HomeMy WebLinkAboutLake Grace Project Alaska 1968I ~-.
I
,~r~
'!
.,,.--~ <
r-'
!
I
l.
'\
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Stewart l. UdaH. SocrGtary
·A LASKA POWER ADMINISTRATION
Gus Norwood, Adminiltrator
LAKE GRACE PROJECT
ALASK.:A
.--,
~" ,~,-~
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
ALASKA POWER ADMINISTRATION
p, 0, BOX !50
JUNEAU, ALASKA 00801
IN REPLY
REFER TO: 700
en
N o
Ln .q ......
o o o
Ln
Ln
I""'-
M
M
March 7, 1968
A I RMA I L
Honorable Stewart L. Udall
Secretary of the Interior
Washington, D. C. 20240
Dear Mr. Secretary:
My letter of January 22, 1968 transmitted my proposed report on the
Lake Grace Project, Alaska. Subsequent developments have establ ished
that a change of the plan of development presented in that report is
desirable with respect to the purpose of fishery conservation and
development. The plan advanced in the report includes an artificial
spawninq channel on Sea Level Creek on the premise that maintenance
of the fishery of Grace Creek with project operation ~/ould be imprac-
ticable. Subsequent developments have establ ished that conservation
and enhancement of the Grace Creek fishery by provision of the control
works at the power tunnel intake essential to requlation of the water
temperatures of the powerhouse releases into Grace Creek can be accom-
pI ished at less cost than construction and maintenance of the artificial
spawning channel on Sea Level Creek.
I therefore have determined that the plan of development presented in
my January 1968 proposed report should be modified to provide for
conservation and enhancement of the Grace Creek fishery by deletion
of the artificial spawning channel on Sea Level Creek and provision
of a selective-level power tunnel intake.
This modified plan is fully supported by both the Alaska Department of
Fish and Game and the U. S. Fish and Wildl ife Service. The attached
March 6, 1968 letter from Commissioner Reetz presents the views of the
Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
The cost of adding the provisions for selective control of inflows to
the power tunnel intake were estimated by the Chief Engineer of the
Bureau of Reclamation at $132,000. This compares with the estimated
$662,000 construction cost of the artificial spawning channel presented
in my January 1968 proposed report. It is considered that the allowance
ARlJS Al~kl1 ReSOI!rrCs Lihr":1 ,\ Inrorrnalion Services
Llbrar) Builell:;!>!. SUill: 111
~211 I'r, II I,kil<~ Drive
Ant'~otagc, Ai\. 1)9.50&-4614
of $88,000 for post-authorization fishery evaluation studies provided
for in that report remains appropriate to provide for evaluation of
the fishery enhancement benefits creditable to operation of the project.
Thus, the modified plan would involve total construction costs estimated
at $22,250,000 on the basis of July 1967 prices, or some $530,000 less
than advanced in my January 1968 proposed report. In addition, deletion
of the artificial spawning channel would save an estimated $25,000 of
annual operation, maintenance, and replacement costs required for the
channel after completion of its construction in the fifth year of
project operation. These savings in project costs would reduce the
average firm energy rate required to assure repayment of the reimburs-
able Federal project costs from 11.0 to 10.6 mills per kilowatt-hour.
They also would increase the estimated project benefit-cost ratio from
1.41 to 1.46.
In summary, this modification of the plan of development would provide
for conservation and enhancement of the Grace Creek fishery, result in
significant cost savings, and provide a preferred means of conserving
and enhancing the area's fishery resources. I therefore recommend that
you approve and adopt my proposed report on the Lake Grace Project, as
modified by this letter, and that you authorize me in your behalf to
transmit copies of the report, including this letter, to the State of
Alaska, the Secretary of the Army, and interested Federal agencies in
accordance with existing law and procedures approved by the President.
Enclosure
Approved and adopted March 22, 1968
~S.~
Actinq
Secretary of the Interior
Sincerely yours,
Gus Norwood
Administrator
Property of BlM JUL 15 1974
AK or:,OU':':"' LIBRARY • 'it.... \ (" ... .,J I J
UNITED STATES DEPAR'lMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Stewart L. Udall, Secretary
ALASKA POWER AJl.1INISTRA'l'ION
Gus Norwood, Administrator
PLAN OF DEVEIDPf.mJT
FDR
IAKE GRACE PROJECT, AIASKA
January 1968
LC'cotiOG:
Pl'ln:
SUMMI\HY SHEETS
FEASIBILITY REPORT
LAKE GHACE PROJECT, ALASKA
On the eastern side of Rcvillagigcdo Island and about
32 airline miles northeast of Ketchikan, Alaska.
Act of August 9, 1955 (69 Stat. 618) and Appropriation
Acts authorizing expenditures by the Alaska Pov.'er
Administration for engineering and economic investi-
gations, and for related reports, for the development
and utilization of the vlater resources of Alaska.
Construct a concrete arch dam one-half mile below the
outlet of Lake Grace. Drill a tunnel 3,400 feet long
,.]i th an 875-foot long penstock to convey ,~ater to a
20 ,OOO-kilovlatt powerplant on Grace Creek. From the
switchyard, adjacent to the powerplant, a 39.0 mile,
115,000-volt transmission line would extend to a SLl'.J-
station at Ward Cove near Ketchikan. A 15.5 mile,
34,500-volt transmission line would extend from a sub-
station at Mountain Point to the Metlakatla Substation.
A salmon spawning channel would be constructed on Sea
Level Creek on Thorne Arm, about 22 miles south of the
powerplant, to mitigate forecast salmon losses on
Grace Creek.
Project Features
Lake Grace Reservoir
Elevation of normal full-pool "ater surface, feet (msl)
Elevation at minimum operating level, feet (msl)
Initial active storage capacity, acre-feet
Active storage after 50-year sedimentation, acre-feet
Area of reservoir at elevation 500, acres
Area of reservoir at elevation 431, acres
Hydrology
Drainage area, square miles
Annual runoff, average (1928-1964), acre-feet
Annual runoff, maximum (1931), acre-feet
Annual runoff, minimum (1941), acre-feet
a
500
431
148,SDQ
148,s;oo
2,5 85
1,655
29.2
281,000
347,9J 0
205,9J 0
Dam
Type -Double curvature, thin arch
Height above foundation, feet
El~vation of crest, feet
Thickness at base on plane of centers, feet
Thickness at crest, feet
Power Tunnel
LenGth, feet
Inside diameter, feet
Capacity at rated head, cubic feet per second
Lining -Concrete, circular cross section
Penstock
Length, feet
Inside diameter, feet
Type -Steel, surface
Powerplant
Number of units
Installed capacity, kilowatts
Range of gross head
Annual firm energy, kilowatt-hours
Average annual secondary energy, kilowatt-hours
Transmission System
Lake Grace to Ward Cove
Voltage, volts
Conductor size, MCM-ACSR
Overall length, miles
Length of wood pole H-frame sections, miles
Length of steel-tower section, miles
Mountain Point to Metlakatla
Voltage, volts
Conductor size, MCM-ACSR
Overall length, miles
Length of single wood pole sections, miles
Length of submarine cable, miles
b
148
508
10.3
4.0
3,400
9.0
750
875
6.5
2
2Q ,000
473-404
98 ,9JO,000
10 ,?pO ,000
115,000
397.5
39.0
38.4
0.6
34 ,500
266.8
15.5
14.6
0.9
Con~truction Costs (July 1967)
Feature
Production Plant
Dam
Waterways
Powerplant
Roads
Government Camp
Transmission System
Powerplant to Ward Cove
Lake Grace Switchyard
Lake Grace -Ward Cove
Transmission Line
Ward Cove Substation
Mountain Point to Metlakatla
$650 ,000
3,640,000
540,000
Mountain Point Substation 140,000
Mountain Point -Metlakatla
Transmission Line
Metlakatla SUbstation
.A!rti ficial. Spa'Wtling Channel
Total Estimated Construction Cost
1,210,000
180,000
Benefit-Cost Ratio (IOO-year Period, 3.25~ Interest)
Annual Project Benefits
Annual Project Costs
Ratio
($15,670,000)
$ 3,180,000
5,080,000
4,13) ,000
1,720 ,000
1,560,000
($6,360 ,000)
4,83) ,000
1,530 ,000
750 ,000
$22J780,ooo
$1,414,000
1,046,000
1.41
Avera e Firm Ener (Excluding operation, maintenance, ~--~~~~~~~~~and replacement li.O mills!kwl-t
c
IJi"oo-' ~!.Il~X~·O~O~·"""""""""""""""""""""""""" __ ""~""~~r-""""~;r""""~""""""""""""-r""""""""""""""1$~
REVILLAGIGE .D
I : •
115-KV
TRANSMISSIQN LINE
'" "I
~ 0 ~ • • U ...
D .. S L A N • -,
0:
~ETCHI~" E
~
'C __ -MT.POINT
"./--SUBSTATION • GRAVINA
IS LA l\I D
METlAKATLA ""
/
METlAKATLA /
SUBSTATION -,/
. '-' I~
ANN E TT'E
---34.5 -KV
TRANSM ISSION
LINE
IS LA N.D
r ~ -' i
J
t
~
'---ARTIFICIAL
SPAWNIN G
CHANN EL
'" 'C
It
'C u
$$·QO·L-.................................................... ~~ ........ ~~ ........ ~ ........................ ------------~Q;I.~OO;.~----------
ll2·00· ..
F3
0 , 5 lD
F3 E3
SCAL'E OF MILES
20
I
S~·QO·
LOCATION 'MAP
L,EGEND:
.141.8.$.IIAIIIIM STAtiON
.... ' .. E.C"ITATIO .. A .. D TE.!'EUTURl
UNITID STATIS
DI:PAIITIKNT Of TtlI: INTUIO.
ALASKA POW':' ADliINIST.AlION
LAKE GRACE PROJECT -ALASKA
PROJECT MAP
·O .. tober 1967 1074·906·19
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
ALASKA POWER ADMINISTRATION
P O. BOX !SO
IN REPLY
REFER TO: 700
JUNEAU. ALASKA 99801
January 22, 1968
AIRMAIL
Honorable Stewart L. Udall
Secretary of the Interior
hTashington, D. C. 20240
Dear Mr. secretary:
This letter, with its supporting reports, constitutes my proposed
report on the Lake Grace Project, Alaska. My report has been prepared
under the Act of August 9, 1955, (69 stat. 618), and subsequent appro-
priation acts authorizing expenditures for engineering and economic
investigations and related reports on projects for the conser\~tion,
development, and utilization of the water resources of Alaska.
My report is transmitted as the basis for securing Congressional
authorization of this potential project, an economically justified
and financially feasible development. The Lake Grace Project would
be a dual-purpose development which would make optimum use of the
flows of Grace Creek on Revillagigedo Island in Southeast Alaska to
furnish needed additional power supplies to the Ketchikan and
Metlakatla areas and for conservation and improvement of fishery
resources. Studies of the potential project alternatives have
established that Federal construction of the Lake Grace Project as an
ini tial step in meeting the long-term power needs of the Ketchikan and
Metlakatla areas is fully warranted.
The plan of development for the project represents the culmination of
consideration of t~e project potentialities by private interests and
several Federal agencies. A Lake Grace Project was first studied by
K. and J. D. Zellerback in 1927 and 1928. It was reported on by the
Federal Power Commission and the Forest Service in 1947. It was again
included in inventory-type reports by the Bureau of Reclamation in
1949 and the Corps of Engineers in 1952. The Bureau of Reclamation
completed a favorable reconnaissance report on the project and initiated
feasibility investigations of the project late in 1965. These were com-
pleted by the Alaska Power Administration as the agency successor to the
Bureau of Reclamation in Alaska. The detailed feasibility investigations
are summarized in this report. These investigations have been conducted
in full cooperation with the concerned local entities, State agencies,
and other Federal agencies.
The plan of development contemplates the construction of: (1) Lake
Grace Dam; (2) Waterways from the lake to the powerplant, including a
lined pressure tunnel, a surge tanl<., and a surface penstock; (3) A
20,000-kilowat~ 55 percent plant factor powerplant near tidewater on
Grace Creek containing two 10,000-kilowatt generating units; (4) Neces-
sary access roads and maintenance facilities at the project site; (5)
Transmission facilities to deliver power to the municipally-owned public
utilities systems in Ketchikan and Metlakatla; and (6) An artificial
spawning channel on Sea Level Creek near Thorne Arm. The plan provides
for remote-control operation of the powerplant from Ketchikan, and for
installation of both generating units initially. When fully loaded, in
about the fourth year after first delivery of project power, the average
annual project generation would total 109.2 million kilowatt-hours, in-
cluding 10.3 million kilowatt-hours of secondary generation.
It is contemplated that Metlakatla's share of the project power would
be made available at the Mountain Point Substation by the Ketchikan Public
Utilities, whenever project power is available at the Ward Cove Substation.
Thi s would be done either by delivery of equivalent power from the Ketchikan
Public Utilities Beaver Falls hydroelectric development or by ".;heeling the
project power over the Ketchikan Public Utilities system, which would inter-
connect the Ward Cove and Mountain Point Substations. However, should
circumstances make inappropriate participation by Metlakatla in the project,
the plan of development would be modified to serve only the Ketchikan area
by deletion of the Mountain Point to Metlakatla transmission system.
On the basis of the forecast load growths of the Ketchikan Public Utilities
and the Metlakatla Power and Light, the plan of development contemplates
that the project power output would be allocated between those utili ties
on the basis of the forecast capacity and energy requirements with appro-
priate allowances for anticipated transmission losses and generation plant
power uses.
The Fish and Wildlife Service, in cooperation with the Alaska Department
of Fish and Game, initiated evaluation of the fish and wildlife aspects
of the project in 1965. These two agencies identified a valuable salmon
resource in Grace Creek below the powerplant site. They initially pro-
posed that a selective-level power intake be included in the plan to control
the temperature regime in Grace Creek as a necessary feature to preserve
the salmon runs. On the basis of preliminary deSigns and cost estimates,
however, the selective-level intake was found to be prohibitively expensive,
and subsequent fishing studies were geared to evaluation of possible miti-
gation measures. These studies led to incorporation of the artificial
spawning channel on Sea Level Creek for the purpose of conservation and
improvement of the fishery resources. Costs for this feature, including
necessary evaluation studies and operation and maintenance costs, are
included as project costs.
2
furinr, the field-level review of' this report, it was determined that
costs f'or the selective-level intake would be considerably less than
previously estimated, and might be less than the equivalent costs of the
artificial spawning channel. The Fish and Wildlife Service and Alaska
Department of Fish and Game advised that the selective-level intake,
coupled with the streamflow regulation provided by the project, may per-
mit preservation and enhancement of the existing Grace Creek fishery.
Further investigations will be required to establish the probable costs
of the selective-level intake.
In accordance with the recommendations of the Fish and Wildlife Service,
conservation and enhancement of the fishery resources is incorporated as
a project purpose. The plan of development contemplates that the further
investigations required to establish the relative merits of the selective-
level intake and the artificial spawning channel will be accomplished
following project authorization, as inclusion of the artificial spawning
channel results in a conservative estimate of the probable project costs.
In accordance with recommendations of the Fish and Wildlife SerVice, con-
struction of the artifical spawning channel, if determined to be desirable,
would be deferred until operation of the project has more clearly estab-
lished the need for such facilities to offset expected salmon losses in
Grace Creek.
The plan of development contemplates that, if the further studies of the
selective-level intake and/or the artificial spawning channel should es-
tablish that fishery enhancement benefits would result from the project
construction, an appropriate allocation would be made to this purpose.
It is proposed that the project operation, maintenance, and replacements
be accomplished as follows under appropriate agreements with the Secretary
of the Interior:
(a) Operation and maintenance of the dam, reservoir, and powerplant
and the transmission system from the powerplant to Ward Cove near Ketchikan
be by the Ketchikan Public utilities.
(b) Operation and maintenance of the Mountain Point to Metlakatla
transmission system be by the Metlakatla Power and Light.
(c) The operating utilities be responsible for necessary replacements
of the project facilities aSSigned to them under (a) and (b) above.
(d) The artificial spawning channel on Sea Level Creek, if constructed,
be operated as a project feature by the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries for
a period of six years and then by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
3
On this basis, the Federal project costs would be limited to the costs
of project construction, repayment contract administration, and possibly
operation and maintenance of the artificial spawning channel on Sea
Level Creek.
For the purpose of economic justification and financial analysis, costs
of the artificial spawning channel, including necessary investigation
and operation and maintenance costs are included as project costs allocable
to power.
Except for the features for conservation and enhancement of the fishery
resources, the plan contemplates no special facilities for purposes other
than power. This is in accordance with the appended reports of the Fish
and Wildlife Service, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration,
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, and Forest Service. In accordance with pro-
posals in these reports, the plan of development contemplates that appro-
priate measures will be taken to insure and facilitate unrestricted public
access to the project area for hunting, fishing and recreation. The
National Park Service has recommended that a survey be made of possible
archeological sites that might be disturbed by construction of ~ne project.
Similarly, the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration has indicated
a desire to make fUrther studies of the effect of the project on aquatic
environment. Both actions would be accomplished follOwing authorization
of the project as part of the normal pre-construction activities.
The plan of development contemplates that, in accordance with the provisions
of a March 14, 1962, memorandum of agreement between the Secretary of the
Interior and the Secretary of the Army, the U. S. Corps of Engineers would
have responsibility for design and construction of the authorized project
works, and the Secretary of the Interior would have responsibility for opera-
tion and maintenance of the project upon completion of construction and for
marketing of the project power. In light of this agreement, the proposed
project plans, estimates, and schedules were reviewed in detail with the
Corps of Engineers and their comments were considered in the preparation
of this report.
The Alaska Power Administration's estimate of the probable construction
costs of the various project features, based on July 1967 prices, is
summarized below:
Lake Grace Thun
Waterways
Powerplant
Access Road
4
$ 3,180,000
5,080,000
4,130,000
1,720,000
Transmission System
Powerplant to Ward Cove
Mountain Point to
Metlakatla
Government Camp
Artificial Spawning ChaxL~el
$4,830,000
1,530,000
Total Federal Project Construction Cost
$ 6,360,000
1,56 0,000
750,000
$22,780,000
The related Federal project installation costs used in the economic
analysis would exclude an estimated $82,000 of pre-authorization in-
vestigation costs.
The construction schedule assumes that, following project authorization
and availability of project funds, a three-year period would be required
for pre-construction investigations and that project construction would
be completed at the end of the seventh year. This would pel'mH deli very
of project power at the beginning of the eighth year.
As the plan of development contemplates that the costs of operation,
maintenance, and replacements of the project works will be borne by the
project utilities, the recurring annual Federal costs would be limited to
those related to periodic inspection of facilities and repayment contract
administration. These are estimated to total $10,000 annually.
The estimated average costs to the Ketchikan Public utilities and
Metlakatla Power and Light for operation, maintenance, and replacement
of project features are $198,000 annually.
The above construction costs for the artificial spawning channel include
investigation costs. The estimated additional costs for operation and
maintenance of the artificial spawning channel are $25,000 annually.
On the basis of the estimated installation and operation, maintenance,
and replacement costs, a 100-year period of analysis, and interest at
3.250 percent, the economic costs are estimated to average $1,046,000
annually.
Direct project benefits have been estimated on the basis of the cost of
the most likely alternative source or sources that would provide an
equivalent amount of power at the load center. This was determined to
be municipally-financed diesel-electric units located in Ketchikan and
Metlakatla. The annual costs for providing power !'ram this source equiva-
lent to the Lake Grace Project generation were estimated to average
5
$1,474,000 over a 100-year period, which is equivalent to about 16.0
mills per kilowatt-hour for the firm power delivered to the load center.
Comparison of the evaluated direct benefits to economic costs indicates
a benefit-cost ratio of 1.41 for a 100-year period.
The financial analysis assumes that all project costs, including costs of
the artificial ~wning channel would be allocated to power and reimburs-
able with interest. In addition, it assumes that the Federal costs of
contract administration and operation and maintenance costs for the arti-
ficial spawning channel would be allocated to power and repayable by the
contracting entities.
The repayment analysis provides for r~ayment with interest at 3.253 per-
cent of all investment costs over a 50-year period, together with payment
of the estimated annual Federal costs. On the basis of the forecast
project power requirements and a secondary energy value of 6.0 mills per
kilowatt-hour, an average rate of 11.0 mills per kilowatt-hour for firm
energy delivered to the Ketchikan and Metlakatla areas would provi.de
revenues equal. to the reimbursable Federal. costs.
The evaluated operation, maintenance, and replacement costs averaged
about 2.2 mills per kilowatt-hour a.nnually over the ~ent period. Thus
the total cost to the utilities of project power delivered to the load
center 'WOuld be about 13. 2 mills per kilowatt-hour.
As previously derived, the cost of providing an equivalent amount of power
through construction of municipaJ.ly-financed dieseJ.-eJ.ectric units has
been estimated at 16.0 mills per kilowatt-hour. This estimate is based
on current construction costs with interest at 5.0 percent and assumes no
escalation of fuel costs.
On this baSiS, the cost to the utilities for Lake Grace Project power
would be 2.8 mills 1ess than the cost of power f'rCD the most 1ikely al.ter-
native sources. The project interests consider that other Significant
benefi ts also 'WOuld accrue to the Ketchikan and Metlakatla areas froo
Federal construction of the Lake Grace Project. They, therefore, have
indicated willingness to enter into r~ent contracts which 'WOuld
assure return to the Federal government of the reimbursable project costs.
It is contemplated that this contract would provide for annual. payments
based on forecast project power requirements. The Ci~ of Ketchikan also
has indicated willingness to contract for the entire project power output
should circumstances make inappropriate participation by the City of
Metlakatla as contemplated by the plan of development.
6
Recommendations
It is recommended that:
(a) The Lake Grace Project be authorized to be constructed by the
Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, and to be
operated and maintained by the Secretary of the Interior for the purposes
of hydroelectric power and conservation and improvement of fishery re-
sources, substantially in accordance with the plan set forth in this report,
with such modification of, omissions fram, or additions to the works as
the Chief of Engineers and the Administrator of the Alaska Power Adminis-
tration may find proper and necessary for the project purposes.
(b) Negotiation of appropriate contracts by the Secretary of the
Interior with the cities of Ketchikan and Metlakatla or other qualified
public bodies, as contemplated by the plan set forth in this report, be
a pre-requisite to initiation of construction.
(c) Pursuant to the recommendations contained in the Forest Service
Multiple Use Impact Survey, Phase I, the designated construction agency
coordinate the final location of the transmission line and access facili-
ties with the Forest Service. However, upgrading of maintenance and
access roads for the purpose of improved public access should not be
approved if such work increases the costs to be repaid by the power users.
(d) Additional detailed studies of fish and wildlife resources
affected by the project be conducted as necessary, after the project is
authorized, in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act,
48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.; and such reasonable
modifications in the wthorized project facilities be made by the
Secretary of the Interior as he may find appropriate to preserve and propo-
gate these resources.
(e) Federal land and project waters in the project area be open to
unrestricted use for hunting and fishing, except for sections reserved
for safety, efficient operation, or protection of public property and
conservation and development of fish and wildlife.
(f) Leases of Federal land in the project area reserve the right
of unrestricted public access for hunting and fishing.
I fUrther recommend that you approve and adopt this report as your
proposed report on the plan of development for the Lake Grace Project,
Alaska, and that you authorize me in your behalf to transmit copies of
the report to the State of Alaska, to the Secretary of the Army, and to
7
the interested Federal agencies for review as required by the Flood
Control Act of 1944 (58 stat. 887), the Fish and Wildlife Coordina-
tion Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 u.s.c. 661, et seq.) and pro-
cedures approved by the President on May 15, 1962 (S. Doc. 97, 87th
Congress).
Respectfully,
Gus Norwood
Administrator
8
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The investigations of the Lake Grace Project benefited through
the cooperation of local, State, and Federal agencies. Officials of
the cities of Ketchikan and Metlakatla were consulted regarding the
project plans and operation and maintenance procedures, and they
provided valuable information on system operation, future power needs,
and all aspects of the area economy.
Throughout the investigation, the interests and views of State
and other Federal agencies were solicited and considered. The Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation,
Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Forest Service reported on their
findings, and their reports are appended hereto.
The Bureau of Reclamation, prior to establishment of the Alaska
Power Administration on June 16, 1967, was responsible for the
initiation and accomplishment of the principal project investigations
on which this report is based. It has furnished various technical
assistance in connection with completion of the project investigations.
The Uo S. Army Corps of Engineers reviewed the plans, power esti-
mates, sizing of project features, construction schedules, and cost
estimates for the project. Their comments were considered in the
preparation of this report. Computer operation stUdies prepared by
the Corps have been included in the report.
Topography, geologic data, and water supply data collected by
the Geological Survey, and climatic information from Environmental
Science Services Administration publications were used extensively
in the investigations. Numerous other agencies and individuals
provided information on resources, economy, and needs of the area.
SUPPORTING REPORTS
Table of contents
REPORT OF THE ALASKA POWER ADMINISTRATION Page
CHAPTER I -GENERAL DESCRIPTION. 1
The Project . • 1
History of Investigations . 1
The Power Market Area • 3
Geography. 4
History. 4
Gateway Borough. • 6
Population • • • 7
Climate. 7
CHAPTER II -AREA ECONOMY AND RESOURCES. • 9
The Ketchikan Area. • 9
Forestry • • • 9
Fisheries. · 12
Mining • • · 14
Wildlife • • • 14
Shipping • • • 15
Transportation • • • • 16
Tourism. · 16
Financial Conditions • • • 17
The Metlakatla Area • • 17
Forestry • • • 17
Fisheries. • • 19 Mining • • • • 19
Transportation • • • • 19
Business Services. .20
Financial Condition. • .20
CHAPTER III -POWER SUPPLY AND DEMfili'U. • 21
Ketchikan Area. • 21
Existing Power Facilities. • • • 21
Ketchikan Public utilities. • • .2l
Ketchikan Pulp Company. • 24
Ketchikan Spruce Mills. • • • 24
Estimated Power Requirements • • • 24
Meeting the Interim Load • • 25
Metlakatla Area, • • • • • 28
Existing Power Facilities. • • 28
Estimated Power Requirements • • • • • 28
Meeting the Interim Load • • • • • 29
Net Project Load. • • • • 29
i
Table of Contents (continued)
CHAPTER IV -WATER AND POWER.
Drainage Area
Streamflow and Climate Records
Streamflow Correlations.
Period of Study.
Lake Grace Inflow.
Water Rights.
Reservoir Data.
Area and Capacity Curves
Sediment
Reservoir Losses
Power Studies
Operating Assumptions.
Load Characteristics.
Efficiencies.
Power Operation Study.
Power Capacity.'
CHAPTER V -DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND COSTS.
Geology.
Lake Grace Damsite
Lake Grace
Power Tunnel
Penstock
Lake Grace Powerplant.
Construction Materials.
Design and Construction Problems.
Accessibility.
Connnunications
Pover Facilities
Project Works
Lake Grace Dam •
Diversion Tunnel
Lake Grace
Power Tunnel
Surge Tank
Penstock
Lake Grace Powerplant.
Switchyard
Transmission Lines
Ward Cove Substation
.'
Mountain Point Substation (Switchyard)
Metlakatla Substation.
Dock and Seaplane Float.
Access Roads
ii
33
33
33
34
35
35
41
42
42
42
42
44
44
44
45
45
46
50
50
50
50
52
5-2
52
53
53
5~
53
54
54
54
57
57
58
58
58
58
59
59
59
60
60
60
61
Table of Contents (continued)
Government Camp. • • • • • • • • • • •
Fish and Wildlife Facilities
Recreation Facilities ••
Rights-of-Way and Relocations ••
Plan Formulation. • • • • • • •••
Economic Criteria for Plan Formulation •
Hydroelectric Alternatives ••
Swan Lake Project • . • • • • • • •
Diesel-Electric Alternatives •
Height of Dam Analysis • • •• • • •
Other Analyses • • • • • • • • • •
Effects on Other Potential Developments ••
Construction Costs ••
Construction Schedule
Operation and Maintenance Costs •
Replacement Costs • • • •
CHAPTER VI -ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
Economic Analysis •
Fenefi ts • • • • •
Economic Costs • • •
Benefit-Cost Ratio.
Financial Analysis ••.•
Repayment Requirements • • • • •
Average Rate and Repayment Study •
Repayment Contract • • • • • •
CHAPTER VII -REQUIRED FUTURE ACTIONS. • •
CHAPTER VIII -EXPRESSIONS OF STATE AND LOCAL INTERESTS.
Tables
No. Title
. . . . . . .
l-----Annual Statistics -Tongass National Forest, National
61
61
62
62
63
63
63
65
67
67
69
70
70
7l
72
73
77
77
77
78
78
79
79
7<)
81
82
Forest Commercial Sales • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 10
2-----Value of Fisheries Catch, Southeast Alaska. • • • • • 13
3-----Waterborne Commerce -Ketchikan Harbor Freight Traffic,
1964 (Short Tons) • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 15
4-----Financial Conditions of Ketchikan and Gateway Borough,
1965. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5-----Ketchikan Public Utilities -Generating Facilities. • • • 22
6-----Historic and Projected System Peak Demands (kilowatts) •• 26
iii
Table of Contents (continued)
No. Title
7-----Historic and Projected Annual Energy Requirements
(Megawatt-Hours). • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
8-----Requirements for Power Produced by Lake Grace Project
9-----Stream Gaging Stations. • • • • • • • • • •••
10-----Climatic Data • • • • • • • • • • •••
ll-----Recorded and Correlated Runoff, Grace Creek near
Ketchikan • 0 • • • • • • • •
12-----Computed Lake Grace Reservoir Inflow. • • • •
13----~onthly Load Distribution • • • • • •
14-----Power Operation Study, Annual Summary •••
15-----Comparison of Data, Lake Grace and Swan Lake Projects
16-----Summary of Analysis of Height of Dam. • • • • • •
17-----Summary of Construction Costs, Lake Grace Project
18-----Average Rate and Repayment Study ••
No.
Control Schedule, PF-2 •••••
Basic Estimate, DC-l Summary.
Drawings
Title
1074-9D6-19---Project Map ••• Preceding Administrator's Letter
27
:P
34
34
36
39
45
48
65
68
70
80
74
75
1074-9D6-25---Population Growth. • • • • • • • • • • • • • 8
1074-9D6-2----Ketchikan and Metlakatla Hydro Facilities. 23
1074-9D6-3----Energy Requirements -Kilowatts (Capacity) • • 31
1074-9D6-4----Energy Requirements -Megawatt-Hours (Energy). 32
1074-9D6-11---Area-Capacity Data • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 43
1074-9D6-36---Power and Reservoir Operation. • • • • • • • 47
1074-9D6-24---Project Plan • • • • • • • • • • • • 51
1074-9D6-21---Grace Creek Works. • • • • • • • • • • 55
1074-9D6-20---Dam Designs (Plan, Profile, Sections). 56
1074-9D6-3P---Hydroelectric Alternative Locations. • 64
iv
Table of contents (continued)
Photographs
Ci ty of Ketchikan. • • • • • • • • • •
Plllp Mill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Fishing Boats •••••••••••••
U.S. Forest Service Cabin on Lake Ella ••••••
Alaska Ferry • • • • • • • • • •
City of Metlakatla ••••
Lower Silvis Lake. • . . . . . . . .
REPORTS OF OTHER AGENCIES. • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Letter Reports of Fish and Wildlife Service
January 5, 1968 letter, with January 15, 1968
letter from Alaska Department of Fish & Game.
April 19, 1967 letter, with April 14, 1967
letter fran Alaska Department of Fi sh & Game.
May 4, 1966 letter, with May 23, 1966 letter
from Alaska Department of Fi sh & Game.
December 10, 1965 letter, with December 10,
Following 9
Following 10
Following 11
Following 14
Following 15
Following 16
Following 22
Following 83
1965 letter fran Alaska Department of Fish & Game.
Letter Reports of Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
Letter Report of Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
Phase I Multiple Use Impact Survey, Forest Service
v
CHAPTER I--GENERAL DESCRIPTION
Southeast Alaska, mountainous in the extreme, includes hundreds
of islands and a narrow strip of mainland between the Canadian border
and the innennost tidal courses. Its total land area of about 34,000
square miles is dissected into thousands of segments by the deep salt-
water channels, inlets, and fiords of the Alexander Archipelago.
Revillagigedo Island, with a land area of 1,120 square miles, lies on
the east side of the Archipelago on the southern end. The principal
features of the Lake Grace Project and the city of Ketchikan are on
Revillagigedo Island.
The Project
The Lake Grace Project takes its name frem a natural lak~ on the
east side of Revillagigedo Island. The relative inaccessibility of
Lake Grace limits the opportunities for use of the project waters to
the generation of electrical energy. This purpose would be accomplished
by the construction of a dam on Grace Creek and diverting the lake
waters through a pressure tunnel to a powerplant on Grace Creek. Project
power would be transmitted to Ketchikan and Metlakatla on Annette Island
by 53.6 miles of overhead transmission lines and one underwater crossing.
The location of the major features of the project are shown on the
Project Map, Drawing No. 1074-906-19.
An artificial spawning channel would be provided for conservation
and improvement of fishery resources if required to mitigate salmon
losses on Grace Creek due to project operation.
HistorJ of Investigations
The first investigations for a hydroelectric development at the
Lake Grace site were made by I. and J. D. Zellerbach in 1927 and 1928.
Their studies included topographic surveys of the lake, damsite, tunnel
and penstock locations, and the collection of stream flow records for
the period October 1927 through September 1937.
A plan for a development at the same site was presented in a joint
report by the Federal Power Camrr~ssion and the Forest Service entitled
"Water powers Southeast Alaska!! dated 1947. This plan was based largely
on the stream flow records and surveys by I. and J. D. Zellerbach. The
project plan involved essentially the same plan as presented in this
report.
The Bureau of Reclamation report, "Alaska, a Reconnaissance Report
on the Potential of Water Resources in the Territory of Ala.ska for Irri-
gation,Power Production and Other Beneficial Uses", dated January 1952
and published as House Document 197, 82nd Congress, First Session,
included the j~.ke Grace Project based on data in the Federal Power
Commission-Forest Service Report.
Reconsideration of the development at the Lake Grace site originated
in 1962 as part of a study of a Southeast Alaska Power System. This study
included a review' of all previous power proposals for the Southeast Alaska
area and the selection of seven potential pmver production developments as
units of an integrated power production and distribution system to serve
Juneau, Douglas, Petersburg, Hrange 11 , Kake, Ketchikan am Metlakatla.
The SiYan Lake Project, to the west of Lake Grace, and the Thomas
Bay Project, near Petersburg, have received serious consideration as
power sources for Ketchikan and Metlakatla. Feasibili ty grade ~_:1ves
tigations of the two projects have been completed.
Reconnaissance findings concerning the 20,OOO-kilowatt La~'ce Grace
Project indicated that the cost of power to Ketchikan and Metlakatla
from that source would be significantly less than from the Thomas Bay
or Swan Lake Projects.
Petersburg is now considering development of the Thomas Bay Project
in a modified plan as a non-Federal development. Because of the long
transmisSion distance to Ketchikan, the Thomas Bay Project is not now
considered as an alternative to the Lake Grace Project.
Swan Lake Project remains the principal hydro alternative for Lake
Grace Project. It is likely that both projects might eventually be
constructed. 'I'hey would form a compatible two-project system, and
construction of one .. rould not preclude the other project. The most
recent cost estimates indicate that Lake Grace Project could provide
pmrer at a lesser cost tha...'1 Swan Lake Pro,ject.
In 1963 the Conservation Division of the U.S. Geological Survey,
under a cooperative agreement with the Bureau of Reclamation, resurveyed
the Lake Grace area. These surveys included a topographic map of Lake
Grace i·n. th detail underwater soundings from vhich an area-capacity curve
was prepared, The topography was taken on a scale of 1:24,000 with a
contour interval of 20 feet. Topography of the damsite was obtained on
a scale of 1:1,200 with a 10-foot contour interval. A profile of Grace
Creek wa.s obtained from the mouth of' Lake Grace to tidewater, a distance
of 2-1/2 miles, and elevations were established at the proposed power-
plant site,
2
A recormaissance geology report on the damsite and turmel route,
dated July 3, 1963, 1m.S prepared by the Bureau of Reclamation. This
report outlined a minimum prog~am of foundation exploration for feasi-
bility grade investigations of the project. A field reconnaissance in
October 1964 resulted in modification of the program and determination
that drilling of at least one hole at the damsite should be accomplished
as part of the reconnaissance investigation. It was also concluded that,
in view of the minor additional drilling that 'WOuld be required for
feasibility e\~luations, and the high costs of mobilization at the remote
site, the addi"tional geological explora.tions required should be accomplish-
ed at the time of the recormaissance dr:i1Hng. During February and March
1965, five holes were drilled at the Lake Grace damsite. Drilling was not
required at the powerplant site as bed:rock is exposed in several places.
An Interim Geology Report sUI!llIl8.rizing these explorations has been compiled.
During August 1965 the field mapping of the surface geology was compl.eted,
and an exploration for construction materials was made. In December 1965
a favorable reconnaissance report was completed.
A forecast of long range power needs in the power market area ~as
obtained by review of previous and pending reports and diSC1;ssiohS with
representatives of the cities concerned relative to their :prt.o:::;ent and
future power needs.
The Fish and Wildlife Service, in cooperation with the Alaska Depart-
ment of Fish and Game, in 1965 initiated evaluation of the fish and wild-
life aspects of the project. As described i.n their appended letter reports,
these two agencies identified a valuable saL~on resource in Grace Creek
below the powerplant site and recommended conservation and improvement of
the fishery resources be included as a project purpose.
An evaluation of the potential recreation aspect was made by the
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. Their conclusions were that the existing
Lake Grace does not receive ~y significant recreational use, and
construction of the project would create negligible recreation benefits.
In the preparation of this report close coordination was maintained
with the Corps of Engineers. I~ addition, letter reports ,concerning the
views of the Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of OUtdoor Recreation,
Federal Water Pollution Control Adminis1:ration, and U. S. Forest Service
were received and are appended.
'!he Power Market A.rea
The power market area is synonymous with the Ketchikan and Metlakatla
areas presently served by municipally-owned utilities. It includes the
city of Ketchikan and environs accessible by existing and proposed roads,
and all facilities on Annette Island.
3
Geography
Revillagigedo Island is typical of the majority of islands found
in the Alexander Archipelago. They are extremely mountainous, the high-
est peaks exceeding an elevation of 6,000 feet. steep slopes rise
abruptly fram the coastline, indented by countless fiords, inlets,
and bays. In addition, there are scores of small islets that literally
surround the larger islands. Even the smallest of these, unless washed
over by high tides, is covered by dense forest.
Revillagigedo Island is 56 miles in length and 42 miles in width.
It is separated fram the mainland by BelIDl Canal, bordering it on the
.rest, north and east. Across Tongass Narrows to the Southwest lies
Gravina Island, and south across Revillagigedo Channel lies Annette
Island. Annette Island is 18 miles in length by 10 miles in w:idth and
has a total area of 135 square miles. Metlakatla lies 15 airline miles
due south of Ketchikan on Annette Island. It is the most southerly
inhabited island in Alaska, with all residents living on the southwest
peninsula.
Ketchikan, on the southwest side of Revi1lagigedo Island o~ Tongass
Narrows, is the center of population for the entire area. It is 235
airmi1es southeast of Juneau, 620 airmi1es northwest of Seattle, and 45
miles north of Alaska's southern boundary.
Lake Grace is about 32 airline miles northeast of Ketchikan.
History
The history of the Ketchikan area begins with the Englishman
Vancouver, who surveyed there in 1793 and named Revi1lagigedo Island
for his friend, Don Juan Vincente de Guemes Pacheco de Pedi1la, Count
of Revilla Gigedo, who M3.S Viceroy of Mexico in 1789-1794.
During the latter part of the Civil Har, the Western Union Tele-
graph Company essayed an overland telegraph line via the Yukon and
Bering Strait route across Asia to the capitals of Europe, and at the
head of the scientific corps was one William H. full.
The success of Cyrus Field in laying his Atlantic cable caused
the overland route to be abandoned, but Dr. Dall had became interested
in Alaska, and we find him in the seventies dOing exploratory work
for the U.S. Government. On the west coast of Prince of Wales Island
lies full Island, so named by the Coast Survey in tribute to his notable
work. Near Ketchikan is Annette Island, nai'lled in honor of his wife,
Annette 1Vhi tney full.
4
In 1857, Dr. Hilliam Duncan, an English Church lay missionary,
arrived in Fort Simpson, British Columbia. Within a short time he left
to live among the Indians and established a model village called Metlakatla.
For a period of 20 years the settlement prospered. Controversies
arose between Duncan and the Church, and he was replaced by Bishop Ridley,
and Dr. Duncan moved to Annette Island. In 1887, some four hundred Indians,
principally of the Tsimshian Tribe, left British Columbia and settled on
Annette Island with their beloved pastor, and the new town of Metlakatla
was establishec. Dr. Duncan had visited the United States and urged
government officials to secure congressional legislation setting aside
Annette Island as a reservation. This was done by the Act of March 4,
1891, and the Annette Islands Reserve was established. In addition, the
Metlakatlans have exclusive fishing rights in all waters w~thin 3,000
feet of the shores of the island.
Duncan began anew his efforts that made his colony in British
Columbia so successful. A church 'Has constructed, a sawmill e: tablished, a
salmon cannery built and put in operation, and a school established for
the Indian children.
Metlakatla is the seat of Government for the Annette Islands
Reserve. The Metlakatla Indian Community is a Federally incorporated
community chartered under the Act of Congress of June 18, 1934, as
amended by the Act of Congress of May 1, 1936. It is the only incor-
porated community lying within the Reserve. It is governed by an
elected council of twelve members, and an elected mayor, secretary,
and treasurer.
The first white settlement where Ketchikan now stands was esta-
blished in 1882 by A. W. Berry, who sailed into Tongass Narrows in
search of a fisheries site. However, long before this time, Ketchikan
Creek (Kach Kanna Creek) and other points in the vicinity were settled
by members of the Tlingit and Tsimshian Indian Tribes. In 1883, vI. W.
i'laud established a saltery in what is now known as Ward Cove, and in 1885
the first salmon cannery was built at Ketchikan. The settlement was
short lived, however, ending Irhen fire destroyed most of the plant in
1888.
The following year, M. E. Martin purchased the remains of the
cannery as well as lands from the Indians. A saltery and general
store were located in the new community. These were followed by the
establishment of other canneries in the area, and eventually transfer
of the United States Customs from Mary Island to Ketchikan. Thus,
the city became a port of entry for all ships plying waters to Alaska,
an important factor in its growth and development. In 1892 the Post
Office ,~s established in Ketchikan.
5
There were only about 50 white people living in Ketchikan during
the gold rush to the Yukon, but in 1900 Ketchikan became an incorporated
ci ty, with Martin being elected its first mayor. As the fishing indus-
try developed, Ketchikan increased in population and activity until it
had gained the distinction of being known as the "Salmon Canning Capital
of the World". Hining was an important industrial actjvity during the
early part of the century, the principal minerals produced being copper,
gold, and silver.
World Wars I and II "brought little lasting prosperity to Ketchikan.
An Army air base was constructed on nearby Annette Island in 1940 that
housed 10,000 troops, and the U. 'So Coast Gua.rd established district
headquarters wi thin the city during the late '\ro.:t'. FolloWing the end
of hostilities, the Annette Island air base was made available for
civilian use, and Coast Guard headquarters was moved to Seattle and
eventually to Juneau. However, the Coast Guard still maintains stations
in Ketchikan and on Annette Island primarily for search p..nd rescue
operations.
Gateway Borou~
Article X of the Constitution of the State of Alaska provides
for maximum local self-government with a minimum of government units.
Section 3 of Article X states, "'lbe entire State shall be divided into
Boroughs, organized or unorganized. They shall be established in a
manner and in according to standards provided by law. The standards
shall include population, geography, economy, transportation and other
factors. Each Borough shall embrace an area and population with common
interests to the maximum degree possible. The legislation shall
classify boroughs and prescribe their powers and fUnctions. Methods
by which boroughs may be organized? incorporated, merged, consolidated,
reclassified or dissolved shall be prescibed by law."
The Gateway Borough was incorporated as a second-class Borough
September 6, 1963, and has a Chairman form of govermnent, with the
seat of government at Ketchikan. Its boundary is about the same as the
shoreline of Revillagigedo Island, but includes Gravina Island across
Tongass Narrows from Ketchikan. In 1965 it had a population of about
10,000 persons. Most rural residents live along the shoreline and the
45 miles of road and highway system about Ketchikan. The South Tongass
Highway extends south through Sa.:xman and Mountain POint, and north along
George Inlet, 12 miles to Beaver Falls. In the northern direction the North
Tongass Highway passes Ward Cove and extends to the Forest Service boundary
at Clover Passage, 16.5 miles northwest from Ketchikan. Under construction
is a road to connect Ward Cove with the east side of the island at White
River.
6
Population
Unlike the State of Alaska, the population of the city of Ketchikan
has shown a steady growth since the turn of the century, as shown on
Drawing No. 1074-906-25. It has grown from a population of about 500 in
1900 to 6,483 persons in 1960.
The Ketchikan trading area, roughly delineated by the boundaries
of Election District One, had a 1960 population of 11,842.
Metlakatla, because of the lack of steady employment, has had a
slow rate of growth. Its 1960 population was only 798, and the total
for Annette Island was about 1,150 persons. This has grown to a
January 1966 population of 1,466, with about 500 being non-natives.
The 1960 population of Mountain Point was 372. Also in 1960, there
were 153 persons in Saxman, and 69 at Ward Cove.
Climate
The power market area has the maritime climate of the Pacific
Northwest. The region has mild winters, cool summers and heavy
precipitation. The average annual precipitation at Ketchikan is approxi-
mately 157 inches and the average monthly temperature ranges from 34.0
degrees in January to 58.7 degrees in August. Daily temperature varia-
tions are usually confined to a relatively narrow limit, the difference
between daily maximum and minimum temperature readings averaging about
12 degrees during all months of the year. Temperature readings approach-
ing the 90 degree mark and lower than the zero mark are extremely rare.
Preve.iling winds are southeasterly, but southerl..y and westerly winds of
sufficient force to endanger small craft occur occasionally. The growing
season is unusually long and extends from early May to the early part of
October.
7
POPULATION GROWTH
26
I
2'4
22
B 20 2:
~ • a
i 2:
C
I 18
~
~ ~
16 • ~ 2:
III 2: ~ ; 14
~ :z:
t-/
/
J
/
/
--
I
/
/ I
/
~ u ~ 12 III • III:
C ... ~ C
10
1!5 ~
2: ~
0 i 8
~ ...
i &.
2
6
4
2
0
,-------
ALASKA ..•..• y
I /
I / -----V
c-----....--
/ ---------r-
--L=-------~ -------'/ KETCHIK~
I -Lt-= --,--------------I ----
1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 i930 1940 1950 1970
October 1967 1074-901·25
CHAPTER II --AREA ECONOMY AND RESOURCES
The economy of the Ketchikan Area has shown a steady gain, but
Ketchikan today, like much of the rest of Southeastern AlaSka, is
reaching a point of change in its economy and development. Transpor-
tation improvements are a major factor in this change. Improved air
and water transportation is rapidly increasing contacts with other
parts of the United States and expanding the mobility and interaction
of people within Southeastern Alaska. As a result, regional commer-
ciel centers such as Ketchikan will flourish and expand.
In Metlakatla the economy has been primarily based on the seasonal
fishing industry. With the advent of a new forest products plant, the
economy of the community and the reserve is expected to become more
stable.
The Ketchikan Area
Ketchikan is the most southern of Alaska's four largest cities.
It is often the first Alaskan port to be visited by travelers heading
north along the famed Inside Passage.
Worldwide markets for the region's forest products are developing,
and fishing and fish processing will continue as an important source of
employment in the Ketchikan area. Recreation, particularly tourism,
is becoming an increasingly important feature of American life. The
Ketchikan area, with its abundance of excellent recreation areas, will
benefit from this increase in leisure time activity.
Forestry
The forests that line the coasts of Southeastern Alaska provide
the largest single source of industrial development and employment in
the Ketchikan area. At present, approximately one-quarter of the
labor force in the Ketchikan District is employed in forest related
industries, with most of the raw materials obtained in the Tongass
National Forest.
The Tongass National Forest covers about 73 percent of the land
area of Southeast Alaska, or about 16,000,000 acres. It consists of
a strip along the mainland and some 67 islands having land masses of
9
C1 ty of Ketchikan, Alaska ~ on Revi 11 eg:lgedo
Isl.a.nd overlooking 'l'o~s Barrows.
!boto by Alaska Pictorial Service, Ketchikan, Alaska.
r .... .-= ... },.,......=""""" ...................... I!IIIIIIIIIIIII!IIIIIIIIIIII""""' ..................... ~'!!!!'!'!'!!!!!!!
2,500 acres or more. Four of these islands exceed 1,000,000 acres in
area. About 65 percent of the gross land area in the Tongass National
Forest is covered by tree growth. The balance largely lies above tim-
ber line and involves high rugged mountains with perpetual snow and
ice fields and glaciers.
Hemlock represents 62 percent of the Tongass National Forest tim-
ber with the Sitka spruce comprising the bulk of the remainder. About
half of the commercial timber of the Tongass National Forest is best
suited for the pulp or wood fiber industry. Ninety percent of the com-
mercial timber is estimated to be within three miles of tidewater and
below elevation 2,000 feet. The many tidewater channels, with their
multitude of fiords, inlets, and bays, make access and the cost of log
transportation by water very reasonable.
Prior to 1954 when the Ketchikan Pulp Company began operating, the
timber harvest was almost completely Sitka spruce accessible to tide-
water. These logging operations supplied the many lumber mills in
Southeast Alaska, including the Ketchikan Spruce Mills that began
operating in 15P4.
The Forest Service estimates there are 2,774,000 acres accessible
in the Tongass National Forest that contain about 83,262 million board
feet of commercial timber, having an annual allowable cut of 824 million
board feet. The present cut averages about 440 million board feet per
year. It is predicted that the annual cut will equal the allowable cut
by about 1975. The annual statistics on the National Forest commercial
sales are shown in Table 1.
Table l--Annual Statistics-To ass National Forest
National Forest Commercial Sales 1
Volume
Allowable Cut MBF Total Value Average Value
Year Cut MBF (Scaled) (Stumpage l Per MBF ,
CY 1920 45,609 $ 78,987 $ 1.73
CY 1925 53,723 93,233 1.74
CY 1930 38,517 71,212 1.85
CY 1935 J),454 44,761 1.47
CY 1940 585,5 20 J),861 46,529 1.51
CY 1945 585,5 20 58,268 89,700 1.54
CY 1950 585,520 54,435 120,48 3 2.21
CY 1955 851,500 213,785 491,952 2.J)
FY 1960 879,800 31 4,839 723,6 45 2.J)
FY 1965 823,9JC) 424,612 861,543 2.03
Y Appendix, TilDber ement Pl.an ass National Forest Alaska
Re~ionz 195 -1 7.
10
Picmeer Al.aska pulp mill is the Ketchikan Pulp CaIIp8llY plant at Ketchikan.
9le II11l opened in 1954 and is one of the world I s most autanated.
Photo by Alaska 'l'l"avel Division.
The Forest Service has divided the forest into five working units.
The Ketchikan-Craig Working Circle includes roughly all forest lands
in Alaska south of 56° North latitude, having a total land area of
5,566,000 acres. It has an annual allowable cut of 293.8 million board
feet from the accessible commercial timber. The Lake Grace Project is
within this working circle.
Until pulp mill demands were experienced in 1954, log requirements
remained a very moderate load. The average annual cut in the Ketchikan-
Craig Working Circle for the years 1950 to 1953 was 28.8 million board
feet, as contrasted to an average annual cut of 161 million board feet
for the period of 1954 to 1961. Maximum cuts of 214 and 210 million
board feet occurred in 1957 and 1960 respectively.
In July 1951, at public auction, Ketchikan Pulp Company acquired
the cutting rights to all the timber on approximately 800,000 acres of
forest lands in the Tongass National Forest (about 8,250 million board
feet). These timber stands, consisting mainly of hemlock and spruce,
are located principally on the northern half of Prince of Wales Island
and partly on Revillagigedo Island. The Timber Sale Agreement with the
Forest Service, extending over a period of 50 years, provides the primary
basis of log supply necessary for the operation of the Ketchikan mill.
The Company's logging operation at Thorne Bay provides their largest
source of logs. The remainder of their requirements are purchased from
independent logging contractors operating on the Company's timber allot-
ment, and from independent logging companies producing logs under their
own timber sales contracts acquired from the Forest Service at public
auction.
The Ketchikan Pulp Company opened their mill in 1954. It was the
first large pulp mill to be built in Alaska. This mill, six miles north-
west of Ketchikan on Ward Cove, is capable of producing about 15,000 tons
of high alpha dissolving pulp monthly. This high quality pulp is used
in the manufacture of rayon.
The pulp mill contributes more to the economy of the Ketchikan area
than any other single industry. Their operating expenditures in Alaska
exceed $1,000,000 monthly for payrolls, log purchases, and supplies.
They employ about 600 workers in the mill, plus those employees in their
logging operations, with 215 at their Thorne Bay Camp.
The Ketchikan Spruce Mills in Ketchikan began operation in 19)4 with
a portable sawmill acquired from Dolom1 gold mine on the east shore of
Prince of Wales Island. Today they require 25 million board feet of timber
per year.
The average number of people employed in the lumber and wood products
industry (exclusive of the pulp mill) in the Ketchikan area in 1965 was 353,
with annual earnings totaling $3,143,000.
11
Ketchikan's waterf'.ront hosts sizeable por-
tion of state's great white fishing fleet.
Photo by Alaska Travel Division.
Fisheries
Fishing and fish processing were for many years the principal
industry contributing to Ketchikan's economy. Until the pulp mill
was opened, the value of fisheries products outranked all other
production in the area. In 1927 there were about 1,000 commercial
fishing boats operating out of Ketchikan, supplying 32 salmon can-
neries adjacent to the city. Some of these canneries have become
obsolete, others have made improvements and combined operations until
today there are only four fish processing plants in operation in the
Ketchikan area. During fiscal year 1965, there "ere 938 vessels
lic::msed in Ketchikan, representing 2,571 fishermen, but Ketchikan-
based boats fish throughout Southeast Alaska. They sometimes sell
their catches in other ports, but boats based in other ports sell
to buyers wi thin the Ketchikan area.
Pink and chum salmon constitute the bulk of the salmen cau,;;ht
and packed in Southeast Alaska, with the remainder mostly kir'€; c;',d
silver salmon.
Halibut fishing and freezing is especially important to Ketchikan.
In terms of value, halibut is a strong second to salmon, accounting
for one-quarter of the total value of the Southeast Alaska fish catch
in some years.
Since 1955, about 31 percent of the halibut caught in Alaska ~as
sold to Ketchikan buyers. The price paid to fishermen is the deter-
mining factor on ~here they sell their catch, and since 1955 an average
of over one million dollars per year has been paid to halibut fishermen
at Ketchikan. The value of the fisheries catch in Southeast Alaska is
shown in Table 2.
In addition to the value of fish, wages paid to shore workers in
1965 (exclusive of the cold storage plant) amounted to $767,000 in the
Ketchikan area for an average of 123 employees. Another aspect of the
importance of the commercial and salt water sports fisheries is the
investment in vessels and gear. In 1964 there were 1,304 outboard
boats, crui.sers, and commercial fishing boats, registered as being
based inside the city limits of Ketchikan. This fleet added to the
pleasure and commercial fishing boats outside the city runs the total
investment up to several million dollars. Supplying gas and oil, spare
parts, repair services, paint, etc., is a major business in Ketchikan.
There are marine ways, repair shops, outfitters, and small-boat harbor
facilities devoted exclusively to meeting the needs of this industry.
The t~o public small-boat harbors within the Ketchikan area proper have
a combined capacity to berth 1,004 boats.
12
Table 2--Va1ue of Fisheries Catch, Southeast Alaska
1950-1965
Year Total Salmon Herring Halibut Shellfish Other ----
(Thousands of Dollars)
1950 17,062 11,354 39) 4,978 283 57
1951 26,763 22,032 39) 3,445 402 494
1952 18,969 13,972 360 4,05 8 412 167
1953 13,000 9,442 432 2,446 420 260
1954 16,109 11,427 223 3,816 3)0 343
1955 11,815 8,862 385 1,812 459 297
I-' 1956 16,084 10,397 661 4,300 536 19) w 1957 14,769 10,84 5 619 2,706 322 277
1958 16,459 11,983 935 3,117 3)8 116
1959 14,878 10,044 1,201 3,114 329 19)
1960 10,240 6,327 833 2,512 294 274
1961 17,965 12,48 3 588 4,395 365 134
1962 20,231 12,763 379 6,208 744 137
1963 19,397 14,844 468 3,136 813 136
1964 20,746 15,986 700 2,931 832 294
1965 19,929 13,458 340 5,238 635 258
Mining
The known mineral resources in the Ketchikan area are the numerous
copper-iron deposits, a limestone deposit on Dall Island, the Union Bay
iron ore deposit, and the uranium and gold deposits on Prince of Wales
Island. Most of these deposits have seen same activity in the past, but
are now inactive.
The limestone deposit on Dall Island, near the southwest side of
Prince of Wales Island, was mined fram 1928 through 1949, except 1941 to
1947. The Pacific Coast Cement Company quarried 2,150,000 tons and
shipped it to Seattle for the manufacture of Portland cement. It is
estimated there are 25 million tons of reserves in the deposit.
The copper deposits on the Kasaan Peninsula, on the east coast of
Prince of Wales Island, were mined from 1906 to 1918. About 23,000,000
pounds of copper metal and a substantial amount of gold and silver were
recovered from the Kasaan Peninsula and Copper Mountain areas. An addi-
tional 5,000,000 pounds of copper and an important amount of palladium
was produced from the Salt Chuck mine at the head of Kasaan Bay.
Also on Kasaan Peninsula there are several million tons vf high
grade magnetite ore. This copper bearing ore contains 50 percent mag-
netite, and is the best known deposit in the state.
other iron depOSits are on the mainland at Union Bay on Cleveland
Peninsula, 35 miles northwest of Ketchikan, and on Duke Island, 30 miles
southeast of Ketchikan.
Around the turn of the century gold was mined on the southeast
coast of Prince of Wales Island near Port Johnson, but operations were
stopped at the beginning of World War I. The mine changed ownership
several times and was worked intermittentq until 1948. Power for their
5-stamp mill was generated by a 400-kilowatt hydroelectric plant.
Any renewed activities in the mining of these resources would be at
the site of the deposits in the outlying areas, but such ventures would
use Ketchikan as a source of supply, and would have a direct impact on
employment in the area.
Wildlife
Deer are abundant on Revillagigedo Island. The State Fish and Game
estimates the population at between 25,000 and 35,000 animals. They
estimate about 1,500 individuals spent 5,000 man-days hunting on the
island in 1965, taking about 2,500 deer, and spending at least $75,000
in activities directly related to hunting.
Black bear inhabit the island, but a census of black bear population
has not been made. It is estimated that the black bear kill in 1965 was
between 25 to 40 animals.
14
One ot the best buys in Alaska travel.. Cabins in the wilderness ot Tongaas lfational. Forest
are available to visitors. Here a tam:iJ.y enjoys a "fly in" cabin at Ella Lake near Ketchikan.
Photo by U. S. Forest Service.
In 1963, nine elk calves were released at Neets Bay on the west
side of the island. In 1964, 14 additional calves were released at
the same site. The present status of these transplants is not known.
There have been a few reports of observations of single animals and
tracks, but confirmations have not been made.
Brown bear and mountain goats do not reside on the island, but
do inhabit the mainland. There are good populations of furbearers
and waterfowl on the island.
Shipping
The principal domestic carrier of supplies and materials to
Ketchikan is the Alaska Steamship Company. Its schedule calls for
weekly arrivals from Seattle.
The Halverson-Railroad Barge Company hauls loaded railroad cars
of supplies and freight to Ketchikan from Seattle and Prince Rupert.
They make a trip about once a week, but do not maintain a regular
schedule. The cars are unloaded at the port facilities of the
Ketchikan Northern Terminal.
The Ketchikan Pulp Company ships their product out by railroad
barge to Prince Rupert where the cars are picked up by the Canadian
National Railway.
The waterborne commerce in and out of the Ketchikan Harbor for
1964 is summarized in Table 3.
Table 3--Waterborne Commerce -Ketchikan Harbor
Freight Traffic, 1964 (Short Tons)
Foreign
Imports
Exports
Domestic
Coastwise
Receipts
Shipments
Internal
Receipts
Shipments
Local
Total
250 ,434
50 ,677
892,367 gJ
ll9,307
10,588 Y
1,39) ,010
fI Includes 41,596 short tons of lumber and shingles. g; Includes 892,152 short tons of rafted logs.
~ Includes 9,002 short tons of fresh fish and products.
15
One of the three luxurious ferry-liners of the Alaska Marine H1~, having a capacity
of 108 autanobiles and accamnodations for 500 passengers. Photo by Alaska Travel
Division.
Transportation
All traffic in and out of Ketchikan is either by air or water, as
the highway system is all inter-island.
Jet air service to Ketchikan is through the Annette Island airport.
Passengers are transferred to Ketchikan by the Alaska Coastal Airlines
operating from a seadrame on the waterfront.
Water transportation is by small pleasure craft or the Alaska Marine
Highway System. This state owned system has three ferryliners, each with
a capacity of 108 automobiles and accommodations for 500 passengers.
The southern terminous connects at Prince Rupert with British Columbia
Highway Route 16, and the British Columbia Ferry System operating between
Prince Rupert and Vancouver Island. The northern terminous connects at
Haines with the Haines Highway and the Alaska Highway. The System makes
vehicular traffic possible to and from Ketchikan, Wrangell, Petersburg,
Sitka, Juneau, Haines, Skagway, and Prince Rupert. The present schedule
allows for service both ways, six days a week, between Prince Rupert and
Skagway.
Tourism
Ketchikan is the first port of call for all boats entering South-
east Alaska waters. Tour cruises to Alaska promoted by Seattle and
Canadian interests all stop at Ketchikan. During the 1966 season, four
cruise ships made 73 calls at Ketchikan enroute to Juneau and Skagway.
It is estimated that over 11,000 people from these cruises visited the
city. In addition to this, there were 18,236 persons who disembarked in
Ketchikan from the Alaska Ferries during calendar year 1966. This influx
of visitors was a great boon to the tourist industry in and around
Ketchikan.
Within a few miles of town, good sports fishing is available. Within
a short plane ride fram Ketchikan lie dozens of lakes rarely ever fished.
Rainbow, Dolly Varden, steelhead and cutthroat trout are among the game
fish caught.
For the hunter, deer are plentiful while black bear range along
most of the streams. Ptarmigan, grouse, ducks and geese are within easy
reach. A few hours travel by boat, or 30 minutes by plane, puts the
hunter into country where bringing down a mountain goat, grizzly or
brown bear is possible.
Bell Island Hot Springs Resort--in Behm Canal on the island's north
side--is reached in 20 minutes by seaplane. The flight passes over a
curious array of fiords, mountains, and wilderness, then drops spectacularly
16
Metl.akatla on Annette Island. '!'he cClllllUDity owned
Annette can n1 ng Ccmpany is in the taregrOODd.
Photo by Alaska Pictorial. Service, Ketchfkan, Alaska.
..
into a narrow bay with a steep landfall. The vacationist at once
senses a seclusion from city life and the thrill of being in Alaska.
Financial Conditions
The financial conditions of Ketchikan and the Gateway Borough
are summarized in "Alaska Municipal Directory, 1966," a publication
of the Alaska Municipal League. For the year ending December 31,
1965, Ketchikan had an indebtedness of 16.9 percent of assessed
valuation, and the Borough 5.2 percent. Other data relating to their
financial conditions are summarized in Table 4.
The Metlakatla Area
The economy of the Metlakatla Indian Community has relied almost
solely on the salmon fishing and canning industry. The airport lease
and rentals fram other government facilities provide additional income.
Few efforts toward diversification of employment opportunities have
been successful. A shingle mill and sawmill now under construction at
Metlakatla will bolster the economy of the community. Recreation and
tourism could be developed.
The electric facilities are municipally owned, as are other revenue-
producing services such as water, dock, sewer, and refuse collection.
Forestry
A 1965 survey of the timber resources on Annette Island indicated
577.9 million board feet of operable timber of all types with hemlock
the predominent species.
On September 16, 1966, the Council awarded a timber sale to Fujii
and Company, Inc. for 48.9 million board feet of timber. This sale
requires local processing of 12 million board feet per year for the
next five years. The Company has under construction a cedar shake
and shingle plant that will employ about 12 men, and plans for a sawmill
or cantmill. In addition, new jobs will be available in logging, log-
loading and stevedoring. Off-island timber resources will be brought
to Metlakatla for processing, particularly red cedar which is not
utilized now in local manufacture in Southeastern Alaska.
Additional timber on the Island will be bid and leased at future
sales.
17
Table 4--Financial Conditions of Ketchikan and
Gateway Borough, 1965
Item
Population
Property Evaluations
Real
Personal
Tax Rate
Real Property
Personal Property
Sales
Bonded Indebtedness
General Obligation Bonds
Revenue Bonds
Major Annual Revenues Last Fiscal Year
Property Taxes
Sales Tax
State Shared Tax
Licenses and Permits
Fines and Penalties
Interest
Parking Meters
Sale of Property or Material
Electric, Water, Telephone Revenue
Public Works
Sanitation
Small Boat Harbor
Other
18
City of
Ketchikan
$33,186,035
8,268,575
13.8 mills
13.8 mills
$ 3,163,000
4,355,000
$ 50 8 ,991
522,518
86,230
4,182
38 ,32 5
35,968
12,643
28,413
1,250 ,430
31,360
79,662
11,841
22,157
Gateway
Borough
10,000:
$67,257,878
2,870,713
6.0 mills
6.0 mills
1%
$ 3,633,000
$ 362 ,964
146,608
13,659
3,055
2,161
2,775
Fisheries
The major employer in the area is the community-owned Annette
Islands Car~ing Company, a salmon cannery in operation since 1921.
The cannery employs about 150 men and women during the canning
season that runs 1'01' about fIJ days during Ju.ly, August, and September.
The company oyms and. operates four salmon traps, and residents
of Metlakatla own and operate 28 seine vessels that offer seasonal
employment to approximately 168 crewmen. Very few of these salmon
fishinG vessels engage in any other type of fishing activity. Most
of the individuals engaged in the salmon fishing industry are unem-
ployed ,~hen there is no salmon fishing and the cannery is not operating.
The salmon pack in the cannery may run anywhere from 50 ,000 to
over 100,000 cases in anyone season, depending on the run.
:tvlining
Although there is no m~n~ng activity on the island, a prospector's
permit can be obtained from the CounciL If minerals are fOWL] 7 the
Ar~ette Island Council must bring it to the attention of the Secretary
of the Interior. Minerals that may be found are gold, silver, copper,
and lead.
Transportation
The airport constructed by the Army during Vlorld War II, eight
miles south of Metlakatla, is now operated by the FAA, who lease 4,000
acres from Metlakatla at $1.00 per acre per year. Other agencies on
the island pay FP~ a rental for use of the land.
Jet passenger airliners of Western Airlines provide daily service
from the Annette Island airport to Seattle, Juneau, and Anchorage.
Alaska Coastal Airlines, the world's largest amphibious airline, makes
regular scheduled stops at Annette, with connections for Ketchikan,
Sitka, and other Southeast Alaska cities. The Uo S. Coast Guard
operates amphibious aircraft from Annette in their search and rescue
missions.
The number of civilians employed in 1965 by the economic activities
centered around the airport totaled 64 persons. Non-Indian residents
on the Island are the 500 government personnel and their families. The
total Indian population is about 1,000.
A converted fishing boat carries passengers, freight, and mail
bet"leen Metlakatla and Ketchikan and operates five days a week. The
19
Council has received approval of their application with the Economic
Development Association for funds to construct a $440,000 deep-water
public dock at Metlakatla. It will provide for better handling facil-
ities for the manufactured forest products, soon to be a reality.
There are about 30 miles of road system on Annette Island. The
principal roads are between the airport and Metlakatla, eight miles,
and the airport and the Coast Guard station on Tamgas Harbor, on the
east side of the peninsula. Roads also extend to the powerplant,
Weather Bureau, and the facilities of the Radio Corporation of America.
Business Services
The business services to be found in Metlakatla are three grocery
stores, general store, lunch counter, pool hall, theater, gas station
and garage, gift shop, second hand store, and laundromat and dry
cleaners. At the airport the Tongass Charter Service operates two
aircraft. There is also a 41-unit inn with restaurant facilities near
the airport. The city owns and operates a small boat harbor built
by the UoS o Corps of Engineers in 1950.
Financial Condition
At the present time the local government has no taxing authority
under its constitution. Therefore, operating revenues have depended
upon lease of reserve lands, profits realized from the operation of
the Annette Islands Canning Company, and municipal utility and services.
Up until the last few years, revenue from these sources has been adequate
for the operation of the city government and public facilities.
The only indebtedness of the community is their REA loan for elec-
trical generation facilities, their BIA revolving loan fund loan to the
community relending program for financing boats of local fishermen, and
the recent loan from the Economic Development Association.
CHAPJ.'ER 111--POWER SUPPLY AND DEMAND
The market for Lake Grace Project power would be residential,
commercial, and small industrial loads in the Ketchikan and Metlakatla
areas. Electric utility service is now provided by municipally owned
systems and two self-supplied power users in the Ketchikan area supply
their own needs. The power market evaluations are based upon data ob-
tained fram these electric utilities and industrial power users.
Ketchikan Area
The Ketchikan area is that area that could be served by the
Ketchikan Public utilities System. It includes the City of Ketchikan
and environs accessible by road.
Existing Power Facilities
The existing power facilities in the Ketchikan area, besides
those of Ketchikan Public utilities, are those of the Ketchikan Pulp
Company and the Ketchikan Spruce Mills.
Ketchikan Public utilities -This utility system has been owned
and operated by the City of Ketchikan since 1935. Its present sources
of power supply are its Ketchikan Lakes and Beaver Falls (Lower Silvis
Lakes) hydroelectric installations, and diesel installations at the
Ketchikan Lakes and Totem Bight plants. A third hydroelectric plant,
Lake Whitman, was acquired in 1957 for its water rights, but it is
inoperable. The hydroelectric developments are indicated on Drawing
1074-906-2. The existing operable hydro-plants have a peaking capaci-
ty of 10,000 kilowatts and can produce 52,040,000 kilowatt-hours of
firm energy each year. Currently under construction is the Silvis
Lake hydro-plant on Lower Silvis Lake, scheduled for completion in
1968. When completed, it will add 2,100 kilowatts of peaking capacity
and 9,990,000 kilowatt-hours of firm energy to the system. The two
diesel installations have a peaking capacity of 2,900 kilowatts.
The peak system demand in 1966 was 10,450 kilowatts, an increase in
demand of four percent over 1965. The generating facilities of the
Ketchikan Public utilities are summarized in Table 5.
21
Table 5--Ketchikan Public utilities -Generating Facilities
CaEacity -Kilowatts Annual Firm
Name Energy
Plant Type Plate Firm Peaking MWH --
Ketchikan Lakes Hydro 4,200 3,600 3,600 17,000
Ketchikan Lake s Y Diesel 873 873 900 2,250
Beaver Falls Hydro 6,000 4,000 6,400 35,040
Totem Bight Diesel 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,628
Silvis Lake EI Hydro 2,100 2,100 2,100 9,990
Y Used for peaking and standby.
E/ Under construction.
22
Lower Silvis rake seen fran level of' upper l.ake where new dam, spillway,
and generating :facilities will increase capacity of' Ketchikan Public
·Utili tie I s :Beaver Falls transmission system by 2100 kilowatts. Seen in
the background a.re Carroll Inlet and mountains of' Canada.
Photo by Alaska Pictorial Service, Ketchikan, Alaska.
REVILLAGIGEDO
115 ·KV TRANSMISS)ON ·
GRAVINA ISLAND
-
SILVIS LAKE
POWERPLANT •
ISLAND
ISLAND
UNITED STATlS
DI,AH"M[NT or THE INTtRIOR
ALASKA POW[1t ADMINISTIIAl'lON
LAKE GRACE PROJECT. ALASKA
KETCHIKAN . AND .
METLAKATLA
HYDROELECTRIC
FACILTIES
1074-906-2
Ketchikan Pulp Company -The Ketchikan Pulp Company is the
largest power user in the power market area. Although located within
the service area of the Ketchikan Public Utilities System, this mill
has been designed to satisf,y its own power needs incidental to dis-
posal of its waste products. The mill uses a chemical process that
requires steam and produces a large volume of waste liquors. These
liquors, together with waste timber, are burned to produce steam.
This in turn is used to produce very low cost power in the mill's
20,000-kilm-ratt steam plant. The energy requirements of the mill
were not available, but they probably approach 140,000,000 kilcnratt-
hours annually. The mill does not supply power or energy to other
users in the area.
Ketchikan Spruce Mills -The Ketchikan Spruce Mills sa'WIllill
has its own electric generating facilities. The sawmill uses waste
wood as fuel in its 850-kilowatt steam powerplant. Most of the
power requirements of the mill are met by thi s powerplant with a
part of the lighting load supplied by Ketchikan Public Utilities.
The total energy requirements of the mill are estimated at abcut
2,500,000 kilowatt-hours per year.
Estimated Power Requirements
The utility system energy requirements have increased at an
average annual rate of about 5.4 percent over the past 16 years.
In 1950 the system supplied 22,388,000 kilowatt-hours, and in
1966 energy requirements were 51,813,000 kilowatt-hours.
Annual load growth during this l6-year period fluctuated a great
deal. Individual yearly changes in total customer requirements ranged
fram a high of 14.5 percent in 1953 to a low of 1.4 percent in 1960.
No one year or group of years can be considered as typical or
normal. Each series of ups and downs can be correlated with specific
events occurring in the local area. For example, the substantial
load increases in 1952 and 1953 were coincident with the construction
of the Ketchikan Pulp Company pulp mill. A very slow rate of load
growth marked the first few years following completion of the mill.
This can best be explained as a readjustment period following the
construction boom. The average rate has been about 4.6 percent since
1957. This recent rate of load increase is lower than observed in every
other Alaskan community.
An analysis of use during the period 1957-61 indicates that this
growth probably did not reflect a normal condition. Several incendiary
fires occurred in the heart of the business district during this five-
24
year period. The almost annual loss of major business buildings un-
doubtedly adversely affected the commercial class use. This conclu-
sion is confirmed wen camnercial customer use is isolated f'rom all
other use. The remainder of the system loads increased at an average
annual rate of 5.1 percent f'ram 1957 through 1961. On the other hand,
commercial loads in 1961 were still 1.8 percent below those of 1956.
Use of electricity is relatively high in the Ketchikan area. In
1966, residential customers used 22,756,783 kilowatt-hours, commercial
customers 11,740,328 kilowatt-hours, and small industrial customers
8,764,760 kilowatt-hours. Energy requirements in the area increased
7.2 percent in 1966. It is expected that the use would increase quite
rapidly if electricity were in plentiful supply. This would include
purchase of power by the Ketchikan Spruce Mills. Considering the 10ng-
term gain, the possible future developments, and the analysis of local
growth in recent years, it seems reasonable to forecast a future increase
in the Ketchikan area at an average annual rate of 7.0 percent. The
historic and projected system peak demands are presented in Table 6,
and the historic and projected annual energy requirements are shown in
Table 7.
Meeting the Interim Load
The Ketchikan Public Utilities recognizes the city's need for
additional power sources. With the completion of the 2,100 kilowatt
Silvis Lake plant, the utility ,-Tiil have capacity to meet area re-
quirements until 1971. At this tL~e, additional generation will be
required.
This additional generation equipment would most likely be oi1-
fired turbine-electric or diesel-electric units, to supply peak re-
quirements until Lake Grace Project pmrer is available. It is
estimated that 6,000 kilowatts of additional generation will be
required to satisfY the 1976 peak.
25
Table 6--Historic and Projected System
Peak Demands -(Kilowatts)
Ketchikan Metlakatla
Year Area Area Total
1960 7,800 1,280 9,080
1961 8,000 1,700 9,700
1962 8,300 2,000 10,300
1963 9,200 2,120 11,320
1964 10,050 2,45 0 12,500
1965 Y 10,050 2,350 12,400
1966 10,45 0 2,360 12,810
1967 1l,600 2,500 14,100
1968 12,400 2,700 15,100
1969 13,300 2,900 16,200
1970 14,200 3,100 17,30 0
1971 15,200 3,300 18,50 (1
1972 16,300 3,500 19,800
1973 17,400 3,800 21,200
1974 18,600 4,000 22,600
1975 19,900 4,300 24,200
1976 21,3 00 4,600 25,900
1977 22,800 4,900 27,700
1978 24,400 5,300 29,700
1979 26,100 5,700 31,800
1980 27,900 6,100 34 ,000
1981 29,900 6,500 36,400
1982 32,000 6,900 38,900
1983 34,200 7,400 41,600
1984 36,000 7,900 44,500
1985 39,200 8,5 00 47,700
1986 4l,900 9,200 51,100
Y Historic through 1966.
Table 7--Historic and Projected Annual
Energy Requirements (Megawatt-Hours)
Ketchikan Metlakatla
Year Area Area Total
1960 37,908 5,960 43,868
1961 39,723 7,033 46,75 6
1962 42,3 28 9,681 52,009
1963 44,5 21 9,672 54,193
1964 47,159 10,200 57,359
1965 11 48,328 10,761 59,08 9
1966 51,813 11,651 63,464
1967 55,900 12,000 67,900
1968 59,700 13,000 72,700
1969 64,100 14,000 78,100
1970 68,400 14,900 83,300
1971 73,200 15,900 89,100
1972 78,500 16,900 95,400
1973 83,800 18,300 102,100
1974 89,600 19,300 108,900
1975 95,900 20,700 116,600
1976 103,000 22,200 125,200
1977 110,000 23,600 133,600
1978 117,000 25,5 00 142,500
1979 126,000 27,500 153,500
1980 13 4,000 29,400 163,400
1981 144,000 31,300 175,300
1982 15 4,000 33,200 187,200
1983 165,000 35,700 200,700
1984 176,000 38,100 214,100
1985 188,000 40,9 00 228,900
1986 201,000 43,800 244,800
Y Historic through 1966.
27
Metlakatla Area
The Metlakatla area is that area served by Metlakatla Power and
Light. This includes the City of Metlakatla, the Coast Guard station,
the Annette Island Airport, and the adjoining residential area for
airport related personnel.
Existing Power Facilities
The only existing power facilities in the Metlakatla area are
those of the Metlakatla Power and Light. They have been serving the
area since 1929 as a municipal entity. Its hydroelectric facilities
are indicated on Drawing 1074-906-2.
Prior to 1957, the power supply of Metlakatla Power and Light
consisted of a diesel unit and a hydro-plant at Chester Lake, completed
in 1927. In 1957, its Rural Electrification Administration financed
Purple Lake hydroelectric development began operating with an installed
capacity of 3,000 kilowatts. The Chester Lake plant was then taken out
of service, and the diesel plant put on standby. A new 1,500 kilowatt
diesel unit has recently been completed, but has not been put into
operation. The Metlakatla Power and Light's present power load includes
an RCA early warning system., the Annette Island Airport, the City of
Metlakatla, and the Metlakatla cannery.
Estimated Power Requirements
MetJ.akatla Power and Light has kept records of power and energy
use Since 1959. These records show that annual energy requirements
increased from 5,593,000 ki1owatt-hours in 1959 to 11,651,000 ki1owatt-
hours in 1966. The peak load was 2,360 kilowatts in December 1966.
This reflects, in part, the use of electric power for hane heating.
FUture long term power requirements are not expected to increase
at this rate, but it seems probable that they will increase rapidly.
The FUjii and CCIIIJ?8.l1Y have been guaranteed 80,000 kilowatt-hours per
month for its cedar shake and shingle mill, but the sawmill would
generate its own power f'rom mill waste. However, the additional
employment that would result f'ran this new industry in Metlakatla
would require additional domestic and other power requirements. Thus,
the power demands can reasonably be forecast to increase in the
Metlakatla area by at least seven percent each year.
The historic and projected system peak demands for the Metlakatla
area are summarized in Table 6, and the historic and projected annual
energy requirements are shown in Table 7.
28
Meeting the Interim Load
Metlakatla Power and Light has two diesel generating units
having a total capacity of 1,955 kilowatts. It expects these units
to supply the normal load growth requirements until 1976. This
report, therefore, presumes no expansion of Metlakatla's present
hydroelectric capacity.
Net Project Load
The requirements for power produced by the Lake Grace Project
would be the total Ketchikan and Metlakatla area reqUirements, less
the generation by the Ketchikan and Metlakatla hydro--plants, plus
five percent for losses between the Lake Grace powerplant and the
utility systems, and plus one percent for station service and project
use. This assumes that all diesel generation would be put on a stand-
by basis. It is expected that Ketchikan would continue to us':! i +;<;
12,100 kilowatts and 62,000,000 kilowatt-hours of firm hydro power
and energy. In addition, the 3,OOO-kilowatt hydro-plant at Metlakatla
would be expected to continue in operation, supplying about 10,000,000
kilowatt-hours annually.
It is expected that, wben Lake Grace Project power becomes avail-
able, the self-supplying industries, with the exception of the pulp
mill, will obtain their electric power f'ran the project. The peak
demands and energy requirements of the Lake Grace Project are present-
ed in Table 8. The present supply and total. power ms.rket requirements
for capacity and energy are shown graphically on Drawings 1074-906-3
and 1074-906-4.
29
LA)
0
Table 8--Requirements for Power Produced by Lake Grace Project ~
FiSCaJ.g; Peak Demands --Kilowatts Enersz Requirements --Megawatt Hours
Year 2 Ketchikan Metl.a.kat1.a. TotaJ. Ketchikan Metl.akatla Total
1976 9,750 1,700 11,450 43,450 12,950 56 ,400
1977 11,350 2,030 13,380 50,850 14,400 65,250
1978 13,040 2,440 15,480 58 ,300 16,400 74 ,700
1979 14,840 2,860 17,700 67,800 18,550 86,350
1980 16,720 3,280 20,000 76,300 20,55 0 96,850
1981 16,720 3,280 20,000 78 ,200 20,700 98,900
Y Amounts detemined :fran total system loads, less hydroelectric generation by Ketchikan
and Metl.akat1.a., plus five percent for losses between lake Grace and utility systems
and one percent for project use.
g; Taken as being the same as the calendar year f'ran Tables 6 and 7.
•. , 1 1
I I' I ' I ' I 'I I'
5,(}ut---+----:--, ---+-1-----r--: -+-I j -,--+ -: /
I I I I I I : ~ _
4:t--------+----+--J -I -I --t-J J --1---~ -1-. -! /--
I I I I II I I 1 /
I i I I I I / __ ,_
i I ! l I // 3s-._~ __ -r-I ____ i I I i Oi"" Sto.", /: ~855 ~ W I
r--,
I t-I iT: V I
, I I I L-L 1 __ _ g 3n~----1r----_+-----: --1---~---r ---t I V +; -
o I I Iii, V Lake Grace 18.800 E ~~-+---.----1 ___ --// ··-1-I --:-
I 2~n ./ ' I 3 UI--+-----+-----~---V ----+-I--~---------
I ./ Exilting I
lC , ...... V Diesel 4,855 KW jl
I~~--+-~~C--~~~--~I~----L-I----~~--+-----4-----~----~-----+~
fliltinO Ditsel 3,355KW~ \ Hydro 10 be completed-1968 2,100 KW
! i 1
--+---r---.---------I---··-----t---,.-----1-1---.. --
I 1 I I
I \
I
---+--
f
I :
I
I
I V
Ie) I ~
~
I 5------
I Elisitino Hydro 13,000 KW
u _____ n_ -----; // ---c-I ---4 1 -t !
Historica I 1 Forecast_-
I
-f--
. -
LAKE GRACE PROJECT
ALASKA
PEAK REQUIREMENTS
AT
LOAD AND SUPPLY
AT -----+--' Dem?nd T Dj'mand
o 196C 119621 11964 '19661 1196tl
,~----r;-;;=-i-----r;=I--"Til'Vi:Al-""" LOADS IN KILOWATTS
11984 I,J I I/974j 119761
I
11970 ----n9781 11980, 119821
FISCAL YEAR
Revi.ed 1074-906-3
o o o
)(
24 0
2 20
200
80
60
~ 14
:::>
0
o :r ,
..... 12 .....
ct
~
ct
~ 10
~
0
0
80
41'1
V
2 l~tiO
Hi storical
....... ~
/
'I~Z '1~64
I , 1
/
/
/
/
/
/
v 7 La ke Grace 93.000
At Load
/
//
J Forecast-' /' \/
./
~ """'-1 Ketchikan Hydro 9,990 M W Hr. (U n der Con struction)
Metlakatl a Hydra 10.000 MW Hr ..
Ketchikan Hydro 52.100 MW Hr.
I I
I~ti 'l~ti8 I~:HVI '197Z '19741 '1976 I':lft:! l~t:IV 1~8Z
FISCAL YEAR Revised
I
/
V
MWHr.
1984
I
V
LAKE GRACE PROJECT
ALASKA
ENERGY
REQUI REMENTS AT
LOAD AND SUPPLY
AT LOAD IN
MEGAWATT-HOURS
October . 196 1074-906-4
CHAPTER TV--WATER AND POWER
Water supplies available for power production were determined
using streamflow records for Grace Creek and for neighboring
streams. Reservoir sedimentation and reservoir losses were found
to be negligible. A monthly operation study was prepared to illus-
~ trate reservoir operation, power releases, and project power produc-
tion. Powerplant capacity was selected on the basis of the project
firm energy capability and area load characteristics.
Drainage Area
The drainage area above the lake Grace D9msi te comprises 29.2
square miles of mountainous terrain, mostly covered by a fairly
dense forest. Elevations range from 430 feet at we Grace to o~er
4,000 feet at the drainage area divide. The average elevation is
about 1,400 feet. Permanent ice fields or glaciers are not found
wi thin the drainage area.
Streamflow and Climate Records
Excellent streamflow records are available as a baSis for
determining the available water supply. The recorded runoff of
Grace Creek and the nearby Ella, Manzanita, Fish, and FaJ.ls
Creeks were analyzed for the lake Grace water supply studies.
All of these streams originate in the same general area. Both
the seasonal and annual runoff variations are small by compari-
son with other hydrologic provinces. Recording stream gaging
stations have been in operation on one or more of the above
streams since 1915. The records prior to 1945 were obtained by
the U. S. Forest Service and private entities. Records since
1945 have been obtained by the U. S. Geological SUrvey. These
stations and the period of record for each are given in Table
9 and their location is shown on Dra'Wing 1074--906-19.
33
Grace Cree1<~ near
Table 9--Stream-gaging Stations
Ketchikan
Drainage Area
(Sq. 'Miles)
30.2
Period of Record
octe 1927 -Sept. 1937
Aug. 1963 -Present
Mar:"z8...Tli ta Creek near Ketchiks.n 33.9 Oct. 1927 -Oct. 1931
Aug. 1947 -Present
.. ~ ..... 't 1:..L.":.8. Creek near Ketchikan 19. ~( Oct. 1927 -Sept. 193b
Oct. 1947 -Sept. 1958
1'1. sh Creek near Ketchikan 32.1 June 1915 -Oct. l'I!r;
Oct. 1938 -Present
FP-.J~s Creel..: nea1" Ketchikan 36.5 Sept. 1915 -Jan. l(Q(
Sept. 1926 -Dec. ."! ',', .,), ..'}J .J
Oct. 1946 -Sept. ~t-959
Climatological. data has been collected at various place., ii'
Ketchikan since 1913, and at the Beaver Falls powerplant sinc~ 1948.
The sea I.e vel climate in the project area is considered qui te ~imilar
to that at Jreaver Falls. A summary of climatic data for the two
stations is presented in Table 10.
Table 10--Climatic Data
Item
Average p:recipitation, i~GheS Y
Arillual snowfall, inches-f
Average temperature, OF Y
Years of record, precipitation
1( 1951-1960.
~I Period of record tr~ough 8/65.
Streamflow Correlations
Ketchikan
164
34
46.1
52
Beaver Falls
154
94
44.4
16
The Grace Creek gaging station is about 1-1/2 miles below the
Lake Grace Damsite. The average runoff for the eleven years of
record is 309,700 acre-feet per year. The high streamflow periods
usually fall during the rainy fa.ll months and during the spring
snow-melt period. I.o'w flow periods are found in colder-than-normal
34
winter months or during occasional. late summer periods of low preci-
pitation.
The record of runoff of Grace creek was extended to cover the
49-year period 1916-1964, by a monthl.y and seascmal. correlation with
Fish and Ella creeks. The basic correlations with Fish creek covered
the 8-month period November to June, with separate correlations for
July and August, and September and October. ibe lfovember to June
total flow was reduced to monthl.y values using a series of monthly
correlations.
The recorded and correlated Grace creek flows for the 1916-1964
period are shown in Table 11. '!be average annual flow for the 49-
year period is 301,600 acre-feet. The indicated ma.x1mum and minimum
runoff values are 376{ 500 acre-feet (1931 recorded) and 222,800 acre-
feet (1941 correlated).
Period of study
In selecting the period of study, the recorded and correlated
runoff of Grace creek, and the long term precipitation at Ketchi}r.an,
were considered. The minimum precipitation and runoff values occurred
in 'Water year 1941. A mass diagram ana.l.ysis showed that the extended
period of below average runoff beginning in 1941, and continuing through.
the mid 1950 IS, wuld be critical for design of water supply features.
A less severe "dry" period occurred in the years 1919-1923.
To include the critical period and demonstrate long term. average
project power production, the study period 1928-1964 was adopted.
'!be in1 tia.1 year, 1928, is also the first year of streamflow records
for Grace creek.
Lake Grace Inflow
The drainage area above the damsite is 29.2 squaJ.-e m:l.les, or
92.4 percent of the drainage area above the Grace creek gaging
station. The inflow to Lake Grace Reservoir was cc:aputed as 92.4
percent of the recorded and correlated runoff at the Grace creek
gaging station and is shown in Table 12. For the 1928-1964 period.,
. the average an m 18J cc:mputed inflow to the reservoir is 281,000
acre-feet. Annual max:ilmDD. and m1n1JD1DD. values are 347,900 acre-feet
(1931) and 205,900 acre-feet (1941).
35
Sbeet 1 of 3
Table Il--Heeorded and Correlated Run-of~ of Grace Creek near Ketchikan
DrainaESe Area: 31. 6 Square Niles Unit: 1,000 Acre-Feet
Year Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. Nay June July Aug. Sept. Total
1916 65.6 Nov. June total = 168.4 July -August 48.9 19.2 3C2.1
1917 28.0 144.6 62.1 28.4 263.1
1918 42.8 241.5 50.0 9.8 341+.1
1919 42.4 190.1 33.8 14.8 281.1
1920 16.3 169.0 52.7 15.8 253.8
1921 25.8 158.h 36.0 29.5 249.7
1922 66.0 161.0 21. 7 34.9 283.6
w 1923 38.0 208.2 21.0 31.9 299.1 0'\ 1924 22.9 2h2.1 39.6 47.0 351.6
1925 51.0 175.6 1+3.6 12.9 283.1
1926 13.3 285.0 29.7 7.3 335.3
1927 46.8 169.2 34.8 22.3 273.1
1928 54.0 8.9 9.6 35.8 14.4 28.6 18.4 43.7 26.2 17.3 14.3 19.5 290.7
1929 31.4 26.4 28.3 19.9 4.0 14.0 11.5 24.1 24.0 20.0 37.6 5.7 246.9
1930 57.1 53.7 14.0 4.6 21.3 13 .l~ 19.2 29.7 43.9 17.) 5.9 15.4 295.7
1931 47.5 51.5 64.0 34.4 19.9 12·5 25.3 41.9 25.6 17.9 16.1 19.9 376.5
1932 48.8 19.4 9.3 2l.6 17.4 13.0 21. 7 38.3 30.5 30.1 17.5 44.9 312.5
1933 30.4 31.1 12.2 16.9 8.7 9.8 17.6 35.7 39.3 37.9 29.1 18.2 286.9
1934 33.9 53.6 12.9 35.9 25.2 22.h 20.6 44.5 36.3 47.4 22.1~ 10.7 365.8
1935 37.7 32.0 27.4 17.8 26.3 7.0 11.6 37.8 32.5 16.l~ 32.3 10.8 289.6
Note: 1928-1937 and 1964 are recorded values; 1938 derived by Ella Creek Correlation.
Otber years ,,,ere computed using Fish Creck cO'iTelations.
Sheet 2 of 3
Table ll--Recorded and Correlated Run-off of Grace Creek near Ketchikan {Continued)
Drainage Area: 31.6 Square Miles Unit: 1,000 Acre-Feet
Year Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Total
1936 25.7 29.5 58 .3 14.3 5.4 12.9 33.7 40.0 18.4 17.3 21.4 28.1 305·0
1937 35.6 50.1 29.9 9.9 7.9 19.1 20.2 35.6 34.9 21.8 23.8 22.7 311.5
1938 35.6 14.0 3!~. 5 31.8 14.4 15.5 35.3 34.2 34.4 15.5 11.5 21.2 297.9
1939 44.0 30·9 28.9 31.9 7·9 6.9 24.5 42.3 30.6 19.0 31.5 33.7 332.1
1940 53.4 59.5 33.1 12.2 9.2 16.1 19.4 30.4 25.3 12.5 43.4 14.2 328.7
1941 21.6 22.7 32.1 25·3 12.2 12.5 16.7 25.4 18.4 13.9 5·9 16.1 222.8
1942 50.4 41.2 15.2 36.8 8.4 13.8 26.8 33.9 16.0 7.3 6.0 11.1 266.9
w 1943 42.7 24.2 21.6 27.9 22.7 4.6 23.4 35·9 20.3 25.0 18.1 22.7 289.1
~ 1944 26.1 49.1 31.0 22.4 8.8 19.4 24.3 32.3 24.7 15.8 16.8 19.6 290.3
1945 60.3 26.6 12.6 20.8 8.8 10.3 13.9 34.1 37.1 20.1 7·5 14.5 266.6
1946 48.9 10.6 6.9 15.2 8.4 12.8 17.0 45.6 34.2 26.9 25.2 22.3 274.0
1947 30.9 24.4 13.9 16.3 13.6 25.1 29.6 31.8 35·3 18.6 12.9 32.2 284.6
1948 58.3 17.9 17.9 24.5 4.9 7.1 9.4 45.6 37.2 15.8 11.9 59.1 309.6
1949 44.6 27.4 8.7 11.6 4.2 12.9 36.4 47.5 48.7 30.1 30.0 35·9 338.0
1950 57.8 38.1 8.5 1.5 6.3 8.1 16.4 39.4 42.4 29.9 24.1 36.6 309.1
1951 23.0 13.9 22.7 10.4 4.0 8.5 16.8 44.9 51.6 20.8 12.3 9.8 238.7
1952 24.4 16.4 17.3 6.8 12.9 6.8 27.7 41.1 44.3 30.9 25.0 33.2 286.8
1953 34.1 21.6 15.5 7.0 15.2 18.4 19.0 55.1 29.5 25.4 11.2 38.0 290.0
1954 63.3 30.5 29.8 7.7 35.2 5.1 12.8 42.7 42.4 22.3 8.3 16.0 316.1
1955 48.0 44.8 42.3 15.3 13.6 7.7 21.4 35.3 43.6 26.3 40.4 20.6 359.3
Sheet 3 of 3
Table ll--Recorded and Correlated Run-off of Grace Creek near Ketchikan (Continued)
Drainage Area: 31.6 Square Miles Unit: 1,000 Acre-Feet
Year Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr 0 May June July Aug. Sept. Total
1956 59.3 1805 5·5 2.4 6.2 4.1 21.0 56 .1 35.9 1209 3003 15·5 267.7
1957 36.4 32.7 34.7 7.0 4.6 4.9 18.0 4303 33.7 23·5 902 14.2 26202
1958 23.5 33.3 16.3 37.7 1405 10.1 25.9 43.8 14.7 4.0 38.4 17.0 279·2
1959 70.1 32.0 31.9 13 0 0 11.2 25·2 19.5 35.7 44.7 32.2 20.8 21.5 357.8
1960 42.8 34.6 53·5 9.3 11.1 2l.2 3203 37.3 39.1 32.3 18.0 23.1 354.6
1961 81.3 32.0 3302 29.5 22·9 13.2 34.9 29.5 32.7 12.7 15.3 2208 360.0
VJ 1962 86.6 30.8 9.9 45.0 13.2 5·,4 25.4 28.3 39·3 18.1 17.2 25·1 344.3
0:> 1963 38.5 39.2 47.9 27.2 29.8 10.0 14.2 25.9 31.3 14.7 4.2 42.1 325·0
1964 38.7 19.9 28 06 18.4 21.4 9.1 21.5 31.5 52.2 34.3 26.7 21. 7 324.0
1916-1964
Total 14,776 .2
Ave. 301.6
1928-1964
Total 1646.7 1143.0 919.9 726.0 496.1 467.5 803.3 1400.2 1251.2 804 oIt 742.5 855.7 11,25 6 .5
Mean 44.5 30.9 24.9 19.6 13.4 12.6 21. 7 37.8 33.8 21.7 20.1 23.1 304.1
Percent 14.6 10.3 8.2 6.4 4.4 4.1 7.1 1205 11.1 7.1 6.6 7.6 100.0
Table 12 --Computed Lake Grace Reservoir Inflov,!l
Sheet 1 of 2
Drainage Area: 29.2 Square Miles Unit: 1,000 Acre-Feet
Year Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. l'4ay June ,July Aug. Sept. Total
1928 49.9 8.2 8.9 33.1 13.3 26.4 17.0 40.4 24.2 16.0 13.2 18.0 268.6
1929 29.0 24.4 26.1 18.4 3.7 12.9 10.6 22.3 22.2 18.5 34.7 5.3 228.1
1930 52.8 49.6 12.9 4.2 19.7 12.4 17.7 27.4 40.6 16.2 5.5 14.2 273.2
1931 43.9 47.6 59.1 31.8 18.4 11.6 23.4 38.7 23.6 16.5 14.9 18.4 347.9
1932 45.1 17.9 8.6 20.0 16.1 12.0 20.0 35.4 28.2 27.8 16.2 41.5 288.8
1933 28.1 28.7 11.3 15.6 8.0 9.1 16.3 33.0 36.3 35.0 26.9 16.8 265.1
1934 31.3 49.5 11.9 33.2 23.3 20.7 19.0 41.1 33.6 43.8 20.7 9.9 338.0
LV 1935 34.8 29.6 25.3 16.4 24.3 6.5 10.7 34.9 30.0 15.2 29.9 10.0 267.6 \,() 1936 23.7 27.2 53.9 13.2 5.0 11.9 31.1 37.0 17.0 16.0 19.8 26.0 281.8
1937 32.9 46.3 27.6 9·1 7.3 17.7 18.7 32.9 32.2 20.1 22.0 21.0 287.8
1938 32.9 12.9 31.9 29.4 13.3 14.3 32.6 31.6 31.8 14.3 10.6 19.6 275.2
1939 40.6 28.6 26.7 29.5 7.3 6.4 22.6 39.1 28.3 17.6 29.1 31.1 306.9
1940 49.3 55.0 30.6 11.3 8.5 14.9 17.9 28.1 23.4 11.5 40.1 13.1 303.7
1941 19.9 21.0 29·7 23.4 11.3 11.6 15.4 23.5 17.0 12.8 5.4 14.9 205.9
1942 46.6 38.1 llt.O 34.0 7.8 12.8 24.8 31.3 14.8 6.7 5.5 10.2 246.6
1943 39.4 22.4 19.9 25.8 21.0 4.2 21.6 33.2 18.8 23.1 16.7 21.0 267.1
1944 24.1 45.4 28.7 20.7 8.1 17.9 22.4 29.9 22.8 14.6 15·5 18.1 268.2
1945 55.7 24.6 1.1.6 19.2 8.1 9.5 12.9 31.5 34.3 18.6 6.9 13.4 246.3
1946 45.2 9.8 6.4 14.0 7.8 11.8 15Q7 42.1 31.6 24.9 23.3 20.6 253.2
1947 28.6 22.5 12.8 15.1 12.6 23.2 27.4 29.~· 32.6 17.2 11.9 29.7 263.0
Y Based upon straight drainage area relationship .rith USGS Gage -29.2 = 0.924
3l.b
Sheet 2 of 2
Table 12--Computed Lake Grace Reservoir Inflow (Continued)
Drainage Area: 29.2 Square Miles Unit: 1,000 Acre-Feet
Year Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Total
1948 53.9 16.6 16.5 22.6 4.5 6.6 8.7 42.1 3404 14 0 6 il.O 54.6 286.1
1949 41.2 25.3 8.0 10.7 3.9 lL9 33.7 43.9 45.0 27.8 2707 33.2 312.3
1950 53.4 35·2 7.8 1.1~ 5.8 7,5 15.2 36.4 39.2 27.6 22.3 33.8 285.6
1951 21.3 12.8 21.0 9.6 307 7,8 15·5 41.5 47,7 19.2 lL4 9.1 220.6
1952 22.5 15.2 16.0 6.3 11.9 6·.3 25.6 ~8.0 40.9 28,5 23.1 30.7 265.0
1953 31.5 20.0 14.3 6.5 14.0 17.0 17.6 50.9 27.3 23·5 10 0 3 3501 268.0
+:" 1954 58.5 28.2 27.5 7.1 32.5 4,7 il.8 39.5 39.2 20.6 7.7 14.8 292.1
0 1955 44.4 41.4 3901 14,1 12.6 7.1 1908 32.6 40.3 24.3 37.3 19.0 332.0
1956 54.8 17.1 5,1 2.2 5·7 3.8 1904 51.8 33.2 il.9 28.0 14.3 247.3
'!.9':>7 ?? '7 ?n ':) ~2.1 6.5 4.3 4.5 16.6 40.0 31.1 21. 7 8.5 1301 242.3 --:':;')U £:!.L. 7 30.(5 l).l ~)~.8 13.4 9.3 23.9 40.5 13.6 3.7 35·5 15.7 258.0
1959 64.8 29,6 29.5 12.0 10.3 23.3 18.0 33.0 41.3 29.7 19,2 19.9 330.6
1960 39.6 32.0 49.4 8.6 10.2 lSr.6 29.9 34.5 ,,:>C ~ 29.8 16.6 21.3 327.6 JVe..t-
1961 75·1 29.6 30.7 27.2 21.2 12.2 32.3 27.2 30.2 il.7 14.1 21.1 332.6
1962 80.0 28.5 9.1 41.6 12.2 5·0 23·5 2601 36.3 16,7 15·9 23.2 318.1
1963 35.6 36.2 4h.3 25.1 27.6 9.2 13.1 23.9 28.9 13.6 3,9 38.9 300.3
1964 35.8 18.4 26.4 17.0 19.8 8.4 19.9 29.1 48.2 31. 7 2407 20.0 299.4
1928-1964
Total 1521.6 105 6 .4 849.8 670.7 458.5 432.0 742.3 1293.8 1156.2 743.0 686.0 790.6 10,400.9
Mean 41.1 28.6 22.9 18.1 12.4 11. 7 20.1 34.9 31.2 20.1 18.5 21.4 281.0
Water Rights
The Constitution of the State of Alaska provides that surface
and subsurface waters are reserved to the people for cammon use,
except mineral and medicinal waters, and are subject to appropriation.
The Constitution provides:
"Priori ty of appropriation shall give prior right.
Except for public water supply, an appropriation
of water sha.ll be limited to stated purposes and
subject to preferences among beneficial uses,
concurrent or otherwise, as prescribed by law,
and to the general reservation of fish and wild-
life." y
The State Legislature passed lIB 140, the "Alaska Water Use Act, II
in its 1966 session, and the measure became law. The new law is a
comprehensive code that assigns to the State's Department of Natural
Resources the responsibility of determining and adjudicating water
rights. The Department of Natural Resources has granted to the
Uni ted States, permits numbered 16 and 17, dated JUly 5, 1967, to
appropriate the project water supply, and the water supply for the
artificial spawning channel.
The Lake Grace Reservoir area and the powersite are withdrawn
under Federal Power Commission Order PP 758, November 22, 1926,
with revisions dated June 14, 1930. This land withdrawal stems f'rom
early investigations by the timber interests and covers several
other powersites on Revillagigedo Island in addition to Lake Grace.
The powersite wi thdrawaJ. remains in effect even though the FPC per-
mits for investigation of the sites have expired. The powersite
withdrawaJ. provides a measure of protection for the project, since
Federal Power Commission approval is needed for any competing use
of the withdrawn lands.
11 Alaska State Constitution--Article VIII, Section 13.
41
Reservoir Data
Area and Capacity Curves
Area and capacity curves for the storage reservoir were pre-
pared fran U. S. Geological SUrvey topography, scale 1:24,000, and
are shown on Drawing 1074-906-11. Active reservoir capacity of
148,900 acre-feet would be developed between elevations 431 and 500
feet.
The streambed elevation at the dam is approximately 380 feet,
and the invert of the power intake works is at elevation 410 feet.
However, a minimum operating level of 431 feet was selected, as
this is one foot higher than the nominal lake surface elevation.
At elevations below the 43l-foot level, the present lake outlet
capacity would restrict power production as the elevation of the
lake outlet at zero flow is about 427 feet.
Sediment
Sediment data for the project area is not available, but the
drainage area characteristics indicate a very low rate of sediment
production. Most of the area is covered by forest and muskeg, and
there are no glaciers or permanent ice fields in the area. The
delta above the reservoir is heavily vegetated, and the stream
channel traversing the delta does not exhibit characteristics of an
aggrading stream.
Based upon the limited sediment data available for streams in
Southeast Alaska, the rate of sediment production for the drainage
area is probably on the order of 0.1 acre-feet per square mile per
year, or less. This corresponds to an annual sediment inflow to
the reservoir of only three acre-feet per year, a negligible amount.
In view of the low sedimentation rate and location of the power in-
take works and dam, sediment problems are not anticipated.
Reservoir Losses
The geologic investigations concluded that significant reser-
voir seepage losses would not occur, and that seepage around and
under the dam would be negligible, given adequate foundation grouting.
SUrface losses from the existing lake are reflected in the
streamflow records. The additional areas that will be inundated
have muskeg and forest cover. Water losses :f'ran these areas are
42
-
-
..
Z
o
~
C(
>
l&.I
.J
l&.I
SURFACE AREA, ACRES
3000 2500 2000 1500
--500 ,--·Top of Active Conservation Capacity Elev. 500 --co Lo.. ............ ~ ~ ~
.2 '"' « r-..... ./ --.. 0·-0 ~ V 7 »U~ .-.... c ............... -cua. ./ 450 0 1110 ~ « Cu ex> ~ ........ I--.. o ~ !.0'p_~_I~c~~!'~~~5~t!'r_E~~~_-:~I-.:~--~ u --------;7 -------------
Inactive Capacity Approximately 6~/ A~F. ~ ----... -: 'BOtto-~ 0'-iooctlv-e -Co Docit~ E Ie ~.-41-----------------------------
/' /' ~ ..(,.·A REA
400
/ A"CAPACITY ~
50 \ /
3
/ \
00 3 o 200 100
RESERVOIR CAPACITY, 1000 ACRE-FEET
NOTES:
1-Data source! U. S. G S. To pograp hy, Scale I"s 2000'.
2-Capocity be ow elevation 300 not determined.
3-Toto I co pacity between elevation 410 and 431 is 25000 A.F
incruding 19_000AF of dead storage due to elevation
of existi ng lake outlet.
1000
-
---
----
\
400
E LEV, A REA C A PA CITY
feet acres acre -feet
300 1,085 0
320 1,145 22,300
340 1,200 45,800
360 1,260 70,400
380 1,370 96,700
400 1,480 125,200
420 1,595 156,000
430 1,6S 0 172,200
440 1,805 189,500
460 2,120 228,700
480 2,355 273,500
500 2,585 322,800
520 3270 381 400
UNlTEO STATES
DEPliRTIoIENT aF THE INTERlaR
ALASKA paWER AOlollNISTRATION
LAKE GRACE PROJECT
AREA-CAPACITY DATA
1074-906-11
probably comparable to free water surface evaporation losses. Thus,
construction of the dam and reservoir would not result in a material
increase in water losses fram the reservoir area.
For the operation studies, reservoir surface loss was considered
fUlly reflected in the water supply records, and reservoir seepage
loss was assumed to be negligible.
Power Studies
The project was sized using a series of adverse year power
studies to determine firm energy capabilities, and shortcut methods
for estimating secondary energy. The Corps of Engineers, Alaska
District Office, in reviewing the project plans, prepared operation
studies for the selected plan and for several alternate plans, using
their computer program No. 24159, "Hydropower Capacity and Regulation -
Planning Stage Analysis." :Each of the computer studies is a ccmplete
monthly operation study for the selected study period, and thus, the
computer studies provide a more accurate comparison of alternate plans
for the project than do the shorter, hand studies. For this reason,
the Corps' studies have been adopted for use in this feasibility
report.
The releases fram the dam, requested by the Fish and Wildlife
Service, for flushing the stream channel above the powerhouse, con-
stitute a negligible volume of water with respect to total project
water supply. Therefore they are not shown in the monthly operation
studies. The ndnimum nows below the powerplant requested by the
Fish and Wildlife Service can be accamodated under normal power
operations without additional releases at the dam.
Operating Assumptions
The normal maximum reservoir operating level would be 500 feet,
thu s provi ding 148,900 acre-feet of active reservoir capacity. The
average tailwater elevation is taken at 27.0 feet giving a range in
gross head fram 473 to 404 feet.
Load Characteristics. The anticipated project power loads
would be of the utility tYI>e. Monthly' energy distribution data were
derived fram recent loads of the Ketchikan and Metlakatla utilitie&.
Peak loads were derived fram the Ketchikan Public utilities loads.
The data show peak loads in the stmmler months to be about 80 percent
of winter loads. The adopted monthly load distribution is shown in
Table 13.
44
Table l3--Monthly Load Ddstribution
Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Total
Monthly Energy,
Percent of Annual Total
9.6
8.5
9.1
8.0
7.8
7.4
7.4
7.6
7.7
8.4·
8.9
9.6
100.0
Monthly Peak wad,
Percent of Annual Peak
96
90
86
83
79
78
77
78
82
88
98
100
Analysis of daily and weekly load data fran the Ketchikan Public
utilities' records, indicates weekly load factors on the order of 70
percent for both summer and winter periods. Base load averages some-
what over 40 percent for the period sampled. AnmJa' load factors for
the Utilities system varied fram 47.8 to 58.2 percent for the years
1950 to 1965 and averaged about 55 percent. This is considered to
be indicative of future conditions.
Efficiencies. The hydraulic and mechanical efficiencies used in
the computer studies were expressed as functions of gross head and
then combined into a single head versus efficiency relationship. The
resultant overall efficiency varies fram about 83.0 to 83.5 percent.
Power Operation Study
The reservoir and power operation study included the water years
1928 through 1964 and assumed a fu.ll reservoir at the start of the
period. The ent.ire Lake Grace inflow is assumed to be available for
power diversions, as the releases required by the Fish and Wildlife
Service would be negligible.
The operation study shows the lake Grace Project has an annual
firm capability of 98,900,000 kilowatt-hours. In addition, there is
an average of 10,300,000 kilowatt-hours of secondary generation each
year. Secondary energy was available in 24 years of the 37-year
study, with spills occurring in only two years.
45
The study is illustrated graphically on Drawing 1074-906-36, and
the annual summa.ry is shown as Table 14.
Power Capacity
The powerplant capacity must be at least large enough for the
project to carry a proportionate share of the peak load. Using the
average firm generation of 98,900,000 kilowatt-hours per year, and
the area annual load factor of about 55 percent, a minimum rated
capacity of 20,000 kilowatts will be required for the Lake Grace
Powerplant. Overload capacity of 15 percent, or 3,000 kilowatts,
would be the Project's contribution to system reserve capacity.
46
~ 100------.-----~----~----~----~----~----~----~----~----~----~~----r_----~----T_----~----~----~----_r----.,
c:(
o o o
• ~ o
..J
"'-
Z
.. ., • -:>
L&J
.J
L&J
en •
~
ci
0
8 .
t-z
LAI
t-
Z
0
u
z
'nflow __ -Sp;"
,-, ,
~~----~--~~--~~--~+_----~---~~----~----~----~----_+-----~----~-,__--~--~~----+------+---~4-----·4_----1
475
4ro Water Surfoc
,. ----f---------1----
... '~-Minimum Water Surface Elev.
--------------------------
Maximum 322,800 A.F
275
250
eservo; r Content
225
20
175
NOTE:
Operation Study by Corps
of Engineers program
-24159.
"Hydropower Capacity
and Regulation-Planning
Stage Ana IYlil.·
o
~ IOI----t----+--------f-------+----------'etI----+---
UNITED STATES
---1------1 DEMRTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
a:
w~ Zo w_
e)
IC
> ~ 5~~--+------+----~~--+---~ .J~ z~ t-~
Z o
~
----.+-----I--~
ALASKA POWER ADMINISTRATION
LAKE GRACE PROJECT
POWER
AND
RESERVOIR OPERATOI
Sheet I of 2
0~1~9-2-8~-'-9-29~~1-9-30~~19~3--1~-19~32~~'9-3~3~~'9~34~~1~9~3~5~~19~3-6~--'9~3-7~-u19M3-8~--19u3~9~--'9~4~O~--'9-4--1~-19-4-2~--19~4~3~-'9-4-4~~'9-4-5~~19-4-6~
CALE N DAR YEARS OCTOBER 19671074-908-M
..
~ ~r-----------~----~----~----~----T-----~----~----~----~----~----.-----.-----r-----.-----r-----r----'
c(
o
8
~ o
..J .....
Z
-., ., -
Reservoir Intlow
Reservoir Content
175L-__ ~~ __ ~ ____ ~ ____ ~ __ ~ ____ ~ ____ ~ ____ ~ __ ~~ __ ~ ____ ~ ____ ~ ____ ~ __ ~ ____ -L ____ ~ ____ ~ __ ~
z o
t= Million Ki lowatt Hours Generation
c( IO~----~----~----~----~----~-----+-----+----~----~------~--~r---~~----±---~~----~----~----~ ____ ~ p.:
w~ ~o w_
0",
~ ~~ 5~----+-----+-----~----~----~----~-----+--'--'~~~~~-~~----~----+--r--+-~-+~~-;~~--~~---T--r--1
% ~ '!Secondor'l
zll::
OL-I~9~4~7~~19~4~8~-1~9~4~9~~1~9~50~~19~5~1-+~1~9~5~2-r~1~9~5·3~~19~5~4~~1~9~5~~1~9·5~6~~I~r+-nnn~~~~rlH~~~~fI~~~~~~~r1
NOTE:
Opera tion Study by Corp s of
Engineers programtf 24159 .
"Hyd ropower Co pacify and
Regulations-Planning Stage
Analysis."
UNITED STATES
DE PARTMENT OF TH E INTERIOR
ALASKA paWE R ADMINISTRATION
LAKE GRACE PROJECT
POWER
AND
RESERVOIR CPERATION
Sheet 2 of 2
AlENDAR YEARS Oc tober 1967 1074-906-38
Table 14--Power operation study
Lake Grace Project
Annual SUmmary
Reservoir Elevations Average Firm Average Secondary
Feet {MSLl Head Energy Power Ener gy 03 Spill
Year Maximum Minimum Average (Feet) KWH x 103 KW KWH x 1 Ac. Ft.
1928 494.32 484.31 488.64 461.60 98,899.5 11,284 13,677.2 0
1929 494.39 471.35 479.35 452.39 99,185.6 11,297 1,699.4 0
1930 500.00 476.94 484.63 457.71 98,899.5 11,284 12,328.8 0
1931 500.00 485.17 491.20 464.19 98,899.5 1l,284 21,233.6 0
1932 496.40 479.32 488.25 461.28 98,899.5 11,284 10,881. 7 0
1933 500.00 473.83 487.09 460.09 99,185.6 11,297 10,096.8 0
1934 500.00 487.32 496.59 469.54 98,899.5 11,284 29,716.2 0
1935 500.00 486.71 491.65 464.70 98,899.5 11,284 13,117.3 0
..t:"" 1936 500.00 485.21 490.45 463.43 98,899.5 11,284 13,613.6 0 co
1937 494.77 487.16 491.12 464.18 99,185.6 11,297 9,763.1 0
1938 496.57 484.18 490.37 463.35 98,899.5 1l,284 16,647.4 0
1939 500.00 486.21 493.01 465.89 98,899.5 11,284 29,159.3 10,670
1940 495.66 486.08 489.84 462.97 98,899.5 11,284 5,841.4 0
1941 490.26 469.06 481.14 454.19 99,185.6 11,297 0 0
1942 486.01 465.03 476.60 449.60 98,899.5 11,284 0 0
1943 478.58 462.00 468.48 441.46 98,899.5 11,284 0 0
1944 486.02 470.21 475.99 449.01 98,899.5 11,284 0 0
1945 478.99 460.83 471.28 444.35 99,185.6 11,297 0 0
1946 460.61 439.33 453.87 426.79 98,899.5 1l,284 0 0
1947 467.94 443.45 453.09 426.11 98,899.5 11,284 0 0
1948 469.70 435.28 453.74 426.71 98,899.5 11,284 0 0
1949 494.39 439.65 467.13 440.09 99,185.6 11,297 4,354.2 0
1950 488.92 463.46 478.68 451.68 98,899.5 11,284 0 0
Table 14 -Power OPeration Study (Continued)
Reservoir Elevations Average Firm Average Secondary
feet ~MSL~ Head Energy Power Energy Spill
Year Maximum MirillnUlll Average {Feet~ KWH x 103 KW KWH x 10 3 Ac. Ft.
1951 482.65 460.87 473.11 446.30 98,899.5 11,284 0 0
1952 476.96 444.03 462.54 435.47 98,899.5 11,284 0 0
1953 494.39 455.26 472.00 444.97 99,185.6 11,297 193.7 0
1954 500.00 483.32 489.96 462.96 98,899.5 11,284 15,552 .3 0
1955 500.00 486.70 492.36 465.39 98,899.5 11,284 27,214.3 0
1956 490.78 462.64 478.13 451.04 98,899.5 11,284 0 0
1957 484.30 467.79 476.88 449.98 99,185.6 11,297 0 0
1958 494.39 468.76 477.93 450.87 98,899.5 11,284 2,190.1 0
1959 500.00 486.09 490.78 463.81 98,899.5 11,284 25,516.2 0
1960 500.00 487.16 493.05 465.99 98,899.5 11,284 34,417.9 7,593
1961 500.00 485.12 492.64 465.69 99,185.6 11,297 32,534.1 0
1962 500.00 487.16 492.14 465.15 98,899.5 11,284 21,148.0 0
-I::"" 1963 500.00 481.64 491.53 464.59 98,899.5 11,284 12,205.9 0 \D
1964-500.00 486.39 491.30 464.27 98,899.5 11,284 20,007.7 0
500.00 435.28 481.51 454.51 98,962.7 11,289 10,354 .1 493
CHAPTER V--DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND COSTS
The plan of development provides for the construction of a dual-
purpose project for the production of electrical energy and conservation
and unprovement of fishery resources. Major features of the project
include a dam with an ungated spillway, tunnel, penstock, powerplant,
transmission lines, unloading dock, access roads, and an artificial
spawning channel. The features required for power production are shown
on Drawing 1074-906-24. The basic designs and cost estimates for the
dam, power tunnel, penstocks, powerplant, and transmission system were
prepared by the Bureau of Reclamation. Those for the artificial spawn-
ing channel were prepared by the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries in
cooperation with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
Geology
The geologic conditions in the project area were assessed by field
investigation, including foundation drilling and surface mapping. They
are summarized below.
Lake Grace Damsite
The damsite is founded in a competent diorite gneiss. The rock out-
crops in and along the stream channel and on the right abutment up to
elevation 450 feet. Above this elevation, the abutment has a shallow
overburden of muskegs and forest. The left abutment is a steep, forested
slope up to approximate elevation 530 feet. For dam crests higher than
elevation 480 feet, a dike section is required on the right abutment.
Above elevation 500 feet, the dike section increases rapidly, and the
physical limit of the site is at approximate elevation 530 feet.
A saddle on the right abutment offers an excellent spillway location.
An alternate damsite at the lake outlet was examined, but the
foundation conditions are inferior to the selected site and a longer
tunnel would be required. Because of the higher costs for the same
power output, no further consideration was given to the site.
Lake Grace
Lake Grace occupies a glacially-scoured steep-walled rock basin
about five miles long and one-half mile wide. The reservoir is under-
lain by competent igneous rock similar to that at the damsite, except
for a volcanic breccia plug that forms a part of the east shore of
Lake Grace. The volcanics also occur at places along the stream
50
.JL
II
2000 0 2000 4000 6000 .
1" .. 1",,1 I I I
SCALE OF FEET
-Powerpllnt
Tunnel
Dam
LEGEND
Normll W. S. EI. 5'00, proposed
Lake Grice Reservoir.
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTER lOR
ALASKA POWER ADMIN ISTRATION
LAKE GRACE PROJECT· ALASKA
PROJECT PLAN
GRACE CREEK WORKS
October 1967 1074-906-24
channel above the damsite. Some zones in the volcanics are easily
erodible, and voids are exhibited on some exposures, most notably
'Where Grace Creek has undercut the rock. The volcanics, and, more
particularly, the contact zones bet'Ween the volcanics and the under-
lying diorite, 'Y1ould constitute a leakage problem if there is inter-
connection between the voids. Evidence of leakage under existing
conditions was not found, and it was concluded that large reservoir
losses would not occur.
Some evidence of surface sliding was found in areas where the
volcanics border Grace Creek. Although small surface slides with
an associated debris problem are likely to occur in the future,
slides large enough to interfere with project operations are con-
sidered a very remote possibility, and structural safety hazards are
not involved. This potentiality, however, will be recognized as a
design consideration.
Power Tunnel
The power tunnel intake would be founded upon gneiss comparable
to that at the damsite. The tunnel would be located in basalt, except
for the first 400 feet, and would require lining throughout. The
quality of the rock is variable, and requirements for tunnel supports
may be anticipated during construction. Some seepage can be antici-
pated during tunnel excavation, but no large volume flows are anticipated.
Penstock
The penstock route is on a heavily forested hillside with a
shallow soiled mantle over most of the route. A terrace remnant is
exposed at one point on the route. The upper portion is underlain
by basalt bedrock, and the lower portion would be founded on competent
diorite gneiss. The route is free of slide hazards and thoroughly
suitable for a surface penstock.
Lake Grace Powerplant
Sound, competent diorite gneiss similar to that at the damsite
outcrops in Grace Creek at the powerplant site and would provide an
excellent foundation for the powerplant. Bedrock.control exists in
the stream below the powerplant site, and no significant degradation
is likely. All location factors favor a surface powerhouse.
52
Construction Materials
The investigation for construction materials delineated three
potential sources. The most favorable source appears to be along
Grace Creek near the moutb of Trail Creek. Extreme care must be
used in the development of this source to avoid disturbing salmon
spawning gravels in the streambed. There is a good probability that
adequate amounts of aggregate can be obtained away from the stream
channel in this vicinity.
Other potential sources of aggregate are at the head of Lake
Grace and at the mouth of Grace Creek in inter-tidal reaches. The
former source would involve a barge haul, and the latter has organic
impurities. Close coordination with the fishery agencies is essen-
tial on location of construction material sources so as to prevent
unnecessary damage to fishery values.
Design and Construction Problems
The principal design and construction problems are those asso-
ciated with the project's remote location.
Accessibility
Although the dam, powerplant and pertinent works are only 32
miles northeast of Ketchikan, they lie in a remote area. Trans-
portation would be either by air or water as there are no roads in
the area. By water, they are about 60 miles froom Ketchikan. It
would be impracticabla to provide construction access by road from
Ketcbikan. Both Ketchikan and the project site are on Revillagigedo
Island, but the inte:rvening terrain, is steep mountain slopes cut by
many fiords, bays and inlets, and mountain passes are steep and sub-
ject to heavy snowfall.
Communications
Communications to and from the project would be by radio or
radio-telephone. The Alaska Communications System, operated by the
UoS. Air Force, operates small phones stations in Ketchikan and
Juneau. Telephone service is available between Juneau, Ketchikan,
and Metlakatla. upon completion of the project, telephone communi-
cations to Ketchikan would be available by carrier wave along the
transmission line.
53
Power Facilities
During the construction of the project, power requirements would
be met by the installation of diesel-electric sets as other power sources
are not available in the project area.
Project Works
The plan for the development of the project works at Grace Creek
is shown on Drawing 1074-906-24, and in more detail on Drawing 1074-
906-21. A description of all project works associated with the
construction of the Lake Grace Project is as follows:
Lake Grace ISm
Lake Grace ISm would be about one-half mile downstream f'rom the
lake outlet. It would be canprised of a double-curvature thin arch
structure with a thrust block and a gravity spillway section on the
right abutment, as shown on Drawing 1074-906-20. It would be 148
feet in height above the lowest foundation excavation, with the top
of the dam at elevation 508 feet. A parapet would extend an addi-
tional three feet. The thin arch would be 10.3 feet thick at the
base on the plane of centers, and 4.0 feet thick at the crest.
The spillway would be a conventional overflow type, 200 feet
long, ungated, and with a crest elevation at 500 feet. It would
have a capacity of 16,000 cubic feet per second with maximum water
surface at elevation 508.25 feet. With a surcharge of 24,000 acre-
feet in the reservoir, the spillway would protect against a deSign
flood haYing a peak of 32,500 cubic feet per second and a 3-1/2
~ volume of 54,600 acre-feet. Spillway discharges would be
directed downstream away from the arch dam, cascading into the
creek below.
An outlet works with centerline at elevation 418 feet would
consist of a 4-foot by 4-foot conduit through the arch dam, con-
trolled by two 4-foot by 4-foot high pressure gates in tandem.
The downstream gate is for regulation and the upstream gate for
emergency closure. The outlet pipe would be capable of discharg-
ing the average annual flow of the river (388 cubic feet per
second) at water surface elevation of 431 feet.
The outlet would be mainly used in emergencies to evacuate the
reservoir. However, if proposed studies by the Fish and Wildlife
Service prove that maintenance of salmon runs in Grace Creek is
\ To Ward Cove
r.,,,m;,,;o; u,.--\
Access I Road __ _
Surge Tank
Penstock
Access Road
Lake Grace
200
,.-Intake Structure
I
\
" Power Tunnel -'-"
PLA N
o 200
SCALE OF FEET
400 600
.-.-Ground Surface
Tank
~~==========================~"~==========================~~~'-~'~~~~~r==========9~=================9~~~::~~~£r~EI. 360
Su. 0+00 ___ --J Power Tunnel -"
PROFILE THROUGH WATERWAYS
20 0 0
III!!!!!"!
200
I
SCALE OF FEET
400
I
600
I
Lake Grace Powerplant
Gate Hoist "\
Max. , ,
".-EL 508
Norma l
W. S. EI. 508.25 -... , W. S. EI. 500 -•• ~ ,
Sta. 42+15 ___ -.J
-~
T rash r ack ----.
Mi n. W. S. EL 4.31 -, , , ,
" Fixed Wheel Gate -•• __
EI. 400·" ,
.' .
,'.
"
Tunnel
SECT.A·A
THROUGH INTAKE STRUCTURE
2 0 o 20 40
1",,111,,1
SCALE OF FEET
UNITED
DEPARTMENT OF
A LASKA POWER
STATES
THE INTERIOR
ADMINISTRATION
L AKE GRACE PROJECT·ALASKA
GRACE CREEK WORKS
PLAN , PROFILE AND SECTION
October 1967 1074·906·21
"~-Intak. Tower
('
"q, ,
\\ 450 ___ \
/'-Top 01 D.m [I. SOl :," 01 P.repe' [I. 511 ,. ..
'----TIw .... lleck
IiID _________ -Oulle' Work. Trolllr.ck ~
SO
I !
UPSTREAM EL~VATION
DEVELOP[D ALONG AXIS
50 100
stALE Of fEET
'LAN AND ELUATION
PLAN
,-C, .. , [1.500
ISO
I
01 Dam [I. SOB
Div.rli.OII Tunnel
(
'%
,.. 01 ..... _, [I. 511--__
L Ma.. W. S. [I. 50B.25 --j.~
--.i
MOl. .. S. EL 50B.25 -~
Norm.1. W. S. [I. 500 --',
~
Top 01 P.rapet [I. 511 ---"\
MOl. W. S. [I. 50B.25 -----'" 'i.
.......... W. S. El. 500 ----_, ~
~
.LTop 01 Dom
t:I. 50B
,,-[I. 417.5
-c---,-_J..
SECT.C·C
5[CT~ THROUGH ,sPILLWAY
,--Top 01 P.r.pe' [I. 511
~ T,. of Dom [I. SOB
, .
,--""II 01 D.m
, W' Giller, __ "_:, ,', . . .
Mill. W. S. II. 431 ----',
L
SECT.A·A
Work.
HGIIH
S[CTlotI THROUGH OUTLET WORkS
10 0
I ) ! I I
10
I
IICA Ll Of fElT
20
I
SECT .. B·B
stenoll ntROUGH THRUST BLOCk
10 0 10
I
20
SCALi Of fElT
SICT. ."'. AND c.. C
UN ITID nATIS
DI'ARTMINT Of THI INTIRIOR
ALASKA ,0WIlI ADMINISTRATION
LAkE GRAC[ PIIOJECT· ALA III A
DAM DETAILS
PLAN, ELEVATION AND SECTIONS
October 1967 1074·906·20
feasible under project operating conditions, an annual release of
about 500 cubic feet per second for a short period might be necessary
to prevent excessive accumulation of debris in the stream channel
above the powerplant.
Diversion Tunnel
An unlined diversion tunnel, 250 feet in length and 14 feet in
diameter through the right abutment, would bypass streamflow past
the damsite during construction. A 5-year frequency flood, having
a peak flow of 3,500 cfs, was used for diversion studies. A concrete
clcsure structure would be located at the intake of the tunnel with
prOvisions for stoplogging when diversion is completed. After closure,
a concrete plug would be placed in the tunnel in the vicinity of the
dam axis.
Lake Grace
The top of the active conservation capacity of the reservoir would
be elevation 500 feet. At this elevation the water surface would have
an area of 2,585 acres, an increase of 935 acres over that of the
normal lake at elevation 4J) feet. Minimum draw down would be with
water surface at elevation 431 feet. The storage in the reservoir
is allocated as follows:
Purpose
Surcharge
Active Conservation
Inactive
Total reservoir capacity
Elevation
500-508.25
431-500
427 Y -431
f7 Elevation of zero flow at outlet of Lake Grace.
Capacity
Acre-Feet
(24,000)
l48,5X)O
6,000
l54,SOO
The reservoir clearing plan involves clearing of all timber four
inches and larger in diameter at breast height within the reservoir
area below elevation 505 feet. The Forest Service estimates that 413
acres within the reservoir area will require clearing. The selected
elevation reflects the assumption that water surface elevations above
50 5 feet would be experienced only for short durations during rare
57
flood events. Such short-duration inundations would not damage
the timber above elevation 505 feet.
studies by the Forest Service indicate that merchantable
timber wi thin the reservoir area could be prof! tably harvested
after the access road to the dam is constructed. This could be
accomplished by either a Forest Service timber sale or by a timber
settlement to the construction agency. This part of the reservoir
clearing could be accomplished without cost to the project.
Most of the drainage area above the reservoir is forested, and
some floating debris can be expected during normal operations. For
this reason, the plan includes a log boom at the present lake outlet.
Power Tunnel
The power tunnel would be a concrete-lined pressure tunnel
3,400 feet in length and 9 feet in diameter. The tuIUlel headworks
'WOuld be approximately 50 feet upstream from the dam in the left
abutment. A conventional vertical penstock trashrack structure
would extend to the roadway level with a fixed-wheel gate and
hydraulic hoist setup for emergency closure. The elevation of the
invert at the inlet is 410 feet, and at the outlet, 357 feet. It
would have a capacity of 750 cubic feet per second with the power-
plant operating at design head.
Surge Tank
A surge tank excavated in the rock 'WOuld be 250 feet upstream
from the dO'WIlstream tunnel portal. It would be concrete lined, have
a diameter of 18 feet, and be about 185 feet high above the tuIUlel
invert, with the top at elevation 550 feet.
Penstock
The surface steel penstock 'WOuld have a diameter of 78 inches
and be 875 feet in length. At the powerplant it would bifurcate
into two 54-inch diameter penstocks to convey the water to the two
turbines.
Lake Grace Po'Werplant
The powerplant would be of the indoor type with insula ted metal
superstructure w.lls. It would contain t'WO 6.9-kilovolts, 0.9 power
factor, 10,000-kilowatt, 3-phase vertical synchronous generators,
operating at an average annual plant factor of 55 percent. The
vertical turbines are each designed for 16,000 horsepower, at 514
revolutions per minute, a net design head of 415 feet, and a dis-
charge of 385 cubic feet per second. The centerline of distributor
would be set at elevation 25.0 feet, and tailwater elevation would
vary from 25.0 to 32.0 feet. The latter is the elevation created
by the discharge of the 100-year flood through the spillway having
a peak inflow of 7,500 cubic feet per second and a 5-day volume of
29,100 acre-feet. This resulted in a discharge past the powerplant
of 4,000 cubic feet per second.
The powerplant would be remote-control operated by the
Ketchikan Public utilities from their Ketchikan Lakes powerplant.
Switchyard
The swi tchyard would be located behind the powerplant and &,dja-
cent to it. It would contain two l15-6.6-kilovolt, l2,BoO-kilovolt
ampere, 3-phase power transformers, and ll5-kilovolt Switching bay
with two disconnect switches and one 2-pole automatic high-speed
grounding switch.
Transmission Lines
The transmission line from Lake Grace powerplant to Ward Cove
would be a ll5-kilovolt line, consisting of 38.4 miles of wood-pole
H-frame construction and 0.6 miles of special steel tower construc-
tion for an overhead crossing at Carroll Inlet. The overhead con-
ductors on the wood-pole portion would be 397.5 MCM ACSR, without
overhead ground wires. The Mountain Point to Metlakatla transmission
line would be a 34.5-kilovolt line. It would have 14.6 miles of single
wood-pole construction with 266.8 MCM ACSR conductors, and 0.9 mile
of underwater crossing across Revillagigedo Channel. Power would be
delivered to Metlakatla Power and Light at l2.5-kilovolts. A mainten-
ance road would be provided along all of the project overhead lines,
except at Carroll Inlet.
Ward Cove Substation
The Ward Cove Substation would step the transmission voltage
down to 34.5-kilovolts for delivery to Ketchikan Public utilities.
Station eqUipment would include two 1l0-34.5-l3.2-kilovolt, 12,000
kilovolt ampere, 3-phase power transformers and a ll5-kilovolt
switching bay, with two disconnect Switches, and one 2-pole auto-
matic high-speed grounding switch. It also includes a 34.5-kilovolt
59
breaker for the transformer circuit in order that the Ketchikan
Public Utilities' 34.5-kilovolt system need not be sectionalized
at Ward Cove to clear transformer or Lake Grace transmission line
faults.
Mountain Point Substation (Switchyard)
The Metlakatla portion of the project would be interconnected
to the Lake Grace powerplant through the system of tHe Ketchikan
Public Utilities. It would connect with the Ketchikan Public
Utilities' 34.5-kilovolt Beaver Falls line at the Mountain Point
Substation. Station equipment required would be two 34.5-kilovolt
take-off structures with disconnect switch, and a 34.5-kilovolt
line bay with an oil circuit breaker.
The City of Ketchikan would guarantee the delivery of Metlakatla's
share of the project power to the Mountain Point Substation whenever
project power is available at the Ward Cove Sllbstation. The rian for
the interconnection of project transmission lines with the existing
facilities of Ketchikan Public Utilities and Metlakatla Power and
Light is shown on Drawing 1074-906-2. The demand and energy use of
Metlakatla Power and Light would be metered on the Metlakatla side
of the sllbstation.
Metlakatla Substation
The Metlakatla Substation would transform the Metlakatla trans-
mission line voltage down to 12.5-kilovolts. This is the transmission
voltage of their Purple Lake transmission line, and the high side of
their existing substation at Metlakatla. Station equipment would
include one 3-phase, 3,000-kilovolt-ampere, 34.5-12.5-kilovolt power
transformer, a 34.5-kilovolt take-off S"tructure with disconnect switch,
and one 12.5-kilovolt line bay with an oil circuit breaker.
Dock and Seaplane Float
A dock and seaplane float would be provided on Behm Canal
approximately one mile northeast of the powerplant. The dock
would be 30 feet wide by 250 feet in length, and of timber con-
struction.
60
Access Roads
The Q(!CeSl'l road(; sel'v:f.ng the project would be gravel surfaced and
have a 2O-foot r;JQ.dwe.y w:i..dth. The road from the dock to the po'Werplant
would be abCf.J.t one mJ..1<'~ in length. This section of the road is adjacent
to the salmon spa.wning area of Grace Creek, and cJ.ose coordination with
the fishery agencies will be required to avoid unnecessary damage to
the spawning habitat. From the powerplant the road would extend 3.5
miles to the Lake Grace Dam on a 10 percent grade. This portion of the
road would not be kept open dru'ing the winter months.
Government Camp
Under a remote-contreD.ed operatiou# only two permanent residences
woul.d be requ.ired at the powerplant. During the construction phase,
temporary facilit.ies would be provided for 68 government employees. A
permanent warehouse, dormitory and garage, as well as cOlllplet.e 'W8 t.er
and sewer systems, would be provided. Temporary facilities would iu-
clude three dormitories, a mess hall, and an administration. (;1jt.l.rtL1.g.
Fish and Wildlife Faclli.ties
The project would not significantly affect the existing wildl.ife
values or fishery values in Grace Creek above the damBite and in Lake
Grace. However, it would probably have an adve~se effect on anadromous
fish runs in the 1.25 :niles of Grace Cl'ee.k. below the powerplant due to
changes in flo'W and water temperatures;. These runs cOIlsist principally
of pink, chum and coho saJ.mon that spawn in Grace Creek.
studies by the Fish and Wildlife Service indicate that a suitable
arlifidsl. salmon spa.wning channel, could be provided on Sea Level Creek,
about 22 milec oouth~lest of the po'Werplo.nt J T\"..!ar T'l1orne Arm, for an
estimated constr'J.ction c(J:,;,t of $662,000, and. an est:l.mB.ted annual. opera-
tion and maintenance cost or $25,000 • Basically, these facilities 'Would
consist of a hea.dworks re,3u.lat1ng weLt' to supply wate!' +':'0 a concrete
flume partially filled 'With suitable gra.vl'!L The grf.wel would be washed
to remove fines and graded to select opt..1.urum p8rt.ic1~ sizes for salmon
spawning. The concrete fltune would contain 1;:0,000 tHiuare feet of
spawning area e With intensive management., thls artUicial area 'Would
produce enough additional salmon to carnpensat.: fcr the loss of salmon
production from the 220 i)()O square-foot (},'s'c:e Creek. ~rpaiming area of
project concern.
The Fish and Wildlife Service p.toposes an eight-year study of the
salmon runs in Grace Creek, to conf'irm. the need for construction of the
artificial spawning channel. Information would be obtained from four
years of studies prior to project construction and four years of post-
construction studies, to yield comparative data on spawning success
and egg survival and development rates before and with project opera-
tion. If these studies prove that maintenance of salmon runs in Grace
Creek is practicable under project operating conditions, the artificial
spawning channel would not be constructed. The estimated cost of these
investigations is $88,000.
The plan of development contemplates that, after project authori-
zation, further investigation will be made as to the relative merits
of the artificial spawning channel and a selective level power intake
to determine the optimum plan for conservation and improvement of the
fishery resources. Costs of the artificial spawning channel are in-
cluded as project costs as this results in a conservative estimate of
probable project costs.
Recreation Facilities
The existing Lake Grace does not receive any significant recrea-
tional use, and there is little likelihood that the project would
appreciably change the recreation potential. Therefore, specific
recreation facilities have not been provided.
Rights-of-Way and Relocations
The construction of the Lake Grace Project would not require the
relocation of any existing facilities.
Except for the Mountain Point Substation, all project facilities
would be on National Forest lands and the Annette Island Indian Reser-
vation. Right-of-way will be required for the Mountain Point Substation
but no significant costs are involved, as Ketchikan Public Utilities
has an existing substation at this location.
The required public lands would be withdrawn after authorization.
Right-of-way for the Mountain Point to Metlakatla transmission line
will be furnished without cost to the project.
Final location of the Lake Grace to Ward Cove transmission line
would be made in cooperation with the Forest Service recognizing
recreation, public use, and other potential values of the affected
lands.
62
Plan Formulation
The plan of development presented in this report evolved through
careful consideration of alternative development schemes, including
review of the most favorable hydroelectric alternatives, analysis of
a diesel-electric plant, and economic evaluations of various sized
Lake Grace Projects. After a careful review of the available alterna-
tives, it was concluded that the proposed Lake Grace Project represents
the most desirable plan for satisfying the forecast project power re-
quirements. This conclusion recognized that the Ketchikan Public
utilities obtained fram the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
the cost of purchase of power fram that Authority and found that the
cost of such power delivered to Ketchikan would significantly exceed
the cost of Lake Grace Project power delivered to Ketchikan estimated
in thi s report.
Economic Criteria for Plan Formulation
The plan formulation followed economic guidelines provided in
S.D. 97, 87th Congress, 2nd Session. The comparative power values
used for plan formulation assume Federal financing with interest at
3.250 percent for both the project and the alternative power sources.
The cost estimates were based on July 1967 prices. Economic costs
for the project and for the alternative sources were compared over
a lOG-year period.
~droelectric Alternatives.
As discussed under "History of Investigations," previous studies
resulted in selection of seven potential hydroelectric developments as
the most favorable potentialities to serve Juneau, Douglas, Petersburg,
Wrangell, Kake, Ketchikan and Metlakatla in Southeast Alaska. Of
these potentialities, the Swan Lake and Lake Grace Projects were found
to be most favorable to provide new power supplies to Ketchikan and
Metlakatla, and the Thomas Bay Project to serve Petersburg, Wrangell,
Kake, Ketchikan, and Metlakatla. The locations of these three projects
are shown on drawing 1074-906-30.
The Ketchikan City Council, on the advice of the Ketchikan Public
utili ties Advisory Board, rejected the Thomas Bay Project as the next
major power source for Ketchikan. They considered the extensive trans-
mission distance (157 miles) to involve excessive hazard of power
interruptions due to the relative inaccessibility of the terrain to
be traversed. The Thomas Bay Project, therefore, is not considered
an alternate to the Lake Grace Project as a next major power source
I,."
iTHOMAS BAY PROJE
WRANGELL
wJ--------------+------------~------~~----~
SWAN LAKE PROJECl1
METLAKATLA "iTCHIKA.
o~1-------------~_4----------------+_--------------~
10 zo eo
SCALE OF MILES
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
A LASKA POWER ADMIN ISTRATION
LAKE GRACE PROJECT-ALASKA
HYDROELECTRIC ALTERNATIVE
LOCATIONS
Oelobe. 19.7 1074-8-30
for Ketchikan, though it remains a potentially desirable subsequent
addition to Southeast Alaska power supplies.
Swan Lake Project. The Swan Lake Project would be located 22
miles northeast bf Ketchikan on Carroll Inlet. The Bureau of Recla-
mation completed a feasibility report on this potential development
in November 1961 and a Re-evaluation study in July 1962. The Re-
evaluation Study provided for a development that would involve the
construction of a gravity-arch dam on Falls Creek, about one mile
below the outlet of Swan Lake. A surface penstock would convey the
water to a 15,000 kilowatt, 55 percent plant factor powerplant at
tidewater. A 69-kilovolt transmission system, 25 miles in length,
would deliver project power to the Ketchikan Public utilities at a
substation at Ward Cove.
Far economic comparison with the Lake Grace Project, the Swan
Lake Project Re-evaluation study was updated to reflect the same
design criteria and price basis as the Lake Grace Project. A seven
year pre-construction and construction period was assumed, and 8"n
interest rate of 3.250 percent was used in the analysis. Power is
assumed to be delivered only to the Ketchikan Public utilities, as
the power available f'ran the Swan Lake Project would be less than
the utilities would receive f'ram the Lake Grace Project.
Pertinent data concerning the Swan Lake and Lake Grace Projects
are presented in Table 15.
Table l5--Camparison of Data, Lake Grace
and Swan Lake Projects
Lake
Item Grace
Installed CapaCity, kw 20,000
Firm Energy Sales, mWh/yr 93,000
Construction Costs, $1,000
D:un 3,180
waterways 5,080
Powerplant 4,130
Access Roads 1,720
Transmission System 6,360
Govermnent Camp 1,560
Fishery Invest~gations 40
Total 22,070
65
Swan
Lake
15,000
65,600
5,540
2,950
3,700
1,360
3,240
1,370
18,160
Table 15, continued
Lake
~tem (Costs $1,000) Grace
Interest during Construction 1,510
Artificial Spawning Channel (P.W.) 610
Investment Cost 24,190
Less Pre-Authorization Cost -82
Economic Cost 24,108
Economic Comparison, 100-Year Period, 3-1/4 Percent Interest
Annual Costs, $1,000
Equivalent Capital Costs
OM&R (includes F&WL)
Subtotal
Less Secondary Energy Sales
Net to be Repaid
Equivalent Annual Firm
Energy Sales, Mw-Hr
Firm Energy Cost
Mills per Kw-Hr
817
229
J.,04'6
-40
1,006 ,'}Jr \~i)~
y.r to
89.6 ~
11.2
Swan
Lake
1,25X)
19,450
-142
19,308
654
208
862
-44
----mE
12.8
Table 15 establishes that the Swan Lake Project involves higher
unit power costs than the Lake Grace Project as a separate development.
However, it w~ll merit consideration for development subsequent to the
Lake Grace Project, with operation to begin when the Lake Grace Project
power is fully utilized. When so operated in a system with the Lake
Grace Project, considerable savings could be achieved over the costs
shown in Table 15. The Lake Grace-Ward Cove ll5-kilovolt transmission
line has capacity to carry the additional power from Swan Lake Project.
About five miles of additional line would be required to make a tie,
instead of the 25 miles in the project plan. When operated in conjunc-
tion with the Lake Grace Project by remote control from Ketchikan,
by the Ketchikan Public Utilities, and with that utility responsible
for maintenance, the additional cost for operation and maintenance
assignable to the Swan Lake Project would be minor. A 100-year
analysis of this potential two-stage combination indicates that the
average unit power costs for the combined Lake Grace and Swan Lake
Projects would be approximate1y equal to the equivalent economic costs
of the Lake Grace Project by itself.
66
Diesel-Rlectric: AlternH.t;ive
In the absence of Federal construction of the Lake Grace Project,
the most likely 3.JternaU. vc power source ;.;Quld be diesel-electric
uni ts located 2.t tile load centers. l<uels other than diesel oil are
considered non-corepetitive because of transportation costs. Under
this alternati\r(", separate generation units 'Would be erected in
Ketchikan 8...'1d Met~lE:.katla.
Uni t l)O\reT cO:,i..s fen' dj esel,.eJ.cctl'Jc un~ ts as alternatives to
the Lake Grace Cl'eel':t-To<iect \,'cre based on a 16, OOO-kilowatt plant
having an aml1.la.l fi rm w:nel'3:t1 on of "(3.8 mill.ion kilowatt-hours, and
located in Ketcllit;F",n, This is f~(pliv8lellt to the estimated Ketchikan
portion of the unnual iTrrr; e"lergy' sales from a .fully loaded Lake
Grace Pro,iect. It re;;:1.1.ti) in a con;3ervnt:i.ve evaluation of the unit
power costs of the BnL.l~cr jnsta.l.lation which would be required in
Metlakatla. The (l:Le'~El alte:r'uative estimate assumes that the plant
'WOuld be constructed in a single stage and 'W'QuId in~lude two 8,000
kilowatt units. HH.!; r;scal ye3.1' 19"(6 ("cnsiCiercd as the first .full
year of operation oCthe L,':lke Grace Pro,iec'\:) .i.t is assumed these
uni ts ,rould be install.eo l;.y that time. 'Phe eonstructi.on cost for
such a plant was ('sti\.!;}tcd to be $)~) 560, ClOO, based on costs of'
existing pl..e..nts in ,~:.():en.1J and Ketchikan.
'rhe avera~3e cost of l'tlE'l delivered 1:',0 Ketchikan ~-cl.s considered
to be $0.09 per gallon, vitt. an averaGe ener~:y value of 14.0 kilowatt-
hours per gallon. 'I'he low fuel cost assumed utility-owned fuel
storage facilities, no escalation of f'uel costs, and use of a.bout
80 percent PS-.300 Bunker oil and 20 per~ent 1'8-200 light oil.
The 01'eratlon, InaintemU1~:e and :r.el1 l..1.cement costs, including
administration and n;:,l.int€'wL'1(;e 0:1" ihel st(.\rage facilities, were
estimated at 3. SF) TlLU 1::: '[lcr .1<_", .Lown t;t-l:our ')!1:':.n(~ bas~Ls of recent
experience va.lues in '~~le ,]un,)au a1'()a.
The alternative fJrn ene1:"8Y CUf:1:H ubed. i.n the pl.an formulation
studies ",ere based on t:nc cost.; of a hJIJotlwt.ical Feder~-financed
diesel-electric p1..ant in accordance with esi:::tbljshed IJrocedures for
project analysis. The uni.t firm p,-Mer C'ost::-, 0etermilled on this basis
assumed a useful lii'e of 3:; yea:rb .£'01' each 1mit and interest at 3.250
percent. They 'Were e~;ti.mated to ave'i'G.{';e .! 1_ q mills per kilo"Watt-hour
over the 100-yea:!' :period of' anrJy:s:l.S.
Height of Dam Analysis
Table 16 summarizes four analyses of the effects of variation of
the height of Lake Grace dam.. The prc,ject costs presented in the
67
0\
OJ
Table l6--SUmmary of A.nalysis of Height of Dam
Maximum
Controlled Ultimate
Reservoir Installed Gener&tiog Investment Annual Costs Power ~ue
Elevation Capacity kwh x 10 Cost / $lzOOO $lzOO
Plan ~Feet} ~kvl Firm Secondary $l.zOOO 2 Total "'J.t'""" Incremental Total Incremental
1 470 18,100 87.0 15.4 22,520 99) 1,168
23 60
2 480 19,300 93.2 11.9 23,210 1,013 1,228
3 Y 36 58
500 20,000 98.9 10.3 24,19) 1,049 1,286
65 61
4 520 2l,6oo 104.0 1l.6 26,1)) 1,114 1,347
Y Selected Plan.
~ Includes interest at 3.~ on coaatruction costs with 3-year pre-construction
period and 4-year eOll8tJouetlon period, and pre-authorization cost.
11 Includes operation, maintenance, and replacement cost based on mLUlicipal.
operation.
!y Based on f'i1'lll energy at 13.9 mills per kwh, and secondary energy at
6.0 mills per kwh.
Power value -
Cost Ratio
Total Incremental
1.18
2.61
1.21
1.61
1.23
0.94
1.21
table are based on the designs and estimates for the selected project
plan. The comparative power values are based on the forecast project
energy requirements, the computed 13.9 mill firm energy costs of the
hypothetic~Federally-financed,diesel-electric alternative, and a
value of 6.0 mills per kilowatt-hour for non-firm energy. The latter
value is Slightly less than the ccmputed fuel costs of the diesel-
electric alternative. The power value estimates include allowances
for line losses and load growth. They assume "that the plants would
be in service at the beginning of fiscal year 1976. They also assume
the requirements for secondary energy will increase at the rate of
one million kilowatt-hours per year beginning the second year after
full utilization of firm energy.
These analyses confirm that, on the basis of the estimated pro-
ject costs and power values, a project with a maximum controlled
water surface at elevation 500 would have the most favorable power
value-cost ratio. Comparison of the plans indicate that the selected
plan reasonably represents optimum development of the site and that
a dam for a controlled water surface elevation above elevation )00 is
not justified.
Carrputations of the average firm energy rates required for each
plan established that the selected plan was the most favorable fran
that standpoint.
Plan 1 represents a developnent whereby the dam is l1mi ted in
height to the elevation of the rock gorge. Plan 4 is considered to
be the physical limits of the Site, and Plans 2 and 3 are inter-
mediate develapnents with Plan 3 as the selected plan. A minimum.
water surface elevation of 431 feet was adopted for each plan. This
is one foot above the normal. water surface of Lake Grace and provides
for adequate submergence of the power tunnel intake.
Other A.na:o/ses
In addition to the plan formulation conSiderations described pre-
viously, canparative studies were made of alternatives to the tunnel,
surge tank, penstock, powerplant, and transmission lines included in
the plan of development.
The tunnel, surge tank, penstock, and powerplant locations were
selected so as to minimize length and construction costs of the water-
ways. The possible alternative locations involved greater length.
Tunnel and penstock sizes were determined through canparison of incre-
mental costs and power values.
Powerplant installed capacity was selected on the basis of the
project firm energy potential and experienced load factors in South-
eastern Alaska. The adopted capacity would enable the project to
carry a proportionate share of the area's peak loads. The possibility
of providing for future enlargement of the powerplant for peaking pur-
poses 'Was also considered. However, it was found that incremental
costs for this provision would exceed the costs of providing equivalent
peaking power from diesel-electric units.
The selected transmission line route is the shortest route from
the powerplant to Ward Cove. Alternate transmission routes conSidered,
involved higher construction and maintenance costs. Transmission
voltages and conductor size were optimized by incremental economic
analysis.
Access facilities for construction and maintenance of the pro-
ject are map locations substantiated by field inspection. The dock
and seaplane float were located on Behm Canal at the closest loca-
tion to the powerplant with suitable water depth.
Effects on Other Potential Developments
Construction of the project would not preclude the ultimate con-
struction of any of the alternative power developments considered.
Construction Costs
The construction costs of the proposed plan of development, based
on July 1967 prices, are estimated to total $22,700 ,000. They are
summarizeu on the Basic Estimate DC-I Summary at the end o~ this
chapter. The cost of each feature includes its share of investiga-
tions, service facilities, designs and specifications, and engineering
and supervision. The construction costs of the major features are
summarized in Table 17.
Table l7-""Summary of Construction Costs,
Lake Grace Project
Feature
Powerplant
70
Construction Cost
$3,180,000
4,130,000
Table 17--Continued
Feature Construction Cost
waterways 5,080,000
Access Roads and Dock 1,720,000
Switchyard 650,000
Transmission Lines 4,850,000
Ward Cove Substation 540,000
Mountain Point Substation 140,000
Metlakatla SUbstation 180,000
Government Camp 1,560,000
Artificial Spawning Channel 750 z000
Total Project $22,780,000
Construction Schedule
The project will involve no unusual construction problems, and
the weather will permit year-round construction, with the exception
of the higher portions of the transmission line.
In accordance with the March 1962 agreement between the Secre-
tary of the Army and the Secretary of the Interior, the Corps of
Engineers would be the construction agency for the project. The
Corps of Engineers has estimated that the pre-construction and con-
struction period would total seven years. The first three years
would be devoted to investigations, design, and the preparation of
contract documents, with the first contract to be let in the fourth
year. The project would be completed by the end of the seventh
year, making power available at the beginning of the eighth year.
During the first four years of the pre-construction and con-
struction period, the Fish and Wildlife Service would require funds
to make pre-construction studies of salmon runs in Grace Creek.
During the first four years of project operation, funds would be
required by that agency for additional studies to obtain comparative
data. The artificial spawning channel would be constructed in the
fifth year of operation if found justifiable.
The Control Schedule PF-2, at the end of this chapter, indicates
the schedule of fUnds required each year to construct the project,
including the balance to complete the fishery investigations and con-
struct the artificial spawning channel.
,Operation and Maintenance Costs
It is proposed that the project be operated by remote control
fram Ketchikan, by the Ketchikan Public utilities. They would also
assume all operation and maintenance fUnctions, except for the under-
water cable and the transmission system on Annette Island. These
features would be maintained by Metlakatla Power and Light. Under
this proposal, the costs to the Federal Government would be limited
to administration. The Project cities have indicated their preference
that the project be so operated.
Facilities would be provided at the powerplant for housing two
employees for minor maintenance and emergency actions. A garage and
warehouse would be provided for the storage of equipment and spare
parts. In addition, all facilities required for remote control opera-
tion would be provided.
The construction road along the transmission line would be main-
tained for fair weather use by four-wheel drive vehicles. This road
would follow only the wood-pole section. Winter time inspections and
maintenance would be by helicopter. Separate sets of line maintenance
equipment will be required for the Ketchikan and powerplant area, with
an additional line truck on Annette Island.
The annual cost of operation and maintenance of the utilities is
estimated to total $170,000, and the annual cost to the Federal Govern-
ment for administration would be $10,000.
The artificial spawning channel would be operated initially by the
Bureau of Commercial Fisheries and ultimately by the State Department
of Fish and Game. Annual operation and maintenance costs of this
facility include costs for necessary evaluation studies, and amounts
to $25,000 as estimated by the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries. To
confirm the need for the artificial spawning channel, four years of
pre-construction studies are proposed at an estimated cost of $10,000
72
per yee:r. This woul.d be followed by four years of studies after the
project goes into operation, to obtain camparativedata. The cost
of these latter studies is estimated at $12,000 per yee:r. !lbese
costs have been included as project costs.
R!placement Costs
Under the proposed method of operation, the f'und for the annual
provisions for replacements would be the responsibility of the
Ketchikan Public utilities, 'With Metlakatla paying for their propor-
tionate she:re. This annual cost, based on the percent88e of replace-
able items and the usefUl life of the facility, and interest at 5.0
percent, is estimated to be $28,000.
73
LEGENO: Type. at Activity
Preconslruction .
and Other Work Construction
POWER Di!VELOPM!MT 20 000 k.
CONsnUCTION PROGIAM
~4tO~I~.0~1~ __ +-~L'~k~.~G~r,~c~'~D~'~. ____________________ ~~I'~'~00~0 __ ~A~'~11~1~8~0~0~00~ ___ 1~2~0~0~0-p~~'00~00~0~~~'i~~~~'M~~·~~~~'~N~~~'~'nnfn~n~~~.'~~~~~~·-+.~·{0~O~OO~~~~.'~18~OOO~~ ______ !-____ -J~4
5 .01 It Cr • Powernlant 20 000 kw 10.930.000 )9,000 200 000 lOQ 000 300 000 2 000 000 3 000 000 3 000 000 2 091 000 5
1 11.0> v. r. ••••• 20 000 k. '40 000 2 000 0 000 0 000 ·,OO:.;ri,; ..... 1
8 13.03 Mouatain Point SubstatioD 34.3 IIv 140.000 1.000 .5 000 5000,-\h-OOO 79.0j
9 11.0,
10 11.0
II 13.06
12 GL-llS.Ol
.... Su • ation
,r,:, t.V, r.nv. Tyo ... _t •• on Lias-llS k
Mountain Point-Mati.katl. Transainioa Lias-
]4.~ ltv
4.5 h 180 ODD
39 I!U 3 640 000
U.S IU 1.210.000
1,560.000
13IGL_I\,.02 Ar .. ficia ••• _ D' Cbonn 7)0000
14
10
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
26
21
28
29
30
31
32
33
1'OTA . CONSnUCtlOR COSt 22 780 000
-82 000
Tn .. 22.'" 000
TnT> . nAur.AT,n •• 22 698 000
Notes: I. • ... ,..ftt contrect •• ecatt.o • .,Ia __ bofore start .f ~oastncU •••
I 000
14 000
5,000
'.000
82 000 . 310 000
-82 000
"10 00&
310.000
, 000 5 000
, 100.000 , i~Ann , 100'.000
10'.000
no 000
10'n;,),
>10 000
R.commended:.'~~'-<
(Clai.f. Dhh=.r. ... .,...t)
APproved: ---.... ""'111/ ..... ~(iII_"'.!II! •• I:.;"'.-tr-.-t.-'r)
tNtUT. ___ OF ____ ..:ns
60 000 10 0 (I
' •. -"-1
.32 .... 10
5\ I." II
12
710.000 I ~~:=~, 13 I.
710000 15
16
17
IS
19
20
710.000 21
22
23
24
25
26
21
28
29
30
32
""11 nUll WAlCH I,.,.
.nUT_PT,' IMI IITEtI"
~ AMlillftATlOI
COfl!TROL SCHEDULE
I.ak., Once PnJect
;J'.ln 16. 1961 ~
•• " ue,...
D_·uLI ... t1 ..... " ....
• C.lln.llelIG",
0 ...... .......
Do, ...
7-1720 LAKE GRACE Previous (6-65) PROJECT Bureau of Reclamation BASIC ESTIMATE DC-I SUMMARY Date of Estimate January 17, 1968 Estimate
Chief Engineer, Bureau of Reclamation Prices as of JII) Y )967 Prices as
and Alaska Power Administration Feasibility Estimate of OHi ce Pre~ared B Sheet 1 of 2 sheets
>-0>-I-LABOR AND MATERIALS AND LABOR BY
1-", wI-TOTAL SERVICE OTHER TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL iLa: I-Z MATERIALS BY EQUIPMENT BY GOVERNMENT FIELD COST a:", Z:::l FIELD COST FACILITIES COSTS COST COST COST w« -w CONTRACTOR GOVERNMENT FORCES 1l..J I-Il. «0 DESCRIPTION
~U Zo .JU
wa: Il.U COST COST COST PLANT IDENTIFIED IDENTIFIED IDENTIFIED IDENTIFIED PROPERTY IDENTIFIED
Il. ell. « ACCOUNT PROPERTY PROPERTY PROPERTY PROPERTY CLASS PROPERTY
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
LAKE GRACE PROJECT TOTAL COST --_. ~-
~950,000 181 000 3~649 ,000 22.780,000
01 RESERVOIRS AND DAMS 3.180.000
01 LAKE GRACE DAM 2,650,000 26,000 504,000 3,180,000
330.3 CLEARING LANDS 240.000 ?40000
332.1 RESERVOIRS 30.000 30.000
332.2 DAMS 2.380.000 2.380cOOO
01--DAM STRUCTURE (1.850.000)
02--SPlLLWAYS ( 360.000)
.. " 03--0UTLET WORKS ( 170,000)
11 POWERPLANTS--HYDRO 10 930,000
01 LAKE GRACE POWERPLANT--20,000 kw 9 Lll0.000 91.000 1.729.000 10~930.000
331 ~STRUC1'URES ANI>. !~PROV~~EN.TS 1 540.000 1.540.000
332.3 WATERWAYS 4 230,000 4.230.000
333 WATER WHEELS TURBINES. AND GENERATORS ,h2.10.000 1,230,000
334 ACCESSORY ELECTRIC EQUIPMENT 220,000 270.000 490.000
335 MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT 190.000 190.000
336 ROADS AND BRIDGES 1.430 000 1.430.000
._-
13 TRANSMISSION LINES, SWITCHYARDS. AND SUBSTAT10NS 6.360.000
~---
01 LAKE GRACE SWITCHYARD--20,000 kw 540.000 5.000 105.000 650.000
352 STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS 30 000 30.000
f)53 STATION EQUIPMENT. ELECTRIC 510.000 510,000
02 WARD COVE SUBSTATION--20,000 kw 450,000 4,000 86,000 540.000
352 STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS 30.000 30.000
;353 STATION EQUIPMENT. ELECTRIC 420.000 420 000
03 MOUNTAIN POINT SUBSTATION . 120,000 1 LOOO 19,000 140,000
~52 STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS 10.000 10,000
~53 STATION EQUIPMENT. ELECTRIC 110.000 110.000
04 METLAKATLA SUBSTATION 150.000 1.000 29.000 180 LOOO
~52 STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS 15.000 15,000
~53 STATION EQUIPMENT. ELECTRIC 135 LOOO 135.000
05 LAKE GRACE-WARD COVE TRANSMISSION LINE --~Q30,000 30.000 580,.000 3,640,000
~51 CLEARING LANDS 730.000 730,000
~54 TOWERS AND FIXTURES 190,000 190,000
t355 POLES AND FIXTURES 880.000 880,000
~56 OVERHEAD CONDUCTORS AND DEVICES 680.000 680.000
~59 ROADS AND BRIDGES 550.000 550.000
, .. , 7-1720 LAD GUtel Previous (6-65) PROJECT Bureau of Reclamation
Engineer, Bureau of ReclamauonBASIC ESTIMATE DC-I SUMMARY
January 17, 1968 Estimate Date of Estimate Chief
Prices as of July 1967 Prices as
Office Prepared B and Alaska Power Administration ra •• lbl1ltJ latl .. ta Sheet 2 of 2 sheets of
>-0>-... LABOR AND MATERIALS AND LABOR BY ... ." w ... "'z EQUIPMENT BY TOTAL SERVICE OTHER TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL 0:." jLo: Z::::I MATERIALS BY GOVERNMENT FIELD COST FIELD COST COSTS w< -w GOVERNMENT FACILITIES COST COST COST "'11.. <0 DESCRIPTION CONTRACTOR FORCES 11.....1 Zo ...IU ~U wo: II..U
COST COST PLANT IDENTIFIED IDENTIFIED IDENTIFIED IDENTIFIED PROPERTY IDENTIFIED ell.. < COST II.. ACCOUNT PROPERTY PROPERTY PROPERTY PROPERTY CLASS PROPERTY
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 TRANSHISSIOI LINES. SWITCHYARDS. ARD SUBSTATION.
(Contln •• d)
06 MOURTAIN POIN'I'.MI'I'UU'I'U TRANSNtSS10il un _. 1.010.000 10.000 190.000 1.210.000
3S1 CLIAJlING LIJU)S 290.000 290.000
355 POUS AND P"l.JlTUJtlS 160.000 -160.000-
356 OnRAR..l.n CORuu\inntS AND DIVICES 130.000 130.060
358 UOERGROUND CORDJlctOaS AND DEVICES 200.000 .-200.000
359 ROADS ARD UIDGES 230.000 2l0.000
GL· US GENERAL LEDGEI A 2.ll0.000 .. ...
01 LAD GRACI GOVERNHlltT CAMP .. ·Powarplant -rellOta l.l00.000 ll.OOO 247 .000 1 .S60.ooo
controUad wlth two raalc1ant ..,loya ••
389.3 CLIAJlIMG LANDS 10.000 10.000
190 STRUCTURES ABO IMPROVEMENTS 1.290.000 1.290.000
02 ARTIFICIAL SPAWNING CHANNEL 590.000 160.000 7~.aoo
399 OTHER 'I'AlIGIBLI ,.1 590.000
..... ;
. -
CHAPTER VI--ECONOMlC AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
Pending determination of the optimum plan for conservation
and enhancement of fishery values, project benefits reflect only
the value of power produced by the project, and all project costs,
includd.ng the arti,fJ.cial spawning channel, are a:l1ocated to power.
Economic Ana.J..ysis
The usefUl life of the potential project storage works would
exceed 100 years. However, because of the difficulty of defining
remote fUture conditions and the discount of long-deferred values,
direct project benefits and costs were analyzed for a 100-year
period.
Benefits
The tangible benefits of !ake Grace Project would equal the
market costs of similar blocks of firm and secondary energy f'ran
the most likely alternative source or sources. This is considered to
be a municipally financed diesel-electric plant at Ketchikan, identi-
cal to the hypothetical,Federally-finance~d1esel-electric alternative
discussed previously under "Plan Formulation." Its costs, other than
for interest, were considered to be the same as those of the Federally-
financed diesel-electric alternative. Costs for the smaller plant at
Metlakatla were not estimated, as its unit power costs would be at
least as high as those of the Ketchikan plant.
As in the Plan Formulation studies previously discussed, the
vaJ.ue of the secondary energy is estimated at 6.0 mills per kilowatt-
hour. The cost of firm energy is based on the municipally financed
diesel plant, with interest at 5.0 percent, and is estimated to
average 16.0 mills per kilowatt-hour.
With adjustment for load buildup and on the basis of a present
worth computed with interest at 3.250 percent over a 10o-year period,
the annual equivalents of the firm and secondary energy supplied by
!ake Grace Project were estimated at 89,600 megawatt-hours and 6,700
megawatt-hours, respectively. On this basis the equivalent annual
tangible benefits totaled about $1,474,000.
'!bere appear to be no other measurable benefits that would
accrue from the project that would not also accrue to the area if
power were supplied f'ran the alternative source. The above figure
is therefore considered to be a reasonable estimate of total benefits
f'ram the Lake Grace Project.
77
',---
Economic Costs
The economic costs in evaluation of project justification include
all costs after project authorization involved in generation and delivery
of the project power to the load center. These include the Federal costs
involved in project construction and administration plus the costs of
project operation, maintenance and replacements which would be assumed
by the utilities. They also include the annual cost of operation and
maintenance of the artificial spawning channel.
The Federal installation costs are estimated at $24,108,000. They
include $1,510,000 interest during construction and a present worth value
of artificial spawning channel costs of $610,000. The equivalent annual
costs over a 100-year period, with interest at 3.250 percent, were com-
puted to be $872,000.
The cost of project operation and maintenance was estimated at
$170,000 annually. The Federal cost for contract supervision was esti-
mated at $10,000 annually. The replacement costs were estimated to
average $28,000 annually over the lOO-year period of analysis. The
operation and maintenance of the artificial spawning channel would not
commence until the sixth year of operation. This annual cost over the
lOO-year period would have an equivalent annual value of $21,000.
On this basis, the total economic costs were estimated at
$1,046,000 annually, as summarized below.
Pre-Operation Installation Cost
Interest During Construction (3.250i)
Present Worth, Artificial Spawning
Channel
Present Worth Installation Cost
Annual Equivalent, Total Installation
Cost (lOO-year period, 3.250i int.)
Operation, Maintenance, & Replacements
Artificial Spawning Channel, Operation
and Maintenance, equivalent annual cost
Contract Administration
Total Annual Costs, 100-year period
Benefit-Cost Ratio
$2l,988 , 000
1,510,000
610,000
$24,108,000
817,000
198 ,000
21,000
10,000
$ 1,046,000
The ratio of evaluated tangible benefits to estimated total economic
costs is 1.41 as summarized below:
Total Annual Benefits
Total Annual Costs
Benefit-Cost Ratio
Financial Analysis
Repayment Requirements
$1,474 ,000
$1 , 046,000
1.41
All of the Federal project costs are allocated to power and would
be repayable to the United states. The repayment plan, in accordance
with the plan of development, contemplates that the Ketchikan Public
Utilities and the Metlakatla Power and Light will assume the full
annual operation, maintenance and replacement costs. Thus, the repay-
ment obligation would include the project investment cost, the Federal
cost of project administration estimated at $lO,ooo annually, and the
cost of operation and maintenance of the artificial spawning channel.
The annual costs of the latter are shown in Table 18 as $25,000 annually
beginning in the sixth year of project operation. The project invest-
ment costs consist of the estimated construction costs plus interest
during construction and total $24,290,000 as tabulated below:
Estimated Construction Cost $22,7&>,000
Interest During Construction (3.253%) 1,510,000
Total Federal Investment Cost $24,29),000
Average Rate and Repayment Study
The average rate and repayment study shown in Table 18, contem-
plates that payment of the reimbursable project costs would be with
interest at 3.253 percent. It indicates by years the firm and second-
ary project energy estimated to be delivered to the load centers.
Project power supplies have been assumed to be available at
the beginning of fiscal year 1976 with both units installed.
79
----------------------------------------------
Januar, 1'. 196.
TABLE 1.
LAKI CUCI PltOJlct
.1ILIMlIAlY POWEa STSTEM AVI&AGI &ATI AID al'ATMlIt ITUDT
AVIUCI &Atal U'ID to covaa UVEMUE DIDUCTlOJIIS AMD TIE IITUJ.I 0' COlts TO BI BOaMI IT POWU
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
; 16 17 18 19 12 13 14 15 20
Sale of Electric Enera,
OperaUaa aevenu .. ($1 000) Thouaanda of Ki10watt-Houra In,,eataent aepayaeat fr_ Pow.. aevenuea ($1,000)
Plant i. Ser"ice at end of Year
eo.aouad IRtereat Beariaa
ArUficial .et
Nonfir .. Total Contract Spawninl ChaRnel Total aeyenuea c-arcial A11_aIl1e larned
Year Total lira Sal .. Salea Columna AdaiahtraUoa 0Il6.R , Go1_a Go1_a lntereat Itectric Balance to Unpaid Surp1ua Year
of Fhca1 Columna (H.02 Hilh) (6.0 Milh) 6607 CoaU 60 In"eaUpti .. a 9 60 10 •• 11 (J.2531) PriDCipal Plant be ae,.id Balance C_1aU"e 'heal of
Stud, Year Fira Ronfirll 3604 $ $ $ $1,000 $1.000 $1,000 $1,000 $ $ $ $ $1,000 $1,000 Year Stud,
0 23.,.0 23.580 23.510 0
1 1976 53,200 0 53,200 586 0 586 10 12 22 564 767 (203) i 23,783 23,783 0 1976 1
2 1977 61,600 61,600 679 679 12 22 657 774 (117) 23,900 23,900 1977 2
3 1978 70,500 70,500 777 777 12 22 755 777 (22) 23,922 23,922 1978 3
4 1979 81,500 81,500 898 898 12 22 876 778 98 23,580 23,824 23,922 1979 4
5 1980 91 400 91 ItOO 1 007 1 007 0 10 997 775 222 24 242 24 264 24 584 1980 5
6 1981 93,000 93,000 1,025 1,025 25 35 990 789 201 24,063 1981 6
7 1982 0 93,000 0 1,025 990 783 207 23,856 1982 7
8 1983 1,000 94,000 6 1,031 996 776 220 23,636 1983 8
9 1984 2,000 95,000 12 1,037 1,002 769 233 23,403 1984 9
10 1985 3,000 96,000 18 1 043 1 008 761 247 23,H6 1985 10
11 1986 4,000 97,000 24 1,049 1,014 753 261 22,895 1986 11
12 1987 5,000 98,000 30 1,055 1,020 745 275 22,620 1987 12
13 1988 6,000 99,000 36 1,061 1,026 736 290 22,330 1988 II
14 1989 7,000 100,000 42 1,067 1,032 726 306 22,024 1989 14
15 1990 8,000 101,000 48 I.U73 1,038 716 322 21 702 1990 15
16 1991 9,000 102,000 54 1,079 1,044 706 338 21,364 1991 16
17 1992
9'r
O 102'rO
5j l,Or l'r
9 695 354 21,010 1992 17
18 1993 683 366 20,644 1993 18
19 1994 672 377 20,267 1994 19
20 1995 659 390 19 877 1995 20
21 1996 MOTES: 647 40? 19,475 1996 21
22 1997 634 415 19,060 1997 22
23 1998 Coluan 15: All conatruction coata are allocated to production of power. Coluan 18: Tbe preject would full, repa, 620 429 18,631 1998 23
24 1999 Total project inYeatment, including intereat during conatruction, itae1f in SO yeara after initial 606 443 18,188 1999 24
25 2000 would be aa fo110wa: production of power. A aurplua 592 45~ 17 731 2000 25
26 2001 Feature Conatruction Coat of $69,000 would be earned in 577 472 17 ,259 2001 2(1
27 2002 0;;--$ 3,180,000 the 50tb year. 561 488 16,771 2002 27
28 2003 Po"erplant 10,930,000 546 503 16,268 2003 28
29 2004 Lake Grace Switchyard 650,000 529 520 15,748 2004 29
30 2005 Ward CoYe Subatation 540,000 512 537 U,211 2005 30
31 2006 Mountain Point Subatation 140,000 495 554 14,657 2006 31
12 2007 Metlakatla Subatation 180,000 477 572 14,085 2007 32
::u 2008 Lake Grace-Ward CoYe Tran ... iaaion Line 3,640,000 458 591 13,494 2008 33
34 2009 Hountain Po'nt-Mo~lakatla Tranamiaaion Line 1,210,000 439 610 12,884 2009 34
35 2010 General Property Artificial S2awninl Channel 419 630 12 254 2010 35
16 2011 Camp 1,560,000 399 650 11,604 2011 36
37 2012 Artlflcia1 Spavniaa Channel 750 1 000 Coat of preconatruction inveatigatlona $ 100,000 377 672 10,932 2012 37
38 20U Subtotal $22,780,000 Coata after initial leneration 710,000 356 693 10,239 20ll 38
39 201. Inter eat Quriaa Conatruction 1.510.000 lnveatiaationa $ 48,000 333 716 9,523 2014 39
40 2015 Total Federal laveatllent $24,290,000 Conatruction of faciliU .. 310 739 8,784 2015 100
41 2016 ia 5th year of operation 662,000 ___ 286 763 8,021 2016 41
42 2017 Total Coat $750,000 261 788 7,233 2017 42
43 2018 235 814 6,419 2018 43
44 2019 209 840 5,579 2019 44
45 2020 181 868 4,711 2020 45
46 2021 153 896 3,815 2021 46
47 2022 ~ .L ~ J, ~ ~ + t 1 t 124 925 2,890 2022 47
48 2023 94 955 l,9H 2023 48
49 2024 63 986 949 24,584 0 2024 49
SO 2025 93,000 102,800 59 1,084 10 25 1,049 31 1,018 24,242 0 0 69 202.5 50
TOTALS 4,543,200 378,200 4,921,400 50,072 2,276 52,348 500 1,173 1,673 50,675 26,364 24,311 24,242 0 0 69
Secondary energy was assumed to be marketable beginning in the eighth
year of operation at 6.0 mills per kilowatt-hour in accordance with
the practices followed in the plan formulation and economic analysis
studies.
Table 18 provides for repayment of all investment costs within
50 years of when the project becomes revenue producing. It also
provides for payment of the $10,000 annual Federal costs of project
administration as they occur, and the costs associated with the arti-
ficial spawning channel.
As indicated by Table 18, rates of 11.0 mills per kilowatt-hour
for firm energy and 6.0 mills per kilowatt-hour for secondary energy,
on the basis of the forecast requirements for the project power, would
provide sufficient revenues to satisfy the project repayment require-
ments, with a surplus in the 50th year.
The evaluated operation, maintenance, and replacement costs would
average about 2.2 mills per kilowatt-hour annually over the repayment
period. On this basis, the total cost over the repayment period of
project power delivered to the load center would be about 13.2 mills
per kilowatt-hour. This would be about 18 percent less than the
previously estimated 16.0 mills per kilowatt-hour cost of obtaining
an equivalent amount of power from the most likely project alternative,
a municipally-financed diesel-electric plant.
Repayment Contract
The project interests fUlly recognize that the estimated unit
power costs of the Lake Grace Project closely approximate the estimated
unit power costs of diesel-electric installations in Ketchikan and
Metlakatla that would furnish power supplies equivalent to the Lake
Grace Project. However, they consider that the project is an essential
unit in their long range plans for meeting the power needs of their
areas. They, therefore, have expressed willingness to enter into
repayment contracts which would assure return to the United States of
the reimbursable project costs and provide for the Ketchikan Public
Utilities and the Metlakatla Power and Light to assume operation,
maintenance and replacement of the project works as provided for by
the plan of development. It is contemplated that repayment of the
reimbursable project costs would be through direct annual payments
to the United States which would be based on the forecast project
power deliveries. The City of Ketchikan also has indicated willing-
ness to contract for the entire project power output should circum-
stances make inappropriate participation by the City of Metlakatla
as contemplated by the plan of development.
81
CHAPTER VII--REQUIRED FUTURE ACTIONS
The investigations on which this report is based have been
conducted in sufficient detail to determine the engineering and
financial feasibility, as well as the economic justification of
the measures proposed under the plan of development. However,
certain additional investigations will be necessary before com-
mencement of construction. These are the normal preconstruct ion
activities required to accomplish final plans and specifications.
The preconstruction activities will include consideration of
possibilities of incorporating an aerial direct current transmis-
sion system in place of the conventional alternating current system
contemplated in the current plan. The direct current system would
offer an opportunity for increased transmission reliability with
possible savings in operation and maintenance costs.
The National Park Service has recommended that a survey be
made of possible archeological sites that might be disturbed by
construction of the project. Similarly, the Federal water Pollu-
tion Control Administration has indicated a desire to make further
studies of the effect of the project on aquatic environment. Both
actions would be accomplished following authorization of the proj-
ect as part of the normal pre-construction activities. It is
considered that costs for these actions are adequately reflected
in the construction costs of the project features.
Future investigations to determine the optimum plan for
preser\~ng and enhancing the fisheries resources are provided in
the plan of development. Should enhancement of the fishery
resources prove feaSible, an appropriate allocation of costs to
this purpose would be made.
The preconstruction activities will also include negotiation
of appropriate contracts for repayment of the reimbursable project
costs and for operation, maintenance and replacement of the project
works as contemplated by the plan of development.
82
CHAPTER VIII--E."iCPRESSIONS OF STATE AND LOCAL INTEREST
At a special meeting in Ketchikan on July 22, 1964, data concerning
three potential hydroelectric developments which could serve the Ketchikan-
Metlakatla power market areas were presented to the Ketchikan City Council
and the Ketchikan Public utilities Advisory Board. The representatives of
the Ketchikan City Council and the Ketchikan Public Utili ties Advisory Board
indicated preference for the Lake Grace Project and desire that the Project
be planned for remote control operation whereby the Ketchikan Public Utilities
and the Metlakatla Power and Light, or other appropriate project oranization,
be the overall dispatching entity, and be responsible for operation and
maintenance of the project works.
The Ketchikan City Council, on the basis of recommendations of the
Ketchikan Public Utilities Board, on August 5, 1964, formally requested
the Bureau of Reclamation (predecessor of the Alaska Power Administration)
to expedite its feasibility investigations of the Lake Grace Project and
to prepare a report suitable to recommend to Congress Federal development
of the project so project power could be available to the City not later
than 1973-74.
At a meeting in Metlakatla on May 15, 1964, representatives of the
Metlakatla Indian Community and the Metlakatla Power and Light were presented
the pertinent data concerning the Thomas Bay, Swan Lake, and Lake Grace
Projects. These representatives stated that they had urgertneed for addi-
tional power supplies and desired to be included in any Federal project
proposed to furnish power supplies to the Ketchikan-Metlakatla area. This
was confirmed in a letter from the Metlakatla Indian Community dated May
26, 1964.
At a meeting in Ketchikan on May 20, 1964, after review of the favorable
reconnaissance report dated December 1965, representatives of the City of
Ketchikan and Metlakatla Indian Community reconfirmed their desire that the
Bureau of Reclamation expedite its investigation of the Lake Grace Project
to the end that construction of the project as a Federal development be
achieved at the earliest possible date.
The preliminary dra::rt of this report dated October 1967, was transmitted
to the City of Ketchikan and Metlakatla Indian Community, other concerned
Federal agenCies, and the State of Alaska for field level comments. After
their review, the City of Ketchikan on December 20, 1967 passed Resolution
No. 876 that expressed its formal endorsement of the plan of development
presented, and intent, when appropriate, to contract for operation and main-
tenance of the project works, and repayment of its share of the reimbursable
project costs as contemplated by the plan of development.
The Metlakatla Indian Community, by Resolution No. 76-39, dated
December 27, 1967, formally expressed interest in the Lake Grace Project
and willingness to participate as a recipient of Lake Grace Project power.
~ letter dated January 10, 1968, the Governor of the state of Alaska
indicated t,pe State's endorsement of the Lake Grace Project plan of develop-
ment presented herein.
Copies of Resolution No. 876 by the City of Ketchikan, Resolution No.
76-39 by the Metlakatla Indian Community, and Governor Hickel's January 10,
1968 letter, appear on the following pages.
RESOLUTION NO. 76 -39
BY THE METIAKATLA. INDIAN COMMUNITY
WHERFAS, the Metlakatla Indian Cormnunity, which owns and operates
the Metlakatla Power and Light, an ~ borrower organization, does
hereby express its general interest in the Lake Grace project as
proposed by the Alaska Power Administration.
WHEREAS the Power Market as conceived by the aforementioned Governmental
Agency does allocate energy fram the proposed project to the Metlakatla
Power and Light and we do hereby express our willingness to participate
as a recipient of Lake Grace Power.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Metlakatla Indian Community Council
that it enthusiastically encourages the Secretary of the Interior and
all other individuals and/or agencies of the Federal Government to
expedite the Ketchikan-Metlakatla area to develop its industries and
commerce to meet the constant growth demand.
Introduced, passed and adopted this 27th day of December, 1967, at
Metlakatla, Alaska.
lsi Henry S. Littlefield, Sr.
Mayor
ATTEST:
/S/ Russell Hayward
CERTIFICATION
I, the undersigned, as Secretary of the Council of Annette Islands
Reserve, of Metlakatla, hereby certifY that the Council of Metlakatla
Indian Camnuni ty is composed of 12 members of wham 9, constituting a
quorum, were present at a meeting thereof duly called, noticed, convened,
and held this 7th day of December, 1967; and that the foregoing Resolution
was adopted at such meeting by the affirmative vote of 9 members.
/S/ Russell H~d
Secretary, ~te Islands Reserve
Metlakatla, Alaska
(An Indian Chartered Corporation)
COpy
WALTER J. HICKEL
Governor
STATE OF ALASKA
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
Juneau
Mr. Gus Norwood, Administrator
Alaska Power Administration
Department of the Interior
Box 50
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Dear Mr. Norwood:
Ja.nuary 10, 1968
I have received your prel1m1nary drafts of the Lake Grace Project
and the Takatz Creek Project. The deve10pnent of Alaska is almost
entirely dependent upon adequate power. I endorse and hope that
these projects became a reality.
Find attached the comments of the Department of Natural Resources,
the Department of Fish and Game and the Department of Health and
We1fare.
Warm personal regards.
Attachments
Sincerely yours,
/S/
Walter J. Hickel
Governor
COP Y
RESOWTION NO. 876
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF KETCHIKAN, AIASKA,
ENDORSING THE ALASKA POWER AIMINISTRATION'S PLAN TO
DEVELOP THE LAKE GRACE HYDRO FACILITY 'ro MEm '!HE LONG-
RANGE NEEDS OF THE Km'CHIKAN, AIASKA MARKET AREAS.
~S, on the basis of data presented to the Ketchikan City
Council and Public utilities Advisory Board by representatives of the
Alaska Power Administration of the United States Department of the
Interior, and studies by the Ketchikan Public Utilities, it appears
that the opportunities for development of additional Significant amounts
of hydroelectric power in Southeastern Alaska to meet forecast power
needs of Ketchikan Public Utilities market areas, rests in the develop-
ment of the Lake Grace Hydro Facility, and
WHEREAS, on the basis of data furnished by the Alaska Power
Administration, it is apparent the power fram Lake Grace might be
available to the Ketchikan Public Utilities system fran the Federal
Lake Grace Project by 1976 fiscal year, and
~S, the needs of the Ketchikan Public Utilities market area
for additional power supplies already are pressing, and
WHEREAS, the comparative estimates prepared by the Alaska Power
Administration indicate that the cost of power delivered fram the Lake
Grace Project would be the most favorable available to the City of
Ketchikan, and
WHEREAS, subsequent studies by the City of Ketchikan indicate
increased power demands sooner than previously anticipated, and
WHEREAS, the Public Utilities Advisory Board has recommended
development of the Lake Grace Federal Power Project, as outlined in the
Alaska Power Administration's study dated October 1967, at the earliest
possible time.
NOW, THEREroRE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Ketchikan, Alaska, that it endorses the plan of development for the Lake
Grace Project presented in the report of the Alaska Power Administration
and (1) indicates its desire to contract, when appropriate, for operation
and maintenance of the appropriate project works as contemplated by the
plan of development; and (2) indicates its willingness to enter into
necessary contract, or contracts, when appropriate, to cover operation
and maintenance of the project works and payment of the City of Ketchikan's
share of the project costs through the purchase of power, both as con-
templated by the plan of development; and (3) urges the Alaska Power
Administration and the Secretary of the Interior to expedite processing
of the report to the end that authorization and construction of the
project as a Federal Development may be accomplished at the earliest
practicable dates and power from the project be available to the City
to meet forecast loads; and (4) indicates its intent to take the re-
quired steps to provide the necessary legal authority to enter into
appropriate contracts.
PASSED AND AOOPTED THIS ~ day of' December ,196 -.L .
Is/ Orel E. Freeman
Mayor
ATTEST:
lsi Mary McKinley
City Clerk
2
REPORTS OF OTHER AGENCIES
Letter Reports of Fish and Wildlife Service
Letter Report of Federal water Pollution Control Administration
Letter Report of Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
Phase I Multiple Use Impact Survey, Fbrest Service,
Department of Agriculture
GSAJB91B
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
UNITED STATES
DEPAR'IMENT OF THE IN'lERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
Bureau of Commercial Fisheries
Box 1668
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Mr. Gus Norwood, Administrator
Alaska Power Administration
P. O. Box 50
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Dear Mr. Norwood:
January 5, 1968
Mr. Haag's letter of December 29, 1967 .• advised us of the im"2:roved
feasibility of a selective-level intake to allow for temperature con-
trol of water discharged through the power plant at the Lake Grace
Project. If, as indicated, the selective-level intake could be
installed and operated at a cost competitive with the spawning channel
then there may be opportunity for enhancement of fishery ~esources.
Normal winter low flows expose a significant portion of the gravels
in Grace Creek that are available for spawning in the fall. Under
conditions with the project a greater area of spawning gravel would
be available both fall and winter, and the selective-level intake
could assure the proper temperature for successfUl egg incubation and
embryo development. Improvements and developments in spawning channel
technology in subsequent years may also provide a means of increasing
production from the spawning c:~nnel as it is presently conceived to
th~ point where production beyond the level required for mitigation
might be achieved.
The pre-and post-construction s~Qdies which we recommended in our
April 19, 1967 letter should be expanded to investigate the enhancement
potentials of the selective-level intake and the artificial spawning
channel, and their relative merits. Therefore, we recommend that con-
servation and improvement of fishery resources be made a purpose of the
Lake Grace Project.
Research indicates that salmon from Grace Creek lie in the area of
mutual concern between the United States and Ca.nada, and that same of
these fish would be taken by Canadian fishermen. Fish from these
stocks could be taken by U. S. fishermen, from all states, and thus
Mr. Gus Norwood -2-January 5, 1968
beneficiaries of any enhancement could not be defined. Costs allocated
to fisheries enhancement would therefore not be subject to cost-sharing
by a non-Federal entity as provided for in PL 89-72, but would be a
non-reimbursable Federal cost of the project.
Sincerely yours,
/s/
Harry L. Rietze
Regional Director
STATE OF ALASKA
DEPA.R'ruENT OF FISH AND GAME
Office of' the Commissioner
Mr. Harry Rietze
Regional Director
Bureau of Commercial Fisheries
P. O. Box 1668
Juneau, Alaska
Dear Mr. Rietze:
Walter J. Hickel, Governor
Subport Building -Juneau
January 15, 1968
This is in reference to the Bureau I s letter to Mr. Norwood,
Administrator of the Alaska Power Administration, dated January
5, 1968 regarding the Lake Grace Hydroelectric Project.
In your letter you indicate receipt of information fram the Bureau
of Reclamation concerning the improved feasibility of a selective-
level intake to allow for the temperature control of water discharged
through the power plant.
The Department agrees with the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries that
the selective-level water intake structure for water temperature
control may provide enhancement of the fishery resources of Grace
Creek. We therefore concur with the conclusion of the Bureau that
conservation and improvement of fishery resources will be a valid
purpose of the Lake Grace Project, if the selective-level water intake
structure is incorporated in the project design and operation.
cc: Ed Huizer
Carl ROSier
Sincerely,
/S/
Urban C. Nelson
Commissioner
COP Y
UNITED STATES
DEPAR'IMENT OF THE INTERIOR
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Bureau of Commercial Fisheries
Box 1668
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Mr. George N. Pierce
District Manager
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
P. O. Box 50
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Dear Mr. Pierce:
April 19, 1967
This letter is intended to supplement our detailed letter report of
May 4, 1966 on the effects the proposed Lake Grace project would
have on fish and wildlife resources. It has been prepared under the
provisions of Section 2 of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
(48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.). This letter has
been reviewed by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and has
their concurrence as indicated by the attached letter to me from
Commissioner Walter Kirkness dated April 14, 1967.
In our May 4 letter we recommended that an artificial spawning channel
be constructed to compensate for loss of salmon spawning area in
Grace Creek. This loss was expected to result primarily because
stream temperatures would be substantially colder than normal during
the spawning period and during the first few weeks of egg incubation
when the temperature limits are most critical. Results of experiments
conducted in other areas using chinook and: sockeye salmon eggs ind.i-
cated the temperatures predicted to occur during this time would be
below the lower threshhold for normal egg development.
In the fall of 1966 Bureau of Commercial Fisheries biologists took eggs
from pink salmon at Grace Creek. Separate lots of these eggs were
incubated in our Auke Bay Biological Laboratory at various temperatures
near those expected to occur in Grace Creek under project operation.
The results of these laboratory experiments indicated the initial lower
lethal temperature threshhold for incubating pink salmon eggs is about
40°F. which is somewhat lower than most reports for the other species.
These data indicate the possibility of preserving the salmon runs at
Grace Creek is such that more detailed information on project effects
would be required before construction of the proposed spawning channel
at Sea Level Creek would be justified.
This information should be obtained from pre-and post-construction
studies designed to yield comparative data on spawning success and egg
survival and development rates. If these studies prove that maintenance
of salmon runs in Grace Creek is feasible under project operating condi-
tions, then provisions must be made to prevent spawning area in Grace
Creek from being dewatered during periods when flows from the power-
house are less than 90 cfs. This release should be made at the dam.
During years that there is little spillage over the dam, a release of
about 500 cfs for a short period may be necessary to prevent excessive
accumulation of debris in the stream channel above the powerhouse.
If the project is authorized for construction, it is recommended that
prior to construction, the U.S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries make
detailed studies of the spawning success and of the egg and fry survival
rates in Grace Creek under existing conditions. These studies would
cost about $10,000 per year and should be continued for four years.
If the project is constructed, it is recommended that the U.S. Bureau of
Commercial Fisheries make detailed follow-up studies on the effect of
the project on the well-being of the salmon populations in Grace Creek.
These studies are estimated to cost $12,000 per year and should be con-
ducted for four years.
If the project is constructed, it is recommended that provision be made
to discharge at the dam sufficient water to maintain a flow in Grace Creek
of at least 90 cfs as measured at the U.S. Geological Survey gaging
station. This water should be drawn from the same reservoir elevation
as the power tunnel intake.
Costs of the recommended studies should be treated in the same manner
as other project jOint costs and be allocated among the beneficial purposes
of the project. When results of these studies have been analyzed, the
U.S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries and the Alaska Department of Fish
and Game will determine the need for construction of the artificial
spawning channel at Sea Level Creek.
We would appreciate being advised of any changes in the design and status
of the project as they occur.
Sincerely yours,
/S/
John I. Hodges
Acting Regional Director
Attachment:
Commissioner Kirkness' ltr 4/14/67
- 2 -
COP Y
STATE OF ALASKA Walter J. Hickel, Governor
Department of Fish and Game
April 14, 1967
Mr. John I. Hodges, Acting Regional Director
Bureau of Commercial Fisheries
Box 1668
Juneau, Alaska
Dear Mr. Hodge s :
This is in reference to the Bureau's draft of the supplemental
letter report to the Bureau of Reclamation regarding the effects of
the proposed Lake Grace project on the area's fish and wildlife re-
sources.
The supplemental draft letter report has been reviewed by the
Department and we concur with the conclusion of the Bureau that more
detailed information is needed concerning the effects the proposed
project may have on the fishery resources, before construction of the
proposed spawning channel at Sea Level Creek can be justified. We
are, however, withholding comment at this time on the Bureau's pro-
posal for the funding of the necessary pre and post project construction
fishery evaluation studies. Our comment regarding the research pro-
posal will be contained in a separate letter, which you will receive
shortly.
Sincerely,
DEPARlMENT OF FISH AND GAME
/S/
Walter Kirkness, Commissioner
cc: Carl Rosier, Division of Commercial Fisheries, Ketchikan
S. D. Swanson, Division of Commercial Fisheries, Juneau
Alex McRea, Division of Sport Fish, Juneau
E. J. Huizer, Division of Commercial Fisheries, Juneau
COP Y
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Bureau of Commercial Fisheries
Box 2481
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Mr. George N. Pierce
District Manager
UoS. Bureau of Reclamation
P. O. Box 2567
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Dear Mr. Pierce:
May 4, 1966
This letter is in response to your letter of December 17, 1965 which
requested our comments on the proposed Lake Grace project and trans-
mitted a Notice of Initiation of Investigation for a feasibility
investigation of the project. This letter constitutes our detailed
report within the meaning of Section 2 of the Fish and Wildlife Coor-
dination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 UoSoC. 661 et seq.). The
report incorporates the comments and views of the Alaska Department
of Fish and Game. A copy of a letter from Commissioner Walter Kirkness
indicating his concurrence will be forwarded soon and should be attached
to this report. The Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Bureau of
Outdoor Recreation, and the U.S. Forest Service have also reviewed this
report. Our comments are based on information supplied by your office
as of December 10, 1965. Previous reports sent to you on this project
include a letter-type reconnaissance report dated December l7, 1964 and
a letter of comment dated December 10, 1965.
The project would be located on Lake Grace about 32 miles northeast of
Ketchikan, Alaska on Revillagigedo Island near Behm Canal. Purpose
of the project would be primarily to supply power to the communities of
Ketchikan and Metlakatla.
Lake Grace project area contains no commercial developments and is
relatively isolated from regular transportation routes. The lake basin
is composed largely of solid rock and is located in a generally mountain-
ous, heavily wooded area of the South Tongass National Forest. Peaks
surrounding the 29-square mile watershed of the lake range in elevation
from 2,000 to 4,000 feet m.s.l. Lake Grace has a normal water surface
elevation'~of 43) feet and a surface area of 1,610 acres. The outlet
stream, Grace Creek, is about 2.5 miles in length, and flows into
tidewater at Behm Canal.
The damsite for the project is located about one-half mile downstream
from the lake on Grace Creek. The dam would rise 140 feet from the
stream bed and raiGe the lake surface to a maximum elevation of 500
feet. A pressure tunnel and exposed penstock would convey water to
a powerhouse located on Grace Creek about 1.25 miles above its mouth.
The intake for the tunnel would be in the lake near the left abutment
of the dam at an elevation of 430 feet.
Lake Grace is isolated from migrating fish by impassable falls located
about 0.5 and 1.5 miles below the lake outlet. The lake contained no
fish prior to being successfully stocked with eastern brook trout in
1931 and 1932. Although the upper 0.5 mile of the outlet stream might
be used as a spawning area by the trout, most of the spawning probably
occurs in the two major inlet streams. Small brook trout have been
observed in rearing areas in these streams. Lake Grace is accessible
by air or by a strenuous 3.5 mile hike from tidewater. The lake, how-
ever, is not on a regular air route and there is no sheltered boat
anchorage near the stream mouth. Camping facilities are not maintained
on the lake. Several adjacent lakes closer to Ketchikan, including some
with camping facilities, offer eqUally as good or better sport fishing
and as a result Lake Grace sustains only limited angling pressure.
Weather often makes it difficult to reach Lake Grace by air from Ketchi-
kan when the other adjacent lakes remain accessible. It is expected
that angling pressure will increase very little during the period of
analysis under conditions without the project.
A few eastern brook trout may be found in the outlet stream, but Grace
Creek is primarily valuable for its runs of pink, chum and coho salmon.
Small numbers of Dolly Varden and cutthroat trout also utilize the
section of stream accessible from salt water. Most of the salmon
spawning occurs in the lower 0.9 mile of the stream. Total counts of
both live and dead salmon in recent years have ranged up to 31,000
pink and 11,000 chum salmon and have averaged about 13,400 and 4,000
for pinks and chums respectively. Survey records of the coho escapement
are very poor, but indicate the stream supports a good run of this species
also. With improvements in salmon management techniques during the next
several years these runs are expected to increase.
The Lake Grace basin affords excellent habitat for a variety of wildlife
species. Black bears are common along the lower reaches of Grace Creek
when salmon are in the stream. Abundant bear sign has been noted in the
wooded area between Lake Grace and the mouth of Grace Creek. Sitka
black-tailed deer are common in the basin, especially in the broad inlet
valleys at the upper end of the lake. Beavers and a few waterfowl also
utilize this area. Other fur animals present include wolves, otters,
minks, martens and muskrats. Blue grouse is the upland species present.
The game populations of the project area sustain relatively little
-2-
hunting, however, for the same reasons of access discussed above for
the sport fishery. This is not expected to change significantly in
the future under conditions without the project because equally good
or better hunting is e~ected to remain more readily available to
population centers. Trapping is not known to occur in the basin.
If the project were constructed, only a part of the inlet streams in
the valley at the head of the lake that·are now available to brook
trout for spawning would be above maximum reservoir elevation. Annex
Lake and Salmon Creek reservoirs, both of which are located near Juneau,
Alaska and are regulated for hydro-power production, contain eastern
brook trout populations which have maintained themselves during several
decades of project operation. Conditions similar to those existing in
these two reservoirs would be expected to develop in Lake Grace reservoir.
No data are available which indicate a response significantly different
from that of the trout populations in the reservoirs near Juneau should
be expected from the Lake Grace trout population. Fluctuating water
levels would decrease the productivity of the lake as was undoubtedly
the case at Annex Lake and Salmon Creek reservoirs. Sport :fi.sr:ing
pressure would increase a limited but unknown amount during the period
of project construction. Thereafter however no increase in fishing
pressure over conditions without the project would be anticipated because
problems of access would remain relatively unchanged. The lake, as a
fluctuating, uncleared reservoir would lose much of its appeal to sport
fishermen, especially when equally as good fishing in more accessible
and scenic surroundings would be available at adjacent lakes.
The most significant effect of the project on fish and wildlife resources
would be loss of about 229,000 square feet of salmon spawning area in
Grace Creek below the powerhouse which would result from changes in the
stream's thermal regime. Under conditions with the project, tailrace
discharges would account for nearly all of the stream flow below the
powerhouse. Data available thus far from continuing studies indicate
the water temperature at the depth of the tunnel intake in the reservoir
would range in degrees Fahrenheit from the low 40's in the fall and early
winter to the high jO's in the late winter and early spring. Temperature
of the stream at the gaging station under natural conditions decreases
from the low 60's in early fall to the middle 50's in October and by
early winter has fallen to the low 40's. The lake surface continues to
cool until mid-winter when ice cover forms most years and the discharge
is just above 32°F. Incremental flows temper the lake discharge and
the average stream temperature below the powerhouse site averages about
35°F. Thus, the effect of the project would be to cause the stream
temperature below the powerhouse to be much cooler in the summer and
fall and to be significantly warmer in the winter and early spring.
It is believed this would render the stream below the powerhouse unsuit-
able for salmon spawning and egg development.
-3-
In order to mitigate the anticipated loss of this salmon spawning area,
we requested your staff to study the feasibility of installing a temper-
ature regulating intake structure on the tunnel to the powerhouse. After
your investigation, you advised us this method of mitigation would not
be within the economic capability of the project.
As the next most logical and feasible alternative we investigated the
efficacy of a headworks-type artificial spawning channel to compensate
for the expected loss of spawning area. Because of the disruption of
the temperature regime that would occur in Grace Creek, a different
source of water would be required and a survey of several possible loca-
tions in the project area was made. With the consultation and advice
of representatives of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and the
U.S. Forest Service, the Sea Level Creek site in Thorne Arm, about 22
miles south of the project area, was selected as the most suitable for
this type of facility. Detailed studies are being continued at Sea
Level Creek to obtain additional stream flow and temperature data.
Background information and other data on this proposal were t.n:nsmitted
to you in our letter of comment dated December 10, 1965. We estimated
total capital expenditure for the facility would be about $660,000 and
that annual operation and maintenance costs would be about $25,000, and
indicated these expenses should be allocated as joint costs among the
project purposes.
If the project were authorized, arrangements would be made by the
Bureau of Commercial Fisheries with the appropriate agencies to reserve
necessary land and water rights at Sea Level Creek for the spawning
channel. The Bureau of Commercial Fisheries would develop and provide
to the construction agency the design criteria and specifications for
the spawning channel if project funds become available. The Alaska
Department of Fish and Game has given its approval for operation and
maintenance of the spawning channel to be conducted by the Bureau of
Commercial Fisheries in conjunction with its evaluation studies of the
facility. Evaluation studies would be planned for a 6-year period.
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game would then assume responsibility
for operation and maintenance of the channel with operation and mainte-
nance costs continuing as project joint costs.
It is not expected that the spawning channel would be fully operational
during the period of project construction. Care should be taken to
control or in other ways minimize construction and other activities that
would cause siltation of, or physically disturb, the spawning gravels
in Grace Creek and the stream's intertidal zone.
Some wildlife habitat would be lost if the project was constructed,
primarily in the valley at the head of the lake. No reasonable means
are available to mitigate the loss that would occur. Because of the
- 4 -
very limited hunting pressure the area would be expected to sustain
and the relatively insignificant loss of wildlife habitat that would
be involved, compensation by habitat improvement in another area is
not being recommended.
If the project is authorized for construction, it is recommended:
1. That an artificial spawning channel following design criteria
and specifications of the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries be
constructed to compensate for loss of spawning area in Grace
Creek. Estimated cost of this facility including pre-construc-
tion planning and design is $660,000. Estimated annual cost
of operation and maintenance of this facility is $25,000.
2. That capital and operation and maintenance costs of mitigation
and compensation measures recommended as project costs be
treated in the same manner as other project joint costs and
allocated among the beneficial purposes of the project.
3. That the construction agency impose stringent controls on
project construction activities in order to prevent destruction
of fish and wildlife and its habitat.
4. That the following language be incorporated in the recommenda-
tions of the report of the District Manager, Bureau of
Reclamation:
a. "That additional detailed studies of fish and wildlife
resources affected by the project be conducted as necessary,
after the project is authorized, in accordance with Section
2 of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401,
as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.); and that such reason-
able modifications in the authorized project facilities
be made by the Secretary of the Interior as he may find
appropriate for the conservation, improvement, and devel-
opment of these resources.
b. "That Federal lands and project waters in the project area
be open to public use for hunting and fishing except for
sections reserved for safety, efficient operation, or
protection of public property.
c. "That leases of Federal land in the project area reserve
the right of public use of such land for hunting and
fishing."
-5-
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project and hope you
~ill keep us informed of any changes in engineering design and project
status.
-6-
Sincerely yours,
/S/
Harry L. Rietze
Regional Director
COP Y
STATE OF ALASKA
DEPAR'lMENT OF FISH AND GAME
Office of the Commissioner
Mr. Harry Rietze, Regional Director
Bureau of Ccmnercial Fisheries
P. O. :Box 2481
J\.meau, Alaska
Dear Mr. Rietze:
W11l1am A. Egan, Governor
SUbport Building-Juneau 99801
May 23, 1966
This letter is in reference to the Bureau's detailed report con-
cerning the Bureau of Reclamation's proposed Lake Grace hydroelectric
project on Revillagigedo Island.
The Department agrees with the findings of the Bureau with regard
to the effects of the project on fish and game and concurs with the
proposal of the Bureau for the cazrpen8&tion of fishery habitat losses
in the outlet stream of Lake G1"ace which will reaul.t fran the project
construction.
The Bureau proposes to construct an artificial spawning channel on
uplands adjacent to the lower part of Sea Level Creek on Revillagigedo
Island. The artificial spawning channel is intended to provide replace-
ment spawning habitat for the habitat which the Bureau and the Depart-
ment have determined will be lost in the lower part of Lake Grace Stream.
This loss will result fran the changed water temperature regimen caused
by the project construction and operation.
The Department agrees that the Bureau of CCllllD.ercial Fisheries should
operate and maintain the Sea Level Creek artificial spawning channel for
a six-year period ai'ter its construction, after which time it will be
turned over to the State of Alaska, Department of Fish and Game for opera-
tion as a pink salmon ~nt and research facility.
It is the understanding of the Department that construction, operation
and maintenance costs for the Sea Level creek artit1cial spawning chaJmel
will be a part of the hydroelectric project costs. The annual operation
and maintenance costs will be funded to either the Fish and Wildlife Ser-
vice or the Department of Fiah and Game for the life of the hydroelectric
project. In order that the Department of Fish and Game will be fully
cognizant of the operation and maintenance of the spawn1ng facility at
Mr. Harry Metze May 23, 1966
Sea Level creek when the facility is transferred to the State, the
Department recCJ1lllends for your consideration that a portion of the
annual estimated $25,000 operating and maintenance budget be used
by the Bureau during the atreau' s im tial six-year operating tenure,
for sa.l.ar;y and other u:penaes of a Department of Flsh and Game employee.
It is the intention of the Department that under such a set-up, the
State employee v:l.ll work under the supervision and direction of the
Bureau' s Sea Level creek artificial spawning channel project supervisor.
'lhis proposal will assure that the state will have adequate background
knowledge when the facility is turned over to the State at the end of
the specified six-year period.
I would appreciate receiving your comments regarding this proposal.
There will be many details to consider and I imagine a meeting between
the two departments will be required to resolve all aspects of the
Situation.
Sincerely,
.A.IASICA DEP.AR'BtfENT OF FISH AND GAME
/S/
Alex McRea, Acting Camnissioner
COP Y
UNITED STATES
DEPARrn.1ENT OF THE INTERIOR
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Bureau of Commercial Fisheries
Mr. George Pierce
District Manager
Bureau of Reclamation
P. 0 0 Box 2567
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Dear Mr. Pierce:
Box 2481
Juneau, Alaska 99801
December 10, 1965
Reference is made to your Bureau t s proposed Lake Grace project on
Revillagigedo Island, southeast Alaska. This letter of comment
presents our best estimate of the cost of mitigation measures for
the loss of salmon spawning habitat in lower Grace Creek. These
estimates are provided for your use in preliminary analyses of
project economics. This letter does not constitute a report of
the Fish and \-lildlife Service wi thin the meaning of the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. -401 as amended; 16 USC 661
et seq.).
Our reconnaissance report dated November 17, 1964 listed several
possible measures for conserving the salmon resources of Grace
Creek. We discussed these measures and others with your staff at
a meeting on March 4, 1965. Because Of the extreme disruption of
the temperature regime of Grace Creek under conditions of project
operation, control of the powerhouse discharge temperatures would
be essential to conserve the existing salmon runs. Further, with-
out temperatures approximating those occurring naturally in Grace
Creek, it would be biologically infeasible to attempt substitution
of a run of a dj.fferent species in this stream. Thus, the key
measure of the several listed in the reconnaissance report was an
outlet works in the project dam which would permit selecting the
temperature stratum from which waters would be drawn for power
generation. Mr. Cantine agreed to investigate the economic aspects
and engineering feasibility of including such a facility in the
Lake Grace Project.
Mr. Cantine's memorandum of April 30, 1965 to this office contained
the response that a temperature-selecting outlet works would be so
costly as to preclude its inclusion in the project plan. His memo-
randum also included the request that the Fish and Wildlife Service
proceed with reconnaissance work to evaluate the next most logical
and feasible alternative mitigation measure, namely development of
a replacement spawning area for pink and chum salmon at some nearby
area.
A reconnaissance survey for this purpose was conducted during the
period May 5-8, 1965; participants included a representative of the
U.S. Forest Service and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, as
well as members of our own staff. Sea Level Creek, located in Thorne
Arm, 22 miles east of Ketchikan, was considered to be the best site
of several visited.
Subsequently, we have worked closely with our Bureau's fish facility
specialists in developing a design concept for a salmon spawning
charmel at the Sea Level Creek site. Basically, the design ".:! its
present form consists of a headworks regulating weir that would
supply water to a concrete channel partially filled with suitable
gravel. This material would be washed to remove fines and graded
to select optimum particle sizes for salmon spawning. The concrete
channel would contain 120,000 square feet of spawning area. With
intensive management, this artificial spawning area would produce
enough additional salmon to compensate for the anticipated loss of
salmon production from the 229,000 square-foot Grace Creek spawning
area.
One of our fish facility engineers was in Denver during August, and
was able to consult with engineers of your Bureau's Design Branch.
Because of the present lack of knowledge concerning subsurface
features at the site, they concurred fUlly in the plan to use rein-
forced concrete for the facility despite its high cost. They also
provided. unit costs for construction materials in the Ketchikan area.
Our deSign and cost estimate incorporate this advice and information.
The channel, including gravel fill foundation, graded gravel for the
spawning beds, water diversion dam, intake, and water supply flume
would cost approximately $471,500. With 25 percent for contingencies
and 15 percent for engineering design and administratl.on, the total
cost estimate rounds to $660 ,000.
Annual operating costs on spawning channels are highly variable, but
experience elsewhere indicates that $25,000 annually would provide
for operation and maintenance as well as necessary evaluation stUdies.
2
We believe that mitigation costs l including both capital investment
and annual operation and maintenance expenses should be allocated
as joint costs among the project purposes.
3
Sincerely yours l
/S/
Harry L. Rietze
Regional Director
COP Y
STATE OF ALASKA William A. Egan, Governor
Department of Fish and Game
Office of the Commissioner/Subport Building -Juneau
December 10, 1965
Mr. Harry Rietze, Regional Director
Bureau of Commercial Fisheries
Box 2481
Juneau, Alaska
Dear Mr. Rietze:
This letter is in reference to the Bureaurs draft copy of a
letter to the Bureau of Reclamation concerning mitigation measures
for the 10S6 of spawning habitat in lower Grace Creek which will
result from the construction of a hydroelectric project in the water-
shed.
The Department of Fish and Game would prefer that the existing
runs of salmon in Grace Creek be preserved by means of controlling
the temperature of the powerhouse discharge water. Because the cost
of d.oing this would evidently be prohibitive, the Department concurs
with the Bureau in selecting an improved spawning channel in Sea Level
Creek as the next best mitigation measure if the cost of the neces-
sary facilities is in line with the benefits to be derived.
Many questions concerning design, operation and maintenance
remain to be resolved should the improved spawning channel be approved.
Unfortunately, the Departmentrs Chief Civil Engineer resigned this
summer and as yet has not been replaced. Therefore, we have not had
the opportunity to discuss technical aspects of the facility with mem-
bers of your engineering staff.
With these observations in mind, the Department concurs with the
findings of the Bureau as expressed in the subject draft letter.
Very truly yours,
ALASKA DEPAR'J}tENT OF FISH AND GAME
/S/
Walter Kirkness, Commissioner
cc: Carl ROSier, Div. of Com. Fish., ADF&G, Ketchikan
E. J. Huizer, Div. of Com. Fish., ADF&G, Juneau
FEDERAL WATER POI.JlJTION COlfl'ROL AIJaNISTRATION
COP Y
tmI!J!E]) STATES
DEPAR'l'MERT OF THE INTERIOR
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
Northwest Region
In replying address:
Alaska Water Laboratory
College, Alaska 99701
Gus Norwood, Administrator
USDI, Alaska Power Administration
P. O. Box 50
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Dear Sir:
21 December 1967
We have reviewed the draft of the report on the Lake Grace Project,
Alaska and wish to modify our previous remarks regarding the impact
of the project on the Water Quality of affected streams and estuaries.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Administration wiShes to conduct
more detailed investigations into the heat balance of the water shed
at present and to further evaluate the effect of the project on the
aquatic environment; both in the stream and the estuary. These
studies would be initiated after the project is authorized by Congress.
YO'..tr cooperation in our review of the project is very much appreciated.
Yours very truly,
/s/
Elroy K. DeI-y
Director
cc: Regional Director, Northwest Region
Bureau of Cam:n.ercial fiSheries
state Fish and Game
Branch of Enviromnental Health
UNITED STATES
DEPAR'lMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
Northwest Region
In replying address:
Alaska Water Laboratory
College, Alaska 99701
The Administrator
Alaska Power Administration
P. O. Box 50
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Dear Sir:
3 November 1967
At your invitation to comment on the proposed hydro-electric project
at Lake Grace on Revillagigedo Island in Southeast Alaska, we wish
to respond informa.lly at this time. Our comments pertain only to the
impact of the project on Water Quality.
Since the site of the project is in a remote area, there are no
'Waste discharges or uses of the 'Water other than commercial fishery
propagation. Therefore any installations or occupancy of the site
by construction or operating personnel should not generate any waste
discharges into the stream which will tend to degrade the 'Water
quality. We will be happy to consult with your agency during concept
and deSign stages to assure that preventive features are included.
We have coordinated our review with the River Basin Studies Branch
of the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries in the Alaska Region and concur
in the position they have taken in their letter report to your office.
The only impact on water quality resulting from the impoundment and
discharge of water through the power plant tailrace would be a change
in the heat regime of the stream, with the resulting potential influence
on the spawning of anadrc:mous fish.
Understanding that the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries' interest and
studies are considering this temperature problem fully, we will make
no further comment than to agree with their remarks and request pre-
ventive measures which might reasonably accc:mplish the preservation
of existing fish populations.
We do not suggest other stream temperature investigations but do add
our support to the BCF request for studies to assure proper stream
flow management for protection of the fishery.
-2-
We appreciate the opportunity to participate in this project in its
early stages and hope our poSition and comments will be useful in
evaluating its feasibility.
cc: Herndon S. Hill
Warren E. Xldridge
Melvin A. Monson
Chief Engineer, Division
of Public Health
Ed Huizer
Yours very truly,
/s/
Elroy K. Day
Director
BURFAU OF OUTDOOR REX:RFATION
COP Y
UNITED STATES
DEPAR'lMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF OUTDOOR RECREATION
Pacific Northwest Region
U. S. Court House
Seattle, Washington 98104
January 13, 1967
D-6427-AL
Memorandum
To:
From:
District Manager, Bureau of Reclamation, Juneau
Regional Director, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation,
Pacific Northwest Region, Seattle
Subject: Lake Grace Project
As discussed at the meeting held in your office on February 23, 1966,
with representatives of your agency, U. S. Forest Service, Fish and
Wildlife Service and the State of Alaska, we are submitting our
comments on the project. We have reviewed Forest Service and Fish
and Wildlife impact reports on Lake Grace and in large part have
based our conclusions on the findings and recommendations contained
in them. They are:
1. Recreation benefits accrued from the construction of a dam at
Lake Grace and a 42-mile power transmission line from the lake
to Ketchikan'would be negligible.
2. The Ketchikan district offers the recreationist excellent hunting
and fishing opportunities. Waterways including the Revillagigedo
Channel and the Carroll and George Inlets are utilized for pleasure
cruising and offer spectacular marine and mountain scenery which
would not be significantly affected one way or the other by the
project.
3. Many lakes on the island are accessible by seaplane and/or trails.
The Forest Service bas provided shelter cabins and boats at several
lakes where fishing is excellent. Fishermen have found nearby
lakes superior to Lake Grace due to (a) the difficulty in catching
the Eastern Brook Trout compared to other species found in other
lakes; (b) the relative proximity of other lakes; and (c) lack of
shelter cabins.
- 2 -
4. Although present plans for dam construction would have little impact
on recreation in the general Ketchikan area, Lake Grace would
probably become less desirable to fishing-oriented recreationists.
This would result from the lake being raised from a general level
of 43) feet to 500 feet, eliminating two designated recreation
sites. Seasonal water temperatures and flow would be affected by
the construction of a dam which would inundate considerable
spawning even causing a loss of salmon in the lower creek.
Reduction in flows would virtually eliminate a sizable salmon
fishery in the stream. The discharged water will flow into the
creek from the cooler subsurface waters of the lake reducing water
temperature considerably. Provision of an artificial spawning
channel as recommended by the Fish and Wildlife Service would be
necessary to compensate for losses.
We concur with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Forest Service
reports and appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on this
proposed project.
Copies of this memorandum are being furnished to the Regional Forester
of the Forest Service, the Regional Director of the Bureau of Commercial
Fisheries, and the Administrator of River Basin Planning for the Bureau
of Commercial Fisheries. Copies are also being furnished to the State
Department of Natural Resources.
cc: Regional Forester
Forest Service
Regional Director
Bureau Commercial Fisheries
Administrator
River Basin Planning
Commissioner
Fred J. Overly
Regional Director
By: lsi Maurice H. Lundy
Acting
Department of Natural Resources
FOREST SERVICE
COP Y
UNITED STATES DEPAR'IMENT OF AGRICULTURE
FOREST SERVICE
Box 1628
Juneau, Alaska
In Reply Refer To
153) (2100)
December 7, 1966
~tr. George N. Pierce, District Manager
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
P. O. Box 2567
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Dear Mr. Pierce:
Enclosed are three copies of our revised Stage 1 Impact Survey Report
for the proposed Lake Grace Project.
This report is a Regional report and does not necessarily contain final
recommendations or policy decisions. Such recommendations and decisions
will be contained in the Stage 2 report to be prepared after your
feasibility report has been completed. The Stage 2 report will be
revie'l>led by our Washington Office and approved by the Chief of the
Forest Service.
This edition of the Stage 1 report has been adjusted for the changes
in dam height and po,,;erline location which you have indicated. If you
have further questions regarding items in the report, we will be pleased
to discuss them with you.
A copy of this report is being sent to the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
in Seattle in accord with your request.
Enclosures
Sincerely yours,
lsi
W. H. JOHNSON
Regional Forester
GRACE LAD
MULTIPLE USE IMPACT SURVEY
PltASI 1
South Tongaas National Porelt
Ketchikan aaaaer District
f/ ... ' fi
Approval RecOIII8nded BJ //~ el,. I~',~., 6/'~': < .. t
Poreat Superv180r
bport Approved By'_-;~.-j11o!!,-,~d"--·'-=--!l!!!I·",,1 ... &_/"' ... -T_~.,.;* ... ' ... 1'_....-_
Regional ;fore. tar
Date ..... '..;.(-A!_l.-_3 .... !J"--' ..... f ... ; _
Date __ J;.,..L:_"_'7,,,,,,,,;f_(_i_( ---
Outline of Contents
1. Introduction and De.cription
II. Recommendations
III. Evaluation of Resource Uses and Activities
IV. Appendix
1
3
4
9
1.
1. Introduction and Description
A. The purpose of the proposed project ia to deliver hydroelectric power
to the cities of Ketchikan and Metlakatla, and adjoining areas in
southeast Al:1ska.
3. ~~ncy Responsible: Deparbncnt of the Interior. Bureau of Reclamation,
Al.lska District Office, Juneau, Abska.
c. Location and Description: The proposed project is located about 32
airl~ne miles northeast of Ketchiknn. It would include hydro-electric
p~ler generation at Lake Grace and a 38.4 mile transmission line to
the City of Ketchikan, entirely within the Ketchikan Ranger District
of the South Tongass National Forest. An additional 0.6 miles of
underwater cable crossing at Carroll Inlet will be under State juris-
diction.
D. Size: Approx~tely 18,600 acres of National Forest land will be
affected by this project. The dam will be u double curvature concrete
arch. It will rise ubout 140 feet above the streambed and have an
elevation of 508 feet. It will be 500 feet in length. The storage
reservoir would be Lake Grace, with a no~l water surface elevation
of 430 feet and surface area of 1,610 acres. It is proposed to raise
the lake to elevation of 500 feet to provide 149,000 acre-feet of
conserv~tion storage space for power production. At this elevation
the surface area would be 2,585 acres,
The water will be conveyed to the power plant through a pressure tunnel
and a surface penstock. The tunnel would begin near the left utuQDent
of the dam, have a concrete lined circular .ection 9.0 feet in diameter,
be 3,700 feet in length, and terminate at a surge tank. The surge tank
would be of reinforced concrete Unhedded within the hillside or an
exposed steel tank. A gate structure would be provided near the up-
stre3m end of the tunnel. A welded steel penstock 800 feet in length
woulu extend from the s'rrge tank to the power plant. It would be 6.S
feet in diameter and be laid in an exposed trench with suitable anchors.
A single power plant, with a final installed cap~city of 20,000 KW,
will be constructed upon rock foundation on the left bank of Grace
Creek. It will discharge directly int.o Grace Creek at an average tall-
water elevntion of 25 feet.
The project transmission line would be of H-frame wood pole construc-
tion with overhead conductors and would extend from the switch yard,
38.4 miles, with a 75-foot right-ofooway, to the substation at Ward
Cove. The portion of this proposal covering the transmission line to
Metlakatla will not be discussed in this survey,. since it is outside
the National Forest boundary.
An access road 4.0 miles in length would be constructed from tidewater
tn the reservoir and damsite. This would be a gravel surface road and
would pass by the power plant site.
2.
B. Land Status: All lands included in this propoaalJ.r~ National Forest
except as.follow.:
1. Patented Land
a. Joseph Hamblet, Serial No. 0292, Mineral Survey 535, located
approximately 1/4 mile up Sealevel Creek. 17.31 acres patented
5/12/33. (Area of mitigation; not on the road or power line r.o.w.)
b. Ketchikan Pulp Company, Serial No. Juneau 010324, U.S.S. 3400 and
3401, Damsite at Connell Lake and r.o.w. for water transmission.
Total acreage 83.46.
2. Withdrawals
a. PSC '257, PSC #398, and PSC #419 cover Ward Lake, Perseverance
Lake. and Connell Lake.
3. Public Service Sites
a. East Leask Cove Log Storage
b. Ward Creek Public Service Site
F. The proposed transmission line from Ward Cove to Cartoll Inlet traverses
broken topography ~omprised main1y of spur mountain tidges and extends
from sea level to approximately 1000 feet. The toPography from Carroll
Inlet to the proposed powerhouse site traverses an area which, on the
whole, is precipitous, with elevatioasfrom sea level to in excess of 3000
feet. The terrain within the Grace Creek drsinage ranges from flat deltas
at the stream mouth to precipitou8 slopes st the high elevationa.
G. Multiple Use Zoning: All lands included in this proposal, below the 1500
foot elevation, fall within the General Forest Zone except as follows:
1. The shorelines of Lake Grace and Swan Lake are classified as
Water Influence Zones.
2. There are two planned occupancy sites on the shore of Lake Grace
and one at the mouth of Grace Creek that would be affected.
3. The Travel Influence Zones would be crossed at the Lake Harriet
Hunt and Ward Lake areas by the transudS8ion line.
4. The classified Water Influence Zones surrounding Perseverance and
Connell Lakes will not be affected by the line r.o.w.
5. The existing occupancy sites in the Ward Lake ~ea and the planned
sites on Lake Harriet Hunt will not be affected by the power line.
The remainder of the area included in this proposal is within the
High Country Zone.
3.
K. General Location Map and Multiple Use Map -See Appendix.
I. Photolraphs: None nre available at this tUne.
II. Recommendations
A. Timber
L All timber 4" and larger in diameter at breast height within the
reservoir area shall be disposed of to elevation 505 feet. (5 ft.
above maximum reservoir water level). This includes floatable
dead timber.
2. Timber necessarily cut in conjunction with clearing the transmission
line right-of-way shall be disposed of. Merchantable logs should
be removed, where feasible. All other material should be burned,
chipped, or left in place as determined by the Forest Service when
the line location is established.
3. Merchantable tUnber within the reservoir area and transmission line
right-of-way will be disposed of by the Forest Service under commer-
cial timber sale procedure if feasible. If this timber cannot be
sold under such a precedure, due either to conflict with project
construction or lack of a bidder for the timber, it should be
handled by timber settlement to the Bureau of Reclamation.
B. Erosion
1. Special precautions shall be recognized in the development of con-
struction plans to prevent avoidable soil erosion and sedtmentation
of streams. This includes plans for access roads, dam site, tunnel,
penstock, power plant, and transmission line.
2. Temporary access roads shall be "put-to-bedl1 upon abandonment by
cross drainage and grass seeding. Cut and fill slopes of permanent
roads may require grass seeding or other treatment.
3. Forest Service shall participate in the development of construc-
tion plans to assure that needed erosion control measures are
included. Liaison to assure compliance during construction shall
also be provided.
C. Wildlife
1. Potential Wildlife losses, other than the salmon resource in Grace
Creek, are not significant enough to require mitigation.
2. Potential salmon losses in Grace Creek shall be mitigated. The
plan recomm~nded by the Fish and Wildlife Service to provide an
artificial spawning channel at Sea Level (Gokachin) Creek in Thorne
Arm is acceptable to the Forest Service. (Note: An easement may
be required to cross patented land at Sea Level Creek)
4.
D. Esthetics
The transmission lina should be located to avoid the Multiple Use
Travel Influence and ltnter Influence Zones, to the extent feasible.
High Country Zones in the George Inlet aren should also be avoided, to
the extent feasible. Where these zones must be crossed, lpecial care
shall be provided to screen the transmission line, as much a. realon-
ably pos'sible, from the traveling public.
The Forest Service shall assist in developing a fire plan to insure
that adequate fire prevention and fire control measures are carried
out during construction.
Streamflow in Grace Creek below the power plant should not be per-
mitted to fall below 75 cubic feet per second during any phase of the
project construction and operation except during closure and emergen-
cies. This is necessary to sustain such fish life as will rem3in in
Grace Creek after construction.
G. Land Occupancies
A memorandum of understanding should be negotiated between the Forest
Service and Bureau of Reclamation for the transmission line from the
project area to the National Forest boundary at Ward Cove.
III. Evaluation of Resource Uses and Activities
A. Outdoor Recreation
Lake Grace presently receives very few recreation visits. An occa.
sional fly-in hunter or fisherman uses the aren, but the difficult-
to-catch Eastern Brook Trout in the lake do not attract fishing pres-
sure sbnilar to that received by nearby lakes containing other species
of trout.
The Forest recreation plan indicates an expected increase in use to
require two cabins on the lake by the year 2000. Suitable sites for
these cabins were located as part of the National Forest Recreation
Survey. They are shown as Occupancy Zones on the map at the end of
this report.
Construction of this project would result in covering the two inven-
toried recreation sites as the lake level is raised. Other lites
could be located above the maxbnum water level. The fluctuating water
level will make the lake less attractive for recreation use than at
present.
s.
The Ward COJe to George Inlet area traversed by the transmission
line will receive considerable use when the Lake Harriet Hunt road
is completed. The preservation of esthetic values during trans-
misE ion linp location and construction will be particularly important
in this a'O.:"ea.
B. Fore&!
No \se of forage by domestic stock exists and no demand is expected.
Conr,truction of thiR pro~~ct will result in the reservoir flooding
413 aC135 of land currently growing timLer and the transmission line
occ1,pying :0 t, miles of rirht-of-ucy (\n National Forest land, of
whic. h c'I'pro::'.:imatcly 50 i'crce.lt supports timber growth. These lands
w:Ul be rerr.("":ed f' '"'~ t~':iber prod'.lction.
A rCl~gh pr€..!.:..linary nnalysis of the timber affected b:r the reservo:h
haG been r:.::Je t-~, ael: 1'11 photo [f.etho':s. This analysis indicates that
cle~ d.cg to t!:1e 505 f t. el(;va '::ion (5 I above maximum wa ter elevation)
wou: d illVol\Te 9;')1 acres. Of this. 4::'3 acr~s is timbered and 5[.8 acres
is I on-t~.:lIbared. The timbered area contains an estimated; ,310,000
l>olud feet of n,~rc1:::'n':.:;.:)ln. t':.mber. A rough appraisal was made on ti.e
bas: s I)f h~:;:'T':>'S tir.3 tl1:i.~ volume by felling the tim'!ler just before the
res€nroi'!" is ·:aise::!, then floating the logs to the ou~let after the
res(rv0ir is rnised, outloadiug onto trucks and hauli18 to tidewater
o~ t lle access road for rafting and towing to Ketchikan. This
apPJa~sal i~dica~es that thin timber could be harvested at a profit
and th.:1.t the timl:>er has a positive stumpage value.
An cstimnte of d 4,sposing of the remaining unmerchl'lntl'll>le timber and
the teps cf the mer~~.nr.t~ble t~ees was also made. This was based on
bSO;:.:i.!lg ,~Dd ..:;c",J1nS t:i:S !".:lterial to shallow areas of the reservoir
a f tc r tl r_ W". t,,::" leve 1 is r a is cd. then dropp ing the wa te r leve 1 and
hurLing th· .. l'o.terial in p:..ace. Estim3.tes indicate the cost to be
cOnf,ider:11":' ~c..53 .::L':m the $390,000 prcvided in the Bureau of Recla-
mntlon rcconnaissaDce report for reservoir clearing.
A di taileJ analysis of the quantity and quality of the timber involved
in the r.ranr-rrdssion lLw C:lr.not be accurately made unci! the exact
locl'_tion of t'1e line js est:::.blished. This informatio.l will 1::e prepared
aft,,:: i).l::eau 0:: Recbma tio!! planning is further advan:::ed. It will be
L1.clude'i as part of the Strtge 2 Multiple Use Survey R~port. It is
unUkely that m;.}ch of the transmisston line right-of-way timber will
be [.ccess;ble enough to be disposed of as merchantable timber.
6.
D. Water
Present water situation: The minimum runoff for this drainage was
218,000 acre feet in 1941, while the maxbnum of 356,000 acre feet
occurred in 1931. The average yearly runoff for the period 1916-1963
was 290,000 acre fcet. The normal water surface elevation of Lake
Grace is 430 feet.
The seasonal changes in flow and water temperatures will be affected
by this project. Records indicate that the five month pertod, December
through April, water requirements for the powerhouse will exceed the
water supply by 11.3 percent of the annual total. To compensate for
this deficit, the reservoir elevation of 500 feet is designed to take
care of the progressive drawdown over the critical period.
Management of National Forest lands will not affect water yield,
tUning, or quality since a majority of the watershed's ground cover
is either non-commercial or non-forested.
Lhe proposed project does not conflict with any present or future
use of the water involved.
Provisions are not included in the proposal for stabilization of areas
disturbed and an erosion control plan is necessary.
Sedbnentation of the stream will be a factor during the access road,
dam, and powerplant construction. Special measures will have to be
included to minimize this problem.
A Hydrologic Survey and Analysis has been made and is included in
the Reconnaissance Report furnished by the Bureau of Reclamation.
E. Wildlife
Grace Creek presently is a very productive salmon stream for its
size. During recent years of low relative abundance. its production
has been better than other streams in Behm Canal. 11
Lake Grace is presently stocked with Eastern brook trout. which are
relatively difficult to catch.
This project would not significantly affect the existing fishery in
Lake Grace. However, it will undoubtedly have an adverse effect on
the salmon runs in Grace Creek due to the change in flow and water
temperatures.
Since the average annual inflow to Lake Grace is 290,000 acre feet
or 398 c.f.s. and it is estUnated that 278,000 acre feet or 381 c.f.s.
will be required for power, there would be only 12,000 acre feet or
17 c.f.s. or continuous flow in Grace Creek above the power~.
11 See Appendix
7.
This would preclude the existence of a sizeable fishery in this section
of the stream. Also, the pow~r water will be drawn from the subsur-
face waters of Lake Grace, and will be discharged into Grace Creek at
a pOint above nearly all of the existing spawning bed. This water
will be much changed, temperaturewise, from the present stream water
and the continuance of the existing good salmon runs in Grace Creek
is doubtful. The Fish and Wildlife Service proposes that losses be
mitigated by providing an artificial spawning channel at Sea Level
Creek in Thorne Arm. II
Because of the cool water temperatures, expected from the powerp1ant
tailrace, this project does not offer possibilities for fish habitat
tmprovement or enhancement. The Bureau of Reclamation considers it
too costly to install facilities for selective withdrawal of reser-
voir waters at various elevations to deliver flow to Grace Creek of
the same general temperatures as prevail under natural conditions.II
The effect of this project on waterfowl species and habitat and on
game habitat will be negligible. The losses need not be mitigated.
F. Minerals
As was indicated earlier in this survey, this area is not highly
mineralized, therefore cl~ims are not expected to be a problem.
G. Land Occupancies
At present, Forest Service recreation facilities exist in the Watd
Lake Area. However, if the proposed transmission line is located
on the north side of the Ketchikan Pulp Company's aqueduct, no
conflict is foreseen in this area.
An adequate screen or buffer zone will have to be maintained between
the Lake Harriet Hunt road and the transmission line, except where
the line crosses the road. Distance, itself, will mintmize the
impact of the powerline to the viewer in some of this area.
Although Lake Harriet Hunt has strong recreation potential, little
conflict is anticipated if the transmission line is located 1500
feet or more south of the lake shore.
A memorandum of understanding for the transmission line right-of-
way will need to be developed between the Forest Service and Bureau
of Recl3IDation. The Grace Creek drainage is presently covered by a
Federal Power Commission withdrawal. This will presumably be re-
placed by a Reclamation withdrawal request. Such a request should
be limited to lands actually required for the construction, mainten-
ance and operation of the project works.
11 See Appendix
8.
H. Fire Control
Special fire control measures will not be required after the construc-
tion of the project. During the construction stages a fire plan
will be required outlining the manning and equipm3nt needed during
each fire weather class.
I. Insect and Disease Control
Insect and Disease Control will not be a factor if clearing slash
is disposed of.
J. Transportation System
The access road for this project will not tie in with the Forest
Service transportation system. Location changes can not be made to
tie this road into the system.
All temporary access roads will require seeding. water bars. and
other structures for erosion prevention, upon abandonment.
Specific sections of the road may require establishment of vegeta-
tion over cut and fill slopes. Before they can be designated. a
plans-in·hand inspection of the road locations will be required.
Special measures to avoid sedhtentation of the stream during con-
struction. and the location of disposal and borrow areas cannot be
selected until the construction plans. and a plans-in-hand inspection
of the area is made.
K. Land OWnership Adjustment
No adjustment in National Forest lands is expected to be required
in conjunction with this project.
L. Communication System
No communication system problems are expected as a result of this
proJect.
M. Multiple Use Coordination
The proposed use will require minor changes in zoning of the Ranger
District Multiple Use Plan. This will primarily consist of an
addition to the Occupancy Zone.
The proposed use is consistent with the Multiple Use Management
Guide for the Alaska Region.
9
Specific sections of the road may require establishment of vegetation
over cut and fill slopes. Before they can be designated, a plans-
in-hand inspection of the road location "lill be required.
Special measures to avoid sedimentation of the stream during construc-
tion, and the location of disposal and borrOl; areas cannot be selected
until the construction plans, and a plans-in-hand inspection of the
area is made.
K. Land Olvnership Adjustment
No adjustment in National Forest lands is expected to be required in
conjunction with this project.
L. Communication System
No communication system problems are expected as a result of this
project.
M. tlultiple Use Coordination
The proposed use will require minor changes in zoning of the Ranger
District Hultiple Use Plan.
The proposed use is consistent llith the l:ultiple Use Hanagement Guide
for the Alaska Region.
9.
APPENDIX
I. Bibliography
Stream Catalog of Eastern Section of Ketchikan Management
District of Southeastern Alaska Special Scientific Report -
Fisheries Number 305, UO S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Lake Grace Project Reconnaissance Report by the Bureau of
Reclamation, Page 43, and Letter Report from Fish and Wildlife
Service to the Bureau of Reclamation.
II. Location and Multiple Use Map for Project Area.
(Not duplicated for this report)
GSAJA920