DOCSLIB.ORG

USGS Professional Paper 545-A, Text

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Effects on Transportation and Utilities Eklutna Power Project GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 545-A This page intentionally left blank THE ALASKA EARTHQUAKE, MARCH 27, 1964: EFFECTS ON TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATIONS, AND UTILITIES Effect of the Earthquake Of March 27, 1964, on The Eklutna Hydroelectric Project, Anchorage, Alaska By MALCOLM H. LOGAN With a Section on TELEVISION EXAMINATION OF EARTHQUAKE DAMAGE TO UNDERGROUND COMMUNICATION AND ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS IN ANCHORAGE ByLYNN R. BURTON GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 545-A APR 11 1991 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR STEW ART L. UDALL, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY William T. Pecora, Director UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON 1967 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402- Price 35 cents (paper cover) THE ALASKA EARTHQUAKE SERIES The U.S. Geological Survey is publishing the results of its investigations of the Alaska earthquake of March 27, 1964, in a series of six professional papers. Professional Paper 545 describes the effects of the earthquake on transportation, communications, and utilities. Where needed to complete the record, reports by individuals from organizations other than the Geological Survey are included in the series. Thus, this description of the Eklutna Hydroelectric Project-a key part of south-central Alaska's power system-was requested from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation; so, too, was the section on the use of television for investigating damaged under­ ground utility lines. Additional chapters in Professional Paper 545 will describe the effects of the earthquake on The Alaska Railroad and on highways, airports, utilities, and communications. Other professional papers describe the field investigations and reconstruction and the effects of the earthquake on com­ munities, on regions, and on the hydrologic regimen. CONTENTS Page Page Page Abstract ____________________ _ A1 Effects-Continued Television examination of earth­ Introduction and ackno" ledg- Penstock, surge tank, and quake damage to underground rnents _____________________ _ 1 anchor block ___________ _ A13 communication and electrical Geologic setting ______________ _ 4 Powerplant and associated systems in Anchorage, by Lynn R. Burton ____________ _ The first 24 hours ____________ _ 5 structures _____________ _ 15 A25 Introduction_____________ _ 25 Effects on indiYidual features Tailrace _________________ _ 20 Underground systems _____ _ 25 of the Eklutna project ______ _ 6 Transmission lines ________ _ 23 Eqmprnent ______________ _ 25 Eklutna Darn ____________ _ Substations ______________ _ 6 23 Procedure _______________ _ 27 Intake structure __________ _ 6 Other earthquake effects in the Damage to systems _______ _ 27 area ______________________ _ Tunnel and gate shaft ____ _ 9 23 Interpretation of data _____ _ 30 ILLUSTRATIONS FIGURES Page 1. Index map of the Eklutna 14. Photograph of Eklutna power- 24. Photograph showing darnaged Hydroelectric Project ___ _ A2 plant before the earthquake_ A15 pump in project office_____ A20 2. Topography and surface ge­ 15. Photograph showing piling 25. Typical section of tailrace ology of the project area __ 3 in the powerplant founda- channeL ___ - ____ -------- 20 3. Schematic plan and profile of tion _____ --_____________ 15 26. Photograph showing cleaning- the Eklutna project _____ _ 4 16. Geologic section through up operation at outlet of 4. Map and section of darnsite surge tank, penstock, and tailrace conduit ____ - __ --- 21 area showing exploratory powerhouse_____________ 16 27. Plan, section, and chart giv- work __________________ _ 7 17. Typical ground settlement ing summary of damage 5. Photograph of spillway gate resulting from the earth- to tailrace conduiL _ _ _ _ _ 21 structure _______________ _ 7 quake__________________ 17 28. Aerial photograph showing 6. Aerial photograph of intake 18. Plan view of powerplant locations of cracks near area showing network of g1vmg measurements of the powerplant_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 22 cracks _________________ _ 8 settlement and deflection_ 17 29. Aerial photograph showing 7. Geologic section showing lo­ 19. Photograph of machine-shop Eklutna Lake area_______ 24 cation of earthquake darn- foundation, showing sep­ 30. Photograph of truck-mounted age to intake structure __ _ 9 aration of backfill mate- television equipment being 8. Geologic section along the rial from concrete footing_ 18 loaded at Denver for its line of the pressure tunneL 10 20. Photograph showing damaged flight to Anchorage______ 25 9. Photograph of debris depos­ 20,000-kva transformer con- 31. Details of television probes_ 26 ited in Eklutna tunneL __ 12 duit and terminal box____ 18 32. Arrangement of television 10. Geologic section through gate 21. Photograph showing damaged equipment during exami- shaft __________________ _ 12 heating-system piping in nation__________________ 27 11. Geologic sect1on through the floor of the automotive 33. Topographv, surface geol­ surge tank _____________ _ 13 repair shop______________ 19 ogy, and location of frac­ 12. Section through surge tank, 22. Sketch map of major earth- tures in underground penstock, and anchor- quake cracks in power- communication and elec- block area _____________ _ 14 plant area_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 19 trical systems___________ 28 13. Photograph showing earth 23. Photcgraph ~howing cracks 34. Axial view of breaks in the settlement over penstock in pavement of Eklutna ducts, as seen on the tele- anchor block ___________ _ 14 roadway__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 20 vision monitor screen_____ 30 v THE ALASKA EARTHQUAKE, MARCH 27,1964: EFFECTS ON TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATIONS, AND UTILITIES EFFECT OF THE EARTHQUAKE OF MARCH 27, 1964, ON THE EKLUTNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT, ANCHORAGE, ALASKA By Malcolm H. Logan, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation ABSTRACT The March 27, 1964, Alaslm ea:r!th­ ported from Eklutna Dake .to the power­ consolidated sediments and overburden quake and its a:ssoctalted aftershocks plant rut tidewa:ter on Knik Arm of Oook which densified and subsided during the caused damage requiring several milHon Inlet by an underwater intake con­ earthquake. Structures built on bed­ dolLars worth of repaiir to the Eklwtna nected to a 4.46-mile tunnel pel113tock. rock experienced little or no damage. Hydroelectric Project, 34 miles north­ The primary damage caused by the Underground communication and elec­ ea:st of Anchorage. Electric service earthquake was 1at the intake struc!ture trical .systems in Anchorage were exam­ 1lrom the Eklutna powerplant was inter­ in Eklutna Dake. No damage to the ined with a small-diameter television rupted during the early phase of the power tunnel wa•s observed. The pile­ camera to locate damaged areas requir­ Mal'ch 27 eal'thquake, bu:t was restored •suppor.ted powerplant •and appurtenant ing repair. Most of the damage wars (intermittently) until May 9,1964, when structures, Anchorage and Palmer sub­ concentrated at or near val'ley slopes. the plant was closed for inspection and stations, and the transmission lines suf­ Those parts of the sy·stems within the repair. fered minor da.mage. Most damage major rslide area's of the city were Wa:Der for Eklutna project is trans- occurred to facilities constructed on un- destroy·ed. INTRODUCTION AND ACKNOWLEDGlVIENTS The Eklutna Hydroelectric The lake is 7 mi1les long and is fed Although this report does not Project is a 30,000-kw (kilowatt) hy meil't walter from Eklutna Gla­ discuss earthquake-damage reha­ power development designed and 'Cier, 4 miles above the lake, and by bilitation, the repair of facilities constructed by the Bureau of Rec­ precipitation runoff from 'a 119- damaged by the great Alaska lamation, U.S. Department of the square-mile watershed. Wruter is earthquake of March 1964 was dif­ Interior, to bring urgently needed ·transported from the lake by an ficult, hazardous, and costly. electric power to the rapidly ex­ underwa'ter intake connected to a Transmission poles had to be set panding metropolitan area at An­ 4.46-mile tunnel and 'tunnel pen­ on steep icy mountain slopes; ~horage, Alaska. The project was ~stock through Goat Mountain to weakened precast-concrete con­ constructed during the 4-year pe­ the pawerplant (figs. 1, 2, 3) . The duits could be strengthened only riod 1951-55. The powerpl'ant project is for power production by working under 40 feet of near­ (fig. 1) is loca,ted 34 miles north­ only. Transmission lines, opel"at­ freezing water; and sand and erust of Anchorage on the Glenn ing a;t 115 kv (kilovolts) and ter­ gravel were mucked from 4.46 Highway and is supplied by water minruting at subst:ation facilities, miles of 9-foot tunnel requiring from Eklutna Lake, about 10 miles extend north to Prulmer and south access by means of a 220-foot by road from the Glenn Highway. to Anchorage from the plant. vertical ladder. A1 A2 ALASKA EARTHQUAKE, MARCH 27, 1964 CANADA 1000 MILES 1.-Index map of the Eklutna Hydroelectric Project. EFFECTS ON EKLUTNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT, ANCHORAGE EXPLANATION I I I - ./ FLOOD PLAIN 1$:::.:.</i< Glacial till Graywacke containing argillite inclusions Greenish-gray metagraywacke Thin-bedded argillite and some thin beds of graywacke Contact -,-I--75 Fault, approximately located Showing dip of fault plane 73 _L Strike --and- dip of beds Shattered zone o33 Drill hole 10 Test pit 700u 0 700 2100 FEET CONTOUR INTERVAL 500 FEET 2.-Topography and ourfare geology of the project area. ALASKA EARTHQUAICE, MARCH 2 7, 19 64 ' diameter gate shaft 115-kv transmission H igh-water line PLAN 3.-Schematic plan and profile of the Eklutna project. The decisions, actions, and im- of flow of electric energy. Juneau, Alaska, to W. Williams, provisions of Alaskan personnel This report was prepared in the project superintendent, Anchor- during the emergency and subse- Enginwring Geology Division of age, Alaska, and to their staffs quest repair operation have since the Chief Engineer's Office, U.S.
Recommended publications
  • Overview of Northern Cook Inlet Area Sport Fisheries with Proposals Under Consideration by the Alaska Board of Fisheries, February 2008

    Overview of Northern Cook Inlet Area Sport Fisheries with Proposals Under Consideration by the Alaska Board of Fisheries, February 2008

    Fishery Management Report No. 07-65 Overview of Northern Cook Inlet Area Sport Fisheries with Proposals under Consideration by the Alaska Board of Fisheries, February 2008 by Sam Ivey, Chris Brockman, and Dave Rutz December 2007 Alaska Department of Fish and Game Divisions of Sport Fish and Commercial Fisheries Symbols and Abbreviations The following symbols and abbreviations, and others approved for the Système International d'Unités (SI), are used without definition in the following reports by the Divisions of Sport Fish and of Commercial Fisheries: Fishery Manuscripts, Fishery Data Series Reports, Fishery Management Reports, and Special Publications. All others, including deviations from definitions listed below, are noted in the text at first mention, as well as in the titles or footnotes of tables, and in figure or figure captions. Weights and measures (metric) General Measures (fisheries) centimeter cm Alaska Administrative fork length FL deciliter dL Code AAC mideye-to-fork MEF gram g all commonly accepted mideye-to-tail-fork METF hectare ha abbreviations e.g., Mr., Mrs., standard length SL kilogram kg AM, PM, etc. total length TL kilometer km all commonly accepted liter L professional titles e.g., Dr., Ph.D., Mathematics, statistics meter m R.N., etc. all standard mathematical milliliter mL at @ signs, symbols and millimeter mm compass directions: abbreviations east E alternate hypothesis HA Weights and measures (English) north N base of natural logarithm e cubic feet per second ft3/s south S catch per unit effort CPUE foot ft west W coefficient of variation CV gallon gal copyright © common test statistics (F, t, χ2, etc.) inch in corporate suffixes: confidence interval CI mile mi Company Co.
  • Helicopter-Supported Commercial Recreation Activities in Alaska

    Helicopter-Supported Commercial Recreation Activities in Alaska

    HELICOPTER-SUPPORTED COMMERCIAL RECREATION ACTIVITIES IN ALASKA Prepared for Alaska Quiet Rights Coalition Prepared by Nancy Welch Rodman, Welch & Associates and Robert Loeffler, Opus Consulting Funded by a grant from Alaska Conservation Foundation October 2006 Helicopter-Supported Commercial Recreation Activities in Alaska Helicopter-Supported Commercial Recreation Activities in Alaska TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary.................................................................................................................. ES-1 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................1-1 1.1. Purpose of this report...............................................................................................1-1 1.2. What is not covered by this report ...........................................................................1-1 2. Laws, Regulations and Policies..........................................................................................2-1 2.1. Legal Authority to Regulate.....................................................................................2-1 2.2. Strategies to Regulate Impacts.................................................................................2-5 2.3. Limitations on Authorities, Permit Terms, and Strategies.......................................2-7 2.4. Summary..................................................................................................................2-8 3. Types and Consumers of Helicopter-Supported
  • Death to a Deadbeat Dam ADN 08.02.15 (PDF)

    Death to a Deadbeat Dam ADN 08.02.15 (PDF)

    Published on Alaska Dispatch News (http://www.adn.com) Home > Death to a deadbeat dam Rick Sinnott [1] August 2, 2015 Main Image: Eklutna River Dam 04 ­ 20150723.jpg­1437700565 [2] Main Image Caption: Rick Sinnott peers over the lower Eklutna River dam on Thursday, July 23, 2015. The obsolete 61­foot high dam, built in 1929, may soon be dismantled, allowing salmon to return to the river. EKLUTNA ­­ In 1929, the Eklutna River was dammed, forever it seemed. A 61­foot­high dam impounded the river about 1 1/2 miles upstream of the old Anchorage­Palmer highway. And few man­made things appear to be as immutable as a concrete dam. On a recent hike through the Eklutna River canyon, slipping on boulders coated with brown algae, wading back and forth between the banks to avoid sheer cliffs or deep pools, I considered what it would be like to be a salmon growing up in such a river. Imagine overwintering as one of thousands of translucent, orange eggs buried in the gravels of riffles or deep pools. Maybe I’d hatch into an alevin, become a fingerling and survive another year or two in the frigid water, constantly alert to predators like rainbow trout and American dippers. One day, with a little luck, I’d become a silvery smolt and swim downstream to Cook Inlet. Only there are no salmon in Eklutna River above the old hydroelectric diversion dam. The dam decimated the river’s salmon runs. If you’re a salmon, however, help is on the way.
  • West Copper River Delta Landscape Assessment Cordova Ranger District Chugach National Forest 03/18/2003 Updated 04/19/2007

    West Copper River Delta Landscape Assessment Cordova Ranger District Chugach National Forest 03/18/2003 Updated 04/19/2007

    West Copper River Delta Landscape Assessment Cordova Ranger District Chugach National Forest 03/18/2003 updated 04/19/2007 Copper River Delta – circa 1932 – photo courtesy of Perry Davis Team: Susan Kesti - Team Leader, writer-editor, vegetation Milo Burcham – Wildlife resources, Subsistence Bruce Campbell – Lands, Special Uses Dean Davidson – Soils, Geology Rob DeVelice – Succession, Ecology Carol Huber – Minerals, Geology, Mining Tim Joyce – Fish subsistence Dirk Lang – Fisheries Bill MacFarlane – Hydrology, Water Quality Dixon Sherman – Recreation Linda Yarborough – Heritage Resources Table of Contents Executive Summary...........................................................................................vi Chapter 1 – Introduction ....................................................................................1 Purpose.............................................................................................................1 The Analysis Area .............................................................................................1 Legislative History .............................................................................................3 Relationship to the revised Chugach Land and Resource Management Plan...4 Chapter 2 – Analysis Area Description .............................................................7 Physical Characteristics ....................................................................................7 Location .........................................................................................................7
  • Section 905(B) (WRDA 86) Analysis Eklutna Watershed Study Eklutna, Alaska

    Section 905(B) (WRDA 86) Analysis Eklutna Watershed Study Eklutna, Alaska

    Section 905(b) (WRDA 86) Analysis Eklutna Watershed Study Eklutna, Alaska 1. STUDY AUTHORITY This General Investigations study is authorized by the House Public Works Committee Resolution for Rivers and Harbors in Alaska adopted 2 December 1970. The resolution states: Resolved by the Committee on Public Works of the House of Representatives, United States, that the Board of Engineers for River and Harbors is hereby requested to review the report of the Chief of Engineers on Rivers and Harbors in Alaska, published as House Document Number 414, 83d Congress, 2d Session; … and other pertinent reports, with a view to determine whether any modifications of the recommendations contained therein are advisable at the present time. Funding for this section 905(b) Eklutna Watershed Study was established in the 2003 fiscal year Omnibus Appropriations (PL 108-7). 2. STUDY PURPOSE The purpose of this study is to determine whether there is a Federal interest in conducting feasibility level watershed studies of the Eklutna River Watershed. ER 1105-2-100, 22 April 2000 states: “Watershed studies are planning initiatives that have a multi-purpose and multi-objective scope and that accommodate flexibility and collaboration in the formulation and evaluation process. Possible areas of investigation for a watershed study include water supply, natural resource preservation, ecosystem restoration, environmental infrastructure, recreation, navigation, flood management activities, and regional economic development. The outcome of a watershed study will generally be a watershed resources management plan which identifies the combination of recommended actions to be undertaken by various partners and stakeholders in order to achieve the needs and opportunities identified in the study.” A Federal interest in the resolution of identified water resource problems is contingent upon there being probable environmentally acceptable and technically feasible solutions to identified water resources problems.
  • Glacier Runoff and Eklutna Lake Basin, Alaska

    Glacier Runoff and Eklutna Lake Basin, Alaska

    GLACIER RUNOFF AND SEDIMENT TRANSPORT AND DEPOSITION EKLUTNA LAKE BASIN, ALASKA by Timothy P. Brabets U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 92-4132 Prepared in cooperation with the MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE Anchorage, Alaska 1993 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR MANUEL LUJAN, JR., Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director For additional information write to: Copies of this report can be purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Books cind Open-File Reports Section 4230 University Drive, Suite 201 Federal Center, Box 25425 Anchorage, Alaska 99508-4664 Denver, Colorado 80225 11 CONTENTS Page Abstract ...................................................................... 1 Introduction................................................................... 2 Purpose and scope ......................................................... 2 Methods of study........................................................... 2 Description of study area........................................................ 4 Watersheds................................................................ 4 Surficial geology........................................................... 4 Glaciers. .................................................................. 5 Eklutna Lake............................................................... 5 Glacier mass balance ........................................................... 6 Glacier runoff ................................................................. 12 Streamflow
  • Chapter 4 Hazards in Anchorage

    Chapter 4 Hazards in Anchorage

    Anchorage All-Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2004 CHAPTER 4 HAZARDS IN ANCHORAGE One of the requirements of a hazard mitigation plan is that is describes the hazards that affect a jurisdiction. This chapter profiles the hazards that occur in Anchorage by identifying each hazard’s location, extent, previous occurrences, and the probability of future events. Hazard mitigation plans are also required to summarize the vulnerability to the hazards. The vulnerability information was calculated by identifying the parcels that intersect each of the hazard zones. Some notes about this method are: • Not all the hazard GIS layers used to perform this analysis cover the entire MOA. Most only include a portion of the Municipality. (Parcels could be at risk but the risk area has not been mapped and included in the GIS yet.) • The taxable value is based on 2003 MOA tax assessor data • Using the taxable Value underestimates the vulnerability because: - Some parcels, such as schools, are not taxed and therefore do not have a taxable value. - Some parcels are treated as economic units (separate parcels that are treated as 1 for tax purposes) and do not have taxable values listed. - Taxable value does not consider the value of the contents. - The taxable value is the sum on the land and building taxable values. This is different from the total taxable value listed in the tax assessor’s file because tax exemptions have been applied to those totals. • If a parcel was in multiple risk areas, the entire parcel was considered to be in the highest risk area (i.e., no partial parcels).
  • 2018 HCD Accomplishments Report

    2018 HCD Accomplishments Report

    Alaska Region Habitat Conservation Division Fiscal Year 2018 Accomplishments Figure 1. Atka Mackerel from the Aleutian Islands Bottom Trawl Survey in July 2018. Photo: Sam Simpson Habitat conservation, protection, and restoration are the foundation for sustaining the nation’s fisheries. The Alaska Region Habitat Conservation Division (HCD) carries out the National Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS) statutory responsibilities for habitat conservation in Alaska under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Federal Power Act (FPA), and other laws. To prioritize our resources and activities, make decisions in an ecosystem context, and strengthen the science behind our decision-making, HCD works closely with the Alaska Fisheries Science Center (AFSC), other NOAA line offices, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC), other federal and state agencies, non-governmental organizations, local governments, and a variety of industry and conservation groups. By leveraging these partnerships, we work together to better execute the Alaska Region’s mission: the science-based stewardship of living marine resources and their habitat in the waters of the North Pacific and Arctic Oceans off Alaska. The Alaska Region’s mission responsibilities include supporting sustainable fisheries, recovering and conserving protected species, and promoting healthy ecosystems and resilient coastal communities This report highlights HCD’s accomplishments for Fiscal Year 2018, from October 1, 2017 through September 30, 2018. We have restructured the format of this Report to reflect our commitment to HCD’s six overarching goals. 1 Contents Goal #1: Identify and pursue opportunities to conserve and restore marine and anadromous water habitats.
  • Anchorage Wetlands Management Plan Public Hearing Draft March 2012

    Anchorage Wetlands Management Plan Public Hearing Draft March 2012

    Planning Division, Community Development Department Municipality of Anchorage WETLANDS Anchorage Wetlands Management Plan Public Hearing Draft March 2012 Anchorage Wetlands Management Plan Public Hearing Draft March 2012 Prepared by Physical Planning Division Community Development Department Municipality of Anchorage “WETLAND” means those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas (Federal Clean Water Act, Section 404, Part 328.3, 7(b)). Table of Contents PREFACE iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW 1 I. PLAN RATIONALE 1 II. PURPOSE AND GOALS 2 III. PREVIOUS PLANS 3 IV. WETLAND ISSUES AND NEEDS 4 V. BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION/STUDY AREA 5 VI. PHYSICAL SETTING 5 A. CLIMATE 5 B. GEOLOGY 7 C. SOILS 7 D. HYDROLOGY 8 CHAPTER 2: RESOURCE INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS 9 I. RESOURCE INVENTORY 9 A. 1982 PLAN 9 B. 1996 PLAN 9 C. 2012 PLAN 9 II. RESOURCE ANALYSIS 10 A. BACKGROUND 10 B. WETLAND SCORE RANGE 11 C. WETLANDS ACREAGE SUMMARY 13 III. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 15 CHAPTER 3: CORPS OF ENGINEERS WETLANDS PROGRAM 17 I. PERMIT RESPONSIBILITY 17 A. INDIVIDUAL PERMITS 18 B. REGIONAL GENERAL PERMITS 18 C. NATIONWIDE PERMITS 19 D. LETTERS OF PERMISSION 19 II. WETLANDS DETERMINATION RESPONSIBILITY 19 III. CORPS OF ENGINEERS 404 PERMIT PROCESS 20 CHAPTER 4: MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES/ENFORCEABLE POLICIES 23 I. OVERVIEW 23 II. DEFINITIONS: BACKGROUND AND ENFORCEABLE POLICIES 23 A. BACKGROUND 23 B. WETLAND DESIGNATIONS 24 C.
  • Habitat Assessment of the Lower Eklutna River

    Habitat Assessment of the Lower Eklutna River

    Habitat Assessment of the Lower Eklutna River May 14, 2007 Prepared For: United States Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Branch Environmental Resource Section P.O. Box 6898 Elmendorf AFB, AK 99506-0898 Prepared By: Prince of Wales Tribal Enterprise Consortium P.O. Box 225 Haines, AK 99827 May 2007 1 Habitat Assessment of the Lower Eklutna River Table of Contents Page INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 3 WATERSHED OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................................... 3 METHODS.................................................................................................................................................... 5 SAMPLING STRATEGY ......................................................................................................................... 5 HABITAT ASSESSMENT COMPONENTS ........................................................................................................ 6 BIOLOGICAL INVENTORY............................................................................................................................ 8 DATA RESULTS ......................................................................................................................................... 8 ANALYSIS OF HABITAT ASSESSMENT RESULTS ............................................................................ 9 BIOLOGICAL INVENTORY RESULTS ................................................................................................19
  • East Copper River Delta 2004

    East Copper River Delta 2004

    East Copper River Delta Landscape Assessment Cordova Ranger District Chugach National Forest 07/28/2004 Looking north across the Martin River valley and the confluence of the Martin and Copper Rivers towards Goat Mountain and Childs Glacier. August 2003. Team: Susan Kesti - Team Leader, writer-editor, vegetation, socio-economic Milo Burcham – Wildlife resources, Subsistence Bruce Campbell – Lands, Special Uses Rob DeVelice – Succession, Ecology Carol Huber – Minerals, Geology, Mining Tim Joyce – Fish subsistence Dirk Lang – Fisheries Bill MacFarlane – Hydrology, Water Quality Dixon Sherman – Recreation Ricardo Velarde – Soils, Geology Linda Yarborough – Heritage Resources ii Table of Contents Executive Summary.......................................................................................................... vii Chapter 1 – Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1 Purpose............................................................................................................................ 1 The Analysis Area........................................................................................................... 1 Legislative History.......................................................................................................... 4 Desired Future Condition................................................................................................ 4 Chugach Land and Resource Management Plan direction ........................................
  • Herbert Hoover Dike: Past, Present and Future Page 8

    Herbert Hoover Dike: Past, Present and Future Page 8

    SPRING 2018 | ISSUE NO. 174 Bulletin of the United States Society on Dams Herbert Hoover Dike: Past, Present and Future Page 8 USSD 2018 Facing the Collaboration History of 5 Annual 16 Challenges of 19 and Rigorous 28 Pathfinder Dam Conference and Dam Removal in Science Required Exhibition Alaska to Address Changing Needs www.ussdams.org Brad Meiklejohn, Alaska State Director, The Conservation Fund, Anchorage, Alaska ([email protected]) FEATURE Facing the Challenges of Dam Removal in Alaska he Conservation Fund has nearly T completed the demolition of the long- abandoned Lower Eklutna Dam, near the native village of Eklutna, Alaska. The Lower Eklutna River Dam Removal Project is the most ambitious river restoration project ever attempted in Alaska. The Lower Eklutna Dam was built in 1928 as part of Alaska’s first hydroelectric project. Located in a dramatic 400-foot deep canyon, access to the dam site was a severe challenge during the construction (and demolition) of the dam. In construction, a tram cart delivered concrete down the cliff face to the workers below. This hardy crew worked throughout an entire Alaskan winter to complete the dam in a year’s time. The dam itself was a concrete arch whose dimensions were 70 feet wide, 100 feet tall and 9 feet thick at the dam base. This structure pooled and diverted water through a half- mile tunnel to a generating station nearby. Power ran by wire twenty miles south to Anchorage, providing the first reliable supply of electricity to this frontier settlement. The Lower Eklutna River Dam. Lower Eklutna power project operated until the early 1950s when it was decommissioned and ultimately abandoned.