerged marine sediments several hundred feet above sea level. During the period between 1932 to 1971 the rate of relative uplift of the land at Haines was determined to be 2.26 em per year. Most of this uplift was attributed to be the result of rebound after deglaciation. 3 EARTHQUAKE CONSIDERATIONS All of the project sites lie within a seismically active area. The two most prominent faults systems in Southeast Alaska are the Fairweather-Queen Charlotte and the Denali. The Fairweather-Queen Charlotte fault lies about 80 miles west while the Denali fault passes through the project area. Con .. ,.. Ward Davia Dillon, Inc. Attn: Mr. Donald E. Melnick September 5, 1980 Page Three Between 1899 and 1970 Southeast Alaska experienced: five earthquakes of magnitude 8 (M8) or greater; three between M7 and M8; at least eight between M6 and M7; 15 between MSand M6; and about 140 less than MS. All of the great earthquakes (M8 or greater) and a large proportion of the others have been associated with the Fairweather-Queen Charlotte fault system. The project sites lie in the area when the southern trace of the Denali fault intersects the northern trace of the Lynn Canal-Chatham Strait fault. Many workers believe the Lynn Canal-Chatham Strait fault to be the southern extension of the Denali fault. The Denali fault is known to be active north of the project area however, there have been no historic earthquakes definitely attributed to the Lynn Canal-Chatham Strait fault system. It is judged that more than 100 earthquakes have been felt in the Haines area although no epicenters are known to exist in that area. Microearthquake studies conducted prior to 1972 along the Denali fault between Haines and Mount McKinley (about 400 miles) indicated one of the highest rates of microearthquake activity along the segment to be in the area of Haines. Clearly, seismicity is a geologic hazard to be dealt with at all of the alternative sites. Within economic limits, severe shaking will have to be a consideration in design and the risk of possible damage or loss of facilities in the event of a major earthquake must be understood. 4 ALTERNATIVE PROJECT SITES 4.1 KELSALL RIVER Several alternative concepts regarding development were dis- cussed and a ground inspection was made. Topographically a strong drainage from the northeast passing through T26S, R55E, and entering the Kelsall River along the western edge of Sec. 31 appeared to have a good potential for hydroelec- tric development. An aerial reconnaissance showed the drainage basin to be small and it was concluded that annual discharge would not likely be consistent or reliable enough for developmen~. That drainage has a distinct alignment change (S35°E) in the northern part of Sec 31 which paral- lels the Kelsall River. This sharp change in drainage is tentatively interpreted as being caused by a strand of the Denali fault. No further consideration was given to de- velopment of the side drainage. Con",.. Ward Dnll Dblon, Inc. Attn: Mr. Donald E. Melnick September 5, 1980 Page Four We looked at two possible sites along the river and also considered and looked at a project site on Nagata Creek, a tributary which flows parallel to the Kelsall about 2 miles to the southwest. Nagata Creek site will be discussed separately. The Kelsall River valley marks the trace of the southern ex- tension of the Denali fault zone. Although no epicenters of historic earthquakes are known in the vicinity, micro- earthquake studies do indicate the strong possibility that this segment of the fault is active. Topographic expression also suggests the possibility that the fault has had major movement in recent geologic history, possibly in the last 10,000 years. Thus, any project structures constructed in this valley will be located in the Denali rift zone where surface offset could occur. The Kelsall River contains a large quantity of water and our discussions ranged from the possibility of installing a large dam (+ 150 feet high) with a power house at the dam to a small diversion structure diverting through a conduit to a powerhouse downstream. The first area inspected was in the SE 1/4 Sec. 25, T26S, R54E. In that area the river has a gradient of 4 to 6 per- cent across gravel bars. Bedrock is not exposed in the val- ley walls or river bottom. The bedrock type is metamorhic ranging from schist to greenstone but is covered by rubble, gravel and glacial deposits. Banks on both sides of the river consist of possibly glacially deposited debris con- sisting of large angular blocks of metamorphic rock imbedded in a sandy matrix. On the right side the slopes have been oversteepened by the downcutting river and a large slope failure has occurred. This reach of river would not be suitable for construction of a high dam. It is possible that a bedrock site could be found for a small diversion dam in the vicinity, however installation of a burried conduit along the slide prone right side of the river would be dif- ficult and the topography and materials render the left side equally difficult. A dam site located in NW 1/4 Sec 6, T27S, R55E was visited. Rock outcrops occur on both sides of the river and appear to consist of biotite gneiss. Where inspected, the valley section was about 100 feet wide with the active stream occupying about 50 feet of width. This site would be suitable for construction of a dam up to + 150 feet high. The river contains significant flow, therefore a diversion tunnel would likely be required. Cony ..... W.rd D.yla Dillon, Inc. Attn: Mr. Donald E. Melnick September 5, 1980 Page Five There appears to be an abundance of material for con- struction. Some sand and gravel is found in river bars and there are of locations where rock quarries could be opened although the quality of rock may be lacking because of the affects of faulting. There is a good possibility of finding glacial lacustrine deposits for impervious material in the area. Glacial deposits along the river may also prove to be a source of impervious material. For planning purposes it can be assumed that an embankment dam consisting of an impervious core and rock shells is feasible for the site. Alternatives include a concrete dam or rock fill with an impervious face. Of all sites inspected these in the Kelsall River (and Nagata Creek) have the most desirable transmission route to Haines. The route crosses generally subdued topography to the area of Moose Valley and then would be along a highway the remaining distance to Haines. Geologic hazards along this route are minimal. 4.2 NAGATA CREEK The proposed project would consist of a small diversion structure in NW 1/4 Sec. 2, T27S, R54E, a tunnel about 8,000 feet in length, surge shaft; and powerhouse in the NW 1/4 Sec. 12, T27S, R54E. We were not able to land at the pro- posed diversion site; however, rock outcrops can be seen from the air. Rock downstream in the vicinity of the power- house is schist. The metamorphics appear to weather deeply on the slopes but, where exposed along the river, they are hard and competent. The area selected for a project appears to have no major geotechnical problems. Structures would be relatively small or be underground, thusly the earthquake hazard from shaking would be minimized. The site is about two miles distance from the Denali fault zone, therefore it's reasonable to ex- pect the rock to be moderately to severely fractured and possibly sheared. Tunneling will be affected mostly by those conditions but only to the extent of adding to support requirements. It is judged that unlined tunnels can be planned but, some covering of support systems will be re- quired. A shaft could be as deep as 800 feet and be about 6 feet in diameter. The overburden section will require sup- port and lining while the lower portion in fresh rock can likely be raised without support and be left unlined. Ac- cess to the top of the shaft will be difficult regardless of the method chosen to excavate the shaft. Con",.. W.rd D •• la Dblon, Inc. Attn: Mr. Donald E. Melnick September 5, 1980 Page Six 4.3 UPPER CHILCOOT The Upper Chilcoot site is located in the N 1/2 Sec. 26, T2BS, R57E. A small diversion dam would be located at the north of a small alpine lake which extends into Sec. 23. The project would consist of the dam, about 20 feet high, a pen- stock constructed underground or on the surface, and a powerhouse at tidewater. The head would be about 2000 feet. The flow is anticipated to be very small therefore, conduits would be of small size. Granitic rock persists throughout the project. At the damsite rock is a quartz diorite while at the powerhouse site the rock is a banded gneiss with several dikes of ap- lite. In general rock is competent for construction of all features of the project. The damsite is remote and all construction materials would have to be air lifted or be moved on a tram constructed for the project. Rock is exposed at the damsite and no geologic problems are envisioned which would affect construction of a small dam. An underground penstock would require a vertical shaft about 2000 feet deep with a horizontal run of about 4,600 feet or an incline 2,450 feet in length at a 55 degree angle with a horizontal run 'of about 3,150 feet long. The incline or shaft need only be two feet in diameter to carry the expected flows. A hole that size would have to be drilled from the top. Drill rigs and bits are available for drilling such holes, but it is not known at this time whether it is feasible and/or economical to transport such equipment to this remote site. For planning it would be prudent to estimate excavation by a conventional raise climber method. A 5-foot diameter shaft or incline is about the minimum practical size for excavation. The minimum practical size for the horizontal run would be about 6 feet wide by 8 feet high. It is assumed that these excavations could be left unlined. A surface penstock of the proper size would be feasible to construct. Geologically the rock along the alignment is suitable for anchoring the penstock. Topographically the surface penstock would traverse some very difficult terrain over its 2000 foot decent. Along a proposed alignment there are two vertical cliffs several hundred feet high. Each cliff has a massive talus pile at the toe. The line would have to be constructed to minimize the hazard of rock slides and snow avalanches. The power house site has minimal space at the river bank. Some excavation into the hillside would be required to make room for the structure. ConvI,.. Ward Davll Dixon, Inc. Attn: Mr. Donald E. Melnick September 5, 1980 Page Seven Construction materials are lacking at the site. Concrete for the diversion dam would have to be lifted by tram or helicopter. Roads and trails exist within 3.5 miles of the powerhouse site and it would be feasible to extend a con- struction road to the powerhouse. The route for a transmission line has few geologic hazards. For the most part, the line would be placed along an ex- isting road at the shoreline of Chilkoot Lake and Lutak and Chilkoot Inlets. 4.4 WEST CREEK 4.4.1 Upper Site Two possible project sites were inspected. The first for an upstream storage dam on the order of 120 feet in height is located in SE 1/4 Sec 17, T27S, R59E and was the sUbject of a 1965 report (Ref. 3) which contains a complete description of the area geology. Rock at the damsite and downstream to the mouth of West Creek is predominently granodiorite, which in the fresh state is a very competent rock. Although fresh rock outcrops are exposed at streambed the upper slopes of the damsite are covered with colluvium, probably mixed with glacial debris. The damsite is judged to be adequate for concrete or embankment type dams although depth to suitable foundation at higher elevations is unknown. Construction materials for a dam appear to be present in the glacial valley upstream of the darn. Impervious material is not known to exist but silty lacustrine materials may be present in the valley and could be a source. Alluvial and outwash sand and gravel are exposed in the valley and would likely be available in necessary quantities. A rock quarry could undoubtedly be opened in the area to provide rock-fill and rip rap materials. Associated with the upstream dam would be a tunnel as long as 9000 feet in length. Rock along the route is expected to be granodiorite and although rock, where seen, is strongly jointed, tunneling is not expected to be unusually dif- ficult. For planning purposes it is assumed that this tun- nel could for the most part be left unlined. 4.4.2 Lower Site A downstream site in the SE 1/4 Sec 16, T27S, R59E, was inspected with regard to a run of the river scheme. The river is about 40 feet wide with granodiorite outcrops for Con.,.,.. Ward Dayla Dizon, Inc. Attn: Mr. Donald E. Melnick September 5, 1980 Page Eight about 15 feet above water level. Above, the rock slopes are covered with soil and rubble. A road exists on a low terrace along the left side of the river. The depth to rock in that area is unknown. The site appears adaptable for a small dam (+20 feet). A 9 foot tunnel would run about 1,700 feet to a 300 foot deep vertical shaft about 7.5 feet diameter. The final leg of the penstock would be about 1,100 feet long between the shaft and the powerhouse. Granodiorite persists for the length of the tunnel. Geologic conditions are expected to be generally favorable for construction of the tunnel and planning can proceed assuming an unlined tunnel and shaft for the most part. The powerhouse site is near the confluence of West Creek and the Taiya River. No surface rock is visible at the power- house site. A small gravel terrace, about 20 feet high and 30 feet wide rests against a slope of 1.5H:lV. Some bedrock is exposed high on the hillside. Excavation for the power- house and portal will have to provide for removal of the terrace and a cut into the hillside at of least 35 feet. A transmission route from West Creek to Skagway would traverse relatively easy terrane and could follow existing roads for most of the distance. No significant geologic hazards are known to exist along that route. From the area of Skagway to Haines the feasibility of constructing a sur- face transmission line is questionable. The line would have to pass on the east or west side of Taiya Inlet. Both sides are extremely steep. If at all practical to build the line, it would be subject to rockfalls and snow avalanches for its entire length along the inlet. For those reasons a sub- marine cable should be considered for transmission from the vicinity of Skagway. 4.5 KASIDAYA CREEK The Kasidaya Creek site is located in the NE 1/4 Sec 35, T28S, R59E. The glacier fed river drains a valley about four miles long dropping the last 500 feet to Taiya Inlet over a distance of about 2000 feet. We were not able to land at the proposed damsite. Rock at this project site is granodiorite. The low diver- sion dam will have to be constructed near the head of the steep portion of river since large talus piles from steep cliffs above form the river banks just upstream. There were no geologic conditions observed which would preclude the Conn .... Ward DaYle Dixon, Inc. Attn: Mr. Donald E. Melnick September 5, 1980 Page Nine possibility of constructing a low darn. An access road to the site would be difficult and expensive therefore it is assumed that construction materials would be barged to the powerhouse site and be tramed or air lifted to the upper parts of the project. Diverted water would flow through a tunnel about 8 feet in diameter and 1,000 feet long to a shaft about 5 feet in dia- meter and 600 feet deep. From the shaft to the power- house the tunnel would again be 8 feet in size and about 1,700 feet long. A large fault zone was noted crossing the the canyon upstream of the damsite and it is assumed that a N 50 0 E stretch of the falling river is along a shear zone. The tunnel alignment does not cross these features but is in an area where the rock is possibly disturbed. Such a rock condition will not affect the ability to construct tunnels and shafts but could affect support requirements. It may be assumed that the tunnels and shaft can, for the most part, be left unlined but if support systems are necessary, some protective coverings may be required. The powerhouse would be located at the Taiya Inlet shore- line. Competent rock is exposed and aside from the neces- sity of making a portal cut into a steep rock face geologic factors are not expected to present insurmountable problems. A docking facility would have to be constructed for access and egress from the plant site. Transmission from this site would most likely be by submarine cable for the same reasons as discussed in Section 4.4.2. 4.6 DAYEBUS CREEK It was not possible to make a ground inspection of the Dayeabus damsite because of dense tree growth and lack of a landing site. Based on the aerial reconnaissance, it ap- pears that a small darn could be constructed in the NW 1/4 Sec 8, T30S, R60E. The creek is about 3 miles long with branching tributaries at the head. Two larger and several smaller alpine lakes are fed by glacial melt water which in turn feeds the creek. The creek drops about 500 feet to Taiya Inlet over its last 1,200 feet. A small dam could be constructed at the begin- ning of the drop since competent appearing bedrock is ex- posed at that point. Bedrock does not appear along the creek further upstream. Bedrock at the dam site appears to be granitic although at the powerhouse site it is more sili- ceous and banded, similar to gneiss. ConverM Went De ... Dixon, Inc. Attn: Mr. Donald E. Melnick September 5, 1980 Page Ten The powerhouse would be located at the shoreline of Taiya Inlet. The creek terminates in a waterfall about 50 feet in height and bedrock is well exposed along the cliff. The rock, although hard and competent, is strongly jointed and appears disturbed, possibly by tectonic forces in past geologic history. The rock is more than competent as a powerhouse foundation and the only affect of the dis- turbed rock condition may be to require some support in the tunnel. The project would basically consist of a small diversion dam, an underground conduit, and a powerhouse at tide water. The tunnel conduit would have a horizontal section about 2,350 feet long leading to a shaft about 640 feet deep fol- lowed by another horizontal run of about 1,400 feet. For construction practicality planning should provide for 6 x 8 foot horizontal tunnels and a minimum 5 foot diameter shaft. There were no geologic conditions which would preclude con- struction of these features and the tunnels can be planned as unlined for the most part. Dayebus Creek is the closest of the alternative project sites to Haines. Transmission to Haines would be submarine cable for the most part. A port facility would be necessary for construction and operations access to the powerhouse site. The damsite and upper tunnel portal areas are difficult to reach. Construction materials would have to be barged to the site and airlifted to the upper area, or a tram could be installed for construction. 4.7 CONCLUSIONS a. All of the alternative project sites lie in a seismically active area. Severe shaking should be a con- sideration in design of any of these projects. All of the projects would carry some risk of possible damage and loss of facilities in the event of a nearby major earthquake. b. Project sites in the Kelsall River valley would be located in the Denali fault zone. The risk of earthquake related damage is greater at these sites than at other alternative sites. The upper site inspected would not be geologically suitable because of deep overburden, although, it is judged that a bedrock site could be located in the area. Converse Ward Davia Dixon, Inc. Attn: Mr. Donald E. Melnick September 5, 1980 Page Eleven c. Nagata Creek site, although close to the Denali fault zone, is geologically suitable. Transmission from this site could be over land, traversing relatively subdued topography and following established roads for most of the distance. d. Upper Chilcoot appears feasible from the geological stand point. Underground facilities would have to be con- siderably oversized for construction convenience. A surface penstock could be constructed over very precipitous terrain. e. Potential project sites on West Creek appear to be acceptable from the geologic standpoint. A transmission route to Skagway could be over land following established roads. Overland transmission routes from Skagway to Haines do not appear feasible because of precipitous terrain. f. from the facility cable. Kasidaya and Dayebus sites both appear acceptable geologic standpoint. These sites require some port and transmission to Haines would be by submarine Sincerely yours, tfA-~6'~ Alan L. O'Neill Vice President ALO:ms cc: Bucknam -Seattle File Enclosure: References Cony ..... W.rd D.yl. Dixon, Inc. REFERENCES Haines-Skagway Hydroelectric Project 1. Yehle, Lynn A., and Lemke, Richard W., u.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, "Reconnaissance Engineering Geology Of The Skagway Area, Alaska, With Emphasis on Evaluation of Earthquake and Other Geologic Hazards" Open File Report: OF 72-454. 2. Lemke, Richard W., and Yehle, Lynn A., U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, "Reconnaissance Engineering Geology of the Haines Area, Alaska, With Emphasis on Evaluation of Earthquake and Other Geologic Hazards" Open File Report: OF 72-229 3. Callahan, James E., and Wayland, Russell G., U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, "Geologic Reconnaissance of the West Creek Damsite near Skagway, Alaska. Geological Survey Bulletin 1211 A, 1965. 4. Rogers, Garry C., "A Microearthquake Survey in Northwest British Columbia and Southeast Alaska." Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 66, No.5 pp. 1643-1655. October, 1976. 5. Beikman, Helen M., U.S. Department of Interior, Geological Survey, "Preliminary Geologic Map of Southeast Alaska" Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF -673, 1975. 6. Cobb, Edward H., U.S. Department of Interior, Geological Survey, "Metalic Mineral Resources Map of the Skagway Quadrangle Alaska", Miscellaneous Field Studies, Map MF -424, 1972. Conv.,... Ward Davll Dixon, Inc. EXHIBIT C Environmental Aspects of Six Alternative Hydroelectric Power Sites in the Haines-Skagway Area ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS OF SIX ALTERNATIVE HYDROELECTRIC POWER SITES IN THE HAINES-SKAGWAY AREA Prepared for R.W. Beck & Associates Prepared by John W. Morse 11 DAMES & MOORE September 1980 EXHIBIT C 12023-002-20 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTI ON DAYEBAS CREEK SITE Environmental Setting Potential Environmental Concerns Relating to Hydroelectric Power Development .••.••.. Possible Mitigation Measures. Need for Additional Studies Summary of Important Environmental Aspects - KASIDAYA CREEK SITE . . . Environmental Setting Potential En"vironmental Concerns Relating to Hydroelectric Power Development ..•. Possible Mitigation Measures. Need for Additional Studies Summary of Important Environmental Aspects • WEST CREEK -LOW DAM ALTERNATIVE Environmental Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Potential Environmental Concerns Relating to Hydroelectric Power Development Possible Mitigation Measures •. Need for Additional Studies . . . . . . . Summary of Important Environmental Aspects . I Page 1 1 1 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 6 7 7 B TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) WEST CREEK -HIGH DAM ALTERNATIVE Potential Environmental Concerns. Possible Mitigation Measures. Need for Additional Studies Summary of Important Environmental Aspects . UPPER CHILKOOT SITE Environmental Setting Potential Environmental Concerns. Possible Mitigation Measures .. Need for Additional Information Summary of Important Environmental Aspects KELSALL RIVER SITE Environmental Setting Potential Environmental Concerns. Possible Mitigation Measures Need for Additional Study Summary of Important Environmental Aspects NATAGA CREEK SITE Environmental Setting Potential Environmental Concerns Possible Mitigation Measures. Need for Additional Study Summary of Important Environmental Aspects OVERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II . . . 8 9 9 9 9 11 12 12 13 13 14 15 16 16 16 17 18 18 18 18 I NTRODUCTI ON The following discussion describes and compares selected environmental "aspects of six potential hydroelectric power sites in the Haines-Skagway area as identified during the reconnaissance of August 4 -6,1980. We have emphasized those topics that appear to be the most pertinent to a comparative ana 1 ys is. Socioeconomic issues (other than land use) are assumed to be similar regardless of site location and, therefore, are not addressed. DAYEBAS CREEK SITE Environmental Setting Oayebas Creek is a glacial, mountainside stream that enters Taiya Inlet after flowing about 6 miles. The stream originates at an elevation of about 2500 feet, flows through a series of three lakes (each at a different level), crosses a relatively gentle plateau, then increases in gradient and drops to Taiya Inlet. The final port ion of the stream consists of a water- fall about 15 feet high that discharges onto the beach area at the upper intertidal level. Alluvial deposits of cobbles and boulders at the mouth of Dayebas Creek have expanded the beach and rocky intertidal zone. The vegetat ion and general ecological characterist ics of the Oayebas Creek drainage are typical of narrow stream valleys traversing the steep sides of fiords in Southeast Alaska. Spruce-hemlock forest grows at the lower elevation, dense alder shrub at higher elevations and on steep slopes, and alpine tundra or barren terrain in the headwaters regions. Fish use of Oayebas Creek is unlikely because of the high gradient, turbid water, and lack of access from the inlet. Salmon spawning at the creek mouth within the intertidal zone is possible but not likely in view of the absence of any previous indicat ion of salmon use. Marine organisms inhab it ing the upper intert ida 1 zone cons i st primarily of moderately dense rockweed and mussels. 1 Wildlife use of the creek valley is probably low. The plateau in the middle reach of Dayebas Creek appears to be moderately favorable wildlife habitat; however, geographic barriers probably prevent extensive use by big game animals with the exception of black bear. Mountain goats would be expected to utilize the higher altitude areas, primarily above timberline. The lower portion of Dayebas Creek is visually attractive to travelers on the Taiya Inlet waterway, with a series of cascades culminating in a tidewater waterfall. Most of the upper portion of the creek is not visible from the inlet. Recreational use of the Dayebas Creek drainage area is probably very low " due to the 1 ack of incent ive for hikers to explore the area and because of the rugged terrain. The land ;s currently under jurisdiction of the U.S. Forest Service as part of the Tongass National Forest. The entire east side of Taiya Inlet is classified as wildland. Such a classification excludes roads, timber harvesting, and concentrated recreational facilities but allows fish and wildlife habitat improvement and primitive recreational facilities. Potential Environmental Concerns Relating to Hydroelectic Power Development Development at the Dayebas Creek site would have relatively little biological impact. Only the steep lower portion of the stream would be affected; consequently, wildlife use of the upper and middle portions of the streams would not be altered. The low da."T1 would cause inundation of only a few acres of relatively low quality habitat. A cleared corridor up the mountainside would result if a cable way or conveyor system were used to transport men and equipment to the dam site (as opposed to hel icopter). Disposal of tunnel spoil at the shaft and powerhouse locat ions woul d alter additional terrain. However, quantities of spoil would be small (about 2000 cu. yds) and would probably affect less than 1 acre. The lack of fishery value precludes significant impacts to these resources. Some temporary siltation of Taiya Inlet would occur during construction. A submarine power 2 cable would traverse intertidal and subtidal marine habitat. marine biota resulting from the cable would be highly localized. Impacts to Substant ial visual impact (from the perspect ive of travelers on Taiya Inlet) would result from the project. The tidewater powerhouse would be highly visible and flow over the existing waterfalls would be eliminated or diminished. However, the dam itself probably would not be visible and conduit tunnels would limit visual impact to the tidewater zone. Spoil piles may be visible depending on exact location. All facilities would be visible from the air but would be unobtrusive. Land use patterns or opportunities would not be altered by Dayebas Creek power development. Possible Mitigation Measures The location and architectural design of the powerhouse should be planned to minimize visual impact. The location and configuration of spoil disposal piles should also consider visual aspects. The use of helicopter to access the dam site would also alleviate visual disturbance. Unnecessary use of helicopters, especially at higher altitudes, should be avoided in order to minimize disturbance to mountain goats and other wildl ife. Construct ion procedures should be planned to minimize siltation within practical limits. No special constraints on timing or procedures are anticipated for environ- mental reasons. Need for Additional Studies No special environmental studies other than basic ecological reconnais- sance should be necessary prior to development of the Oayebas Creek site. Summary of Important Environmental Aspects The Oayebas Creek site presents very few ecological problems. Vis- ual impact is the greatest concern but should not create constraints to 3 development. Special studies or mitigation measures beyond normal good construction practice should not be required. KASIDAYA CREEK SITE Environmental Setting Kasidaya Creek enters Taiya Inlet about 7 miles north of Oayebas Creek and its setti~g is nearly identical. All of the above discussion for Oayebas Creek also applies to Kasidaya Creek, with the following modifications. The gradient of Kas idaya is more uniformly steep and there are no 1 akes in the system as was the case for Oayebas. Wildlife habitat would be expected to be less valuable. The lower portion of Kasidaya Creek contains some small falls and cascades but the creek is not as visually dramatic as Oayebas. Potential Environmental Concerns Relating to Hydroelectric Power Development Ecological and visual impacts would be expected to be similar, but perhaps somewhat less than at Oayebas Creek because of lower wildl ift:? and aesthetic value. Possible Mitigation Measures Powerhouse design and location as well as spoil disposal should be planned to minimize adverse visual impact when viewed from Taiya Inlet. Construction procedures should be planned to minimize siltation within practical limits. No special constraints on timing or procedures are an- ticipated as a result of environmental concerns. Need for Additional Studies No special environmental studies other than basic ecological reconnais- sance should be necessary prior to development of the Kasidaya Creek site. 4 Summary of Important Environmental Aspects The Kasidaya Creek site presents few ecological or land use problems. Visual impact is the greatest concern but should not create constraints to development. Special studies or mitigation measures beyond normal good construction practice should not be required. WEST CREEK -lOW DAM ALTERNATIVE Environmental Setting West Creek is an eastern tributary to the Taiya River. The creek originates with glacial meltwater at an elevation of about 1000 feet, flows for about 5 miles through a flat forested valley up to 1/2 mile wide, then increases in gradient and flows about 2-1/2 miles through a bedrock channel with gradient decreasing again as it enters the Taiya River floodplain. At least two clear water tributaries enter West Creek in the upper valley portion. A transmission line running south from the West Creek mouth would traverse the wide, flat Taiya River floodplain until entering Taiya Inlet. The vegetation of the flat upper West Creek valley consists primarily of cottonwood and shrub species. The high gradient stream channel area in the vicinity of the proposed dam sites is surrounded by spruce-hemlock-birch forest; however, much of the area north of the stream has been logged in recent years and is now covered by shrubs and annual species. The Taiya River floodplain near the mouth of West Creek is wooded with cottonwood and spruce. At the Taiya River mouth the forest grades into a broad salt marsh - mud flat area. Fish use of West Creek has not been the subject of formal study and, therefore, little hard information is available. The lower portion of the Taiya River is utilized by coho, pink, and chum salmon; these species also may occur in lower West Creek. It is not known whether salmon spawn in West Creek below the dam sites or whether they are able to traverse the high gradient stretch into the upper valley. It is unlikely that salmon would be 5 able to traverse the rapids during high summer flow. However, judging from experience on other similar streams, it may be possible for coho salmon to reach the upstream area during lower flows in the fall. The clear upper tributaries could supply adequate spawning and rearing habitat. There is some indirect evidence that the upper valley supports a resident population of Dolly Varden char. Bot h be ar and moose use the Wes t Cree k dr a in age area. The upper valley appea'r's to be good habitat. However, utilization by big game animals has probably been light in recent years. The Taiya River floodplain also supplies good moose habitat. Aesthetic value of the lower West Creek valley is moderate. The topo- graphy precludes unusually scenic viewpoints. The upper West Creek valley is attractive with a backdrop of mountains and glaciers. The West Creek drainage has been classified as "public recreation ll in the HaineS-Skagway Area Land Use Pl an. "The West Creek Valley is a popul ar area for hunting, hiking, gathering firewood, cutting house logs and berry pi ck ing." A dirt road para lle 1 s the north side of the creek for severa 1 miles and thus enhances access. Some fishing for resident species has been reported in the upper valley. In addition, most of the lower Taiya River valley is part of the Klondike Gold Rush National Historic Park, an area specifically set aside for recreat ional purposes. The lower Taiya River is also an important sport and subsistence fishing area. Potential Environmental Concerns Relating to Hydroelectric Power Development A diversion dam, tunnel, and powerhouse at the lower end of West Creek would cause a minimal amount of biological impact. The upper portion of the creek would not be affected. Because of the gradient and terrain, little inundat ion woul d occur. Some spruce-hemlock forest woul d be destroyed by access road, powerhouse, and tunnel construction. Disposal of tunnel spoil (about 7000 cu. yds) would alter additional terrain in the vicinity of the powerhouse and vertical shaft. 6 The dam would block fish passage within the stream; however, this impact cannot be predicted since it is not known whether substantial numbers of fish traverse this stream reach. If anadromous fish were prevented from reaching upstream spawni ng areas, adverse impacts coul d be s i gni fi cant. Si 1t gener- ated by various in stream construction activities could adversely impact downstream fish or their habitats. The severity of such effects would depend on time of year and the care taken during construction. Effects on wildlife from the power generating facilities would be minor. The transmission lines probably would follow the existing roadway prior to becoming submarine in Taiya Inlet and, therefore, would have minimal dis- turbance effect. The overhead lines may create some hazard to birds, , especially bald eagles. The submarine cable would create a localized dis- turbance to marine biota inhabiting the bottom of Taiya Inlet. Visual impact of the project as currently conceptualized would be minor. Most facilities would not be conspicuous due to the flat, wooded terrain. The project would not be expected to significantly affect recreational use of the area; the primary use area is north and west of the proposed project. Possible Mitigation Measures If fish passage is determined to be a problem, then a fish ladder would be desirable. Overhead transmission lines should be designed to minimize the poss ib il ity of el ectrocut ing eagl es and other birds. Instream construct ion methods and timing should be planned to minimize the impacts of silt on downstream fish. All facilities should be designed to detract as little as possible from the existing recreational use potential or aesthetic values of the area. Need for Additional Studies The use of West Creek by anadromous and resident fish species is an important consideration and should be examined prior to project construction. 7 The presence or absence of fi sh woul d affect both des i gn and construct ion methods. Summary of Important Environmental Aspects Fish passage may be the most important environmental concern depending on fish use of the stream. However, mitigation via a fish ladder or other passage should be able to satisfy requirements for maintenance of fish stocks. Some constraints may be placed on construction timing and methods to protect downstream fish. WEST CREEK -HIGH DAM ALTERNATIVE Potential Environmental Concerns A high (120 ft) storage dam at the 600-foot contour on West Creek would inundate a substantial portion of the upper valley (up to 500 acres). Most of the proposed reservoir area is relatively high value big game habitat. The impact of inundation on resident or anadromous fish populations in the upper valley (if they exist) cannot be predicted without further study. It is possible that the creation of a lake would offer opportunity for fisheries enhancement. On the other hand, existing spawning areas could be destroyed and would not be easily replaced. A high dam would create the same fish passage problems discussed for the low dam alternative but would be more difficult to mitigate. The high dam would require a longer access road and generally greater disturbance due to its large scope when compared to the low dam alternative. The dam and reservoir would not be visible from the Taiya River valley and, consequently, would not create any visual impact from the perspective of valley travelers. The visual appearance of upper West Creek valley would be al tered by the presence of the reservoi r but the overa 11 effect woul d not necessarily be adverse except for the presence of the dam itself. 8 Recreat ional use of the upper West Creek area woul d be altered as a result of the inundat ion. Hunt ing opportunit ies probab ly woul d be reduced; whereas, boat ing and fishing opportunit ies probab ly waul d be increased. Access to the area woul d be enhanced by the presence of a newly created access road to the dam site. Water-oriented recreational opportunities could be developed following construction. Possible Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures for the high dam alternative would be similar to those for the low dam alternative. Provisions for fish passage and for minimizing siltation during construction would be much more complicated due to the larger project scope. Need for Additional Studies Resident and anadromous fish use of the upper valley area would need to be examined in detail, especially to identify areas currently used for spawning and rearing. Terrestri al habitats within the area of inundat ion would need to be investigated and mapped to identify possible sensitive or critical habitat areas. Summary of Important Environmental Aspects Constraints imposed to protect downstream fish and fish passage pro- visions could create considerable expense and inconvenience within the context of a rel at ively 1 arge hydroelectric development. Environmental impact analysis would probably require a substantial effort. UPPER CHILKOOT SITE Environmental Setting Development of the Upper Chilkoot site would involve damming a mountain- side stream that flows down the valley side and into the Chilkoot River about 9 4 miles upstream from Chilkoot Lake. The dam would be located at an eleva- tion of about 2285 feet near where the stream originates as the outlet of a small lake. The lake is contained within a cirque or hanging valley and is fed by melt water from glaciers on the mountainside above. The stream. is very steep throughout its length until joining the Chilkoot River at an elevation of about 200 feet. The lake above the dam site lies near the timber line. The primary vegetat iOll within the hanging valley is lush alpine tundra with a few wind- blown Sitka spruce. The alpine vegetation appears to be somewhat unusual because of its very thick, cushiony appearance. Groundwater seepage adjacent to the lake apparently enhances growth of this vegetation. The sides of the Chilkoot River valley below the lake are "covered with mixed spruce- hemlock forest and mountainside shrub vegetation. On the valley floor, the spruce and hemlock are sufficiently large to be of commercial value. Some logging activity has occurred on the west side of the Chilkoot River near the proposed power site. Wildlife use of the upper lake and valley side area is probably minimal; however, the Chilkoot River floodplain is used by moose, and bald eagl es nest downstream from the proposed powerhouse site. Fish use of the upper lake and its outlet stream is unlikely because of the very steep terrain and sterile water conditions. However, during the recon- naissance trip sockeye salmon (approximately 20) were observed in the Chilkoot River at the mo'llth of the stream proposed for development. It is likely that these fish spawn at the area of confluence and depend on the stream flow for egg development. The Chilkoot River itself is a major salmon stream and supports runs of coho and sockeye salmon that spawn both above and below the proposed powerhouse area. Chilkoot Lake, located downstream from the proposed development area, is an important rearing area for young salmon. The upper lake and its hanging valley surroundings are exceptionally scenic when viewed from the air or from the valley itself. The upper area would not be visible from the perspective of the Chilkoot valley floor. The Chilkoot valley itself is moderately scenic and the subject stream adds to the scenic value, although the rugged, wooded terrain limits visibility of the stream. 10 The Chilkoot River area was examined during preparat ion of the Haines- Skagway Area land Use Plan. The river and upper end of Chilkoot lake have been cl assified in the IIResource Management/Fish and Wildl ife" category, which indicates that maintenance of fish and wildlife is a primary land use goal. The area also receives considerable recreational use, enhanced by existing road access along the west side of the Chilkoot River. The upper lake area would be expected to receive little recreational use because of its inaccessibility; however, evidence of use by hikers was observed at the site and the scei'lic values of the area would provide a very high quality exper- ience to those able to gain access. Potential Environmental Concerns Direct terrain disturbance resulting from the Upper Chilkoot site development would be limited primarily to the dam site and powerhouse areas. A major source of disturbance would result from tunnel spoil disposal near the dam site and the powerhouse. limited area on the east side of the Chilkoot River may require that spoil be transported to a remote disposal site across the river. Some additional disturbance would occur to the mountainside if a corridor was cleared for a cable way access to the dam area. If helicopter were used to convey equipment to higher elevations, then disturbance to the valley side would be minimal. Access to the powerhouse area (as well as transmission line routing) would be via an existing roadway along the west side of the Chilkoot River; therefore, new terrain disturbance woul d be 1 imited except for construct ion of a bridge across the Ch il koot River. Impact to wildl ife through habitat destruction or direct disturbance woul d probab ly be sma 11 . Some adverse impact may occur to those sockeye salmon that spawn at the creek mouth since the tailrace would be located up river from the existing channel. Siltation created by construction could affect downstream fish resources in the Chilkoot River and Chilkoot lake depending on the timing and extent of such siltation. An increase in the turbidity of Chilkoot lake could reduce its productivity and affect use by young salmon. 11 Visual impact to the valley side and Chilkoot River floodplain would be minor. The heavily forested terrain would hide power facilities. The dam probably would not be visible from the Chilkoot River perspective. However, impact to the currently undisturbed hanging valley area at the dam site could be severe from the perspective of an observer at the site itself. The dam, staging area, and spoil disposal would alter the appearance of a substantial area adjacent to the southwest corner of the existing lake. Recovery of the natural alpine vegetation on disturbed areas would be very slow and scars would be permanent. Land use patterns would not be greatly affected by power development at this site. Access to the east side of the Chilkoot River may be improved and thus increase recreat ional use of this area. The wilderness appeal of the dam site vicinity would be reduced and thus perhaps reduce incent ive for hikers to use the alpine region. Possible Mitigation Measures Preservation of the scenic values of the upper lake area would be a desirable goal. Facilities, construction methods, and spoil disposal should be planned to disturb as little terrain as possible. The vegetative cover is very vulnerable to disturbance; consequently, workers and machinery should be prevented from leav ing delineated construct ion areas. Construct ion methods and timing should also be planned to minimize impact on downstream fish as a result of siltation. The location of lower level spoil disposal sites should be chosen to avoid the active Chilkoot River floodplain. An attempt should be made to provide spawning habitat at the tailrace discharge point to perpetuate the sockeye -salmon spawning that now occurs at the creek mouth. Need for Additional Information No special environmental studies other than basic ecological reconnais- sance should be necessary prior to development of the Upper Chilkoot site. 12 Summary of Important Environmental Aspects Visual impact at the dam site and impacts to downstream fisheries as a result of siltation appear to be the most important environmental issues. The latter problem is temporary and can be at least partly mitigated. The above issues, combined with confined working areas, suggest that special attention may have to be paid to IIhousekeeping" problems. KELSALL RIVER SITE Environmental Setting . The Kelsall River originates at Kelsall Lake in Canada and flows for a distance of about 30 miles until it enters the Chilkat River about 30 miles northwest of Haines. The dam site is located about 8 miles upstream from the Chilkat River confluence in a high gradient stream reach within a wooded canyon. Below the canyon the Kelsall River flattens out as it flows onto the Chilkat River floodplain and divides into numerous branches prior to entering the Chilkat River. Most of the area adjacent to the Kelsall River is forested with typical spruce-hemlock veget at ion. Some recent logging has occurred in the lower river valley. Above the dam site the river flattens out with some portions of the valley vegetated by a cottonwood-shrub community. The Chilkat River valley, where transmission lines would be routed, is broad and flat and contains a mosaic of vegetation including meadow, woodland, and bog. The Chilkat and lower Kellsall River floodplains are good wildlife habitat and are designated within the Haines-Skagway Area Land Use Plan as a major moose wintering area and as major waterfowl habitat. This area is also used heavily by bald eagles both for nesting and as a site for winter concen- tration. A portion of the Chilkat valley near Klukwan has been designated by the State as a critical habitat area and has received national interest because of the thousands of eagles present in winter. The Kelsall valley above the darn site would also be expected to be favorable wildlife habitat. 13 The Kelsall River, because of its turbidity and steep gradient, cannot be considered a good fish stream. However, the lower portion of the river, to within about 2 miles of the proposed powerhouse site, is used for spawning by several hundred coho salmon and lesser numbers of chinook salmon. These fish use areas of groundwater inflow to the stream as spawning sites. Additionally, unknown numbers of sockeye salmon spawn in the Kelsall delta area. Some spring-fed areas of clear water in the delta provide rearing habitat for coho salmon. Velocity barriers may prevent salmon from passing upstream of the canyon where the proposed dam site and powerhouse would be located. Limited numbers of resident fish species may use the Kelsall River upstream from the dam site. The entire area is moderately scenic; however, the Kelsall River valley does not provide except ional scenery and opportunit ies for viewing the dam site area would be limited. Existing and proposed land uses for the Kelsall valley include logging, agriculture, and various recreational pursuits. Most activity has occurred in the lower valley, below the canyon. Potential Environmental Concerns The dam would inundate about 80 acres of moderately productive wildlife habitat. Additional terrain would be disturbed by the access road along the river to the powerhouse and dam site, the penstock right-of-way and the transmission line. Much of the transmision line would follow existing roadways and, therefore, would not disturb virgin terrain. It is unlikely that the overall effect on big game animals would be significant unless the proposed flooded area were found to be critical habitat for moose or other large mammals. An overhead transmission line through the critical eagle habitat area near Klukwan may cause some concern. Transmission poles and wires would undoubtedly be used by eagles for roost- ing. Depending on the cable configuration, birds could be electrocuted. 14 Small numbers of eagles, waterfowl, and other birds could be injured from collisions with cables. Adverse impacts to resident or anadromous fish populations at, or upstream from, the dam site in the Kelsall River would be unlikely. However, some temporary impact to anadromous and resident species downstream from the site could occur as a result of siltation. The magnitude of the effect would depend on the time of year and the extent of siltation. Siltation during the fall and winter during low flow woul d probab ly have the greatest impact by interfering with coho salmon spawning and egg development. Permanent impact to Kelsall River coho and chinook salmon could occur if the dam installation alters the ground water conditions in the lower Kelsall valley and, thus, changes the characteristics of traditional spawning or rearing areas that are dependent on upwelling ground water. Visual impact result ing from Kel sall River hydroelectric development would be minor. The dam, powerhouse, and reservoir would not be visible from the Chilkat valley. Transmission lines through the Chilkat valley to Haines woul d create some adverse impact within a heavi ly used transportat ion and recreation corridor. Land use of the Kelsall River area would not be altered by the proposed project unless commerc i a 1 timber stands were inundated. Recreat ion oppor- tunities could be enhanced through improved access to the upper river area. Possible Mitigation Measures Timing and method of construction should be planned to minimize impact to downstream fish as a result of siltation. Location of transmission lines through the Chilkat valley should be pl anned to minimize disturbance to eagles and to avoid visual impact from the highway. Underground cables should be considered within the Klukwan critical habitat areas to alleviate possible conflicts with eagles. 15 Need for Additional Study The Kelsall River was specifically named in the Haines-Skagway Area Land Use Plan as being in need of additional study relative to fish use. The location of downstream spawning areas has not been accurately delineated and fish use of the upper river is essentially unknown. It is not known for sure whether salmon mi grate past the proposed dam locat ion. The importance of ground water to spawning fish and possible impacts to ground water regimes as a result of "-dam construction also need to be investigated. An examination of the habitat values within the proposed area of inundation would also be desirable. Summary of Important Environmental Aspects Possible impacts to anadromous fish or their habitats downstream from the dam site could be a significant concern. It is likely that a more complete information base relative to fish habitat requirements would be a prerequisite for power development on the Kelsall River. Another important issue concerns conflicts between the proposed transmision line and the eagle concentration area in the Chilkat valley. Although potential adverse effects to eagles could probably be effectively mitigated, State and national inter- est in the area might lead to controversy. NATAGA CREEK SITE Environmental Setting Nataga Creek, a Kelsall River tributary, originates near the Canadian border and flows southeasterly a distance of about 10 miles prior to merging with the Kelsall about 3 miles upstream from the Chilkat River. The lower portion of Nataga Creek that would be influenced by the proposed power development ;s consistently steep except for the last mile. 16 The creek valley is wooded on the sides with shrub vegetation on the canyon rim. Wildlife values of Nataga Creek are probably not unusual except that the extreme lower portion is good moose habitat. Fish resources are poorly known; however, the high gradient probably prevents fish from using most of the creek except in the lower portion. The lower mile of the stream is used as spawning habitat by relatively small numbers of coho and possibly chinook salmon. Fish and wildlife values for the lower Kelsall and Chilkat Rivers have been described in the Kelsall site discussion. The Nataga Creek canyon is rugged and dramatic but not readily visible unless seen from within. Aesthetic value is moderate. Recreational or other use of the Nataga Creek vicinity is probably low because of the rugged terrain. Some hunting undoubtedly occurs. Potential Environmental Concerns Environmental concerns are nearly identical to those expressed for the Kelsall site since both would affect the lower Kelsall River and both would require a transmission line though the Chilkat valley. Impacts to wildlife probably would be less severe for the Nataga site when compared to Kelsall since very little terrain would be inundated and overall habitat values are probably lower. Potential effects on downstream fish or their habitat are the same as expressed for the Kelsall site except that the Nataga development is smaller in scope and permanent effects such as ground-water alterat ion probably would be less serious. On the other hand, construction of the long tunnel required at the Nataga Creek site would involve disposal of 19000 cu. yds of spoil, thus adding an additional source of terrain disturbance. Visual impact would not be severe at the Nataga site because of the small dam and underground conduit. Disposal of tunnel spoil might be the greatest source of visual alteration. 17 Possible Mitigation Measures Same as discussed for the Kelsall River site. Need for Additional Study Nataga Creek was named in the Haines-Skagway Area Land Use Plan as requiring additional study to determine value to fish. The extent of salmon spawning in the lower end of the creek has not been adequately del ineated and the importance of upwelling ground water ;n relation to coho salmon spawning habitat needs further investigation. Summary of Important Environmental Aspects Possible adverse impact to anadromous fish or their habitat downstream from the dam site, along with possible eagle/transmission line conflicts, are the most important issues (as discussed for the Kelsall site). OVERVIEW Deve lopment of the Kas i daya or Dayebas Creek sites woul d entail the least overall environmental impact. Development of any of the remaining sites would involve some degree of conflict with anadromous fish resources along with varying degrees of other problems. None of the sites appear to present environmental conflicts sufficiently severe to preclude development completely. However, the West Creek, Kelsall River and Nataga Creek sites coul d require a longer study period to ident ify resources and appropri ate means of mitigation. 18 APPENDIX Summary of Public Meetings APA Comments on Chilkat River Gorge Letter from Organization for Lynn Canal Fishermen's Rights, April 28, 1981 APA Response Letter from National Park Service, May 5, 1981 APA Response Letter from Alaska Department of Fish and Game, May 14, 1981 Letter from Alaska Power Administration, May 19, 1981 Letter from City of Skagway, May 21, 1981 Resolution by City of Skagway Letter from City of Haines, May 28, 1981 Letter from Haines Light and Power Company, May 28, 1981 Letter from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, May 28, 1981 ALASKA POWEll AUTHOIlITY SUMMARY OF PUBLIC MEETINGS ON HAINES-SKAGWAY POWER ALTERNATIVES Haines, Alaska 7:00 p.m. Tuesday, April 28, 1981 The Haines public meeting on power alternatives convened at 7:00 p.m., Tuedsay, April 28, 1981 at the Sheldon Museum and Cultural Center. Twenty nine people were present including twenty members of the general public, two city officials', three representatives of the local utility Haines Light and Power; three representatives of R. W. Beck and Associates; and one from Alaska Power Authority. Brent Petrie of the Alaska Power Authority gave a brief overview and history of this reconnaissance study including the earlier selection of Dayebas Creek for feasibility and a subsequent determination that other sites are more economical and feasible. Don Melnick Project Manager for R. W. Beck and Associates gave an introduction of the type of engineering, hydrologic, and economic analysis that went into a project of this nature and introduced Wilson Binger, Project Engineer for R. W. Beck. With the assistance of view graphs, Wilson gave a compre- hensive presentation on the projected loads of the Haines-Skagway market area, and engineering, hydrologic, environmental and construction cost elements of the Dayebas Creek, Kasidaya, Kelsall River, Nataga Creek, Upper Chilkoot Lake, West Creek, and Goat Lake Projects. The meeting was opened to public questions and comments. Many questions related to the technical and operating details of various projects and were answered by Wilson. Several questions concerned the amount of power that could be provided by each project as a percentage of total annual needs. For example Upper Chilkoot with storage could provide up to 75% of Haines needs only, West Creek with storage could provide 100% of both Haines and Skagway needs. Ms. Dorothy Fossman representing Organization For Lynn Canal Fisherman Rights submitted written testimony which requested that Alaska Power Authority address the poss'ibil ities of enhancement of natural stocks by increasing water temperature in rearing areas or by creating natural spawning areas below the project. Their main interest was in the Upper Chilkoot Project and its effect on the Chilkoot System. They favored natural enhancement over hatcheries due to a concern of disease dissemi- nation by hatchery stocks. Wilson replied that an Upper Chilkoot project might not raise water temperatures due to the high lake elevation and entrainment of colder water but that it should be addressed in a feasibility level study to determine the answer. Mr. John Schnabel asked if we had examined a project at the Chilkat River ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY Summary of Public Meetings Haines-Skagway Page 2 Gorge and Melnick and Petrie stated that we had not because: 1) the project would l"ikely back water into Canada which would require an international treaty agreement and therefore significantly longer lead time and 2) the project would be several t"imes larger than the capacity needs of the market area. Several people said that uses could be found for the power if it was available. Others said they thoUght a smaller project might be possbile that would not back water into Canada and that the valley upstream from the gorge extended 6-7 miles before coming to the Canadian border. A member of the public commented that the West Creek project could be doubled in size (to about 11 mw) and asked whether or not this would be sufficient if the White Pass and Yukon Railroad decided to electrify their rail operation. Wilson replied that we had not addressed this and did not know what would be required to electrify the railroad at this time. A member of the audience asked if the tunnels and penstock installed at West Creek would be sufficient for future expansion. Wilson replied that the proposed tunnel size would be sufficient to handle future expansion simply because the tunnel could not be excavated any smaller due to require- ments needed for the men and machinery that would build the tunnel. Another configuration proposed by Alaska Power and Telephone in Skagway would in- volve a surface penstock sufficient to serve a 1.5 mw project that would supply Skagway only. A member of the audience asked if instream generators had been addressed. Brent replied that APA was trying to track down information on instream turbines that were supposedly used long ago in Norway, but were not able to locate any. He reported people had hooked up fish wheels to generators but they could produce only small amounts of power for battery charging. He reported that some head was needed to provide sufficient pressure to turn turbines and even low-head bulb turbines required a barrage or dam across the stream to operate. Don Melnick added that some research was being done on such systems on an experimental basis but their charge was to find a firm, reliable and proven power option for Haines and Skagway. He said that some of these options may prove themselves in the future but at present are either unreliable for commercial application or produce very little energy. A gentleman asked about the status of the Angoon Tidal Power project. Brent responded that a concept of a tidal driven propeller had been developed but there were still many problems to be worked out regarding entanglement with weeds, damage from logs, and blockage to whales. He reported that any demonstration was still a long way off and nothing was in the water yet. ALASKA POWER AUTIIORITY Summary of Public Meetings Haines-Skagway Page 3 A lady asked why transmission lines could not be put underground. Wilson replied that cost was the main consideration. She also asked how one knew what the demands would be since people may want to convert to electric heat. Wilson replied they had not looked at electric heat demand at the recon level but that question would be addressed in a detailed projection of electrical use with and without electric heat in a feasibility study. A gentleman asked what the cost of power would be from the different projects. Brent replied that they had prepared cost estimates based on a 8.5% interest rate but that it appeared that this would be changed by the legislature. Several different financing programs are proposed in the legislature and anyone would affect the cost of power. Rather than select a project based on cost of power projections at this stage, the Power Authority preferred to screen projects based upon their present worth of accumulated annual capital, operating and maintenance costs discounted at 3% per year for a 50 year project life. They hope to identify the most favorable alternative to diesel generation then obtain favorable financing for the best alternative. A gentleman commented that in the event of a submarine cable connection to Skagway there would be no significant additional transmission lines in the Haines area since the cable connection would simply serve the existing distribution system. He also asked if Klukwan was included in the analysis. Don Melnick responded it was not. A citizen asked if costs estimates were included for extending service 6 miles to Lutak Inlet. It was not and would be up to the local utility to provide any distribution. Approximately 20-40 people live in the area now. Someone asked if the West Creek powerhouse could be moved out of the Klondike National Historic Park and, if not, would the Park Service stop the project. Wilson replied that the project would be much less attractive if the power- house had to be moved up the hill. Brent responded that the powerhouse site is actually state land within the boundary of the park and more research will have to be done but it appears there are options available which would allow construction. A question was asked whether a larger project was possible on the Kelsall River. Wilson responded that not much head was available, a larger dam would be required, storage would be hard to obtain and there was a fault line running through the area which would make design and contruction of a suitab 1 edam diffi cult and very costly. John Schnabel mentioned that there was good farmland available in the Chilkat Valley and transmission lines from Kelsall or Nataga Creek could serve agricultural development in that area as well as Klukwan. He also ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY Summary of Public Meetings Haines-Skagway Page 4 expressed support for looking at a larger storage project on the Chilkat River which could provide power for a long time into the future and possibly avoid further expansion or addition to other hydro projects that may be built. He requested that APA take a closer look at the project to make sure if water would be backed into Canada. He has been to the site and valley behind it and thought quite a bit of storage could be achieved with a small dam. Another member of the audience said that he had flown over the dam site and it appeared to be a gorge 150' deep of solid rock only about 75' wide. After some general discussion the meeting adjourned approximately 10:05 p.m. Skagway, Alaska 7:00 p.m., Wednesday April 29, 1981 The Skagway public meeting on power alternatives convened at 7:00 p.m., Wednesday, April 29, 1981 at the Skagway City Hall. Twenty seven people were present including nineteen members of the general public, two city officials, one representative of Alaska Power & Telephone, two representative of Haines Light & Power, three representative of R. W. Beck and Associates, and one from Alaska Power Authority. Mayor Bob Messegee of Skagway introduced the study team and gave some opening remarks on long term power possibilities for Skagway. Brent Petrie introduced others in the audience -Ralph Wilson, Alaska .Power and Telephone, and Bill Corbus and Archie Hinman of Haines Light and Power. Don Melnick and Wilson Binger ran through a presentation of engineering, hydrologic, environmental and construction cost consideration similar to the night before at Haines. There was considerable discussion on the West Creek site and the pros and cons of a storage project versus a run-of-the river project. Ralph Wilson of Alaska Power and Telephone described their proposal to install a 1.5 mw run-of-the-river plant on West Creek and their plans underway to have a total 800 kw of hydro (an increase from 500 kw) installed at their present powerplant by late summer 1981. With the 800 kw of installed hydro Skagway may be able to run total hydro in the low demand summer months. Mayor Messegee questioned the need for a run-of-the river plant at West Creek that would provide seasonal power at the same time the existing AP&T plant could provide summer power. Brent Petrie said APA had some concerns with AP&T's proposal for West Creek and would be addressing that through formal procedures in the water rights administration process before the Department of Natural Resources. ALASKA POWER AIJTHORITY Summary of Public Meetings Haines-Skagway Page 5 A member of the public questioned the acquisition of water rights by pri- vate or public entities and thought that all rights to use water should remain with the public. Brent Petrie suggested that wasnlt really an issue we could discuss since the legislature and State Constitution had spelled out the procedures for acquiring water rights for many years. Other discussion centered on the land status at West Creek and the fact that it was within the boundary of the Klondike National Historic Park but would involve state or private land. Brent Petrie responded that Mr. Sims of the Park Service had advised him that getting permits for studies and field work may not be a significant problem but that actual construction may require an Act of Congress to revise the park boundary or provide specific language which would allow project construction. Mr. Sims was in the audience and reaffirmed this. Some questions arose about transmission lines vs. submarine cables and Don Melnick responded that they preferred submarine cable to overland trans- mission due to the difficult topography between Haines and Skagway and the visual effect a transmission line along Taiya Inlet. As for reliability of submarine cable he said it was customary to lay four conductors (standard AC transmission requires three conductors) or two three-phase cables so there was always a spare in place that could be used for backup. He said this was included in the cost estimate for the project. One citizen suggested that Goat Lake not be overlooked even though recent information that its depth may be shallower than anticipated and therefore require costly dam. Several members of the audience said they had flown over or visited Goat Lake but did not know its depth for sure. Brent Petrie said that APA would include verification of Goat Lake water depths in any feasibility study. Mr. Gene Strong of Skagway presented verbal information he had tabulated on fuel consumption in Skagway and provided written data to the study team at the end of the meeting. 1980 statistics given for fuel used were: Gasoline Heating Oil Kerosene Propane Blazo Diesel fuel for e 1 ectri c ity 242,600 gal 706,000 II 1 ,290 II 450 II 348 II 343,000 II The meeting adjourned at approximately 10:15 p.m. Summary of Public Hearings Haines-Skagway Page 6 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY NAME Gary D. Matthews John J. Schnabel Cindi Bromagen Roy Staska John Carlson Ceci ly Stern Thomas R. QuinlGn Bi 11 Corbus Donald D. Bowey Donald R. Melnick Wilson Binger Archie W. Hinman Roy C. Clayton Eugene McNamara Irv. Sogge Hazel Nelson Nancy M. Sogge Ellis Spencer George A. Schnabel Richard Jackson Louise Homstad Rick Shabo Sue Shabo D. E. Fossman Jon Ha 11 iwi 11 Brent N. Petrie ATTENDANCE LIST HAINES POWER ALTERNATIVES APRIL 28, 1981 ADDRESS Box 247, Haines Box 595, Haines Gen. Del., Haines Box 489, Haines Box 95 Box 696 Box 130 134 Franklin St., Juneau Box 5262, Ketchikan, Alaska R. W. Beck & Assoc., Seattle R. W. Beck & Assoc., Seattle Haines Light & Power, Haines Box 764, Haines Box 262, Haines Box 427, Haines Box 297, Ha -j nes Box 427, Haines Box 199, Haines Box 303, Haines Box 242, Haines Box 87, Haines Box 125, Ha -j nes Box 125, Haines Box 237. Haines Mayor Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage NOTE: Not all attendees signed in Summary of Public Hearings Haines-Skagway Page 7 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY NAME Ralph J. Wilson Barbara D. Kalen Martha Moore A. F. Gordon Richard Sims Edith Lee Mark H. Lee Duncan Hukill William A. Corbus Archie Hinman A lf Ka 1 vi ck Ed na A. Ka 1 vic k Scott A. 01 son Guy Mickelson Patrick Mahoney Bob Messegee Susan A. Messegee Gene P. Strong Jeff Brady Donald R. Melnick Wilson Binger Donald D. Bowey Sk-ip Elliott Brent N. Petrie ATTENDANCE LIST SKAGWAY POWER AL TERNATIVES APRIL 29, 1981 ADDRESS Alaska Power and Telephone, Port Townsend, Washington Box 317, Skagway Box 27, Skagway Box 325, Skagway Box 517, Skagway Box 235, Skagway Box 235, Skagway Box 383, Skagway 134 Franklin St., Juneau Haines Box 316, Skagway Box 316, Skagway Box 1, Skagway Box 336, Skagway 5th & Spring, Skagway City Hall, Skagway 17th & State, Skagway Box 189, Skagway R. W. Beck & Assoc., Seattle, WA R. W. Beck & Assoc., Seattle, WA Box 5262, Ketchikan Box 143, Skagway Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage NOTE: Not all attendees signed in. APA COMMENTS ON CHILKAT RIVER GORGE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT SITE This response is a followup to the interest Mr. John Schnable ex- pressed in development of the hydroelectric potential of the Chilkat River while at a public meeting on power alternatives for Haines and Skagway on April 28, 1981. At that time he asked us to examine the Chilkat River Gorge site to verify the extent of flooding that may be caused by a dam at that site. We did not include detailed examination of the site because of our sus- picion that it would require the negotiation of a treaty between the United States and Canada since it may affect water levels in Canada. We have since examined maps of the region and data on file at the Alaska Power Administration in Juneau. According to data from the Alaska Power Administration with a dam height of about 300 feet and water surface elevation at 590 feet, the site has the potential for 20.6 MW of firm capacity and 37.4 MW of installed capacity and would require the construction of about 20 miles of access road. Access and transmission distances are longer than the Kelsall River alternative we examined and would therefore cost more. While the project has the potential for several times the projected power needs of Haines and Skagway, we examined the maps and data to see if a smaller project would be possible. In any case it appears from the map and memos on file that a penstock intake should be placed no lower than the 350-foot eleva- tion and that the estimated elevation of the river at the Canadian border is 450 feet. This would allow construction of a dam about 100 feet high creating a reservoir with a maximum water surface elevation of 450 feet or only about 70,000 acre-feet of storage. Assuming a powerhouse at El 210 and intake at El 350 feet with an average water surface elevation at 400 feet, the project would have an average head of 190 feet. Hydrology records show flows in the range of 3,400 cfs to 3,900 cfs for the months of July -September. However, flows for the rema1n1ng nine months of the year are less than 1,000 cfs and drop to less than 50 cfs for January to March. Using the above data, a head of 190 feet, allowing for 20% of the inflow for habitat maintenance, reservoir losses and overall efficiency of 65% we calculate a firm capacity of only 4.1 MW. Using a head of 140 feet drops the firm capacity to 3.0 MW. There would be very little saleable secondary energy in July -September since this would be a low demand period. A quick comparison of relative distances against data in the recent R. W. Beck report indicates that the investment necessary for access roads and transmission lines appears to be twice that needed for a West Creek storage project at Skagway. Page 2 Most of the gains in storage potential are above the 450-foot con- tour. As an example, Alaska Power Administration data show that a water sur- face elevation of 550 feet would provide 250,000 acre-feet of storage. Con- cept drawings on file at the Alaska Power Administration show the site could accommodate a dam with a crest elevation at 600 feet with a 590-foot water surface elevation and which could store 360,000 acre-feet of water. Although the site appears to be well endowed with hydroelectric potential, the firm potential to be realized in Alaska under the 450-foot ele- vation is only about 20% of the site's full firm potential. At 20% develop- ment the site does not compare favorably with some of other projects examined and would not meet the projected 1996 Haines-Skagway needs. To expand it above that level would require negotiation of a treaty with Canada. On the other hand both the West Creek and Goat Lake sites could provide for 1996 pro- jected needs and the West Creek Project is expandable to the 10-13-MW range and would not involve international agreements. Therefore, we cannot recommend pursuit of a Chilkat River Project at this time. We hope this satisfactorily answers some of the questions that were posed to us at the April 28 meeting. We look forward to continued coop- eration with the citizens of Haines and Skagway to find economical long-term alternatives to the escalating costs of diesel power generation. Box 237 Haines, Alaska 99827 4/28181 Alaska Power Authority a~Others Heeting on Tuesday, 1~/28/81 5heldon Museum and Cultural Center Haines, Alaska 99827 SUBJ: AR2A HYDROPOWER POTENTIAL, FISHEEIEL': P~F: ehilkoot River System Gentlemen; There are two items that may not have been included in the in-put on the above subject matter: 1. Increased temperature of the water which would be highly beneficial to the fisheries, and 2. Creation of natural spawning areas below the dam that 'would contribute to natural enhance- ment of the fisheries. It is my hope that the above input will be included as beneficial considerations for the creation of an area hydropower realization. Sincerely, ,. ... k-~ L~ >-x:]---t--" • "\ . C' '" '-~-~} ~.-?~' By. Dorothy t-/l:' os . .) c.8, ,-.ee. For: Ed Maki I Chairman ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY COMMENTS ON ORGANIZATION FOR LYNN CANAL FISHERMEN'S RIGHTS LETTER OF APRIL 28, 1981 The Power Authority is presently considering the next stage and level of study to pursue for Haines' and Skagway's electric power alterna- tives. Although the organization's comments were directed at the Upper Chil- koot Lake Project and the Chilkoot River system, we feel they are applicable to other projects as well. Based upon input from the public meetings, written comments, and our engineer's report we will likely recommend a detailed feasibility study of a West Creek storage project with some additional investigation of Goat Lake (near Skagway), Upper Chilkoot Lake and possibly Haska Creek (near Haines) as secondary alternatives. As part of the next stages of investigation we can include a program element which will address the effect of the project on both commercial and sport fisheries and the possibility of natural enhancement through flow and temperature regulation. As to the organization's specific requests regarding Upper Chilkoot Lake, we are not sure that water temperature would be raised by discharges from the powerhouse. The lake is high, small, and glacier fed and, at least in the summer time, would probably be cooler than the stream waters at the lower elevation. Nevertheless, it is a subject we should address at any proj- ect site. United States Department of the Interior 1\'ATI0l'\AL PARK SERVICE Alaska Area Office IN REPLY REFER TO: 540 \'\' est Fifth Avenue, Room 202 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 L7619 May 5, 1981 Mr. R.W. Beck and Associates Attn: Mr. David T. Hoopes Tower Buil di ng 7th Avenue at Olive Way Seattle, Washington 98101 Dear Mr. Hoopes: We have reviewed your proposal for the siting of a hydroelectric project near Skagway, Alaska, and wish to express our concern with the West Creek site -your preferred option. We understand you have been in touch with Messrs. Gallison and Hobbs of our Pacific Northwest Regional Office. Undoubtedly they informed you of the National Park Service's management responsibilities in the area and the mandate under which Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park is to be managed, so you will appreciate our concern. An examination of the report for the West Creek option indicates proposed facilities within the park would include an access ~oad, powerhouse and a transmission line. While it appears the powerhouse would be located on state-selected lands, the access road would cross land owned by the National Park Service. And, although the transmission line route has not beeen proposed it would certainly pass through the park at some point. We understand the line could be put underground which would have far less impact on the area than an overhead line. This option should be seriously considered. The report states that the excavation for the powerhouse and portal would remove a terrace 20 feet high and 30 feet wide, and cut into a hillside at least 35 feet. We believe architectural design and mitigating measures were not given adequate consideration in this case. Furthennore, we cannot agree with the statement, "Visual impact of the project as currently conceptualized would be minor". The combination of a powerhouse, access road, and overhead powerline would, in our opinion, constitute mofe than a mino~ visual impact .. This is not to mention the impact increased traffic in the park would cause during construction. Perhaps you are aware of the National Park Service's right-of-way regulation that requires Congressional approval for the construction of power related facilities within the boundary of a national park. These regulations are available from the Pacific Northwest Regional Office, 601 Fourth and Pike Building, Seattle, Washington 98101, or you could call Mr. Gallison at 442-5962, if you want a copy. Our final concern is possible impacts on cultural resources. The West Creek site would very likely affect the Chilkoot Trail and Dyea -both National Register sites. Since your firm is located near the Pacific Northwest Regional Office, please feel free to contact Mr. Hobbs with your questions or concerns and he will get in touch with us. Or, of course, you can contact us directly at 271-4216. \ ~~.COOk Director, Alaska Regional Office ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY COMMENTS ON NATIONAL PARK SERVICE LETTER OF MAY 5, 1981 We are in receipt of Mr. John Cook's letter of May 5, 1981 to Mr. David Hoopes of R. W. Beck and Associates regarding hydroelectric alterna- tives for the Haines-Skagway area. Mr. Cook expressed some specific concerns about the West Creek Project since portions of the project features would fall within the boundaries of the Klondike National Historic Park on state or pri- vate lands. On May 20, 1981 Mr. Brent Petrie of the Power Authority staff talked with Mr. Howard Wagner of Mr. Cook's office regarding the letter in order to clarify some pOints of concern. The Power Authority now wishes to respond in writing for the record. First of all the Alaska Power Authority has made no decision to proceed with construction of a West Creek Project. The subject report is a reconnaissance level report. The next stage would be a feasibility level report to ascertain a better level of certainty about geotechnical, engineer- ing, environmental and economic considerations and thereby determine if a project is worthy of construction. Based upon the reconnaissance level re- sults the West Creek Project does appear to have the lowest life cycle cost of all plans considered. We have now received input at public meetings and writ- ten comment from other agencies. The Power Authority will be recommending a detailed feasibility study of West Creek along with some limited additional investigation of Goat Lake near Skagway and Upper Chilkoot Lake and Haska Creek near Haines in order to have some certainty about the costs and charac- teristics of those alternatives. Mr. Cook's letter expressed concern about access roads, the power- house, and transmission lines. The location of all three would be subject to examination in the detailed feasibility study. Architectural design and miti- gating measures would be given specific consideration at this level, and be- cause access and transmission lines would have to cross a portion of the Park, the Park Service must certainly be involved in consultations to determine the most appropriate route and type of access. Regarding Mr. Cook's concern about the visual impact of an overhead transmission line, the Power Authority does not envision this including large steel lattice towers. Rather, the line would be a relative low voltage 34.5-kV transmission line where all conductors could be suspended from wood poles about 35 feet in height. Given the height and density of cottonwoods and birches in the area we feel that a 50-75-foot setback from the road could effectively mask such a line from view. In any event this would be specifically addressed in a more detailed level of study. Regarding the impact on historic and cultural resources, we do not feel the project would impact hikers on the Chilkoot Trail which is across the Taiya River from the project area. During the next study phase, we propose to have the visual impact of the project evaluated by a landscape architect. We Page 2 would also plan to have the landscape architect assist in the project planning so that any visual impacts would be minimized to the extent possible. In ad- dition, archaeological surveys would likely be necessary to verify any poten- tial impacts of access on the Dyea townsite and these would have to be con- ducted as part of the project feasibility. We are aware of the regulations regarding power facilities within the boundaries of a national park. Inasmuch as legislation and regulations outline a process for authorizing use of lands for power facilities and such use is not fully precluded by the authorization of Klondike National Historic Park, we feel the West Creek Project is worthy of feasibility study investiga- tion when compared to all other alternatives for renewable resource power sup- plies for Haines and Skagway. DEPARTMENT o.~ FISH & f.AME HABITAT DIVISION JAY S. HAMMOND, Cow.rnor 230 S. Franklin Street Juneau, Alaska 99801 PHONE: 465-4290 Mr. Brent Petrie May 14, 1981 Project Manager Alaska Power Authority 333 West 4th Avenue, Suite 31 Anchorage, Alaska, 99501 RE: Haines-Skagway Hydroelectric Project Dear Mr. Petrie: The Department of Fish and Game has reviewed the draft document entitled Addendum to the Reconnaissance Report on Energy Alternatives for the Haines-Skagway Region prepared by R.W. Beck and Associates. We concur with the conclusion that the two most reasonable a1ternative~ given the environmental and economic considerations which must be addressed, are West Creek and Goat Lake. We also totally support the concept of submarine transmission cables as we feel that their overall impact. will be significantly less than overhead lines. With regard to comparison of the two recommended alternatives, although we have no serious objections to either of them, given the environmental considerations we would prefer to see the Goat Lake site developed. According to our records 750 brook charr were planted in Goat Lake in 1932. There has been no follow-up evaluations and whether or not the lake presently contains fish is not known. West Creek supports Dolly Varden charr, Eu1achon, and coho salmon. Little is known about the extent of anadromous fish migration or the size of the resident population. Prior to the final decision on which site to develop, we recommend additional site evaluation be conducted. Specifically we feel the following should be addressed: 1. Determine whether fish are present in Goat Lake. 2. Determine limit of anadromous fish migration in West Creek. 3. Evaluate quality and extent of fish rearing habitat ·in West Creek. 4. Conduct survey of upper valley of West Creek to determine condition of the resident fish population. B. Petrie -2-May 14, 1981 We look forward to working with you as the project develops. Please feel free to contact this office if we can be of further assistance. We appreciate the opportunity to comnent, Sincerely -;>. p' ."> n ~.~c-L __ ~ ." __ 1") -iLK-<cY---._ Richard Reed Regional Supervisor cc: City of Skagway City of Haines USFWS, Juneau NMFS, Juneau D, Marriott, SF R. Staska, Department Of Energy Alaska Power Administration P.O. Box 50 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Mr. Brent Petrie Project Manager Alaska Power Authority 333 W. 4th Ave., Suite 31 Anchorage, AK 99501 Dear Mr. Petrie: May 19, 1981 We have reviewed the "Addendum to Reconnaissance Report on Alternatives for Haines-Skagway Region" as requested by your April 16, 1981 letter. We agree with the finding that West Creek and Goat Lake are probably the best available hydro resources to meet Haines and Skagway needs for the next 15 years or so. The report contains very little supporting information or design and cost data, so we don't have a basis for commenting on the recommendation to proceed with West Creek. The report indicates similar economics for the two projects; both suffer from lack of field data; both have signifi- cant unanswered geologic, engineering, and design questions. If more detailed studies are undertaken, we suggest consideration of the following points: 1) Surface conduits in lieu of tunnels for portions of the Goat Lake plan (development concepts similar to Petersburg's Blind Slough Project). 2) Evaluation of the potential for a fish hatchery along with the West Creek Project. 3) Including electric service to Klukwan. Sincerely, /.' \\ ......... ~ .. _j ~2 ~ ,. Robert J. Cross Administrator CITY OF SKAGWAY May 21, 1981 Mr. Brent N. Petrie Project Manager Alaska Power Authority 333 West 4th Avenue Suite 31 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Brent: GATEWAY TO THE GOLD RUSH OF "98" P. O. BOX 415 SKAGWAY. ALASKA 99840 Enclosed is a copy of a Resolution passed by the Skagway City Council at it's May 7 meeting concerning hydroelectric development of West Creek. A copy of this Resolution has been sent to each Alaskan Legislator and to the Department of Natural Resources. The Skagway City Council ranked hydro development fourth on its list of fifteen priority projects. As you are surely aware from your meeting here April 29, the City Council and citizens of Skagway support the development of a hydro storage facility at West Creek rather than a run-of-river project. As was brought out at that meeting, it is assumed that a "milestone" feasibility study of Goat Lake will be included as part of a West Creek feasibility study. In other words, an attempt should be made to determine the depth of Goat Lake. If it proves to be shallow, the project would be shelved in favor of West Creek. If deeper than anticipated, then further studies of the site would be conducted based upon the new data in order that the most appropriate site be eventually selected. The City of Skagway appreciates the interest that the Alaska Power Authority has shown in the Haines/Skagway area and fully supports your continued participation in the development of hydroelectric power here. Let me know if I can personally be of assistance. Sincerely, ~ ... I/J?{'jl. . '''---7 '-if' Skip Elliott City Manager Enclosure CITY OF SKAGWAY Rf:SOLL'TION SJ-9R A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING A FEASIBILITY STUDY BY THE ALASKA P(WvER AUTHORITY OF A HYDROELECTRIC fACILITY WITH STORAGE CAPABILITY ON WEST CREEr TN SKAGWAY. WHEREAS: The rIsIng cost of dieSEl fuel has resulted in increased costs in diesel-generated electricity to the consumer, and WHEREAS: Reconnaissance Assessment of Energy Alternatives for the Haines-Skagway Region conducted in recent months l)y CH2H Hill and R. W. Beck have ide~tified West Creek as a hydroelectric site with year-round storage capabilities and a relatively high benefit/cost ratio, and WHEREAS: Representatives of the Alaska Power Authority at a public meeting in Skagway on April 29, J98l considered West Creek the potential hydroelectric site in the Haines-Slagway area worthy of the most attention at this point in time, and WHEREAS: The Skagway City Council supports the construction of a hydroelectric facility on West Creek with storage capabilities, rather than a run-of-river project, since the latter would not totally alleviate a dependency on diesel-generated power, and WHEREAS: Section 13 of House CS £or CS for Senate Bill No. 26 appropriates funds for feasilJility studies for proposed power project sites and is now under consideration by the State Legislature, and WHEREAS: Alaska Power Authority officials indicated that a feasibility study for West Creek would cost about $1,000,000. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF TITE CITY OF SKAGWAY, ALASKA: That a copy of this resolution be sent to all members of the Alaskan Senate and'House of Representatives requesting that West Creek be included among the proposed power sites of Senate Bill No. 26 w~rranting feasibility studies by the Alaska Power Authority and that the sum of $l,O()(l,non he appropriated from the p,eneral fund for this purpose. AND BE IT FURTHER nESOLVED: That the Skagway City Council requests thC1t the Department of Natural Resources reserve water rights on West Creek for a hydroelectric facility Kith storage capahilities and that water rights fay a run- of-river project not he granted. PASSED AND APPROVED _\fl--j...J,~J1~, C~M~'+-'& -~---;,f-. _______ ----:--' 1981. " -~---.- r; \' 4,~ ATTEST' ",' . . t~~ &cor~n ~tyrerk <' "t', ~ ", ,/ /. .J~.:-. __ . ---:;~ c...---r0" .~-"" '" . Robert F. Mes segee', Mayor / CITY OF .,ONR(907) 766-2231 -POST OFFICE BOX 576 Mr. Brent N. Petrie Alaska Power Authority 333 W. 4th Avenue, Suite 31 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Brent: ·99827 , . May 28, 1981 This letter contains the comments of the City of Haines on the draft study prepared by R.W. Beck and Associates, Inc. entitled "Addendum to Reconnaissance Report on Alternatives for the Haines-Skagway Region," (the Report) dated April, 198!. Our comments are also influenced by statements made at the public meetings held on the subject in Haines, April 28, 1981. Haines Light and Power Co., Inc., (HLP) currently util- izes diesel generation to satisfy the electric energy require- ments of its service territory. With the possibility of ever increasing fuel costs or the possibility that fuel may not be available at all at some future date, other alternatives should be developed to satisfy the future long range electric require- ments of the area. As an interim solution HLP has entered into an agreement with the Schnabel Lumber Company (SLC) to purchase excess electric energy to be generated by a steam turbine fueled by waste wood residue from the SLC mill. We understand the agree- ment extends to August 1, 1988 during which time HLP should have sufficient time to develop an optimum hydro project. Based upon known and anticipated technological develop- ments, hydro electric generation appears the most appropriate long range method to satisfy this need. Selecting the optimum hydro alternative must follow a logical and careful process as it will have a direct influence on the performance of the Mro Brent N. Petrie May 28, 1981 Page No o Two area for many decades 0 Unfortunately, the difference in bene- fit-cost ratios for the most promising projects contained in the Report is so slight that in our opinion a decision based on reconnaissance level information to narrow a feasibility level study to one project is unwise 0 The most promising proj- ects appear to be several alternatives for West Creek, Goat Lake and Uppper Chilkoot Lake 0 However, variables such as sales projections and several alternatives for financing schemes under consideration in the Legislature could greatly effect the relative attractiveness of all the projects o Furthermore, each of the projects seems to have one potentially serious obstacle which may preclude it from going ahead o West Creek is on the boundary of the Skagway Historical National Park and will require altera- tion of the boundaries which may require an act of Congress to accomplisho The storage capacity of Goat Lake, as presently configured, and assumed in the study, has not been confirmed. The whole question of the accessibility to the Upper Chilkoot site is subject to question 0 A feasibility level study may indicate that it is not practical to proceed with further devel- opment of a specific projecto Therefore, it is recommended that these projects remain under consideration as we enter the feasi- bility stage. We feel that the Haines-Skagway area is not endowed with hydroelectric potential to the same extent as sites for most other communities of Southeastern Alaska o Therefore, prior to committing to a single potential project as recommended in the Report, it is suggested that a concurrent reconnaissance study be made on the alternatives of several small run-of-the-river projects near by Haines, such as Haska Creeko Under certain scenarios the series of small run-of-the-river projects, even though they do not completely eliminate diesel as a source of generation, could cause reductions to such an extent that it may have the best cost benefit ratioo In regards to the Report itself we would suggest that the paragraph on cost estimates on Page 4 of the covering letter to Mro Robert A. Mohn should be reworded to clarify the two dif- ferent rates of interest for "interest during constructiono" Also, during the. public hearings questions were raised as to why several projects in the Chilkat Valley whcih would result in reservoir extending into Canada, were not considered. Early in the Report it should be noted that it was beyond the scope of the study and that the Alaska Power Authority decided not to seriously pursue those alternatives due to time delay to negotiate international treaties with Canada 0 The City of Haines thanks the Alaska Power Authority and the State of Alaska for all that is being done to help resolve Mr. Brent N. Petrie May 28, 1981 Page No. Three the long range electric energy problem of Haines and looks forward to working with the Alaska Power Authority in the future. Very truly yours, THE CITY OF HAINES Mayor JDH/VCM/alr xc: Haines Light and Power, Co., Inc., Haines Overall Economic Development Committee, Haines Mr. Bill Corbus, Alaska Electric Light and Power 134 Franklin, Juneau, Alaska 99801 Mr. Ralph Wilson, President, Alaska Power and Telephone Company, P.O. Box 222, Port Townsend, Washington 98368 ~ ~ & fffJOUH/t ~o.~ dnc. Mr. Brent N. Petrie Alaska Power Authority P.O. BOX 40 HAINES, ALASKA 99827 May 28, 1981 333 W. 4th Avenue, Suite 31 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Brent: This letter contains the comments of the Haines Light & Power Co., Inc. (HLP) on the draft study prepared by R. W. Beck and Associates, Inc. entitled "Addendum to Reconnaissance Report on Alternatives for the Haines-Skagway Region" (the Report)dated April, 1981. Our comments were also influenced by statements made at the public workshops held on the subject in Haines on April 28, 1981, and Skagway on April 29, 1981. HLP currently utilizes diesel generation to satisfy the electric energy requirements of its service territory. With the outlook for ever increasing fuel costs and the possibility of fuel not being available at all at some future date, other alterna- tives must be developed to satisfy the future long range electric requirements of the area. As an interim solution HLP has entered into an agreement with the Schnabel Lumber Company, a copy of which was forwarded to you in my May 15, 1981, letter, to purchase excess electric energy to be generated by a steam turbine fueled by waste wood residue from their mill. The agreement will expire not later than August 1, 1988, which from HLP's perspective should provide sufficient time to develop the optimum hydro project. Based upon known and anticipated technological developments, hydro electric generation appears the most appropriate long range method to satisfy this need. Selecting the optimum hydro alternative must follow a logical and careful process as it will have a direct influence on the performance of the economy of the HLP service territory for many decades. Unfortunately, the difference in benefit-cost ratios for the most promising projects contained in the Report is so slight that in our opinion a decision based on reconnaissance level information to narrow a feasibility level study to one project is not warranted. The most promising pro- jects appear to be several alternatives for West Creek, Goat Lake and Upper Chilkoot Lake. However, variables such as sales projections Mr. Brent N. Petrie May 28, 1981 Page Two and several alternatives for financing schemes under consideration in the Legislature could greatly effect the relative attractiveness of all the projects. Furthermore, each of the projects seems to have one potentially serious obstacle which may preclude it from going ahead. West Creek is on the boundary of the Skagway Historical National Park and will require alteration of the boundaries which may require an act of Congress to accomplish. The storage capacity of Goat Lake as presently configured and assumed in the study has not been confirmed. The whole question of accessibility to the Upper Chilkoot site is subject to question. A feasibility level study may indicate that it is not practical to proceed with further development of a specific project. Therefore, it is recommended that these projects remain under consideration as we enter the feasibility stage. HLP is of the opinion that Haines-Skagway area is not endowed with a hydroelectric project capable of meeting its future needs that is anywhere near as attractive as potential sites for most other communities of Southeastern Alaska. Therefore, prior to committing to one of the alternatives recommended above, it is suggested that a concurrent reconnaissance study be made on the alternative of several small run of the river projects near by Haines such as Haska Creek. Under certain scenarios the series of small run of the river projects even though they do not completely eliminate diesel as a source of generation could cause reductions to such an extent that it may have the best cost benefit ratio. In regards to the Report itself we would suggest that the paragraph on cost estimates on Page 4 of the covering letter to Mr. Robert A. Mohn should be reworded to clarify the two different rates of interest for "interest during construction". Also, during the public hearings the question was asked as to why several projects up the Chilkat Valley which would result in reservoir backing up into Canada were not considered. Somewhere early in the Report it should be stated that it was beyond the scope of the study and that the Alaska Power Authority decided not to seriously pursue such alter- natives because of the time delay caused by international treaties which would have to be developed with Canada. HLP is most grateful to the Alaska Power Authority and the State of Alaska for all that is being done to help resolve the long range electric energy problem of Haines and looks forward to working with the Alaska Power Authority in the future. CC: William Corbus Ralph Wilson John Halliwill Very truly yours, Archie W. Hinman Manager, Haines Light & Power Co., Inc. United States Department of the Interior IN REPLY REFER TO: Mr. Brent Petrie Project Manager Alaska Power Authority FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 1011 E. TUDOR RD. ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503 (907) 276-3800 333 W. 4th Avenue, Suite 31 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Re: Energy Alternatives for the Haines-Skagway Region Dear Mr. Petrie: This responds to your letter of April 16, 1981, requesting our comments on the R. W. Beck and Associates, Inc., draft Addendum to the Reconnaissance Report on Energy Alternatives for the Haines-Skagway Region. Our comments are based on information presented in the subject addendum and on existing fish and wildlife data. It is not intended to be a comprehensive evaluation of project alternatives, but should provide a level of detail consistent with your reconnaissance study. Your reconnaissance studies, we understand, are intended to assess project alternatives so as to assure that there is no adverse effect to the environment of a magnitude sufficient to make the project inadvisable. They are also intended to serve as the basis for recommending more detailed studies of one or more specific power project alternatives. Background Energy alternatives for the Haines-Skagway area were originally evaluated by CH2M-Hi11 in the Reconnaissance Assessment of Energy Alternatives Chi1kat River Basin, February 1980. This report considered the following dam sites: Ferebee River, Haska Creek, Chi1koot Lake, Upper Chi1koot Lake, Dayebas Creek, Upper Dewey Lake, Reid Falls Creek, West Creek, Skagway River, Skagway Tributary, Kasidaya Creek, and Goat Lake. The study recommended that the sites at Dayebas Creek or Upper Chi1koot Lake should be considered for Haines and Reids Falls Creek should be considered for Skagway. Dam sites were again evaluated by the subject R. W. Beck and Associates, Inc., addendum. Project features were described in less detail than the earlier reconnaissance report, although this report included new alternatives and major changes on the old alternatives. The addendum also recommended construction of a West Creek storage dam with interties to Haines and Skagway and not separate facilities as recommended in the CH2M-Hill report. Description of Alternatives Dayebas Creek The site is located about five miles northeast of Haines, on the east 2. shore of Taiya Inlet. It is on U. S. Forest Service land and has been classified Land Use Designation (LUD) II. This designation would permit power developments if they can be designed to retain the overall primitive characteristics of the area. Dayebas Creek is glacially fed with a predicted annual mean flow of 73 cubic feet per second (cfs) and a stream length estimated at 3-6 miles. The stream follows a low gradient course, then near Taiya Inlet drops off quickly and flows into the inlet off a 15-50 foot waterfall. This alternative would include a 30' diversion dam, 7' x 3,750' power tunnel,S' x 640' power shaft, and a powerhouse at tidewater. A submarine transmission line would cross Taiya Inlet to Tanani Point, then an aerial line would run south to Haines. A port facility would be used in the construction and operation of the powerhouse. It would also serve to receive supplies which would then be airlifted or transported by tram to the dam site. Kasidaya Creek Kasidaya Creek is located on the east shore of Taiya Inlet about 3-1/2 miles south of Skagway and 7 miles north of Dayebas Creek. It is on U. S. Forest Service land and has been classified LUD II. This designation would permit power developments if they can be designed to retain the overall primitive characteristics of the area. This glacially fed creek would have a predicted mean annual flow of 138 cfs. The creek is about four miles long and drops off into Taiya Inlet at the 500-foot elevation. Project features include a 30' diversion dam, 8' x 2,700' power tunnel, 5' x 600' power shaft, and powerhouse at tidewater. A submarine cable would transmit power to Skagway. A dock would be needed for the construction and operation of the facility. Kelsall River The Kelsall River alternative is located about 14 miles northwest of Klukwan. The river begins at Kelsall Lake in Canada and follows a south- easterly course for 30 miles until it enters the Chilkat River. The predicted mean annual flow is 705 cfs. This alternative would include a 60' dam, 9' x 2,100' penstock, and a powerhouse. An aerial transmission line would be aligned along the right 3. side of the Chilkat River until the Haines Highway where it would then parallel the highway to Haines. Nataga Creek Nataga Creek is a tributary to the Kelsall River. The creek flows for 10 miles before entering the Kelsall River. The calculated mean annual flow for Nataga Creek is 48 cfs. This alternative would include a 30' dam, 8' x 9,550' power tunnel, 6' x 800' power shaft, and a powerhouse. An aerial transmission route similar to the Kelsall River alignment has been proposed. West Creek West Creek is a tributary to the Taiya River and is located about 6 miles northwest of Skagway. The creek has a mean annual flow of 313 cfs. Four alternatives have been proposed for this site. The diversion dam alternative would include a 30' dam, 9' x 2,800' power tunnel, 7' x 300' power shaft and a powerhouse. The storage dam alternatives would include a 107' or 95' dam, 6' x 10,500' power tunnel, 6' x 870' power shaft and powerhouse. The diversion dam and pipeline alternative would include a dam (dimensions not specified), 2.5' x 2.7 miles surface pipeline, and a powerhouse. Power would be transmitted by an aerial transmission line to Skagway. The intertie to Haines would include a submarine cable to Tanani Point and aerial lines the rest of the route. Upper Chilkoot Lake Upper Chilkoot Lake is located about four miles upstream of Chilkoot Lake. This alternative would be located on the outlet stream that flows into the Chilkoot River. The calculated mean annual flow is 32 cfs. Two alternatives have been proposed for this site. The no storage dam alternative would include a 15' dam, 7' x 3,150' power tunnel, 5' x 2,450' power shaft, and a pOHerhouse. The storage dam alternative vlOuld include a 40' dam, but other project features would be the same. Power would be transmitted to Haines by aerial transmission lines. Goat Lake Goat Lake is located about 7 miles northeast of Skagway. The project would be located at the outlet stream which then flows over Pitchfork Falls into the Skagway River. The mean annual flow for the outlet stream has been calculated at 31 cfs. Neither CH2M-Hill nor R. W. Beck and Associates, Inc., visited this site. Maps and photographs suggest that a storage dam may be possible, but its feasibility could not be verified. If Goat Lake does not have storage 4. below the present lake level, a 50-foot dam would be constructed to meet the needs of Haines and Skagway. A 30-foot dam would be constructed if the lake has storage to meet one-half the energy needs of both communities. A third alternative would require a 20-foot dam to only meet the energy needs of Skagway. All three alternatives would also require a low dam at the north end of the lake, 7' x 3,900' power tunnel,S' x 2,600' power shaft, and powerhouse. An aerial transmission line is proposed to Skagway, and the route to Haines would be the same as above. Fish and Wildlife Resources and Project Impacts Dayebas and Kasidaya Creeks Little information is available on these creeks. The falls near Taiya Inlet would block passage of anadromous fishes; intertidal spawning could possibly occur. Resident fishes may possibly inhabit the low gradient upstream reaches. However, this reach of the creek was not inspected by Alaska Power Authority's (APA) consultants due to poor helicopter landing sites. Wildlife data also do not exist. Development of these sites would create potential siltation problems due to land clearing operations. Construction activities would disturb resident fish and wildlife. The discharge of tunnel spoil and possibly fill associated with a dock could degrade intertidal habitat. During operation of the dam fish may be killed or injured during passage through intakes or spillways. However, due to limited data, full project impacts cannot be determined at this time. Kelsall River The project site is located in a known coho and chinook salmon spawning habitat. Sockeye salmon spawning occurs further downstream according to Alaska's Fisheries Atlas. The Haines-Skagway Area Land Use Plan also identifies a major moose wintering habitat near this alternative. Important wildlife resources exist along the transmission route. The Haines-Skagway Land Use Plan identifies most of the route as major waterfowl and major moose wintering habitat. The concentrations of bald eagles, however, are the most important wildlife in the area. Over 2,700 bald eagles, the largest wintering bald eagle concentration in the world, occur along the Chilkat River Valley. There are also more bald eagle nests, a total of 90, than any mainland river in southeast Alaska. The highest densities on the Chilkat were found from 12 Mile Haines Highway to the Tsirku River (3.8 nests/mile) and from Mosquito Lake to the Kelsall River (2.4 nests/mile). The transmission line which would run along the Chilkat River would create electrocution or collision hazards to waterfowl and to the large eagle population. Due to the number of birds, mortalities could be high. Eagle nests could also be affected by the land clearing for the transmission corridor. 5. Construction activities could disturb salmon migrations. Land clearing activities and work on the dam and tunnel could cause siltation of the river and destroy spawning habitat and incubating fish eggs. The dam would block the passage of coho and chinook salmon. It would also displace upstream spawning habitat. During operation of the project, fish may be injured or killed when passing through intakes or spillways. Moose wintering habitat may also be flooded by the reservoir or displaced by material sites. Nataga Creek Fish and wildlife resources of Nataga Creek are similar to Kelsall River except that no known salmon spawning habitat occurs at or above the dam site. However, known spawning areas for coho and sockeye salmon exist downstream from the site according to Alaska's Fisheries Atlas. Impacts of this alternative would be similar to that of the Kelsall River site. However, the dam would not block fish passage or displace spawning habitat. West Creek West Creek has been identified as an anadromous fish stream by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Coho salmon occurs in the creek, but its distribution throughout the system has not been determined. There is also a eulachon run up West Creek. In addition, pink, chum salmon, and Dolly Varden occur in Taiya River, below West Creek. Waterfowl habitat has been identified along the lower reaches of West Creek and Taiya River by the Haines-Skagway Land Use Plan and the public hearing draft of the Skagway Coastal Management & Energy Impact Program. High density mountain goat habitat and brown bear concentration areas exist near the project site. Moose are also known to use the area. Construction of the dam, tunnel and land clearing activities could result in siltation of spawning beds and disturbance of fish migrations. The proposed dam could potentially displace spawning habitat and block passage of anadromous fish. During its operation, regulation of flows during low flow periods could reduce any existing fish spawning and rearing areas. Fish may also be killed or injured during passage through intakes or spillways. Construction activities could cause wildlife to move out to less suitable habitat. The areas inundated by the dam or displaced by material sites would destroy large mammal habitat; it may affect some high value areas. However, due to limited biological data full project impacts cannot be determined at this time. Upper Chilkoot Lake No information is available on Upper Chilkoot Lake. Resident fishes possibly could be present in the lake. The steep gradient of the outlet stream 6. probably serves as a barrier to anadromous fish. However, near the confluence of the Chilkoot River, APA consultants saw about 20 sockeye salmon. In addition, known spawning sites for sockeye and coho salmon occur in the Chilkoot River. In this river valley, 11 bald eagle nests were identified and as many as 227 eagles were counted by biologists involved in the Chilkat River Cooperative Bald Eagle Study. The Haines-Skagway Area Land Use Plan also depicts the Chilkoot Valley as major waterfowl habitat. Construction of the powerhouse and associated facilities may also disturb salmon migrations; siltation of the river could reduce fish habitat. This alternative would displace sockeye salmon spawning habitat at the outlet stream since flows would be diverted through a tailrace located upstream of the existing channel. During its operation, fish could be killed or injured while passing through intakes or spillways. The aerial transmission line along the Chilkoot River would create electrocution and collision hazards for eagles and waterfowl. Some eagle nests may also be impacted by land clearing for the transmission corridor. Goat Lake Little fishery data is available for this site. The public hearing draft of the Skagway Coastal Management & Energy Impact Program indicates that brook charr (eastern brook trout) was planted in the lake in 1932. However, the presence of these fishes has not been documented. The Skagway River supports runs of chum and coho salmon. A habitat map in the Skagway Coastal Management & Energy Program shows a high density mountain goat area within the project site. It also identifies a moose wintering area just north of Goat Lake and waterfowl habitat along the Skagway River. Eagle nests may occur along the transmission line, but we have not surveyed the area. The dam will divert flows through a power tunnel and eliminate the outlet stream and Pitchfork Falls. Construction of the powerhouse may result in siltation of the Skagway River. During its operation, fish may be killed or injured while passing through intakes or spillways. Construction activities would prevent wildlife use of the area. The dam would inundate important mountain goat habitat; moose wintering habitat may also be affected. A transmission line along the Skagway River may, in addition, affect eagles and waterfowl. Discussion Your effort to involve us early in your project planning should help in scoping proposed studies and in general lead to a mutually acceptable project. Our role in your planning effort, however, should not be limited to reviews of your documents. We feel that our participation in the field with your consultants would be helpful in understanding the environmental and engineering features of each alternative; it should help us provide 7. recommendations more useful to you. Therefore, we suggest you provide us with a copy of your field schedule. In addition, we also offer to participate as a cooperating agency should an environmental impact statement be required. More specific comments on your project plans are described below. We have included some suggestions for your plan of study for your feasibility report and environmental impact statement. Later, as you complete your preliminary study plans, we hope to work with you in identifying issues that require detailed analysis. Dayebas and Kasidaya Creeks No fish and wildlife data are available to either accept or reject these sites. However, to help us assess these alternatives, we suggest that you include at least the following information in your feasibility report: Description of Project Design and location of dock, dam, powerhouse, and construction camp Location of borrow pits and/or spoil disposal sites Predicted changes in natural flows Predicted changes of stream temperatures Size of inundation area Type of transmission lines and large scale map of route Design of transmission towers Construction methods Stream Hydrology Mean monthly temperatures Mean monthly flows Substrate types Stream profile Vegetation Vegetative map of project area Major Wildlife Species Distribution and abundance (seasonal) Migratory route or movement pattern Sensitive life stages Important habitats in project area Major Fish Species Distribution and abundance (seasonal) Spawning habitat Rearing areas Mitigative Measures Timing of construction Habitat restoration measures Kelsall River and Nataga Creek 8. The transmission line would be routed through the largest winter bald eagle concentration in the world and within or adjacent to the Chilkat River Critical Habitat. The Chilkat River valley is also a major waterfowl habitat. In addition, salmon spawning habitat and possibly moose wintering habitat would be affected by the dams. We, therefore, feel that the eagles and waterfowl would be highly susceptible to electro- cution and collision mortalities. We recommend that you reject these sites from further consideration. West Creek Due to limited fish and wildlife data we will withhold our recommendations for this alternative site. To assist you in developing an acceptable plan we suggest that you include information similar to that described above. However, your feasibility report should also include data on instream flows needed to protect fish runs, extent of consumptive and nonconsumptive use of biotic resources, timing of fish runs, eagle nests along Taiya River, fishery potential of reservoir access roads, and the feasibility and design of fishways. Upper Chilkoot Lake We have no data to accept or reject this alternative. Data needed to evaluate this alternative include those recommended under the first two alternatives as well as instream flows to protect fish runs, depth contours of the lake, seasonal oxygen levels of the lake, productivity of the lake, feasibility of fish stocking in the lake, timing of fish runs and the feasibility and design of fishways. Goat Lake Our comments are similar to Upper Chilkoot Lake except that surveys should be conducted to locate eagle nests along the Skagway River. However, data on instream flows and fishways would not be required for this alternative. We appreciate this opportunity to be involved in the early stages of project evaluation and look forward to continued close coordination with your agency in this study. Assistant Sincerely yours, ~#d~4 Regional Director