User:Monica.Keim/sandbox

ARTICLE EDITING DRAFT (due 26 October 2020)
The Eklutna River [ee-kloot-nuh] is approximately 11.8 miles long and located in the Southcentral region of the U.S. state of Alaska. A portion of the river flows through a canyon up to 400 feet deep, emptying into the Knik Arm of Cook Inlet approximately 17 miles (27 km) northeast of Anchorage. This degraded anadromous stream historically originated from Eklutna Lake which itself is fed by Eklutna Glacier. Eklutna River is now fed primarily by groundwater before being joined by Thunderbird Creek. Thunderbird Creek enters the south bank about 1 km (0.6 mi) upstream from where the river exits the canyon and forms an alluvial fan. Due to water impoundments on the Eklutna River for power generation and water utility, Thunderbird Creek is currently the main source of water in the lower portion of the Eklutna River. This river is located entirely within the limits of the Municipality of Anchorage.

Contents

 * Upper dam
 * Lower dam
 * Lower dam removal
 * Salmon
 * Recreation
 * See also
 * References
 * External links

Upper dam
Military expansion in Anchorage during the 1940s stressed the capacity of the Eklutna power generation system and it was upgraded several times. In 1948 the Bureau of Reclamation recommended the construction of Upper Eklutna Dam to raise the level of Eklutna Lake to an elevation of 875 feet (267 m) above sea level with a tunnel intake at 830 feet (250 m). Construction was completed in 1955. The new system replaced the aging storage dam at the lake outlet with a new dam that diverted water through a 4.5-mile (7.2 km) long, 9-foot (2.7 m) diameter concrete lined tunnel with a capacity of 640 cubic feet (18 m3) per second (18 m³/s) to a turbine house on the south bank of the Knik River. The dam, as modified, is an earth- and rock-filled structure, 555 feet (169 m) long and contains approximately 5,000 cubic yards (3,800 m3) of material. This new plant used essentially the entire storage capacity of Eklutna Lake and no water was made available to operate the existing plant at Eklutna.

The 1964 Good Friday earthquake severely damaged the dam. Because of this, a new storage dam was built downstream from the existing storage dam at the lake outlet. The new Eklutna Dam (referred to as the Upper Dam) is an earth and rock-fill structure 815 feet (248 m) long and 51 feet (16 m) high containing 85,000 yd³ (65,000 m³) of material. The spillway is a rectangular concrete conduit through the dam with an uncontrolled overflow crest. The maximum capacity of the spillway is 3,315 ft³/s (94 m³/s). There are no outlet works through the dam, as the power tunnel serves in that capacity. As the Upper dam impounds 100% of the flow from Eklutna Lake, Eklutna River's volume immediately downstream is zero.

Lower Eklutna River
Groundwater influence, CFS

Diversion of Thachkatnu Creek which originally attributed to the Lower Eklutna River 100 yards below the Upper dam, plus one other creek? (Section 3.5.3 Draft IIP)

Wildlife/Ecology

Recreation: Ice climbing and Thunderbird Falls Trailhead

Lower dam
Anchorage was largely electrified by the late 1920s, but as demand increased, Eklutna was selected as a power source because of the hydroelectric potential of the river, then known as Eklutna Creek, and Eklutna Lake. In 1927, the City of Anchorage contracted with the Anchorage Light and Power Company to construct what is now called the Old Eklutna Hydro-plant. Construction included a low-head storage dam at the outlet of Eklutna Lake and a 68-foot (21 m) high concrete arch diversion dam (known as the Lower Dam) in the river canyon 8 miles (13 km) downstream of the lake. The diversion dam diverted water through a 1/4 mile-long tunnel to a turbine house near the village of Eklutna. Since construction, the Lower Eklutna Dam had been a barrier to fish passage. When the Upper Dam was brought online, the Lower Dam was shut down as a result and the Lower Eklutna Dam was allowed to fill with gravel. No longer operational, this dam gradually backfilled upstream for 0.6 miles with 230,000 cubic-yards of sediment. In 2018 the Lower dam was removed entirely as part of a restoration project.

Lower dam removal
Eklutna Inc. raised $7.5 million for the removal of the Lower Eklutna dam to restore fish and wildlife habitat and fish passage in this section of the Eklutna watershed. After the dam was removed in the summer of 2018, Eklutna Inc. began their mandated 3-year post-project monitoring. These monitoring efforts are presently ongoing in partnership with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. The removal of the Lower Eklutna dam was funded largely by the Conservation Fund, but had many other contributors including Trout Unlimited, the Open Rivers Fund of Resources Legacy Fund, Patagonia, New Belgium Brewing, the Marnell Company, the Rasmusson Foundation, the Alaska Community Foundation, the M.J. Murdock Trust, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation through its Alaska Fish and Wildlife Fund, ConocoPhillips SPIRIT of Conservation Program, Wells Fargo, the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund (PCSRF), a congressional grant managed by NOAA Fisheries West Coast Region.

1991 Fish & Wildlife Agreement
In 1997 the Purchasers (Chugach Electric Association, Municipal Light and Power [ML&P], and Matanuska Electric Association [MEA]) of the Eklutna Hydroelectric Project signed the 1991 Fish & Wildlife Agreement. This agreement "commits the Purchasers to fund studies to determine impacts and propose measures for protection, mitigation, and enhancement of fish and wildlife affected by the projects", with the goal of informing the Governor of Alaska on their designation of a Fish and Wildlife Program for the Eklutna Project. The governor must have this proposal by the year 2024 (25 years after the Eklutna Project transaction date) and have completed the new program's implementation by 2032. Research to assess current status and causes of fish and wildlife degradation are ongoing.

Water Rights in the Eklutna Watershed
The Native Village of Eklutna (NVE) has applied for three different water rights permits. Together the three segments would encompass three miles of the Lower Eklutna River above the confluence with Thunderbird Creek and to the outlet of the river into Knik Arm, as well as Thunderbird Creek itself. These permits would support fish and wildlife by reserving in-stream flow.

Salmon in the Eklutna Watershed
When the Lower Eklutna dam was constructed there was no consideration for its affects on fish and wildlife. It was later determined that the dam blocked existing sockeye from the accessing their spawning grounds within the greater Eklutna watershed. As late as the mid-1980s native land-locked sockeye (also known as Kokanee) were observed within Eklutna Lake and are assumed to be remnants of the extirpated sockeye population. Presently, five species of salmon return to the Lower Eklutna River and spawn primarily in its main tributary, Thunderbird Creek [cite]. Salmon smolts, namely Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and Coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch), have been observed using the Lower Eklutna River habitat above its confluence with Thunderbird Creek, as far upstream as the dam removal site. There has not been spawning activity observed above the confluence and it is likely that spawning gravels in this portion of the watershed would freeze during the winter due to low flow.

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: Eklutna River
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I chose to evaluate this article because I have already done quite a bit of reading about the subject, am working on a senior project about this subject, and find it beneficial to explore aspects that I may not have learned before or considering relevant to my project.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, pretty clear introduction esp. for folks outside Alaska/USA - It just describes the length, the fact that it IS a river, and that it is located in South-central Alaska.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, very briefly touches on a detail about an 'impoundment' but does not address either the upper nor lower dams of which make up the 2 sections of the article later on.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, there are quite a bit of briefly mentioned details that are not addressed in sections later on - namely anadromy of the river and it's fluvial-system characteristics.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It's not poorly written, just a lot of information that is not elaborated on or linked well.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content up-to-date? It is fairly up to date on activities and events within the watershed, however has large information gaps within those events.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There is not a lot of information on adjacent land-use or environmental details (particularly surprised there is no mention of Eklutna Village or salmonids).
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No. In fact, as stated above it doesn't mention First Nations history within this watershed and doesn't talk about the Village and the status of subsistence today.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Generally no, but there is a statement in the Lead about the river being "degraded" without any links or details to back that up.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, it's very factual.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, although perhaps that could be misconstrued from the unsupported "degraded" comment.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Not very thorough no.
 * Are the sources current? Not to this year no. The external link doesn't work for the "Eklutna Project."
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? The majority of the sources are other Wiki-pages, which I find hard to interpret the author representation from. I would argue that no it doesn't not source from diverse authors.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Most do because most are to other Wiki-pages, however, the external link doesn't work for the "Eklutna Project."

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No, nothing glaring.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? For what is written, yes it is.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No.
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There are notes about this being part of our Wiki Education Foundation course and some projects that this has been involved in. There don't appear to be any replies any of these.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? WikiProject Alaska, - Rivers, and - Limnology and Oceanography Among these the article is rated "Start" on the quality scale, and "???", "Low", and "Mid" and the importance scales depending on the WikiProject.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? No, the projects are environmentally focus which I think is an important (and missing) component of this topic's article!

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? This article hasn't received a lot of attention and needs a lot more detail added to be better represented.
 * What are the article's strengths? The two sections that are discussed are about the Upper and Lower dams, which are an important part of the modern history of this watershed.
 * How can the article be improved? Adding detail on cultural history/significance, environmental descriptions, current events (and research), and more information about the watershed and land-use.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Underdeveloped.

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: