Electrical Power for Valdez and the Copper River Basin-1981

E---~for-~-~and the Copper River B-~~~-fAI3 . a Po ver Aut ority3:r W. 5th A I •Anchorage, Alaska 99501~~~------------------~J8t8R111 FEASIBILITY REPORT AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT(W]~~.r"'l.nUnited States ArmyCorps of Engineers~ ... Mrvlng dwArmv... SrFlJlng til#' Nat/onAlaska District

SOUTHCENTRAL RAILBELT AREA, ALASKAINTERIM FEASIBILITY REPORTAND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTELECTRICAL POWERFOR VALDEZAND THE COPPER RIVER BASINMARCH 1981

SYLLABUSThe geographic area considered in this study encompasses the coastalcommunity of Valdez and tne interior communities of the Copper RiverBasin (Glennallen being the largest). In past years this area has beenimpacted by various economic "booms" and "busts." The latest boom wasthe construction of the Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline, followed by thepost-pipeline construction slump, the latest DuSt. During these periodsthere have been corresponding increases and decreases in electrical usage.Although the econm~ is currently in a "slump," the outlooK for thefuture is for a large increase in the construction industry as the AlaskaPetrochemical Company (ALPETCO) begins worK on their complex in Valdez.This, in combination with the current expansion of the port facilities,will greatly increase electrical demand. Furthermore, ALPETCOanticipates approximately 720 permanent employees to remain for plantoperation. Additional population increases would be associated with theemployees' families and support facilities such as housing, stores, etc.The proposed plan consists of two elements to meet the future needs ofthe study area. The elements include the installation of a pressurereducing turbine (PRT) in the oil pipeline by 1984 followed by hydropowerdevelopment at Allison LaKe approximately 6 years later.The PRT would produce approximately 7.4 megawatts of power based on anoil flow rate of 1.5 million barrels per day. Tnis project has theadvantage of providing a relatively continuous amount of power year-roundallowing for more flexibility in the utilization of the Solomon Gulch andultimately the Allison Lake hydropower systems. Implementation of thisproject would be the responsibility of the local utility and AlyeskaPipeline Service Company.Tne second part of the plan, a lake tap at Allison Lake, would produceap~rox;mately 32,200 megawatt hours (MWH) of firm annual energy withS,050 MWH of secondary energy from an installed capacity of 8 megawatts.The estimated first cost is $34,301,000. Associated annual operation,lfIaintenance, and replacement costs are estimated at $200,000.

PERTINENT DATAALLISON LAKE HYDROPOWERRESERVOIRWater Surface Elevation, feet mean sea levelr~ax imulllAverager1inimumSurface Area at Maximum Elevation, acresUsable storage, acre-feetHYDROLOGYDra i nage Area, squa're mi 1 esAnnual Runoff, cubic feet per secondAverager1aximumMinimumPOWER AND ENERGYDependable Capacity, kilowattsFirm Annual Energy, megawatt hoursAverage Annual Energy, megawatt hoursFIRST COSTS (October 1980)Federalr'lon-Federa1TotalCOSTS100-year life @ 7-3/8 percent interest rateOperation, Maintenance & ReplacementTotal Annual CostANI~UALANNUAL !3ENEFITSTotal Annual Benefits (Assumes Pressure ReducingTurbine in oil pipeline)Net Annual BenefitsBenefit - Cost Ratio1,3671,3351 ,26725819,9805.74968368,00032,20037,250$30,871 ,0003,430,000$34,301,000$3,034,000200,000$3,234,000$4,985,000$1,751,0001.5 to 1iii

SOUTHCENTRAL RAILBELT AREA. ALASKAINTERIM FEASIBILITY REPORTAND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTTABLE OF CONTENTSItemINTRODUCTIONSTUDY AUTHORITYSCOPE OF THE STUDYSTUDY PARTICIPANTS AND COORDINATIONSTUDIES OF OTHERSTHE STUDY AND REPORTPROBLEM IDENTIFICATIONNATIONAL OBJECTIVESENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND NATURAL RESOURCESECONOMY AND POPULATIONEXISTING SYSTEM AND FUTURE NEEDSCONDITION IF NO FEDERAL ACTION TAKENPROBLEMS. NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIESPLANNING CONSTRAINTSPLANNING OBJECTIVESFORMULATION OF PRELIMINARY PLANSALTERNATIVES WORTHY OF FURTHER CONSIDERATIONASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVESDIESELCONSERVATIONT~ANSMISSIONINTERTIEPRESSURE REDUCING TURBINEALLISON LAKE HYDROCOMPARISON OF DETAILED PLANSSYSTEM OF ACCOUNTSRATIONALE FOR DESIGNATION OF NED PLANRATIONALE FOR DESIGNATION OF EQ PLANRATIONALE FOR SELECTED PLANPUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND COORDINATIONCONCLUSIONSRECOMMENDATIONFINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (YELLOW)Page1112234448181820202022272828293132344045494950505151iv

APPENDIXESA HYDROLOGYB EXISTING SYSTEM AND FUTURE NEEDSC ECONOMIC EVALUATIOND PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND COST ESTIMATEE ENVIRONMENTAL DATAF CULTURAL RESOURCESG FOUNDATIONS AND MATERIALSH FISH AND WILDLIFE COORDINATION ACT REPORTAND CORPS OF ENGINEERS RESPONSEI MARKETABILITY ANALYSISJ PUBLIC VIEWS AND RESPONSESv

INTRODUCTIONDue to continued growth and incre~sing electrical energy costs in theValdez-Glennallen area, the need for development of renewable electricalresources is oecoming imperative. The current dependence on diesel-firedgeneration and its associated cost escalation is taking a larger proportionof personal income each year.Increased demand due to an expanding population associated with theplanned petrochemical plant in Valdez (ALPETCO), the port facilities inValdez, and exploratory oil drilling in the Glennallen area, dictate theneed for expanded energy production. The need to obtain this energy fromeither renewable or less expensive resources is critical to the economicand social well-being of the area. Expansion of diesel-fired generation,which currently accounts for all commercial electricity produced in thestudy area, Inay prove questionable at a time when future availability andprice are doubtful.)TUDY AUTHORITYOn 18 January 1972 the Committee on Puolic Works of the United StatesSenate adopted a resolution requesting a review of the feasibility ofproviding hydropower to the southcentral railbelt area. The resolutionis quoted as follows:That the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Haroors created underthe provisions of Section 3 of the River and Harbor Act approvedJune 13, 1902, be, and is hereoy requested to review the reportsof the Chief of Engineers on: Cook Inlet and Tributaries,Alaska, puolished as House Document Number 34, Eighty-fifthCongress; Copper River and Gulf Coast, Alaska, published as HouseDocument Number 182, Eighty-third Congress; Tanana River Basin,Alaska, pUblished as House Document Number 137, Eighty-fourthCongress; Yukon and Kuskokwim River Basins, Alaska, pUblished asHouse Document Number 218, Eighty-eighth Congress; and other pertinentreports with a view to determining whether any modificationsof the recommendations contained therein are advisable atthe present time, with particular reference to the Susitna Riverhydroelectric power development system, including the DevilCanyon Project and any competitive alternatives thereto, for theprovision of power to the Southcentral Railbelt area of Alaska.This interim feasibility report is in partial response to theabove resolution.SCOPE OFTHE STUDYThis study was originally intended to determine the energy needs, andthe alternatives available to meet those needs for the Valdez area.However, since the completion of the initial evaluation of alternativesin April 1978, which identified Solomon Gulch and Allison Lake as the twoDest alternatives, a number of changes have taken place.

Copper Valley Electric Association (CVEA) has undertaken theconstruction of Solomon Gulch. This 12 megawatt (MW) installation willproduce approximately 55,600 megawatt hours (MWH) of average annualenergy with 38,600 MWH oeing firm. The estimated date for completion isNovemoer 1981. In conjunction with the Solomon Gulch project, CVEA isconstructing a transmission line from Valdez to Glennallen. This willsignificantly increase the early utilization of the Solomon Gulch plantand set the need for additional capacity and energy at an earlier datethan previously assumed.Due to transmission line construction, the scope of the study has beenincreased to include any other potential hydropower sites which are inthe area. With the Valdez-Glennallen intertie, sites which had beenpreviously considered uneconolnical for development have Decome worthy offurther evaluation.STUDY PARTIClPANTS AND COORDINATIONDuring this study contact has been maintained with interested Federal,State, and local entities. PUblic meetings were held in Valdez on26 April 1977, 24 July 1978, and 18 November 1980. The earlier meetingswere primarily designed to gather puolic comments and information to helpguide our study process. The last meeting included a report on the studyfindings, and an opportunity for puolic comment on the study.Sesides input from public meetings, close contact and cooperation wasmaintained throughout the study with Fish and Wildlife Service and theState Department of Fish and Game. The Department of Fish and Game wasinstrumental throughout the study in gathering lake and streamtemperature data. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission wasresponsiole for providing the power values which represent the cost ofthe most likely alternative. The Alaska Power Administration providedload forecasts as well as the marketao"ility analysis for the study.Copper Valley Electric Association assisted with the study by supplyingupdated generation costs and load requirements. R.W. Retherford andAssociates provided information on the pressure reducing turoine. Thecooperation that Alyeska Pipeline Service Company provided, particularlywith field investigations, was essential to the successful completion ofthis study.STUDIES OF OTHERSA number of investigations have been conducted in the study region,particularly in the Valdez area, since it is the farthest north ice-freeport in Alaska. Following is a brief summary of reports done for thestudy area. Much of the information utilized for this report wasootained from these sources.Copper Valley Electric Association conducted a 15-year power coststudy in 1976 and updated it in 1980 for the Valdez-Glennallen area. Thestudy conside~ed diesel generation, oil pipeline turbine generation, andhyuropower development. The study concluded with the construction of theSolonlon Gulch hydroelectric project.2

The city of Valdez conducted environmental, social, and economicstudies of the Valdez area as a part of their proposed port facilityenvironmental assessment. The study was completed in September 1979.Alyeska Pipeline Company conducted many studies in the Valdez­Glennallen area prior to the construction of the oil pipeline and the oilterminal located near the city of Valdez. Their studies included theimpacts on the environment as well as socio-economic impacts from theconstruction, operation, and maintenance of the oil pipeline and relatedport facility.Alaska Petrochemical Company is now studying the effects of theirproposed refining and petrochemical facility to be located near the cityof Valdez. Tne draft environmental impact statement was released forpublic review in December 1979 and the final document was made availablein March 1980.The city of Valdez completed an Inventory Report in June 1979 which isa progress report on work accomplished by the Planning Department towarddevelopment of the City's Coastal Management Program. Tne reportcontains an inventory of natural and cultural resources in the Valdezcoastal area, analyzes potential changes in management, use, andownership of major coastal land and water resources.THE STUDY AND REPORTThis report is organized into a main report and accompanyingappendixes. The main report gives an overview of the study, the findings(including the environmental impact statement), and the recommendations.The appendixes provide oackup and a data source for the findings in themain report.3

PROBLEM IDENTIFICATIONThe followinq section of the report gives an overview of nationalobjectives, a profile of the area's environmental setting and naturalresources~ a summary of the existing electrical system~ and an explanationof the problems and needs of the study area. In addition~planning constraints and objectives for the study are addressed.NATIONAL OBJECTIVESFederal water and related land resource planning is directed towardachieving National Economic Development (NED) and Environmental Quality(EO) as equal national objectives. NED is achieved by increasing thevalue of the nation's output of goods and services and by improvingnational economic efficiency. Tne EO oDjective is achieved by themanagement, conservation, preservation, creation, restoration, orimprovement of the quality of certain natural and cultural resources andecological systems.Tnose resource management needs specific to the stUdy area, that canbe addressed to enhance the national objectives, become the planningoDJectives for the study. These, in turn, serve as the yardstick againstwhich the various alternatives are evaluated.ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND NATURAL RESOURCESThe study area is separated into three distinct regions; the coastalarea south of the Cnugach Mountains, tne Chugach Mountains, and theCopper River Basin.Climate:Inland of the Chugach Mountains is an area characterized by a semiaridclimate with relatively clear skies and extreme temperatures. South ofthe mountains the temperature is moderate, with cool, rainy summers andhigh winter snowfall.Topography:Tne coastal area is a glacially created fjord, composed of a fairlyflat outwash plain with some moraine deposits leading rapidly to steepsided mountains. The remainder of the study area includes parts of theAlaska Range, the Wrangell and Chugach Mountains, and the Copper Riverlowland.Hydrology:Hydrologic ddta is scarce in the Valdez basin. The Lowe River, withits 3l0-square mile drainage basin, is the largest contributor offreshwater to Port Valdez. Moderate to heavy rain, snow, and glacialmelt generally provide a plentiful water supply. Streams at the studyarea are mostly short and steep and in many cases, glacial fed. The4

FIGURE I:HYDROPOWER STUDY AREAFOR VALDEZ ANDCOPPER RIVER BASIN~-- '" ~ r .' ~ '. ',',~,~, -' - CHITINAPORTVAL

average annual runoff is approximately 10 cubic feet per second (cfs) persquare mile in coastal regions, with peak runoff sometimes exceeding 150cfs per square mile. These peaks usually result from rainstorms in thefall. High runoff can also occur with winter rain combined with snowmelt.The principal watershed of the study area is the Copper River systemwith a 24,400-square mile drainage basin. It drains the south slopes ofthe Alaska Range, south and west slopes of the Wrangell Mountains, mostof the Chugach Mountains, the Copper River Basin, and a small section ofthe Talkeetna Mountains.Geology:The Chugach Mountains within the study area are composed mainly of athick section of alternating dark shales and graywackes known as theValdez Group.Outwash planes of the Robe and Lowe Rivers and Valaez Glacier Streamcoalesce to form a delta on the east end of the port. Although boringsin the area have not contacted bedrock, inference from geophysical datawithin Port Valdez indicates that sediment thickness is probably inexcess of 600 feet. For the interior portion, no formation or bed has adistinctive enough character to be recognized over any large area,however, much of the area shows signs of folds and faults with the bedsstanding at steep angles and striking parallel to the axis of the range.Bed dip angles range from 45 to 85 degrees over long distances. Studieshave assigned local rock to the upper cretaceous age.Geophysical Hazards:The study area is one of the most seiSmically active areas in theworld. Although land shaking can be destructive, most past damage hasbeen caused by the accompanying tsunami. Tne sediments within the PortValdez basin are porous gravels which experience ground failure orslumping.Agriculture ana Range:Potential agriculture and range resources of the stUdy area are mainlyalong the Copper and Chitina River Valleys. Narrow coastal strips andstream deltas might be grazed during the summers, with removal of theanimals imperative for the balance of the year due to snow conditions.Forestry:Most of tne timDer in the stUdy area is noncommercial oecause of itsslow growth due to poor site conditions. The lowland spruce-hardwoodecosystem covers 2,484,000 acres and is noncolllmercial tnroughout.The total standing volume in the interior forest is 1.5 billion boardfeet consisting of 1.4 Dillion board feet of spruce and 52.5 million6

oard feet of hardwoods, half of which is birch. The total volume ofcoastal forests is about 19.8 billion board feet, 67 percent of which isSitka spruce and 28 percent Western hemlock.Minerals:Metallic minerals occur in several areas. Lodes in many parts of theCopper River region contain copper, gold, silver, molybdenum, antimony,nickel, iron, lead and zinc, but only gold, copper and by-product silverwere mined commercially.Fisheries:Since mucnof the area is mountainous, the fisheries habitat ischaracterized by many short, steep, coastal streams which are utilized bypink and chum salmon. Cono salmon are also abundant in the study area,however they require somewhat larger streams where the young can survivein the stream for at least 1 year. Sockeye salmon are found primarily indrainages that contain a lake which is necessary to part of their lifecycle. Dolly Varden are present throughout the coastal streams withrainbow and cutthroat trout present to a lesser extent.Important marine fish and shellfish include salmon, herring, halibut,rockfish, black cod, king, tanner and dungeness crab, shrimp, scallops,and razor clams.Birds:The study area is an important migration route for many species ofwaterfowl and other water related birds. The Copper River Delta is oneof the most important waterfowl nesting areas in Alaska. Along with itsunique nesting population, the delta is probably most important as astaging and feeding area for migratory waterfowl bound to and from thearctic and subarctic nesting areas to the north. The entire coastal areais habitat for seabirds of various species. At least 48 major seabiracolonies have been identified in the study area, and undoubtedly manymore exist. Resident game birds of forest, treeless, and other habitatsare spruce, ruffed and sharp-tailed grouse; willow, rock and white-tailedptarmigan.Wildlife:The three geographical regions of the study area, coastal, mountain,and interior dictate the wildlife distribution and abundance. Severalwildlife species may be found in more than one area, however, they aregenerally more numerous within a specific area.Sea otters, fur seals, northern sea lions, harbor seals, harborporpoise, Dall's porpoise, killer and hump-backed whales are eitherresidents or regular visitors to the coastal waters of the stUdy area.Terrestrial animals associated with the coastal region in~lude the Sitkablack-tailed deer, which are primarily confined to tne is1ands of PrinceWilliam Sound (although some occur on the mainland near Cordova), and theblaCk bear.7

The mountainous region of the study area contains some of the mostimportant Dall sheep range in tne State. Mountain goats are alsoabundant in the mountains of Prince William Sound, but are present in lownumoers in the Wrangell Mountains and the interior portion of the ChugachRange.Tne interior portion of tne study area supports several species oflarge mammals. Moose are relatively abundant throughout the interiorregion and concentrate in the river basins during the winter months.Brown/grizzly bears are present in the area and become most visible aboutstreambanks during the salmon runs. Other large mammals include theBarren ground caribou which utilize the interior portion of the studyarea as a winter range. Two distinct bison herds, the Cnitina and CopperRiver herds, have been established and appear to be sustaining healthypopulations.Wolves, wolverines, lynx, red fox, land otter, mink, marten,short-tailed weasel, beaver, muskrat, and snowshoe hare are presentthroughout the study area to varying degrees.ECONOMY AND POPULATIONTne physical differences between tne coastal portion of tne study area(Valdez) and interior portion (Glennallen-Copper Center) are stronglyreflected in tneir nistory, economy, and population.Valdez:Valdez ;s tne largest population center in the region. Tne city is ;na setting of natural beauty situated in mountainous terrain at the headof Port Valdez. It is the farthest north ice-free seaport ;n Alaska andserves as the southern terminus of both the Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline andthe Ricnardson Highway.Hi story:Valdez was estaulished in 1890 as a debarkation point for men seekinga route to Interior Alaska and the Klondike gold fields. A post officewas established in the community in 1899, and Va1aez soon became a supplycenter for gold and copper mining in the immediate area. Until theAlaska Railroad was completed in 1923, Valdez was the only all-seasonport of entry to the interior. In the winter months freight andpassengers were hauled weekly to Fairoanks in horse-drawn sleds over the"Valdez Trai1." Construction of the Alaska Railroad from Seward toFairuanks and emergence of Anchorage as the largest city in Alaska,combined to eliminate the vital role of Valdez as a port of entry to theinterior.Old Valdez was destroyed by tne 1964 Alaska Earthquake and theresultant seismic wave. The new relocated townsite near Mineral Creekhas been growing rapidly, especially witn the Trans-Alaska PipelineTerminal located in Port Valdez. The construction of the Trans-AlaskaPipeline has had notable permanent effects on tne populations anaeconomies of Valdez and the Copper Valley basin.8

VALDEZ

Transportation:Although served by air, road, and sea, Valdez is relatively isolatedfrom other population centers in southcentra1 Alaska. Anchorage islocated 115 miles to the west, but physical barriers increase thedistance by highway to 306 miles.The airport layout comprises a single 5,000-foot runway in aneast-west orientation. Valdez is currently served by two air carriers ona regular basis. The principal carrier is Valdez Airlines. The vastmajority of air passenger traffic originates in or is destined forAnchorage. Valdez is one of eight cities served oy the SouthwesternMarine Highway System. This system provides ferry service to Whittier,Valdez, Cordova, and Seward, within the Prince William Sound area.Passenger traffic totaled approximately 44,000 riders in 1976. TheValdez to Whittier route, which passes the scenic Columbia Glacier,accounts for nearly 20 percent of this total traffic. Thus the ferrysystem nourishes a sfllall but growing tourist industry in Valdez.Solomon Gulch Hydroelectric Project:Tne ongoing construction of the Solomon Gulch hydroelectric project oythe Copper Valley Electric Association (CVEA), is due to be completed inlate 1981. Tnis 12 MW plant (including transmission line) is expected tocost in excess of $61,000,000 upon completion. The project has helped todecrease unemployment resulting from the post-pipeline wind-down.Approximately 35 percent of the project's total cost has gone to labor,generating aoout 100 full-time jobs over the construction period. Inaddition, two permanent positions will be created.£:.~~h i ~l~ :The Valdez fishing fleet is haroored in a 10-acre boat harborconstructed by the Corps of Engineers in 1965. The fleet consists of 25vessels averaging 40 feet in length. Primary target species includesalmon, herring, shrimp, and crab. In recent years the Valdez fishingindustry has provided an average of 77 seasonal joos to the community.Until recently the town had no processing capacity of its own.Historically, fishermen SOld their catch to canneries in Cordova andSeward. This practice changed in February of 1979 when Farm and Sea ofAlaska established a processing plant at Valdez. Tne facility handlesfish as well as shrimp and crab. All products are frozen rather thancanned. Statistics concerning capacity or annual output are not readilyavailable. However, it is known that the plant cannot process the localcatch single-handedly and sales to Seward and Cordova continue. Farm andSea of Alaska employed about 100 people in Valdez during the peak of the1979 salmon season.Port of Valdez:By Alaskan stanaards, Valdez continues to be a significant port (evenexclusive of pipeline activity). The volume of waterborne commerce, bothpreceding and following the pipeline boom, is depicted in tne followingtable. Petroleum based products are shown separately for clarification.10

ALYESKA PIPELINE TERMINAL

Tao1e 1Port of Valdez Waterborne Commerce (Tons)*Year Petroleum Based Oth~r Freight Total1972 247,801 5,704 253,5051973 293,885 7,191 301,0761974 273,516 84,451 356,9671975 412,420 242,094 654,5141976 403,029 104,643 507,6721977 10,653,755 13,217 10,666,972* Waterborne Commerce of the U.S.As can be seen, petroleum based products represent the bulk of porttraffic. This is a pattern dating back to the early 1960's. Furtherexamination reveals that this is primarily the result of the region'selectricity demand which is met by diesel-fired generation. Postpipelinedata indicates that the level of nonpetro1eum related commercehas been permanently increased. This finding cannot be positivelyverified for the lack of more recent data. However, populationstatistics offer strong supporting evidence.Citizens of Valdez have long expressed interest in reviving the city'srole as a major deep water port. To some extent this goal will berealized given the export of seafood products by Farnl and Sea of Alaskaand refined petroleum from the soon to be installed ALPETCO plant.(ALPETCO's capacity will oe far in excess of local needs.) In anticipationof these and other events, Valdez voters approved in April 1979,by a margin of almost 5 to 1, the sale of $48 million in generalooligation bonds to improve the Port of Valdez. The groundbreakingceremonies for this undertaking were held on 16 August 1980. Portexpansion will generate an average of 33 jobs over a period of 2 years.In addition, 20 permanent positions will oe created.ALPETCO:On 9 September 1980, groundbreaking ceremonies were held in Valdez forthe Alaska Petrochemical Company (ALPETCO) refinery. Originally thisrefinery was to have a daily capacity of 150,000 barrels and includepetrochemical as well as refining capaoi1ity. Under this plan, the plantwould have employed a construction work force averaging 1,127 persons permonth for 42 months and direct permanent employment for 1,180 persons.The plant currently under construction has been revised downward somewhatand is planned strictly as a 100,000 barrel per day refinery. Theconstruction work force is expected to average 940 persons per month for42 months. Permanent employees are expected to number 720 with anincremental population growth of 1,290. That figure does not include theadditional population growth associated with support facilities for thiswork force. This undertaking is by far the largest economic event tooccur since the pipeline. The total cost is expected to exceed $1.25billion. Labor costs for the construction work force alone will totalapproximately $220,000,000. The payroll for the operations personnelwill approach $11,600,000 per year.12

Other Activities:Nonseasonal stable sources of employment in Valdez include, but arenot 1 imited to:1. A State Highways District Headquarters employs approximately 160people.2. Harborview De~elopment Center, which cares for the State'smentally retarded, employs about 130 people.3. Alyeska Marine Terminal employs an estimated 280 full-timeemployees.4. Tne new U.S. Coast Guard Station located in Valdez is manned byapproximately 25 personnel.smploxment_Overview:Table 2 shows employment in Valdez by industry for the years 1968 and1978. It should be noted that the increased employment from the ALPETCOproject alone (not considering support facilities) will nearly double thetotal employment figure for 1978. A declining relative role forgovernment is also apparent.13

Table 2Employment EstimatesCity of Valdez 1968 and 19781968 1978 1978 (Part-time)Industry Number Percent Number Percent NumberMining 0 0 0Construction 15 4.7 209 15.8 15Manufacturing 10 3. 1 0 0Transportation* 35 2 715 4.7 283 21.4 17Communication &Utilities 35 2.7 8I\Iholesale Trade 8 2.5 6 .5 2Reta il Trade 23 7.2 218 16.5 77Finance, Insurance,Real Estate 3 .9 28 2. 1 6Services 26 8. 1 102 7.7 69Government 220 68.8 404 30.6 34TOTAL 320 100.0 1,320 100.0 228*Transportation, communications and ut il it ies combined in 1968 data.1968 data source: Alaska Department of Economic Development (nowCommerce and Economic Development), Standard Industrial Survey of Valdez,1969.1978 data source: City of Valdez, Overall Economic Dev~lopm~nt Plan,June 1978.Population:- --- -----Tne population and employment mix of Valdez has grown in accordancewith these developments. Table 3 indicates the population of Valdez atthe close of each decade since 1900 with selected years for the early tolate 1970's. The influence of pipeline construction over the last decadeis quite apparent. From a town of just over 1,000 people in 1970, Valdezgrew to a peak of some 8,000 inhabitants in 1976. By 1978 constructionactivity had receded and the population stabilized at 4,481 as certifiedby the Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs. There isSOllie evidence (oased on school enrollment, occupied dwellings, etc.) thatthe population has declined somewhat since. In keeping with other recentstudies concerning Valdez, a 1979 base population of 3,500 has beenadopted for this document.14

Table 3Historical Population of Valdez1900 3511920 4661930 4421940 529 ( 1 )1950 5541960 5551970 1,0081972 1,1061973 1,7601974 2,2711975 6,670 (2 )1976 8,2531977 7,4831978 4,4811979 3,500-------(1) Source - U.S. Census(2) Source - City of Valdez and U.S. Census aata utilizea for RevenueSharing.The Copper River Basin:Approximately 110 miles from Valdez, near the intersection of theGlenn and Richardson Highways, lies Glennallen, the next largestpopulation center in this region of the study area. Numerous villagesdot the highway leading from Valdez to Glennallen and radiating to thenorth and west of Glennallen. The largest of these conrnunities is CopperCenter. Copper Center is located south of Glennallen on Mile 103 of theRichardson Highway. Other villages include (but are not limited to)Coppervi11e. Gu1kana. Gakona. Chistochina. Paxson. Taz1ina. To1sona.Ne1china, Eureka. Tonsina, Ernestine, Kenny Lake, Old Edgerton Cutoff,and Chitina. Like Copper Center, these settlements are unincorporatedvillages within an unorganized borough.History:Historically. Copper Center and Chitina are the more significantsettlements of Copper River region. Unlike Valdez, Native Alaskans havebeen known to occupy tne area for at least 5,000 years. Rich copperdeposits were discovered at the turn of the century along the northernflanKs of the Chitina River Valley, bringing an onrush of prospectors andsettlers to the region. The Copper River and Northwestern Railroad wasbuilt in 1908 to accommodate the growing traffic of are, supplies, and15

passengers. But Chitina·s prominence was short-lived. By 1939 theprincipal mines ana the railroad were closed, and virtually all sourcesof support moved to Copper Center and emerging Glennallen.The present settlement of Copper Center developed from a trading postestablished in 1896. Hundreds of gold rushers passed through the area in1898--1899 on their way to the Klonaike fields; many stayed on to prospectin the Copper River Basin. A telegraph station was set up in CopperCenter by tne U.S. Army in 1901.More recent activities in tne basin include construction of the Glennand Richardson Highways, and the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. Highwayconstruction intne late 1930·s and early 1940·s made the region moreaccessible to other more populated parts of the State. Settlement anaexpansion since then has paralleled the road. Tne Trans-Alaska Pipelinehad massive but predominately temporary impacts in the Copper RiverBasin. However, like Valdez this project tended to leave the area on ahigher plateau of population and economic activity.Iransportatio.!!:Glennallen: By most standards Glennallen is a very remote ruralcommunity, linked to other communities only by air and road. LikeValdez,Glennallen is not endowed with a rail connection. Althoughphysically more distant, Glennallen is only 187 highway miles fromAncnorage, considerably closer than Valdez.Otiler communities: In most cases the highway and small bush airstripsare tne only link to the outside for minor communities.Highway and Pipeline Maintenance:Tne malntenance of tne Glenn and Richardson Highways is a basicactivity in the region. In addition to the work force originating fromtne State Highway District Headquarters in Valdez, 65 persons areemployed in highway maintenance within the area. This is also a majorsource of employment for tne area's youtn as activity peaks in the summer.Pipeline maintenance is one of the few permanent occupations left intne aftermath of the construction boom. Forty people are engaged in themaintenance duties associated with mainline Refrigeration Sites 1, 2, and7, Pump Station 11, and several remote gate valve locations.Government Services:The Copper River Bdsin has a variety of government services whichcorrespond to the needs and population of the region. Government andmunicipal occupations inclUde fire fighting, law enforcement, educationand other social services, and natural resource management. There isalso a Federal Aviation Aaministration facility located at GulkanaAirport.16

Transportation and Tourism:Detailed information concerning tne work force of the Copper Valley isnot obtainable. But it is known that the non-Native population isengaged primarily in transportation and tourism. Tne scenic beauty ofthe area coupled witn hunting, fishing, and boating opportunities makethis region a favorite for recreation. These activities generate jobs ingas stations, stores, bars, lodges, local trucking firms, wholesale oildistribution, and finance. Should the city of Valdez develop asanticipated, the demand for these services will undoubtedly be enhanced.This is particularly true in the case of transportation.Minjng ~~d_ResourceExtraction:As mentioned, the study area is highly mineralized and hashistorically been the center of extensive mining activity. Currentlythere are no significant local mining operations. Early in 1980 reportsby State geoloqists sparked interest in the region about 60 miles west ofGlennallen. These findings triggered a flurry of gold mining claims.Although that region has yet to yield any significant finds, this episodeis highly illustrative. The Copper River Basin is always a primarycandidate for mineral extraction and interest in the basin rises andrecedes witn the price of gold, silver, and copper.The Glennallen vicinity has recently been subject to oil and gasexp I or at ion. The AI'~OCO Company in conj unct i on witn AHTNA Inc. has beenconducting test drills since 1979. As yet, no commercial quantities ofoil or gas have been aiscovered. A commercial strike would beparticularly advantageous given Glennallen's proximity to theTrans-Alaska Pipeline.Native Corporations:The Native population participates less extensively in the area's casheconomy but does enjoy employment opportunities created by three Nativecorporations. Tnese are AHTNA Inc., tne Copper River Native Association,and the Copper Valley-Tanana Development Corporation. Many villagers(including non-Natives) still rely on hunting, trapping, and fishing tosupplement their cash incomes.Population:The hignly volatile nature of economic development in this area isreflected by its population. Unfortunately, population data for therlurllerous unincorporated villages of the area is limited. Satisfactorydata is expected to be available in the 1980 census. However, Table 4depicts the populations of Glennallen, Copper Center, and the total forthe service region for which information is available. Copper ValleyElectric Association, the area's electrical utility, estimates apopulation of 2,500 within the Glennallen service area (March 1979).17

Table 4Historical Population ofGlennallen, Copper Center, and the Glennallen Service RegionYear Glennallen Copper Center Glennallen Service Region1950 142 901960 169 1511970 363 206 2,090 4/1971 1,8751972 2,3581973 1,8081974 260 3/ 1,5621975 1,070 433 2,9691976 5,5171977 433 2,4221978 2,384197~ 363 2/ 143 2,5001/ Population figures for Glennallen and Copper Center for the years 1950,T960, 1970, and 1975 are taKen from the Solomon Gulch Final EIS March 1978.2/ Population data for Glennallen and Copper Center for the year 1979 isYaken from an October 1979 issue of the Tundra Times Energy Special.3/ Copper Center data for the years 1974 and 1977 are from Copper CentertOlTlrTlunity Profile, July 1977, prepared by the University of AlasKa ArcticEnvironmental Information and Data Center.4/ Population Datd for the Glennallen Service Region derived from UpperSusitna River Project Power Market Analyses, March 1979, Alaska PowerAdministration.EXISTING SYSTEM AND FUTURE NEEDSCopper Valley Electric Association (CVEA) is the sole electric utility inthe study area. Currently CVEA relies entirely on diesel-fired generators toserve the stuay area Dependence on diesel generation will De noticeablyreduced upon completion of the Solomon Gulch hydroelectric project. ThisproJect also includes a transmission line intertie between Valdez andGlennallen which will allow the utility to operate more efficiently under asingle system. Tne area's nistorical, current, and projected power demand ispresented in detail in Appendix B of this document.CONDITION IF NOFEDERAL ACTION TAKENWithout Federal action, diesel generation will be required to meet systemdemands above the output of Solomon Gulch. Even if the proposed pressurereducing turbine (PRT) is installed, CVEA will be forced to return to dieselgeneration in the late 1980's. A more detailed explanation of the PRT isincluded under the section "Assessment and Evaluation of Alternative PlanElements."18

The following tables show the future use of diesel generation which wouldoccur if no Federal action is taken. Both tables reflect the addition of theSolomon Gulch hydroelectric project in 1981. Table 5 assumes additionalgeneration would come from diesel, Table 6 assumes tne PRT would beconstructed.Table 5Projected Energy Generation of CVEA Without PRTTotal Load Hydro DieselYear (gwh) (gwh) (gwh)1980 47.9 0 47.91985 77.5 38.6 38.91990 97.6 38.6 59.01995 123.0 38.6 84.42000 146.0 38.6 107.4Table 6Projected Energy Generation of CVEA With PRTTotal Load Hydro PRT DieselYear (gwh) (gwh) (gwl1) (gwh)1980 47.9 0 0 47.91985 77.5 38.6 38.9 01990 97.6 38.6 52.0 7.61995 123.0 38.6 * 52.0 32.42000 146.0 38.6 ** 52.0 55.4*This figure represents 80 percent of the total energy possible based ona flow of 1.5 million uarrels per day (the current flow is 1.5 MBD withno plans for increase to the 2 MBD capacity).**Based on known oil reserves, the useful life of the project may endbefore the year 2000; however, additional discoveries may be made,extending the life of the pipeline.The preceding tables correspond to Figures 2 and 3 on the section"Comparison of Detailed Plans."For purposes of simplification and more direct comparability to thehydropower alternatives, additional diesel generation, as evaluated bythe Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, is assumed. This alternativeis the economic standard against which each of the hydropower plans aretested. Tnat is, the power benefits of a given hydropower systemrepresent the cost of producing the same amount of power by constructingand operating a conventional state-of-the-art diesel generation system.The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission determined that the appropriate19

diesel plant at Valdez-Copper Valley consists of a 2,625 kW unit with aheat rate of 9,370 BTU/kWh. The capital cost is estimated at $710 per kWwith a service life of 35 years.PROBLEMS, NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIESGiven existing and planned generation, this community will be forcedto continue its reliance on diesel generation if the load requirementsgrow as anticipated. To rely on diesel fuel is to expose the communityto the likelihood of extremely high cost power. Further, reliance ondiesel power is contrary to present State and National energy policy.The Valdez area has the unique potential to utilize oil flow from thepipeline in addition to nearDy hydropower potential. Tne opportunity ofdeveloping these resources should De pursued.PLANNING CONSTRAINTSSelection of the Dest plan from among the range of alternativesinvolves evaluation of their comparative performance in meeting the studyoDJectives as measured against a set of evaluation criteria. Thesecriteria derive from law, regulations, and policies governing waterresource planning and development.Tecnnical criteria require that power generation development, from anysource or sources, be of appropriate scale to satisfy the projectedenergy needs, and tnat tne plan be technically feasible.Economic criteria specify that the power must be marketable. PlanDenefits should exceed the costs to the maximum extent possible, and eachseparable plan feature must provide benefits at least equal to its cost.The benefits arid costs are expressed in comparable quantitative terms tothe fullest extent possible. Annual costs and benefits are based on a100-year period of analysis, an interest rate of 7-3/8 percent, andOctober 1980 price levels. Power benefits are based on providingequivalent output by means of the least costly, most likely alternative,in this case diesel-electric generating plants.Environmental criteria require the identification of impacts to thenatural and human environment. Adverse environmental effects should beminimized and measures taken to protect or enhance existing environmentalvalues.Otner criteria specify that plans be formulated with consideration forsocial well-being and regional development. Consideration was given tothe pOSSiDility of enhancing or creating recreational values, to theeffects on personal income, employment, and population, to the effects oncultural and archeological resources, and to the conservation ofnonrenewable resources.PLANNING OBJECTIVESThe stUdy oDJectives are derived from the problems and needs that arespecific to the study area and can be reasonably addressed within the20

framework of the study authority and purpose.selected for tnis study are:The planning objectivesTo meet tne intermediate and long term electrical energy needs of tneValdez-Glennallen area.To preserve, conserve, or ennance fish and wildlife in tne study area.To reduce, to the greatest extent possible, the study area's and thendtion's depenaence upon petroleum products as a source of energy,particularly for producing electricity.21

FORMULATION OF PRELIMINARY PLANSA number of possible solutions exist which could aid in theavailability of power and energy in the future for the study area.Outlined below are the various alternatives considered, with a briefstatement about each.No Growth:"No growtn" is an alternative future scenario, not a "plan" per se.It appears here to indicate one possible outcome in the absence ofadd it i ona 1 power deve 1 opment. Tne opt i on of a no growth economy in tneValdez-Glennallen area is no longer a realistic prospect. The pastconstruction of the Trans-AlasKa Oil Pipeline and tanKer terminal, theongoing construction of the Solomon Gulch hydroelectric project andtransmission line to Glennallen, oil exploration in the Copper RiverBasin, ongoing expansion of the port facilities at Valdez, and theproposed Alaska Petrochemical Company plant speaK for themselves as tothe validity of a no growth option.Conservation:Conservation is beginning to play an important role in future energyneeds for the study area. New commercial and residential structures areincorporating better insulation and energy saving systems into theirconstruction. The Alaska Power Administration has taKen into accountconservation measures and increasingly efficient use of energy in itsload projections. However, conservation of electricity beyond thatanticipated by APA would require massive efforts. Until a standardizedapproach is taken to either strongly encourage or require energyconservation, an accurate assessment of its impact will be difficult toascertain. A more detailed discussion of conservation appears as thenonstructural alternative in the following section.Coa 1:Although coal is the most abundant fossil fuel in the nation, no knownsizable coal resources are in the Valdez area. The Matanuska coal fieldon the Glenn Highway is the closest known site. It was in operation anumber of years ago for a relatively short period. In general the coalbeas were too tnin and impure to be economically mined. Additionalfields include the Healy field on the Parks Highway which is currently inoperation and the Beluga field northwest of CooK Inlet which is notdeveloped. The primary obstacle to be overcome is the cost oftransportation to tne Valdez-Glennallen area. In addition to this, theproblems with meeting air quality standards, and the associatedenvironmental impacts of strip mining dO not make this an attractivealternative for the study area.22

Nucl ear:Nuclear energy development is not seen as a likely alternative for thestudy area. The relatively large size of a nuclear powerplant, theprooaoility of a major earthquake in the area, the growing nationalsentiment against them, and the existence of other viable alternativeshas precluded this alternative from further investigation.Natural Gas:Natural gas is not considered a viable alternative for the studyarea. Although it has oeen used in the Anchorage area, Valdez andGlennallen lacK the necessary transportation facilities makingfeasibility dOUbtful. Furthermore, national priorities may preclude itsuse for electrical energy production on a nationwide level in the nearfuture.Oil :The study area currently relies entirely on diesel-fired electricalgeneration. The completion of the Solomon Gulch hydroelectric projectwill be the first opportunity to break away from the grip of escalatingfuel costs. In Valdez and Glennallen respectively, the cost of dieselhas increased from 41.3¢ and 44.4¢ per gallon in January 1979 to 79.2¢and 84.3¢ per gallon in April 1980. As of Feoruary 1981 these costsstood at $1.00 for Valdez and $1.02 for Glennallen. Even with thesefactors in mind, diesel generation is still seen as the short rangesolution. However, with adequate planning, it will be possible togreatly limit the use of diesel fuel. This will be of great benefit tothe study area as well as fulfilling the State and Federal policies forutilization of renewable resources.Geothermal:Geothermal resources could eventually provide significant powergeneration in Alaska. The southcentral railbelt area has sUbstantialgeothermal potential primarily in the Wrangell Mountains; however thisarea has been included in the new Wrangell-St. Elias National Park. Dueto this change in land status further stUdy of this alternative is notdeemed justified for this report.Solar:The radiant heat of the sun is another renewable source of energy thathas potential for generating power. Use of solar energy to produceelectrical power on a large scale is not presently feasible due to thelack of technology to generate and store large amounts of electricityproduced by the sun's radiation. The most successful methods forcapturing the sun's rays have been through active and passive solar.heating. However, feasioility for heating may be limited in the Valdez23

area due to a high incidence of cloud cover. The Glennallen area mayhold more promise, out it will also De limited due to reduced sunlight inthe winter. Therefore, additional study of this alternative has not beenundertaken.Wind:Research and development proposals for wind generators should improvefuture capaoilities of wind-powered electrical generating systems. Withincreased diesel fuel costs, wind-generated electrical power is a possiolea lternat i ve power source for remote areas of the State with sma 11loads. However, wind is not currently felt to De a viable alternativefor the study area. Wind is very difficult to adapt to present energydemands because it is unpredictable and erratic. To effectively utilizewind energy, winds must De of sufficient speed and long duration. Asfurther developments are made in wind power, it may prove feasiole tofeed electricity into a grid system displacing other expensive forms ofenergy; however, standoy capacity would still be required for calmperiods.Tidal:The Port of Valdez might be developed for tidal energy. The meanlower low water elevation is 0.00 feet and the mean higher high water is12.00 feet, which would provide a total gross head of 12 feet. However,such an installation would require a low dam spanning the width of theValdez Narrows (a massive cost item in itself) as well as a deep draftlock system to allow supertankers into the Port of Valdez. The dam wouldchange the entire flow regime of the Port of Valdez with a significantpotential for extensive adverse effects on major ecosystems. Furtherstudy of this alternative is not deemed justified for this report.Wood:Wood fuel, as an energy source for the load center, is limited bylocal availaoility, transportation costs, and environmental considerations.The region surrounding both Glennallen and Valdez is forested;however, in terms of ooard feet and sustained yield this resource isnoncommercial. Furthermore, the legal status of much of this land iseither unresolved or prohioited to logging. Realistically, the forestreserves of southeast Alaska would have to be utilized if wood were tomake a significant contribution to the region's power load. But likecoal, the primary oostacle ;s the cost of transportation to theValdez-Glennallen area. Other prohioitive factors include strongcompetition to maintain this resource in higher uses such as lumber,pulp, paper, and environmental concerns associated with the large scaleharvesting, and incineration of timoer. At best, it is concluded thatwood can make a modest energy contrioution to the community, most likelythrough increasing private suostitution of wood heat for oil heat. Suchfactors are considered in the discussion on conservation and the AlaskaPower Administration's marketaoility analysis.24

lntertie:With the deciSlon by the Copper Valley Electric Association toconstruct the transmission line between Glennallen and Valdez, theopportunity exists to intertie this area with Anchorage-Fairbanks areavia the Glenn Highway. This POSsibility was considered under the AlaskaPower Administration's (APA) 1978 Upper Susitna Project Power MarketAnalysis. Based on the load growth assumptions and costs at that time,transmission costs were estimated at 3.3 cents/kWn. However,reevaluation based on 1980 price levels and revised load forcasts showtnat tne cost per kWn nas significantly increased. A more detaileddiscussion of this alternative appears in the following section.So 1 i d Wa s t e :Power generation from solid waste has severely limited prospects inthe study area. Typically, successful solid waste operations are locatedin regions of hign population density where economies of scale pennit theefficient gathering, transport, and incineration of solid waste. Inaddition, sucn operations playa dual role by relieving populationcenters of solid waste, a less acute consideration for smallercommunities. The Valdez-Glennallen region does not produce a sufficientvolume of solid waste to enable practicable power generation. This iseviaenced oy similar findings in a recent study made for the Municipalityof Anchorage. Although the burning of solid waste on an individual basismay have some substitution potential for heating, it is not expected tobe a significant factor during the forecast period.Oil Pipeline Turbine:- - - --A pressure reducing turbine (PRT) has been proposed for installationin the Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline. This turbine would produce electricityby taking advantage of tne nead drop as the pipeline descendS TnompsonPass. This project, as originally conceived, would have an installedcdpacity of 9 MW Dased on the pipeline design flow of 2 million barrelsper day and would produce approximately 63,000 MWH of energy per year.However, tne pipeline is currently pumping at about 1.5 MBD and tnere areno plans to increase this in tne future. Based on this output the PRTWOUld produce approximately 7.4 MW of power and 52,000 MWH per year ofenergy. These figures are based on a plant factor of 0.8.Hydroelectric Power:A large number of potential hydroelectric sites are available in thestudy area; however, most have been eliminated due to size, location, orenvironmental proulems.The Stage II report, completed in April 1978, considered sites in theValdez area only. Sites considered included Gold Creek, Sheep Creek,Wortmann Creek, Silver Lake, Solomon Gulch, Allison Lake, Unnamed Creek,Mineral Creek, and Lowe River. Of these only Solomon Gulch and AllisonCreek demonstrated tentative feasibility.25

With the construction of Solomon Gulch by Copper Valley ElectricAssociation, only Allison CreeK was left as a viable alternative forfuture nydropower generation. However, since the decision was made toconstruct the transmission line to Glennallen, the POSsibility existedthat otner sites near tne transmission line corridor could be availableto serve the increased needs of the expanded service area.Although a number of sites are available, all sites east of the CopperRiver have been eliminated from further consideration. With theestablishment of the Wrangell-St. Elias National Park, development of ahydroelectric project would be incompatible with its current status.Some of the drainages affected include Tebay Lakes, Bremmer River,Kotsina River, Chitina River, Kennicott River, and Nizina River.Other potential sites within the study area that were evaluated areTsina River, Tiekel River, Tonsina River, and K1utina River. Of these,Tsina River and the Tieke1 River sites would provide less than 2,000 MWHand 10,000 MWH of firm annual energy respectively. Both sites wouldrequire lOa-foot dams. Based on a 50 percent plant factor, the installedcapacity for Tsina River Would be only 425 kW. Installed capacity forthe Tieke1 River would be about 2,200 kW. Neither of these projectswould provide significant energy or capacity to contribute to thecombined loads of Valdez and Glennallen. Due to their small size and thegreat expense of tne required dam to achieve such a limited amount offirm energy, these projects have been dropped from further consideration.A 35-foot dam on the Tonsina River could provide almost 2,500 kW ofcapacity (50 percent P.F.) and 10,700 MWH of firm annual energy.However, to realize this potential a penstock nearly 6 miles in lengthwould be required. The environmental impact of diverting the riverthrough the penstock and effectively drying up the stream during much ofthe year would be totally unacceptable from an environmental standpoint.The Tonsina drainage is a productive salmon stream and no1ds significantnumbers of sockeye, chinook, and coho. Due to the environmental concernsalld the relatively small amount of energy available this alternative hasbeen eliminated from further consideration at this time.A project on the Klutina River could produce an estimated 75,000 MWHof firm annual energy with an installed capacity of almost 17 MW. Thisproject would require approximately 6,700 feet of 16-foot diameterpenstock to develop 90 feet of head available from a 50-foot dam. Aswitn the Tonsina site, this development would adversely affect tneproductive lake and river system which supports excellent runs ofSockeye, chinook, and coho salmon. Tne lake is of major importance tosockeye runs which utilize lake residence for a portion of their lifecycle. Estirnates from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game indicatedthat in excess of 73,000 salmon utilize the river above the potentialdams ite on good years. All of these are either chinook or sockeye whichprovide the highest price per pound to the fishermen of the PrinceWi 11 ialll Sound area.26

If the powerhouse were moved to just below the dam, a firm energyoutput of 32,200 MWH would be realized with an installed capacity of7,340 MW. However, even if this were the recommended development,significant impacts on the salmon runs could still be expected. Inaddition, the dam would inundate critical moose habitat presentlyutilized during winter months. Other major impacts would likely takeplace on the black and brown Dear populations that utilize this areathroughout the spring, summer, and fall.ALTERNATIVES WORTHY OF FURTHER CONSIDERATIONThe alternatives which were seen as the only viaDle solutions to helpmeet demands for future electrical power generation in the study areainclucea diesel-fired generation, conservation, transmission intertie,oil pipeline pressure reducing turbine, and Allison Lake Hydro. Adetailed assessment and evaluation for these alternatives is included inthe following portion of the report.27

ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVESTne purpose of this section is to evaluate the various alternat',vesthat could be utilized to meet the needs of the study area. Althougheacn of tnese alternatives is discussed separately, it appears that thebest overall plan may combine one or more of the alternatives. Thesection "Comparison of Detailed Plans" discusses the possiblecombinations of alternatives on a comparable basis.DIESELDe s c rip t ion:Tnis alternative is effectively the without condition, the probablefuture if no Federal, State, or local action were taken to provideelectrical energy through alternative means. There is currently enoughinstalled capacity at Glennallen and Valdez, when combined with the soonto be finished Solomon Gulch hydroelectric, to meet the needs of theintertied system until the mid-1990's.Based upon the diesel scenario, between 1981 and 2000 CVEA will Deburning an estimated 70 to 75 million gallons; this is based uponexpecteo population and industrial increases associated with ALPETCO andthe expanded port facilities.Impact Assesslllent:From an environmental stanapoint the impacts of continued use ofdiesel for electrical generation are primarily associated with noise andair pollution. However, in comparison to other alternatives, such as thetransmission intertie, and hydropower, these are seen as relativelyminor. Social impacts associated with continuing energy cost escalationare already affecting business, industry, and the average household.Continued reliance on diesel generation will force the local economy todivert a growing proportion of its resources to electricity generation.Evaluation:Power costs associated with this alternative would be directly tied tothe escalating cost of diesel fuel. As shown in Table 1, Appendix B, thecost of fuel increased 136 percent between 1974 and 1979, with the costof energy increasing 170 percent over the same time period. Increasesduring 1980 enforce the probability that this trend will continue forsome time.Besides this economic deterrent, the fact that petroleum is a nonrenewableresource of limited quantities dictates that it should beutilized for higher priority uses SUCh as transportation. To continue touse diesel fuel for energy production when other alternatives are availaDleis unwise from an economic stanapoint not to mention that it iscontrary to State and National policies.28

CONSERVATION:Description:THE NONSTRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVEVarious measures exist which could aid in the implementation of energyconservation. Many of the steps discussed here are already in effect intne stuay area and other parts of the nation. Local measures includeenergy auditing services, a public awareness program, the utilization ofwaste heat from diesel-fired generation, and the preheating of dieselfuel in winter for more efficient combustion. State and nationwideefforts involve increased tax incentives and deductions for money spenton conservation measures and direct grants or low interest loans forconservation. The newly estao1ished energy auditing service conducted bythe State Division of Energy and Power Development has provisions forgrants up to $300 and low interest loans up to $5,000 for energyconservation purposes.Tnese programs are providing important incentives for energyconservation. Their effect on individual energy consumption could besigrlificant in the years to come. However, the most important gains willbe in the reduction of fossil fuels for heating, not for electricalgeneration. As it now stands space heating in the service area isprovided almost entirely by heating oil with wood heat running a distantsecona. There are virtually no structures in the region which utilizeelectric space heating (the Totem Inn of Valdez being a notableexception). The present generation and distribution system likewiseaffords little opportunity for added efficiency. The operating measurestaken for diesel generation have already been described. Also, it isassumed that the retirement of older diesel units will gradually improvethe efficiency of the system. Glennallen's distribution is handled by1/0 ACSR cables (14.4 kV) which currently sustain an 11 percent annualline loss. The distribution system in Valdez likewise consists of 1/0ACSR lines (7.2 kV). Although some sections of Valdez are serviced bysmaller gage 2 ACSR cables, the relatively short distances enable anoverall annual line loss of 8 percent. Officials at CVEA regard theirdistribution system as oeing fairly modern and efficient. They do notbelieve that improvements to the system will yield significantelectricity savings.Possio1e conservation methods that would influence electricalconsumption inclUde pricing decisions and incentives, minimum efficiencystandards ana growth restrictions. One method that would be effective(though not acceptable) is to artifica1ly raise the price of electricityto tne level necessary to bring about reduced use. The virtue of thisapproach is that individuals could make their own decisions on how toreduce tneir consumption oy comparing the relative costs and merits oftheir electric appliances ana consumption habits. Given that this is notpalatable, tne only recourse would be for the utility to dictate to theconsumer how to save. This could be done by offering "discounts" for offhour usage or to consumers who meet certain efficiency standards. Suchstandards might entail increased insulation for hot water heaters, theintroduction of microwave ovens, and minimum efficiency ratings for29

stoves, washers, dryers, and other electric appliances. The utilityCOuld insist on these measures for all new customers and coordinate moreclosely with builders. More extreme steps might include rate reductionsfor households whicn share certain appliances (e.g. washers/dryers) orfor households which do without discretionary items sucn as electrichairdryers, toothbrushes, knives, water oed heaters, etc. Finally, thecommunity could embark on a policy of severely restricted growth or nogrowth. Puolic users could reduce use and/or reschedule their hours bydirect regulation. These communities might also reexamine their publicelectricity requirements (e.g. street lighting).Tne total impact of these various measures is very difficult toascertain. Much would depend on the responsiveness of individualhouseholds to such a program or conversely, the magnitude of theincentives. Consumer reports indicate that the energy efficiency of someappliances, such as refrigerators and dryers can vary as much as 40 .percent, whereas ranges, washers, and toasters vary by 15 to 20 percent.Realistically, more efficient appliances would have to be phased in asold appliances are replaced. In addition, it is likely the appliancescurrently in use are not woefully inefficient. Thus the full savingspossibilities implied by these efficiency variances could not be realizedirrmeoiately. Given a stringent incentive system, and considering themost typical and demanding household appliances, an electric energysavings of 10 percent over tne forecast period beyond the conservationalready predicted to occur is Quite optimistic. This would include gainsfrom reduced pUblic and private use as well as efficiency improvements.Evaluation:As mentioned, various conservation n~asures are already in effect onboth State and National levels and represent the most attractive,inlplemental policies. Tnese will undouotably play an 'increasinglyimportant role in future energy conservation for the study area,particularly for heating; however, their impact on electrical consumptionwill be much more modest. currently, electricity is used primarily forhorne app'liances, hot water heaters, and lighting. Because of this, theopportunities for reducing electrical consumption are not nearly assignificant as in other parts of the country where electric heating ismore common. Many residents and some commercial structures in the studyarea nave installed lower wattage light bulbs and eliminated unnecessarylighting. Therefore, it is oelieved that the energy conservation assumedin tne Alaska Power Administration load forecast gives a reasonableestimation of future demands including conservation. Although additionalreductions may be possiDle by raising the price of electricity above itsactual cost, this method is considered extreme and could result in severesoc i a 1 impacts.30

TRANSMISSION INTERTIEDescription_:This alternative consists of a 136-mile transmission line extendingeast from Palmer to Glennallen. The single circuit, 138 kV line wouldallow power to be brought in from the Anchorage-Fairbanks area. To provefeasiDle, the power transmitted would have to De of a low enough cost tojustify the transmission line. This power would probably be produced bythe proposed Susitna project or possiDly from coal-fired generation. TheavailaDility of inexpensive Cook Inlet gas is fast coming to an end withincreasingly higher prices. This, coupled with recent Federal policychanges regarding the utilization of natural gas, eliminates it as aviaDle alternative.The Alaska Power Administration's Upper Susitna Power Market Analysisestimated the total transmission construction cost, including interestduring construction, for the Palmer- Glennallen intertie at $40,800,000as of OctoDer 1978. Assuming a 10 percent inflation rate of constructioncosts, the updated cost estimate for OctoDer 1980 is $44,880,000.Assuming the Power Admini- stration's figure for operation, maintenance,and replacement, and amortizing the cost over 100 years at 7-3/8 percent,yields the following results:AmortizationOM & RTotal Annual Cost$3,312,000144,000$3,456,000The Federal interest rate was applied to evaluate the intertie on acomparaDle basis with the other alternatives. Based on the transmissionof 50,000 MWH per year, and the 7-3/8 percent interest rate, the cost perkWh for transmission only would be 6.9¢/kWh. This, coupled with thecurrent cost of electricty in the Anchorage area, would Dring the totalcost to approximately 13¢/kWh.Impact Assessment:The long term environmental impacts associated with this alternativewould De primarily visual. Approximately 825 acres would have to becleared along the Glenn Highway for the transmission route. Short termimpacts associated with construction would include the prObabledisplacement of various species of wildlife in the area.Evaluation:For the Palmer-Glennallen intertie to be considered a viablealternative Dased on current price levels, two requirements must be met.One, the system must transmit enough energy to bring down thetransmission cost/kWh to a reasonaDle level, and two, a stable,reasonaDle cost source of energy must be made available to transmit.31

Based on the most up-to-date load forecast for the Glennallen-Valdezarea (including ALPETCO), the energy required to meet system demandsaoove the output of Solomon Gulch is relatively small. This is furtherreduced oy the possiole presence of the pressure reducing turbine.Besides the limited demand, the lack of a stable, reasonable costsource in the railoelt area tends to eliminate the interties as a viablealternative at present. However, if the proposed Susitna Project isultimately constructed, it may be able to supply a stably priced energysource. If the current studies prove favorable and the State pursuesFERC licensing and construction, current estimates call for a Susitnapower on-line date of 1994. Even if this were the case and power wasavailable by the mid-1990's, the intertie would not be feasible based oncurrent demand expectations. Therefore, at this time, the intertie hasbeen dismissed as all but a very long range alternative.PRESSURE REDUCING TURBINEDescription:The Trans-Alaska Pipeline hydraulic energy recovery turbine facilitywould consist of a single hydraulic turbine installed in parallel withthe 48-inch main line block valve located approximately 5 miles east ofthe Valdez terminal. Diversion of crude oil through the turbine byclosing the main line block valve could generate nearly 65,000 MWH ofenergy per year at the pipeline flow rate of 1.5 MBD. This recoveraoleenergy is contained in the crude oil stream as it reaches the main lineolock valve #125 and, if not extracted by the hydraulic turbine, would bedissipated in pipeline friction.Crude oil flow through the PRT facility would be controlled bypressure reducing and bypass valves. A standard multifunction integratedelectronic control system would be provided responding to both loadchanges and pipeline conditions.The deSign provides overriding control of crude oil flow through thePRT facility to Alyeska Pipeline Service Company. All station valvingsuoject to utility control would be interlocked with Alyeska block valvecontrol. The paramount operational consideration is that of maintainingstaole continuity of flow of the crude oil stream.Inasmuch as this facility would De an integral part of theTrans-Alaska Pipeline, its design, construction, and operation would besUbject to all applicaole criteria established for the pipeline as wellas tne approval of the U.S. Department of the Interior, the Alaska StatePipeline Coordinator, and the Alyeska Pipeline Service Company. Ifapproval could be reached, the PRT could be on-line oy 1984.The primary disadvantage to this plan is its tenuous ability toprovide firm energy. Whenever a routine or emergency shutdown of the oilpipeline occu~red no energy could be produced. This is not uncommon,particularly during winter storms when the loading of tankers is32

impaired. As a result, standoy generating capacity would almostcertainly have to be maintained at all times. Such standoy capacitywould undouotedly oe provided oy existing diesel generators. Thepercentage of time that this would be necessary cannot be predicted.However, given that no energy source is entirely firm, and in theinterest of conservatism, power produced by the PRT will be regarded asfirm and assigned a dependency factor of 80 percent for purposes of thisreport.Another concern worthy of further consideration is that of projectlife. Estimates of the total Prudhoe Bay field are approximately 9.6billion barrels. Based on a flow rate of 1.5 MBD, the known oil reserveswill last between 15 and 20 years. The potential of additional oildiscoveries, particularly in the Beaufort Sea, are relatively good;however, due to the uncertainty of future finds it will oe assumed thatthe oil will last untn 2000.Pertinent data for the project follows:Capacity (kW) 7,400 (1.5 MBD)Annual Energy (MWH) 52,000 (PF=0.8)First Cost $9,700,000The above estimates of capacity and energy were derived frominformation available from R.W. Retherford1s 1976 report on the pressurereducing turbine. Capacity and energy figures were reduced to accountfor an oil flow of 1.5 MBD and an 80 percent power availability factor aspreviously stated. The first cost of $9.7 million was obtained from R.W.Retherford Associates who are currently updating their previous study.The estimated annual costs based on October 1980 prices and financingover 16 years at 7-3/8 percent are as follows:Interest and AmortizationOperation, Maintenance and ReplacementAverage Annual Cost$1,052,000$ 200,000$1,252,000Based on these prices the cost per kWh would be approximately 2.4i.The inability of the turoine-generator to follow the power demand for thesystem would restrict its operation to baseload. This may reduce theusaole output until the minimum system demand exceeds the unit1s capacity.Impact Assessment:The proposed site for the pressure reducing turbine (PRT) is located 5miles east of the pipeline terminal, approximately 3/4 mile off theDayville Road. The PRT site is adjacent to the proposed transmissioncorridor on the south side of the Lowe River. The powerhouse and parkingfacilities would utilize an area improved during the construction of theTrans-Alaska Pipeline.33

The impacts associated with the PRT action are minor with littleconstruction occurring in nondisturoed areas. The main impacts would oedisturDance of wildlife species during the construction phase. Increasesin dust, noise, and air pollution would occur, but these would be shortlived and end with the construction phase.Evaluation:Based on the preceding information, the PRT is the lowest cost energyalternative availaole to the study area. It would operate as a oaseloadenergy source allowing for the utilization of Solomon Gulch to meet peakdemands.Besides oeing inexpensive, the PRT has the advantage that it can oeorought on-line in a relatively short period (oy 1984), thereby greatlyreducing or temporarily eliminating the need for diesel generation.The primary disadvantages to the PRT are: (1) its energy production isonly a secondary function of the pipeline, (2) it would not produceenergy during pipeline shut downs, whether due to emergency, maintenance,or weather (i.e. winds), (3) it would no longer operate when the oil flowceases (this may cause an energy shortage for nonpipeline relatedactivities which would not cease to function with the loss of the oil),and (4) the administrative proolems of reaching an agreement oetween theaffected parties. However, these disadvantages are relatively minor whencompared to the oenefits that could be derived from the system.Plan Implementation:Implementation of this plan would be the responsibility of the localutility and the Alyeska Pipeline Service Company. Due to the sensitivenature of pipeline security, a number of questions need to be resolved.Questions as to whom would own and operate the system and what guaranteeswould be required to insure the system does not affect normal pipelineoperations are proDaoly the foremost concerns. These are primarilyquestions of security and will have to be addressed by Alyeska and thelocal utility respectively.ALLISON LAKE HYDRODescription:Allison Lake is located just south of Port Valdez (Figure 1). Aproject here would consist of a lake tap at approximately the 1,250-footlevel, 117 feet below the current lake level. A dam was considered atthe lake outlet; however, surficial geological investigations indicatedthat the terminal moraine near the outlet would not be an adequatefoundation for a dam.The lake tap plan would require a combination of a concrete lined6-foot circular and an unlined 8-foot horseshoe shaped power tunnel.This lO,200-foot tunnel would transport the water from Allison Lake to34

ALLISON LAKE

just inside the tunnel portal where it would enter a 4-foot diameterpenstock. This above ground penstock would extend from the tunnel portalto either one of the identified powerhouse sites. Powerhouse Site #1 islocated approximately 20 feet MLLW and Powerhouse Site #2 is located at100 feet MLLW. Either powerhouse would have an installed capacity of 8MW. This was Dased on the recommended 50 percent plant factor provided bythe Alaska Power Administration. A transmission line of 3 to 3.5 mileswould be required to tie into the Solomon Gulch Substation. A detaileddescription of this plan is included in Appendix D.Evaluation:Pertinent data fur both alternatives follow. The estimated firstcosts for the two plans are based on October 1980 dollars. The pricesinclude a 20 percent allowance for contingencies. Also included is thecost for environmental mitigation.Altern at i ve #1Capacity (KW)Firm Annual Energy (MWH)Average Annual Energy (MWH)First Cost ($1,000)A lternat i ve #2CapdcHy (kW)Firm Annual Energy (MWH)Average Annudl Energy (MWH)First Cost ($1,000)8,00034,30039,35037,2508,00032,20037,25034,301Annudl costs are computed by amortizing the investment cost, whichincludes interest during construction, over the life of the project andadoing the operation, maintenance and replacement costs. Interest duringconstruction is computed as compound interest on a uniform expenditureover the 4-year construction period. Adding interest during constructiongives an investment cost of $44,644,000 and $41,109,000 respectively.The following estimated annual costs dre based on a 100-year projectlife and interest at 7-3/8 percent.Alternative itlInterest and AlliortizationOperation, Maintenance and ReplacementAverdge Annual CostAlternative #2Interest Mid AmortizationOperation, Maintenance and ReplacementAverage Annual Cost$3,295,000200,000$3,495,000$3,034,000200,000$3,234,00036

From the time of pO\'Ier-on-line, only the operation, maintenance, andreplacement costs are subject to inflation. With these representing onlya snall portion of the total, annual costs are relatively insensitive tothe effects of inflation.The costs per fi rm kWh for Al tern,',ti ve #1 and #2 are 10. 2ft and 10. octrespectively. Besides being more expensive, Alternative #1 could beexposed to possible seismic waves (Appendix G), and the environmentalimpact woul d be greater due to a reducti on in spawni ng area (tai 1 racedischarge being closer to tide-water). Therefore, Alternative #1 hasbeen eliminated from further evaluation.Alternate #2 was analyzed at 4, 6, 8, and 10 MW to determine theoptimum si ze power pl ant from an economic standpoi nt. Power benefi tswere based on the load forecast provi ded by the A1 aska PowerAdministration. Fuel cost escalation, as determined by the U.S.Depa rtment of Energy, for the 1980 Annual Report to Congress was alsoused. Below is a summary of the annual benefits (excluding employmentbenefits) and costs of the various units. (Benefits and costs are inthousands of dollars.)SUMr~ARYPlant Capacity Energy Total BIC NetSize Benefits Benefits Cost Ratio Benefits4 r,n~ $398.9 $4,262.2 $2,946.0 1. 58 $1,7156 HW $585.9 $4,772.6 $3,036.0 1.77 $2,3238 1,1104 $748.0 $4,882.9 $3,234.0 1. 74 $2,3971 0 r~w $897.9 $4,827.7 $3,456.0 1. 66 $2,270The above economic sUMmary indicates that the 8 r~w alternativemaximizes net I~ED benefits. By "including employment benefits of $182,000for the 8 r~\~ unit, the total benefits are $5,813,000 compared to thetotal costs of $3,234,000. This provides net NED benefits of $2,579,000and a benefit-cost ratio of 1.8 to 1.The benefits shown above have been computed under the assumption thatthe PRT would not be built. The results of the net benefit maximizationwould not change significantly if the PRT were assumed as part of thewithout project condition.Various benefit outcomes of different assumptions concerning the loadforecast, PRT, and fuel cost escalation are presented in the EconomicAnalysis of the selected plan (Appendix C). The method used in derivingNED employment benefits is also discussed in Appendix C.Impact Assessment:The major environmental effects of Alternative #2 are associated withchanges in water quality \'Ihich may impact the fishery resources inAllison Creek. The introduction of higher flows and warmer water duringthe wi nter months coul d cause rapi d egg i ncubati on and early emergence ofsalmon fry. The early emergence may cause the fry to enter Port Valdezat a time when food sources are scarce. Determination of the potential37

effects on the salmon run and the resultant fishery are being assessed.A stream gage has been installed to aid in the determination of existingwinter flows. A recording thermograph has been in operation since 1979in Allision Creek. The data for that period is included in Appendix E.Two additional thermographs will be installed to determine spawninggravel temperatures within the stream and the intertidal area.Mitigation includes providing a two tailrace system which would dischargefully into Allison Creek in the summer. Winter discharge would be toPort Valdez with partial diversion to Allison Creek to maintain adequate; nstream flow.Other impacts include disturbances to wildlife during the constructionphase, clearing of approximately 22.5 acres of spruce/hemlock forestfor the transmission rigllt-of-way, and decreases in the visual quality ofthe area. For further information on project impacts, refer to the environmentalimpact statement.~Ii ti gati on:Proposed mitigative measures are for a tailrace to Port Valdez inaddition to the one to Allison Creek. The rationale behind the twotailrace system is to divert winter powerhouse releases directly to PortValdez, thus reducing water temperature impacts on Allison Creek duringsalmon egg incubation. Mitigative costs for the additional tailrace andgating systems are $925,000 including 20 percent contingencies, 8 percentengineering and design, and 8 percent supervision and administration.Annual costs were calculated at $68,300.Determining the monetary value of the Allison Creek fishery is notfeasible. Population estimates are not complete and reflect minimal datacollection. Biomass originating from salmon production in Allison Creekis large enough to be an important contributor to the Port Valdez derivedfood web. Fish originating from Allison Creek also add to the commercialand sport fisheries. Esthetic values and other intangibles are alsoillportant to the human envi ronment of the study area. The spawni ngactivity can be observed where the creek is crossed by the Dayville Road.The probability of losing of the fisheries resource of Allison Creekis high without mitigation. This loss would have an effect on the PortVal dez ecosystem and to the human envi ronment of the study area.Implementation Responsibilities:The United States would design and construct the lake tap,powerplant, and transmission facilities. Project operation would besupervised by personnel from the local utility from a centralizedoperati ons control center. Project mai ntenance woul d be performed byFederal maintenance/operators assigned to the project who would besupplemented by utility maintenance personnel. These individuals wouldoperate the project under emergency situations. Overall projectadministration including power sales contracts, billing, accounting, andannual inspections would be provided by the Alaska Power Administrationheadquarters office in Juneau.38

Technical services such as electronic systems maintenance and repair,meter relay mechanics. and staff for major maintenance activities wouldbe provided on an as needed basis by utility personnel supplemented bystaff from APA headquarters and from the Eklutna and Snettishamhydroelectric projects. This amounts to sharing the skills of the staffsof several small projects in order to minimize total operation andmaintenance costs.Transmission line maintenance and major powerplant maintenance, suchas turbine overhaul. would require additional manpower provided either bythe utility staff or personnel detailed from other APA projects.The project benefits are attributable to power and the utilization ofotherwise unemployed labor resources. All project costs would be repaid\/ith interest through revenues derived from the sale of project power.39

COMPARlSON OFDETAILED PLANSNo single alternative was seen to be the best solution to the needs ofthe study area. Of the alternatives considered, various possiblecombinations were looked at to determine the "besC plan for the studyarea. Besides the all diesel alternative considered under the previoussection (designated Plan A), the plans that were evaluated include dieselplus pressure reducing turbine (Plan B), diesel plus Allison hydropower(Plan C), and PRT plus Allison hydropower (Plan D). All of these plansinclude the utilization of Solomon Gulch hydropower which will be in fulloperation by 1982. In all cases diesel is utilized up until thepower-on-line date of the various alternatives.Figures 2 through 5 give a graphic representation of the energyavailable from the various plans considered. A detailed summary of theplans is given in the system of accounts table that follows. Thepower-on-line date for the PRT is assumed to be 1984 for all cases. Theon-l i ne date for All i son hydropower is 1990 for P'I an C and Pl an D. Theenergy load growth was based on the Alaska Power Administration mostrecent forecast for the area. A higher growth rate would requireadditional diesel consumption to meet energy needs. A lower rate woulddelay the required power-on-line dates for the projects.When evaluating Figures 2 through 5 their actual significance must beconsidered. The graphs represent the study area's yearly energy demandin gigawatt hours (GWH) and the ability of the various plans to meet thedemand. The figures shown are based on firm energy rather than averageannual. This was done to give a more accurate representation of usableenergy available from the hydropower projects. Secondary energy isproduced duri ng tile summer months \'1hen load requi rements are downrenderi ng most of the energy unusabl e at 1 east until the year 2000. ThefollO\'1ing table sUf.1marizes the energy potentials for Solomon Gulch,Allison Lake, and the PRT:ProjectSolomon GulchAll i son LakePRTFirm Energy (MWH)38,60032,20052,000Secondary (MWH)17,0005,050-0-Total55,60037,25052,000Although Solomon Gul ch produces s i gni ficantly more total energy, theactual amount of firm energy is not much greater than Allison Lak.e. Thisis due to greater reservoir regulation of Allison Lake.The system of accounts tables following the graphs give an accuratecomparison of the various plans. In all cases, a 100-year evaluationperiod was used. The beginning date of evaluation is 1984, correspondingto the power-on-line date of the PRT.By this approach, a future project (Allison hydropower) is economicallydiscounted to the 1984 base. Annual benefits and costs can40

175150FIGURE: 2ENERGY DEMAND - REVISED APA PROJECTIONDIESEL ONLY.J:::.........1251007550- ::I:~(!)-CZ-(!)0::L1JZL1JDIESEL25SOLOMON GULCH HYDROo+-~~~--~~~~~--~~~~--~~~~--~~~~~~~~~~~1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

175150FIGURE: 3ENERGY DEMAND - REVISED APA PROJECTIONDIESEL a PRESSURE REDUCING TURBINE~N125- z~(!)-100 0Z-(!)Q:50wzwDIESELPRESSURE REDUCING TURBINE25DIESELSOLOMON GULCH HYDROo~~~~~--~~~~~~~~~~~~--~~~~~~--~~~~1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

175150FIGURE: 4ENERGY - REVISED APA PROJECTIONDIESEL a ALLISON HYDRO125- ::I:!t(!)-100 0Z-(!)a:I.aJZI.aJ50DIESELALLISON HYDRO25SOLOMON GULCH HYDRO1980 1985 1990 19952000--.. - .... - .. ---

175 FIGURE: 5ENERGY - REVISED APA PROJECTIONPRESSURE REDUCING TURBINE aALLSON HYDRO150125100 0Z­50(!)Q:lAJZWALLISON HYDROPRESSURE REDUCING TURBINE25DIESELSOLOMON GULCH TURBINEo+-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--~~~~~~--~~~1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

SYSTEMOF ACCOUNTSAccountsPlan AAll ~iesel Generation(Without Condition)Plan B Plan C Plan 0f)i ese 1 & PRT Diesel & Hydro PRT & Hydro1984 1990 1984 1990l. National EconomicDevelopment (NED)a. Beneficial ImpactsPower ProductionEmployment Benefits2, 100,000 3,835,000 5,234,000119,000 119,000TOTAL NED BENEFIT~(annua 1 )2,100,000 3,954,000 5,353,000Location of Tmpacts4'>UlPower ProductionPower will be utilizedin the Copper ValleyElectric Service AreaGlennallen-Valdez &vicinity.Same Same SameEmploymentb. Adverse ImpactsConstruction CostsEmployment would remainapproximatelythe same as present.A slight in- Employment would Samecrease inbe gained byemploymentValdez, Alaska.may take place;however it shouldnot be a substanti a 1 increase.TOTAL NED COSTS(annual)852,000 2,110,000 2,962,000

AccountsPl an AAll Diesel Generation(Without Condition)Plan BDiesel & PRTlq84Plan CDiesel & Hydro1990Plan DPRT & Hydro1984 1990~~Location of ImpactsPro.iect rnstsc. Net NED benefits(annua 1)Costs of continued use ofdiesel fuel will be incurredby the local ~tilityand passed on to theconsumer.oCosts of the PRTwill be incurredby either the localutility or AlyeskaPipeline ServiceCompany.$1,248,000Ninety percent of constructioncosts forhydro developmentwould be charged topeople of the U.S. and10 percent to Stateof Alaska in accordancewith the President'sguidelines for costshari ng. Interest andprincipal would be paidback through sale of thepower to consumers ofthe area.$1,844,000Combinationof Band C$2,391,000d. Benefit Cost Ratioo2.461.871.812. EnvironmentalQuality (EQ)Location of Impactsa. Envi ronmenta 1Quality EnhancedNoneNoneNoneNoneb. EnviromentalQuality DestroyedLocal air pollutionand noise duringconstruction.Temporary displacementof wildlife forconstruction.Possible long termdetrimental effectsfor the pink and chumsalmon in AllisonCreek. Short termdisplacement of wildlifeduring constructionas well as noiseand air pollution. Adecrease of the visualqua1iLy of the area.Combinationof Plan Band C

AccountsPlan A.All Diesel Generation(Without Condition)Plan BDiesel & PRT1984Plan CDi ese 1 & Hydro1990Plan DPRT & Hydro1984 19903. Social Well Beinq(SWB)a. Beneficial ImpactsDisplacement ofPeopleNoneNoneNoneNoneEnerqy CostsEnergy costs will continueto increase directlywith fuel costs. Electricitywill continue toclaim a larger and largerportion of individualincome.Energy costs willstabilize and dropduring the life ofproject; however,as soon as the oilstops flowing substantialincreaseswill take place.The project will helpstabilize energy coststhroughout its life;however, the amount ofdiesel needed above thehydro's capabilitieswill force prices up.Energy costsshould dropand remainrelativelyconsistent atleast untilthe year 2000Community Cohesionb. Adverse ImpactsHigher energy pricesmay force potentialemployers to seek siteselsewhere, with lowercosts.Increase should benegligible.Increase will be amore significantthan Plan B due tolonger constructionperiod. Long runimpacts will be small.Effects shoulbe a combinationof PlansBand C.NoiseNoise will not increasesubstantially.Noise impact duringconstruction, nolong term effects.Same as B only greaternoise levels during constructiondue to blasting,drilling and longerconstruction period.Same as BandC.EstheticsNo change from currentsituation.Temporary changeduring construction.Long term impactsare negligible.There would be scarsleft from the blastingand removal of rockthat would be at leastpartially visiblefrom Va 1 dez.Same as BandC.

AccountsAll Diesel Generation(Without Condition)Diesel & PRT1984niesel & Hydro1990PRT & Hydr1984 19904. Regional Development(RD)a. Beneficial ImpactsAdditional PowerProductionThe cost of additionalenergy will continueto rise with fuel prices.This would have a stiflingeffect on the developmentof the area.Additional powershould stabilize andlower enerqy costsat least 15 years.This should encouragethe developmentof the region.Same as B except thetotal energy is not asgreat; however, thiswould have a muchlonger term effectthan the PRT.Same as BandC.EmploymentAny change in employmentwould be limited tomaintaining additionaldiesel units.A temporary increasein employment duringconstruction with asmaller permanentincrease for operation.Same as B except theconstruction work forcewould be much greaterand the duration ofconstruction is muchlonger.Same as BandCb. Adverse ImpactsTax RevenuesNo ChanqeNo ChangeNo ChangeNo ChangePublic ServicesNo ChangeNo ChangeNo ChangeNo Change

then be determined for the 100-year evaluation period. This will portrayboth benefits and costs reduced with a corresponding reduction in netbenefits; however the ratio of benefits to costs will remain the same.In the case of the PRT the total benefits and cost were presentworthedto 1984 and then spread over the 100-year evaluation period.These economic evaluation procedures have the effect of evaluating theplans on equal ground.RATIONALE FOR DESIGNATION OF NED PLANThe ~Jational Economic Development (NED) objectives are achieved byincreasing the value of the nation's output of goods and services andimproving national economic efficiency. Based on this criteria the NEDPlan is Plan D, the pressure reducing turbine plus Allison hydropower.This plan would provide net annual benefits exceeding any of the alternateplans. The combination of the PRT with hydropower would allow thedisplacement of exceedingly precious and expensive petroleum products.Although a number of questions regarding implementation of the PRT remainto be resolved between the local utility and Alyeska Pipeline ServiceCompany, these are the responsibility of those organizations. Fundingfor the PRT would be private whereas it would be primarily Federal forthe hydropower portion of the plan. The average net annual NED benefitsover the life of the proposed plan, are $2,391,000.~ATIONALEFOR DESIGNATION OF EQ PLANThe Environmental Quality (EQ) Plan is an alternative which makes themost significant contribution to preserving, maintaining, or enhancingthe cultural and natural resources of the study area. Of the detailedplans considered, none would provide an actual enhancement of theenvironment; however, Plan B (PRT plus diesel), would cause the leastenvironmental damage (LED). Therefore, this alternative has beendesignated the LED plan.The continued use of diesel has the impact of noise and air pollution,but this is relatively minor compared to the impact of hydropowerconstruction. The fact that the generators are already in place, and noadditional units would be required until the mid-1990's, would eliminateany environmental impacts from construction.The pressure reducing turbine would have some minimal impacts fromconstruction, but there would be less impact from noise and pollutionduring operation. Located immediately adjacent to the oil pipeline, thefacility would be in an area that has been previously disturbed. The PRTwould be housed in a building approximately 60 x 170 feet. The totalarea required for the building and grounds would be approximately 1.5acres.49

RATIONALE FOR SELECTED PLANUnder realistic assumptions regarding future economic conditions andfuel costs, Plan D, PRT plus hydropower, is the most economical means ofmeeting the long term future needs of the study area. This plan wouldhelp meet both the short and long term needs of the study area and reducethe current dependence on diesel-fired generation.The PRT would have a much shorter construction period than AllisonLake hydropower allowing for faster implementation. The PRT wouldfunction as a baseload operation with Solomon Gulch and the existingdiesel generators providing back up and peaking capability.Allison Lake hydropower would come on line in 1990 at a time whenadditional energy, above and beyond the capability of Solomon Gulch andthe PRT would be needed. The project would meet the estimated energy andcapacity needs until 1995 and 1998 respectively. In 1995 additionalenergy would come from either diesel generation or possibly additionalhydropower.The following table provides a summary of the Federal and nonfederalfirst cost apportionment for the selected plan.First Cost (October 1980 Dollars)FederalPRT -0-ALLISON HYDRO $30,871,000Non-Federal$9,700,000$3,430,000The above cost apportionment for Allison Lake hydropower is inaccordance with the President's proposed cost-sharing policy. Thispolicy requires 10 percent State participation in Federal projects havinga "vendible" output.PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND COORDINATIONThroughout the course of this study public involvement wasaccompl i shed primar"ily through three publ i c meeti ngs hel d at vari oustimes during the study process. The purpose of the earlier meetings wasto obtain input from the public to help direct the study, where thelatter meeting was to receive comments on the results.Input from State and rederal agencies was obtained by either directcontact or through the State Clearing House. Nearly 200 copies of thedraft report were sent to various agencies, special interest groups, andinterested individuals.50

Comnents received from the city of Valdez, Copper Valley ElectricAssociation, Alaska Power Authority, and the Governor's Office basicallyconcur with the findings of the repor~. The primary concern voiced byvarious resource agencies related to the environmental impact of warmerwater being discharged over the developing salmon eggs in winter.Appendix J, "Public Views and Responses," includes comments received onthe draft report and Corps of Engineer's responses.CONCLUS IONSBased on the analysis and proceedings used in this report, thecombined plan of the pressure reducing turbine and hydropower fromAllison Lake appears to be the best solution to meet both National andlocal objectives. Implementation of the PRT at the earliest possibledate should be pursued jointly between the local utility and AlyeskaPipeline Service Company. This represents a rare opportunity for anunusual energy source to provide low cost power to a region with minimalenvironmental impact.Detailed analysis and final design should resume on the Allison Lakehydropower project by 1984. This would allow adequate time for designand construction to provide needed power by 1990. Approximately 4 yearswould be needed to construct the Allison Lake project.RECO~I:~ENDATIOIJI recommend that the Allison Lake Hydroelectric Project be authorizedfor construction generally as described in this report, with suchmodifications as in the discretion of the Chief of Engineers may beadvisable, at a Federal cost estimated at $30,871,000. The estimatedannual operation and maintenance cost and replacement is $200,000.Former President Carter, in his June 1978 water policy message toCongress, proposed several changes in cost-sharing for water resourcesprojects to allow states to participate more actively in projectimplementation decisions. These changes include a cash contribution frombenefiting states of 5 percent of the first costs of constructionassigned to nonvendible project purposes and 10 percent of first cost ofconstruction assigned to vendible project purposes. Contributing stateswould share with the Federal Government the revenue from vendible outputsin proportion to their shares of project costs.Application of this policy to the Allison Lake Hydroelectric Projectrequires a contribution from the State of Alaska of an estimated$3,430,000 in cash (10 percent of $34,301,000 total estimated first costsof construction assigned to vendible project purposes, based on October1980 price levels). The State of Alaska will share 10 percent of the netpower revenues from the Allison Lake Hydroelectric Project. Net powerrevenues are defined as the gross receipts from power outputs less all51

operat ion and rna i ntenance costs allocated to power.I reconmendconstruction authorization of the Allison Lake Project in accordance withthe President's proposed cost-sharing POliCY.~~ ~dl'( /U.-- -LEE R NUNNColonel, Corps of EngineersDistrict Engineer52

FINALENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

FINALENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTProposed plan for a hydroelectric powerplant at Allison Lake, (SouthcentralRailbelt, Valdez Interim), Valdez, Alaska.The responsible lead agency is the U.S. Army Engineer' District, Alaska.Abstract: The Corps of Engineers was authorized by Congress to study thefeasibility of hydroelectric power in the Southcentral Railbelt area ofAlaska. The proposed plan would provide an additional 8 megawatts ofpower from hydroelectric generation and an estimated average output of7.4 megawatts from a pressure reducing turbine (PRT) in the oil pipelineto serve the Valdez-Glennallen area. The hydropower portion of the planwould be Federal responsibility while the PRT would be local. Possibleadverse environmental impacts include increased winter water temperatureswhich could cause early emergence of pink and churn salmon fry. Positiveimpacts include reducing the use of fossil fuels as electrical generatingpower and decreasing air and noise pollution associated with dieselgeneration.SEND YOUR COMMENTS TO THEDISTRICT ENGINEER BY:If you would like further informationon this statement please contact:Mr. William LloydU.S. Army Engineer District, AlaskaATTN: NPAEN-PL-ENP.O. Box 7002Anchorage, Alaska 99510

LIST OF PRFPARERSNameExpert i seExperienceDiscipline.John A. Burns(EIS r.oordinator)Fisheries BiologyKing crab research, NMFSKodiak, Alaska2 yrs EIS studies,Alaska District, 1 yrFisheries BiologistLoran BaxterCivil f:.:nqineerA.laska District3 yrs, Feasibility StudiesCivil EngineerSam MurrayEconomicsNorth Pacific Division9 mo Economic StudiesAlaska District2 yrs Economic StudiesEconomistCharles WellinqEconomicsAlaska District18 yrs, Economic StudiesEconomistL i zette Boyer,A.nthropo logySocial Studies, AlaskaDistrict2 yrs Anthropological andCu ltura 1 Stud i esAnthropoligistJulia SteeleArc h aeo logyManagement Experience, MSin Anthropology.5 years Cultural ResourcesAnthropologist

SUMMARYThe purpose of the proposed project is to provide electrical power forthe Valdez-Glennallen area. Presently the electric power is supplied byale~el generators located botn in Valdez and Glennallen. PrOjectedpopulation growth and the increasing cost of petroleum products willcause increasing demand for electrical power generated from alternativeenergy sourcesThe selected Plan (D) will generate 8 megawatts (MW) with 32,200 megawatthours (MWH) of firm annual energy from the hydroelectric project and 7.4MW with 52.000 MWH of annual energy from ttle pressure reducing turoine(PRT). Other plans include combinations of diesel PRT, andhydroelectric.Adverse environmental impacts associated wltn the selected plan are tothe fisheries resources of Allison Creek. Changes in winter watertemperatures may cause accelerated egg incubation and early emergence ofsalmon fry. An increase of stream temperature of 2° C could cause fryemergence 1 to 2 months earlier, a time when adequate food sources forthe fry do not exist in Port Valdez. Mitigative measures include anadditional tailrace which would divert powerhouse discharge directly intoPort Valdez, thus not chanqing the natural temperature regime of Allisonr:reek.MAJOR CONCLUSIONS ANDFINDINGSNone of the alternatives make significant contributions to preservingmaintaining, or enhancing the cultural ana natural resources of the stuayarea, and therefore. do not meet the criteria of an Environmental Qual ity(EQ) Plan. For this study. Plan B, the diesel ana pressure reducingtUrLJlne alternative, has been established a~ the Least EnvironmentallyDamaging (LED) Plan.Th~ National Economic Development (NED) Plan addresses the planningobjectives which maximize net economic oenefits. Plan D, Allison LakeHydrupower and the PRT, would provide the "lost power output, and coupledwith the increasing costs of petroleum products, this alternative may beconsidered to be the NED Plan when viewed on an overall oasis.A Section 404(b) (1) evaluation for the proposed project is included inAppendlx E. Water quality requirements set forth under the Clean WaterAct will be met through Section 404(r) exemption criteria.All the alternatives fulfill Federal, State, and local legal requirementsand comply with the requirements of all applicable environmentallaws, executive orders, and policies.iii

COMPARATIVE IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVESWETLANDSVEGETATIONHISTORICSITESPLAN A(Diesel, no action)NONENONENONEPLAN B(Diesel, PRT)NCNEall activitieswill occur indisturbed areaNONEPLAN C(Diesel, hydroelectric)minor loss atlocation of tailraceat Allison Creekloss of 24 acresfor transmissionline and PowerhouseNONEPLl\N D(PRT, Hydroelectric)same as Plan Csame as Plan C-I.

COMPARATIVE IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES (cont)ECONOMYWATERQUALITY FISHERIES ESTHETICSBENEF IT -COSTRATIOPLAN A NONE NONE NONE N/A(Oiesel, no action)PLAN B NONE NONE minor local Refer to Economic(Diesel, PRT) decrease in Appendixvisual qualityimpacts notvisible fromValdezPLAN C change in flow loss of egg noticable Refer to Economic(Diesel, flydroe 1 ectri c) and temperature incubation changes in Appendixto Allison Creek habitat due visual< to temper- qua 1 ityature change. impactsPossible loss would be seenof fishery from ValdezPLAN 0 same as Plan C same as same as Refer to Economic(PRT, hydroelectric) Plan C Plan B Append i xand C

AREAS OF CONTROVERSYTo date no specific area of controversy has oeen associated with projectstudy.REI ATIONSHIP TO ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTSFederal Policies and RegulationsFederal Water Project Recreatiun ActWater Resource Planning Act of 1966Fisn and Wildlife Coordination ActAll PlansFu 11 Cump1ianceFull ComplianceFull ComplianceoNational Historical Preservation ActFull ComplianceNational Environmental Pulicy ActFull Comp 1 i anceoCoastal Zone Management Act of 1972Partial Compliance;requirements will be metcompletion of Final EISreview.upon0Endangered Species Act of 1973Fu 11 Comp 1 i anceAnadromous Fisn ActFu 11 Compliance0Flood Plain Management EO 11988Fu 11 Comp 1 i ance0Protection of Wetlands EO 11990Fu 11 Compliance0Archeoloqical and Historic PreservationActFull Compliance0Clean Air ActFull ComplianceuooEstuary Protection ActLand and Water Conservation Fund ActMarine Protection. Research andSanctuary ActPartial Compliance;requirements will be metcompletion of Final EISreview.Fu 11 ComplianceFu 11 Comp 1 i anceuponvi

oooRivers and Harbors ActClean Water ActWatershed Protection and FloOdPrevention ActWild and Scenic Rivers ActFu 11 Comp 1 i ancePartial Compliance,requirements will bemet under Section 404(e)upon congressionalapprovalFull cornplainceN/AStateoState Coastal Zone ManagementState Water Ouality CertificationPartial Compliance;requirements will De metupon completion of FinalEIS review.N/Avii

COVER SHEETLIST OF PREPARERSFINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTPROPOSED PLAN FOR A HYDROELECTRIC POWERPLANTVALDEZ, ALASKATABLE OF CONTENTSParagraphItemSUMMARYA. NEED FOR AND OBJECTIVES OF ACTIONiiiB.C.D.Study Authori tyAL TERNATI VES1. Plans Eliminated2. Without Conditions (Plan A)3. Diesel - Pressure Reducing Turbine (Plan B)4. Diesel - Hydroelectric (Plan C)S. Pressure Reducing Turbine - Hydroelectric (Plan D)AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT1 Pnysicala. GeneralD. Hydrology and Water Qualityc. Esthetics2. Biologicala. Vegetationb. Wildlifec. Birdsd. Fishe. Mar; nef. Rare and Endangerea Species3. Socio economics4. Cultural ResourcesENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS1. Pnysicala. Generalb. Hydrology and Water Qualityc. Esthet icsEIS-lEIS-lEIS-lEIS-2EIS-2EIS-2EIS-3EIS-4EIS-4EIS-4EIS-SEIS-SEIS-SEIS-7EIS-7EIS-7EIS-8E1S-8EIS-8E1S-8E 1 S-lOvii i

2. Biologicala. Vegetationb. Wildlifec. Birdsd. Fishe. Marinef. Rare and Endangered Species3. Socio-economics4. Cultural ResourcesE. MITIGATIONF. CUMULATIVE IMPACTSG. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT1. Public Involvement Program2. Required Coordination3. Statement RecipientsH. COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENTBIBLIOGRAPHYINDEXE I S- 11EIS-12EIS-12EIS-13EIS-14EIS-14EIS-14EIS-15EIS-15EIS-17EIS-18EIS-18EIS-18EIS-18EIS-20EIS-21ix

A. NEED FOR AND OBJECTIVES OF ACTIONStudy AuthorityThe Valdez Hydropower Study was authorized by a resolution of the committeeon PUDlic Works, United States Senate, 92 Congress, 2d Session.The Southcentr~l Railbelt (SCRB) resolution was adopted on 18 January1972. This resolution specifically stated that the upper Susitna was toDe studied first for potential hydropower. The feasibility report on theupper Susitna did not find it economical to transmit power by transmissionintertie facilities in the Valdez area. Therefore, the feasibilityof hydropower in proximity to Valdez was also investigated under the SCRBresolution.B. ALTERNATIVES1. Plans EliminatedNumerous sites for hydroelectric development were analyzed and found tobe infeasible due to size, location, and environmental constraints.Sites eliminated in the immediate Valdez area include Gold Creek, SheepCreek, Wortmann Creek, Silver Lake, Unnamed Creek, Mineral Creek, andLowe River.All sites east of the Copper River have been eliminated due toestaDlishment of the Wrangell-St. Elias National Park. The Tsina andTiekel Rivers located between Valdez and Glennallen were eliminatedbecause they could not provide sufficient energy to contribute to thepower loads of Valdez and Glennallen. The Tonsina and Klutina Riverswere eliminated because of extreme adverse impacts to the fisheriesresources which contribute to the Prince William Sound salmon harvest.For further information, refer to the section titled "Formulation ofPreliminary Plans.1I2. Without Conditions (No Action - Plan A)The no action alternative is the least environmentally damaging of thealternatives as it would preserve a rather unique glacial fed drainage.However. power consumption for the Valdez-Glennallen area is projected toexceed the capability of the Solomon Gulch hydroelectric project by thetime it comes on line in late 1981. With the cost of diesel escalatingand its availability a concern. hydroelectric projects, like the proposedproject. would be more cost effective and efficient.The city dock expansion and ALPETCO plant will increase the population ofValdez, thus increasing power consumption. The need for additional powerwill result in the construction of a project such as Allison Lake whetherit is constructed with Federal, State, or local funding.EIS-l

3. Diesel - Pressure Reducing Turbine (PRT) (Plan B)The proposed PRT would be located 5 miles east of the oil pipelineterminal at a site on the Trans-Alaska pipeline, Block Valve No. 125,where the necessary tap was installed during construction. This area wasselected to take advantage of the head available as the pipeline descendsThompson Pass. The PRT would produce approximately 7.4 megawatts ofelectrical power based on a flow of 1.5 million barrels per day. Theadvantages of this plan are the relatively low installation costs and thelow environmental impacts. The disadvantages include the relativelyshort life of the pipeline project and the assurance of constant oilflows. The oil reserves in the Prudhoe Bay area may be depleted within15 to 20 years which would terminate the PRT project. Maintenance andemergency shutdown of the Trans-Alaska pipeline would cease electricalgeneration. During the periods of shutdown, a standby diesel generationsystem would be utilized. This system would have to be maintained yearroundto insure dependable power when the PRT is nonoperational. Onlyminor environmental impacts associated with disturbance and thetransmission corridor would occur with this plan.It should be noted that the Corps of Engineers has no authority toconstruct or fund either diesel generation or the pressure reducingturbine.4. Diesel - Hydroelectric (Plan C)The hydroelectric portion of this alternative will consist of a tap ofAllison Lake, power tunnel, above ground penstock, powerhouse, and atransmission line intertie with the Solomon Gulch substation. The hydroelectricgeneration will provide approximately 8 megawatts of installedcapacity to the Valdez-Glennallen area. The hydroelectric alternativewill require mitigative measures to sustain the salmon run in AllisonCreek. Sug- gested mitigation includes a two tailrace system to maintainwater quality and flow in Allison Creek, and a comprehensive biologicalmonitoring study to insure the quality of the fisheries resource ismaintained at preconstruct ion levels.The diesel portion of this alternative would be utilized to meet loadrequirements above the capabil ity of the hydroelectric project. Bothsystems would be necessary by the time Allison Creek comes on line. (SeeFigure 4 under the section "Comparison of Detailed Plans.")The hydroelectric portion of this alternative is under the Corps ofEngineers· authorization, and can be constructed or funded forconstruction under this authority.5. Pressure Reducing Turbine (PRT) - Hydroelectric (Plan D)The design of both portions of this alternative are identical to thosepreviously discussed.This alternative would utilize the PRT for the base load and hydroelectricfor peak load demand and back-up. The power generated from thisEI5-2

alternative has been estimated to provide sufficient energy to the studyarea until about 1995. When the power generated from the PRT terminates,an intertie with the Anchorage-Fairbanks area may be feasible.C. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT1. Physicala. General: Two specific sites are possible for development; theLowe River flats and Allison Creek.The proposed PRT site lies at the head of Port Valdez on the south sideof Lowe River. The valley is of glacial origin and is filled with outwashaeposits of the Valdez and Corbin glaciers. The site is bounded onthe north by the Lowe River, and south by the Chugach Mountains.Allison Lake is located on the south side of Port Valdez, directly acrossfrom the present city of Valdez, filling approximately one half of aglacier formed hanging valley. Allison Creek, which originates atAllison Lake, decends 1,360 feet in 2-1/4 miles to Port Valdez. It is anextremely high graaient stream for the first 2 miles with the lastquarter mile leveling considerably.The area is underlain geologically by the late Cretaceous Valaez Group, aseries of metagraywackes, shales and slates with occasional beds ofpillow basalt. This is indicative of a rapid, unsorted deposition in anocean environment. The beds are highly disturbed and no regionalstructures have yet been defined.The Port Valdez area is located in Seismic Zone 4, approximately 46 mileseast of the epicenter of the 27 March 1964 earthquake. Prior to 1964,there were approximately 70 earthquakes, magnitude 5 or greater, in theValdez vicinity.Excluding the 1964 earthquake, magnitude 5 earthquakes have averagedapproximately one per year. Magnitude 8 or greater events have occurredthree times this century, consequently, there is a good probability of alarge earthquake occurring during the life of the project.There has been no evidence of ruptures in area bedrock. Most destructionin port Valdez has been causea by tsunami and submarine mass movement ofunconsolidated Lower River delta deposits.The site for the proposed powerhouse (Alternate #2) is located at the 100foot elevation. Powerhouse Alternate #1, located on delta deposits atthe 20 foot elevation has been dismissed from further consideration. Thedelta deposits would make good foundation material for a small surfacepowerplant; however, the area may be subject to tsunami to an elevationof +85 MLLW. During slide induced sea waves, runup at Anderson Bay, 7miles west of Allison Creek, was measured at 70 feet. Measurements atShoup Bay (Cliff Marine) on the north side of the arm show a runup of 170feet. No runup measurements were made at Jackson Point or Fort Liscum,but the cannery at Jackson Point was destroyed.EIS-3

. Hydrology and Water Quality: The water quality of the AllisonCreek dra1nage 15 11ttle affected by conditions other than natural, andis considered typical of a small, glacial fed system.A recording thermograph was installed in Allison Creek at the weir inJune 1979 and the data will be collected for several more years. Therecordings indicate tnat high temperatures occur in August and lowtemperatures of 0 degrees Celsius first occur in early November (AppendixE, Table 1). Two additional tnermographs to record intergrave1temperatures of Allison Creek and the intertidal area are proposed forinstallation.A stream gage was installed in Allison Creek in March of 1981, and willcontinue to monitor stream flows until at least project completion.Calculated flows have been established for the drainage basin usingmeteoroloq;cal data from 1948 to 1977 (Appendix E, Table 2). The datainaicate unregulated flows and predict flows which would occur uponproject completion. Estimates were also calculated to predict averageinflows to Allison Creek below Allison Lake (Appendix E, Taule 3). Tneseestimates were derived only to predict flows whicn may occur in additionto the diverted flows. It should be noted that these flows are onlyestimates and may not precisely indicate actual flows.Water qua 1 ity ana lys i s for All i son Creek was performed for A lyeskaPipeline Service on several occasions between 22 February 1975 and11 April 1977. Water quality analysis of Allison Lake was performed bythe Alaska District on 7 May 1979 (Appendix E, Table 4).The proposed PRT action would not affect the aquatic environment.c. Esthetics: The scenic value in the Valdez area is stillconsidered high. The view from tne city of Valdez of the proposedhydroelectric project area is of steep mountainous terrain with thenatural values marred by the Alyeska Oil Terminal. Neither the lake northe creek can be seen from the city and the creek cannot be viewed by thegeneral public due to its location on restricted Alyeska property.The proposed site for the PRT is located south of the Lowe River in anarea changed by the construction of the Trans-Alaska pipeline. Theesthetic values have been changed in this area where the pipeline isunaerground, however the values are not considered poor.2. Biologicala. Vegetation: The transmission line corridor between Allison Creekand the Solomon Gulch substation is typified by dense coniferous forestof Sitka spruce ana mountain hemlock with an Llnderstory of alder andother shrubs. The area of the proposed powerhouse and lower reaches ofpenstock support tall thickets consisting primarily of alder with somesalmonberry, blueberry, ana devils club. Portions of the area have beendisturbed by the Alyeska terminal and pipeline construction. Tne steepEIS-4

slopes surrounding Allisorl Lake are almost exclusively covered by alpinetundra. At the head of Allison Lake is a small vegetated wetland area.Detailed information and vegetative species lists concerning this wetlandarea are lacking as well as the significance to the wildlife species ofthis area.The affected marine vegetation, which may oe impacted by the proposedproject, visually consists mainly of rockweed (Fucus distichus) andcoraline algae (Lithothamnion sp.). Tnese two algal representives areabundant in the intertidal area around the mouth of Allison Creek.The PRT site is located in a spruce-hardwood forest. Tne hardwoodsconsist of birch and cottonwood with an understory primarily of alders,salmonberry, blueberry, and devils club.b. Wildlife: Wildlife species known to occur in the project areainclude brown Dear, black Dear, mountain goat, wolf, wolverine, marten,porcupine, and snowshoe hare. Moose are also present in small numbersalong the Lowe River delta. The densities of the respective populationsare unknown. Very little information is available on small mammals inthe project area. A list of known species living in or around Valdez isin Appendix E, Table 5.The most conmlOn ly observed mammal near the proposed All i son site areblack bear. Both black and brown bear have been observed near the PRTsite with the highest concentrations occurring during the salmon runs.c. Birds: Approximately 150 species of birds have been observedwitnin the Port Valdez area. Waterfowl are numerous seasonally, withsome seabirds residing year-round.Waterfowl utilize Allison Lake to some extent. Canada geese and dabblerducks have been observed on the lake, however, not in large numbers. Thelake appears to support waterfowl for resting, possiole feeding, andmolting. Tne intertidal area probably supports waterfowl and waterrelated biras year-rouna, mainly for feeding.The Port Valdez area contains most of the major bird habitat groups foundin Alaska (see Appendix E, Table 6 for species list).Northern bald eagles are commonly observed in the Port Valdez area.Several eagle nests have been documented in the area of the proposedsites by the joint State/Federal Fish and Wildlife Advisory Team and theU.S. Fish and Wilalife Service. Refer to Figure 6 for the locations ofthe nests.d. F1Sh: Allisun Creek is a high gradient creek wnich restrictsfish movement to the lower reaches, approximately the lower quartermile. Spawning habitat for pink and chum salmon occurs from the existingE1S-5

ALLISONLAKEFIGURE 6: LOCATIONSN EAGLES NESTSEIS -S

weir to the mouth, with the majority of spawning occurring in theintertidal area. There are approximately 500 lineal feet of suitableintertidal spawning habitat. Prior to the construction of the weir byAlyesKa Pipeline Service Company for a water gallery, it is believed pinKsalmon spawning, in odd years when stronger runs occurred, existed abovethe weir. A fiSh passage facility was incorporated with the weirconstruction, however, it has proven unsuccessful.Escapement for Allison CreeK has been estimated by the AlasKa Departmentof Fish and Game and indicates a high of 750 spawning pink salmon in 1961and a high of 2,660 chum salmon in 1963 (Appendix E, Table 7). The AlaskaDepartment of Fish and Game attempted an escapement count in August of1980. Due to high turbidity, the count was unsuccessful.Dolly Varden char, and sculpin have also been identified as using AllisonCreek. Allison Lake has no known fishery population.e. Marine: The intertidal area at the mouth of Allison CreeK consistsof gravel, small cobble, and boulders. There is little saltwaterintrusion of Allison Creek because of the gradient of the creek near themouth. Dense populations of rockweed and blue mussel (Mytilus edulis)are the most conspicuous species. Smaller populations of gastropods,arthropods, and other marine invertebrates typical of a rocky,semiprotected shoreline occur within the area which may be affected bythe proposed project. Although no finfish were observed, the areaprobably supports those fish typical of the nearshore habitat.Port Valdez supports and is visited by several marine mammals which maybe affected by the proposed project. HIe shore area from 0.3 miles westof Allison Creek to 0.3 miles west of Dayville Flats Creek has beenidentified as a feeding area for sea otters and harbor seals.Species lists for the marine environment in the Valdez area are includedin Appendix E, Table 5.f. Rdre and Endangered Species: No rare and endangered species wereidentified for the proposed project area. Refer to U.S. Fish andWildlife letter, Appendix E.3. Socio-economicsPrior to the construction of the Alaska Railroad, Valdez was the onlyall-season port of entry to the interior. The AlasKa Railroad establishedthe rail system from Seward to Fairbanks through Anchorage whicheliminated Valdez as an important port of entry to the interior.During the perioo preceding the construction of the Trans-Alaskapipeline, government was HIe largest employer. Although its importancehas lessened, government is still the largest single employer today.The population of Valdez has fluctuated dramatically in the past decadebecause of the local construction boom associated with the Trans AlaskaEIS-7

pipeline and marine terminal. The population in 1969 was approximately1,000, grew to 8,000 in mid-1976 and steadied to 3,350 by 1979.Future population fluctuations will occur with the construction of AlaskaPetrochemical Company (ALPETCO) plant. During the construction phaseALPETCO will employ nearly 1,000 people and the operational phase willemploy over 700 persons.Table 2 ofworkforce.members ofdependentsthe main report presents employment estimates for the ValdezApproximately 35 to 40 percent of the Valdez population arethe 1abur force. This means there are approximately 1.5for every member of the workforce.4. Cu ltura 1 ResourcesThere are no cultural resources in the affected area of the Valdezhydropower project. The area had the potential of yielding prehistoricChugach Eskimo evidence because of the traaitiona1 land use of thesepeople in Prince William Sound. Historical events surrounding earlyValdez, such as Army exploration, mineral mining and settlement is veryrich. No remains, however, are left in the affected area. For a morecomplete account see Appendix F.D. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS1. Physicala. General: The plans discussed in the report all utilize twomethods of power generation. Since the impacts associated with dieselgeneration already exist, no new diesel plants are proposed. Thehydroelectric project will have its own unique impacts on the environmentwhether associated with diesel or the Pressure Reducing Turbine. Forreasons of clarity and continuity, the impacts of the hydroelectricproject and the Pressure Reducing Turbine will be discussed separately.b. Hydrology and Water Quality:Hydroelectric Project: The proposed laKe tap would withdraw waterfrom a depth of 117 feet below the existing normal lake level. Laketemperatures have only been collected on one occasion, 13 April 1978.The temperature profile indicates that no stratification occurs andlittle temperature change occurred past 8 meters. Although no summertemperatures were taken, using the worse case basis, the area forwithdrawal will oe approximately 4° C.The discharge of 4° C water into Allison Creek may cause the streamtemperatures to be reduced below the powerhouse during the summermonths. The actual impacts on the downstream temperature regime areunknol'm. Pred ict i ng downstream changes in stream temperatures is 1 imiteadue to problems in estimating the degree of mixing in a lateral streamand in evaluating convective and evaporative heat losses under conditionsof local atmospheric stability. Estimates made of the average inflowEIS-8

expected to Allison Creek below Allison Lake indicate the highest flowsoccur in June, July, and August. July and August are the most criticalmonths because of spawning salmon.Winter withdrawals from the lake wOUld be warmer than the natural streamtemperatures. Thermograph readings show water temperatures in the wintermonths to be near 0° C while lake temperatures are at 3.5 0 C. Sincewinter is the high power demand period, the project would probably berunning at maximum output part of the time. The maximum power releasehas been estimated at approximately 100 CUbic feet per second (cfs) witha predicted streamflow above the powerhouse Detween 1 to 5 cfs.Hydroelectric projects tend to even flows. Natural high summer flowswould be utilized to refill the lake, therefore reducing outflows fromthe lake. During the winter months when natural flows are low, the waterused for electrical generation would SUbstantially increase the flows.The entire stream would be impacted by the proposed project with bothsummer and winter flows decreased above the powerhouse location. Theproposed powerhouse site is located above the existing weir,approximately one quarter mile from Port Valdez. At this location, thewater would reenter Allison Creek.Tne natural flUShing process woula be affected by the hydroelectricproject, thereby reducing streambed scour and possibly increasingsedimentation of spawning gravels. Allison Creek has a stable streambed,consisting mainly of boulders and slaty cobbles with very small amountsof sands and gravels. Little fine grain material appears to be enteringthe system, consequently, sedimentation of the spawning bedS may notoccur. During high water years, the extra quantities of runoff mayprovide adequate flows for flUShing. The intertidal area supports themajority of spawning activity, and tidal fluctuation should keep thespawning area free from sedimentation.Winter is the tinle of high power consumption and also the time of lowflows into the lake. The increased flows through the powerhouse wouldcause the lake to De drawn down a maximum of 100 feet from the naturalwater 1 eve 1.The tailrace to the creeK would consist of a 5-foot diameter steel pipeat a 10 percent slope. The length would be 20 feet with a 10-foottransition to a 2.5-foot diameter steel pipe on the sanle slope. Anenergy dissipater Ivould be built on tne banks of the creek with very1 itt le instream construct ion. Tne impacts occurring with the constructionof the dissipater should be minimal; however, in order to assure noimpacts occur on either spawning salmon or their incubating eggs, constructioncould occur between early June and mid-July or during thewinter months when construction could be accomplished out of the streambecause of the reduction in flow. Approximately 5 cubic yards of riprapwould be placed in the creek just below the energy dissipater. Tneriprap would be approximately 1.5 feet thick and cover about 10 squareyards. The riprap WOUld assure that water from the powerhouse would notcause scour or erosion.EIS-9

The lake may be drawn down to the level of the tap upon completion of theproject to secure necessary gating and screening structures. Tnedrawdown would decrease water quality in Allison Creek by increasingturbidity and flows, and by changing the temperature regime. Becausewater quality degradation could have an effect on the fisheries resourcesof Allison Creek the drawdown for lake tap structure placelnent wouldoccur at the optimal time for the fishery.During the operation of the proJect, the lake would be drdwn downapproximately 100 feet during the winter months when the lake is icecovered. Little erosion is anticipated because of the large bouldershoreline which surrounds most of the lake. A small delta is located atthe head of tile lake which consists mainly of fine grain glacialoutwash. This area could experience some erosion during drawdown, but towhat degree is unknown. The Snettisham hydroelectric project near Juneautaps Long Lake which is similar in configuration to Allison Lake.Althougn the depth, size of the lake and size of the delta are greater,Long Lake experiences a drawdown of 114 feet. To date, little waterquality degradation is occuring and the delta area appears to be stable.The drilling of the penstock tunnel would require approximately 300gallons of water per hour which would probably be pumped from the lake.The discharged water from the drills would be allowed to flow out of thetunnel, and diKes and diversion ditches would be used to assure that thewater does not enter Allison Creek.Pressure Reducing Turbine: Tnere would be no hydrology or waterquality impacts associated with the construction and operation of thePRT.c. Esthetics:Hydroelectric: Approximately 20,000 cubic yards of tunnel tailingswould be disposed of on a dense stand of alder, devils club, redelderberry, and salmonberry. Tne talus created by the disposal would bevisible from Valdez. The natural landscape of weathered rock andvegetative cover would be visually marred by tne deposition of lightercolored rock. If the disposal site is visually offensive, a revegetationprogram coula be initiated in attempt to cover the talus.Other aspects of the project would probably not degrade the visualquality of the area. The powerhouse is small and located in an improvedarea. The majority of the aboveground penstock would not be in viewexcept by air or pOSSibly boat. The lake can only be viewed by air andvisual impacts of the drawdown could only be seen by a few.Pressure Reducing TurDine: The constructlon of the housing for thePRT unit would distract from the existing natural visual environment,however, it appears the structure would not be visible from Valdez or theroad system. The transmission line would connect with the proposedValdez-Glennallen intertie, and little aaditional clearing would berequired.EIS-1D

2. Biologicala. Vegetation:,r-.Hydroelectric: No direct vegetative impacts would be associated withthe underground penstock, however, the tailings from the tunnel would berenwved from the portal and dumped into a canyon located to the east.The material would De dumped over a near vertical cliff and cover an areaof a dense alder stand with devils Club, red elderberry and salnlonberryunderstory at the bottom of the canyon. Revegetation of the impactedarea witn simi lar species proDably WOuld not occur for nlany years due tothe different nature of the tunnel material and the existing disposalsite material. Alternative methOdS and sites for tailings disposal havebeen eliminated mainly because of physical constraints. Roadconstruction to the tunnel portal would require consideraole excavationinto the mountain side which would cause esthetic degradation and greatlyincrease the possibilities of erosion. No alternative sites are near thetunnel portal with gradual slopes that could contain the tailings. Theproposed disposal site does not drain into either Allison Creek orSolomon Creek and any increased sedimentation would not affect anadromousfish.The above-ground penstock would require a 2,8S0-foot right-of-wayapproximately 10 feet wide. The lower portion of the proposed right-ofwayconsists of a dense alder thicket while the upper portion of theright-of-way is either unvegetated or consists of alpine tundra. Alllarge bushes and snrubs would be removed, with the low ground coverremalnlng. Sixteen concrete anchor blocks and 190 concrete support piersWould be utilized to support the penstock above ground. In these areasall vegetation would be cleared. In the exposed areas where thevegetative cover would be removed, revegetation with suitable specieswould occur upon project completion.The transmission line would impact tne Sitka spruce/mountain hemlockforest located along the 3.S-mile long, 50-foot wide corridor. Theentire line would require essentially continuous clearing regardless ofthe exact alignment. Small shrubs and bushes would remain and all othermaterials would be burned, chipped, or left in place as determined by theU.S. Forest Service which is the administrator of the land. The terrainexclUdes establiShing the transmission line next to tne Dayville Road(refer to Photo on page ii of the Feasibility Report and thetopographical map. Plate D-A-3 in Appendix D). Although the Trans-AlaskdPipeline Corridor has been clearcut, Alyeska Pipeline Service isreluctant to allow any construction tnat would hinder their access alongthe corridor. The tentative route would De as near the Dayville Road aspossible.The powerhouse would only occupy an area large enough to house the twoturbines. The proposed powerhouse site is in an area co~ered mainly withalder with a portion of the site having been previously cleared. Aproposed mitigative tailrace leading to Port Valdez would cross an areawhich has been cleared and covered with gravel and supports littlevegetation.E I S- 11

Some impacts would occur to the intertidal algal vegetation in the areadesignated for tne riprap. Tne riprap would cover fairly dense growthsof rockweed (Fucus disticus) and encrusting algae. Colonization of theriprap material would occur, probably to a lesser extent than prior todisposal, because of the freshwater introduction and the force of thefalling water.Pressure Reducing Turbine: Tne site for the PRT structure is locate~on the Trans-Alaska pipeline corridor. The pad and road are alreadyexisting and little vegetative alteration would occur. The exactlocation of the transmission line has not been determined at this time.If it is allowed to follow the existing oil pipeline route, littlevegetation impact would occur. Any other route would impact a 50-footwide corridor for the length of the transmission line.b. Wildlife:General:projects andconaucted totransmissionAct of 1940.Prior to construction of either the hydroelectric or PRTtheir transmission line corridors, a survey would beascertain the exact locations of eagle nests. Theline corridors would be routed to comply with the Bald EagleHydroelectric: Tne transmission corridor would cnange approximately24 acres of mature Sitka spruce/mountain hemlock forest, located betweentne Dayville Road and the AlyesKa oil pipeline, to a small brush anashrub habitat. Utilization of the proposed transmission right-of-way bylarge mammals is low partially because the surrounding area has moderatehuman activity to act as a deterrent to migratory or resident mammals.The construction and maintenance of the transmission line corridor wouldincrease the influence of man's disturbance forcing the animals farthersouth.The proposed construction of the project would have varying effectsduring different phases of construction. Blasting and drilling of thepenstock tllnel could cause mountain goats and other highly mObileanima1s to evacuate the area temporarily. Winter construction coulddisturb the resident black bear causing them to locate alternate dens.Bear-human conflicts could increase especially if stringent regulationsconcerning feeding or harassing of bears are not enforced.Pressure Reducing Turbine: Bear have been observed along the LoweRiver in the area of the PRT site. The construction of the PRT facilityand transmission route may cause alterations in their movement to theLowe River during salmon spawning. Operation and maintenance of thefacility may also impede bear movement. This impact appears to beunavoidable and its significance is unKnown.c. Birds:Hydroelectric: Waterfowl utilizing the lake for resting and feedingwould probably not be affected except during the construction phase.EIS-12

Waterfowl and water related birds found at the mouth of Allison Creek mayavoid tne immediate area during the construction phase with no long termadverse effects expected. The possible increase of freshwater into thebay may cause minor shoreline icing during winter months and coulddecrease the available habitat.Slignt changes in tne marine habitat would occur through the increase ofwinter freshwater and the placement of 5 cubic yards of riprap. Themarine habitat changes are considered minor.Pressure Reducing Turbine: Clearing for the transmission corridorwould change blrd nabltat from dense woodland to woodland edge. Somenesting habitat would be lost, but it does not appear to be a significantimpact. Prior to transmission line routing, tne area would be surveyedto assure bald eagle nesting would not be impacted and an adequate bufferzone would be estaDlisned near nesting activity.d. Fish:Hydroelectric: The impacts which would occur to the fisheryresources of All1son Creek are associated with changes in watertemperature and tne flow regime.Adult pink and cnum salmon spawn from July through Septemoer when thenatural high water temperature of Allison Creek is from 8 to 11 0 C.Spawning is directly related to stream temperature; salmon spawn earlierin the season in colder streams and later in the season in warmerstreams. Intertidal spawners also spawn later in the season. Because ofthe timing of spawning, intertidal and freshwater spawning salmon of thesame stream are of different genetic stock; interbreeding does notoccur. Although it is not known at this time, Allison Creek probably hastwo distinct runs of pink salmon in the odd years, the majority of theearly run enters and spawns in freshwater with a later run spawningalmost exclusively intertidally. Tne most plausible explanation for tnerelationship between time and stream temperatures is that they arecoordinated to provide optimulTI survival and the most advantageous timingfor emergence.The lake tap WOUld substantially cnange water temperatures at tne time ofspawning. The proposed project would draw water from the lake bottom ata temperature of approximately 4 0 C. Although there would be naturalflows occurring from the drainage basin Delow the outlet, (Appendix E,Taole 3) stream water temperatures would decrease. A temperature above4.5 0 C is critical for normal embryonic development. With temperaturesbelow 4.5 0 C, mortality increases, and spinal deformities occur. At 2 0C, complete mortality results. It appears during normal water years withnormal runoff into the stream below the lake outlet, water temperatureswith the proposed project would be above the critical level, however, lowwater years may cause temperatures oelow 4.5 0 C.EIS-13

Intertidal spawning, which is the majority of spawning activity, may alsobe affected by reduced temperatures, however, it is not known to whatextent. The t ida 1 range is approx imate 1y 18 feet ana depend i ng on whattidal level spawning occurs, the effects would vary. The most successfulspawning occurs above the -8 to -10-foot line from MHHW and at low tideswhen only freshwater would occur during early incubation. Whether theperioas of marine influence would compensate for the colder freshwater isunknown.Winter water temperatures of Allison CreeK would be warmer with tneproposed project than occurs naturally. Winter temperatures in the lakeat the depth of the tap are approximately 3.5 0C while the present wintertemperature of Allison Creek is near 00 C. The timing of emergence anddownstream migration of salmon fry depend on the temperature regimebecause the development rate depends on temperature. Warmer water fromthe proposed project would decrease incubation time, possibly by onemonth. If early emergence occurred, the likelihood of an adequate foodsource for the fry would be low. Intertidal incuoation and emergencewould also be accelerated, however not to the extent of instream spawning.As discussed earlier, spawning probably occurs in Allison Creek prior tointertidal spawning. The time-temperature coordination of spawning anddevelopment is a result of adaption, to assure that the norlllal time forseaward migration of the fry is the most opportune time for foodavai 1abil ity, and possibly saltwater temperatures.The proposed project would alter both temperatures at the time ofspawning activity and during incubation. Deviations from the existingtemperatures caused by project operations cannot but influence survival.Pressure Reaucing Turbine:project.No impacts to fish would occur with thise. IViarine: The additional freshwater in the winter months may havesome impact on the intertidal area. Much of the affected area receivesfreshwater during higher flows and marine productivity appears to beequal to the areas where high concentrations of freshwater do not occur.Whether part of the species' life history necessitates periods of nofreshwater influence is unknown: however, it appears that increasedwinter flows would have little effect.Mitigative measures require tne placement of approximately 5 cubic yardsof riprap below the tailrace for erosion protection. Approximately 10square yards of marine habitat at the MHHW mark would be covered.Recolonization may occur, but probably not to the extent of preconstructionproductivity.f. Rare and Endangered Species: There are no rare or endangeredspecies in the project area.3. Socio-EconomicTne construction pnase may employ as many as 100 persons. No constructioncamp is likely to be built, the employees would have to fino lodgingEIS-14

within the local community. The impact of the employees on the localeconon~ would probably be minor; however coupled with the construction ofthe city dock and the ALPETCO plant, the cumulative effects may cause asurge in the Valdez econorr~. Proposed construction times indicate theAllison project would be built after the above projects are completed.The power generated at Allison Creek may have a long term positive impacton the economy of Valdez and Glennallen area. Initially the cost of thepower would De approximately equivalent to the present power costs basedon the October 1980 cost estimate. Once constructed, future priceincreases would be related to tne increase in operation and maintenancecosts. Increases with diesel generation is directly related to the priceof diesel, which is escalating rapidly.The operation and maintenance of the facility would require very fewpersons. ana their presence would have little impact on the socioeconomicstructure of the study area.4. Cultural ResourcesThere are no cu ltura 1 resources in tne affected area, thus no impacts.E. MITIGATIONThe proposed hydroelectric project on Allison CreeK may eliminate thenatural runs of both pink and chum salmon over a period of time.Although the fiShery resource of Allison Creek is not large in comparisonwith other river systems in Prince William Sound, the resource should bemaintained as close to its preconstruct ion strength as is practicable.A two tailrace system was devised to regulate the amount of water beingreleased into Allison Creek. The system consists of an additionaltailrace which would empty directly into Port Valdez. Both tailraceswould incorporate a gating mechanism which could regulate the amount offlow through a particular tailrace. Thus, all the water, any portion ofthe water', or none of Ule water can be regu 1 ated through eithertailrace. The upper powerhouse location would help protect both theintertidal and Allison Creek fisheries. This was one of the contributingfactors for the selection of the upper powerhouse site as the preferredalternative.The discharge from the powerhouse would be diverted into Allisen Creekduring the periods of salmon spawning to provide adequate flows forspawning. During the winter monthS when temperature is critical for eggincubation and emergence, the discharge would be diverted directly toPort Valdez. A 4 cfs minimum during the winter months was suggested byU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for maintenance of egg incubation. Anadaitional 3/4 cfs is required for Alyeska's water supply. If naturalflows are below 5 cfs, the tailrace to Allison Creek can be utilized toaugment that portion belo~ 5 cfs.Studies on similar ldkes in Alaska indicate that bottom temperaturesduring the spawning season are higher than 4°C used in this report.IfE1S- 15

Allison Lake limnology is similar to Bradley Lake near Homer and CraterLaKe near Juneau, water Deing drawn through the lake tap would beapproximately 7°C. Due to the lack of data, the worse case basis wasused. Prior to any construction, temperatures would be determined andmeasures to prevent less than optimal temperatures would be employed, ifnecessary.Without mitigative measures, major adverse impacts to the fishery areexpected to occur. If the change in water temperature causes acceleratedegg incubation and early fry emergence, there is a high probability thatthe majority of the salmon run would be destroyed. Environmental studiesto fill the data gaps associated with the impacts on the salmon resourceshave been scheduled for the advanced engineering and design phase. Thestudy would begin prior to construction, monitor the effects duringconstruction, and assess the impacts of the project on the fisheryresource of Allison Creek. The proposed stUdy would collect backgroundinformation on numbers and species of spawning fish, hatching time withregard to water temperature and the effects of saltwater flooding toincubation time. The study would provide specific information on theeffects of a hydroelectric project on Allison Creek and would alsoprovide general information on the effects of hydroelectric projects onshort coastal streams throughout Alaska. The information would beutilized in future hydroelectric planning processes to assureenvironmentally sound projects.Determining a monetary value for the Allison Creek fishery appears to beinfeasible. Population estimates for Allison Creek were not scheduledand counts were made on a time-available basis. Tne counts were not madedaily during the entire run and the estimates must De considered as theleast number of spawning adults.Commercial fishing catches show only a small portion of the value of asalmon run. Based on research statistics for this region of Alaska andusing the highest number of spawning chum salmon (2,660) with half beingfemales (1,130), approximately 3,657,500 eggs are deposited. Mortalityis high and approximately 75 percent of the eggs either do not hatch orthe fry never migrate to the ocean. Successful fry may number in excessof 900,000 individuals. To maintain the species, at least 2,660 fishwill return to spawn, or 0.3 percent of the successful fry. For astatewide average, commercial catches equal escapement or 2,660 fish.This leaves over 909,175 fish which enter the food web. The exact amountof biomass added to the next trophic level is unknown but is considerablymore than that taken in the commercial harvest.Other nonquantifiable values are the contribution to the sports fishery,esthetic values, and the contribution to the human nonconsumptiveknowledge of the natural environment.EIS-16

Cumulative impacts to the Port Valdez fishery are now occurring. Theconstruction of the ALPETCO facility and docK, the city docK expansionand the Solomon Gulch hydroelectric project and proposed development onMineral CreeK are reducing salmonid fishery resources by both directimpacts to habitat and migration routes and indirect impacts associatedwith the additional stress placed on the fish. The proposed and actualdevelopment in Port Valdez adds to the value of the Allison fishery,again in an unquantifiable amount.Maintenance of the powerhouse and penstock system would occur periodically.During penstock maintenance, no water would be added to thecreek. If this occurs for an extended period of time while natural flowsare low, adverse impacts on the fishery resources could occur. Theprobability of maintenance of the penstock system is low and anyscheduled maintenance would occur during periods of high natural streamflows. Turbine shutdown would occur more regularly. However, at leastone of the two turbines could be run at a lower output to meet fisheriesneeds.F. CUMULATIVE IMPACTSDiesel - Pressure Reducing Turbine (PRT)1. Diesel generation alreadY exists in the Valdez area and this planwould not increase the number or output of diesel generators. Theaddition of the PRT would not cause cumulative adverse effects, but thenew impacts would only occur with the construction, operation, andmaintenance of the PRT facility.Diesel - Hydroelectric2. The cumulative impacts of this plan are similar to those describedbelow.Pressure Reducing Turbine - Hydroelectric3. The cumulative impacts of this plan are both biological andsocio-economical. The construction of both power sources and theirancillary facilities would create a disturbed area between Port Valdezand the Chugach Mountains on the south side of Port Valdez. This mayimpede movement of wildlife species and offers no areas of relief betweenthe two projects. The extent of this impact is unknown, butsuperficially appears minor.The combination of laboran effect on the economyfacilities and services.consist largely of localeconomy.forces to construct the two facilites may haveof Valdez. At this time, Valdez is limited inThe addition of a labor force which does notresidents may place a strain on the localEIS-17

Pressure Reducing Turbine - Hydroelectric and Other Proposed RegionalActivities4. Several other activities have either been proposed or are underconstruction in the study area. These include the construction of thecity dock, transmission line to Glennallen, improvements on theRichardson Highway, and the construction of the Alaska PetrochemicalCompany (ALPETCO) refining facility. Concurrent construction activitiesin the Valdez area could cause a "boom - bust" type situation causingextreme economic impacts to Valdez. Tnis impact could be reduced withproper preparedness by the city of Valdez.G. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT1. PUblic Involvement ProgramFormal public hearings were conducted at Valdez on 26 April 1977, 24July 1978, and 18 November 1980 to obtain public opinion describing theneed for power generation, and alternative preference. Local response isstrongly in support of the selected plan. Coordination with Federal andState agencies, and local interest groups during the course of the studyinclude:U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceNational Marine Fisheries ServiceAlaska Department of Fish and GameState Historic Preservation OfficerCopper Valley Electric AssociationAleyska Pipeline Service Company2. Required CoordinationThe final EIS was filed with tne Environmental Protection Agencyconcurrently with circulation to all parties on the project mailinglist. EPA will publish a notice of availability in the Federal Registerwhich will begin the 30-day review period. All comments received fromthe draft EIS are addressed in Appenaix J. The Feasibility Report andFEIS will be submitted to Congress and an exemption under Section 404(r)of the Clean Water Act will be obtainea.3. Statement ReceipientsA list of statement recipients is in Appendix I.H. COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENTThe proposed project has been reviewed to assure that it will beundertaken in a manner consistent with the Alaska Coastal ManagementProgram to the maximum extent practicable. Coordination through the A-95Clearinghouse review for processing has been accomplished and agenciesreviewing the DEIS did not comment on any major Alaska Coastal ManagementEIS-18

Program-related issues. The Alaska District has determined the proposedhydroelectric project is consistent with the Alaska Coastal ManagementProgram.E1S-19

BIBLIOGRAPHYBailey, Jack E. 1964. "Incubation of pink salmon eggs in a simulatedintertidal environment." Reprint from Proc. of Northwest Fish Cult. Conf.,1964. p. 79-89.Bailey, Jack E. 1969. Alaska1s Fishing Resources. The Pink Salmon. DeptInter. USFWS BCF. Fish. Lent. 619. 8 pp.Bailey, Jack E., ana Evans, Dale R. 1971. liThe low-temperature threshold forpink salmon eggs in relation to a proposed hydroelectric installation." Fish.Bull. Vol 69, No.3: 587-593.Combs, Bobby D. 1965. "Effect of temperature on the development of salmoneggs. 1I Prog. Fish. Cult. 27(3): 134-137.Dames and Moore. 1980. City of Valdez Port Expansion Project. EnvironmentalAssessment. Anchorage, Alaska.Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 1978. Solomon Gulch Project, FinalEnvironmental Impact Statement. Washington, D.C.Helle, John, H. Williamson, Richard S. and Bailey, Jack E. 1964.IIIntertidal ecology and life history of pink salmon at Olsen Creek, PrinceWilliam Sound, Alaska. 1I USFWS, Dept of Spec. Studies. 26 pp.Roberson, Ken. 1980. Personnel Communication. ADF&G, Glennallen, Alaska.Sheridan, William L. 1962. IIRelation of stream temperatures to timing ofpink salmon escapements in Southeast Alaska." Reprint from Symp. on PinkSalmon, H.R. MacMillan lectures in Fisheries, 1960. Univ. Brit. Col. p.87-102.State of Alaska. 1980. IIInventory report district program phase one,Valdez. Alaska. 1I Alaska Coastal Management Program. Juneau. Alaska.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980. IIAlaska petrochemical Companyrefining and petrochemical facility, Valdez, Alaska Final Environmental ImpactStatement. II Seattle, WA.Feder, Howard M., Michael Cheek, Patrick Flanagan, Stephen C. Jewitt, Mary H.Johnston, A.S. Naider, Stephen A. Norrell, A.J. Paul, Arla Scarborough andDavid Shaw. 1976. liThe sediment environment of Port Valdez, AlaSKa; theeffect of oil on this ecosystem. 1I EPA-600/3-76-086. Corvallis, Or. 322p.Cooney, R. Ted, David Urguhart, Richard Neve, John Hilsinger, Robert Clasbyand David Barnard 1978. IISome aspects of the carrying capacity of PrinceWilliam Souna, Alaska for hatchery released pink and churn salmon fry." SeaGrant Report 78-4, IMS Report R78-3. Fairbanks, Alaska 98 pp.EIS-20

13.10INDEXSubjectsAffected EnvironmentAlternativesAreas of ControversyComparative Impacts ofA lternat i vesEnvironmental EffectsList of PreparersNeed For and Objectivesof ActionPlanning ObjectivesPlans Described in DetailDraft EnvironmentalImpact StatementE1S-3 to 8EIS-1 to 3viiii to ivEIS-8 to 15i iEIS-1Feasibility Report4-821-372027-49Relationship to EnvironmentalRequirementsReport RecipientsStudy AuthoritySummaryTable of ContentsWithout Conditionsvi to viiiEIS-1iii to viiviiiE1S-1APPENDIXiii18IEIS-21

APPENDIX AHYDROLOGY

APPENDIX AHYDROLOGYTABLE OF CONTENTSItemINTRODUCTIONCL rr~ATETemperaturePrecipitationSnowWindStormsSTREAMFLOWExtension of Streamflow RecordsEstimated Damsite StreamflowsEvaporationFlood CharacteristicsPast FloodsFlood FrequenciesProbable Maximum FloodESTIMATED MONTLY STREAMFLOWSLowe River and Solomon Gulch (Table A-l)Klutina River (Table A-2)Tonsina River (Table A-3)Power Creek (Table A-4)Allison Creek (Table A-5)ALLISON LAKE - RESERVOIR REGULATION (Figure A-l)PageA-lA-lA-5A-10A-15

I NTRODUCTI ONThe area considered for possible hydroelectric alternatives includedthe coastal area around Valdez, the Chugach Mountains, and portions ofthe Copper River Basin. This area corresponds roughly to the servicearea bf Copper Valley Electric Association, over whose powerlines theelectricity from any potential hydropower development would betransmi tted.This appendix describes the climate of the study area and thestreamflows derived for the five sites considered as hydropoweralternatives. These sites include Allison Lake, Tsina River, TiekelRiver, Tonsina River, and Klutina River. They are shown on the basinlocation map, Figurp 1 page 24 of the main report. The final page ofthis appendix is a plate which portrays reservoir regulation, includingestimated lake elevations, regulated and unregulated streamflows, as wellas firm and secondary energy for the favored development at AllisonLake. This was done on a monthly hasis for the years 1948 to 1977.CLIMATEThere is a wide variation in climate throughout the study area. Theregion adjacent to the coast is under maritime influence, with highprecipitation and relatively mild temperatures. The interior area hasmore of a continental climate, with extreme temperatures and lessprecipitation. Between these two areas is a mountainous transitionregion whose climate is a hydbrid of maritime and continentalconditions.Valrlez, the primary load center of the coastal region, is located ona well sheltered extension of Prince William Sound. Snowcapped mountainscontaini~g extensiv~ glacier areas surround Valdez on three sides, withrugged but unglaciated mountains to the south and southwest. Activeglaciers extend t~ within 5 to 10 miles of old Valdez to the north andreach down to the level of the glacial plain on which old Valdez islocated. This level glacial plain is a well forested area except for thetidal marshes south~/est and the glacial drainage area to the east. Theterrain surrounding Valdez exerts a pronounced influence on practicallyall aspects of the local weather and climate. The sheltering effects ofsurrounding mountains channel local winds into two distinct channels.From October through April prevailing winds are from the northeast; fromMay through September prevailing winds are from the southwest.Precipitation is abundant year-round, but builds up noticeably during thelate summer and fall. The heaviest precipitation usually occurs inSeptember and October; almost 25 percent of the total annual rainfalloccurs in these 2 months. Snowfall during the winter months is veryheavy. There is considerable cloudiness during the entire year, butslightly less tha~ is realized at Alaskan points farther southeast.About 1 day in 6 can be classified as clear. Although the high mountainridges to the north provide considerable barrier to the flow of coldcontinental air from the interior during the winter months, there is adefinite off setting factor in the downslope drainage from the highA-l

snowfields and glacier areas on the southern slopes of these mountains.The lowest temperatures recorded at Valdez appear to be due to thedownslope flow of cold air, since the lowest temperatures on retord haveoccurred durinq periods with 1 ittle or no wind, providing ideal conditionsfor the cold air to flow down onto the flat glacial plain. Thenearby snow and icefields combine with the ocean areas to provide amoderating effect on summertime high temperatures which seldom reach themiddle 80's. The surrounding mountains tend to produce considerablevariations in practically all weather elements within relatively shortdistances.The continental region, whic~ covers Klutina and Tonsina Lakes andmost of their watersheds, has mean maximum summer temperatures in the midto upper 60's, and mean minimum winter temperatures around 20 below zero,Fahrenheit. The mean annual precipitation is between 10 and 20 inches,at least in lower elevations. Heavier amounts occur in the upperelevations. Surface winds are light compared to those found along thecoast.In the transition region, where the conditions are between those ofthe maritime and continental regions, temperature extremes most resembleth~ continental zone's, while precipitation amounts range from light toheavy enough to maintain glaciers. The Tsina River and Tiekel Riverdrainages are considered to be in the transitional zone. Surface windsin the transition region range between coastal and interior conditions,including some channeled winds through mountain valleys.While the climatic data from the Valdez weather station is fairlyrppresentative of the sea level conditions in the study area, lowertemperatures and greater precipitation will occur over most to the higherdrainage basins. Based on 7 years of streamflow records, which typifythe amount of precipitation in the areas being studied, the Solomon Gulchgage recorded an average annual discharge of 104,300 acre-feet for a19-square mile drainage basin, yielding a basin average of 103 inchesrunoff per year.Temperature:The four climatological stations in the area are located at CopperCenter, Glennallen, Valdez, and Cordova. The records for Glennallen andCopper (enter are incomplete and are not presented in this analysis. Asummary of the average monthly temperatures for Valdez and Cordova ispresented below.LA-2

AVERAGE MONTHLY TEMPERATURES (OF),1anFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDecValdez1 7.822.42 i). 835.1)43.851.253.352.046.537.526. 119.5Cordova23.026.729.236.043.750.453.453.048.039.630.624.6The Valdez data are recorded by the National Weather Service at anelevation of 87 feet mean sea level (MSL). The Cordova data are recordedby the Ferleral Aviation Administration at an elevation of 41 feet MSL.The temperatures range between 42° F and 60° F during the summer andbetween 11° F and 43° F during the winter for Valdez with the extremesbeing _28 0 F and 87° F. The temperatures range between 44 D F and 61° Fduring the summer and between 21° F and 39° F during the winter forCordova with the extremes being -23° F and 86° F.80th locations average a growing season of about 4 months. Normally,the first freeze occurs early in September and the last freeze occurs inmid-May.Summertime temperature gradients follow the traditional pattern ofdecreasina temperatures with increasing altitude. During periods ofextreme winter cold, how~ver, a strong temperature inversion may exist inthe lower layers of the atmosphere as a result of radiation cooling andcold air drainage for the surrounding mountains. Under these conditions,the temperature gradient will be reversed.Precipitation:Precipitation over the basin varies from moderate amounts in the lowelevations to heavy in the mountains, to moderate amounts again in theKlutina and Tonsina drainages. The orographic effect of the ChugachMountains insures heavy precipitation in the upper elevations of thebasin and lower amounts in the lower basin. Storms are generally lightin intensity, with few convective-type storms of cloudburst magnitude.The only climatological stations in the study area with reasonablycomplete precipitation data are located in Valdez and Cordova. Averagemonthly precipitation for these communities is presented below.A-3

AVERAGE MONTHLY PRECIPITATION(inches)ValdezCordovaJan 5.06 6.14Feh 5.30 6.42Mar 4.33 5.89Apr 3.06 5.71l"1ay 3 .20 5.99,lu n 2.70 4.67Ju 1 4.31 7.08Aug 5.80 8.94Sep 7.74 13.53Oct 6.75 12.34Nov 5.67 8.37Dec 5.39 7.45ANNUAL 59.31 92.53These data were collected by the National Weather Service and theFederal Aviation Administration for Valdez and Cordova respectively.Snow:Snowfall records are available in the vicinity of Valdez~Glennallen.Snowfall is generally confined to October through April and comprisesapproximately 27 percent of the mean annual precipitation.Snow course data for four stations within the basin are presented inthe following tahulation.Snow Cours eYears ofRecordElevation(ft) MSLAverage WaterContent Per Month(inches)MarchApri 1MayTsina RiverWorthington GlacierLowe RiverValdez721771 ,5002,4005505013.616.914.315.714.920.515.218.013.823.21 3. 118. 1lThe water content of the May snow mass provides a good index ofexpected spring runoff.Wind:The wind records available are scarce. The National Weather Servicemonitors the station in Valdez which has about 3 years of data. Observationsthere indicate that the highest winds occur between October andA-4

April. The winds tend to follow the contours of the terrain and, thus,adjacent areas can have average winds of opposite direction. The followinqis the average fastest 1 minute wind speed for the period of record.AVERAGE WIND SPEED (MPH)JanFebMarAprMavJunJul~gSepOctNovDec2325252520181819192n2627Storms:Because of the dominating maritime influence, thunder and hail stormsrarely occur in the study area. ~wever, the area is subject to fall andwinter storms of heavy precipitation intensities. These storms arecyclonic in nature and are generated by the semipermanent, Aleutian lowpressure system. This cyclogenesis takes place as a result of the coldflow of southeasterly air from Asia, which generates a wave on the polarfront. These storms move eastward from their point of origin into theGulf of Alaska, where they cause high winds and low ceilings for a periodof 2 to 3 days. Storms of this nature usually cause copious amounts ofprecipitatio~ to fallon the coastal mountain ranges.STREAMFLOWRunoff characteristics for the study area vary substantially betweenthe coastal and interior regions. Tn the coastal region, the maritimeinfluence areatly increases the runoff per square mile and also changesthe ti~ing of high flood flows from those experienced in the interiorregion. While flood peaks do occur in May and June, due to snowmelt, theyearly maximum peaks generally center around the month of September.Streamflow records were available for several streams, in the studyarea. In all, a total of five streams were used for alternating flows.Two streams in the immediate vicinity of Valdez which have been gagedby the U.S. Geological Survey are Lowe River and Solomon Gulch. Inaddition, several other streams between Valdez and Glennallen have hadstreamflows recorded by the USGS. Two of these, Klutina River andTonsina River, are close to sites considered in the present study. Thereare discharqe data for each station and some measurements for chemicalconstituents and water temperature. The recorded monthly runoff for theA-5

gages at Lowe River near Valdez, Lowe River in Keystone Canyon nearValdez, and Solomon Gulch near Valdez are shown on Table A-l. Thestreamflows for Klutina River at Copper Center and Tonsina River atTonsina are given in Tables A-2 and A-3, respectively.The gage at Solomon Gulch was on the right bank at the tidewater, 1/2mile downstream from a small lake and about 3 miles south of Valdez. Therecords that are available are July to December 1948 and October 1949 toSeptember 1956. The average annual runoff is 104,300 acre-feet per yearor 144 cfs.The gage on the Lowe River in Keystone Canyon near Valdez is locatedon the left bank, 500 feet south of the south entrance to RichardsonHighvJay tunnel in Keystone Canyon. The records that are available areOctober 1974 to the current year. The average annual runoff is about1,200 cfs. The other Lowe River gage (Lm"e River near Valdez) wasupstream from this one about 4 miles. The gage was discontinued inSeptember 1974.The Klutina River gage was near the left bank on the downstream sideof the RiChardson Highway bridge, 0.7 mile south of Copper Center.Records are available from October 1949 to June 1967 and July 1970 toSeptember 1970. The mean streamflow is 1,670 cfs.The Tonsina River gage is near the right bank on the downstream sideof the RiChardson Highway bridge at Tonsina. Recorded streamflows extendfrom October 1950 to September 1954 and from October 1955 to September1978. The mean annua 1 flow is 836 cfs.txtension of Streamflow Records:Extension of t'le streamflow records for Solomon Gulch and Lowe Riverwas performed by linear correlation with the long term records of Power(reek near Cordova. In an attempt to observe visual relations betweenthe stations, the respective monthly strEamflows for the two stationswere plotted against the correlative Power Creek monthly streamflows, asshown in Table A-4. Depending on the shapes of the relationshipsohserved, the data were split into time groups ranging from 1 month to 3months. After transformation, a linear regression analysis was performedfor each data group and, based on the correlation coefficients andstandard errors of estimate, a relationship for each group of data wasadopted for streamflow extension.In general, there was good correlation for the months of Aprilthrough December. The winter months of January, February, and March weregrouped together and still had a low correlation coefficient. It may beexplained by the lowflow characteristics of Power Creek which did notdl"scribe the same 1m" flow on the other two gages. The equation on theLowe River for August was adjusted since it was not consistent with theLA-6

slope of the two adjacent months of July and September, therefore, nocorrelation coefficient was derived. The relationships derived for thetwo stations are shown in Table A-4.The monthly streamflows for Allison Creek were not correlated withPower Creek sinc~ there were no records available for Allison. SolomonGulch's drainage area of 19.5 square miles better approximates the sizeof Allison's, so its extended streamflow values were used to derive'StreamflO\'I values for Allison Creel( rather than the Lowe Riverstreamflows with a drainage area of 222 square miles. Allison andSolomon are also iYl very close proximity to each other so they shouldhave similar hydrologic characteristics. The following table lists theoertinent characteristic'S of each basin.Area Mean Elevation % AreaCreek (M i 2) (Feet) in Gl aciersAllison 5. F)8 2,800 24Power 20.8 2, 140 25Solomon Gu 1 ch 19.5 2,300 21The monthly streamflow values for Power Creek were used to extend theperiod of record for Solomon Gulch; this extended period of record isshown in Table A-5. These values in turn were used along with a basinarea relationship to determine streamflows for those basins withoutdata. Allison Creek estimated streamflows were derived in this mannerand are shown in Table A-6.The four damsites considered as alternatives to the Allison Creekdevelopment had streamgages in fairly close proximity to two of them.The Klutina River and the Tonsina River are both gaged, but at locationsdownstream from the proposed damsites. For the Tonsina River, theaverage annual precipitation was estimated for the area above the dam andfor the area above the gage by use of isohyetal maps presented in a 1977U.S. Forest Service Water Resources Atlas. The ratio of the two areawideaverage precipitation values was then determined, and the ratio ofthe project-drained area to the gaged area was also determined, thenthese two were applied to the gaged streamflows to give the expectedflows at the sites.At the Klutina River site, no isonyets were available for most of thedrainage area, so streamflows were modified only on the basis of areadrained considering the Tsina River and Tiekel River sites, no streamflowrecords exist for these rivers. Solomon Gulch was selected as mostclosely representing the Tsina River, since it was the only fairlyheavily glaciated stream with flow records in the vicinity. Averageannual precipitation and drainage area comparisons were again made inorder to adjust the Solomon flows for the Tsina. Only the 7 years ofrecorded data from Solomon were used.Because of the approximately similar glaciated percentages, overalldrainage areas, and the proximity of the watersheds, Tiekel River flowsA-7

were estimated based on Tonsina River flows. As with the Tonsina site,precipitation and area rati()s were used to generate the Tiekel flows fromthe Tonsina's.The pertinent characteristics for each site are shown below:GageCreek Gage Used% Average AverageArea in Annual Gage AnnualArea Glaciers Precip. Area Precip.(mi2) ( in) (rli2) ( in)Overa 11RatioKlutina Klutina 826 5 -1 0 880Tiekel Tonsina 367 15 53. 1 420 28.0Tonsina Tonsina 263 10 32.9 420 28.0Ts ina Solomon 5'1 50 70.4 19 1 140.941.660.741. 79Estimated Damsite Streamflows:It has been assumed that the streamflows determined through theprevious analysis would be the estimated damsite streamflows.~v aporat ion:The normal high relative humidity, high percentage of overcast days,and cool climate preclude any appreciable loss from evaporation.Estimates of flow were based on records of existing or historical gagingstations near the project areas, and include evaporation from the streamsurface. Due to the nortllern latitude and prevailing maritime climate,additional evaporation from the reservoir surface would beinsignificant.Flood Characteristics:Snowmelt-type floods are dependent upon two conditions: (1) theamount of accumulated snow; and (?) the temperature sequence during thespring melt period. A 1 arge snowpack over the basin will give a 1 argevolume of runoff during the spring. However, if the temperaturesincrease gradually, causing slower snowmelt, the flood peak will be justslightly above normal. If the early spring is colder than normal andthen tile temperatures rise rapidly for a prolonged period, the flood peakwill be extremely high with the duration of flooding dependent upon thetotal snowpack.On the streams in the southern portion of the study area, rainfloodsproduce the highest flm ... s. These occur in the fall, generally betweenlate August and October. The flood peaks are quite sharp due to the fastrunoff, which is caused by the steepness of the terrain and the lowinfiltration losses into the underlying rock. On the Klutina and TonsinaRivers, the flooding characteristics are mixed. The annual peak flows onA-8

the Klutina generally occur at any time throughout the summer, as aresult of rainstorms. However, the maximum recorded flow there was inJune, during a snowmelt runoff. The Tonsina's highest flows yearly rangefrom early June to mid-September, being caused either by snowmelt orrainfall flooding.Past Floods:The maximum instantaneous recorded discharge for the five recordingstations utilized in the study are:Lowe RiverKlutina RiverTonsina RiverPov.Jer CreekSo 1 omon Gu lchFlood Frequencies:Date9/11/75fJ/29/536/17/629/25/499/04/51Pe ak (cfs)12,6009,0408,4905,5402,420The following is a tabulation of the peak discharges for thevarious recurrence intervals:Peak Discharges - cfsRecurrence Lowe Power So lomonInterval River Creek Gulch(years)5 11,900 3,750 2,20010 14,900 4,650 2,60025 18,800 5,750 3,20050 23,000 6,900 3,750100 27,500 8,000 4,300Probable Maximum Flood:The Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) is used for spillway sizing and forestimating downstream impact. Since Allison Creek has a lake tap and noassociated dam, no spillv.Jay shall be required. Thus, the PMF derivationis also not necessary. Also, since the other proposals investigated havenot been judged worthy of further consideration at this time, no PMF wasderived of these sites.A-9

'fUR r)c r ,-. n:c JA~ FEEl "'A~ APi1 '~A Y J \.J '; JUL A.J';____ we.-- - , ~"''' ~E---.--- .------ -----.--.----- -----.- ------- ----.-- ------- ------- ------- --.---- .------ ._._---1 'H 2. -I: •• ~!.L • 72. bl4. ':11. ':18. b7. 380. 1 103. b2t>2. -IOw5. S; -. : "3 ~.1 '173. ')~~. 1 ~ ~. 88. 57. 45. 35. 52. ijbl. 1789. 320b. "023.; "':;7.l'n,. • 22: • 1 G 1 • 71 • ':17. 1.18. 33. 145. b74. 2197 • 14137. 3771. - :228.--LOWERIVER NEAR VALDEZ STREAMFLOW - CFSLOWERIVER IN KEYSTONE CANYON NEAR VALDEZ STREAMFLOW - CFS)::0 'fC:~"____ we.Iuc T---.-.-.,.j f-------,.-- ....-------JAN--.----FE3---.---~A"-------A;J-------, - - .' ~ -•• :,-ooI.J~-_.----01 9 7:; • ..j::>:>. 22!J. 101 • bb. 50 • 45. 49. 71)0. 253-1. ':1191.1. 251:'5. 2 = : = . : = 15.l'n" . b3). '2. b4. b3. ':l6. 52. bOo (l51. 287u. 4179. 307-1. 1 3: : • : :" 7.SOLOMON GULCH NEAR VALDEZ STREN~FLOW- CFS- -- -_. -- -- - --- - -~~~01 c;:r ", j" )E: JAN FE3 ~AR AP~ ~'AY JU~ JUL A ... .; ~:. - ~ . ~~AGE------- ------- .. ------ -.----- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ---- .... - ....---1950. : ! • !l4. 3b. 16. 12. 9. 7. 99. 3b8. 277. 25". =::. 125.1951. .. e • 22. 10 • 1 • 4. 7. 10. 54. 2bl. 346. 25'-. .. 133 •1952. 75. 74. 21 • 14. 11 • 10. 9. 45. 3b6. 419. 2~2. .' .. - 130.1 'h3. 3 )... 131. 30. 18. 12. 11 • 10. 2214. " 5~ij. 408. 3 ... 0. :: -. 1-12.--t 1954. l w 3. 3~. 17. 11. 12. 8. 11. lb4. 357. 277. 35b. -. 13b.~\,j 1955. 133 • 74. 12. 12. 11. 10. 8. 37. 320. 514. 3b1- ::. 135...., r- 1950. S::. 27. 17. 21. 12. 8. 14 • 90. 371. 507. "'-'2. ::;. 1"8.-l>I

KLUTINARI VER NEAR COPPER CENTER STREAMFLOW~CFSJ::>IYEAR-------1950.1951.19')2.1953.1954.1955.195b.1957.1958.1959.19bO.19b I.1902.19b3.19b4.19b5.19bb.OCT ·';Jv J~C J (.',------- ------- ------- -----.-1b59. 717 • 370. 22j.941. 350. 289. .: 5 (.•1498. b07. 270. 1 c C •177 b. 911 • 710. SOC'.893. lj15. 2bO. 2 C' C'.893. 557. 295. 270.725. 227. 195. 1 be.1045. '113- 382. 251.2089. 1079. 1.191. 30 4 •827. 523. 215. 100.1192. bUS. 454. 30.J.1509. ')35. 358. 323.1353. 550. 330. 25()._. -'1222.904. -lo4. 350. 330.__ 413. ___ 370. 300 •.Q17. 455. 370. 300.1313. .,j80. 310 • 21 J •~::3 I.L."'{ .:,:)~t·A Y JU;~ JUL AUG S~;> AvERAGE---.--- ------- ----.-- ------- -.----- ------- ------- ------. -------135. 135. 1 t> 7. 1370. 35ll2. ll810. 4703. 2ljOo. 1b50.230. 24C:. 2:10. 051. 2393. 5573 • 40b8. 5,)62. 1735.1bO. 1 5 f: • 1 !J () • -l9b. 2358. 490b. 4b23. 1920. 11.1 lj 3.~OO. 2 b O. 250. 1017. 5bBb. 7071 • 5529. 2591, 2225.1 bO. 13' .• 127. 1 105. B05. 41 '17 • 57bb. 2732. lb08.220. 1 q S • 110 • 2b5. 2000. 5395. 3885. 23(jo. 13b9.150. 1t r;. 2(;0. 957. 3192. 5'120. 5132. 2200. 15b4.175. ,255. 2bO. 1251. 5941. 51b8. 451.13. 52~5. 2079.2b 1. 23:;. 223. 879. 49'::10. SOUl. 4502. 1892. 1833 •105. 10'i • 140. 1032. 5117. 5411. 4122. 1 7 ~.,. lb3b.240. 2,)5. 240. 1552. 3757. llbt>7. u729. 3b76. 1808.271 • 225. 215. 1051 • 3153. 4BO. '1680. 2859. lbl.l7.230. 220. 2';)0. bb4. 42b2. 5b53. 4b75. 2 .. 57. 1744.320. 30S. 210. 949. 2302. 5b95. 5140. 2927. lb04.320. 230. 220. 354. , , _ 47 b 1 .. 507b. 4402. 2341. lb72.270. 230. 200. 527. 2080. 4309. 3489. 2771.1. 1327.1 70 • 190. 2 u o. '::112. 3792. 4791. 3805. 2220. 1503.)::0IN

--..,I-J--. -,-- - ----- - --TONS INA RIVER AT TONSINA STREAMFLOWr::AR OCT r-.:. J~: J;' '1 :~S J:'~ ;.;,;; r·iAYwe... _---.- ------- --.---- -------------- ------- ----- -- -------____1958. 1057 L .--- ---= .... - ·.-1'150. 305. : ! : • · ..... 10: • 100. I 1 (j • : .. ~. U18.1957. 253. : ::. C~:. 9~. 01. I 0 iJ • ~ 3 J. 985.."1...,.- 175. 115. 105. ~ i • 500.1959. 30b. 2: : • 1 : :: • 81. 73. 73. :: ... 5c.7.1900. 558. 2 -:- :. ! :: : • 12 C • '10 • B5. :: I • 1395.1901. U80. c: : : • 1:;:. 175. 121 • 91. ~ 0 • 794..1962. U92. c: .. w'. 12: • &

POWER CREEK NEAR CORDOVA - CFSYEAR JC T :-mV )EC J I\r, FEd 'iAR I\pq MAY JUN JUL AJ:; S::? AvE~AGE------- ------- ------- ------- ----,.... - ---.--. ------- ------- ------. -.----- ----.-.1948. 252.-------327.-------103. 87.-------53. 28. 24. 218. 566. 6bl. .. 53. 478 • 274.19~'1. 3~'5. 1'19. 59. 49. 30. 43. 3:'. 142. 376. 454. "~5. 74~.1950. ... '3 7 • 319.246.73. 36. 22 • 25. 2':1. 141 • 571. ~ J1951.0 •123...24.'53.:.32. 203.37. 25. 29. 33. 34. 120. 35:'.1952.539. 397.250.102 ...232.23l.50. 35. 25. 20. 20. 94.1"153.427. 897.594... 55.2b7.358. 244 •65. 50. 33. 32. 50. 259.195:l.595.3 .. 3.542. 1020.103.45l. 2'18.59. 50. 47. 27. 30. 189. 412. ... 51-1955.10 12.307.4:.1 •290.232.52. 00. 43. 29. 24. 102.1956.372. 671.151 •603.bO.294. 244.38. 35. 23. 10. 22.1957.177 • 356.134.612.2H.710. 425.100.219.49. 23. 23. 24. 180. 422. 457. o.J5~.1'158. 973.3. 204.128. 92.(- )156. 98. 104. 240.1964.382.255.593. ...32.05.326. 249.11.10. 63. 69. 47. 44. 100. 1.196. 610. o.J90.1965.291.253.222.196. 11 1 • 43. 39. 47. 96. 187. 428.1966.433. J3o.320.556. 236.BO. 54. 33. 23. 22. 39. 146. 382. 431 •1967.56!> •.3ob.713. 235.178. 48. 36. 49. 59. 89. 181. 455. 497. 49~ •19bB. 174.736. 265.2bO. 102. 58. 175. 134. 53. 274. 401.1969. 184."52. 33 7. 311 •109.228.59. 27. .36. 93. 94. - 228. - 458. 399.197 O.252.o.J4B.218. 180.204. 190. 1 0 1 • 143. 1 14. 104. 173. 428.1971.527. 6.10.259. 162.3b 7. 287.74. 56. 45. 27. 47. 116. 466. 681 •1972. 559.287. 81-318. 234.39. 25. 19. 15. 16. 1 0 1 • 328. :;b5.1973 •505.3.JO.5 ... 2.90.210.61. H. 30. 21. 37. 189. 351. 449.197:J.i.&78.155.234. 193.56. 48. 36. 28. 19. 48. 180. 354.1975. 460.--352. 340.2511.531. 1 79.811. 56. 43. 26. 40. 179 • 382.1976.632. 388.267. 49.b04. 262.41. 30. 36. 21. 90. 46il. 803. 546.1977 •..69. b96.4"2. 548.292.195. 187. 257. 54. 85. 183. 454.1978.571. 522.330.51.10.B 1 •336.35. 80. 75. 47. 50. 21B. 405. 435. 41 ... 339. 209.

ALLISON CREEKESTIMATED STREAMFLOW - CFSYEAR OCT i'OV DEC JAN FEB ~ARwe.APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SE? !.::~AGE._------------____----.-. .. ---~.- ._----- ------- ------. ---- ... - ------- ... ----- .... _-- ---- ... - -- ..... _-191.18. 36. 35. 14. 7. 5. 3. 3. 59. 152. 11&. 9i. S3. 50.19149. 52. 23. 7. 5. 3~ 1.1. ... 30. 111 • 103. 89. 13..1 • 14 7.1950. 29. 28. 12. 5. ". 3. 2. 3u. 121.1. 91.1. 81:>. S!). ~2.1951. I!). 7. 3. o. 1 • 2. 3. Pi. 88. 117. 60. 1."1 ... 45.1952. 25. 2S. 7. 5. 1.1 • 3. 3. 15. 1211. 255. q9. 7 .... 53.1953. 1 u 3. 44. 10. 0, U. 14, O. 7&. 104. 138. 117. ~~. bS.1954. '10. 12. &. ". u. 3. u. 55. 121. 91.1. 120. 53. '10.1955. 1.17. 25. LI.". LI. 3. 3. 12. 108. 1711. 122. .3. II 1:>.195b. 19. 9. O. 7. 1I. 3. 5. 31. 125. 171. lU9. 72. 50.1'157. 17. -27. 13. 5. 3. 3. 3. lI'1. 121. 1011. q~. 17:.. 51.1958. 5~ • 35. 9. B. ". 1I. 7. 89, 159. 261.1. 151.1. -1. e 7....1959, 5.3. 11.1. 11. 5. u. 3. U. bb.1900. U· 110. 150. 70,19....2.10. 7. S. "0.3. 4 • 79. 130. 101. loa. 51. S ....19b1. 29. 13. 21. 9, 5. 4. b. 93. 120. 121. 118. =- ... 52.");:a 19&2. H. 15. 8,. 7. u. 1.1. 5, u 1 • 110. 109. 7u. ~l. ~o.I 19b3. H. 22. 17. ? 10. 7. 11 • 07. 112. 151. 0'1. 5 ... 46.--'19bU. .3:.1. 10. 19. 6. 6. Ii • S. 13. 131 • 157. 100. .. 7. us..0:::-1905. 35. 22. IS. 5. 'I. 1I. 10. 47. 122. Qb. 9v. =17. ..~.19b&. ij,;.,. 11 • 7. lI, 3. 3. 5. 31. 112. 95. 11 U. 127. 116.19&7. u9. " 20. b. iI. 1I. 5. 9. 41.1. 128. 1111. 101. 131. 51.19b8. 23. 28. 11.1. 5. 11. 9. O. 80. 110. 101. 71. 51. 113.19('9; ---~2iJ.----I(j.- --7~-- -1.1;-- "i4 ~ 1. 10. 62; -129; - 8~. 55. H. 3:'.1970. bl. 23. lb. 8. 10. B. 11. 111. 122. 128. 128. 01. 52.1971. 35. 19. 9. S. Q. 3. S. 20. 130. IB1. 113. 52. ;'8.1972. 39. 11. 'I. 1I. 3. 2. 2. 111. 100. 1111. 103. 95. ..3.1973. . II O. 12. 8. II. 3. 3. q. 1I8. 105. 102. 98. H. 3'1.1911.1. 20. 9. b. U. 1. 3. 5. 4b. lOb. bB. 7t • 'n. 51>.1975. o3~ 28 .• 11. 5. " Q. 3. 5. lIQ. 112. 1011. SO. lJb. 52.1910. 30. B. S. 4. 1I. 3. 9. 1511. 2140. 135. 90. 122. boo1977 • b::l. 55. 27. 12. lb. 4. 9. us. lZ8. 11.13. lOb. 9~. 5il.

i[i ~,!:,-~Hi----~~+-~-~!.!/~r--~se~c-on~d~a-ry~E-n~er-g-y+-~-_~I1360, I : I I ,--: ! iii, Izo.......I- ex:>w....JWW~1320 L __ _1280 _ _ "- -: i _". -- __.1 : -~ -- _ _ i I -V r------ - I -:5 1240I I I H;,todc El,:UOO.' 13~7.00 ft., _, iii i I -+-- ___ _"1, I I r! I iI i 'i" I ! 'I 'I I ':1200 ~~--~--------__ --~~__ ~--__ ----__--~-+__ ~I __ ~ __ +--4 __ ~ __ ~ __ ~~--~!'--~--~-r'--~'--~--~------~,300 1-- - .: _____.. _~--------:-_----- ----L------~ ____ ~-- -- . --+250 1-I ! ;! I! I ~ , I! i i ! I iI J I i I: ':,--- i ---r----r-t- ----+-,-----~-T---'---:::"-T----i--;--- -- --i I 'I' i ! i !I : ! ' I i- --- c._ --- 1_ -t,- i -- - -- -- --r-----'-----T----+----+'-,I i I II: I ~ jIi-1----- - - -- -4- '"U200IIw~ex::r:uV1.......Cl50>­

APPENDIX BEXISTING SYSTEM ANDFUTURE NEEDS

APPENDIX 13EXISTING SYSTEM AND FUTURE NEEDSTABLE OF CONTENTSItemINTRODUCTIONVALDEZ SYSTEMGLENNALLEN SYSTEMFUTURE NEEDSEXCERPT FROM POWER REQUIREMENTS STUDY,COPPER VALLEY ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, MARCH 1979PageB-1B-1B-2B-8B-19NumberB-1B-2B-3B-4B-5B-613-7B-8B-9B-lOTit 1eLIST OF FIGURESPrice Increases to CVEACVEA Utility Rates 1970~1979Peak Energy Requirements, CVEA 1964-1979Energy Demand Projections: Valdez-Copper ValleyPeak Power Demand Week, Oecember 1990Average Power Demand Week, April 1990Minimum Power Demand Week, July 1990Peak Power Demand Week, December 1995Average Power Demand Week, April 1995Minimum Power Demand Week, July 1995B-3B-4B-7B-12B-13B-14B-15B-16B-17B-18

IIHf{ODUCTIONThis section is devoted to a detailed description of the region's presentutility system. Topics will include the community's current stock ofdiesel-fired units, the cost of fuel and electricity generation, industrialversus residential use, and the historical demand for power. Also included isa brief examination of ongoing and probable additions to the system. Finally,the recent projections of future power demand are reviewed. The selectedforecast is the basis for benefit derivation as shown in Appendix C - EconomicEvaluation.VALDEZ SYSTEM, The Valdez system came into existence following the March 27, 1964earthquake which demolished the town. Studies following the quake determinedthat the townsite should be abandoned. A new Valdez was built at a locationapproximately 5 miles west of the original townsite.The Valdez Light, Power and Telephone Company served the Valdez area priorto the earthquake. The generating and distribution facilities of this companywere purchased by the Urban Renewal Agency which, in turn, sold the facilitiesto Copper Valley Electric Association. The old facilities were obsolete, inpoor condition and were used only until new facilities were operable.The Copper Valley Electric Association obtained a Certificate ofConvenience from the State of Alaska and a franchise from the new city ofValdez to own and operate the electric system serving the new Valdez. TheCertificate of Convenience covers the general area and is not confined to thelimits of the new townsite.The Valdez system presently serves approximately 1,153 consumers over about21 miles of distribution lines. The system serves the new city of Valdez, theold Valdez area and consumers from old Valdez to the airport area and 10 mileseast of old Valdez along t~e Richardson Highway.The existing powerplant contains the following diesel and gas turbine units:3 - 600 kW, 720 rpm, Fairbanks Morse (1967) 1,800 kW1 - 1,928 kW, 400 rpm, Enterprise (1972) 1,928 kW1 - 965 kW, 360 rpm, Enterprise (1975) 965 kW1 - 2,620 kW, 450 rpm, Enterprise (1975) 2,620 kW1 - 2,800 kW, gas turbine (1976) 2,800 kWTotal Installed Capacity10,113 kWB-1

GLENNALLEN SYSTEMThe Glennallen system serves approximately 890 consumers over about 250miles of distribution lines. The present system extends from about 70 mileswest of Glennallen along the Glenn Highway to about 39 miles north and 55miles south of Glennallen along the Richardson Highway. The existing powerplantcontains the following diesel electric units:2 - 320 kW, 720 rpm Fairbanks Morse ( 1959) 640 kW1 - 560 kW, 720 rpm Fairbanks Morse ( 1963) 560 kW2 - 600 kW, 720 rpm Fairbanks Morse (1966) 1,200 kW2 - 2,624 kW, 450 rpm Enterprise (1975-76) 5,248 kWTotal Installed Capac ity7,648 kWThe load factors of these two separate systems average 53.3 percent and54.7 percent over the years 1970-1977 for Glennallen and Valdez, respectively.The utility1s nearly absolute dependence on diesel fuel results in a closecorrelation between the cost per kWh sold and the price of diesel. Thisinterrelationship is demonstrated in Table 1 which depicts both rates for the1970 1 s.Table 1Year Year end cost of fuel (per ga 1. ) Total Cost per kWh sold (busbar)1974 .302 .03681975 .361 .04781976 .366 .06291977 .410 .06871978 .415 .07361979 .714 .09951980 (April) .814Due to the continuing escalation of fuel costs, high maintenance andoperations costs, and the relatively short operational life of diesel driventurbines, the community strongly desires to lessen its dependence on thisenergy source.To that end, the Solomon Gulch Hydroelectric Project is expected to add12,000 kW of capacity to the system by 1981. That addition is expected tohold the $/kWh cost of the total system to $.08677 in 1982 and below $.0900throughout the 1980 1 s. Copper Valley Electric Association also has prospectsfor the construction of an oil pipeline pressure reducing turbine, asdescribed in the section concerning alternatives. In the future, theAssociation intends to dispose of its small diesel generating units and retainthe larger diesel units for emergency standby. There are however, no nearterm plans for acquiring additional gas or diesel turbines.The following tabulation gives the installed generation capacity, peakdemand, and energy load for the Valdez district for the years 1973-1979.8-2

FIGURE: B-1PRICE INCREASES OF DIESEL FUEL TO CVEA **' WEIGHTED AVERAGE ACCORDING TO USE IN EACH SERVICE AREA1.00.90 --.80 _ ena::

120110FIGURE: B- 2CVEA UTILITY RATES 1970-198010090::r::~~......(J)..J::!::I80-0::coI «~ m(J)70 -:::::>m(J)t-600u>-~50 z '"'"3O~--~--p---~~--~--~--~--~--~--~~--~--~--~--~--~--~~~~--~.1970 1971 1972 73 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980

Installed Generat.or Peak Energy for LoadYear Capacity (kW) Demand (kW) (kWh)1973 3,719 1,280 6,469,8301974 3,719 2,470 9,457,3801975 7,304 4,750 18,250,7051976 10,113 4,875 26,006, 1601977 10,113 4,700 23,323, 1831978 10,113 4,750 21,100,5421979 10,113 4,225 21,415,721For the Glennallen district, the historic trends of installed capacity,peak demand, and energy for load are as follows:Instalied Generator Peak Energy for LoadYear Capacity (kW) Demand (kW) (kWh)1973 2,394 1,220 6,120,9401974 2,394 1,340 6,166,7601975 2,394 2,360 8,635,8101976 7,642 3,500 13,280,5301977 7,642 4,290 19,049,9121978 7,642 4,000 17,232,1021979 7,642 3,470 16,017,863The per customer residential use of both service regions increased from3,846 to 6,423 over the years 1970 to 1977. Per customer residential use was5,735 in 1979. Industrial consumption has grown rapidly in recent years,accounting for about 75 percent of total demand during the 19701s. Thecurrent commercial-industrial share of CVEAls generation is 74 percent(1979). The Alyeska Marine Terminal became electrically self-sufficient in1977. The impending ALPETCO plant will likewise generate its own powerutilizing waste steam. .The specific current power requirements of the community have beenclassified by CVEA as rural residential, small commercial, large commercial,and public buildings and street lights. An examination of each categorybecame the basis for a forecast by CVEA which was in turn adopted by APA andultimately by this study (with some modification). A detailed rationale forthe future needs of each of these categories is offered in the back of theappendix.B-5

The steady but uneven growth in CVEAls net utility generation is presentedin Table 2 and Figure 8-3.Table 2UTILITY NET GENERATION (GWH) 1/GLENNALLEN-VALDEZ AREAUpper Susitna Project Power Market Analysis (APA)Year CVEA Growth %1960 3.21961 3.4 6. 11962 4.0 17. 11963 4.5 12.21964 4.2 -6.51965 6.5 55.81966 8.0 22.41967 8.2 3.71968 8.6 5.91969 9.7 17 .81970 10.7 11.31971 11. 7 8.51972 11. 8 0.81973 12.6 6.21974 16.6 29.21975 26.9 58.21976 39.3 44.31977 47.4 20. 11978 43.8 -8.01979 41.6 -5.01/ Net generation does not include line losses and therefore exceeds totalconsumption.8-6

90008000700060005000- 4000 ~..-:3000-a::LLI2000~0a..FIGURE: B-3PEAK ENERGY REQUIREMENTS, CVEA,1964-1979CONTINUOUSDEMAND1000SYSTEM ANNUAL LOAD FACTORANNUAL LOADFACTOR %1.00.8_-_-Y'" 0.60.4o 6~ 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79TIME . (YEARS)

FUTURE NEEDSThere have been three recent projections concerning electricity demand inthe Valdez-Glennallen service area. The earliest was produced by the AlaskaPower Administration and subsequently appeared in a March 1979 report entitledUpper Susitna River Project Power Market Analysis. This report considers theCopper Valley utility district for intertie with the proposed Susitnahydrelectric project. The forecast provided by APA was made during a periodof unprecedented growth in the study area. Consequently it is the highest ofthe three load forecasts, as will be illustrated. The second projection(chronologically) appears in the Power Cost Study 1979-1993 prepared for CVEAby Robert W. Retherford Associates, also in March of 1979. Contrary to theAPA forecast, this projection was formed during the post-pipeline wind-downand reflects the reduced expectations of that period. Like the APA analysis,it does not take into account the recently initiated ALPETCO refinery. Thethird and most recent load forecast was also conducted by APA, and appears intheir marketability analysis provided for this report. The relative positionof APA's 1980 projection can be seen in the following comparative tables:Table 3VALDEZ-GLENNALLEN AREA UTILITY FORECASTSUpper Susitna Project Power Market AnalysisEnergy (gwh)Peak Demand(MW)CVEA lLCVEA lLYear Glenna1len Valdez Total Glennallen1976 12.5 24.5 37.0 39.3 2/ 3. 11977 21.0 27.0 48.0 47.4 2/ 4.21978 22. 1 27.2 49.3 43.8 2/ 4.41979 24.0 27.6 51.6 41.6 ]j 4.61980 45.9 27.9 73.8 7.31981 48.5 30.5 79.0 7.71982 50.0 33.0 83.0 8. 11983 52.2 35.5 87.7 8.51984 55.0 38.2 93.2 9.01985 57.6 41.4 99.0 9.51986 60.0 45.0 105.0 10. 11987 63. 1 48.5 111. 6 10.61988 66.0 52.5 118.5 11. 11989 69. 1 56.8 125.9 11.71990 72.3 61.4 133.7 12.41991 75.0 66.4 141.4 13.0Valdez6.05.95.85.85.86.36.87.48.08.69.310. 110.911.812.813.81995 1802000 2402025 1,0251/ Copper Valley Electric Association Forecast from 1976 REA PowerRequirements Study.2/ Historical valuesB-8

Table 4VALDEZ-GLENNALLEN AREA UTILITY FORECASTSRetherford AssociatesEnergy (,Wh)Peak Demand {MW~Year Glennallen Va dez Total Glennallen Va"dez1980 21.4 26.5 47.9 4.4 5.41981 22.0 28. 1 50. 1 4.7 5.71982 22.5 30.0 52.5 4.9 6. 11983 23. 1 31.9 55.0 5.2 6.51984 24.6 33.7 58.3 5.5 6.91985 26.3 35.5 61.8 5.8 7.31986 28.0 37.6 65.6 6.2 7.71987 29.8 39.8 69.6 6.6 8. 11988 31.8 42.0 73.8 6.9 8.61989 33.9 44.4 78.3 7.3 9. 11990 36. 1 47.0 83. 1 7.8 9.61995 111.22000 148.82025 638.68-9

Table 5VALDEZ-GLENNALLEN AREA UTILITY FORECASTS1980 Marketability AnalysisEnergy (gwh)Glennallen ValdezTotalPeak Demand (MW)Glennallen ValdezHistorical197619771978197913.321.420.418.526.026. 123.423.039.347.543.841.63.54.34.03.54.94.94.84.2Forecast198019811982198319841985198619871988198919901991199219932000 3/2025 !/21.422.022.526.027.729.531.433.535.738. 140.643.346. 149.270.0293.426.530.0 ~/33.0 '!:../35.0 2/34.0 ~/35.637.639.842.044.446.949.652.455.480.0335.347.952.055.561.061.765. 169. 173.377 .882.587.592.998.6104.6150.0628.74.44.74.95.25.55.86.26.66.97.47.88.28.79.214.056.71/ Copper Valley Electric Association Forecast from January 1980 Power Cost"S"tudy.~/ Additions for ALPETCO facility have been included.3/ APA extrapolation.4/ Corps of Engineers extrapolation based on APA growth rate.5.46. 1 '!:../6.7 ]j7. 1 '!:../7.0 '!:../7.37.78. 18.69. 19.610.210.811.416.067. 18-10

As footnoted, the Alaska Power Administration adopted future powerdemand estimates front CVEA's 1976 power requirements study. The studyincluded estimates of demands through 1991; APA made a rough extension tothe year 2000, assuming a 6 percent rate of increase.Also footnoted is the actual performance of the utility from thebeginning year of the APA forecast to 1979. This projection was fairlyaccurate for 1976 and 1977 but diverged considerably in the years 1978and 1979. These later years represent a lull between the wind-down fromthe pipeline activity and the initiation of the ALPETCO refinery. TheRetherford Associates projection is too recent to test against historicaldata, however, a corresponding forecast made by Retherford in 1976 performedinversely to that of APA, with the greater inaccuracies appearingin the earlier years. Although the current Retherford projection willprobably out-perform the earlier APA forecast, it is ill-suited for theexpected high activity years of the early 1980's. The load forecastwhich is considered to be most accurate and was adopted for this study isAPA's 1980 estimate. Much too recent to test against historical data,this projection represents the best compromise between the other two, andincorporates the most current information available. This extrapolationis essentially a variation of Retherford with the earlier year adjustedto account for ALPETCO construction and subsequent maintenance, and alater period of reduced growth rates in the face of energy conservation.A graphic comparison of the various forecasts is shown on Figure B-4.Annual load factors are expected to remain in the 50 percent range.The incentive for the Valdez-Copper Valley community to avoid dieselgeneration is better understood in view of the fact that 1981 costs forthe system are expected to reach 114 mills per kWh. New hydro construction,with its high capital investment, does not appear resoundinglypreferred to diesel at this time. However, developments since 1973,including the abrupt price adjustments of 1979, cast considerable doubton the standard analysis based on fixed relative costs.Figures B-S through B-10 on the following pages portray how thesystem would look for the minimum, average, and peak weeks in 1990 and1995 with the addition of the PRT and Allison hydropower. The loadshapes are based on actual data for the combined systems of Glennallenand Valdez.The various shaded areas on the graphs represent the amount of firmenergy available during the respective weeks. It does not represent theactual ,mode in which it will operate. For example, Figure B-5 showsAllison hydro operating in a base mode with a continuous output of about4 megawatts. In reality, it may be used primarily for peaking.With the proper interfacing of the PRT with the Solomon and Allisonhydroelectric projects, it may be possible to increase the winter outputfrom the hydropower projects. This could be accomplished by increasedutilization of the PRT during periods of less demand. However, this wasnot taken into account for the graphic representations.B-11

FIGURE: 8-4ENERGY DEMAND PROJECTIONS: VALDEZ - COPPER VALLEY200.0REVISED APAPROJECTIONcoI~r'0100.0>­(!)a:UJzUJR.W. RETHERFORDPROJECTION.890 I.e2000

201510CDI5.: ...:.T. .' !', ~. '., . ~~ ...: ~.'. ,: ~.' ./"SUNWEDF'1GlR£ ~ PEAK POWER DEMA~ WEEK, GLENNALLEN - \tllEZ,THUSATDEC. t9IO. BASED ON "79 LOAD SHAPES.

flGU. a-. AYllAOI POWel DeMAND Will, GlINMALllN-VAI.8IZ, ANN. 1990. IASlD ON 1979 LOAD SHAHS.--------------------------

SOLOMON HY I.IICU'-__'lOUIE 1-7 MlNtMUM 'oweR DlMANO Will, OlINHAU.1N -VALDII. JULY 1990. lAUD ON LOAD SHAHS fROM 197 •.

2520'JGUII I-a NA« POWIt DEMAND Will, OlfNNAlLIN· VALOIZ, Dlel .... ''". 1ASi0 ON 19'9 LOAD SHl\m.1WID

, .. ,·.AYI.AG! fOWl. DlMANO WHit, GLENNAllEN. YAlDlZ, APlIL 1'"'. "'10 ON 1'" LOAD SMAPlI .•

10MUll 1-10 MINIMUM POW.I DeMAND Wltl, _"""ALLIN. YAlDlZ, JUlY'"', lASED ON LOAD IIWtIS NOM "'9,

The following is an excerpt from the Power Requirements Study, Alaska18 Copper Valley, Copper Valley Electric Association, Inc., Glennallen,Alaska, March 1979.Rural ResidentialVALDEZIncluded in this consumer classification are single and multi-familydwelling units, and approximately six trailer courts. The number ofrural residential consumers in Valdez declined substantially during 1977and moderately during 1978. A further moderate decline may occur in1979. However, this trend is expected to stabilize and gradually reverseitself. According to information from Mr. Cal Dauel, State Economist,and other available information it appears that most individuals whocould be expected to leave the Valdez area due to completion of thepipeline facilities, have in fact left. In estimating future growth ofresidential consumers, it was assumed that the average number ofconsumers in 1979 and 1980 would remain at approximately the 1978 level.After 1980, additional growth would occur due to increased activity inshipping and oil transportation. A gradual increase in the number ofconsumers is also expected as the Fluor Staff Housing Units aretransferred to private ownership - 28 were transferred in 1978 and 118a~e projected in 1979-1980. Average usage is also expected to reverseits downward trend as the possibility of continued mild winter conditionsappears remote.Small CommercialThe historical data indicates a significant increase in the number ofconsumers and average monthly usage during the period 1973 through 1977.This is attributed to a deficiency of small commercial establishmentsprior to pipeline construction. Since completion of the pipeline andrelated terminal facilities, this class of consumer has not shown asignifjcant decrease although kWh usage has dropped. There are severalreasons for the decreased consumption, including above average wintertemperature in 1976 and 1977 and fewer hours of operation during the dayfor small commercial establishments such as restaurants, fast foodoutlets, etc.It was assumed that a deficiency of small commercial establishmentsexisted prior to the pipeline activity and the services which wereprovided during the construction era will remain and continue to grow ata rate at least comparable to that of prepipeline activity.Public BuildingsThis class of consumer consists of schools, churches, and governmentbuildings. There has been a gradual increase in the number of consumerssince 1969 although there were years of static growth. Public buildingconsumers and average usage was projected to increase as consumer demandsfor more and better services, comparable to those normally found in8-19

Power Requirement Study (excerpt)Anchorage and other larger cities, also increases. Information fromAlaska Labor Force Estimates also indicates an increase in the governmentworkforce in the area.Street LightsNormal usage for street lights was assumed to remain at presentlevels. Three additional street light installations are expected withinthe next 10 years as normal expansion of the community occurs.Large CommercialThe average annual kWh for this class has been estimated to show amoderate increase. Consumers have shown a slow but gradual increase thepast 10 years. Consumers have increased from 22 in 1974 to the present33 in 1978. Consumers were projected to increase during the future10-year period at approximately one-half the rate previously experienced.Over 350 kVAThe system presently serves 4 loads in excess of 350 kVA, namely:1. Valdez Memorial Hospital2. Valdez City Schools3. Fluor Staff Housing4. Farm and Sea of AlaskaThe Fluor Staff Housing load consists of a housing development whichis presently being reclassified to residential. 54 units have beencompletely removed from the area, 28 have already been reclassified in1978 and the remaining 118 units are scheduled to be transferred during1979 and 1980. Therefore, this load has been phased out of operationafter 1980.Farm and Sea of Alaska is a new load which was connected February 2,1979. No historical data is available for this load. Estimates havebeen prepared based on information supplied by the consumer.A potential load which exists, but has not been'considered in theestimates, is the expansion of the Valdez City Dock. The bond issue forthe port facilities is sCheduled to go before the voters April 10, 1979and, if approved, construction would begin in early 1980. Completion ofthe dock facilities would be expected in 1981.8-20

Power Requirement Study (excerpt)GLENNALLENRural ResidentialRural residential consumers in the Glennallen area consist primarilyof single family units. Significant consumer growth was experienced inthis class of consumer during the 1974 to 1976 period due to constructionactivity related to the A1yeska Pipeline construction. Beginning in 1977and 1978, growth continued in the number of rural residential consumersbut at a much slower rate than experienced during pipeline construction.This was due to a return to an economy more normal to the area. Thenumber of consumers has not experienced a decline subsequent to thecompletion of the pipeline. It is expected that any consumers whichwould have departed the area have already done so. Many of the transientworkers (workers from outside the State of Alaska not bringing theirfamilies during pipeline construction) were housed in the Glennallen Camp(large power load) and would not appear in rural residential statistics.In projecting future growth in this class, it is expected that apreconstruct ion (1968-1974) growth rate will be followed. There isenough economic activity in the Glennallen area to assume this type ofgrowth. It is expected that the usage will, after several years ofdecline, begin a steady upward climb due to a return to more normaltemperatures for this area. The Glennallen area experienced rather warmweather in 1976-1978. Another item which may affect residential usage isthe possibility of installation of electric hot-water heaters as the costof propane gas increases.Small CommercialThe small commercial class consists of primarily small businesseswhich provide specific services to the area residents such as food,hardware, lumber, etc. The growth of small commercial consumers has seena rather consistent pattern since 1968 with the exception of a sharpincrease during 1976 and 1977. From all available information, itappears that the Glennallen area will not suffer an economic letdown nowthat the pipeline is completed and growth of small commercial consumerswill continue. Although average monthly usage has shown a leveling trendsince 1975, this is expected to increase as more severe winter weatherconditi~ns are anticipated and as the growth rate returns to a moreconsistent level.Street LightsIt was basically assumed that the number of street lights woulddouble over a lO-year period as normal growth occurred within the area.The average usage per installation is expected to remain at approximatelythe same number of hours each year.B-21

Power Requirements Study (excerpt)Public BuildingsThis particular class of consumer consists of government offices, schools,churches, and other community type organizations. Since 1973 there has been asteady growth in the number of consumers. Continued growth is expected but ata slower rate experienced during prepipeline construction era. Averagemonthly consumption was projected on the basis that some consolidation wouldoccur within this class and larger facilities being constructed in the futurewhich could accommodate more than one type of activity.Large CommercialThe average annual kWh usage for this class has been estimated to show amoderate increase during the study period. Consumers ranged from 24 in 1974,39 in 1976 and 19 in 1978. The erratic growth is largely attributed topipeline activity and the subsequent completion of this project. In view ofthis, growth is expected to normalize and increase moderately to 21 consumersin 1983 and 24 in 1988. Both consumer and energy requirements were estimatedon a group basis.Over 350 kVAThe system is presently serving 4 loads in excess of 350 kVA, namely:1. Alyeska Mechanical Refrigeration No.2. Alyeska Mechanical Refrigeration No. 23. Alyeska Housing @ P.S. 124. Alyeska Pipeline Pump Station No. 12The Alyeska Pipeline Glennallen Camp has been completely phased out ofoperation. Alyeska Pipeline Pump Station No. 11 is expected to come on linebeginning 1983 as capacity in the pipeline is increased from the present 1.2million barrels a day to 1.6 million barrels a day. It is felt thatincreasing the capacity in the line must occur as the demand for oil in theContinental United States continues to increase or as oil exchange agreementsbetween foreign countries are eventually finalized. Therefore usage isexpected to be approximately equal to that of Pump Station No. 12.The refrigeration loads are necessary to freeze underground sections ofpipe to prevent melting of permafrost areas. These loads were projected onthe basis of existing usage.The pump station loads include all power to the station except for theactual pumping load. The pumps are run by customer self-generation.B-22

APPENDIX CECONOMIC EVALUATION

APPElmIX CECONOMIC EVALUATIONTABLE OF CONTENTSItemItHRODUCTIOtJPROJECT COSTSInterest During ConstructionAnnual CostsOperation, Maintenance and Replacement CostsTotal Average Annual System CostsPROJECT BENEFITSUpdating of FERC Power ValuesTransmission LossesCredit for Energy and CapacityNED Employment BenefitsECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE SELECTED PLANComparability TestSensi ti vi ty TestsLow-load Growth AssumptionAlternate Discount RateFuel Cost EscalationWithout Pressure Reducing TurbineMatrix Table of Multiple ConditionsHYDROPOWER BENEFIT COMPUTER PRINT OUTPageC-lC-lC-2C-7C-lli

INTRODUCTIONThe purpose of this section is to outline the basic assumptions usedin making the economic analysis for hYdro development in the Valdez­Copper Valley area. Evaluation is based exclusively on economic benefitsthat can be derived from hydropower development. Evaluation of theAllison Lake development was accomplished by comparing the benefits toaccompanying costs. The benefit value of hYdroelectric power is measuredby the cost of providing the equivalent power from the most likelyalternative source (diesel).The base condition of the selected plan calls for the installment ofthe PRT by 1984. The proposed Allison hydro project would then augmentthe system with a power-on-line date of 1990. These projectedinstallment dates are derived from the community's future power needs, asposited by the Alaska PO\ter Administration's load growth forecast. TheAll i son hYdro component of the sel ected pl an is the subject of a margi nalanalysis in the latter half of this appendix.PROJECT COSTSA detailed cost estimate of the selected project is contained inSection D of the appendix.Interest During Construction:For the purpose of the screening analysis, interest duringconstruction was based on the formula of simple interest (7-3/8 percent)applied to a uniform expenditure over the construction period.Annual Costs:The compound interest charge on costs incurred during the constructionperiod of any project is considered a logical cost of the constructionphase and is added to first cost to establish the investment cost. Thisinvestment cost can then be transformed into an average annual fixed costby applying the appropriate capital recovery factor associated with the7-3/8 percent interest rate and 100-year economic project life. Byadding operations, maintenance, and replacement costs, a total annualcost is establ i shed for the purpose of determi ni ng comparabil ity andfeelsi bil i ty.Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs (OM&R):Annual or~&R costs were provided by the Al aska Power Admi ni strati on(APA) and a more detailed discussion appears in the section on assessmentand evaluation of detailed plans. An OM&R cost of $200,000 has beenestablished for the Allison Lake project.C-l

Total Average Annual System Costs:The average annual costs for the various plans of development arebased on a 7-3/8 percent annual interest rate and a 100-year economiclife. These costs also reflect transmission facilities, access, landacquisition, replacement costs, annual operation and maintenance, andother associated project costs.PROJECT BE~EFITSThe benefit value of hydroelectric power is measured by the cost ofproviding the equivalent power from the most likely alternative source.The types of alternative power sources appropriate for the Valdez-CopperValley area and the annual unit costs for those alternatives have beendetennined by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and updated forcurrent fuel costs by this organization. For derivation of benefits theenergy and capacity-producing capabilities of these projects will beadjusted to account for transmission losses and marketabilityconsiderations.Updating of FERC Power Values:Escalating prices of petroleum products have made it necessary toinclude the effects of recent increases on project feasibility. TheFederal Energy Regulatory Commission provided the Corps of Engineers withenergy and capacity values for the most likely alternative (diesel) to beimplemented if hydropower were not developed (see 1 February 1980 letter,Appendix H). These values were based on 1 July 1979 fuel prices of 58.8and 57.1 cents per gallon at Glennallen and Valdez respectively. As ofSeptember 1980 these prices had increased to nearly 90 cents per gallon.In order to account for these increases and to bring them up to datewith the Ocotber 1980 cost estimate for hydropower development, certainadjustments were made.The values given for capacity were assumed to remain the same, themajority of these costs are fixed, with fuel cost escalation havinglittle effect. For the economic analysis the capacity values (Federalfinancing) of 93.86$/kW-yr and 97. 52$/kW-yr for Valdez and Glennallenwere ~i ghted accordi ng to energy use in the respecti ve porti ons of thestudy area. A weighted value of 95.43$/kW-yr has been used.The energy values provided by FERC include the cost of fuel andoperation and maintenance costs. Based on heat rates of 138,000BTU/gallon and 9,370 BTU/kWh the proposed diesel units would produce14.73 kWh/gallon. By subtracting the weighted cost of fuel from theweighted energy value, a weighted value for O&M of 5.82 mills/kWh wasdetermined. This value was assumed to remain constant.To determine the updated energy values the projected cost of dieselfuel (90.0i/gallon / 14.73 kWh/gallon = 6.11¢/kWh or 61.10 mills/kWh) wasadded to the O&M cost (5.82 mi 11 s/kWh) to arri ve at an updated energyC-2

value of 66.92 mills/kWh. This figure was the basic mill rate used foreconomi c eval uati ons throughout the report. Its primary shortcomi ng isthat it does not take into account any inflationary changes in thecapacity values or the O&M of the energy value which would put it on parwith the hydropower cost estimate. As a result these figures are seen tobe conservative.Transmission Losses:Benefits must be based on prime power which represents projectcapabilities less losses. The highly favorable location of the AllisonLake project necessitates only 3.5 miles of additional transmissionline. Thus, for benefit evaluation purposes capacity losses are assumedto be 2.0 percent. Whil e there "Ii 11 be addi ti onal losses through thetransmission network, this would be absorbed by the local utility andreflected in their rates to users. This practice is consistent with the(modified) power values provided by the Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission. For purposes of the final screening analysis, a 2 percentcapacity loss ,,,as applied to each project variation.Credit for Energy and Capacity:Opportunities exist for displacing energy which could theoretically beproduced by exi sti ng thermal pl ants. If the cost of hydro energy ischeaper than the cost of producing energy with the existing thermalplants, it is to the utilities· advantage to shut down the thermal plantsand purchase hydro energy. This I'lould conserve fossil fuel, which wouldotherwise be burned. The value of thennal energy that would be displacedis dependent on prevailing fuel costs. For the Valdez-Copper Valleyregion it is apparent that maximum possible displacement of thermalenergy is desirable. Although CVEA is expected to fully employ all hydrocapacity at the earliest opportunity, the capacity costs of displacedexisting diesel units cannot be claimed as a benefit. Thus the proposedproject is not given any credit for capacity until 1994. Capacity creditis thereafter IIstepped in ll according to a diesel retirement scheduleprovided by the Alaska Power Administration.As illustrated in Figure C-l, the communities projected pOI'ler demandover the year 1997 will exceed the total firm energy output of SolomonGulch, the PRT and Allison for nearly every interval in that period. Bythe follOl'ling year, the power demand exceeds the system·s firm energyoutput at every poi nt. The proposed project is therefore gi ven fullcredit for firm energy as it is absorbed into the system.Figure C-2 is similar to the previous figure except that it includessecondary energy and is adjusted to reflect conditions in the year 2000.r~ote - the absence of the PRT (caused by the exhausti on of thePrudhoe Bay field).C-3

15FIGURE C-I: PRT, SOLOMON GULCH, ANDALLISON LAKE FIRM ENERGYPROJECTED ENERGYDEMAND FOR THEYEAR 1997.105oJ F M A M J J A SON 0

FIGURE C-2: SOLOMON GULCH ALLISON LAKEAPA REVISED PROJECTION15PROJECTED ENERGYDEMAND FORTHE YEAR 200010ALLISON LAKESECONDARY-----­ENERGY"5oJ F M A M J J A SON D(-5

As can be seen from Figure A-l, Appendix A, the availability ofsecondary energy from Allison is very erratic, and secondary energy is asmall proportion of firm energy. Early in the project life, little ofthe All ison secondary energy would be usuable because loads would belm'/er and secondary energy \'Iould also be available from Solomon Gulch.Consequently, no secondary energy benefits are claimed before year 2000.After year 2000, however, it is estimated that an equivalent annualaverage of 65 percent of Allison secondary energy will be usable fordisplacing diesel generation, considering load growth and monthlydistr'ibution of loads, and the availability of energy from Solomon Gulch.tJED Employment Benefits:Project benefits for employment are claimed to show the impact ofproject construction on a local economy. A cornmunity is declaredeligible based on a condition of persistant and continuous unemployment,for which Valdez qualifies. Project labor requirements for skilled andullski 11 ed \'Iorkers can be partly filet by the unemployed workers of thearea. The amount earned by thi s group is amorti zed over the project 1 ifeand claimed as a project benefit, because there is no economic costentailed in the use of otherwise unemployment resources.Data from and evaluation of the Public Works Impact Program (PWIP)indicates that 30 percent of the wages paid to skilled labor and 45percent of wages paid to unskilled labor can be expected to flow topreviously unemployed or underemployed \'/orkers, based on records fromother large public works projects. These are broad, general averages.Labor market conditions in Alaska tend to be different from those in therest of tile country. There are adequate numbers of unemployed workers inthe affected eligible labor areas (3,500 unemployed out of a labor forceof 30,000 in the Valdez and Fairbanks area) to supply project needs.Rather large proportions of the project construction jobs can be expectedto be filled by immigrants, based on previous experience. Thepercentages from PWIP evaluations were consequently reduced by 36 and 75percent for skilled and unskilled labor, respectively, based on recentexperience with other multimillion dollar construction projects. Thisapproach provi des what may be a conservati ve estimate of ~JED employmentbenefits, but the magnitude of the benefits does not warrant thee~tensive labor market analysis which would be required to refine thesepercentages further.To estimate rJED employment benefits, it is also necessary to determinewhat proportion of construction costs would flow to skilled and unskilled\'Jorkers. Based on experience with other project, 42 percent ofconstruction costs can be expected to accrue as \'lages. Of these wagepayment, a 60/40 split beb/een skilled and unskilled workers isexpected. Computation of r~ED employment benefits is detailed below.Employment Benefits ComputationProject Construction Cost (less E&D S&A IDC) =Labor Costs (42%) =$29,407,000$12.351.000C-6

Er.Jployment Benefits Computation (cont)SkilledLabor Cost (60%)Unemployed (.30x.36) $7,411,000800,000Unsld 11 edLabor Cost (40%) $4,940,000Unemployed (.45'x. 75) 1,667,000Total Payment to Under or Unemployed 784,000 + 1,679,000Annual Benefit 2,538,000 x .0738Fuel Cost Escalation:$2,467,000182,000Olle of the most practical features of a hydroel ectric pl ant is itscontribution to fossil fuel conservation. The real price of petroleumhas increased dramatically in recent years and will continue this trendto the forseeable future. Real increases in diesel fuel costs createcorresponding real increases in the value of diesel generation displacedby the hydro p1 ant.For purposes of this report, diesel fuel price forecasts developed bythe U.S. Department of Energy have been used. Real diesel fuel priceescalation rates for Region 10 (Alaska) are estimated as follows: from1980-84, 3.1% from 1985-1990, 2.2% and 4% for the next 20 years. Thevalues for energy received from the Federal Energy Regulation Corronission(FERC) have been adjusted to the power-on-line date (1990) to establish astarting value. Energy values are then escalated by 4 percent for thenext 20 years and held constant for the remaining project life. Thevalues are applied to each future year and are discounted to 1990 at thecurrent project interest rate and expressed as an average annual benefitvalue. The tables showing power benefits at the end of this appendixgive the details of yearly fuel price escalation for each conditionconsidered in the report.ECO~OMICANALYSIS OF THE SELECTED PLANThe selected plan has net benefits of $1,751,000 annually when thepressure reducing turbine is treated as part of the without projectconditi on. Project economics are summari zed below.Sensitivity Tests:Average Annual Benefits ($1,000)Average Annual Costs ($1,000)Net Annual Benefits ($1,000)Benefit-Cost Ratio4,9853,2341 , 7511. 54Several tests of economic justification wey'e made for the selected plan todemonstrate the effect of departures from the assumptions that underlie theanalysis. Each of the tests was conducted under the criteria outlined earlierin this section, but with the specific changes noted below.C-7

Fuel Cost Escalation:For the base case, the assumptions concerning fuel costs have beenoutlined. Should the prOV1Slons for fuel cost escalation prove too modest,the proposed project would yield greater benefits that anticipated.Conversely, if fuel costs do not increase in real terms, the projectedbenefits of Allison are reduced. This sensitivity test examines the effectsof reduced fuel cost escalation and no fuel cost escalation. Assuming thatCVEAls current diesel costs remain unchanged throughout the project life theresulting costs and benefits are as follows:Average Annual Cost ($1,000)Average Annual Benefits ($1,000)Net Annual Benefits ($1,000)Benefit-Cost Ratio3,2342,812-422.87In the absence of fuel cost escalation project benefits are substantiallyreduced with a BC rati 0 fall i ng belo\,1 uni ty. When fuel costs are escalateduntil the pO''Ier-on-line date and held level thereafter, the feasibility of theproject improves as shown bel 0\'1:Average Annual Costs (1,000)Average Annual Benefits ($1,000)Net Annual Benefits ($1,000)Benefit-Cost Ratio3,3583,2341241. 04Without Pressure Reducing Turbine:Although the selected plan anticipates the presence of the PRT, this is notnecessarily a foregone conclusion. Furthermore, the projected output of thePRT has recently been subject to downward adjustments as a result of moremodest expectati ons concerni ng the rate of oil flow. Thi s uncertai nty coupledwith the unusual nature and performance of the PRT makes its possible absencean appropriate subject for a test of sensitivity. The impact on powerbenefits of this possibility is shown in the summary which follO\~s:Average Annual Benefits ($1,000)Average Annual Costs ($1,000)~et Annual Benefts ($1,000)Benefit-Cost Ratio5,8133,2342,5791.80The preceeding table shows a significant increase in project benefits. Theeffect of the without PRT condition, combined with varing fuel cost escalationrates, is summarized in the matrix table of end of this text.Low-load Growth Assumption:The economic analysis has been based 011 the Alaska Power Administrationlsrevised load growth projection. Based on present knowledge, this isconsidered the most reasonable estimate of future conditions. An economicdownturn and lower growth in power demand are \'tithin the realm of possibilityand woul d affect pm'ler benefits of the proj ect. Lesser demand coul d mean adelayed power-an-line date, or a longer period of underutilization. With the10\ler load growth a ssumpti on proposed by Retherford and Associ ates pri or toALPETCO, an additional 2 years would be required before the projectls firmC-8

energy would be fully utilized. As a result the annual power benefits arereduced by approximately 9 percent to $4,534,000. A summary of the resultingeconomic justification for the low case is as follows:Average Annual Benefits ($1,000)Average Annual Costs (1,000)Net Annual Benefits $1,000)Benefit-Cost Ratio4,5343,2341,3001.40The above sllmnary is based on the power-on-1ine date of the selected plan(1990). A delayed power-on-1ine date of 1995 under the low growth assumptionreduces the problem of underuti1ization. Nevertheless, 2 years must elapsebefore the project is fully absorbed. Resulting benefits and costs have beenbrought back to a 1990 base for the purpose of comparison.Average Annual Benefits ($1,000)Average Annual Costs ($1,000)Net Annual Benefits ($1,000)Benefit-Cost Ratio4,3342,2662,0681. 91The effects of various fuel cost escalation rates on the low load growthscenario and the 1990 power-on-1ine date are shown at the end of this text.Impact of Solomon Gu1ch ' s Secondary Energy:As previously stated, benefits for the selected plan were estimated underthe assumption that the availability of secondary energy from Solomon Gulchwould not reduce the usability of Allison Lake's firm energy. In reality,Solomon Gu1ch ' s secondary energy \'lou1d probably render some of Allison's finnenergy surplus for short intervals during high flow years early in the projectlife. Due to the lack of data on Solomon Gu1ch ' s secondary energy output anddue to the limited significance of the potential effect, the SUbstantialanalysis effort required to quantify the effect was judged to be unwarrantedfor a small hydro project. To test the sensitivity of the analysis to thissimp 1 ifyi ng assumpti on, however, benefi ts \~ere reestimated based on theassumption that all of the Solomon Gulch secondary energy would displaceAl1ison ' s firm energy. This is clearly an extreme test, but it provides anupper-based estimate of the significance of this assumption. As shown,benefits are reduced to $1,717,000 under this extreme test, a reduction of 5percent. Ttli s confi rms that no si gnifi cant change in study fi ndi ngs wou1 doccur by quantifyi ng the di sp1 acement of All i son Lake IS fi rm energy by SolomonGul::h I s secondary.Average Annual Benefits ($1,000)Average Annual Costs ($1,000)Net Annual Benefits ($1,000)Benefit-Cost RatioAlternate Discount Rate:4,7173,2341,4831.46Interest rates for evaluation of civil works projects are annuallyestablished by law for use by all Federal water resource agencies. Thecurrent applicable rate is 7-3/8 percent, but some higher rate is likely forC-9

ensuing years. To test the sensitivity of project economics to changes in thediscount rate, the analysis was reevaluated at a rate of 8 percent. Thehigher figure was used in the discounting of both benefits and costs, althoughthe power values in this alternative analysis are still based on the officialrate of 7-3/8 percent. The results of this sensitivity test are presentedbelow:Average Annual Benefits ($1,000)Average Annual Costs ($1,000)Net Annual Benefits ($1,000)Benefit-Cost Ratio4,8673,2341,6331. 50C-10

ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF HYDROPONER MODE~ALASKA DISTRICT, ARMY CORPS OF ENGI~EERS____ . ~ _____ AL~ISON HYDRO: n/PRTI REvISED APA; Nt ... FUEL ESC, 8Mr.PRESENT TOTAL PRESENT MARKETABLE FIRM PRES. NORTH MAR~ET. VALut Of PRESENT______ YlOR TH MAR!5,1807 _ 5318.8 1477,6 3.2 528.6 146.8 IB31.2200'l----0~2587------7:8-----744:4 192:6 32.2 171.5552 552~.1 142'1.2 3.2 S~

ECONOMIC EVALUATIOII OF HrDROPO .. ER "'ODELALASKA DIS1R]CT, ARMY CORPS OF E~GINEERSALLISON HrDRO: W/PRTJ REvISED APAI FuEL E~~ TO 1990; 8~WYEARPRESENT TOTAL PRESENT MARKETABLE FIRM PRES. WORTH MAR~ET.wORTH MARKETABLE VALUE OF WURTH OF FIRM M!LL5/K~H ENERGY ENERGy SE~D~DAR,FACTOR ---CAPAC! T Y-- CA PAU t V-CAPAC if Y --E NE f?L___'IQ.Q.Q___5018.7 24798.3 2973.9 1048.8 30Bb5.92011---2090--3:-ZSS11 7.8 74/j~lj- .l"4~a:~---32-:-2---8~5 2720.4 8BS~---3:-2--- i7 0.4PRESENT ~ORTH- ._---BENEFITS 7441.933b54,3_ ~244 ,2- -CRF= 0.0738 AV ~NN BENEFITS = 549.3- -_._---------------------------CAPACITY VALuE= 'lS.43FUEL ENERG1 VALUE (1980): bl.IOAvE ANNUAL PO~ER BENEFITS= 3175.9EMPLOYMENT 8E~EFITS~ 182.0ANNUAL BENEFITS= 3357.9---- ANNU-Al.-COST3-"-3234-:-0--___ _______ B(~ __ ':!~ T ~9= 1.011880.11'128,912159.243025.1_2IJ84,? 3175,9

ECONOMIC EV~LUATION OF HYDROPO~ER MODELALAS~A DISTRICT, A~MY CORPS OF E~GINEERS__ _ __ ALL ISO N H Y Q R 0 I ~ I ~ R T IRE V I SED A P A; NO F U E L ESC; 8"1 WPRESENT TOTAL PRESE~T MARKETABLE FIR~ PRES. ~ORTH MARKET. VALUE OF PRESENTSEC.BEr-ERGYWORTH MAR~£TABLE VALUE OF wORTH OF fIRM MILLStKr'lH __ ~NEI!!!.Y ____ ENE~~Y ___ ~ECOIWARr- --Y-E AR---F A C TOR--t A-PACITY--CAPAC iiy-CAPAC IT Y-E-NE RGY-- i ~C:. cii.M BE NE FIT S BE r,EF ITS U.[RG Y. "'QRT t1 TQTnSEC. E~EkCY BENEFITS----- - --- ----, M W )- ---( i i 0 00 ) ( 1 I 0 00 ) ( G w H ) ( 1 I 00 0 ) ( ~ I 0 0 0 ) ( G W H ) ( S I 0 0 0 ) ( S I 0 0 0 ) ( S I 0 0 0 )1'1'10 ___ 1.0000 _______ 0,0 _______ 0,0 .0.0 7.0 __ 6(>.'1200 _468.4 .4/)8.tj 0,0 0,0 0.0 4be.41'1'11 0.9313 0.0 0,0 0.0 11.7 6b.'1200 783.0 72'1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 72'1.2___ 1J_92 __ Q.~6D ____ 9_.0 0 ,Q_____ 9. 0 ___ I./) .. ~_/)Q.92Q 0 ____ IJQ4 .'--____ 951 .. 1 __ 0, Q ______ 0.0 ________ 0. Q _957. L1'1'13 0.8018 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.6 66._L9fOQ ___ 1L5~. ~ __) n 9.5..__ 9.90. Q ________ 0 .. L ___ l!i~Q • .e __ .---1-'19'1--0-:-5271 1:8---7~L!.~----3'l2.3 32.2 66,9200 2154.8 1135.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1520.12000 0.1l909 7,8 744.4 3b5,4 ____ 32,2 66.9200 2154.8 1057.7 3.2 214.1 105.1 1528.2(J 2001 0.4572 7.8 744.4 340.3 32.2 66.9200 2154.8 985.1 3,2 214.1 97.9 1423.3I 2002 0,4258 7.8 744,4 316,9 32.2 66.9200 2154.8 .._917.4 3.2 214.1 91.2 1325.5t;. 2003 0:3'165 7.8 744.4 295.1 32.2 bb,'1200 2154.8 854.4 3.2 214.1 84.'1 1234.5 '___ 2004 0.3693 1.8 744,4 274J. 32.l2 __ ~6, 92QQ ___ f L~.E..Jl ___ IJ~ ... L__ _~. ~ ____ ~ 1 ~ .1____ 19. L __ llll'l. 7 __________ 12005--0:-3 Q:3 q '1:-8-- - -7 -44: 4 ---2 Sb • 0 32. 2 66 • '1200 2 154 • 8 74 I • I 3.2 2 I 4 • I 73.6 I 070.72006 0.3203 ______ 1.1l 744,4 ____ 238,4 ___ J2.2 ___ 66.9200 __ 2154.8 ___ 690,2 ;'.Z ~1~.1 b8.i> '1'1],22001 0.2'183 7.8 14~.4 222.0 32.2 66,9200 2154.8 642.8 3.2 21~,1 63.'1 '128.72006 0 • 2778 _______ 1. 8 7 ~ ~ • 4 2 0 b • 8 32 • 2 _ 66, '120 0 _ 2 I 54 • 8_ _ 598 ,I> 3 • 2 2 I 4 • 1 .. 5'1. 5 864 • 92009 - 0: 2581 1 • 8 14 /1.4---- I 92 , b 32.2 66 .9200 2 I 54 • 8 557. 5 :1.2 2 I ~ • I 55 • 4 805.52010 O. 211 I 0 7.8 144 ,Il U~L4 3L.2 __ ~~ .. 9fOO __ 2.1~.!I-L§ ___ ~J~~ ____..J.~____ ~ l!l. L_---.5I .. b __ ~_5Q.2. ___.__'5018.7 1'1642.6 2355.6 830.8 25q'l2.1-------------2011----20 q 0--3 -:-25511 7.8 21511.8 70lIJ,7 3.2PRESEtH _WORTtt. BENEFIT~26657, q __ _ _,-CRF= 0.0736 AV ANN BENEFITS:----------------------- --_._------ ----------.CAPACITY VALUE= '15.43fUEL ENERGY VALUE (1'180)= 61.10AVE ANNUAL POWER BENEFITS= 2629.8EMPLOl~ENT BENEFITS= 182.0ANNUAL BENEFITS: 2811.8----ANNUAC-COSTS=-32:111.0-----BIC RATIO: 0.87- - . --l'Ib1,L I! 2.8 262'1.8------ ---.---- ---.-- - - --.------------ .-------

ECONO~IC EvALUATION OF H~OwuPO~ER ~OOELA LA 51\ A DIS T R I Cl, A R,.. ~ COR P S 0 FEN G I I. E E R SALL!SON ~YDRO:~O(PRTI REVISED APAJ NEw FUEL ESCI 8~~----._---- - -PRESENT TOTAL PRESENT ~ARKETABLE FIRM PRES. WORTH ~A~KET. VALUE OF PRE~ENT___________ WQRI fL"'ARKEJ A!lL~_Y_~~Ul_ QF_~Q8.TH Qf __ J I R~ __ ~ ILL ~tK.!'/H~_E_Tlj~ 8~r __ ETljEg~L_?~ q,)r.[lA~L _ ~tC IiQRT H TOTA\.YEAR FACTOR CAPACITY CAPACITY C'PACITY ENERGY INC. O&~ BENEFITS &E~EFITS E~ERGY BENERGY SEC. ENlRGY blNEFITS--.----. -----.-. -------- -------- -------- -------- ---.---- --------- - -(MW) (SIOOO) (SIOOO) (Gr"'1) (!IOOO) (11000) (Gr.H) (11000) (SIOOO) (tIOOO)__ .1999___ l.Q9QO _____ 3.18 ___ 362,6 )b2.6 32.2 64.484'1 2720.4 ___ 2720.4 :'>.2 '70.~ 270.4 3353.41991 0.9313 5.3--505.8----471.0 32.2 87.6315 2821.7 2627.9 3.2 280.4 261.2 33bO.11992 0.8673 6.7 H~_.~ ___ 5?!I.6 ______ 32,? __ 90,9Q~Q __ 2_921.I __ f?:.\!I.!L_ _ 3,'- ____ 2'1Q.9 _____ 252,3. ___ ~345.7---1-9 q 3--6 :-807-8 7 • 8 7 4 4 • 4 6 0 I • 3 3 2 • 2 9 u • 3 0 7 4 3 0 36 • 7 24 5 3 • 0 3 • 2 3 0 I • 8 2 4 3 • 8 3 2 'i 8 • 0I 994 __ 0!}?2} _?8 ___ 7tj4.-,! __ 560,032.2 __ 97.84/:>9 _____ 3150.7 _____ 2370.2 3.2 313.1 235.0 3165.81995 0.7006 7.8 744.4 521.5 32.2 101.5279 3269.2 2290.5 3.2 324.'1 227.6 3039.6I 99 b 0 • 6 5 2 5 7 • 8 7 44 • 4 _ Q 8 5 • 7 3 2 • ? __ _ I 0 5 , 3 5 6 3 .3 3 9 2 ,5 ___ 2 2 I 3 • b 3 , 2 3 3 7 • 1 2 2 0 • 0 2 'I 1 9 • 31997--0:/;077"-----7:8 --7Q4~4- -----452.3 32.2 10'1.3377 3520.7 2139.5 3.2 349.9 212.6 2804.4__ --:1998 0.5659 7_.8 ___ 7 ~4 .'L __ 4f 1,3 ___ }?. f __ ln ,-,!? 84 3t>5 ~,Q ____ Z06fl.Ji_ __ _ __ ~,' HL I _____ , Q5, 5 ___ 'Q~4 ... L___ ___ _1999---6-:-5271 7. 8 744 .4 39 2.3 32.2 I I 7. 7847 ;3 79 2 • 7 19 '19 • 0 3.2 376 • 9 198. 7 2590 • 02000 0!4909 ____ 7.8 74Q.4 365,4 32,2_ 122.2633 3936,'1 1'132,5 3,2 3'11,2 1'12,1 248'1,92001 0.4572 7.8 744.4 340.3 32.2 126.9211 4086.9 le68.3 3.2 400.1 185.7 23'l~.32002 0.4258 7.8. 7Q4,4 ___ 316,'1 32,2 131,7651 _4242,8 1806,4 3,2 u21.6 179.5 230Z.92003 0.3965 7.8 744.4 2'15.1 32.2 136.802'1 4405.1 1746.7 3.2 437.8 173.0 2215.42004 0.36'13 7 I 8 7_Q.:!, ~ ____ ?7_4, 9 ______ 32 .1_1.~? .9.!

------~-~ECONO~IC EVALUATION OF HYDROPO~ER MODELALASKA DISTRIC1, ARMY CORPS OF Er.GIr>EERSALLISON HYDRO:~O/PRT, REVISED AP,; FUEL ESC yo )990; 6~wPRESENT TOTAL PRESENT MARKETABLE FIR~ PRES. ~ORTH ~A~KE1. VALUE UF PRESENTWORTH MARKETABLE VALUE OF WORTH OF FIRM MILLS/~WH ENEAGYENERGYSECONO&RISEC, ~ __ ~OR1H lOYAL-- --YTA R-- FAe {OR--CAP A C-I TY-C APACI T Y-C A PAC i i y-~ ENE RG Y -- INC ~ -oi~1 ~-~- BE I,E FiT 5-- bE ;;u ITS E rde R G Y BENlRGY SEC. ENl~GY Bl~EFI1S----.--. -.------ -------- -------- -------. -------- -------- -.-----. -.-----. ---.-.-. -------. -.---.-. ~-------(MW) (SlOOO) ($1000) (G~H) (~IOOO) (11000) (G~H) ($1000)1990 1.0000 3.~ 302.b ~ 362.0 32,2 ~4.4~~9 2720.4 2720,4 3.Z 270,41991 0.9313 5.3 505.8 471.0 32.2 84.4849 2720.4 2533.0 3.2 270,4____ J 9'12_ ~_O--, 80 7 ) ____ ~ ,J___ ~o ?"--J 1! ___??4, b __ 32, 2 _ 84, 4b4"-_~ __ 212 0, 9~ n';.'l. 5 _ 3.2 27 Q. ~1'193 0.8078 7.8 744.4 601.3 32.2 84.4849 2720.4 2197.5 3.2 270.41994 0.7523 _ 7,8 744,4 _ 560,0 32.2 84.4649 2720." 2040.0 3.2 270,41995 0.7000 7.8 744,4 521.5 32.2 e~.u849 2720.~ 1900.0 3.2 270.41990 0.6525 7.8 744.4 485.7 32.2 84.4849 2720,4 1775.1 3,2 270.41997 0.b077 7.8 744.4 452.3 32.2 84.4649 2720.4 1053.2 3.2 270,4I 998 0 • 505'1 7. 8 7 44 • 4 42 1. 3199'1---0-:-5271----7:8---7~~:4--3'l2:3--32 • 2 84 • 4 8 ~ 9 ___ 27 2 Q.'I __ ~ _ 15 39. ~__32.284.4849 2720.4 1433.93 • ;>3.22 7 Q • 4270.42000 0.4'10'1 7,8744.4 365.4 32.2 84,4649 2720.4 1335,4 3,2 270,42001 0.4572 7.8 744.4 340.3 32.2 84.4849 2720.4 1243.7 3.2 270.42002 0.4258 7.8 744.4 310.9 32.2 b~.4849 2720.4 1158,2 3,2 270,42003 0.3905 7,8 744.4 295.1 32.2 84.4849 2720.4 1078.7 3,2 270.42 0 0 4 0 • 3 b 9 3 7 • 8 74 4 • 4 27 4 • 9 3 2 • 2 il 4 • 4 8 4 9 2 7 2 0 • 4 I Q 0 ~ , L _ ~ • 2 _______ nO. ~2CC5--0~343'1 7~8---7"4-;~---25b.0-----32;2--84;4849--2720~~---- 935.0 :1.2 270.4200b 0.3203 7.B 744.4 238.4 32.2 8~.4849 2720,4 .. 871,3 3,2 270.~2007 0.2983 7.8 744;4 222.0 32.2 84.4849 2720,4 BII.5 3.2 270,42008 0.2778 7.8 74~.4 206.8 32.2 84.484'1 2720.4 755,7 3.2 270,42009 0.2587 7.8 744;4 192.6 32.2 84.4849 2720,4 703.8 3.2 270.42010 0.2410 7.8 744.4 179.4 __ g,1 ___ ~!!.,~84? ____:._f}I9__'~ b55,5 __ ~!~ ___ ~ 279.li------------------- ------71io:~4 - --3071~:3--- 5077.4nII--'U"1($1000) ($1000)270,4 3353.4251.8 32511.'14~.b218.4 3017.1203,4 2809.9189.4 2010.'1176,~ 2437.2104.3 2209.8. ___ 1 ~ 3 • Q _ _? I I ~ , 'I142.5 19bEl.7132.7 1833,5123.0 1707..,115.1 1590.3107.2 1461.099.8---- ~-~93 : 01~79,LI 284 • 08b.b11'10.380.& 1114.275.1 1037.669.9 900.465.1 900.0---305 2:S ---~ I-~ b 2 : ~-2 0112090 3.255q 7.8PRESENT wORTH BENEFITSeI~~3,110133.532.2 84.5 2720.4 8855.939575.23.2 270.45947,7880. I3932.91215Q.253041,7CRf= _0.0738 AV ANN BENEfITS =748.02921.2290.33959.5--------------------------------------------------------------------CAPACITY VALUE= 95.43FUEL ENERGY VALUE (1980): bl.IOAvE ANNUAL POwER 8ENEFITS= 3959.5-- EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS= -182.0ANNUAL BENEFITS= 4141.5- ------- -A t, NU A C C O-S T S=3 2 34; 0 ------BIC RATIO: 1!28

ECUNOMIC EVALuATIO~ OF HYDRGPO~ER MODELALASKA DISTRICT, ~R"'Y CORPS OF EI.GI',E!:.RS___ ~,=L I SON HYDRO: l'o0tPRT I REV I SED APA I ~iO FulL ESC 18M"---------PRESENT TOTAL PRESENT ~ARKETABLE FlAM PRES. ~ORTH MARKET. VALUE OF PRESENTENEFlGY ENERGY _ SECO"liA~! _ SEC, wORTH TOTALBEN EF IT oS -b ui E F f T S fI, ERG Y BEN ERG Y SEC,E:itRGY bt:"U 1 T 5WORTH MARKETABLE VALUE OF WORTH Of ____ FIRM MILLS/KrtH-----yEAR --FACTOR --O:p""jCI T Y-CAPAC I fy- CAPAC IT Y ENE RGY--- r NC -0&1'1-------- -------- -------- -------- -.-.---. ------.- ----.-.- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------. --------,---- -~--. - -"-- - ( M w ) ( S 1 0 0 0 ) ( S -1 000 ) ( G w ~ ) ( ~ 1 0 0 0 ) ( 11 0 0 0 ) ( G ~ ,., ) ( $ 1 [I 0 0 ) ( S 1 0 0 0 ) ( 1 I 0 0 0 )1'1'10 1.0000 LB :H2.6 :'>62.6 32,2 6b,9200 _ 215~.8 2154,8 :'>.~ 21~.1 ZI~.1 2731.1>1 '1'1 I - --- 0 : '13 1 3 -----5 : 3 - 505 • 8 ~ 71 • 0 3 2 • 2 66 • '12 0 0 2 I 5 ~ • B 2006 • 8 :'> • 2 2 1 " • I I '1'1 • ~ 2 b 77 • :'>___-'I'--c:'1'12 0.8673 6.7 b3'1.~ ~.2!!.Lb ___ n.f ___ bb,'12QO ___ fl?!J..8 _____ 18~'1,9 ~,? 2)4.1 1~5,7 _2QQ9,31'193 0.B078 7.-8---7il~-:-~----601.3 32.2 06.'1200 215~.6 17~O.6- 3.2 21~.1 17:'>.0 251~.'11'1'14 0.7523 ?!~ ___ 7~4,~ ___ 5~Q.O ___ 32,2 __ 66,'1200 ____ 215~,8 ____ lb21.1 3,2 214.1 )bl.l (342,1I q q 5---0 :-" 00 b 7 • B 7 4 ~ • 4 5 2 I. 5 3 2 • 2 6 6 • '12 0 0 2 I 5 ~ • 8 15 0 'I • 7 3 • 2 2 1 4 • I 15 0 • 0 2 I 8 1 • 31'1'16 0.6?25 7.8 74~.4 485,7 32,266,'12002IS~,8 ____ 1~06.P 3.2 21~.1 13'1.7 2031.41'1'17 O.b077 -----7:a------7411.4-----452.:'> 32.2 66.'1200 2IS~.8 130'1.5 ~.2 2)~.1 130.1 15'1).'1_____ I_'1~_8 ___ 0..!..~~?~ 7. a 7411.4 421,332,2 66,9209 __?J.5~ ,8 121 'I.. 5 _~, , _____ 21 ~. '--__ \ 21.2 ___ 1 H2. Q ___1'1'1'1 0.5271 7;1i---74Li:Il---3Q2.3----32.2--bb.9200 21S ... 8---1-135.8--- 3.2 21~.1 112.'1 :~~I.O2000 0.4'10'1 7.a 74~.4 365.4 32.2 66.'1200 215~,8 1057,7 3,2 21Q,I 195,1 IS26.22001 0.4572 ---7:8 744:~ 340.3 32;2 66.9200 2IS~.8 985.1 3.2 214.1 Q7,9 1423.32002 0.4258 __ 7!8 7~4.4 316,'1 32.2 6b.'I200 215~,B '117,4 3.2 21~.1 9),Z 1325.52003 0.3965 7.8 7~~.~ 2'15.1 32.2 66.9200 2IS~.8 854.4 3.2 214.1 84.'1 12:'>4.52004 0.3693 7.8 74~. ~ ____ ~ 7 jj ,'I _____ 32L? __ ~t> .9_2 99 __ JI 5jj, ~ ___ 7'12, L 3, ~ ____~) ~ , l ____ J'! .. 1. ___ 11 ~5. 7 __----2-00S--0:"3u3'1 7.-8 744.~ 256.0 32.2 60.'1200 2154.8 741.1 3.2 21~.1 73.6 1070.72006 0._3203 _______ 7~8 __ 744,4 238,4_ 32,2 6b,9200 ____ 2154,8 ___ 690,2 3.2 21~,) i:>8,b __ '1'17.22007 0.2'183 7.8 744.4 222.0 32.2 60.'1200 2154.8 642.8 3.2 21Q.1 6:r,.'1 QU.72 0 0 B 0 • 2 7 7 8 7 • 8 7 4 4 • Q 2 C 6 • 8 3 2 • 2 b b , 'I 2 0 0 2 I 5 4 ,8 ~ ____ 5 'I 8 , b 3 • 2 2 I ~ , I 5'1 • 5 8 6 4 , 'I2 0 0 'I 0 • 2 5 8 7 ----- -- 7 : a - -- H 4 • 4 I '12 • 6 3 2 • 2 6 6 • 'I 2 0 0 2 I 54 • a 557. 5 3 • 2 2 1 4 • 1 55 • 4 8 0 5 • 52010 0.2410 7.8 744.4 I}"_.~ 32.2 6b, .. ?Q.0 ___ fJ.5...IlL8 51'1-'_2 _____},f__ ?!~.I _____ ~I.!> ____ I~Q.' __ _7710.4 24332.6 ~4'17,0 2418.1 34~61.17014,7;\P~?33,2 21~.1 0'17.1 10135.0471 I 'f 31}5,3 445'16,1---------~~----CRf= 0.0738 AV ANN BENEFITS = 748.0_ 23p,'1 no, Q 32'11,BCAPACITY VALuE= '15.113FuEL ENfRGY VALUE (Iqeo): 61.10AVE AN~U.L PO~ER BENEFITS: 32'11.8EMPLOYMENT BENEfITS= IB2.0AN~UAL BE~EFITS: 3473.8--ANNUACCOSTS=3234: 0 --------_______ ._______ B! ~ _ R. A T I 0.: I . 07- . ------- ----------.- - ----- --Ii- - .. -~--- -- ----- -- .. ----------"---------- ,

ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF HYDROPO~ER MODELA~.SKA DISTRICT, ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS__________ ALLISON HY[)RO: r./PRTI RETHERFORD, NEr.FuEL ESCI BMwn,........'-.J. ------- ---PRESENT TOTAL PRESENT MARKETABLE FIR",· PRES. \'IORTH "'AR~ET. VALUE OF PRESENT________ IIQRTtt "'AR~U!BL~_~~LUE_ClE__"'O~TH Qf_JI R':1 ___ MI~LS/K",H __ ~r!~RG't ___ P~ERGY __ s~CONDA~L _ SEC, ____ "'QRTH __ TOr A~YEAR FACTOR CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY ENERGY INC. OtM BENEFITS BENEFITS E~fRGY BENlkGY SEC. E~£RGY BENlF11S------.- ---.---- ------.- -------- -------- -------- --.-.--- ----.--- -------- ------.- -------- .------- .------------ --------- --------(Mwf- -1S1000) (51000) (GwHJ 01000) (~1000J (GrIH) (11000) (1000) (11000)1990 1.0000 ______ 0~0 ______ 0,0 _______ 0.Q_ 0,0 B~,~81

Eco~o~rc EVALUllrO~ OF HYDROPO~ER ~ODELALASKA DISTRICT, ARMY CORPS OF E~GINEERSPRESENT------ TOTAL-PRESENT MARKETABLE FIR~ PRES. I'oORTH ~AfiKET. VALUE OF PRESENTlIOR TH~J5E.T A BL~ __ ValUE _Qf _IIj:lR Tt:1_QE __ El f!M __ ~! L qt~\'I~_~NE RG! ___ ~ NE;RG L_g C Or,O A ~ L __ ~E ~._ _ _~:OR T rt T QT ~b.----YEA-R--(A-CTOR CAPACITY CAPACITY-CAPACITY ENERGY INC. 0&'" BE~,EFITS BENEFITS EI.ERGY BUiERGY SEC. EI,ERGY bE~EFITS- - - - _.(Mr.) (SIOOO) (1000) ((OWH) (11000) (11000) (GI'tH) (SIOOO) (SIOOO) ($1000)1990 1.0000_0,0 0.0_ 0,0_ 0,0 ~4,~8Lj9 ____ O.Q __ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.019Q"i--6:CnI3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 84.4849 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0___ 19q2~~~73Q .... Q 9_.0 _____ 2_.0 , ... 8 __!l1l. 4 8~'1 ___ 230. Q ___ Z05.2 ______ 0. 0.. _______ 0. L ____ O .Q ______ 20~. 2 _____ _1993 0.8078 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.Q 84.4849 709.7 573.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 573.~_____ 1994 __ 0.7~2~ ____ I.L ____ 195.0 _____ 79.0 _14.3 __ 84.484'1 ___ 1208.1 _____ 908.9 0.0 0.0 ______ 0.0 967.E1995 0.7006 3.0 28b.3 200.6 20.b 84.4849 1740.4 1219.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1414.9____ 1996 ___ 0,b525 _____ 4,9__ 4b7.6 305.1 27,3 _ 84.4849 __ 2306.41505.0 0.0 0.0 __ 0.0 1810.11997 0.b077 6.7 639.4 388.5 32.2 84.4849 2720.4 Ib53.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 2041.7___ 1998 0.5659 ?... 8 ___ 7.~~L_4 ____ 42 L.3 ____ ~2.~ __ 8~ ,~~~~__ U10.E ___ t5~9 ... L_ 0.0 _____ O. 0 ____ 9 ... Q __ 19~Q. 'L____ _19qq---O~-527i 7.8 7~Q.4 392.3 32,2 84.4849 2720.4 1433.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 182b.22000 0 • 4909 _ ____ _ 7. 8 _ 7 /J 4 , lj 3 b 5 ,4 _____ 32.2 84 , 4 e 4 '1 _ 2720 • 4 13 3 5. /j 3.2 nO. 4 I ~ 2.7 1 8.> 3.52 0 0 1 -- -- 0: ~ 5 72 7. 8 7 4 4 • 4 3 4 0 • 3 3 2 • 2 8 4 • 4 8 4 9 2 7 2 0 , 4 1 2 4 3 • 7 3 • 2 2 7 0 • 4 I 2 3. b I 7 0 7 • 5n 2002 0.~258 7.8 744,4 31b.9 _____ 32,2 ___ 84.4849 2720.4 1158.2 3,2 270.4 115.1 1590.3~ 2003 0;3965 7.8 744.4 295.1 32.2 84.4849 2720.4 1078.7 3.2 270.4 107.2 1481.0(X) 2004 0.3693 ? .!..~___ 7_4~ ,-~___ 2 71J.! 9 ____?2_.?__ ~!l,.484_9 __?U9 ,"-__ 19 Olj .. b___ _ _ ~.? ___ ?1 Q l~ _____ ~'!. ~ ___ 1 E9. L ____ _---2-6-05--6:-3 ilj q 7.8 744.4 25b.0 32.2 84.4849 2720.4 935.b 3.2 270.4 93.0 1284.62006 0.3203 __ ~_7,B _744,4 236,4 ____ 32.2 __ B4,4Bq9 ___ ._2720,~ ____ 871.3 3,2 nO,

ECONO~IC EVALUATION OF HYDROPOwER MODELALA9KA DIS1RICT, AR~Y CORPS OF E~GI~[ERS-- --- _._----------PR-E 9 ENT ----- TOTAL PRE S£ NT--",.A RKE T ABL E FIR'" PRE 9. ",ORT H ~A R KET • VALUE UF PRESENTWORTH ~ARKETABLE VALUE OF wORTH OF FIRM MILLS/K",H EN~R~L ____ EfiERGt SECQrIDA~rYEAR--F AC T OR--CAPAcITY-CAPAC 1 TY-C APAC J T Y-Ei;"E:RGY-INC~--O&-M--BENEF ITS 8EN£F ITS E r.ERG Y~E~. ______ ~QRTH TQTAl,.B[NEkGY SEC. E~ERGY B[~~FITS---------------------------------(MW5---(SI000) (SIOOO). . - --------_.-(GwH)_.(SIOOO) (SIOOO) (GI'lH)- - - - -- - - _.(SI000) (SIOOO) (SI000)1990 1. 0000 O. 0 0, Q ________ 0 , 0 _____ 0, Q ____ ~ 6.9200 __ ____ _0, 0 _____ 0 .9 _ 0 , 0 0 , Q ____ o. Q 0 • 0----lqq1- -O:-QJ13 0:0---- 0,0 0.0 0,0 b6.'1200 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0.0 0.0___---'1992 O. S6B 0.0 9. 0 o!o_ 2~_8 __ ~~,~20_9 ___ ~].~ ___ I!?g, ~___ 0, o ________ n. Q ____ Q. Q _____ I ~~.~1993--6-:eo-78 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.4 66.9200 562.1 45~.1 0.0 0,0 0.0 ~5~.1_____ 1994 ____ 0,7523 10I ___ J05,O _______ 19,0 ____!4.}__ ~i:1.9?OQ _____ 9S7.O" __ 719,9 0,0 _ 0,0 0.0 798.91995 0.7006 3.0 286.3 200.6 20.6 66.9200 1378.6 ~65.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 116b.41996 0.6525 4.9 467.6 305,1 ___ 27.3. _____ 66.920Q ____ 1826,9 1192,1 0,0 O.Q 0,0 )497.(1997 ---0:6077 ----1;,:7--- 639.~ 38e.5 32.2 66.9200 2154.8 1309.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1690.01998 O. 5659 1.!.S ___ 74.~!4 ~ ?J_,J ___ n-,-? __6..t!L~?Q.Q. __ 2J2.!:1_,_~ __!'?J9.~_______ Q, 9 ___ 0, L ___ Q .. 9 ___ 1 Q~9, ~ _____ _---1-999---0--:-5271 7.8 744.4 392.3 32.2 66.9200 2154.8 1135.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 1528.12000 0.4909 7.8 744.4 365.4 32.2 66.9200 - 2154.e 1057,7 3.2 ?14,1 !05,1 _1528,22001 0~4572--------7.8 744.4 340:3 32:2--- 66:9200 ----2154.0 985.1 3:2 21~.1 97.9 1423.32002 0 • 4258 _________ 7.8 744 .4 31 6. 9 32.2 66.9200 ___ 21 54 • 8 ___ 9 17 , 4 3 • 2 21 4 • 1 91 .2 1325 , ';2003 0.39b5 7.8 744.4 295.1 32.2 6b.9200 2154.8 854.4 3.2 214.1 84.9 1234.5____ 29_0tl O. 3~J3 7_L8 ___ 7_~~....'I. __?? ~-,-9 32. 2 6~-,-~?9_0 __ f L~'!.L.§ ___ 7'!~ ..] ________ J.f _______ f!~. ! ____ 1~. L __ J 1 ,,~.]____ _2005 0.3439 7.8 744.4 256.0 32.2 66.9200 2154.8 7 Ul.1 3.2 214.1 73.6 1070.72006 0.3203 7.8 _ 744.4 __ 238.4 _____ 32,2 ____ 66.9200 __ 2154.8 ___ ~_90.2 __ 3.? 2!~. 1 _____ 6§.~ 997.?--2007 --0: 2 q 8 3---7: 8 ---- -'7 4 ~ : 4 -- 222. 0 32.2 b 6. 92 0 0 2154 • 8 642.8 3 • 2 2 1 4 • 1 63.9 926 • 72008 0.2778 7.8. 7~4.4206.8 _32!2~_66.9290 __ 2154,8 ___ 598,6__ 3,2 214,1 ________ 59,5 _tl64,9-----2009--0":2587 7:8~------7~":4---1'12:b--- 32.2 66.Q200 21S~.8 557.5 3.2 21i.i.l 55,4 605.52010 0.2QIO 7.8 7~~.4 179.4 32.2 bb.9200 2154.8 519.2 .3.2 211l.1 5h~ ____ 7~Q_.? ____IIb74.6 - 15~fI6-:-9---------2355-:-6 830.821024.332.2bb.9 21511.8 70111.7?25D.7 _.3.2 21 Q • 1_?5~9. 7b97.1__ 1 ~ ~ 7. 9 _10135.031159,3CRF= _____ 0.0738 AV ANN BENEFIT~ = 523. ~ __ _112. S2309,QCAPACITY VALUE: 95.43FUEL ENERGY VALUE- (i980)= bl.l0--------------AvE ANNUAL PO",ER BENEFITS= 2300.0EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS~ 182.0ANNUAL BENEFITS= 2~82.0--------------------------ANNUAC-fosis= 3234:0------------___________________________________ ~L~ __ RATIQ=_ 0.71--------------- - ------------------------

__ ECONOMIC: EVALUATION OF HYDROPOWER MODEL.ALASKA DISTRICT, ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS_____________ ~LLISON hYDRO: W/P~TI REVISED APAi '"E ... FUEL ESCI SOLOMON SECONlHIHI 8Mr/-- -----------PR-ESENT TOTAi-----PRE-SENT MARKETABLE FIR'" PRES. WORTH MARKET. VALUE OF PRESENTw_()R1H.~~TAB~~L\!E_g_F _~QBJIj Q_F __ U RIoI_~nl.~LI\\'!t1_~J,!~R~l ___ Ltj~BG)' __ ~~t;ONQA:fO,O ___ 15~'1,'1 0.0 9.Q. 0.0 .. 1901.01'1'17 0.b077 7.1 b77.b L111.7 22.4 109.3377 21.1~9.2 1488.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1900.1___ 1 998 __ 9 !...~~~'1 7,8 7--,!.,! ____ L1 1J,.l. ~ ___ ~, .~_ll ~~ /J]§'~-Z5.!lL ___ 'L __ ..J_I.j~~.b __ . ___ 9~Q ______ 0. Q _____ Q.Q ___ HS9. 8 _____ _1'199 0.5271 7.8 744.4 392.3 22.4 117.7B47· 2b38.4 1390.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 17B2.92000 0.~q09 7.8 7~4./l 3b5,4 _ 32.2122,2b33 ___ .3 9 3b,9 ___ 1'l32.5 3,2 ~,!I,? 192,1 __ 21.189,92001 0:"572 7~8--- 744.4 340.3 32.2 126.9211 L108b.9 IBbB.3 3.2 ~Ob.1 185.7 239~.3(J-- 2002 O.4258 ____ .J,8_____ 7~L1.4 ____ 316.9 ___ 32.2 131.1651 ___ 1.1242.8 180Q.4 3.2 ~21.Q 179.5 2302.9I 2003 0.3965 7.8 7~~.L1 295.1 32.2 13c..802'1 L1405.1 171.1b.7 3.2 ~37.8 173.b 2215.~ lN 2QQ./l __ 0...l~93 7,8 H~-----" n_'!.~9 32. "_l't2, Q~?2 ___ 42.U.§ __ IQ.§'L_9 __ .___ ~ .f___ ~?'L. 5 ____ H>7. 9 __, UJ..~_. __ ia 2005- 0.3439 i.8 744.4--25b.0 32.2 1'17'-~'111 L17~'1.2 Ib33.3 3,2 /l72.0 Ib2.3 2051.b____ 200b __ 0! ;!203___ h~ ___ 74L1 •.E__ 238, 1l _____ 32, 2 _ 153, 15~0. __ l!9n. 7 __ 1 ~ 79. b_ 3. 2 ~ 90, J ___ 157,0 ____ 1975. °-I2007 0.2983 7.8 744.4 222.0 32.2 159.0515 5121.5 1527.7 3.2 509.0 151.8 l'IOI.b2008 0.2778 7.8 741l./l 20b.8 32.2 IbS.IB07 5318.B 1~77.6 3,2 528.b \/lb.8 1831 t2 I2009--6-:2587 7;8--744;4--- 192:b 32.2 171:5552 552/l-:1---142'1~2- -3.2 549:0 - --142:0 ·~·i7b3.8 I2010 0.2/l10 7.8 74L1.4 179.4 32.2 178.IBLlb 5737.5 1382.5 3.2570.2 137.4.1699."56,:8:7 --- - 31 bbS-.-2-------S230.1 1791:-1 -~f8480:0-·------------------_.__ 1CRFz: 0~Q!3~ AV ANN BENEFITS =3-2--:2---178.2 5737.5 18b77,6___________________________ ~O~/l~! L____ __ _ _ __ ~ 7 1 ~. ~ _:3 • 2 0:))0--:2--1 B 5 b • 2--2 2-Q-S 7 • 1___ ~ 8 0 9 • :3 ___ ~ ~ 52.2 ___ ~.I 437. L2b~. ~ . __ ~53~, 9·11--j-----------------------------------------------CAPACITY VALU~= G5.43- - - -" ------ -- --. FUEL ENERGY· VALUE (1980): b 1.1 0AVE ANNUAL POWER BENEFITS= 453~.9.--------.----... ~----- --...EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS: 182.0ANNUAL BENEFITS: 471b.9ANNUAL-COS T 5-=-32 34: 0_~I ~RAT I Q =_ _ I. 4 b-----1

APPENDI X DPROJECT DESCRIPTION AND COST ESTIMATES

ALL ISON CREEKPERTINENT OAT A(Alternate Plan No.1)RESERVOIRWater Surface Elevation, feet MSLMaximumAverageMinimumSurface Area at Maximum Elevation, acresUsable Storage, acre-feetHYDROLOGYDrainage Area, square milesAnnual Runoff, cfsAverageMaximumMinimumLAKE TAPLake Entry Invert Elevation, feet MSLSpilhvayPOWER TUNNELTunnel Size, feetTunnel Length, feetTunnel Grade, percentPENSTOCKTypeLength, feetDiameter, inchesShell Thickness, inchesMaximumMinimumSupport Spaci~g, feetType1,3671 ,3351 ,26725819,9805.74968361 ,250Natural Outfall6 (lined circular)8 (unlined horseshoe)10,2000.5Steel, ASTM A537 Grade A4,050481.500.7540concrete PierPOWERPLANTNumher 0 f Un itsTurbine TypeInstalled Capacity, kWPlant Factor, (average) percentPlant Factor, (firm) percentDesign Head, feetGenerator Rating, kWPower Factor, percentVoltage, kV2Impulse8,00056. 148.91,2204,3509013.8

POWERHOUSETypeTRANSMISSION LINEVoltage, kVTypeLength, mi lesConductorTransmission Losses, percentPROJECT OUTPUTDependable Capacity, kWFirm Annual Energy, MWHAverage Annual Energy, MWHPERTINENT DATA (Cont)Steel Structure on Concrete Fou~dation115Wood Pole3#1/0 ACSR28,00034,30039,350i i

ALLI SON CREE KPERT! NENT OAT A(Alternate Plan No.2)RESERVOIRWater Surface Elevation, feet MSLMaximumAverageMi n imumSurface Area at Maximum Elevation, acresUsable Storage, acre-feetHYDROLOGYDrainage Area, square milesAnnual Runoff, cfsAveraqeMaximumMinimumLAKE TAPLake Entry Tnvert Elevation. feet MSLSpi llwayPOWER TUNNELTunnel Size, feetTunnel Length, feetTunnel Grade, percentPENSTOCKTypeLength. feetDiameter, inchesShell Thickness, inchesMaximumMinimumSupport Spacing, feetTypePOWERPLANTNumb e r 0 fUn itsTurbine TypeInstalled Capacity, kWPlant Factor, (average) percentPlant Factor, (firm) perce~tDesign Head, feetGenerator Rating, kWPower Factor, percentVoltage, kV1 ,3671,3351 ,26725819,9805.74968361, ?50Natural Outfall6 (lined circular)8 (unlined horseshoe)10,2000.5Steel, ASTM A537 Grade A2,450481.500.7540Concrete Pier2Impulse8,00053.245.91, 1704,3509013.8iii

POWERHOUSETypeTRANSMISSION LINEVoltage, kVTypeLength, mi lesConductorTransmission Losses, percentPROJECT OUTPUTDepennableCapacity, kWFirm Annual Energy. MWHAverage Annual Energy, MWHPERTINENT DATA (Cont)Steel Structure on Concrete Foundation115Wood Pole3.5111/0 ACSR28,00032,20037,250iv

SECTION DPROJECT DESCRIPTION AND COST ESTIMATESTABLE OF CONTENTSItemGENERALWATERWAYSLake Tap and Rock TrapPower Tunne 1In take Tr ashrackGate Control RoomAccess Ad itPenstockPOWERPLANTTRANSMISSION SYSTEMBUILDINGS, GROUNDS, AND UTILTTIESCOST ESTIMATESNumfJerLIST OF TABLESTitlePageD-lD -1D-5D-6D-7D-7DlD2D3D4Summary Cost Estimate, Alternate Powerhouse Site No.1Summary Cost Estimate. Alternate Powerhouse Site No.2Detailed Cost Estimate, Alternate Powerhouse Site No.1Detailed Cost Estimate, Alternate Powerhouse Site No.2D-8D-9D-10D-14NumberD-A-1D-A-2D-A-3D-A-4D-A-5D-A-fiL 1ST OF PLATESTit leSite Plan, Location and Vicinity MapsPhoto MosaicTopographic P1 anWaterways ProfilesLake Tap and Rock Trap Detai lsGate Structure, Powerplant, Power Tunnel Sectionsand PortalD-18D -19D-20D-21D-22D-23v

VALDEZ HYDROELECTRIC POWER PROJECTGENERALA lake tap scheme for lake entry at Allison Lake was studied. Twosites near the lower outlet of Allison Creek were considered for thelocation of the powerp1ant. The first alternate site for the powerplantis located approximately 200 feet uphill from the mouth of Allison Creekat elevation 20 feet MSL and the second alternate site is located about2000 feet from the bay of the Port of Valdez at elevation 100 feet MSL.Access to both powerplant sites during construction and operation wouldbe by road. Access to the tunnel portal and other work areas would be byhelicopter. The first alternate powerplant site would require a waterpump system to pump adequate water back to the main creek channel aboveAlyes~a's weir to provide for their water supply and fishery waterrequirements. After economic evaluations it was determined that thelower powerhouse site, Alternative 1, could not be incrementallyjustified for the additional energy it would provide. However, bothalternatives are presented here.WATERWAYSThe method of lai

Power Tunne 1The power tunnel would be partially concrete lined 6-foot circularand oartially unlined 8-foot horseshoe shaped tunnel approximately 10,200feet lonq, from the lake tap chamber to the tunnel portal. About 100feet downstream of the gate structure, the power tunnel would drop at a45-deqree angle to elevation 1,050 and would continue down at 0.5 percentslope until it would daylight at elevation 1,000 at the tunnel portal.ApproximatAly 300 feet from the tunnel portal, a transition from a powertunnel to a steel penstock would occur.Intake TrashrackThe power tunnel entrance would be covered by a steel trashrack toprevent debris from entering the intake and reaching the turbines. Thetrashrack would be placed partially in the wet after the lake is drawndown through the power tunnel and aboveground penstock during the lowinflmv period.Gate Control RoomThe gate control room would consist of a hoist machinery room, avertical access shaft and a gate room. The hoist machinery room, locatedat elevation 1,456, would house a crane rail hoist and an elevator. Thevertical access shaft, which is approximately 200 feet long and 16 feethigh by 16 feet wide. would have a ladder from the hoist room to the gateroom. The elevator shaft would be adjacent to the access shaft and theelevator would be an overhead hoist cable operated system. The gate roomwould contain two 6 by 16 feet slide gates, one heavy duty and onestandard type, set in tandem. There would be a crane rail hoist at thegate room above the heavy gate for lifting and shifting the gate to thearea below the upper hoist during maintenance. An access hatch and avent would be provided at the gate room floor. The 18-inch diameter ventpipe would run from the power tunnel to the gate room and up through thevertical access shaft, to the hoist machinery room then finally outthrough the access adit.Access AditAccess to the gate control room would be through the access adit.The adit would be an 8-foot diameter horseshoe shaped tunnel, approximately100 feet in length and located at elevation 1,456. A 100- by100-foot staging area and heliport would be cleared adjacent to theaccess adit portal.PenstockThe penstock would be a 48-inch diameter, all welded structuresupported on concrete piers at approximately 40 feet on centers. Thesteel penstock would emerge from the power tunnel portal and wouldcontinue downstream to the aboveground powerhouse following the existingground contours. At alternate powerhouse Site No.1, the penstock wouldbifurcate into two penstocks immediately upstream of the powerhouse valveroom. Each penstock would connect with a valve in the valve room, anddownstream of each valve, a penstock extension would connect to a0-2

turbine. The penstock would bifurcate into two penstocks immediatelyupstream of the Alternate No.2 powerhouse valve room. Each penstockwould connect to a turbine. Some of the water discharged from theturbines would be diverted into the existing weir on the creek forA1yeska's water supply and for the Department of Fish and Game salmonhatchery f ac i 1 it i es.pm~ERPLAN TTwo alternative sites of the aboveground powerhouse would be locatednear the channel of the Allison Creek. The centerline of the bifurcationwould be at the same elevation as the powerp1ant. The powerhouse wouldcontain two synchronous generators driven by Pelton wheel turbines withdesign heads of 1,220 feet for the alternate Site No.1 and 1,170 feetfor the alternate Site No.2. The turbines would have nameplate ratingsof 4.0 MW each. The powerhouse structure would house the generators,turbines, a 15-ton bridge crane, and all other equipment required foroperation and maintenance. Remote control of the powerp1ant would befrom Valdez accomplished through the use of a carrier communicationsystem. The tailraces of the alternate powerhouse No.2 are longer inlength than that of the alternate powerhouse No.1. On both alternatives,stoplogs would be installed near the upstream end of the tailracepipes to regulate flow during the summer and winter operations. Energydissipators at the Allison Creek end of the tailraces would be ofconcrete construction.TRANSMISSION SYSTEMThe Valdez project power would be delivered to Solomon Gulch substationand then transmitted over the Copper Valley Electric Associationsystem for distribution. The transmission line route was located in thefield based on aerial and map reconnaissance. The route runs along thesouth side of the existinq road Qetween Allison Creek and Solomon Gulch.The terrain is of a moderate ro11inq mountains and close to tidewater ofthe Port of Valdez.The project installed capacity is 8.0 MW and the transmission systemcapacity would be 10 MVA. The transmission line from Allison Creekpowerp1ant to Solomon Gulch sUbstation would be a 115 kV line. Therewould be approximately 3.0 miles of single wood pole construction. Theoverhead conductors would be #1/0 ACSR with no overhead ground wires.The 115 kV system was chosen for power transmission to match existingfacilities. Vo1taqe regulation from Allison Creek powerplant to SolomonGulch substation is 2.5 percent and is acceptable. An addition to theSolomon Gulch sUbstation is proposed to provide switching and powerenerqy to the existing system. An oil filled circuit breaker would beremotely controlled from Valdez via a carrier communication system.The proposed right-of-way would be a 50-foot wide corridor and wouldrun over lands administered by the U.S. Forest Service. Based on USGSmaps with vegetation overprint, the entire line would require essentiallycontinuous clearing. Small shrubs and bushes would remain and all othermaterials would be burned, chipped or left in place as determined by theD-3

U.S. Forest Service when the line location is established. Constructionand maintenance of the transmission 1 ine would be by road and helicopter.A cleared 10-foot wide hiking trail would be provided for inspectionaccess.The transmission 1 ine would be approximately 0.5 mile longer for thealternate powerhouse No.2 but the terrain is of similar characteristicthroughout the transmission line.BUILDINGS, GROUNDS, AND UTILITIESNo permanent housing and maintenance facilities would be requiredexcept for a small warehouse for maintenance equipment and supplystorage. Existing dirt roads would be used as necessary duringconstruction and operation of the project. No sewer and water systemswould be required except those in the powerhouse.COST ESTIMATESAll estimates are based on October 1980 price levels. Thecontingency used for all alternatives was 20 percent. Engineering andDesign, and Supervision and Administration costs are each 8 percent ofconstruction costs. The cost data was obtained from bid prices on recentmajor power projects in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska, and adjusted toreflect current price levels, Alaska labor costs, and transportationcosts to the sites. T~e construction time was estimated to take 4 yearsand power-on-line would be 1988 or 1990.D-4

TABLE D-lSUMMARY COST ESTIMATEOCTOBER 1980 PRICE LEVELVALDEZ HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTALTERNATE POWERHOUSE SITE NO.1AccountNumber010407193031ItemMOBILIZATION AND PREPARATORY WORKLANDS AND DAMAGESINTAKE WORKS AND PENSTOCKPOWERPLANTPowerhouseTurbines and GeneratorsAccessory Electrical and Powerplant EquipmentTailraceSwitchyardTransmission FacilitiesBUILDINGS, GROlJNDS, AND UTILITIESSUBTOTAL20% CONTINGENCIESCONTRACT COSTENGBIEE~INGAND DESIGNSUPERVISION AND ADMINISTRATIONTOTAL PROJECT COSTFeatureCost( ~ 1 ,000 )1 ,56070020, 07 44,00927026,6135,32331 ,9352,5552,75937,2500-5

TABLE D-2SUMMARY COST ESTIMATEOCTOBER 1980 PRICE LEVELVALDEZ HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTALTERNATE POWERHOUSE SITE NO.2AccountNumber010407193031ItemMOBILIZATION AND PREPARATORY WORKLANDS AND DAMAGESINTAKE WORKS AND PENSTOCKPOWERPLANTPowerhouseTurbines and GeneratorsAccessory Electrical and Powerp 1 an t Equ i pmen tTailraceSwitchyardTransmission FacilitiesBUILDINGS, GROUNDS, AND UTILITIESSUBTOTAL20% CONTINGENCIESCONTRACT COSTENGINEERING AND DESIGNSUPERVISION AND ADMINISTRATIONTOTAL PROJECT COSTFeatureCost( ~1 ,000)1,34072417,5634,62925024,5064,90129,4072,3532,54134,301D-6

TABLE 0-3DETAILED COST ESTIMATEVALDEZ HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTALTERNATE POWERHOUSE SITE NO.1Cost Unit Tota 1Account Cost CostNumber Description or Item Unit Quant i ty ilL ($1 ,000)r~OB AND PREP WORK LS 1 ,560,000 1,56001 LANDS AND DAMAGESGovernment Admin Cost LS 400,000 400Powerhouse and Trans- LS 300,000 300mission Facilities(Private Lands)--TOTAL - LAND AND DAMAGES 70004 I NTAKE WORKS AND PENSTOCK04. 1 LAKE TAP AND ROCK TRAPExcavation CY 350 75 26.2roncrete CY 30 600 18Reinforcement LB 3,000 0.75 2.2Trashrack LB 30,000 2 60Rock Bolts, 1"x7' EA 25 210 5.2Lake Tap LS 1 420,000 420TOTAL - LAKE TAP AND ROCK TRAP 531 .604.2 GATE CONTROL ROOMSl ide Gate, heavy duty LB 10,000 5 50Slide Gate, std. type LB 6,000 5 30Access Ha tch LS 1 1 ,500 1.5Ladder (w/cage) 200' LS 1 3,000 3Hydraulic Unit &E 1 e v a to r, 1,000 # cap LS 1 60,000 60Vent, 8" 0 pipe LF 300 40 12Ho i s t , 1 0 -ton cap. EA 2 30,000 60Excavation, Rock CY 2,790 250 697.5Concrete Lining CY 754 700 527.8Reinforcement LB 37,700 1 37.7Rock Bolte;, 1" 0 x 7' EA 350 250 87.5TOTAL - GATE CONTROL ROOM 1,5670-7

TABLE 0-3 (cont)CostAccountNumber Description or Item Un it Quant ity04.3 ACCESS ADIT AND STAG1NG AREAExcavationRockCYCommonCYConcreteCYReinforcementLBExcavation (Adit) rock CYRockbolts, 1" x 10' EA04.5TOTAL - ACCESS AOITPOWER TUNNELTunnel Excavation (Rock) CYConcrete LiningCYReinforcementLBRock Bolts, l"xlO'EAPortal (Including SecondaryRock Trap, Transition, StagingArea and Haul Road)Rock ExcavationOverburdenConcreteReinforcementRock Bolts, 1"x14'.Roc k Bo lt s, 1" x 7 'Rails and Track~TrestleTOTAL - POWER TUNNEL04.5 PENSTOCKSteel, 48"0Ring Stiffeners, Exp.Anchors, Anchor SupportsConcrete Support PiersConcrete Anchor Block~TOTAL - PENSTOCK07 POWERPLANTCYCYCYLBEAE A. LfLS3, 1801,360954,800.21513021,7634,889244,4508,33817,014150,009 .17211, 100901308001LB 1,976,600LB 138,362CY 296. CY 25Uri itCostilL75156000.752003002256000.7521030107000.7546027550100,0002.503300300Tota 1·Cost($1,000)238.520.4573.64339401.54,896.72,933.4183.31,751.0510.41,500. 1120.48.341 .435.74010012,120.74,941.5.415. 188.87.55,452.907. 1 POWERHOUSEMobilization & PreparatoryWorkExcavation and ConcreteLSLS120,000230,0001202300-8

TABLE D- 3 (cont)Cost Unit Tota 1Account Cos t CostNumber Description or Item Unit Quantity ilL (~1,000)07. 1 POWERHOUSE (cont)Building Superstructure LS 1 72,000 72Misc. Building Item LS 1 97,000 97Bifurcation & LS 1 36,000 36Branch PipeValves EA 2 145,000 290TOTAL - POWERHOUSEB4507.2 TURBINES AND GENERATORSTurbines, Governor & EA 2 30B,500 617Coolinq SystemGenerators & Excitation EA 2 600,000 1,200Equipment--TOTAL - TURBINES AND GENERATORS 1,B1707.3 ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENTSwitchgear, Breaker & LS 211,000 211Busses & StationService UnitSupervisory Control LS 317,000 317SystemMisc. Electrical System LS 36,000 36TOTAL - ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT 56407.4 AUXILLARY SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENTHeating & Ventilating LS 7,000 7Eq u i pment Br i dge Cr ane LS 120,000 120& Misc. MechanicalSystems--TOTAL - AUXILLARY SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENT 12707.5 SvJI TCHYARDPower Transformer LS 222,000 222Disconnects & Electrical LS lB,OOO lBEqu i pmentTOTAL - SWITCHYARD 2400-9

TABLE 0-3 (cont)Cost Un it TotalAccount Cost CostNumber Description or Item Unit Qu ant i ty ilL ($1,000 )07.6 TAILRACE CHANNELOverburden Excavation CY 48 10 0.5Rock Excavation CY 20 25 0.5Concrete CY 38 300 11.4Reinforcement LB 1,900 0.75 1.4R i prap CY 30 30 0.9Steel Pipe LB 40,040 2.25 90. 1Misc. Steel LB 4,004 2.50 10Stop1ogs EA 2 7,000 14TOTAL - TAILRACE CHANNEL 128.807.7 TRANSMISSION LINE(WITH INSPECTION ACCESS TRAIL)Clearing AC 37 2,500 92.5Line Conductors & MILE 3 65,000 195Single Wood PoleStructures (55 pcs)TOTAL - TRANSMISSION LINE 287.519 BUILDINGS, GROUNDS, AND UTILITIESMaintenance Equipment& SupplyStorage Warehouse LS 250,000 250Water Supply System &Fish FacilitiesWater Pump System LS 20,000 20TOTAL - BUILDINGS, GROUNDS, AND UTILITIES 270SUBTOTAL - CONSTRUCTION COSTS 26,61320% CONTINGENCIES 5,323TOTAL - CONTRACT COSTS 31,93630 ENGINEERING AND DESIGN (8%) 2,55531 SUPERVISION AND ADMINISTRATION (8% ) 2,759TOTAL - PROJECT COST 37,250 .0-10

TABL E D-4DETAILED COST ESTIMATEVALDEZ HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTALTERNATE POWERHOUSE SITE NO.2Cost Unit Tota 1Account Cost CostNumber Description or Item Unit Quant ity ilL ( $1 ,000)MOB AND PREP WORK LS 1 ,340,000 1,34001 LANDS AND DAMAGESGovernment Admin Cost LS 1 400,000 400Powerhouse and Trans- LS 1 324,000 324mission Facilities(Private Lands)--TOTAL - LAND AND DAMAGES 72404 I NTAKE WORKS AND PENSTOCK04. 1 LAKE TAP AND ROCK TRAPt::xcavation CY 350 75 26.2Concret e CY 30 600 18Reinforcement LB 3,000 0.75 2.2Trashrack LB 30,000 2 60Rock Bolts, 1"x7' EA 25 210 5.2Lake Tap LS 1 420,000 420TOTAL - LAKE TAP AND ROCK TRAP 531.604.2 GATE CONTROL ROOMSl ide Gate, heavy duty LB 10,000 5 50Slide Gate, std. type LB 6,000 5 30Access Hatch LS 1 1 ,500 1.5Ladder (w/cage) 200' LS 1 3,000 3Hydraulic Unit &E1 evator, 1,000# cap LS 1 60,000 60Vent, 8" 0 pipe LF 300 40 12Ho is t, 10 -ton cap. EA 2 30,000 60Excavation, Rock CY 2,790 250 697.5Concrete Lin i ng CY 754 700 527.8Reinforcement LB 38,000 1 37.7Rock Bolts, 1" QJ x 7' EA 350 250 87.5--TOTAL - GATE CONTROL ROOM 1 ,567D -11

TABLE 0-4 (cont)Co st Unit TotalAccount Cost CostNumber Description or Item Un it Quant ity ilL ( ~l ,000)04.3 ACCESS AOIT AND STAGING AREAExcavationRock Cy 3, 180 75 238.5Common CY 1 ,360 15 20.4Concrete CY 95 600 57Reinforcement LB 4,800 0.75 3.6Excavation (Ad it) rock CY 215 200 43Rockbo lts, 1" X 10 1 EA 130 300 39TOTAL - ACCESS AOIT 401.504.5 POWER TUNNELTunnel Excavation (Rock) Cy 21,763 225 4,896.7Concrete Lining CY 4,889 600 2,933.4Reinforcement LB 244,450 0.75 183.3Rock Bolts, l"xlO' EA 8,338 210 1,751.0Portal (Including SecondaryRock Trap, Transition, StaginqArea and Haul Road)Rock Excavation Cy 17,014 30 510.4Overburden Cy 150,009 10 1 ,500. 1Concrete CY 172 700 120.4Reinforcement LB 11 ,100 0.75 8.3Rock Bolts, 1"x141 EA 90 460 41.4Roc k Bo lt s, 1" x 7 1 EA 130 275 35.7Rails and Tracks LF 800 50 40Trestle LS 1 100,000 100TOTAL - POWER TUNNEL 12,120.704.5 PENSTOCKSteel, 48"0 LB 1,063,000 2.50 2,657.5R i n9 Stiffeners, Exp. LB 74,410 3 223.2Anchors, Anchor SupportsCo ncrete Support Piers CY 190 300 57Concrete Anchor Blocks Cy 16 300 4.8TOTAL - PENSTOCK 2,942.507 POWERPLANT07. 1 POWERHOUSEMobilization & Pre- LS 120,000 120paratory WorkExcavation and Concrete LS 230,000 230D -12

TABLE D-4 (cont)Co st Unit Tota 1Account Cost CostNumber Descr-iption or Item Un it Quantity ilL ( ~l,OOO)07. 1 POWERHOUSE (cont)Building Superstructure LS 72,000 72Misc. Building Item LS 97,000 97Bifurcation & LS 36,000 36Branch Pi peValves EA 2 145,000 290TOTAL - POWERHOUSE 84507.2 TURBINES AND GENERATORSTurbines, Governor & EA 2 308,500 617Cool ing SystemGenerators & Excitation EA 2 600,000 1,200F:quipmentTOTAL - TURBI NESAND GENERATORS 1 ,81707.3 ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENTSwitchgear, Breaker & LS 211,000 211Busses & StationService UnitSupervisory Control LS 317,000 317SystemMisc. Electrical System LS 36,000 36--TOTAL - ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT 56407.4 AUXILLARY SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENTHeating & Ventilating LS 7,000 7Equipment Bridge Crane LS 120,000 120& Misc. MechanicalSystemsTOTAL - AUXILLARY SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENT 12707.5 SWITCHYARDPower Transformer LS 222,000 222Disconnects & Electrical LS 18,000 18Eq u i pmentTOTAL - SWITCHYARD 240D-13

TABL E 0-4 (cont)Co st Unit To ta 1Account Cos t CostNumber Description or Item Unit Qu ant ity ilL(~l,OOO)·07.6 TAILRACE CHANNELOverburden Excavation CY 48 10 0.5Rock Excavation CY 20 25 0.5Concrete CY 38 300 11.4Reinforcement LB 1 ,900 0.75 5.2Steel P·i pe LB 270,440 2.25 608.5Misc. Steel LB 27,044 2.50 67.6R i pr ap CY 42 30 1.3Stoplogs EA 2 7,000 14.0TOTAL - TAILRACE CHANNEL 70907.7 TRANSMISSION LINE(WITH INSPErTION ACCESS TRAIL)Clearing AC 40 2,500 100Line ro nductors & MILE 3.5 65,000 227.5Single Wood PoleStructures (55 pcs)TOTAL - TRANSMISSION LINE 327.519 BUILDINGS, GROUNDS, AND UTILITIESMaintenance Equipment& SupplyStorage Warehouse LS 250,000 250--TOTAL - BUILDINGS, GROUNDS, AND UTILITIES 250--SUBTOTAL - CONSTRUCTION COSTS 24,50620% rONTINGENCIES 4,901TOTAL - CONTRACT COSTS 29,40730 ENGINEERING AND DESIGN (8%) 2,35331 SUPERVISION AND ADMINISTRATION (8% ) 2,541TOTAL - PROJECT COST 34,301D-14

, ..... ,..\ (I),;> "----f .'-.. -I 29 - - ,,~.~-- - ~'--! V ~_~;-" ~ ~--------""---:1 /)1: L------f _-\I :~...! ;':'Val(!ez '., " ~'_"L D E Z,:.::A !tN:~" :,,::,:, "'C"}'" ~ , ,;;;:;,:;;::Y"', ....): I .' Islands " • '- • . / ' , / 'l~ .'- " ___,,"~ ;~~,,:;t:i~-./;, -_ ,i,

I-,.,,­u.s. AIOIIY ENGINEER DlflWICT. AL.A.cA_MMMALLISONCREEKPHOTO MOSAIC1>-J9

"'~~TAPANDROCK TRAP1600.•. -~ "001400i ~\?\';~1"\00"00DISTRICTALASKA NGINEERSCORPS OF E LASKAANCHORAGE, A REPORTVALDEZ INTEAR~M RAILBELTSOUTHCENTRALLISON CREEKTOPOGRAPHIC PLAN. __APPROVED,__ _SHUT 0,PLATE D-A-3

CORPS Of ENGINEERSU. S. ARMY'

CORPS OF ENGINEERSU. S. ARMY./f----4,oprox. ,500. 0. '1 4 ,o,orox. Zlo..o.StagmlJ IIrpoCalt? flaisll .,// MOc/lmenj Roamn--' : II .. 1456.0e' Horsesha.e : r_________ ~~~~~~.!:i§Q.J..,@'~~-----------------------==::iSZ~~M~a=x=.~F,~/o=O=d===E~L~.=/~:J='6=?=O=====_I-----i-----~:=----7 -)~" ll~i --;'ale Shariy ~s. a U60J(MS" Ac~,dd" 1'_/00': :I,IBol/om or laken. lieD. 0.sz Min. Pool EL. IZ6? 0Lake Tap ELLAKE ENTRY PROFILENof 10 ScaleGafe Room~ l i i"'~ ,Tunnel InyerlEL IZ4Z.0 EL. IZ5 i5:0._UWJ ELIZ .'00 ' 400--_____ ~~=~ ~---____ -_-_-_-~~_~~====-=-~ ltt-===-=-_--_--_--:.--_--_;.,:"',', ~".-f-'L't:,2::~=:::::J:::::~=~== \8' Horseshoe "': ~An'lie dependinlJon slo,oe conddion\>Fbwer Tunnel ", "EL 10.50.. Q~~~~~~_-_-_-_ _=__=__=__======={0.0.0.5 SlopePower TunnelTrashRock--SECTIONNol fo Scale-Concrete LipDead End Rock Trapo'b--~---\ / I./; ///-----Power Tunneln. 1250..0~An9led,opending{In slop~ condihon-Top Area 8'Power Tunnel--~~r~~~~~--~ 3-SECTIONNof 10 Scaleo'-- C oncrele LipDead End Rock Trap60'DNED:C.i\ME RODRAWN:EF!PEPED=all ••SUPERVlSED=~'"R'0,...t.4MEN ED:ALASKA DISTRICTCORPS OF ENGINEERSANCHORAGE, ALASKAVALDEZ INTERIM REPORTSOUTHCENTRAL RAILBELTALLISONCREEKLAKE TAP PROFILE. PLAN 8 SECT.APPROVED:SCALE:FILE NUhlBER0-22SHEETOFPLATE 0-A-5

CORPS OF ENGINEERSU. S. ARMY-:!.:Jrr1Il'!1 ;.::;,,,;;,,,Genera/or Roon/10' 1'0'-f, 1 __

APPENDIX EENVIRONMENTAL DATA

APPENDIX EENVIRONMENTAL DATATABLE OF CONTENTSItemTEMPERATURE RECORDING OF ALLISON CREEK AND SOLOMON GULCHWATER TEMPERATURE PROFILES OF ALLISON LAKEUNREGULATED FLOWS FOR ALLISON CREEKREGULATED FLOWS FOR ALLISON CREEKESTIMATED AVERAGE MONTHLY FLOWS OF ALLISON CREEK WATERSHEDBELOW ALLISON LAKEWATER QUALITY DATA FOR ALLISON CREEKWATER QUALITY DATA FOR ALLISON LAKEMAMMALS OF THE PORT VALDEZ AREABIRDS OF THE PORT VALDEZ AREAALLISON CREEK SALMON ESCAPEMENTENDANGERED SPECIES LETTER - U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFESECTION 404(b)(1) EVALUATIONTablelAlB2A2B34A4B567

TABLE 1ATEMPERATURE RECORDING OF ALLISON CREEKAND SOLOMON GULCHALLISON CREEKJUNE19792627282930JULY197912345678910111213141516171819202122232425262.7282930HIGHTEMP.LOWTEMP.4 35 . 3HIGHTEMP.LOWTEMP.5 36 46 46 45 45 46 46 56 56 56 46 56 57 . 57 68 67 57 57 57 58 78 68 57 58 69 69 7AVER.TEMP.3333.54AVER.TEMP.4555444.55.555.55.55.5555.566.5766667.576.5677.58

TABLE 1A (cant)ALLISON CREEK (cant)AUGUST HIGH LOW AVER.1979 TEMP. TEt~P . TEMP.1 9 7 82 10 7 8.53 11 8 9.54 10 7 8.55 10 7 8.56 9 7 87 9 7 88 9 7 89 8 7 7.510 8 7 7.511 8 7 7.512 8 6 713 8 6 714 8 7 7.515 716 617 618 6 5 5.519 620 7 5 621 8 5 6.522 7 6 6.523 8 6 724 9 7 825 9 7 826 9 7 827 728 9 7 829 9 7 830 8 7 7.5SEPTEMBER HIGH LOW AVER.1979 TEMP. TEMP. TEMP.2 8 6 73 8 5 6.54 9 7 85 7 6 6.56 7 6 6.57 7 5 68 8 6 79 8 6 710 7 6 6.511 8 6 712 9 7 8

TABLE 1A (cont)ALL! SON CREEK (cont)SEPTEMBER HIGH LOW AVER.1979 TEMP. TEI"1P. TEMP.13 9 8 8.514 9 8 8.515 8 7 7.516 717 718 7192021222324252627 6 5 5.528 6 5 5.529 5 4 4.530 6 5 5.5OCTOBER HIGH LOW AVER.1979 TEMP. TEMP. TEMP.1 5.52 5.53 5.54 5.55 5.56 5.57 58 6 5 5.59 5.510 5.511 5.512 5.513 514 5 4 4.515 5 4 4.516 517 5 4 4.518 419 420 321 4 3 3.522 423 4

TABLE 1A (cant)ALLISON CREEK (cant)OCTOBER HIGH LOW AVER.1979 TEMP. TEMP. TEMP.24 425 426 4 3 3.527 428 429 430 4NOVEMBER HIGH LOW AVER.1979 TEMP. TEMP. TEMP.1 3.52 3.53 3 2 2.54 2 1 1.55 16 2 0 17 2 1 1.58 3 2 2.59 310 3 2 2.511 212 313 2.514 3 2 2.515 216 2 1.517 118 019 0 .520 121 2 1.522 223 224 2 0 125 026 027 1 0 .528 2 0 129 230 2 1.5

TABLE 1A (cont)ALLISON CREEK (cont)DECErvlBER HIGH LOW AVER.1979 TEMP. TEMP. TEMP.1 12 0 .53 .54 05 06 -0.2 -0.37 -0.38 -0.39 -0.310 -0.311 -0.312 -0.3 -0.4 -0.313 -0.314 -0.3 -0.4 -0.415 -0.3 -0.5 -0.416 -0.2 -0.2 -0. 117 0.-4 0.3 0.418 0.2 -0.3 -0. 119 0.3 -0.2 O. 120 0.6 0.4 0.521 0.5 0.2 0.322 0.2 O. 1 O. 123 0.2 O. 1 0.224 0.6 0.2 0.425 0.8 0.6 0.726 0.827 0.8 0.7 0.828 0.829 0.8 0.5 0.730 0.3 O. 1 0.231 O. 1 -0.3 -0. 1JANUARY HIGH LOW AVER.1980 TEMP. TEMP. TEMP.1 -0.32 -0.33 0.0 -0.4 -0.24 O. 1 0.0 0.05 0.4 O. 1 0.26 0.6 0.5 0.57 0.6 0.5 0.58 0.59 0.5 0.0 0.410 0.0 -0.4 -0.3

TABLE 1A (cont)ALLISON CREEK (cont)JANUARY HIGH LOW AVER.1980 TEMP. TEMP. TEMP.11 -0.4 -0.5 -0.512 -0.513 -0. 1 -0.6 -0.314 0.2 -0. 1 O. 115 0.216 0.6 0.2 0.317 0.5 O. 1 0.218 0.3 O. 1 0.219 0.4 O. 1 0.220 0.2 0.0 O. 121 O. 1 -0.3 0.022 -0.4 -0 5 -0.523 -0.524 -0.5 -0.7 -0.625 -0.4 -0.6 -0.526 -0.527 -0.2 -0.5 -0.328 0.2 -0. 1 O. 129 O. 1 -0.7 -0.430 -0.631 -0.3 -0.7 -0.5FEBRUARY HIGH LOW AVER.1980 TEMP. TEMP. TEMP.1 -0.3 -0.6 -0.52 O. 1 -0.4 -0.23 O. 1 0.0 o. 14 0.05 0.0 -0.4 -0.26 O. 1 0.0 O. 17 O. 18 O. 19 O. 1 -0. 1 0.010 0.3 -0.2 0.011 0.5 0.3 0.412 0.4 0.2 0.313 0.2 0.0 O. 114 O. 115 O. 1 0.0 0.016 o. 1 -0. 1 0.017 0.0 -0.7 -0.418 -0.519 -0.4 -0.7 -0.5

ALLISON CREEK (cont)FEBRUARY HIGH LOW AVER.1980 TEMP TEMP TEMP.20 -0.2 -0.4 -0.321 0.0 -0.2 -0.122 0.3 0.0 0.023 0.8 0.4 0.624 0.9 0.7 0.825 0.7 0.4 0.526 1.0 0.7 0.827 1.0MARCH HIGH LOW1980 TEMP. TEMP.1 0.9 02 0.9 03 1.0 O.4 1.0 0.85 1.0 0.76 1.0 0.77 1.0 0.88 1.0 0.89 1.0 0.810 1.0 0.311 0 012 0 -0.213 -0.2 -0.514 -0.5 -0.515 0 -0.816 0 017 0.5 018 0.5 019 0.5 020 0 -0.921 1.0 022 0.9 023 0.5 024 1.0 0.525 1.0 0.526 1.0 0.927 1.2 0.928 1.2 029 1.2 030 1.1 031 1.0 0.8

ALLISON CREEK (cont)TABLE lA (cont)APRIL HIGH LOW1980 TEMP. TEMP.1 0.9 0.72 1.0 0.63 1.0 0.54 1.0 0.75 1.3 1.06 1.8 1.07 1.7 1.08 2.0 09 2.0 1.010 2.0 1.011 1.8 1.012 1.2 1.113 1.1 0.914 1.3 015 1.8 0.916 1.8 1.017 1.8 018 2.2 0.919 2.8 1.520 2.8 1.521 1.8 1.222 1.8 1.223 2.3 1.224 3.5 1.025 2.1 1.026 2.5 1.227 2.2 1.028 2.8 1.129 2.5 1.030 2.9 1.2MAY HIGH LOW1980 TEMP. TEMP.1 3. 12 2.0 1.23 2. 1 1.04 2.9 1.05 2. 1 1.26 2.0 1.37 2.5 1.28 2.5 1.29 2. 1 1.210 1.2 1.211 1.9 1.012 2.5 1.013 2.9 1.0

ALLISON CREEK (cant)TABLE lA (cant)MAY HIGH LOW1980 TEMP. TEMP.14 1.9 1.115 2.0 1.016 1.9 1.017 1.6 1.118 1.8 1.119 2.0 1.220 1.8 1.121 1.9 1.222 2.0 1.223 2.0 1.224 1.8 1.225 2.0 1.226 1.8 1.627 No reading28 No reading29 No reading30 No reading31 No readingJUNE HIGH LOW1980 TEMP. TEMP.1 No reading2 No reading3 No reading4 1.5 2.25 1.0 2.26 2.0 1.07 2.0 1.58 2.0 1.89 2.8 1.810 2.8 1.811 2.0 1.812 2.0 1.813 2.2 1.814 2.3 1.815 2.5 1.816 3. 1 1.817 2.0 3.018 2.2 1.819 2.5 1.820 2.4 2.021 3.0 1.822 3.2 2.023 3.3 2.224 2.9 2. 125 2.5 2. 126 3.3 2. 127 3.3 2.328 3.0 2.229 3.2 2.530 3. 1 2.2

TABLE 1A (cant)ALLISON CREEK (cant)JULY HIGH LOW1980 TEMP. TEMP.1 3.9 2.22 3.9 2.23 3.9 2.44 4.0 2.35 4.0 2.46 3.0 3.07 3.0 2.88 3.2 2.89 3.2 2.810 4.0 2.811 3.5 2.812 3.0 2.913 4.4 3.014 4.8 3.015 4.6 3.516 4.2 3.517 4.8 3.818 4.8 3.819 5.2 3.820 5.8 4.021 5.0 4. 122 6.0 4.123 5.5 4.224 5.2 4.525 5.0 4.526 4.8 4.527 4.8 4.528 4. 1 4. 129 4.3 4.130 4.8 4.231 4.8 4.2SEPTEMBER HIGH LOW1980 TEMP. TEMP.1 7.0 5.02 5.0 4.03 3.0 5.04 5.5 4.25 5.0 4.96 5.3 4.07 4.5 3.28 4.5 4.59 4.5 4.510 4.5 4.511 4.5 4.5

TABLE 1A (cont)ALLISON CREEK (cont)SEPTEMBER HIGH LOW1980 TEMP. TEMP.12 4.5 4.5 .13 4.5 4.514 4.5 4.515 5.5 5.016 5.5 5.517 7.0 5.518 5.5 5.519 5.5 5.520 5.5 5.521 5.0 4.822 3.3 3.323 3.3 3.324 3.3 3.325 3.3 3.326 3.3 3.327 3.3 3.328 3.3 3.329 3.3 3.330 3.3 3.3OCTOBER HIGH LOW1980 TEMP. TEMP.1 1.8 1.82 1.5 0.83 2.0 0.94 2.2 1.25 2.2 2.06 2.0 2.07 2.0 2.08 2.0 2.09 2.0 2.010 2.0 2.011 2.0 2.012 2.0 2.013 2.0 2.014 2.0 2.015 2.0 2.016 2.0 2.017 2.0 2.018 2.0 2.019 2.0 2.020 2.0 2.021 2.0 2.022 2.0 2.023 2.0 2.024 2.0 2.025 2.0 2.0

TABLE lA (cont)ALLISON CREEK (cont)OCTOBER HIGH LOW1980 TEMP. TEMP.26 2.0 2.027 2.0 2.028 2.0 2.029 2.0 2.030 2.0 2.031 2.0 2.0NOVEMBER HIGH LOW1980 TEMP. TEMP.1 1.0 1.02 1.0 1.03 1.0 1.04 1.0 1.05 1.0 1.06 1.0 1.07 1.0 1.08 1.0 1.09 1.0 1.010 1.0 1.011 1.0 1.012 1.0 1.013 1.0 1.014 1.0 1.015 1.0 1.016 1.0 1.017 1.0 1.018 1.0 1.019 1.0 1.020 1.0 1.021 1.0 1.022 1.0 1.023 1.0 1.024 1.0 1.025 1.0 1.026 1.0 1.027 1.0 1.028 1.0 1.029 1.0 1.030 1.0 1.0

TABLE 1A (cont)SOLOMON CREEK - HIGH VALUES EFFECTED BY TIDESSEPTEMBER HIGH LOW1979 TEMP. TEMP.10 12 711 12 712 13 813 12 914 13 815 816 8.517 718 7 619 720 721 7 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 9 629 11 630 6OCTOBER HIGH LOW1979 TEMP. TEMP.1 12 52 12 63 9 64 11 6

TABLE 1A (cont)SOLOMON CREEK (cont)OCTOBER HIGH LOW AVER.1979 TEtJIP. TEMP. TEMP.5 6 56 12 57 58 59 10 510 11 511 512 513 514 515 4.516 4.5 3.517 7 418 10 419 10 420 11 421 10 322 9 223 9 224 9 225 9 326 9 327 9 328 8 329 9 330 9 3NOVEMBER HIGH LOW AVER.1979 TEMP. TEMP. TEMP.1 6 32 33 8 34 7 35 7 26 7 17 8 18 8 19 8 010 2 111 3 212 3 213 2 114 1.515 4.5 1.5

TABLE 1A (cant)SOLOMON CREEK (cant)NOVEf>lIBER HIGH LOW AVER.1979 TEMP. TEMP. TEMP.16 6 1.517 6 218 6 119 6 120 5 021 7 122 7 123 7 124 6 125 6 126 6 127 5 128 6 129 5 130 6 1DECEMBER HIGH LOW AVER.1979 TElviP. TEMP. TEMP.1 6 12 6 13 7 14 7 15 7 06 6 07 7 08 6 09 5 010 1 -0.711 -0.612 0.6 -0.613 3.8 -0.614 2.4 -0.515 4.0 -0.516 3.7 -0.517 4.5 -0.718 4.4 -0.519 4.5 -0.320 4.6 -0.421 4.6 -0.422 3.7 -0.323 3.3 -0.424 4.8 -0.225 4.8 -0.226 4.4 -0.2

TABLE 1A (cant)SOLOMON CREEK (cant)DECEMBER HIGH LOW AVER.1979 TEMP. TEMP. TEMP.27 4.3 -0.228 3.2 -0.229 3.0 -0.330 2.9 -0.531 3.3 -0.5JANUARY HIGH LOW AVER.1980 TEMP. TEIVlP. TEMP.1 3.8 -0.52 4. 1 -0.33 2.5 -0.44 3.5 -0.25 3.7 -0.26 3. 1 -0.27 3.3 -0.28 3.2 -0.29 1.2 -0.510 2.7 -0.511 2.9 -0.612 2.2 -0.613 2.9 -0.314 3.4 -0.315 2.9 -0.516 3. 1 -0.317 2.8 -0.218 3.0 -0.219 2.3 -0.220 2.6 -0.221 3.0 -0.222 2.0 -0.323 1.8 -0.524 1.8 -0.525 2. 1 -0.526 1.5 -0.527 3. 1 -0.428 2.8 -0.529 2.4 -0.530 2.8 -0.531 3.2 -0.6•

TABLE 1A (cont)SOLOMON CREEK (cont)FEBRUARY HIGH LOW AVER.1980 TEMP. TEMP. TEMP.1 2.9 -0.42 3.0 -0.33 3. 1 -0.34 2.2 -0.55 2.5 -0. 16 2.0 -0.37 2.2 -0.48 2.0 -0.59 1.6 -0.510 1.7 -0.211 2.0 -0.412 1.0 -0.813 1.7 -0.514 1.9 -0.515 1.8 -0.416 1.7 -0.717 2. 1 -0.518 2.0 -0.519 2.8 -0.420 2.6 -0.321 2.5 -0.322 2.6 -0.323 2.0 -0.424 2.0 -0.525 2.4 -0.326 2.3 -0.227 3.8 -0.2

TABLE 1A (cent)SOLOMON CREEK (cent)MARCH HIGH LOW1980 TEMP. TEMP.1 3.0 -0.52 2.5 -0.53 2.8 -0.54 2.9 -0.35 3.0 -0.46 3.0 ':0. 17 3.0 -0. 18 3.0 -0.19 2.8 -0. 110 2.4 -0.411 2.0 -0.412 2.0 -0.513 2.0 -0.514 3.0 -0.515 2.9 -0.516 3. 1 -0.317 3.5 -0.318 3.2 -0.319 3.5 ':0.520 3.0 -0.521 3.9 -0.222 3.5 -0.523 3.3 -0.524 3.8 -0.225 3.8 -0.226 3.8 -0. 127 3.2 -0. 128 3.2 a29 3.4 a30 3.5 -0.231 3.0 -0.4APRIL HIGH LOW1980 TEMP. TEMP.1 2.8 -0.52 2.8 -0.23 4.0 -0.24 4.0 -0.35 4.5 .026 4.3 .027 4.9 .058 4.5 .029 5.8 .0510 4. 1 011 * *

TABLE lA (cont)SOLOMON CREEK (cont)APRIL HIGH LOW1980 TEMP. TEMP12 * *13 * *14 * *15 * *16 * *17 * *18 * *19 * *20 * *21 * *22 * *23 * *24 * *25 * *26 * *27 * *28 6.2 029 5 .0230 5 .08*Machine malfunctioned - data not avail ab 1 eMAY HIGH LOW1980 TEMP. TEMP.1 5.2 .082 5.8 .083 5.2 04 6.0 0.85 6.8 1.06 6.8 .057 7.4 .098 7.8 .099 7.9 1.010 7.8 .0811 7.5 .0812 9.5 .0813 8.4 .0514 8.2 015 9.8 016 9.8 .0517 9.0 .0918 9.0 .0819 8.5 .0820 8. 1 .0821 7.4 .08

TABLE 1A (cant)SOLOMON CREEK (cant)MAY HIGH LOW1980 TEMP. TEMP.22 7. 1 .0823 2.5 .0924 3.0 .0925 3.3 .0826 3.0 .0927 1.09 .0828 3.01 .0829 3.0 .0930 8.1 031 4.0 .08JUNE HIGH LOW1980 TEMP. TEMP.1 5.3 0.82 5.3 0.83 3.5 0.84 3.0 0.55 4.8 4.86 1.2 3.07 4.5 1.38 5. 1 1.39 3.0 2.010 3. 1 1.811 4.0 2.012 4.8 2.013 4.5 2.014 5. 1 1.815 7.0 2.216 4.0 2.217 3.8 2.018 4.2 2.019 4.6 2. 120 7. 1 2.121 7.2 2.622 5.9 2.923 5.0 2.224 4.8 3.025 7.6 3.026 6.2 3.027 4.0 3.028 6.0 3.029 7.4 3.030 9.0 3.0

TABLE 1A (cont)SOLOMON CREEK (cont)JULY HIGH LOW1980 TEMP. TEMP.1 9.2 3.02 5. 1 3.03 9.5 3.04 7.0 3.55 4.5 3.86 5.0 3.87 6.0 4.08 5.5 4.59 6.5 4.010 7.0 5.011 7.0 5.212 6. 1 5.013 7.0 5. 114 8.0 5.215 9.2 6.216 9.0 5.817 8.0 5.218 7. 1 5.519 6.3 5.020 5.0 6.221 5.5 5.022 6. 1 5. 123 5.3 6.524 8.4 5.525 8.4 5.026 9.0 6.027 9.0 5.028 7.5 5.029 6. 1 5.530 7.3 5.031 9.0 5.3AUGUST HIGH LOW1980 TEMP. TEMP.1 9.0 5.22 7.0 5.23 7. 1 5.04 8.2 4.55 6.5 5.66 7.0 4.87 9.5 5.28 9.5 5.29 10.8 4.210 11.5 4.211 12. 1 7.012 11. 1 6.813 9. 1 6. 114 11.8 5.215 11.8 5.816 7.2 7.0

SOLOMON CREEK (cont)TABLE 1A (cont)AUGUST HIGH LOW1980 TEMP. TEMP.17 6.0 6.018 6.0 6.019 6.0 6.020 6.0 6.021 6.0 6.022 6.0 6.023 6.0 6.024 6.0 6.025 6.0 6.026 6.0 6.027 6.0 6.028 6.0 6.029 6.0 6.030 6.0 6.031 6.0 6.0SEPTEMBER HIGH LOW1980 TEMP. TEMP.1 6.5 6.02 7.2 4.63 6.3 4.44 10.2 4.55 9.8 4.86 9.8 5.37 9.8 5.88 9.8 6.09 10.0 6.010 10.5 4.811 10.8 4.812 10.5 5.013 10.0 5.214 5.5 5.415 6.0 5.516 6.4 6.017 5.4 7.518 5.0 6.019 5.0 5.920 8.9 4.821 9.5 5. 122 9.5 5.523 9.9 5.424 10.0 4.925 10.0 4.926 10.0 5.527 10.0 5.528 10.0 5.029 9.9 5.030 5.9 5.4

SOLOMON CREEK (cont)TABLE 1A (cont)OCTOBER HIGH LOW1980 TEMP. TEMP.1 5.5 5.02 5. 1 5.03 9. 1 4.84 9. 1 4.05 9.5 4.06 8.5 4.57 5.0 4.88 5.0 3.89 8.8 1.810 7.8 1.811 8.2 2.012 8. 1 1.013 9.0 1.014 8.9 2.015 7.4 2.016 3.5 3.517 7.5 2.518 7.0 2.219 7.5 2.220 7.5 2.221 8.3 2.822 8. 1 3.023 8.2 2.824 8.0 2.425 7.4 2.826 6.5 0.927 6.4 1.328 7.2 1.829 6.8 2.030 6.5 1.831 6.5 1.8NOVEMBER HIGH LOW1980 TEMP. TEMP.1 6.5 2.52 5.5 1.83 5.8 1.54 5.0 1.55 5.8 1.56 4.0 1.57 4.0 1.58 4.0 1.59 4.0 1.510 4.0 1.511 4.0 1.512 4.0 1.513 4.0 1.514 4.0 1.5

TABLE 1A (cant)SOLOMON CREEK (cant)NOVEMBER HIGH LOW1980 TEMP. TEMP.15 4.0 1.516 3.0 1.017 3.0 1.018 3.0 1.019 3.0 1.020 3.0 1.021 3.0 1.022 3.0 1.023 3.0 1.024 3.0 1.025 3.0 1.026 3.0 1.027 2.5 028 2.5 029 2.5 030 2.5 0DECEMBER HIGH LOW1980 TEMP. TEMP.1 2.5 02 2.5 03 2.5 0

TABLE 2ACalculated Flows of Allison CreekUsing Meteorological Data from 1948 to 1977(Unregulated Flows)YEAR OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL· AUG SEP AVG1948 38. 35. K To 5. 3. 3. 59. 152. 176. 93. 83. 56-. -1949 52. 23. 7. 5. 3. 4. 4. 30. 11l. 103. 89. 134. 47.1950 29. 28. 12. 5. 4. 3. 2. 34. 124. 94. 86. 86. 42.1951 16. 7. 3. O. l. 2. 3. 18. 88. 117. 86. 194. ~ ~.1952 25. 25. 7. 5. 4. 3. 3. 15. 124. 255. . 99. 74. 54.1953 103. 44. 10. 6. 4. 4. 6. 76. 184. 138. 117. 89. 65.1954 48. 12. 6. 4. 4. 3. 4. 55. 12l. 94. 120. 83. 46.1955 47. 25. 4. 4. 4. 3. 3. 12. 108. 174. 122. 43. 46.1956 19. 9. 6. 7. 4. 3. 5. 3l. 125. 17l. 149. 72. 50.1957 17. 27. 13. 5. 3. 3. 3. 44. 12l. 104. 99. 176. 5l.1958 54. 35. 9. 8. 4. 4. 7. 89. 159. 264. 134. 4l. 68 .. 1959 53. 14. ll. 5. 4. 3. 4. 66. 130. 150. 70. 42. 46.1960 44. 19. 10. 7. 5. 3. 4. 79. 130. 163. 108. 8l. 55.1961 29. 13. 23. 9. 5. 4. 6. 93. 120. 12l. 118. 84. 52.1962 39. 15. 8. 7. 4. 4. 5: 4l. 116. 109. 74. 6l. 40.1963 33. 22. 17 . 7. 10. 7. ll. 67. 112. 15l. 89. 54. 49.1964 34. 10. 19. 6. 6. 4. 5. 13. 137. 157. 100. 47. 45.1965 35. 22. 15. 5. 4. 4. 10. 47. 122. 96. 90. 97. 46.1966 44. 1l. 7. 4. 3. 3. 5. 3l. 112. 95. 114. 127. 46.1967 49. 20. 6. 4. 4. 5. 9. 44. 128. 114. 10l. 13l. 5l.1968 23. 28. 14. 5. ll. 9. 6. 80. 116. 103. 7l. 5l. 43.1969 24. 14. 7. 4. 4. 7. 10. 62. 129. 84. 55. 33. 36.1970 6l. 23. 26. 8. 10. 8. ll. 4l. 122. 128. 128. 6l. 53.1971 35. 19. 9. 5. 4. 3. 5. 20. 130. 18l. 113 . 52. 48.1972 39. ll. 4. 4. 3. 2. 2. 14. ' 100. 14l. 103. 95. 43.1973 46. 12. 8. 4. 3. 3. 4. 48. 105. 102. 98. 36. 39.1974 20. 9. 6. 4. 3. 3. 5. 46. 106. 68. 7l. 93. 36.1975 63. 28. ll. 5. 4. 3. 5. 44. 112. 164. 80. 106. 52.1976 36. 8. 5. 4. 4. 3. 9. 154. 240. 135. 96. 122. 68.1977 60. 55. 27. 12. 16. 4. 9. 45. 128. 143. 106. 94. 58.AVERAGE 4l. 2l. ll. 6. 5. 4. 6. 50. 127. 137. 99. 85. 49.

TABLE 1BWater Temperatureof A 11 i son Lake13 April 1979Site #1 Site #2 Site #3Ice Thickness 1 ft. 3 ft. 6 ft.Overflow 1. 5 ft. 0 0.5 ft.Temperature °CSurface (top of ice) -0.25 -0.25 +0.251 Meter -0.25 -0.25 0.002 -0.25 0.00 0.002.5 +0.25 +0.253 0.25 +0.25 0.303.5 0.50 +0.75 0.754 1.00 1.25 1.504.5 2.00 1.90 2.405 2.25 2.40 2.505.5 2.75 2.756 2.75 3.00 2.906.5 3.00 3.007 3.00 3.25 3.107.58 3.25 3.25 3.258.59 3.25 3.25 3.309.510 3.25 3.30 3.3010.511 3.25 3.30 3.3012 Bottom Cd 12.25 M 3.30 3.3013 3.40 3.3014 3.40 3.3015 3.40 3.3016 3.40 3.5017 3.40 3.4018 3.40 3.5019 3.50 3.5020 3.50 3.5030 3.50 Bottom @ 22.25 MBottom @ 37 M

TABLE 2BCalculated Flows of Allison CreekUsing Meteorological Data from 1948 to 1977(Regulated Flows)YEAR OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP AVGT948 19- 4"5"":- 48"-:- j7-: 4lf": jT. 14- 13. "j"j."" 96. 82. 78. W.1949 47. 45. 49. 37. 40 32. 34 33. 34. 32. 34. 77. 4l.1950 39. 45. 49. 37. 40. 32. 34. 33. 34. 32. 34. 39. 37.1951 39. 46. 49. 38. 4l. 32. 35. 34. 35. 33. 35. 39. 37.1952 39. 46. 49. 37. 40. 32. 34. 33. 34. 65. 88. 69. 38.1953 98. 45. 48. 37. 40. 32. 34. 33. 33. 120. 106. 84. 47.1954 43. 45. 49. 37. 40. 32. 34. 33. 34. 32. 34. 72. 59.1955 42. 45. 49. 37. 40. 32. 34. 33. 34. 32. 64. 39. 40.1956 39. 46. 49. 38. 40. 32. 34. 33. 34. 32. 87. 67. 40.1957 39. 46. 49. 37. 40. 32. 34. 33. 34. 32. 34. 135. 44.1958 49. 45. 48. 37. 40. 32. 34. 33. 33. 227. 123. 39. 45.1959 46. 45. 49. 37. 40. 32. 34. 33. 34. 35. 59. 39. 62.1960 39. 45. 49. 37. 40. 32. 34. 33. 34. 67. 97. 76. 40.1961 39. 46. 49. 37. 40. 32. 34. 33. 33. 32. 103. 79. 49.1962 39. 45. 49. 37. 40. 32. 34. 33. 33. 32. 34. 39. 46.1963 39. 46. 49. 38. 40. 32. 34. 33. 34. 32. 50. 49. 37.1964 39. 45. 49. 37. 40. 32. 34. 33. 34. 32. 5l. 32. 40.1965 39. 45. 49 37. 40. 32. 34. 33. 34. 32. 34. 68. 39.1966 39. 45. 49. 37. 40. 32. 34. 33. 34. 33. 34. 76. 40.1967 44. 45. 49. 37. 40. 32. 34. 33. 34. 32. 40. 126. 40.1968 39. 45. 49. 37. 40. 32. 34. 33. 34. 32. 34. 39. 45.1969 39. 46. 49. 38. 40. 32. 34. 33. 34. 32. 34. 39. 37.1970 39. 46. 49. 38. 40. 32. 34. 33. 34. 32. 37. 56. 37.1971 39. 45. 49. 37. 40. 32. 34. 33. 34. 32. 84. 47. 39.1972 39. 45. 49. 37. 40. 32. 34. 33. 34. 33. 34. 39. 42.1973 40. 45. 49. 37. 40. 32. 34. 33. 34. 33. 34. 39. 37.1974 39. 46. 49. 38. 4l. 33. 35. 34. 35. 33. 35. 40. 37.1975 40. 47. 50. 38. 4l. 33. 23. 34. 35. 33. 35. 39. 38.1976 39. 46. 49. 38. 4l. 32. 35. 33. 7l. 124. 85. 117. 59.1977 55. 50. 48. 37. 39. 3l. 34. 33. 33. 84. 95. 89. 52.AVERAGE 43. 46. 49. 37. 40. 32. 34. 33. 35. 5l. 58. 62. 43.

TABLE 3ESTIMATED AVERAGE MONTHLY FLOWS OF ALLISON CREEKWATERSHED BELOW ALLISON LAKEMONTHSOct 29Nov 14Dec 4Jan 3Feb 2Mar 2Apr 2May 24Jun 86Ju1 103Aug 86Sep 691\ilr1Ua 1j6cfs (Average)

TABLE 4AWater Quality Data of Allison CreekCollected by Alyeska Pipeline Servicefrom 1975 to 1977PARAMETERSodiumPotassiumIronManganeseAluminumZincArsenicCopperBariumCadmiumCharomium, HexavalentLeadSilverMercuryChlorideFluorideCyanideSilica, TotalSilica, DissolvedSu If ateNitratePhosphate, TotalSolids, TotalSolids, SuspendedSolids, DissolvedHardness, as CaC03CalciumMagnesiumAlkalinity, Total, as CaC03M Alkalinity, as CaC03P Alkalinity, as CaC03Bicarbonate, as CaC03Carbonate, as CaC0 3Hydroxide, as CaC0 3Turb i d ityColor, ApparentpH(Laboratory)22 February 1975VALUE0.5o. 1O. 10.010.016 mg/l10 mg/l10 mg/l0.011 mg/l10 mg/l2 mg/l2 mg/l0.2 mg/l0.330.050.052.53. 16.40.51.243.80.743. 131.210.01.519.619.6o19.6° o3.0 JTU5 Color Units(at pH 7.2)7.2 pH Units

TABLE 4A (cont)PARAMETERCalciumMagnesiumSodiumBicarbonate, as CaC03Carbonate, as CaC03Hydroxide, as CaC03M Alkalinity, as CaC03P Alkalinity, as CaC03SulfateChlorideIronAluminumSilica (Total)Silica (Dissolved)Total Dissolved SolidsTurbidity, JTUColor, Color UnitsHardness, as CaC0 3AmmoniaCopperpH (Laboratory), pH unitsTemperature (Field), 0CDissolved Oxygen (Field)Carbon Dioxide (Field)13 FEBRUARY 1975VALUE8.71.10.9818.5o18.5o6.50.24O. 10.27.02.235.02.2526.00.480.027. 1318.43.75

TABLE 4A (cont)PARAMETERCalciumMagnesiumSodiumBicarbonate, as CaC03Carbonate, as CaC0 3Hydroxide, as CaC0 31'1 Alkalinity, as CaC0 3P Alkalinity, as CaC0 3Su HateChlorideIronAluminumSi 1 ica (Total)Silica (Dissolved)Total Suspended SolidsTotal Dissolved SolidsTurbidity, JTUColor, Color UnitsHardness, as CaC03CopperpH (Laboratory), pH UnitsTemperatureCarbon Dioxide4 APRIL 1975VALUE8.40.80.8020.7o20.7o7.71.2O. 1o. 14.03.51.535.21.1524.3O. 17.07 0 C4.0

TABLE 4A (cant)PARAMETERTurbidity, NTUColor, Color UnitspH (Laboratory), pH UnitsBicarbonate, as CaC03Carbonate, as CaC0 3Hydroxide, as CaC03M Alkalinity, as CaC03P Alkalinity, as CaC0 3Hardness, as CaC03CalciumMagnesiumChlorideIronManganesePotassiumSodiumAluminumArsenicBariumCadmiumChromium-HexavalentCopperLeadMercurySilverZincCyanideFluorideAmmoniaNitratePhosphate, TotalSilica, TotalSilica, DissolvedSu lf ateSolids, TotalSolids, SuspendedSolids, Dissolved23 MAY 1975VALUE1.257.313.8o13.8o20.87. 10.80.3o. 10.010.70.900.210 mg/l0.210 mg/l10 mg/l10 mg/l10 mg/l0.2 mg/l10 mg/l10 mg/l26 mg/lO. 178.840.40.3113.44. 133.01.531.5

TABLE 4A (cont)PARAMETERTurb i d ity, NTUColor, Color UnitspH (Laboratory), pH UnitsBicarbonate, as CaC03Carbonate, as CaC03Hydroxide, as CaC03M Alkalinity, as CaC03P Alkalinity, as CaC03Hardness, as CaC03CalciumMagnesiumChlorideIront~anganeseSodiumSu If ate24 JUNE 1975VALUE1.357.010.7o10.7o18.55.81.00.50.010.010.64.7TABLE 4A (cont)PARAMETERTurbidity, NTUColor, Color UnitspH (Laboratory), pH UnitsBicarbonate, as CaC03Carbonate, as CaC03Hydroxide, as CaC03M Alkalinity, as CaC03P Alkalinity, as CaC03Hardness, as CaC0 3CalciumMagnesiumChlorideIronManganeseSodiumSu If ateAUGUST 1975VALUE4.357. 111.8o11.8o15. 15.70.20.50.150.010.503. 1

TABLE 4A (cont)PARAII,jETERTurbidity, NTUColor, Color UnitspH (Laboratory), pH unitsBicarbonate, as CaC03Carbonate, as CaC03Hydroxide, as CaC03M Alkalinity, as CaC0 3P Alkalinity, as CaC0 3Hardness, as CaC0 3CalciumMagnesiumChlorideIronManganesePotassiumSodiumAluminumArsenicBariumCadmiumChromium-HexavalentCopperLeadMercurySilverZincCyanideFluorideAmmoniaNitratePhosphate, TotalSilica, TotalSilica, DissolvedSulfateSolids, TotalSolids, SuspendedSolids, Dissolved19 AUGUST 1975VALLIE4.457.011.911.916.35.80.50.4O. 150.01O. 140.5O. 110 mg/lO. 10.010.010.010.010.3 mg/l0.010.010.05O. 1O. 100.50.381.34.841.52.039.5

TABLE 4A (cont)PARAMETERTurb i d ity, NTUColor, Color UnitspH (Laboratory), pH UnitsBicarbonate, as CaC03Carbonate, as CaC03Hydroxide, as CaC03M Alkalinity, as CaC03P Alkalinity, as CaC03Hardness, as CaC03CalciumMagnesiumChlorideIronMaganeseSodiumSulfateb OCTOBER 1975VALUE7.0107.223.9oo23.9o16.35.60.50.50.860.010.43. 1TABLE 4A (cont)PARAMETERTurbidity, NTUColor, Color UnitspH (Laboratory), pH UnitsBicarbonate, as CaC03Carbonate, as CaC03Hydroxide, as CaC03. M Alkalinity, as CaC03P Alkalinity, as CaC03Hardness, as CaC03CalciumMagnesiumChlorideIronI"'anganeseSodiumSulfate9 DECElvlBER 1975VALUE1.657 • 121.2o21.2o26.09.00.70.90.250.010.98.5

TABLE 4A (cont)22 APRIL 1977ELEMENT RUN #1 RUN #2 ELEMENT RUN #1 RUN #2Silver .005 .005 Magnesium 0.8 0.7Aluminum .009 .009 Manganese .002 .00Arsenic .02 .02 Molybdenum .004 .00Gold .02 .021 SodiumBoron .001 .001 Nickel .006 .00Bari urn .001 .001 Phosphorus . 1 . 1Bismuth .03 .03 Lead .02 .02Calcium 8.6 8.6 Platinum .05 .05Cadmium .01 .01 Antimony .016 .01Cobalt .03 .03 Selenium .01 .01Chromi urn .01 .01 Silicon 1.40 1.38Copper .017 .016 Tin .001 .00Iron .001 .001 Strontium .003 .00Mercury .025 .025 Vanadium .002 .00Potassium .2 .2 Zinc .025 .02TABLE 4A (cont)PARAMETER TOTAL Si02, ppm DISSOLVED SiOAllison 3.00 2.95

TABLE 4BALLISON LAKEWA TER QUALI TVMay 1979SAI~PLEDEPTH6 FeetAlkalinity mg/l as CaC03 11.0Aluminum mg/l as Al0.00Ammonia mg/l as N0.23Arsenic mg/l as As0.00Barium mg/l as Ba0.00Cadmium mg/l as Cd0.03Chloride mg/l as Cl1. 15Chlorine mg/l as Cl0.33Chromium mg/l as Cr0.01Color pt-co unit0.00Copper mg/l as Cu0.02Flourine mg/l as F0.0Iron mg/l as Fe0.01Iron BacterianoneLead mg/l as Pb0.01Magnesium mg/l as Mg0.02Manganese mg/l as Mn0.01Mercury mg/l as Hg0.00Nickel mg/l as Ni0.00Nitrate mg/l as NO. 11Nitrite mg/l sd N0.004Kjeldahl mg/l as NO. 14Petroleum or derivatives mg/l 0.00ph7.52Potassium mg/l as K0.09S-ilver mg/l Ag0.00Sodium mg/l as Na0.06Sulfate mg/l (S04)6.5Total Dissolved Solids mg/l @ 103C 20.0Total Settleable Solids mg/l 0.0Turbidity NTU0.01Zinc mg/l0.0070 Feet11.40.000.310.000.000.020.900.360.010.000.020.00.01none0.010.020.020.000.000.080.006O. 110.007.810.080.000.077.219.00.00.010.00

TABLE 5Mammals of thePort Valdez ArealMammalsBlack bear - Ursus americanusBrown bear - Ursus arctosWolverine - Gulo ~Marten - Martes americanaShort-tailed weasel - Mustela ermineaMink - Mustella visionRiver otter - Lutra canadensisLynx - Lynx canadensisCoyote - Canis latransGray wolf - Canis lupusPorcupine - Erethizon dorsatumSnowshoe hare - Lepus americanusMountain goat - Oreamnos americanusMarine MammalsSea otter - Enhydra lutrisNorthern sea lion - Eumetopias jubataNorthern fur seal - Callorhinus ursinusHarbor seal - Phoca vitulinaDolphin - unidentifiedKiller Whale - Orcinus orcaHarbor porpoise - Phocoena-phocoenaDall's porpoise - Phocoenoides dalliHump-backed whale - Megapetera novaeangliaeCompiled by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western EcologicalServices, Anchorage, Alaska.

TABLE 6BIRDS OF THE PORT VALDEZ AREACommon LoonYellow-billed LoonArctic LoonRed-throated LoonRed-necked GrebeHorned GrebeShort-tailed Albatross*Black-footed AlbatrossLaysan AlbatrossFulmarPink-footed Shearwater*Pale-footed Shearwater*Sooty ShearwaterSlender-billed ShearwaterScaled Petrel*Fork-tailed PetrelLeach's PetrelDouble-Crested CormorantPelagic CormorantRed-faced CormorantGreat Blue HeronWhistling SwanTrumpeter SwanCanada GooseBlack BrantEmperor GooseWhite-fronted GooseSnow GooseMallardGadwa 11PintailCommon TealGreen-winged TealBlue-wi nged Tea 1European WidgeonAmerican WidgeonShovelerRedheadRing-necked DuckCanvasbackGreater ScaupLesser ScaupCommon GoldeneyeBarrow's GoldeneyeBuffleheadWhite-winged ScoterSurf ScoterCommon ScoterHooded MerganserCommon MerganserRed-breasted MerganserGoshawkSharp-shined HawkRed-tailed HawkHarlan's HawkRough-legged HawkGolden EagleBald Eaglel"1arsh HawkOspreyGyrf a 1 conPeregrine FalconPigeon HawkSparrow HawkSpruce GrouseWillow PtarmiganRock PtarmiganWhite-tailed PtarmiganSandh ill CraneAmerican Coot*Black OystercatcherSemipalmated PloverKilldeerAmerican Golden PloverBlack-bellied PloverSurfbirdRuddy TurnstoneBlack TurnstoneWhimbrelBristel-thighed CurlewSpotted SandpiperSolitary SandpiperWandering TattlerGreater YellowlegsLesser YellowlegsKnotRock SandpiperSharp-tailed SandpiperPectoral SandpiperBaird's Sandpiper

OldsquawHarlequin DuckSteller's EiderCommon EiderKing EiderWestern SandpiperGray JaySteller's JayBlack-billed MagpieCommon RavenNorthwestern CrowBlack-capped ChickadeeBoreal ChickadeeChestnutbacked ChickadeeRed-breasted NuthatchBrown CreeperDipperWinter WrenRobinVaried ThrushHermit ThrushSwainson's ThrushGray-cheeked ThrushWheatearGolden-crowned KingletRuby-crowned KingletWater PipetBohemian WaxwingNorthern ShrikeStarlingRed-eyed Vireo*Orange-crowned WarblerYellow WarblerMyrtle WarblerTownsend's WarblerBlackpoll WarblerNorthern WaterthrushWilson's WarblerRed-winged BlackbirdRusty BlackbirdCommon Grackle*Pine GrosbeakGray-crowned Rosy FinchHoary RedpollCommon RedpoolRed CrossbillWhite-winged CrossbillSavannah SparrowSlate-colored JuncoLeast SandpiperDunlinShort-billed DowitcherLong-billed DowitcherSemipalmated SandpiperHudsonian GodwitSanderlingRed PhalaropeNorthern PhalaropePomarine JaegerParas it ic JaegerLong-tailed JaegerSkua*Glaucous GullGlaucous-winged GullHerring GullMew GullBonapart'sGullBlack-legged KittiwakeSabine's GullArctic TernAleutian TernCommon MurreThick-billed MurrePigeon GuillemotMarbled MurreletKittlitz's MurreletAncient MurreletCassin's AukletParakeet AukletRhinoceros AukletTufted PuffinScreech Owl*Great Horned OwlSnowy OwlHawk OwlGreat Grey OwlShort-eared OwlBoreal OwlAnnals Hummingbird*Rufous HummingbirdBelted KingfisherYellow-shafted FlickerHairy WoodpeckerDowny WoodpeckerNorthern Three-toed WoodpeckerRed-shafted FlickerSay's PhoebeWestern Flycatcher

Oregon JuncoTree SparrowWhite-crowned SparrowFox SparrowLincoln's SparrowSong SparrowLapland LongspurSnow BuntingWestern Wood PeeweeOlive-sided FlycatcherViolet-green SwallowTree SwallowBank SwallowBarn Swa 11 owCliff Swallow

TABLE 7All i son Creek EscapementYEAR-.--~.. -.Pink Salmon1960 100.-.--- ~---.--.EscapementChum Salmon1961 7501962 560 5801963 -0- 2,6601964 -0- 1901965 -0- -0-1966 -0- -0-1969 500-1,0001971 3001973 25Source:ADF&G.Note: Allison Creek was not regularly checked for escapement by Fish andGame but only as time and funding allowed. A year which shows zeroescapement does not necessarily mean that no fish spawned that year, itonly indicates that at the time it was checked there were no fish present.

UNITED STf-lrESDEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIORFISH AND WILDLIFF SERVICE1011 E. TUDOr: H[).IN FH:Pl.Y REFf:~1 TO (8£)M,CHORAGE, ALASKA 99503(9071 276-30:00Colonel Lee R. Nunn, District EngineerAttention: Mr. Jay SoperDepartment of the ArmyAlaska District, Corps of EngineersP.O. Box 7002Anchorage, Alaska 99510.:.Dear Colonel Nunn:This responds to your letter of Novemher 9, 1979, requesting a list ofthreatened and endangered species H'hich may be affected by constructionof a hydroelectric power facility on Allison Creek near Valdez, Alaska.Based on the best information currently available to us, no listed orproposed threatened or endangered species for ,,,hich the Fish and WildlifeService (FWS) has responsibility, are known to occur in the Valdezarea. Therefore, you may conclude that the hydroelectric power projecton Allison Creek will have no affect on those species, and that formalSection 7 consultation ,,,ith the FWS is not required.Protection of threatened and endangered marine mammals is the responsibilityof the National Marine Fisheries Service (m1FS). Hhereas AllisonCreek is a tributary to Valdez Arm, you may \I1ish to contact the NMFS todetermine potential effects of the project on those species.New information indicating the presence of currently listed threatenedor endangered species administered by the n~s or the listing of newspecies which might be affected by the proposed project will requirereinitiation of the consultation process.Thank you for your concern for endangered species. Please contact us ifyou have questions or if we can be of further assistance.Sincerely, "I.. ~/I?/~AS~rea DirectorIII I

1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:Section 404(b)(1) EvaluationSouthcentral RailbeltValdez InterimThe proposed project consists of a lake tap at Allison Lake, power tunnel,above ground penstock, powerhouse, and a transmission line intertie withthe Solomon Gulch Substation. Approximately 5 cubic yards of riprap wouldbe placed in Allison Creek below the tailrace as an erosion protectionmeasure. Five cubic yards of riprap would also be placed below thetailrace to Port Valdez at the MHI~~ mark for erosion protection.2. AREA DESCRIPTION:a. Physical: The area impacted at Port Valdez would be approximately90 square fe8t of rock and cobble wi thin the intertidal area near themouth of Allison Creek. Five cubic yards of riprap would be placed inAllison Creck above the existing weir. The impacted area is wi thin thebanks of the stream on a rock and cobble area.b. Biological: The proposed disposal site in Port Valdez would be atthe MHI-tN level which supports little attached vegetation and minorpopulations of benthic organisms. The Allison Creek disposal site isabove any salmonid spawning or rearing and is in an area where thevelocity is high. The area contains typical algae and juvenileinvertebrate species associated with short, glacial fed, coastal streams.3. CONFORMITY WITH GUIDELINES:Evaluation Under 404(b)(1) Guidelines (40 CFR 230)a. Physical Effects: The direct ~hysical impact of this dischargeinvolves the elimination of 20 square yards of a water resource from thephysical, chemical, and biological systems. The work is exempt fromtesting since the material to be used does not represent a possible sourceof contamination to the surrounding aquatic ecosystem.b. Water Column Effects: Turbidity would increase during workoperations. Accordingl \f, light penetration would be decreased. Turbiditycaused by runoff at the project site would not be significant. Highnutrient concentrations or toxic materials would not be discharged intothe water column. The water column, as a whole, would not besignificantly impacted.

c. Effects on Benthos: The proposed discharge would eliminate aportion of the benthic community due to smothering from sedimentation. Itis likely that this community will recolonize the project site. Overall,the benthos would not be adversely impacted.d. Chemical-Biological Effects: The material to be discharged wouldnot significantly impact the chemical integrity of the aquatic ecosystem.The project site is not located in a biologically sensitive area. Thus,the chemical-biological system would not be significantly disrupted.4. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS AND OBJECTIVES:a. This project would not significantly disrupt the integrity of theaquatic ecosystem.b. The food chain would not be significantly disrupted by theproposed work.c. This activity would not inhibit the movement of fauna.d. The filling activity would not destroy wetlands having significantfunctions in maintenance of water quality.e. The filling activity would not destroy wetland areas that retainnatural high or flood waters.f. The proposed work would be conducted in a manner so as to minimizeturbidity.g. The activity would not degrade aesthetic, recreational, andeconomic values.5. DEGRADATION OF WATER USES:a. The discharge is not in the vicinity of a public water supplyintake.b. The discharge is not in an area of concentrated shellfishproduction.c. The discharge would not disrupt fish spawning and nursery areas.d. The discharge has been designed to minimize impact on wildlife.e. The discharge would not adversely impact recreation areas or wateroriented recreation.2

6. ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES:No endangered or threatened flora and fauna, as listed in the FederalRegister, Vol. 44, No. 12, 17 January 1979, "List of Endangered andThreatened Wildlife and Plants" and subsequent updates, would be impactedby the proposed project. No critical habitat would be destroyed ormodi fied which would jeopardize the continued existence of an endangeredor threatened species.7. WETLANDS:Wetland species impacted by this proposal include: rockweed (Fucusdisticus) and coraline algae. The project site is not considered to be aproductively vegetated wetland. This project would not adversely impactthe wetland resource.8. SUBMERGED VEGETATION:The project site is vegetated with submerged vegetation. The followingspecies are located on the site: rockweed and coraline algae. Thisproject would not adversely impact this wetland resource.9. APPROPRIATE ALTERNATIVES:a. No Action: The no action alternative may cause erosion and scourin both Port Valdez and Allison Creek. This alternative would not beenvironmentally acceptable.b. Reduced Fill Size: The fill is at the smallest practicable size.c. Modi fy Fill Location or Dimensions: The location is below theoutfall at the MHHN level and cannot be located at any other site.10. WATER DEPENDENCY:The purpose of the project is water dependent or water oriented.activities taking place on the fill are water oriented in nature.is a water dependent need for the proposed project.11. DISPOSAL SITE SELECTION:AllThereThe disposal site has been selected to be the least environmentallydamaging. There are no alternate disposal sites available which are lessenvironmentally sensitive and still feasible for the proposed project.The disposal site has been limited to its smallest practical size.3

An ecological evalu~)tion as required by Section 40 LI(b) (1) of the Clean\~() ler Act has bO::cn made following the evaluation guidance in 40 CFR2~XJ. 5. ApprofJI iate measures have been identified and incorporated in theproposed plan to minimize adverse effects on the aquatic and wetland(~Co~;ystems as a result of the discharge. Consideration has been given tothe need for the proposed activity, the availability of alternate sitesand methods of disposal that are less damaging to the environment, andsuch water quality standards as are appropriate and applicable by law.Impacts on wetlands at the site would be unavoidable. Approximately lessthan one-ten th of an acre of aquatic habitat would be eliminated. Allactivities upon the fill would be water oriented or dependent. There areno other viable or foreseeable practical alternatives.The discharge site does conform with the Guidelines. As such, thedischarge site can be specified through the application of Section404(b)(1) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 as amended bythe Clean Water Act of 1977. .

APPENDIX FCULTURAL RESOURCES

JAY S. HAMMO~D. GOVERNORDEPARTMENr OF lW&nJRAL RESOIJRCESDIVISION OF PARKS619 WAREHOUSE DR., SUITE 210ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99601PHONE: 2744676November 12, 1980Re: 1130-2-1Col. L. R. NunnCorps of EngineersP. O. Box 7002Anchorage, Alaska 99510Subject:Electrical Power for Valdez, etc.Dear Col. Nunn:We have reviewed the subject proposal and would like to offer the followingconnnents:STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICERNo probable impacts. Should cultural resources be found during theconstruction, we request that the project engineer halt all work whichmay disturb such resources & contact us innnediately.The proposed action is consistent with the Alaska Coastal ManagementProgram's historic, prehistoric and archaeological resources standard.i 7)A-;~ f/~~ l .. I~ ~i~L piDouglas?R. Reger, D~putyState Historic Preservation OfficerSTATE PARK PLANNINGPage 20 of the EIS states that consideration was given to the possibilityof enhancing or creating recreational values, yet there is littletext given to the recreational and scenic values or opportunities.These elements appear to be dismissed due to the restricted land usecontrol and existing site modifications.

Col. L. R. NunnNovember 12, 1980Page 2LWCFNo connnent.Sincerely,~~~.{~£,\' ~--­~'.~ Chip DennerleinDirectorCD:mlb

CULTURAL RESOURCESAboriginal Setting: Prince William Sound is the home of the ChugachEskimo, or Cuatit, as they call themselves. The Chugach Range and themountains of Kenai Peninsula form material boundaries between the Chugachand the Tanana Athabaskans of Cook Inlet and other Athabaskan groups inthe interior.The Chugach hunted primari ly marine rather than 1 and animals. Present inthe sound were harbor seal, fur s~al, sea otter, sea lion, and belugawhale. Fish of all kinds were abundant. In the 1 ate winter and earlyspring when bad weather prevented hunting, the natives relied on shellfish.This is evidenced by the accumulation of shells that mark almostevery village site or camping spot.Federica de Laguna surveyed Prince William Sound and Cook Inlet duringthe summers of 1930 through 1933. She was able to reconstruct much ofthe Chuqach material culture as it must have been within 500 or so yearspreceeding first contact with the white man. The following is a summaryof her conclusions.Archeological evidence indicated the population of the sound was verysmall. There were long stretches of shoreline where no sites werereported or observed. The material evidence shows that they had anelaborate social and religious culture. The Chugach were impressivecraftsmen in woodworking, evidenced by a rich asortment of tools,especially common was the heavy splitting adz, present in some of theoldest sites. There was a reliance on chipped flint and chert that weregrinded on wet stones. Native copper was worked by hammering, heating,and grinding for weapons, needles, spear points, and decorative uses.Village sites were usually on the shore, usually in protected waters, fortravel was almost all by sea. The village was frequently placed in astrategic position with a view of the approaches. This seems to be amore important consideration than a neighborhood of a salmon stream or arich bead of shellfish. Thus, it is thought, no permanent villages werelocated at the heads of bays in spite of the presence of some of the bestsalmon streams. Temporary summer camps were set up at fish streamsduring the salmon runs. Small rocky islands or cliffs which were difficultto climb were used as refuge places or forts. Hunting camps wereset up on small islands for the pursuit of sea mammals. Rock shelters orcaves near the shore might be used as camping places and burial groundsand the rock walls of such sllelters were sometimes used for pictographs.There were no permanent settlements in the interior.The dwell ings of the Chugach were generally underground with spruce barkfor roofing, although there is evidence of wood plank houses aboveground. There is also evidence of the Chugach using bath houses.F -1

The closest site investigated by De Laguna to the Valdez area was GalenaBiiY. It was reportedly a fish camp. There '/Jere two semi-subterraneanhouses which have since washed away. The only trace of early occupationwas a 2-foot layer of humus and fire cracked rock at a sand beach. Aspitting adz, a broken pestle and an unfinished hunting lamp came from abank near tl'lO existing cabins.A cultural resou~ce survey conducted in connection with the proposedright-of-way for the Alyeska pipeline checked out the area being clearedfor storage tanks. This area is located just south of the remainingbuildings of old Fort Liscum which is in the affected area of AllisonCreek hydropower project. Th e 0 pi ni on was t he a rea conta i ned 1 itt 1 epromise of archeological value (Workman 1970).Historical SettingThe Spaniards are credited with the initial discovery of Valdez Bay byDon Salvador Fidalgo in 1790. He named the bay for a fellow navalofficer Antonio Valdes y Basan. In 1884, Captain William RalphAbercrombie of the U~S. Army surveyed a portage route from the interiorto Port Va 1 del;Around 1889, the early beginnings of what 10 years 1 ater was to be abooming stamped town began to make an appearance at Port Valdez. Earlyminers came to seek routes leading to their fortune in mineral wealth.The discovery of gold in the interior established Valdez as one of thethree Alaskan routes to the gold fields. There was prospecting donearound Valdez, also. The streamer and transport companies were making afortune bringing men to the port towns (Wartan 1972).Captain Abercrombie was responsible for establishing a military road toFort Egbert in Eagle, exploring the Copper River valley and maintainingsome order in Valdez. Fort Liscom, across the east end of Port Valdez"'Ias established for this purpose in 1900. Company C, 7th Infantrya r r i ve d tog a r r i son For t Lis com 0 nAp r i 1 29 , 19 00 . ( Arm yin A 1 ask a1972). Fort: Liscom was also the base of operations for the WashingtonDC-Alaska military cable and telegraph system connecting Alaska to thelower 48 via Canada.The follol'ling is taken from a report written by C.I"1. Brown for the Stateof Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, 1975.Of the 1,600 acres which comprised the Fort Liscum military reservation(reduced to 660 acres in 1903) the post buildings occupied only a fewacres. The buildings were located closely to one another, with plankwalks linking most. Officers' quarters were arranged in a row, formingthe western boundary of tIle parade ground. The barracks, gymnasium, postexchange, hospital, and guardhouse formed the eastern and southernboundaries of the parade ground. Large structures, such as the hospitaland barracks, were located some distance from the shore, while smallerhuildings such as the sheds and storehouses, were placed nearer to theF-2

shorp--probablv to facilitate easier transport of supplies and equipmentfrom the l,o,iharf. Civilian quarters and stables formed their own complex.a short distance west of the post.Both permanent and portable buildings were constructed at Fort Liscum.Nearly all of the permanent buildings, such as the barracks, officers 'quarters, offices, amusemet hall, hospital, etc., were occupied in 1900;they were frame structures with wood foundations and corrugated ironroofs. Additional permanent structures were constructed in 1904-05 whenthe post garrison was increased to two companies; these buildingw wereessentially the same in architectural style as earlier structures. Theexception was the commanding officer's quarters, the only building atFort Liscum with concrete foundations, basement, and closed porch. Mostportable buildings at Fort Liscum were assembled from sheets of corruqatediron in 1901; many had boarded interiors, while others were metalshells.For a community of its size. Fort Liscum was provided with a remarkablenumber of modern facilities. The post had its own telephone system,connecting all of the offices and several officer's quarters. The"centra 1" was located in the guardhouse, and operated by a member of theguard on duty. The post also had a telegraph office which, by means of asubmarine cable to Valdez, allmved communications with almost any pointin Alaska and the contiguous United States. Also, the post had a governmentlaunch, which made trips to Valdez on a regular basis. Fort LiscumW(jS not an isolated post in the wi lderness.In the early 1900 ' s, water was obtained primarily from a barrel sunk intothe bed near the mouth of Allison Creek. Water \',as dipped from thebarrel, and then del ivered by water cart to the post. Thi s arduousmethod was modified somewhat in early 1903 when a small pipe wasinstalled to conduct water from Allison Creek to the company and hospitalkitchens, and bath house. Water for the officers ' quarters and barracklavatories was still obtained oy water cart. Late in 1903, however,Chief Surgeon of the Department of Columhia, Lieutenant-Colonel Wilcox,inspected the post and recommended the installation of modern water andsewage systems, noting also that Allison Creek might prove a source ofelectricity. In 1904, a dam was constructed to form a reservoir, and atemporary pipe system installed. The next season, modern plumbingfacilities began to be installed.Completed in 1906, the new water system eliminated the old method oftransporting water by cart to post buildings and disposing garbage andrefuse in dry earth closets. A 4-inch main conducted water from AllisonCreek to distributinq pipes with a pressure of about 75 pounds to thesquare inch. Barracks, officers ' quarters, the hospital, and otherbuildings were thus equipped with enamel bath tubs and wash bowls, showerbaths in the barracks, wash sinks and closets. Two sewer mains drainedinto the bay near the limit of low tide. Fire hydrants were convenientlylocated about the grounds. Water pressure on the lower levels of thereservation was sufficient to throw two fair streams of water over two-F-3

story buildings. At higher points the results were not satisfactory. By1913, Ilydroelectric dams with an aggregate rated capacity of 700 horsepowerwere operating in Solomon Gulch, providing electricity for lights,heat, etc. for the post. (U.S. Geological Survey 1914: 78).For several years after Fort Liscum was abandoned in 1922, the postbuildinqs remained vacant and unused. In 1925, however, President CalvinCoolidge ordered (No. 4131) the Fort Liscum military reservation placedunder the control of the Secretary of the Interior. Several privatecitizens then applied for permission to acquire the buildings. In July1925, the Reverend T. Lavrischeff, Rector of Russian-Greek OrthodoxMission in Prince William Sound, requested the removal of any two buildingsat Fort Liscum, to Cordova where he intended to establish a "templeand church house (Lavrischeff 1925). The appl ication was denied. Theremust have been numerous requests to obtain the post buildings, for in1926 the district General Land Office was instructed to send an inspectorto Fort Liscum and appraise the improvements. In the meant-ime, tIleAlaska Road Commission was permitted to salvage several of the postbuildings (Nos. 20 and 30). (General Land Office, February 26, 1926)In early 1928 the General Land Office submitted an appraisal of the FortLiscum military reservation at $2.50 per acre. Each post building wasappraised separately, the inspector arriving at values considerably lessthan the original cost of tIle buildings--reportedly because the woodfoundations of most structures were in poor condition and because theroofs of some structures had collapsed. In any case, the reservation,buildings, and miscellaneous objects were valued at $2,288. (GeneralLand Office, January 9, 1928) Shortly thereafter, on October 2, 1928,the Alaska Road Commission received permission to salvage all buildingson the reservations. A special survey (U.S. Survey No. 1746) was made ofthe military reservation, with the Interior Department accepting the platon March 11, 1929. (General Land Office, February 8, 1934)The Alaska Road Commission moved a number of the post buildings to othersites; it also sold various buildinCjs to private citizens, who in turnsalvaged the structures. One of these individuals, A.S. Day, applied fora homestead on the mi 1 itary reservation, and converted several formerpost buildings for use as a residence and salmon-canning operations. Inthe mid-1Q30's, the Interior Department cancelled U.S. Survey 1746 andDay acquired a patent to his homestead, 160 acres of USS 1746. Daysubsequently applied for permisstion to purchase an additional number ofbuildings. Referrinq to Day's application, a special agent to theDistrict Land Office reported: "the Alaska Road Commission at Valdezstated that during the time the buildings were in their possession, theyhad removed everything they considered to have any salvage value, andthat what remained on the ground was not worth transporting to any otherplace, and tlley as well stated that had not Mr. Day been right at FortLiscum, no other person in all probability would ever have offered $1 forwhat rem2ined." (General Land OffiCe, December 7, 1937) On December 7,1937, 11 buildings, the dock, water pipes, telegraph poles, etc. weresold to Day for $500.F-4

Today the Alyeska oil terminal encompasses the original site of FortLiscom.Impact InvestigationA cultural resource reconnaissance was conducted for the Allison Creekhydropower project.The 10catiCln tested for cultural remains was within the confines of theAlyeska Pipeline Terminal across Valdez Arm from the city of Valdez.The proposed pm"erhouse site area was specifically tested.The area is reached from a short gravel road on the west side of AllisonCreek that leads to an exist-ing pUlTlphouse. The general terrain slopes tothe north yet the area in question has been flattened and graded. It ispresently a material source, approximate 50 meters in diameter.The edges of this gravel pit seemed to have been disturbed at some pointin the past based on the evidence of the vegetation which consists of lowgrowing alders and other brush. The cleared area was visually inspectedfor cultural remains, because test pits were useless in the gravelsubstratum. A number of rusted metal parts were noted scattered throughoutthe gravel pit. It was difficult to ascertain just how old theywere. On the western side of the pit several large chunks of concretethat seemed old and eroded \'Jere found. The gravel incorporated intothese blocks was not of uniform size as it is in more recent concrete;however, it is probably pre-World War II. The concrete and metal partsmay be the remains from Fort Liscum. Three test pits were dug on thealder covered hillside to the south of the gravel pit. Bedrock was onlyan inch or two below the surface so natural exposures were looked atinstead of digging test pits. No cultural remains were found.Cultural resource clearence is recommended for the proposed powerhousesite. In the unlikely event that any unknown cultural resources arediscovered during construction activities the Corps of Engineers CulturalResource Coordinator wi 11 be contacted.No properties included in or that may be eligible for inclusion in theNational Register of Historic Places are located within the area ofenvironmental impact, and this undertaking will not affect any suchproperty.The latest edition of the National Register and monthly supplementscontained in the Federal Register have been consulted.F-5

APPENDIX GFOUNDATIONS AND MATERIALS

APPENDIX GFOUNDATIONS AND MATERIALSTABLE OF CONTENTSItemINTRODUCTIONLOCAL LINEAR FEATURESSEISMICITYLAKE TAPPOWER TUNNELPOWERHOUSECOMMENTSADDI TIONAL WORKBORING LOGSPageG-lG-lG-lG-lG-2G-2G-3G-3G-4

INTRODUCTIONAllison Lake is located on the south side of Port Valdez, directly acrossfrom the city of Valdez, filling approximately one-half of a glacier formedhanging valley. The area is underlain by the Late Cretaceous Valdez Group, aseries of metagraywackes, shales and slates with occasional beds of pillowbasalt. This is indicative of a rapid, unsorted deposition in an oceanenvironment. The beds are highly disturbed and no regional structure has yetbeen defined.LOCAL LINEAR FEATURESAerial photographs and regional mapping show three strong lineaments nearAllison Lake. They are: Jack Bay, east-west leg on the north side of JackBay, and an east-west trend approximately 1 mile north of Jack Bay. Thesefeatures have been mapped as faults by the U.S.G.S. (Bulletin 989-E dated1954) .SEISMICITYAllison Lake is located in Seismic Zone 4, approximately 46 miles east ofthe epicenter of tne 27 March 1964 earthquake. The major source of seismicactivity in this region is the relative motion of the Pacific and NorthAmerican plates. The Pacific plate is plunging under the North American plateand it is active along the Benioff Zone which controls the tectonic setting ofthe area.Prior to 1964, there were approximately 70 magnitude 5, or greater,earthquakes recorded in the Valdez vicinity. Magnitude 5 earthquakes haveaveraged approximately one per year in recent years. Submarine landslideshave been associated with several of the larger events. Magnitude 8 orgreater events have occurred three times this century, therefore there is agood probability of a large earthquake occurring during the life of theproject. Maximum Credible Earthquake (MCE) should be tentatively set atmagnitude 8.5 at 40 miles.It is important to note that there has been no evidence of rupture in areabedrock. Most destruction in Port Valdez has been caused by tsunami andsubmarine mass movement of unconsolidated Lowe River delta deposits.LAKE TAPAllison Lake valley has the very typical "U" shape of glacier scouring.Sidewalls are extremely steep metagraywacke cliffs with extensive talusdeposits and fans at lake elevation. Lake bottom slope changes indicate talusslopes continuing to the bottom. DH-l, drilled near the original taplocation, went through 33 feet of pourous sandy boulders. Metagraywackebedrock is highly fractured to 70 feet and from 130 feet to 168 feet. A zoneof liqht to moderate fracture extends from 70 feet to 130 feet and from 168feet to the bottom of the hole at 176 feet. Artesian water was encountered atapproximately 110 feet. Shutoff pressure of 50 psi indicate approximatelyG-l

100 psi pressure at depth. The source is located in or above the cliffsbordering the lake. Precisely locating the tap will require underwaterphotography and possible use of diver inspection. Additional drilling will berequired during the General Design Memorandum phase to determine exactoverburden thickness and rock characteristics. Artesian conditionsencountered in the vicinity could pose a problem during construction and willrequire further investigation.POWER TUNNELAs noted, Allison Lake sits in a glacier scoured valley. The lake outletis in what appears to be deep till deposits. DH-2, located approximately4,000 feet downstream of the lake outlet, did not penetrate bedrock at a depthof 64 feet. Assuming a relatively flat rock line, bedrock may be at anelevation between 1,150 and 1,200, 170 to 220 feet below lake elevation. Thisis based on the elevation of the falls downstream of the outlet. DH-2 wasdrilled from an elevation of 1,350 feet, 1,200 feet east of metagraywackecliffs. This reinforces the suspicion of deep tills in the valley.Plans call for a power tunnel invert elevation of 1,050 feet. The tunnelhas been alined to be under the metagraywacke cliffs to assure that it waslocated in rock. Additional postauthorization explorations and studies maylocate suitable rock in the valley floor which would permit a shorter tunnelalinement. The cost estimate for the proposed tunnel was based on an 8-footunlined horseshoe tunnel for 50 percent of the length and a 6-foot diameterconcrete lined circular tunnel for 50 percent of the length. Duringpostauthorization studies, additional drilling will be done to determine theextent of overburden and condition of underlying rock.POWERHOUSEOne hole DH-3, has been drilled in the lower powerhouse area, penetrating69 feet of Allison Creek delta deposits before encountering moderately tohighly fractured metagraywacke. While the delta deposits would make goodfoundation material for a small surface powerp1ant, the area may be subject totsunami below an elevation of +85 MLLW. During slide induced sea waves, runupat Anderson bay, 7 miles west of Allison Creek, was measured at 70 feet.Measurements at Shoup Bay (Cliff Mine) on the north side of the arm show arunup of 170 feet. No runup measurements were made at Jackson Point orFort Liscum, but the cannery at Jackson Point floated away.Maximum high tide in Port Valdez is approximately +14 MLLW; therefore, toinclude the 70-foot runup at Anderson Bay the powerhouse elevation should beat least +85 MLLW. For this reason the upper powerhouse, located atapproximately +100 MLLW was selected. Additional reconnaissance andexplorations will be required for final powerhouse location duringpostauthorization studies.G-2

COMMEIHSPermeability of the glacial till and the artesion water will have to beassessed after additional drilling and e~ploration~ to determine the extent ofand solution to the problem.ADDITIONAL WORKDue to preliminary nature of the work performed to date, additionaldrilling and regional and local mapping will have to be done during theGeneral Design Memorandum phase. The particular questions to be addressedwi 11 be:a. Condition and permeability of bedrock on proposed tunnel alinements forlining requirements.b. Depth and permeability of tills.c. Source of artesian water in lake tap area.G-3

-1'~~ ·/~-IU-'J\·-----'~r-.-;-,~ __ .. 3t!;tiv.ll:£~onILLOAT£9' START 22 ~) 1978~. .8apW·j.17!1.8' O£,.TH O'F OVEnOUROVi 33.2' OIAM .• tQ.I•rz- •.nOCK CORE RECOV£r.EO 138.3' 'R. ft£""..,D~I~LL~E~O ____ 1'_12_._6_' +-~~~~~~~ ________ ~ __ ~M-~~ _____NJGLE f'RO:'-A VERT. 00 AtR'.1\ITH mo:'J NOilT.1 1M.-r------.-----------"----h.----------=---1tOIST'SICES: VERTICAL. .. • HI ... l ./·:" .15.0'. '.... :~. Bouldery sand; sand fine to·b· ::. medium, boulders to 1 foot diAmeter()ye~'burden I!JIIftt)We ClOnIIwt'- .... f>. of boulder fniJuiliiu. _:~.::.::.:~- '::6''-0.:, •. ".':27.5'~A 0 ::;anay DOIHoers; OOUloors t;o ;t reet3p_ :&".~ in diameter _1347 ?J:~ Top of Rock 1-'33=:,.2=--' _________"- :f):': Metagraywacke, noderat;ely weathered C8J to 32.8'11.:. nodcratcly hard, fine to n~clhrn n~. rained. mas.

---s\.J~,f'~~.RYLOG.... ,~'-,.' -;: ~-.. it: ;, .,'":-i,,\"I,(,.),mlk \__._~cu.~EI 1. Of 1 1--1:LO LEN O. I ~I-:.! ~ __ SU:1rACs..~b~V,_1PROJECT Allison l:lko DRILL [d.TES I START 3 Oct 1978 COMPo 18 OctlU1K1CE?TII OF HOLE 61.0' ~"" O'F CVEnaUROEft 64.0' 0111:.1. OF 1t000E NX/Blt.1ROC'( OniLLEO 0.0' COR( RECOVEr.EO NA ~\ RECOVERY NAANt:;LE' FROM VERT. rP AZIrJUTH mo.J HOaTH !~D8Y. DAT!: !_." /#~?9OlSTAI'JCES I VERTICAL. i H~IZOHTAL. IIOIWttG£LFi. OEPTH DESCRIPTION Of k'ATERIALSLOGREMARKSJ:mtu _ 11." ~! Bouldery silt, red-browo. metagray-1~j,l, wacke boulders, non-plastic fines. 3---5' TIlL I j- ~~.:

~UMi'.'j~'~Y!lfGIOL~ N ..--Pa.w'rlnllsc1-'-- - f3~fJ 1Q~ ! l t11.[-3 AJ"C:l,. • SURr-A£:_~~V. I-.~',.--PRO·JECT All bOil Lake OmLL CV\TES I SlArrrf---.:t OI:t 1978 COMPo 19 (kt197; iOEPTIf OF HOLE 90.0' DEPTH Or OVEnaunOEN 68.S' DIAU. OF .. OLE NCQ •!noc" DrlILLED 21 2' COrtE RECOVEfiEO 21.2' % RECOVEnv .~ j....... .ANGLE FROM VERT. AZIMUTtI FROM r-!OiITti0° ..NA ~~D BY. DAT£. i---'DISTAtlCES' V:~.RTICAl t HC;'lIZONTAL. Val-- . Overburden; fill, (',obbley gravel .!CIlc)~()•• 0:!- '" D " 6.0' .-l~·· o. ,..~at r O.t!10 '"••• &)._.Gravel with minor cobbles,_:1,Igraywacke origin. Creek outwash0.0'-17' drilled with"'., Trioone bit·1-.~""].0."Jrr.17'.1, -.,i~~Boulders (95%) with 5% gravelf20 20' .:. RBoulder till, gray, occ .'O'•• 0% DI~'R 0' -23'-IClay layers and sand layers, lQ

i"'$U~,~~·"hV (00 .. ~-1J~.~,I,;-. no. Ilil··1Pf(OJECTAllison Lake!1--'1-. ~~ __ ~~ HOlE 111;.1:5 'AOCI< OfULLEOlt12.G'NlGlE FRO~1 VERT. 00r-------OISTA!.!£.ES: VERTICAL.pwn~conE nECOVEnfOAZ !:':Ntli FAO~A NonrHi HO:nZOttTAL.138.3'ELEV. I>~PTH LOG DESCRIPTION OF "'ATERIALSCCAE REMARKS.......,P'I'rV'I+-.?r+.-.-:--+~-----:-~~------t---t----------..~ lUU :','.:.:. Metagraywacke, IBID .;:.:A::·~ .,-::.~\\" .:': (j.:­::ll'::':Sanci"itone, ] ight 1 Y wea the red , hard,medilun grained, light to rroderatefracture, grayNfl,."A nECOYEAY 97I rw~i) BY. DATl I,~ IJ~'"it109.0'.'1261 12 n - '~'.i\,~'1259 ~~~·~'·~H.~.~~~I~e~la~lgr~:a~w\'a~ck~e~I~B~I~J) __ ~~ ______ ~:: . .'.:': SandstOne, IBID. Dec. shale :rones.- ':..;:..:.:.: -..-.""....:-1251. - ..:-;-:-1249 1~~·~:~~·~~'~~·'-:~-A-~-l-~,-.t-·a--~v-ac-'k-e-'--II-ll-D-.------------'1247 . I .. .. • Sandstone, mID.1237. -==_-- --14~ - _--.:.....::::-- =-:::: Sha 1 e, rroderalely weath('nxl,rroderate!ly harel, fill(! gl'ainecl,thin bedded, highly fractured--dark gray ._ {/:// Sandstone, mID., highly fractured.1230 150 ::.'.:.:::;. ':-:(::i Metagraywacke, m!D., highlyclay cOlmun on12121204::'."4,::. fractured. ~linor- ·.'jii joinls..__ .::~~~·S:/1...-'·:,n;·_ -Shale, mID. Dec. SS. lay~rs'- =.==:_ .~ .. ,~:::. SS. 161.4' - 161.9' and 167.3' -_ - 167.8'- .. : .. ' .:17Q......:: '::-~ ,.:': Sandstone!, IBID, Oce. Irctagr;I)"I'.

; ;; Ii; Z II;;; II til, ;;; : i;; ; IIAIi,Ii, I ' !jiil' "',,1'APPENDIX HFISH AND WILDLIFE COORDINATION ACT REPORTANDCORPS OF ENGINEERS RESPONSE

UNITED STATESDEPARTMENT OF THE II\lTERIORFISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE1011 E. TUDOR RD.IN REPL YREFFR TO: ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503Co.lonel Lee R. Nunn.District Engineer. Alaska DistrictCorps of EngineersP.O. Box 7002Anchorage, Alaska 99510(907) 276-3800Dear Colonel Nunn:This correspondence transmits the final Coordination Act report ofthe Secretary of the Interior in accordance with the Fish and WildlifeCoordination Act, 48 stat. 401, as amended, for the proposed hydroelectricproject at Allison Lake near Valdez, Alaska. The U. S. Fishand Wildlife Service participation in this project was initiated onDecember 17, 1976, through a letter from the Corps of Engineers.Project design information was obtained via a preliminary reportdated April, 1978, and through correspondence and conversations withCorps of Engineers personnel.Information provided is based on the analysis of field investigations,a . literature review, and discussions with personnel from theAlaska Department of Fish and Game, National Marine Fisheries Service,Corps of Engineers, the Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service,the City of Valdez, Alyeska Pipeline Service Company, and the U.S.Geological Survey. Review comments of the draft Coordination Actreport by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and the Corps ofEngineers were considered in preparation of the final document.Should you or your staff have any questions concerning the contentsof the report, please contact the Western Alaska Ecological ServicesField Office at 271-4575. ,Sincerely,~r"·""f' Vc,.. V C

Valdez InterimSouthcentral Railbelt StudyAllison Lake Hydropower ProjectAlaskaFinal Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act ReportSubmitted to Alaska DistrictU.S. Army, Corps of Engineers·Anchorage, AlaskaPrepared by:Western Alaska Ecological Services Field OfficeU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceAnchorage, AlaskaMay 1980

TABLE OF CONTENTSPageINTRODUCTION ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 4AREA DESCRIPTION ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 4PROJECT DESCRIPTION •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 5RESOURCE INVENTORy ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 5PROJECT IMPACTS •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 8DISCUSSION ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 13RECOMMENDATIONS •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 17LITERATURE CITED ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 20APPENDIX A: SCIENTIFIC NAMES OF SPECIES ••••••••••••••••• 21APPENDIX B:TEMPERATURE DATA ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 22a

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLESPageFigure 1. Location and Vicinity Map SouthcentralRailbelt Study, Valdez Interim ••••••••••••••••••••• 4aFigure 2. Valdez Interim Report, SouthcentralRailbelt, Allison Lake, Topographic Plan •••••••••• SaFigure 3. Valdez Interim Report, SouthcentralRailbelt, Allison Creek, Topographic Plan •••••••••• 5bFigure 4. Seasonal Variation Population Densityof Harpacticus uniremis •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 7aFigure 5. Bald Eagle Nest Sites,September 14 and 16, 1976 •••••••••••••••••••••••••• 8aTable IPrince William Sound Salmon Catch bySpecies in Numbers of Fish, 1970-79 •••••••••••••••• 6aTable II Value of Prince William Sound Salmon Catchin Pounds, and Value to Fishermen, 1970-79 ••••••••• 6bTable III Allison Creek Salmon Escapement Data ••••••••••••••• 6eITable IVAllison Creek - Discharge Measurements ••••••••••••• 8b

INTRODUCTIONThe Alaska District, Corps of Engineers (CE) is investigating theneed for electrical energy at Valdez, Alaska and surrounding communities.In performance of this investigation, the CE analyzedvarious alternatives and has identified the hydropower potential ofAllison Lake. A detailed feasibility analysis of this project isoccurring. This final Coordination Act report is being provided tothe CE by the Western Alaska Ecological Services Field Office of theU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to assist in that analysis.AREA DESCRIPTIONPort Valdez is located in the northeasternmost extension of PrinceWilliam Sound, and is surrounded by the Chugach Mountains. The Portis a steep walled, glaciated fiord which is 3 miles wide and extendsin an east-west direction about 14 miles. At its western end thefiord bends to the southwest and constricts to a one mile width atValdez Narrows before opening into the Valdez Arm of Prince WilliamSound. The steep mountain slopes extend beneath the water, forminga flat bottomed trough 400 to 800 feet deep. The shore of PortValdez is steep and rocky, except where river deltas and glacialmoraines project into the fiord. Port Valdez is the northernmostice-free seaport in Alaska, and provides the shortest and mostdirect route between tidewater and the interior of Alaska. Thesouthern terminus of both the Trans-Alaska Pipeline and the RichardsonHighway are located in Valdez.Approximately 70 earthquakes with a magnitude of five or greater onthe Richter scale have been reported at Valdez since 1898, and sevenearthquakes have equaled or exceeded a magnitude of eight. The 1964Alaska Earthquake and the attendant secondary impacts virtuallydestroyed the original town of Valdez on the Lowe River Delta. Anew' town has since been constructed on the delta of Mineral Creek onthe north side of the bay.Valdez enjoys a maritime climate, characterized by heavy precipitationand relatively mild temperatures. The average annual precipitationis 59.31 inches, including 244 inches of snow. The averageannual temperature at sea level ranges from 39° to 43° F, with arecorded maximum of 87° F and a minimum of minus 28° F. Local windsare influenced by the Chugach Mountains and follow two distinctpatterns: (1) from October through March or April prevailing windsare from the northeast, and (2) from May through September prevailingwinds are from the southwest. Maximum sustained winds of 58m.p.h. and gusts of 115 m.p.h. have been recorded at Valdez.Allison Lake (Figure 1) is located near the Trans-Alaska Pipelineterminal in a glacial cirque lying in a north-south trend. A glacialmoraine extends across the valley and impounds the lake at a surfaceelevation of 1,367 feet. The lake is 1.25 miles long, approximately0.3 mile wide, and over 190 feet deep. Several small glaciers andpermanent snowfields at the head of the valley drain into the lake.The outlet stream traverses a gentle gradient for approximately 0.6mile before descending steeply to sea level.

------------------------------------------------------------------------~IGLENNALLENVALDEZLOCATION A ~J () V I C I NIT Y M /\ Ps au THe [ N T R A L n A I L. [3 E L T S H; 0 Y----_._------_._--------------------_.--------------------3

PROJECT DESCRIPTIONThe proposed Allison Lake hydropower facility will consist of a laketap at 1,250 feet elevation, a rock tunnel from this level to 1,220feet elevation, and a 48~inch penstock reaching from the lake tapthrough the rock tunnel to one of the two proposed powerhouse alternatives(Figures 2 and 3). Both proposed powerhouse alternativesare located on Alyeska Pipeline Service Company property and eitherwould occupy about 1.5 acres. The Alyeska terminal site road wouldprovide access to either site, with only an additional 50-100 feetof road construction required.Powerhouse alternative #1 is proposed above the existing weir inAllison Creek, which was constructed by the Alyeska Pipeline ServiceCompany for a partial source of water for the terminal of the Trans­Alaska Pipeline. The proposed powerhouse is at an approximateelevation of 100 feet (Figure 2). The tailrace would run directlyinto Allison Creek at this location. The CE has not proposed a dualtailrace configuration at this site as described below for powerhousealternative #2; however, further consideration of such a feature atthis site is contained in the discussion section of this report.Powerhouse alternative #2 is proposed near tidewater at an approximateelevation of 10 feet (Figure 3). A combination of two tailraces areproposed by the CE for this powerhouse. One would discharge directlyinto Port Valdez, the other would discharge into Allison Creek nearthe proposed powerhouse. CE personnel have stated that the dischargefrom the proposed powerhouse could be regulated through each tailraceindependently or through each simultaneously. For example, flowthrough one tailrace could be constant while flow through the otherwould vary according to power generation requirements. In addition,a six-inch steel diversion pipe is proposed from the penstock toAllison Creek above the existing weir to provide supplemental waterif the tributary flow to the creek is not sufficient for the needsof Alyeska, and resident and anadromous fish.To allow disposal of the proposed spoil, excavated from the rocktunnel, an access road approximately 500 feet long will be constructedfrom the lower end of the rock tunnel at 1,220 feetelevation due east to the edge of a cliff. About 45,000 cubic yardsof rock is proposed to be dumped over this cliff and into a deepgorge.The proposed transmission line will run 3.5 miles from one of theproposed powerhouse sites to the Solomon Gulch substation of theSolomon Gulch hydropower facility, now under construction by theCopper Valley Electric Association. It will closely follow theroute of the existing Dayville Road along Port Valdez.RESOURCE INVENTORYLower elevations of thi/coastal forest in this region support densestands of Sitka spruce- and mountain hemlock with an understory of_T I' Common names of plant and animal species are used throughout t hi sreport. A list of scientific names is given in APPENDIX A.

-~~ ~..rt~i~;Valdez Interim ReportSouthcentral RailbeltAllison LakeTopographic PlanFigure 2

I\ g g :,. - IValdez I nteriSouthcentral m ~eport RadbeltTo Allison C reekpographic PlanFigure 3-

alder, salmonberry, blueberry, and devilsclub. The steep wallsabove Allison Lake and upper Allison Creek support alpine tundra.Tall shrub thickets dominated by alder and some balsam. poplar' occurin the area of lower Allison Creek. The riparian area above thelake supports mainly willow thickets.The fresh and saltwaters of the Prince William Sound area support anumber of valuable fish species which are of great· economicimportanceto the local economy. The short. coastal streams (approximately700) are important for salmon production. Salmon usage ofthese small streams is so widespread that, unlike other areas ofAlaska, no single stream or small group of streams plays a dominantrole in salmon production. In addition, the island-bay complex ofthe Sound, provides thousands of miles of shoreline. distributed in afiord system particularly suited to early-stage rearing of juvenilesalmon. .The Prince William Sound area has been a rather consistent salmonproducer since 1960. The average total salmon catch of 4.6 millionfish represents approximately 10 percent of the statewide salmonharvest (Table I). The economy of the Prince William Sound area islargely dependent on the commercial salmon fisheries (Table II).The sport fisheries in the Prince William Sound area are also importantto the economy and are primarily centered around the communities ofCordova, Valdez, and Whittier.· the area supports an expandingmarine fishery which is concentrated in Valdez Arm near the city ofValdez.Sport fishing is an important tourist attraction for Valdez and amajor source of summer recreation for local residents. Saltwatersalmon fishing is popular, with coho salmon being the most soughtafter species. Pink and chum salmon are also caught in large numbers,and a few chinook are occasionally landed. Dolly Varden, halibut,rockfish, dungeness crab, and butter clams are also harvested in thesaltwater fishery. Freshwater fishing activity is minor in theValdez area. Salmon fishing is prohibited in all streams draininginto Valdez Bay, and trout habitat and populations are limited.No fish are known to occur in Allison Lake,but fish do inhabit thelower 0.5 mile of Allison Greek. Fish migration above this point isblocked by high water velocity and the steep gradient of the stream.The weir in Allison Creek is also a partial barrier to fish migration.Dolly Varden and sculpin are resident in the creek, while spawningpopulations of adult pink and chum salmon seasonally occur in thesummer and fall. Egg development of salmon occurs through thewinter months until out-migration of fry in early spring.Salmon escapement estimates are limited and the available datacollected between 1960 and 1971 by the Alaska Department of Fish andGame (ADF&G) are given in Table III. It is apparent that escapementcounts on Allison Creek were not conducted on a regular basis;however, numbers of chum salmon counted in 1963 exceeded 2600 and7

Table I·1Pr ince William Sound Salmon Ca~ch hyS.pecies, in Numbers of ·fish, 1970-79.-1Y~e-a-r----~Ch~in-o-o~k~----~S~o-c~k-eX-e--·----~C~o7h-O------~Pi7n~k~------~C7h-u-m1970l l 1,031 104,169 11,485 2,809,996 230,661Total3,157,34219713,551 88,36830,5517,310,964574,2658,007,6991972547 197,5261,63454,78345,370299,86019732,405 124,8021,3992,056,878729,8392,915,32319741,590 129,366801448,77388,544669,07419752,519 189,6136,1424,452,805100,4794,751,55819761,044 112,8096,1713,018,991370,4783,509,493* 19772./632 310,1478044,509,260570,4975,391,340*1978!!../1,043 220,3291,4642,785,156483,5593,491,551*197¢.12,002 146,4686,78015,375,339323,39715,853,986Totals16,364 1,623,59767,23142,822,945 3,517,089 48,047,22610 yrAverage1,636 162,3606,7234,282,294 351,709 4,804,7221/IJ Does notSource:include Copper-Bering Rivers~1970-76, Alaska catch and production.statistics. Statistical leaflets H21,29.3/~/ Source: Alaska Department ofSource: Pete Fridgen, Alaska* Preliminary results.Commercial fisheries23, 25, 26, 27, 28, andFish and Game, 1977, Annual Report.Department 6fFish arid-Game, -Coidova.

Table IIPrince William Sound Salmon Catch in Pounds,and Value to Fisherrr:en, 1970-79Pounds All Species ~( Catch % Catch hy wei~ht Tot

1/Source: 1970-76, Alaska catch and production. Commercialfisheries statistics. Alaska Depart~entof Fish andGame. Statistical leaflets~ No.'s 21,23,25,26,27, 28, and 29.2/Includes value of salmon from the Copper~Beringalso.River districts3/1977 data in parentheses are preliminary estimates only and notpublished by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.Totalpounds calculated using 1976 average weights for each species.Chinook salmon not included. Source: Dennis Haanpaa, AlaskaDepartment of Fish and Game, Anchorage.1978 data in parentheses are preliminary estimates only and notpublished by ADF&G.Total pounds calculated using 1976 averageweights for each species. Chinook salmon not included. Totalvalue of the catch calculated by using the 1978 average dollarvalue per fish paid to the fishermen.Chinook salmon notincluded. Source: Dennis Haanpaa, Alaska Department of Fishand Game, Anchorage.~/1979 data in parentheses are preliminary estimates only and notpublished by ADF&G.Total pounds calculated using 1976 averageweights for each species. Chinook salmon not included.Totalvalue of the catch calculated by using the 1979 average priceper pound for each species paid to the fishermen and the 1976average weights for each species.Chinook salmon not included.Source:Dennis Haanpaa, Alaska Department of Fish and Game,Anchorage.

3/ 4/ 5/- - -1976 Average weights by speciesSockeye -7.4 IbsCoho - 8.5 IbsPink-'4.2 IbsChum - 9.1 IbsSource: ADF&G, 1976 catch and production. Commercial fisheriesstatistics. Statistical leaflet 1129.1978 Average price per fish paid to the fishermenSockeye -CohoPinkChum$ 7.48/fish3.59/fish1. 29/fish3.28/fishSource:Dennis Haanpaa, ADF&G, Anchorage1979 Average price per pound paid to the fishermenSockeye -CohoPinkChum$ 1.400/lb0.390/lb0.377/lb0.530/lbSource:Dennis Haanpaa, ADF&G, AnchorageII

T:lhlc IIIALlison Creek Salmon Escapement Data·Y l':\ rEscapenien tPink Sa lmonChum Salmon1%0 1001961 7501962 560 5801963 -0- 2,6601901965 -0- -0-1966 -0- -0-1969 500-1.0001971 300197] 25-.---.---------------------------'Source:ADF&G.~\utC': Allis,)!! Creek W

the number of pink salmon counted in 1969 reached 1,000. In even yearsspawning by both pink and chum salmon occurs almost exclusively inthe intertidal reach of Allison Creek, an area estimated to be 40 feetwide by 300· feet long. During odd years, when stronger runs of pinksoccur in Prince William Sound streams, spawning also occurs inAllison Creek upstream to the existing weir.A basic understanding of the life cycle of pink and chum salmon isnecessary to recognize all potential impacts which could occur fromthe proposed project. Adult pink salmon return'to their natalstreams to spawn in mid-summer or fall of their second year. Adultchum salmon are predominantly three, four, and five year old fish.Pink salmon enter streams inthe.Valdez area in July and spawn inAugust and early September, while chum salmon spawn slightly later.Eggs are deposited in the streambed gravels' where development' tothe fry stage occurs. .Alevins (embryos which have emerged from the'egg) remain in thegravel until their yolk sacs are compietely, or almost completelyabsorbed •. The life cycles of pink and chum salmon are very similar •. For chums, the alevin stage' (from hatching to emergence) is completedIn 30 to 50' days, depending on the water temperature. In PortValdez, fry emergence of pink and chum salmon begins in mid-Apriland peaks in May.Both pink and chum salmon fry migrate to salt water during theirfirst summer, generally within a few days to a few weeks afteremergence. Once in. salt water, the young salmon feed in schoolsnear shore until late July or August; some remain near shore untilautumn. Between mid-summer of their first year and their secondsummer, they disperse throughout the offshore waters of the NorthPacific Ocean and Bering Sea.In salt water, main foods of young pink and/or chum salmon have beenreported to be cladocerans, copepods, barnacle naupli, barnaclecyprids, euphasids, and tunicates (Bakkala, 1970). Other studieshave shown harpacticoids to be a major' component of the stomachcontents of post-emergent pink and chum salmon fry (Kaczynski et.al., 1973; Healey, 1979). The seasonal population density of thecopepod Harpacticus uniremis in Port Valdez is shown in Figure 4.Wildlife known to occur in the Allison Lake drainage include brownbear, black bear, mountain goat, wolf, wolverine, marten, porcupine,and snowshoe hare. Upland game birds include willow, rock, andwhite-tailed ptarmigan and spruce grouse. There is littleinformationon the occurrence of small mammals and birds in the projectvicinity, although lists of species are available for the Valdezarea. A general list of species which may occur in the vicinity ofAllison Creek is provided in APPENDIX A.Waterfowl use of Allison Lake and the creek is considered quitelimited. The lake may occasionally be used for resting, and feedingmay occur in the shallow, upper part and along the braided streamchannel. Approximately 18 Canada geese have been observed resting(1

"0 [-----.-.i100 f--1, r~ '"'r; i,• r-:: ~:rti."r- :---1--------1.1)]I~/OE'= J",N n.B ....... YI ..,. -----IISeasonal Variation in Population Density of Harpacticu~ uniremis.Feder, et. al., 1976.

in the fall at the upper end of the lake by FWS personnel. Also,molting geese were observed in the Allison Lake Basin by FWS personnelduring 1979.Extensive waterfowl use is made of the intertidal area around upperPort Valdez and the Lowe River Delta. Numerous seabirds inhabitthat area also. Waterfowl present in the Valdez area year-roundinclude scoters, goldeneye, common and red-breasted mergansers,mallards, buffleheads, harlequins, and Canada geese. Others seasonallypresent in the Valdez area include pintails, teals, wigeons,oldsquaws, and shovelers.Northern bald eagles are common in the Valdez area. Personnel ofthe FWS conducted a survey in 1976, locating 23 eagles and 10 nestswithin Port Valdez (includes all of the shoreline inside of MiddleRock except for the Lowe River flats south of old Valdez). Twonests were identified within three miles on the mouth of AllisonCreek, one on each side of the stream (see Figure 5). Congregationsof eagles are attracted by salmon to mouths of stream which flowinto Port Valdez. The carcasses of salmon are an important additionto the diet of both resident and migratory eagles. Other raptorsfound in the Valdez area include the osprey, red-tailed hawk, sharpshinnedhawk, goshawk, and Peale's peregine falcon.No terrestrial threatened or endangered species are known to occurin the Valdez area. The endangered finback and humpback whales havebeen sited in Port Valdez. Peale's peregrine falcon is not listedas an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.Hunting, hiking, and overnight recreational use in the Allison Lakearea appear to be limited, due to the rugged terrain. However, arough hiking trail to the lake is presently used by local residents.Port Valdez is used, or occasionally visited, by the followingmarine mammals: northern fur seal, harbor seal, sea otter, northernsea lion, killer whale, humpback whale, Dall's porpoise, and harborporpoise. The nearshore area from 0.3 mile west of Allison Creek to0.3 mile west of Dayville Flats Creek has been identified as afeeding area for sea otters and harbor seals.The flow regime of Allison Creek varies from high flow in earlysummer and fall to low flow in the late winter and early spring.Specific data are lacking and that data available is given in TableIV.PROJECT IMPACTSImpacts which would result from the project are discussed in twocategories: construction, and operation and maintenance.Construction: At present, no access road is planned to AllisonLake. This considerably reduces the possible impacts of the projecton the upland area. The road and rock dump associated with thetunnel construction will cover existing vegetation, as well ascreate a scar visible from Valdez. Weathering of the rock will

Figure 5. Bald Eagle Nest Sites, September 14 & 16, 1976.~:: /'~.='~-: /-:~.:~ =/- -~..-~.• _" -.,",",-'- .____.__;;; • ~ ,\.:,"/" . - I •=;~-.-=~+-'-/-~5C.bi~.\\ '- I / -:.~ ~-r/' -~_./.-• C"~JI"V A L [) 1..,' 7..36 'I. .'t.~ (,';:~J !" ~ I1(:';:'~---:::::/ / .-' r "~··,1···.·f..;.t;;j?'~:·/\:\. . /-:o-..f~::-~f~··l··': )';- i.:.:....:~.:... ~.: ... \~:~.:.':.::\.::.. :::.~'.:"::;. " r.~;~~/, I"'i .M~,er8,6~·:!".". f --. -- ;!. '-'-sl;nds -.,. "':',;;' -.·;{';"'t. /1 It ~ :- B ;'V"d'f.~::: .. :.': :~ .' T, 9 ~ (j 1p~L-L !-___.i:r 1 L ~j:: -~"".TJ)! r-rT1--l::!. -I~

Table 1 VAllison Creek -Discharge MeasurementsDate9-01-501-23-742-12-742-23-74.1-15~74[j-09-74!,-2J-7!,11-18-7412-17-7LI1-25-752-07-752.-19-753-06-753-07-753-13-753--17-753-:1.0-753--2b-/'l11-] 1-75Ij -l7-})1,-24-751,-25-755-01-756-05-756-12-75L,-01-76Ij-02-76L,-03-764-04-764--05-764-06-764-07-764-08-764-09-764-10-764-11-764-12-761.-13-764-14-764-15-76Flow in cubic feetper second (c.f.s.)54.911. 915.27.610.913.212.920.420.27.27.710.35.156.75.13.9611. 76.07.010.04.65.15.885.080.03.94.24. 74.94.64.53.83.93.94.75.14.45.54.51,.2D3ta collE:'ctL'd by:U.S. Geological SurveyNurthwest Hydraulic Consultants, Ltd.JFI·JAT, George PerkinsFluor Alaska, Inc.17

occur, and may allow the rock to blend in with the surroundings. within several years. Blasting for tunnel construction couldtemporarily disturb resident wildlife. The above ground portion ofthe penstock will be a permanent scar on the hillside.Increased erosion and subsequent stream sedimentation may resultfrom cleared areas. The extent of this occurrence will be directlyrelated to construction techniques and can be avoided. Adverseimpacts which can occur to aquatic species as a result of siltationare numerous and well documented. Major impacts from siltation, as aresult of construction of the proposed project, include decreasedvigor or death of incubating salmon eggs by interfering with orpreventing respiration, loss of spawning gravels, and physicaldisturbance to both adult salmon and other resident species.Clearing of approximately 21.5 acres of vegetation would be requiredfor the transmission line. Visual impact would be significant.Clearing and construction activities could disturb nesting eagleswhich may result in desertion of eggs and young. Bird collisions·with power lines will result in mortality. Transmission poles couldbe the tallest object in the immediate vicinity and may commonly beused by raptors as a perch. Improper line spacing presents thehazard of electrocution to large raptors.Construction activities will disturb terrestrial wildlife and maycause avoidance of the area while construction is occuring. Thisimpact should be minor as no wildlife concentrations or criticalhabitat areas are known to occur in the immediate area.To prevent debris from reaching the turbines, construction of ascreen over the penstock intake at the lake will be necessary andcould require lake drawdown to the lake tap inlet. This will result·in dewatering the upper reaches of Allison Creek. If discharge didnot occur directly to Port Valdez or occur in a carefully controlledmanner it could create excessive discharge into the lower stream;possible scouring of the streambed; and depending when this occurred,above normal stream velocities could either prevent returning adultsfrom entering the stream or expose incubating eggs. Also, residentDolly Varden could be flushed out of the system to marine waters.Operation and Maintenance: During project operation, the lake levelwould be drawn down as much as 100 feet, primarily over the wintermonths. Biological impacts to the lake resulting from this drawdownwould probably be minor, although the aesthetic impact would besignificant. Fortunately, the lake itself is not visible from thetown of Valdez. Fluctuating lake levels could cause lake shoreerosion leading to landslides in steeper areas with accompanyinghabitat degradation. During winter, shelf ice formed by thedropping lake level could impede movement of mountain goats. Thelow number of goats in the area reduces the extent of this occurrence.The impacts which would result from project operation have thegreatest potential for adversely affecting the environment ofAllison Creek. The drawdown would dewater Allison Creek at its

outlet from the lake; however, the CE expects· natural seepage throughglacial deposits to provide some flow into the upper creek. Also,tributary flow will provide some stream flow to lower portions ofthe creek.Water for hydropower production would be drawn from deep in the lakeand, based upon available information, will be warmer than AllisonCreek water in the winter and colder than the stream's water in thesummer. Water at lake tap depth may also be deficient in dissolvedoxygen. A minimum dissolved oxygen concentration of 6.0 milligramsper liter (mg/l) has been recommended for coldwater fish (Doudoroffand Shumway, 1966). At the present time, dissolved oxygen data atthe depth of the proposed lake tap is not available. The passage ofwater through the powerhouse and energy dissipator is expected toaerate these waters, although the extent of this occurrence inrelation to the acceptable limits for fish is not known at present.Temperature has a major influence on the freshwater stages of salmon.Stream temperature data for Allison Creek has been collected by theU.S. Geological Survey and is now being collected by the ADF&G(APPENDIX B). The CE has also collected some temperature data forAllison Lake (APPENDIX B). The ADF&G has also taken intertidaltemperatures at Solomon Creek (three miles to the east) sinceSeptember, 1979, and this data would probably be consistent withsalt water temperatures off the mouth of Allison Creek (APPENDIX B).No intragravel temperatures have been taken~The effects of warm water discharges on developing eggs and alevinshave been studied in laboratory situations and at most major hatcheryfacilities. Increased mortality and abnormal embryonic developmenthave been shown to occur if the initial incubation temperatures fordeveloping pink salmon eggs is 4.SoC or lower. At 2.0°C or lower,complete mortality will occur (Bailey and Evans, 1971). Preliminarytemperature data from the lake (APPENDIX B) indicates that the waterthrough the powerplant would be 4°C or less. Based upon these data,the potential alteration of the temperature regime in Allison Creekcould have a significant adverse impact upon the fish resources ofAllison Creek.Low concentrations of dissolved oxygen and exposure to light canincrease incubation time, but temperature is the primary factor inregulating the duration and timing of incubation and hatching.Development is normally expressed in terms of temperature units. Atemperature unit is defined as one degree above freezing for aperiod of 24 hours. A given number of temperature units is requiredfor the eggs to hatch. The number of temperature units required isgenerally specific to the species of fish and even to the particularstock. Hatching and emergence is delayed in colder water temperaturesand accelerated in warmer temperatures. A minor temperature increaseor decrease could considerably advance or delay hatching. A changein the natural temperature regime of Allison Creek could change thetiming of pink and chum salmon fry emergence. The extent of thisimpact is difficult to assess with the data available; however,significant early development of eggs would result in early1'1

emergence and outmigration of fry to Port Valdez at a time when itis questionable that there would be adequate planktonic productionto sustain rearing activity. Consequently, a substantial alterationin natural water temperature during the egg to fry developmentperiod would negatively impact run strength.With sufficient data, the number of temperature units required foreggs to hatch under natural stream temperatures can be calculatedand compared to the number of temperature units anticipated to existunder altered stream conditions. The difference in temperatureunits will show if early or late emergence will occur, and if so,give the approximate magnitude of change in the time of emergence.Where intertidal spawning occurs, such as in Allison Creek, thewarmer saltwater contributes to higher intragravel temperatures.This adds to the complexity of the temperature regime in intertidalareas because intertidal zone temperatures are influenced by (1)upstream water temperatures, (2) saltwater temperatures exposed tostream gravel, (3) time of exposure to saltwater, and possibly (4)the permeability of gravels.Should early fry emergence occur, sufficient food sources may notexist. Figure 4 illustrates the seasonal variation in populationdensity of the copepod, Harpacticus uniremis, an organism whichcould be an important food source for post-emergent fry. Healey(1979) found that H. uniremis made up 50% of the overall diet ofjuvenile chum salm~n in the Nanaimo Estuary and greater than 80%of the diet when fry were most abundant. He also found thatthe seasonal pattern of abundance of fry and H. uniremis in theestuary was the same, and that fry consumed most of the estimatedproduction of H. uniremis. Large numbers of this copepod are usuallynot present in Port Valdez until mid-March to early April. Undernatural conditions pink and chum salmon fry emergence begins inmid-April in the Port Valdez area.Radical fluctuations in stream flow contribute most heavily tomortality of developing eggs through erosion, shifting of gravel, ordewatering of spawning beds. Flooding also causes mortality bydeposition of silt on spawning areas, which slows intragravel watermovement, decreasing the oxygen supply to the eggs, and preventingremoval of waste products. Other factors contributing to mortalityof eggs are freezing, exposure to light, parasites, predation, highsalinity, shock, and superimposition of redds (spawning beds).The tailrace discharge could cause increased velocity in the streamand scouring of the streambed with subsequent removal or burial ofspawning gravel. Alterations in natural streamflow could also haveadverse impacts upon spawning adults as a result of either high orlow flows which are not optimum for spawning. Post-project flowschedules could be beneficial to fish resources by reducing radicalflow fluctuations and providing flows optimum for life stage requirementsof pink and chum salmon.

As stated previously, two alternative sites have been proposed forthe powerhouse. Either site would require clearing of approximately1.5 acres for construction purposes. Some alteration of the streambankand streambed will result from installation of the tailrace andsedimentation could occur. The magnitude of these impacts could bereduced significantly depending on the construction techniquesutilized and the time of work.Impacts which would result from either of the proposed powerhousealternatives were described above. Those impacts which would vary,depending on the site selected, are described below.Powerhouse Alternative Itl: The discharge of flow from this alternativeis proposed by·the CE directly from the tailrace into AllisonCreek. Radical flow changes would result and all adverse impactsdescribed previously for alteration of flow would occur. In addition,if instream flows were totally dependent on power generation needs,periods of very low flow could result when the power plant was shutdown for maintenance or other reasons.The discharge of all project flows into Allison Creek at this sitewould also result in temperature and possibly dissolved oxygenimpacts occurring in the total reach of Allison Creek utilized byf ish. Flows in the creek above this site may not have any appreciablebuffering effect for maintenance of natural water qualitysince they would be low in relation to the flow through the powerhouse.Powerhouse Alternative 1t2: Impacts described above for site Itl mayalso be applicable to this alternative. This alternative has twotailraces proposed. If the tailrace waters were discharged directlyinto Port Valdez during the summer months, a portion of the salmonpopulation could be diverted away from spawning areas in the naturalstream by the larger quantities of Allison Creek water issuing fromthe tailrace into Port Valdez. Diverting water from the powerhousethrough the tailrace positioned in Allison Creek would alleviatethis impact; however, those impacts discussed above under powerhouse1t1 would occur. Hhen the discharge is diverted back through thetailrace into Port Valdez, some of the redds could be dewatered.Also, the discharge could prove to be such an attractant to adultsalmon that they would pool up below the discharge and not utilizeother portions of the stream or intertidal area for spawning.Periods of very low flow during powerhouse shut down could alsoresult from this alternative. The proposed 6 inch diversion pipecould be used to add supplemental water to the creek. However, theuse of the diversion pipe for long periods to supply water to thestream or as a substantial supplement to natural flows could alsocause early fry emergence as dicussed earlier.Diversion of flows directly into Port Valdez during most of the yearwould result in a reduction of water velocity in the natural stream~bed which could result in sedimentation of the spawning gravel.

Should a major earthquake occur, this site could be severely damagedor destroyed by seismic sea waves.DISCUSSIONWith fossil fuel prices continuing on an upward spiral, increasingattention is being given to alternative energy sources. In Alaska,with steep slopes and abundant streams, hydropower is a logicalchoice. Sites with large hydropower potential close to populationcenters are limited, but potential small hydropower sites are numerous.Alaska also has abundant fish resources, which frequently inhabitthe same drainage systems suitable for hydropower development.Unfortunately, these two resources may not be completely compatible.Allison Creek, cumulatively with the other short coastal streams ofPrince William Sound, provides an important contribution to theoverall salmon production of the area. Both the commercial andsport fisheries play an important role in the economy of Valdez. Inaddition, maintenance of natural and wild stocks of salmon in~llison Creek can be viewed as an aesthetic value which cannot bemeasured in monetary terms.The most significant impacts upon fish and wildlife resources whichwould occur from construction of the Allison Lake project are thepotential changes in the flow and temperature regimes of the creek.All other potential impacts are considered less significant. Ananalysis of existing data and subsequent impacts indicate thatappropriate structural and non-structural features to mitigate majoradverse impacts could be incorporated into project design includingeither of the proposed powerhouse sites which would make the proposalacceptable environmentally. However, baseline data gaps presentlyexist which preclude a complete assessment of potential impacts.Execution of appropriate studies before or during the advancedengineering and design stage of planning will enable a thoroughevaluation of potential impacts to fish and wildlife and refinement/development of necessary mitigation features. In addition to thesestudies, a cooperative study jointly scoped by the FWS and CE, andconducted through project construction and operation, would enablerefinement of mitigation recommendations; assessment of the accuracyand effectiveness of those recommendations; and provide a comprehensivedata base useful in the future planning of similar projects.Available data suggests that peaking or excess flow should bedischarged directly to port Valdez year round and that regulatedflows be discharged through the tailrace to Allison Creek. Apre-project instream flow analysis of Allison Creek is needed toderive accurate and specific optimum flow recommendations for fishmaintenance. The regulated flows would vary according to life stagerequirements of fish and natural streambed flow. For example, fromapproximately mid-July to early September adult salmon are presentin the creek and a constant flow optimum for spawning should occurin Allison Creek. Peaking or excess flow would continue d:i.rectly toPort Valdez and this discharge should occur subtidally to at least-10 feet mean lower low water from June through September to eliminateattracting adults.

Discharge measurements are sparse and; according to the CE, accuratepredictions of the amount of water flowing through the powerhousecannot yet be determined. Daily discharge measurements of AllisonCreek should be taken for a minimum of one year, beginning as soonas possible. However, collection of data for two years or more isrecommended. These data should be provided to the FWS quarterly toassist in refining discharge flow schedules through the proposedpowerhouse to Allison Creek.The CE has stated that tributary and groundwater flow to AllisonCreek will contribute seasonally to base flow in the creek afterproject operation. The specific amount of this flow is needed foranalysis in the development of flow recommendations to Allison Creekfrom the powerhouse. The CE expects that tributary and groundwaterflow will maintain adequate flow in that reach of the stream belowthe weir; however, during the low flow period of late winter andearly spring it may be necessary to supplement instream flow belowthe weir to 5.0 cubic feet per second (cfs). The proposed 6 inchdiversion pipe should be adequate to accomplish this.Temperature profile data of Allison Creek is needed to assessimpacts. The CE should conduct temperature profiles in Allison Laketo the proposed lake tap intake depth for a period of one yearbeginning as soon as possible. A minimum sampling effort shouldinclude the months of March, June, September, and December.Concurrently, water samples for testing dissolved oxygen, pH, heavymetal, and turbidity levels, should also be taken at the surface andat the same depth and general location of the proposed lake tap. Itmay be feasible for the CE to model or accurately predict the thermalregime of Allison Lake with data available for similar alpine lakes.If dissolved oyxgen concentrations are below 6.0 mg/l, correctivemeasures may be necessary if the dissipators do not insure dissolvedoxygen readings of 6.0 mg/l or above. A temperature probe or similarrecording device should be installed in the gravel where intertidalspawning occurs to record intragravel temperature for the same timeperiod. The thermograph now installed in Allison Creek should alsobe maintained throughout the same one-year period.With knowledge of the existing temperature regime for Allison Creek,the temperature of the water coming from the powerplant, the anticipatedbase flow, and the anticipated flow schedules for projectoperation, the temperature in the spawning beds could be predictedand the effects on developing salmon embryos calculated. Until theextent of adverse impacts can be identified, it is difficult topredict if any other form of mitigation may be appropriate. Itcould be determined that regulation of the thermal regime of AllisonCreek may be required to protect fish resourCeS.During the first year of project operations, daily temperaturereadings should be taken in Allison Creek below the tailrace dischargeand provided monthly to the FWS and the ADF&G. Depending onthe temperatures, it may be feasible that refinement of dischargerecommendations could further mitigate potential impacts due to

alteration of the temperature regime through mixing base flows inAllison Creek with project flows. An extension of the one yearrecording period may be necessary.As additional information is available for a thorough assessment ofimpacts due to potential changes in flow and temperature regimes,other alternatives for the discharge to Port Valdez may be acceptableor recommended. For example: (1) operation of the project only forbase load pmver production would eliminate the radical flow variationsassociated wi th a peaking facility, (2) alterations in the dischargeof flow· from the tailrace in response to power demand could be doneincrementally by a specified discharge in a given time period (ex.10 cfs/hour), (3) discharge of excess flows directly into PortValdez could be done via .a flume or manmade channel and dischargedsub tidally only from June through September.Recent information on spawning populations in Allison Creek is alsolacking. Beginning in 1980, escapement counts should be taken atleast once a month in July, August, and September of each year.These surveys should continue through the planning, construction,and operation phase of the project to allow assessment of projectimpacts upon salmon populations.A dual tailrace design as proposed for the lower powerhouse alternativeshould be included in plans for the upper powerhouse alternativeas well. The impacts associated with the potentfal changesto flow and temperature regimes described previously would occur ateither powerhouse alternative unless appropriate mitigation featuresare incorporated into project design. In fact, construction andoperation of the upper powerhouse with the dual tailrace feature isfavored slightly because stabilizing the flows in that stream reachbetween the lower and upper site would benefit fish resources in agreater portion of their habitat.To prevent scouring and downstream sedimentation, energy dissipatorsshould be installed in both the tailrace and outlet of the 6 inchdiversion pipe to Allison Creek. Design of the dissipators shouldinsure that the velocity of the discharge into Allison Creek willnot exceed the optimum velocity of the natural stream for fishmaintenance.The timing of construction will be of considerable importance inminimizing impacts to fish. The work should be done to avoid criticalbiological life stages. Disturbance of the water quality orstreambed morphology while eggs are incubating or fry are emergingcan result in direct mortality through suffocation by burial orphysical damage. Disturbance ,",hile adults are present can disruptor prevent spawning and l:Lmit production of future generations. Thetiming of any inwater construction activity or construction on th.ebanks of Allison Creek should he coordinated with the FWS, NationalMarine Fisheries Service (ID-IFS) ,and the ADF&G to avoid unnecessaryimpact on the salmon population. Also, because highest densities ofpopulations of spawning salmon occur in odd years, major constructionaffecting flows should be done on even years.

Streambed sedimentation can be caused by a variety of activities.Improper construction and clearing techniques can cause increasedrunoff and excessive erosion. Clearing for penstock constructionabove ground should be limited to large shrubs and any trees whichmay be encountered to reduce ground disturbance and erosion. Adamaged streambank is unstable and can cause sedimentation.Streambanks should be restored to pre-project integrity during the. construction season in which they are damaged. Transmission lineconstruction should be initiated after the ground is frozen and somesnow cover exists to minimize erosion and rutting.Alteration of the streambed or barriers in the channel can causescouring and downstream sedimentation. Vegetation and debris shouldbe kept out of Allison Creek and any streams crossed by the transmissionline. Any structures placed in or across streams or waterbodies,as a result of project work, should be removed before theend of the current construction season. An erosion control plan anda plan for any instream work (including transmission lines) shouldbe developed prior to construction and presented foy review byresource agencies to insure appropriate precautions are implemented.Care should be taken to prevent the introduction of toxic materialsinto any waterbody. Fuels, lubricants, and other potential pollutantsshould be stored in leakproof containers within an area surroundedby a containment berm at a mintmum of 300 feet from any stream orwaterbody.Improper disposal of refuse can serve as an attractant to bears andother wildlife and lead to bear/human confrontations, usuallyresulting in removal or destruction of the bear. Feeding of wildlifeby construction crews is illegal and should not be allowed.During construction, all refuse should be placed in metal containerswith heavy lids and be removed from the site regularly.Nesting eagles can easily be disturbed by human activity which maycause them to desert eggs or young as a result. Nest removal ordisturbance of bald eagles is prohibited by the Bald Eagle Act of1940. When the exact transmission line route is established, FWSpersonnel should be given the opportunity to survey the route forany nests. Restrictions may be placed on construction activityoccurring between April 1 and July 15 if nests are found in closeproximity.Improper spacing of transmission lines can cause electrocution ofraptors. Transmission line design and construction should be governedby "Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on Powerlines," RaptorResearch Foundation, 1975. Use of this information should be madeto design the powerline with proper grounding, spacing, and configuration,such that it will prevent the electrocution of raptors.Clearing for the transmission line could create a visually displeasingscar on the landscape. To lessen this impact, clearing for theright-of-way should be limited to that needed to string the conductorsand allow the passage of construction equipment. To further reducevisual impacts, small shrubs should be left in the right-of-way andalong the edge of clearings so the vegetation will blend with thenatural surroundings.

It is our intent to protect the existing salmon runs of AllisonCreek. Should we be unsuccessful in adequately protecting.thoseresources, other mitigation measures such as providing artificialhatching, spawning, and/or rearing areas may be· determined necessary.A final analysis to determine whether or not any of these mitigationmeasures would be acceptable or are favored cannot be made with datanow available.· However, based upon present flow and temperaturedata, we have tenatively determined that excess flows from thepowerhouse should be discharged directly to Port Valdez to mitigatepotential adverse impacts to fish resources.Additional data needs which have been identified should be satisfiedas soon as possible. Those studies are: a comprehensive analysisof the pre- and post-project temperature regimes, salmon escapementsurveys, bald eagle nest surveys, and an instream flow assessment.These studies should be conducted cooperatively by the FWS and CEoExecution of these studies would satisfy data needs for refinement/development of mitigation recommendations and provide data neededfor preparation of a supplement to this report. A cooperative studythrough project construction and operation would allow furtherrefinement of mitigation recommendations, assessment of the accuracyand effectiveness of these recommendations, and provide baselinedata for use in the planning of similar projects in the future. Anamended scope of work and associated transfer of funds to the FWSwould be required.RECOMMENDATIONS1. That the design of the powerhouse allow the release ofregulated flows to Allison Creek through the tailrace andexcess flows to Port Valdez through the other tailrace.2. That flows from the powerhouse tailrace to Port Valdez bedischarged subtidally to at least -10 feet MLLW from Junethrough September.3. That the proposed start-up of project operation affectingthe natural flows in Allison Creek occur in an even year.4. That the timing of proposed construction activities in oron the banks of Allison Creek be coordinated with the FWS,NMFS,and the ADF&G.5. That streambanks be restored to pre-project integrityduring the construction season in which they are damagedand debris or vegetation be kept out of streams.6. That any structures placed in or across streams be removedduring the same construction season.7. That clearing for the penstock construction be limited tolarge shrubs and any trees which may be encountered.

8. That during the construction phase, bulk fuels, lubricants,and other potential pollutants be stored in leakproofcontainers within an area surrounded by a containment bermat a minimum of 300 feet from any stream or water body.9. That no feeding of wildlife occur and all refuse be placedin metal containers with heavy lids and removed regularly.10. That transmission line construction be governed by"Suggested Pr&ctices for Raptor Protection on Powerlines,"Raptor Research Foundation, 1975.11. That clearing for the transmission line right-of-way be.1imited to only that area needed for construction and bereduced by leaving shrubs and blending the edges of theclearing with the surrounding vegetation.12. That an erosion control plan and instream work plan beprepared and made available to resource agencies forreview and comment before construction.13. That the CE collect natural discharge data of AllisonCreek continuosly for at least one year, beginning as soonas possible.14. That the CE maintain the thermograph in Allison Creek tocollect natural temperature data continuously during theone year period that other temperature data is recorded.15. That the CE collect intragravel temperature data of AllisonCreek continuously for at least one year, beginning assoon as possible.16. That the CE take temperature profiles of Allison Lake tothe lake tap depth and temperature, dissolved oxygen,turbidity, heavy metal, and pH readings at the lake surfaceas well as the depth of the lake tap. These measurementsshould be collected as soon as possible. A minimum samplingeffort would include the months of March, June, September,and December.17. That the CE collect continuous temperature data below theproposed tailrace into Allison Creek for at least thefirst year of project operation.18. That the CE determine the base flow in Allison Creekexpected above the powerhouse after project operation.19. That provisions be included in advanced project planningfor the FWS to survey the selected transmission line routefor eagle nests.20. That provisions be included in advanced project planningfor escapement surveys of salmon in Allison Creek by theFWS or ADF&G.17

21. That prov1s1onsbe made in advanced project planning forinstream flow analysis of Allison Creek by the FWS todetermine optimum flow schedules and the velocity ofsupplemental flows to Allison Creek.22. That a cooperative study of the proposed Allison CreekHydropower project, jointly scoped by the CE and FWS andfunded by the CE, be conducted through project constructionand operation.23. That, if after execution of the recommended additional. studies, it is determined that some losses to fish andwildlife are unavoidable, those losses be offset byimplementation of mitigation measures mutually acceptableto the FWS and the CEo

LITERATURE CITEDBailey, Jack E., and Dale R. Evans. 1971. The low-temperaturethreshold for pink salmon eggs in relation to a proposed hydroelectricinstallation. Fishery Bulletin 69(3): 595-613.Bakkala, Richard G. 1970. Synopsis of biological data on thechum salmon Oncorhynchus keta (Walbaum) 1972. FAO FisheriesSynopsis No. 41, Circular 315, U.S. Department of the Interior,Washington, D.C.Doudoroff,Peter and Dean L. Shumway. 1966. Dissolved oxygencriteria for the protection of fish. American Fisheries Sociey,Special Publication No.4, A symposium on Water Quality Criteriato Protect Aquatic Life.Feder, Howard M., L. Michael Cheek, Patrick Flanagan, StephenC. Jewett, Mary H. Johnston, A.S. Naidu, Stephen A. Norrell,A.J. Paul, ArIa Scarborough, and David Shaw. 1976. The sedimentenvironment of Port Valdez, Alaska: the effect of oil on thisecosystem. For: Corvallis Environmental Research Laboratory,U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Corvallis, Oregon.Healey, M.C., 1979. Detritus and juvenile salmon production in theNanaimo Estuary: I. Production and feeding rates of juvenilechum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta). J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 36:488-496.Kaczynski, V. W., R. J. Feller, and J. Clayton. 1973. Trophicanalysis of juvenile pink and chum salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuschaand O. keta) in Puget Sound. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 30:1003=-10OS--:-

APPENDIX A:SCIENTIFIC NAMES OF SPECIESPlantsSitka spruce - Picea sitchensisMountain hemlock - Tsuga mertensianaBalsam poplar - Populus balsamiferaWillow - Salix spp.Alder - Alnus sp~.Salmonberry - Rubus spectabilisDevils club - Oplopanax horridusBlueberry - Vaccinium spp. .AnimalsInvertebratesDungeness crab - Cancer magisterButter clam - Saxidomus spp.Copepod - Harpacticus uniremisFishPink salmon - Oncorhynchus gorbuschaChum salmon - Oncorhynchus ketaCoho salmon - Oncorhynchus kisutchSockeye salmon - Oncorhynchus nerkaChinook salmon - Oncorhynchus tshawytschaDolly Varden - Salvelinus malmaTrout - Salmo ~.Rockfish - Sebastes spp.Sculpin - Cottus spp.Halibut - Hippoglossus spp.BirdsCanada goose - Branta canadensisMallard - Anas platyrhynchosPintail - Anas acutaGreen-winged teal - Anas creccaAmerican wigeon - Anas americanaNorthern shoveler - Spatula clypeataGoldeneye - Bucephala spp.Bufflehead - Bucephala albeolaOldsquaw - Clangula hyemalisHarlequin - Histrionicus histrionicusSurf scoter - Melanitta perspicillataBlack scoter - Oidemia nigraCommon merganser - Mergus merganserRed-breasted merganser - Mergus serra torGoshawk - Accipiter ~tilis30

Sharp-shinned hawk - Accipiter striatusRed-tailed hawk - Buteo jamaicensisNorthern bald eagle - Haliae~tus leucocephalus alascanusOsprey - Pandion haliaetusPeale's peregrine falcon - Falc6 peregrinus pealeiSpruce grouse - Canachites canadensisWillow ptarmigan - Lagopus lagopusRock ptarmigan - Lagopus mutusWhite-tailed ptarmigan - Lagopus leucurusMammalsBlack bear - Ursus americanusBrown bear - Ursus arctosWolverine - Gulo luscusMarten '- Martes americanaShort-tailed weasel - Mustela ermineaMink - Mustela visonRiver otter - Lutra canadensisLynx- Lynx canadensisCoyote - Canis latransGray wolf - Canis lupusPorcupine - Erethizon dors~tumSnowshoe hare - Lepus americanus.Mountain goat - Oreamnos americanusMarine MammalsSea otter - Enhydra lutrisNorthern sea lion - Eumetopias jubataNorthern fur seal - Callorhinus ursinusHarbor seal - Phoca vitulinaKiller Whale - Orcinus rectipinnaHarbor porpoise - Phocoena phocoenaDall's porpoise - Phocoenoides dalliHumpback whale - Megaptera novaeangliae

APPENDIX BTEMPERATURE DATA

Allison ereekTemperature DataDateTemperature °e09/23/7102/15/72. OS/23/72·07/24/7210/12/7204/04/7306/17/735.01.03.07.02.52.54.0Source:U.S. Geological Surveyj3

· Thermograph Re8(/ingsALLISON CREEKJune 1979 July 1979 AUBust 19790CHigh Low·· Aver. High· Low. Aver. High . Low Aver.Temp. Temp. Tem:e. Tem:e. Tem:e. Tem:e. Tem:e. Tem:e. Tem:e.1 5 3 4 9 7 82 6 4 5 10 7 8.53 6 4 5 11 8 9.54 6 4 5 10 7 8.5 .5 4 10 . 7 8.56 4 9 7 87 5 4 4.5 9 7 88 5 4 4.5 9 7 89 6 4 5 .8 7 7.510 6 5 5.5 8 7 7.511 6 5 5.5 8 7 7.512 6 5 5.5 8 6 713 6 4 5 8 6 714 5 8 7 7.515 6 5 5.5 716 6 5 5.5 617 7 5 6 618 7 6 6.5 6 5 5.519 8 6 7 620 7 5 6 7 5 621 7 5 6 8 5 6.522 . 7 5 6 7 6 6.5--------23 7 5 6 8 6 724 8 7 7.5 9 7 825 8 6 7 9 7 826 3 8 5 6.5 9 7 827 3 7 5 6 728 3 8 6 7 9 7 829 ·4 3 3.5 9 6 7.5 9 .7 830 5 3 4 9 7 8 8 7 7~--_ ... --~ ----.... --.--Source:Alaska Department of Fish and Game.

ALLISON CREEKSeptember 1979 . October 1979 . November 1979COHigh Low Aver. High Low Aver. High . Low Aver.Temp. TemE_ Teme· Teme·· Teme· Teme· Teme· Teme· Teme·1 5.5 3.52 8 6 7 5.5 3.53 8 5 6.5 · 5.5 3 2 2.54 9 7 8. · 5.5 2 1 1.55 7 6 6.5 5.5 16 7 6· 6.5 5.5 2 0 17 7 5 6 5 2 1 1.58 8 6 7 • 6 5 5.5 3 2 2.59 8 ·6 7 5.5 310 7 6 6.5 5.5 3 2 2.511 8 6 7 .. 5.5 212 9 7 8 · 5.5 313 9 8 8.5 5 2.514 9 8 8.5 5 4 4.5 3 2 2.515 8 7 7.5 5 4 4.5 216 7 5 2 1 1.517 7 5 4 4.5 118 7 4 019 4 1 0 0.520 3 121 . 4 3 3.5 2 1 1.522 4 223 4 224 4 2 0 125 4 026 4 3 3.5 027 6 5 5.5 4 1 0 0.528 6 5 5.5 4 2 0 129 5· 4 4.5 4 230 6 5 5.5 4 2 1 1.5Source: . Alaska Department of Fish and Game.

ALLISON CREEKDecember 1979 Januarl 1980 Februarl 1980COHigh Low Aver. High· Low Aver. High Low Aver.Temp •. Temp. Temp. Temp. Temp. Temp· Temp. Temp. Temp.1 1 -0.3 -0.3 -0.6 -0.52 1 0 0.5 -0.3 0..1 -0..4 -0.23 0.5 0.0 -0.4 -0.2 0.1 0.0 0.14 a 0..1 0.0 0.0 0.05 0 0..4 0.1 0.2 0.0 -0.4 -0.26 -0.3 -0.3 0..6 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.17 -0.3 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.18 -0.3 0.5 0.19 ·-0.3 0.5 0.0 0.4 0.1 -0.1 0.010 -0.3 0.0 -0.4 -0.3 0.3 -0.2 0.011 -0.3 -0.4 -0.5 -0.5 0.5 0.3 0.412 -0.3 -0.4 -0.3 -0.5 0.4 0.2 0.313 -0.3 -0.1 -0.6 -0.3 0.2 0.0 0.114 -0.3 -0.4 -0.4 0.2 -0.1 0.1 0.115 -0.3 -0.5 -0.4 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.016 0.2 -0.2 001 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.1 -0.1 0.017 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.0 -0.7 -0.418 0.2 -0.3 -0.1 0.3 0.1 0.2 -0.519 0.3 -0.2 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.2 -0.4 -0.7 -0.520 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.1 -0.2 -0.4 -0.321 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.1 -0.3 0.0 0.0 -0.2 -0.122 0.2 0.1 0.1 -0.4 -0.5 -0.5 0.3 0.0 0.123 0.2 0.1 0.2 -0.5 0.8 0.4 0.624 0.6 0.2 0.4 -0.5 -0.7 -0.6 0.9 0.7 0.8I.-25 0.8 0.6 0.7 -0.4 -0.6 -0.5 0.7 0.4 0.5

ALLISON CREEKDecember 1979 Januarl 1980 Februarl 1980COHigh Low Aver. High Low ',Ayer. High Low Aver. "Temp. Temp. Temp. Temp. Temp. Temp Temp. Temp. Temp.26 0.8 -0.5 1.0 0.7 0.827 0.8 0.7 0.8 -0.2 ' -0 .. 5 -0.3 1.028 0.8 0.2 -0.1 0.129 0.'8 0.5 0.7 0.1 -0.7 -0.430 0.3 0.1 0.2 -0.6Source: Alaska Depart~ent of Fish and Game.37

Allison Lake Temperature DataMay 7, 1979Type Probe Itl Probe 1t2 Probe 1t3Ice Thickness 1 Ft. 3 A 6 Ft.Overflow 1.5 Ft. 0 0.5 Ft.TemperatureoCSurface (top of ice) ~O. 25°o·-0.25 +0.25°1 Meter -0.25 -0.25 0.002 -0.25 0.00 0.002.5 +0~25 +0.253 . 0.25 +0.25 0.303.5 . 0.50 +0.75 0.754 1.00 1. 25 1.504.5 2.00 1. 90 '2~405 2.25 2.40 2;50'5.5 2.75 2.756 2.75 3.00 2.906.5 3.00 3.007 3.00 3.25 3.107.58 3.258.52.25 3.259 3.25 3.25 3.309.510 3.2510.53.30 3.3011 3.25 3.30 3.3012 Bottom@ 12.25 M 3.30 3.3013 3.40 3.30Source:Corps of Engineers.A

SOLOMON. CREEKSeEtember 1979 October 1979 November.1979COHigh Low Aver. High Low Aver. . High Low Aver.Tem:e. Tem:e. TeriJ:e. . Temp. TemE·· Tem:e. Temp. . Tem:e. Tem:e •1 12 5 6 32 12 6 33 9.6.8 34 11 6 7 35 6 5 7 26 12 5 7 L7 5 8 18 5 8 19 10 5 8 010 12 7 11 5 2 111 12 7 5 3 212 13 8 5 ·3 213 12 9 5 2 114 13 8 5 1.515 8 4.5 4.5 1.516 8.5 4.5 3.5 6 1.517 7. 7 4 6 218 7 6 10 4 6 119 7 10 4 .6 120 7 11 4 5 021 7 6 10 3 7 122 6 9 2 7 123 6 9 2 7 124 6 9 2 6 125 6 9 3 6 126 6 9 3 6 127 6 9 3 5 128 9 6 8 3 6 129 11 6 9 3 5 130 6 9 3 6 1Source:Alaska Department of Fish and Game~.. 31

RESPONSES TO RECOMMENDATIONS of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in theFinal Coordination Act Report.1. That the design of the powerhouse allow the release of regulatedflows to Allison Creek throught the tailrace and excess flows to PortValdez through the other tailrace.Response: The selected plan includes a two tailrace system which wouldallow regulated flows to both Allison Creek and Port Valdez.2. That flows from the powerhouse tailrace to Port Valdez be dischargedsubtida11y to at least -10 feet MLLW from June through September.Response: During the advanced engineering and design phase, studies willbe conducted to determine stream temperatures with project operation. Ifthese studies indicate the stream temperature during the spawning wouldbe below the critical level and all the project discharge could not bedischarged into Allison Creek during spawning, mitigative measures, suchas a subtidal outlet would probao1y be employed.3. That the proposed start-up of project operation affecting the naturalflows in Allison Creek occur in an even year.Response: The initial drawdown for securing the tap and the placement oftrash racks would probably occur during the winter months when flows intothe Port Valdez tai1ace and would have no impacts on the incubating eggswithin Allison Creek and the intertidal area. Project operation wouldprobably occur with the refilling of the lake the same year as thedrawdown. It would be impossible at this time to insure project startupwould occur in an even year.4. That the timing of proposed construction activities in or on thebanks of Allison Creek be coordinated with the FWS, NMFS, and the ADF&G.Response: This recommendation will be included in the stipulations tothe contractor.5. That streambanks be restored to preproject integrity during theconstruction season in which they are damaged and debris or vegetation bekept out of streams.Response:Refer to response to number four.6. That any structures placed in or across streams be removed during thesame construction season.Response:Refer to response to number four.

7. That clearing for the penstock construction be limited to largeshrubs and any trees whi~h may be encountered.Response: Some clearing to base ground would be required for the footingof the pensto~k brac~s. Stipulations to the contractor would includerevegetati6n in areas where erosion could possibly occur.8. That during the const:'uction phase, bulk fuels, lubricants, and otherpotential pollutants be stored in leakproof containers within an areasurrounded by a containment berm at a minimum of 300 feet from any streamor water body.Response:Refer to response to number four.9. That no feeding of wildlife occur and all refuse be placed in metalcontainers with heavy lids and removed regularly.Response:Refer to response to number four.lO. That the transmission line construction be governed by "SuggestedPractices for Raptor Protection on Powerlines," Raptor ResearchFoundation. 1975.Response:practices.The design of the transmission lines will follow the above.11. That clearing for the transmission line right-of-way be limited toonly that area needed for construction and be reduced by lea~ing shrubsand blending the edges of the clearing with the surrounding vegetation.Response:Refer to response to number four.12. That an erosion control plan and instream work plan be prepared andmade available to resource agencies for review and comment beforeconstruction.Response: Little instream work is anticipated, however therecommendation will be included in the stipulations to the contractor~13. That the CE collect natural discharge data of Allison Creekcontinuously for at least one year, beginning as soon as possible.Response: At least one stream gage will be installed on Allison Creekduring the advanced engineering and design phase and it will collect datafor several years.14. That the CE maintain the thermograph in Allison Creek to collectnatural temperature data continuously during the one year period thatother temperature data is recorded.Response: The thermograph is in place at this time and will remaincollecting temperatures well after project completion.

15. That the CE collect intragravel temperature data of Allison Creekcontinuously for at least one year, beginning as soon as possible.Response: Intragravel temperature data will be collected during theadvanced engineering and design phase.16. That the CE take temperature profiles of Allison Lake to the laketap depth and temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, heavy metal, andpH readings at the lake surface as well as the depth of the lake tap.These measurements should be collected as soon as possible. A minimumsampling effort would include the months of March, June, September, andDecember.Response: Refer to response to number 15.17. That the.CE collect continuous temperature data below the proposedtailrace into Allison Creek for at least the first year of projectoperation.Response: The thermograph which is now operating in Allison Creek willcontinue to collect data for at least the first year after projectcompletion.18. That the CE determine the base flow in Allison Creek expected abovethe powerhouse after project op~ration.Response: Preliminary estimates have been completed and are included inthis report. A gage will be installed during AE&D and maintained afterproject completion.19. Response: An eagle nest survey will be.conducted prior to anyconstruction associated with the project.20. That provisions be included in advanced project planning forescapement survey of salmon in Allison Creek by the FWS or ADF&G.Response: ADF&G, has indicated they would increase their effort onAllison Creek. During AE&D at least one year of intensive an escapementsurvey will be conducted.21. That provisions be made in advanced project planning for instreamflow analysis of Allison Creek by the FWS to determine optimum flowschedules and the velocity of supplemental flows to Allison Creek.Response: Provisions for flow analysis of Allison Creek will be includedin the AE&D phase. Whether an extensive instream flow analysis isreqUired is not known at this time.

22. That a cooperative study of the proposed Allison Creek Hydropowerproject, jointly scoped by the CE and FWS and funded by the CE, beconducted through project construction and operation.Response: The U.S~F.W.S. will be involved in the scoping process forenvironmental studies during the AE&D.23. That, if after execution of the recommended additional studies, itis determined that some losses to fish and wildlife are unavoidable,those losses be offset by implementation of mitigation measures mutuallyacceptable to the FWS and the CEoResponse: The CE is in full accord.

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930December 1979HighTemp.66777676510.63.82.44.03.74.54.44.54.64.63.73.34.84.84.44.33.23.02.9LowTemp.111100000-0.7-0.6-0.6-0.6-n.s-0.5-0.5-0.7-0.5-0.3-0.4-0.4-0.3-0.4-0.2-0.2-0.2-0.2-0.2-0.3-0.5Aver.Temp.SOLOMON CREEKJanuary 1QROHighTemp.3.84.12.53.53.73.13.33.21.22.72.92.22.93.42.93.12.83.02.32.63.02.01.R1.82.11.53.12.82.42.8LowTemp.-0.5-0.3-0.4-0.2-0.2-0.2~0.2. -0.2-0.5-0.5-0.6-0.6-0.3-n.S-0.3-0.3--0.2-0.2-0.2-0.2-0.2-0.3-0.5-0.5-0.5-0.5-0.4-0.5-0.5-0.5Aver.Temp.Source:Alaska Department of Fish and Game.February 19ROHighTemp,2.93.03.12.22.52.n2.22,f)1.61.7. 2.01.f)1.71.91.81.72.12.02.82.62.52.62.02.n2.42.33.8LowTemp.-n.4-0.3-0.3-0.5-0.1-0.3-0.4-0.5-0.5-0.2-0.4-n,R-n.S-0.5-n.4-0.7-0.5-n.S-0.4-0.3-n.3-n.3-0.4-0,5~b.3.... 0,2,""0.2Aver.Temp.

APPENDIX IMARKETABILITY REPORT

Val d ez - G len n a lie nPovver MarketAnal'ysisJanuary 1981U.S. Depart ment of EnergyAlaska Power AdministrationJuneau, Alaska 99802

Department Of EnergyAlaska Power AdministrationP.O. Box 50Juneau, Alaska 99802January 27, 1981Colonp.l Lee NunnDistrict EngineerCorps of EngineersAlaska DistrictP.O. Box 7002Anchorage, AK 99510Dear Colonel Nunn:This is Alaska Power Administration's power market report for theValdez-Glennallen area.The power market analysis includes load projections, power market sizeand characteristics, a review of available alternatives, and a determinationof marketability and financial feasibility. APA consideredvarious alternative power supply alternatives as follow-on projectsafter completion of the Solomon Gulch Project. They were:1. Allison Creek.2. Pressure reducing turbines (PRT's) in the Alyeska Pipeline.3. Interconnection of CVEA system with Railbelt power supplies.4. Use of diesel generation.The marketability findings were:1. PRT' s appeared to have a tremendous cost advantage over otheralternatives.2. If PRT's are constructed, Allison Creek could be deferred afew years. If not, Allison Creek would be needed as soon aspossible after completion of Solomon Gulch.3. Allison Creek represents generally a higher cost of powercompared to other projects now under active consideration inthe State.4. Railbelt power supplies made available through interconnectioncould be competitive with Allison Creek.

2APA concludes that the outlook for financial feasibility is sufficientlyfavorable to warrant steps towards project authorization, but recommendsrep-valuation of the power markets and alternative costs prior to construction.EnclosureSincerely,·/-7 /7I{-:'-V. @~Robert J. CrossAdministrator

Valdez/Glennallen Power Market AnalysisCONTENTSChapterI. INTRODUCTION...............................................Purpose and Scope..................................... 1Project Plans and Costs...............................Previous Studies...................................... 1I I • SUMMARY. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 3III. POWER MARKET DESCRIPTION AND OUTLOOK....................... 7Location.............................................. 7Economy. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 7Population and Employment............................. 9IV. EXISTING POWER SySTEMS..................................... 11System................................................ 11Installed Capacity.................................... 11Historical Loads...................................... 12General.......................................... 12Energy Growth Relationships...................... 12Load Factors ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 15Rates................................................. 16V. FUTURE POWER AND ENERGY ASSUMPTIONS AND REqUIREMENTS....... 17Energy and Peak Demand Forecasts...................... 17Installed Capacity Forecast and Future Needs.......... 18Energy Distribution................................... 18VI. ALTERNATIVE GENERATION AND COSTS ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 23Hydropower............................................ 23Tidal Powe r • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 24Steamplants........................................... 24Coal-fired....................................... 24Oil- and Gas-fired............................... 24Biomass-fired •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 25Solar............................................ 25Nuclear •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 25Combustion or Gas Turbines............................ 25Diesels ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 25Geothermal Powerplants................................ 25Wind 'Ma.chi-nes ••.•• "................................... 26Exogp.nous Supply •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 26Other Altprnatives.................................... 26VII. LOAD/RESOURCE ANALySIS ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 29Installed Capacity •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 29Ne t Energy............................................ 30i

ChapterVIII.IX.FINANCIAL ANALySIS ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••Co'st Summary •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••Average Rates ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••B IBL IOGRAPHY ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••39394559ii

List of·Tab1esTableIII-1IV-1IV-2V-IV-2VII-1VII-2VII-3VIII-1AVIII-1BVIII-2VIII-3VIII-3A.VIII-4VIII-4AVIII-5VIII-6VIII-7VIII-8VIII-9VIII-lO·VIII-lOAVIII-llVIII-12Demographic Data •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 10Historical Loads •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 13Historical Growth Rates and Energy Use................ 14Valdez/Glennallen Area Utility Load Estimates......... 19Installed Capacity Estimates and Existing Generation •• 21Valdez/Glennallen Forecast with Allison Creek Supply.. 31Valdez/Glennallen Forecast with PRT Supply............ 32Valdez/Glennallen Forecast with Allison Creekand PRT Supply ........ • -••••••• e, •••••• '.......... ••• •• 33Summary Cost Estimate Allison Creek Alternate No. 1. 40Summary Cost Estimate Allison Creek Alternate No. 2. 41Summary Cost Estimate Pressure Reducing Turbine ••••• 42Summary Cost Estimate Railbe1 t Area toGlennallen Intertie •••• ~ ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 43Average Rate Determination - Anchorage Portion ofRailbel t System ••••• ~ ••••••••••••••••••.•••••••••••CVEA Diesel Generation Expenses - Historic ••••••••••••CVEA Diesel Generation Expenses - Future ••••••••••••••Average Rate Comparisons •••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••Average Rate Determinations - Allison CreekAl tp:rna t ive No.1 ••.••••••••,••••••••••••••••••• e-. • • 50Average Rate Determination - Allison CreekAlternative No.2 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 51Average Rate Determination - PressureReducing Turbi~e ••••••••••••••••••.••••• e._.... .. ... 52Average Rate Determination - Interconnectionwith Rai1be1t System •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••Average Rate Determination - ContinuedDiesel Generation-(5 Percent Fuel Escalation) ••••••Average Rate Determination - ContinuedDiesel Generation-(2 Percent Fuel Escalation) ••••••Average Rate Determination Allison Creek Case •••••••Average Rate Determination - Intertie Case ••••••••••••444647485354555657iii

List of FiguresFigureIII-l Utility Market •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 8V-I Valdez/Glennallen Area Energy Forecasts •••••••••••••••• 20VII-l Valdez/Glennallen Capacity/Resource Diagram •••••••••••• 34Plan 1 Allison Creek Alternative 1 or 2 •••••••••• 34Plan 2 Pressure Reducing Turbine ••••••••••••••••• 34VII-2 Plan 3 Continuing Thermal Generation ••••••••••••• 35VII-3 Valdez/Glennallen Net Energy/Forecast Resource ••••••••• 36Plan 1 Allison Creek Alternative No.1 ••••••••••• 36VII-4 Plan 2 Pressure Reducing Turbine ••••••••••••••••• 37VII-5 Plan 3 Continuing Thermal Generation ••••••••••••• 38VIII-lValdez/Glennallen - Alternative GenerationSources' - Busbar Costs .•...•••••..•.•• 0 •••••••••••••• 49iv

Valdez/Glennallen Power Market AnalysisCHAPTER IINTRODUCTIONPurpose aQd ScopeThis power market analysis evaluates alternatives for meeting the powerneeds of the Valdez/Glennallen areas after full utilization of theSolomon Gulch hydro project, now under construction. Included are powermarket forecasts, analyses of various alternatives for supplying theprojected needs, and estimates of future energy costs. The Valdez andGlennallen areas are considered as one, for the purposes of this report,since the Copper Valley Electric Association (CVEA) line between the twoareas is presently under construction.The analysis primarily focuses on the Allison Creek Hydro Project as apotential to meet area power needs after full utilization of SolomonGulch. It also looks at the alternatives of (1) pressure reducingturbines in the Alyeska Pipeline, and (2) interconnection with Railbeltarea power supplies.Project Plans and CostsThe Corps of Engineers Southcentral Railbelt Stage II Checkpoint reportof April 1978 titled, Hydroelectric Power and Related Purposes forValdez, Alaska, identified the Allison Creek project lake tap scheme ashaving the best potential of several alternatives considered. Sincethat report, the Corps designed two alternatives for using a powertunnel and a penstock between lake tap and powerplant. Alternative 1uses a "lower" powerplant near the shoreline and alternative 2 an"upper" one on the mountainside. The following chart outlines these:Powerplant LocationInstalled CapacityAverage Annual EnergyFirm EnergyPlant Factor (firm)Project CostUnit Power CostAverage Annual CostUnit Energy CostTransmission LineAlternative 1Lower8 MW39,350 MWH34,300 MWH48.9%$37,250,000$5,029/kW$3,489,52110.2¢/kWh3 milesPrevious StudiesAlternative 2Upper8 MW37,250 MWH32,200 MWH45.9%$34,301,000$4,63l/kW$3,229,17610.0¢/kWh3.5 milesAn inventory of potential hydroelectric sites in Alaska was done by theAlaska District of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (now the Alaska PowerAdministration) in the 1960's. Several sites near Valdez, includingAllison Creek, were part of this inventory. However, when the inventory1

list was classified into the 76 most economical, Allison Creek was notincluded. Higher fuel co~ts have since changed the economic outlook.Allison Creek project has not previously been studied as a lake tapscheme, other than in the above mentioned, Corps report. However, theproject with a dam has been included as an alternative or an adjunct toSolomon Gulch in studies by Robert W. Retherford Associates (see bibliographyitems 8, 10, 15). Retherford, as well as the Corps, concludedthat the scheme with a dam was not feasible.Load forecasts of the Valdez/Glennallen area have been reported inseveral reports •. Copper Valley Electric Association and REA jointlystudy future loads about every two years. Results are shown in severalSolomon Gulch studies and in the Robert W. Retherford Asssociates reportsof po~er supply (see bibliography items 1, 3, 9, 10, 11, 15, 17, 18).The ,Upper Susitna River Project Market Study completed by APA in 1979and the Alaska Water Study Committee S.C. Alaska Level B Phase I studyinclude sections on the Valdez/Glennallen area.2

CHAPTER IISUMMARYValdez and Glennallen, both served by Copper Valley Electric Association(CVEA), and the Alyeska Pipeline terminal in Valdez are all presentlysupplied from oil-fired electric generation. CVEA is currently into. construction of the l2-MW Solomon Gulch hydro project. Assumed projecton-line-dateis 1981. A l38-kV transmission line between Valdez andGlennallen is also assumed to be completed in 1981.This report dealt primarily with alternatives the Valdez/Glennallenareas have for meeting their electric power needs after full utilizationof Solomon Gulch. .The Valdez area and, toa lesser extent, the Glenallen area experiencedrapid growth during the Alyeska pipeline construction period of 1974 to1977.· The following table shows a summary of historical annual growthrates.ResidentialPeriod Growth (%)1970-1973 7.71973-1977 50.01977-1979 -9.4ValdezCommercial/IndustrialGrowth (%)3.438.2-3.91970-1973 15.91973-1977 24.01977-1979 -7.5Glennallen5.042.6-9.8Energy use per customer in 1979 was:Residential6,666 kWhValdezCommercial/Industrial62,350 kWhResidential4,708 kWhGlennallenCommercial/Industrial55,171 kWhCVEA retail rates for electric energy in 1979 were:(revenue per kWh)Residentiall2.7eValdezCommercial/Industrial10.geResidentiall4.leGlennallenCommercial/Industrial13.4eThe annual cost of generation in the CVEA area in 1979 averaged 8.le perkWh. Preliminary input from the utility indicates close to lOe/kWh in1980.3

It was found that there are considerable uncertainties in making loadforecasts for this area. For example, there are many questions onprecise timing and numbers of jobs associated with the construction andoperation of the State's Alaska Liquid Petroleum Company Refinery(ALPETCO) scheduled for Valdez. Because of such contingencies, bothValdez and Glennallen have potential for growth appreciably differentthan the assumed forecast. The basic forecast adopted was presented inthe CVEA Power Cost Study of January 1980. That forecast then wasextrapolated to year 2000 and adjustments made to reflect conservationand estimated additional loads during ALPETCO construction and operation.Future power requirements are estimated as follows:ValdezEnerSil (GWH) Demand (MW) caj2acityl/ (MW)Historical 1978 23.4 4.8 10.11979 23.0 4.2 10.11980 26.5 5.4 7.21985 48.0 9.8 13.11990 57.0 11.7 15.61993 63.0 12.9 17.22000 76.0 15.2 20.3GlennallenEnerSil (GWH) Demand (MW) CaEacityl/ (MW)Historical 1978 20.4 4.0 7.61979 18.5 3.5 7.61980 21.4 4.4 5.91985 29.5 5.8 7.71990 40.6 7.8 10.41993 49.2 9.2 12.32000 70.0 14.0 18.71./ Forecasted capacity is computed from peak demand + 75% (assumes25 % reserves).Various alternative power supply alternatives were considered as followonprojects after Solomon Gulch:1. Allison Creek2. Pressure reducing turbines (PRT's) in Alyeska Pipeline3. Interconnection of CVEA system with Railbelt power supplies4. Use of diesel generationLoad/resource and cost analysis were performed to compare the forecastedloads with the alternatives listed above. The load/resource resultsindicated:4

A. Assuming Allison Creek follows Solomon Gulch:1. CVEA needs energy and capacity immediately after completion ofSolomon Gulch.2. Allison Creek firm energy would be fully utilized by 1985.3. Allison Creek capacity plus Solomon Gulch can supply the areapeak demand until 1991.B. Assuming PRT's follow Solomon Gulch:1. Allison Creek energy would not be needed until about 1990.2. Solomon Gulch, Allison Creek, and PRT capacity and firm energywould all be fully utilized before 2000.The cost analyses showed the following:1. Allison Creek alternative 1 has slightly higher power costthan Allison Creek alternative 2. Both are about 10¢ per kWh,under current prices, assuming 50-year payout, and with 8 percentinterest rate.2. PRT unit costs are about one-fourth of Allison Creek.3. Allison Creek power costs appear comparib1e with 1980 dieselgeneration costs.4. Based on rough studies from the March 1979 Upper Susitna PowerMarket Study, with allowance for inflation to the present, cost ofpower supply obtained through an interconnection to the Rai1be1tmay be comparable to or slightly higher than Allison Creek.The marketability findings are as follow:1. PRT's appear to have a tremendous cost advantage over theother available alternatives.2. If PRT's are constructed, Allison Creek would be deferred afew years. If not, Allison Creek would be used about as quickly asit could be brought on line after Solomon Gulch.3. Allison Creek represents generally a higher unit cost of powerthan other projects now under active consideration elsewhere inthe State.4. It appears probable that power supplies made available throughinterconnection with the main Rai1be1t area load centers would becompetitive with Allison Creek.5

5. Marketing vagarities (loads, Railbelt intertie, local or stateconstruction) make present comparisons uncertain.Interest rates for repayment of Federal investment in power projects arekeyed to long-term borrowing costs, with an annual determination by theSecretary of Treasury. The formula is based on average costs of governmentsecurities with 15 or more years to maturity at the beginning ofeach fiscal year. Changes in the rate to be applied to new investmentsare limited to one-half percent per year.Studies for this re.port used an 8 percent interest rate, which was therate to be applied for new Federal investment in FY 1980.A larger increase in borrowing costs was experienced in FY 1980, asreflected in Tn~asury' s determination that the average rates for thelong-term securities as of October 1, 1980 was in excess of 10 percent(10.25). Thus, if Allison Creek Project is constructed in the mid tolate 1980's, it is likely that the project interest rate will be 10percent or higher.Under the 8 percent assumption and October 1980 price levels, annualreserves $3,229,000 are needed to cover operations, maintenance, andamortization costs for Allison Creek. Under a 10 percent assumption,annual reserve requirements would be $3,937,000, an increase of 22percent. Average rates for repayment would reflect similar increases.These figures do not reflect future inflation.Changes in interest rate and future inflation would have similar impactson costs for alternative power sources.APA concludes that the outlook for financial feasibility is sufficientlyfavorable to warrant steps towards project authorization, but recommendsreevaluation of the power markets and alternative costs prior to construction.6

CHAPTER IIIPOWER MARKET DESCRIPTION AND OUTLOOKLocationValdez, situated in the northeast corner of Prince William Sound, is now~~ll known as the southern·· termim,ls of the Alaska oil pipeline. It isals~ . the·southern termin~s of the Richardson highway, which leads toFairbanks, 363 miles·north. Anchorage is 306 miles by road from Valdez.The Alaska Marine Highway connects Valdez to Whittier and Cordova. Itis served by air, but not mainline schedules.Glennallen, about half way between Valdez and Fairbanks, is 115 milesnorth on the Richardson highway. It is the eastern end of the Glennhighway, 189 miles from Anchorage.Figure 111-1 locates Valdez and Glennallen geographically.EconomyValdez economy before the oil pipeline was based on fishing and government.Before the 1964 earthquake, shipping played a part. The pipelineactivity has had heavy impact since 1970 when the first pipe stockpilingstarted. Oil storage and shipping facilities have been operating inValdez since the middle of 1977. Stability is returning after theextreme economic and demographic fluctuations caused by pipeline constructionbetween 1974 and 1976, and construction "wind-down" in late1976 and early 1977. The following chronology summarizes economicactivity in Valdez since 1970:1970 - Beginning of pipe delivery to Valdez and other areas alongthe pipeline corridor.1971 - Value of pipe dropped off but delivery of pipe continued.1972 and 1973 - No pipe delivered in this period. Business receiptsdecreased by SO percent in 1972 and continued to decrease in 1973.1974 to 1976 - Pipe delivery resumes with seven-fold increase by1975. Community experiences an ll-fold increase in businessreceipts from 1974 to 1975 and a four-fold increase from 1975 to1976.1976 - Peak of pipeline terminal construction. Pipe delivery eighttimes less than 1975 activity.1977 - Operation of pipeline and terminal began in late summer.CVEA service of some pump station utility type loads commenced.Since 1977, Valdez economy, judged by employment, dipped for severalmonths after pipeline operation commenced, then recovered with cyclic7

Figure III-lALASKA POWER ADMINISTRATIONUTILITY NARKET AREASMARCH 1979o1:0DI Il.!C-8[iTCL r Kor SlNmEGION8

increases. Municipal construction has been perhaps the major vehicle ofeconomic stability in the last two years. Three municipal buildings,port and airport improvements, and the start of Solomon Gulch hydroprojecthave been the major activities. Along with "gearing-up" for the proposedALPETCO refinery, the city is working towards re-establishing its preearthquakestatus as a significant port for more than oil tankers. Noindications point towards a future economic downturn for Valdez.Glennallen and its neighboring towns are crossroad and tourist dependentplaces. Interior Alaska government functions also contribute to theeconomy. The pipeline activity had a definite influence but not assevere as in Valdez. No definite activities appear in the offing toalter the area economy. The proposed gas pipeline in the Alaska highwaycorridor is not within commuting distance of Glennallen; so its impactis expected to be minimal to negligible. Recent oil exploration activitynear the area appears now to be small and uncertain. The Glennallenarea will expand with the state tourism industry.Population and EmploymentAvailable demographic statistics do not separate Valdez and Glennallen.Statewide data is disaggregated into census divisions and both placesare included in the Valdez-Chitina-Whittier census division.Table 111-1 shows annual historic values of population, employment, andhousing starts, which come from Alaska Department of Labor and Departmentof Housing and Urban Development publications (see bibliography items 2,7,14,16).The peak of Valdez pipeline terminal construction, the dip at the end ofconstruction, and the increase with recent construction activity clearlyshow in the employment statistics. Preliminary 1979 data indicatespopulation decline has leveled off. Housing starts also indicate anincrease, from 14 starts in 1978 to 29 starts in 1979.Overall, it appears the pipeline boom-bust cycle left Valdez on a somewhathigher economic plane than before the pipeline. The future outlook iscontinuing moderate (compared to pipeline construction years) growthuntil the ALPETCO installation is completed, then steady but smallergrowth at least to the year 2000. The Environmental Protection AgencyEnvironmental Impact Statement of December 1979 estimates 2,800 employeesmay be needed at ALPETCO construction peak and 1,200 for operations.9

Census DivisionTABLE III-1Demographic Data--Valdez/Chitina/Whittier1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979Population 3,098 2,932 3,464 3,568 3,833 9,639 13,000 9,905 5,000 5,OOO(p)Employment 1/ 831 1,085 904 985 1,526 . 4,626 7,818 3,768(r) 2,043 2,140(1st 9Employment 2/ 1;209 2,023 3,054 2,794 2,143 2,239Unemployment 2/ 8.8 6.9 9.3 14.1 18.1 11.4(Percent)Housing Starts 1 0 6 6 161 85 39 33 14 29(p) = preliminary.(r) = revised since previous use.1/ Nonagricultural wage and salary employment by place of work (based on jobs).2/ = current population survey (CPS) labor force statistics (based on people).mas)Source: Alaska Department of Labor, Research and Analysis Division Alaska Power AdministrationAugust 1980

CHAPTER IVEXISTING POWER SYSTEMSSystemThe Copper Valley Electric Association (CVEA) utility serves both Glennallenand Valdez. Radial distribution lines of CVEA extend from Glennallen30 miles north on the Copper River, 55 miles south on the CopperRiver to Lower Tonsina, and 70 miles west on the Gl~nn Highway. Theutility is constructing a 138 KV transmission line between Valdez andGlennallen in conjunction with the Solomon Gulch hydroplant construction •.The area contains no national defense installations significant to thestudy, but self-supplied industry is represented by a sizable powerplantat the Valdez oil terminal. Oil pipeline pumping is not electrical; .however, CVEA supplies utility-type loads at pumping stations withintheir market area.Installed CapacityThe installed capacity for utility and industry by type of prime moveris listed on the following table:1979 INSTALLED CAPAC I TY--MWGasTurbine(oil)Diesel(oil)Steam(oil)TotalUtilityCopper Valley Electric Association--Glennallen. --Valdez2.87.67.37.610.1Self-Supplied IndustryValdez Oil TerminalPumping Station Standby1.21.22.50.052.537.537.540.0·1.241.2Copper Valley Electric Association is now cortstructing the Solomon Gulchhydro project, a l2-MW plant across Valdez Arm from Valdez. It isscheduled for completion in 1983.11

Historical LoadsGeneralValdez and Glennallen utility loads divide into residential, commercial/industrial, and other. "Other" includes street lights, public buildings,utility use, and losses. The only load that may be considered industrialis the CVEA supplied non-pumping requirements at a few pipelinepumping stations. Table IV-1 lists CVEA loads from 1970 through 1979.Energy use, customers·,. and peak demand are shown. The "other" sector isnot listed separately, but the totals include it. Peak demand data isnot metered by sector, so only annual totals can be shown. Some earlieryear customer information is not available for this study as designatedby '~A" in the table.Self-supplied industrial loads were non-existent until 1977 when pipelineoperation commenced. Table IV-1 shows this Valdez terminal steamplantload.Energy Growth RelationshipsTable IV-2 shows historical growth rates and energy Use per customer.The unsettlednati)re of the area is depicted in growth rate variancesand extremes. Valdez residential energy, for instance,. jumped from nogrowth in 1973 to 135 percent in 1975. Other extremes were less, butsimilar. Business depressions followed cessation of pipe deliveries in1972 to 1973 and pipeline construction in 1977. Extreme economic upturnfrom 1974 to 1976 co-existed with pipeline construction.Examination of Table IV-2 also shows some lack of correlation betweencustomers and energy use. Valdez residential energy growth peaked ayear earlier than residential customers, for instance. Customer growthdropped off more sharply than energy. Pipeline construction employmentcharacteristics can help explain some of this. It is only necessary topoint out he.re, however, that these facts emphasize the difficulty inprojecting the historical data.The energy use (kWh/customer) statistics show the variations too. Ameasure of constancy can be noticed until 1975, the year of peak pipelineconstruction. Then, a large usage increase occurred--much more soin Valdez than in Glennallen. After 1975, residential use moderatedsomewhat but at a higher level than before 1975. A large jump in theGlennallen commercial/industrial sector in 1977 reflects the utilityassumption of pipeline pumping station non-pumping loads.12

TABLE IV-1HISTORICAL LOADS--VALDEZ AND GLENNALLENVALDEZ GLENNALLEN TOTAL eVEA VALDEZYEAR RESI C/I TOTAL RESI C/I TOTAL RESI e/I TOTAL INDUSTRIALENERGY (MWH)1970 1,200 3,800 5,912 900 3,200 4,790 2,134 7,072 10,7021971 1,483 4,010 6,363 1,128 3,447 5,363 2,610 7,457 11,7261972 1,500 3,800 6,202* 1,300 3,400 5,601* 2,796 7,173 11,8031973 1,500 4,200 6,470 1,400 3,700 6,121 2,887 7,942 12,5911974 2,110 6,176 9,457 1,641 3,802 6,167 3,751 9,979 15,6241975 4,966 10,894 18,251 2,690 4,692 8,636 7,656 15,586 26,8871976 6,966 14,353 26,006 3,269 7,570 13,281 10,235 21,923 39,2871977 7,589 15,330 26,060 3,306 15,287 21,401 10,895 30,617 47,461 39,4201978 6,455 14,222 23,411 3,090 13,738 20,425 9,545 27,960 43,835 54,7501979 6,393 14,153 22,977 2,961 12,027 18,522 9,354 26,181 41,499I-'wPEAK DEMAND (kW)1970 1,160 1,030 2,1901971 1,266 1,060 2,3261972 1,270* 1,130* 2,400*1973 1,280 1,220 2,5001974 2,470 1,340 3,8101975 4,750 2,360 7,1101976 4,875 3,500 8,3751977 4,850* 4,290* 9,140 38,560 (capacity1978 4,750 4,000 8,750 40,000 (capacity1979 4,225 3,470 7,695CUSTOMERS1970 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 542 219 7861971 348 107 467 329 117 464 677 224 9311972 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 651 235 9181973 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 680 245 9571974 494 178 685 413 137 575 907 315 1,2601975 637 209 860 531 150 708 1,168 359 1,5681976 1,052 231 1,297 621 171 823 1,673 402 2,1631977 1,040 222 1,276 651 203 887 1,691 425 2,1631978 892 229 1,140 666 194 894 1,558 423 2,0341979 959 217 1,209 629 218 882 1,588 445 2,091* = estimated Alaska Power AdministrationApril 1980

TABLE IV-2 Historical Growth Rates (%) and Ener~.l Use (kWh/customer)VALDEZ GLENNALLEN TOTAL eVE AYear Resi C/I Total Resi C/I Total Resi C/I TotalENERGY GROWTH RATES (%)1971 23.6 5.5 7.6 25.3 7.7 12.0 22.3 5.4 9.61972 1.1 -5.2 -2.5 15.2 -1.4 4.4 7.1 -3.8 0.7 .1973 0 10.5 4.3 7.7 8.8 9.3 3.3 10.7 6.71974 40.7 47.0 46.2 17.2 2.8 0.8 29.9 25.6 24.11975 135.4 76.4 93.0 63.9 23.4 40.0 104.1 56.2 72.11976 40.3 31.8 42.5 21.5 61.3 53.8 33.7 40.7 46.11977 8.9 6.8 -0.1. 1.1 101.9 61.1 6.4 39.7 20.81978 -14.9 -7.2 -9.9 -6.5 -10.1 -4.6 . ...,.12.4 -8.7 -7.61979 -1.0 -0.5 -1.9 -4.2 -12.5 -9.3 -2.0 -6.4 -5.31970-1973 7.7 3.4 3.1 15.9 5.0 8.5 10.6 3.9 5.61973-1977 50.0 38.2 41.6 24.0 42.6 36.7 39.4 40.1 39.3CUSTOMER GROWTH RATES (%-)1971 24.9 2.3 18.41972 12.4* 18.5* 13.6* 7.9* 5.4* 7.4* -3.8 4.9 . -1.4~ 1973 12.4* 18.5* 13.6* 7.9* 5.4* 7.4* 4.5 4.3 4.2.p..1974 12.4* 18.5* 13.6* 7.9* 5.4* 7.4* 33.4 28.6 31.71975 28.9 17.4 25.5 28.6 9.5 23.1 28.8 14.0 24.41976 65.1 10.5 50.8 16.9 14.0 16.2 43.2 12.0 35.21977 -1.1 -3.9 -0.8 4.8 18.7 7.8 1.1 5.7 2.51978 -14.2 3.2 -U.4 2.3 -4.4 0.8 -7.9 -0.5 -6.41979 7.5 -5.2 6.1 -5.6 12.4 -1.3 1.9 5.2 2.8ENERGY USE (kWh/CUSTOMER)1970 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3,937 32,292 13,6161971 4,261 37,477 13,625 3,429 29,462 11,558 3,855 33,290 12,5951972 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 4,295 30,523 12,8571973 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 4,246 32,416 13,1571974 4,271 34,697 13,806 3,973 27,752 10,725 4,136 31,679 12,4001975 7,796 52,124 21,222 5,066 31,280 12,198 6,555 43,415 17,1471976 6,622 62,134 20,051 5,264 44,269 16,137 6,118 54,535 18,5321977 7,297 69,054 20,367 5,078 75,305 24,126 6,443 72,040 21,9421978 7,237 62,105 20,546 4,640 70,814 22,832 6,126 66,099 21,5511979 6,666 65,221 19,005 4,708 55,170 21,000 5,890 58,834 19,8471978 7,237 62,105 20,546 4,640 70,814 22,832 6,126 66,099 21,551* Average annual from 19JL to 1974 Alaska Power AdministrationApril 1980

Load FactorsThe following chart lists historical load factors, showing the relationshipbetween e.nergy and peak demand in percent:Valdez Glennallen Total CVEA1970 58.2 53.1 55.8.1971 57.4 57.8 57.51972 55.7 56.6. 56.11973 57.7 57.3 57.51974 . 43.7 52.5 46.81975 43.9 41.8 43.21976 60.9 43.3 53.61977 61.3 57.0 59.31978 56.3 58.3 57.21979 62~3 60.9 61.6Avg. 55.7 53.8 54.9Load factor equals energy divided by the product of peak demand andhours (8,760 hours annually). A peak load and subsequent installedcapacity forecast can be obtained from the energy forecast by using anaverage assumed load factor. The load factors are fairly constant except.during the years of greatest pipeline activity. Revised averages obtainedby excluding those years are:Valdez58.7% (1974-1975 excl~)Glennallen 56.7% (1975-1976 excl.)Total CVEA 57.3% (1974-1975 excl.)RatesRates to residential customers as stated in the Alaska Public UtilitiesCommission (APUC) annual report of 1979 were as follows (in C/kWh):For. ValdezGlennallen100 kWh16.8C/kWh17 .5500 kWh15.516.21;000 kWh14.015.71,500 kWh13.214.8Another form of customer rate (costs/kWh), as shown in the followingchart, illustrates averages of all users. The values are calculated bydividing annual revenue for each sector by annual energy sold in eachsector.15

REVENUE/KWH (¢/KWH)YEAR VALDEZ GLENNALLEN TOTAL CVEAR C/I Total R C/I Total R C/I Total1970 N/A N/A 9.1 7.0 7.51971 8.4 6.2 6.8 9.9 8.1 8.6 9.1 7.1 7.61972 N/A N/A 9.0 7.3 7.81973 N/A N/A 8.9 7.1 7.61974 8.1 6.3 6.8 9.5 7.9 8.4 8.7 6.9 7.41975 7.6 6.2 6.6 10.5 9.3 9.7 8.6 7.1 7.61976 9.6 6.6 7.6 11.1 11.7 11.5 10.2 8.4 8.91977 9.4 7.7 8.3 1101 9.8 9.9 9.9 8.8 9.01978 10.8 9.3 9.7 12.5 11.5 11.7 11.4 10.4 10.61979 12.7 10.9 11.5 14.1 13.4 13.5 13.1 12.1 12.4Note: 1975 and 1976 include sllrcharge revenue--other years the surchargewas not separately specified.R = ResidentialC/I= Commercial/IndustrialThe annual generation cost rates are shown on the following table whichis a summary of Table VIII-3. These values were compiled from datasubmitted by the utility to the Alaska Public Utilities Commission(APUC). The annual investment cost was calculated using productionplant-in-service data times the capital recovery factor for 7.5 percentdiscount· rate and. assumed 20-year diesel generator life.Energy Production Expense Rates (¢/kWh)1974 1975 1976 1977 1978O&M Excluding Fuel 1.0 103 104 106 2.0O&M Including Fuel 3.2 3.9 4.1 4.7 5.2Investment Cost/Year 104 102 2.0 106 1.7Total Annual Cost 4.6 5.1 6.1 6.3 6.919792.16.31.88.1Data for 1977-1979 indicates about 55 percent of the total operation andmaintenance expenses, including fuel, occur at Valdez. In 1975, it was66 percent. Data for the other years is not available.The last line of the production expense table shows that total annualcosts had about a 15 percent average annual growth during the pipelineconstruction years. The average from 1974 through 1979 is 12 percent.A large increase in fuel cost occurred in 1979.16

CHAPTER VFUTURE POWER AND ENERGY ASSUMPTIONS AND REQUIREMENTSEnergy and Peak Demand ForecastsAny forecasts in the Valdez/Glennallen area have a high measure ofuncertainty, not only from lack of a stable historic base but also fromvagueness of the future. Future contingencies include the ALPETCOpetrochemical plant proposal, expansion of Valdez port activities, somepetroleum exploration activity near Glennallen, and possible electricalinterconnection to the Railbelt area.Periodically, Copper Valley Electric Association (CVEA), in conjunctionwith the Rural Electric Administration (REA), commissions a power requirementsor power cost study. The last one available was datedJanuary 1980 and made load estimates for the 1980 to 1993 period. Ithas been adapted for this study as shown in Table V-I, which listsenergy and peak demand by year for Valdez, Glennallen, and the totalCVEA area. Growth rates and load factors are also shown.The CVEA forecast does not include the proposed ALPETCO petrochemicalfacility near Valdez nor adjustment for conservation. Therefore, theestimates have been altered by Alaska Power Administration to reflectthese contingencies. The Valdez forecast was derived by first decreasingthe CVEA 6-percent.average annual growth rate in five-year incrementsthen adding 17 GWh for 1982 peak year construction and 12 GWh per yearfor ALPETCO operation. The following average annual growth rates wereapplied to the CVEA base 1980 energy:1980-1985 6%1985-1990 5%1995-2000 3%The 17 GWH and 12 GWh were developed from the 1970 to 1978 net generationper employee statistics and estimated numbers of employees. During theoil terminal construction in Valdez, CVEA supplied 5 to 6 MWh peremployee. The other years these values were 10 to 14 MWh. The EnvironmentalProtection Agency Environmental Impact Statement of December 1979indicated almost 2,800 peak construction employees and about 1,200operational employees. (6 MWh/employees x 2,800 employees = 17 GWh;10 MWh/employees x 1,200 employees = 12 GWh).The Glennallen forecast comes directly from the CVEA study. It wasassumed growth factors and conservation would cancel any need forrevision. Peak"loads can be determined by using the following loadfactors from the CVEA study:GlennallenValdezTotal1980-19931993-200057.8%57.1%55.8%57.1%56.7%57.1%17

Figure V-I pictures the forecast of the total CVEA area. It also showsthe 1980 CVEA power cost study load growth, the forecast from the CVEA1976 Power Requirements Study, and a projection that averages theselatter two. The 1976 forecast was presented in the March 1979 SusitnaPower Market Study and the Y~rch 1979 AWSU S.C. Alaska Level B Phase ITechnical Memorandum (see bibliography items 5 and 6). The projectedaverage was used as an interim forecast by the Corps of Engineers intheir Allison Creek draft report. It could be cons~dered a high rangeforecast for this power market report.In addition to these utility forecasts, self-supplied industries shouldbe mentioned. The only ones considered were the oil pipeline terminaland the proposed ALPETCO project. The terminal commenced operation in1977 with a 37.5 MW oil-fired steamplant, about four times the totalCVEA 1977 peak load. The ALPETCO installation may have up to 55 MWinstalled capacity as reported in a CVEA/REA Power Requirements Study ofMarch 1979.These industries, with their large loads compared to the utility, wereconsidered unlikely to be utility supplied. Therefore, the forecast didnot combine utility and industry.Installed Capacity Forecast and Future NeedsIn'stalled capacity is equal to peak load plus system reserves. The 1979Susitna Power market analysis assumed a 20 percent reserv,e in urbanareas and 25 percent in towns and rural areas. This study assumes thatpeak load is 75 percent of installed capacity.Table V-2 expands the peak load forecast by dividing each value by 0.75.Existing installed capacity is listed also for each year, decreasingaccording to an assumed retirement schedule. Solomon Gulch capacity(12 MW) shows for Valdez in accordance with its assumed on-line date of1981. An interconnection is assumed under "CVEA Total"; so Valdez andGlennallen capacity estimates and existing generation are totaled. Alast column adds Solomon Gulch to existing thermal capacity.Energy DistributionAssuming current energy use patterns will not change significantly inthe future, the annual energy forecast values divide into the followingmonthly distribution. This distribution is arranged in water yearorder, October 1 through September 30. The assumption of no significantchange in percentages is justified as long as the utility remains isolatedelectrically from a large industry. Expanding use of electric spaceheating in the residential and commercial sectors may modify the distributionsomewhat also.18

Table V-IVALDEZ/GLENNALLEN AREA UTIUTY LOAD ESTIMATESEnpr~:z: (GWh)Glennallen Valdez TotalHistorical1976 13.3 26.0 39.31977 21.4 26.1 47.51978 20.4 23.4 43.81979 18.5 23.0 41.6GlennallenPeak Demand (MW)Valdez3.5 4.94.3 4,94.0 4.8,3.5 4.2Total8.49.18.87.7-\0Forecast*1980 21.4 26.5 47.91981 22.0 (28.2) 30.0** 52.01982 22.5 (30.0) 33.0** 55.519B3 26.0 (31.9) 35.0** 61.01984 27.7 (D.n 34.0** 61.71985 29.5 35.6 65.11986 31.4 37.6 69.11981 D.5 39.8 73.31988 35 .• 7 42.0 77.81989 38.1 44.4 82.51.990 40.6 46.9 87.51991 43.3 49.6 92.91992 46.1 52.4 98.61993 49.2 55.4 104.62000*** 70.0 80.0 150.04.4 5.44.7 (5.7) 6.1*'"4.9 (6.1) 6.7**5.2 (6.5) 7.1**5.5 (6.9) 7.0**5.8 7.36.2 7.76.6 8.16.9 8.67.4 9.17.8 9.68.2 10.28.7 10.89.2 11.414.0 16.09.810.811.512.412.513. 113.914.715.516.417.418.419.520.630.0Avera!le Annual Growth Rates (%)1910-1973 8.5 3.1 5.61973-1977 36.7 41.7 39.31977-1979 -6.0 -7.0 -6.41970-1979 16.2 16.3. 16.31980-1993 6.6 5.8 6.21993-2000 5.2 5.4 5.3Avera!!,e Load Factors54.3 (56.6)*4 54.1 (56.4)*457.8 55.857.1 57.154.1 (56. n*456.757.1* Copper Valley E1pctric Association Forecast from January 1980Power Cost Study.** Additions for ALPETCO facility have been included. Values in( ) are from original forecast.*** APA extrapolation.*4 Average excluding pipeline construction impact.Alaska Power AdministrationApril 1980

Figure V-I200.VALDEZ/GLENALLEN AREAENERGY FORECASTS1751501255.9%5.7%August Annualgrowth-from19BO100755025Hist

Table V-2INSTALLED CAPACITY REQUIREMENTS AND USE OF EXISTING GENERATION(MW)VALDEZ GLENNALLEN CVEA·TOTALSSolomon Existing Existing Solomon Existing TotalYear Estimate Gulch Diesels Estimate Diesels Estimate Gulch Diesels GenerationNI-'1980 7.2 10.1 5.9 7.6 13.1 17.7 17.71981 9.1 12.0 10.1 6.3 7.0 15.3 12.0 17.1 29.11982 12.8 12.0 10.1 6.5 7.0 19.3 12.0 17.1 29.11983 12.5 12.0 10.1 6.9 6.4 19.5 12.0 16.5 28.51984 12.5 12.0 7.3 7.3 9.2 19.9 12.0 16.5 28.51985 13.1 12.0 7.3 7.7 9.2 20.8 12.0 16.5 28.51986 13.6 12.0 7.3 8.3 8.0 21.9 12.0 15.3 27.31987 14.1 12.0 7.3 8.8 8.0 22.9 12.0 15.3 27.31988 14.4 12.0 5.5 9.2 8.0 23~6 12.0 U.S 25.51989 15.1 12.0 5.5 9.9 8.0 24.9 12.0 13.5 25.51990 15.6 12.0 5.5 10.4 8.0 26.0 12.0 U.S 25.51991 16.1 12.0 5.5 10.9 8.0 27.1 12.0 U.S 25.51992 16.7 12.0 3.6 11.6 8.0 28.3 12.0 11.6 23.61993 17.2 12.0 3.6 12.3 8.0 29.5 12.0 11.6 23.62000 20.3 12.0 0.0 18.7 0.0 38.9 12.0 0.0 12.0Notes:'1. Installed capacity estimates = peak demand in table V-I ~ 0.752. Totals are derived from unrounded components3. Existing diesels decrease according to an assumed retirement scheduleAlaska Power AdministrationAugust 1980

Monthly Energy DistributionValdez Glennallen Total UtilityOctober 7.5 7.4 7.5November 8.9 8.9 8.9December 9.2 10.0 9.6January 9.5 10.4 9.9February 9.4 10.3 •• 9.9March 8.3 8.9 8.6April 8.6 8.7 8.6May 7.7 7.2 7.5June 7.6 6.8 7.2July 7.4 6.6 7.0August 7.8 7.1 7.4September 8.2 7.7 8.0100.0% 100.0% 100.0%October through April 61.3% 64.7% 62.9%These values are averages of historical monthly energy from October 1969through September 1979. Year to year values for anyone month vary lessthen 2 percent from the average--even during the pipeline constructionyears. The total utility percentages vary less than the components.The winter months, October through April (58 percent of the year),consume over 60 percent of the annual energy.22

CHAPTER VI .ALTERNATIVE GENERATION AND COSTS·Focus of this chapter is selection of feasible power and energy supplypossibilities for the Valdez/Glennallen area. As follow-up to theSolomon Gulch hydro project, now under construction, only three alternativesappear reasonable:1. Allison Creek hydro (two options)2. P~essure Reducing Turbines (PRT's) in the Alyeska pipeline3. Interconnection to the Railbelt area (Palmer-Glennallen transmissionline).Discussion of the alternatives considered follows:HydropowerSeveral sites in addition to Aliison Creek and Solomon Gulch have beeninventoried in the Valdez and Glennallen areas. These are part of astatewide list of 252 published in February 1980 in an Alaska" PowerAdministration report titled Hydroelectric Alternatives for the AlaskaRailbelt. Sizes and evaluations are given in the following list:ValdezLowe River 0.2 - 55 MWSilver Lake10 MWMineral Creek 0.4 - 1.3 MWGold Creek ?Unnamed Creek 3.6 - 10.4 MWCleave820 MWWood Canyon 2,600Currently classed as not feasible economicallyor environmentally.Requires much longer transmission thanAllison Creek. Can perhaps be the nextincrement.Currently classed as uneco~omical.Currently classed as uneconomical.Currently classed as uneconomical.Far too large for area.Far too large for area.GlennallenTazlinaLower Gulkana RiverSanford104 MW9MW80 MWPrevious studies show less feasibilitythan Lowe.Previous studies show less feasibilitythan Lowe.Previous studies show less feasibilitythan Lowe.23

These are the sites closest by. Other sites could also be consideredbut are judged not alternative to Allison Creek~ If the very largeprojects, Wood Canyon or Cleave, are developed for energy export elsewhere;feasibility of serving the Glennallen-Valdez interconnectionshould be considered.Tidal PowerTidal power is not considered an 'alternative to Allison Creek. The mainreason is sizing and economics. The size needed for.tida1project1 feasibility is much too large for indigenous use. In qddition, a Valdezarea tidal project would certainly conflict with port traffic (oiltankers, etc.). If a tidal project is· constructed in the Cook Inletarea, it would be considered as exogeneous supply to the Valdez/Glennallenarea by new transmission facilities.Steamp1antsSteam turbines can use many types of resources: coal, oil, gas, nuclear,biomass, sun heat. The availability of each resource, economics, andinstitutional constraints preclude steamp1ants from consideration asalternatives for the Valdez/Glennallen area.Coal-FiredCoal is Scarce in the Valdez/Glennallen area. One deposit has beendefined in the Chugach Mountains, east of the Copper River delta. Noothers are evidenced. This deposit is ranked low in probability ofdevelopment. A State report of Alaska's resources (see bibliographyreference 13) lists it as ninth out of a dozen possibilities.Several recent report~/ have indicated small size (less than 50 MW)coal-fired steamp1ants cost between $4,000 and $5,000 per kW. Thisincludes scrubbers. Other environmental equipment would increase capitalcosts. Adding escalating fuel costs, fuel transportation costs (coalwould have to be imported), and high maintenance costs would causesteamp1ant energy to be more expensive than Allison Creek.Oi1- and Gas-FiredOil and gas provinces in the Gulf of Alaska area are evaluated in theState study of Alaska's resources (see bibliography item 13). Evaluationsrank an off-shore province as promising, a province surroundingGlennallen as possible, and a province east of Cordova as very improbable.In addition to the lack of local fuel supplies, oil- and gas-firedsteamp1ants are considered as unlikely alternatives to Allison Creekbecause shortages and national policy indicate that in a few years thesefuels will not be availablp for powerplants. In the sizes needed forgeneration at ValdeZ/Glennallen, other forms of energy supply are morepractical and economic.1/ 1979 Susitna Power Market Study; Alaska Study Committee SouthcentralAlaska Level R Studies.24

Biomass-FiredAlthough of many forms, biomass, for current applications, assumes theburning of wood and wood residues in steamplants. The pulp mills inSoutheast Alaska burn mill waste as part of their process, but verylittle has been done to inventory biomass generation possibilitiesstatewide.Biomass-fired steamplants may be a possibility if wood is proved available.However, because of the limited state-of-the-art and lack oflocal studies, they are not, at this time, considered an alternative toAllison Creek.SolarThe state-of-the-art also eliminates solar as alternative to AllisonCreek hydro. The solar boiler technology for steamplant power is stillin the development stage. Also, sun incidence during high energy usageis low in the Valdez/Glennallen area.NuclearThe economics of nuclear steamplants preclude this as a possibility inthe ValdeZ/Glennallen area. Nuclear plants, apart from questionablesociability, require a minimum 200 MW to 400 MW for economic feasibility.This is too large for the area.Combustion or Gas TurbinesBecause of their relatively low capital costs, continued use of oilfiredcombustion turbines could be an alternative to Allison Creek.However, escalating fuel cost and national objectives for use of petroleumpreclude this option. Alternative cost comparisons are thereforenot pursued.DieselsOther than one small gas turbine installed in 1976, diesels now supplyall electric power and energy requirements in ValdeZ/Glennallen. Mostof these will most like.ly be on standby service when Solomon Gulch hydrocomes on line in the early 1980's.If oil conservation and high costs were not factors, bringing thesediesels off standby status and adding more would be a likely alternativeto Allison Creek. However, by the time additional capacity is needed,diesels are expected to be allowed only if no other alternative isavailable.Geothermal PowerplantsThe most promising geothermal sites in Southcentral Alaska occur in theWrangell Mountains near Glennallen. This may be a source of electricpower and energy for the ValdeZ/Glennallen area for the long-term.25

However,techno10gy has not yet developed enough to consider it as analternative resource in the. area before the year 2000.Wind MachinesThis resource only supplements a basic power supply. Energy storagetechnology needs to develop before wind can serve as primary energy.The Alaska Division of Energy and Power Development report dated January1979 and titled, Alaska's Energy Resources, Phase 1. Volume III hasranked wind power sites in Alaska. Based on sketchy data, out of a listof 67, Valdez is number 54 and the Glennallen area number 41.Demonstration units (under 100 kW) in Colorado are presently estimateda t over $5, OOO/kW not including installation. Costs will undoubtedlydecrease as the technology develops.Overall, for the Valdez/Glennallen area, wind machines cannot be consideredan alternative to Allison Creek. However, they certainly must be investigatedas supplemental power to any future electric supply system.Exogenous SupplyExogenous to the Valdez/Glennallen utility system are several possibilitiesfor generation import:1. Rai1be1t interconnection.2. Other large hydroprojects; such as Rampart, Porcupine, Woodchopper.(Wood Canyon and Cleve, within the Valdez general region,were mentioned under hydropower.)The large hydro projects should not be considered as alternativesfor this area or any other area, at this time.The 1979 Susitna power market study included a section on costs of aPalmer-Glennallen transmission line. A $40.8 million investment and$3.3 million annual cost result in 3.3~/kWh transmission costs at atransfer of 100 million kWh (1978 costs). 50 million kWh would morenearly fit the Valdez/Glennallen system; so the unit cost would aboutdouble. This would probably be economically feasible. Delivery to CVEAat Glennallen would supply Valdez over the Glennallen-Valdez transmissionline. The Susitna study indicated Railbe1t generation costs averageabout 5~ per KWh to 6~ per KWh at 1978 prices.Other Alternatives1. Pressure Reducing Turbines (PRT's) in the A1yeska pipeline.2. A1yeska pipeline terminal generation at Valdez.3. ALPETCO petrochemical installation at Valdez.26

A Solomon Gulch article in the December 1978 issue of Alaska Constructionand Oil magazine and a January 1980 CVEA power cost study both discusspressure reducing turbines in the trans-Alaska oil pipeline. A twomillion barrel per day (MBD) oil flow can produce 77,263 MWh with a9.8-MW installed capacity. However, a more likely flow of 1.6 MBD and acapacity factor of 80 percent results in 56,000 MWh energy and 8 MWcapacity. Investment W0uld be $9.7 million or $1,200/kW. This isdefinitely an alternative to Allison Creek, but requires industry/utilityagreements.A 1974 power cost study for Copper Valley Electric Association by Robert W.Retherford Associates suggests oil pipeline pressure reducing turbinesin conjunction with hydro pumped storage at Solomon Gulch. This schemeappears quite favorable and therefore worth more investigation.The interties to the industrial installations at Valdez (Alyeska pipelineterminal and ALPETCO) conceptually are feasible but considered unlikely.The industries would not have excess firm energy; so these were notincluded as Allison Creek alternatives.27

CHAPTER VIILOAD/RESOURCE ANALYSISThis chapter analyzes three plans that relate feasible power supplyalternatives to the Valdez/Glennallen load forecasts. The discussionaddresses installed capacity and energy separately. A Valdez-Glennallentransmission is assumed so total CVEA loads are used.Chapter VI indicated three viable alternatives for consideration:Allison Creek; pressure reducing turbines (PRT) in the Alyeska pipeline;and an interconnection with Railbelt power sources. An all thermal casehas been added for comparison. The following plans are illustrated onFigures VII-1 through VII-5. Bases for the curves are Tables VII-1 andVII-2. Table VII-3 combines plans 1 and 2.Figure NumberPage NumberPlan 1 Allison Creek alternative VII-1 and VII-3 34 and 36Plan 2 Pipeline PRT alternative VII-1 and VII-4 34 and 37Plan 3 Continuing thermal generation VII-2 and VII-S 35 and 38A Railbelt interconnection has not been separately illustrated. It canfit in the cross hatched areas in the diagrams or displace AllisonCreek.Installed CapacityFigures VII-l and VII-2 illustrate how the installed capacity forecastcan be supplied. The analysis assumes that much of the existing thermalgeneration of both Valdez and Glennallen will be put in standby statuswhen Solomon Gulch comes on line.The diagrams show clearly the need for capacity in addition to SolomonGulch. Further, they show that more than one of the three alternativesis required before 1990 (see Figure VII-I).Allison Creek as part of an interconnected system could be fully utilizedto supply load demand plus reserves by 1985. If diesels are used forreserves, then Allison Creek full utilization would come in 1991 (seeFigure VII-l and Table VII-I). From a capacity viewpoint, PRT's havethe same schedule.Figure VII-2 indicates existing generators, if not displaced by hydro,will not be adequate after 1981. Retirement schedules for the existingdiesels and gas turbine are based on an assumed 20 to 2S-year life.Solomon Gulch plus existing capacity will not be adequate after 1989.29

Net EnergyThis section discusses the relationships between alternative generationand total energy load plus losses. Time scheduling of alternatives issomewhat different than for peak demand because the PRT'fOl, while equalin capacity to Allison Creek, have about 60 percent more energy capability.Figures VII-3 through VII-5 and, again, Tables VII-1 through VII-3 showthe energy load/resource analyses. Firm energy for Solomon Gulch andAllison Creek is depicted in the graphs and listed in the Tables.Average annual energy would add secondary generation as additionaldisplacement of diesel g~neration and as contirtgency supply. From anenergy standpoint, installation timing would not be affected in theinterconnected system if average annual was used in place of firm forthe analyses.~ith an interconnected system, generation in addition to Solomon Gulchis needed immediately to displace diesels. Allison Creek would be fullyloaded when it comes on line in 1985. The PRT's would gain full energyoutput by 1990.Figure VII-5 indicates existing generation, if operated at 75 percentplant factor, would meet the load until 1988. However, economics andnational policy, as stated in the recent national energy act, wouldpreclude this case.30

Table VII-lValdez/Glennallen Forecast with Allison Creek SupplyEnergr (GWH) 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 2000Energy Forecast 47.9 55.0 69.5 72.0 73.7 77.5 81.4 85.5 R8.7 93.1 97.6 102.3 107.1 112.2 14&.0Solomon Gulch( finn) 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.& 38.& 38.& 38.& 38.& 38.& 38.& 38.& 38.&Energy Need 47.9 16.4 30.9 33.4 35.1 38.9 42.8 46.9 50.1 54:5 59.0 fin 68.5 73.& 107.4Allison Creek( firm) 34.3 34.3 34.3 34.3 34.3 34.3 34.3 34.3 3t,.3 34.3Further Need 47.9 16.4 30.9 33.4 35.1 4.6 ---s:s 12.6 IT.8 20.2 24.7 29.4 34-:2 J9.) 7DExisting Diesel(75% Plt.Fac.) 116 112 112 108 108 lOR 100 100 88 88 88 88 76 76 0Demand and C3~3city(MW)Peak Demand 9.8 1l.5 14.5 14.6 14.9 15.6 16.4 17.2 17.7 18.7 19.5 20.3 21.2 22.1 29.2Solomon Gulch 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0PeAk Need ~ -0.5 2"":S 2:6 2.9 3.6 ~ 5.2 5.7 ----r;:'i 7.5 8:3 ~ 10.1 17.2Allison Creek 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0Further Peak Need 9.8 -0.5 2.5 2.6 2.9 -4.4 -3.6 :'2.8 -2.3 -1.3 -0.5

Table VII-2Valdez/Glennallen Forecast with PRT SupplyEners:!:: (GWH) 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 2000Energy Forecast 47.9 55.0 69.5 72.0 73.7 77.5 81.4 85.5 88.7 93.1 97.6 102.3 107.1 112.2 146.0Solomon Gulch(firm) 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6Energy Need 47.9 16.4 30.9 33.4 35.1 38.9 42.8 46.9 50.1 54.5 59.0 63.7 68.5 73.(; 107.4PRT (80% capacityfactor) 56.0 56.0 56.0 56.0 56.0 56.0 56.0 56.0 56.0 56.0 56.0Further Need 47.9 16.4 30.9 33.4 -20.9 -T7.l -13.2 =-9:1 -5.9 -1.5 J":O 7--:7 12.5 17.6 51.4Existing Diesel(75% Plt.Fac.) 116 112 112 108 108 108 100 100 88 88 88 88 76 76 0Demand and CaEacitl (HW)wNPeak Demand 9.8 11.5 14.5 14.6 14.9 15.6 16.4 17. 2 17.7 18.7 19.5 20.3 21.2 22.1 29.2Solomon Gulch 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0Peak Need 9:8 -0.5 2-:s 2:6 ~ 3.6 4":4 5.2 5-:7 6":7 1"":5 --s:J 9:2 10.1 17.2PRT 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0Further Need 9:8 o:s 2.5 2.6 -5.1 -4.4 -3.6 -2.8 -2.3 -1.3 -0.5 o.J 1":2 2.1 9:2Reserves Required* 3.3 3.8 4.8 4.9 5.0 5.2 5.5 5.7 5.9 6.2 6.5 6.8 7.1 7.4 9.7Capacity Need 13.1 3:J 7-:J 7-:s -0.1 ----o.a .--:9 ~ ~ l;"-:9 6":0 ----r:l" --s:J 9-:s 111.9ExistingDiesel Capacity 17.7 17.1 17.1 16.5 16.5 16.5 15.3 15.3 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 11.6 11.6 0*Reserves s(Peak Demand + 75%) - Peak Demand

Table Vll-3Valdez/Glennallen Forecast with Allison Creek and PRT SupplyEnerSI (GWH) 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 2000Energy Forecast 47.9 55.0 69.5 72.0 73.7 17.5 81.4 85.5 88.7 93.1 97.6 102.3 107.1 112.2 . 146.0Solomon Gulch(firm) 38.6 38.6 38;6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6Energy Need 47.9 16.4 30.9 33.4 35.1 38.9 42.8 46.9 50.1 54.5 59.0 .63:7 68.5 13.6 107.4Allison Creek 34.3 34.3 34.3 34.3Further Need 29.4 34.2 39.3 73.1PRT 56.0 56.0 56.0 56.0 56.0 56.0 56.0 56.0 56.0 .56.0 56.0Further Need 47.9 16.4 30.9 33.4. -20.9 -17.1 -13.2 -9.1 -5.9 -1.5 ~ 26.6 -21.8 -16.7 T7.TExisting Diesel 116 112 112 108 108 108 100 100 88 88 88 88 76 76 0Demand and CaEacitI (HW)Peak Demand 9.8 11.5 14.5 14.6 14.9 15.6 16.4 17.2 17.7 18.7 19.5 20.3 21.2 22.1 29.2Solomon Gulch 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0Peak Need --u -0.5 ~ ~ 2:9 J":6 4":4 ---s:2 s:7 ~ 7-:s a:J ~ 10.1 17 .2Allison Creek 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0\..,) Further Need ---o.J l.2 ~ 9":2\..,)PRT 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0Further Need --u -0.5 ~ ~ -5.1 -4.4 -3.6 -2.8 -2.3 -1.3 -0.5 -7.7 -6.8 -5.9Reserves Required* 3.3 3.8 4.8 4.9 5.0 5.2 5.5 5.7 5.9 6.2 6.5 6.8 7.1 7.4 9.7Capacity Need 13.1 3.J 7:J --=r:s -0.1 0.8 1:9 2:9 J":6 4:9 6.0 -0.9 0.3 --y:s 10 .. 9ExistingDiesel Capacity 17.7 17.1 17.1 16.5 16.5 16.5 15.3 15.3 13.5 lJ.5 lJ.5 13.5 11.6 11. 6 0*Reserves -(Peak Demand + 75%) - Peak Demand

40VALDEZ/GLENNALLENCAPACITY/RESOURCE DIAGRAMFigure VII':"'l38.935Plan 1plan 2Allison Creek Alternative lor 2Pressure Reducing Turbine(Includes 25% Reserves) .3025UNSPECIFIEDADDITIONALCAPACITY!>'"HHU~ 20

40·Figure VU-235Plan 3VALDEZ/GLENNALLENCAPACITY/RESOURCE DIAGRAM(Includes 25% Reserves)Continuing Thermal Generation3025Additionaldiesels andgas turbines105Existing diesels andgas turbine-retiredat end of amortized lifeHistory F recasto--------~~--------~------~~------~--~~~~1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000APA 9-3035YEARS

150Figure VII-3140VALDEZ/GLENNALLENNET ENERGY/RESOURCEPlan 1120100......,~~ 800.,-l..-l..-l.,-lf3'-'>

150Figure VII-4140VALDEZ/GLENNALLENNET ENERGY/RESOURCEPlan 2120100Pressure ReducingTurbine56 GWH at 80% Capacityfactor40~I U)I"r-! ~ l..-i Q)U) U)20 or-! Q)01975I HistoryAPA 9-30w c:l>< I"r-!II1 Forecast38.655.01985Solomon GulchHydroprojectGWH firm energyGWH average annual energy37YEARS1990 199538.62000

150·Figure VII-5140VALDEZ/GLENNALLENN'ET.ENERGY/RESOURCE120100Existing Diesels andGas Turbine-Retired atEnd of Amortized LifeAdditionalDiesel andGas TurbineGeneration>-

CHAPTER VI II .FINANCIAL ANALYSISThe costs developed in this chapter compare the alternatives identifiedin Chapte~ VI as future energy supply possibilities: . (1) Allison CreekNo.1 or No.2, (2) pressure reducing turbines (PRT's) in .the A1yeskaPipeline, and (3) the Railbe1t interconnection. An indication of theexpenses related to continued use of diesels is also presented. Costsfor the PRT's are taken from the January 1980CVEA power cost study.Chapter VII indicated the PRT's and Allison Creek are more complimentarythan a1ternative--they are both needed. Therefore, costs are presentedmore for prospective than comparison. The Rai1be1t interconnectionappears a close alternative to Allison Creek asa follow-up to thePRT's. Costs come from the March 1979 Susitna Power Market Study.Cost SummaryCost summaries are shown for all of the above possibilities. Thesesummaries include investment, OM&R, and interest during construction(IDC). Investment and IDC total costs are converted to average annualcosts by use of a capital recovery factor at 8 percent discount rate and50-year repayment for Allison Creek and 30-year for the PRT's. AllisonCreek investment costs were submitted by the Corps of Engineers inAugust 1980 with an October 1980 price level. Project OM&R is takenfrom Mahoney Lake criteria (see bibliography item 12). Annual costs areassumed to inflate at the same rate for all alternatives; therefore noinflation has been applied. A busbar (losses included) cost comparisonvalue is computed by adding OM&R to annual investment costs, then dividingthe sum by firm annual energy. Tables VIII-1A and VIII-1B give theAllison Creek cost summary for alternate powerp1ant sites 1 and 2.The pressure reducing turbine cost estimates are shown on Table VIII-2.The investment and OM&Rcosts are given in the January 1980 CVEA PowerCost Study. They have been given an increase to reflect an October 1980price level. Amortized life was assumed to be 30 years, as suggested inthe CVEA study. A cost comparison value was computed similarly toAllison Creek. Annual energy assumes an 80 percent capacity factor.Table VIII-3 adapts costs of the CVEA-Rai1be1t interconnection in theMarch 1979 Susitna Power Market study to this Valdez/Glennallen study.The October 1978 prices have been raised 10 percent to agree with theAllison Creek level of October 1980. However, an 8 percent rather thanthe Susitna study 7.5 percent was used to calculate annual costs. TheSusitna study used 100,000 to 300,000 MWh per year energy transfer.However, 50,000 MWh annually compares better with Allison Creek, thePRT's, and the load requirements. Unit costs, therefore, of the transmissionline have more than doubled. Costs of purchasing Rai1be1tenergy come from average rate determinations as shown in Table VIII-3A.39

TABLE VIII-IASummary Cost EstimateOctober 1980 Price LevelAllison Creek (Lake Tap) Alternate No. 18 MW; 34,300 MWh firm annual energy; 39,350 MWh average annual energy.Lands and DamagesHydraulic WorksPowerplant, Switchyard, and.Transmission System*Miscellaneous (Mobilization, Buildings, etc.)Contingencies (20%)Engineering and Design (8%)Supervison and Administration (8%)Subtotal - Contract CostInterest During Construction (8% for 2 years)Total Investment Cost$ 700,00020,074,0004,009,0001,830,0005,323,0002,555,0002,759,00037,250,0002,980,000$40,230,000or $5,029/kWAverage Annual Cost (8% for 50 years)=Total Investment x 0.081743Operation, Maintenance, and ReplacementTotal Average Annual Cost3,288,521201,000$ 3,489,521=10.2¢/kWh (firm)* Allison Creek powerplant to Solomon Gulch transmission line tap; 3 miles.40

TABLE VIII-1BSummary Cost EstimateOctober 1980 Price LevelAllison Creeek (Lake Tap) Alternate No. 28 MW; 32,200 MWh firm annual energy; 37,250 MWh average annual energy.Lands and Damages $ 724,000Hydraulic Works 17,563,000Powerp1ant, Switchyard, and Transmission System* 4,629.000Miscellaneous (Mobilization, Buildings, etc.) 1,590,000Contingencies (20%) 4,901,000Engineering and Design (8%) 2,353,000Supervision and Administration (8%)2,54l,000Subtotal - Contract Cost $34,301,000Interest During Construciton (8% for 2 years) 2,744,080Total Investment Cost $37,045,080Average Annual Cost (8% for 50 years)or $ 4,631/kW=Tota1 Investment x 0.081743 $ 3,028,176Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement 201,000Total Average Annual Cost $ 3,229,176=10.0C/kWh (firm)* Allison Creek powerp1ant to Solomon Gulch transmission line tap;3.5 miles.41

TABLE VIII-2Summary Cost EstimatePressure Reducing Turbines (PRT)Cost from January 1980 CVEA Power Cost Study(Inflated to October 1980)8 MWj 56,000 MWh at 80 percent capacity factorTotal Investment Cost ($9,727,300 + 8% inflation* $10,500,000from January 1980 to October 1980)Average Annual Cost (8% for 30 years)= Total Investment X 0.088827Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Assumed**Total Average Annual Cost932,684432,316$1,365,0002.4¢/kWh (firm)* Water and Power Resources Service Cost Index indicates a 6.5% increasein pump and prime mover costs between January 1980 and July 1980.** Agrees with average of escalating costs used in CVEA Power CostStudy, January 1980.42

TABLE VIII-3Summary Cost EstimateOctober 1978 Prices from March 19}9 Susitna Power Market Study(Inflated 10% t~ October 1980)*Rai1be1t Area (Palmer) to Glennallen Intertie138 kV; 136 miles; 50,000 MWh. at 8 MW and 70 percent load factor.T~ansmission Line ($33,100,000 + 10%)$36,410.000Switchyards and Substatioris ($4,800,000 + 10%)Subtotal·Interest During Construction ($2,900,000 + 10%)Total Investment CostAverage Annual Cost (8%; 50 years)= Total Investment X 0.081743Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement ($131,000 + 10%)Total Average Annual Cost $= 7.6¢/kWhCost of Rai1belt energyTotal Cost5,280,00041,690,0003,190,000$44,880,0003,669,000144,0003,813,0005¢ to 6¢/kWh**12.5¢ to 14¢/kWh* The. Corps of Engineers inflated the powerp1ant and transmission linecosts of Allison Creek, alternative two, about 10% between January 1979and October 1980. Alternative one costs were decreased in that period.** Wholesale energy prices in the Anchorage area were about 1.5¢/kWh in1979. See also Table VIII-3A.43

Table VIII-3AAverage Rate DeterminationAnchorage Portion of Rai1be1t System8% Discount RateLow Case 1 Case 2 Medium Case 1 Case 2 High Case 1Energy System System Energy System System Energy SystemYear Forecast Costs Costs Forecast Costs Costs Forecast Costs(GWH) (GWH)* * *(GWH)* *1985 3,433 84.1 84.1 4,329 187.6 187.6 6,849 317.01986 3,594 84.8 84.8 4,657 193.7 193.7 7~357 368.61987 3,754 141.0 141.0 4,985 233.0 233.0 7,864 375.01988 3,915 136.6 136.·6 5,313 231.9 231.9 8;372 454.81989 4,075 173.4 173.4 5,641 272.0 254.5 8,879 457.71990 4,285 175.0 175.0 6,063 274.2 293.8 9,589 463.31991 4,495 185.7 185.7 6,485 324.2 343.8 10,298 541.01992 4,705 223.3 223.3 6,907 387.5 409.9 11,008 606.21993 4,915 227.2 227.2 7,329 391. 7 414.1 11,717 615.21994 5,125 270.9 252.4 7,751 398.9 421.3 12,427 686.7~1995 5,385 306.6 290.2 8,311 463.7 486.1 13,477 778.6~1996 5,645 367.3 327.9 8,871 549.0 571.5 14,526 852.31997 5,904 369.4 389.8 9,431 615.9 578.7 15,576 927.71998 6,164 376.4 396.7 9,991 627.7 650.2 16,625 1,008.21999 6,424 457.2 397.9 10,551 694.4 657.2 17,675 1,102.62000 6,489 450.2 470.6 10,863 691.8 714.3 18,584 1,169.82001 6,555 452.1 472.5 11,175 698.6 721.1 19,493 1,187.82002 6,620 449.4 469.8 11,487 760.3 723.1 20,402 1,260.12003 6,686 452.3 472.8 11,799 767.9 789.8 21,311 1,339.92004 6,751 454.4 474.8 12,111 776.0 798.5 22,220 1,359.62005 6,817 517.1 477.8 12,423 864.0 807.1 23,129 1,460.32006 6,882 520.2 480.9 12,735 872.8 815.9 24,038 1,541.92007 6,948 523.3 484.0 12,047 881.9 904.4 24,947 1,564.32008 7,013 526.4 487.1 13,359 891.1 913.6 25,856 1.,647.02009 7,079 529.6 490.3 13,671 901.6 932.1 26,765 1,730.32010 7,144 532.9 493.6 13,983 969.9 932.7 27,674 . 1,754.5Average ~/kWh 5.3 5.2 5.7 5.7 5.7*Millions of dollars.Case 1 is without Anchorage to Fairbanks interconnection and without the Susitna hydro project.Case 2 is with the Anchorage to Fairbanks interconnection and without the Susitria hydro project.Case 3 is with both the interconnection and Susitna but is not shown because its costs are lower.The higher cost comparisons are adequate.Source: March 1979 Susitna Power Market Study - 0 percent inflation values.

Diesel costs came from historical data up throt,lgh 1979. TableVIII-4shows expenses for several years. Fuel costs per kWh generated haveaveraged almost 14 percen~ growth per year for the last 5 years; therefore,it is assumed to continue increasing'at something above the inflationrate. The study used 5 percent and 2 percent fuel cost escalation ratesas shown in TableVIII-4A.TableVIII-5 gives a summary comparison of Allison Creek and its alternatives.ThePRT undoubtedly does not include all costs. Nevertheless,it seems to be the most economical. The diesel comparison value isgiven for 1979 and estimated for 1980. Figure VIII-1 graphs theserelationships. .Average RatesTables VIII-6through VIII-9 indicate project payback rates for thedifferent alternatives. For comparison, continuation of diesel generationat 5 and 2 percent fuel escalation is shown in tables VIII-10 andVIII-lOA. The rates, summarized below, are not much different thanthose shown in Table VIII-S.45

Table VIII-4CVEA Diesel Generation Expenses - HistoricAnnual EXEenses ($)EXEense Items 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979Production Operationw/o fuel 117,698 284,556 473,161 653,248 778,609 713,288fuel 344,038 695,218 1,069,900 1,479,667 1,363,869 1,733,009Total Production 461,736 979,774 1,543,061 2,132,915 2,142,478 2,506,297OperationProduction Maintenance 33,732 57,370 83,752 102,218 116,088 114,117Total Production O&M 495,469 1,037,144 1,626,813 2,235,133 2,258,566 2,620,414Production Plantin-Service(2,239,181) (3,392,115) (8,025,424) (7,593,779) (7,712,880) (7,718,781)Annual Investment.po.a-Cost (at 7.5% and20-year Life) 219,646 332,740 787,231 744,890 756,570 757,150Total Annual Costs 715,115 1,369,884 2,414,044 2,980,023 3,015,136 3,377,564Net Generation (kWh) 15,624,140 26,886,515 39,286,690 47,461,390 ·43,835,350 41,498,633Energy Production Expense Rates (¢/kWh)O&M Excluding Fuel 1.0 1.3 1.4 1.6 2.0 2.1Total O&M Including Fuel 3.2 3.9 4.1 4.7 5.2 6.3Annual Investment Cost 1.4 1.2 2.0 1.6 1.7 1.8Total Annual Cost 4.6 5.1 6.1 6.3 6.9 8.1Note:Preliminary information indicates 1980 annual generation cost may be close to 10¢/kWb.

TAHLE VIII-4ACVEA Diesel Generation Expenses - Future ContingenciesFuel Energy Fuel Cost----------Generation Cost O&H Cost OMI + FuelYear Used ollq~ut Efficie~ Historic Escalated For Fuel w/o Fuel Total Costs(Gab;) (kWh) (kWh/G,~l) (S/Gal) ($/G,~l) (S/Gal) (s/kwhf----(S/kWh) (S /kWh) ($/kl~h) ($/kWh)Historic1975 1,954,092 26,886,515 13.76 .356 0.026 0.0131976 2,962,176 39,286,690 13.26 .361 0;027 0.01[,1977 3,377 ,640 47,461,390 14.05 .438 0.031 0.0161978 3,336,027 43,835,350 13.14 .409 0.031 0.0201979 3,140,000 41,[.98,633 13.22 .552 0.04.2 0.02113.49 avpragpForecastFuel Escalation Percentage: 5% 2% 5% 2% * 5% 2%1980 13.49 0.900 0.900 0.067 0.067 0.040 0.107 0.1071981 13.49 0.945 0.918 0.070 0.068 0.040 0.110 0.1081982 13.49 0.992 0.936 0.074 0.069 0.040 0.114 0.10919R3 13.49 1. 0[,2 0.955 0.077 0.071 0.040 0.117 0.1 Ll1984 13.49 1.094 0.974 0.081 0.072 0.040 0.121 0.1121985 13.49 1.149 0.994 0.085 0.074 0.040 0.125 0.1141986 13.49 1.206 1.014 0.089 0.075 0.040 0.129 0.1151987 13.49 1. 266 1.034 0.094 0.077 0.040 0.134 0.1171988 13.49 ).330 1.054 0.099 0.078 0 .. 040 0.139 0.1181989 13.49 1.396 1.076 0.103 0.080 0.01.0 0.143 0.120.p. 1990 13 ,1,9 1.466 1.097 0.109 0.081 0.040 0.149 0.121-...J 1991 13.49 1.539 1.119 0.114 0.083 0.040 0.154 0.1231992 13.49 1. 616 1.141 0.120 0.085 0.040 0.160 0.1251993 13.49 1. 697 1.164 0.126 0.086 0.040 0.166 0.1261994 13.49 1.782 1.188 0.132 0.088 0.040 0.172 0.1281995 13.49 1.871 1. 211 0.139 0.090 0.0[.0 0.179 0.1301996 13.49 1. 965 1. 236 0.146 0.092 0.040 0.186 0.1321997 13.49 2.063 1.260 0.153 0.093 0.040 0.193 0.1331998 13.49 2.166 1.285 0.161 0.095 0~040 0.201 0.1351999 13.49 2.274 1.311 0.169 0.097 0.040 0.209 0.1372000 13.49 2.388 1. 337 0.177 0.099 n.040 0.217 0.139*Note that these costs include annual investment costs of 1.8e/kWh.

Table VIII-5Average Rate ComparisonsAnnual Firm AnnualCost Energy RateAllison Creek 1 $3,489,521 34.3 GWh 10.2¢/kWhAllison Creek 2 3,229,176 32.2 10.0PRT 1,365,000 56 2.4Railbelt Interconnection 3,813,000 50 12.5 to 14Diesels - 1979 3,377,564 41.5 8.1- 1980 estimate 10.7From Chapter IV:1979 Residential Rate for 1,000 kWh/month UseValdez 14.015.71979 Revenue Received per Energy Unit SoldCVEA Residential 13.1CVEA Total 12.4Valdez Total 11.548

Figure VIII-114..

Table VIII-6Average Rate DeterminationValdp.z/Glennallen SystemAllison Creek Hydro Project - Alternative 1V10Need* Project Project Present 1st Year AnnualYear (Table VII-I) Capabilit~ Output Worth Factor Energ~ Eg,uivalent(GWH) (GWH) Firm (GWH)(@ 8%; 50 yrs)(GWH)1980 47.91981 16.41982 30.91983 33.41984 35.11985 38.9 16** 16.961515.381986 42.8 34~3 34.31987 46.9 34.3 34.31988 50.1 34.3 34.31989 54.5 34.3 34.31990 59.0 34.3 34.31991 63.7 34.3 34.31992 68.5 34.3 34.31993 73.6 34.3 34.31994 34.3 34.31995 34.3 34.31996 34.3 34.31997 34.3 34.31998 34.3 34.31999 34.3 34.32000 107.4 34.3 34.32001-2035 34.3 annually 34.3 11.3076***Annual Energy= Capital Recovery Factor X Sum of Yearly Energies= .081742 X 403.2 = 33.0 GWH per YearAnnual CostAverage Rate = Annua1 Energy$3.489.521 = 10.6¢/kWh33.0* After Solomon Gulch output is subtracted from forecast - includes losses.** Assumed output for last half of year.*** Present worth factor for 1986-2035.387.85403.2

VI.....Table VIII-7Average Rate DeterminationValdez/Glennallen SystemAllison Creek Hydro Project - Alternative 2Need* Project ProjectYear (Table VII-I) CaEabilit~ Output(GHW) (GWH) Firm (GHW)1980 47.91981 16.41982 30.91983 33.41984 35.11985 38.9 15** 151986 42.8 32.2. 32.21987 46.9 32.2 32.21988 50.1 32.2 32.21989 54.5 32.2 32.21990 59.0 32.2 32.21991 63.7 32.2 32.21992 68.5 32.2 32.21993 73.6 32.2 32.21994 32.2 32.21995 32.2 32.21996 32.2 32.21997 32.2 32.21998 32.2 32.21999 32.2 32.22000 107.4 32.2 32.22001-2035 32.2 annually 32.2Annual Energy= Capital Recovery Factor X Sum of Yearly Energies= .081742 X 378.5 = 30.9 GWH per YearAnnual Cost $3,229,176 10.4~/kWhAverage Rate = = ~Annual Energy 30.9PresentWorth Factor(@ 8%; 50 yrs).961511.3076***1st Year AnnualEg,uivalent(GWH)Ener~~14.42364.10378.5* After Solomon Gulch output is subtracted from forecast - includes losses.** Assumed output for last half of year.*** Present worth factor for 1986-2035.

Table VIII-8Average Rate DeterminationValdez/G1enna11p.n SystemPressure Reducing TurbineYearNeed*(Table VII-I)(GHW)ProjectCapabili ty(GWH)80% Plant Fac.ProjectOutput(GHW)PresentWorth Factor(@ 8%; 50 yrs)1st Year AnnualEnergy Equivalent(GWH) .VIN1980198119821983198419851986198719881989199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001..;..2012Annual Energy47.916.430.933.435.138.942.846.950.154.559.063.768.573.6107.45656565656565656565656565656565656565633.435.138.942.846.950.154.5565656565656565656565656= Capital Recovery Factor X Sum of Yearly Energies= .081742 X 557.5 = 49.5 GWH per YearAverage Rate =Annual Cost=$1,365,000 = 2.8¢/kWhAnnual Energy 49.5.9259.8573.7938.7350.6806.6302.58356.0514**30.9330.0930.8831.4631.9231.5731.80338.88557.50* After Solomon Gulch output is subtracted from forecast - includes losses.** Present worth factor for 1990-2012.

Table VIII-9Average Rate DeterminationValdez/Glennallen SystemInterconnection with Rllilbelt System(PIIlmer-Glennallen Transmission Line)8% Discount RateYearNeed*(Table VII-l)(GWH)RequiredFromIntertie(GWll)RIIUbelt**EnergyRate(C/kWh)CostofEnergy$1,000CostofIntertie$1,000TotlllCostAnnually$1,0001st YeltrAnnualCost. Equivalent$1,0001st Year AnnulllEnergy Equivalent(MloIH)V1w1980 47.91981 16.41982 30.91983 33.41984 35.11985 38.91986 42.81987 46.91988 50.11989 54.51990 59.01991 63.71992 68.51993 73.61994 78.41995 84.41996 88.71997 93.11998 97.71999 103.52000 107.438.942.846.950.154.559.063.768.573.678.484.488.793.197 .• 7103.5107.44.3 1,672.7 3,8134.2 1,797.6 3,8134.7 2,204.3 3,8134.4 2,204.4 3,8134.5 2,452.5 3,8134.8 2,832.0 3,8135.3 3,376.1 3.8135.9 4,041.5 3,8135.6 4,121.6 3,813·5.4 4,233.6 3,8135.8 4,895.2 3,8136.4 5,676.8 3,8136.1 5,679.1 3.8136.5 6,350.5 3,8136.2 6,417.0 3,8136.6 7,088.4 3,8135.485.75,610.66,017 .36,017.46.265.56.645.07,189.17,854.57,934.68,046.68,708.29,489.89,492.110,163.510,230.010,901.45,079.44,810.21.,776.74,423.04,264.24,187.54,194.84,243.53,969.33,727.13,734.8. 3,768.53,490.2·3,460.33,224.9.3,182.036,01.8.5.36,6

Table VIII-IOAverage Rate DeterminationValdez/Glennallen SystemContinued Diesel Generation(5% Fuel Escalation)8% Discount RateNeed* Existing Required PresentYear (Table VII-I) CaEabilitl': OutEut Worth Factor(GWlI) (GWH) (GWH) (at 8%)1st Y .. ar AnnualEnersl': Eguivalent(GWH)Yearly Cost ofOt.M and Fuel with 1st Year'Annual5% Fuel Escalation Cost Eguivalent(SI,OOO) (w/fuel escalationof 5%/yr) (SI,OOO)V1~1980 47.9 116 47.9 0.92591981 16.4 112 16.4 0.85731982 30.9 112 30.9 0.79381983 33.4 108 33.4 0.73501984 35,1 108 35.1 0.68061985 38.9 108 38.9 0.63021986 42.8 100 42.8 0.58351987 46.9 100 46.9 0.54031988 50.1 88 50.1 0.50021989 54.5 88 54.5 0.46321990 59.0 88 59.0 0.42891991 63.7 88 63.7 0.39711992 68.5 88 68.5 0.36771993 73.6 69 73.6 0.34051994 78.4 69 78.4 0.31521995 84.4 62 84.4 0.29191996 88.7 62 88.7 0.27031997 93.1 11 93.1 0.25021998 97.7 0 97.7 0.23171999 103.5 0 103.5 0.21452000 107.4 0 107.4 0.198744.3514.0624.5324.5523.8924.5124.9725.3425.0625.2425.3025.3025.1925.0624.7124.6423.9723.3022.6422.2121. 34520.165,112 4.733.1I,R05 1,547.43,509 2,785.43,916 2,878.14,250 2,892.74,868 3,067.85,539 3,231. 76,279 3,392.26,942 3,472. 'J7,821 3,622.58,772 3,762.09,817 3,898.310,947 4,025.212,203 4,154.713,492 4,253.315,082 4,402.316,466 4,450.117,960 4,494.619,595 4,540.321,589 4,631.923,308 4,630.278,866.8Annual Energy ~ Capital Recovery Factor X Sum of Yearly Energiesz .099832 X 520.2 ~ 51.9 GWh per YearAnnual Cost ~ Capital Recovery Factor X Sum of Yearly Costs ~ S7,873,500/yearAverage Rate = Annual Cost ~ $7,873,500/l':ear =15.~/kWhAnnual Energy 51.9 GWh/year* After Solomon Gulch output is subtracted from forecast - includes losses.** Output from 1993 thru 2000 includes diesel additions to thermal generators existing in 1980.

Table VIII-lOAAverage Rate DeterminationValdez/Glennallen SystemContinued Diesel Generation(2% Fuel Escalation)8% Discount RateNeed* Existing Required PresentYear (Table VII-I) Ca~abilit~ Output Worth Factor(GWH) (GW\l) (GWH) (at 8%)1st Year AnnualEguivalent(GWH)Energ~Yearly Cost ofO&H -and Fuel with 1st Year Annual2% Fuel Escalation Cost Egu.ivalent($1,000) (w/f"el escalationof 2%/yr) ($1,000)\J1\J11980 47.9 116 47.9 0.92591981 16.4 112 16.4 . 0.85731982 30.9 112 30.9 0.79381983 33.4 108 33.4 0.73501984 35.1 108 35.1 0.68061985 38.9 108 38.9 0.-63021986 42.8 100 42.8 0.58351987 46.9 100 46.9 0.54031988 50.1 88 50.1 0.50021989 54.5 88 54.5 0.46321990 59.0 88 59.0 0.42891991 63.7 88 63.7 0.39711992 68.5 88 68.5 0.36771993 73.6 69 73.6 ** 0.34051994 78.4 69 78.4 0.31521995 84.4 62 84.4 0.29191996 88.7 62 88.7 0.27031997 93.1 11 93.1 0.25021998 97.7 0 97.7 0.23171999 103.5 0 103.5 0.21452000 107.4 0 107.4 0.198744.3514.0624.5324.5523.8924.5124.9725.3425.0625.2425.3025.3025.1925.0624.7124.6423.9723.3022.6422.2121.34520.165,112 4,733.1 -1,772 1,519.23,381 2,683.83,701 2,720.13,939 2,680.74,421 2;786.24,928 2,875.35,470 2,955.45,920 2,961.66~525 3,022.57,158 3,070.17,832 3,110.28,536 ,3138.69,296 3,164.910.038 3,164.310,954 3,197.511,672 3,154 • .512,421 3,108.413,218 3,062.714,199 3,046.514,943 2,968.663,124.1Annual Energy ~ Capital Recovery Factor X Sum of Yearly Energiesa .099832 X 520.2 : 51.9 GWh per YearAnnual Cost = Capital Recovery Factor X Sum of Yearly Costs = $6,30l,820/yearAverage Rate ~ Annual Cost = $6,301,820/year =12.l/kWhAnnual Energy 51.9 GWh/year* After Solomon Gulch output is subtracted from forecast - includes losses.** Output from 1993 thru 2000 includes diesel additions to thermal generators existing in 1980.

----~------T'lble VIII-J 1Average Ra te Determination - Allison Creek Case (A 1 tern;)te 2)Va1dez/G1ennallpn SystemVI0'\EnergyCostEnergy Su!:,!:,ly for Need PreSE'nt Annual Cost of GE'Tlera t iOTl ·PrE'sen t Cost -Year Need'~ PRT Allison Cr. Diesels Worth 1980 PRT Allison Cr. DieselS Total Worth 1980 Energy(GWH) (GWll) (GWH) (GWH) (GWH) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) (IT, 000) ($1,000) (C/kWh)**1980 47.9 47.9 44.35 5,112 5, J 12 4,733.3 10.671981 16.1. 16.4 14.06 1,805 1,805 1,547.5 11. 011982 30.9 30.9 24.53 3,509 3,509 2,785.6 11. 361983 33.4 33.4 24.55 1,365 ],365 1,003.3 4.091984 35.1 35.1 23.89 1,365 1,365 929.0 3.891985 3R.9 38.9 24.51 1,365 1,365 860.2 3.51198f> 42.8 42.8 24.97 1,365 1,365 796.5 3.191987 46.9 46.9 25.34 1,365 1,365 737.5 2.911988 50.1 50.1 25.06 1,365 1,365 682.R 2.721989 54.5 54.5 25.24 1,365 1,365 632.3 2.50] 990 59.0 56.0 3.0 25.30 1,365 3,22':1 4,594 1,970.3 7.791991 63.7 56.0 7.7 25.30 1,365 3,229 4,594 1,824.3 7.211992 68.5 56.0 12.5 25.19 1,365 3,229 4,594 1,689.2 6.711993 73.6 56.0 17.6 25.06 1,365 3,229 4,594 1,564.1 6.241994 78.4 56.0 22.4 24.71 1,365 3,229 4,591, 1,448.2 5.861995 84.4 56.0 28.4 24.64 1,365 3,229 4,594 1,340.9 5.441996 88.7 56.0 32.7 23.97 1,365 3,229 4,594 1,241.6 5.181997 93.1 56.0 34.3 2.8 23.30 1,365 3,229 540 5,134 1,284.8 5.511998 97.7 56.0 34.3 7.4 22.64 1,365 3,229 1,481, 6,078 1,408.3 6.221999 103.5 16 .0 31, • 3 13.2 22.21 1,365 3,229 2,759 7,353 1,577 .6 7.102000 107.4 56.0 34.3 17.1 21.34 1,365 3,229 3,711 8,305 1,649.8 7.73Sum 520.16 31,707.1Sum X Capital Recovery Factor 51.93 3,165,1.Sum X CRF Cost $3,165,400Average Rate = Sum X CRF Energy 51,930,000= 6.l/kWh* Energy need = forecast ~ Solomon Gulch firm energy output.1,* From table VIII 4A. 2nd to last column X diesel supply in 5th column of this table (VIII-ll.

T

CHAPTER IXBIBLIOGRAPHY1. Power Cost Study, 1980-1993; Copper Valley Electric AssociationInc.; January 1980 •2. "Total Housing Units Authorized by Building Permits and PublicContractors in Selected Alaska Urban Areas"; Department of Housing andUrban Development; 1979.3. Power Requirements Study; Copper Valley Electric Association, Inc.;March 1979.4. Phase I Technical Memorandum, Electric Power Needs Assessment;Electric Power Work Plan Committee; draft report, March 1979.5. Upper Susitna River Project Power Market Analysis; Department ofEnergy, Alaska Power Administration; March 1979.6. Southcentral Alaska's Economy and Population, 1965-2025: A Base Studyand Projections; a report of the Economics Task Force; SouthcentralAlaska Water Resources Study (Level B); Alaska Water Study Committee;February 1979.7. Alaska Labor Force Estimates by Area: revised 1974-1977; AlaskaDepartment of Labor, Research and Analysis Division; November 1978.8. Transcript of Proceedings - Report on Valdez Hydropower PublicMeeting; Corpos of Engineers; 24 July 1978.9. The Proposed Glennallen-Valdez Transmission Line - an Analysis ofAvailable Alternatives; Copper Valley Electric Association, Inc. byRobert W. Retherford Associates; May 1978.10. Hydroelectric Power and Related Purposes for Valdez, Alaska -Southcentral Railbelt Area, Alaska, Stage II Checkpoint Report; AlaskaDistrict, Corps of Engineers; April 1978.11. Solomon Gulch Project No. 2742 - Alaska: Final Environmental ImpactStatement; Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of ElectricPower Regulation; March 1978.12. Operation and Maintenance Plans and Costs - Mahoney Lake, Swan Lake,Lake Grace; Alaska Power Administration; February 1978.13. Alaska Regional Enf'.rgy Resources, Planning Project - Phase I:Findings and Analysis; volume 1; Alaska Division of Energy and PowerDevelopment, Department of Commerce and Economic Development; October1977 •59

14. Quarterly Statistics; Alaska Department of Labor, Research andAnalysis Division; 1970-1977.15. Environmental Report for Solomon Gulch Hydroelectric Project -Exhibit W FPC Project No. 2742; Copper Valley Electric Association,Inc.; by R.obert W. Retherford Associates; 1976. .16. Current Population Estimates by Census Division; Alaska Departmentof Labor, Research and Analysis Division; 1970-1976.17. Definite Project Report -: Solomon Gulch Hydroelectric Project -Exhibit·T FPC Project No. 2742; Copper Valley Electric Association, Inc.by Robert W. Retherford Associates; March 1975.18. IS-Year Power Cost Study- Hydro/Diesel; Copper Valley ElectricAssociation, Inc.; by Robert W. Retherford Associates; October 1974.19. A Proposed Electric Generation and Transmission Intertie System forInterior and SouthcentralAlaska - Phase I; Trans-Alaska Electric Generationand Transmission Cooperative, Inc. by CH2M.Hill; April 1972.60

: I,B'III Ii ::1: iii,APPENDIX JPUBLIC VIEWS AND RESPONSES

Recipients of Valdez Draft Interim Feasibility Report andEnvironmental Impact StatementFederalSenator Ted StevensFormer Senator Mike GravelConqressman Don YounqDir~ctor, Office of ~nvironmental Project Review, U.S. Dept. of InteriorDeputy Assistant, Secretary for the Environment, U.S. nept. of CommerceEnvironmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.Environmental Protection Agency, Region XDirector, Alaska Operations Office, Environmental Protection AgencyDirector, Environmental Impact Division, Office of Environmental ProgramsAdvance Council on Historic PreservationHeritage Conservation and Recreation Service, Washington, D.C.Area Director, Heritage Conservation and Recreation ServicePacific Northwest Region, Heritage Conservation and Recreation ServiceU.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration.l\rea Director, Bureau of Indian AffairsRegional Director, National Marine Fisheries ServiceRegional Forester, U.S. Forest ServiceU.S. Department of Energy, Alaska Power AdministrationNational Park ServiceNational Oceanographic Data Center, Environmental Data Service, NOAAU.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Re~ion XState Director, Bureau of Land ~anagementDirector, Bureau of Land Management, District OfficeManager, Alaska Outer Continental Shelf, Bureau of Land ManagementArea Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceField Supervisor - WAES, U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceField Supervisor - NAES, U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceU.S.h.S. Water Resources DivisionSpecial Assistant to the Secretary, U.S. Department of Interior, AnchorageStudy Director, Water Resources Studies, U.S. Department of the InteriorPipeline Coordination OfficeAlaska Resources Library, Federal BuildingStateGovernor Jay HammondExecutive Director, Alaska Power AuthorityDept. of Commerce and Economic Development, Div. of Energy and Power DevelopmentDepartment of Natural Resources, Southcentral DistrictDirector, Division of Land and Water ManagementCommissioner, Department of Natural ResourcesDirector, Division of Community PlanningCommissioner, Department of Community and Regional AffairsCommissioner, Department of Fish and GameDepartment of Fish and Game, AnchorageDepartment of Natural Resources, Division of ParksDepartment of Environmental Conservation, S.C. Regional OfficeAlaska Denartment of Environmental ConservationState-Federal Coordinator, A-95 Clearinghouse

Recipents of Valdez Draft Interim feasibility Report andEnvironmental Impact Statement (cont'd)OrganizationsDr. Paul Friesema, Butler UniversityPaul Johnson, Knik Group/Sierra ClubRoland Shunks, Denali Group/Sierra ClubAlaska Native FoundationExecutive Secretary, Alaska Conservation SocietyAnchorage Audubon SocietyPresident, iHaska Geological SocietyAlaska Society of Professional EngineersLin Sonnenburg, Sierra Club-RCCAHTNA Inc.Institute of Marine Sciences, University of Alaska, FairbanksLibrary, University of Alaska, FairbanksLibrary, University of Alaska, AnchorageZ.J. Loussac Library, AnchorageDirector, Institute of Water Resources, University of Alaska, FairbanksArctic Information and Data CenterState Representative, Friends of the EarthExecutive Director, Fairbanks Environmental CenterTrustees for AlaskaAmerican Society of Civil EngineersAlaska Center for the EnvironmentAtomic Industrial ForumIndiana University- Political Science-Public and Environmental AffairsMarine Biological ConsultantsBlack and Veatch, Consulting EngineersMr. Jay Greenwalt, Tenneco BuildingMr. Sherman FeherTechnical In~rmationLibrarian, Energy Impact AssociatesFluor Ocean ServicesFred Schmidt, Colorado State UniversityLarry !~i 1 ki nson, Foundation Sci encesLocalMayor of ValdezValdez City ManagerPostmaster, GlennallenPostmaster, CordovaPostmaster, ValdezPostmaster, Copper CenterMr. and Mrs. Robert B. CliftonHo 11 i s Henri chsCenter, Stone and Webster Engineering Corp.

Recipients of Valdez Draft Interim Feasibility Studyand Environmental Impact Statement (cont'd)Charles F. LaPageMr. Herbert W. LehfeldtMr. Perry LovettMr. Chalres E. MaxwellMr. Frank H. TatroThe Valdez Vanguard, ValdezThe Valdez Vanguard, CordovaThe Cordova TimesStation KCAM, GlennallenMr. Max Faucher, Executive Director, Copper Valley Native AssociationCopper Valley Electric AssociationGeneral Manager, Copper Valley Electric Association, GlennallenValdez Chamber of CommerceCopper Valley Telephone Co-opChief, Volunteer Fire Deaprtment

u. s. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYREGION X1200 SIXTH AVENUESEATTlE. WASHINGTON 981013 DEC ~Colonel Lee R. NunGDistrict EnginEerAlaska District, Cerps of EngineersP. O. Box 7002Anchorage, Alaska Q9510RE: Electrical Po~er for Valdez, Draft Interim Feasibility Reportand Environmer.tal Impact StatementDear Colonel Nunn:The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has ccmpletea its reviewof the Draft Interim Feasibility Report and Environmental ImpactStatement on Electri:al Power for Valdez and the Copper River Basin.1. We believe Jhat the two tailrace system below the powerhouse and theplannea use: of the pressure reducing turbine are desirable aspectsof the plan.- We also appreciate the discussion of alternative powersources and :locaticr,s for nydropower. However, we believe that the[IS lacks adequate information regard>-,g the impacts expected fromlake arawaO\'m, durr'ring of tunnel tailings, ana -..ater temperaturemodification by the tailrace section. We also believe that publicinvolvement and en=rgy conservation shiluld be expanded ana discussedin greater detail, ~nd that transmiss'on corridors and mitigationmeasures should be ;'inal izea. Our specific cCI1'rr:ents 01' these issuesare enclosed as an attachment.We have rateo this oIS as ER-2 due to this lack af information andthe project's potential impact on water quality. This ER-2 ratingwill be Dub"tished i~ the FedEral ReqistEr in accoroance 'Hith ourresDcnsiblity to inform the public of our views as required inSection 309 of the Clean Air Act.If you have any questions regarding our C()OOlents or would 1 ike todiscuss them, please feel free to contact either me or Scott Berg ofmy staff at (206) 4~2-1285 or (FTS) 399-1285.Sincerely yours,~Lkrl;Gu~r--Elizabeth Coroyn, C~iefEnvironmental Evaluation Branch1. Report findings were based on available data including hydrologiC computeranalyses, recording thermographs and a field check of the Allison Laketemperature profile. Information on fisheries resources was obtained fromthe Alaska Department of Fish and Game. In all cases where detailedinformation was lacking, a worse case basis was assumed. The section onlake drawdown, disposal of tunnel tailings, and transmission corridorshave been revised for clarification. Data collecton measures are now inprogress and several more are proposed for the near future. During theAdvanced Engineering and Design (AE&D) phase, intensive effort by theAlaska District and the U.S. Fish and ~ildlife Service would beaccomplished to obtain detailed information necessary prior to projectimplementation. During the AE&D phase, an environmental document will beprepared as appropriate. The Alaska District is looking forward tocontinued close coordination with your agency as "'ell as other interestedresource agencies in assuring environmentally sound development whichwould preserve the fisn and wildlife resources and also providehydroelectrical generation to the project area.Attachment

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT2. Involvement in the project by Federal, State, and local governmentsappears to be extensive. However, we find no mention nor indicationthat the public has been involved in the scoping process. Webelieve that agressive public involvement is essential and should beconducte

25. ~e str?ngly recOTmend that an alternate disposal site and methods be1nvest1gated. It appears from the photo on page ii that a benchne~r the portal could serve as a disposal area. Re~egetation ofth1S area would be much easier than the cliff. In addition, if ahaul roa? could safely be constructed down the most gentle slope,the ta111ngs could represent a source of fill or ballast.WATER TEMPERATUR~MITIGATION6. We note that the rationale behind the two tailrace system is todi~ert win~er powerhouse releases directly to Port Valdez, therebynot affect1ng water temperature 1n All1son Creek d~ring salmon egg1ncubat1on. ,However, the most critical months, because of spawningsalmon, are uuly and August. The lake tap would sUbstantially lowerwater Lemperature~ at the time of spawning, thereby delayingdevelopment. It 1S not clear what flow regimes will occur in thestream channel be~ow the powerhouse during these critical months.What proport10n or the total flow would originate from to thepowerhouse ve~sus the natural channel and what temceratures could beexpected? What provisions will be made fort low water years?t;PRESSURE REDUCING TuRBINE i!7.8.The feasibili~y stud~ for the pressure reducing turbine states thatone.of 1ts pr1mary d1sadvantages is that "it would only functionunt1l the 011 runs out." It would appear that once the oil Goes runout, the refinery and most otner economic activity dependent JPonthe oil resource will .also cease. The PRT would then supply energyf?r the 11fe ?f the p1pellne and woula efficiently cease just at thet1me wnen 1t 1S no longer needed. An explanation of why this isseen as a disadvantage should be included ~n future reports.WATER (JUALITYIA lake level fluctuation of 100 feet could ~ause sUDstantial erosionof eX1st1ng Deltas and the lake shore. Tht effects of sedimentreaistribution can be deleterious because of the excessiveresusoension of sediments into the water column. This increasedturbidity could result in adverse fish impacts downstream from thepowerhouse: ~hes;, impacts are briefly mentioned but not adequatelyd1scussed 1n .he C1S sect10n. Future reoorts should discuss :hePOSS1~111ty of clogging the intake with sediment, expected levels ofd1ssolve~ oxyqe~: the cegre~ of fisheries aegradctior: resulting from1ncreas~~ rurD1D1ty anc sed1mentat10n, and possible mitigationr::c-~sti!'es •5. The text has been revised for clarification. Refer to section D.2.a. ofthe FEIS. Alternative disposal sites have been investigated andeliminated mainly due to engineering constraints. Although a bench may beinterpreted from the photo in the Feasibility Report, that area is steepand would require extensive diking to contain the tailings. It is theopinion of the biologists who have visited the site that the proposeddisposal area is the least environmentally damaging alternative.6.7.8.As stated in the DEIS and FEIS, 40C temperature was employed as a worsecase basis because of the lack of specific data at Allison Lake for thistime period. Temperature data from similar Alaskan lakes indicate thattemperatures at the depth of the lake tap would probably be 2 to 30Chigher. Tables 2 Band 3 of Appendix E are calculated flows of bothpowerhouse discharge and the contribution of the watershed below thelake. Estimated percentages of the regulated water from the tailrace are33 percent for July and 40 percent for August of the total Allison Creekflow. When actual intake temperatures are obtained for Allison Lakeduring July and August, provisions to refine the mitigative measures wouldbe employed."Although the stUdy area may enter an economic slump when the ofl isdepleted, the extent and long tenn effects are impossible to assess. Itis probable that if the pipeline did cease to operate for lack of oil, therefinery would remain open and receive oil from elsewhere. Even if loadsdropped significantly. additional energy would be needed above SolomonGulch's output. This would have to come from other sources, most likelydiesel or possibly a railbelt intertie. In either case the cost would behigher than the PRT.Text has been revised fer clarification. The shoreline of Allison Lake iscomposed mainly of large boulders with little fine grain materjal presentexcept for the delta at the head of the lake. Although the erOSionpossibilities of this delta are unknown, the Alaska District believes itwould react similarly to the delta at Long Lake near Juneau. Long Lake isa glacial fed lake of similar configuration to Allison Lake. The lake wastapped for hydroelectric power generation several years ago and the AlaskaDepartment of Fish and G~€ has established a hatchery in its tailrace.Water quality parameters are monitored regularly and no degradation hasoccurred. The shoreline has not experienced erosion and the deltaunderwent a change in slope and stablized after the first year.

39.10.TAAN5~!SSJO~CORRIDORine ·1 Dcati on of tne transrrlss lon I ine for the PRT has not beenoetermi'lf'Cl at this time. We believe that the locatio~. ~nould be .finalized as ,oon as possible. Visual sersitivity ShOUlD bea maJorconsideration, Wltr tnE clearing of vegetatiofl kept to ~ mlnlmum.hgf' US-l1 states that 3.S miles ~f dense conifer ~orest would bec.ieared for tne transmission line Trom the Alllson lreeK prOJect.It dPoears tr-,at the transmission 1 ire could parallel the roadthP~eby eliminatinG the n

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF CO!'!MERCEThe Assistant SecrHary fDr Policy:. =1-"- -:;l:'~" [ :. ::- - --Colonel Lee R. ~~unnAlaska District. Corps of EugineersDepartment of the ArmyPost Office Box 7002Anchorage, Alaska 99510[lear Colonel :iunn:This is in reference'·to your draft environmental impact statecent entitled,"Electrical Power for Valdez and the Copper River Basin." The enclosedCOOlI!lents from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration areforwarded for your consideration.Thank you for giving uS an opportunity to provide these co~ents, which wehope will be of assistance to you. ~e would appreciate receiving five (5)copies of the final statement.Sincerely,Robert T. MikiDeputy Assistant Secretary forRegulatory Policy (Acting)Enclosures: ~emo from Hr. Robert \J. HcVeyNational Marine FisheriesService - NOAAMr. Robert B. RollinsNational Ocean Survey -NOAA

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCENational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationNational Marine Fisheries Se1"'JiceP.o. Box 1668Junea~, Alaska· 99802OateNovember :;, 1980Reply to A 1::n. at:ToFromSubiect:PP/EC - ;,et::~ ff b-,~y/AKR i./Ir;w. McVeyReview of :casibi1ity Report and DEIS No. 8010.0S - Electrical Power forValdez anc the Copper River Basin Southcentral Railbelt Area, AKWe have re7iewed the sUbject document and offer the following comments:Feasibil ~:->ReportThe inter~ feasibility report appears to have adequately investigatedthe vario~ alternatives for energy production in the Valdez area and tohave reac~2d a logical conclusion. We have no additional comments tooffer on :iis·report.Draft Env::onmental Impact StatementGENERAL C~ENTS1. a)2. b)It is apF~rent from reviewing the DEIS that additional data are neededon Allis,,:: Creek before sound decisions can be made.Allio0n Creek does not have a gauging station so flows have beencalc~~ated for the drainage basin using meteorological data. Itmay :e beneficial to p.stablish a gauging station on the stream toobtc~"1 some recorded streamflow data. Even if data would becol:'~cte.d for only a few years prior to project construction, theywoc:: provide a basis of comparison for determining the accuracy ofthe ::eteorological data for the area.Add::ional temperature data should be collected prior to project,:ono:ruction. Table lA in Appendix E provides temperature data forAllioon Creek from June 26, 1979 through February 27, 1980. Temperaturedat~ from Allison Lake have been collected on only one occasion.Th"~,, data provide an inadequate base from which to draw soundcon::"J.sions.SPECIFIC :OMMENTS1. A recording stream gage was established in Allison Creek in March 1981 andwill continue to operate through project construction.2. The temperature data from Allison Creek has been updated (refer toAppendix E, Table 1). Two additional thermographs are proposed forAllison Creek, one to record intergravel temperatures within the stream,and the second to be placed in the intertidal area to record intergraveltemperatures and the changes due to tidal influence. The theromographswill be installed prior to the 1981 spawning season. During the AdvancedEngineering and Design (AE&D) phase, numerous temperature profiles ofAllison Lake would be accomplished during all seasons.Section :, Subsection Ib, page EIS-9, paragraph 3It is st~:ed that ..... the natural flushing process will be eliminatedand poss::le sedimentation of spawning gravels may occur. During highwater yE~:3, it may be necessary to spill quantities of water, this may

3. have adequate flows for flushing of the gravels." Does the Corps haveany additional mitigating measures, such as mecha~ical flushing, plannedfor cleaning spaw~ing gravels if necessary? This topic needs to bediscussed in greater detail in the FEIS.Section E, page EIS-154. This section discusses, among other things, the concept of a two tailracesystem to regulate the quantity of water being released into AllisonCreek. It appears that water from the powerhouse .... ill be available tosupplement the flow in Allison Creek as needed. It is imperative thatthis water does not differ substantially from the normal flow in AllisonCreek with respect to temperature, dissolved oxygen, etc. This projectshould be designed to ensure that adequate natural stream flows areavailable if needed (Le. if the powerhouse is shut down or if thequality of water from the powerhouse is inadequate with respect totemperature, etc.).5. This section also contains a brief discussion of the potential forcumulative impacts resulting from construction of the ALPETCO facilityand dock, the city dock expansion, the Solomon Gulch hydroelectricproject and some proposed development on Mineral Creek. This sectionshould be expanded to include a description of each of these projectsand some discussion of the potential impacts.3. Allison Creek is relatively free of small grain materials and fines. Theperiodic spilling of Allison Lake and the expected SUrm1er flo .. s '.;auldprobably be sufficient; therefore, no sedimentation of the stream isanticipated. However, if additional studies show that sedimentation ofspawning gravels does occur, the problem would be rectified by methodsagreeded upon during the AE&D phase prior to construction.4. If a moderate to large percentage of the flow is discharged from thepowerhouse it is possible that a temperature change could occur. Most ofthe spawning occurs intertidally and the effects of the warmer dischargeon incubation is unknown. The planned installation of an intergravel,intertidal thermograph and expanding knowledge of the winter flow regimewill aid in refining mitigative measures. Adequate flows would bemaintained by scheduling turbine maintenance during times when sufficientnatural stream flow for egg incubation is available.5. The Alaska District agrees the cumulative impacts in the Valdez area arean important aspect to further development. Environmental ImpactStatements or Environmental Assessments have been published for theseprojects and are reasonably available. In accordance with NEPAguidelines, this information has been incorporated by reference.CLEARANCE:;!,/~TIJREF/HP: Ken ROberts~\ rt, U---z"¥----=tUm DATE:Ii-,: .

fS>\\....- ,';',~1\\:~~, ~~UNITED STATES DEPARTMOJT OF COMMERCENational Oceanic and A.tmospheric Administratiol:"jA::C'.:"L I~

Cnitc:d Srat6 [)c'~,artmcnt of the: I:-::-;::riorF () Bo\ 120\f,c-i't ·r,,!.,!y \1.1\l ... l..~r5HIER-SCo/ 1:51 :'t~e!:lber Lt, 1.980COlO:l~: Lee n. N~...rln~i5t!"ic~ EngineerAlask~ District, Corps of E~~~neersP. G. Box 7002Ancnorage, Alaska 99510~earCelonel Nunn"In response to yoOJr Sep"tembe!" 8, 1980, rectuest 'We flE.,"e reviewed the DraftIn"te:-':'!: Feasibility ::tepor:. ar::' Environmental :z::.pac-: ::..a:~ement (r:EIS) forElec~rical Power for Valdez and the Copper River Eao~~. We offer the followingC-Ol!lDenT..S for yOlU' consideration.Gener~lCo~ents1. From our perspective, projec: information anG the dis~ussion of alterna~ivesin the repor"!. and DEIS appea:- ~o be gene:-ally aae,:;.u.c.:e. Hoyever, "e believeboth aocumen"!.s are lacking i~ specific info~tio~ related to fisheriesresources and vater quality, flows, and temperatures. We understand thatadditional studi~s are bein, Flanned as per reconoer.:ations contained inthe Fish and Wildlife Service's May 21, 1980 Fish a~d Wildlife CoordinationAct Report. Upon:. completion of these studies, a SUFplemental CoordinationAct Report ,till be prepared ty the Fish a"d Wildlfie Service.1. Refer to response No.1, EPA CommentsSpecific Comments2.FeaSibility Report:Page 32, lmnact Assessment:oil spill be addressed.We suggest that the possibility of an3. Page 36, Impact Assess~ent: We believe an assesssment of the impactscf Alternative 1 should also be discussed in this section.2. The installation of the Pressure Reducing Turbine~robability.of an oil spill because the necessaryl~stalled wlth the construction of the pipeline.plpeline would be required.3. Text revised. Refer to page 36 of the Feasibility Report.should not increase thepiping and valves wereNo alteration of theEnvironmental Impact S~atement:4. Page 9, Hydrology and ~ater Quality: We sugges~ that the EIS discussthe design of features ~d methods for providi~g vater release shouldit be necessary to spill excess vater during bigh vater years.4. Text revised. Refer to section D.l.b of the FEIS.

5. Pag" lU, Hydr~log\'

AdvisoryCouncil OnHistoricPreservation1 ~Z2 K Street. NWW.shlO~lon . .oC 20005Lake Ptaza South. SUIte 6:44 Umon Boule~ardLHkPwood. CO 80228Occober 24, 1900,.ri~:!'"ict. E:-:.~inee!"Cc!"'ps of E:lgineers, _lJ.as~c.. J:'strictDE';B.!'""Cme:i..'t 0: the ArmyP. C. Box 7002~chorage, ~~aska 99510Llee.r CoJ.ODel Nun~:r.l'h5.:J.}: you fo!" yOUl~ requf'st of ~,~;)"Le:::"~er 30, :980, for c~:;:nments ont ne Draft Irl"teriI!. Feasi bil:' ty Repor~_ and: t.he Envircnrne~talsts.7.~ment for Soutbcent:-al Railbel:. Area, Alaska, fo!" electrical"Do-,e!" for "valdez and the COPDer Rive!" E2.sin. p...J.rsli.ant to Sectioni02(2)(C) of the National E~:"i,·on:;tenccal Folicy Act of 1969 andthe CQuncil' s regulc.tj o~~s, "P:LD:'e27. _G.:: of Historic and- CU: tural?ro:;.ercies 1t (36 CFR Part 300), we '":.2..1/2 de~,er~ined that yOll!"e:-.v.: ..:'0!1ID.P!1tal sta--:'e!Ilent fl.;Jpear-s adJ?q'L.a'"e cancer-nine; our area ofiL~erest, find ~w.:: have no ~urther co:r..m.en'ts at this tiDe,1. Comment Noted •Sincer,> ly,~~~ .1/C{e!(~fChief, Western Divisiono~ Frojec'"V Review

JA r s. HAIIIIOIilD. 60YfRIIOIINovember 4, 1980Col. Lee R. NunnDistrict Engineer'Alaska uistrict, Corps of EngineersPost Office Box 7002Anchorage, Alaska 99510Dear Colonel Nunn:Re:Electrical Power for Valdez - Draft Feasibility Report andEnvironmental Impact StatementThe Alaska Department of Fish and Game has reviewed the referenced draftfeasibility report and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).In general. we feel the report and EIS provide an adequate descriptionof the proposed project, potential environme'1tal impacts and mitigationmeasures.1. Our biggest concern re1~tes to the potential impacts on the anadromousfisheries resources in Allison Creek. While we have no objection to theproject as proposed this Department will require measures to mitigateconflicts. We support the concept of the U.S, Fish and Wildlife Servicerecommendations; however, we feel the additional studies described inboth the Coordination Act Report (page 17) and the EIS (page EIS-16)should be conducted before any specific recommendation on mitigation ismade. The Department of Fish and Game desires to participate in both'the scoping and actual conduct of the studies which should be accom- .plished during the advanced engineering and design phase of the project.~, The ~laska District will be gathering additional physical and bio10 icallnformatl0n,durlng the,Advanced Engineering and Design (AE&D) phase /streamgage on All1son Creek 1S now operational and two intergrave1 recordint~erm?grap~s are p~oposed for installation in the near future. The A~askaD1strlct w11l cont~n~e close coordination of all future studies with yourdep~rtment and SOllC1t your recommendations to assure the project isenv1ronmenta11yacceptab1e.In addition to these general comments on the report and EIS we have somespecific input which will be transmitted directly to your staff.

Corps Of Engineers - 2 -11/4/80Thank you for the opportunity to comment.Sincerely,Ronald O. Skoog, Commissioner~~ '\27 ~A"R7 /t.,1BY: Bruce M. BarrettProject Keview Coorci,latorHabitat Protection SectionTelephone 3440541cc:R. Logan, ADFGM. Whitehead, OPOP(State 1.0. # 80101501ES)

" I"\:'~ VI" ,,In,I,I, vr i,~ m,r, 'II, ,I,'r- I., n I'" ~'riJ rv7 ~LJ" r II := - ,,} \ !, t~ I, \,' I,'r\J '\\' ; ..... i I (, 'J~' I r' U v r I, , i ! '\ I I \ I .;~ L: Lf'J U,~ v U L:lJ b Lr'J ,_/ L. \j u\..lOFFICE OF THE GO~'ERNORDIVISION OF POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND PlANNINGDecember 29, 1980JAY 5 HAMMO'-ID, Go •• rnorPOUCH AOJUNEAU. ALASKA 99817PHONE,' 465~573Mr. Loran BaxterU.S. Department of the ArmyAlaska Corps of EngineersP.O. Box 7002Anchorage, Alaska 99510SUBJECT:Dear Mr. Baxter:COE Electrical Power for Valdez Renewable Energ;- Project DEISState lOt FD214-80101501ESThe Alaska State Clearinghouse (SCH) has completed re~iew of the referencedDElS.The City of Valdez commented:L"The City of Valdez has reviewed the COE DIFR/EIS andfound it consistent with community objectives. The impactof the recon~ended action upon Valdez will be positivein supplying energy to meet forecast power demands':,"The growth that is projected for Valuez in this decadewill surpass the capacity of the current power generationsys tem. The proposed acti on of the CDE wi 11 benefit Va 1 dezand the Copper River Basin through ad~anced planning forforecast energy demands and, ultimately, supplying powerin advance of critical shortages."Considering the amount of power generated by the proposedaction, relatively little environmental impact will result.We feel that the COE has adequately addressed the' environmentalimpacts of their EIS section."The following comment was received from the Department of NaturalResources (DNR):"1. Of the various alternatives presented to help meet theneeds -of the electrical power as projected in the report.a combination of the hydro-electrical facility atAllison Lake and the Pressure Reducing Turbine to beinstalled in the Trans-Alaska Pipeline along withincreased conservation programs appear to be themost reasonable methods if it can be demonstratedthat the need for additional electrical powersources ex is ts.1. COiTr.ient Noted1. Based upon current information th t' t 'are the best available' Ho • \ e~ lma ,ed future energy requlrementsfuture demand COuld be'eith~~v~~'h~r ~s ~ulte Possib~e that the actualhappens versus What is prOjected~ rower dependlng on what actually

-2-'2. Most of the State 1 and encompass i ng the project atAllison Lake is classified Watershed under the StateClassification system. This area was identified asan alternative source of water for the City of Valdez."3. The t~ansmission line now under construction byCopper Valley Electric Association was finallypermitted following widespread controversy and wassubject to numerous stipulations pertainina toenvironmental impact. Would this line as it isnow being constructed be sufficient to handle theadditional power to be generated by these additionalsources, or would it have to be upgraded or alteredin any way?"4. It apPears that there would be a significant impacton the fisheries resource th~t utilizes this stream.This aspect of the project needs to be more thoroughlyreviewed."5. Installation of a Pressure Reducing Turbine in thelrans-Alaska Pipeline for electrical powe~ generationshould certainly be taken advantage of for the reasonsstated in the report. In light of the potential powerthJt can be developed from this source, a closer lookshould be given to the projected popula.tion and powerdemands in the near future. It is rep~rted that thefacility being constructed at Valdez by Alpetco willgenerate, via gas turbines run by by-products of thepetro-chemical process, more power than could beconsumed by the operation of that facility. Therefore,during the life of that project, no additional electricalpower would be required for its operation. Giventhat the Alpetco facility as well as much of theother development in this area is based on theexistence of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, and giventhe finite amount of oil available for transportthrough the pipeline, it follows that after the oilis depleted, such facilities as Alpetco and thePipeline Terminal will no longer exist to support thepopulations of this area. It is conceivable thatelectrical power requirements will decrease ratherthan increase as projected."6. The location of the power tunnel and appurtenancesfor the Allison Lake Project is within an active faultzone identified during pipeline construction. Hasthis been taken into account in the design of thisproject?2. If the water from Allison Creek were needed at a future date Dy the cityof Valdez, it would be possible to extract it from the tailrace.3. Tnf power line between Valdez and Glennallen would be a6~q~ate fortransmitting power from the proposed projects without rurtner upgrading.4. The Alaska District will perform physical and biological studies duringthe Advanced Engineering and Design (AE&D) p~ase when a thorOllgh analysisof the fishe~ies impacts will be accomplished.5. It is possible that the energy demand for the study area would decreaseafter the oil is depleted; however, it is doubtful that ~emand would fallto present levels when considering increases in other business activitiesin the study area such as the port expansion. Even if demand did fall tothe current level, the output from the Solomon Gulch hydroelectric projectwould be exceeded, forcing the study area to once again depenq on dieselgeneration as a primary source of power. Also, with construcUion of a newoil refinary in Valdez, it is likely that oil would be brough~ in fromelsewhere rather than allow the refinary to lie idle after ju~t a fewyears of operation.6. The fault zone has been taken into account in the feasibility study.Additional detailed geotechnical work will be undertaken during theAdvanced Engineering and Design Phase to identify specific problem areas.To date, the primary problem is with tsunamis rather than rupturedbedrock. Because of this, the powerhouse is located at +100 feet MLLW.Appendix G, Foundations and Materials includes additional information.

-3-"while there is a significant amount of inTermation provided inthe DEIS, and from a cost/benefit point of view it has beenshown .that the Allison Lake Project along with the installationof a PRT in the lrans-hlaska Pipeline appears to be the mostfeasible, some basic questions as discussed snould be addressedin future planning for the Copper River Basin."The Department of Fish and Game (DF&G) commented:"The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has reviewed thereferenced draft feasibility report and Environmental ImpactStatement (EIS).7."In aeneral, we feel the report and EIS provide anadequate description of the proposed project, potentialenvironmental impacts and mitigation measures."Our biggest concern relates to the potential impacts onthe anadromous fisheries resources in Allison Creek. Whilewe have no objection to the project as proposed thisDepartment will require measures to mitigate conflicts.We support the concept of the U.S. Fish and WildlifeService recommendations; however, we feel the additionalstudies described in both the Coordination Act Report (page17) and the [IS (page EIS-16) should be conducted before anyspecific recommendation on mitigation is made. TheDepartment of Fish and Game desires to participate inboth the scoping and actual conduct of the studies whichshould be accomplished during the ad~anced engineering anddesign phase of the project."This comment was received from the Office of Coastal Management:8. "The Office of Coastal Management (OCM) has reviewed the'Electrical Power for Valdez and the Copper Basin' DraftFeasibility Report and Environmental Statement (State 1.0.No. 80101501; COE No. 800930). OCM has no comments at thistime concerning the consistency of this project with theAlaska Coastal Management Program (AC~'P). Reviewing agencieshave not brought up any major ACMP-related issues intheir review. OCM will issue a consistency determinationwhen the Final Environmental Impact Statement is submittedto DPDP for review."7. Refer to answer Number I to the Alaska Department of Fish & Game.8. Comment Noted//

-~-The SCH has no objection to this proposal; however, DF&G an~ DNR havespecific concerns which should be addressed as further studles areconducted. we would like to rec:orrmend that the COE coordinates futurestudies and planning with DNR and DF&G prior to completion of the FinalEnvironmental Impact Statement (FEIS).when the FEIS is submitted to the SCH, it will be placed in review forconsistency with the Alaskan Coastal Management Program (ACMP) and forfinal A-95 review.Thank you for your cooperation with the review process. 1.cc:Commissioner Skoog, DF&GTorn Barnes, OCMRob Ridgway, City of ValdezL.A. Dutton, DNRBruce Barrett, DF&GSincerely, 1J,~kL~Mi\hael Whitehead .State-Federal Coordinator9. Tne Corps will work closely with the Departments of Fish an: ~ame andNatural Resources during the Aovancea Engineering and Desi~' ~hase of theProject. At tnat point the specific detailed studies neces!!py will be.conoucted to refine the project design and mitigative plan.

.. '-.' :,~'- .~.:/~·23j;

ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY333 WEST 4th AVENUE - SUITE 31 - ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501Phone: (907) 277-7641(907) 276-2715February 25, 1981Colonel Lee R. NunnAlaska District EngineerU. S. Army Corps of EngineersPost Office Box 7002Anchorage, Alaska 99510Dear Colonel Nunn:The Alaska Power Authority would support state funding of 10% of thecosts of construction of the Allison Creek Hydroelectric Project nearValdez, Alaska if the project is determined to be feasible and the bestfuture source of power for the market area. As you know, the State ofAlaska is currently completing feasibility studies of Susitna and a Railbelttransmission line, and either the Copper Valley Electric Associationor the City of Valdez may install a pressure reducing turpine on theAlyeska oil pipeline. Therefore, the definite decision to proceed withdevelopment of Allison Creek should await decisions on these projects andrefinement of demand forecasts in the market area.State funding participation in the project would require legislativeappropriation once a clear decision can be made. With this in mind, Iwill request that Governor Hammond prepare a letter of support for continuedfield investigations and preparation of a General Design Memorandumfor Allison Creek, with the understanding that State funding of a portionof construction costs must be delayed until other studies are completedand the need for the project becomes more definite.cc:Governor HammondSincerely,cc..~.\J~Eric P. Yould "\Executive Director