HomeMy WebLinkAboutChakachamna Project Alaska 1962L A s K
STATUS
UNITED STATES
I
I
I
\
\
A \
-
i\ lasi<(l
CCl n,] d a
REPORT
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU O-F RECLAMATlOf'J
L
,......
0)
..q ,......
..q
LD
0
0
0
LD
LD ,......
('I')
('I')
r
~, PrtJpu'fy (if" Rm
/ 1"-. R.1 ;. ,; AK: RESOURCES LIBRARY
"~'''' . -,,,.-.-""
CHAKACHM1NA PROJECT
ALASKA
STATUS REPORT
MARCH, 1962
BUREAU or RECLA!1ATION
ALASKA DISTRICT OFFICE
JUNEAU, ALASKA
JUl 1 5 1974
....,-.v { ;' '-..-.,
/ r / I~ ,
!\
~,
I'
...-,
( -i .) ._
TAB L E
INTRODUCTION •
PROJECT INVESTIGATIOlIS
POHER ~lARKET
WATER SUPPLY
POWER
DRAINAGE AREA •
RUNOFF
OPERATION
Power Head
Sediment
Evaporat ion
() F CON T 1:: N T S
Reservoir and Power Operation Studies
PLANS AND ESTI MATES
RESERVOIR
TUNNEL
SURGE TANK
PENSTOCK
POHERPLANT
ACCESS ROADS
TRANSMISSION LINE
SUBSTATION
CONSTRUCTION PERIOD
~OVERNMENT eMP
General Property •
Service Facilities
i
Page No.
1
1
2
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
7
8
8
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
11
11
11
TAB LEO F CON TEN T S
( Cont i nued )
CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS • • • • • · .
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PFOBLEt·~S •• · . . . . . .
Access ibi li ty . . . . . . .
Communications • · . . · . . · . .
PROJECT COSTS · . . . . . . . .
Construction Costs • . . . . · . .
Operation and Maintenance Costs · . .
Provisions for Replacements · . . · . . .
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
REPAYMENT · . · .
BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS . . .
Alternative -Coal-fired Steam Plant ••
Direct Benefits · . . . . .
Direct Costs · . . . . . . .
Benefit-Cost Ratios . . . .
SUMMARY · . · . .
PLAN FORMULATION
CONCLUSIONS • • •
ACJ(NOWLEDGEt1ENT • • . . . . . . .
REPORT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE • · . .
ii
Page No.
11
11
12
12
12
12
13
13
14
14
15
15
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
19
939-906-3
939-906-2
Figure 1
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
LIS T 0 F D RAW I N G S
General Map • • • • PrecedinR Page 1
Area and Capacity Curves . . • ~ollowinp Page 8
Total Head Loss • • • • Following Pap,e 7
LIS T 0 f TAB L E S
Runoff in Acre Feet, Chakachatna River Following Page 5
Near Tyonek, Alaska
Annual Summary, Reservoir Operation Following Page 8
Study
Sunnnary, Construction Costs Page 13
LIS T 0 F P HOT 0 G RAP H S
P-939-906-20 Proposed Powerplant Area • . . Followin~ Page 1
P-939-906-2l Chakachamna Lake . • • • • Followinp, Page 1
iii
I
I J
I
I
I
I •
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
t ~
I
I
\" \ "::1
\ -:-
\~
'.0
\, -?
,
-Harpoon r ~ ~ .. ~
~--,-
LAKE
'~
\
\ ,
..--...--: ,'" -j'"
~ ,
( -~ /'
-' I r,'
~/
\
~ (
(
I' "
(
/
/
Glacier
5
/'
,--' ...... \
" '
I
I HArv'''-JA
LANT
KW
I
....:0-
r 1 \ "
Capps Glacier
/ ) , \ , \ I
-',I __ _ -:I ---__
, -----.... -.....I~ -'
-, \
, \
\ \ "
11 \'-::,~
\
\
/
I
'" ~C'~
'--G-
"-""1//
",
•
I
I
'I
~.
IWkie I~dian
Ise"OI~ I
rk-~~
I
I
2 30 K V DO U B LEe IRe U T 5 TEE L
TOWER TRANSMISSION LINE
ARCTIC f)CE4N
KEY MAP
.;\-.
f
--',11-f
I
) , ,/
COO K INLET
I
,~ :iJ8i 9 Lake "~
I
I
I
I
~'
EXISTING 1:5
TRMJSMISSION
I
/t'1
Wo sill a~J ffl.-rl_'_' __
I''>~''//~---'' '-,
1"-" I
I
\ \
-""r--.~ ___ <:<'0
G len I" \.9:t<>
I
__ -~ I
\
I RlcttPRR;SON I \~
! Mill cARY \~ \~. RESERvATION I ~
'-\ IXlsTIN~~'c-HORA~ \
SUBSTATION
I
I
I
NO.2
,; • J3 -6,
906 JR6 CHANGED rRAvt;\I/S_~/OfY LINE
, 16 ' 61
906 JFlB C'fANGED TR4NSo./15SION LINE
UN/TED S TA TES
DEPARTMEN T OF THE INTEIT/OR
BuREAU OF RECLAMATION
ROUTE:
ROUTE
CHAKACHAMNA PROJECT -ALASKA
GENERAL MAP
ORAWN ___ J,'lJL,_ SuBMITTEO ___________ , __ _
T R ACE 0 __ J_ fJ _B ____ q E COM MEN D E 0 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ,
CHECKEO _______ ' APPROVEO ___________ . ______ _
APPROVdrlG OFFICIAL
JUNEAU, ALASKA DEC 1,1960 939-906-3
CHAKACHAMNA PROJECT, ALASKA
STATUS REPORT
I N T ROD U C T ION
The Chakachamna Project is a transmountain diversion and a single-
purpose project for power development. Chakachamna Lake, located
about 85 air miles west of the City of Anchorap,e, would be utilized
as a stora~e reservoir. Water would be conveyed through a pressure
tunnel and penstocks to a powerplant located en f1cArthur River.
The power output would be transmitted to Anchora~e, the principal
outlet for the sale of electrical energy. The location of the
major features of the project are shown on r.eneral Map, Drawin~
No. 939-906-3.
PROJECT INVESTIr.ATIONS
Field investigations of the water-power potential of Chakachamna
Lake were first made in 1948 by Mr. Arthur Johnson of the U. S.
Geological Survey. The results of his brief study were published
in "Report on Reconnaissance of Lake Chakachamna, Alaska" dated
January 1950. Previous studies of the project by the Bureau of
Reclamation are discussed in its report "Reconnaissance Report on
the Potential Development of Water Resources in the Territory of
Alaska" dated January 1952. In addition, the Corps of Enj:!ineers
mentions the project in their "Survey Report on Harbors and Rivers
in Alaska, Interim Report No.2, Cook Inlet and Tributaries" dated
January 20, 1950.
In July 1960, the Geological Survey at the request of the Alaska
District Office, Bureau of Reclamation, established a survey camp
on Chakachamna Lake and obtained underwater topop,raphy of the Lake.
This mapping is controlled by the Coast and Geodetic triangulation
net established around the Lake in 1953. The underwater topography
of the Lake, as well as above water topography, to elevation 1,240
is shown on Geological Survey r1ap "Chakachatna River and Chakachamna
Lake, Alaska", Sheets 1 and 2.
In July of 1960, the Bureau of Reclamation established a survey camp
on McArthur River near the proposed powerplant site and tunnel out-
let portal. Horizontal and vertical control for these surveys was
extended from the Coast and Geodetic triangulation stations by a
triangulation net. Topography of the proposed powerplant site was
taken on a scale of 1:1,200 with 10-foot contour intervals and is
shown on Drawing No. 939-906-1.
P-939-906-20. General view of HcArthur .·Rive rand proposed power-
plant area, looking upstream, The powerp L3nt would be located at
the base of the cliff shown in the right center of fore g round.
Chakachamna Lake lies to the-~1e ft ':of snow-capped Mt. Spurr seen
in the rig ht backg r ound.
P-939-906-21. Chakachamna Lake lookinp-west. The outie t -of the
lake is in the left foreground '. The tunnel p o r tal would be a bout
1/2 mile up the left side' of the lake. The ridg e seen in the f ore-
g round is the snout of Barrier r,lacier.
In March 1961, t1r. Bruce La Jackson of the t::eological Survey
completed an open file report "Potential Hater Power of Lake
Chakachamna, Alaska".
In Au~ust 1961, the qeolo~ical Survey conducted additional studies
for the Bureau of Reclamation on Barrier qlacier and obtained sound-
ings at the lake outlet. The investioations of Barrier Glacier at
the outlet of the Chakachamna Lake consisted of establishin~ four
ablation stakes. A base line was established for trian~lating
the position of the ablation stakes and also for obtaininf! terrestial
photographs. From these rhotop,raphs a map of the lower portion of
the ~lacier can be compiled at some future time for comparative
purposes.
In September
mission line
at irregular
structures.
1961, the Bureau of Reclamation restudied the trans-
route by helicopter; with auger holes beinp nut down
intervals to determine foundation conditions for
Profiles were taken at the major river crossings.
POW E R MAR K E T
The market for project newer would be the Anchora~e-Palmer area.
This is part of the market that would be served by the Devil Canyon
Pro~cct. Its economy and pOHer requirements are discussed in con-
siderable detail in the Feasibility Report on the Devil Canyon
Project, nublished by the Bureau of Reclamation in ~1ay 1960.
The 1960 census for this area was approximately 96,950. This Has
nearly 145 percent greater than the po~ulation of 1950.
Power requirements in the area have been growin~ at a prodi~ious
rate. In 1951, the approximate load was 59,400,000 kilowatt-hours.
By 1955, it had increased to 129,900,000 kilowatt-hours; and in
1960, about 225,380,000 kilowatt-hours were used. The market study
for the Devil Canyon report forecasts a non-military load in this
area in 1970 of 610,000,000 kilowatt-hours with a peak requirement
of about 126,000 kilowatts. Projections beyond 1970 assume that
some major hydro power source will be orerating, and estimated loads
reflect an acceleration in use. On that basis, the non-military
requirements of 1980 may exceed 1,600,000,000 kilowatt-hours.
The Federal Power Commission forecast loads for this same area in
their Alaska Power Harket Survey of Hay 1960. Their nrojections
compare with the Devil Canyon Pro4ect forecast and recorded use
as follows:
2
F. P. C. Projections Devil Canyon Recorded
Normal ~1inimum ~Taximum Pro;ection Use
1960 (1000 KWH) 215,492 204,130 224,430 221,000 225,380
1970 (1000 KiiH) 507,730 411,270 597,870 610,000
1960 (KW) 48,955 46,390 50,995 47,600 48,950
1970 (KW) 110,770 89,850 130,410 126,000
The above tabulation illustrates that for the year 1970 both the Devil
Canyon forecast and the F.P.C. "maximum" forecast compare very closely.
It also shows that all forecasts of 1960 ener~y requirements were
below recorded use.
The installed firm capacity of all utility systems in the power market
area in 1961 was 72,470 kilowatts. Approximately 62 percent, or
45,000 kilowatts of this total was hydro power, 14,500 kilowatts was
coal-fired steam generation and 12,970 diesel. Completion of the
Cooper Lake -Anchorage transmission line will increase the area's
potential capacity to 72,470 KW. This total is not expected to be
sufficient to meet area requirements beyond 1964.
A 20,000 kilovolt-ampere intertie between Anchorage military bases
and non-military systems provides for a small quantity of additional
capacity in emergency situations, depending on military needs at
the time.
The military bases of Elmendorf, Fort Richardson and I-lildwood had a
generating capacity of 62,240 kilowatts in 1959. Approximately 90
percent of this was in coal-fired steam plants. In addition, a
6,500 kilowatt steam plant is located at the military port of
Whittier. The Army curtailed its operations at Whittier in September
1960 and the bulk of its supplies for interior bases is now landed
at Seward. Although no lonp,er required by the military, the Whittier
power plant is not yet available for non-military uses. Considering
its isolated location, it would be difficult and expensive to tie
into other systems in the power market area. The port will continue
to be used by private firms operating there, such as a sawmill and a
wood treatment plant. Also the Union Oil Co. has its own oil dock,
tanks and car-loading facilities at Whittier. These industries
furnish their own power.
3
W ATE R SUP PLY
The water storage reservoir for the :--T'orosed development is
Chakachamna Lake. This is a glacier-formed lake surrounded by
precipitous high mountains rising abruptly from the shores. The
lake is the source for Chakachatna River. The area of the water
surface of the lake at elevation 1,127 feet is 22.7 square miles.
It is 17 miles in lenRth, averages three miles in width and has a
maximum depth of 365 feet. The total contributing area above the
mouth of the lake is 1,120 square miles. The average annual runoff
available for project development is estimated to be 2,684,200
acre-feet.
DRAINAGE AREA
The entire drainage area is one of scenic grandeur and it has been
said to be the most picturesque in Alaska. It contains lofty,
rugged mountains with numerous large glaciers in the valleys and
perpetual ice fields in the higher elevations. These glaciers and
ice fields comprise 20 percent of the 1,120 square miles of drainage
area. Mountain peaks are in the ran~e of 6,000 to 10,000 feet in
elevation, with the highest peak being ~·1t. Torbert at elevation
10,600. Mt. Spurr, an active volcano just outside the drainage
area and about eight miles northeast of the mouth of the lake,
rises to elevation 11,070 feet. 'ferril Pass, the "flyway" to
\'/estern Alaska lies 18 miles to the west of Chakachamna Lake at
an elevation of about 2,900 feet.
The penerally southeastern exposure of the drainage area receives
moisture from the storms moving inland through Cook Inlet. The
principal streams contributing to Chakachamna Lake are the Neacola
and Chilligan Rivers, each about 24 miles in length. Other streams
are the Nagishlamina, Igitna, and Another River. Three of these
streams terminate in Kenibuna Lake located directly to the west of
Chakachamna Lake. Kenibuna Lake in turn empties into Chakachamna
Lake. All streams except the Chilligan River originate in ~laciers.
The Shamrock Glacier at the \.Jestern and upper end of the lake has
its terminus near the shore. There is no vegetal cover in the
drainage area other than low brush and alders that p,row in the
floodplain of the river bottoms.
RU~OFr
The U. S. Geolop,ical Survey established a recordinq stream gaging
station in Chakachatna River near the mouth of the lake on June 14,
1959. This station identified by the U. S. ~eolo~ical Survey as
"Chakachatna River near Tyonek, Alaska" has been in continuous
operation since that date, and the record of runoff is included in
Table 1. To extend the record over a lonp,er period, the recorded
runoff for the Newhalen River near Iliamna, '1atanuska River at
Palmer, Susitna River at Gold Creek, Susitna River near Denali,
Kasilof and Bradley Rivers near Homer were each examined for possible
correlation. The cumulative plot of the recorded monthly runoff of
the Matanuska River at Palmer, for the period of concurrent records,
shows similar trends to the Chakachatna River, and was therefore used
in extending the Chakachatna River records. Runoff data for the
Matanuska River is continuous through water years 1950-1961, and this
is taken as the period of study for this report.
The averaRe annual runoff of Chakachatna River obtained from the 28
months of record was found to be 92.7% of the recorded runoff of the
Matanuska River for the same period. This percentage was used to
determine the annual runoff of Chakachatna River ~rior to water year
1960. The annual totals were then distributed monthly by the percent
of annual as obtained from the period of record for the Chakachatna
River.
The minimum annual runoff of 2,320,200 acre-feet occurred in 1960,
and the maximum was 3,231,700 acre-feet in 1957. The estimated
average annual runoff for the period of study, 1950 throuqh 1961
water years, is 2,684,200 acre-feet. The recorded and reconstructed
monthly and annual runoff for the period of study is shown in Table 1.
P 0 HER
The initial and ultimate capacity of the Dowerplant would be 320,000
kilowatts at an average annual load factor of 63.5 percent. It is
capable of producing 1,780,000,000 kilowatt-hours of firm energy
each year. The maximum amount of non-firm enerp,y that could have
been generated in anyone period would have been 193,000,000 kilowatt-
hours. This would have occurred during August and September of 1957.
During the twelve-year period, there were seven years when water was
available for non-firm output. The average annual non-firm ~otential
is equivalent to 80,000,000 kilowatt-hours each year.
5
=@!$ _~""'~"'~--I2~-'-'-l-i -.-_-------:::~::::-=:-:.:2:--==--;;;---;;---;-·-I-.---R } 0'-R[ -A..,I.:.Ti:JN
Ta... D! c: .
. r ((: (l. t ,_!
n e (l.. ~'. I Y t::. (c. ( .....
YF ..• R 1_MAh .J
! -". ,;;, I ",-, D ' 1 .. ",... .
c!·.:.;-I r"
NOV. D~C JAr-;, I FE fS I I ~ -r
t-~_..s 4~ 4-" z. j 3 4,. I c ;..
_'lD 2 7 , _
.J.. __ ""-/ ~ ; L ..; ,:, ..,..<.c 7 -j' ! 1 .;.-.'
' ..
.:f-.:; .3 ) c. 3 '-
., .., --.-.
,}S 3
TorAL
PERCENT.
~-'!U".;"'''J'f ~~ gJ A,,,"'~a.1 ·t-",K .. ", f .......... 2.8 ,.." .. !..." .... ,~ Q+ r-ec.,,,c:led Ch ... lc:.q,cJ"~.-f",,,-;t?,vt:;-neal-T yo "eK.;}>':·,J •• l7
A "r", .... i -r" .... "" . .; ';""'" " ;.., ,9"0 Cni4ka..ch,,-+n.o.. R ,..:. JV1Q+<A.."u~k,. (2. ""t-P""i ...... <:...-' 2...5"2.4.8 ':IZ.77' ... "'f-"~co~d ... c! """'~+,",,,u,.t:::. ... r:'..:r~~ A "'-.v....J s, .J :z.7i';r~r ...
OPERATION
The load characteristics of the power market area were used in
scheduling Chakachamna Power Production. The following is the
monthly load distribution that would anply:
January 9.3 percent
February 8.1 "
March 8.3 "
April 7.7 "
May 7.6 "
June 7.2 "
July 7.4 " August 7.7 "
September 8.0 "
October 8.9 "
November 9.4 "
December 10.4 "
Water would be released through the powerolant to provide energy
in accordance with this monthly load distribution. Releases
required for firm energy are based on an 80 percent efficiency
of the powerplant for all heads.
Power Head
The maximum recorded water surface elevation of Chakachamna Lake
was 1,147.5 on August 6, 1961. Soundings in Chakachatna River at
the lake outlet show a constriction at about elevation 1,127
which is the controlling elevation of the streambed used in this
study.
With no dam and with all water except occasional spills, diverted
through the tunnel to the powerplant, the top of the active con-
servation space would be about 1,127 feet. This elevation would
correspond to an uncontrolled sryillway crest of a dam and is the
elevation used as the normal full 0001 elevation in the operation
studies. The minimum water surface elevation would be 1,014 feet.
The elevation of the water surface in l1cArthur River on July 26,
1960 was 183.7 feet, and the average tailwater elevation is taken
as 185 feet. Based on averap,e monthly head losses, the maximum
effective head on the turbines would be 922 feet and the minimum
effective head 805 feet. Under a condition of maximum release
at maximum drawdown, the computed minimum head would be 767 feet,
and the design head is taken as 780 feet. The average head com-
puted from the operation studies is 870 feet. An allowance fo~
6
loss of head due to friction was made fer each monthly release.
The values for head loss are shown on Figure 1, "Total Head Loss".
Sediment
A reconnaissance estimate of the 100-year sediment inflow to the
lake has been determined as 1,350,000 acre-feet. Of this total,
about 70,000 acre-feet would be deposited in the active conserva-
tion space. Since this is less than five percent of the active
conservation capacity, no allowance is made for sediment deposition
in this report.
Evaporat ion
The annual loss due to evaporation is estimated to be not more than
one-half foot for a full reservoir. At elevation 1,127 this would
amount to about 7,250 acre-feet per year or 0.5 percent of the
active conservation capacity. As this is not within the accuracy
of the water supply studies, no allowance was made for this loss.
Reservoir and Power Operation Studies
Releases from the reservoir would be for power production only and
would be in accordance with the monthly load distribution. The
reservoir and power operation studies were started 'tli th a full
reservoir havinR a water surface elevation of 1,127 feet. Controlled
releases would permit a maximum drawdown of 113 feet to elevation
1,014. During the 1950-1961 period of study, the reservoir was drawn
down to this elevation only in Hay 1961. The minimum drawdown
occurred in May 1957, when the reservoir reached an elevation of
1,043 after a full reservoir at the end of the previous September.
Considering only the production of firm energy, the reservoir would
have filled and had spills in Au~ust and September of 1951, 1953,
1954, 1956 and 1957, and in September only of 1950 and 1955. The
maximum spill for anyone month would have occurred in August 1957,
amounting to 520,700 acre-feet. AT the end of the period of study,
September 1961, the reservoir lacked 118,500 acre-feet of recover-
ing, but this was considered as being normal, as the maximum draw-
down occurred durinp that year.
7
,
i I ,
i
ITE I'V!
~~a_'~:!~f ' E t
Le-oith, fl. .. --, -..
h. t_
-+-----i
!
t------------
; TUNNEL ---------' .
25
57,10_0
-0-013
~ ___ -,-____ 2..B_p.o1t ~.t1Qnth'"
1 I ~O Do) 'y'1onlh ""
J! " "-, 3 I Do ;I ~';'on I h "
PEN':>loCK
1,21.Q_
O.{)H
,
/ .
I ••
/ I
/ /,
I I
/ r--' . 1
( " r; -, ,~
--r --: -/,..~ ~ r-_.
I
FIS'JRE 1
,
-.J --r
I --
I I . ' .+-p2E)-) ___ .I--o. .I.U ~J.N EL " 1
I . :
I W I I : LJ
lJ.., !
I
0
I :.t
W
1:
u...
0
i-UlIO-;----
I UJ I .L .. _ t---o9:-
1-,-1 ------1.--~8:
I ~ I
1--'1
1 __ -
I
_ -__ ---... t-I--;1 -. --!
I a . . ~ ,
:1 l'-!
, /)1 I
'/ ,.
,
5P
I
i
I· -'-
i
. _ t
(
I .. f
I'
f I I
/ ,.'
/ (.
/
. 'f
/ / . (
( . I .; -; I
I
. _ .. -f
_._. y--
Sl/2 ~ ~
• 0.463 a 8
/J
F'E\lSTOCK;
o ")4V L"I
hf --'--. -D 1.1 .
I per 1000 ft.
l.
OS-:'lRUCTlONS '
h K'£' t. -, 2g-
CHAK~CH4~v'l.\lA_ PROJECT -. -.. AL':"SKA ....,
TOTAL HEAD LOSS
2-7-61
-f
100 ~Oc 300 500
I' MONTHLt RELEASE -1000 AC~E FEET
I-.l--------.------· ----1._ I _ l
-~-
With this operation, the maximum monthly release was in December
1961 and averaged 4,246 cu. feet ~er second for the month
(261,100 acre-feet). The minimum monthly release averaged 2,966
cu. feet per second durin~ August 1957 (182,400 acre-feet). The
average flow through the tunnel for the period of study is 3,440
cu. feet per second.
The active storage capacity required for the operation study is
1,606,300 acre-feet. The total storage capacity of the reservoir
below elevation 1,127 is 4,015,000 acre-feet.
The annual summary of the operation study is shown in Table 2.
P LAN SAN DES TIM ATE S
The proposed plan of development for the Chakachamna Project pro-
vides for the construction of a transmountain diversion tunnel
from Chakachamna Lake, surge tank, penstock, powerplrtnt, trans-
mission line, substation and access roads. Chakachamna Lake is
85 miles west of the city of Anchorage and the powerplant would
be located on McArthur River 10.8 miles southeast of the lake.
The proposed location of these features is shown on the General
Man, Drawinp, No. 939-906-3.
RESERVOIR
The storage reservoir, Chakachamna Lake, would have a normal
water surface elevation of 1,127 feet, and a maximum water
surface elevation of about 1,148 feet. At elevation 1,127 feet
the surface area of the lake is 15,250 acres. Operation studies
indicate that 1,606,300 acre-feet of active storage space will
be required. This would provide about 93 percent regulation of
the Chakachatna River at the lake outlet. It is estimated that
there is a total of 4,300,000 acre-feet of space within the lake
below elevation 1,148, and 4,015,000 acre-feet below elevation
1,127. The lowest elevation obtained from the soundinos was
762 feet.
A drawdown of 113 feet will give the required active storaQe.
The minimum water surface elevation would be 1,014 feet and
would have a surface area of about 13,500 acres.
The reservoir would contain 2,408,700 acre-feet of dead and
inactive storage below elevation 1,014.
The area and capacity curves for Chakachamna Lake are shown on
Drawing No. 939-906-2.
8
<t
w
If)
Z
<t
W
~
I
If)
z
o
I-
<t
>
W
..--l
W
1160
I! 10
1060
1010
960
910
860
810
760
14 13 ,I
I
ARE~
10 9 8 7
IN THOUSANDS OF I
t-
\
-__ .i-______ . -l-----t---+----t----1
I I ,
I i ---i-
I !
I ! I
----+-----L------i-
! I
I I -t---t---------+------+--+------~---l -~
i CAP A C
i I I
, I -I--l----~
I i I --l-r·-T .
I -t--
I i -----~---I
--------!------1
I
---t J-I
-L---
I -f--
f-------t-----+--+-. i~ r . 1
1
----
, I
-L --1_ ---~----l---t-
o 500
--I
. I I I
I I !
'~-----+---
1000
I
I
1500
1-----
I
I
---. -
I
---r--
I
--1---
-I -
I
2000 2500
CA PACITY IN THOUSANDS OF
i
I
6 5 4 3 2 o
AC R ES I I.! !
I 1 . ill -----t------+ -~ -+_--t ------t----T-------T----
, i I
iii , (
I : I I , ----r -;------!~.
iii !
I ! ! I
·-r--+--~----}-----+----I
, 1 I ' I
I ! I I :
I' -----1------1--------r----L---
-! i i ; I
.----4-·--------L-------l----L----L-~_t--
I I Iii i I
t----+-----I -----+ -------t-------l-----t ----+----------t-I ! ! ' I
J ---+----1
! I I -+-l-~-
I I: i
·--t --i --+----t---
I· " I
I -f
!
I
: --+ ---f----
-1----\ ~--+ ; ----t---
: I I : i I
I J': I I !--r------l----t--~-t_~L
-;--r-j -I--t--i
i f--
3000
ACRE-FEET
3500
1
I 1 _ -__
4000 4500
CHAKACHAMNA
AREA
ELEV.
M.S. L IN
760
765
770
780
800
20
40
60
80
900
20
40
60
80
1000
20
40
60
80
1100
20
40
42
LAKE
8 CA PAC ITY DATA
AREA
ACRES
0
810
1,300
2,690
5,670
7,320
8,270
9,280
10,400
11,590
11,960
12,320
12,650
12,980
13,280
13,520
13,740
13,960
14,170
14,390
14,620
16,100
16,780
CAPACITY
ACRE FEET
0
2,025
7,300
27,200
111,000
241,000
397,000
572,000
769,000
988,000
1,224,000
1,467,000
1,717,000
1,973,000
2,236,000
2,504,000
2,776,000
3,053,000
3,335,000
3,620,000
3,910,000
4,218,000
4,250,000
UNITED STA TES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
CHAK ACHAMNA PROJECT -A LASK A
AREA a CAPACITY CURVES
CHAKACHAMNA LAKE
DR AWN __ ,._R~ {;~ ____ SUBMI TT EO _____________ _
TR ACE D_.f_ f!.._~ ____ RECOMME NOEO ____________ _
C HEC K E 0 _____ - - ___ A P PRO V E 0J.PfSIfIN·r~~-OTT'/C fA,
JUNEAU, ALASKA FEB.I,196Il 939-906-2
'c'C
~f-. .1 ~'J
~, <..;,:.'"10 •
cm,,1PUT t~ T ieN SHEET
~ ._,) p ~ (' .;t + , • "I I -J... 'I' (~I
--~---_. --r---_.----.-----i-' .---.. ---r---.---.
Ie", vv '" r' IRe ~ e ,-VI) I riA·. c
VJ"'-+~r-! inr; .. ~ i R,..,pct"c'! I L(]"+.,,t 11\", :j,"
t, i-,' e s i--'----r~~:~-l £".1 "f I c+ ~d ~
1350
i '3 S-i
I 'j S L
! 3 :~ 3
i:3 5-4-
i 'j:; S-
I') S ~
13::; i
'5 ::;-3
1 ) ~ C>
I '3 ~> !
-\ve,
! '1-'''''-rn l F, y.,........, i I
' I I I q cJ. ....-----t--.. ---· -----~-·-----r-
2 1.., ;.. 3) I 1-4 tN $; '3 FlO:-{"IS:'! 8 7:~
Zloi. >.II ::-+)47! 2-"-3" '-t01r,; 01 87-;'
24 7')
-'. :!:. 7S
""-7 74
2 --' (! 4
-, "'~ ':7 ~
5
8
8
.J
'"'
-/1 i :'.A9J. '1
.1.4-0 ?; /(.:3. 8
24794 i Z38(
_ r ! "-4 ';),? <.)1 I-I S
1483 ; ~
i 143. 4-
i
3 L ~ ! -,
I l_,;'",S o! 1",4 "':
Z :, le, ~ :.-:.4}(..7_!
.-~~ 8. ? -'---' 25;3 '}
, :~ 1 z. "-" 2.:/ 0."
2(,'~'o) Z.'::-473
4603, I
'-I,C) (s C)
4,:, IS-[)
4-0 f S (j
4<!) /5 0
'f-!) ,r
'u I:)
3 888 E3
3 '3 4 3 c;.,
.3 7S2 :J
3 8 '.Jr. 5
2C;84.2 2492.2. /lnG 33";:;'/
i P 7 ,.) ,-, ,
i 8 ,7 ,~ I
8 7':"-
A ., I ,
.£' '7 4-,
~ ~ .~)
,3~ ')
B,:., :3
<'3 <> 4-
.' z_ '---
3 7~)
i (0
;:I'-'~ ! )j""., h"",.1
.. ,
J\e,le:,~-.e
;-! I'· 1 .,. ,-. .j ~l r------· ;" ------, ,.,., Pi -t-I'-) J (
.' il~' ,)
! 180
! !
i
,~ 32
.3 L)
3 2_d
6' .,~'
8 .. -to.
8/""
'-.s ! 'j
dr''''
---.. ·_·1-----,,··-
I
1".10.'( Jvf
I ',,, I ~/1;.;. x:
-r------+ --
~) 2~~/_
}221
I
~/2 0
) Z I ! ,
:jz Z.
:j .' z..
! Y 7
/8 3.
/:9 s:
I (3 '"
I C ,) ,'-
.q ;:
'-I '7
. 186.
I 2' ~,.
,--, ~4. / -, ~ >D
<-t-2-~-i ")
'j l S S', ;Z
:3 L S J: ,
'-
Z -~ ,
~ '1
8 £. 0-R -~
i 2 S 7 d
!---! • ~ .-
.) : ~." -' ~ I
TUNNEL
It is proposed that the transmountain diversion would be through
a circular pressure tunnel 10.8 miles in lenQth. It would have
a diameter of 25 feet, be concrete lined, and terminate at a
surge tank. The average flow would be 3,440 cu. feet per second.
The entire tunnel would be in rock, including the portals. Heavy
reinforcement is proposed for the ends where the hydraulic head
exceeds the depth of rock cover. The maximum thickness of cover
over the tunnel is about 5,000 feet, with 8.33 miles having a
cover of 1,000 feet or more.
The inlet portal of the tunnel is located 2,500 feet from the lake
outlet. The area is solid rock and steep and access to the portal
and gate shaft would be expensive. The outlet portal and surge
tank could be reached by constructing an access road two and one-
half miles in length from McArthur River. In addition, there would
be an access adit about 2.2 miles upstream from the outlet requir-
ine an additional 2.5 miles of access road.
SURGE TANK
A 50-foot diameter surge tank, 400 feet hiph, would be located at
the downstream end of the tunnel. It would be embedded in the
mountain side and an access shaft is included to eliminate a
large open cut.
PENSTOCK
A steel penstock 23 feet in diameter would be located within an
inclined tunnel and would branch to the four turbines near the
powerplant •
POWERPLANT
The proposed powerplant would be located on the left bank of
McArthur River, some 34 miles by road from tidewater. The
powerplant would have an installed capacity of 320,000 kilo-
watts at a design head of 780 feet, and an average annual load
factor of 63.5 percent. Four 80,000 kilowatt units would be
installed.
9
The maximum head on the turbines is 922 feet, and the minimum head
805 feet. The average head from the reservoir and power operation
studies is 870 feet.
The annual firm output of the powerplant is estimated to be
1,780,000,000 kilowatt-hours.
ACCESS ROADS
The remoteness of the powerplant would necessitate the construc-
tion of 34 miles of access road from tidewater. It would have
a gravel surface with very little grade. A bridge 400 feet in
length would be required to cross the Chakachatna River.
For access to the lake and inlet portal, an additional 17.5 miles
of road would be provided, which would require two bridges.
TRANSMISSION LINE
Power transmission would be at 230,000 volts over a double circuit
line, 113.5 miles in length, and terminatin~ at a substation near
Anchorage. Submarine cables would be used to cross Cook Inlet
near Anchorage, a distance of about 1.5 miles. There would be
III miles of standard overhead steel tower construction and one
mile requiring special towers for crossing the Chakachatna and
Susitna Rivers. Overhead construction would include ~round
wires and 6 -954 MCM ACSR conductors.
SUBSTATION
The Anchorage Substation No. 2 would be located three miles east
of the existing Anchorage Substation and just outside the Fort
Richardson Military Reservation. This location allows ample
room for customer service lines. It would be rated at 350,000
kilovolt-amperes.
CONSTRUCTION PERIOD
The time required to construct the tunnel sets the construction
period estimated to be 5 years. All other features would be
completed in this time.
10
GOVERNMENT CAMP
There are no housing facilities near the proposed powerplant site
or Chakachamna Lake. A permanent camp as well as a temporary
camp to house government construction workers would be required.
General Property
Residences for a staff of 50 persons, together with the necessary
streets and utilities, would be required for operatinp personnel.
These facilities would be completed early and used to house a
part of the construction workers. An access road about one mile
in length would be required from the camp to the powerplant.
In addition, an airstrip would be provided near the nowerhouse
area and an unloading ramp for amphibious planes would be con-
structed at Chakachamna Lake. A barge dock would be provided
at the terminous of the major access road.
Service Facilities
Temporary facilities, in addition to the permanent community,
would be required to serve an estimated total of 100 government
employees during the peak of construction. Additional housing
would be supplied by trailer and transa-houses. Major buildings
needed would include an administration buildinp" laboratory,
warehouse and fire station. Transnortation facilities and all
working tools and equipment are included.
CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
There has been no sampling or testing of construction materials
for the project. Concrete aggre?ate could probably be obtained
from the large beach area near the outlet of Chakachamna Lake.
Another source might be the wide flood plain of the McArthur
River one to three miles upstream from the powerplant site. An
alternate source may occur in the talus slopes about one-half
mile below the powerplant site and on the same side of the river.
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PROBLEMS
The project is located in a remote area of Alaska. Problems of
access, housinp, communications and climate require ~Der.i;:!l c()n-
sideration.
11
Accessibility
There are no roads or trails in the vicinity of Chakachamna Lake. A
total of 51. 5 miles of access roads would be required leading: from
tidewater. r·1aterials and equipment would probably be baroed from
Anchorage or Seattle to the Government dock, then transported over-
land to the job site. During winter months this could be by "cat train"
over the frozen rround. Amphibious-tyne olanes could operate between
Anchorage and Chakachamna Lake. A sea-plane ram~ at the lake would be
necessary for unloading. A landinp strip for wheel planes would need
to be constructed in the vicinity of the powerplant.
Communications
Communications to and from all project works would be by radio or
radio-telephone.
PROJECT COSTS
Project costs are composed of the Federal investment in project
features, the annual costs of operation and maintenance and nrovi-
sions for providing replacements of equipment whose useful life is
less than 100 years.
Construction Costs
The estimated construction cost of the plan of development selected
for this report is $325,239,000, based on October 1, 1961 price
levels. Interest durinr construction would amount to an additional
$20,327,000.
The construction costs associated with this development are summarized
in Table 3.
12
fPC No.
331
332
333
334
335
336
350
351
352
353
354
356
358
Table 3. Summary, Construction Costs
Description
Structures and Imnrovements
~eservoirs, Dams and ,{aterwavs
Turbines and ~enerators
Accessory Electrical Equipment
Miscellaneous Equipment
Roads, Railroads and BridQes
Land and Land Ri~hts
Clearing Land and RiClht of ',Jay
Structures and Improvements
Station Equipment
Towers and r'ixtures
Overhead Conductors and Devices
Underp,round Conductors and Devices
r,overnment Camp
TOTAL
Operation and ~1aintenance Costs
Cost
$ 21,765,000
223,729,000
20,592,000
2,574,000
1,263,000
10,949,000
52,000
447,000
617,000
13,027,000
13,344,000
5,780,000
2,332,000
8,768,000
$325,239,000
The annual cost of operation, maintenance, administration and ~eneral
expense associated with this development is estimated to be $610,000.
This cost for each major division is as follows:
Annual Operation and Maintenance
Powerplant
Transmission
Administration and General
EX,)ense
Total
$316,000
214,000
_8.2.,000
$610,000
Provisions for Replacements
Provisions for replacements are computed on a strai.,-ilt ::::inkin?:-fllnri
basis at 2 1/2 percent interest. This annual char~e, estimated to
be $355,000, is summarized as follows:
Government Camp
Chakachamna Powerplant
Switchyard & Substations
Transmission Lines
Total
Rounded
13
$ 53,700
118,600
107,800
75,200
$355,300
$355,000
FIN A N C I A L A 1 A L Y SIS
The cost of nroject power would be some,..rhat hip-her than the 7.89 mills
estimated for the Devil Canyon P~oject. For this reason it is con-
sidered as a supplement to Devil Canyon rather Lhnn an alternate.
This consideration led to the followinr-assumptions in making this
preliminary economic analysis of the project:
(1) The market for ryower is ne~lected, it beinq assumed that all
power can be diSDosed of immediately.
(2) The project \-1ould be a sinRle-staoe development.
(3) Repayment of all project costs would be in 50 years at 2 1/2
percent interest.
Annual revenues must be sufficient to pay annual operation and main-
tenance costs, nrovide for periodic replacements and repay the Federal
investment in 50 years at 2 1/2 percent interest.
These costs summarize as follo\O;8:
Operation and Haintenance
Provision for Replacements
Equivalent annual repayment
($345,566,000)(.03526) =
Total Annual Costs
$ 610,000
355,000
12,185?000
$13 ,150 ,000
The only revenue source considered in reoayment is the sale of firm
energy. The possible sale of a limited amount of non-firm energy
was neglected as being too indefinite. \~ater su':>oly studies show
it available seven years out of twelve.
The amount of firm ener~y available annually is 1,780,000,000
kiloevatt-hours. Allowing about eight percent for losses, there
would be 1,638,000,000 kilowatt-hours saleable each year.
The averaqe power rate that would be necessary to assure full re-
payment of all generation and transmission facilities and r81ated
costs would be 8,03 mills Der kilowatt-hour.
14
BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS
Benefit-cost analyses, based on 50-year and 100-year economic lives
were prepared assuming the alternative to be a mine-mouth, coal-fired
steam plant in the Matanuska fields.
Alternative -Coal-fired Steam Plant
In this analysis it was assumed that a 320,000-kilowatt steam power
plant would be located at the mine mouth in the Matanuska fields.
It is assumed to operate at an annual load factor of 63.5 percent and
ryrovide a net of 1,638,000,000 kilowatt-hours per year. Approximately
50 miles of 230,000-volt, double-circuit, steel tower lines are assumed
required to deliver the power to the vicinity of Anchorap,e. Switchyard
and substation facilities would also be required.
The cost of fuel was evaluated on the basis of the 1960 average orice
paid per ton for coal at the mine. Pertinent assumptions are summa-
rized as follows:
Plant capacity -KW
Plant factor -%
Annual net saleable energy -K:JH
Fuel heat rate -BTU/Pound of coal
Cost of fuel -$/Ton
Power plant Investment -$/KW
Transmission plant investment -$/KW
320,000
63.5
1,638,000,000
11,000
11.45
262
50
Fixed costs were found to be 3.99 mills per net kilowatt-hour and fuel
costs 5.18 mills per net kilowatt-hour for a total net energy cost of
9.17 mills.
Di rect Benefi ts
The primary benefits derived from the project are determined by the
at-market cost of power and energy from the alternative source. This
cost has been determined as 9.17 mills per kilowatt-hour.
Since no load development period was assumed, the average annual sales
of energy (1,638,000,000 kilowatt-hours) would be the same for both
the 50-year and the lOO-year analyses. The average annual worth at
9.17 mills per kilowatt-hour provides an annual benefit of $15,020,000.
Direct Costs
Direct costs are made UD of operation and maintenance, replacements
and amortization. For purposes of benefit-cost analyses, investiga-
tions costs are not amortized.
Average annual costs of the project for the two periods of analysis can
be summarized as follows:
15
50-yr. life
Avera~e annual operation & maintenance $
Average annual provisions for replace-
ments
Average annual payment to interest
and principal
610,000
355,000
12,175,000
Total average annual costs $13,140,000
Benefit-Cost Ratios
100-yr. life
$ 610,000
355,000
9,430,000
$10,395,000
The benefit-cost ratios for 50 and lOO-year economic lives are determined
as follows:
Total average annual benefits
Total average annual costs
Benefit-cost ratio
50-vr. life
$15,020,000
13,140,000
1.14 to 1.00
SUt1MARY
The financial analysis can be summarized as follows:
Project Construction Cost
Interest Durin? Construction
Total Project Costs
Annual O&M Cost
Annual Replacement Cost
Averae,e Annual Payment to Principal and
Interest -50 years
Total Average Annual C')sts for Repayment
Annual Firm Energy Output (KWH)
Less Losses and Project Use (KWH)
Annual Firm Saleable Output (KHH)
Averar,e Rate for Project Firm Energy
Cost of Generation (~ills/K\-m)
Cost of Transmission (!-~ills/KvlH)
Total Cost Delivered (Mills/KWH)
Cost of Alternate Source Steam POHer U'ills/Kt-lH)
Ratio of Benefits to Costs -50-year period 1.14 to 1.00
Ratio of Benefits to Costs -100-year period 1.44 to 1.00
16
100-yr. life
$15,020,000
10,395,000
1.44 to 1.00
$325,239,000
20,327,000
$345,566,000
$ 610,000
355,000
12,185,000
S 13,150,000
1,780,000,000
142,000,000
1.638.000.000
6.40
1.63
8.03
9.17
PLAN FO~truLATION
During the investigations an alternative site for the powerplant
was studied. This alternative site is about two miles upstream
from that proposed in this report. The tunnel would be 2.5 miles
shorter, but the tailwater elevation would be 90 feet hip.her,
resulting in an annual decrease of about 175,000,000 kilowatt-
hours of firm energy. An examination of the terrain alon~ this
reach of McArthur River indicated an unfavorable location for
the tunnel portal and penstock. In addition, the transmission
line and access road would have had to cross over an objectionable
slide area. Considerin~ the Rain in powerplant canacity, and
sound enpineering logic, the proposed location of the powerplant
was adopted.
CONCLUSIONS
The project evaluation developed in this report status indicates
that the cost of Chakachamna power would slip,htly exceed that of
the Devil Canyon Project. The Devil Canyon Project would supply
a substantially greater power market area as well as provide a
transmission grid between Anchora~e and Fairbanks. In addition,
it is expected to meet the pO\Oler demands of this area through
about 1982.
The water supply for project use is based on only two complete
years of actual records, and a correlation with the ~~atanuska
River at Palmer. The potential firm enerry output is based on
estimated runoff information and is subject to revision.
For these reasons a full scale feasibility investiRation of the
project should be deferred until additional stream flow records
are available.
RECOHI1EN DATI ONS
1. Continue the stream gapinp program for the purpose of
substantiating the hydro pm-ler potential based on a
longer period of water record.
2. As comparable construction cost data becomes available
for tunnel work in Alaska, reassess project development
expense.
17
ACKUO\'lLEDGE~rr:NT
The cooperative efforts of the lI. S. ~eological Survey and the
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service have been very instrumental in
making possible the findin~s of this report.
The appended letter by tir. Harry L. Rietze, ReP.ional Director,
Bureau of Commercial Fisheries reports on studies conducted by
that agency. His recommendations for future studies needed to
more accurately assess the magnitude and value of the fish and
wildlife resources are included.
18
UNITED STATES
DEP.ART"lENT OF THE INTERIOR
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
BUREAU OF COm4ERCIAL FISHERIES
Box 2481
Juneau, Alaska
f1r. Dary 1 L. Roberts
District r'lanager
Alaska District Headquarters
P. O. Box 2567
Juneau, P.laska
Dear Mr. Roberts:
March 24, 1961
Reference is made to your letter of 11arch 8, 1961, in which you
request information on the fish and wildlife resources in relation
to the pronosed Chakachamna Project. The data presented herein are
based on limited studies which are considered to be reconnaissance
in nature. Because of the above and the fact that your report on
the Chakachamna Project is also a reconnaissance report, our
comments are necessarily ~eneral and this letter does not consti-
tute the report of the U. S. Fish and iHldlife Service and the
Alaska Department of Fish and Game on the project within the
meaning of the Fish and l,Hldlife Coordination A.ct, 48 Stat. 401,
as amended, 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.
Chakachamna Lake is located approximately 85 air miles west of
Anchorage, Alaska, in a deep valley of the Alaska Range surrounded
by glaciers and high rugged mountains. The elevation of the lake
is 1,145 feet and the watershed drains to the east and southeast
via the Chakachatna River for 40 miles into Cook Inlet. The lake
is approximately 13 miles in lenpth and varies from 1.5 to 3.0
miles in width. Inflow to the lake is largely of glacial origin,
and the lake waters are quite turbid as a result. One of the
lar~er p,laciers, Shamrock Glacier, divides Chakachamna Lake into
two bodies of water; the small upper lake is called Kenibuna
and is also turbid owing to its p,lacial tributaries. A small
stream from this lake flows around the north side of Shamrock
Glacier and into upper Chakachamna Lake. Barrier r,lacier
partially blocks the outlet of Chakachamna Lake. A few small,
sprinR-fed, clear water tributaries empty into the main lake,
and the two main tributaries, Chillif7an and llapishlamina, enter
from the north.
19
The present plan of development for this project consists of a
transmountain diversion tunnel fran Chakachamna Lake to a pc:wer-
plant located on the upper reaches of McArthur River to the south.
The tunnel would be nearly 12 miles in length and approximately
25 feet in diameter with ·a 1.230 foot penstock leading to the
powerplant. Installed capacity of the project would be approxi-
mately 320.000 kilowatts. Steel tower transmission lines would
traverse the upper portion of Cook Inlet and provide electrical
energy to the Anchorage area. No dam is proposed for the outlet
of Chakachamna Lake although the lake itself would form the
storage reservoir.
Populations of lake trout. whitefish and sculpins are present in
Chakachamna Lake. However. due to the glacial water. the limited
access to the lake. and the presence of more attractive fi$hing
sites elsewhere in the area. sport fishing pressure is practically
non-existent. During August. a run of red salmon arrives at
Chakachamna Lake and spawns in the clearer sloughs and side channels
of the lake's main tributaries. During 1952 2.000 red salmon were
seen in Chilligan River about two miles upstream of the lake.
About 1,000 salmon were noted in this drainage during the 1960
spawning season. Chakachamna Lake is undoubtedly used as a
rearing area by the red salmon, although the time of seaward
migration of the young fish has not yet been determined.
Pink and red salmon are present in the lower reaches of the
Chakachatna River. The McArthur River supports populations of
Dolly Varden and whitefish as well as a red salmon run. Reportedly.
certain other species of salmonids also utilize these two rivers.
although our surveys did not reveal their presence.
The tentative operation plan for the Chakachamna project would
result in virtual dewatering of the upper Chakachatna River and
would thereby eliminate the run of red salmon now utilizing the
lake for spawning and rearing purposes. Reduced flows in the
lower portion of this river could adversely affect other fish
populations that may be present. At this time, the effect upon
fish life of discharging tailrace flows into the McArthur River
is not known.
Big game species utilizing the Chakachamna Lake drainage are
moose. caribou, and black and grizzly bear. Wolverine, beaver,
mink. and spruce grouse are present in the area. Goldeneyes
were the only species of nesting waterfowl observed to be present
in 1960 although green-winged teal, redheads, and mallards w@re
noted migrating through the area.
20
Fluctuating water levels would be detrimental to wildlife utilizing
the lake perimeter. However, wildlife populations are relatively
low and utilization of these resources is minimal at the present
time. Project operation is not expected to affect seriously the
game resources around the lake. As is the case of the fishery
resources, dewatering of the Chakachatna River and the discharge
of addi ti onal flows into the t'lcArthur River may affect fur bearers
which utilize the habitat of these stream courses.
The Fish and vlildlife Service and the Alaska Department of Fish
and Game have not at this time formulated any specific recommenda-
tions concerning the project in the interest of the fish and wild-
life resources. Detailed studies are recommended to assess
accurately the maP,nitude and value of the fish and wildlife re-
sources and to develop specific recommendations for their mitipa-
tion and (or) enhancement.
The Fish and vJildlife Service and the Alaska Department of Fish
and Game should be advised if the Bureau of Reclamation plans
to start feasibility studies of the project in order that de-
tailed fish and Hildlife investirations may be initiated.
Very truly yours,
/s/ Harry L. Rietze
HARRY L. RIETZE
Regional Director
21